Opinion ID: 2151564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Three-Fourths Vote

Text: ถ 65. SEA contends that Act 11 is unconstitutional because it failed to pass the Wisconsin legislature by a three-fourths vote of all the members elected to both houses of legislature. ถ 66. SEA raises what we regard as a threshold issue: whether 1999 Assembly Bill 495 failed to pass the Wisconsin legislature by a three-fourths vote of all the members elected to both houses of the legislature, contrary to Article IV, Section 26 of the Wisconsin Constitution. SEA's challenge threatens the validity of the entire Act and, consequently, it must be addressed first. ถ 67. Article IV, Section 26 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides in relevant part as follows: (1) The legislature may not grant any extra compensation to a public officer, agent, servant or contractor after the services have been rendered or the contract has been entered into. . . . (3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to increased benefits for persons who have been or shall be granted benefits of any kind under a retirement system when such increased benefits are provided by a legislative act passed on a call of ayes and noes by a three-fourths vote of all the members elected to both houses of the legislature and such act provides for sufficient state funds to cover the costs of the increased benefits. ถ 68. The text of Article IV, Section 26 raises several questions of interpretation that require us to review the history of the section, which has been amended five times since its inclusion as part of the original constitution. ถ 69. At the beginning of the last century, Article IV, Section 26 consisted of a single sentence: Extra compensation. Section 26. The legislature shall never grant any extra compensation to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after the services shall have been rendered or the contract entered into; nor shall the compensation of any public officer be increased or diminished during his term of office. ถ 70. In 1921, the legislature approved a Teachers' Retirement Act that contained several features of the present retirement system. Ch. 459, Laws of 1921. The act provided pensions for teachers already in service and computed the pensions to reflect the teachers' entire service before and after enactment of the law. When the act was challenged in our court, the question presented was whether the credit for past service for teachers still employed was extra compensation in violation of Section 26. This court concluded that the purpose of the law was to promote a higher efficiency in the state's educational system by retaining seasoned and experienced teachers. State ex rel. Dudgeon v. Levitan, 181 Wis. 326, 339, 193 N.W. 499 (1923). The court explained that enactment of a pension system would attract future entrants into the teaching profession, but failure of that pension system to consider past service by teachers already working would generate dissatisfaction, causing the older teachers either to drop out of the service or to continue in service with abated interest and devotion. Id. at 341. The court observed: We do not think it necessarily follows that because the legislature, in its attempt to construct an enduring and efficient pension system, saw fit to base the annuity which teachers already in service are to be awarded in part upon the service rendered prior to the enactment of the law, it was its dominant purpose or intent to award such teachers extra compensation for services already rendered. Id. at 342. The court went on: As we view it, the annuity based on past service is not intended to be, or operate as, compensation for past service. It was rather intended to be, and in fact is, an inducement to the seasoned and experienced teacher to remain in the service and give the public the benefit of his experience. We think there was plenty of room for the legislature to determine that the ultimate success of the pension system itself required special consideration of those constituting the educational forces of the state at the time of the enactment of the law, not as compensation for prior service but rather as an inducement to them to remain in the service, to the great benefit of our educational institutions. Id. at 343. ถ 71. Three decades after Dudgeon, the court was confronted with a more difficult question: whether the legislature could appropriate funds to increase retirement benefits for teachers who had retired before June 30, 1951. State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel, 262 Wis. 51, 65, 53 N.W.2d 726 (1952) ( Giessel I ). This legislative plan was retroactive; no future service was required of the retired teachers to qualify for the pension increase. The court concluded that the plan was unconstitutional, stating that the effect of the law was to grant extra compensation to public servants after the services are rendered. . .in violation of sec. 26, art. IV of the state constitution. Id. The court added: It has not escaped the attention of the court that a decision sustaining an increase of benefits for already retired teachers would clear the way for legislation increasing benefits for all public employees, including judges, granted by the legislature from time to time after their retirement, and such a decision would be consonant with the selfish interests of the court. Nevertheless, as we read sec. 26, art IV, Const., this would involve an exception to a clear and unmistakable command. If exceptions are to be made, they should not come from the legislature or the court but from those whose proper function it is to amend the constitution. Id. at 64 (emphasis added).