Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Tribune editorial board appears to have been taken over by space aliens
Next Post: Pritzker wants to prosecute DCFS workers/contractors who falsify reports and testimony
Posted in:
* From last September…
The Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from a man who earned a state teacher pension after substitute teaching — for one day.
David Piccioli is a retired lobbyist for the Illinois Federation of Teachers. The one day he spent in the classroom back in 2007 nearly doubled his pension. Piccioli was able to do this by using newly-enacted legislation to purchase retroactive credit for his time as a union official.
That legislation, which was sent to then Gov. Rod Blagojevich in late December of 2006, only allowed a small portion of union employees to become certified and complete teaching service before the 2007 law took effect and become eligible to receive these benefits. While other union leaders were theoretically eligible, Piccioli is the only one who cashed in. […]
Years later, after the matter received attention in the press, legislators passed another law to strip Piccioli of most of the benefits. Piccioli was refunded the money he paid into TRS for the past credits. However, he says the Illinois Constitution does not allow the diminishment of state pensions.
* The Supremes handed down their opinion today…
Since the 2007 amendment is not special legislation and the circuit court did not invalidate the law on any other constitutional grounds, we hold that it confers a pension benefit protected by our state constitution. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5 (“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”).
Plaintiff followed everything the law required in order to establish his eligibility to purchase TRS credit for his past union service. While nothing prevented the legislature from eliminating this benefit for future employees, there is no legal justification for reducing or eliminating the pension benefits plaintiff was awarded pursuant to the 2007 amendment. See Carmichael v. Laborers’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 2018 IL 122793 ¶ 26 (pursuant to the pension clause, “once a person commences to work and becomes a member of a public retirement system, any subsequent changes to the Pension Code that would diminish the benefits conferred by membership in the retirement system cannot be applied to that person”). We hold that the provision in the 2012 Act (Pub. Act 97-651 (eff. Jan. 5, 2012)) that repealed the 2007 amendment violates the pension protection clause in the Illinois Constitution and, therefore, that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.
* Three justices dissented, claiming the original law allowing the pension was itself unconstitutional…
The trial court correctly held that the 2007 amendment violated the special legislation clause. Because I would hold that the 2007 amendment was unconstitutional, I would also hold that it conferred no rights for the pension protection clause to protect.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Tribune editorial board appears to have been taken over by space aliens
Next Post: Pritzker wants to prosecute DCFS workers/contractors who falsify reports and testimony
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This kind of stuff makes normal state employees and pensioners sick. Politicians, top administrators, and well-connected insiders get perks or are exempted from rules that bind the rest of us, and it should not be allowed.
Remember when George Ryan’s staff were leaving service and being paid for multiple years of vacation time, far in excess of what normal staffers were allowed to accumulate?
It isn’t the rank and file that cause the egregious problems.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:59 am
This case single handedly confirms everyone’s worst concerns about the State pension programs affording benefits to individuals who don’t belong in the Plans in the first place. Shame on the 4 Supreme Justices who bowed to the political class represented by our public unions. SHAME
Comment by Sue Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:03 pm
The original law was not good public policy, but we have to live with the consequences, not try to weasel out.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:04 pm
Puts a whole new meaning in risk of having a public pension plan.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:07 pm
As disturbing, unsettling and “wrong” this decision may appear to be the SC probably made the correct decision given the law being what it was at that time.
I can think of others, Kurt Granberg for one, who have gamed the system to elevate their pensions.
And there are likely many more that have done the same.
Comment by illini Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:08 pm
Maybe we can get the Supreme’s to rule on pension holidays
Comment by Wow Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:10 pm
2 things. First we learn loopholes can have consequences. Next, once again the Supreme Court upheld its position.
Comment by Generic Drone Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:10 pm
Just because it was legal in practice doesn’t make it right
Your pension doubles for one day of teaching
Come on Man
Comment by Etown Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:12 pm
A small price to pay for being able to hold this over the teacher unions’ collective heads from now through eternity.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:13 pm
I’d post a long-winded rant about this, but no time to be outraged. I’ve got taxes to pay, like the good little Illinois private sector nobody I am.
Comment by JB13 Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:26 pm
Narrow pension legislation to benefit an extremely small number of employees. How that only ONE person took advantage is the question that has to be answered here. Rod pushed whom to create this legislation? Who voted yes for this? This is what makes unions look bad to the general population. Legal, but immoral!
Comment by qualified someone nobody sent Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:26 pm
Anyone care to research the IFT contributions to the 4 Jurists who wrote the majority opinion
Comment by Sue Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:31 pm
Granberg didn’t game the system. He took a job at IDNR as Director. Quinn chose to fire him.
Comment by Tired Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:34 pm
Just more proof that the people of Illinois are largely defenseless when the insiders decide to stuff their pockets.
I wish I could say I was surprised.
Comment by jim Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:34 pm
When teachers can start receiving social security and pay into a defined contribution system rather than a pension system these problems go away.
Comment by Maximus Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:37 pm
==A small price to pay for being able to hold this over the teacher unions’ collective heads from now through eternity.==
What was that small price anyhow? Piccioli paid in $192,668 of his own money, and he would have made interest on it if he had just left it in a Standard and Poor’s index fund, so how much did he net?
How are we able to hold this over all teachers’ collective heads now through eternity when amendment that caused this was rescinded even years ago?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:38 pm
@Tired - If I am not mistaken there is more to this story, as I remember it. Thinking he drew one paycheck and that effectively doubled his pension. And I once considered him to be a friend going back to when he was first elected to the GA.
Sorry, but he did game the system.
Comment by illini Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:40 pm
Legally,the court got it right because the legislation was just broad enough to create a class … even if only one member of that class took advantage of it.
Ethically it is a whole other story; the Legislature was abusing the system to take care of their own. I remember being outraged at the apparent special interest legislation at the time.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:40 pm
One interesting note that is missed in reporting on this is that Mr. Piccoli had to make all of the required employer and employee contributions; thus, he was the only person in the system for whom all employer contributions had been made.
Also, it seems like a lot of the consternation regarding this incident is because people assume he was getting money from the state. While there was (and will be) some small cost to the state to manage his pension, no state money was put into his pension. It is possible, if he lives long enough, that he could collect a benefit that exceeds his contribution, but I have not seen anyone calculate at what point that would happen.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:46 pm
==how much did he net?==
Ever watch Boiler Room? A trainee asks his manager how the owner of the firm can afford to pay his brokers two dollars for every share they sell, any offer unheard of anywhere on Wall Street…
“I don’t know, but if he’s doing it, he’s making money on it.”
Doesn’t matter if it was rescinded. It happened once. That’s all you need in the court of public opinion.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:46 pm
LOL. This part of the dissent:
“The majority says that the effective date cutoff in Peoria School District “bears
no relevant similarities” to the cutoff in this case. Supra ¶ 30. According to the
majority, the cutoff there was “a descriptor,” while the cutoff here is “a deadline.”
Supra ¶ 30. The majority’s semantics are unconvincing.”
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:49 pm
Exactly Jibba
I totally resent this guy.
When I work hard and long
contributing to my pension with every paycheck
then this guy
games the system
and gets away with it.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:49 pm
==Anyone care to research the IFT contributions to the 4 Jurists who wrote the majority opinion.==
It’s not the four judges created the problem. The problem is the Illinois general assembly and senate who passed the 2006 law. Why did they think it was a good idea to put people in TRS who weren’t paying into TRS on a regular basis?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:50 pm
You can find PA94-1111 on the legislative website, along with the voting record. In the House, 109 yeas, 6 nays. And you find members from both parties in the yea votes. The bill passed 55 to zero in the Senate.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:50 pm
==Doesn’t matter if it was rescinded. It happened once. That’s all you need in the court of public opinion.==
Some current teachers were in grade school when this law was rescinded. And were getting their adult front teeth when Piccioli had his day of teaching. So no.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:58 pm
Interesting question as to whether participation by non- public employees in TRS is lawful under IRS qualification refs. Maybe someone should ask the IRS to opine. Even public State plans have to conform the IRS qualification requirements. Private sector employees being members has always troubled me
Comment by Sue Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:59 pm
Illini
I don’t know how many paychecks he drew. I know he took the job with the intention of being Director of DNR for the foreseeable future. Quinn fired him because of Granberg’s ties to former Treasurer Jim Donnewald.
Comment by Tired Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:04 pm
The Personnel and Pensions Committee of the House are the ones that amended the bill to allow union people to buy pension service credit. There is a note that says cost could not be calculated, but is thought to be minimal.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:05 pm
- Da Big Bad Wolf -
The Wolf is right: the judges didn’t create this system. They are only following the Illinois state constitution.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:05 pm
Sigh. Two comments and two no-shows so far. Let me try this again.
Sue, if you have evidence that the justices are somehow in the pockets in the union then provide it.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:11 pm
===A small price to pay for being able to hold this over the teacher unions’ collective heads from now through eternity.===
What role did the unions play in this?
Comment by historic66 Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:13 pm
I can understand how different jurists might view the law informing this bizarre case differently. But I cannot understand how Piccoli himself or anybody else for that matter can morally justify this as being the right thing to do.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:13 pm
I hit enter too soon.
Did the unions coerce the legislature into passing the law and governor into signing it?
Comment by historic66 Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:14 pm
“Remember when George Ryan’s staff were leaving service and being paid for multiple years of vacation time, far in excess of what normal staffers were allowed to accumulate?”
You are incorrect with your statement. At that time, and now, state employees are allowed to accumulate up to 2 years of vacation. After that it is use it or lose it. The lose it part is vacation time will be deducted within 2 years of the end of the year it was earned. Essentially, a retiring employee can and did accumulate 3 years of vacation. People with 26+ years tenure can cash in up to 75 days of vacation upon retirement.
The deal with the sick time was that 1/2 of accumulated sick time was paid. If someone was healthy and didn’t take sick time, there was no limit to the number of sick days that could be accumulated. This has been changed since that time. 1/2 of sick leave earned between 1984 and 1997 is still paid.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:17 pm
@Tired - Both were from Clinton County, but I think you are mistaken in your conclusion. He was appointed by Rod and immediately fired by Quinn. Donnewald retired in ‘87, the same year he was elected but he defeated defeated Frederich to gain his GA seat. I do not think Donnewald had anything to do with this, but his pension did increase immediately by over $40,000.
Comment by illini Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:18 pm
==I totally resent this guy.===
You and me both, Honeybear. This guy made my pension system a million dollars less solvent (assuming 20+ years of payouts). He also gave ammunition to pension thieves everywhere. What is not to loathe?
I work hard for my pension and expect it to be there, every penny. But I have no interest in getting more than what I earned. Most rank and file I know feel the same way.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:21 pm
A “Fair Tax” to pay for years of pension abuse. Of course. Only in Illinois.
Comment by DuPage Moderate Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:58 pm
Preckwinkle? Former brother in law?
Comment by Trapped in the 'Burbs Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:15 pm
Sickening but the correct legal decision.
Comment by Nonbeleiver Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:17 pm
==Why did they think it was a good idea to put people in TRS who weren’t paying into TRS on a regular basis?==
More importantly, why did they open up TRS to union employees (and other orgs) to begin with? Those unions should already have retirement plans for their employees.
If a teacher wanted to join the union management ranks, their state pensions should have been frozen until they returned to the classroom, if at all.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:25 pm
==You and me both, Honeybear. This guy made my pension system a million dollars less solvent (assuming 20+ years of payouts).==
How did you come up with the million dollar number?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:26 pm
Illinois Supreme Court upholds corruption of state Government insiders once again.
One more reason why we lead the nation in distrust of State Government
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:57 pm
Demoralized- you never fail us- S Ct justices get elected - in Illinois that fact alone explains the Union influence
Comment by Sue Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:57 pm
== How did you come up with the million dollar number? ==
A number of good governmrnt organizations have put the Illinios pensions online,; all you need is a name to look the payments up.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:03 pm
Both the majority and the dissent are bipartisan. So there’s that.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:08 pm
===Illinois Supreme Court upholds corruption of state Government insiders once again.
One more reason why we lead the nation in distrust of State Government===
Are you saying the Supreme Court is corrupt and complicit in what you feel is corruption?
It’s a yes or no question.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:08 pm
Sue - which judges on the Illinois Supreme Court made their ruling on the basis on Union contributions?
If you can’t name one and factually support it - then you’ve got nothing but your own wishful thinking.
Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:11 pm
@Willy and a few others - When I see the division on this decision it only convinces me that we do have a legitimate, diverse and somewhat unpredictable
Supreme Court.
One of the Justices never fails to surprise me at times. Don’t always agree, however, with the decisions he writes or concurs with. And I have known this individual for over 40 years.
And, Sue, prove your contention or go on to another conspiracy theory.
Comment by illini Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:28 pm
==in Illinois that fact alone explains the Union influence==
Do you have evidence of that? Yes or no. You’re claiming the Supreme Court is corrupt and in bed with the unions. You must have something to back up that statement, otherwise it’s just unfounded hyperbole from our resident anti-union zealot.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:29 pm
==One more reason why we lead the nation in distrust of State Government==
I really wish you would come up with new talking points. Freaking reboot your programming already. You can’t come up with anything new to say after 4 years?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:32 pm
== People with 26+ years tenure can cash in up to 75 days of vacation upon retirement.
The deal with the sick time was that 1/2 of accumulated sick time was paid. ==
Those of us that couldn’t always get time off had it piled up. I cashed out the max vacation plus a lot of sick time.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:38 pm
BBW…if his extra pension was 36k/yr as per news reports, and he paid $193k up front, he will get that money back in little over 6 years, assuming a 7% investment return (I roughed it out as an annual calculation…feel free to use a better method). After that, it will take a little over 27 years of payments to reach a free million dollars. I know nothing of his age and health, so I am satisfied to say that he might receive those payments. Satisfied?
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:39 pm
Chief Justice Karmeier is in the majority on this opinion. That man has been accused of a lot of things (see his last election), but being in bed with the unions ain’t one of them.
While I respect the many diverse opinions on this page, and routinely look to it for insight on how to digest Illinois news, I feel the need to point out that not everything which looks bad is unconstitutional, and not everything you disagree with is corrupt.
The facts here look bad, and I wish the outcome were different, but the opinion contains a straight-forward application of the Illinois constitution and Court precedent. I really agree with the earlier point–don’t be mad at them for doing their jobs; be mad at the legislature for passing the original law, and the governor for signing it.
Comment by Back to the Mountains Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:43 pm
This initial bill which allowed basically one man to teach for a day and then buy into the system is one of the main igniters of criticism against the public pension plans of Illinois State Government. This decision will definitely add fuel to that fire.
Too bad for those who qualified for State Pensions based on their years of hard work for the State, and had their pension payments deducted from all their paychecks.. They will be tarred and feathered, yet again.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 4:00 pm
To add to the vacation time issue, many people like RNUG said tried to take their time but were denied due to operating needs. I know many people on the list of names published and how hard they worked. There were times we discussing state issues on the weekend, evenings of holidays. They received their lump sums legitimately and no wrong doing was ever established.
Comment by illinifan Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 4:39 pm
Rule of law matters.
Comment by Liberty Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 5:07 pm
Every night, day in and day out we hear about the FBI and how only certain ones are corrupt. Not the rank and file officers, we hear, ad nauseum.
This is exactly the same situation but, and I say but, somehow this abuse will be spread widely to each and every teacher, no matter what.
I’m unsure why distinctions cannot be made. However, these kinds of abuses should be corrected and addressed so that they can be eliminated. That, however, opens up the whole pension issue and the teacher haters will want to punish every “rank and file” teacher.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 5:43 pm
OWilly:
Yes, it’s corrupt. Even the Democrats must think it’s corrupt given the recent filings by the Plaintiff’s bar re: Karmeier and State Farm. Or is it only corrupt when it comes to Tort Reform?
Comment by DuPage Moderate Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 5:48 pm
Jibba, David Piccioli is 69. He contributed 192,668 in 2006 and retired in 2014. Assuming 7% compounded interest for seven years, left untouched(and TRS gave it back at some point so it wasn’t untouched) that amount would be $314,048. If he withdraws as reported $30,564 every year but leaves the rest to be compounded, it would take Mr. Piccioli 19 years to use up only the money he put in. Year 20 he would have a deficit of $2796. So he started collecting the money five years ago. He’s 69. He would be 74 when he started taking money from TRS. Make life expectancy is 79. So 30564 times gives years is $152,820 add to that $2796 and the TRS would be out $155,616 at 79.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 5:55 pm
===Yes, it’s corrupt.===
Calling institutions corrupt doesn’t help. It sows seeds that lead to governing outside the constitution and thinking that is the corrupt.
The ease of “corrupt” as a label troubles me more.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 5:55 pm
Sorry male life expectancy is 79 years and $30,564 time five years. I gotta get a bigger screen on my phone.
TRS gave back the money at some point and they didn’t get the advantage of the compounded interest so the amount they will actually pay is not certain. Plus he could live to be 89 instead of 79. But unless he becomes a zombie or a vampire he’s not collecting a million bucks.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 6:04 pm
OK, DBBW, let’s use your figs. He might only take 155K from TRS not including spousal benefits, or if he outlives averages, perhaps as much as 500K. Weird hill to die on, but it seems important to you. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
He still destabilized the system by taking funding from TRS for work he did not do for them. Legal, says ILSC, but immoral, and it still looks bad for all state employees.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 6:18 pm
Ok Demoralized- tell us what possible benefit Madigan and Cullerton we’re achieving for Illinois citizens with this POS legislation. Of course you ignore the $$ IFT floats to the Dem Party in Springfield.
Comment by Sue Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 6:21 pm
Sue adds so much to every topic.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 6:32 pm
In a previous post I criticized Illinois legislators for passing this bill allowing Piccioli to do this, so I’m not sure where you get the “hill to die” on stuff. And a $155k loss for TRS is still a $155k loss.
You make this all about me. It has nothing to do with me.You say I protest too much, no. I did a little math on an envelope and had a little fun since I like math. As far as immoral, Jesus tells us Christians not to judge. It’s the hardest rule and I break it sometimes too, but the guy should have just gotten an annuity. Probably would have paid better than a lousy 7% too.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 6:34 pm
Sue
You’ve now changed the subject. Madigan and Cullerton is another subject.
Im not ignoring anything. You claimed the Supreme Court made a decision based on union influence. Again, you must have some evidence or you wouldn’t have said it right?
Either back up your claim with evidence or shut up
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 6:56 pm
OW:
I don’t disagree at all. But look at the filings by the Plaintiffs Bar. They’re the ones who said it.
Also, the last 20 years of indictments and arrests at all levels of Illinois government also seem to objectively prove corruption.
I wish it wasn’t so easily proven, but…
Comment by DuPage Moderate Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 7:09 pm
With great respect, - DuPage Moderate;
===look at the filings by the Plaintiffs Bar. They’re the ones who said it.===
That’s opinion, not fact.
===Also, the last 20 years of indictments and arrests at all levels of Illinois government also seem to objectively prove corruption.===
Basing ILSC on other governing issues is terribly unfair to individuals and the institution.
With respect.
Oswego Willy
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 7:30 pm