Question of the day
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a Peoria Journal Star headline…
Philanthropist Bruce Rauner…
* The Question: What one word would you use to describe Rauner and other potential gubernatorial candidates?
List as many as you want. Have fun.
82 Comments
|
* Actually, he didn’t threaten to do anything except to consider the idea…
Chicago Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts for the first time threatened to move the team out of Wrigley Field if it doesn’t receive government approval for more signs in the outfield, including a giant video scoreboard.
“I’m not sure how anyone is going to stop the signs in the outfield, but if it comes to the point that we don’t have the ability to do what we need to do in our outfield then we’re going to have to consider moving,” Ricketts said at Wednesday morning event at the City Club of Chicago where he was the guest speaker. “It’s a simple as that.”
Plus, he was responding to a hypothetical question of “What if opponents stop the signs in the outfield?” The various sides hashed out a framework a couple of weeks ago that includes signage.
Watch the video…
View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com
And, besides, if they did move, who would go to the games to just watch that team play?
49 Comments
|
Worst. Law. Ever. #Fail
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The highly controversial STAR Bonds bill was supposed to spark a huge retail revival in the Marion area. Under the law, the developer would get to keep the first 20 years of sales tax revenues which would normally go to state and local governments. That revenue stream could then be used to finance the project.
The original plan was to put the STAR Bonds district in Glen Carbon, in the thick of an already existent Madison County retail explosion. Local opposition stopped that plan in its tracks, so the General Assembly kept the concept alive by moving it to Marion, which is by Carbondale.
Three years later, nothing has happened. And the developer pulled out this week…
Bruce Holland of Millennium Development LLC resigned from the STAR Bond project in a letter to city officials Monday, according to Mayor Bob Butler.
The letter, a short one paragraph, gave no explanation as to why the developer was walking away, said Butler. […]
Butler said the city has another developer seriously considering taking over the project. An official decision could be made in the next 10 days to two weeks Butler said.
* The developer’s excuse…
Holland said that after three years, few retailers have come forward expressing interest in the development. He said representatives from Bass Pro Shop and Nebraska Furniture Mart initially visited the proposed site. Bass Pro Shop was interested in the site, Holland said, but the lingering effects of the recession have apparently thwarted any further large retail development for the time being.
“In fact, the retail industry is still somewhat in recession,” Holland said. “You don’t see any big-box users being built in the last few years.”
Um, OK. I guess the massive Scheels outdoor and sporting goods store which opened in Springfield two years ago was a mirage, as was the gigantic new Menard’s “super store” that opened here last month. Both of those stores, by the way, are not in STAR Bonds districts.
While Holland’s failure is bad news for Marion, there is a bright side.
Look, we most definitely need to help spur economic development, but this STAR Bonds thing is dangerous. We already have a huge fiscal problem. Giving up state sales tax revenue streams in order to spur development that will likely hurt retailers in surrounding areas is just not a good idea, particularly if it spreads all over the state, like TIF districts have.
* Related…
* Grundfos to move North American headquarters to Chicago area
* My boss wants my Facebook password? - Illinois moves to legalise employer access to workers’ accounts
* New software is automating digital health records — and saving clinics a fortune
* Passenger rail car maker Nippon Sharyo grows in Rochelle
* ComEd’s “Smart Switches” Reducing Service Interruptions
21 Comments
|
“Evolving” positions
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Back in March, the Chicago Tribune editorialized against a provision in the Nekritz/Cross/Biss pension reform proposal that guaranteed the state would make its pension payments in the future…
One caveat on Biss’ bill: It includes unfortunate language that would put the state on the hook for regular payments into the pension funds as a contractual obligation. That’s a worthy commitment, but also one stronger and more enforceable than what’s now in state law. Which makes it a precarious requirement that we hope the House will eliminate.
Well, Speaker Madigan’s new pension bill has even stronger pension payment guarantees than the NCB bill. From the HDem analysis…
If the State fails to make a required payment under the funding schedule or fails to contribute the additional $1 billion promised above, the systems will have a right to bring a mandamus action to compel the State to make the payment. Each Board will have a fiduciary duty to bring an action if necessary. Payments compelled under this provision are expressly subordinate to the state’s debt service obligations.
* So, what did the Tribune say today? Well, they didn’t even mention the pension payment guarantee in their editorial and enthusiastically endorsed the bill…
We hope to see swift approval in the House.
* Meanwhile, the governor has “evolved” yet again…
“This is the way forward,” said Brooke Anderson, spokeswoman for Gov. Pat Quinn, who has promoted several elements in the Madigan plan. “This is the fastest way to pension reform.”
Since the beginning of this year, Quinn has backed Senate President John Cullerton’s SB1, laid out his own “fundamental elements” that were promptly ignored [Adding: MJM’s bill includes pretty much everything in those elements, however], backed Madigan’s three pension bills that passed the House as the best approach to reform, and now has endorsed the Madigan bill.
* From the We Are One Coalition statement on Madigan’s bill…
we want to work together to solve the pension problem
But…
Cullerton said earlier Tuesday that he is continuing to meet with union representatives in an attempt to reach a compromise. However, in an email Tuesday, union representatives said the chance of reaching an agreement “at this time looks dim.””
Hmm.
* The biggest unanswered question, however, is what Senate President John Cullerton will do if and/or when Madigan’s bill passes the House. The two men have long been at loggerheads over how to proceed. Greg Hinz has the statement…
“The speaker and Cullerton have the same goal with different approaches,” the statement says. “Cullerton has worked to build consensus for a plan that is clearly constitutional. To that end he has sought to work with Republicans, members of his caucus and labor leaders. Those efforts will continue this week.”
Then comes the knife:
“The roll call on SB 35 may be instructive to those who are guessing at how unilateral pension changes will fare in the Senate,” adds the statement, referring to an earlier bill that is quite similar to Mr. Madigan’s new proposal. That bill “only received 23 yes votes,” well short of the 30 needed.
Ms. Phelon concludes on a more moderate note, saying, “There is an increasing urgency that the General Assembly finalize some action on this issue.” But the test of wills surely looks like it’s on. If Mr. Madigan’s bill passes the House, will Mr. Cullerton refuse to call it for a vote in the Senate, like Mr. Madigan now is doing with Mr. Cullerton’s S.B. 1 by amending it to his liking?
* More…
In a state Senate hearing earlier Tuesday, Cullerton pushed back against deep pension cuts proposed by state Sen. Jim Oberweis, a Sugar Grove Republican. The Illinois Constitution says pension benefits can’t be diminished.
“We’re not making this stuff up,” Cullerton said. “This is a constitution.”
The unions had better get to the table soon.
* And even Speaker Madigan is evolving…
Madigan left out a plan to make suburban and Downstate school districts pick up the state’s tab for paying the pensions of retired teachers and school administrators, which he had identified as a top priority.
Brown said that issue could resurface before the scheduled close of the spring legislative session May 31.
54 Comments
|
* Despite the introduction late last week of a supplemental appropriations bill to fund back pay owed by the state, AFSCME sent out this press release late yesterday afternoon…
Caregivers for the disabled, child protection workers and prison employees are just some of the nearly 40,000 frontline employees of Illinois state government who will vote again on whether to go forward with a new union contract with the Quinn Administration.
The state employees’ union, AFSCME Council 31, announced today that a new vote is required since the first tally was based on the administration’s commitment to drop its appeal of a court decision. In that case, the judge ruled that the state is obligated to honor the prior union contract and owes employees back wages withheld since July 2011.
Governor Quinn has asked that the appeal be dropped, but the authority rests with Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who has refused to do so.
“Tens of thousands of state employees have been denied their rightful wages for nearly two years,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said. “The court has ruled, correctly, that the state must honor the prior union contract, and that employees are owed their back pay. We think the appeal should be dropped and the matter put to rest. Since the earlier vote was based on assurances that the appeal would be withdrawn, union members have a right to re-vote now.”
The union and the Quinn Administration are urging lawmakers to approve an appropriation to pay the back wages. Passage of that measure would make the court case moot.
* Attorney General Madigan wasn’t moved. Her office’s response…
Until the legislature decides whether to appropriate funding to pay the raises, it would be premature to dismiss the state’s appeal. If the state dismissed the appeal before the legislature decides whether to appropriate the money, that would take a legal option off the table for the state.
Ultimately, this is a funding issue for the legislature, the Governor’s office and AFSCME to work out through the budget process.
Our putting the appeal on hold for now does not impact the state’s ability to fund the raises.
* From the SJ-R…
A $145 million supplemental budget bill has been introduced in the House that would provide enough money to pay the back wages. There is no timetable for lawmakers to act on it.
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, believes the past due wages fall into the same category as old state bills and can be paid with tax revenue that came in higher than expected last year, said his spokesman Steve Brown.
AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall said 40,000 AFSCME members will revote on the contract over the next two weeks. If union members reject the agreement this time, it could be back to the start.
“In any negotiation, if any party does not ratify an agreement, then no contract is in place,” Lindall said. “The parties could return to the (bargaining) table.”
* AFSCME also laid out the choices for its members in an e-mail yesterday and recommended a “Yes” vote…
Voting will get underway right away at worksites across the state. Members will have the opportunity to decide whether to affirm the ratification vote that was previously taken and move forward with signing the contract or to refuse to sign the contract.
If the membership votes YES, to sign the contract:
* Employees will be placed at their appropriate salary level (with either a 2% or 7.25% increase) effective July 1, 2013.
* AFSCME and the Quinn Administration will continue to work toward passage of HB 212, the supplemental appropriation that would provide funds to pay all back wages owed to employees per the previous contract. If the supplemental is enacted so that the back wages can be paid, then the lawsuit will effectively become moot since that is the issue before the court.
* All terms and conditions of the union contract would be in effect.
If the membership votes NO, not to sign the contract:
* The salary increases (either 2% or 7.25%) scheduled for July 1 would not go into effect.
* The union contract will not be in effect.
* The Administration will not have to uphold its commitment to lobby in support of the supplemental appropriation for the back pay, though the Union would continue to do so.
* The Union or Management could seek to return to the bargaining table.
The AFSCME Bargaining Committee recommends a YES vote to sign the contract at this time and to move forward to lobby vigorously for passage of the supplemental appropriation.
Thoughts?
29 Comments
|
Credit Union (noun) – an essential financial cooperative
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Cooperatives can be formed to support producers such as farmers, purchasers such as independent business owners, and consumers such as electric coops and credit unions. Their primary purpose is to meet members’ needs through affordable goods and services of high quality. Cooperatives such as credit unions may look like other businesses in their operations and, like other businesses, can range in size. However, the cooperative structure is distinctively different regardless of size. As not-for-profit financial cooperatives, credit unions serve individuals with a common goal or interest. They are owned and democratically controlled by the people who use their services. Their board of directors consists of unpaid volunteers, elected by and from the membership. Members are owners who pool funds to help other members. After expenses and reserve requirements are met, net revenue is returned to members via lower loan and higher savings rates, lower costs and fees for services. It is the structure of credit unions, not their size or range of services that is the reason for their tax exempt status - and the reason why almost three million Illinois residents are among 95 million Americans who count on their local credit union everyday to reach their financial goals.
Comments Off
|
Madigan’s preamble
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* One of the most interesting aspects of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s pension reform proposal is the preamble…
“Section 1. Statement and Findings.
At the time of passage of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, Illinois possesses a lower credit rating than each of the other 49 states. This is a consequence both of atypically large debts and of structural imbalances that will, unless addressed by the General Assembly, lead to rapidly growing debts. The debts include a backlog of bills exceeding one-fourth of the State’s annual general revenue, substantial unfunded liabilities associated with health insurance for employees and retirees, and approximately $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The structural imbalances result from projected growth in non-discretionary and formula-driven expenses that significantly outpace projected revenue growth. Of the factors that drive this phenomenon, the most substantialby far is the rapid growth of the annual pension payment, which increased nearly $1 billion between Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013, and will again increase nearly $1 billion between Fiscal Year 2013 and Fiscal Year 2014, at which time it will consume approximately one-fifth of anticipated general revenue.
The depth of this financial crisis became clear in 2008, and since that time, the State has taken significant action to ameliorate the State’s fiscal troubles. In 2011, the State increased the income tax by sixty-seven percent in Public Act 96-1496. Recognizing that increased revenue alone would not solve the problem, the State has enacted a series of budgets that included deep cuts to nearly every discretionary program, including areas of the budget that are essential in order to provide for the health, safety, welfare, and educational development of the people of Illinois, such as public elementary, secondary, and higher education, human services, and public safety.
The State has both reduced the size of its workforce and reduced discretionary spending. Staffing levels have reduced from more than 65,000 in 2001 to the current level of nearly 44,500. The staffing level is now the lowest it has been in at least the last 25 years. Discretionary spending from the General Revenue Fund (GRF) has been reduced by over $2.8 billion since Fiscal Year 2009, including reductions for primary education of nearly $1 billion, higher education of over $230 million, public safety of over $200 million, and human services, including health care for the poor, of nearly $1.3 million. These reductions have occurred in spite of the rising costs of goods and services, which are particularly high in the area of medical goods and services, which is a significant area of state spending.
In 2010, Public Act 96-889 established a package of pension benefits for new employees that has been determined to be among the least expensive public employee retirement schemes in the country. It can be argued that the new package of pension benefits has placed government employers at a competitive disadvantage, and our public universities, which are vital educational and economic institutions, have been exposed to a significant risk.
In the spring of 2012, the General Assembly made significant reductions to the Medicaid program, passage of Public Acts 97-687, 97-688, 97-689, 97-690, 97-691, a series of reforms to the Medicaid program that is projected to reduce State debt by over $2.5 billion each year by decreasing services, increasing the rate of taxation of cigarette purchases, and accessing available federal funds. The reductions include the elimination of a prescription drug program for low to middle income seniors, across the board provider rate cuts, elimination of health care for adults whose families make above 133% of the federal poverty limit ($31,322 for a family of four), elimination of restorative dental treatments for adults covered by Medicaid, and utilization limits on all remaining services covered by Medicaid. While the Medicaid reforms will result in savings for the State, these reforms have resulted in the denial of crucial health care to hundreds of thousands of needy citizens, threatening to further destabilize an already-troubled safety net.
The General Assembly took significant steps to reduce the cost of current and retired employee health care costs. With Public Act 97-695, the General Assembly eliminated provisions that require that retired state employees with more than 20 years of service receive a 100% premium subsidy for retiree health care coverage after 20 years of service. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2014,
State employees will be required to contribute significantly more toward healthcare premiums, copays, and deductibles. These changes to healthcare will result in an estimated savings of more than $900 million over the next two fiscal years. However, the backlog of payments to providers is estimated to be nearly $1.8 billion at the end of Fiscal Year 2013, and providers will experience a delayed payment cycle of up to 14 months.
Notwithstanding these many steps and their major fiscal, economic, and human impact, the fiscal situation in Illinois continues to deteriorate. Cuts as well as the inability to pay bills due and owing has had a significant impact on each branch of government, units of local government, social service providers, and other vendors.
Two-thirds of Illinois school districts are in a budget deficit, even after massive layoffs and programmatic reductions. For Fiscal Year 2013, General State Aid payments to school districts are currently being prorated at 89% of the calculated amount. For Fiscal Year 2014, the Governor’s introduced level of General State Aid payments would result in a proration of 82%.
Illinois human service providers are experiencing extraordinary fiscal pressures, leading to deficit spending, discontinued programs, and, increasingly, bankruptcies.
On January 19, 2012, the Jane Addams Hull House Association, one of the oldest and most renowned human service agencies in the country, founded by the first Illinoisan to win a Nobel Peace Prize, announced it would close due to financial difficulties. These manifold challenges have exposed the people of Illinois to very substantial harm.
Cuts to the budget of the Department of Corrections have resulted in the closing of two major prisons and three Adult Transitional Centers. Similarly, the Department of Juvenile Justice was forced to close two youth centers. Funding for probation services to help break the cycle of recidivism and improve public safety have steadily declined over the past 5 years due to the fiscal strain on the state budget. For Fiscal Year 2014, the Supreme Court has requested an appropriation to meet statutory probation service requirements of $101,229,500; however, the Governor has proposed an appropriation of $47,140,000 - that’s 53% less than necessary to fund probation services required under law.
Illinois has failed to invest the necessary resources to maintain a viable transportation plan in recent years. By year 2018, nearly 1 in every 3 miles of roads and 1 in every 10 bridges will be in an unacceptable condition. Recent reports have shown that roughly 8% of bridges in Illinois are structurally deficient and 7% of bridges are functionally obsolete. Illinois has not been able to invest the necessary dollars for state and local roads which has led roughly 73% of the roads in the state to be in poor or mediocre condition.
The State’s credit rating has consistently worsened in the assessment of all three major ratings agencies, the State’s backlog of unpaid bills has not grown smaller, and the various non-discretionary and formula-driven expenses whose growth has created the lion’s share of the problem are projected to continue unabated. Under the current payment schedule set in Public Act 88-593, the pension payment especially is expected to grow extremely rapidly until Fiscal Year 2045.
Consequently, the coming months and years will necessarily see much more action by the State to achieve fiscal stabilization. If these steps toward fiscal stabilization do not include pension reform to restrain the growth of the annual pension payment, the result will be devastating and dramatic cuts to education, public safety, and transportation. The impact of such actions on the Illinois economy, and on the health, safety, welfare, and educational development of the people would likely be extremely severe. This harm could include significant economic contraction, which would in turn exacerbate the underlying fiscal challenge, resulting in a downward spiral of standard of living and likely leading to an eventual inability of the state to meet its short term statutory and Constitutional responsibilities.
The State has experienced well-documented pension debt problems for many decades. Throughout this time, General Assemblies and Governors have struggled to find workable solutions. On several occasions, most notably in the instances of Public Acts 88-593 and 96-889, reform efforts were heralded as comprehensive fixes; these claims have in each instance been disproven over time.
The inadequacy of past reform efforts has resulted from two phenomena. First, reforms have instituted actuarially unsound funding schedules that masked the depth of the problem by deferring payments far into the future. Indeed, this practice led to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s charging of Illinois with securities fraud in March 2013. Second, steps that were taken to reduce costs or generate funds to make pension payments were insufficient to make it feasible for the State to meet an actuarially sound funding schedule. Simply put, reform efforts left the State with an unaffordable pension liability, and in order to mask this, the State instituted artificial and ultimately ruinous funding schedules.
The General Assembly has held numerous hearings and reviewed hundreds of documents detailing the problem, probable solutions, and constitutional issues with proposed reform. Given that and all of the above:
The General Assembly finds that the fiscal crisis in the State of Illinois jeopardizes the health, safety, and welfare of the people and compromises the ability to maintain a representative and orderly government.
The General Assembly finds that the pension debt is so great, and the State’s fiscal condition is so challenged, that it is unclear whether any set of actions by the State that do not include substantial reforms to its pension systems can result in the full payment of all promised benefits.
The General Assembly finds that in order to truly solve the State’s pension problem, a reform measure must render the pension liability affordable on an actuarially sound funding schedule, and it must, in a binding fashion, commit the State to maintaining this schedule.
The General Assembly finds that the reforms in this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly are necessary to address the fiscal crisis without incurring further severe and irreparable harm to the public welfare.
The General Assembly finds that this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly constitutes the substantial reform of the State’s pension systems that, along with a series of further steps toward fiscal stabilization, will enable the State to credibly promise the full payment of all pension benefits without incurring unacceptable harm to other areas of State interest.
The General Assembly finds that this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, with its significant cost-savings, its institution of an actuarially accepted payment schedule, and its historic and binding funding guarantee, is necessary and sufficient in order to meet these goals and solve the State’s pension problem. [Emphasis added.]
Discuss.
69 Comments
|
* Click here or here to watch the live video of this morning’s House Personnel and Pensions Committee meeting. The hearing started at 8:30 this morning. Discuss below.
*** UPDATE *** This was distributed to House Democrats yesterday to explain Madigan’s pension proposal…
Speaker Madigan’s Pension Proposal – HA #1 to Senate Bill 1
House Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1 is a comprehensive package that will stabilize and bring solvency to 4 of the State’s pension funds (GARS, SERS, SURS, and TRS). This package will ensure the State meets its obligations to the pension systems by adopting an actuarially accepted payment schedule, providing an enforceable funding guarantee, and altering benefits for current and prospective annuitants. The concepts in this package are not new, and several have been approved by the House.
1) New funding schedule. The new schedule requires the systems to reach 100% funding in 30 years, beginning in FY 15 and ending 2044.
2) New method for certifying contributions. Beginning in FY 15, contributions will be certified using the entry age normal actuarial cost method (“EAN”) instead of the projected unit credit actuarial method (“PUC”). The PUC method, which the systems currently use, requires higher contributions closer to retirement. The EAN method averages costs evenly over the pensioner’s employment, thereby resulting in more level contributions. This change was approved by the House in HB 1277 (Senger).
3) Supplemental contributions beginning in FY 20. The State currently makes payments on pension obligation notes from 2010 and 2011, and in 2019, the State will make a final payment of $952 million. Once those payments end, the State commits to annually contribute $1 billion in addition to the state’s scheduled contributions to the state-funded systems. The additional contributions will continue until all systems reach their funding goal.
4) Provide a funding guarantee. If the State fails to make a required payment under the funding schedule or fails to contribute the additional $1 billion promised above, the systems will have a right to bring a mandamus action to compel the State to make the payment. Each Board will have a fiduciary duty to bring an action if necessary. Payments compelled under this provision are expressly subordinate to the state’s debt service obligations.
5) Establish a pensionable salary cap for Tier I employees. The amendment applies the Tier II salary cap to Tier I employees. For 2013, the salary cap was $109,971. The cap will increase annually by ½ the consumer price index for urban consumers. There is a grandfather clause for those employees with salaries that currently exceeds the cap or will exceed the cap based on raises due to the person under a current collective bargaining agreement. Under the proposal, a person whose salary exceeds the salary cap is only eligible for an annuity based on the salary cap.
6) New method of calculating the COLA. Retired members will keep the compounded 3% annual increases they received up until the enactment, but future COLAs will be calculated differently. Going forward, the COLA will be based on 3% of a maximum annuity amount based on their years of service. The cap will be $1,000 for each year the employee had worked ($800 for those coordinated with Social Security). As an example, an individual retiring with 30 years of service will have a COLA of 3% of $30,000 or $900, which accumulates annually. If a person’s initial annuity is under this threshold, that person will continue receiving a 3% compounded adjustment based on their initial annuity until they reach the cap. This adjustment was originally proposed by Senator Radogno and incorporated in Senate Amendment #4 to SB 35.
Additionally, current and future retirees would have the first or next year in which they can receive their COLA delayed. Retirees who are age 67 and older would be unaffected by this delay. Those under age 67 would have their COLA paused until either they reach age 67 or until the 5th anniversary of their retirement, whichever comes first.
7) Increase the retirement age for employees under 45 years old. The amendment raises the retirement age, on a graduated scale, for current Tier I members who are under 45 years old (no change for those 45 years of age or older). This language was approved by the House in HB1166 (Madigan) and is included in the Cross-Nekritz pension reform package (HB 3411).The retirement age is increased by the following schedule:
• Age 40 to 44 – additional 1 year added to the applicable system’s minimum retirement age;
• Age 35 to 39 – additional 3 years added; and
• Below 35 – additional 5 years added.
8) Increase employee contributions by 2%. Beginning July 1, 2013, employees will be required to contribute an additional 1%, and this is increased to 2% on July 1, 2014.
9) Eliminate the subject of pensions for collective bargaining. Bargaining units and employers with participants in the State systems would be prohibited from negotiating changes related to pensions.
10) Fix the COLA for Tier II members of GARS. Under current law, the General Assembly and Judges’ Retirement systems have their salary cap and annuity increased by the lesser of CPI or 3%. All other systems have their salary cap and annuity increased by the lesser of one-half of CPI or 3%. This draft lowers the General Assembly Retirement System down to one-half of CPI to bring it in line with other systems.
11) Prohibit non-governmental organizations from participating in State systems. The amendment prevents new employees of several “non-governmental” organizations from participating under IMRF, SURS, and TRS. Additionally, it prohibits new employees of all state systems from using sick time or vacation time in calculating their annuity.
12) Change the effective rate of interest. The amendment suggests that the Comptroller adopt a more conservative number for what is known as the “effective rate of interest” (“ERI”). Under current law, the ERI determines benefits for university and community college employees hired before 2005. The amendment still provides that the Comptroller set this rate, but advises a figure that will more appropriately determine benefits for certain participants.
13) Prohibit the use of pension funds to pay costs associated with healthcare. The amendment makes clear that the state funded pension systems are not to use retirement contributions for the purpose of subsidizing the cost of retiree healthcare.
14) Require separate appropriation request for employer normal cost and amortization of the unfunded liability. The Governor must introduce and the systems must certify these costs separately.
27 Comments
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|