Save PERA COLA Issues Final Statement

August 8, 2015

The following letter, which included a detailed financial statement, was recently mailed to all donors to the legal defense effort to preserve our Annual Benefit Increases (ABI), also known more commonly as COLA or cost of living increases. If you have changed your address since donating, or did not provide one, please notify us soon if you wish a paper copy that includes the financial statement.  Write to


A Colorado Non-Profit Corporation

IRS 501 (c)(4)

July 31, 2015

To:   All of our Save PERA COLA Contributors

From:  Gary Justus and Rich Allen

We would like to thank you once again for your generous contributions to the effort to preserve our retirement contracts and the rule of law.   While the struggle was ultimately unsuccessful, you can be rightfully proud of your participation.

Included you will find the final statement of Revenues and Expenditures for Save PERA COLA.  We have not provided this financial information in the past, as it was strategic information in regards to the lawsuit.  PERA attempted to subpoena our records, our “membership”, our contributor list and even our emails regarding the topic.  We do not know whether this was simply harassment or the seeking of data for retaliatory purposes or something else.  It did not, of course, bear on the legal issues in the case but not knowing their motives we did not wish to assist them.  Now that the lawsuit has ended, we are able to fulfill our promise to provide this financial information to our supporters.

In looking at the statement, you will see that the bulk of the expenditures were payments to the law firm we retained.   As was expected, they had many more expenses than we paid.    They took the case on contingency, expecting to recover additional costs through the award of legal fees.  Of the remaining expenditures, there were various filing fees and other expenses for our non-profit status, fund raising costs, and communication costs.  As promised there were no salaries or consulting fees paid.  This was all volunteer work.  Questions or concerns may be addressed to us at

We were, of course, heavily outspent by PERA.  In 2010, their expenses for lobbying/legal fees were about $1,000,000 higher than in 2009 or 2011.  This was the initial effort on SB1.  PERA’s legal expenses in subsequent years are unknown; but, given the number of lawyers that showed up at the various hearings, we can assume they were substantial.   And, the amount of PERA staff time associated with the lawsuit is also unknown.  This was your money, paid out of the PERA Trust Fund.   Finally, substantial expenditures were made by the Attorney General’s office to repudiate its earlier opinion that was favorable to our cause.

While successful, the legal strategy pursued by PERA (“There is no contract.”) undermines the entire concept of a defined benefit plan.  PERA could have acknowledged the contract, stipulated that the impairment was substantial and based their defense on the premise that the impairment fulfilled an important public purpose.  This really is their political position but it was not their legal position.  Now we all have the “no contract decision” which they and we have to live with.

We are not optimistic for the future.  Further efforts will have to be political and we urge all of you to stay involved.  Thank you for all you did to support Save PERA COLA – your support is greatly appreciated!

3241 S. Josephine Street                       Denver, CO    80210

Illinois’ State Universities Retirement System shows the many reasons for increases in its unfunded liabilities.

June 4, 2015


This graph released by the Illinois State Universities Retirement System (SURS) demonstrates a host of reasons that its unfunded liabilities have increased significantly since 1995.  Note especially that most of the underfunding is failure to pay the Actuarial Required Contributions (ARC) in green, like our legislature has failed to pay PERA .  Note also the relative unimportance of investment performance.  Assume they use some version of smoothing that would tamp this down but so does PERA. PERA would have a large component of actuarial changes for 2010 when they reduced our annual increases, changed the rate of investment assumption and went to a 100% funding target within 30 years. It would take lots of work to get the specific data from PERA needed to produce a similar graph for Colorado and then integrate it into a similar spreadsheet/graph.

Note: the Illinois Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the Illinois Legislature’s retrospective reduction of benefits last year for all pre-2011 employees and retirees. The apparent difference was that Illinois has clear language in its constitution about not doing that! Read more at

Plaintiffs will not appeal Colorado Supreme Court Decision

January 20, 2015

Gary R. Justus, et al. v. The State of Colorado, et al.

The four plaintiffs in the case to overturn Senate Bill 10-001 concerning reductions in promised annual benefit increases (ABI, aka COLA) have decided to not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such an appeal is termed a writ of certiorari.

Plaintiffs’ attorney William T. Payne released to Save PERA COLA the following rationale for not appealing the issue:

“…the court’s opinion was based on Colorado state law. An article from a law firm which has a robust Supreme Court practice notes:

A sure-fire way to guarantee rapid denial of certiorari is to file a petition disputing findings of fact rather than determinations of law; presenting questions of state rather than federal law; or asking for review of a decision that rested on adequate and independent state law grounds even if the court below also addressed a federal issue.

We also noted if plaintiffs ultimately lose this case, plaintiffs may be liable for “costs” such as court reporter fees for transcripts. While “costs” are small in this case, they would still run into the thousands of dollars (according to Defendants), because there were a couple of conferences or hearings before courts.

We have obtained a tentative agreement from the Defendants that they will not seek “costs,” as long as we do not file a petition for review in the U.S. Supreme Court. While Defendants are quite confident that the U.S. Supreme Court would not grant us any relief were we to file a petition for review, they would prefer if all parties could avoid the additional time and expense necessary to brief any such petition. We strongly recommend confirming this agreement with the Defendants, and would like you to accept our recommendation.

Please call if you have any questions.


William T. Payne”

That tentative agreement has now been finalized and we thus can release this outcome to you. We are most disappointed in the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and what it means for PERA retirees. The mid- to long-term damage to retirees’ financial stability is significant. Moreover, the legal precedent that passage of Senate Bill 1 has set will enable the legislature to again cut our annual benefit increases below 2%. When inflation returns to historical levels, retirees and their pensions will not be protected from it. PERA’s well documented promises of a “guaranteed 3.5% annual increase” were simply lies that finally came to light when PERA reconciled their many past mistakes into the Senate Bill 1 “fix.” PERA attorneys then successfully argued in court against PERA’s previous pronouncements that the 3.5% increases were part of the pension contract with those who had already completed their part of the deal. They also argued that previous legislative changes in annual increases (all positive) created precedent for doing so again, but this time they were negative changes. We do not believe that the PERA Board has upheld its fiduciary duty to protect the interests of its active or retired members. Nor do we believe that the unions that lobbied in favor of SB1 fairly supported their members who willingly paid annual dues over their careers.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has spoken and we must respect their right to do so. It’s time to move forward. We are now investigating how we can better hold PERA accountable in the future to demand full funding of the existing benefits structure from the legislature, protect what we have left, and educate current and future employees about the risks of choosing to work in Colorado PERA covered employment. We’ll let you know more in the future.

We thank our attorneys Bill Payne and Richard Rosenblatt for their incredible efforts to win this case. We could not have wished for better representation.

Gary R. Justus, plaintiff and Rich Allen, President of Save PERA COLA

Supreme Court Rules Against Retirees

October 20, 2014

Earlier this morning the Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Gary R. Justus v. PERA and the State of Colorado, filed in February 2010 soon after Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 10-001 into law. You may view the court’s 32 page decision here.

Rich Allen, President of Save PERA COLA, a Colorado non-profit corporation, has issued the following statement warning public employees of the problem that this decision has for them.


“The Supreme Court has spoken. Needless to say we are disappointed in the decision. It seems to us to be a major departure from the rule of law to allow a public entity to unilaterally abrogate an agreement to which they willingly and legally entered merely because they don’t feel like paying the costs anymore. But there are other issues here that directly affect the financial security of public retirees and employees.

PERA throughout the legal process adopted a scorched earth policy by denying that there ever was any contract regarding the annual benefit increases (aka cost-of-living adjustments or COLA) even though they had previously and often stated there was a contractual agreement in both their verbal and written messages. This victory for PERA leaves it in the legal position of being able in the future to reduce the remaining COLA of 2% (maximum) to zero, assuming the legislature’s permission. There is little reason to think that creative minds could not come up with further reductions as well. This does not bode well for Colorado public employees, or for public employers who use PERA benefits to attract the best applicants to their employ.

We believe that the many employee organizations that supported SB1 will regret that decision in the future. Colorado no longer has a defined benefit plan (DB). It instead has a gratuity plan where the benefits for all members, even for the already retired, are entirely defined by the whim of the legislature. Further, incentives have been created for the legislature to continue to underfund the pension system which will lead to future PERA Trust Fund fiscal crises and further cuts. Based on past behavior, it is hard to understand how PERA will demand adequate funding to support even the severely reduced funding benefit levels that SB1 has set. They have bought into the false notion that we are just “greedy geezers.” We are in fact simply asking for what we have earned and were promised.

While we cannot predict the timing of any of this, we would urge all retirees to have a “Plan B” to support themselves. For current and future employees, we recommend looking closely at total compensation and the actual security of it in making career decisions.”


Article 2, Section 11. Ex post facto laws. No ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation

of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special

privileges, franchises or immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly.


Supreme Court to Rule October 20

October 17, 2014

From the Colorado Supreme Court’s website:

Supreme Court Case Announcements Future Case Announcements

The Colorado Supreme Court will release case announcements on Monday, October 20, 2014, no later than 10 a.m. No case decisions or opinions will be available prior to the posting of the case announcements on this website. Monday’s announcements will include the Opinions in the cases listed below. Click on the case to link to the ISSUES which were addressed during oral arguments.

2014 CO 75 – 12SC906, Justus v. The State of Colorado

The reference to our case is found about 1/3 of the way down the page with the date June 4.

*     *     *     *     *     *

When we have read and digested the opinion we will release a statement.

Thank you for your patience and support.

Richard Allen and Gary Justus Save PERA COLA

Visit our website at

Supreme Court Hears Justus v. State & PERA

June 12, 2014

On June 4 The Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the above case. Representing Colorado retirees was local attorney Richard Rosenblatt; he was assisted by Pittsburgh attorney Bill Payne. Hundreds of Save PERA COLA supporters have donated their funds to help us reach this court, where we sincerely trust that the court will find every reason to rule in our favor.

While a discussion here would be quite lengthy to describe the hearing, you may read about it at length in the two comments posted under the post below this one. As you may know, Algernon Moncrief has been providing expert analysis of this case for several years. In these two comments he lays out the numerous deceptions he sees that the Colorado and PERA attorneys have presented the court and documents why their claims are false.

I offer a big thank you to the 14 retirees who appeared in court with us to witness this historic case. We almost outnumbered the attorneys for PERA and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office!



Supreme Court Orders Oral Argument

April 8, 2014

The Colorado Supreme Court has ordered oral argument in the case of Gary R. Justus v. State of Colorado and PERA. It is scheduled for June 4 at 9 a.m. Save the date.     See the order at