Court Opinion

ID: 9861037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:39:55.793426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:08.660472
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority rightly concludes that the Attorney General’s appearance on behalf of the retirement systems does not create a disqualifying conflict of interest. I might add that, being duty bound to represent this State’s agencies as well as its officers, the Attorney General’s involvement is compelled. (See Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 394, 399; see also Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 108½, par. 14 — 139 (specifically naming the Attorney General the legal advisor of the board of trustees of the State Employees’ Retirement System).) After all, the pension systems are the equivalent of State agencies to the extent they are, like agencies, "bodfies] politic and corporate” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 108½, par. 22 — 401) with rulemaking authority (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 108½, pars. 2 — 143 (General Assembly), 14— 135.03 (State employees), 15 — 177 (State universities), 16 — 168 (teachers), 18 — 150 (judges)). They are, therefore, like State agencies, subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 127, par. 1003.01). And, like State agencies, the systems are subject to the Illinois State Auditing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 15, par. 301 — 14). The derivative nature of the action, of course, insures that the Attorney General’s dual involvement will not compromise the interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the pension systems. Any remedy will come about because the issues are pressed by the representative plaintiffs, not the Attorney General. See Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago ex rel. O’Keeffe v. Ingram Corp. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 458, 475 (involving an individual’s appeal on behalf of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago). So much for the good. The majority dismisses the appeal, reasoning no determination of the transfer’s constitutional legitimacy could undo it, noting, for good measure, the interlocutory status of the matter. The decision is wrong both legally and because it stands as a sign of willingness to weigh political expediency in crafting the constitutional jurisprudence of this State. I dissent to that portion of today’s decision. The "untenable” position the majority describes— asked to assay constitutional challenges on a moot issue upon denial of a TRO — should be no surprise. This court took an active hand in creating the situation. Once eager to reach the merits, the court twice before granted direct appeal, ignoring the matter’s interlocutory status. Given that the court did not restrain the transfer when, in May 1992, it allowed the second direct appeal, not one thing has made the matter any less justiciable. It may be that policies behind the mootness doctrine are compelling regardless of when the mooting event occurred (Madison Park Bank v. Zagel (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 231, 236, citing Brownlow v. Schwartz (1923), 261 U.S. 216, 67 L. Ed. 620, 43 S. Ct. 263) and that some issues may not lend themselves to clean adjudication in an interlocutory appeal. But the history of this case certainly dispels any notion that there is cause for consternation. More importantly, the reasons offered for dismissing the case do not command that outcome. The two appellate decisions the majority relies on with regard to interlocutory appeals do not pertain to cases involving issues of a nature and scope as those here. The case of primary focus, Spencer v. Community Hospital (1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 285, did not involve any question of constitutional import, let alone a facial attack on legislation. The other, Toushin v. City of Chicago (1974), 23 Ill. App. 3d 797, did involve such an attack, but, unlike here, the challenge did not promise disposition of the entire case (Toushin, 23 Ill. App. 3d at 803 (noting that even if the owner of a "sensitivity center” prevailed in an interlocutory appeal which challenged the constitutionality of legislation regulating massage parlors, activities at the center could be enjoined as a public nuisance)). This court has often cautioned against unnecessarily reaching constitutional questions where the case may be resolved on other issues. (See, e.g., People ex rel. Waller v. 1990 Ford Bronco (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 460, 464, citing Exchange National Bank v. Lawndale National Bank (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 316, 321.) That caution, warranted in cases involving an assertion of a violation of constitutionally protected rights, is less compelling where a facial attack on legislation is made. The reason: legislation unconstitutional on its face is void, not merely voidable. See In re Contest of the Election for the Offices of Governor & Lieutenant Governor (1983), 93 Ill. 2d 463, 471. In embracing the mootness doctrine, the majority declines to consider whether an exception for cases involving questions of public interest might apply. (See, e.g., People ex rel. Wallace v. Lahrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618, 622; see also Annot., 132 A.L.R. 1185 (1941).) Instead of analysis, the majority recites the usual reasons for declining to address moot questions. The majority has it backwards. The admonishments against deciding moot questions do not explain why the public interest exception should not be considered. Rather, it is that the admonishments exist that an analysis into whether the exception is applicable is necessary. (See People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 622-23 (noting first why courts do not consider moot questions and then considering whether criteria relevant to the public interest exception are met).) Were it otherwise, the admonishment against reviewing moot questions because they permit, at most, advisory opinions would swallow up one of the very reasons for the public interest exception: the need to guide public officers in the future. See People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 622. Had the majority addressed the relevant considerations, I submit, it would have been impossible to deny that the requisite public interest exists to apply the exception. I might point out that this court has readily found such interest reason to reach moot questions not remotely as sweeping as the constitutional ones raised here. Most recently, the court has done so to determine whether the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act calls for mandatory scheduling of certain hearings which had already been set. (Radzewski v. Cawley (1994), 159 Ill. 2d 372, 376-77.) Other deserving instances have included an election contest over a judicial vacancy which had been filled (Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 391, 395), a charge of juvenile neglect against a mother for refusing a blood transfusion where the child had reached majority (In re E.G. (1989), 133 Ill. 2d 98, 105-06), a constitutional challenge to one section of the Public Community College Act raised by an unaffected amicus (Spaulding v. Illinois Community College Board (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 449, 454-55), an attempt by electors to "void” a town meeting where the matters to be tabled had already won unanimous approval or were resolved by statutory amendment (Thompson v. Conti (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 160, 165-66), and actions to force Jehovah’s Witnesses to submit to blood transfusions after they had been given (In re Estate of Brooks (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 361, 364-65; People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 622-23). And even where the court has dismissed an appeal as moot, it has done so with at least a cursory statement indicating it has found no public interest in the case to allow for the exception. (See, e.g., George W. Kennedy Construction Co. v. City of Chicago (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 70, 77; Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 481, 485; In re Marriage of Wright (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 498, 500.) But not here. Guidance in determining whether the requisite public interest exists was noted over 40 years ago in People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 622. Although the listing of criteria there was inexhaustive, three factors were offered: (1) the question is of a public, not a private, nature; (2) good reason exists to resolve it to guide public officers in the future; and (3) the question is one likely to recur. People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 622 (noting that those were "[a]mong” the relevant concerns). Against those criteria, the requisite interest exists to decide at least two constitutional issues here, either of which is entirely dispositive of the case: (1) whether Public Act 87 — 838 is invalid in whole because it is not confined to one subject (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 8); and (2) whether the transfer itself resulted in an impairment of contract rights (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 16; Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5; U.S. Const., art. I, §10). Public v. Private Nature of the Questions Both issues above are questions of a public nature. Public Act 87 — 838, the Second Emergency Budget Act, as I detail later, amended several existing enactments in order to free revenue to balance the State budget. The amendments do not merely affect participants and beneficiaries of the State-funded pension systems. The possibility of other like challenges by affected individuals and entities across the State speaks to the public nature of the challenge to the Act on the whole. As for the transfer, it was accomplished through legislation tailored by the General Assembly to empower the Governor to use funds from the systems to balance the State budget. The concern is whether, in that effort, there was disregard for other constitutional provisions. Questions involving the constitutional propriety of legislative action and executive authority, particularly those which touch on the financial affairs of an entire State, have long been recognized as reasons justifying the public interest exception. See 132 A.L.R. at 1190 (collecting cases). But perhaps most significant is the simple fact that the pension systems now stand $21 million poorer after the transfer. Given the systems’ precarious financial health — a fact, much later noted, about which this court is well aware — the public interest is underscored by this truth: the tax-paying citizenry of this State will bear the eventual burden of bailing out the systems from insolvency, an outcome made all the more predictable by such legislative maneuvering. It would be no small burden. The annual report of all State pension funds shows that, as of June 1993, there were 282,555 active members and 111,119 benefit recipients. Those numbers do not even reflect inactive members, that is, persons not yet retired owed pension fund benefits as a result of former membership, but who have not sought distribution. Future Guidance of Public Officers If any case could give reason to resolve issues to provide guidance for public officials it would be this one. The public officials here are the highest elected officers of this State’s executive and legislative branches of government. The guidance which might be offered is nothing less than the determination of what legislation, if any, properly may affect constitutionally protected pension fund moneys. Measuring legislation against what is constitutionally required is, of course, the solemn responsibility of this court. People ex rel. Keenan v. McGuane (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 520, 531-32. Recurrence of the Question It is doubtless that the guidance afforded in resolving the chaPenges raised would find quick and regular application. Balancing the State budget is, of course, an annual travail. Opportunity to resort to legislative maneuvering to overcome revenue shortfalls awaits only the next budgetary crisis. (See also People ex rel. Bernardi v. City of Highland Park (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (invoking a separate exception for moot questions capable of repetition but escaping review but noting the recurrence of the question with reference to the considerations for the public interest exception).) And, again, the extensive amendment of other legislation under the Second Emergency Budget Act leaves open the possibility of similar future attack. The above considerations show the merits of this case should have been addressed. I endeavor to do so now, convinced that all parties anticipated such a resolution. There is also the chance that, in not doing so, the majority’s declination to pass on the propriety of the denial of the TRO may be taken as reason to assume there is nothing constitutionally onerous on the whole about the Second Emergency Budget Act. The possibility of similarly overlooking the constitutional legitimacy of the transfer, a separate concern, is less likely. Resolution of the transfer’s legitimacy depends on the same constitutional provisions at issue in the pending litigation regarding the alleged underfunding of the systems. The Second Emergency Budget Act of 1992 The Second Emergency Budget Act is peculiar both in structure and nature. It is one of a type of legislative measure that has before warranted this court’s close scrutiny. (See Fuehrmeyer v. City of Chicago (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 193, 202-03.) The legislative aim is accomplished by fashioning new provisions as well as amending separately existing legislation, a scheme first encountered in Turner v. Wright (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 161. The concern with such measures is that they may violate the so-called "single- or one-subject rule,” a command retained from the 1870 Constitution limiting the content of bills. See Ill. Ann. Stat., 1970 Const., art. IV, § 8, Constitutional Commentary, at 155 (Smith-Hurd 1971); Ill. Const. 1870, art. IV, § 13 ("No act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject”). The rule is intended to prevent abuses associated with including diverse legislation in one act (see Sramek, State Statutes: The One-Subject Rule Under the 1970 Constitution, 6 J. Marshall L. Rev. 359, 359-60 (1973)). Illinois courts have spent considerable effort to read the term "subject” (see, e.g., Dee-El Garage, Inc. v. Korzen (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 1) so as to square the command with its object. The command is not a literal one: so long as the provisions of a bill are germane to the accomplishment of the purpose of the enactment, the limitation is satisfied. (Dee-El Garage, 53 Ill. 2d at 9-10.) Nor is it absolute: unlike the version contained in the 1870 Constitution, the limitation in our modern constitution exempts certain bills from the requirement that all bills be confined to one subject. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 8(d).) Relevant here, exempted are “bills for appropriations” and bills “for the *** revision *** of laws.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 8(d). The Second Emergency Budget Act is neither. The Act’s first six sections are the new provisions. Of those, two are operative, empowering and directing State agencies to create “contingency reserves” for 1992 from funds formerly made available for agency use. (Pub. Act 87 — 838, §§ 15(a), (e), 20, eff. January 24, 1992.) The rest, and by far the great majority of the measure, is given to amending one or more sections of 39 separate acts. The amendments are of seven types: (1) permitting transfer of moneys to either the general revenue fund or the General Obligation Bond Retirement and Interest Fund (Pub. Act 87 — 838, §§ 110, 135, 140, 150, 155, 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 195, 200, 205, 210, 215, 220, 225, 230, 235, 240, 250, 260, 270, 290, eff. January 24, 1992); (2) directing transfers to the general revenue fund alone (Pub. Act 87 — 838, §§ 100, 105, 190, 225, 230, 270, 275, 285, eff. January 24, 1992); (3) validating a July 1991 order of the Governor making such transfers (Pub. Act 87 — 838, § 225, eff. January 24,1992); (4) prohibiting, from February through June 1992, normally permitted transfers from the general revenue fund (Pub. Act 87 — 838, §§ 245, 246, 247, 248, eff. January 24, 1992); (5) reducing required reserves in the school budget and permitting the reduced amount to be appropriated for any use (Pub. Act 87 — 838, § 253, eff. January 24, 1992); (6) empowering departments of State government to implement the contingency reserves called for in the Act (Pub. Act 87 — 838, §§ 110, 115, 120, 130, 275, 280, eff. January 24, 1992); and (7) reducing or increasing the amount of available grants in view of those reserves (Pub. Act 87 — 838, § 255, eff. January 24, 1992). Although the Second Emergency Budget Act certainly affects appropriated funds, it does not, like a true appropriations measure, authorize the expenditure of public moneys (Black’s Law Dictionary 102 (6th ed. 1990)), for programs enacted through substantive legislation (see Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 v. Burris (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 465, 477-78, quoting Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund v. City of Barry (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 644, 646 (stating that an appropriation "involves the setting apart from public revenue a certain sum of money for a specific object”)). True appropriations bills simply list, usually item by item, a specific amount of money payable for a specific use from a named source. (See, e.g., People ex rel. Kirk v. Lindberg (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 38, 41 (summarizing the provisions of such bills to include "appropriations for personal services, contractual services, commodities and the like”).) Normal appropriations mark the end of the legislative process. See Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm (Colo. 1985), 704 P.2d 1371, 1380. The Second Emergency Budget Act makes funds already appropriated for specific uses available for the more general one of balancing the State budget. It actually operates in reverse of an appropriations measure: moneys marked for special concerns are funnelled back to the general revenue fund. Incidentally, were the Act a true appropriations measure, it would be in danger of violating a different constitutional prohibition because it could not be used to amend substantive legislation. Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 8(d); see Benedict v. Polan (1991), 186 W. Va. 452, 413 S.E.2d 107. The Second Emergency Budget Act fares no better under the exemption for bills "for the revision of laws” although, as it is, in part, an amendatory measure, it necessarily revises laws. (See Black’s Law Dictionary 1187 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "revise,” in part, as "[t]o go over a thing for the purpose of amending ***; as, to revise statutes”).) Simply, the exemption must contemplate more than mere inclusion of amendatory provisions in a bill. If that were not the case, the limitation of the single-subject rule would be easily avoided where any bill contained at least one such provision. Similar legislation was struck down in Fuehrmeyer v. City of Chicago (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 193. That legislation was designed to give the State exclusive regulatory power over the licensing of certain professions. The operative provision empowering the State was followed by enumeration of the separate acts there amended. (See Fuehrmeyer, 57 Ill. 2d at 195.) This court invalidated the act, in part, in view of the single-subject rule, after rejecting the notion that the act constituted a revision of law. See Fuehrmeyer, 57 Ill. 2d at 202. Like the act in Fuehrmeyer, the Second Emergency Budget Act operates, in dominant part, by similarly amending numerous separate acts to achieve an objective larger than the objective of any one of them. In Fuehrmeyer, the goal was empowering the State to control licensing. Here, it is balancing the State budget. Such bills are not saved from the strictures of the single-subject rule. Were it otherwise, a generally stated scope of legislative objective would be sufficient to displace the constitutional limitation. That, by the way, is the key to understanding the exemption for bills that revise law. It is not enough that amendments contained in legislation be germane to a common objective; the amendments must also be interrelated for that purpose. The common objective of the amendments contained in the Second Emergency Budget Act is to free revenue to balance the State budget. Each amendment can be said to be germane to that end. But the amendments, the heart of the Act, are not otherwise interrelated. Those provisions are instead related to the other provisions contained in the 39 separate acts in which the preamended provisions are found. See Fuehrmeyer, 57 Ill. 2d at 203. For those reasons, I believe the Second Emergency Budget Act violates article IV, section 8(d), of this State’s constitution, which requires all bills to be confined to one subject. And because the legislation is constitutionally deficient on its face, it, as well as the transfer effected by it, is void. The Transfer of Pension Fund Moneys The ability to transfer pension fund moneys was created through several amendments to the State Finance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 127, par. 141), one of the 39 measures affected by the Second Emergency Budget Act. Section 5 of the State Finance Act had been amended under the First Emergency Budget Act to permit the Governor to transfer from "special funds” in the State Treasury up to $50 million to the general revenue fund until July 1992 (Pub. Act 87 — 14, § 2 — 18(d), eff. July 24, 1991), the State Pensions Fund (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 127, par. 144.12) being one such special fund (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 127, pars. 141(a), 141.54). Further amendment of section 5 under the Second Emergency Budget Act relaxed the earlier restrictions on such transfers in view of a legislative declaration that excess moneys existed in the special funds. Pub. Act 87 — 838, § 5, eff. January 24, 1992; Pub. Act 87 — 838, § 270, eff. January 24, 1992. In addition, section 8.12 of the State Finance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 127, par. 144.12) was amended to permit pension fund moneys to be transferred to the general revenue fund "notwithstanding any restriction on the use of’ the State Pensions Fund. (Pub. Act 87— 838, § 270, eff. January 24, 1992.) The Comptroller and Treasurer were specifically directed to effectuate a transfer of up to $21 million to the general revenue fund on February 1, 1992. Pub. Act 87 — 838, § 270, eff. January 24, 1992. In affecting funds designated for reducing the unfunded liability of the systems, the concern is that the transfer impaired constitutionally protected pension benefits or contract rights. That challenge is narrower than the constitutional challenge to the Second Emergency Budget Act on the whole. Even so, as alluded to above, the question of impairment is common to both the issue of the transfer and the alleged overall underfunding of the systems, the subject of pending litigation. A concern, then, is whether an analysis of the transfer against impairment protections might taint resolution of issues in the pending litigation. But even the majority realizes that the propriety of the transfer and the alleged overall underfunding present different concerns. In fact, the Pension Code, not the State Finance Act, lies at the root of the pending litigation. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 108½, pars. 2 — 124 (General Assembly), 14 — 131(f) (State employees), 16— 158(b) (teachers), 18 — 131(2) (judges) (all amended by Pub. Act 86 — 273, § 1, eff. August 23, 1989); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 108½, par. 15 — 155(a) (State universities) (amended by Pub. Act 86 — 1034, § 1, eff. March 2, 1990; Pub. Act 87 — 794, § 1, eff. November 19, 1991).) In short, that the issues may be resolved, in part or whole, against the same constitutional provisions is no impediment to resolution of the transfer’s propriety now. Several further observations are necessary. This State’s constitution provides, in article XIII, section 5: "Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State *** shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5.) Implicated here is the protection against impairment, rather than the protection against diminution, as plaintiffs have yet to actually receive any benefits. The protection against impairment of State pension benefits is co-extensive with the protection afforded all contracts under article I, section 16, of the constitution. (Ill. Ann. Stat., 1970 Const., art. XIII, § 5, Constitutional Commentary, at 302 (Smith-Hurd 1971); see generally Buddell v. Board of Trustees, State University Retirement System (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 99, 102.) But to avoid rendering the general impairment-of-contracts provision surplusage where State pensions are concerned, that general provision’s scope cannot include protection afforded membership in the systems here. The drafters intended the protection afforded by our constitution to parallel that afforded under the constitution of New York. (See N.Y. Const., art. 5, § 7; Kraus v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 833, 843.) Given the parallel construction, New York case law has proved a ready aid in determining the scope of protections afforded under our own constitutional provision. (Buddell v. Board of Trustees, State University Retirement System (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 99, 106-07; see also Kraus, 72 Ill. App. 3d at 844-45.) New York courts have consistently interpreted the protections to shield the source of funds for benefits not yet realized. See Kraus, 72 Ill. App. 3d at 844, quoting Birnbaum v. New York State Teachers Retirement System (1958), 5 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9,152 N.E.2d 241, 245,176 N.Y.S.2d 984, 989; Sgaglione v. Levitt (1975), 37 N.Y.2d 507, 511-12, 337 N.E.2d 592, 594, 375 N.Y.S.2d 79, 82-83 (specifically extending protection to reserve funds required to be maintained under retirement schemes). Admittedly, the language of our own constitution’s provision differs slightly from that of New York. The contractual relationship arising from State pensions here is made "enforceable.” No such mention is made in the New York provision. But, if a relationship entails duties and obligations attendant a contractual one, it must be subject to judicial enforcement, that being an elemental feature of all contracts. Our constitution merely makes plain what must be implied in the New York provision. The difference in no way prevents the same construction New York courts have given the scope of the protections there afforded from applying here. The contract clause of the Federal Constitution, of course, remains a separate basis upon which to analyze the transfer’s propriety. (See U.S. Const., art. I, § 10; United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (1977), 431 U.S. 1, 17, 52 L. Ed. 2d 92, 106, 97 S. Ct. 1505, 1515.) I am, however, unaware of any material difference between the contract clause and the protection afforded under our own constitution. In fact, the primary reason the drafters of our constitution elevated pension membership to contract status was simply to eliminate distinction between mandatory and optional participation plans. Buddell, 118 Ill. 2d at 102. Finally, I am aware that, as it is a "special fund,” the General Assembly has authorized itself to "discontinue! ]” the State Pension Fund, in which case the moneys are to be transferred to the general revenue fund. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 127, par. 141(b) (also effecting a transfer based on the inactivity of any special fund for 18 months or longer).) That, however, is of no help in answering the impairment question in light of the specific constitutional protection afforded pension plan membership. The fund has never been discontinued, and so no opportunity has arisen to explore the constitutional legitimacy of such action. (See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 24, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 111, 97 S. Ct. at 1518-19 (noting that, "[w]hatever the propriety of a State’s binding itself to a future course of conduct in other contexts, the power to enter into effective financial contracts [protected under the contract clause] cannot be questioned”).) That an act purports to allow discontinuance of the fund does no more to immunize the transfer from constitutional attack than does the fact that the transfer itself was born of legislation. Although the transfer presents a question of first impression here, other States have considered the same issue. (See Dadisman v. Moore (1988), 181 W. Va. 779, 384 S.E.2d 816; Valdes v. Cory (1983), 139 Cal. App. 3d 773, 189 Cal. Rptr. 212; Weaver v. Evans (1972), 80 Wash. 2d 461, 495 P.2d 639; see also Singer v. City of Topeka (1980), 227 Kan. 356, 607 P.2d 467; Allen v. City of Long Beach (1955), 45 Cal. 2d 128, 287 P.2d 765.) In the most analogous case, the Supreme Court of West Virginia held that a transfer to the general revenue fund of matching State funds appropriated for a public employees’ retirement program was an impairment of contract against the test set out in Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (1978), 438 U.S. 234, 57 L. Ed. 2d 727, 98 S. Ct. 2716. (Dadisman, 181 W. Va. at 790, 384 S.E.2d at 827, quoting Wagoner v. Gainer (1981), 167 W. Va. 139, 154-55, 279 S.E.2d 636, 645-46.) Pension participants, it was reasoned, have a vested interest in the integrity and security of the funds to pay future benefits notwithstanding that the legislative action may not have resulted in out-of-pocket losses. Dadisman, 181 W. Va. at 791, 384 S.E.2d at 828 (citing Valdes, 139 Cal. App. 3d 773, 189 Cal. Rptr. 212, Weaver, 81 Wash. 2d 461, 495 P.2d 639, and Dombrowski v. City of Philadelphia (1968), 431 Pa. 199, 245 A.2d 238, and rejecting Kosa v. Treasurer (1980), 408 Mich. 356, 292 N.W.2d 452 (drawing distinction between the right to receive pension benefits and the funding method adopted to assure the availability of moneys to pay benefits)); see generally Sgaglione, 37 N.Y.2d at 512, 337 N.E.2d at 594, 375 N.Y.S.2d at 83. The United States Supreme Court has long held that the contract clause of the Federal Constitution limits the power of the States to modify their own contracts. (United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 17, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 106, 97 S. Ct. at 1515.) But because the clause does not prohibit, generally, a State from amending statutes, the Court has observed a need to determine, first, whether what is arguably impaired is a contractual obligation. (United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 17, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 106, 97 S. Ct. at 1515.) Reason for such concern does not exist here, for membership in the pension systems is, as pointed out above, specifically granted contractual status under our constitution. The concern then becomes whether the transfer was a substantial impairment not otherwise justified by use of this State’s reserved power as sovereign to safeguard the welfare of its citizens. Allied Structural Steel Co., 438 U.S. at 244-45, 248-49, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 736-37, 739, 98 S. Ct. at 2722-23, 2724; United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 21, 25, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 109, 112, 97 S. Ct. at 1517, 1519. There is, however, one other facet of the reserved-powers doctrine where a State’s own contract is at issue, as here: a State cannot contract away an "essential attribute” of its sovereign power. (United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 23, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 110, 97 S. Ct. at 1518.) For that reason, a State’s power to create irrevocable contract rights is of concern. (United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 23, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 110, 97 S. Ct. at 1518.) But States are regularly held to their debt contracts, the Court recognizing that mere financial obligations do not compromise reserved powers. United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 24-25, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 111, 97 S. Ct. at 1519. In fact, the usual deference to any legislative assessment of the reasonableness and necessity of an impairment is not even appropriate when a State’s financial self-interest is at stake. (United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 26, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 112, 97 S. Ct. at 1519.) The reason: contract clause protection would evaporate in the face of a legislative declaration that an important public purpose justified reduction of the State’s financial obligations. (United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 26, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 112, 97 S. Ct. at 1519.) That is to say, the need for money is simply no excuse for affecting a State’s contractual obligations. See Lynch v. United States (1934), 292 U.S. 571, 580, 78 L. Ed. 1434, 1441, 54 S. Ct. 840, 844. The amendment effectuating the transfer here substantially impaired pension benefits. If this State’s constitutional provision is to have meaning in the here and now, it must include, as the West Virginia Supreme Court similarly reasoned, protection of pension source moneys. Of those source moneys, a full $21 million was permanently affected by the transfer. That the funds cannot be restored to the systems, as the record indicates, is little reason to ignore the impairment caused by the transfer under both article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution and the contract clause of article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5; U.S. Const., art. I, § 10. As important as balancing the State budget is, what this State’s constitution requires in that regard is not to be elevated above concern for impairing pension benefits. The inability to meet what one provision of the constitution mandates provides no excuse to violate another. Nor can the legislative finding that excess moneys existed in the special funds — an excess, it must be remembered, recognized only after plaintiffs challenged the First Emergency Budget Act — legitimize the impairment. As noted above, legislative findings (see generally Donovan v. Holzman (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 87, 96) count for nothing if used as means merely to avert constitutional protections in furtherance of the State’s self-interest (see Sanelli v. Glenview State Bank (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 1, 27; United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 25-26, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 111-12, 97 S. Ct. at 1519). And, though I remain skeptical such excess ever existed, that fact, too, is immaterial. The Governor and General Assembly could always find a use for extra money to balance the budget, especially when the alternative is raising taxes at the expense of angering the electorate. (See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 26, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 112, 97 S. Ct. at 1519.) But protection of pension benefits under our constitution and the contract clause of the Federal Constitution would mean little at all were such a declaration of excess reason to impair this State’s financial obligation to the pension systems. (See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 26, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 112, 97 S. Ct. at 1519.) I note, as an interesting post-script on the point, that this court acknowledged in its 1993 annual report to the General Assembly (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 17) that the Auditor General has warned of "continued deterioration” of the pension systems’ assets and implored the legislature to address the problem. Unfortunately, both for plaintiffs’ immediate interests as well as the constitutional jurisprudence of this State, the majority ignores, even in the face of that acknowledgment, an absence of public interest to resolve the issues the parties briefed and argued. JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.