A Brief and Common-Sense Guide
on Being an Effective Legislative Advocate
Prepared by Dick Lockhart (Social Engineering Associates)
To communicate a point of view about a piece of legislation
to a legislator effectively, one must understand some very basic facts of political and
legislative life:
1. A
legislator is also a politician, which means he or she won an election from a
very specific constituency. Therefore,
we must look at the elements which became factors in that individual’s
success. First, there is the ego. Ego is not necessarily bad, but it is an
essential component for a person to be willing to go through the process of facing
the public, getting nominated and elected, making decisions that may directly
affect millions of people, then doing it over and over
again. In doing so, candidates soon find
that there are many opponents, including the media and organizations who do not
hesitate to be highly critical no matter what course of action is taken by the
legislator. It can easily become
personal to the individual and to the candidate’s family.
Add to that is the enormous amount
of time and effort in raising campaign funds, campaigning itself, serving in
the Legislature and in meeting with constituents, lobbyists, staff, other
legislators, media, etc. Then add the
traveling back and forth. The work never
ends. The responsibilities are
significant and cannot be avoided.
What basic things do legislators
expect from advocates?
1. Respect. A democratic society requires the election of
individuals who will take responsibility for determining public policy. Someone must do it and be prepared to contend
with the consequences. He or she
volunteered to run for office and therefore, cannot complain, but neither
should they be denigrated for doing so.
They, in fact, should be respected.
2. Appreciation. Even if a legislator takes an adverse
position on some issues, he or she provided time (a non-renewable resource) and
consideration in meeting with the proponents and opponents. Just because there may be disagreement about
one issue doesn’t mean that other issues will also be in dispute. There is always tomorrow. Say “thank you” often and mean it.
3. Assistance. Assisting a candidate in getting elected is a
highly effective way of providing assistance.
However, assistance to a legislator can also take the form of providing
information about legislative issues and organizations that may be
involved. It could also include helping
out with mailings, drafting constituent responses and assisting in local
fund-raising.
In addition to knowing more about your legislator and the
way he or she became one, you should also know something about the constituency
that sent that legislator to Springfield.
The first fact is that there are at least 210,000 people in each Senate
District and 105,000 in each Representative District. That is more people than live in most
Illinois cities. With that many people
to represent, it means there will be a wide variety of issues, interests and
problems to contend with. There is also
local history, political and otherwise, that must be taken into consideration.
What I want to convey is that a legislator in the complex
State of Illinois has a very demanding job and it is an unrelenting one. (However, most of the legislators want to be
re-elected.)
Although Illinois has historically been a two-party State,
it doesn’t mean that every issue is a partisan one. In fact, most bills in the General Assembly
that come to a vote do so with support from both parties. The partisan issues receive the most
publicity, but are relatively few in number.
Springfield
For most legislators what goes on in Springfield during a
legislative session is far different than what may happen during the rest of
the year. In fact, the General Assembly
will be in session only 80-90 days every year.
However, those days are intense ones with long hours and a
considerable amount of pressure from a variety of sources. They include their party leaders, statewide
officials, officials back in the District, personnel from State agencies like
the Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of Human Services, professional lobbyists
representing the many organizations with significant public policy interests,
legislative staff and the media. All
have to be responded to – often at the same time. There are always more things to do than there
is time to do them.
15 Do’s and Don’ts
1. For
meetings, be punctual, and don’t over-stay your time.
2. Be polite and respectful.
Do not get into an argument.
3. Don’t
criticize any legislator, politician, interest group or lobbyist.
4. If you
say you will do something, do it, or provide the reason for not.
5. Provide
information as to organizations who support your position and those who don’t,
but be sure it’s accurate.
6. Do not
leave the impression that you are unwilling to meet with your opponents to
try to find “common
ground.”
7. If your
issue costs money, say so.
8. Follow up with information and an
expression of appreciation for the legislator’s time.
9. Don’t
make threats. If you make a promise,
deliver it!
10. Do not be
reluctant about talking to a legislator because you think he or she will ask
you something you
may not know. Most you will know more about the issue than
the legislator does.
However, if a question is
asked and you are unsure of the answer, find it and provide it.
11. Provide a
Fact Sheet and information as to where the legislator can find additional information.
12. If your
organization is represented in Springfield by a lobbyist, be sure to mention
the name of that person.
13. Do not
complain about the legislative process – try to understand it, difficult as
that may be.
14. Before the
end of your meeting, be sure to ask the legislator whether he or she will
support your position.
If “yes,” express
appreciation; if any other response, tell the legislator you will provide
additional information,
do so and then follow-up.
15. Avoid
saying anything that could be construed to indicate the exchange of campaign
support for a vote.
≡≡≡
Need talking points? Legislative Co-chair Nick Pano has provided
Western Illinois Universities SUAA Chapter’s talking points. Readers are welcome to use these as a
template for discussion.
- SUAA views Governor Quinn’s March 18th
revenue enhancement proposals as a good starting point in the quest to
eliminate the budgetary deficit and to strengthen the state’s fiscal
health. SUAA will support tax
legislation that is equitable in nature and that realistically addresses
the structural budgetary problems that have long plagued the state. Even in these times of economic
difficulty, the General Assembly (GA) cannot further delay in coming to
grips with this challenge. We agree
with the observations of the Nobel Laureates in economics, Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University) and Paul Krugman (Princeton University), among other economists
both in government and the private sector that strong arguments can be
made for raising taxes and fees, when done equitably, in times of
recession.
- SUAA was heartened by the
statement of Governor Quinn in his March 18th Budget Address
that “under my plan existing [state] employees and retirees will keep
their current benefits . . . . They
are safe.” We urge the GA to join
with the Governor in making his pledge a reality. In this connection, we note that
pre-1986 SURS employees are not covered by Medicare unless they qualify
from other employment or through a spouse and that 78% of all state
employees do not participate in the Social Security System. Many of these employees made decisions
to seek employment and remain employed at state institutions on the basis
of retirement provisions in effect at the time these decisions were
made. We thus oppose any
initiatives to change the rules on them at this time.
- We oppose the magnitude of
the partial “pension holiday” proposed by the Governor for the remainder
of FY09 and FY10, especially at a time when the value of the SURS
investment portfolio has declined by some 28% in the past year and when
its funding ratio has fallen from 56.5% to approximately 40% between July
1, 2008 and March 1, 2009. As
investors with long-term horizons, SURS and the other state employee
pension systems should be allocated the maximum feasible funding in order
to capitalize now on the most promising opportunities in the various
financial markets. To short the
state pension systems at the proposed levels for FY09 and FY10 will
undercut their ability to benefit more fully from the eventual economic
recovery and require higher state contributions in the future to meet
long-range funding targets. The
imprudence of this approach has been noted in the March 9, 2009 report, “A
Fiscal Roadmap for creating a Sustainable State Budget” of The Institute
for Illinois’ Fiscal Security at the Civic Federation and in the March 2009
Center for Tax and Budget Accountability report, “Analysis of the
Governor’s Fiscal Year 2010 Illinois General Fund Budget Proposal.” Similarly, the Fitch Rating Service
warned investors recently the Quinn “pension holiday” would further weaken
the stability of the Illinois pension systems.
- SUAA supports the floating
of a pension bond issue advocated by the governor and some members of the
GA. We urge that the governor be
granted the authority to implement this measure when market conditions
make this feasible. We also urge
that the full proceeds of this bond sale be allocated to improve the
funding ratio of the state employees’ pension funds.
- SUAA opposes the
establishment of a two-tier pension system. We believe the imposition of such a
system would undermine employee morale and place our state universities at
a competitive disadvantage in the recruitment and retention of
employees. The salaries and
benefits currently available to employees of our state universities of all
categories are presently average or slightly below the national average by
most available measures. The
proposed 1% reduction is the pension average by most available
measures. The proposed 1% reduction
in the pension contribution for new employees hardly compensates for the
losses they will suffer from the reduced benefits available to them. The suggested extension of service
requirements to qualify for early and full retirement benefits could have a
negative impact on instructional programs and innovation in higher
education. These factors, as well
as those noted above, must be carefully explored before moving ahead in
this area.
- SUAA opposes the proposal
to require current employees to pay an additional 2% of their salary for
their pension benefits. As is well
known, the current pension funding crisis in Illinois stems from the fact
that the state has for over three decades failed to pay its share of
contributions to the various pension funds. The employees have paid theirs. Furthermore, it should be noted that the
8% currently contributed by SURS members for their pension benefits is at
the national average. The
additional 2% will place them significantly above the national
average. It also effectively
constitutes a pay cut. SUAA is also
concerned about reports our members have received to the effect that the
state will reduce its contributions to SURS to 6% if the rate for SURS
participants is raised. We would
strongly oppose such a measure and regard it as another effort by the state
to ignore its obligations to its employees and annuitants.
- SUAA is opposed to the
transformation of our current defined benefits (DB) plans to defined
contribution (DC) plans. There is
considerable evidence that DC plans are more costly and complex to
administer than DB plans. Nebraska
and Rhode Island have abandoned their DC plans owing to their bad
experiences with them and are restoring their DB plans. Also, DC plans are less attractive to
potential employees than the DB.
- SUAA supports the College
Insurance Plan legislation (HB3652/SB1638) to eliminate the inequities in
the Community College Insurance Plan.
The costs for benefits under this program will be largely
underwritten by the beneficiaries and community colleges. We regret the issues that have led to
the sidetracking of this legislative initiative, but hope that it can be
revived in one of the original bills or included in another with related
content.
- SUAA opposes legislation
(SB1734) to merge the investments of the state pension funds. We believe that many of the concerns that
prompted this proposal have been addressed in the recently passed and
enacted SB364 (PA 96-0006) and are also addressed in the pension ethics
provisions of SB165 which SUAA is a proponent. We are also concerned that
the annual savings from this reorganization will be offset for a number of
years by the costs of shifting the assets of each of the current funds to
the successor Illinois Public Employees Retirement System (ILPERS). We also hope to have the opportunity to
review and react to the findings of the COGFA study that was commissioned
for this issue upon its release.
- SUAA is a proponent of
SB2020 and HB2624 to provide for an increase in pension benefits for
pre-1980 SURS retirees. Many of
these individuals who are living at or near the poverty level would be
eligible to have their pensions re-adjusted to reflect the 3% annual
increase available to those who retired after this date. The number of these annuitants is
rapidly declining and the costs of this benefit are minimal in respect to
SURS assets and of limited duration.
In February 2009, the number of people to benefit was 864.
- SUAA was very much
concerned by the procedures employed in the GA to expedite the passage of
SB364, now PA96-0006. Although we
understand the intent of the legislation, we would have expected and
appreciated the opportunity, since the bill affected our interests, to
have some input into the process.
We expect that this will not be a harbinger of tactics that will be
used in the future in advancing legislation affecting our interests,
including those pertaining to budget approval.
These points can be
tailored for correspondence with your legislators.
Information from the
Illinois Retirement Security Initiative
For more information please contact,
Bukola Bello, Dir. Illinois Retirement Security Initiative
at (312) 332-1103 or bbello@ctbaonline.org
Illinois Public
Employee Retirement Systems
The five
public employee retirement systems in Illinois are the: State Employees’
Retirement System (‘SERS’),
Teachers’ Retirement System (‘TRS’),
State Universities Retirement System (‘SURS’),
Judges’ Retirement System (‘JRS’)
and General Assembly Retirement System (‘GARS’). Three primary sources of contributions
finance Illinois’ State retirement systems: employee contributions, employer
contributions and returns on investments.
Each chart is a representation of Illinois public employees and retirees
within the five state funded retirement systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SURS in Brief1
Who are the people who participate
in SURS?
· SURS serves a diverse group of employees with
occupations ranging from professors and clerical workers to building
service workers and ground keepers.
· The average annual salary of a SURS participant is
$43,460.
· Participant contribute 8 percent of their annual salary to their pension
fund.
Who is the typical SURS retiree?
· A typical SURS retiree is 62 years old and has
served an Illinois University or community college for 20 years.
What sort of benefits do SURS
retirees receive?
· The typical SURS retiree receives a monthly benefit
of $2,609.83.
SURS participants do not receive
social security. SURS is the sole source of retirement
income for participants.
|
|
|
SERS in Brief3
Who are the people
who participate in SERS?
• SERS participants are comprised of
all state
employees.
•
The average annual salary of a SERS participant
is $56,008.
•
Participants covered by Social Security
contribute 4 percent of their
annual salary to
their pension fund, while
participants not
covered contribute 8
percent.
Who is a typical SERS retiree?
• A typical SERS retiree is 69 years
old and has
served Illinois for 25 to 30
years.
What sort of benefits do SERS
retirees receive?
• The typical SERS retiree who is not coordinated
with Social Security receives a
monthly benefit
of $2,251.03.
The typical SERS retiree who is coordinated with Social Security receives a
monthly benefit of $1,798.12.
With the exception of police and
firefighters, virtually all SERS participants contribute to social
security.
|
|
|
|
TRS in Brief2
Who are the people who participate
in TRS?
· TRS provides retirement, disability and survivor
benefits to teachers, administrators and public school personnel employed
outside of the city of Chicago.
· The average annual salary of a TRS participant is
$60,254.
· Participants contribute 9.4 percent of their annual
salary to their pension fund.
Who is the typical TRS retiree?
• A typical TRS retiree is 69 years old and has
served Illinois public schools for 29
years.
What sort of benefits do TRS
retirees receive?
• The typical TRS retiree receives a monthly
benefit of $3,461.08.
TRS participants do not receive
social security. TRS is the sole
source of retirement income for participants.
|
|
|
|
|
GARS in Brief4
Who are the people who participate
in GARS?
• GARS participants are comprised of
members of
the General Assembly and certain
state officials
within Illinois.
· The average annual salary of a GARS participant is
$78,064.
· Participants contribute 11.5 percent of their
annual salary to their pension fund.
Who is a typical GARS retiree?
· A typical GARS retiree is 60 years old and has
served the Illinois General Assembly or state of Illinois for 14
years.
What sorts of benefits do GARS
retirees receive?
• The typical GARS retiree receives a
monthly
benefit of $3,921.75.
GARS participants do not receive
social security.
|
|
|
JRS in Brief5
Who are the people who participate
in JRS?
· JRS participants are comprised of judges serving
within the Illinois court system.
· The average annual salary of a JRS participant is
$161,070.
· Participants contribute 11 percent of their annual
salary to their pension fund.
Who is a typical JRS retiree?
· A typical JRS retiree is a 63 year old attorney who
has served as an Illinois judge for 17 years.
What sort of benefits do JRS
retirees receive?
• The typical JRS retiree receives a
monthly
benefit of $8,684.50.
JRS participants do not receive
social security.
|
|
The following figures provide some facts about Illinois which
will allow you to place these numbers into perspective;
·
According to the
Illinois State Comptroller, pension benefits paid to regular state employees in
Illinois are low relative to benefits provided by other states. Illinois ranks in the bottom one fifth of all
states for retirement benefits paid to an average state worker.
·
The total of all
participants in the state’s pension plans represent only 5.3% of Illinois’
total population. In fact, Illinois
ranks dead last in the nation, in number of employees per capita. At the end of the fiscal year 2007 there were
72,312 state employees. This was 11,275,
or 13.5% less than at the end of
fiscal year 1998.
·
Funded ratio is
the ratio of the assets of a pension plan to its liabilities. The ratio is determined by dividing the
market value of assets by the actuarial accrued liability. In June 2008, Illinois’ funded ratio was
54.3%, far below the 2008 national state retirement systems average funded
ratio of 84% found by Wilshire Associates.
·
After decades of
underfunding its employer contribution to each of the five state retirement
systems, Illinois now has the greatest unfunded liability in the nation, an
astounding $73.4 billion. That means the
funded ratio for the entire state retirement system has dropped to 40% .
·
Adopting a
statutory payment plan for the state pension systems was deemed necessary by
lawmakers in 1995. However, the 50-year
funding plan they adopted known as the “Pension Ramp,” was structurally
unaffordable from the moment it was enacted.
It did not reduce principle until 2034 or pay the full annual interest
cost; in addition, it incorporated a ramp-up period of 15 years that increased
contributions over an arbitrary starting level and significantly shortchanged
the pensions system. This resulted in deferring the entire 1995
unfunded liability of $19.5 billion almost 40 years, while allowing this
deferral to grow at a set rate of 8.5% annually.
·
Unfortunately,
under state law, any funding shortfall must be paid back with interest,
compounded at each retirement system’s target rate of return, currently pegged
at 8.0% to 8.5% per year.
·
Normal cost is the
current total contribution required to fund the promised benefit upon
retirement, based on actuarial tables. It is typically expressed as the percentage
of current payroll needed to fund future benefits. The ‘normal cost’ across all five Illinois’
pension systems, as a percentage of active members’ payroll averages 9.13%. The national average for state and local
government is 12.5%, placing the normal cost of Illinois’ current defined
benefit program far below the national average.
·
Actuaries have
reported that in order to keep the unfunded pension liability from growing, the
funding should cover “Normal Cost plus Interest.” Meaning, the actuarially – determined amount
to cover the growth in liability during this year, plus interest on the
unfunded balance. That amount in FY2009
is approximately $5.9 billion.
·
In fact, for
Fiscal Year 2006, the normal cost was just
$1.33 billion. However, the FY06
required pension payment was $2.1 billion, meaning if Illinois had no unfunded
pension liability, it would have had an additional $770 million for public
services like education, public safety and transportation.
·
A common
misconception is that taxpayers shoulder most of the cost of funding public
pension systems. To the contrary,
investment income accounts for the majority of Illinois state retirement
funding. Unfortunately, the ongoing
struggles in financial and capital markets continue to have a negative impact
on investment returns for the state’s five retirement systems. In the current fiscal year 2009, investment
returns of the Teachers’ Retirement System are down 25.5%, and those of the
State Universities Retirement System have declined 26.7%. The remaining three systems’ investment
returns have dropped by 20.9%.
·
Compared to the
rest of the country, Chicago (zip 60615)’s cost of living is 58.63% higher than
the U.S. average. The unemployment rate in Chicago (zip 60615) is 9.20 percent
(U.S. avg. is 4.60%). Chicago’s
overall cost of living is about 66% above the national average, as the typical
Chicago apartment rents for just over $1,000 a month, with utilities costing an
average of $86.
·
According to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the poverty level for a family of
two is $14,570 annually or $1,214.17 a month.
That means the average SERS retiree who is coordinated with Social
Security will live on $583.95 more a month – an amount slightly above the
poverty level.
==========================================================================================================================================================
Need a reason to become a member or
information to sign up a member? Read
and ACT!
Dear Current University and Community College Workers and
Retirees:
For university and community college workers in the SURS
system, there’s urgent news out of Springfield. And it’s bad news. It affects your pocketbook today and your
retirement benefits for the long term.
A proposal to force
you to pay more for your State University Retirement System (SURS) pension
benefits is moving forward at the State Capitol.
|
|
Did you know?
·
If you are a SURS participant currently
working in any of the university or community college systems, the Governor
wants to force you to pay an additional 2% of your salary for retirement
benefits. You already pay 8% -- and
now they want more.
·
Think about it. In this bad economy, this proposal is a two
percent pay cut for retirement benefits that may be cut back.
|
|
If you want to stop this, we need your help.
It’s urgent.
We are the State Universities Annuitants Association – the
SUAA. Our organization is fighting to
hold the line on the benefits you deserve and enjoy. We are focused on preserving the pension and
health care benefits of current university and community college employees and retirees.
Sometimes we’re asked, “Isn’t your association just for
university and community college system retirees?” The answer is “Absolutely not!” We
serve retirees AND CURRENT
EMPLOYEES. This pay cut proposal is one
example why current employees benefit from joining our association.
With state government looking for ways to slash costs and
cut benefit programs, we stand up for your retirement benefits and against the
growing number of proposals that aim to take those benefits away from you.
An application can be downloaded at www.suaa.org or call 217.585.2370 for more
information.
|
|
You may be a member of another group interested in these
issues. Those groups may be involved in
a broad variety of issues at all levels of government, but we are not. Please understand, at SUAA, we are narrowly
focused on university and community college employee pension and healthcare
retirement benefits.
In this critical time, we are asking you to join our association as we fight
for your benefits – and membership in SUAA is economical. To join for one year the cost is $36 or even
less, depending on the local chapter dues where you live. ($21
for state membership and no more than
$15 for your local chapter.)
Biographies of New Legislators
House
Anthony DeLuca
(D-80th, Chicago Heights)
Biography:
Businessman; lifelong resident of Chicago Heights; director of operations at
Skyline Disposal Company, a third-generation family-owned business; member of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 731; Chicago Heights Mayor,
2003-2009; former member and President of Bloom Township High School District
206 Board of Education 1995-2003; member of the South Suburban Mayors and
Managers Association Transportation Committee; member of the Chicago Heights
Kiwanis Club; former coach and current director of the Chicago Heights Small
Fry Basketball League; graduate of Homewood-Flossmoor High School and Elmhurst
College; married (wife, Sarah), father of three.
Betsy Hannig (D-98th, Litchfield)
Biography: Full-time state legislator; born
November 10, 1963; B.S., Agricultural Economics and Animal Science, University
of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; former account analyst, Teachers Retirement
System; former horse stable manager and Piatt County Cooperative Extension
Service 4-H and Youth Community worker; former staff member, Citizens Assembly
(bi-partisan legislative support agency); member of Wolfpack
Car Club, Horsemen’s Council of Illinois, and Scleroderma Foundation; attends
Holy Family Catholic Church; married (husband, Gary).
Eddie Lee Jackson, Sr. (D-114th, East St. Louis)
Committee assignments: Approp-Elementary & Secondary Educ; Appropriations-Human Services; Consumer Protection
(Vice-Chairperson); Health Care Licenses; Affordable Alzheimer's Services.
Biography: Educator; former high school science teacher, middle school
principal, and elementary school principal; Bachelor of Science in Education
and Master of City Planning degrees from Southern Illinois
University-Edwardsville; member of the East St. Louis City Council; married
(wife, Pearlie) with two adult children, Eddie, Jr. and Emeka.
Senate
Toi Hutchinson (D-40th, Olympia Fields)
Committee assignments: Agriculture and Conservation; Labor; Local Government; State Government
& Veterans Affairs (Vice-Chairperson); Transportation; Committee of the
Whole; Trans Subcommittee Special Issues; Subcommittee on Special Issues.
Biography: Full-time
state legislator; Born May 20, 1973; Graduated University of Illinois at Urbana
with a Bachelor in English; Olympia Fields Village Clerk from 2002-2006;
Harvard Kennedy School of Government Executive Management Program; Women and
Power, 2004; Former Chief of Staff to State Senator Debbie Halvorson; Lives in
Olympia Fields with husband, Paul, and 3 children.
Kyle McCarter (R-51st , Lebanon)
Committee
assignments: Commerce
(Minority Spokesperson); Agriculture and Conservation; Education; Licensed
Activities; State Government & Veterans Affairs; Financial Institutions; Subcomm.Adv.PracticeNurse's License; Subcommittee on
Charter Schools.
Biography: Small
business owner, lives in Lebanon, IL, where he
operates Custom Product Innovations and Custom Coating Innovations. Served eight years on the St. Clair County Board and six years on
the O’Fallon Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, including two years as
President and four years as Chairman of the Economic Development Committee.
B.S. in Accounting from Oral Roberts University.
Married to Victoria and has two sons.
Where SUAA
Stands on certain Legislation
SB1734 – Merging of the pension system investments. Opponent.
SB 1656/HB3722 and SB1454 are all ethics bills for which we can be a proponent. They discuss fiduciary issues, including
pension issues. SB1656 mandates development of an Illinois Fiduciary College at
UI to train responsible trustees and similar officials.
HB3652/SB1630 on City College insurance is out of the House
Pensions Committee and the Senate Pensions Committee. Both became shell bills and are no longer
viable for our legislative purposes. However, the issue and legislation are not
dead. Proponent.
SB303/SB304. SB303 sets up a defined
contributions/self-managed retirement option for state retirees in defined
benefit plans. SB304
mandates that new employees be enrolled is a defined contributions plan
and removes the disability clause. SURS
has a defined contributions plan. The
State Employees System does not. Both
bills now are dormant, but could return.
Opponent.
SB2020 and
SB1561 address catch-up funding for
pre-1980 retirees who have not kept up with inflationary adjustments. Both bills are dormant because they cost
money, even though SB2020 affects under 900 people. SB2020 is our bill as is HB2624. Opponent.
SB231 allows credit for up to 2 years of unused
sick-leave. SURS opposes this bill
because some campuses give sign-on bonuses including back sick-leave, and SURS
cannot afford to pay for that benefit. The
campuses are not responsible for this debt. Another factor is that faculty often do not have to record sick days unless
they are absent major amounts of class time, while civil service and
administrative professional staff must. Proponent.
SB0320 addresses the limit on additional earnings above 6%
being credited toward calculation of benefits.
This bill waives the restriction for lower-paid employees. SURS supports this bill. Proponent.
SR0054
mandates a study of the financial impact of combining funds from the pension
funds ala SB1734. Proponent.
Governor’s Budget Proposal: The proposal to hold back fourth quarter
payments into pension plans will further damage the funding ratios of all of
the plans. The long term financial
damage to Illinois is substantial. Opponent to a Pension
Holiday.
The governor’s proposed state income tax increase is
controversial, but the state needs more revenue to support salaries, pensions
and educations. Can we support the tax
increase? There is a study committee
investigating sources of revenue, but it is not close to making a report. Proponent.
Check SUAA out on Facebook!
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends
and others who work, study and live around them. Other associations use Facebook as another medium for distribution of information. SUAA has created a group page and is
ready to share information with our members who also use Facebook.
Just search for SUAA
in groups, then click join!
|
|
HB4445
Short Description: COMPENSATION-NO
COLA-FURLOUGH
Chief Sponsor: Speaker Michael Madigan
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Compensation Review Act. Prohibits any increase
in compensation that would otherwise apply based on a cost of living adjustment,
as authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 192 of the 86th General Assembly, for
or during only the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009, but not thereafter. Requires all members of the General Assembly to take X furlough
days in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009. Provides
that if salary or compensation is provided by law as set by the Compensation
Review Board, then that means the salary or compensation in effect on the
effective date of the amendatory Act and the future cost of living adjustments.
Repeals all other provisions of the Act except the
prohibition of the FY03 COLA. Amends the Civil Administrative Code of
Illinois and various other Acts to provide that the compensation of certain
officials of executive branch agencies is as set by the Compensation Review
Board (instead of as set by the Governor or by the Compensation Review Board,
whichever is higher). Effective immediately.
Hearing in the House State Government Administration Committee on Wednesday,
May 6th.
______________________________________
What’s the number? Budget deficit by end of FY2010 estimated at
$14.672 Billion. Check out the new
number by linking to the Commission for Government Forecasting and
Accountability (COGFA). Recently released “FY 2010 GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles) Report.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/Upload/GAAP%20Report%20FY%202010.pdf
Another report from COGFA of interest is
Liabilities of the State Employees’ Group Health Insurance Program Fiscal Year
2010. Can be accessed by linking to: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/Upload/FY2010%20State%20Employees'%20Group%20Insurance%20Program%20MAR%2009.pdf
This is a 22 page booklet providing cost
projections, estimates, appropriation/funding sources, benefits, membership,
enrollment trends, changes, managed care plans, monthly premiums, etc.
________________________________________
Annual Meeting Information coming soon!
June 23 & 24 in Springfield!
