* I wandered into a pleasant little outdoor cafe near the John Hancock Building to have lunch on Friday, and sat there blissfully alone, collecting my thoughts and peacefully enjoying a beautiful day…
Yeah. Quite the place. Everything was à la carte. Even the bread was extra. I didn’t eat much.
All of a sudden, somebody set off some firecrackers down the street. Crack! Crack! Crack! Crack! Crack!
I saw some of the tourists visibly jump.
One of the waitresses tried to calm the tourists down, cooing that it was just a firecracker. “They don’t shoot up here,” she said.
For 10 minutes, it seemed like the shooting was everywhere in the South Chicago neighborhood.
It started when someone shot and wounded a couple, then two people fired at the shooter, then there was a chase and shots exchanged and a man sitting on a porch was hit. Responding officers kept cutting each other off on their radios as they reported other gunfire in the area late Sunday night and early Monday morning.
Then the heavy equipment rolled in: A helicopter and SUVs packed with lockers of rifles. SWAT teams in green coveralls patrolled the streets with uniformed officers.
It was just one of dozens of shooting scenes across Chicago over the long Fourth of July weekend. In all, at least 82 people were shot, 14 of them fatally, since Thursday afternoon when two woman were shot as they sat outside a two-flat within a block of Garfield Park.
Hundreds of extra officers were assigned Chicago streets this past weekend, Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said […]
Nearly all of those killed were black or Hispanic men age 35 or younger. Two — Shaquille Ross, 18, and Kezon Lamb, 19 — were teenagers. One was a woman. And details of the most recent shooting victim was not yet available Monday morning.
In places like West Englewood, South Shore and Austin, gunshots seemed almost as common as fireworks this past weekend.
“Englewood and South Shore had it lit up,” Andrew Holmes, an anti-violence activist who frequently goes to crime scenes and operates an anonymous crime tip hotline, said of the shootings Sunday night. “You had some people that were literally limping to the ambulance. They weren’t waiting.”
Talking to a large gathering of reporters at a West Side police station, McCarthy noted that Sunday’s surge of gun violence made the weekend more violent than last year’s holiday weekend, a head-scratcher for him and his staff.
“It was yesterday that we lost it,” McCarthy said. “We’re square-rooting nine ways from Sunday what is it that happened. Was it a fatigue factor? Did we give people off? Because the fireworks (at Navy Pier) were Friday and Saturday. That’s where we had a lot of folks deployed during those timeframes.”
* OK, I totally understand that if they hadn’t deployed extra coppers to Navy Pier on Friday and Saturday and something bad had happened the news media would scream absolute bloody murder and McCarthy would be tarred and feathered and run out of town strapped to the front of the next departing Greyhound.
But a rethink might be in order here. Were all those Navy Pier police truly necessary?
* Another thing I did over the weekend was attend the American Music Festival in Berwyn. Here’s a pic I took of country music legend Billy Joe Shaver…
* Aside from the incredible music, the coolest thing about the event was the unobtrusive to the point of invisible security, despite the large, somewhat inebriated crowd. One of the managers told me he’d been working the festival for five years and they’d only had one serious fight - between a mother and her daughter.
Whenever I go see a show in Chicago, even if I’m at a super-chill jam band concert, there’s always tons of aggressive security with fancy radio earpieces, bulging muscles and even cops at the door screening patrons. It’s just a goofy waste of resources. How many people get shot at a Rat Dog show, for crying out loud?
This morning, Pat Quinn – whose office is now the confirmed target of a federal grand jury – will dispatch his lieutenant governor to defend him and distract the media from the real news of the day: Quinn’s refusal to discuss federal grand jury subpoenas of emails in his office.
Illinois Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon urged Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner to release his complete 2013 income tax records during a press conference Monday morning.
“Today I am calling on candidate Bruce Rauner to make full disclosure of all the schedules that go with his taxes and his 2013 tax returns,” Simon said in Chicago’s Grant Park. “Being engaged in public politics and governance requires a sacrifice of some privacy, but it’s a small sacrifice, and it’s worth it because transparency builds trust. This is not a ‘gotcha.’ This is governing. Let’s do it right.”
Rauner, a millionaire venture capitalist who is going up against Gov. Pat Quinn in the November General Election, has not released his full 2013 income tax information despite recent calls for disclosure from Quinn’s campaign as well as state lawmakers Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) and Sen. Mike Hastings (D-Tinley Park). A press release from Simon’s campaign noted that every other Republican nominee for Illinois governor since at least Jim Thompson released their most recent year’s income tax return.
Despite promises to conservative members of the Illinois House Republican Caucus, Republican Leader Jim Durkin on Monday selected state Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. (R-Mundelein) to the Illinois House Republican Leadership Team. Sullivan will take the spot left vacant by JoAnn Osmond who recently retired. […]
Sullivan was one of three Republicans in the House to vote for same-sex marriage.
* I had told subscribers about this Sullivan development several days ago and then again this morning. I hadn’t heard about any recent promises to conservatives, and so I checked around and didn’t find anything. I also asked Leader Durkin’s spokesperson for comment…
Upon taking the leadership post in the fall of 2013, Leader Durkin was asked if State Rep. Ed Sullivan would be on his new leadership team. The answer was no.
While Rep. Sullivan was not chosen for his initial leadership team, it was never directly asked or implied that Ed Sullivan never be appointed to leadership down the road. Ed Sullivan works very hard on behalf of the caucus and his talents will be utilized.
Sully has, indeed, worked very hard for that caucus and he most certainly deserved the promotion.
* From a Better Government Association investigation…
Both [of Rep. Thaddeus Jones’ campaign committees] have reported dozens of expenditures – a total of 90 to be exact – at a south suburban Hooters, part of a national restaurant chain known for outfitting waitresses in tight-fitting tank tops and bright orange short shorts.
In all, Jones’ political committees have spent nearly $8,800 since 2009 at the Hooter’s in Lansing, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections, the state agency that collects data from campaign funds.
Other elected officials and political committees over the years have reported spending money at the chain, which describes itself online as “delightfully tacky” but declined comment for this story.
Recently, House Republican Leader Jim Durkin’s political committee spent a total of $158 last March on two separate occasions at a Hooters in Downers Grove.
“I can guarantee you it wasn’t me,” Durkin says. “It’s embarrassing, but I let some staffers who volunteered use my [credit] card. . . . I would hope they would go somewhere a little more wholesome.”
A Board of Elections expenditure search reveals 145 total campaign committee expenditures by all Illinois campaigns at a Hooters restaurant for a total of $16,412.89 dating back to 1999. Jesse White and Pate Philip spent money at the restaurant chain years ago.
* The Question: Do you think politicians should avoid spending campaign money at Hooters? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
The party led by a wealthy financier is starting the summer campaign season at a nearly 2-to-1 fundraising disadvantage.
Fueled by unlimited contributions in the governor’s race, Democrats and Republicans combined have about twice as much money as they had four years ago, according to a Crain’s analysis of financial reports by almost four dozen key political organizations and candidates. But as the party in power, Democrats now have about $26.9 million, or almost double Republicans’ cash.
GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner has roughly $8.5 million on hand, thanks to a recent $2.5 million donation from hedge-fund executive Ken Griffin, but still trails Gov. Pat Quinn, with almost $10 million. Fundraising caps on that race were removed because of the nearly $6.6 million Mr. Rauner has given to his own campaign, much of which was spent during the primary.
Factor out that race, and Democratic candidates and political organizations statewide have $2.72 on hand for every $1 held by Republicans, Crain’s finds.
Yeah, but Rauner recently gave the state GOP $500,000 and more is surely on the way.
…Adding… As YDD notes in comments, it’s highly doubtful that Lisa Madigan will be spending much of her own cash horde. Some of that Dem “advantage” is not really an advantage.
When operatives for Democratic state treasurer candidate Sen. Michael Frerichs sent Freedom on Information requests to the Illinois House Clerk for lots of files on his GOP opponent Rep. Tom Cross, the House complied. But Cross’ people have asked for most of the same documents from the majority Democratic Senate and have been denied.
* Well, the Senate Democrats have finally given in. From a press release…
After three months of evasion, blocking and obfuscation, Senate President John Cullerton’s office has finally agreed to release public documents on Sen. Mike Frerichs, as legally required by the Freedom of Information Act.
The change of course came one day after Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider gave Cullerton’s office a one-week deadline before filing an official Request for Review with the Attorney General’s office and possible legal action.
* The Quinn administration leaked two, big corruption-related stories on the 4th of July. Here’s the Tribune on July 4th…
A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena for emails of key players in Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn’s troubled $54.5 million anti-violence program, including the former head of the program and two former ranking members of Quinn’s administration.
The subpoena, provided by the Quinn administration in response to a Tribune records request, is the latest public sign of federal prosecutors’ interest in a program also under scrutiny by Cook County authorities and a state legislative panel.
The May 13 grand jury document sought emails dated back to the beginning of 2010, the year Quinn ran for his first full term as governor and launched the Chicago-area program in the closing weeks of his campaign. Quinn spokesman Grant Klinzman said the administration has “zero tolerance for mismanagement, fraud or abuse” and that the governor has directed agencies to fully cooperate with authorities.
Emails and other electronic records were sought for Barbara Shaw, the retired former head of the anti-violence grant program; Toni Irving, a former deputy chief of staff in the governor’s office; and Malcolm Weems, the former director of the Department of Central Management Services who served in the governor’s budget office. The subpoena also sought emails for two other officials, Barbara King and Reshma Desai, who have worked in the agency that took over the program.
The AP reports that the subpoenas were from a federal grand jury in Springfield.
Gov. Pat Quinn has ordered a moratorium on political hiring at the Illinois Department of Transportation and is requiring executive-level staff in every state agency to undergo training about proper hiring practices.
The Chicago Democrat’s actions come amid questions about whether state jobs were improperly filled based on clout rather than qualifications.
The Associated Press obtained copies of memos sent Thursday by Quinn’s attorney to IDOT leadership and the heads of all agencies, boards and commissions.
According to the memos, Quinn also is ordering an outside audit of all IDOT political hires to determine if the positions were properly filled.
* After the Illinois Supreme Court took a retiree health insurance case and all but guaranteed that pension reform is dead, Greg Hinz and I are on the same page about what happens next…
Some still see hope in a negotiated approach in which labor groups, for instance, agree to pay more for their pensions in exchange for pay hikes. That’s the “consideration” approach pushed by Mr. Cullerton.
But Mr. Cullerton’s pension bill counted on the state continuing “voluntary” health benefits as part of the consideration. That’s now gone, because the court essentially ruled that health benefits are part of the same bucket as pension themselves.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if House Speaker Michael Madigan revives his campaign to force local units of government, particularly school districts, to pick up pension costs that the state now pays.
Others point to a legally unexplored possibility: letting one or more of the pension funds go bankrupt to see what the courts order.
TRS and SURS are big, big problems for the state. Almost no other state picks up the tab for local teacher pensions. Shifting that cost would save a ton of state dollars.
Also, the state cannot declare bankruptcy. Illinois forbids municipalities from declaring bankruptcy. So this pension fund bankruptcy idea may be the only option for Chicago, Cook County and local first responder funds. Try it with a smaller pension fund first and work your way up, perhaps.
In a sweeping 6-1 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court last week struck down an attempt to force government retirees to pay more for their subsidized state health insurance. And while nothing is ever certain when it comes to the judiciary, the Court made it pretty darned clear that Illinois’ new pension reform law is going to have real trouble passing constitutional review.
The Court, led by Justice Charles Freeman, did not specifically rule on the pension reform law, but declared “it is clear” that all pension benefits, including health insurance, cannot be, as the Illinois Constitution mandates, “diminished or impaired,” which the ruling called the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the state’s Constitution.
“We may not rewrite the pension protection clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve,” the Court ruled.
If that isn’t a direct enough message to lawmakers, the governor and everybody else, I don’t know what is. Pension benefits “shall not be diminished or impaired,” is what the Constitution says, and the Court used the “plain meaning” angle to say they can’t be cut.
For good measure the Court added that the state Constitution’s language on pension benefit protections, “was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.”
That last line is perhaps the most important part of the ruling, because it more than just suggests the state’s new pension reform laws - which rely on a “police powers” argument because the state allegedly can’t afford to make the promised pension benefit payments - could very well be going right out the window.
The justices also sent a powerful message when they wrote that a “fundamental principle” they relied on in this ruling was that if there are any questions about legislative intent and the clarity of the language of a pension law, “it must be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the pensioner.”
Therefore, the Court ruled, it is “obliged” to resolve any doubts “in favor of the members of the State’s public retirement systems.”
Boom.
Looks like it’s back to the ol’ drawing board, fellas.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office pointed out that the pension reform case and the health insurance case have significant differences. The main difference is the emergency “police powers” argument. But as the Supremes essentially ruled last week, the state’s financial problems are not the Constitution’s concern.
The state pension reform legislation passed last year was projected to save taxpayers about $200 billion over 30 years. The health insurance reforms, which were specifically struck down last week, were projected to save up to around $80 million a year.
If the pension reform law is the next to be struck down, there are few easy ways out of this fiscal nightmare.
Amending the state Constitution to remove that pension protection language would take more than two years because we’d have to wait until the 2016 election to hold the plebiscite.
And even then, deleting the Constitution’s pension protection clause would almost surely only apply to new hires. In other words, all of the billions built up in the state’s massive unfunded pension liability can’t be touched.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner’s pension reform plan involves freezing annual pension benefit cost of living increases going forward and taking existing employees out of the pension fund altogether going forward. But last week’s ruling was so sweeping and so all-encompassing that it’s pretty tough to see how that would pass constitutional muster, either.
Senate President John Cullerton warned this very thing would happen years ago. He eventually negotiated a pension reform deal with the unions. But that deal was quickly rejected by House Speaker Michael Madigan, conservative newspaper editorial boards and much of the business community.
Cullerton then attempted to graft his pension reform proposal onto the business-backed plan. If the business-backed plan was rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court, Cullerton’s compromise would then automatically become law.
But that idea, too, was rejected out of hand.
So instead of having a union-approved plan in place, we could very well be stuck with no plan at all. Why would the unions go back to the bargaining table if they have the Supreme Court on their side?
The bottom line is it’s going to take some radical, out of the box thinking to resolve this issue or the state will assuredly face even higher taxes and lots more budget cuts to pay this tab.
Former Sen. Alan J. Mr. Dixon carved out a four-decade long career in Illinois’ rough-and-tumble politics by essentially being a nice guy.
Opponents dimissed him as an old-school glad hander. But the Belleville Democrat prided himself on being able to get along with Democrats and Republicans alike and “sit down and make a deal.”
Mr. Dixon, 86, died Sunday morning at his downstate home.
Sen. Dixon became police magistrate when he was still a law student — the same year Harry S Truman was inaugurated for a full-term as president: 1949.
He won every election after that: for state representative, state senator, state treasurer, secretary of state, before winning election to the Senate in 1981. He was re-elected six years later.
“I got beat once, that’s a pretty good average,” Sen. Dixon told an interviewer in 2002.
He added: “I was smart enough when I got beat to quit.”
Former Gov. James Thompson, a Republican and 40-year friend of Dixon, said Sunday he last saw Dixon a year ago when he was signing copies of his book “The Gentleman from Illinois.” Thompson wrote the book’s forward.
“He was just a magnificent guy to know. He did the state of Illinois proud,” Thompson said. “He used to say, ‘Listen, pal, we can get these things done.’” […]
Dixon is survived by his wife Joan “Jody” Dixon, and three children, Stephanie (Doug) Yearian, of Waterloo; Jeffrey (Stacy) Dixon, of Chicago; Elizabeth (Stuart) Megaw, of Fairfax, Va. He is also survived by eight grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.
Funeral arrangements for Dixon are pending at Renner Funeral Home.
Last year, Dixon published a memoir titled, “The Gentleman From Illinois: Stories From Forty Years of Elective Public Service.”
“Generally speaking, my political career was built on goodwill and accommodation,” he wrote. […]
[Carol] Moseley Braun, who won the three-way [1992 Democratic primary against Dixon and Al Hofeld], said Dixon “was always a gentleman.”
“That level of civility really needs a resurrection in our politics today,” she said, reached by phone Sunday night.
* Governor Pat Quinn…
“Alan Dixon had a patriot’s determination to do what was best for his state and nation.
“Alan Dixon served with distinction in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly, two statewide elected offices, and as our United States Senator.
“He was a statesman, but he was also a warm and friendly soul who never met a stranger.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Dixon’s family, friends and people whose lives he touched. He will be missed.”
* House Speaker Michael J. Madigan…
“Alan Dixon was one of a kind. A great leader and representative who always put the public’s interests first.
“He was a great friend. Shirley and I offer our sympathies to his family and our prayers they be given the strength to endure these sad times.”
* US Sen. Dick Durbin…
“From his days as a Police Magistrate in Belleville to his leadership position in the United States Senate, Alan Dixon was known for his honesty, his hard work and his commitment to the state he loved. Alan was the first statewide Democrat to voluntarily make a full disclosure of his net worth. Alan started the first bipartisan Illinois Congressional lunches, a tradition which continues to this day. His friendships reached across the aisle and across our state. I lost a pal today and Illinois lost a man who brought honor to public service.”
* Secretary of State Jesse White…
“The state of Illinois lost a dedicated public servant today in Alan Dixon. Senator Dixon was a man of integrity who always voted his conscience and had a unique ability to build consensus through compromise.
“As former Illinois Secretary of State, Dixon moved the office forward in a way that focused on customer service.
“My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and to his friends. I was privileged to work with him, and to call him my friend. Alan Dixon will be missed.”
* Even some Republicans issued statements. US Sen. Mark Kirk…
“Alan Dixon was a dedicated public servant who spent the majority of his life representing the people of Illinois. But for his leadership, Illinois would have lost Scott Air Force Base - the largest employer south of I-80. We owe Alan a debt of gratitude for all he did for our state.”
* Tim Schneider, Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party…
“We are saddened at the loss of Sen. Dixon. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, and we thank him for his service to our state.”
Republican state Sen. Jim Oberweis wants U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin to agree to seven debates prior to the November election. […]
In a statement Tuesday, Oberweis says voters should get to compare the candidates’ records on job creation and other topics. He calls Durbin’s policies “a disaster for the poor and middle class.”
Ron Holmes is a spokesman for Durbin. He says Durbin has debated every challenger he’s faced and “looks forward to working out the terms” of this fall’s schedule. […]
He says at least three should be outside the Chicago area. Oberweis also wants one debate to be co-hosted by a liberal organization and another by a conservative organization.
I was chatting recently with a couple of folks who work for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, and they truly believed that the more the news media focused on “chickens,” the better off their candidate was.
(A) spokeswoman for Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the decision “has no direct impact” on the pension litigation.
“While this decision is very clear on the fact that the pension clause covers health care benefits, the arguments in the pension reform litigation are different than the ones in this healthcare case,” attorney general spokeswoman Maura Possley said in an email. “We will continue to vigorously defend the pension reform law.”
Supporters of the pension reduction law say those legal issues revolve around the question of whether the legislature essentially has emergency powers to modify the benefits in order to deal with a funding crisis and ensure the stability of the pension funds.
“This landmark law was urgently needed to resolve the state’s $100 billion pension crisis,” Quinn spokesman Grant Klinzman said in an email. “It was also urgently needed to ensure that teachers, university employees and state workers who have faithfully contributed to the pension system have retirement security.
“We’re confident the courts will uphold this critical law that stabilizes the state’s pension funds while squarely addressing the most pressing fiscal crisis of our time by eliminating the state’s unfunded pension debt.”
John Myers, an attorney who represents plaintiffs in both cases, said the attorney general’s office was “whistling past the graveyard.”
“A strong signal has been sent by the Supreme Court that is going to affect the outcome of that other case,” Myers said.
* 3:27 p.m. - From Kwame Raoul…
State Senator Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago 13th) issued the following statement on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Kanerva v. Weems that a 2012 law altering state retirees’ health insurance benefits violated the Pensions Clause of the Illinois Constitution. Raoul chaired the conference committee that produced last year’s compromise pension reform law, which is now the subject of pending litigation, and negotiated a reform plan for City of Chicago retirement systems.
During the years-long debate over various pension reform proposals, I have consistently cautioned that we must align our actions with the constitution’s protections of state workers and their benefits. However, while we could examine previous decisions and discuss the legal precedents, there was no sure way to obtain guidance from the courts on this matter aside from passing a law and waiting for them to react.
Today, we begin to glimpse the nature of this reaction.
The Illinois Supreme Court has handed down a forceful decision, backed by six of its seven justices. Its powerful affirmation of the constitution’s protection of contractual rights and promised benefits may serve as a predictor of how this court will handle challenges to Senate Bill 1 and similar reform measures.
Today’s ruling did not speak directly to the “police powers” argument that in times of fiscal emergency, the state may be justified in taking extraordinary steps to balance its responsibilities and carry out its duties to all residents. But the court did clarify that in addition to protecting contractual rights, the Pensions Clause insulates public employees from the diminishment of their benefits by the General Assembly.
We must wait for the specifics of future opinions to firmly establish the parameters of a constitutional approach to meeting our obligations and setting our state on a firm financial footing. No matter what those specifics are, I remain committed to a long-term solution that improves our state and protects the rights of our valued public employees.
After many years of hard work, the Illinois General Assembly crafted and Governor Quinn signed a significant piece of pension reform legislation last December which protected our state from financial implosion, while also protecting the pension benefits of Illinois’ state and municipal employees.
Today’s state retiree health care ruling considered a different set of facts than that important legislation, and it is a fundamental premise of our legal system that a court cannot preemptively rule on a matter that is not yet before them.
Our state’s ability to continue providing crucial services, while securing public employee pensions, requires that the pension reform legislation take effect.
Not to be confused with The Civic Federation, which is led by Lawrence Msall. This is Ty Fahner’s group. The two entities are not affiliated with one another.
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that health care benefits for retired state and university employees are protected by the pension clause of the state constitution and cannot be diminished or impaired.
The Supreme Court ruled that a lower court was wrong to dismiss the four consolidated lawsuits (one supported by AFSCME, IFT, INA and FOP) which argued that SB 1313 was unconstitutional. That legislation had effectively allowed the state to diminish health care benefits for retirees by imposing new and higher health insurance premiums.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.
AFSCME is very pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed with us that affordable health care in retirement, a promise made to tens of thousands of Illinois public servants in exchange for their service, is protected by the constitution.
“The Supreme Court ruled today that men and women who work to provide essential public services — protecting children from abuse, keeping criminals locked up, caring for the most vulnerable and more — can count on the Illinois Constitution to mean what it says,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said. “Retirement security, including affordable health care and a modest pension, cannot be revoked by politicians.
“Unions representing public employees and retirees have stood virtually alone against political and corporate-funded attacks on retirement security,” Bayer added. “Time and again we have urged legislators to respect the constitution they are sworn to uphold, and to work together with us to develop fair and constitutional solutions to the state’s very real fiscal challenges. We remain ready to work in good faith with anyone to do so.”
Today, the Illinois Supreme Court made it very clear that the Pension Clause means what it says.
The Court cannot rewrite the Pension Clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve.
The Clause was aimed at protecting the right of public employees and retirees to receive their promised benefits and insulate those benefits from diminishment or impairment by the General Assembly.
If the Court’s decision is predictive, the challenge of reforming our pension systems will remain.
As I have said from the beginning, I am committed to identifying solutions that adhere to the plain language of the constitution
* Take a moment and read between the lines of Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke’s dissent in the retiree health insurance case…
To reach its result, the majority must read into the pension protection clause language that is not there. Nowhere in the clause does it state that every benefit which “results from,” is “conditioned on,” “flows directly from” or “is attendant to” being a member of a pension system is provided constitutional protection. These phrases, which form the crux of the majority’s opinion, are simply crafted out of whole cloth. It is fundamental that the judiciary may not add language to a constitutional provision that was not approved by the voters of this state. To do so is to usurp the sovereign power of the people. The majority’s addition of language to the clause is error.
Moreover, by adding language to the pension protection clause, the majority fundamentally changes its meaning. The clause no longer protects the statutory benefits provided by a pension or retirement system. Instead, it provides constitutional protection to any statutory benefit—however unrelated to pensions—if the recipient of the benefit is a member of a pension system. And the majority provides no limit to this holding. Should the city of Springfield enact an ordinance which states that the members of the municipal pension system will receive an honorary plaque upon retirement, that benefit would “flow from” or be “conditioned on” membership in the system. The plaque, under the majority’s reasoning, would be a constitutionally protected contractual right that could not be diminished or impaired. I do not think this is what the drafters of the pension protection clause intended.
Unsurprisingly, nothing in the constitutional debate regarding the pension protection clause supports the majority’s reading of the provision. As the majority candidly acknowledges, the constitutional debate contains no references to health insurance premiums or other non-pension benefits for retirees. To the contrary, the unambiguous statements of the sponsoring delegates reflect that it was designed to protect a public retiree’s right to collect post retirement income in the form of an annuity and to ensure that the terms under which an employee acquired that right could not be altered to his or her detriment. […]
In sum, neither the plain language of the pension protection clause, the constitutional debate, our own case law, or case law from other jurisdictions supports the majority’s position. The pension protection clause protects pensions, not subsidized health care premiums.
Even though Justice Burke clearly disagrees with this particular ruling, it certainly appears that she agrees with the majority on the “clear” and “plain” language of the state Constitution’s pension protection clause.
The College of DuPage won’t receive a $20 million state construction grant now that Gov. Pat Quinn has seen an email detailing President Robert Breuder’s strategy to secure the long-promised funding for the Glen Ellyn school.
“The tactics used by the president in his email” convinced the governor not to release the $20 million the school hoped to use for a Teaching and Learning Center, a Quinn spokesman said Wednesday.
“We are suspending the possibility that they can submit a project for that funding,” David Blanchette said.
COD spokesman Joseph Moore said the school did not have a comment Wednesday evening but may have one Thursday.
In case you missed it the other day, the background on that notorious e-mail is here.
* Breuder told the Daily Herald his side of the story earlier this week…
Breuder said his May 9 email was part of an effort to get board members on the same page for the project.
Breuder said COD has known for at least a year it needs more classroom space. He said the school is operating at nearly 90 percent capacity during peak hours and needs to expand its facilities if enrollment continues to grow as projected.
“It’s an internal memorandum trying to work the politics inside my own board,” Breuder said of the email, which For the Good of Illinois obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Breuder said the original pledge for the grant dates to 2002, when then-Gov. George Ryan announced community colleges would get money to replace temporary buildings with permanent ones. COD never got its share, even though the state budgeted it in both 2004 and 2009, Breuder said.
The hope is Quinn will act to change that.
“All I know is he’s willing to go ahead and release money that’s been earmarked for us for a long time,” Breuder said.
it is clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired. Thus, the question presented is whether a health insurance subsidy provided in retirement qualifies as a benefit of membership. […]
Giving the language of article XIII, section 5, its plain and ordinary meaning, all of these benefits, including subsidized health care, must be considered to be benefits of membership in a pension or retirement system of the State and, therefore, within that provision’s protections.
If they had intended to protect only core pension annuity benefits and to exclude the various other benefits state employees were and are entitled to receive as a result of membership in the State’s pensions systems, the drafters could have so specified. But they did not.
the drafters chose expansive language that goes beyond annuities and the terms of the Pension Code, defining the range of protected benefits broadly to encompass those attendant to membership in the State’s retirement systems. Then, as now, subsidized health care was one of those benefits. For us to hold that such benefits are not among the benefits of membership protected by the constitution would require us to construe article XIII, section 5, in a way that the plain language of the provision does not support. We may not rewrite the pension protection clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve.
Because we find that this issue can be decided based on the plain language of the provision, “the debates can have little or no bearing or effect” with respect to how we construe that language.
Even if reference to the convention debates were appropriate, it would not aid the State’s position. […]
In light of the constitutional debates, we have concluded that the provision was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.
Emphasis added for obvious reasons. The new pension law sure appears dead to me.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the State’s provision of health insurance premium subsidies for retirees is a benefit of membership in a pension or retirement system within the meaning of article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution, and the General Assembly was precluded from diminishing or impairing that benefit for those employees, annuitants, and survivors whose rights were governed by the version of section 10 of the Group Insurance Act that was in effect prior to the enactment of Public Act 97-695. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims that Public Act 97-695 is void and unenforceable under article XIII, section 5.
Our holding that plaintiffs are entitled to proceed on their pension protection clause claims obviates the need to address the sufficiency of their remaining claims. Because plaintiffs have obtained all the relief that they seek, any comment on their other claims would be advisory and in conflict with traditional principles of judicial restraint. See In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 351 (2009) (recognizing that Illinois courts generally do not consider issues where the outcome will not be affected, regardless of how those issues are decided).
The judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
That sound you hear is the state’s bond rating collapsing.
* The final nail in pension reform’s coffin…
Finally, we point out again a fundamental principle noted at the outset of our discussion. Under settled Illinois law, where there is any question as to legislative intent and the clarity of the language of a pension statute, it must be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the pensioner. This rule of construction applies with equal force to our interpretation of the pension protection provisions set forth in article XIII, section 5. Accordingly, to the extent that there may be any remaining doubt regarding the meaning or effect of those provisions, we are obliged to resolve that doubt in favor of the members of the State’s public retirement systems.
* This is going to be a very light day for me. I’m heading out of town soon, so we’ll have this post, the upcoming Illinois Supreme Court ruling shortly after 9, and then maybe one or two more.
This is from a very thoughtful Greg Hinz post that I think gets right to the heart of the real world problems with the Hobby Lobby case…
In his majority opinion, Justice Sam Alito argued that “closely held” private companies such as Hobby Lobby are close to a sole proprietorship in their mix of personal and business matters. “We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can opt out of any law,” he said. But Congress made it clear in a 1993 law that religious views of such a company will prevail when other means exist to protect those views — in this case, perhaps having the government or an insurance company pay for the contraceptives, rather than Hobby Lobby, Mr. Alito added. […]
In fact, [Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent], in what I found to be a truly insightful point, there is a huge difference between a sole proprietorship and an incorporated firm such as Hobby Lobby, which has 500 stores in 47 states.
“In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same,” she wrote. “But incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations. One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation.” […]
Hobby Lobby’s owners got something special from society when they incorporated: exemption from personal legal liability, preferred tax treatment, etc. But when it comes to paying the dues of setting up shop in the public square — following the public’s rules — they’re supposedly no longer a corporation?
Mr. Alito tacitly concedes the point. The Obama administration “would put these merchants to a difficult choice: either give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations.”
