Portability Ruling?
- The Lodge was recently made aware of an Illinois Appellate Court ruling that should prove to be very important to some of our members. The court held that the language of the Pension Code mandates that a Chicago police officer is entitled to credit for the service he rendered as a Cook County sheriff's police officer and correctional officer for the Cook County department of corrections prior to his employment with the Chicago Police Department. The Lodge has instructed its attorneys to research the ruling for applicability to officers that previously worked for Cook County and other agencies. Further updates will be forthcoming here and in the newsletter.
Here's a link to the ruling itself. It's only 9 pages long, so it's a quick read. It appears to cover the recent Pension Portability ruling - but only if you served as a Cook County sheriff or correctional employee.
So if this exists, is the only purpose of the Pension Portability legislation to cover other law enforcement service? And why wouldn't it already be covered under the Circuit Court ruling? Can someone explain it in simple terms to us?
So if this exists, is the only purpose of the Pension Portability legislation to cover other law enforcement service? And why wouldn't it already be covered under the Circuit Court ruling? Can someone explain it in simple terms to us?
Labels: pension
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
16 Comments:
And why wouldn't it already be covered under the Circuit Court ruling? Can someone explain it in simple terms to us?
----- what do you mean? The circuit court - I think - just said they are going to accept the Pension Boards interpretation of the statute --- and they did not look into it - they just deferred to the Pension Board --
The appellate court actually looked into the statute and did an 'interpretation'
---- is that what you are asking?
Section 5-214(c) of the Pension Code has been on the books for a very long time and reads as the following:
(c) While performing safety or investigative
work for the county in which such city is principally
located or for the State of Illinois or for the federal
government, on leave of absence from the
department of police, or while performing
investigative work for the department as a civilian
employee of the department.
The Pension Board picked and chose who was able to buy into the Pension for prior service. With this statute you only have to pay your portion of the pension, which is 9% a year or somewhere around $6,000 and then the city would pay for the rest. The new Portability Law requires you to pay your 9% and the city's 18% or around $18,000 a year plus interest. These figures depend on how much you contribute to your pension from your pay check. This applies to any one who has done safety or investigative work anywhere in the city, county, State of Illinois or federal government prior to joining CPD.
Our Pension gains buy having officers buy in their time.
You have to ask yourself some questions. Why is the Pension Board allowing some people to buy their years for prior service and for others they deny? Are the ones that they allow politically connected? Why would they create and push for legislation (Portability Bill) that would benefit the City and not us if this statute is already in place? Why not just expand on this statute instead of creating a new one to benefit the city? Why would the Board members that we elected prior allow this to happen?
Remember it is always about the money and how the city is going to screw you. THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO has interpreted the existing laws to favor the City of Chicago for long enough. It is time for Gallagher, President, and those who vote in favor of the City to resign.
The Lodge has instructed its attorneys to research the ruling for applicability to officers that previously worked for Cook County and other agencies. Further updates will be forthcoming here and in the newsletter.
The Lodge's attorneys have known about the Section 214(c) and have used it to help some of our officers already. If they helped one they should help us all.
Can you please keep "Portability Ruling" thread on the top of the main page for a while, it affects around fifteen hundred officers. Thanks
In the early 90's a portability bill was passed that was written very narrowly to benefit certain clouted officers. It provided a short window of oppurtunity for former county officers to transfer pension time. The FOP and the city kept it very quiet. A few non clouted officers heard of it and got to take advantage of it. Some of us former suburban officers heard about it and were told we were out of luck. That is when the movement to permanently change the code was born. 15 years later the current portability bill has been passed. Unlike the secret bill, officers using the new bill have to pay all contributions from both the city and themselves along with interest. The secret bill from the 90's only required the officer to pay his contribution. The main beneficiary to the secret bill was the brother of an alderman from the southside whose name begins with B---e and ends with e.
"5/02/2009 06:03:00 AM"
With an 'urk' in the middle?
If an individual is allowed to transfer credits into the CPD or CFD pension from another agency, typically the employee and employer contributions plus approximately 4% interest for time bought must be deposited into the CPD or CFD pension fund. If these requirements or payments are not met the pension fund will have to "make good" on the contributions not made to allow a pension benefit at the time of retirement or seperation. In my opinion not a wise decision for any pension fund. Many other pension funds do not have the same structure of contributions as does the CPD & CFD pensions, and those funds might be reluctnat to let loose of any contributions already made to them on behalf of a member. All of this and more must be worked out before attempting to pass pension legislation in Springfield. Many times persons attempt to transfer pension credits and their previous job titles or positions are acceptable under the "Alternative Formula".
What about Ill Dept. of Corrections
why is portability limited only to cook county?
FOP hq. is in Springfield.
Natl. hq is in D.C.
Pensions?! youre talking about Pensions??!!
"The Lodge's attorneys have known about the Section 214(c) and have used it to help some of our officers already. If they helped one they should help us all.
5/02/2009 02:54:00 AM"
How about publishing a list of ALL of those who have benefitted from sect. 5-214(c) AND the pension board votes?
Why is Pension Board having a Portability Workshop Monday May 4th @ 35th Street if there is no need for it? They want you to pay 3x more than what 5/5-214 states you have to pay!
From the Pension Board Newsletter dated March 2009
Portability Workshop
Workshops have scheduled for those of you interested in this provision. The goals of the workshops are to assist interested members in determining the benefits, the cost of purchasing prior service, years of service to purchase and possible transfer of costs from a qualified plan or determine a payment plan.
Please be aware the service purchased must be paid PRIOR to Retirement.
The workshops are scheduled to be held at Police Headquarters in the multipurpose room on
Tuesday, April 14 2009, 8-10 AM
Monday, May 4, 2009, 4-6 PM
Please call the Fund to sign-up for either session. Attendance, interest and productivity will determine the necessity to have additional workshops.
This meeting should be packed with coppers! They need to know they were caught trying to STEAL from hard working coppers. This is criminal deception at its best.
Gallagher and Kuglar should be fired! A class action suit against the pension board should be filed on behalf of all the officers that were denied this benefit going back to the 90’s by the FOP. Lots of coppers got screwed out of a ton of money because of Kuglar’s advice to the pension board trustees. How much money did Kuglar make fighting this case for almost 20 YEARS? He keeps on advising the trustees to deny officers their benefits, the officer appeals, wins the case and Kuglar advises the board to appeal the case again and the officer wins again! All the time the officer is paying for an attorney out of his pocket, and YOU ARE PAYING KUGLAR with YOUR PENSION MONEY to screw other coppers! It has to stop.
3 IL Appellate CRT Judges ruled the pension board was wrong again. It’s really sad, Kuglar took the ROSARIO case all the way to the IL SUP COURT with the pension board’s approval, and they would not hear it! It’s a clear cut case.
There was no need for the Portability Bill. It was a waste of time, money, and political favors on the part of the FOP.
This is just wrong, wake up people, get involved and find out who's stealing your pension money.
Please look closely at the ruling, the pension board may have a bigger issue pending. Before the ruling, the pension board would claim that each incident was unique and that no prior ruling could be used for precedential value. The court held that stare decison holds for the board, meaning that prior rulings can and will be held against the board.
What about Ill Dept. of Corrections
why is portability limited only to cook county?
FOP hq. is in Springfield.
Natl. hq is in D.C.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's not. You are probably covered my friend.
(c) While performing safety or investigative
work for the county in which such city is principally
located OR for the State of Illinois OR for the federal
government, on leave of absence from the
department of police, or while performing
investigative work for the department as a civilian
employee of the department
SCC
PLEASE keep Pension Portability at the top of your Post, at least until the Lodge and Pension Board commit to a joint meeting with the affected members (around 1500 P/O's) at a venue that can accommodate all the members.
WE NEED A FULL DISCLOSURE WHY ONLY CERTAIN P/O'S CAN BUY BACK PRIOR SERVICE AT A CERTAIN PRICE (COOK COUNTY ONLY) AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE CHARGED SB2520 PENSION PORTABILITY PRICES.
PLEASE STAY ON TOP OF THIS ISSUE, WE ALL APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
THANK YOU.
The ruling seems to allow all county officers that left the county to become chicago police officers the ability to buy their time back with only the officers cost. The window opened up in 1996 for only a six month period. There was no mention of it that I recall, I was told by another county officer. I fall into this category and when I called in August of 1996, I was told that the window had closed 1 July. I was further told that I could petition the pension board but it would likely be denied and not to worry because it would reopen again in the future. She was right, but the cost in this new proposal is ridiculous. This could be interesting to see who was allowed "in" and who was not. This is the reason Huberman tried to get in before the new law came into effect.
There will be no pensions in the future.Most of the money has been stolen.
Post a Comment
<< Home