Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Fitch warns Rauner AV “jeopardizes school funding and ratings”
Next Post: So… Rahm is for Drury? Biss? Pawar?
Posted in:
* With thanks to Tony Sanders, the CEO of Elgin School District U-46, here’s a side-by-side comparison of SB1 and the governor’s amendatory veto. This was put together by proponents of SB1, so keep that in mind. If you need a better copy, click here or on the pic…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 5:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Fitch warns Rauner AV “jeopardizes school funding and ratings”
Next Post: So… Rahm is for Drury? Biss? Pawar?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If I was paranoid (and I sometimes am), there are several hidden bombs in the AV’ed version of SB-1.
But I think the biggest one is opening the door to making the school districts liable for the likely future pension cost shift.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 5:27 pm
===But I think the biggest one===
That would take legislation and that’s a long, long way off.
The biggest immediate “bomb” is reopening the budget.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 5:32 pm
If RNUG’s paranoia is not misplaced, there would be some irony in the AV’s cost shift as that was something Madigan had his eye on about 5 years ago. But there was very little support for it, even among Repubs.
Comment by My New Handle Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 5:36 pm
How about the TIF component? The state would count the full value as a local resource even though the district can’t access it.
Talk about undermining local economic development. Can’t wait to see how this plays with the Chamber crowd.
Paging Todd Maisch …
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 6:13 pm
RNUG and Rich, keep in mind that tier three was approved and those increased costs are paid for by the districts. (Which is where the state “savings” come from. So I think that day may be arriving sooner than you think.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 6:25 pm
Speaking of Tonys, has anyone reached out to Tony Smith at ISBE for a quote? Dude has pulled down half a mil since being appointed.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 6:26 pm
Maybe real negotiations should happen before the bill is passed in a partisan fashion in the General Assembly.
Comment by Arock Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 7:52 pm
=”Speaking of Tony’s…”=. Dead silence. He has been a huge disappointment.
Same with Beth Purvis who has been 100% on the Rauner plan. I am certain the proposal for the $100 million for private schools has her fingers all over it.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 8:20 pm
For what it’s worth, it appears that there is no shortage of issues here on which skilled negotiations could make fair quantitative compromises. Of course, that was the case for the budget bills too, so what it’s worth probably ain’t much.
Comment by CEA Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 9:11 pm
==Pension parity recognizing that CPS has to pay its employer pension costs (not the case for TRS districts).==
That’s not true. TRS districts pay 0.58% towards employer pension costs. Considering the lengthy pension holiday Chicago took in the late 90’s/early 00’s, I’d wager that meager % was more than Chicago contributed.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 9:14 pm
City, I think that’s an apples to oranges comparison. The .58% TRS contribution from employers was added to have employers pay a share of the TRS benefits formula change which took effect back in the late 90’s. My back of the envelope estimate is around $500 million has been collected since the inception of this contribution. I honestly don’t know how much CPS contributed to CTPF in the same time period, but there were a good number of $0 contribution years. I do know that the State started contributing $65 million annually to CTPF starting in FY 1996 for pensions through FY 2015 (stopped by Rauner) which was instead spent on retiree healthcare subsidies using a shaky loophole in applicable laws. Do the math and you’ll see who came out ahead, even though I don’t think it’s necessarily a fair comparison.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:54 pm
=== - RNUG - Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 5:27 pm:
If I was paranoid (and I sometimes am), there are several hidden bombs in the AV’ed version of SB-1.
But I think the biggest one is opening the door to making the school districts liable for the likely future pension cost shift.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 5:32 pm:
===But I think the biggest one===
That would take legislation and that’s a long, long way off.
The biggest immediate “bomb” is reopening the budget.===
The pension changes that were adopted with this budget include a cost shift component for Tier 2 and new hires. Cost shift is now part of the law, but I’m not sure how many realize it yet.
Comment by Slash and Burn Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 5:09 am
=Maybe real negotiations should happen before the bill is passed in a partisan fashion in the General Assembly.=
I dunno. Kind of seems like that was done over a very long period of time. The governor’s education honcho has even gone on record saying that Rauner agrees with 90% of the bill. What’s in dispute are issues that are being used to score political points and pit one part of the state against the other at the expense of minority kids. And on that account when the Senate President did offer to negotiate the Governor characterized such an attempt as “outrageous”.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 7:59 am
Madigan, Cullerton, Preckwinkle, Emanuel….killing the middle class one tax at a time.
Comment by How's it Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 7:59 am
>Talk about undermining local economic development. Can’t wait to see how this plays with the Chamber crowd.
Depends on which replies…the one who has advocated in a consistent manner for decades…or the one that endorsed Ken Dunkin.
Comment by Earnest Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:06 am
The cost shift is law for new hires after a specific date. That was in SB 42. The Governor’s AV of SB 1 leaves the cost shift accounting in the formula for every school district (including Chicago).
The Elgin Superintendent’s (coalition) analysis is wrong on several points.
Comment by Phenomynous Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:16 am
=The Elgin Superintendent’s (coalition) analysis is wrong on several points=
Is that a teaser or were you going to show your work?
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:22 am
Aside from the first couple of points I just made? I mean, you can obviously read, and I have faith you can figure it out. Heck, you probably already have your own analysis.
Comment by Phenomynous Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:32 am
Two significant effects of Rauner’s proposed AV-
TIF- If the value of TIF property is considered local wealth, districts will se significant reductions in funding without access to the value. This, in some cases, could result in large loses.
Chicago’s TIF Districts generate a lot of money that the city can and has shifted to fund schools, mainly in desperate times.
But downstate communities are littered with TIF’s and the same people Rauner says he wants to help are going to be hit hard by this provision. Schools have little input in the development of TIF’s when these small communities get rolling on them with the false notion that they will generate jobs growth.
Like almost everything he does it isn’t what Rauner says, it is what he does. He says he is increasing funding for schools, especially downstate and suburban. But what he is trying to do will reduce funding, per pupil and per district.
He also removed the regional cost calculation. It would benefit suburban districts given the higher cost of living associated with metro Chicago versus Bloomington etc. This isn’t big money but it is money.
Ending hold harmless means we will have to trust Rauner and the ILGA on funding in the future. That hasn’t worked out real well lately.
Hard Pass.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:36 am
=Aside from the first couple of points I just made?=
I can read. You cannot write very well. Looks like one muddled point to me. Not well supported.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:38 am
It’s nauseating to see a governor try to harm the citizens of a state. That’s what we have now. We have a constitutional commitment to educate our children. Yet it seems that millions have forgotten or don’t care about it. Singles whine about paying for it. Empty nesters whine about it. Rural folks don’t want to pay for urban kids. Suburbanites don’t want to pay for other kids. Parochial school parents don’t want to pay for public schools. A high percentage of public school parents can’t pay.
Do we believe what we have written in our constitution as our state’s primary responsibilities, or are we all a pack of disingenuous mopes?
We need a governor to stand up to this. Except Rauner is doing the opposite. He tells these sad avoiders of civic responsibilities that they are right to complain and whine and cry. Rauner uses their misanthropic selfishness to get political power instead. He legitimatizes the worse tendencies in our system. He hugs them.
Then Rauner does this. The man is a black eye to the office.
Illinois needs a real governor.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 9:03 am
==We have a constitutional commitment to educate our children. Yet it seems that millions have forgotten or don’t care about it.==
My property tax bill and my school districts’ ISBE that shows how little of my state tax dollars come back to my district are evidence I, and many others, care very much about education in this state.
US Census Bureau informs us that IL residents spend $13,755 per pupil to educate our children. That’s more than 75% of all other states. There are thousands of school districts across America that would love to have that much funding. Yet there never seems to be enough.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 9:23 am
Thanks for proving the point.
“My bill”
“My school district”
“My tax dollars”
“My district”
My, my, my, my - how you proved a point that our challenge in educating our children as stated in our constitution is being undermined by people who have given up on all of us.
You decided that you pay enough, based upon the fact tbat the other 45 smaller US states don’t pay as much. But before you latched onto that number, your mind was already set, wasn’t it? No other facts and figures will change your mind? Exposing your number as incorrect can’t happen?
What’s it worth to you, personally? Why don’t we all just cut a check for whatever amount we want to pay? You won’t accept anyone’s opinions based upon their expertise in the field. You won’t accept what our administrators say. You won’t accept what our legislators compromised upon. You won’t listen to anyone telling you that you need to pitch in more.
It’s not about you. It’s about all of us.
My, my, my, my don’t you feel taken advantage of.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 11:29 am