By Jayette Bolinski, Illinois Watchdog
SPRINGFIELD — Opposition to a proposed pension-related constitutional amendment that will go before Illinois voters Nov. 6 is creating strange bedfellows — from public employee unions to good-government groups that agree the question is not worthy of a change to the state’s constitution and does nothing to address the pension crisis.
Groups opposed to the amendment are numerous and come from all walks of life. It’s no surprise that public-employee unions are opposed to the amendment, which requires a three-fifths majority vote before any public body can approve a pension benefit increase.
Good-government groups, such as the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability and the Illinois Policy Institute, also are against it. So are Protestants for the Common Good, the state’s League of Women Voters and the Illinois Green Party.
The groups usually don’t see eye-to-eye on how to achieve pension reform. But Constitutional Amendment 49 has turned adversaries into allies, each with an eye on a common goal – defeating the amendment.
“I wish I could say that it was because of shared principles that such diverse groups are coming together to oppose this,” Diane Cohen of the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center said of the unexpected alliances. “We certainly just view this as fake reform. It does nothing to address the pension crisis in the state. But worse than that, it sort of pulls the wool over the voters’ eyes to try to pretend that the legislators are actually doing something in the face of this crisis.”
Pension Shortfall of $85 Billion to $200 Billion
Illinois has a pension-funding shortfall of at least $85 billion. New reporting requirements by investment groups put the liability in the neighborhood of $200 billion.
In April, the Illinois House unanimously approved a measure put forth by Speaker Michael Madigan, a Democrat, that would ask voters if approval of public-pension boosts in Illinois should require a supermajority vote of three-fifths (60 percent) instead of a simple majority vote. Madigan called it “tough medicine” for a state deep in debt.
The Illinois Senate also approved the measure, with only two lawmakers there voting against it.
Since then, critics have called the proposal “catastrophic,” “do-nothing,” “misguided,” “incomprehensible” and “diabolical and feckless.”
“The only people we’ve seen pushing this so far are the politicians themselves,” said Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, which represents thousands of state workers. “It really validates our view that this is a politician-protection amendment. This is not a pension amendment. It should be defeated.”
Groups that support the amendment are difficult to find. Others have found numerous reasons to object.
For example, the language is too long and complicated for average voters to understand, some say. The proposed Illinois constitutional amendment is more than 700 words — longer than the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, the diluted explanation of the proposed amendment that voters will find on the Nov. 6 ballot is just more than 200 words long.
This is what voters will see on the ballot:
"NOTICE THE FAILURE TO VOTE THIS BALLOT MAY BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEGATIVE VOTE, BECAUSE A CONVENTION SHALL BE CALLED OR THE AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IF APPROVED BY EITHER THREE-FIFTHS OF THOSE VOTING ON THE QUESTION OR A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING IN THE ELECTION. (THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DIRECTION THAT YOUR VOTE IS REQUIRED TO BE CAST EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSITION HEREIN CONTAINED.) WHETHER YOU VOTE THIS BALLOT OR NOT YOU MUST RETURN IT TO THE ELECTION JUDGE WHEN YOU LEAVE THE VOTING BOOTH.
CONSTITUTION BALLOT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION
Explanation of Amendment
Upon approval by the voters, the proposed amendment, which takes effect on January 9, 2013, adds a new section to the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. The new section would require a three-fifths majority vote of each chamber of the General Assembly, or the governing body of a unit of local government, school district, or pension or retirement system, in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system. At the general election to be held on November 6, 2012, you will be called upon to decide whether the proposed amendment should become part of the Illinois Constitution. If you believe the Illinois Constitution should be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote YES on the question. If you believe the Illinois Constitution should not be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote NO on the question. Three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election must vote YES in order for the amendment to become effective on January 9, 2013. For the proposed addition of Section 5.1 to Article XIII of the Illinois Constitution."
John Bambenek, a Republican candidate for state senate in the 52nd District, earlier this month joined a lawsuit filed in Champaign County against the Illinois State Board of Elections seeking to invalidate the ballot question, saying it’s deceptive and inaccurate.
“I get that Madigan and his Chicago friends want to stick it to us, but could they do us the courtesy of doing it in a way we can understand,” Bambenek said. “This ballot question and the amendment itself are incomprehensible gibberish.”
- View the Senate roll call (link takes you to the Illinois General Assembly website).
- View the House roll call (link takes you to the Illinois General Assembly website).
No Need to Put This in Constitution
The Illinois League of Women Voters opposes the amendment, saying the three-fifths majority vote requirement removes control from a majority and gives it to a minority. The organization also says the requirement does not belong in the state constitution.
“The Illinois Constitution is not the place for a provision that is this specific to a single issue and to one remedy for a larger problem,” the organization writes on its website. “If the legislature determines this needs to be done, a statute which can be modified more easily is the appropriate course to take.”
The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability opposes the amendment, saying it’s a misguided attempt to address the state’s pension problems but, most important, does nothing to reduce Illinois’ multi-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability.
Amanda Kass, a pension expert with the center, said it’s also impossible to know the full implications of the amendment until after it’s in place.
“There’s no reason this constitutional amendment can’t be part of state statute,” she said, urging voters to read the various analyses of the proposal that can be found online, including one she wrote for the center.
“But also ask themselves what’s the fundamental purpose of a constitutional amendment – What’s the purpose of the constitution, and is it appropriate to have a provision in the constitution about pension benefit increases?” she asks.
Ann Lousin, a law professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago and an expert on the Illinois constitution, described the amendment as “catastrophic,” noting that it is “very long and includes a number of new concepts and terms which have not been interpreted by anyone.”
Certain to Inspire Lawsuits
She also noted that it probably would lead to an onslaught of lawsuits and that it would require a new level of bureaucracy “to monitor, referee and record countless votes, meetings and issues” for 7,000 governmental entities across the state.
“… (T)his proposed constitutional amendment does nothing for the state’s pension-funding problem,” she wrote. “However, it creates many new problems and, if approved, would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe for Illinois.”
Cohen of the Liberty Justice Center said the amendment presents a conundrum for voters.
“If you support the amendment, you’re kind of furthering this fallacy that it would actually mean something. But opposing it sends the signal to local decision-makers who already are spending beyond what the taxpayers can afford to just spend more,” she said.
“Really, the bottom line is it’s not worthy of the constitution, and we need to stand up and say this is fake reform and we simply can’t support it.”
Illinois Watchdog covers the Illinois General Assembly and state government and is sponsored by the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity. Contact Jayette Bolinski at jayette.bolinski@franklincenterhq.org. Find Illinois Watchdog on Facebook and follow its journalism on Twitter @ilwatchdog.
This post is published on all Patches in the suburban Chicago network. Have an opinion on this constitutional amendment? Share your views with readers throughout the Chicago area.
Jeff says, You still fail to recognize that your pension is something the majority of us do not have and you are not entitled to it - you do nothing the rest of us do not do day in and day out and in many cases you do less Do you think Police and Fire fall in that category from your comment? Believe me it's a "NO"
Municipalities in the '90s lobbied for and got passed legislation that allowed them to greatly DELAY payments into pension funds. That required a ramped up schedule of payment. Now that those payments are due, they are claiming the system is unsustainable. The system was NOT unsustainable until corrupt politicians abused it.
"it is also not guaranteed." One little detail Jeff. When a pensioner dies so does the benefit. Not quite the flexibility of a 401K which becomes part of ones estate. "You still fail to recognize that your pension is something the majority of us do not have and you are not entitled to it - you do nothing the rest of us do not do day in and day out and in many cases you do less." As I was saying Jeff, it's comments like this that show your bias and unworthy of any more of my time beyond this response. "The costs of these plans put undue burden on the private, working class individuals." I feel the same way about Social Security. Don't much care the Gov't spent the money elsewhere and in a jam. "Insulting me is your protection against the lack of a platform to stand on in this debate but if you ever want to compare IQ's I am always available.' I just did. But once again in a very non insulting way. Good luck Jeff
Never heard of anyone collecting a full pension when a spouse passes. I know the railroad retirement system has a provision for the spouse thats pretty favorable. All ive seen or read for others is a 50% payout at best. What happens if your not married and die? Thanks for the correction and educating me.
Many cannot retire on 401Ks even at 67 which still is a much later retirement than most all pensioners. My parents were just told they would run out of money at 85 after both having life long careers in the medical field. I guess I would rather not place the burden of having to care for me financially while I am alive on my children than leaving them with something when I am dead. Of course my chidlren will get my assets (home, etc.) and nothing is stopping any public employee from contribution to an IRA last time I checked or any other tax deferred savings plan if they are concerned about how much they will be leaving their children. Guess what, Social Security, which pays out a small fraction of what a pension pays out, ends when you die as well. They will actually adjust the benefits of Social Security to keep the program from going bankrupt, what do they do if they cannot meet pension payouts? Most of us do not count on Social Security either - there are no guarantees. Trying to act intelligent and insult others isn't a game your good at.
All need to agree that the first step is to get rid of much of our government that has helped to make this mess. Getting rid of Madigan and Quinn would be a good start by voting them out of office or setting up a recall procedure.
1. Teachers DO NOT pay into Social Security and ARE NOT ELIGIBLE to recieve Social Security. (the 6.2% SS payment from "after-school" jobs is also lost to them) 2. Roughly 9.2% of a teacher's paycheck IS automatically deducted and paid to TRS. (Teacher Retirement System) [this means that Pro-Life Crusader + is totally wrong that local school boards have somehow failed to pay. However he/she is correct in that local school boards DO control payroll of higher level administrators who make 6 figures and thus get much higher pensions] 3. Many teachers are regular people who make a idealistic career choice in their early twenties and have not real understanding of how this TRS system works. Many are suprised to find out that they have NO CHOICE about joining unions. Even if a teacher chooses to NOT BE PART OF THEIR LOCAL UNION, they must still PAY DUES to both the NEA and the IEA, and CANNOT Bargain with management for their OWN WAGES. (in other words, blame the system but don't villify the teachers!)
4. Teachers also pay local property taxes just like everyone else. [What I think many of you SHOULD be discussing is whether or not teachers make enough money to LIVE in the school districts they work in. Trust me, that is not always the case. In addition, check out the teacher parking lot versus the student one. You'll find far nicer automobiles in the student spots than the teacher lot. (more opinion than fact I'll grant you, but my experience. This may not mean much to you but I think it is worth mentioning when so many here seem to be suggesting that teachers are living this ostentatious lifestyle at taxpayer expense) 5. There is ONE MAJOR difference between teachers and those who work in the private sector. In business, your boss is NOT your customers. Yes, it is important to keep your customers happy, but ultimately your boss is someone either chosen by ownership or the owner him/herself. A teacher's boss is a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED RESIDENT. There are NO QUALIFICATIONS for local school board members WHO MAKE decisions. AND THEY ARE ELECTED BY A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF VOTERS. These board members have been known to hold someone's job over their heads for such capricious reasons as their son didn't make the freshman baseball team, their daughter got a suspension for bullying someone on Twitter, and so on and so forth.
There are many more jobs in police work that an older policeman can perform than an older fireman. There are traffice patrol on foot and a car. They can still patrol neighborhoods and do not need to run after a suspect and they can perform investigations and do more of the paper work for other officers. It is easier for a 60 year old policeman to keep a criminal at bay then it is for a firemen to keep a fire at bay with a firehose. But even here I provided a qualifier "...earliest retirement should be 55 and police 60 without a penalty if there is no other work they can be assigned."
"There are desk jobs and community assignments and other government jobs that can be performed at a later age which should be done by older policeman and fireman and not new hires outside of these fields." The idea is these positions would be replaced by current workers and replacing others. Additionally I was referring to those who would have retired and replaced anyway.
This is true of many of us and really has no relevance. Teachers in some areas are living at a much higher life style in some areas they teach also, but would you hold that relevant. "5. There is ONE MAJOR difference between teachers and those who work in the private sector. In business, your boss is NOT your customers. " I do not see this as relevant as a person's boss may be just as capricious as you suggest, but being out of the public sector there is even fewer options for the employee since going to the public does not have much affect.
Lastly, your comment about teachers are not responsible for the actions of the union – seriously? Look at the strikes and all the teachers standing around talking about the children when what they really want is more money, more benefit, less performance measures. Do they not take a vote on striking or does the union rep just decide to do what he/she wants to do? Do teachers not elect union delegates? Teachers are the system and if they were as idealistic as you say they would be more concerned with doing what is right vs. trying to get more.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/02/14881090-teachers-unions-in-ohio-try-to-get-educators-elected-to-state-offices?lite
You're right that the state did not contribute for several years. They took a "pension holiday". The unions. for some reason, signed off on this. Even if they had not taken that holiday, there would be a problem (albeit a smaller one.) The contributions that both parties paid into the system over the past 40 years were not sufficient to fund payouts. Actuaries typically decide how much needs to be contributed to a pension to keep it going. Instead of letting actuaries decide in Illinois, politicians just dreamed up a percentage to contribute. It was not nearly enough.