* As you probably know, former appellate justice Gordon Maag sued the state over a new law that allows CMS to set public employee retiree health insurance premium rates, claiming the law is an “unconstitutional violation of the Illinois Constitution Pension Protection Clause.”
But Judge Steven Nardulli just tossed out the suit, ruling…
1) Health insurance benefits are not guaranteed pension benefits protected by the Pension Protection Clause;
2) Plaintiffs do not have a vested contractual interest in free health insurance;
…Adding… This would seem to strengthen Senate President Cullerton’s pension reform proposal, which would force folks to choose between a COLA and access to government health insurance.
If one were to accept the premise that health insurance benefits are vested rights that accrue upon retirement, one must accept the premise that those benefits cannot be reduced, regardless of changing medical technology or the willingness of insurance providers to make a particular policy of health insurance available. The fact that medical technology and contracts offered by insurance companies change, as opposed to the actuarial certainty of a pension payment, lead this court to the conclusion that health insurance benefits are not the same as a pension protected by the Pension Protection Clause. […]
This conclusion as applied to the Kanerva Plaintiffs requires special mention. The Kanerva Plaintiffs are all former Merit Compensation employees of the State, many of whom elected to take early retirement, allegedly in reliance upon promises made by the State that their medical benefits would be “sacrosanct” in retirement. Even accepting the allegation that promises by SERS and CMS were made to the effect that those retirees would not be charged premiums for health insurance, those representations cannot create a contract between the Kanerva Plaintiffs and the State.
*** UPDATE *** AFSCME responds…
“We are greatly disappointed by today’s decision,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said. “We continue to believe this law impairs the rights of men and women who retired after careers with state government or state universities to obtain health insurance coverage according to the terms in place when they retired. It also violates the constitutional clause that prevents the diminishment of retirement benefits earned by public employees. We intend to consult with the plaintiffs and our union partners about our options going forward.”
While AFSCME is not a party to the suit in question, it joined with other labor unions in support of a class action suit filed in August 2012, later consolidated along with other cases before Judge Steven Nardulli.
“If it doesn’t work out with the negotiations they have going on right now [in Chicago], Mayor Stephens wants the Cubs to know they have an option and Rosemont could be that option should they decide to look elsewhere,” Mack said.
“What he does is put deals together. That’s what Rosemont has always been known for: a place where a business could go and find a friendly environment. He sees a situation that hasn’t been working and it’s in his nature to say, ‘We could make that happen in Rosemont.’”
Mack acknowledged that Stephens has met with Cubs underlings, but never directly with Ricketts.
But, he said, “There are 25 acres of land that Rosemont is willing to give to the Ricketts family to build a stadium. It’s the last piece of land of any size at the intersection of Balmoral and the Tri-State Tollway.”
Dennis Culloton, a spokesman for the Ricketts family, said the Cubs remain focused on getting a deal done in Chicago.
“The family appreciates the expressions of interest from Rosemont and others, however, the current focus is to work toward an agreement with the city of Chicago,” Culloton said in a statement.
Asked whether Ricketts was prepared to follow the lead of the Bears and White Sox by threatening to leave Chicago, Culloton would only say, “Tom Ricketts has no intention of talking to the mayor of Rosemont before opening day. Right now, the answer is ‘no.’ I cannot predict the future.”
The reference to “others” applies to former DuPage County Board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom, who made a similar pitch to Ricketts last summer.
“I told him he should consider moving to DuPage County as an option. He’s got a tremendous fan base out there. We still have a variety of large vacant sites out here that would be able to meet their needs,” Schillerstrom said Monday.
* The Question: Do you care if the Cubs abandon Wrigley Field and move to the ‘burbs? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
* An Internet survey hosted by the Illinois State Rifle Association showed almost unanimous opposition to pretty much any gun control measure and support public carrying of firearms. And if you wonder about why that is, well, this may be the reason…
Just over 80% of respondents feel that they could become the victim of violent crime while about half feel unsafe travelling outside their neighborhoods.
Wow. Half of the people who took that Internet survey don’t feel safe outside their own neighborhoods? And 80 percent think they’ll be the victim of a violent crime?
According to a Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who feel crime is rising nationally has generally increased, from 53% in 2004, to 68% in 2006, to 74% in October 2009. Gallup found similar results for our perception of local crime, with the percentage of Americans who believe there’s increased crime in their area rising from 37% in 2005 to 51% in 2009.
Easier and faster access to crime news likely accounts for some of the misperception. And we’ve become all too aware of crimes that barely existed in the US 20 years ago, such as identity theft and terrorism. Yet overall, crime statistics show that the chances of actually becoming a crime victim are relatively low: the odds a person 12 or older will be a victim of a personal crime (including violent crimes, robbery, and pickpocketing/purse snatching) in a year are 1 in 46.61, and the odds of being a victim of a violent crime are 1 in 48.36. The odds a household will be a victim of a property crime (including burglary, theft, and car theft) in a year are 1 in 6.83.
Here’s the scoop on some commonly feared crimes and the real odds of being a victim. (All real-crime odds are for a one-year period, so, naturally, your lifetime odds of victimhood increase as you continue to walk the Earth.)
* Identity Theft:1 in 1.52 (66%) of us worry about this digital-age crime, and with good reason: the odds a household will be a victim of identity theft in a year are 1 in 18.22—over 5%.
* Car Crimes:1 in 2.13 of us worry about our car being stolen or broken into. The actual odds of car theft in a year? Nationwide, just 1 in 187.3.
* Sexual Assault:1 in 5.26 of us worry about this terrifying crime. 1 in 541.1 women actually become victims of rape or sexual assault in a year (1 in 1,008 people overall).
* Murder: For this most final of all crimes, our worry seems egregiously out of proportion. 1 in 5.26 of us worry about being murdered, but the odds a person will be murdered in a year are just 1 in 18,690.
The survey was accessible from the ISRA’s Internet page and was also distributed by way of the ISRA’s e-mail alert service. In all, more than 4,500 individuals responded to the 50-question survey over a two-day period. Of those 4,500 respondents, 97% reported that they owned at least one firearm.
The survey was accessible from the ISRA’s Internet page and was also distributed by way of the ISRA’s e-mail alert service. In all, more than 4,500 individuals responded to the 50-question survey over a two-day period. Of those 4,500 respondents, 97% reported that they owned at least one firearm.
Survey results indicate that recent gun control proposals are not very popular with gun owners. No less than 99% of respondents expressed opposition to banning AR-15 style rifles. Similar majorities oppose banning AK-47 style rifles and other semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.
Proposed regulation of ammunition also failed to garner support among those surveyed. A full 99% of respondents oppose limits on how much ammunition a person could buy. Similar numbers oppose registration of ammunition purchases, microstamping of cartridges, and ammunition taxes to pay for crime victim medical bills. Contrary to what is reported in the media, 98% of gun owners surveyed oppose limits on the capacity of rifle, pistol and shotgun magazines.
Background checks were also unpopular with those surveyed. Results show that two-thirds of respondents oppose background checks on private gun sales – even if the government was required to destroy all records of the background checks.
Much of the gun control movement’s standard wish list found little support among respondents. Gun owner licensing met with 95% opposition while both gun registration and mandatory liability insurance for gun owners are opposed by 98% of those who took the survey.
The ISRA survey results also revealed some significant credibility gaps as witnessed by the fact that less than 5% of respondents feel that the police could protect them from crime. Less than 8% feel that gun control effectively thwarts crime while less than 20% of respondents feel that gun control organizations are acting in good faith. About 90% of respondents feel that politicians who promote gun control are only doing so for political reasons. The credibility of the press took a hit as 97% of respondents feel that media is biased against private firearm ownership. Less than 1% of respondents identify with the policies of big name gun controllers like Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer or Michael Bloomberg. [Emphasis added.]
* From an e-mail sent by Organizing for Action, formerly known as Obama For America…
If you care about marriage equality, here’s something really important you can do right now.
As early as this week, the Illinois State House could vote on a bill — already passed by the state Senate — that will give all couples the legal right to marry. If it passes, Governor Quinn says he’ll sign it into law. That’s huge for all of us in the OFA family who care about this issue.
Right now, reports say the bill is short of the votes it needs to pass, so these calls matter.
Take two minutes and look up your state representative right now — then give them a call to let them know that you want them to vote YES on the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.
It’s really easy: Just use that website to look up your address, click “confirm your address,” then scroll down to find your state representative’s information.
Like President Obama said last year, he believes that marriage equality is a question of fairness — of treating others the way you want to be treated.
Right now, his home state is just one step away from becoming the 10th state in the nation to approve same-sex marriage — and making sure that gay and lesbian families in Illinois are treated equally in the eyes of the law.
We’ve heard from OFA supporters here in Illinois that this issue matters to you, and that’s why we’re teaming up with Illinois Unites for Marriage — a joint project of ACLU Illinois, Equality Illinois, and Lambda Legal — to add our voices to this fight.
This House vote is the final hurdle to making sure this historic legislation becomes the law of the land. Right now, a number of state representatives are still undecided, and we know this vote’s going to be close.
Take a few minutes to look up your state representative today and urge them to vote YES in allowing all loving couples to share in the freedom to marry:
Today, I announced that I am staying on as CEO of For The Good of Illinois and will not seek public office in 2014.
After consulting with supporters, donors, advisors, and my family, I have decided not to run for office in the 2014 election cycle.
Now, we are free to pursue transparency & accountability reforms on a non-partisan basis. We will continue to put “every dime, online, in real time” through the Open the Books platform; advocate for aggressive auditing of government agencies; and, when necessary, pursue legal action to expand transparency.
We have been effective at exposing corrupt practices. This will continue…
Our platform of real solutions - expanded transparency, forensic audits, and freezing property taxes - is robust. These policies, along with other necessary reforms, begin to solve the long-term problems of the state.
Together, we are a national leader in pioneering online transparency of Government spending. Our first-to-market mobile app which hyper-localizes twelve years of United States Government checkbook spending to your zip code- is a game changer with national implications. Stay tuned for more….
My Conclusion: Illinois requires aggressive reforms, and after balancing the pros and cons of each approach, I decided I will have a more positive impact outside of an elected position.
* Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner spoke at the Cumberland County Lincoln Day Dinner last week and had something interesting to say about the AFSCME contract…
“I may have to take a strike and shut down the government for a few weeks [in order to] redo everybody’s contract.”
We urge every senator who is tired of watching Illinois tumble to fiscal ruin to vote yes.
We know critics question whether this bill, introduced in the Senate by Daniel Biss (D-Evanston), will hold up in court. But we also know that an alternative bill, promoted by Senate President John Cullerton, falls far short of solving this pension mess.
The Biss bill — also introduced in the House by Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Democrat, and House Minority Leader Tom Cross, a Republican — would save the state $167 billion over 30 years. The Cullerton bill would save no more than $88 billion.
Um, Cullerton’s bill actually includes Biss’ language. His own proposal doesn’t kick in unless and/or until the Biss language is declared unconstitutional.
I went to dinner with some friends last night and we were marveling at how ill-informed some legislators are about this pension reform issue, even after years of debate. They ain’t alone.
