|
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
From John Dillon:
ReplyDeleteThanks 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.