PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complaint filed. On February 18, 2021, via email, a Complaint was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Franklin Township Board of Education, in which it submits that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (New Jersey Employee Health Benefits Program), legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan.  The Complaint alleges that the legislation could cause the Franklin Township Public School District and their employees to incur over $1,100,000.00 in overall increased health care costs.  As discussed below, even just new employees enrollin in the new plan will result in financial harm.  P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, dictates all financial aspects of the plan, to include contribution percentages, contribution caps, and co-pays, resulting in nothing left for the parties to negotiate to mitigate the financial impact.  The mandate is unfunded.

A summary of the Franklin Township Board of Education Complaint, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Franklin Township Board of Education Complaint, please click here.

Council Publication.  Because of the identity of the issue raised, on February 26, 2021 via email and hand delivered letter, the Council ordered that the complaint should be served on the Attorney General, the Department of Education & Higher Education, the Acting Commissioner at the Department of Education, and the officials listed in Council Rule 9a.  The Council also determined that the Attorney General would be directed to file an Answer to the Complaint, and that any other official served with the Complaint that chose to do so might file an Answer, as Respondent.

To view the full version of the Council's Correspondence to all interested parties, please click here.

Amicus Curiae, NJEA (New Jersey Education Association) submits notice of change in general counsel to COLM. On February 26, 2021 via email, Richard Friedman, Esq., on behalf of the New Jersey Education Association notified the Council of a change in counsel for this matter.

To view the full version of the notification of change in counsel, please click here.

Council grants Respondents' request for 30 day stay. On March 5, 2021, the Respondent in this matter requested an 30 day stay in this matter.  The Council granted the request of the respondent, by issuing an 30 day stay in the matter.

To view the full version of the Respondents' request for a 30 day stay, please click here.

Complainant submits letter brief to supplement their Complaint, with a copy of draft legislation S3487. On March 5, 2021, William C. Morlok, Esq., Counsel for Claimant (Franklin Township Board of Education) submitted a letter brief to supplement their complaint, and more specifically their request for an injunction to the Council with a copy of draft Senate Legislation S3487.

To view the full version of the Franklin Township Board of Education letter brief to supplement their complaint, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On March 22, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in this matter to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Gloucester City Board of Education files complaint in regards to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (S2273/A20).  On March 26, 2021, via email, a Complaint was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Gloucester City Board of Education, in which it submits that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (New Jersey Employee Health Benefits Program), legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan.  Unfortunately, the legislation is already causing the Gloucester City Board of Education to incur $21,634.32 monthly, or approximately $260,000.00 yearly,  in overall increased health care costs.  P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, dictates all financial aspects of the plan, to include contribution percentages, contribution caps, and co-pays, resulting in nothing left for the parties to negotiate to mitigate the financial impact.  As a result, the mandate is unfunded.

A summary of the Gloucester City Board of Education Complaint, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Gloucester City Board of Education letter brief to supplement their complaint, please click here.

Lower Township Elementary Board of Education files complaint in regards to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (S2273/A20).  On March 26, 2021, via email, a Complaint was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education, in which it submits that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (New Jersey Employee Health Benefits Program), legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan.  Unfortunately, the legislation is already costing Lower Township Elementary Board of Education to incur costs of approximately $44,000 for 20-21,  in overall increased health care costs.  As discussed below, that number will only go up on July 1, 2021.  P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, dictates all financial aspects of the plan, to include contribution percentages, contribution caps, and co-pays, resulting in nothing left for the parties to negotiate to mitigate the financial impact.  As a result, the mandate is unfunded.

A summary of the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education Complaint, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education letter brief to supplement their complaint, please click here.

Notice of Appearance filed on behalf of Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin.  On March 29, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., on behalf of Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin filed an Notice of Appearance in the matter regarding P.L. 2020, Chapter 44.  Please be advised that the Senate President and the Assembly Speaker appear in this proceeding pursuant to Council Rule 6(a) and 9(a) and by operation of the Council’s Publication Notice regarding this proceeding. The Council’s Publication Notice states, in relevant part: “The Council also determined that the Attorney General would be directed to file an Answer to the Complaint, and that any other official served with the Complaint that chose to do so might file an Answer, as Respondent.” (emphasis added). Pursuant to Council Rule 9(a), the Senate President and Assembly Speaker were served with the Complaint. As such, they intend to file a responsive pleading pursuant to the Publication Notice and pursuant to Your Honor’s Case Management Order dated March 9, 2021.

To view the full version of the Notice of Appearance by the Presiding Officers' Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin, please click here.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit letter brief request for 14 day extension. On April 1, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) filed an letter brief request for an extension of 14 days to file responsive pleadings.  The Council granted the request of the respondent, by issuing an 14 day extension to file responsive pleadings in the matter.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief Requesting an extension of 14 days, please click here.

Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, submits Letter Brief In Lieu of a Formal Brief In Opposition to Complainant's Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. On April 23, 2021, Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, submits this letter brief in opposition to the request by Complainants, the Franklin Township Board of Education (“Franklin Township”), the Gloucester City Board of Education (“Gloucester City”), and the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education (“Lower Township”), for an order enjoining the enforcement of L. 2020, c. 44 (“Chapter 44”) pending the outcome of this consolidated matter.

A summary of the Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, submits Letter Brief In Lieu of a Formal Brief In Opposition to Complainant's Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, submits Letter Brief In Lieu of a Formal Brief In Opposition to Complainant's Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, please click here.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief with Certification of Service. On April 23, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submitted an letter brief in Opposition to Claimants Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.  Also enclosed is the Respondents Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin's Answer to the Complaints.

A summary of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, please click here.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) Answer to the Complaints, please click here.

Council issues Notice of Hearing. On May 13, 2021, the Council submitted their Notice of Hearing to the Secretary of State and all interested parties in I/M/O Complaint filed by the Franklin Township Board of Education (COLM-0001-21):

Amicus, NJEA files letter brief in opposition to the petition for injunctive relief.  On May 20, 2021, via email, Craig A. Long, Esq., submitted a letter brief in Opposition to the Petition for Injunctive Relief on behalf of the New Jersey Education Association.

A summary of the NJEA's Letter Brief in Opposition to the Petition for Injunctive Relief, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the NJEA's Letter Brief in Opposition to the Petition for Injunctive Relief, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On May 21, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in this matter on Claimants' Application for Injunctive Relief to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On June 8, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in this matter on dates circulated by the parties to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On July 1, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in this matter on proposed filing dates to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On July 12, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in this matter to extend all filing dates in the July 1, 2021 Order by 15 days to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, submits Letter Brief on Assembly Bill A5825 being signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy. On July 21, 2021, Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, submitted a letter brief on Assembly Bill A5825 being signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy on July 7, 2021.

A summary of the Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, Letter Brief on Assembly Bill A5825 being signed into law, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, Letter Brief on Assembly Bill A5825 being signed into law, please click here.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) file Letter Brief In Regards to Discovery. On July 21, 2021, via email, a letter brief was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Claimants' in regards to discovery in this matter.

A summary of the Complainants' Letter Brief in Regards to Discovery, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Claimants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions), Letter Brief In regards to discover, please click here.

Amicus, NJSBA files a Notification of General Counsel Change. On July 27, 2021, via email, a letter brief was filed by Carl Tanksley, Esq., on behalf of the Amicus, NJSBA, notifying the Council and all parties of their change in counsel.

To view the full version of the Amicus, NJSBA's notification of general counsel change, please click here.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Motion to Compel Discovery. On July 28, 2021, via email, a letter brief was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Motion to Compel Discovery.

A summary of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Motion to Compel Discovery, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Motion to Compel Discovery, please click here.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Amended Complaints Re. P.L. 2020 Chapter 44. On July 30, 2021, via email, Complainants' filed an Amended Complaints regarding P.L. 2020 Chapter 44 with the COLM.

A summary of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Amended Complaints Re. P.L. 2020 Chapter 44, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Complainants' Amended Complaints, please click here.

Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, submits Notification of Appearance.  On August 3, 2021, Respondent State of New Jersey, filed an notification of appearance on behalf of Amna Toor, DAG, joining the respondent's counsel.

To view the full version of the Respondent's Notification of Appearance, please click here.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants' Motion to Compel Discovery. On August 5, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submitted an letter brief in Opposition to Claimants' Motion to Compel Discovery.

A summary of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants' Motion to Compel Discovery, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants' Motion to Compel Discovery, please click here.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Answer to Claimants' Amended Complaints. On August 11, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submitted an letter brief in Answer to Claimants' Amended Complaints.

A summary of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Answer to Claimants' Amended Complaints, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Answer to Claimants' Amended Complaints, please click here.

Council issues Memorandum Decision Order.  On August 17, 2021, via email, the Council issued a memorandum decision order in this matter to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On August 18, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in this matter to all interested parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order.  On September 1, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in regards to proposed dates discussed by the parties on August 26, 2021 without any objection or opposition from the parties.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae. On September 1, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submitted an letter brief in Support of their Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Council Rule 7 & N.J.S.A. 52:13H-12 (c).

A summary of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae, please click here.

Respondent State of New Jersey files letter brief In re. to the Presiding Officers' Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae.  On September 9, 2021, via email, Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, submitted a letter brief in regards to their Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae, and takes no position on the motion to appear.

To view the full version of the Respondents' letter brief In re. to the Presiding Officers' Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, please click here.

Council issues Case Management Order. On September 15, 2021, via email, the Council issued a case management order in regards to the Presiding Officers' Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, and have granted their request to appear as amicus curiae.

To view the full version of the Council on Local Mandates Case Management Order to all parties, please click here.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Pleading Summary Pursuant Council Rule of Procedure 8(b). On October 12, 2021, via email, a letter brief was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) providing Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Pleading Summary Pursuant to Council Rule of Procedure (b).

A summary of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Pleading Summary Pursuant Council Rule of Procedure 8(b), may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Pleading Summary Pursuant to Council Rule of Procedure (b), please click here.

Respondent State of New Jersey files Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 12, 2021, via email, Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, submitted a letter brief in regards to their Motion for Summary Judgment, Certification of Service and Exhibits.

A summary of the Respondent State of New Jersey's Motion for Summary Judgment, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Respondents' letter brief In re. to their Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

To view the full version of the Respondents' Certification of Service and Exhibits In re. to their Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

Amicus, NJSBA submits Letter Brief In Support of its Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, to Respond to the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss, and to provide substantive comments. On October 28, 2021, via email, a letter brief was filed by Carl Tanksley, Esq., on behalf of the Amicus, NJSBA, Letter Brief In Support of its Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, to Respond to the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss, and to provide additional substantive comments on whether P.L. 2020 Chp. 44 and P.L. 2021 Chp. 163 are unfunded mandates.

A summary of the Amicus NJSBA's Letter Brief in Support of its Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, to Respond to the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss, and to provide substantive comments, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Amicus, NJSBA's Letter Brief In Support of its Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, to Respond to the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss, and to provide additional substantive comments on whether P.L. 2020 Chp. 44 and P.L. 2021 Chp. 163 are unfunded mandates, please click here.

To view the certification of Service from the Amicus, NJSBA's Letter Brief In Support of its Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, to Respond to the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss, and to provide additional substantive comments on whether P.L. 2020 Chp. 44 and P.L. 2021 Chp. 163 are unfunded mandates, please click here.

Respondent State of New Jersey files Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 29, 2021, via email, Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, submitted a letter brief in lieu of a more formal brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

A summary of the Respondent State of New Jersey's Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Respondents' letter brief In lieu of a more formal brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

To view the full version of the Respondents' letter brief In lieu of a more formal brief In re. to their Response to Complainants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Motion In Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 29, 2021, via email, a letter brief was filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Motion In Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment.

A summary of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Motion In Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) Motion In Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

Amicus, NJEA files letter brief In Support of Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment.  On October 29, 2021, via email, Craig A. Long, Esq., submitted a letter brief in Support of Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the New Jersey Education Association.

To view the full version of the NJEA's Letter Brief in Support of Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 29, 2021, via email, Leon Sokol, Esq., Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submitted an letter brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Seeking Dismissal of the three complaints in this Consolidated Action.

A summary of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Seeking Dismissal of the three complaints in this Consolidated Action, please click here.

Council issues Memorandum Opinion and Order.  On December 15, 2021, via email, the Council issued their Memorandum Opinion & Order denying the Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the State's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.

To view the full version of the Council's Memorandum Opinion & Order, please click here.

PLEADING SUMMARIES.

This portion of the site reproduces summaries, written by parties and amici, of their pleadings, as they are filed with the Council, beginning with the filed Complaints.  The summaries do not represent the views of the Council; they are provided to facilitate understanding of the positions reflected in the pleadings.

Complete copies of all filed pleadings may be obtained by contacting the Council office as described under Address & Telephone.

Claimant Franklin Township Board of Education Summary of Complaint:

  "The Franklin Township Board of Education ("FTBOE") submits that this Complaint addresses P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan. Unfortunately, the legislation could cause the Franklin Township Public School District and their employees to incur over $1,100,000.00 in overall increased health care costs. As discussed below, even just new employees enrolling in the new plan will result in financial harm. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, dictates all financial aspects of the plan, to include contribution percentages, contribution caps, and co-pays, resulting in nothing left for the parties to negotiate to mitigate the financial impact. The mandate is unfunded.

  1. Prior to the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits were based on a percentage of premium model.

  2. With the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits are now based on a percentage of salary model (with caps), known as the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (NJEHP). The NJEHP has raised the overall costs of health care for the Franklin Township Public School District and their employees.

  3. Notably, this change in the basis for contribution rates reduces the percentage of the employee contribution from a range of 3% to 35% to a range of 1.7% to 7.2%. Accordingly,
school district employers are now forced to absorb this differential in the percentage of employee contribution rates, often increasing the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer (and school district as a whole), under the NJEHP.

  4. Despite this increase in the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer under the NJEHP, P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, does not allow for any practical means to offset the additional expenditures required for the school district employer to implement the NJEHP, and is therefore an unfunded mandate.

  5. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 states that "the employer and the majority representative shall engage in collective negotiations over the financial impact of the [cost] difference" when the net cost to the employer under the NJEHP is higher than the net cost of health care benefits coverage available to employees through an existing collective negotiation agreement. However, the school district employer still remains bound by the contribution percentages, contribution caps, and the coverage or co-payment amounts set forth in P.L. 2020, Chapter 44. Accordingly, such collective negotiations "over the financial impact of the difference" in implementing the NJEHP are not truly possible, as there are no health care related financial aspects remaining to
negotiate.

  6. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired on or after July 1, 2020 were to be automatically enrolled in the NJEHP, unless they elected to waive coverage. The Franklin Township Board of Education did not complete that automatic enrollment due to the negative financial impact and unfunded mandate, as discussed throughout this Complaint.

  7. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired prior to July 1, 2020, were to be provided the option to enroll in the NJEHP, unless they affirmatively elected to waive coverage, or affirmatively elected to remain enrolled in their prior coverage. The Franklin Township Board of Education did not complete that open enrollment due to the negative financial impact and unfunded mandate, as discussed throughout this complaint.

  8. As detailed below, the NJEHP was created to provide cost savings, though if every employee of the Franklin Township Board of Education switched to the plan, it would result in employees and the Franklin Township Board of Education paying a combined $1,131,967.68 more. The Franklin Township Board of Education and their employees have worked tirelessly and collaboratively to secure what is believed to be some of the lowest costs for health care in the State of New Jersey. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, has thwarted those efforts and not provided funding or any other means to make up for the negative financial impact."

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Franklin Township Board of Education, on February 18, 2021.

Claimant Gloucester City Board of Education Summary of Complaint:

  The Gloucester City Board of Education ("GCBOE") submits that this Complaint addresses that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (New Jersey Employee Health Benefits Program), legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan.  Unfortunately, the legislation is already causing the Gloucester City Board of Education to incur $21,634.32 monthly, or approximately $260,000.00 yearly,  in overall increased health care costs.  P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, dictates all financial aspects of the plan, to include contribution percentages, contribution caps, and co-pays, resulting in nothing left for the parties to negotiate to mitigate the financial impact.  As a result, the mandate is unfunded.

  1. Prior to the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits were based on a percentage of premium model.

  2. With the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits are now based on a percentage of salary model (with caps), known as the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (NJEHP). The NJEHP has raised the overall costs of health care for the Gloucester City Public School District and their employees.

  3. Notably, this change in the basis for contribution rates reduces the percentage of the employee contribution from a range of 3% to 35% to a range of 1.7% to 7.2%. Accordingly,
school district employers are now forced to absorb this differential in the percentage of employee contribution rates, often increasing the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer (and school district as a whole), under the NJEHP.

  4. Despite this increase in the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer under the NJEHP, P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, does not allow for any practical means to offset the additional expenditures required for the school district employer to implement the NJEHP, and is therefore an unfunded mandate.

  5. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 states that "the employer and the majority representative shall engage in collective negotiations over the financial impact of the [cost] difference" when the net cost to the employer under the NJEHP is higher than the net cost of health care benefits coverage available to employees through an existing collective negotiation agreement. However, the school district employer still remains bound by the contribution percentages, contribution caps, and the coverage or co-payment amounts set forth in P.L. 2020, Chapter 44. Accordingly, such collective negotiations "over the financial impact of the difference" in implementing the NJEHP are not truly possible, as there are no health care related financial aspects remaining to
negotiate.

  6. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired on or after July 1, 2020 were to be automatically enrolled in the NJEHP, unless they elected to waive coverage. The Gloucester City Board of Education commenced with that automatic enrollment as of January 1, 2021.

  7. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired prior to July 1, 2020, were to be provided the option to enroll in the NJEHP, unless they affirmatively elected to waive coverage, or affirmatively elected to remain enrolled in their prior coverage. The Gloucester City Board of Education commenced with that open enrollment as of January 1, 2021.

  8. As detailed below, the NJEHP was created to provide cost savings, though the Gloucester City Board of Education has seen a monthly loss of $21,634.32 which is annualized to $259,611.84.  The Gloucester City Board of Education had recently entered into the School Health Insurance Fund ("SHIF") program and saw a significant cost savings, so much so that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 has caused the overall cost of healthcare in the District to go up by approximately $32,000.00, yearly.   P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 has thwarted those efforts and not provided funding or any other means to make up for the negative financial impact.

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Gloucester City Board of Education, on March 26, 2021.

Claimant Lower Township Elementary Board of Education Summary of Complaint:

  The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education ("LTEBOE") submits that this Complaint addresses that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 (New Jersey Employee Health Benefits Program), legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan.  Unfortunately, the legislation is already costing the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education to incur $21,634.32 monthly, or approximately $260,000.00 yearly,  in overall increased health care costs.  P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, dictates all financial aspects of the plan, to include contribution percentages, contribution caps, and co-pays, resulting in nothing left for the parties to negotiate to mitigate the financial impact.  As a result, the mandate is unfunded.

  1. Prior to the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits were based on a percentage of premium model.

  2. With the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits are now based on a percentage of salary model (with caps), known as the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (NJEHP). The NJEHP has raised the overall costs of health care for the Lower Township Elementary Public School District and their employees.

  3. Notably, this change in the basis for contribution rates reduces the percentage of the employee contribution from a range of 3% to 35% to a range of 1.7% to 7.2%. Accordingly, school district employers are now forced to absorb this differential in the percentage of employee contribution rates, often increasing the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer (and school district as a whole), under the NJEHP.

  4. Despite this increase in the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer under the NJEHP, P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, does not allow for any practical means to offset the additional expenditures required for the school district employer to implement the NJEHP, and is therefore an unfunded mandate.

  5. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 states that "the employer and the majority representative shall engage in collective negotiations over the financial impact of the [cost] difference" when the net cost to the employer under the NJEHP is higher than the net cost of health care benefits coverage available to employees through an existing collective negotiation agreement. However, the school district employer still remains bound by the contribution percentages, contribution caps, and the coverage or co-payment amounts set forth in P.L. 2020, Chapter 44. Accordingly, such collective negotiations "over the financial impact of the difference" in implementing the NJEHP are not truly possible, as there are no health care related financial aspects remaining to negotiate.

  6. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired on or after July 1, 2020 were to be automatically enrolled in the NJEHP, unless they elected to waive coverage. The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education commenced with that automatic enrollment as of January 1, 2021.

  7. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired prior to July 1, 2020, were to be provided the option to enroll in the NJEHP, unless they affirmatively elected to waive coverage, or affirmatively elected to remain enrolled in their prior coverage. The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education commenced with that open enrollment as of January 1, 2021.

  8. As detailed below, the NJEHP was created to provide cost savings, though the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education has seen an annualized loss of $43,628.00.  The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education was previously self-insured and has recently entered into the Coastal HIF ("HIF") program due to the uncertainty surrounding healthcare and the COVID-19 Pandemic.  The switch to HIF caused rates to raise slightly, and the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education determined that they would not pass any of that cost on to their employees until July 1, 2021.  Even without that, the District is forced to pay more money than they would have had P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 not existed.  Further, because of the aforementioned, it is anticipated that more employees will switch to the NJEHP plan during the next open enrollment period.

  9. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 has caused the overall cost of healthcare in the District to go down by approximately $27,000.00, yearly.  P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, has not allowed the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education to realize any of those savings, instead requiring them to pay $43,628.00 more, for the balance of the 20-21 school year.

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education, on March 26, 2021.

Respondent, State of New Jersey, Executive Branch Summary of Answer:

  "Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, submits this letter brief in opposition to the request by Complainants, the Franklin Township Board of Education (“Franklin Township”), the Gloucester City Board of Education (“Gloucester City”), and the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education (“Lower Township”), for an order enjoining the enforcement of L. 2020, c. 44 (“Chapter 44”) pending the outcome of this consolidated matter.    This matter arises from the Legislature’s update to a long-existing health insurance plan for New Jersey’s educators.  All three Complainants have filed nearly identical complaints seeking to strike Chapter 44, and also requesting a stay of the legislation.  Complainants’ request for a stay must be deniedbecause: (1) they have failed to establish they will suffer substantial or significant financial hardship as a result of the legislation; (2) they have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the case; and (3) the public interest weighs heavily against granting a stay in this instance.

  Chapter 44 addresses the administration and management of health care benefit plans for State school employees whose employers participate in the School Employees’ Health Benefits Program (“SEHBP”), and for certain eligible employees whose employers do not participate in the SEHBP.  Under Chapter 44, beginning on January 1, 2021, the SEHBP shall offer three plans that provide medical and prescription drug benefits, thus terminating all other plans offered prior.  The three plans to be offered under Chapter 44 include the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (“NJEHP”), the SEHBP NJ Direct 10 plan, and the SEHBP NJ Direct 15 plan.

  From the outset, Respondent denies that Chapter 44 constitutes an unfunded mandate.  Local school districts have been sharing the cost of health insurance with their employees for decades, in accordance with changing legislation and collective negotiations agreements between employers and employees.  To the extent there are costs associated with a district’s offering of health insurance in accordance with Chapter 44, this is not a new phenomenon. Healthcare costs are constantly in flux, and dependon a number of unpredictable factors from one plan year to the next.  This has been the norm for decades — Chapter 44 is nothing more than  an update to a model that has existed since 1961.  Moreover, Chapter 44 includes an important safety valve for employers and employees — it requires employers to engage in collective negotiations to offset the net cost of the new plans.  Complainants have not engaged in that mandatory process.

  Complainants have also failed to show that they will suffer imminent, substantial, and significant financial harm if a stay is not granted.  Instead, they rely on purely speculative figures to allege a net cost if they implement the requirements of Chapter 44.  And not only do these alleged costs amount to conjecture, but even if they were actual or imminent they would not be significant or substantial enough to warrant a stay under the law.  Furthermore, Complainants’ purported harm is self-created: as noted above, they have refused to engage in the collective negotiations process to offset those costs; and they also waited until at least seven months after Chapter 44 was enacted to file this action.  Thus, on balance, and when considering the many public policy interests militating against a stay, injunctive relief should not be granted. 

  Therefore, for the reasons set forth more fully below, Complainants’ request for preliminary injunctive relief must be denied."

The above summary is a quotation from the Answer filed by Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent the State of New Jersey, Executive Branch, on April 23, 2021.

The Presiding Officers' Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.

  This matter comes before the Council by way of Complaints filed by the Franklin Township Board of Education, the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education, and the Gloucester City Board of Education (hereafter collectively “the Claimants”). Claimants challenge L. 2020, c. 44 (hereafter “Chapter 44” or “the Act”). The purpose of Chapter 44 is to help school districts control their spiraling employee health care costs through a careful re-design of public employee health insurance plans. Notwithstanding this purpose, Claimants contend that Chapter 44 is an impermissible unfunded mandate within the meaning Article VIII, section 2, paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution.

  Chapter 44 is not an unfunded mandate. Quite the contrary. According to a leading actuary retained by the Legislature, Chapter 44 – based on the most recent data -- is projected to save school districts and their employees over $800 million per year.

  Chapter 44 is a complex piece of legislation that applies to 584 public school districts across the State. The Legislature anticipated that at least some of these hundreds of school districts might encounter short-term transitional costs, rather than transitional savings. In recognition of this potential circumstance, the Legislature directed school districts that might encounter short-term transitional costs to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with their employee organizations in order to address these costs. This is a requirement of the statute.

  Remarkably, none of the three school districts that have brought this action has complied with the statutory mandate to initiate collective bargaining negotiations with their employee organizations. Instead, Claimants seek preliminary injunctive relief from this tribunal without so much as making an effort to engage in collective bargaining.

  Claimants have failed to comply with the express terms of the statute. As such, they have no ground to seek relief before this tribunal.

  Moreover, the public interest would be ill-served by the Claimants’ application More particularly, if the preliminary injunctive relief here sought were granted, the result would place a cloud of uncertainty and potential disruption for hundreds of school districts that are in the process of implementing health care benefit plans mandated by Chapter 44. Claimants’ application should be denied for this reason alone.

  For this and other reasons that are set forth herein (and that are set forth in the brief of the Attorney General), Claimants’ application for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.

The above summary is a quotation from Leon J. Sokol, Esq., on behalf of the Presiding Officers' Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, on April 23, 2021.

Amicus Curiae New Jersey Education Association, Summary of Letter Brief:

  "Whether the costs of healthcare for school employees advances the Thorough and Efficient (“T & E”) Clause of the New Jersey Constitution has, for decades, been unequivocally answered in the affirmative by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Courts across the country have reached the same conclusion with respect to their own T & E mandates.

  As these courts repeatedly affirm, it is beyond cavil that the T & E Clause is advanced by providing competitive salaries and comprehensive benefit plans, which attract and retain the best possible teachers and employees, while fostering efficiency and dedication.

  L. 2020, c. 44 (“Chapter 44”) advances this constitutional objective by amending the School Employee Health Benefits Program (“SEHBP”), which the Department of Education considers to be a component of the T & E Clause. On this basis, even if Chapter 44 could be shown to impose increased costs – a contention that remains entirely speculative – the law remains constitutionally exempt from being an unfunded mandate.

  Prior decisions in which the Council on Local Mandates (“Council”) declined to apply the T & E exemption with respect to alleged unfunded mandates are distinguishable in that the laws and regulations at issue neither answered, nor furthered any specific constitutional mandate. Rather, unlike employee compensation and benefits, the measures in question simply fell within an undefined category of abstract educational programming.

  Because the Supreme Court has long held that healthcare benefits of the type codified in Chapter 44 constitute renumeration necessary to effectuate the T & E Clause, Chapter 44 may not be considered an unfunded mandate."

The above summary is a quotation from Craig A. Long, Esq., on behalf of Amicus, the New Jersey Education Association on May 20, 2021.

Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch Summary of Letter Brief:

"As you are aware, on July 7, 2021 Governor Murphy signed A5825, which significantly alters P.L.2020, c.44 (“Chapter 44), the law that is the subject of this litigation. Specifically, A5825 amends Section 8 of Chapter 44, to elaborate on a school district’s obligation to engage in collective negotiations. Importantly, the amendment allows for the parties to modify plan level offerings or contributions for the New Jersey Educators Health Plan through negotiations.

  Although claimants agree that the new legislation directly impacts this case and that the new law allows for the alteration of healthcare plans, they have opted to proceed under the originally filed complaints. By letter dated July 19, 2021 counsel for the claimants advised the Council that its position has not changed because “there is no mechanism for School Boards to recoup the prior financial impacts of Chapter 44, or current and continuing financial impacts while lengthy negotiations occur.”  Based on this assertion, it appears that the claimants’ position as to the unfunded nature of Chapter 44 has in fact changed."

The above summary is a quotation from Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey on July 21, 2021.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Letter Brief In Regards to Discovery:

  "As you know, this firm represents the Franklin Township Board of Education, the Gloucester City Board of Education, and the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education (collectively, “Complainants”) in the above-referenced matter. I write regarding an issue that has arisen with respect to discovery.

  Through correspondence from their counsel dated June 28, 2021 and July 9, 2021, Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin (collectively, “Respondents”) have asserted legislative immunity in connection with Complainants’ discovery requests. However, all authority cited in that correspondence applies the doctrine of legislative immunity in the context of traditional civil or criminal litigation, as opposed to the review of an alleged unfunded mandate by the Council on Local Mandates (“Council”). The Council’s unique role in reviewing whether a law constitutes an unfunded mandate requires the parties to have all information regarding that law, including documents used in connection with preparation of the legislation. The fact that “rulings of the council … shall not be subject to judicial review” further demonstrates the inapplicability of traditional civil litigation practices, including the doctrine of legislative immunity, to proceedings before the Council. N.J.S.A. 52:13H-18 (emphasis added).

  Moreover, the Rules of Procedure for the Council specifically state that “[a] party may request discovery from another party on motion to the Council and for good cause shown” and “[t]he Council in its discretion may require any party to submit additional information.” Rule 12(b)-(c) (emphasis added).

  You will recall that the letter brief Respondents submitted opposing Complainants’ request for injunctive relief included the certification of Anthony Cimino, Executive Director of the New Jersey General Assembly Majority, who discussed the “experts, professionals, consultants, and actuaries that have been engaged to advise the Legislature.” The certification of Kevin Drennan, Executive Director of the New Jersey General Senate Majority, also discussed those experts and included a letter from three consultants from Milliman, who conducted an analysis in April of 2020, prior to when the initial approved language of Chapter 44 was agreed upon.

  Because Respondents continue to assert legislative immunity in an attempt to circumvent Complainants’ valid discovery requests, Complainants seek an Order from the Council requiring Respondents to submit substantive responses to same, pursuant to Rule 12."

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' in FTBOE (Consolidated Actions), on July 21, 2021.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Motion to Compel Discovery:

  "All authority cited in the June 28, 2021 and July 9, 2021 correspondence applies the doctrine of legislative immunity in the context of traditional civil or criminal litigation, as opposed to the review of an alleged unfunded mandate by the Council. The Council’s unique role in reviewing whether a law constitutes an unfunded mandate requires the parties to have all information regarding that law, including documents used in connection with preparation of the legislation. The fact that “rulings of the council … shall not be subject to judicial review” further demonstrates the inapplicability of traditional civil litigation practices, including the doctrine of legislative immunity, to proceedings before the Council. N.J.S.A. 52:13H-18 (emphasis added).

  Moreover, the Rules of Procedure for the Council specifically state that “[a] party may  request discovery from another party on motion to the Council and for good cause shown” and “[t]he Council in its discretion may require any party to submit additional information.” Rule 12(b)-(c) (emphasis added).  

  Additionally, the letter brief Respondents submitted opposing Complainants’ request for injunctive relief included the certification of Anthony Cimino, Executive Director of the New Jersey General Assembly Majority, who discussed the “experts, professionals, consultants, and actuaries that have been engaged to advise the Legislature.” The certification of Kevin Drennan, Executive Director of the New Jersey General Senate Majority, also discussed those experts and included a letter from three consultants from Milliman, who conducted an analysis in April of 2020, prior to when the initial approved language of Chapter 44 was agreed upon.  Accordingly, Respondents “opened the door” to Complainants’ Requests for Production of Documents seeking more information regarding Milliman and the “experts, professionals, consultants, and actuaries that have been engaged to advise the Legislature.”

  If Respondents intend to utilize and rely on these documents as part of their case-in-chief  or in motion argument (as addressed below) to argue that Chapter 44 is not an unfunded mandate, then Complainants are entitled to receive copies of same. More specifically, under Rule 12(a), “[a]t least 30 days before a scheduled hearing date or by such other date as the Council may direct, a party must file with the Council any documents or other written information on which it intends to rely at hearing.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, a copy of these documents must “be served on all parties to the proceeding…” Rule 12(d).

  Here, Respondents have already relied on the requested documents in opposing Complainants’ request for injunctive relief (“Exhibit F”). More specifically, Respondents touted the Milliman report as detailing “the substantial cost savings produced by Chapter 44.” Exhibit F, Respondents’ Brief at 6. They further noted that “passage of Chapter 44 represented the culmination of years of planning and analysis by key stakeholders and actuarial experts.” Id. at 5. Given that Respondents have already relied on these documents to block Complainants’ request for injunctive relief, it is disingenuous for them to now suggest that they may not be probed and/or the topic of reasonable discovery requests. Accordingly, Complainants are entitled to receive copies of the requested documents.  Because Respondents continue to assert legislative immunity in an attempt to circumvent Complainants’ valid discovery requests, Complainants now seek an Order from the Council requiring Respondents to submit substantive responses to same, pursuant to Rule 12."

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' in FTBOE (Consolidated Actions), on July 28, 2021.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Amended Complaints Re. P.L. 2020 Chapter 44:
This Complaint addresses P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, legislation that required school districts in New Jersey to offer a new health care plan. Unfortunately, the legislation already caused the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education to incur approximately $79,408.45 in overall increased health care costs for the 2020-2021 school year. On July 7, 2021, Governor Murphy signed legislation amending Chapter 44. Although Section 8 of the amended law now allows for
meaningful terms of the healthcare plan or contributions to be altered through negotiations, there is no mechanism for the Board to recoup the prior financial impacts of implementing the “original version” of Chapter 44, or the current and continuing financial impacts while lengthy negotiations occur. As a result, the mandate continues to be unfunded.

1. Prior to the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits were based on a percentage of
premium model.

2. With the passage of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, school district employee contribution rates toward health care benefits are now based on a percentage of salary model (with caps), and employees are placed in a plan known as the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (“NJEHP”) or equivalent plan (herein collectively: “NJEHP”).  The NJEHP has raised the overall costs of health care for the Lower Township Elementary Public School District and their employees.

3. Notably, this change in the basis for contribution rates reduces the percentage of the employee contribution from a range of 3% to 35% to a range of 1.7% to 7.2%.  Accordingly, school district employers are now forced to absorb this differential in the percentage of employee contribution rates, often increasing the net cost of health care benefits to the school district employer (or school district as a whole), under the NJEHP.

4. Prior to July 7, 2021, the “original language” of P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 stated that “the employer and the majority representative shall engage in collective negotiations over the financial impact of the [cost] difference” when the net cost to the employer under the NJEHP is higher than the net cost of health care benefits coverage available to employees through an existing collective negotiation agreement. However, the school district employer still remained bound by the contribution percentages, contribution caps, and the coverage or co-payment amounts set forth in P.L. 2020, Chapter 44. Accordingly, such collective negotiations “over the financial impact of the difference” in implementing the NJEHP were not truly possible prior to July 7, 2021, as there were no health care related financial aspects remaining to negotiate.

5. As amended, Chapter 44 requires that Districts and employee associations engage in negotiations in order to “substantially mitigate” the financial impact of the difference “when the net cost … to the employer [for health care benefits] is lower than the cost to the employer would be compared to the NJEHP.” Under the new law, substantial mitigation may include changes to plan level offerings or contributions for the NJEHP, or to both plan level offerings and contributions.  However, the amended law does not provide any mechanism for the Board to recoup the prior financial impacts of implementing the “original version” of Chapter 44, or the current and continuing financial impacts while lengthy negotiations occur.

6. Because amended version of Chapter 44 does not provide any mechanism for the Board to recoup the prior financial impacts of implementing the “original version” of Chapter 44, or the current and continuing financial impacts while lengthy negotiations occur, it continues to be an unfunded mandate.

7. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired on or after July 1, 2020 were to be automatically enrolled in the NJEHP, unless they elected to waive coverage. The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education commenced with that automatic enrollment as of January 1, 2021.

8. Pursuant to P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, all school district employees hired prior to July 1, 2020, were to be provided the option to enroll in the NJEHP, unless they affirmatively elected to waive coverage, or affirmatively elected to remain enrolled in their prior coverage. The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education commenced with that open enrollment as of January 1, 2021.

9. As detailed below, the NJEHP was created to provide cost savings, though the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education has already seen an annualized loss of $79,408.45. The Lower Township Elementary Board of Education was previously self-insured and has recently entered into the Coastal HIF (“HIF”) program due to the uncertainty surrounding healthcare and the COVID-19 Pandemic. The switch to HIF caused rates to raise slightly, and the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education determined that they would not pass any of that cost on to their employees until July 1, 2021. Even without that, the District is forced to pay more money than they would have had P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 not existed. Further, because of the aforementioned, it is anticipated that more employees will switch to the NJEHP plan during the next open enrollment period.

10. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 has caused the overall cost of healthcare in the District to go down by approximately $27,000.00, yearly. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, has not allowed the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education to realize any of those savings, instead requiring them to pay $79,408.45 more during the 2020-2021 school year. P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 has not provided funding or any other means to make up for the negative financial impact that has already occurred and continues to occur while lengthy negotiations are pending.

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' in FTBOE (Consolidated Actions), on July 30, 2021.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Opposition to Claimants' Motion to Compel Discovery:

  "As you know, this office represents Respondents Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin (hereafter collectively “the Presiding Officers”) in the above-captioned consolidated action. Presently pending before the Council is Claimants’ motion to compel document discovery directed at the Presiding Officers. Please accept this informal letter-brief, in lieu of a more formal submission, in opposition to the Claimants’ motion to compel discovery directed application for preliminary injunctive relief.

  Claimants’ document requests directed to the Presiding Officers consist of the following:

1. Please produce any and all studies, surveys, and/or reports commissioned and/or relied on by Respondents regarding Chapter 44. This includes any and all studies, surveys, and/or reports commissioned and/or relied on by Respondents after the enactment of Chapter 44 on July 1, 2020 to the present.
2. Please produce any and all information submitted to Respondents by any and all Boards of Education throughout New Jersey regarding the fiscal impact of Chapter 44.
3. Please produce any and all correspondence regarding Chapter 44, between Respondents and anyone associated with Milliman from January 1, 2018 to the present.
4. Please produce any and all correspondence regarding Chapter 44, between Respondents and representatives of the New Jersey Education Association from January 1, 2018 to the present.

  As fully set forth herein, the Presiding Officers – as members of the Legislature – are subject to complete legislative immunity from discovery in civil and criminal litigation and other official proceedings pursuant to Article IV, section 9 paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution (hereafter “the Speech or Debate Clause”).  Because of the constitutional shield of legislative immunity, the Presiding Officers are under no obligation to respond to Claimants’ document demands.  Consequently, Claimants’ motion to compel discovery against the Presiding Officers should be denied in its entirety."

The above summary is a quotation from Leon J. Sokol, Esq., on behalf of the Presiding Officers' Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, on August 5, 2021.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Answer to Claimants' Amended Complaints:

 "IV. The Presiding Officers’ Affirmative Defenses to all three Amended Complaints in this Consolidated Action

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Claimants have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate within the meaning of N.J. Const., Art. VIII, § 2, ¶ 5(b) and N.J.S.A. 52:13H-2.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate because it “repeals, revises or eases an existing requirement or mandate” within the meaning of N.J. Const. Art. VIII, § 2, ¶ 5 (c)(3) and N.J.S.A. 52:13H-3(c).

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate because the statute was enacted to help school districts in controlling spiraling health care costs through a careful re-design of public employee health insurance plans.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate because the Act is projected to provide total claim savings of $865 million per year for all school districts.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate because health insurance costs inherently fluctuate based on a myriad of factors – many of which are outside the control of any governmental entity.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate because health insurance costs inherently fluctuate based on a myriad of factors – many of which are outside the control of any governmental entity.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L. 2020, c. 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate because to the extent that some school districts might encounter transitional costs – rather than transitional savings – the Act requires the school districts to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with their employee organization in order to address the transitional costs. The Claimants’ failure and refusal to comply with this required provision of the Act is sufficient to defeat their application for preliminary injunctive relief.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

All Claimants have failed to enter into good faith collective bargaining negotiations with their employee organization as required by section 8 of L. 2020, c. 44. Having failed to comply with the requirements of the Act, all Claimants do not have a cognizable claim that L. 2020, c. 44 is an impermissible unfunded mandate.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

All Claimants have failed to enter into good faith collective bargaining negotiations with their employee organization as required by section 8 of L. 2020, c. 44. Because all Claimants have failed to comply with the requirements of the Act, this tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear their alleged claims.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

On July 7, 2021 the Governor signed into law A5825 -- an act that amended L. 2020, c. 44 and that added significant new language addressing the collective bargaining provision of Chapter 44 (hereafter referred to as Section 8). Assuming, arguendo, that Section 8 of Chapter 44 had raised any ambiguity whatsoever with regard to the obligation of school districts to engage in collective bargaining negotiations with their employee organizations in order to eliminate any net cost to the school district of transitioning to a new health benefits regime, A5825 removes that ambiguity. As such, Chapter 44, as amended by A5825, is not an impermissible unfunded mandate.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Council is without authority to provide retroactive relief to Claimants with respect to alleged “prior financial impacts of Chapter 44” (that arose before the enactment of A5825).

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Claimants’ purported construction of A5825 – as somehow precluding the parties to a collective bargaining negotiation from addressing alleged “prior financial impacts of Chapter 44” (that arose before the enactment of A5825) – is properly rejected as a matter of law as wholly unsupported by the plain meaning of the A5825.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Claimants’ purported construction of A5825 – as somehow precluding the parties to a collective bargaining negotiation from addressing “current and continuing financial impacts” as well as future financial impacts – is properly rejected as a matter of law as wholly unsupported by the plain meaning of the A5825.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

All Claimants have failed to mitigate their damages.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

All Claimants are barred from recovery by the doctrine of unclean hands.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Claimants’ claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and laches."

The above summary is a quotation from Leon J. Sokol, Esq., on behalf of the Presiding Officers' Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, on August 11, 2021.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae:

I. Pleading Summary (pursuant to Council Rule 7(b)(i) and for publication on the Council website)
A. Statement of the Presiding Officers’ involvement or expertise in this matter (pursuant to Council Rule 7(B)(i))

  "Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin (hereafter collectively “the Presiding Officers”) request leave to appear as amici in this consolidated action. This matter comes before the Council by way of Complaints filed by the Franklin Township Board of Education, the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education, and the Gloucester City Board of Education (hereafter collectively “the Claimants”). Claimants initially challenged L. 2020, c. 44 (hereafter “Chapter 44”). The purpose of Chapter 44 is to help school districts control their spiraling employee health care costs through a careful re-design of public employee health insurance plans.

  On July 7, 2021, the Governor signed into law L. 2021 c. 163 (hereafter “Chapter 163”) -- an act that amended Chapter 44 and that added significant new language addressing the collective bargaining provision of Chapter 44. On July 30, 2021, Claimants amended their Complaints and thereby also challenged Chapter 163 as an impermissible unfunded mandate.

  The involvement and expertise of the Presiding Officers in this constitutional challenge to the two Acts are summarized are follows.

  The Presiding Officers were Primary Sponsors of both Acts. Indeed, the Senate President and the Assembly Speaker were the sole Primary Sponsors of Chapter 163.

  Moreover, the Presiding Officers have been involved for many years in public employee health benefit issues and in the lengthy legislative process that culminated in the enactment of Chapter 44. See Sokol Cert., Exhibits “A” through “C”, The Presiding Officers had members of the Legislature and staff meet with a variety of experts on health insurance plan design and other economic experts to investigate potential solutions to the continuing problem of the escalating costs of health insurance. See id.

  More particularly, the Presiding Officers are in a unique position to convey to the Council the legislative history underlying Chapter. For example, the Presiding Officers will rely on published legislative reports and legislative history that establish that the goal of Chapter 44 – far from shifting additional costs to school districts – was to help school districts in controlling health care costs through a careful re-design of public employee health insurance plans. See Sokol Cert., Exhibit “A” (Drennan Cert., ¶¶2-8); Exhibit “B” (Cimino Cert., ¶¶3-5): Exhibit “C” (Assembly Appropriations Committee, Statement to S. 2273). According to a leading actuary retained by the Legislature, Chapter 44 – based on the most recent data -- is projected to provide total claim savings of $865 million for a full year. Sokol Cert., Exhibit “D”. As these and other documents establish, the Legislature’s enactment of Chapter 44 encompassed careful evaluation of cost-savings measures and years of input from key stakeholders and actuarial experts.

  Furthermore, the Presiding Officers’ longstanding experience in health benefits legislation will assist the Council in understanding the unique nature of public employee insurance programs and the complex issues underlying the legislative design of these programs. At the most basic level, the cost of an insurance premium is directly and indirectly affected by a myriad of variables – some of which are controllable and some of which are not. the cost of the premium is influenced by many other intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These factors include – but are by no means limited to -- the scope of coverage, layers of coverage, policy limits, policy exclusions, changes in risk over time, the size of the group, the characteristics of the group, changes in the group over time and changes in loss rates over time. These and other factors affect the cost of the insurance premium not only in obvious and direct ways but also in ways that involve the complex interaction of the various factors. Thus, when the Legislature makes a change in the terms and conditions governing a public employee insurance program, that change affects – in different ways and to different degrees -- the experience of over 500 school districts across the State. The Presiding Officers are in a position to offer a unique perspective on these issues.

The above summary is a quotation from Leon J. Sokol, Esq., on behalf of the Presiding Officers' Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, on September 1, 2021.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Pleading Summary Pursuant Council Rule of Procedure 8(b):

  PLEADING SUMMARY

  "Consistent with the Council’s Rule of Procedure 8(b), Complainants provide the following concise statement setting forth a description of the relief sought and the basis for the requested relief.

  Complainants seek a ruling from the Council that Chapter 44 is an unfunded mandate, and that because of Chapter 44, Complainants and other school districts are incurring increased direct expenditures, and that Chapter 44 fails to authorize resources to fund the aforementioned expenditures. In re Complaint Filed by the New Jersey Association of Counties, Council on Local Mandates Decision (March 31, 2020). As such, Complainants seek a ruling that Chapter 44 is an unconstitutional “unfunded mandate.” Id."

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' in FTBOE (Consolidated Actions), on October 12, 2021.

Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch files Motion for Summary Judgment:

  "PLEADING SUMMARY PURSUANT TO COUNCIL RULE 8(b) 

  Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey, files this motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the consolidated complaints with prejudice. In particular, claimants — the Franklin Township Board of Education, the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education, and the Gloucester City Board of Education — challenge the provisions of L. 2020, c. 44 (“Chapter 44”), as amended by L. 2021, c. 163 (“Chapter 163”), arguing that a shift in employee contributions for the State’s longstanding health benefits program for public school teachers constitutes an unfunded State mandate. Claimants are wrong for three reasons: (1) Chapters 44 and 163 do not impose any direct expenditures upon municipalities, and to the extent any such expenditures exist, they are offset by additional resources; (2) Chapters 44 and 163 implement a provision of the New Jersey Constitution; and (3) Chapters 44 and 163 are revisions and modifications of already-existing, decades-old legislation designed to provide health benefits to New Jersey’s public school teachers. Thus, because Chapters 44 and 163 are not unfunded mandates, and because they otherwise fall within the well-delineated exceptions to the general proscription against unfunded mandates, claimants’ complaints must be dismissed with prejudice.

The above summary is a quotation from Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey on October 12, 2021.

Amicus, NJSBA submits Letter Brief In Support of its Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae, to Respond to the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss, and to provide substantive comments:

  "Amici jointly submit this request to appear as Amicus Curiae at the invitation of the Council. In doing so, Amici adopt the Procedural History and the Statement of Facts as set forth in the “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH FORM COMPLAINT” filed by the Franklin Township Board of Education (“Franklin BOE”). To the extent that the Procedural History and Statement of Facts may be inconsistent with that set forth in the Council’s letters, NJSBA leaves the resolution of those inconsistencies to the Council.

  It is Amici’s position that N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2, which establishes a health benefit plan for public school employees, as amended by P.L. 2020 Chap. 44 and further amended by P.L. 2021 Chap. 163 (hereinafter Chapter 44) constitute an unfunded mandate to the extent that implementation of the health benefits program established in the enactment results in greater costs to individual school districts and should therefore be enjoined as to those districts.

  It is Amici’s position that the legislation is mandatory with respect to school district throughout the state, requires increased direct expenditures by certain school districts and the legislation does not authorize resources, other than the property tax, to offset those expenditures. Amici take the further position that none of the specified exceptions to the prohibition   against unfunded mandates apply to escape that prohibition and allow implementation despite the increased costs.

The above summary is a quotation from Carl Tanksley, Esq., on behalf of Amicus Curiae, the New Jersey School Board Association on October 28, 2021.

Respondent State of New Jersey, Executive Branch files Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment:

  "Claimants make no effort to deny that Chapter 44, as amended by Chapter 163, falls within any of the six exemptions to the prohibition against unfunded mandates. See N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 2, ¶ 5(c); N.J.S.A. 52:13H-3.  Instead, claimants focus on the allegation that Chapter 44 is a mandate that requires direct expenditures for which they suggest no resources have been provided to offset. For the reasons that follow, claimants’ motion must be denied.

  In order to prove a claim of unconstitutionality under the New Jersey Constitution and the Local Mandates Act, N.J.S.A. 52:13H-1 to -22, a claimant must demonstrate that: (1) the statute, rule, or regulation imposes a “mandate” on a unit of local government; (2) additional direct expenditures are required for the implementation of the statute, rule, or regulation; and (3) the statute, rule, or regulation fails to “authorize resources, other than the property tax, to offset the additional direct expenditures.” Jamesburg at *5; In re Complaint Filed by the N.J. Ass’n of Cntys. (“NJAC III”), COLM (Mar. 31, 2020), at *4. So, if a statute does not actually require direct expenditures, or if it authorizes resources to offset such expenditures, no unfunded mandate exists. Jamesburg at *5; NJAC III at *4."

The above summary is a quotation from Jaclyn Frey, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, the Executive Branch of the State of New Jersey on October 29, 2021.

Complainants' FTBOE (Consolidated Actions) files Motion In Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment:

  "Complainants, the Franklin Township Board of Education, the Gloucester City Board of Education, and the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education (“Complainants”), through their undersigned counsel, file this Brief in Opposition to Respondent Executive Branch’s (“Respondent”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment before the Council on Local Mandates (“Council”). As detailed in Complainants’ Opening Brief in Support of Their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Complainants’ Opening Brief”), the provisions of L. 2020, c. 44 (“Chapter 44”)1 constitute an unfunded mandate. Complainants are able to demonstrate present and projected financial losses resulting from the implementation of Chapter 44, which are incapable of being offset by the illusory “resource” advocated for by Respondent. Additionally, Chapter 44 does not qualify under any of the exceptions to the unfunded mandate statute."

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by William C. Morlok, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants' in FTBOE (Consolidated Actions), on October 29, 2021.

Counsel for the Presiding Officers' (Senate President Sweeney & Assembly Speaker Coughlin) submit Letter Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment:

  "By Order dated September 15, 2021, the Council on Local Mandates granted Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin (hereafter collectively “the Presiding Officers”) leave to appear as amici in this Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the Council’s Order, the Presiding Officers file this amicus brief in support of the motion of Respondent State Executive Branch for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the three Complaints contained in this Consolidated Action.

***

  This matter comes before the Council by way of Complaints filed by the Franklin Township Board of Education, the Lower Township Elementary Board of Education, and the Gloucester City Board of Education (hereafter collectively “the Claimants”). Claimants challenge L. 2020, c. 44 (hereafter “Chapter 44” or “the Act”) as well as a subsequent amendment to that Act, L. 2021, c. 163 (hereafter “Chapter 163”). The purpose of Chapter 44, as amended by Chapter 163 (hereafter collectively “Acts”), is to help school districts control their spiraling employee health care costs through a careful re-design of public employee health insurance plans.

  Notwithstanding this purpose, Claimants contend that the Acts constitute an impermissible unfunded mandate within the meaning Article VIII, section 2, paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution and the Local Mandate Act (“LMA”). Claimants contend that they have incurred additional costs in connection with the implementation of the Acts in their first year of operation.

  Chapter 44 is a complex piece of legislation that applies to 584 public school districts across the State. According to a leading actuary retained by the Legislature, Chapter 44 – based on the most recent data -- is projected to save school districts and their employees over $800 million per year. In light of this substantial savings to school districts and employees, it is ironic – to say the least – that Chapter 44 is here alleged to be an impermissible unfunded mandate. Furthermore, the Legislature anticipated that at least some of these hundreds of school districts might encounter short-term transitional costs, rather than transitional savings. In recognition of this potential circumstance, the Legislature directed school districts that might encounter short-term transitional costs to enter into collective negotiations with their employee organizations in order to address these costs. This is a requirement of the statute.

  As fully described herein, the Acts are an impermissible “unfunded mandate” under the New Jersey Constitution and the Local Mandate Act (“LMA”). This is so for three reasons.

  First, Chapter 44, provides that “when the net cost to the employer is lower than the cost to the employer would be compared to the New Jersey Educators Health Plan, the employer and the majority representative shall engage in collective negotiations over the financial impact of the difference” (emphasis added). By its terms, Chapter 44 requires the school district to enter into collective negotiations with its employee organizations so that the school district would avoid such costs. Therefore, Chapter 44 is not an impermissible unfunded mandate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Claimants at the inception of this proceeding argued that the foregoing statutory language was “ambiguous” -- in that the language purportedly did not make clear whether the mandated collective negotiations could lead to an agreement whereby the resulting insurance plan design was at variance with the standard plan design authorized by Chapter 44. In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that such statutory ambiguity ever existed (which is denied), on July 7, 2021 the Governor signed into law Chapter 163 -- an act that amended Chapter 44 and that added significant new language addressing the collective negotiations provision of Chapter 44 (hereafter referred to as Section 8). Chapter 163 makes crystal-clear that: (1) the agreement reached in collective negotiations authorized by Section 8 of Chapter 44 “may include modifications to plan level offerings or contributions for the New Jersey Educators Health Plan or the equivalent plan, or to both plan level offerings and contributions”; and (2) “plan level offerings or contributions for the New Jersey Educators Health Plan or the equivalent plan, or both plan level offerings and contributions, may be modified pursuant to collective negotiations required by this section.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The amendatory language of Chapter 163 makes explicit what was already implicit in the original version of Chapter 44. In light of this amendatory language, Chapter 44, as amended, cannot possibly be deemed an impermissible unfunded mandate. See Point I, infra.

  Second, although Claimants presently argue that Chapter 163 does not cure the putative statutory infirmity, Claimants’ new-found argument does not withstand scrutiny. More particularly, Claimants state that Chapter 44, as amended by Chapter 163, is an impermissible unfunded mandate because “there is no mechanism for School Boards to recoup the prior financial impacts of Chapter 44, or current and continuing financial impacts while lengthy negotiations occur.” However, with respect to Claimants’ contention of a statutory infirmity arising from “prior financial impacts of Chapter 44” (i.e., prior to the enactment of Chapter 163) -- in other words, retroactive relief -- the Council has no authority to order retroactive relief. Rather, the Council’s sole power is the prospective invalidation of a statute if it determines that the statute is an impermissible unfunded mandate. That jurisdictional limitation on the Council’s authority firmly disposes of this branch of Claimant’s argument – even without regard to the many other substantive legal infirmities afflicting this argument. With respect to Claimants’ contention that “current and continuing financial impacts while lengthy negotiations occur,” that contention fails by operation of elemental principles of statutory construction. Under the plain terms of Chapter 163, school districts are required “to substantially mitigate the financial impact of the difference” – with no limitation or restriction whatsoever with regard to the scope of mitigation. Mitigation should apply to future financial impacts as well as past financial impacts. Hence, Claimants’ purported construction of Chapter 163 – as somehow precluding the parties to a collective negotiation from addressing “current and continuing financial impacts” as well as future financial impacts – is properly rejected as a matter of law as wholly unsupported by the plain meaning of Chapter 163. See Point II, infra. 

  Third, the Constitution and the LMA specifically exempt laws, that “repeal, revise or ease an existing requirement or mandate or [that] reapportion the costs of activities between boards of education, counties, and municipalities” from the definition of an unfunded mandate. The Acts fall squarely within the “revision” exemption to the definition of unfunded mandate. School districts have been sharing the cost of health insurance with their employees for at least half a century, in accordance with changing legislation and collective negotiations agreements between employers and employees. Chapters 44 and 163 are just the latest in a long line of statutory amendments to the SEHBP that were designed to meet the health insurance needs of covered employees and the fiscal and administrative requirements of the State’s school districts. And beyond the legislative enactments, the SEHBP is also the product of countless administrative actions and determinations – as well as district-by-district modifications by way of collective negotiations between employers and employees. Thus, the Acts are nothing more than an update to an insurance system that has existed since 1961 -- and constitutes just one change to the terms and conditions of insurance coverage wherein change is regular, constant and ongoing.

  Furthermore, public employee health insurance programs are sui generis – and, as such, should not be regarded in the same way as other types of public expenditures for tangible goods and services. Most other products and services procured by government are readily ascertainable, easily understood, sold in clearly defined units and predictable in price. Insurance is none of these things. An insurance policy is abstract, intangible and highly variable by scope of coverages, exclusions, size and characteristics of the group and many other considerations. Moreover, some of the cost components of an insurance policy are controllable and some are not. In light of these considerations that are unique to public employee insurance and in light of the long legislative history of public employee insurance programs in this State, if the Council were to hold that Chapters 44 and 163 were not within the “revision” exemption, then it would be difficult to conceive of any statute that would ever be within the scope of the “revision” exemption. Hence – for this reason alone -- Chapters 44 and 163 are not an “unfunded mandate” within the meaning of the New Jersey Constitution and the LMA (and even without regard to the immunizing effect of the Acts’ mandatory collective negotiation provision). See Point III, infra.

  For all of these reasons – any one of which is dispositive – Amici Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin join in support of the motion of Respondent State Executive Branch for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the three Complaints in this Consolidated Action."

The above summary is a quotation from Leon J. Sokol, Esq., on behalf of the Presiding Officers' Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, on October 29, 2021.