The in box. Todd Mertz responds to IEA President Cinda Klickna’s pension update.

Todd Mertz is an Illinois teacher pension activist.

Dear President Klickna and the EA Team,

I, and others, have major concerns and are disappointed with the IEA Pension update on June 13th.

It appears to us that the IEA is “softening us” for some concessions ahead. I’m sure you can understand this perturbs us. Please correct me if I am wrong with any of these historical facts below: 

*Current and former legislators decided to spend our money elsewhere for decades (this includes Madigan’s leadership). 

*The public has benefited from the use of our money for over six decades. 
*Legislators’ pet projects were funded for political gain and public popularity, using the “required” state contribution.

You write, “We must think about what we can/should do that will ensure the pension systems are able to deliver the promised benefits for decades going forward.”  However, we have promoted a list of solutions from reliable sources (see attachment) that would raise billions of dollars. We have been thinking and we have been making suggestions to our legislators on dozens of ways to implement revenue solutions. However, it appears that the legislature wants teachers to take the hit. And in a very real way, the IEA June 13th newsletter sounded like IEA agrees with them. Why would we make any concessions when they aren’t considering the many solutions we have suggested to fix this problem? Has there been any attempt to seek solutions as we have all suggested? 

You write, “Manage change or be managed.” Manage what changes? Will change be perceived as a willingness to capitulate? Will the General Assembly be willing to be managed and pay what is necessary from now on – as well as what is owed? Is managing change paying down the unfunded liability by the very people who paid into the system already? Can you tell me or all of us what might be “changeable?” What might be “manageable?” 

Am I wrong, or don’t we have both the IL and US Constitution behind us? IL is one of 10 states that have a pension clause in the state constitution; we are one of just four states in the entire nation that have a strong pension clause and two of those four states’ courts (MI and AZ) have recently sided with the teachers.

You state, Our members have told us repeatedly that they would be open to paying more to ensure they receive the pensions they have been promised.” How many people took this survey, when were they surveyed, and were they informed and educated IEA members? Do they know about all of the attached revenue solutions to close the unfunded liability and that as of at least recently, the GA was not considering any of them? Paying more for our promised pensions “impairs and diminishes” our benefits–and is unconstitutional–at least that is what the IEA claimed just recently–especially during the SB512 scare. 

You write, But, fair, constitutional change is in our members’ best interests when it helps ensure every past, current and future IEA member gets the pension he or she has been promised.” OK, so now this is a bit confusing. In this fair, constitutional change you are discussing, how is every past, current, and future IEA member going to get the pension he or she has been promised? What has been promised for the last 40 years is the current pension law. So how can we change that and still get our promised benefits?

Isn’t it true that Quinn’s own Pension Modernization Task Force concluded that Illinois teachers pay one of the highest contributions rates in the entire country (9.4%) while only receiving exactly average pension benefits compared to all 50 states?  In fact, a quote from your IEA Pensions, Just the Facts Please document (see attachment) from November of last year stated, “An AON report showed that when comparing Illinois to like states, Illinois teachers pay 15% more for their retirement benefits.”  It also states, “Additionally, AON’s research found that Illinois teachers receive a lesser benefit from their colleagues in other states even though they pay more for their benefit.”

How can the IEA justify to it’s teachers that we should pay more while our legislators do nothing or very little to solve the pension problem any other way but on teachers’ backs? What real consideration would be involved? Would it be that the GA promises to pay their already promised (required) contribution? Is that fair consideration?How do we know that the GA won’t try and again “impair and diminish” our pensions next year…or in the next three years….or the next five years….or ten, etc? 

In many districts throughout the state, teachers’ salaries have been frozen for years and/or they are required to pay a significant increase in their health care. How is a larger contribution going to impact them? Is asking teachers to pay more than 9.4% (I believe the 2nd highest amount in the country behind Missouri) going to solve this problem and really keep Fahner and the Civic Committee at bay for long? I doubt it. Do you think they will ever be happy until our pensions are fully dissolved?

You write, “Unless we adjust pensions as part of a larger strategy for addressing the state’s underfunding problem, the unsustainable pressure on the state budget will continue to increase.”  

What about all of the solutions we have been stressing over and over again? The fact is, the GA wants teachers to adjust their pensions and now it sounds like the IEA is agreeing?

From what I understand, the GA isn’t interested in our solutions that would raise billions of dollars per year.

You write, We have made it clear to the governor and to the legislative leaders of both Houses and parties that we are willing to make some difficult choices that will be necessary to stabilize the systems.”   What sort of difficult choices are you talking about? Should we be making difficult choices when:

1. We didn’t cause the problem (IEA and the legislators agree on this).
2. We pay the 2nd highest contribution rate in the country and yet only receive average benefits.
3. Many teachers have already suffered a few years of pay freezes and increased contributions to health care.
4. The GA isn’t doing anything to change any of Illinois’ revenue problems.
5. The GA won’t agree to make a promise on its already made promise to fund the employer’s contribution.
6. IL has a strong pension clause in the constitution.
It is our belief that they want and will test this in the courts at some point. They seem to all openly admit that it will be tested no matter what.

Here is my most fervent concern:Why negotiate anything away before the constitutionality of any of these bills is determined? They want a court case. They will get a court case whether or not we try our hardest to avoid it. If we do negotiate, and forthcoming bill(s) are deemed unconstitutional, we will have negotiated away benefits unnecessarily–benefits that we have paid for and earned.

Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you.

–Todd Mertz

8 Replies to “The in box. Todd Mertz responds to IEA President Cinda Klickna’s pension update.”

  1. I have a question, does our IEA leadership get a salary? Is their healthcare and pension like ours? How many were educators in the public education system and if they were, how long ago? I am not challenging the fact that they deserve a salary or benefits, I would just like to know what we pay our leadership and how all that works.

    1. The elected leadership receive a salary, healthcare and TRS pension. As governance they serve at the pleasure of the membership, elected under term limit rules and are IEA members. Their salaries are determined by the IEA budget which is passed each year at the RA. As IEA members they all served as educators in the past.
      The Executive Director is a staff position. She serves at the pleasure of the elected leadership. Audrey Soglin was an educator in the past, but it is not a requirement. Staff salaries and benefits are bargained. Staff are not necessarily IEA members.

      1. Hi…absolutely wonderful article! I am headed to DC next week as an RA delegate. I would like to propose a business item in caucus that would essentially ask the NEA to mobilize some resources for IEA and help us more vigorously combat the attack. Are either you or Todd going to be in DC? If so, I would love your input on the item! Please e-mail me.

        Rick Cohoon
        Charleston Education Association

      2. Hi..loved the article. I am going to be in DC as a delegate next week and would like to introduce an item at caucus asking IEA to approach NEA about being more pro-active with resources to help us in our fight. Are either you or Mr. Mertz going to be there? I would love your input, and this might be a great way to send President Klickna our message. Please e-mail me at

  2. In the last gubernatorial election, I took issue with the fact our union endorsed Quinn over Whitney. I wrote to the IEA (and personally to Ken Swanson and Charlie McBarron) that while Quinn might not be as draconian as the Republican, choosing him would be “like being nibbled to death by ducks”. Little did I realize that it would be our union that would join in the nibbling…

  3. Thank you, Todd, for composing and sending such a compelling letter to Cinda Klickna and staff. It is a sad day when our union members have to point out the reasons why the leadership should be drawing the line in the sand. We need a leader, not a capitulator. Fred, what would it take to recall Klickna and put someone who is willing to stand up for teachers in that office?

  4. Todd is a great advocate for the membership. For those of you who read Fred (& do subscribe–if he cant MAKE a million {dollars} in his retirement, he at least deserves a million recorded READERS! Tell everyone you know to read this blog, as the sooner IEA members & their families are educated provided the facts (it surprises me that people don’t know that the IEA elected leadership receives salaries & benefits–paid for BY MEMBERS LIKE YOU & I!! In other words, WE are their EMPLOYERS AND–just as your bosses can do to you {&, at will, if the IEA “leadership” continues to “lead” in the manner it has been},YOU can fire THEM (elections or locals getting together across the state to take some action).

    To further inform you, this is not dividing the union or union busting–this is union ACTION.
    Which, as we all know, speaks louder than words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s