So i've read this a couple of times and just curious to get your thoughts.

Section 24 of the constitution states :"The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and itspolitical subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby."

To me it doesn't clearly state that Orr would violate this "contract clause" if he amends how much retiree's are allowed to withdraw from a particular pension plan.

For instance, if the pension plan has $200 Million and 2,000 retirees are drawing $10,000 for 10 years the fund would be depleted. However, if the EM comes in and says that the fund needs to be sustainable for 20 years, then the retirees are only going to be allowed to draw $5,000 a year. Under this example, the "accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system" have not been diminished, but instead the amount a retiree is allowed to withdraw from it has been modified.

Does anyone know if there is legislative history about this clause that would lock in the interpretation that the unions have been arguing? To me it just seems you could read this clause two ways and one way would justify a reduction of retiree's payment without violation.