November 24, 2012 09:18 PM UTC

BREAKING: PERA CONTRACT BREACH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS APPEAL TO COLORADO SUPREME COURT.

• 0 Comments
• by: PolDancer

Isn’t it just crazy that news addressing billions of dollars of Colorado taxpayer obligations is not reported in the mainstream press?  Will the blogosphere entirely usurp this traditional media function?

(Are all of Colorado’s mainstream media reporters fully occupied covering that latest two-headed calf in Punkin’ Center?)

The following has been posted on the website saveperacola.com:

“Both Plaintiffs and Defendants Appeal to Colorado Supreme Court

November 22, 2012

Plaintiffs Gary R. Justus et al and defendants State of Colorado et al have appealed the Colorado Court of Appeals decision that declared that Colorado PERA retirees have a contract that includes their annual cost-of-living (COLA) increases, albeit for very different reasons! Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed Nov. 20 and defendants’ attorneys filed the next day.

Plaintiffs seek to have the Supreme Court decide “Whether, in a case involving public sector employees’ rights to a cost-of living adjustment (“COLA”), the Court of Appeals wrongly ruled that aspects of Police Pension and Relief Board of the City and County of Denver v. McPhail, 139 Colo. 330 (1959), and Police Pension and Relief Bd. of City and County of Denver v. Bills, 148 Colo. 383 (1961), are no longer good law because, contrary to those cases, there can be no Colorado Constitution Contract Clause violation even for persons already retired or eligible to retire so long as the defendant public entity shows that impairment of the employees’ rights is “reasonable and necessary to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose.”

Defendants ask the Supreme Court to decide “(1) Whether Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (“PERA”) members have contractual rights to the cost-of-living adjustment (“COLA”) formulas in place at their respective retirements for life without change. (2) Whether SB 10-1, which adjusted COLAs to their current level of two percent compounded annually, was constitutional because it (a) did not substantially impair contractual expectations and was reasonable and necessary to ensure the pension funds’ long-term viability, and (b) was not a regulatory taking.”

That this case would eventually be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court was both expected and sought by all parties due to the precedent that Senate Bill 10-001 created in reducing COLA contractual benefits for retirees and those eligible to retire. The two briefs filed this week can be found at

www.SavePERACOLA.com/resources.

It has been two years and eight months since PERA first failed to pay its full contracted COLA to retirees. The current per cent deficit is 6.83%.”

PERA retirees, support the legal effort to prevent the State of Colorado and Colorado PERA from breaching pension contracts by clicking the PayPal link following this announcement at saveperacola.com.

Colorado PERA apparently believes it is not subject to the Rule of Law in the United States. This situation must be corrected.

http://saveperacola.com/