"I am a veteran teacher with 24 years of experience, and my salary is effectually capped for the last 15 years of my career. These offsets existed in order to provide professionals like me with a livable pension, a pension I've contributed to--by law--on that first day of teaching, and every day since. Also by law, I don't have access to Social Security. That this was added to the budget last minute is unconscionable. Rescind this measure NOW!"

--Paul Easton, an English teacher in Illinois, home-owner, father, taxpayer, and vote

On Monday, a budget was signed for Illinois that included a lot of great things for education in Illinois, including $350 million in new money for K-12 education, $50 million for early childhood education, a scholarship program to encourage Illinois… — On Monday, a budget was signed for Illinois that included a lot of great things for education in Illinois, including $350 million in new money for K-12 education, $50 million for early childhood education, a scholarship program to encourage Illinois students to stay in state for college, MAP grant funding and a 2 percent increase in funding for higher education.

However, there were three changes to pensions that the four legislative leaders: Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), House Minority Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs), Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Senate Minority Leader Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) inserted into the 1,200-page budget implementation bill, giving lawmakers only five hours to review, and **one of them is a very big concern for our members**.

The three changes for participants in the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) and State Universities Retirement System (SURS) are:
A voluntary pension buyout of vested, inactive members of the Tier One pension system who could receive 60 percent of the current value of their plan in a lump sum payment. This is estimated to save about $40 million.
An optional cost of living adjustment (COLA) buyout for Tier One members, which would allow members to trade their 3 percent compounding increases for a 1.5 percent simple annual increase in exchange for an immediate payout of 70 percent of net value of future increases from the higher formula. This is estimated to save nearly $400 million.
**The third, most troubling for our members and least cost-saving measure**, would place a threshold on end-of-career salary increases at 3 percent instead of the current 6 percent, making school districts or universities financially liable for the cost of the member’s pension payment attributable to all annual salary increases greater than the 3 percent. It saves an estimated $20 million. Because educators can qualify for a pension after five years and can leave at any time, districts and higher ed institutions would argue for a 3 percent limit on all salary increases across the entire contract.
**Timeline**

The language of these changes was included in the Budget Implementation (BIMP) bill, which is part of the state budget package, and did not stand on its own. It was part of a deal worked out between the legislative leaders and budget planners. This bill was posted late in the day on Wed., May 30. The Senate passed the bill that evening and the House passed the bill the next day.

IEA lobbyists worked hard to try to sway lawmakers, but were told by most that they weren’t aware of the 3 percent change, it sounded like it would save money, was part of a bi-partisan agreement and they were going to vote for the bill to show the governor that there was so much support for it that he couldn’t veto another budget.

IEA also sent out a call to action to members in an effort to get our members to contact their lawmakers to raise their awareness of this measure and to vote against it. It was difficult because there was no bill number at the time to share, etc. The associations representing school boards, school administrators, principals, other educators and the state board of education also were unaware of the proposed changes.

***It is important to note that they didn’t want us to know about it because they didn’t want you to act!***

A similar measure passed in 2005, reducing the threshold to 6 percent from what had been at the time 20 percent. Over the course of time, we were able to introduce several exemptions to the rule, including taking on extra duties such as coaching that would allow districts to pay above the 6 percent.

That list of exemptions was given to lawmakers to include in this plan. Lawmakers refused to do so.

Gov. Bruce Rauner signed the bill on Monday, meaning everything in it – including this 3 percent threshold – became effective June 4.

**What does this mean?**

The 3 percent threshold applies to lane changes and step increases. It applies to extracurricular duties. It applies to continuing education. Unless the district or institution of higher learning wants to pick up the contribution owed to TRS for anything above the 3 percent salary increase, it is unlikely that any salary increases higher than this will be offered – across the board.

This is extremely detrimental to a profession that is already facing a teacher shortage. It seems very short-sighted for the state legislature to introduce a measure like this at the same time that it is both trying to solve a teacher shortage and it is trying to find a way save higher education in this state.

**What now?**

Please sign this online petition. Share it with friends and family and ask them to do the same. IEA will present these signatures with a package of legislation designed to fix this short-sighted measure and to present other solutions to solve the teacher shortage.

It’s imperative that lawmakers see how educators feel about this sign of disrespect that’s been shown to those who have dedicated their professional lives to teaching the future of this state.

IEA is developing an FAQ on this subject and we will post it on the IEA websiteas soon as it is complete. The Teachers’ Retirement System also has some information about this on its website.