Yesterday the We Are One Coalition issued a framework for solving the pension issue.
The following must be in any plan going forward:
1. A guarantee that the state will pay its portion as required. That hasn’t happened for decades, as legislatures have diverted money to other programs.
2. A true look at revenue by closing loopholes for big corporations that hurt taxpayers of Illinois. Many loopholes exist, and closing a few would generate money to help pay down the pension debt.
3. No inclusion of current retirees, who are living on an earned and needed pension and cannot re-enter the job market.
4. With a guarantee that the state would pay its portion, the members who are reliant on the pension systems for their retirement security, would offer to help the state by paying more even though they have contributed their portion over the years. (This increase may differ for the various pension plans.)
To be clear, I do not support any proposal that requires the members of TRS to pay more.
I say this as a retired teacher who would not be impacted directly by this proposal. But I would be impacted, as all retirees would be impacted, by a concession that changes the the conversation over who created this situation and who is responsible for fixing it.
Members of TRS did not create the problem. No TRS member should now be held responsible for fixing it.
It makes no sense that while the state gives $100 million tax breaks to companies like Motorola, teachers should be charged additional costs for the state’s failure to meet their pension obligation.
I will be in Springfield on Friday to demand the state pay their share.
But I won’t be supporting TRS members paying more.
Fred Klonsky 
Well said! Let’s not divert from the reality of the problem and who caused it. It must not be the responsibility of the citizens of Il. (or some scapegoated group) to make up for the politicians giving away tax exemptions to big business in return for their re-election. We have to stop this race to the bottom.
A horrible mistake is being made by We Are One, IEA, IFT, etc.
Everyone wants to seem reasonable and present a reasonable public image. The danger is in offering what seems reasonable while the offer itself has unintended disastrous consequences.
4. With a guarantee that the state would pay its portion, the members who are reliant on the pension systems for their retirement security, would offer to help the state by paying more even though they have contributed their portion over the years. (This increase may differ for the various pension plans.)
This is a successful, common, legal trap used by lawyers for over a decade. Once a retiree accepts a different pension plan, no matter how minor the change, the one providing the pension is legally recognized as having the right to alter the new pension plan in any way it deems necessary. All past plans are null and void. Courts have decided on this repeatedly.
Even offering to have retirees pay more could be used in court to prove the desire of retirees to have a new pension agreement due to what they themselves deem an excessive financial claim.
The full explanation and legal references are available for your reading in Retirement Heist by Ellen E. Schultz.
Excerpt from page 170: To enhance their chances of success… (employers) started to use a strategy outlined by (various) managers: creeping take-aways. This involves taking small steps – increase premiums a small amount, or perhaps start changing premiums in the future… Then, a few years later, the (employer) cuts benefits in a big way, saying the retirees’ prior lack of legal action signaled tacit agreement that the (employer) could change the plan.
PLEASE LET THOSE WHO NEGOTIATE KNOW THE HISTORY OF THIS SUCCESSFUL PENSION DESTROYING TACTIC. PLEASE PASS THIS ON.
Ken Previti