Letters                                                         

Retirees' benefits
labeled as state government's
second pension 'deficit'

Editor: Jennifer Halperin's story on the $12.9 billion state of Illinois pension debt in the July Illinois Issues ignores a second "deficit" plaguing the Illinois state-funded pension systems — the inadequate and substandard pension benefits provided by state-funded pension systems.

Ms. Halperin apparently missed the recent study by the Wisconsin Retirement Research Committee. This study confirmed once again that pension benefits for Illinois state employees covered by the State Employees Retirement System (SERS) are tied for last place among the 50 states.

Employees at normal retirement age with 30 years of service in public retirement systems comparable to the SERS retire with an average pension benefit of over 57 percent of final average salary (usually an average of the last three to five years of salary), according to a recent study by the Public Pension Coordinating Council. An identical SERS retiree gets only 34 percent of final average salary — appalling by any measure.

Teachers Retirement System (TRS) and State Universities Retirement System (SURS) benefits are not as meager (to make up for the fact that these employees are not covered under Social Security), but they are well below average. According to the same study, employees at normal retirement age with 30 years of service in public pension systems comparable to TRS and SURS receive an average pension benefit of nearly 68 percent of their final average salary. A comparable TRS or SURS retiree will receive a pension benefit of only 55.7 percent of final average salary.

So the fact is that Illinois' "pension deficit" is a deficit of both funding and benefits. It makes no sense to fix the funding deficit and ignore the benefit deficit. AFSCME maintains that Illinois' shameful pension funding policies and benefit structures must be addressed by the governor and the General Assembly together, in one package, if we are to responsibly address both deficits.

Would five freshman male
Republican senators support
Comptroller Netsch on
social issues?

Editor: I read Jennifer Halperin's fine article on the pension deficit, but one aspect of the article is troubling.

In demonstrating that this issue has produced some unlikely partners, she cites Dawn Clark Netsch whom she describes as the "state's socially liberal female comptroller." She then indicates that this issue also has the support of "five male freshman Republican senators," and says nothing about their views on social issues. Did she ask them? Are we to assume because these senators are Republican males, that they are conservative on social issues?

Cicero attempting to protect
community, not to
discriminate against Latinos

Editor: It was with interest that I read your guest column by Rob Paral, "Chicago's Latinos not so different after all" (June 1993).

Having represented Cicero for some 13 years now in all or in part, formerly having covered Cicero for a suburban newspaper for 12 years and formerly having one's family hail from Cicero, it is always interesting to see how the town is portrayed in the press.

The Cicero Latino population is an exciting component of the town which has been home to many immigrant populations since its inception, the Latinos just being the latest wave. I think the Latino population is settling in as other groups did before. Sure, there are some rubs that come with the meeting of different cultures, but that, too, is nothing more than human nature — and given a few years and getting to know one another, usually works out. The Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Lithuanians, Dutch, Italians

(Continued on page 15)

August & September 1993/Illinois Issues/13

Letters                                                         

Continued from page 13

and Greeks who live or lived in Cicero all ultimately came together to form a pretty fine municipality which, like many mature, inner-ring suburbs to Chicago, has changed over the years.

Where I would take exception to Paral's column regards the issue of the U.S. Department of Justice coming down on Cicero for trying to enforce a local ordinance to control, to some extent, residential living space. Although Mr. Paral makes a good argument that Cicero has always been densely populated by large families — often extended families, in earlier immigrations to Cicero in the first quarter of this century, no one really looked at questions that a dense population base would and did create, including problems in sanitation, public health, the environment, on-street parking, school and classroom size, adequate police and fire protection and other social services.

As America, Illinois and Cicero grew to maturity and to a greater sensitivity to establishing a good life for its citizens, the catch-as-catch-can earlier days were traded in for the more regulated aspects of modern American life.

I nor anyone else in today's world is going to put up with any attempts at discrimination in terms of housing. However, in the U.S. Department of Justice situation, no attempt by Justice has been made to look at what happens to old recycled housing when it is crammed to overcapacity with humanity so as to strain the ability of the town of Cicero or any other older community to provide the best possible services to its constituents and residents.

I think that what Cicero has tried to do was done without discrimination and rancor; rather, an attempt was made to ensure good housing stock, good schools that are not overcrowded, strong social services, good police and fire protection, and so on. A sense of balance is in order by the Department of Justice, and this has not been forthcoming. Plus, this heavy-handed attitude on the part of Justice does not only affect Cicero, but indeed, will have a reverberating effect on all inner-ring and older suburbs as they seek to maintain themselves for the good of the order.

We have asked the Illinois Department of Human Rights to meet with Justice and with the town of Cicero to find some common ground on this issue. To date, the U.S Department of Justice arrogantly refuses to return calls to the Illinois Department of Human Rights, and when Cicero sends complaints from residents as to the overcrowding of their neighborhoods to Justice, Justice calls it "harrassment."

Suffice to say, Cicero is a good solid town, which often gets a bad media rap courtesy of a long-gone Al Capone. Things can only get better in a town where kolacky and tacos are sold side by side; where the Houby (the Czechoslovak word for "mushrooms") Queen in the annual Houby Parade and Pageant has been Czech, Italian, Jewish, etc.; where ethnic groups maintain their respective identities, customs, language skills, newspapers et al, while blending into American life overall; where a variety of languages come together in English with a multitude of accents.

Cicero is no different than municipalities all over the U.S. experiencing the same thing. There is no reason to single it out; there is every reason to encourage its successes.

Townships: no justification
for expense of entire
layer of government

Editor: I write in response to letters that appeared in May 1993 Illinois Issues concerning the abolition of township government.

It is difficult to believe the writers were serious in their attempts to justify government patronage and wasteful spending.

Anthony F. Spina's humorous defense of the duplication of coterminous townships and the absurd proposal to abolish cities merits no further reply.

I sympathize with Daniel B. Hanna's concerns about human services. My sister is a person with mental retardation, and I am always pleased when government supports that cause. That is no justification for an entire layer of government.

Simply stated, the township layer of government is an extra expense taxpayers do not need. The confusing assessment practices at the township level noted in Illinois Issues in "The state of the State" (June 1993) deprives taxpayers of uniform assessment that county government would provide.

Political patronage and serving special interests are the only arguments townships can (unconvincingly) make.

Taxpayers should no longer be forced to support such nonsense. It is time representatives free taxpayers of this wasteful burden.

As a member of the Township Study Group and editor of TSG News, a comprehensive report on township government in Illinois, I would like to offer your readers a free copy of our monthly newsletter. Readers interested in a free subscription can write: TSG News, P.O. Box 3106, Rock Island, IL 61204 or call (309) 794-0714.

Continued on page 16

August & September 1993/Illinois Issues/15

Letters                                                         

Continued from page 15

Readers: Your comments on articles and columns are welcome. Please keep letters brief (250 words); we reserve the right to excerpt them so that as many as space allows can be published. Send your letters to:

Correction:

We've gone to remedial math class as a result of a miscalculation in our July story about riverboat gambling. We were correct to say that the state and riverboat towns split a $2 admission tax per gambler and that they share 20 percent off the top of gambling revenues, called the wagering tax. But our example of tax revenue gained from a gambler who lost $100 went astray when it asserted that the state's take would be $75 and the local share would be $25. Actually, the state would receive $16 (half the head tax and three-quarters of the wagering tax); the local community would receive $6 (half the head tax and one-quarter of the wagering tax). Illinois Issues regrets the error.

16/August & September 1993/Illinois Issues