A retired lobbyist for a teacher’s union deserves a state pension, earned by virtue of
one day’s work as a substitute teacher, under an Illinois State Supreme Court
ruling issued today.
David
Piccioli, a lobbyist for the Illinois Federation of Teachers from 1997 until
2012, when he retired, obtained a substitute teaching certificate in December,
2006. The following month, Piccioli worked for one day as a substitute teacher
in Springfield School District 186. And that, the state’s highest court ruled,
was enough to earn him a pension for life under state law then in place.
Overturning
Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Ryan Cadagin, the Supreme Court in a 4-3
decision ruled that Piccioli was entitled to a pension on the grounds that the
state constitution doesn’t allow pension benefits, once granted, to be
diminished. Piccioli had sued Teachers Retirement System, which administers pensions for educators, after TRS refused to grant him pension benefits.
One
month after Piccioli worked as a substitute, a state law took effect that
granted pension benefits to employees of teachers unions if they were certified
as a teacher before the law took effect, applied for a TRS pension within six months of the law taking effect and paid into the TRS
system contributions for prior union employment. In Piccioli’s case, the payment to TRS totaled slightly more than $192,000, which was refunded after TRS declined to grant him a pension.
“It is undisputed that plaintiff
complied with all of the statutory requirements for obtaining service credit in
the TRS for his union service prior to becoming a certified teacher,” Chief
Justice Anne Burke wrote in the high court’s opinion.
In
2011, the Chicago Tribune published a
story and an editorial critical of the law that enabled Piccioli to qualify for
a TRS pension after spending just one day in a classroom. Shortly thereafter,
the legislature repealed the law.
Too
late, the Supreme Court ruled.
“Plaintiff
followed everything the law required in order to establish his eligibility to
purchase TRS credit for his past union service,” the court ruled. “While
nothing prevented the legislature from eliminating this benefit for future
employees, there is no legal justification for reducing or eliminating the pension
benefits plaintiff was awarded pursuant to the 2007 amendment (to state law).”
Three
justices dissented, with Justice Mary Jane Theis painting a picture of lobbyists writing the rules in a dissent joined by justices Rita Garman and Robert
Thomas that criticized the majority for not being explicit in how
Piccioli’s pension benefits came into being.
“As
Piccioli’s attorney admitted at oral argument, the optics created by the facts
of this case are not great,” Theis wrote. “The majority’s background, however,
whitewashes those facts.”
In
her dissent, Theis writes that an unnamed House Democratic staffer, shortly
after the 2006 election, asked Steven Preckwinkle, then director of political activities
for the Illinois Federation of Teachers, if the union would be interested in
amending a statute governing teacher pensions. The IFT president was concerned
about costs to taxpayers and the potential for “damaging exposure” if the union
supported the change, Theis wrote. Nonetheless, the union backed the proposal, according
to Theis’ dissent.
During
a deposition, Theis wrote, Preckwinkle said he couldn’t recall if anyone at IFT
helped write language that allowed Piccioli, who worked for House Democrats for
a decade before starting work as an IFT lobbyist, to qualify for a state pension
for one day’s work as a substitute teacher. However, Nick Yelverton, the IFT’s
legislative director, sent an email, prior to the law being passed, to a lawyer
for the Legislative Reference Bureau, an arm of the state General Assembly that
drafts legislation, titled “1st one is wrong,” Theis noted. Attached
to the email, Theis wrote, was a document titled “IFT-TRS draft lang 10-18-06.”
The
attached documents included a section of state law governing teacher pensions
and an underlined paragraph. “The paragraph stated that teacher organization
employees could establish TRS service credit for their prior union work if they
became certified as teachers before the legislation went into effect and paid
contributions required for such credit,” Theis wrote. “One minute later,
Yelverton sent an email to Preckwinkle with the subject ‘Language to LRB.’ That
email included the same attachment as the email to the LRB attorney.”
Three
weeks later, Preckwinkle sent an email to IFT employees who weren’t enrolled in
public pension systems, telling them that he had scheduled two meetings to discuss
rights to enroll in the TRS pension system. In the email, Preckwinkle wrote
that current pension rights as well as “related pending legislation” up for
discussion in the coming veto session would be addressed. “Persons who should attend one of these meetings are those with a bachelor’s
degree (or higher) or the interest in obtaining one while employed by the IFT,”
Preckwinkle wrote, putting the sentence in italics.
Six
days after Preckwinkle sent his email, the House extended the deadline to act
on the bill that ultimately granted Piccioli his right to collect a public
pension and referred the matter to the House Personnel and Pensions Committee,
which struck entirely the language in the bill as written and replaced it with language
that included the substance of a draft written by IFT that gave union employees
the right to collect a public pension for one day of working as a substitute
teacher, according to Theis’ dissent. After the House and Senate passed the
bill, Preckwinkle sent another email to IFT staff, notifying them that the bill
was on the governor’s desk. “I will do what I can to slow down the bill signing
process to allow for everyone who wishes to participate in the TRS provisions
the opportunity to do so,” Preckwinkle wrote.
Nine
days after the General Assembly passed the bill, Piccioli obtained his
substitute teaching certificate. A month later, on Jan. 10, 2007, Preckwinkle
again emailed IFT employees, saying that the bill was on the governor’s desk. “At
this time, I need to know who is in the pipeline for completing a substitute
teaching assignment, your status, and when you expect to satisfy the
requirements of the bill,” wrote Preckwinkle, who himself had obtained a substitute
teaching certificate three weeks before the General Assembly passed the bill
and so also qualified for a TRS pension. “I will try to ensure that anyone who wishes
to get coverage under this legislation has enough time to do so prior to (the
governor’s) signature.”
Twelve
days later, Piccioli worked one day as a substitute teacher in a Springfield School
District 186 elementary school – Theis’ dissent does not name the school. He
never again taught in a classroom, according to the dissent.
After
the Chicago Tribune in 2011 published
a story about Preckwinkle and Piccioli qualifying for TRS pensions, the legislature
quickly rescinded provisions in state law that allowed private sector employees
to collect state pensions.
In
her dissent, Theis wrote that the 2007 amendment to state pension law that
allowed Piccioli to collect a state pension was itself unconstitutional, rendering
moot any argument that the state’s repeal of the law wasn’t proper.
In
a press release, Esther Seitz, Piccioli’s lawyer, wrote that constitutional protections
of pension rights would be “a hollow promise” absent today’s ruling. In an interview,
she acknowledged that the facts of the case may not be appealing, but that’s
irrelevant.
“Justice
isn’t always popular or even politically correct,” she said.
Contact Bruce Rushton at brushton@illinoistimes.com.
This article appears in Apr 4-10, 2019.
