Capitalfax is reporting an agreement between Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the State University Annuitants Association to delay the implementation of parts of PA 98-599.
From AG Lisa Madigan:
The agreement is pending as it requires judicial approval before going into effect. The agreement delays implementation of the pension law until July 1, 2015. Specifically, the agreement protects SURS members currently eligible for retirement by allowing them to delay their retirement decision until the constitutionality of the new pension law is determined. It allows them to calculate their money purchase annuity based on the effective rates as of June 30, 2014 and allows them to avoid the skips in the annual increases if the changes to the pension are upheld. The agreement also ensures that any unnecessary pension contributions will be refunded.
There are reports that thousands of University employees had submitted their retirement papers as a result of SB1, now known as PA 98-599.
The deal, between the State Universities Annuitants Association and the attorney general, could put a stop to a surge of retirements at Illinois’ public universities.
“What this should do is resolve any need for anybody to retire before June 1 of 2015. Which is to say that the rush of retirements that is going on right now because of people’s fears, this should obviate,” says SUAA’s attorney, Aaron Maduff.
While public workers widely dislike (and question the legality of) the benefit cuts in the pension law, the Maduff, says their situation is more difficult because of differences in the university pension system.
Maduff says some of the changes in the 2013 pension overhaul would effectively force retirement this summer risk losing a lot of money — in some cases, nearly $200,000.
I can’t help but point out that current public school retired teachers and other state employees (disclosure: me too) will lose well over $200,000 over the next 20 years in post retirement pension benefits if the courts do not rule pension theft unconstitutional.
Fred Klonsky 
I think he was referring to the “excess employee contributions” under the money purchase formula. After contributing 35 years or more, a lot of SURS employees are “topped out”, meaning they have reached the maximum pension amount allowed based on their salary. If they keep on working a few more years, their amount of employee over payment increases actuarially. Each year they stay is one less year of pension payments they will ever collect, plus the 8% they pay in out of their salary. If they stay five or ten years extra,
their refund (which SB1 would virtually eliminate) could amount to $200,000. This is in addition to the COLA cut, but COLA cuts for them would have less effect because by that age they would only on average live to collect a very few years of pension.
Those SURS members who retire earlier when their money purchase reaches their limit, are then hit by the COLA cut similar to TRS and other state retirees, losing 200000 over a 20 year retirement.
What about TRS pensions? How is this action not discriminatory to us? Many elementary and high school teachers felt they had to retire earlier than they planned so as to preserve what pension benefits they could because of pension “reform”! I, like so many TRS annuitants, will lose a substantial amount of money in just ten years’ time–never mind over a 20 year time span plus we only get 75% of the last few years highest salaries, not 80% like they do at the university level. Guess keeping good educators only counts at the university level, not at the other levels that prepared students to be college ready. Absolutely Incredible and unbelievable!!
Elma,
I guess this pension theft was inadvertent. Yours was on purpose. See the difference?
Elma,
Cheer up! While SURS has an absolute limit of 80% on all annuities, TRS has 75% on the salary/years service calculation, but they also do the actuarial calculation which is not limited. Also, a lot of SURS employees get low pay to start with, 80% of low wage=low pension. (Adjunct professors get little more then minimum wage with no benefits).
Click to access RetirementBenefits.pdf
Fred: Thanks for your insight. Rest assured when I go to the polls in November my vote will not be inadvertent!
And they laughed when old Dick Daley’s press secretary told reporters, “Don’t print what he said, print what he meant”.
Now we won’t be governed by what a law says, but what the words should have said.
To some big pooh-bah who makes up the meaning.
Very Humpty-Dumpty.
Does this mean current retirees will get COLA in 1/15?
No. Only if the courts provide injunctive relief while the case is being deliberated.
I think this move is one more sign that the AG, her dad and the other “leaders” know the law is and will be judged to be unconstitutional.