| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
|
Injunction blocks implementation of new pension law |
This document, prepared by WEAC Legal Counsel Tony Sheehan, describes the legal status of the 1999 state employee pension improvement law known as Wis Act 11. The introduction is followed by a Question and Answer section.
On December 23, 1999, the Department of Employee Trust Funds (DETF) and the Employee Trust Funds Board (ETF Board) filed a petition with the Wisconsin State Supreme Court requesting it to take original jurisdiction of a declaratory ruling proceeding in which DETF and the ETF Board challenged several elements of AB495 (1999 Wis Act 11). The petition named George Lightbourn, the Secretary of the Department of Administration and Jack Voight, State Treasurer, as Respondents. At that time DETF and ETF Board also requested an injunction to prevent any elements of AB495 from being implemented until the legal issues were resolved.
On the same date that the above documents were filed, Respondents filed an initial response to the Petition to the Supreme Court and the Request for Injunctive Relief. Respondents were not opposed to the Supreme court taking jurisdiction nor were they opposed to the broad injunctive relief.
WEAC Attorneys Tony Sheehan, Lucy Brown and Mike Van Sistine filed a Motion to Intervene, a brief on the issue of intervention, and an initial position statement regarding the requested injunction on December 29, 1999. WEAC's position on injunctive relief was much narrower than that of the other parties. Specifically we argued that several important elements of AB 495 were not at issue in this litigation and should be implemented. WEAC believes the various provisions of AB 495 are severable.
On December 30, the Supreme Court issued an order holding WEAC's motion in abeyance and ordering Respondent to reply to the issues raised in Petitioners' complaint.
WEAC filed a Motion to Reconsider with the Supreme Court on January 4, 2000. WEAC requested the Court to reconsider its prior decision and modify its order to allow us to intervene in the case or at the very least to respond to the Petitioners' complaint.
On January 12 the Court issued another order allowing WEAC as Proposed Intervenors to file a response to the Petitioners' complaint by January 31. Additionally the Court ordered all parties to file a memorandum addressing various issues including the legal standing (right) of the Petitioners to bring this case and whether other parties are necessary for proper resolution.
WEAC Legal Counsel are continuing to pursue intervention in the case to defend all portions of AB495. Additionally, WEAC will argue that even if certain provision are ultimately found unlawful that the various provisions are severable and the remaining provisions should be implemented.
A: The lawsuit was filed by the Department of Employee Trust Funds (DETF), the Employee Trust Funds Board (ETF Board) and the Secretary of the DETF. The lawsuit names the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Department of Administration as representatives of the state as Respondents.
WEAC has filed a motion to intervene as a Respondent so that it may defend AB495.
A: There are many specific issues raised in the complaint but the essence of the complaint is a challenge seeking the court's clarification on who has authority to make changes in the retirement system and under what circumstances different participant groups can be treated in different ways.
A: The petitioners requested that all provisions contained in AB 495 be enjoined (stopped from being implemented) until the legal issues in the lawsuit are resolved. The named respondents did not oppose the injunction request. WEAC as a proposed intervenor has taken a narrower position. WEAC has argued to the court that many provisions of AB495, such as the reopening of the variable fund, are not related to or affected by the lawsuit and as such should be implemented without delay.
A: Because the proposed changes affect a large number of people around the state and because the amount of money at issue is so large and because the last court case relating to retirement benefits took so long, the petitioners wanted to get a quick resolution to the legal issues.
In general it is very rare for the Supreme Court to take a case on original jurisdiction – without it going through the trial and appeal courts.
A: No, the decision to grant original jurisdiction is within the discretion of the Supreme Court. The parties have all agreed that this is an appropriate case for original jurisdiction and will try to persuade the court to grant the request.
A: It depends on whether the state Supreme Court agrees to take the case on original jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be scheduled for briefing and oral arguments and a decision is likely by July. If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court refuses to take the case at this time, it will have to go through the usual judicial proceedings starting with the Circuit Court level. In that event, the case will obviously take much more time.
A: WEAC lobbied for the various provisions in AB495 and as such it intends to defend the legislation. WEAC, based upon information from a variety of sources, believes that the changes to the system are actuarially sound and provide significant benefits to members. Additionally, WEAC will argue that the various provisions are separate and distinct and therefore are severable, so that even if one or more provisions are found to be inappropriate, the rest will remain in effect.
A: Currently, WEAC and the named parties are required to provide certain information to the court by January 31. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will rule sometime after that date with respect to WEAC's motion to intervene and the petition for original jurisdiction filed by DETF and the ETF Board.
Posted January 28, 2000