*** UPDATE 1 *** The Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association have just issued a joint statement. Essentiall, this means that the teachers unions support the Chicago Teachers Union desired changes in the education reform bill, but without the CTU’s way over top rhetoric…
“After months of historic collaboration and bargaining in good faith, the Illinois House can, by making necessary adjustments, ensure that Illinois gets education reform legislation that reflects what was intended and agreed upon in the negotiations.
We are on the precipice of passing some the most serious reforms to education that Illinois has seen in decades, and drafting such legislation is a deliberate process. The coalition that came together remains united in our ultimate objective: to pass reforms that protect the voice of the teacher in the classroom while making our schools better for our kids.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** “Joint statement of Robin Steans, Executive Director of Advance Illinois, Jessica Handy, Policy Director of Stand for Children – Illinois and Jeff Mays, President, Illinois Business Roundtable in response to the Chicago Teachers Union’s removal of support from Illinois Senate Bill 7″…
SB 7 is the same legislation that the Chicago Teachers Union assisted in crafting and openly supported in the Illinois Senate. For more than three months, state senators, school management groups, the State Board of Education, education reform organizations and teachers’ unions- including the Chicago Teachers Union- sat at the same negotiating table and hammered out the specifics of SB 7.
This process was extraordinary for its inclusive and collaborative nature and something which proudly sets Illinois apart from other states.
The proposed language of the bill has been available and under discussion for months. All parties were given the chance to review the final language of SB 7 and, indeed, the Chicago Teachers Union did propose last minute changes, which were incorporated before it was passed unanimously by the Illinois Senate on April 14th.
The Chicago Teachers Union has now removed its support from SB 7 and in doing so, has undermined the good faith in which it was negotiated.
Since passage in the Senate, we have worked with the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, school management groups, and legislators on clean-up language in several areas. We remain committed to continuing to work collaboratively with legislators and stakeholders on this landmark legislation.
And the spiral continues.
[ *** End Of Updates *** ]
* Speaker Madigan wants to set up a new system for paying teacher pensions…
In another possible blow to the legislation, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) is considering an amendment that would shift the cost of teacher pensions, a move that could torpedo the bill’s chances, according to two sources familiar with the confidential talks. The sources requested anonymity because they remain involved in the negotiations.
The amendment would require school districts to levy a separate property tax for teacher pensions, the sources said. The move would shift the burden from the state to local taxpayers. Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) introduced the concept in February.
There are actually two education reform bills (another, cleanup version was passed the day after the first one passed). I think only one of those two will be amended with Madigan’s pension changes. We’ll see.
* Speaker Madigan is also sponsoring a constitutional amendment which cleared a House committee this week…
It would require that a public body – at both the state and local level –muster a three-fifths supermajority vote before pensions for its employees can be enhanced.
“It’s very easy to vote for a bill that increases a pension benefit,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, the amendment’s sponsor. “Everyone would be better served if there were a higher bar regarding pension bills.”
Organizations representing local governments – such as the Illinois Municipal League – signed up in favor of the amendment.
Unions representing public employees lined up in opposition. Steve Preckwinkle of the Illinois Federation of Teachers said the amendment could hamstring pension changes needed to clear up problems instead of enhancing benefits.
Thoughts on these two proposals?
* Related…
* CTU: Remove ‘anti-union’ restrictions in school bill
* Illinois Democrats Enrage Public-Worker Unions With Drive to Tame Pensions
* Michael Carrigan: Illinois should honor current pensions - Cutting the retirement benefits earned by state workers is unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair.
* Sean Smoot: Society’s promise to public safety workers goes beyond memorials
* Illinois labor launches campaign to protect pensions
- John Bambenek - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 10:56 am:
I’d campaign for that Madigan amendment. A bizarre confluence of events, to be sure.
Also, the Cubs may go all the way this year.
- Meanderthal - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:02 am:
How about instead of taking pension funding from a state to local government responsibility it goes from a state responsibility to the responsibility of the teacher with a local match program? Its what other people have to do at their job.
- Fed up - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:04 am:
A poison pill? No chance a local property tax hike is going to be popular.
- zatoichi - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:23 am:
Raise local property taxes for teacher pensions? Yes that will go over very well with the locals. It’ll make for some very nice neighbor discussions.
- soccermom - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:27 am:
I think this is a good idea. Low-income people in southern Illinois have no input into pay scales for wealthy suburban districts around Chicago. Why should they be on the hook for pensions for incredibly well-paid administrators? And the folks who elected the school boards that handed out pension sweeteners like candy should pay the freight for it.
- reformer - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:37 am:
There will be no GOP votes to raise property taxes, and no Dem targets.
I doubt there will any enthusiasm in Madigan’s caucus to vote for a big property tax hike. North side Dems would rather turn pro-life than vote for higher property taxes. Though Chicagoans pay the lowest property taxes, they are very sensitive to that particular tax.
- lincolnlover - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:42 am:
Soccermom - First, Chicago has its own teacher’s pension system. Second, each district has its own contract with teacher’s that determines how much the taxpayers IN THAT DISTRICT contribute to the teacher pension fund.
- Shemp - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:52 am:
Mr Smoot:
-I pay 6.2% of my wages to SS and I may never see it, or at least much of it.
-A lot of hard working Americans have spent a lifetime paying into the SS promise and have seen their SS retirement age go from 62 to 65 to 67.
-I know it’s hard to believe, but statistically, there are several, much more dangerous jobs than police and firefighter that don’t have jack for pensions and no opportunity to retire at 50
-The very people (party) that the unions endorse and spend bazillions on have made promises they can’t deliver in exchange for votes and cash. Don’t hold the rest of us 100% responsible. If everyone’s doing their share to clean up this mess created by buying off politicians, then work 2 extra years for the pension. A little extra work for shouldn’t be so much to ask for self-described workers who love their jobs and do their jobs in the name of public service and public safety. Everyone else is working (and living) longer these days.
At least the rank and file are getting some extra press spin for their dues.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:57 am:
True pension reform must occur at the local level. Because of the pension clause protections by the the pensions get to the state it’s too late to do much. If you want greater responsibility in the pension system, make local school boards responsible for the contracts they sign and benefits they handout rather than dumping that responsibility onto the taxpayers at large.
- laborguy - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:01 pm:
Here is what you people just do not seem to understand, it is msleading to compare a teacher’s pension to what other workers get from their private sector employers. When you talk about these 401 k systems you are talking about workers who already get social security. Teachers do not get social security…ever. Their teacher’s psension is all they get. A more appropriate suggestion would be to say social security should be a 401 k. Now many on the Far Right are arguing that position but I do not think it is very popular with most voters. You cannot have teachers’ only source of retirement security subject to the whims of the free market. We just saw what happened to millions of people that did that in recent years. not a good outcome. Get past your misplaced anger at teachers and think about this logically.
- Judgment Day - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:02 pm:
In favor of Madigan’s amendment (if he decides to do so).
First off, if there is an additional levy for teacher pensions, all the real estate property owners (for the first time) will actually see how much of their property taxes for each tax year are going for educational pensions (teachers and administrators).
Btw, on the “Itemized Statement” area of most real estate tax bills, there is an area where each tax district has to list out how much money is being paid out by that tax district for pension and/or FICA taxes.
I rather doubt that the educational establishment would be in favor of this amendment. But it would be a great thing for all the property tax payers out there.
- Dead Head - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:06 pm:
I’ll go along with the three-fifths requirement if it also extends to REDUCING pension benefits.
- Burnham Wannabe - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:06 pm:
@Shemp:
Because some people won’t get their SS, or other pensions, teachers should get their pensions? I don’t follow that logic.
- Burnham Wannabe - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:08 pm:
*shouldn’t
- Cook County Commoner - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:19 pm:
The constitutional amendment requiring a super majority for pension enhancements appears to be a call from the governing bodies that more union contributions to politicians are required to maintain the status quo on gov employee pensions. And is this a one way deal? Is a supermajority needed to reduce pensions thereby severely limiting the opportunity to test the pension protection amendment to the state constitution?
And adding to the property tax load is right out of Mr. Potter’s playbook. Families are having enough problems with mortgages and property taxes. Adding some more debt certainly will discourage home ownership and businesses in Illinois. But as we all know, it’s all about the government employee unions and their pensions. So Potterville, here we come.
- MOON - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:22 pm:
LABORGUY
It is important for you to recognize that those who qualify for Social Security also contribute to that program. Those who qualify for 401(K) also contribute to those programs. Then you should also consider the fact that teachers only work 9 or so months a year. I would suggest that teachers save more of their salaries and teach summer school if they want more to spend now and after retirement.
- Irish - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:29 pm:
If the GA and the State want to divest themselves of their responsibilities to education and teachers then give them that ability as follows.
Their control and ability to set mandates for public education is set at the same percentage as their fiduciary support. In other words if they are funding education at 30% then they have a 30% say in what the schools do. If the locals have 70% control then they can tell Mike and his friends to go take a hike on programs the locals don’t want. If a school district does not want to participate in preschool for children of illegal immigrants then they don’t have to. If they don’t want to have to participate in school breakfasts then they don’t have to.
I am tired of the GA being like a spouse on a binge shopping spree they want to spend, spend, spend, but when the credit card bills come they don’t want any part of it.
So GA, pay up or shut up.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:33 pm:
Boy, that liberal Chicago leadership are just captives of the unions, aren’t they?
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:40 pm:
As far as the property tax levy, I believe the City of Chicago has a separate levy for municipal pension funds, so the tax bill is itemized to include that. The pension levy is miniscule compared to the corporate operating levy.
What it sounds like to me is that Madigan is saying teacher pensions should be funded via property taxes. I realize that’s a big change, but I don’t think it should be terribly controversial. Property tax payers now pay a levy for local schools. This would add a new levy, and would be tiny in comparison to the local school levy. It might, at most, add 3-4% to local tax bills.
The proposal would shift the cost from the state to the locals. That’s where the school decision-making takes place, that should be where the school funding comes from.
- sue - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:47 pm:
so what was the purpose of that recent gargantuan income tax increase again?- wasn’t the increase intedned to bvalance the budget which would include payments into the pension plans- how many times do the Dems want to fleece the citizens of iliinois?
- Unbelievable - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:01 pm:
Shouldn’t the shift be to the teachers who are receiving the pension? I think it is enough that people who pay taxes already pay for teacher’s salaries (and pensions since the salary is taxpayer money), make teachers contribute more to their pensions…it is THEIR pension, not our pension. Or make them contribute to Social Security and scrap the pension system. Then maybe we will realize that the only way to plan for retirement is SAVING YOUR OWN MONEY!
- dave - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:07 pm:
**It is important for you to recognize that those who qualify for Social Security also contribute to that program. Those who qualify for 401(K) also contribute to those programs**
So do teachers and all other public workers.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:09 pm:
sue, the GA has no control over teacher or school management salaries. Those salaries drive pension costs. If locals had to actually pay for their decisions, they’d be forced to accept the fiscal responsibility for their decisions.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:14 pm:
Sue, the state would still be on the hook for all the past underfunding, but the schools would pick up the current costs going forward. You’d likely see an end to schools giving employees the legal maximum 6 percent raise in each of their final four years to boost their pensions.
they do that now because they don’t have to cover the pensions, the entire state does.
Make school boards have to budget for it and, wham, you’ll see a lot more conservative financial practices and long-term planning.
And maybe they’ll think twice about paying a superintendent $400,000 and covering all of his pension contributions plus an additional annuity.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:42 pm:
Right now, TRS contributions are the responsibility of the teacher with an employer match from the state. Other school employees are in IMRF and Social Security. State law allows the school district to levy the mandated employer contribution to IMRF and SS from an “uncapped” fund; however, the fund is capped by whatever the mandated contribution is.
In some districts, the teachers have negotiated to have the school district pay some or all of the teachers’ portion en lieu of a pay increase.
If the state moves the responsibility for the employer contribution to the school districts, the money would have to come out of the Education Fund. Since the Ed Fund is capped and the employer contribution would be a mandate, the districts would have to cut teachers, programs, supplies, or whatever else it would take to make ends meet, including teacher pay. Salaries are the biggest portion of the Ed Fund, and this mandate would be about 8-9% of salaries, so it would be a big hit to every districts’ budget.
If TRS were tossed out as some above have suggested and teachers had a 401k-type plan and Social Security, school districts would be able (under existing law) to levy the employer contribution from the uncapped fund. Indeed, last year’s changes in the pension system could result in this happening anyway. This kind of shift would not save taxpayers much, if anything. (For example, the school might pay 6% to SS and 3% into a 401k-type plan, adding up to 9%, which is appx. what they would pay into TRS.)
Someone will need to pay for TRS or Social Security. If the state wants to shift the TRS employer contribution to the schools, allowing the schools to levy for that portion from the uncapped fund would mimic exisiting law regarding employer contributions for retirement.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:49 pm:
==You’d likely see an end to schools giving employees the legal maximum 6 percent raise in each of their final four years to boost their pensions…Make school boards have to budget for it and, wham, you’ll see a lot more conservative financial practices and long-term planning==
Schools have to pay for those raises. Many, if not most, schools already budget very conservatively. Between state declining state contributions and property tax caps and many mandated expenditures, the schools with which I am familiar budget very carefully. This year, teachers are looking at very low pay increases and even freezes in some districts. Districts have been cutting back on teachers and increasing class size; cutting extra-curricular; cutting music & art; charging fees; and many other things.
It’s easy to accuse school districts of profligate spending, but that does not make it so.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Under TRS right now, the teachers contribute about 9 percent of their pay, the school districts (employers) contribute 0.58 percent.
Then you calculate investment income or losses and the state is supposed to fill in the rest needed to make that year’s payment complete.
Keep in mind, pensions are based on salary, which is determined by the LOCAL school board. So perhaps they should have a little more skin in the game. Perhaps they might not pick up the teacher contributions if they had to, as employers, pay more.
the other way to do this would be to have the state impose salary limits for teachers and administrators. I’m sure that would go over well.
- Sam I am - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:59 pm:
Isn’t it a little late to be shutting the barn door on pension enhancements? The problem now is clawing back what has already been promised.
- MOON - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:08 pm:
DAVE
My point was that those who collect Social Security or 401(K) benefits have to contribute. Laborguy was complaining that teachers do not receive Social Security payments. I recognize the teachers contribute to their pensions, but since they do not contribute to Social Security they should not receive any benefits from Social Security.
- soccermom - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:14 pm:
Lincolnlover — You’ll notice I said Chicago SUBURBAN districts. And I think you’ll find that the state makes payments into the teacher pension funds from GRF, not from property taxes. And Pot — school boards have been notorious for giving hefty sweeteners to selected administrators at the ends of their careers, leaving state taxpayers on the hook for years of hefty pensions.
- John Bambenek - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:22 pm:
Re: School reform
Wasn’t it a few weeks ago that there was some commentary on how “this” was the right way to do reform without having to “go to war” with the unions like they did in Wisconsin…
And look what happened, CTU decided to start backstabbing.
This is why no one trusts the CTU, whatever deal they support, you can rest assured its the kids that get screwed.
- Robert - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:55 pm:
Is (from Update #2) “SB 7 is the same legislation that the Chicago Teachers Union assisted in crafting and openly supported in the Illinois Senate” accurate? Did the CTU openly support SB7?
- Rod - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:57 pm:
Speaker Madigan should recall that when Mayor Daley asked and the GA supported his position it took a seperate tax line that existed in 1995 in the City of Chicago to pay the city teacher’s pension fund and merged it into the overall tax base of the school district.
Chicago does not need a new property tax to do this it needs to reestablish the old line. The specific section to be amended is 17 127.2, this section would revert to the direct property tax payment to the fund which existed before 1995. This amendment and direct payment to the fund could be effective for FY 12.
Chicago does need to increase property taxes for education, but not for the pension fund, what Mayor Daley reallocated simply needs to be restored.
- levois - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:08 pm:
I wonder why the CTU after being part of a process to draft a bill to their liking would then later turn on that bill and decided they didn’t like it? That could make them look worse than they already do for many.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:16 pm:
===Did the CTU openly support SB7? ===
The president did, yes. Forcefully.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:43 pm:
I’d support both but the amendment really should be a separate bill to prevent it from dragging down the reform bill. If it’s supported, it’ll pass on its own.
- Wensicia - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:16 pm:
Why should low-income level communities be on the hook for paying the pensions of administrators and teachers who work but don’t live in their districts?
- soccermom - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:29 pm:
Wensicia has raised an excellent point. High tax rates on evaporating property values already are sucking the last wisps of oxygen out of poorer communities, especially in the south suburbs. This will make an awful situation even worse.
- Wensicia - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:36 pm:
The far northern Lake County suburbs aren’t in much better position, soccermom.
- soccermom - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:50 pm:
Maybe there could be a provision to help low-income communities handle the extra burden?
- Mego - Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:07 pm:
It sure is open season on teachers as of late. But the fact is that the average pay out from TRS is approximately $42,000 per year-not an outrageous amount. Also, had the state made the agreed upon contributions over the last 40 years as promised, there wouldn’t be an issue. But corrupt politicians used that money improperly. Lottery funds were co-opted!
To top it all off, I can never get full Social Security benefits. If my husband dies, I can’t get his either!!!
I am more than halfway through my career and now you people want to cheat me out of my benefits. I have more education than most people in most careers. I work in a modest district and make a modest wage. I do work in the summer and have earned 2 graduate degrees. I put in far more hours a week than 40! And I am NOT the exception. The pension helped make up for all of those years when I made so little and now this? Let’s not forget that AARP was created because the founded found a retired teacher living in a chicken coop. How are teachers supposed to save for retirement when MOST make so little. The average teacher salary in Illinois is under $45,000 per year! For every teacher in the collar counties making 6 figures, there are 4 in other parts of the state getting by on significantly lower salaries! It seems to me that there are a lot of bitter people out there trying to pin the economic woes of the state on teachers. We have become the most recent scape goat. How horrible.