Illinois to vote on pension-related constitutional amendment
October 26, 2012
Illinois voters will decide in less than two weeks the future of a proposed amendment to the state constition regarding the threshold needed to pass pension increases.
The amendment, HJRCA 49, would require a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly to pass pension increases for public employees. Currently, pension increases need only a majority vote in the General Assembly to pass.
The referendum would amend Section 5.1 to Article XIII of the Illinois Constitution. Michael Madigan, speaker of the Illinois General Assembly, sponsored bill that placed the referendum on the ballot. The legislation was co-sponsored by two additional House representatives, as well as three state senators.
“It’s a modest step in what is going to be a very long march to try and get pensions systems in Illinois to a point where they can be sustained,” said Steve Brown, Madigan’s spokesman. Brown said the amendment would require the general assembly to think more carefully before a pension benefit can be increased.
Voters will decide on the amendment in the Nov. 6 general election. If approved, the amendment will take effect on Jan. 9, 2013.
Although Brown said he was hopeful the amendment would pass, the likelihood of voter approval remains unclear.
Many pension policy groups view the amendment as a step in the right direction toward broader pension reform. The Northwest Municipal Conference, a council of government focused on policy issues such as pension reform, has publicly supported the amendment. In a document posted on its website, the NWMC encouraged its constituents to vote "yes" on the amendment.
“For too many years, previous General Assemblies and governors have, at the behest of the unions, repeatedly approved pension benefit increases for public safety personnel with virtually no regard to the fiscal impact these sweeteners would have upon local taxpayers,” the group said in the document.
A similar group, the Illinois Municipal League, is also publicly advocating for the passage of the amendment. IML legislative director Joe McCoy noted that the legislation would be an important component in curbing the growth of pension costs.
Opposition to this amendment has also come from a variety of different groups. The Liberty Justice Center, a law firm, has argued that the legislation is a “do-nothing amendment” that won’t have any real impact on pension reform.
“We should take amending the constitution seriously,” said Diane Cohen, general counsel for the Liberty Justice Center. “This is fake reform.”
Many unions in Illinois have also voiced their opposition to the amendment because of its potential to impact the collective bargaining rights of workers. Despite these protests, proponents of the amendment remain convinced that it is an important piece of amendment reform.
“Any step to make these pension benefits more difficult to pass will help to guarantee the financial solvency of the pension funds going forward,” McCoy said.
Loading ...
The proposed amendment is so long and complicated, that I have yet to see a single newspaper that wanted to even take up space to include the full text of it. If it is that long and complicated, then perhaps it should be voted down. The proposed amendment reads:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIII
OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION
Section 5.1 — Pension and Retirement Benefit Increases
(a) No bill, except a bill for appropriations, that provides a benefit increase under any pension
or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall become law without the concurrence of
three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly. If the
Governor vetoes such a bill by returning it with objections to the house in which it
originated, the provisions of Article IV, Section 9 shall govern the passage of that bill
except that such bill shall not become law unless, upon its return, it is passed by a
record vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General
Assembly. If the Governor returns such a bill with specific recommendations for
change to the house in which it originated, the provisions of Article IV, Section 9 shall
govern the acceptance of those specific recommendations except that such recommendations
may be accepted only by a record vote of two-thirds of the members
elected to each house of the General Assembly, regardless of the bill's date of passage
or effective date.
For purposes of this subsection, the term "benefit increase" means a change to any
pension or other law that results in a member of a pension or retirement system receiving
a new benefit or an enhancement to a benefit, including, but not limited to,
any changes that (i) increase the amount of the pension or annuity that a member could
receive upon retirement, or (ii) reduce or eliminate the eligibility requirements or other
terms or conditions a member must meet to receive a pension or annuity upon retirement.
The term "benefit increase" also means a change to any pension or other law
that expands the class of persons who may become a member of any pension or retirement
system or who may receive a pension or annuity from a pension or retirement
system. An increase in salary or wage level, by itself, shall not constitute a "benefit increase"
unless that increase exceeds limitations provided by law.
— 1 —
(b) No ordinance, resolution, rule, or other action of the governing body, or an appointee
or employee of the governing body, of any unit of local government or school district
that provides an emolument increase to an official or employee that has the effect of
increasing the amount of the pension or annuity that an official or employee could receive
as a member of a pension or retirement system shall be valid without the concurrence
of three-fifths of the members of that governing body. For purposes of this
subsection, the term "emolument increase" means the creation of a new or enhancement
of an existing advantage, profit or gain that an official or employee receives by
virtue of holding office or employment, including, but not limited to, compensated
time off, bonuses, incentives, or other forms of compensation. An increase in salary or
wage level, by itself, shall not constitute an "emolument increase" unless that increase
exceeds limitations provided by law.
(c) No action of the governing body, or an appointee or employee of the governing body,
of any pension or retirement system created or maintained for the benefit of officers
or employees of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof that results in a beneficial determination shall be
valid without the concurrence of three-fifths of the members of that governing body.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term "beneficial determination" means an interpretation
or application of pension or other law by the governing body, or an appointee
or employee of the governing body, that reverses or supersedes a previous
interpretation or application and either (i) results in an increase in the amount of the
pension or annuity received by a member of the pension or retirement system or (ii)
results in a person becoming eligible to receive a pension or annuity from the pension
or retirement system. The term "beneficial determination" shall not include a beneficial
determination mandated by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the passage or adoption of any law, ordinance, resolution,
rule, policy, or practice that further restricts the ability to provide a "benefit increase",
"emolument increase", or "beneficial determination" as those terms are used
under this Section.
[Reply]
It is interesting to note that opposition for passage of this amendment is coming from diverse groups, including groups who usually are on the opposite sides when it comes to the Illinois budget and pensions. Included in opposition to this amendment are the Illinois League of Women Voters, Protestants for Common Good, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, the
Illinois Policy Institute(conservative think tank), and the Illinois Green Party, and unions. Also, it came as a surprise but even the Chicago Tribune came out against this amendment.
One reason for opposition to this amendment include the argument that the Illinois House and Senate leaders can hide behind this amendment and tell their constituents that they were actually doing something in regards to pensions reform. Other reasons for opposition is that the
passage of this amendment will do nothing to remedy Illinois' pensions liability , and that decisions pertaining to pensions will be taken away the majority and given to a minority of decision makers.
Earl Shumaker
[Reply]
As a fed up property tax payer I DEMAND REFORM NOW! First of,f fire all teachers, dissolve the unions and outsource education. Unions are killing the state with GREED. I am sick of paying 9K a year in property tax for the right to live in my own home. I don’t have any kids and have grossly overpaid my fair share for over 35 years. How is it that before the state of Illinois had all this gambling (lotto, river boats, gaming etc.…) sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco and a 67% state income tax hike, we could afford to pay our bills, but now, we no longer can. 80 Billion in Debt…Who is getting all the money? Terminate Pensions, FIRE AND OUTSURCE NOW. You thieves are stealing the equity out everyone’s homes and driving business out of the state of Illinois. We are quickly deteriorating into Detroit.
[Reply]
Could not have said it better myself. Excellent advice!! I can’t believe Illinois teachers are actually striking for larger salaries including fattened pensions and guaranteed employment while their neighbors are losing their jobs and finding it difficult just to put food on the table for their families. Let’s fire all the millionaires in congress too. These a-holes are out of touch with everyday people and need a reality check.
[Reply]
The proposed amendment starts out: "No bill, EXCEPT a bill for appropriations, ..." (my emphasis). i cannot find any explanation anywhere as to what this exception means. Is this a loophole that the legislature can employ to make an end run around the intent of the amendment? Does anyone know what this means? Many thanks.
[Reply]