Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

It’s just a bill

Posted in:

Illinois

* But it’s an interesting development. Public Radio…

The Grand Bargain is a package of interlocking legislation designed to break the state budget impasse in Illinois. How important is school funding to that deal? Important enough that leaders titled it Senate Bill One.

Under the plan filed by Sen. Andy Manar (D-Bunker Hill), the state would freeze funding at current levels. Any additional dollars would be distributed based on each district’s demographics and unique needs, channeling the bulk of the money toward low-income districts.

Technically titled Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1, it’s a plan designed to address the notorious inequity that has plagued the state’s school funding system for decades.

“You know, the impact of this bill will be measured mostly by how much new money is put behind it,” Manar says. “Because if there’s no new money, nobody changes.”

The plan uses ideas from the so-called “evidence-based model” first touted by Sen. Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington). He issued a statement today saying he’s “cautiously optimistic” about Manar’s amendment. “Senator Manar and I have recently worked through a number of complicated issues to address the inequities in our current formula,” Barickman’s statement says.

* SJ-R…

Illinois lawmakers are again considering proposals that would allow some participants in state government’s pension systems to take a lump-sum payout in lieu of regular annuity payments.

Buyout plans are part of pension discussions in both the House and Senate, all of which are in preliminary stages. But Rep. Robert Martwick, D-Chicago, chairman of the House Personnel and Pensions Committee, thinks the ideas have merit.

“I’m a fan of the buyout,” Martwick said of various House proposals. “I think those are truly what would be constitutional because they amount to a true free consideration.”

In other words, he said, participation in them is voluntary and there is a “tangible benefit” for those who partake. […]

Under Batinick’s proposal, a participant’s payout is based on the net present value of a person’s pension. That means the amount of money the pension system needs now to cover a person’s estimated retirement benefit, assuming that amount will grow over the years. Anyone thinking of participating in the buyout would have to get a calculation of the net present value from the appropriate pension system. The amount would be reduced by a certain percentage as a condition of getting the buyout.

* Illinois Review…

In response to the recent court ruling authorizing the prioritization of state legislators’ pay over other outstanding obligations, State Representative Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield) filed legislation last week, House Bill 4026, to give the Comptroller greater discretion when issuing salary payments for members of the General Assembly.

Batinick said this would allow the Comptroller to prioritize Illinois’ other fiscal obligations over legislators’ and Executive Branch officers’ pay. House Bill 4026 is co-sponsored by Rep. Allen Skillicorn (R-East Dundee). The bill follows the introduction of similar legislation filed in the State Senate by Senator Dan McConchie, SB 989.

“There is no reason why we as legislators should be prioritized over the hundreds of vendors, social service providers and agencies who have been waiting months for payment from the state,” said Rep. Batinick. “This bill seeks to right that wrong by allowing the Comptroller to place the interests of vulnerable children, seniors and families ahead of legislators.”

* Related…

* Suburban lawmaker, distillery push law to bypass liquor distributors

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:12 pm

Comments

=The amount would be reduced by a certain percentage as a condition of getting the buyout.=

That is called diminishment…

Somebody need to get them a dictionary fast.

A calculator wouldn’t hurt either.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:21 pm
Employees always have the option to take a 1-time lump sum payment of their pension. This is not a new idea.

Comment by payouts Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:25 pm
The proposed buy-out portion of the pension “reform” bill does appear constitutional; probably not a good deal for the employee and possibly fraught with penalties if the roll-over is not properly handed, but legal.

If they would remove the AAI / no raise provision, the whole bill might be legal.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:29 pm
If an inactive annuitant (one that is waiting until they are old enough to get the pension) takes the buy out, how does it affect their health insurance rights?

Since they would therefore be ineligible for a monthly annuity, would they be ineligible for retiree health insurance (free or not)? Because, if they were ruled ineligible, that might be worth not requiring them to give up a percentage to get the lump sum.

Comment by thoughts matter Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:30 pm
== Employees always have the option to take a 1-time lump sum payment of their pension. This is not a new idea. ==

True, but at a ridiculously reduced amount.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:31 pm
““This bill seeks to right that wrong by allowing the Comptroller to place the interests of vulnerable children, seniors and families ahead of tech vendors.””

Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:34 pm
Huge mistake

Comment by Red Rider Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 1:34 pm
If you’re going to make legislator paychecks just like any other bill you’re effectively limiting our elected officials to those wealthy enough to be able to forgo a paycheck.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:12 pm
– Thoughts Matter @ 1:30 –

According to what a SURS rep told me at my appointment, taking any form of buyout at present would exclude you from participating in retiree health insurance, as you are truly “out of the system” at that point.

Comment by Mr. Smith Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:28 pm
Currently if you take a lump sum pension payout, you only get back your contributions. You lose interest and the state’s contributions. This might be a reasonable thing to take if you worked only a few years for the state and plan on rolling your contributions into something with a higher yield. But this buyout seems to be offering more than contributions and so may get additional takers. Past buyouts have been pretty bad deals and generally required quitting state employment.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:29 pm
Last time it was a bad deal for the employee..

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:32 pm
You know, some legislators have vulnerable children, seniors and families, too.

Comment by Archiesmom Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:49 pm
The Manar amendment to Senate Bill 1 appears to be quite similar to House Bill 2808.

In the House, HB 2808 as of now has 16 Proponents and 100 Opponents for the March 28 hearing before House Appropriations - Elementary & Sec. Education

Comment by winners and losers Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:03 pm
“There is no reason why we as legislators should be prioritized over the hundreds of vendors.”

But OW points out over and over again that there are some good reasons. (The exec would gain control over the leg and the republican balance of powers would be destroyed.)

Fair enough if this argument does not persuade you, but you can’t say “there is no reason.” Instead one should have to engage the objection OW raises.

In may seem like a petty thing. But if we don’t take cognizance of the ongoing debate, we are not having arguments; just parallel talking points. At that point “the last best hope of Earth” is finished.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:26 pm
Instead of introducing legislation why don’t those legislators who don’t want to get paid on time send a letter to the Comptroller instructing her to hold on their paychecks . Accompanying that letter should be a sworn affidavit that they will not accept any loans from Bruce Rauner or any of his friends to take care of them in the interim.
Enough of this demagoguery. Who do they think they are, Pat Quinn?

Comment by Truthteller Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:35 pm
Every form of these lump-sum buyout pension deals I’ve read going back to Filan’s version (he was honest about it) eliminates the member’s survivor benefits for which a separate contribution is paid. Tell me how, if I’m “bought out” based on my contributions’ “Net Present Value,” and lose my survivor benefits, how is that not a diminishment?

In my humble opinion, starting with the “Grand Bargain” pension bill, these are all unconstitutional but different ways to polish the same t–d.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 8:49 pm