Pension Fight Heats Up In Supreme Court

June 13, 2012

With Republican legislative leaders and the Florida League of Cities already weighing in, Gov. Rick Scott and Cabinet officers have asked the state Supreme Court to approve a plan requiring public workers to chip in money to the state pension system.

Lawyers representing Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater filed an initial brief that asks justices to overturn a Leon County circuit judge’s ruling that said already-hired employees could not be forced to contribute 3 percent of their salaries to the Florida Retirement System. Lawmakers approved the requirement in 2011, as they tried to close a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.

“Pension and retirement costs are among the largest and most longstanding financial commitments of state and local governments,” said the brief, which was filed Monday in the Supreme Court. “When revenues expand, government agencies can increase retirement benefits for public employees. But in financially challenging times such as these, the Legislature must be able to adjust its future pension commitments.”

As a sign of the high stakes involved in the case, Senate President Mike Haridopolos and House Speaker Dean Cannon and the Florida League of Cities have already formally asked the Supreme Court to be able to file briefs. Scott, Bondi and Atwater oversee the pension system while serving as the State Board of Administration.

“The matters at issue involving the Florida Retirement System necessarily implicate the Legislature’s appropriations and policy-making powers as well as the responsibility to enact a balanced state budget,” attorneys for Haridopolos and Cannon wrote in a motion filed with the Supreme Court last week.

The Supreme Court has already approved the League of Cities’ request to file a brief, known as an amicus brief. In its request, the organization said that 185 cities participated in the Florida Retirement System in 2011 and that another 206 cities have local plans.

“In recent years, pension costs have been consuming an ever-increasing portion of cities’ budgets,” the league request said. “This case may very likely affect the ability of cities to include pension modifications in response to current fiscal challenges.”

The case has moved quickly to the Supreme Court, with the 1st District Court of Appeal taking the somewhat-unusual step of passing it along without holding a hearing or ruling. Justices have scheduled arguments Sept. 5.

Leon County Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford issued a ruling in March that sided with the arguments of public employees who filed the lawsuit last year. She pointed, in part, to a 1974 law that said employees would not be required to contribute to the pension fund and that the rights were of a “contractual nature.”

Fulford found that the Legislature’s plan to require pension contributions would violate the rights of employees hired before July 1, 2011.

“To find otherwise would mean that a contract with our state government has no meaning and that the citizens of our state can place no trust in the work of our Legislature,” Fulford wrote. “Those are findings this court refuses to make.”

Despite Fulford’s ruling, the state has collected the 3 percent contributions during the lawsuit. Scott and the other state officials, whose lead attorney is former Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero, contend in the brief this week that Fulford’s ruling violates legal precedents and “if left standing would handcuff the Legislature’s response to changing financial circumstances.”

By The News Service of Florida

Comments

6 Responses to “Pension Fight Heats Up In Supreme Court”

  1. NHS on June 14th, 2012 4:08 pm

    This is a violation of a contract that was agreed upon by the workers and the employers. It ended up basically being a pay cut for people that were already making less than those that work in the private sector (not all public workers do, but a lot make less). The workers weren’t even given a raise to make up the loss, it was just told to them that in few months, you’ll be making less money. Most people take these jobs for the benefits. The education system is already going downhill, and because the benefit packages available in Florida keep getting worse, the better teachers will keep staying away. I find it very interesting that the officials that make these laws and keep putting more on the backs of the middle class refuse to make any sacrifices of their own.

  2. jesse on June 13th, 2012 8:24 pm

    The annual salary for state senators is for life with nothing contributed by them.
    The annual salary for Pam Bondi is for life no contribution from her.
    House members for life.
    State chief financial officer for life.
    These are the people who introduced defended, voted on and passed the state employee contribution to state retirement bill, but they placed a clause in the bill excluding elected officials. Therefore they keep their obscene pension of full salary for life after serving 8 years part time while asking state employees to take a percentage of their salary after working full time for 25 to 30 years. They have also refused to give state employees a cost of living raise for the past 7 years while voting themselves one most every year. Now where do you all think the cuts should be made.

  3. Bob Z. on June 13th, 2012 10:03 am

    If you pay for your retirement you accepted that fact; I work for the State and accepted my position that included a paid retirement. And I accepted a lower salary that I would have made in the private sector based on the benefits provided. I find it hard to believe how some cannot understand how clear cut this is!

  4. David Huie Green on June 13th, 2012 8:54 am

    REGARDING:
    “why shouldn’t the public workers pay for theirs?”

    You pay according to the rules you were hired under. The state is wanting to change the rules AFTER hiring. Some hired on because of the setup in place at the time, therefore that was part of their pay. Requiring it for new hires is not a violation of existing contract. Unilaterally changing the contract IS a violation of contract.

    For an analogy, imagine selling something you own for a thousand dollars a month and then the buyer tells you he has decided you are getting too much and he will now only pay $970 per month. Would that seem fair to you?

    David explaining or trying

  5. Mike on June 13th, 2012 8:23 am

    If you were hired in at a salary of $15 an hour which you were promised would stay the same for your career. All of the sudden your boss comes in and says, “Oh sorry, now you make $12 an hour.” Would you feel cheated? Most public employees were hired in under this and now they are forcing already established employees to pay for a retirement that was promised to be free. These jobs include cops, firemen, (I think) teachers, among other already financially strained careers which most have not seen a raise in 10 years. This is where the problem lies. Also, I believe there is something in Florida consitution prohibiting this, but dont quote me.

  6. Jane on June 13th, 2012 7:30 am

    I pay for my retirement, why shouldn’t the public workers pay for theirs? I didn’t ask someone else to pay for my retirement.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News