calls cases one one nine six one eight six two olds six three six three nine six four four consolidated mary j jones at all versus the municipal employees annuity in benefit from the facts neither of which is disputed first without the act the funds will become insolvent in a matter of years second the act of the reached this looming disaster for the funds and their necessarily increasing the city's contributions in imposing a new obligation that the city must pay each year what ever amount the funds actuaries determine is necessary to ensure that the funds are fully funded and that all options will be picked scuse me this case does presents an issue that was not before this court in the pension reform case and that is whether the pension statute that overwhelmingly benefits fund participants through a massive increase in the city's contributions that not only source of funds from insolvency but ensures that they will be fully funded over time nevertheless the many shifts or appears pensions and there by violates the clause because the act also imposes modest reductions in future automatic as a whole infected sure pair pensions and the only question there was whether that considered impairment was nevertheless justified by the state's exercise of its police power this these funds is not diminished or here they are preserved and protected now those facts distinguish this is not only from the pension reform case but every prior illinois case where how does the promise of actual sound funded and how does that matter when the constitution guarantees their point benefits that will that they were promised they'll get i mean to say you're getting these benefits you're promised these benefits and now we're going to promise again to fund it so you get these benefits how is that a plus because it is still scored made clear in the three funding cases on and display of certainly can see the constitution did not hear it see or require funding it troy plainness rely heavily on this too by protecting benefits to prompt the general assembly to step forward but it didn't require that pension protection clause would not control funding whether the purpose of the clause was to ensure public employees receive their promised benefits don't you point us to the statute that was adopted before the constitution fund and if the pension fund runs out of money that guarantee no longer applies i don't know necessarily it depends on the particular pension contract this court has held on him and time again but the pension clause doesn't create chanst that are fined and limited by the pension code and i'm saying here your honor this is not true of most spawns in the state most runs in the state have expressed provisions where some entity other than the f determination was prior to the act that only the funds themselves were responsible for the benefits now the plaintiffs respond to argument twenty two for all three bites saying that  well imply relief the closet superceded twenty two for all three now they don't cite a case because no case is ever held that fact there's no case it ever has even suggested the twenty two for three is not good contract that's protected by the quads now the second reason why that argument is wrong is not only do we have that sure will authority specifically enforcing provisions like this predawn nine hundred seventy that limit or eliminate of the pension contract and it's why here is such a unique case and why here we have an act that indisputably leaves east these were just once better off it ensures that pension benefits will be paid that otherwise would not be paid but i want to go further and say and even if ok and by this i don't mean you can see everything i've said about twenty two four zero three as does all of that i think is r thirty one unions are cheer and have supported this act insistently including in the in the general assembly but even if you were to find or it were correct that twenty two four zero three was overturned participants are better off because the only alternative the plaintiffs have ever provided for these seventy five thousand families be released until ten this court's decision in is and maybe they could go to judgment and maybe they could recover it in time of course by that time because you would have billions of dollars being paid in the intervening ten and thirteen years those unfunded liabilities  basis are going to be far greater my point your honor and it's why twenty seven to thirty one unions we need goshen for two and a half years on that has stepped up with us to try to solve this problem has he's folks are better off they there this is a huge financial obligation all that money's going to be pouring in these spines earning returns to ensure that when these folks retire they won't just have an empty promise but they will have a fund with bloom's of true that in this unique contest as quite frankly why collective bargaining really doesn't work here reality clee this we can't determine what benefit a pension benefits are we all know that when we sat down for two and a half years we could reach agreement but we had to come because it's a bargain for change for for consideration and that picks up on the cost case and more recently this court's decision in pension reform paragraph i'm sorry footnote twelve really  pine bargain for consideration here in plaintiff's arguments to the contrary there's no case that's rejected by me for consideration on that basis plus they would make the consideration approach that this court hasn't know individually enforced does not mean that when it comes to what is law for modifying them that this court can apply a reasonable and commonsense approach bob as new york has done where may please the court good morning my name is vincent benelli and i'm here on behalf of the minister full employees fund as well as the trustees who are opponents in both the jones and johnson matters the fund has asked this court to find that the act is constitutional for a very basic reason by amending article eight as it did the legislature save the funds from certain insolvency and as you've just heard and have seen in the briefs that fact is not disputed by any of the parties and is supported by overwhelming evidence in the record that within ten years the statutory fix level of contributions from the active participants as well as the city will simply not be enough to pay the full benefits promised participants the guarantee of actuarial based funding from the city that be at contained however not only benefits the fund by insulating it sufficient to pay promised benefits to the participants this imposition of that obligation on the city is a significant benefit to all of the participants of the farm collectively including the right to bring a mandamus action as well as to intercept and redirect state funds to compel the payment of money owed to the fund the legislature has now once they became part of the act they are now benefits of membership that are protected by the pension protection clause so by the legislature placing them in article eight which is the contract between the city and the employees they are now protected by the pension protection law so the constitution protects this kind of funding yes and it would and that i think was specifically behind the legislature's intent when it passed this act so returning to those enforcement mechanisms instead of having to wait until the brink of bankruptcy or default when  clearly be too late for the funds to take any action the friends are now able to we need it we take action if there is a deficiency in funding simply put your honour's the consequences to the front of the act the promise benefits and grossly of course without the guarantees we will continue to liquidate ten percent of our assets every year we can't in any way invest our way out of the structural cannot raise contributions it cannot levy any funds at all this at sal's those problems there is a pathway to constitutionally the council has laid out urges court to reverse the trial court and entry judgment in favor of any of the negotiations that the city alleges neither of those arguments and smears it's important to keep in mind that these are the online benefits insulated from the political winds bet may blow from time to time so what's really going on here it's clear the funding schedule that the general assembly prescribed for these funds has not matched the pons obligations you don't simply has not match known bond obligations now that the result of that disconnect is intolerable they just don't want to pay for the benefits but that's precisely what the pension so let's examine the net benefit area for a second as i said there's no question under this act standing alone the pension benefit reductions wouldn't survive constitutional funding and shield those diminishment from the pension protection laws and the answer clearly is no set aside in setting aside money to pay for what is already a constitutional guarantee is not  benefit new or net funding provisions cannot justify engine benefit reductions in illinois that alone should bring an end to the net benefit theory that spouts but there undeterred the city claims that these are on funded statutory promises and that so you retirees will only get their pension benefits if the general assembly or the nothing more than unfunded statutory promises they can't their constitutional obligations consider for a moment what the city would have this or rule taken to its logical extension the city would say and the general assembly would say that it can accomplish indirectly by simply choosing not to fund these pension benefits what they can't do directly in an effort to that theory defendants contend that this time around the general assembly really means that they really intend to require adequate funding and they point city say that the act is needed in the first phase because they want to use monies to pay for other services that otherwise would be paid to the pension funds it's not surpris defendant this morning address that aping loophole in the so called guarantee and it's not surprising that they'll find it addressed nowhere in their briefs political football where is a guarantee a constitutional guarantee if the goalposts can always be moved the act contains no link whatsoever that the legislature here intended to bind members as the court recognized earlier this morning those rights would have to be decided upon by the individual members so that means that bench cause makes it really impracticable for  benefits that the pension funds themselves there and they say that creates the fault rule for which pension system members have no recourse but that argument ignores the pension protection clause absolutely here and t s haven of constitutionally promised mention benefits and as this court recognizes the pension plus is designed to force the funding of pensions that'll turn it is no better even if the city's facts were taken as true there was no exchange no consideration and no bargain as the city admits cases involve collective arc there was no collective bargaining in this case regardless as the record shows the unions who are plaintiffs in this case up almost the to see that the legislation materially change after it was introduced at the insistence of the government the pension stabilization let you know that was designed to fa day rather than a state deals with the city participants same issues same arguments same result the argument that the city makes and so we can change everything we can exercise a police powers that was reject the argument is now we have in front of these we have allowed them to get to the point of maybe insolvency in the next ten years and because of what we've done the sky is falling and we're going to give you a net benefit in that we've created a situation that you won't have that the guaranteed benefits might not be paid so here's what we're going to do we're going to add we're now say here's how we're going to fund it but you have to produce about that was precisely the reason that article thirteen section five was passed was enact by the people of the state of illinois to ensure that benefits as they were provided would be paid you want to fund them you don't want to fund them somebody is going to pay this and the city is argument is well we satisfied all the statutory obligations that we have and the fact is that's not entirely true unless you put in the footnotes that especially with the laborers fund for six years when the city decided that it didn't want to contribute it got legislation passed in springfield that freed it from making any contribution at all for i believe the years two thousand through two thousand  at the same time participants did not get such a participant had withheld from their paychecks the same contributions that they had made they were still paying for a benefit that the city chose not to this isn't and that the city argues well we have blacks or unions who who agreed with us you know this isn't a tag team match i have no doubt that the city can enlist all sorts of people to support a new position but the fact is there is no agreement that the city has ever tender you know like a signed contract doesn't exist they didn't offer number two the unions are not authorized to represent retiree's they're not legally permitted to do that and indeed the city as it wants to in the collective bargaining statute would be precluded from  as a collective bargaining issue the benefits that the participants get from another statute that's what we're talking about and the city really concedes we couldn't do this by a collective bargaining agreement anyway and so rather than afford the participants due process which you know i've spent my life doing class actions but the fundamental basis for class actions is that people are represented they have the opportunity if there was a settlement they have the opportunity to have notice and an opportunity to be heard on the settlement here with the city to say well we couldn't do it by collective bargaining agreement we didn't really funded and so we're not going to do this on an individual basis be impossible so we're just going to do this by a tag team deal where we get a bunch of people to sign on to some sort of rump group that we went down to springfield and we got it done and that should satisfy because you that's you know it's like an all you can eat restaurant where the restaurant owner comes out and says that's all you can eat the fundamental due process rights of participants needs to be protected schoolhouse he case i know it was our case and it basically said we are not going to enforce what were specific applications to contribute until and unless the funds are insolv mabel to pay well for the past ten years the abundance trustees who come out and say that they have to protect all the participants where they believe they have the right to go to court they have the right for their funds to say there's a problem here and you the city needs to deal with it there's a problem i knew the legislature have to deal with it they cannot just come in at the end and say well we didn't do anything all these years because we didn't have you and so we're going to support the city's cutting the benefits of participants that's not how article thirteen section five court i want to start by entering two questions as court raises one go back to justice thomas to your question which i think i misunderstood or my argument because i thought you were asking about our consideration based  argument but i think that what you're really asking had a premise that i disagree and that is plain language of the statute reduces benefice why isn't that the end of the story here and all due respect i think that reduces the future increase in automatic anyone just meant diminishes or impairs the benefits of membership in the clause in violation of i'm sorry the membership of the fund is in violation of the issue but what's the overwhelming balance the overwhelming benefit is that money billions of dollars going to be paid in these funds to be available to pay benefits when they become  benefit is you are taking away a bit to what would seem to be an overwhelming benefit of the constitution that says the pension funds can't be diminished or impaired all due respect no and here is why all your honor so this is sped so are you saying that it by nature of the contract that was entered into when they simply began work they should have known that their pension benefits may not be there for them in the future the bets the contract that the entered into they entered into account i'd say a little differently your honor your fact of matter is the funding mechanisms that the legislature chose were completely adequate until about eight or ten years unconstitutional result that was not a a a result the breach in the contract it was just the way things turned out based on the terms of the contract that these folks had every right to and every expectation  should be applied now they're only recently told we're simplified but this does the would you agree that the statute unquestionably means that they would be getting less than they were originally prom no it doesn't it depends on the circumstances and what the general assembly did in the in the interim so the statute said you're only get the fines are only responsible for the obligation  intervening years the general simply could up but was not required to change it funding to make sure it was adequate now we did that and in fact we all agree that that's part of what the owners intended to try to there's nothing else that the general assembly or the city could do to make sure that the funding was there adequate outside of this provision i'm not saying that but i'm saying but that's not the legal issue before the court we could speculate just since this case is in any damage it's about all kinds of things that might eliminate harm or might fix a problem the stark issue before this court because this court's got to deal and in facts and not speculation here it is a dichotomy we know with the world is without the act there's no dispute about that these funds aren't adequately funded they'll only get worse they're liquidated ten percent of their assets every year and ten and thirteen years at the latest are going to run out of money and from that point on course at this point short of agreeing with your argument in ten to thirteen years to make sure the purchase of prints got their money yes it is the only alternative to both the lower court here in the bodies come up with ok before you put it wrist sixty participants pensions i would think they ought to have an alternative we've been asking for what sure alternative if will you through these people under the bus you take away something to guarantees their pitches what is it the only thing that they've ever come up off because they have a guaranteed source of funding a pleasant nasib increasing what's going to be in the bank earning investment returns that pay their pensions a promise going forward the way they are there not is no more circumstances of the particular fund what is protected by the clause are the benefits of membership in a retirement system this court has repeatedly held to define what that contract is this protected you look at the pension code it's the legislature that defines what the terms of that relationship are whatever they are is protected you merely cases most cases but here is a term in that contract that says is responsible for backstopping it and under what circumstances the spines have that backstop this act replaces it now the people that are saying this act would not be constitutionally protected or not us and i want to dress up because i think that was your question just as i'd only begun he answered it's dead and it's such a total role reversal this actuarial funding commitment to this end will be constitutionally protected for two protected it was a failure to appropriate a particular level funding in a particular year council your time is expired pleasure said one thing it did very briefly very briefly on the threat to put to spin some retirement systems going forward in light of pension reform is not going to be because the general simply takes away been the threat going forward is going to be that the money's not there to pay the pensions when they become do the end of dough to that is and has always been an actuarial funding obligation that actuarial funding obligation exists for most of the state funds if you sustain this it is a virtue to do it will sustain here that's a constitutionally protected right and if you want to do something to further protect and to further move forward on protecting the rights of participants in this state's public pension plans that's where you go overturn