Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The week’s most important quote

Posted in:

Illinois

* Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke spoke to the City Club today…

Asked Tuesday if there was any legal road map that lawmakers and the governor should follow to pass a legal version of pension changes, Burke said, “All the legislature has to do is read what we said” and interpret it.

“Read the whole decision,” she said.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:13 pm

Comments

Was it too difficult for her to say “no”?

Comment by SAP Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:15 pm
It was crystal clear and unanimous. But some people are still hitting the pipe.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:16 pm
The road map is simple. Pay as you are required. How you do it is your business.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:17 pm
If you take the third letter in each word, it provides a way….

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:21 pm
What will it take to get the message? Time to look elsewhere for revenue and pay up what was stolen from employees.

Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:23 pm
Hmm. During the period when state employees’ pensions were underfunded, were state legislators’ pensions also underfunded?

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:25 pm
The question was embarrassing and the need to ask it even more so.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:32 pm
Real, not fake, consideration. But Word is correct. The politicians can’t get over the desire to stick it to employees.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:33 pm
Just get few Chicago casinos up and running and then legalize and tax marijuana. Not that difficult…..Oh, yeah, this is Illinois hypocrisy. That’s why I took my pension and moved out West last year!

Comment by No Raise Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:40 pm
Real consideration involves moving chairs around on the tilting deck. Something for something. Sometimes, the doomsayers are right when they warn the sky is falling. We know it won’t fall tonight. We know it won’t fall fast. We know the sky falling won’t hurt bond holders.

All the rest is a distraction. A costly distraction that harms people. But the main event is on the card. And it’s up soon. I wonder what the Vegas line is on this mess?

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:40 pm
Plain-Speak, solid advice to read it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:40 pm
I hope she is ready to repeat herself. There has to be at least one more swipe at the apple to avoid paying the debt.

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:40 pm
Gabezzlement anyone?

Comment by ~pfft Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:41 pm
A new casino in Chicago and a pot tax. The casino just changes how the wagering pie is cut up. The pot tax hasn’t solved the problems in Colorado. Dem hippies don’t like to pay income taxes, let alone pot taxes. In Illinois, our problem is soooo bad, we’d have to smoke a whole crud load of that stuff to fill up that deep hole.

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:43 pm
“Read the whole decision,” she said.

What the Illinois Supreme Court wrote in their decision would seem to be very obvious. Perhaps some people need help with reading comprehension. Maybe they don’t want to believe what they have read.

Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:51 pm
The problem is so big that the entire City needs to be reinvented. Not just one casino— but several casinos and first class entertainment venues adjacent to each other just south of the museums with first rate transportation to the loop. There should be no reason anyone travels to Las Vegas or Florida for conventions between May and September. And cut the hotel tax, car rental tax, etc… Make the city tourist-friendly. This whole thing needs an absolute change of attitude because the problem is so massive. Again, I don’t care because I am out of there and love living in a tax-free state with a substantial overall lower cost of living. But it still bothers me to see the city and state being run down without any sort of vision.

Comment by No Raise Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:56 pm
=== Hmm. During the period when state employees’ pensions were underfunded, were state legislators’ pensions also underfunded? ===

Yes, all the systems were.
http://files.sj-r.com/media/news/retirementsystemhistory.pdf?_ga=1.105694275.1702437193.1436910959

Comment by thunderspirit Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:59 pm
Aren’t all state employees required to have a Paul Powell shoebox instead of a pension?

Comment by northshore cynic Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:05 pm
The challenges facing the city are not that big, and the solutions are not that difficult to figure out.

Create a focus group of the folks who left the city in the last three years for suburban Cook and ask them why they left.

Hint: it wasn’t for lower property taxes.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:07 pm
Chicago is a beautiful tourist friendly city with a world class lakefront, museums, theater, opera, ballet, Navy Pier, parks, shopping, zoos, festivals, river walk, hotels, and restaurants. We do really do not want or need to be like Florida or Las Vegas.

Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:07 pm
Anne Burke was being quite honest. This Illinois Supreme Court decision is very clear for all to understand. The language in the state constitution is very clear. You want a change, change the constitution. If not… become a creditor.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:13 pm
All she said was read it. They locked down that decision pretty tight and pretty clear. No diminishment. A tier 3, a new ramp, return the old tax raise. All constitutional. Also they could probably raise employees contributions one or two % over a couple years. That might cut into take home pay a bit but wouldn’t diminish their pension. The solutions are there without trying to unconditionally Rob emyees of their promised benefits.

Comment by Beatgrunt Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:18 pm
The written decision says what it says. First, SB1 diminished pensions in at least 5 different specific ways (i.e. repeating any of those is a fast ticket to a court loss).

Second, the State cannot use its emergency powers to diminish the pension benefit.

Comment by archimedes Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:47 pm
Yeah, read the whole decision… Let me summarize. “Pay your bills.” Must have been a slow week, if RTFM is an important quote.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:56 pm
Since Justice Burke said to read the whole darn opinion, we might want to remember one of the footnotes:

“It appears from the record before us that the total unfunded liabilities for the five State
-funded retirement systems approached $100 billion by the time this litigation commenced. While the State has pursued this appeal, it has no doubt grown larger.”

Tick tock.

Comment by Haymarket Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:57 pm
Also, exchanging a not so severe cut for a severe cut is not consideration. Basically though the court said “you owe it; pay it.”

Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:59 pm
Here is a solution. Legislate salary caps. Perfectly constitutional and caps pension costs

Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:09 pm
=== It’s not her place as a jurist to give any such advisory opinions at a luncheon meeting of a social club! ===

Only people in love with Texas would consider Burke’s statement as an advisory opinion.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:14 pm
Sue - one of the 5 specific diminishments in the ruling was, “capping the maximum salary that may be considered when calculating the amount of a member’s retirement annuity.” So legislating salary caps with the intent of limiting pension costs is unconstitutional.

Comment by archimedes Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:15 pm
What bothers me is that the legislature KNEW this would not pass muster with the ISC.

They did it anyway and were soundly rejected!!

So we as employees should have been able to breathe a sigh of relief, Right?

NOOO, no sooner than the decision hits the desk so called educated people began attempting to to “interpret” the plain language the ISC wrote.

Please stop it, we should not have to keep worrying about a settled issue!!

Comment by TROOPER Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:15 pm
Archimedes-please put on a pair of reading glasses- I did not propose capping salaries upon which to credit pensions. I suggested capping salaries period. If you cannot reign in the pension- reign in the salaries upon which the pensions are based

Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:19 pm
Regarding the city of Chicago’s pension problems, there was an interesting graph in an article in Crain’s about a week ago, which displayed Chicago’s property tax rate (% of market value) from about 1980 through today. As I recall, it showed that the tax rate was consistently between 2.5% and 3% throughout the 1980’s Reagan era, before fallng gradually but consistently through the 90’s and 00’s, and by now it is less than 1%. Given this, the answer to two questions (Why are Chicago’s pensions underfunded? How can we rectify the situation?) are both obvious.

Comment by Andy S. Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:25 pm
“- Sue - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:19 pm:

Archimedes-please put on a pair of reading glasses- I did not propose capping salaries upon which to credit pensions. I suggested capping salaries period. If you cannot reign in the pension- reign in the salaries upon which the pensions are based”

Let’s cap Sue’s salary after we lower it 50% and make her pay more for Health Insurabce by 80% and work 90 hours per week with no overtime after lowering her vacation days to 5 per decade and no sick days or holidays for Sue. That is just the beginning. Of course, we are Sue’s friend and on her side. We just want to shake up her work place.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:27 pm
Unbecoming conduct, the whole address/interview, on the part of the Justice. Remember these Justices are elected officials too … who also just happen to be in the pension system (a couple of times for some).

Comment by Georg Sande Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:29 pm
GS, answering a question with “read the whole decision” is “unbecoming conduct?”

You are one of the most rabidly ridiculous posters here.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:33 pm
==Dem hippies don’t like to pay income taxes, let alone pot taxes==

As a Democratic hippy, I think I speak for all of us when I say that we apparently like paying state income taxes more than ADM, Navistar, CAT, etc. You know, our precious “job creators”

Maybe you should go back to the commenting sections of the Illinois Review and Tribune sites.

Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:35 pm
read it….clear enough. The ISC provided a roadmap….increase revenue and change the terms of the debt.

Comment by Facts are Stubborn Things Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:49 pm
They can “change” it any day of the week. That is as long as the change does not impair or diminish the pension in any way from what was in effect when the employee first became a member of that pension system or reciprocal system.
If they were honest, they would not ask about pension “changes”. They would ask about pension “cuts”. The answer is NO to any cuts. The answer to changes is YES, nothing in the court ruling prohibits increases. Upgrading the Tier 2 pensions not only is not prohibited, but may be required because it is worse then social security.

Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:51 pm
What is so hard to understand about “shall not be diminished?” Quinn wasted two years with what he knew was unconstitutional…..

Comment by DuPage Don Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:59 pm
“…probably raise employees contributions one or two % …”

Why stick it to the employees for the underfunded pension systems? They paid their share of the pension. The State deducts the employees share of the pension before the check is handed over. The State owes the pension system its share of the payment.

Any suggestion that the employees kick in even more to cover the unfunded pension liability is patently unfair. In 1991, the State decided to pick up the employees share of the pension in lieu of a raise. Blago jerked them around by making them start paying into the pension again. All through this the State took pension holidays - holidays during which the state failed to pay its share of the pension.

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 7:24 pm
“- Huh? - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 7:24 pm:”

Thank you Huh. It is also unconstitutional.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 7:49 pm
Paragraph 69 of the ILCS decision says the State, in SB1, forces “some people alone to bear public burdens that, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Paragraph 67 and 68, in ruling against the State’s use of police power, found that the solution in the act was not the least drastic means to resolve the issue.

If one reads the entire decision, there are a lot of signs and instructions to create a road map. As others have stated, diminishing benefits unilaterally is not going to cut it. Nor is giving pension members a choice (capped salaries or reduced annual increase) between two (or more) options that have specifically been found to be a diminishments of benefits a constitutional solution.

Comment by archimedes Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 7:51 pm
She should have said there is NO legal road map for passing pension changes.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:01 pm
With kindest personal regards, I remain.

Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:19 pm
I’ll bet what Justice Burke wanted to say was “that all the legislature has to do is read and interpret IN A RATIONALE MANNER what we said”.

I know that’s restating the obvious, but….

Comment by Soccertease Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:28 pm
Sanderson: Her response was the most ethical, responsible, and clear thing she could say. Justices, elected or not, cannot just take legal stances on the fly at luncheons.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:45 pm
Read and interpret now, or read and get slammed next time.

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:50 pm
Anonymous: Your suggestion for her would be a false statement. Read it again. Burke said exactly the right thing.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:51 pm
I just re-read the decision, and didn’t see where the Supremes left open any loopholes, but I’m no legal-eagle. So, let’s just assume the pension debt supercedes all other considerations, and the pol’s need to quit scheming to get around it.
That leaves three other choices:
A) Raise taxes even further. Unfortunately, that will likely make worse the outflow of workers and jobs out of Illinois, only making the problem worse over time. The articles I’ve read suggest that the state’s debt only got worse during the income tax spike years.

B) Cut state and local governments to the bone. Do we really need over 7000 different taxing bodies? Do we really need FOID cards, for example? Most other states don’t use them, and the idea they control gun violence in Chicago, for instance, is laughable. It’s not a popular idea on this site, but Sue’s right, the private sector has had horrible salary increases in the last eight years, government workers may need to chip into this misery as well.

C.1) Cut services. The more I read about the “outsourced” services provided by “non-profits” and other providers, the more I wonder who is actually overseeing the (billions?) of tax dollars pumped into the “anti violence” etc., programs - are they worthwhile? Does the state get good value for them? Would it be better to just make payments straight to the needy? How do we know we aren’t being “scammed” by a large number of these organizations?
C.2) There are forty nine other states, most of which aren’t near bankruptcy. Maybe welfare benefits need to be cut to the point where “recipients” move somewhere more lucrative? Obviously, the state should be compassionate and offer generous relocation packages to those who wish to move - I hear the weather’s nice in Hawaii. Sounds heartless, but how much good will we be able to do these folks when we’re ALL jobless and homeless? Perhaps Chicago should renounce its status as a sanctuary city, and pass a law requiring all businesses use the employment verification service provided by the Feds? At $15,000 per kid per year to educate, most illegals don’t even come close to paying for themselves, even if both parents work.

If you don’t agree with any of these, feel free to provide alternate solutions.

Comment by Tom K. Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:17 pm
Sue,
“I did not propose capping salaries upon which to credit pensions. I suggested capping salaries period. If you cannot reign in the pension- reign in the salaries upon which the pensions are based”

Your statement above makes no sense. Pension benefit calculations are partialy based on salary no matter what. The ISC has ruled that the state cannot limit or cap salaries for the sole purpose of reducing pension benefits. Capping salaries would effectively lower or diminish pension benefits which are calculated on those salaries.

Unless you are making the claim that no state employee should get any raises for the rest of their career. That would be extreme and very unreasonable.

On the other hand, if your are making the case for an upper cap of a pay scale, the state already has that. Each job title already has a salary range with a cap. Those salary caps are part of the Personnel Code. Of course this only covers employees in SERS.

There are four other state pension systems. All with different pay and employers. The state would have a difficult time trying to enforce salary caps on university employees, public teachers, and others who are in public employment but do not work for the State of Illinois.

Comment by KurtInSpringfield Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:27 pm
The only thing left for the “supremes” to do is make a finger paint roadmap.

Comment by Jorge Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:49 pm
Go back and look at SB1’s vote and you will see the face of government waste.

Comment by Rauner Reality Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:59 pm
== Also they could probably raise employees contributions one or two % over a couple years. ==

Not for Tier 1 or Tier 2 without valid consideration.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:29 pm
== Legislate salary caps. Perfectly constitutional and caps pension costs ==

== I did not propose capping salaries upon which to credit pensions. I suggested capping salaries period. ==

-Sue- No, the IL SC has previously ruled on attempts to effectively cap the pensionable salary. I’ve cited the cases before; use Google.

==

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:29 pm
Tom.K, yeah, FOID cards are real budget busters.

Same with “welfare.” You might have missed the 1990s, but “welfare” isn’t what you think it is anymore. About half of it goes to child care assistance for working parents, less than 10 percent in cash assistance, and a load of that is from the federales.

If you want to disguise an ideological agenda with concern about state “bankruptcy,” you might want to shine it up with some real numbers. They publish budget books that show where all the money goes and where it comes from if.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:45 pm
The IL SC did provide a valid road map. Here is my version of what the court said or implied.

1) Retirees are off limits, period.

2) The shortage in the five pension funds is a valid debt, pay what you owe.

3) If you need revenue, raise it.

3a) Your choice on how to raise the revenue as long as you get from the general public and not target just the retirees / employees.

3b) While you are on the hook for the current pension funds deficits, how you put cash into the pension funds is your choice as long as you make sure the actual pensions are paid when due. But it wouldn’t be smart to keep shorting the funds.

3c) Nothing we’ve said forbids you from shifting the normal pension funding cost to other governmental agencies that have the means to raise revenue. In other words, you can try to dump TRS costs on the local school districts and SURS costs on the college. But you’re on the hook for the state level plans: GARS, JRS and SERS

4) If you want to change the pension terms downward, you can change them going forward for new hires.

5) If you want to change things for existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees, you have to offer valid (roughly equal value) consideration AND it has to be a voluntary choice. You can’t take away what the employees have now and give it back as “consideration”. We haven’t allowed that since 1970 and we don’t intend to start now.

6) We’re not going to bail you out with a “police powers” argument.

7) You can try to pass a amendment to the IL Constitution but remember there is also contact Law supporting our opinion.

8) You made this mess; you have to fix it within the law.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:56 pm
Here is a solution, cut employee gross pay by 5%, then have the employer pick up the 4% contribution and contribute 1% into employee deferred comp. Then offer a voluntary tier 3, program with a hybrid benefit (a reduced benefit of say 1.5 per year vs 1.675 with a matching contribution. Next offer workers closer to retirement a buyout/buy I’m deal (employee kicks in higher % to be eligible to retire earlier), new hires start with tier 2 or tier 3, their choice.

Comment by bloodworth Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:57 pm
- bloodworth -

After the SB-1 ruling, that pay cut / trade-off would have to be a voluntary “opt in” program.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:00 pm
RNUG, thanks for the analysis. You do the heavy lifting, cousin.

Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 7:12 am
Thanks RNUG for the great comments on this issue-very helpful as always.

Comment by Slippin' Jimmy Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 8:10 am
I interpret SB as the supreme telling the legislature to earn their pay by looking for solutions beyond those which protect their re - election chances. I blame every member of the GA for the last forty years, including the present. Their priority is re-election; all else comes second.

Comment by illinoised Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 8:14 am
Thanks - RNUG -, as always.

Your show the sharp contrast of what some want, versus what they can actually do. Well done.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 8:28 am
You hit it on the head.
Sue - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:09 pm:
Here is a solution. Legislate salary caps. Perfectly constitutional and caps pension costs

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:02 am
Toni should fire the IT people at the county since the internet hasn’t been working since Friday. No news media coverage either. It works for a minute at at time and then off line for at least 10 minutes. Was it hacked? Or just hacks in charge?

Comment by Toni's Tax Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:05 am
“- Anonymous -”,

Use the “search” key, - RNUG - has addressed your and - Sue -’s premise, and the why and why not.

That pesky Constitution…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:07 am
==Here is a solution. Legislate salary caps.==

That would make it vary hard for the the state agencies to recruit professionals and administrators and skilled workers. It would also make it vary hard for the school districts and state universities to recruit good teachers and professors and instructors and administrators and other skilled positions.

Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:08 am
I did read those, Sue is absolutely correct. She wasn’t speaking about capping pensionable salary. She is referring to capping salaries, a completely different issue. That is perfectly constitutional except for the judiciary based upon their constitutionally protected COLAs.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:18 am
Cook County’s entire basis and legal justification for their pension plan is based solely on footnote #12 of the pension ruling. That’s it. Footnote #12. Now that’s creative advocacy.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:32 am
Freeze salaries forever is only a “solution” if the goal is to punish government workers and/or undermine the very functioning of government. It should be glaringly obvious that lowering payments into the fund will just exacerbate the current underfunding issue. Not to mention the very real problem of filling positions which already pay less than the private sector.

Comment by Cold Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:33 am
Cook county apparently can’t read the words consideration for “additional” benefits. Subtract does not mean add.

Comment by Cold Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:36 am
Thanks, RNUG. You clarify the murky. Pretty much common sense there. There are solutions that can be implemented…cost shifting for TRS and SURS (where it ALWAYS should’ve been), reduction in benefits for new employees, and paying what was promised to those already in the system.

Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 9:39 am
== She is referring to capping salaries, a completely different issue. ==

-Anonymous- & -Sue-, you obviously haven’t read some of the case law I’ve cited in the past. You can legally not give individual people raises but you can’t across the board absolutely impose cap salaries or a cap on any other component that goes into the calculation of the pension. You may say we are arguing semantics, but it truly is two different situations and the language does matter when it comes to the law.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 5:20 pm
- Enviro - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:07 pm:
Chicago is a beautiful tourist friendly city

Then where are all these additional tourists staying while they are here in tourist friendly Chicago?

Chicago hotel occupancy grew 0.5% last year, trailing the national averages by 4.3%, yet Choose Chicago claims visitors to Chicago increased substantially more than that.

If they visited, where did they stay?

Comment by Chicago 20 Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 8:23 pm
== If they visited, where did they stay? ==

Last trip up that way a few weeks ago, I stayed in the burbs and didn’t even go into downtown.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 10:40 pm
Chi20, dowtown Chicago is adding hotel rooms like crazy — 2,200 this year alone. 2014 was the highest grossing year for hotels ever. Crains, Jan. 3, 2015.

Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 10:59 pm
Word, haters gonna hate.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 15, 15 @ 11:28 pm