By Sam Hostettler, for UIC News, and William S. Bike, for APAC News
MAY 31. That’s the final day lawmakers convene for the current legislative session and the date employees at the three
A PANEL of experts — Robert Rich, director of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs; economists Darren Lubotsky, David Merriman, and J. Fred Giertz; law professor Laurie Reynolds; and Kappy Laing, executive director of the Office of Governmental Relations and the University’s chief lobbyist — provided an overview of a new report on the public pension policy to nearly 800 UIC faculty and staff April 12 at the UIC Forum.
“WE”RE NOT here to here to take positions,” said Rich, who along with Lubotsky, Merriman, and Reynolds authored the report, “Public Pension Policy in
“THERE’S LITTLE practical value to talk about who is at fault. We are here to provide you with information on the issue.”
IN MAY 2010,
NATIONALLY, UNDERFUNDING of State pension funds totals more than $3 trillion.
SOME OF the following reforms are being considered:
• Switching from a “defined benefit” (usually financed primarily by the employer) to a “defined contribution” (usually financed by the employee) program;
• Increasing the contributions required of employees;
• Limiting the total amount of pension for which an employee is eligible;
• Changing eligibility criteria;
• Limiting retiree benefits or increasing the costs of the benefits (such as medical benefits) to employees;
• Limiting increases in direct pension benefits by tying these increases directly to rates of inflation.
ACCORDING TO Reynolds, there is a debate over the legality of legislative reforms to the retirement systems, and it all begins with the State’s pension law, which in part reads: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State…shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
“WHEN THAT language was added to the 1970 constitution, it radically changed the status of government employee pension systems in the State of
THERE ARE several different ways the sentence could be interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court, she said. One scenario is that the Illinois Constitution creates a legally binding obligation between the employee and the pension system itself, the State Universities Retirement System (SURS), but not the State of
ANOTHER INTERPRETATION is that the State could recognize its obligation to its employees under the pension system, but that it can reduce benefits for current employees, reducing existing, accrued benefits, she said.
REYNOLDS SAID the most widely held interpretation is the State has no power to change any benefits, formulas for calculating benefits, or to alter any of the terms and conditions of the pension plan that was in effect on the employee’s first day at work.
IT IS unknown at the present time how the Illinois Supreme Court would interpret the decision, Reynolds said.
“IF THE Legislature passes laws reducing benefits for current employees, there will be lawsuits,” Reynolds said. “This is probably going to the Illinois Supreme Court.”
SHE NOTED that the Illinois Supreme Court tends to show “judicial restraint” and deference to the will of the Legislature. The court also is unlikely to let any litigant “put the State over a cliff” by making a decision that would bankrupt the State.
“VALIDITY OF a decree is contingent on if the money is available,” Reynolds said. “If they give litigants a $69 billion judgment but $69 billion isn’t available, what good is it?”
CHANGES HAVE already been made to the pension program by
• An increase in the retirement age from 60 to 67;
• Benefits are now based on the eight highest years of pay in the past ten years, rather than the highest pay in four consecutive years;
• Cost of living adjustments are calculated using simple interest instead of compound interest;
• The earnings based used to calculate benefits is now capped at $106,800;
• The cost of living adjustments are limited to three percent per year or one-half of the actual inflation rate, whichever is less.
IT IS an exaggeration to say all the State’s budget problems have arisen from the State’s pension program, said Giertz.
IT ALSO is an exaggeration to think that the pension system will fail and no one will receive their benefits — that is unlikely to happen, he said. “Failure assumes the State stops funding them, but that won’t happen. The State isn’t that close to insolvency.”
“SINCE PENSIONS are not the cause of all the problems, changing them won’t solve all the problems,” Giertz said. “The State never funded pensions in a timely way, shorting them decade after decade.”
LAING SAID, “We’re looking at a redeployment of contributions. That would result in less possibility of lawsuits than changing benefits paid out would.
“ANY LEGISLATION will have a long implementation period,” Laing concluded. “If you want to affect legislation, the most effective lobbying is your letter or phone call to Legislators.”
SUCH LOBBYING must not be done on University time, on a University telephone or computer, on University stationery, or on the University premises.
TO SEE the entire April 12 meeting, please click the following:
For more information on pension issues, go to www.igpa.uillinois.edu/pensions, https://nessie.uihr.uillinois.edu/cf/index.cfm, www.surs.com, or https://nessie.uihr.uillinois.edu/cf/policies/indexcfm?item_ID4534.
No comments:
Post a Comment