From Glen Brown’s blog:
From the 12-page legal document recently filed by the law firm of Tabet, DiVito & Rothstein on behalf of the plaintiffs named from the IRTA and IASA
Many thousands of livelihoods depend on consistent enforcement of the Pension Protection Clause. Countless careers, retirements, personal investments and medical treatments have been planned in justifiable reliance not only on the promises that were made in collective bargaining agreements, employment agreements and the Illinois Pension Code, but also on the guarantee of the Pension Protection Clause.In this action, Illinois educators and school administrators who have devoted their careers to public service, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, respectfully ask this Honorable Court to enforce the Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that Public Act 98-0599 is void in its entirety because it violates the Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution…
This case presents an actual controversy concerning the unconstitutionality of Public Act 98-0599. The plaintiffs and all members of the class they represent have a direct interest in that actual controversy.Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are appropriate and necessary in this case because the plaintiffs and members of the class they represent have protectable and vested pension rights that are guaranteed by the Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution, will be irreparably harmed by the implementation and enforcement of Public Act 98-0599, have no adequate remedy at law, and are likely to succeed on the merits of this case. Any weighing of the equities would mandate the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs and members of the class they represent…
Read the entire post here.
Fred Klonsky 
It is important that IRTA take a lead role here; it is by far the largest organization representing retirees affected by SB 1. Obviously, IEA, IFT, AFSCME, RSEA, IUAA, etc need to be involved; however, as a whole it is retired teachers who are most impacted by SB 1.
There are more than 100,000 retired Illinois teachers living throughout Illinois as well as other states. (More than 35,000 are members of IRTA.) A contribution of $10 per retired teacher would go a long way towards paying for this lawsuit.
And since we have a lot more than $10 at risk here, we should be willing to contribute more than that.
Just as alumni of universities are counted when they make a contribution, our willingness to fight for our pensions will be noted in the days following the decisions made by the Illinois Supreme Court. Not just the outcome of the case is important, but also the long term defense of our pensions.
I didnt read the whole document but there is also the IFT case which tried to force the state to make its payments to the funds . The IFT lost but pensioners won. The court said if the funds are short the GA must appropriate the money …of course the funds aren’t short and for entities like state govs 70& is fine as Fred as pointed out with Matrries. The fact is if the GA simple adopted the funding scheme in SB 1 and made no diminishments the funds would be at least 66% funded in 40 years -problem solved .
I would add that Justice Kilbride said some time ago that the court does not legislate it bases its decisions on precedent and the IRTA suit has provided plenty(though I do worry about some justices….
Anyway this thing is a mess . It full of severability except for the AAI . It violates the Federal Internal Revenue code because it creates a 401k that is not a 401k,it violates contract rights for retirees out of state. It might even have some equal protection issues over excluding judges
The out come I would love to see is everything BUT the 1% decrease is unconstitutional . It stays because the GA \made it severable and the judge could find as courts have the benefit CAN be INCREASED!
Finally IRTA did a great job undermining the silly Madigan preamble
I’m not sure how the following helps much since what we retirees are currently receiving dollar wise isn’t being reduced.
“Green’s sentiments were echoed by Delegate Helen Kinney, a co-sponsor of the Pension Protection Clause, who explained: “All we are seeking to do is to guarantee that people will have the rights that were in force at the time they entered into the agreement to become an employee, and . . . if the benefits are $100 a month in 1971, they should be not less than $100 a month in 1990.” ” I liked how previous cases were addressed. I also liked that basing the COLA on years of service is addressed, especially since I’ll lose 6.5 years of service from a recipracol system. The sticking point is going to be whether or not a reduction of the COLA represents a reduction in one’s pension or if it pertains to a person’s current pension or if pertains to the future pension resulting from promised COLAs. It can’t be disputed that it is a change in benefits, but I’d like to know how they will argue this point. I guess I will trust the experts.
Its called the “COLA” but it really isn’t Its called the AAI the automatic annual increase. There must be some sort of increase or it wont be accepted as a social security substitute. (TRS actuaries did an analysis of it and mentioned the possibility of it not meeting it)
We all pay for the AAI it is an integral part of the annuity . Judge Nardelli said that in the MAAG case . The MAAG case involved UPI and AFSME over the GA got rid of premium free retiree health care for 20 years service. Unlike the IRTA suit this case was not clear at all. Nardelli thought the GA could change it because health care was not annuity- like and that is what defined the untouchable pension Nardelli said the AAI was an integral part of the pension . The ILSC is considering MAAG now in the arguments the state( through L Madigans office told the ILSC the SAME THING NARDELLI said. I am sure the IRTA lawyers have seen this but I really want to see what the state could possibly say
BTW Maag started the suit. The Judges were affected by this health care change but not this one though clearly the GA could go after them in the future if this were in any way upheld. Maag filed first but IFT-AFSCME also filed suit and the two were joined . In front of the ILSC they argued that the GA had added a retirement benefit and thus it became part of the “retirement system” which is broader than the annuity that J Nardelli defined the retirement system as . The other argument is that some contracts or collective bargaining agreements were infringed by the GAs back stabbing
If the ILSC overturns Nardelli in anyway its allover. Madigans rush may have been to pressure the ILSC on MAAG and to set them up for blame for the extension of the income tax or its his hatred of Henry Bayer for taking away his patronage -anyway its time to end the embarrassment of even our declining unions bowing to this local potentate
Happy New Year, Fred, and good luck in 2014. Thanks for your blog.
The Most most judges were affected by this healthcare proper excellent care change but not this one though clearly the GA could go after them later on if this were in any way upheld. Maag authorized first but IFT-AFSCME also authorized fit and the two were finalized up with .
http://www.yelp.com/biz/law-firm-connect-san-fernando-valley