Court Opinion

ID: 9884801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:14:36.886282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:02.157691
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 236. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I join the majority opinion with the exception of part IV.D. regarding the $200,000,000 credit given to employers. This credit is a forgiveness of a debt owed by employers to the Wisconsin retirement system (WRS). It is not the state's to forgive. The state is not the owner of this debt; the employees are. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to this part of the majority opinion. My reasoning follows.
¶ 237. The thrust of my dissent can be easily illustrated by a hypothetical. "A" owes "B" $200. "C" tells "A," "Don't pay 'B.' I forgive that debt." "B" then says, "Hey, that debt belongs to me. You can't forgive it." "C" then replies, "I just have." "A" is, of course, all of the employers in the Wisconsin Retirement System. "B" is all of the employees. "C" is the legislature. That, in effect, is precisely what happened in this part of the legislation.
¶ 238. Prior to the legislation, state and municipal employers either owed or will owe $200,000,000 into the WRS. This legislation forgives this past and *624future debt. Accordingly, the WRS will have $200,000,000 fewer assets available to it when future employee benefits or contributions are considered.
¶ 239. This $200,000,000 of debt, past or future, is not the legislature's money to use to balance their budget, relieve property taxes, or the like. This money belongs to the employees.
¶ 240. Is this an unconstitutional taking? Of course.
¶ 241. In a takings analysis, we must first determine whether the affected parties have a property interest. Wis. Retired Teachers Ass'n v. Employe Trust Funds Bd., 207 Wis. 2d 1, 18, 558 N.W.2d 83 (1997). In this case, the employees unquestionably have a property interest in this debt. The debt is to the system. This money is not largesse from the employers; it is their obligation to pay.
¶ 242. We have consistently held that employees have a property interest in their retirement system. See Association of State Prosecutors v. Milwaukee County, 199 Wis. 2d 549, 558, 563, 544 N.W.2d 888 (1996); State Teachers' Ret. Bd. v. Giessel, 12 Wis. 2d 5, 9-10, 106 N.W.2d 301 (1960). Here, the debt (present and future) is in essence an asset of that system which the employees are the beneficiaries.
¶ 243. Once we determine that a property interest exists, the next step is to examine whether this interest has been taken. Wis. Retired Teachers Ass'n, 207 Wis. 2d at 20. Again, it seems clear beyond a reasonable doubt that an asset of the system, the present and future debt of the employers to the system, has been taken because the obligation has been relieved. There is now $200,000,000 less in the system than there would have been. That seems to be a taking under anybody's definition.
*625¶ 244. This is woefully bad precedent. To allow the legislature to take assets from the retirement system which belongs to the employees and use it for a purpose other than the employees without so much as a "by your leave," which is of course what happened here, potentially opens the floodgates to great mischief. We have previously warned of the dangerousness of such precedent .Association of State Prosecutors, 199 Wis. 2d at 562.
¶ 245. What if the legislature needs to plug a $25,000,000 hole in the state budget? What is to stop the legislature from "forgiving" the state $25,000,000 in future payments into the employer reserve account?
¶ 246. What if the counties, in their demand for property tax relief, are willing to cut a deal with the legislature for forgiveness of whatever amount, both past and future debt, in lieu of state aids?
¶ 247. No amount of words can paper over the end result here. The employers are $200,000,000 richer because they no longer have a $200,000,000 obligation; the employees are $200,000,000 poorer because they no longer have available to them, either now or in the future, that money for potential benefits. I respectfully dissent.
¶ 248. I would sever that portion of the legislation regarding the $200,000,000 credit and leave the rest of the legislation intact.