Retiree Update-Arguments on City Pension Reform Litigation
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:30 am----- Original Message -----
From: Michalene
Cc: Clint ; Ken
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:59 PM
Subject: Retiree Update-Arguments on City Pension Reform Litigation
From: Clint
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:19 PM
Subject: Retiree Update-Arguments on City Pension Reform Litigation
Yesterday, July 9, 2015, we argued before Judge Novak on the legality of Public Act 98-641, which purports to increase funding for the Municipal and Laborers' Annuity and Benefit Funds, in exchange for, deferring and reducing the automatic annuity increases to which you are entitled.
Despite the City's efforts, argued by Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton, that the law strengthens both of those funds, and enforceably ensures solvency for the Funds; we argued that the measure of diminution is what the statute said you were entitled to, and could expect, compared with the lesser amount that you will be getting now.
Also, we rejected the notion that a "rump" group could agree to change your benefits; arguing that there is no such contract or agreement at all, that unions are not authorized to negotiate for retirees, and that the City has repeatedly refused to allow unions to negotiate for retirees (because retirees are not part of the bargaining unit).
Finally, we also pointed out that the purported power to enforce the contribution is of questionable enforceability, under previous Illinois decisions. And, in response to the statements by the Municipal and Laborers Funds' trustees, that they supported the City's position not as advocates, but as fiduciaries for the Funds and the participants, we asked "Where were you (the trustees) over the past 30+ years while the funded level was dropping, and the City given contribution holidays? Why did the trustees never take action or complain about the City's failure to fund?". I explained to the court that when we had originally sued for the participants, that the trustees had authorized the City to represent the Funds against the participants claims.
In the more than two hours that were consumed, I think we made our case for you well, and am cautiously optimistic about the outcome-hopefully a declaration that the statute reducing the annual increases, is unconstitutional.
There are, indeed, other things to be unhappy about with this legislation. For instance, it prohibits subsidizing retiree healthcare (except for the time-delimited sections from the 2003-2013 korshak settlement), and it also makes the City's obligation to contribute to the Funds, subordinate to the City's obligation to its bonded debt (dropping you all behind the outside creditors, in the event of a bankruptcy).
At the close of proceedings, Judge Novak advised us that she will render her written decision on July 24, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
For those who came to court yesterday-----Thank you! You helped. Your presence and interest in the matter were seen by the judge. To the rest of you, I hope you will get more involved, by showing up (to show the importance this has for you) and contributing, as you are able.
In the meantime, I'm getting my second hip done on Monday.
Regards,
Clint
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
From: Michalene
Cc: Clint ; Ken
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:59 PM
Subject: Retiree Update-Arguments on City Pension Reform Litigation
From: Clint
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:19 PM
Subject: Retiree Update-Arguments on City Pension Reform Litigation
Yesterday, July 9, 2015, we argued before Judge Novak on the legality of Public Act 98-641, which purports to increase funding for the Municipal and Laborers' Annuity and Benefit Funds, in exchange for, deferring and reducing the automatic annuity increases to which you are entitled.
Despite the City's efforts, argued by Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton, that the law strengthens both of those funds, and enforceably ensures solvency for the Funds; we argued that the measure of diminution is what the statute said you were entitled to, and could expect, compared with the lesser amount that you will be getting now.
Also, we rejected the notion that a "rump" group could agree to change your benefits; arguing that there is no such contract or agreement at all, that unions are not authorized to negotiate for retirees, and that the City has repeatedly refused to allow unions to negotiate for retirees (because retirees are not part of the bargaining unit).
Finally, we also pointed out that the purported power to enforce the contribution is of questionable enforceability, under previous Illinois decisions. And, in response to the statements by the Municipal and Laborers Funds' trustees, that they supported the City's position not as advocates, but as fiduciaries for the Funds and the participants, we asked "Where were you (the trustees) over the past 30+ years while the funded level was dropping, and the City given contribution holidays? Why did the trustees never take action or complain about the City's failure to fund?". I explained to the court that when we had originally sued for the participants, that the trustees had authorized the City to represent the Funds against the participants claims.
In the more than two hours that were consumed, I think we made our case for you well, and am cautiously optimistic about the outcome-hopefully a declaration that the statute reducing the annual increases, is unconstitutional.
There are, indeed, other things to be unhappy about with this legislation. For instance, it prohibits subsidizing retiree healthcare (except for the time-delimited sections from the 2003-2013 korshak settlement), and it also makes the City's obligation to contribute to the Funds, subordinate to the City's obligation to its bonded debt (dropping you all behind the outside creditors, in the event of a bankruptcy).
At the close of proceedings, Judge Novak advised us that she will render her written decision on July 24, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
For those who came to court yesterday-----Thank you! You helped. Your presence and interest in the matter were seen by the judge. To the rest of you, I hope you will get more involved, by showing up (to show the importance this has for you) and contributing, as you are able.
In the meantime, I'm getting my second hip done on Monday.
Regards,
Clint
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com