Politics

Judge Jackie Fulford Rules State Employee-Pension Contributions Unconstitutional

By: Jim Turner | Posted: March 6, 2012 2:25 PM
Mike Haridopolos, Jackie Fulford and Dean Cannon

Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, Judge Jackie Fulford and House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park | Credit: Rick Flagg - bbn.frn.com


UPDATE: Gov. Rick Scott confident ruling will be overturned.

Leon County Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford has once again ruled against the reform efforts last year of state legislators and Gov. Rick Scott.
 
Fulford declared Tuesday that the less-than-year-old law to require state employees to contribute 3 percent of their pay toward the pension program is unconstitutional.
 
A hearing before Fulford is expected for 8 a.m. Wednesday to discuss an appeal by the state.

Gov. Rick Scott released a stern statement Tuesday afternoon expressing disappointment in the judge's ruling.

“As you would expect, I believe this decision is simply wrong.

"The trial judge has ignored 30 years of Supreme Court precedent in a decision that refuses to allow Florida to have common-sense pension reform. This is another example of a court substituting its own policy preferences for those of the Legislature.

The governor concluded, "The court’s decision nullifies the will of the people and leaves Florida as one of the only states in the country in which public employees contribute nothing toward their retirement, leaving working Floridians with100 percent of the tab."

He also said the state will file a swift appeal to reverse this decision. Nonetheless, he said, the court’s order should be stayed throughout the appellate process, which will avoid an immediate impact on the 2012-2013 budget.
 
Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, already said an appeal is expected.
 
“I look forward to reviewing Judge Fulford’s order in detail in the coming days. While I respect the authority of the court to offer an opinion in this case, I disagree with Judge Fulford's position," Cannon said in a statement released Tuesday.
 
“Fiscally responsible adjustments to the Florida Retirement System protect the long-term solvency of the program, ensure that we can avoid massive layoffs and severe cuts to public employee pay and modernize our program, bringing Florida more in line with the private sector and the majority of states that require a modest employee contribution to retirement benefits.
 
“The ruling of a trial court judge is the first and not the final step. Today’s ruling will have no immediate impact on the passage of the 2012-2013 General Appropriations Act, which the House will take up this Friday in fulfillment of our constitutional responsibility to pass a balanced budget."
 
Haridopolos on Tuesday went further.
 
“I am deeply disappointed in Judge Fulford’s decision today," he said in a statement. "She has proven once again that she is an activist judge who has no problem overstepping her authority and overruling the decisions of the state’s elected representatives and the critical role that we play as the budget writers for the state of Florida.
 
“This ruling is a radical departure from past precedent. Forty-six other states already ask state employees to contribute to their own pensions, and in fact, state employees in Florida, up until the 1970s, also contributed to their pensions. In my opinion, the evidence that this is a constitutional measure is irrefutable. That said, we are currently reviewing her full opinion, and I anticipate that we will take steps to immediately appeal her ruling.”

The Florida Education Association, which filed the lawsuit with a number of public-employee unions, contends legislators violated the state Constitution, which required contract changes to be negotiated through collective bargaining.

Andy Ford of the FEA expects the decision will end up in the state Supreme Court. State employees should expect the 3 percent cut to continue to be collected by the state -- held in escrow -- pending the final outcome of the case.

“This is a win because the governor and the Legislature overstepped their bounds by breaking the contract that the state of Florida had with the public employees,” Ford said.

Ron Meyer, representing the teachers' union, called the decision “momentous.”

“The court said a promise is a promise, a contract is a contract,” Meyer said.

“This is not judicial activism. Judicial activism is when the court ignores the law.”

The ruling does not impact the 3 percent to the pension plan that is designated from employees hired after July 1, 2011, when the law went into place.
 
Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith applauded the decision as a ruling against Scott and the “tea party agenda.”

"This decision is yet another blow to Rick Scott's continued assault on the middle class and a victory for Florida's families. In the midst of our economic recovery, Scott's brazen, unconstitutional attempt to cut wages by 3 percent moves our state in the wrong direction and continues to put the burden of solving our state's budget crisis squarely on the backs of working families,” Smith stated in a release.

The state has argued that nobody lost benefits already earned or the right to collectively bargain when it required workers to contribute into the retirement system.

Legislators, seeking to patch a $3.8 billion shortfall in the budget, set contributions at 3 percent for the 700,000 state, county and municipal employees who are covered by the $121.6 billion Florida Retirement System.
 
Florida TaxWatch President and CEO Dominic Calabro said the pension reform would have made the system more sustainable.
 
“Florida TaxWatch continues to believe that this reform is in the best interest of all Floridians, and will continue to be a strong advocate for the much-needed reforms that our research has shown to be prudent,” Calabro stated in a release.

The case was heard in October by Fulford, who has previously ruled against the state’s prison privatization plan.

At the time, Fulford said she wasn’t going to overturn prior Florida Supreme Court rulings, which she said allowed legislators to modify contracts. But she disagreed with the precedent being offered by the state attorneys that the courts had allowed legislators to unilaterally change contracts.

Scott had recommended legislators make the employee contribution 5 percent.

Government employees covered by the system have been 100 percent covered by the state since July 1, 1974.

The union also contends that when legislators changed the rules during the 2011 session, their retirement benefits were cut.

During the October hearing, Charlette Moore, a certified public accountant testifying for the teachers' union, said the new retirement package readjusts cost-of-living raises in a manner that cuts long-term benefits.

Moore said the formula used by the state calculates time before and after employees were required to pay 3 percent pension payments starting July 1, 2011.

The change, she said, alters the cost-of-living from a fixed 3 percent to less than 3 percent. For some employees, that could mean thousands of dollars in the long term.

Paul Zeisler, an independent actuary hired by the state, disagreed, saying that when cost-of-living adjustments are calculated with accrued benefits, the long-term retirement payments remain equal.



Reach Jim Turner at jturner@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 215-9889.


Attachments: 

Comments (20)

jim russell
10:03AM MAR 16TH 2012
ask these republicans to take a pay cut, or pay for there own medical. this is part of emloyment agreement between taechers and there employer. FLORIDA. florida has so many old transplants they feel they should not have to pay anything for education. rick scott is the problem and hi little followers could not be more happy. sad. vote in november or thing could get real ugly. and i am not even a teacher.
Joyce
11:11AM MAR 12TH 2012
"The will of the people" cannot be used as the determining factor for the pay and benefits public employees should receive. There is so much hostility toward state employees, and much of it was fueled by our governor. He has tried to keep his committment to not raise taxes by taking it out of the hides of state employees whom he holds in such low regard. He has failed for the time being. We will see what the next stage brings.
Carlos Mandrell
12:36AM MAR 9TH 2012
I guess the will of the people Scott is talking about are those in his camp, because I don't know any state empolyee who agree with Scott taking food off their table after not having a raise in 6 years. Why didn't Scoot apply the 30 yrs of service or age 60 to everybody and not those who now start working with the state?
Michael Dennis
10:02AM MAR 7TH 2012
If the legislature can disregard the content of a contract, then do we not have the right to strike? I have a contract that says I do not have to contribute to the pension fund and in return I will not strike. Does this now make the contract is null and void and we can all go out on strike? I would like to see evey member of the FRS not go to work on April 1, 2012 because they are sick and tired of being financially abused.
DOCwife
8:04PM APR 1ST 2012
Your comments have been echoed more than once in our local circle. They, Scott and his allies, can change anything they want about the contract. But, if we try the same things, i.e. strike, we are in violation of our contract. Just because they are in Tallahassee and with the title of "Law Makers" does not make them right. He may not take a salary from Florida, but let someone skim 3% off of his net worth each year and see how he likes it.
Wilford
11:44PM MAR 6TH 2012
YES!! Now maybe Mr. Burns (filtered word Scott) will go back to Springfeild and run the power plant and STOP screwing up Florida!! Thank you Judge Fulford!!!
A Teacher
10:50PM MAR 6TH 2012
Hairidopolos, the judge is not overstepping her authority; she is upholding the law!!!
Grateful FRS Employee
10:19PM MAR 6TH 2012
Yes it's true that Florida FRS employees have not contributed to their retirement. But what these legislatures are not saying is that while they have voted themselves raises year after year and voted to not pay health insurance for the rest of their lives after serving a short 2 year term, as a 20 year FRS employee, I basically make the same as a new hire in a high risk position. That's the trade off! And have to pay $1,200/month for health insurance when I retire. Thanks Judge Fulford for doing the right thing!!!
aem
9:43PM MAR 6TH 2012
xxxx
drea
8:36PM MAR 6TH 2012
Thank you so much Judge Fulford for doing the right thing!!!!!!
Voice of Reason
8:34PM MAR 6TH 2012
It's too bad this is what it took to make people realize that a non-contributory pension was a NEGOTIATED benefit. Had this not been struck down, no labor contract would be worth the paper it was printed on.
Al Moncrief
8:08PM MAR 6TH 2012
THIS CASE ADDRESSES PARTIALLY VESTED PENSION RIGHTS - IN COLORADO WE STEAL FULLY-VESTED PENSION ASSETS WITH IMPUNITY.

COLORADO IS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT - IT IS PATHETIC THAT WE REQUIRE A COURT TO RESTORE HONOR TO OUR STATE.

In 2010, the Colorado Legislature enacted a bill that was retroactive, unconstitutional, and an outright, unabashed theft of retirement benefits from PERA retirees. As a Colorado native, I still cannot accept that my home state has allowed this outrage. To ask a person to work for you for 30 years and contract with them for a fixed amount of compensation (including retirement benefits) and then to abandon your contractual obligations . . . that is the essence of depravity.

Many members of the Legislature supported Senate Bill 1 in 2010 which took contracted, accrued, fully-vested retirement benefits that were earned over 30 years from PERA retirees. To date, a District Court judge has countenanced this theft in a ridiculously flawed ruling that is under appeal. As the state Legislature was told in debate on SB1, the theft of the retiree’s contracted COLA is immoral, and will ultimately be overturned. Any other outcome will degrade the rule of law in our nation.

As it stands now, in Colorado we lock up our citizens for petty theft, but celebrate the theft of billions by elected officials.
Annel
6:49PM MAR 6TH 2012
Way to go Judge Fulford. You have done the right thing. We have all got to vote Democrat this time!!!!!
Eugene Freeman
6:04PM MAR 6TH 2012
Teachers agree to work for less than competitive wages for two reasons, the pension fund and job stability. The state is taking away our job security and requiring us to contribute to our retirement, thus removing any economic incentive to teach.

I would be completely fine with making the pension voluntary, but only if the state stopped contributing to it and gave us the money they contribute in our paychecks. If the state wants to run things like a 401k, then do so. Increase our pay appropriately and make our contribution voluntary and match our contributions up to 5%.

If the state wants to take away our job security (tenure) they should increase our rate of pay. The state is correct that there is no other profession with tenure, but there is no other "profession" that makes a little as teachers. If you want us to have less security, you must pay us more.

The Republicans are doing some great things to cut costs and I can appreciate that. I completely understand that the budget should and will be balanced. I also understand that no one wants a state income tax, a hike in sales tax or higher property taxes. I also know that there is plenty of room in the state budget to make all the necessary cuts and equitibly fund education.

Hey Tallahassee, if you need some suggestions on how to write a better budget, I'd be happy to help.
Documentarian
7:53PM MAR 6TH 2012
Much of what you say regarding teachers also applies in corrections. My wife's job makes 2-3 times as much in positions "outside" the prison system. She'll be glad to contribute to her pension -- if they're willing to raise her pay to the "outside" equivalent salary!
Enny
5:07PM MAR 6TH 2012
Another victory for Defense Against the Dark Arts.
Beat Voldemort and the Death Eaters!!!
Gimme!
4:18PM MAR 6TH 2012
Ummm, so when am I getting my money back??? Oh yeah, plus the interest. :-)

Thanks Judge Fulford!
LadyStaty
4:29PM MAR 6TH 2012
I'll believe when I hold it in my hand!
Sandy
4:08PM MAR 6TH 2012
What difference does it make if she is liberal or conservative? The law is the law.
JBL
3:54PM MAR 6TH 2012
First the prison issue was ruled unconstitutional not because of privatizing prisons but the way that Cannon and Haridopolos tried to sneak it in the budge.

Now as far this decision is concerned what did you expect? Judge Fulford is a liberal. Next not news, news story.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.