insurance benefit for retirees that the subject of this case was not a part of the compensation of my client david you know the second error i believe he made is his finding that city of casey for eleven years he also was entitle to a two year military credit for retirement and these health insurance benefits  he served from ninety three through one thousand nine hundred three through two thousand and four and during that time course you're familiar with actions that were taken by the city council of haiti instituting a  the final action that the council took there concerning this rate hike retiree health insurance benefit for all the persons he did retire and may of two thousand and four a retired from his other employer sears in early two thousand and ten prior to this action that was taken by the k c city council as i indicated  think it's important to take a look at judge gorged ruling with regard to his finding that this retiree health insurance benefit could not be part of the  did when they took their action in one thousand ninety eight and then again in two thousand to institute this retiree health benefit for all over the  of the case i believe the horse clear the yellow i supreme court has looked at whether or not a certain piece of legislation and this this case action by the city council is legislation can be retroactive and and looking at it they must look at whether or not it would affect vested rights of those that would be affected by the change in the legislation keep in mind n we're before the court passed we are here today on a determination whether or not the rights that were established by the legislature here then become vested but the case that you're relying on that case involves some some state legislation but basically it was legislation concerning a and emitting of a statute concerning the gasoline storage act but in any event this the court the spent quite a bit of time talking about the vested rights that might one might have and whether a piece of legislation should become retroactive or not and they're saying that if i may quote just the sentence the court has defined it says this court has defined vested right as an expectation expectation that is so far perfective that it can and cannot be taken away by legislation  mind at the time this two thousand and ten ordinance was adopted by the city of k c which is the subject of our lawsuit mr yoakum head retire w receiving the benefit the retiree health insurance plan that a fire city that a city council had put into place so you know all of he basically had perfected  any expectation that he had by applying for and was at that point receiving this benefit there was nothing further to be bad on his part to have this benefit in the prior argument  has to be the knowledge of that has to be attributed to the point or to the individuals who receive the benefits that the state can decide we're no longer going to fund it we're no longer going to m they really tied it to the state program exist yet that would be their insurance carrier at the time certainly if the state cancel plans there are other carriers that provide insurance coverage plan which was previously borne by the city if you look at that plan yet and you know it several pages long and i would probably have a hard time finding it but i know there is a provision in there that the city of now over fifteen hundred dollars right right right if you if you run for office if you run for office and you defeat the retire or have you compensation again as i pointed out before it's up to the corporate authorities which is the city council in this case to set the salary and compensation for elected officials and that is typically for a defendant you know it's for the term of office that they have they only the only requirement is to u s a limitation on compensation for all women but the only limitation in terms of what a  the salary or insatiate that the corporate authorities can set is that it they've lestat it at least one hundred eighty days before the beginning of the next term for it to apply to those persons that are then ele what the compensation was to be for for older men and that included not only whatever they might be paid in cash as a quote fix them out but also a benefit that they would carry over into retirement and this was all adopted more than one hundred eighty days before you know mr yoakum was last to like the  understand now the words my clients right now pay their fines to the city and then the city turns around and pays t therefore you know in point back to the trial judges holding that this could not be part of their compensation i state that i believe the back black letter of all is that it is part of their section three point one day shift the dash five establishment all municipal officers except as otherwise provided shall receive the salary or other compensation councilman our position is that the retiree benefit was part of the compensation received by mr yoakum for being an older   whether or not a retiree health insurance benefit for retired elected officials was part of the compensation for which they work and that was you know salary or other compensation you know i think there's a i cited a supreme court case of leaves on harlan case which says that under the illinois constitution in the section dealing with local government the term salary as used in that connotation includes all forms of compensation received by an elected official and my class rely on that affirmative act of the city council well certainly you know when he retired he a role in the plan he was employed full time by sears it's undisputed that when he retired from sears he elected not to join their plan because he was already on the city of taiz plan so certainly there was a detrimental reliance by him on this action that had been taken by the a c c else now another point of what may just be arsed makes something the fact that he was a member of the city council at the time that this was adopted i believe the law is clear that an action by a city council is by the body as a whole not by its individual members if we were going to hold that a a a salary or compensation could never be increased for an elected official if he served forty years was he is he going to be stuck with the salary went before was first elected office even though he would like to every four years so i believe that  compensation the trial court found that the plaintiffs in this case did not treat or consider the payment of health insurance so at least one hundred eight hundred eighty days before it becomes a fact now mr yoakum plaintiff in this instance was on the council when the initial resolution was approved initial page three of the minutes the following discussion was made by mayor savage he proposed changes in the elected officials health insurance when retiring and they discussed what the changes would be the minutes then reflect overman gerar motion and the approval motion to approve the proposed health insurance changes for current life that officials will retiring when retiring it was in essence effective  any of the elected officials on the council at the time they voted yes you want to ninety eight who are going on for four years who are resigned the next day and picked up their their of my original argument with respect to a stop or i don't think it applies the language of the contract with the state of illinois precludes it from being a vested and i would suggest to the court i attend that the city was obligated to go out and get additional insurance if the state canceled its coverage there's nowhere that says in any of the resolutions that the city guarantees coverage for these people the city participated in a program that made it available to the alderman and that's a key distinction all due respect ok i don't quite understand that well c m s provides this program for those cities to participate they can do so or they don't have to if they do produce or if they do participate in the program then they go with whatever the program requirements are including the fact that it could be canceled the adoption of the ordinance to provide those know but the complaint provides that it was provided in accordance with that because that's what in fact where i'm at i'm in the trial court had to do so i think you know you do respect the trial court found that it was not compensation and and confined so just from reading the minutes of this meeting and see how they applied it so and again as far as the equitable stuff was concerned not only did they have  plane before them but we know that they made amendments to the planets they progressed through their their aldermanic career there was an attorney general's opinion before this ever arose other not a union of appointed employees to be appointed positions are officers i don't know whether del white to elected officials or not there's not a single reference given a case 's just not not there maybe we could dig out the records someplace and it would say but the printed opinion does not give any support to that proposition  i made an observation about it this morning and i let me just status i said this morning i was surprised and disappointed not disappointed because if you review the holding and it doesn't hurt my position i they found that vesting had to be could be determined and pursued in less the language of a collective bargaining agreement prohibited intended best and for that reason marconi really that's assists the six position when we say that these people don't have a vested right they're just like the rest of the people in this world they get insurance for a purpose but the state may have to change its position and that's exactly what the city of casey has done with the economic circumstances they noted for that you know you that they are for salary for compensation whenever you want want to call it and not be increased or diminished or must that must occur at least one hundred eighty days before the beginning of the term of the new officer so i think really that is a red herring to say in their motion they said if they did indicate that it took effect a hundred eighty days from now it doesn't have to  as the the deal case not missionising elected officials it spoke in terms of office holders the only office holders that you know that it could apply to i play be elected officials and why they didn't use it like that if in terms of office holders i don't know but but they did i did cite louisiana case which i really is a bit to bring up and louisiana case but it's on anything out of this district that baby's to the contrary and if there is i apologize for not knowing so thank you very much thank you come from probably a recess will take this matter