SPRINGFIELD - On the November ballot, voters will be asked to vote on a Constitutional Amendment which would require the Illinois General Assembly to cast a 3/5 vote to increase state employee pension or retirement benefits. Unions are urging "no" votes and fiscal conservatives are urging "yes," although some have raised questions as to why Democrat House Speaker Mike Madigan would want Illinois voters to chime in. Illinois Review asked State Rep. Ed Sullivan of Mundelein his opinion on the measure:
A pamphlet voters received in the mail details the points for and against the measure:
Arguments in Favor of the Proposed Amendment
(1) A higher vote requirement would help prevent unfunded future liability for pension benefits.
(2) Requiring a three-fifths vote would provide better accountability.
(3) A three-fifths vote requires greater consensus among parties.
Unfunded Liability Currently, the public retirement system is not financially stable and is significantly underfunded. A higher vote requirement to enact pension benefit increases will help to maintain fiscal responsibility and make it more difficult to further burden the public retirement system. Provide More Accountability The proposed amendment provides more accountability in the legislative process by requiring more votes to pass a pension benefit increase. Since the cost of benefit increases comes at a later date, the price to the taxpayers is not always noticed immediately. A higher vote requirement will signify to the governing body that they are taking a serious action and will encourage greater in-depth thought before passage.
Greater Consensus
A three-fifths vote requirement means the members of the governing body, regardless of political affiliation, will need to work together to reach an agreement. A greater consensus would provide for better decisions and more serious deliberation. Given the importance of pension benefit
Increases and their subsequent impact on taxpayers, greater agreement would be beneficial.
ArgumentsAgainst the Proposed Amendment
(1) A higher vote requirement may limit the bargaining power of employers and employees.
(2) There is the possibility of disagreement on what constitutes a benefit increase.
(3) Requiring a supermajority for pension benefit increases could make it more difficult to recruit the best people to work in government service.
Decreased Bargaining Power
Many government employees are represented by labor unions that bargain on their behalf for particular benefits. This constitutional amendment may make it more difficult for unions to bargain for certain increased benefits for their employees. In addition, many government employers may prefer to bargain over these benefits to give incentives to employees to do their jobs well. This constitutional amendment could remove bargaining power from both the government employer and government employee.
Possibility of Disagreement on Terms
The proposed amendment creates new definitions for the terms "benefit increase," "emolument increase," and "beneficial determination," which are not defined in other statutes or in existing case law. These definitions could generate litigation, resulting in additional costs. There may also be disagreement amongst the governing body on whether a bill, resolution or other action constitutes a "benefit increase," "emolument increase," or "beneficial determination."
Recruiting Employees for Government Jobs
Like any employer, units of government wish to attract good employees. This constitutional amendment may make it more difficult for employers to increase benefits to employees and therefore, make it harder to attract the best people to government service.
