Leland J. Kennedy Memoir - University of Illinois Springfield

scemed like it was - who introduced it? I couldn't tell you that. But it had to b~ that
each party felt the responsibility. I suppose that that year, since the Republicans were in
control of the Statehouse, and having control of both sides of the senate and the house, that
it had to come from the executive office, from Green. I imagine he felt a responsibility to
it, and he let it filter out, at least he didn't oppose it. I guess if somebody wantcd to oppose
it, he would have been rather unpopular, because it was something that should have been
done for years, and they didn't do it, and maybe it came from the rank and file of precinct
committeemen on both parties because they thought they could pick up another political job.
And I think, with reference to the cutback amendmrnt, the house of rcprescntatives, they
seem to have gotten such a bad reputation on that last pay raise. For that thing to get
60 percent of the vote was almost unthinkable, but it got it. And they were responsible
for that, they had to blame themselves, because that pay raise they gave them was handled
very poorly. I never supported those kind of pay raises. I like to get paid for my services
too, but that was an unwise move. And just why they done it, I don't know. And there
were a lot of decent guys that voted for it. I guess they were just hopped up or
something. It was a very immature move, a very immature move.
Q: Well you seem to he implying that it should come hack. Now do you mean the cumulative
voting or do you mean the increased number or . . .
A: Well I don't see anything wrong with cumulative voting either. I know that I was a
beneficiary of it. And I guess we were the only state in the union that had it. I don't think
it was bad. I never thought the talent of the General Assemhly was lessened by curnulativc
voting. Now maybe in individual districts it was more beneficial to some fellows than
others. But there isn't that much difference I don't believe in the depth of the assemblies
that I served in, in the membership. I feel like that I could get elected without curnulativc
voting. I feel like I could win now in the 112th District. I'm not going to try. Uut I think
you've got to have some confidence in yourself. Of course somebody's going to get beat. 1
mean somebody's going to get beat hetween Stevenson and Thompson. 1 mean they're not
both going to win, and for all of the offices - Consentino and Edgar - somebody's going
to lose there and you've got to have at least that much respect for your own opinion or for
your own ability to perform.
And now the staff - getting back to that cutback amendment - the staff work will increase
tremendously. Now when I went there in the Sixty-fifth General Assernhly, we didn't have
that staff personnel. Why I don't know. We didn't meet that often and I don't know, I
always thought that biennial sessions were the bcst. If they wanted a special session thcy
could call it.
After November 2nd' they'll have a veto session and in fact I think that maybe the most
nonproductive veto session I ever served was the veto session aftcr 1 think Walker got beat,
they vetoed everything Walker done, just right and Icft, and he wasn't that had of a
governor. I mean the hills wouldn't have got through session if they were that had, and
they just - they handled him pretty rough, hut thcn that's politics. They were mad at
him. They were mad at him.
Q: You mentioned staff. Now in 1947 when you started out, you had no staff at all. Did
you feel handicapped in keeping up with what was going on because you didn't have anyone
to ...
A: Wcll of course there wasn't that much legislation. When you say if T felt handicapped,
the only thing I felt handicapped on was not being - what we had was a stenographic pool.
Q: Yes.
A: Mayhe it showed that we had, what? sixty-eight members and thc Republicans had
eighty-three or whatever the count, was. We might have had eight and they might have