Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

What’s up with that pension bill?

Posted in:

Illinois

* Today’s SJ-R has by far the best explanation I’ve seen in print of the constitutional argument in favor of the pension reform bill that was sent to Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk…

Senate Democratic leaders, who are aligned with the House Republicans on this issue, believe that in the case of the two IFT officials, Steven Preckwinkle and David Piccioli, another part of the constitution backs their position.

Preckwinkle and Piccioli taught for a day in the Springfield School District in 2007, taking advantage of earlier legislation that allowed union officials to get into the teacher pension fund and count previous years as union employees. They were required to obtain teaching certificates, conduct classroom work and buy pension credits.

However, Article 8, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution bars public funds from being used for anything but public purposes. Senate Democrats believe the loophole employed by Preckwinkle and Piccioli violated that provision of the constitution, thereby allowing lawmakers to revoke their pensions.

The other side of the argument is that the bill will allow the courts to test the constitutionality of taking away benefits from active employees.

* Sponsoring Rep. Kevin McCarthy laid out his reasoning for having proposed what amounts to a “just in case” trailer bill…

“If we only go forward with the one (piece of legislation) and that is found to be unconstitutional, then it’s as if we did nothing,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy said almost every lawmaker opposes what Preckwinkle and the other union leaders did. But he’s not sure that the Illinois Constitution allows the Legislature to change pension benefits once someone has paid into the system.

State Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley, said the question about Preckwinkle and the other double dippers is not a question of right and wrong.

“Is it legal, that’s the question,” said Mautino. “If a court rules against (the pension reforms) then you have case law, a legal precedent, that public pensions cannot be altered.”

* Tribune editorial board…

We don’t expect the perpetrators — a slew of Democrats in the Illinois House — to confess. But let’s all remember what they nearly achieved in Springfield late Sunday afternoon, when half of Illinois was shopping and the other half was watching the Chicago Bears.

That obscurity would have been perfect cover for gutting important elements of legislation to crack down on egregious pension abuses that are cheating rank-and-file union members and millions of Illinois taxpayers.

We can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrival of four news reporters at this special meeting of a House pension committee radically changed its outcome. See whether you think the Democrats, realizing that they had been found out, hurriedly abandoned a plan to help some important union officials who just happen to be their political allies:

Even if the amendment had passed, the House Republicans and several Democrats would’ve created a huge ruckus on the House floor the following day. And even if it did pass the House, this bill would have never passed the Senate, so wiser heads prevailed.

However, Sunday’s committee hearing did show that the House Democrats aren’t at all enamored with the prospect of having a law out there which could test the constitutionality of taking away pension benefits from current employees, no matter what they may be saying in public. And, needless to say, the bill which already passed is putting the governor in a very tight spot with the unions.

* Roundup…

* State halts sales of underwater college savings plan - Illinois stops accepting new participants due to gap in funding: The new report, commissioned by the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, finds that, as of March 31, the fund was 30% short of what it needed to meet its long-term obligations. That was about the same shortfall found on June 30, 2010, the date of the previous financial-health study. But the latest review incorporates lower, and probably more realistic, forecasts on investment returns and sales of new contracts, assuming they resume.

* Illinois youth prisons fail inmates, society, report says: Illinois’ youth prison system is an expensive failure with more than half of young offenders returning within three years of their release, many of them for trivial problems such as skipping school and staying out late, according to a new report. The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission made the report for Gov. Pat Quinn and the legislature and issued it publicly Tuesday. The report makes recommendations it says could save nearly $80,000 per imprisoned youth annually, without sacrificing public safety.

* Report: Illinois failing to help young offenders

* Kadner: Corrupt schools boss gets 18 months’ probation

* Meter company sends city $13.5 million bill for disabled parking: Chicago Parking Meters LLC sent the city a $13.5 million bill to cover losses from people who used disability placards or license plates to park for free in metered spots between Feb. 28, 2010, and Feb. 28, 2011, records show. The parking-meter company didn’t gauge how many of those drivers were legitimately disabled — though its surveys have city officials convinced that fraud played a major role in the bill being that high.

* Vote on Central Illinois power plant proposal expected to be pushed to 2012

* IDOT finalizes rail agreement for Chicago-Moline route

* Illinois passenger-rail projects land TIGER III grants

* Teachers present ‘controversial’ ideas for longer school day

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 11:05 am

Comments

Charles Flowers’ probation is shocking. How did this happen? These kinds of slaps on the wrists for official malfeasance are so dispiriting and disappointing. At least Kadner covered it — although frankly, I wish I didn’t know.

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 11:20 am
Most bills have “Severability and Savings Clauses” so that in the event any part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional the remainder of the statute (the prospective language) remains in effect. Given those standard clauses, McCarthy’s arguement for a trailer bill is disingenuous.

Comment by Fair Share Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 11:26 am
==Article 8, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution bars public funds from being used for anything but public purposes==

Legislators would seriously regret getting a court to hold that these payments had no public purpose. Any principle for making that determination other than “we don’t like this deal” would call a lot of their pet projects into question.

Comment by anonymice Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 11:31 am
=However, Sunday’s committee hearing did show that the House Democrats aren’t at all enamored with the prospect of having a law out there which could test the constitutionality of taking away pension benefits from current employees, no matter what they may be saying in public.=

IMHO, I would rather see the State finally resolve this issue in the courts sooner rather than later. If the court rules that benefits can be reduced for current employees, then at least those affected would know where they stand and could plan their careers and retirement savings accordingly.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 11:32 am
Rich -

What I found most interesting was that Dave Ellis put a stake in the ground declaring the retroactive reduction of pension benefits unconstitutional, concurring with Senate Parliamentarian Eric Madiar, his former colleague.

Meanwhile, the spokesman for the Senate President nullified the exhaustive legal opinion of Madiar by saying that there was no problem with the previous legislation.

I hope we get some clarification.

In the meantime: “Shenanigans!”

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 11:55 am
I’ve maintained that the State should be able to undo those two pension cases using other existing law. I still think an IRS pension vesting rule could be used to kick them out of the system.

While Federal oversight of State pension systems is limited and states can pretty much make up their own rules, they do still have some rules that states have to follow. If nothing else, these two people don’t seem to have met the IRS definition of a full time employee. If they weren’t full time employees, they didn’t have a pension vesting right with only 1 day of service.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 12:08 pm
What?!?! The City of Chicago must compensate the parking meter company for people using disabled parking placards?

While it appears there are too many folks abusing the system in Chicago, this deal continues astounding me. What if most of these folks with placards turn out to be legitimate users?

This deal is almost certainly a long-term money loser for the city, even before indexing for inflation. Ridiculous.

Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 12:13 pm
The Union Leaders should have never been allowed to pad their state Pension while while working for the UNION. But the big thing is they left state employment, paying the pension on their current rate of pay. They kept paying into the pension at the rate of when they left. They then get an GIANT union salary and retire at the rate the union was paying them. They have paid in on a very low pension and get to draw a HUGE Pension that the taxpayers have to pay for. Why should the Taxpayers have to pay for a UNION LEADER pension when they where employed by the UNION. The Union makes Billions a year from mandatory Union dues, Let them pay the Union leaders Pension not the Taxpayers!

Comment by Bob Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 12:47 pm
That Tribune editorial is a disgrace. First they incorrectly report that the bill was amended then claim that their mere presence kept it from being adopted. Phrases like “special hearing” and because ther was a Bears game on as ways the GA was trying to sneak this one past the goalie. They are now officially the Fox Tribune They fail to mention that the IFT and IEA opposed the bill because that amendment is also arguably unconstitutional. Furthermore they claim that the unions will put “immense” pressure on the Gov not to sign it yeah we will see but I doubt it. I guess I would hate unions too if I had to work for a newspaper that cant even get the facts correct anymore.

Comment by Obamas Puppy Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 1:22 pm
–This deal is almost certainly a long-term money loser for the city, even before indexing for inflation. Ridiculous. –

Don’t worry. The parking meters, sale of the Skyway, hoarded TIF money — it will all be worth it when we bask in the glory of the 2016 Chicago Summer Olympics.

Mayor Daley had a dream, you see….

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 1:25 pm
good one, Wordslinger.

I only got a ‘C’ in economics, but I’m guessing the increase in handicapped parking fraud is proportional to the increase in parking meter fees.

BTW, I see that the Sun-Times continues to repeat the incorrect meme about free parking for the disabled.

The city has two choices: offer free parking for the disabled or designate 1-in-25 spaces as handicapped-only.

I think it should threaten to do the latter if the meter folks don’t relent on these ridiculous charge backs.

The contract appears to be completely devoid of any risk.

Shenanigans!

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 2:21 pm
I walk around the loop quite a bit. I’ve noticed that nearly every car parked on the street seems to have a disabled placard. On one hand, that makes me very happy to know that disabilities are not keeping these people from sharing their talents and producing for our economy.

On the other hand, when you can afford $50,000 cars, can’t you also afford to park them in a garage?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 2:54 pm
On the other hand, when you can afford $50,000 cars, can’t you also afford to park them in a garage?

Allowing ADA placard holders to park for free has nothing to do with with being able to afford to pay the meter or park in a garage. It is about allowing them to park as close to where they need to get as possible.

Comment by dave Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 3:12 pm
Wordslinger & YDD - Well put. Now if I can just dig up some “Chicago 2016″ t-shirts for the three of us…

This deal really does appear to be devoid of any risk for these privateers (forgive the modern twist of verbiage). Don’t know why this surprises me, but it does. Tremendously.

Ahh, well. Would you settle for some Jamaican bobsledding t-shirts instead?

Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 3:13 pm
Thanks Dave. Have you been to the loop lately? Most office buildings have parking, making them more convenient than street parking.

My real hunch is that there are many, many people misusing these placards and taking advantage of the system.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 3:57 pm
To be repetitive, one word: SHENANIGANS…

I’ll also add outrageous and no surprise.
Under the dome, a different set of rules and decorum apply to all those who look out for the citizens of the great State of IL. Has anyone asked the Speaker what he thinks about the constitutionality of repealing said sweet pension deal? I know AG Madigan’s staff is working feverishly to craft an opinion on this matter of delicate constitutionality based on the sheer number of folks it affects…Merry Christmas!!

Comment by Borealis Tuesday, Dec 13, 11 @ 4:02 pm