Bill to prevent double dipping awaits Quinn signature

Bill to prevent double dipping awaits Quinn signature

SPRINGFIELD — A bill that would place new limits on universities' ability to rehire employees who have retired is awaiting Gov. Pat Quinn's signature.

The measure, passed unanimously by the House and Senate late in the spring session, would force universities to reimburse the State Universities Retirement System for pensions paid to employees who are rehired after Aug. 1, 2013, work more than 18 weeks, and earn more than 40 percent of their final salary in a single academic year.

The bill, HB4996, was originally sponsored in the House by Rep. Daniel Biss, D-Skokie, and in the Senate by Chicago Democrats Heather Stearns and Jacqueline Collins.

It was intended to prevent manipulation of the pension system by employees who retire and then go back to their old jobs on a part-time basis to secure a hefty raise when pensions and salaries are combined, Biss said. The practice is referred to as "double dipping."

Employees who retire at age 60 are only allowed to earn the difference between their final salary and their pension if they decide to take a part-time job after retirement, he said. So if a worker was earning $100,000 at retirement, and his SURS pension is $75,000, his maximum earnings are limited to $25,000.

But the only restriction on workers who retire before age 60 is that they cannot earn more than their pension. So someone who retires at 59.5 under that same scenario could earn up to $74,999 in retirement, effectively receiving a 50 percent raise, he said.

That creates a "perverse incentive" for the university and employees to retire early, Biss said.

"You don't want people leaving at 59 so they can offload a portion of their compensation to the pension system," he said.

Biss said that happened recently at Northeastern University, where a senior administrator in his late 50s retired, then was rehired for his old job and wound up earning 50 percent more combined. In years past, some UI administrators also retired only to be hired back on a contract basis for a few years.

"It's a great deal for everybody except the taxpayers backing the pension system," Biss said.

Under the new law, if a retiree returns to teach several courses in a given year and earns half of his old salary, then the following year the UI would have to reimburse SURS for that employee's pension.

The bill was amended to push implementation back to the 2013-14 academic year.

Several exceptions are cited in the bill, including faculty who are paid with federal grants or other outside support, which benefits the university and its students, Biss said. The law also makes exceptions for medical emergencies or the death of a faculty member.

In one recent case on the Urbana campus, a faculty member had a health problem midway through the semester, so a retired professor was brought in to teach the remainder of the class, said Maureen Parks, UI associate vice president for human resources.

At the UI Chicago, a physician retired who had specialized in pediatric craniofacial surgery, repairing cleft palates in children. The UI hired another surgeon, but that doctor left after a year to move back to California, Parks said.

The retired physician has been brought back part-time to treat the children who were awaiting surgery at the UI Medical Center while the university conducts another search, Parks said.

The exceptions are particularly important given the growing number of retirements at the UI, she said.

"We wanted to make sure we'd be able to teach classes, keep the lights on, take care of patients and continue our research," she said.

Biss said he worked closely with officials from the UI, Western Illinois and Northern Illinois universities so that their concerns are reflected in the final version of the bill.

Biss said he doesn't mind if a professor comes back to teach for a semester, or perhaps one course a year. But he wants to avoid long-term manipulation of the system.

"Thanks in part to the university's input, I think the bill will accomplish that," he said.

The UI has had a policy since 2006 allowing the rehire of retirees to specific circumstances, such as faculty who conduct grant-funded research, or teach or provide patient care part-time, or those appointed "when other options are not feasible." The policy emphasizes that the UI will not rehire retirees solely to save money by shifting costs to SURS and says the board of trustees must approve any senior administrators who are reappointed to similar positions after they retire.

At the Urbana campus, retired employees can only be hired for a year at a time, cannot work more than half-time and must abide by SURS earnings limits.

But the new law has stricter limits and would require the UI to do further tracking to determine how long an employee works after retirement, and how much they're earning, and report that information back to SURS, Parks said. That would cover everyone from professors to extra help who come back and work at football games or Broadway shows at the Assembly Hall.

SURS will also have to provide additional records for employees who may have worked at another state university before retirement but now want to work part-time at the UI, she said.

"We don't necessarily know if somebody's retired from Parkland or Eastern or Illinois State," she said. "The onus is on the university, not the employee."

If the university fails to comply with the statute, it is subject to fines.

"It's going to be tough to administer," agreed William Mabe, executive director of SURS.

He said institutions need flexibility to fill vacancies, but SURS also needs young employees to maintain its financial solvency. Allowing retirees to return to help an institution through a transition is helpful, but "we don't really want to get in a situation where we don't hire new people," Mabe said.

(Note: An earlier version of this story had incorrect information about which conditions must be met before universities are liable for the pensions paid to employees they rehire.)

Text of bill: http://bit.ly/Nwp64N

Links to UI policies:

Trustees policy: http://bit.ly/LkFctD

Campus guidelines: http://bit.ly/MBczIE

In Sunday's News-Gazette: Number of UI employees entering retirement picks up.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

jdmac44 wrote on June 13, 2012 at 8:06 am

Yeah, that's brilliant, send those part-time retirees home and hire someone full-time with benefits, that'll show 'em.

Brownie wrote on June 13, 2012 at 9:06 am

There you have it.  One way to look at it is that the employee gets a big raise.  The other way is to actually do the full analysis of what it's costing the state.  If the position needs to be refilled, you get someone who doesn't need training, and costs much less than a new employee in salary and benefits.  I guess someone could play the system and "retire" when they wouldn't normally retire in order to get a raise, but in my experience as a University employee I don't know of that happening.

Bulldogmojo wrote on June 13, 2012 at 9:06 am

How about we eliminate termination contracts for University management, academics and APs. You lose your position for whatever reason and you have two years at full pay and benefits before you have to actually leave. Gimme a break! What kind of real contribution do they think those people make during those two years they are sliding out? Close the job immediately or give the job to someone who actually needs and wants the job.

jdmac44 wrote on June 13, 2012 at 10:06 am

Amazing how they got that deal in the first place, and they supposedly don't have a real union!

ClearVision wrote on June 19, 2012 at 1:06 pm

You need to get some facts before commenting. Start with the "two years" bit.

basset wrote on June 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm

The News Gazette repoted "aid to any employee who is rehired and earns more than 40 percent of their final salary in a given year OR works more than 18 weeks.   Are you sure it isn't AND - please check the legislation as this is a big difference.  

basset wrote on June 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Here is the text of the bill, which implies both conditions must be met:

 

 

A person receiving a retirement annuity from the Systembecomes an "affected annuitant" on the first day of theacademic year following the academic year in which theannuitant first meets both of the following conditions:        (1) While receiving a retirement annuity under this6     Article, the annuitant has been employed on or after August7     1, 2013 by one or more employers under this Article for a8     total of more than 18 paid weeks (which need not have been9     with the same employer or in the same academic year);10     except that any periods of employment for which the11     annuitant was compensated solely from federal, corporate,12     foundation, or trust funds or grants of State funds that13     identify the principal investigator by name are excluded.14         (2) While receiving a retirement annuity under this15     Article, the annuitant was employed on or after August 1,16     2013 by one or more employers under this Article and17     received or became entitled to receive during an academic18     year compensation for that employment in excess of 40% of19     his or her highest annual earnings prior to retirement;20     except that compensation paid from federal, corporate,21     foundation, or trust funds or grants of State funds that22     identify the principal investigator by name is excluded.23     A person who becomes an affected annuitant remains an24 affected annuitant, except for any period during which the25 person returns to active service and does not receive a26 retirement annuity from the System.

 

Julie Wurth wrote on June 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Profile Picture

Thanks for your note. We consulted again with SURS and it is correct that both conditions have to be met. The story has been updated to reflect that, and a correction will be published in Friday's News-Gazette.

For further information, visit the SURS website: http://bit.ly/MtIsp8

 

sanjuan wrote on June 13, 2012 at 7:06 pm

I guess we're not worried about letting the facts get in the way of our posts.  APs do NOT under any circumstances get two years after a T-contract.  It is one year, but ONLY if the employee has worked full-time for more than 7-years and ONLY if the termination is for financial reasons only.  Since the financial problems are out of the employee's control, that doesn't seem all that odd.  The employee is expected to continue to work as normal during that time and, since they need a good reference for a new job, they aren't likely to do anything to jeopardize that. APs can, of course, be fired for cause at anytime.  And, in the interest of not being accused of hiding anything, the termination notice period for AP employees with between 4 and 7 years service is prorated. 

 

It should also be noted that APs are not paid overtime and many, if not most, frequently work far more than 40 hours.  My last week was 68 hours long, for example.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on June 19, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Profile Picture

I think I've asked for this before, so pardon the repetition ... can someone please research & report the number of public employees who currently draw a salary AND a pension check?

 

There are many, right here in town.

 

The pension system is the problem, right? It was intended to see people through their elder years, yeah? 

Sid Saltfork wrote on June 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm

I would add the ex-legislators, and governors who head up "academic affiliated" institutes that are politically affiliated.  The ones I saw as a state employee were the higher administrators; not the front line, retired employees.  To assume that the front line, retired employees are the problem is far fetched.  If the state had a data base of double-dipping retirees for the public like the current data base of current employees, the public would see that the higher ups are the violators.