Steven Williams thinks it’s time to try to change a few things at the state capital, especially when it comes to money.

Williams, who works as director of information technology for CNA Insurance’s business management office, wants to apply his experience working with budgets in the private sector to the mounting debt and obligation troubles Illinois faces.

Williams is taking the leap into the state forum on the Republican ticket after coming up short in the Orland Park Village Board race in April. He will be facing Democrat incumbent Bill Cunningham in a race for the 35^th Illinois State District seat, which includes areas of Orland Park, the Palos villages and Oak Lawn.

Williams spoke with Patch about applying technology to state issues, supporting small businesses and feeling the pain of fiscal straightening.

What led you to your decision to run, and why the state house over the senate?

Recently there was a state audit that showed if Illinois sold all assets, the debt would still be $38 billion. Looking at the overall condition for taxes and increasing unemployment, which some say is tied to taxes, the overall business climate and fiscal condition is a mess.

I just thought it was time to try to change some things, so I looked at new districts when the maps came out. In the 35^th (district) it may be a challenge to turn blue votes red. But it was doable. I talked to folks involved with process longer than me, and they felt it was winnable as well. So we felt it was time to take the district back over.  

As for choosing a House seat over the Senate, logistically it made more sense to go toward a House seat. For me being relatively new to politics and not having that strong of a fundraising and volunteer base, it made sense.

What do you bring to the table as a candidate?

One thing I do in my job is I’m a key leader in planning budgets in an amount of about $350 million. I’m used to making hard decisions around financial investments with a need to forecast well and plan well. I also worked several years in an audit position, reengineering how companies operate. I saved a lot of money for companies I worked for, and I think I can apply those skills to reengineer how things operate for the state’s problems as well.

I worked for FedEx, interestingly enough in the mid 90s, and significant achievements were accomplished. The World Wide Web was coming to be more consumerized. I worked on a team that developed an early paying system, and the Internet shipping application on the fedex.com website. We were able to reduce by 65 percent the number of shipping bills that the company would have to manually enter. I also worked at Ameritech, doing internal auditing and IT. This was part of the overall network AT&T now owns. We reengineered a lot of processes and information services. I also did compliance work for them. Surveying docks and making sure all was in line with government compliance. Those are the big ones, and now I have worked at CNA Insurance for six years, working on reengineering for them as well.

Where do you think the state could benefit from technological upgrades or adjustments?

I’m just starting to go through the 400-page budget to understand it well. Certainly a number of public processes could be reengineered through tech to work better. The state has a history of being willing to charge convenience fees for those things.

I’ve never seen a business that reengineered to make it cheaper for themselves and charged for the service.

That makes no sense at all. You should reduce expense on the back end by pushing the network out to the customer. I’m sure they do it from a revenue standpoint, but it’s strange to me. There are a number of things in the Secretary of State’s Office that could benefit from additional streamlining, better information availability.

What should the state do first to keep businesses that have strongly voiced the possibility of leaving, such as CME and Sears? And any thoughts about Ford’s expansion in Illinois?

I haven’t seen the Ford proposal, all I know of CME, I’ve read from media. Generically we should look at lowering corporate tax rates to encourage more job development. I don’t think the government should be in the game of picking winners and losers. This should be an area where the private sector can thrive.

I’m not sure how much they ask for is gamesmanship or if its really affecting them. States around us, some have higher rates than we do. From an objective view, and not on a party line, some of it is they are trying to use it as leverage. But I do see they have to balance out the benefit to see if there’s a good business case for buying. The bulk of jobs are created by small businesses, and they are not ones being picked as winners. High tax rates even with incentives penalize small businesses who don’t have the wherewithal to work through it.

How do you define a small business, and what can government do to support them?

We have to look at the overall burden we place on them. A house bill (3237) was submitted recently that would make it a Class 4 felony for a state contractor or subcontractor to not report on their compliance with the prevailing wage law. It’s clearly a play to the base of the Democrat Party. They’re trying to bolster unions with prevailing wage legislation.

I’ve never seen a place where they make it a felony or even a misdemeanor for not doing some kind of business transaction. That’s crazy. You’d have to maintain records extending three years beyond payment of a contract. That’s a significant burden to place on a business, even years after they stop collecting money on a contract. Those regulations drive costs up for small businesses.

As for the definition of a small business, I would put one around a 50-person headcount. When you get above there, you’re a significant organization, and you get into federal government regulations at that point. Illinois Republicans put a package to reduce costs to start businesses, changing the fee from $750 to $100 to get a business license, among other changes. We need to look at all kinds of things for small businesses.

What role is appropriate for unions to be playing in the realm of contract negotiation, given the obligations Illinois has now?

I have no issue with unions in the private sector. As for the public sector, we need to be careful they don’t get into general oversight, and drive up legacy costs so fixed costs are unsustainable.  It happened at General Motors, and they couldn’t be competitive with others who didn’t have that.

I haven’t seen state contracts so I speak generally. I don’t understand why we need unions to protect employees from people who are supposed to protect employees. That should be what the government does in the first place, protecting their workers and citizens. I have never understood why we have public employee unions. I certainly support the Illinois constitution, and we can’t impair benefits earned by employees. I don’t think we should go back and try to reduce current employee benefits. We made promises to them, they worked hard for us, and we need to suck it up and do what’s right.

Moving forward we have to look at how many raises they get a year, between normal annual raises and step raises.

In the private sector you don’t have step raises. You don’t make money for being there another year. It doesn’t mean you’re more productive or any better an employee for being there that long. We need to look at the drivers of such things, and be more objective.

That’s why the legislators and governor are where they are now, because they made promises they can’t keep. Be more objective. If we meet conditions that are simple to measure we will give you a raise, if not, we won’t be giving you a raise. A reasonable approach between the government and unions, and now there are incentives to meet. If we get more productive, and trim budget by 1 percent, we give a half-percent raise. We have to tailor the approach to possible outcomes.

Will state services need to be cut, and if so, which?

I think we have to apply some private sector principles to government spending. We need to prioritize, and look for ones to bring needed and desired benefits, but when the money’s gone it’s gone. Unless new money is coming in, we don’t continue to spend. How that is defined, that’s going to vary depending on the person you are, whether certain social issues are more important than others.

But overall, we have to prioritize and understand what we’re willing to invest, not try to play on emotions of what will be cut and who will suffer.

There will be some pain to get this fiscal house in order and to understand how much we can spend. But when the money’s gone, it’s gone. We can’t continue to short the pension and continue to push that down the road.

What can be done with College Illinois?

I don’t know the specifics about it. I haven’t looked in detail. I know we need to find ways to help people get education, and invest in long term assets, shifting money away from programs that don’t lift people up. Programs that shift them away and just get people through the next week, instead we need to look at education. But I am not familiar enough with it to know specific details.

Given your past experience in law enforcement, should Logan Correctional Center in Lincoln close or should there be a push to keep it open and functioning?

From my perspective, we need to go back to prioritization. A role of government has to be security. Now as for the business environment, we need to allow the private sector to thrive. But I think a couple of groups need to be priority, they include first responders and veterans. Other groups that should be included are elderly and children. For people who have contributed to make this country what it is, we owe a debt to those folks.

Having worked in a jail as a dispatcher and jailer, I absolutely see the value of not overcrowding. Inmates certainly are more violence prone (when crowded). That’s not a smart move. I think the governor is using this and other acts as ways to win certain people and maybe punish certain people. There should be other things that could be reduced without jeopardizing the safety of residents. If you look at the political side, who is the base those making those decisions are playing to?

Earlier in October, CNA Financial reported a 52-week low with shares at $21.22.  What can your company do to change that course?

I cannot discuss company matters of that nature. That would be more appropriate for a company spokesperson.