In a previous post I said that it was my understanding that while the Illinois Constitution guarantees state employee pensions and guarantees that they may not be diminished or impaired, it does not guarantee that the state provide the funding. This is the basis for Democratic State Representative Elaine Nekritz and Governor Pat Quinn to advocate shifting the pension obligation from the state to local units of governments.
Since this is a difficult concept to wrap my head around, I suggested that if I was wrong about this, my pal Glen Brown would correct me.
Glen writes:
1975 People ex. Rel. Illinois Federation of Teachers v. Lindberg
…can’t force the Illinois General Assembly to fund the pension systems at a specific percentage
1996 McNamee v. State
Vested Case Issue: an employee acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system. The case asks questions whether “the Pension Clause [Article XIII, Section 5] mandates that the pension systems be funded at a particular funding percentage or according to a funding schedule.” The Pension Clause “creates an enforceable contractual relationship that protects only the right to receive benefits… a cause of action would exist if legislation diminished a person’s right to receive benefits or placed the pension system on the verge of default or imminent bankruptcy”
1998 People ex. Rel. Sklodowski v. State
Vested Case Issue: an employee acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system. “Clause does not create a contractual basis for participants to expect a particular level of funding [You got to be kidding?]!”
Yes, we are guaranteed benefits but not the funding of those benefits!?
From “Antedated Court Cases: Challenging the Pension Clause, etc.”:
http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2011/05/antedated-court-cases-challenging.html
|
Crazy, but true.
Fred Klonsky 