Tuesday, January 25, 2022

An unconstitutional diminishment of teachers' healthcare payments in Illinois by Fred Klonsky

 

                                                   Fred Klonsky in Italy


In the last newsletter, I published the press release from the Illinois Retired Teachers' Association (IRTA) announcing their intention to bring a lawsuit to stop the diminishment of funding to the retired teachers' healthcare benefit. I use the word diminishment intentionally.

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that public employee pension benefits cannot be diminished or impaired. The words, cannot be diminished or impaired, are written right there in the Illinois Constitution.

Not to get all legal here, but in Kanerva v Weems, there was a constitutional challenge to reduce state contributions toward health insurance costs for retired public pension system members and their survivors. The Court held that the challenge was unconstitutional.

The justices ruled that the Pension Protection Clause protects more than the pension annuity.  It protects all benefits of membership in a pension system, including health insurance benefits. In another case concerning the public pensions of the town of Harvey, Illinois, the Court ruled that public pension funding must be funded.

So, what happened with our healthcare benefit that led the IRTA to go to court?

Going back over nearly two decades, a state agency known as Central Management Services (CMS) would make a funding request to the Illinois Teacher Retirement System (TRS) board of trustees to fund our health insurance at a level equal to or no more than 5% over the previous year.

This year CMS, a state agency responsible to Governor Pritzker, made a request for funding lower than last year. The amount should have been around $130 million. CMS asked for $99 million. These funds come from active teachers and matching state funds.

Amazingly, the TRS trustees agreed to the diminished amount. Only the elected representatives of retirees voted no. Other teacher representatives who voted yes represent the state’s teacher unions. Half of the TRS board are political appointments. Two are elected by retirees.

I have been told that when Attorney General Kwame Raoul was asked for a legal opinion, he suggested that the diminishment was questionable. It’s not questionable. It’s illegal…

When the IRTA had their actuary look at the numbers, it appears that if the healthcare funding cuts become a reality, our healthcare benefit funding will dry up in two to four years.

In talking to IRTA executive director Jim Bachman this morning, he told me that this was less about funding than it was about the health and safety of retired teachers.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. What is wrong with these people? That is an important thing to remind Governor Pritzker. After all, CMS is his baby.

Fred Klonsky in Retirement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber:

Fred Klonsky in Retirement | Substack



1 comment:

  1. From John Dillon:

    Thanks for the Klonsky post. Ironically, it is Kwame Raoul who is predominantly quoted in the May 8,2015, Illinois Supreme Court unanimous decision to find the attempt to reduce benefits in the Heaton, et.al. v. Pat Quinn, et.al. so much appears "questionable," Morally as well as legally. The issue becomes an unnerving one of distrust, now appearing to be a culpable group of TRS appointees at a time when retirees' health care is of great consequence and lives are likely to be at stake.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.