Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 * No veto session vote?

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Rep. Elaine Nekritz told the Tribune’s Rick Pearson Sunday that she thought a pension reform vote could be held during veto session. She said this despite telling the SJ-R’s Doug Finke late last week: “I have stopped making predictions on time because mine have all been very wrong.”

Well, maybe she should’ve taken her own advice with Pearson. The bill obviously can’t pass without Republican votes, and House Republican Leader Jim Durkin doesn’t think there will be action during veto session…

The Western Springs lawmaker also says he has doubts meaningful pension legislation will come up for a vote during the upcoming fall veto session. Some members of the bipartisan legislative commission studying ways to plug Illinois’ massive $100 billion pension hole say much progress has been made this summer and a bill could be passed on to the governor soon.

Durkin says that’s more likely to happen in a special session prior to January.

If he wants to wait that long, I don’t know why he wouldn’t want to put it off until January, when the bill could have an immediate effective date.

*** UPDATE *** From Leader Durkin’s press secretary…

“Leader Durkin is not suggesting that we need to wait to vote on pension reform until January. Rather, the point he is trying to make is that we are getting close to veto session and there is no agreement yet. He is simply cautioning that a vote may not occur during the six days scheduled for veto. If an agreement is reached after veto we can always come back to Springfield for a vote in November or December.”

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:40 am

Comments

Leader Durkin wants to see who files against his incumbents and candidates before any votes get taken …. not to mention see how many more of his flock jump ship.

Comment by Spliff Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:47 am
Get the bill out there and get it done. Whatever will be litigated so get that process started now. If it is found unconstitutional, then do a rewrite that is constitutional.

Will they keep delaying and delaying until after what? The primary vote in March or the General Election next November?

Sheesh!

Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:53 am
The Nekritz statement of “mine have all been very wrong” are a perfect description of all her proposed “pension reforms”.

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:55 am
BTW–Interesting column from the Pantagraph about recent actions during pension committee meetings. Source appears to be Sen. Brady who claims he threatened to quit the committee due to lack of action.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/columns/vogel/vogel-no-breakthrough-but-pension-group-makes-headway/article_daa3dc8a-27bd-11e3-b242-001a4bcf887a.html

Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:00 am
Insanity!

Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:05 am
All a waste of time and tax dollars to come up with a plan that will waste more tax dollars in litigation. The sure-fire plan is Martire’s and for whatever bizarre reason there is, it will not be considered. More of the same. Maybe that’s the plan……….to increase the drumbeat of hysteria?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:07 am
@Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:53 am

= Get the bill out there and get it done. =

@Nearly, I understand your point completely but as you know the legislature is not a monolithic body. There is real real disagreement on the pension on both legal, moral, financial and of course political grounds. We have a constitution that is clear as clear can be — pensions can not be diminished. It was amended to include the pension provision in 1970 exactly for this moment in time. You also have the fact that for many reasons (did not make pension payments, great recession, investment assumptions etc.) the pension fund is 100B behind plus what it normaly would need to provide. The legal answer and the political answer are at odds. What is possible and what is politicaly possible are two different things right now and they are trying to reconcile the difference. Yes, I beleive the next real pressure point may become the Gov. raise in 2014.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:08 am
Not reaching any pension deal is a solution. Keep paying the pension payment according to the payment ramp and cut spending and raise revenue as needed. Now I am not saying that is a good solution for many, but not reaching a new agreement does not mean there is not solution.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:16 am
Well, if the next pressure point is the governor’s race, Quinn will benefit more than the Republicans from cutting retiree benefits, I think. He has plenty of money (doesn’t have to fight a primary) and time to develop a campaign theme in which he saved the state’s finances and the retirees’ pensions too. All the Repubs can say is me too, me too. And of course it’s not clear how the retirees will vote statewide but it’s not unreasonable to guess a lot will stay home in disgust if their pensions are cut. And that will hurt the Repubs more, since their candidate will be starting from a weaker position.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:17 am
==do a rewrite that is constitutional-==

The only constitutional way to change contributions and benefits would be for any new employee going forward. That’s already been done with new teachers. If new hires agree to the new terms set forth, then so be it. Anything else done to anyone else is a diminishment.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:18 am
At what point in time can the Democrats pass pension legislation and be sure that a definitive ruling on its constitutionality will not occur prior to the election?

If the ISC kills the pension plan prior to the election, then legislators are going to have to admit during their campaigns that the income tax hike will have to be extended and perhaps expanded. I bet they would like to say during their campaigns that taxes will be reduced because they solved the pension crisis, even though the courts are almost certain to abide by the language of the constitution. The leadership may be trying to ensure that the final rulings do not happen until after the election.

Comment by east central Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:25 am
The best deal that the state could get may have come and gone — SB2404. When/if (suspect the latter) a bill gets passed it will go to the ISC. If the SC overturnes the bill (depending on the ruling) the union may withdraw all support for what is now (SB 2404) not seen as a need to compromise at all. The leverage may be gone for the unions to have compromised. SB2404 was substantial and I beleive should have been viewed as the compromise and not the starting point for compromise.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:26 am
The early dates for veto session are a problem here. Too many members in both parties looking over their shoulders before the filing deadline.

Madigan could give Durkin a rude welcoming, if he’s so inclined, by just running whatever the Conference Committee comes up with. If it passes with a roll call similar to SB 1, fine. If it goes down because no Republicans vote for it, then he puts SB 2404 on the board, which will get plenty of downstate GOP votes. Quinn might veto it, but no matter what, the House GOP will be tied in knots.

Comment by Tony Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:28 am
Spliff’s got a good theory on Durkin’s thoughts behind the comment. Durkin could also be hoping that a delay would help garner more support for changes that could make the CC product a more draconian proposal.

Rich is right that there is no point to voting right before the new year.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:33 am
I do not believe that Cullerton supports the conference committee proposal, such as it is. I believe that he is still chapped that SB 2404 has not received a vote in the House, and I think that either one of two things will happen. Either he will voice “support” for the CC proposal but allow it to fail, or he will feign support for the CC proposal in an effort to gain more concessions from the unions on SB 2404 – a longer COLA delay, a pensionable salary cap, something along those lines that will boost the savings and sweeten the deal. SB 2404 is Cullerton’s true love, and I have a very hard time believing that he views the conference committee process as anything other than a way to strengthen his hand on his beloved SB 2404. Rich has written about the spector of the Repubs taking a powder on the process to strengthen their gubernatorial prospects, but that notwithstanding, I would think the Repubs on the committee ought to have real concerns about Cullerton’s level of committment to the process before they decide to stick their necks out.

Comment by You May Be Going Bald Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:33 am
===I do not believe that Cullerton supports the conference committee proposal, such as it is.===

He does.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:34 am
Unless they address the pension ramp and the structural deficit in Illinois, it is all just an exercise in futility that will cause harm to numerous low income retirees. Anyone can see that it is impossible to continue to meet the fiscal requirements of the Edgar ramp, regardless of the projected future “savings.” I tire of all of the debate around the wrong issues and the failure to address the real problem.

Comment by nobody Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:37 am
I don’t believe it. I’m willing to make an adult beverage wager on it.

Comment by You May Be Going Bald Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:37 am
@Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:34 am:

===I do not believe that Cullerton supports the conference committee proposal, such as it is.===

He does.

Rich, is that the democratic proposal that we hear about that seems to have a framework around teh COLA at 1/2 the CPI with perhaps caps and floors?

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:41 am
Is Cullerton still firm on any pension bill having a constitutional basis other then the police powers argument.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:43 am
If the CC proposal were to pass and go to the courts, don’t think the lawyers for the state wouldn’t try to make the police power argument. It may not be their lead-off argument, but they’d still make it.

Comment by The Elderly Man You Used to Love Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:46 am
@nobody - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:37 am:

= Unless they address the pension ramp and the structural deficit in Illinois, it is all just an exercise in futility that will cause harm to numerous low income retirees =

I agree agree agree, but I think what we are seeing is a political solution playing out and what is possible politicaly and when it is possible. I have no doubt that eventualy we will get to the ramp and the revenue problem, but only after the politics of it all allow.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:47 am
I think that SB 2404 was/is the most palatable proposal out there. That doesn’t make it constitutional and just because the unions agree to the diminishments, doesn’t make it constitutional. Are the unions the only organization that would/can take a pension bill all the way to the ISC?

Comment by Where will it all end? Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:52 am
@- Where will it all end? - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:52 am:

True indeed on all your points, but SB2404 was major in that it did represent an agreement by (thorugh the unions) many of the major stake holders. Any one could of course go to court (if you have enough money)but to have the powerful unions say they will set it out seems an important factor. Negotiation or agreement would seem one way to alter a contract. Now of course the argument would be the union can not alter the contract for every state worker and retiree. Since going to court is never a sure thing, it seemed to many like a good risk reward to agree to SB2404. If it does end up in court then you are at least fighting from a much better position then sB1.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 11:04 am
+++ Where will it all end? at 10:52 AM

Pensioner or non-union state employee (or combination them) could litigate it. I am not sure whether the unions could bargain away that right on behalf of the individual union employees.

One significant problem would be covering litigation costs if the unions don’t challenge.

Comment by titan Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 11:49 am
I’d say the committee is waiting on the ISC ruling on the health insurance ruling. If the state wins then I expect to see a version or Sen Cullerton’s bill as that provides the leverage for the two option choice. If you want to call it a choice.

Comment by Mouthy Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 11:56 am
The head of the Illinois Retired Teachers Association stated that they believed that SB 2404 was unconstitutional. I imagine that they have the resources to pursue litigation to the ISC.

Comment by muon Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:09 pm
I still think this is partially about justification for making the income tax increase permanent. Compromise bill is passed at the right time. It’s litigated. Supreme Court enforces pension clause. Legislators have “no choice” but to make the tax permanent.

Result — Speaker shields his members from the blame.

Comment by Anonymour Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:23 pm
@Anonymour - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:23 pm:

AS I have stated many times on this forum, you are seeing a political solution play out under a legal framework. GA trying to figure out what is a political solution given the clear legal constraints. What is politicaly ok now and what will then be politicaly ok later. I am agreeing with you in otherwords.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:47 pm
@Anonymour - This is what I’ve come to believe, as well.

“We tried to take it all out of the public retirees’ and employees’ hides, but that darn State Constitution! Everyone is going to have to participate in the solution after all. But it’s not OUR fault (and lucky for us, you can’t look at the historical background - Rich said so).”

Comment by Realist Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:01 pm
I think that Rick Pearson’s article about Rep Nekritz’s perspectives on a possible bill coming out of the legislative panel to reduce retirement benefits for state workers, incorrectly called a reform, merits some discussion. First of all the limited information she was willing to give to Rick indicates those working on the bill are very aware that in order to realize cost reductions they have to give something back to state workers to offset a part of the impairment public employee pension benefits to have any hope of surviving a court challenge. I found that to be an intelligent approach to the constitutional issues the bill will face.

Second, the practice of taking with one hand while handing some back with the other hand will reduce the cost savings of any bill passed. So the rhetoric of so called pension reform fixing the ongoing state budget crisis will likely be just that, rhetoric. The savings while they will be touted will be insufficient to address the structural problems the state faces and the so-called Martire approach or a variant thereof will still have relevance.

The likely bill coming out of this process even assuming its survival of litigation will be a bitter pill for municipalities banking on the bill for state pensions being a model for fiscally saving these cities, towns, and county governments.

The Chicago Public Schools for example has repeatedly claimed its only hope for long term fiscal stability depends on a very significant legislative reduction of retirement benefits for CPS teachers, administrators, and other staff in the CTPF. Such wishful thinking is delusional on the part of the CPS Board and Mayor Emanuel.

Fitch bond rating service which lowered the credit rating for CPS last week yet again has this to say about the pension fix “but Fitch discounts the probability of effective pension reform in time to meaningfully reduce the very large budget gap before reserves are all but depleted.” The skinny on Pearson’s article is yes there likely will be a pension bill, but no it will not fix the fiscal problems this state faces.

Comment by Rod Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:28 pm
@- Realist - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:01 pm:

Agreed! The GA knows the correct thing to do is go before the Illinois population and say the retirees played by all the rules and we did not. We spent their money and now we all have to put it back through taxes along with a payment plan that we can handle. Result would be that many would loose their seat. MJM might loose his speakership. (Also Rich said we could not go back and talk about it) So we are seeing the political solution play out which I beleive will end us up exactly where most of us have been saying — benifits earned must be paid. I think about all they will be able to end up doing is possibly saying to current workers that going forward you can keep the old system by paying X amount more or accept the new system (years going forward only) and continue contributing what you have been. Would result in a hybrid with so many years under the old system and so many years under the new assuming you chose not to contribute more dollars. No change in retirement age or salery in which your pension is based. It would be a matter of how much you earn for those years going forward if you don’t contribute more. If now you receive 1.67% per year you could keep that if you pay say 4% more or if not for the years foing forward you would receive 1.2%, just for example.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:47 pm
- @ 10:00 am:

== Will they keep delaying and delaying until after what? The primary vote in March or the General Election next November? ==

The answer to that question is very likely yes, as both parties have the same goal…reelection.

Comment by Ruby Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 2:04 pm
If the pension committee is waiting until after the Health Insurance ruling, they may be waiting until the end of the scheduled ISC fall session, which is in December.

And if the ISC sides with the retirees, it is game over to making any pension changes for existing employees / retirees. Actually, I considered it game over (re pension changes) watching the verbal arguments because the State conceded they couldn’t change pensions, etc. due to the State Constitution but argued the insurance was different.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 8:13 pm
For land’s sake, after all of the drama surrounding this issue for Heaven knows how many years now, especially over the past couple of years, why NOT kick the Monster down the road until January or the Spring Session and drag it out some more…REALLY?!

I surely hope, instead, that reason prevails, as Illinois conTINues to lose million$ every day over this fiasco, and that if enough supporters (Lord-Willing) can be scrounged-up and counted, the “Vote” will come SOONER rather than later already…!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:22 pm
I’m all for them fixing the problem, which is not pensions or pension payments. The problem is insufficient revenue.

So let’s put a revenue bill on the table and vote on it …

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 10:31 pm
Today’s SJR Pension / Cullerton story is telling. The GA knows what they are proposing is in violation of the pension clause. Cullerton talks about the latest proposal and also SB204 as being “less unconstitutional” than SB1.

All this is nothing more than an exercise in crunching numbers to reach a budget goal in an attempt to let the GA continue spending without raising taxes. Save the State some legal fees and just raise the revenue.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 6:59 am
And the only inflation protection that the proposed 1/2 CPI with a floor of 1% and cap of 4% provides is to the State, making sure the State only pays 2% or less on average.

Anyone who takes 30 seconds to Google the Fed CPI numbers can show the long term average runs around 3% and this 1/2 CPI is a clear diminishment compared to the current fixed 3%. To avoid the diminishment argument in court, it needs to be the full CPI with no floor or cap.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 7:07 am
It also sounds like the GA intends to keep beating on the pensions since Cullerton said he’d go back to SB2404 if the current committee proposal fails in court. That sounds like a plan to take the savings immediately once the committee bill is passed, spend the savings on current needs, spend a year in court, probably lose, then pass 2404, and spend another year in court, just to most likely lose again. All of which effectively just kicks the can down the road until after the general election while illegally sticking it to the retirees.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 7:15 am