* I didn’t go to Sunday’s House Personnel and Pensions Committee meeting, so I relied on newspaper reporting for a very brief story I did on the hearing for subscribers today. I should’ve looked at the bill status first.
Why? The reporting is not quite right…
Some Democrats in the Illinois House are having second thoughts about cracking down on pension abuses by union officials, including two lobbyists who qualified for teacher pensions by spending a single day in the classroom.
The lawmakers argued Sunday that reversing benefits after they’ve been earned, even by questionable means, is probably unconstitutional. Just two weeks after supporting legislation to take away those pension benefits, they began moving a new bill that closes several loopholes going forward but has no impact on people who have already taken advantage of them.
House Republicans objected to the new proposal. Senate Democrats said they believe the original measure will pass constitutional muster even though it would take away benefits that have already been awarded.
A Democrat-dominated House pension committee voted 5-3 Sunday for the new measure.
More…
Signaling House Speaker Michael Madigan’s interest in the issue, his chief legislative counsel, David Ellis, testified about the new bill before the House Personnel and Pensions Committee, where it was approved on a 5-3, party-line vote.
“It’s changing the rules after people have followed the rules,” Ellis told the committee.
Ellis was also concerned about whether changing pension benefits for current and former Chicago labor leaders is constitutional. Eleven people are being investigated by federal prosecutors in Chicago in connection with pension double-dipping.
“Let’s just say, going forward, we’re not going to allow these leaves of absence where you can work for a union but somehow have that affect your pensionable credit with the government,” Ellis said.
Etc., etc.
* But that’s not what happened. The underlying bill passed, but it didn’t pass “as amended.” Instead, the two new amendments debated last night were tabled. From the bill status…
12/11/2011 House Do Pass / Short Debate Personnel and Pensions Committee; 005-003-000
12/11/2011 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Short Debate
12/11/2011 House House Committee Amendment No. 1 Tabled Pursuant to Rule 40
12/11/2011 House House Committee Amendment No. 2 Tabled Pursuant to Rule 40
12/11/2011 House Second Reading - Short Debate
12/11/2011 House Final Action Deadline Extended-9(b) December 31, 2011
The underlying bill was introduced in February and is basically just a vehicle bill.
So far, no word on whether McCarthy’s amendments will be reintroduced in another form. Since Dave Ellis testified on their behalf, it could happen. But those amendments are, for now, inoperative.
Also, the House Democrats say they sent the reform bill which passed two weeks ago to the governor.
Hey, mistakes happen.
- Dirty Red - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 9:03 am:
As much as I’d love to see P&P flogged in town square for this, I don’t see how this would be Constitutional either. How could the Democrats not have seen this PR nightmare coming? That’s just horrible political strategy: short-term gains for long-term pains.
Oh well. They’re paying for it now.
- Ahoy - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 9:15 am:
Politically, the Democrats have to leave this one alone and let the courts decide it. If they overturn their votes and give the pension (which was not earned) back to the union employees, the PR aspect would probably be worse than the tax increase. That can at least be blamed on Blago and Ryan. This would be inexcusable in the eyes of the public.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 9:20 am:
My understanding is the committee voted along partisan lines to advance a vehicle bill in case an agreement can be reached to do all the things that are in the amendments that were tabled.
Otherwise, what was the point of having yesterday’s committee and what was the point of all of the testimony about alleged constitutional problems?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 9:22 am:
===My understanding is the committee voted along partisan lines to advance a vehicle bill===
Correct, but the pension provisions weren’t in that bill, as reported.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 9:28 am:
So what was the point of yesterday’s hearing?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 9:32 am:
Testimony only, apparently. HDems were pretty hot this morning about the stories.
- Yuck - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 10:08 am:
I dont how Senate lawyers rectify this bill with comments from a few months ago. The Senate publicly took the position that you can’t undo benefits, but now it’s ok. Guess they changed their position.
- roscoe Tom - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 10:54 am:
On the pension issue, each and every “special pension” provision previously passed was “special legislation” prohibited by the Illinois Constitution. When is someone going to actualy test the issue in Court instead of wring their hands and fearing the decision? Ledt the court look at the “one day” pensions and the other special privilegde pesnions granted to union big shots and get the issue resolved once and for all.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 10:59 am:
===each and every “special pension” provision previously passed was “special legislation” prohibited by the Illinois Constitution. ===
Try checking some Supreme Court opinions about your own opinion about what special legislation means. Theirs don’t match up with yours.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 11:12 am:
The likelihood that the two lobbyists in question would fight this in court is pretty low. First, it would probably cost more than what was lost (they do get their principle back anyway). Second, it is tied to such incredibly negative publicity that it’s difficult to imagine anyone pursuing it. It’s one thing for the IFT to say “Hey, it was legal.” It’s another thing for the IFT to spend money to defend to lobbyists who did a really dumb thing.
- Dirty Red - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 12:01 pm:
= Politically, the Democrats have to leave this one alone and let the courts decide it. =
Hard to disagree with you from a purely political standpoint. But passing this bill purely for political reasons, therefore forcing the Courts to clean-up this mess, would require legislators to overlook the oaths they took at the start of their term. That could raise a political problem if an opponent were to handle it properly.
Defending the Constitution can be a political pain sometimes, no?
- Cook County Commoner - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
“It’s changing the rules after people have followed the rules,” Ellis told the committee.
The courts do not look kindly on “rules” that were bought and paid for. Then again an Illinois court may, especially when the “rules” involve taxpayor funded pensions which they themselves enjoy. That the State Assembly seeks to avoid a court showdown on an issue which will implicate the state constitution’s clause regarding government employee pensions indicates that the players aren’t so sure that that the consitution places vested gov employee pensions on an altar of the gods. What they fear is that the courts would rule that the constitution merely places gov pensions on par with other contracts, thereby outside the reach of legislative caprice. Such a ruling would open Pandora’s box of contract law to set aside “vested” benefits due to fraud in the formation of the plans, unjust enrichment, unconscionable disparity in consideration, breach of fiduciary obligations, collusion and probably a laundry list of other concepts. And probably the most feared event would be the US Supreme Court ultimately deciding the issue because Illinois judges have a conflict of interest.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
The Pension Clause isn’t the issue here.
The “public funds for public purposes” principle in our consitution is:
Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE VIII
FINANCE
SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) Public funds, property or credit shall be used only for public purposes.
The question for the GA, the gov and maybe the courts is whether the IFT lobbyists deal served a public purpose.
The legislation they passed last month said “no”. It was overwhelmingly supported in the Senate and House.
Different people can disagree, and ultimately that’s what the courts are for.
- chi - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 2:26 pm:
1. The Pension clause most certainly is an issue here.
2. At least one public purpose served by paying the lobbyists their salary would be abiding by a contract entered into by the State. Another would be abiding by the Constitution by not taking a constitutionally protected benefit.
3. A prospective law is the only constitutionally safe law here, and there’s no benefit in risking the whole law for what small gains would be had by passing it as is.
- mokenavince - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 2:49 pm:
It sure looks like the courts are going to have
to sort this pension mess out.
“Special leglislation” can be interpeted in many ways.Ellis maybe right about changing rules after the fact.This is not going to be easy.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 4:51 pm:
Chi, The two IFT guys don’t have contracts with the state. I think you’re thinking of the AFSCME contract.
- Steve Brown - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 7:43 pm:
The reporting “oversights” of course spilled into the internet and allowed several sites including Huffington Post to pick up the mistake and then allow Pat Brady to rant about the Speaker.
Brady always forgets to mention it was Madigan who stood up to the governor and intiated the impeachment while his comrades sat on their hands.
- Steve Brown - Monday, Dec 12, 11 @ 7:48 pm:
BTW … here is how the SJR “corrected” their above the fold, page 1 hard copy story about 4 hours ago or nearly 20 hours after the committee meeting. The “correction” runs at the bottom of the story. No change in headline or lede.
“Correction: An earlier version of this story reported the House Personnel and Pensions Committee voted Sunday to allow Illinois Federation of Teachers and Chicago union officials to remain eligible for pension benefits that the legislature had voted to revoke in a different bill two weeks ago. While the sponsor intended for the bill to eventually contain such provisions, an amendment inserting them was not attached when the committee passed the bill. The sponsor said such language would be put in when the bill reaches the House floor.