Court ruling clears the air

A court decision, if upheld, will provide legislators more flexibility on the pension issue.

The seemingly endless debate over Illinois' public pension woes is not just the product of legislators' reluctance to anger powerful constituencies, like labor unions and retirees, but also of a vexing legal question involving constitutional guarantees of pension rights.

What the "non-impairment" clause of the Illinois Constitution really means is open to question because there has been no definitive ruling on the extent, if any, to which legislators may change the rules regarding pensions and other benefits.

That confusion was reduced just a bit this week when Associate Judge Steven Nardulli of Springfield dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state's authority to require retirees to pay for health insurance benefits they have been receiving at no cost.

The ruling will, of course, be appealed, and there is no guarantee other judges will accept Nardulli's ruling. But, for now at least, legislators have a ruling that can guide their decisions on the pension issue.

In ruling as he did, Nardulli held that the non-impairment clause "only protects pensions as opposed to other employment benefits." Further, he said the Legislature was well within its authority last year when it voted to end the practice of allowing some retired state workers free health insurance.

"There is no vested right in the continuation of a law," he concluded.

Reaction was quick. AFSCME's executive director Henry Bayer screamed bloody murder while Gov. Pat Quinn called the ruling "good news for taxpayers and another step forward in our effort to restore fiscal stability to Illinois."

This issue remains far from resolved. But one key to resolution is obtaining a legal interpretation from the Illinois Supreme Court that outlines just what legislators can and cannot do with respect to pensions and other benefits. This week's ruling is a step in that direction.

Sections (2):Editorials, Opinion
Categories (2):Editorials, Opinions

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm

"if upheld".....  The judges are being exempted from "pension reform" legislation.  There is a reason for the legislators, and governor doing that of course...........  What is good for the geese should be good for the ganders also.  After all, judges are state employees also.

Mugzy wrote on March 22, 2013 at 2:03 pm

  I believe we should start marketing this as Lawmaker Reform in lieu of Pension Reform.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 22, 2013 at 2:03 pm

I would support Lawmaker Reform if it included a two term limit for legislators with the elimination of campaign donations above $100 from any donor.  Judges should have complete financial disclosure with term limits also.  Political corruption in Illinois has become a big time industry.