Posted on 02/28/2011 5:05:43 PM PST by bigbob
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s state budget repair bill would be unconstitutional because it would violate the constitutional “home rule” that protects cities and villages from interference in local pensions by the state, according to a legal opinion issued today by Milwaukee City Attorney Grant Langley. In a letter to Milwaukee Alderman Joseph Dudzik, Langley stated, “… in our judgment, the courts would find the statue unconstitutional on three grounds: first, that it unconstitutionally interferes with and intrudes upon the city’s home-rule authority over its pension plan; second, that given certain vested rights or benefits that have accrued to employees currently in the plan, the statute would constitute an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights under the state and federal constitutions; and third, given these same vested rights or benefits, the proposed statute would violate the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions because it would abrogate the terms and conditions of the Global Pension Settlement …” Dudzik had requested Langley’s opinion on the constitutionality of Walker’s plan, which would revoke the collective bargaining rights of thousands of public employees in the state. After receiving Langley’s opinion, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett today sent a letter to Walker, requesting that Walker seek a legal opinion from the Wisconsin Attorney General on the matter.
The following is the text of Barrett’s letter to Walker:
“I am enclosing an opinion that was just issued by the independently elected Milwaukee City Attorney, Grant Langley. The City Attorney opines that the State cannot statutorily change the structure of the City of Milwaukee’s Employee Retirement System as proposed in the Budget Adjustment Bill. “In 2012, if applied to general city employees, this change would impact the City of Milwaukee by $8.3 million. If applied to Police and Fire unions, as it should be, it would impact the city by another $14.4 million. “In his opinion, City Attorney Langley writes that the state is unable to enact changes to Milwaukee’s Employee Retirement System benefit structure for the following reasons: Constitutional Home Rule, contractually vested property rights, and provisions included in the city’s Global Pension Settlement of 2000. “I am unconvinced that an increase in the employee share of the annual pension payment necessarily dilutes the benefit. The employee share of the benefit payment may increase but, the benefit does not decrease. “Because I cannot ask him for an opinion, I am asking you to please ask the Attorney General to review the attached opinion as soon as possible and provide me with an assurance that your office and state legislative drafters reviewed these legal issues during the bill drafting process. In response to an inquiry by a Milwaukee legislator’s office earlier this week, the Legislative Council indicated that since this is a matter of statewide concern, the language is constitutional. “It is my hope that all public employees should be required to pay more toward their pension. “For your reference, this provision can be found in Section 149 of the bill and was amended by Senate/Assembly Amendment 1. It is imperative that I am able to implement this contribution change or else we are at risk of having to implement across the board wage reductions. I would appreciate your request for swift review and response by the Attorney General.”
Walker’s spokesman was not immediately available to comment on Barrett’s letter or Langley’s opinion. Ongoing coverage of the issue will continue in Tuesday’s BizTimes Daily bulletin.
OK. Is this what passes for a Wisconsin attorney?
Recognizing that there’s no chance of a win in the legislature.
It is unconstitutional for you to NOT give us your money.
So is Milwaukee claiming that it will fight Governor Walker if his bill becomes law?
Well that settles it a CITY attorney has issued his edict./s
Let me guess. They “deem” it unconstitutional?
Sounds like the city is rejecting state money.
What’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL is obamba and his socialist minions.
Well, I’m sure they have plenty of judges in WI that will agree with this... but the AG better realize what the fallout will be.
Personally, I don’t think they will be able to solve the union problem until AFTER they lay off the thousands spoke of to balance the budget.
Let the AG put the noose around the union’s necks... and let the judges pull the trap door lever.
Yeah, isn’t tht just precious? I guess it depends on who’s orifice things are being jammed into.
Now that uber-pinhead Bill O’Reilly was just spewing crap about how “Gov. Walker’s GOT to compromise”...where do these simpletons get these ideass? Obviously they weren’t watching Queen Nancy last Christmas, there wasn’t much sign of compromise going on.
ask the Chrysler bond holders about “impairment of contract rights.”
If it’s OK for Obama to void tens of millions in bonds as a bailout for his union buddies, this should be OK too. The precedent has been set.
thanks, Obama.
Wasn't that tens of Billions?
1. So this clown is okay with the state interfering with local governments pensions when they positively affect them, just not when they negatively affect them. Positive effects = constitutional, negative effects = unconstitutional? Right.
2. The are state level negotiations the local governments have no control over.
3. The state can cut aid to local governments without their approval, it’s clearly constitutional.
4. Budget changes/negotiations at the state level are constitutional.
5. A city attorney says the state does not have the power to alter state budgets if they impact cities. Everything in the state budget can impact cities. Right.
6. This idiot thinks we live under the laws of the Medes and Persians, where once a law is on the books it can never be changed or taken away. He’s been pretty okay with all the changes - pro and con - under previous governors and legislatures. NOW he believes this? Right.
I don’t know about WI law but I do know that right now the WI legislature has the votes to change it if needed.
But moreover, doesn’t any change of state funding potentially impact home rule cities? Suppose a home rule city planned on re-paving Main St. which is also a state highway, and they pass an appropriation ordnance that includes funding for their share of the project, as is usually the case (matching funds). Then the state budget pressures require cuts, and the highway improvement projects gets the ax. So now the state has taken an action that limits the ability of the municipality to do what it’s ordinance says. (In fact it’s saved money, just like the impact of Budget Repair will have).
It just seems like a trumped-up argument from an obvious partisan that is meant as theater more than as a serious legal theory.
Union Made (well, at least, bought and paid for)
Isn’t Langley a Republican?
State Representative Pedro Colón (D-Milwaukee) is running against him in his April 1st re-election bid.
It’s interesting to me, educators at least at the university level, love to proclaim that there is no objective reality, morality, right and wrong, etc etc.
Except, apparently, when it comes to tenure, and pension. Those are sacrosanct, immutable contractual obligations. Hm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.