Preparing for a Constitutional Convention
5 Comments Published by John C. A. Bambenek on Tuesday, April 22 at 3:33 PM.
One of the chief arguments against a constitutional convention is the statement that there has been no preparation for the upcoming question that will be on the ballot in November. In 1968 and in 1988, preceding the question being on the ballot there were several committees, organizations and legal groups that produced numerous reports on various aspects of the constitution and what the advantages and disadvantages are of several reforms. None of this preparation has been present for the upcoming 2008 vote, it is true to a small degree.
Largely, the preparation for a constitutional convention has been done by the same two individuals (with the valued assistance of many other individuals) who are pushing for a yes vote on the con-con question: myself and Bruno Behrend. We've been talking about this for years, identifying the flaws in the current constitution, the reforms that are sorely needed in
In addition to a book we've written that will be coming out in May called "Illinois Deserves Better: The Ironclad Case for an Illinois Constitutional Convention", we've written a draft constitution which we think covers the deficiencies in the current constitution, reforms those aspects of the constitution that assist corruption and truly empowers the voters.
You can view our work at http://www.myillinoisconstitution.org and comment on each section of our draft constitution individually. It is time to open up the political process to the public so that we can truly participate in the governing process and that should start with the drafting of our new constitution (or the amendment thereof). Feel free to leave comments and feedback, we want to know what you think.
John-
It's always great to see attempts at progress in Illinois.
I'm fairly new to this blog, and I was wondering what your relationship is with Illinois State Government. Do you/have you held positions in Springfield or elsewhere?
I work for the University of Illinois, other than that, my connections are fairly "outsider"...
I know a few legislators and come from a political family, but haven't done anything with the ILGA.
John, how are you planning to safeguard my pension once the concon is sitting?
"Nobody's life, liberty, or wallet is safe when Congress is in session."--As true today as when Mark Twain said it more than a century ago.
Tell me about the ways in which you're going to prevent such abuses and I might even volunteer to work to be a delegate.
Tom Trumpinski
Well, a few things... you can read the draft language I use for the pension section here.
When the 1970 guarantee was put in, it was intentional to use the phrase "enforceable contractual relationship" because it invokes *federal* protection as well (the Contract Clause). There is ample case law that says pensions are contracts that states can't diminish once they've been given.
So, if there was a con-con that said, "no more pensions for you", one lawsuit to the federal courts and they would stamp "epic fail" on top of the new constitution.
However, the 1970 language also did not require *funding* the pension system because they didn't want to tie the hands of the ILGA in tough economic times. The result is clear, the state has **never** contributed their matching funds... not once. And they've taken money out on more than one occasion. I disagree that "generosity" is the problem with the pension, the state not keeping its promises is.
Now, assuming nothing changes, in about 10 years the state will become insolvent and pensions will have to be paid from the general revenue fund. That would mean an instant $5B budget deficit they'd have to close, and if history is any indication, they'll try to cut pensions.
There is an "extraordinary circumstances" test for the contract clause which allows for "exceptions" in the case of extreme hardship. This means it is possible that once the state faces bankruptcy they may be able to weasel out of their pension obligations a decade from now in federal court.
So, in short, a con-con is the only way to protect the pensions now because they will be at risk later.
How I fix it is by making the state agency (as opposed to the ILGA) on the hook to pay the matching funds. This way you can go to court and make them pay, whereas you can't go to court and have a judge write an appropriations bill. This deals directly with the fundamental problem, a pension guarantee that allows for non-funding... now they have to fund.
I use the IMRF model of pensions which has no state appropriations and is at near 100% funding (98% if I remember correctly). The link has the exact text, it has been vetted by a few people and everyone (including the unions) seems to like it.
Let me know what you think.
Enjoyed the article. the only problem I see is with your logic.
As a state employee, about 5 years from retirement, I am concerned about the future of my pension too. Your advocating a concon as a way to change the way the pension system is funded. All well and good, but who is going to change this at the concon?? The delegates? Are these the same politicians who have underfunded the pension system for years? Now your going to trust them to do the "right" thing? These clowns in Springfield can't even agree on the time of day let alone change the Illinois constitution.