Could be a big day
Friday, Nov 21, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* We should be hearing sometime today from Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz about how he’s going to rule on the constitutionality of the state’s pension reform law. I’ll be out of the office today from noon to about 2, so if I’m not here when it comes down, just use this post to comment. SJ-R…
“The defense claims an implied authority is contained within the pension protection clause that gives them the right to reduce benefits,” said Gino DiVito, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The state, though, noted that the pension protection clause says membership in a pension system is “an enforceable contractual relationship.” Assistant attorney general Richard Huszagh said the courts have “repeatedly said contract rights are not inviolate” and that government has the right to modify those contracts in extraordinary situations.
The state’s position is that the current financial crisis and ever increasing amount of the state budget consumed by meeting pension obligations is an extraordinary situation allowing changes to be made. Under the plaintiffs’ argument, Huszagh said, the state could have a 20 percent income tax rate to cover pension costs and benefits still couldn’t be changed.
Belz, though, observed that no court had ever used the state’s argument as the basis for modifying pension benefits.
* Meanwhile, from the Tribune…
Rauner has said he believed the law, which curbs annual cost-of-living increases for current retirees and delays the retirement age for many current public workers, will end up being found unconstitutional by the state’s highest court. He also has said the law did not go far enough to reduce the state’s pension debt and indicated he favors moving most public workers into a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan. Rauner, however, has yet to fully detail his concepts to deal with the pension system and didn’t provide any more specifics Thursday.
“My preference is probably to wait until the Supreme Court rules so we have some ground rules for what probably works and won’t work. I think that’s the smarter way to do it,” Rauner said.
That could happen sooner rather than later, depending on how Belz rules. The judge could move to hold hearings in the case, or he could declare the measure unconstitutional, which likely would send the matter directly to the state Supreme Court.
Even then, it could take several more months before the justices make a final decision, meaning Rauner may not get the clarity he’s seeking in time to drive cost-saving pension changes during the spring legislative session.
Discuss.
- Sangamo Sam - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:01 am:
I think that this statement telegraphs the ruling: “Belz, though, observed that no court had ever used the state’s argument as the basis for modifying pension benefits.”
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:05 am:
The only ground rules he’s going to get is that the constitution says what it says - you can’t change benefits for folks currently in the system.
- Wondering - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:05 am:
Does it really matter all that much what this judge decides? Isn’t his courtroom just a resting point on the way to the Supreme Court?
- Aldyth - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:10 am:
Why would anyone want to go to work for the State of Illinois?
- drew - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:10 am:
==Rauner has said he believed the law…will end up being found unconstitutional…He also has said the law did not go far enough==
Does this make any sense to anyone? What does he propose that is more drastic yet constitutional?
- lake county democrat - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:11 am:
Yup - Kimba Wood was the second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannygate
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:11 am:
Wondering, it’s the starting point and is important because the appeal only considers issues raised at the circuit court level.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:13 am:
(Ooops, sorry for the link, posted on the wrong discussion - and here I was holding my tongue because I had nothing to add to Rich’s article and the comments - sorry!
- Demoralized - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:14 am:
I’m not sure why Rauner thinks he can move everyone to a 401K plan if he thinks and believes the current plan will be found unconstitutional. Doing that (unless he is giving workers a choice) is a more crystal clear benefit take-a-way than the plan being considered by the court now.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:17 am:
@- drew - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:10 am:
==Rauner has said he believed the law…will end up being found unconstitutional…He also has said the law did not go far enough==
==Does this make any sense to anyone? What does he propose that is more drastic yet==
constitutional?
No it does not to me either, unless Rauner is speaking of new employees. Seems to me though that the tier II system is part of the solution and he should be careful in trying to put an end to the new money coming into the pension system. There is also the issue of the state having to pay their portion of SS.
- Anonymous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:18 am:
Does anyone have an opinion on when this legislation’s ultimate ruling could be final? Months, years? I also wonder about his 401K threat from Rauner. So, if current employees are switched to 401Ks, how exactly are current pensioners’ benefits funded? If no one is contributing to the pension fund from which retirees are receiving benefits, does he intend for the funds to just run dry and then the old folks are just out of luck (and food)?
- Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:20 am:
—
Does this make any sense to anyone? What does he propose that is more drastic yet constitutional?
—
Freezing pensions, reducing all salaries drastically and across the board, and then forcing folks to go into 401K in order to get their jobs back after a strike (essentially signing away current benefits for your job).
I’m certain this is the plan.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:21 am:
@
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:05 am:
=The only ground rules he’s going to get is that the constitution says what it says - you can’t change benefits for folks currently in the system. =
Agree with you on this one. I just don’t see how judge Belz does much else (given the recent Kanerva ruling) but find SB1 unconstitutional. Belz has indicated that he wants this case rapped up this year and to move as quickly as possible — seems like a clear signal of “overturn” and on to the supremems.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:25 am:
@
Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:20 am:
=Freezing pensions, reducing all salaries drastically and across the board, and then forcing folks to go into 401K in order to get their jobs back after a strike (essentially signing away current benefits for your job).=
Not sure how Rauner forces anyone to take a 401K to get their job back. if workers strike and then give in and come back it would seem it would be to the same pension system but to perhaps lower salaries or other less gracious work conditions etc.
I’m certain this is the plan.
- Roadiepig - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:25 am:
- Demoralized - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:14 am:
He has said retiree’s benefits can’t be changed (if you can believe him for his word), but let’s say he can find a way to “fire” the workers (for say, striking after he low balls them in contract negotiations?), even if only for a day or two, then offers them their jobs back as “new emplyees at a lower level of pay. Hello 401k’s (and those management fees that helped make Bruce the man he is today). I know people say he can’t do it legally, but it still might be what he plans to try to do to see if he can get away with it. Lower pay equals smaller future pensions too. Win win in the union hater’s eyes.
- Archimedes - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:28 am:
Huszagh notes that pensions are a contract, but ignores the second part of the pension clause - that the benefits shall not be dimished nor impaired. The constitution not only provides the contractual security, it also provides that any exercise of police power in altering the contract cannot have the effect of diminishing nor impairing the benefits.
- Stuff Happens - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:29 am:
@Aldyth: “Why would anyone want to go to work for the State of Illinois?”
I started twenty years ago because of the pensions. My plan was to put in 30-35 years, retire, and then go do my own thing while living off the pension.
I had job offers at higher salaries, but the promise of a retirement safety net was worth the reduced income.
Now that I have twenty years in, it’s hard to move. I’d start from scratch in social security, although I would have less taken out of my paycheck than I have taken out for the pension. I’m rooted in academia now, and moving to another state would just put me into a different pension plan, but I wouldn’t even be vested.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:31 am:
RNUG feels the ISC might not take the case and just let Judge Belz ruling stand…assuming he rules in favor of the retirees/tier I workers. Question I have is would the ISC refusing the case set the same legal precedent as them taking the case and then agreeing with the ruling of judge belz. Does one or the other strengthen the law for any future attempt years from now to do the same thing as SB1 has done. Would the ISC court turning down the case make the legislature any more likely to do just do a little adjustment to SB1 and then we are right at it again. If the ISC took the case they might give more guidance? put a larger nail in the coffin?
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:35 am:
Quite a theory Frenchie. If he is to be believed, Rauner has talked about lowering salary. It’s going to be a very rough journey for all. However, Frenchie, I’d drop the firing/hiring staff to change pensions theory. The only thing the state will get out of this course of action is a lot more legal bills. I suspect that would include federal lawsuits dealing with labor laws.
- Teacher - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:36 am:
There is another possibility that some people are not considering. It is quite possible that the ILSC could come back and say the process to SB1 was unconstitutional since it involved modifying a contract without representation from all affected parties. One of the “ground rules” might be that union reps have to be at the table — which could see something like the hybrid bill that was passed by the IL senate and not called by Madigan last spring. That might be one way to pass the constitutionality test.
- The Colossus of Roads - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:37 am:
After he sees what the realities are, I believe he will make current state workers pay more towards their pension and have retirees pay higher health care for dependents to subsidize pension costs. Both of these are under contract negotiations.
- DuPage - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:38 am:
@Aldyth11:10 =Why would anyone want to go to work for the state of Illinois?= GOOD QUESTION!
At one time not too long ago: “pay is not great, but it has good health insurance and if you stay long enough, you get a modest pension.”
Now, “pay is not great, doctors want you to pay them up front because the state insurance has sometimes taken over a year to pay them, and the state tier 2 pension is a negative, you will pay more in then you will ever get out.”
All applicants should be screened to be sure that they have not escaped from the Elgin State Hospital.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:40 am:
@Teacher - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:36 am:
=There is another possibility that some people are not considering. It is quite possible that the ILSC could come back and say the process to SB1 was unconstitutional since it involved modifying a contract without representation from all affected parties. One of the “ground rules” might be that union reps have to be at the table — which could see something like the hybrid bill that was passed by the IL senate and not called by Madigan last spring. That might be one way to pass the constitutionality test. =
no one can negotiate my constitutional rights away for me. Interesting, but I don’t believe this will happen.
- PolPal56 - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:41 am:
SURS (universities) already allow employees to opt for a “self-managed” retirement plan (401k, I assume). About 18% of eligible employees have done so. At best Rauner will be able to expand 401k accounts as an option for employees, perhaps with the ability for not only new employees but for current employees to elect to opt in to a 401k going forward. Since it would be optional, it would pass constitutional muster.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:42 am:
@
- The Colossus of Roads - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:37 am:
=After he sees what the realities are, I believe he will make current state workers pay more towards their pension and have retirees pay higher health care for dependents to subsidize pension costs. Both of these are under contract negotiations. =
Agree and have been saying this for months. Retirees can not be touched as pensions go but dependent health care premiums and co pay etc. are on the table. If the state went to far we could be back in court again because this could be seen as a “back door” diminishment of pensions. Current state workers could absolutely as part of negotiations to keep salary raises etc. agree to pay more into the system. This has happened in the past.
- PolPal56 - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:45 am:
“Option for employees in the other four plans “
- RNUG - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:48 am:
- Wondering -
Not necessarily. ISC could take a pass on it and let Belz’s ruling stand.
- Anonymous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:18 am:
Rauner won’t be able to arbitrarily move existing employees to a 401K type plan. As I noted in a comment last night, even new hires who have previous service end up in the pension plan they first started under. It’d just be another waste of time and taxpayer money in misguided attempt to solve the problem illegally. Rauner’s way (in business) to break contracts is bankruptcy; something that is not an option for the State.
- Teacher - can’t happen; there is no organization that is the legal representative for the retirees … unless you intend to have all roughly 250,000 retirees as part of the “conference”
BTW - I’ll probably be out of touch the rest of the day, so I’ll most likely miss the react when the ruling(s) come down today.
- PublicServant - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:49 am:
And I think it’s the “shall not” that makes pensions immune to the police powers argument.
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:54 am:
One day to draft the opinion? Seems pretty clear which way this is going, and with good reason.
- RNUG - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 11:58 am:
-FKA- as I said yesterday, it’s my guess the opinion was 90% written and just being held in case there was something new in the oral arguments.
- Poster - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:05 pm:
If the plan is to fire everyone and hire back at reduced salaries or less benefits or as contractual workers then I don’t think he would want the same people coming back. They would have a different attitude towards their job.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:12 pm:
I would really enjoy a panel of -RNUG -, - AA -, - Norseman -, and the moderator(s) - steve schnorf - and Rich when all this drops.
Big day indeed.
- Harry - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:24 pm:
If Rauner’s plan is something like to fire everyone in order to freeze benefits, then offer to hire them back into reduced plans or 401(k)’s, maybe even with them renouncing some of their previously-earned benefits–I would expect the court to see through the subterfuge and throw it all out. That’s the kind of thing his buddies at the Civic Committee might come up with, but it hardly seems a winner.
I think one of the biggest problems with SB1 and the sovereignty argument is there is no limiting principle–if the State can do it once, it can do it repeatedly until there’s nothing left. On its face the idea of balancing constitutional requirements might have appeal, but if the court accepts sovereignty as a possible argument, denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, I have seen nothing from the State that would set a limit to make a court comfortable on the facts.
- Federalist - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:36 pm:
Teacher,
As RNUG pointed out there is no elected representative for retirees.
In addition, most university employees do not have a union or elected representative. Those in the public schools and other state employees always seem to forget that.
- G'Kar - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:37 pm:
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned about the Rauner “plan” to force a strike, fire everyone, and hire them back into a 401K system is that would only affect SERS employees. Rauner has no way to force a strike and fire teachers (TRS) and college and university faculty and staff (SURS). And, irc, most of the pension debt is owed to those two systems.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:40 pm:
If all the state has to do is underfund the pension system over a 50 period and then claim a crisis to disregard the constitution (diminish benefits) then what was the point of the pension clause? The pension clause was put in exactly for this moment….that was the motivation behind it in the first place — the fear that the state would not fund the system and then change their minds on paying the benefits.
- kizzoboy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:43 pm:
what if Rauner retained the promise by garaunteeing the accrued benefit as of day X abd changed how the accrual of new benefits works going forward with a 401k type?
ie: state employee: your pension has a current value as of today. keep that. going forward, 401k style. legal?
- PublicServant - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:50 pm:
@kizzoboy - No that would be a diminishment. The courts have already ruled that the benefit structure as of your first day of employment, and any additions after that point, cannot be diminished or impaired.
- DuPage - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:56 pm:
Polpal56@11:41=SURS(Universities) already allow employees to opt for a “self managed” retirement plan (401k I presume).=
That option was put in place to try and attract employees that couldn’t see staying long enough to qualify for a regular SURS pension. It didn’t help the state because the state actually has to pay money into the account each paycheck the same as the employee. If the employee stays 5 or more years, then leaves, the state money goes with them. In the “traditional” SURS pension system, if an employee leaves after any number of years, they can get a refund of their own contributions but NOTHING from the state. In such cases the state pays nothing for pension and nothing for social security, and if the employee leaves the cost to the state is zero. The only way the employee under traditional SURS gets any state pension money is to actually retire.
The shortfall in the pension systems is caused by the state failure to put in the employer match each paycheck, and this has gone on for decades. There is no magic 401k.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:03 pm:
@kizzoboy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 12:43 pm:
Tier II is the only legal way going forward. Employees hired after (I believe) 2010 are in a different pension system called tier II. Legal, moral and actually helps pay for the tier I system.
I do believe you could ask every retiree if they would like to give up their 3% AAI and instead have it be a COLA tied to the CPI. This would be consideration and each retiree could make a choice. Would be guaranteed inflation protection for a lifetime. Would be harder for the state to budget for but might be a better deal for the state and the retiree?
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:05 pm:
Does anyone know when we may hear about a ruling today on the health insurance premium refund?
- orzo - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:11 pm:
I wonder if my creditors would let me off the hook if I said I’ve spend all my money on other things, so I have now created an economic emergency which lets me out from under my contractual obligation to pay you.
Didn’t think so. Either will the Judge.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:11 pm:
There are more than enough votes in the General Assembly on both sides of the aisle to pass a revised pension reform plan when the current law is struck down.
I expect there will be more than enough votes to override a veto if that is what it comes to.
- Phenomynous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:18 pm:
orzo,
I think what you are describing is called bankruptcy.
- PublicServant - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:19 pm:
@YDD - How can you say that when we don’t know what a revised plan might entail at this point?
- Rufus - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:20 pm:
@Aldyth11:10 I ask that at myself more and more, now it’s daily, soon it will be hourly.
- Rufus - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:25 pm:
Oops, I posted the above in a different post. Somehow it was posted here as well.
- Jake From Elwood - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:29 pm:
Just remember not to overreact.
This is going to be appealed either way.
Breathe.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:32 pm:
@Jake From Elwood - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:29 pm:
=Just remember not to overreact.
This is going to be appealed either way.
Breathe. =
Areed, but this ruling will effect what will be considered under appeal. The decision is a big deal, but agree it is not the last word.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:33 pm:
@Phenomynous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:18 pm:
=orzo,
I think what you are describing is called bankruptcy.=
States don’t go bankrupt.
- Secret Square - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:51 pm:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I think there may also be a ruling on the fracking regulations today — judge in SoIL is supposed to decide whether to stop their enforcement in response to a landowner’s lawsuit.
- CapnCrunch - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:55 pm:
“There are more than enough votes in the General Assembly on both sides of the aisle to pass a revised pension reform plan when the current law is struck down.”
A revised pension reform plan that fixes the problem and does not diminish benefits is called a tax increase.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:55 pm:
@
Secret Square - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:51 pm:
=Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I think there may also be a ruling on the fracking regulations today — judge in SoIL is supposed to decide whether to stop their enforcement in response to a landowner’s lawsuit.=
Interesting and important topic, but a bit off of the pension subject?
- Secret Square - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:59 pm:
Yes, but it’s another reason why “today could be a big day”.
- Mouthy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:00 pm:
Show me my money..
- Del Clinkton - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:03 pm:
@orzo:
Thank you for your post. Well done.
@Phenom:
For years the Pensions have been underfunded. And there is enough blame to go around. Democratic or republic.
- Mouthy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:03 pm:
“Why would anyone want to go to work for the State of Illinois?”
Work hours
2 week vacation
sick day a month
personal days
13 paid holidays
retirement system
job security
Insurance
And that doesn’t even address whether you’d be going in entry level or high end..
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:06 pm:
SB 1 struck down details to follow.
- Shark Sandwich - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:06 pm:
“Unconstitutional & void in its entirety” boom
- ex-ISU - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:07 pm:
Here is the link
http://www.sangamoncountycircuitclerk.org/PDFDOC/Pension.pdf
- Downstate Greg - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:08 pm:
“Unconstitutional” Here we go again!!! Hurry up and wait.
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:12 pm:
Thanks AA for the first news and Thanks Ex-ISU for the link.
Tis a big day.
- Downstate Greg - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:18 pm:
“facts are stubborn things - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 1:05 pm: Asked”
“Does anyone know when we may hear about a ruling today on the health insurance premium refund?”
I heard last week on WGN they think it may be February. I called the Comptrollers office they have no idea. The Treasurer also had no Info.
- girllawyer - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:20 pm:
The Illinois Constitution means what it says! Who would have thought?
- Demoralized - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:22 pm:
The judge said there is no police power or sovereign power the state possesses to alter pension benefits. That’s a pretty big nail in the state’s case.
- anon. - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:22 pm:
Rich - please have a post Monday on Belz’ ruling so RNUG and others can look at it over the weeklend and post then.
- RJS - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:24 pm:
Even in Illinois the constitution means what it says. Who would have thought.
- Abe the Babe - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:26 pm:
The defendants have attempted to create a factual record to the effect that, if a reserved sovereign power to diminish or impair pensions existed, the facts would justify an exercise of that power. The defendants can cite to no Illinois case that would allow this affirmative defense. Because the Court finds that no such power exists, it need not and does not reach the issue of whether the facts would justify the exercise of such a power if it existed, and the Court will not require the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants’ evidentiary submissions. The plaintiffs having obtained complete relief, the Court also need not address at this time the plaintiffs’ additional claims that the Act is unconstitutional or illegal on other grounds. See Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811.
- illilnifan - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:27 pm:
The 6 page ruling is one of the most clearly written court decisions I have ever read….there is no lack of clarity in what was said. Hopefully ISC sees it in the same clarity and simply says there is no need to even hear the case.
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:27 pm:
To all those asking about the Kanerva health insurance premium case, there were supposed to be a hearing today so stay tuned. We should hear some update unless the reporters ignore that one because of this ruling.
- Abe the Babe - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:27 pm:
the paragraph above is on page 5.
“No power exists”…wow.
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:29 pm:
=== The defendants can cite to no Illinois case that would allow this affirmative defense. ===
Abe, they tried to misrepresent Felt to make their case. Obviously it didn’t work.
- Person 8 - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:29 pm:
Very strong I presume,
“The Act without question diminishes and impairs the benefits of membership in State
retirement systems. “
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:29 pm:
In “summary” the Hon. Judge Belz told the State their arguments were a bunch of baloney.
He called out several specific impairments, including COLA and retirement age changes. He clearly rejected the State’s “inseverability” argument re: the provisions of the bill each standing on their own, calling out Raoul by name. Police powers shot down, so to speak. A good day, indeed.
- Cassandra - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:32 pm:
They should have added: and Happy Thanksgiving, Gov-elect Rauner.
Do you suppose Quinn is a teensy bit relieved he doesn’t have to deal with this.
- howard - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:34 pm:
Poor Squeezy!!!!!
- ex-ISU - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:35 pm:
In reference to my 401k question. That would be for new employees. Thanks
- LincolnLounger - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:37 pm:
I’m not a legal expert, but lawyers of stature I know told me that the arguments put forward by the Attorney General’s office were a “disgrace to the legal profession.”
- sparky791 - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:38 pm:
I am just wondering how Quinn is going to solve pension crisis now since he felt he was put on this earth to do so. LOL
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:43 pm:
Tweet reaction from the Twits, I mean legislators, they want Supreme Court action so they can get clarity (Durkin), guidance (Raul).
One of the plaintiff attorneys said it best in responding to the AG reaction to Kanerva, they are whistling in the graveyard.
Now we’ll see what new tact the GA and Rauner takes.
- Anonymous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:50 pm:
=Tweet reaction from the Twits, I mean legislators, they want Supreme Court action so they can get clarity (Durkin), guidance (Raul).= I think the GA has plenty of ‘clarity’ and ‘guidance’. For current employees, pay the pension payments. Its that simple.
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:50 pm:
That is such a thorough and blunt clock-cleaning it is remarkable the AG did not do more to steer the ILGA conference committee away from this legislation during her ==consultations== with them, a la Eric Madiar, and simply sat on her hands.
This reinforces just how right Cullerton was on this issue during the closing days of session that year and just how wrong Madigan was. But Speaker Madigan insisted on being stubborn in refusing to call the Senate’s bill for a vote, President Cullerton acted maturely by calling both the Senate and House bills for a vote, and now here we are today.
- Anonymoiis - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:52 pm:
==Do you suppose Quinn is a teensy bit relieved he doesn’t have to deal with this.==
Is he relieved that the final nail was put into the coffin burying one of his only claimed accomplishments, leaving his tenure as a virtual complete failure? Somehow I doubt that
- Decaff Coffee Party - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:52 pm:
Would be kind of hard for the Supreme Court to overturn this decision since much of it quotes their own Kanerva decision.
- Anonymous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:52 pm:
Waste of taxpayers money, all this court stuff. State would rather spend tax money trying to **** state retirees/workers than actually honor the constitution and pay the correct amount to the funds and pay retiree benefits. It’s much easier to cheat 250,000-300,000 retirees out of their rightful earnings than to ask those who benefited from the workers’ stolen money (diverted) to help pay back what they got for free. A very nasty exposure of the ugliness of our citizenry.
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:53 pm:
The very first case cited by Judge Belz is Kanerva v Weems.
From this past July == Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the court’s opinion “has no direct impact on the pension reform litigation arguments,” according to the Associated Press. Gov. Pat Quinn’s offices is confident last year’s pension law will be upheld, AP reported.
But Senate President John Cullerton, who has warned that pension reforms would be found unconstitutional, issued a statement saying that the decision indicates he was correct. ==
- UIC Guy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:54 pm:
Norseman: I suspect that what the legislators really want is not ‘clarity’(since it’s hard to get much clearer than this decision) but rather a ruling which is definitive. I think only the ILSC can give that. And I want that too: I want the matter to go to the ILSC and have them say the same thing, so that there can be no doubt or ambiguity.
- Anonymous - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 2:58 pm:
Mouthy; 2:03 PM
Those things were true at one time. Now, we’ve seen five years worth of efforts to diminish those pensions for the average state worker (Not Glenn Poshard, however). The early retirements of the 90’s, hiring freezes, and job eliminations have left fewer people to do more work. Now, there’s a governor on the way in who has dodged specifics about what he’s going to do about the budget. Those Republican governors of Wisconsin, Michigan and assorted other states never said that they wanted to bust the unions when they were campaigning, but once they got into office…
Why would anyone who is looking for a career go to work for Illinois. The current employees may be stuck here because of age and years of service, but why would anyone new climb into this unholy mess of job insecurity?
- Harry - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 3:00 pm:
Cullerton’s bill wouldn’t have fared any better, his approach to “consideration” was highly coercive and not a contractual consideration at all.
Back to the old drawing board.
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 3:03 pm:
UIC Guy, I know they’re just trying to put a good face on the matter. I suspect there have been a lot of backroom discussions since Kanerva on possible alternative reduction proposals.
- UIC Guy - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 3:24 pm:
Norseman: thanks for the reply. Perhaps I’m being naïve or unimaginative, but I can’t see what kinds of ‘possible alternative reduction proposals’ could possibly be found constitutional, if this ruling is upheld. Do you have any ideas?
- Mister M - Friday, Nov 21, 14 @ 4:31 pm:
“This reinforces just how right Cullerton was on this issue during the closing days of session that year and just how wrong Madigan was.” —–
It may just be that Madigan felt this would happen all along, and the issue is now stalled past the election. Moreover, he now has a new bogey-man in Rauner. “You’re a sly one, Mr. Grinch…”