In David Greising’s recent column (“Illinois Tier 2 pension promise needs to be fixed,” April 26) on the proposed changes for Tier 2 state employees, he fails to talk about how those employees are second-class workers. Compared with their Tier I colleagues, their retirement future can simply be described as: “We work longer, we pay in more and we get less in retirement.” While indirectly blaming the state employees as being the cause of the pension debt situation in the state, Greising fails to acknowledge that if the state of Illinois had lived up to its promise to fund state pensions, we would not be in this situation.
For years now, various politicians and others found it very convenient to blame the victims for officials’ actions. During both Democratic and Republican administrations, the pension systems were regularly shortchanged through a variety of means. The most infamous of these were the “pension holidays,” initiated by multiple governors, with the never-fulfilled promise of putting the pension funds back into the system.
During Gov. James Thompson’s administration, the state agreed to restore full funding to the pensions. Unfortunately for the victims, the state used a creative calculation system, which failed to take into account the full needs of the pensions.
Greising, while talking about one group’s recent successful negotiations, describes the pay raises in a disingenuous way. He calls it an 18% pay raise and then states it is over four years. The accurate way of describing it would be an average 4.5% yearly pay raise for four years. Greising’s comment might lead many people to assume that these employees are getting a flat 18% pay raise.
If the pension debt is “out of control,” it is not the victims’ fault; it is the fault of all the taxpaying citizens of Illinois for allowing it to get this way.
Thankfully, the current administration has begun to make payments into the systems to help alleviate the debt problem, but it will take time and commitment from governors and legislatures into the future.
Greising is right on one point: The Illinois Supreme Court found that the promise of pensions was a contract and that a contract is a contract.
— Paul Breit, Tinley Park
How police can regain trust
What do the police and priests have in common? Self-inflicted public distrust.
Repeatedly, a story surfaces of a priest accused of molesting youngsters in his care in past decades, but you don’t even have to wait a week to see some multimillion-dollar judgement awarded to a victim of police misconduct — or a distressing example of questionable police behavior.
Those who have the thin-blue-line signs in their yards seem convinced police are the last line of defense against the dregs of humanity. Without an ounce of humility, they are sure police can decide who deserves their care and who does not. Matthew 25:40 has Jesus saying, “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.” I imagine those below their thin blue line would fall into that category.
The Roman Catholic Church has done better — reaching out to victims and listening to stories of those abused, but with so much pain inflicted for so long on so many, it’s no wonder few are entering the priesthood. In the same way, with such low respect for police, it’s hard to believe that good men and women are still entering the force.
Both professions caused their own slide into infamy. They both forgot who they were supposed to serve and protect. Protecting fellow officers and clergy from the consequences of their own actions rather than their innocent victims was detrimental to all concerned.
Every time the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara opens his mouth, I’m sure public opinion dips another 10 points. Protecting bad actors simply affirms a lack of respect and care for the people police are supposed to protect.
The police should take a lesson from the Catholic Church, stop defending overzealous officers and totally get rid of the small percentage of officers who make everyone look bad.
Most police officers, just like most priests, are decent humans doing their best, but it’s hard to remember when all you hear about is the bad apples.
— The Rev. Pamela Rumancik, Bull Valley, Illinois
Board belittles free expression
The Tribune Editorial Board’s cheerleading for the arrest and prosecution of protesters during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (“For the DNC, Foxx is scrapping do-not-prosecute rules for ‘peaceful’ protesters. She should do so permanently.,” April 28) belittles free expression in our democracy. Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx appropriately prioritized prosecution of serious crime over technical violations of city ordinances during protests, and she should continue to do so during the DNC.
Protests can be controversial, unpopular and offensive. The First Amendment provides special protection for protest against government and other matters of public concern and for protests in public forums. Government cannot limit protest on public property because of the viewpoint of the speakers.
And while conduct, as opposed to speech, does not receive the same legal protection, the line between protected and unprotected conduct often is contextual and warrants the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. For example, government must not arrest peaceful protesters who happen to be near those committing acts of violence (unprotected conduct), and it must not arrest peaceful protestors without giving them a chance to disperse. Indeed, the federal courts found that it was unlawful to arrest 900 people in 2003 who had gathered in Chicago to protest the Iraq War because police had not given a clear order to disperse or face arrest.
The editorial board’s argument that a “prosecute them all” strategy will ensure that protesters know they’ll be held accountable if they violate the rules might be more persuasive if it were clear what the rules are. The city has so far refused to grant any parade permits during the DNC or work with demonstrators to find adequate alternative routes. The city also has not designated any approved protest zones near the convention sites. The City Council adopted a “security zone” plan that fails to even identify the “security zone” or a date when it will be announced.
By failing to sufficiently plan for orderly demonstrations, the city is fomenting the very type of chaos it desires to avoid.
— Khadine Bennett, advocacy and intergovernmental affairs director, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
Facts matter in Trump case
I am a 40-year subscriber to the Tribune. While I have been tempted to write to Voice of the People, it took Neil Gaffney’s May 1 letter (“Article misconstrues court’s role”) to get my ire up enough to write.
Gaffney castigates an article published in the Tribune for how it explains the role of the Supreme Court during oral arguments for Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity. While he is correct that the Supreme Court is not reviewing an adjudicated case, he misses the point.
It was disingenuous for Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and, to a lesser extent, John Roberts to act as though the facts have no bearing on the issue at hand. As pointed out by the other justices, most, if not all, of the actions that led to the alleged crimes were not remotely close to official acts that should warrant consideration for some type of fictional presidential immunity. Facts matter. Truth matters.
Alito was the most egregiously flawed in his questioning. First, the self-proclaimed originalist/textualist — the justice who was aghast that the court in Roe v. Wade found an implicit right to an abortion in the privacy protections granted in the 14th Amendment — is now seemingly willing to find “presidential immunity” implicit in the Constitution absent any explicit reference to the term and in light of our Founders’ efforts to make sure that a president was not a king.
Second, Alito cringed at any reference to the underlying facts, suggesting that the actual actions of Trump — while president — are a mere afterthought to the issue at hand.
But third, Alito effectively acknowledged that the facts mattered as he had the audacity to express concern that, by not providing a president who loses a closely contested election the security of knowing that he/she will be able to live without fear of criminal prosecution after they leave office, future presidents will be encouraged to try to stay in power. Circuitous logic is beneath even Alito.
This is exactly what Trump did, which is why he should be held accountable via criminal prosecution and why any claim of presidential immunity based on the facts should be dismissed.
Alito seems to forget that our nation has survived many close contested elections without the loser trying to stay in power by illegal means. That is until Trump.
— W. Dean Bruno, Sugar Grove
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
