Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Deer COVID? IDNR plans to test up to a thousand deer this winter
Next Post: “The Shadow” is busted by feds for allegedly bribing Sen. Martin Sandoval
Posted in:
* Shruti Singh at Bloomberg…
Chicago’s police pension obligations could increase by another $3 billion total through 2055 if the state of Illinois passes a proposed law designed to force the city to acknowledge its probable liabilities for annual pay increases to retirees.
Illinois State Senator Robert Martwick is preparing to push legislation in 2022 to change eligibility restrictions for cost of living adjustments for police retirees, saying current law understates the impact of those costs. The new law would bring rules for police in line with firefighters, and make the city’s future costs more transparent, he said.
“It’s making the unfunded liability reflect what the actual numbers are,” Martwick said in an interview regarding the bill he’s pressing for. “That will require the city to put in the necessary payment.”
Chicago officials oppose the measure, calling it a burden. The extra liabilities added would be “unaffordable,” said city Chief Financial Officer Jennie Huang Bennett. […]
The legislation would remove a requirement that police retirees be born before 1966 to be eligible for a 3% automatic annual increase in payments. Martwick says the state legislature repeatedly has made the required birth date later to include more retirees, meaning the actual costs for Chicago end up being higher than expected.
Passing bills for firefighters these days is much easier than passing bills for police. So, we’ll see. Your thoughts?
* Related…
* Chicago Wins Stable Outlook Trio for First Time in Pandemic
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 2:53 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Deer COVID? IDNR plans to test up to a thousand deer this winter
Next Post: “The Shadow” is busted by feds for allegedly bribing Sen. Martin Sandoval
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I want the police to get the damn shots or lose their pensions.
Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:03 pm
Really jams up Republicans, dont you think?
A vote for the bill is a vote to ensure police pensions are adequately funded.
A vote against the bill is therefore a vote to “Defund the Police.”
I mean, you can actually go back to every state budget that every Republican voted against and say they voted to “Defund the Police.”
I sure as heck would, but what do I know, I am not nearly as smart as the folks in charge at the Governor’s office.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:06 pm
Cheryl,
“or lose their pensions.” Pensions can’t be taken away for that, but it certainly could be a condition of employment.
Comment by Steve Polite Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:13 pm
== Passing bills for firefighters these days is much easier than passing bills for police. ==
Exactly what I’ve been thinking. Cantanzara and the other FOP bosses revel in loudly throwing red meat to the rank and file — it certainly helps them get re-elected to their union posts. But it comes with a price: they alienate the legislators they need in Springfield to get the pension changes they want.
I grew up around a lot of Chicago cops and firefighters and I can tell you that the fireman are every bit as politically conservative as the cops. But the firefighters have politically savvy union leaders who are more interested in getting things done for their members than they are interested in seeing themselves on TV or social media.
Comment by Tony T Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:15 pm
Will be interesting to see if Martwick campaigns on this if he runs for mayor in 2023.
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:17 pm
===if he runs for mayor in 2023===
lol
He’s not running.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:18 pm
I’m with Cheryl44. get the damn shots.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:18 pm
I’m with Cheryl44 too. Get the shots. City can’t afford this.
Comment by The Swede Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:24 pm
Vote should be the same as it was for HB2451. Either you believe this is the proper pension accounting or you don’t. The annuitants’ profession is irrelevant.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:25 pm
Let me get this straight — funding “probable liabilities”? Lock in the costs for laws that haven’t passed yet, under the guise of “fiscal responsibility”, and then when lawmakers pass the law to increase benefits, it won’t “cost” anything because the costs are already guaranteed under the law?
It’s almost a perfect three card monte act.
Comment by Phineas Gurley Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:31 pm
Parity right? Front line is still front line
Comment by Frank talks Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:35 pm
Not the first time Martwick has acted irresponsibly.
Comment by Old Lobster Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:37 pm
@Rich - Interesting because I thought he was thinking about it. I wonder if it’s because he doesn’t think he can win a citywide race. He certainly has a lot of opinions on how the city should be run.
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 3:42 pm
They could go back to what they always used to do; instead of eliminating the date just move the date from 1966 to 1970 or 71. That would have a much smaller impact on the liability, though that would continue the dishonest practices of the past. But if it costs less, it might be the lesser of two evils.
Comment by Telly Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 4:04 pm
=== remove a requirement that police retirees be born before 1966 to be eligible for a 3% automatic annual increase ===
Sure, for fully vaccinated police retirees born after 1966, otherwise that a big NO.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 4:14 pm
Police combative ways make finding common ground and passing police bills difficult?
It’s the old belief, the worse the client, the better the people needed in representing them.
Lodge #7 leadership is no help.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 5, 21 @ 4:28 pm
Old Lobster,
And it won’t be the last time he acts irresponsibly either.
Comment by Out of Illinois Monday, Nov 8, 21 @ 10:30 am