Student Trustee and Pension

University student leaders and some staffers were overlooked in the Illinois Senate last week as the student trustee bill stalled and the health care premium amendment was defeated. But, both parties say all hope is not yet lost.

SIUC staffer Ruth Pommier, a supporter of the health care amendment, remains optimistic about the issue and says she refuses to feel disenfranchised by the vote.

I don’t view this as a failure, Pommier said. I’ve seen a real sense of empowerment evolve because of this. In 10 weeks, we formed a statewide coalition. There were enormous obstacles we were working against the administration and the governor.

We were so near and yet so far away.

Pommier refers to an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, R-Okawville, aimed at revising the 1997 Pension Bill to include a stipulation allowing workers to retain their old pension packages. Pommier and about 700 other SIUC workers criticized the original bill’s line requiring retirees with fewer than 20 years of service to assume 5 percent of their health care premium costs.

Luechtefeld’s amendment was defeated 28-10, lacking the three-fifths majority necessary to pass the Senate.

Patty Schuh, Senate Republican press secretary, said that because the pension bill has a provision effective date of Jan. 1, the amendment is dead and will not be revived in the spring session. However, Schuh said the health care premium issue could surface again in another form.

The concept could still be alive if they found something else, she said.

Pommier said a new avenue might be opening for the passage of the health insurance provision.

Mitch Vogel, president of the University Professionals of Illinois (UPI), a collective bargaining unit representing state university faculty and staff, said in an interview with WIUM radio at Western Illinois University that he is prepared to sue the state of Illinois and Central Management Services if the 1997 Pension Bill goes into effect Jan. 1, 1998.

He cites Article 13, Clause 5 of the Illinois Constitution as grounds for the suit.

Jim Hacking, director of the State University Retirement System, said the article prevents the impairment of pension benefit rights.

Hacking, a good friend of Vogel, said the UPI president contends that pension benefit rights extend to health insurance benefits. He also said Vogel cannot initiate a lawsuit until Jan. 1 and only if a worker decides to retire because of the bill’s health insurance line.

Vogel was not available for comment.

Also last week, the newest student trustee bill, House Bill 2364, ended its veto session run Friday in the Senate Executive Committee, where it will be delayed until the committee meets again.

Senate rules stipulate that a bill must be posted six days in advance for it to be called. Schuh said because the bill was posted Nov. 12, three days before the veto session ended, it had no chance of being heard.

There was no way the Senate could have taken it up, she said. There was just no time to do it. But, it will be kept on the calendar.

Schuh said there is a good chance the committee will meet during the off-session. If it does not, the bill returns to the Rules Committee in the spring. Schuh said Sen. Stan Weaver, R-Urbana, sponsor of the bill, chairs the committee so it is quite likely that HB 2364 will be called.

You could safely say this bill is not dead, Schuh said. There could be a hearing on it at any time, otherwise it’s up to Sen. Weaver and what we wants to do.

HB 2364 is the result of an extensive bipolar debate on the function and selection process of student trustees. The original bill, HB 923, was designed to give student trustees a binding vote on their respective boards while retaining the practice of campus elections.

Edgar rejected the bill with an amendatory veto July 31, citing the need for screening committees to replace the elections as the selection mechanism. In opposition to the veto, student leaders mounted an aggressive lobbying effort Oct. 9 in an attempt to persuade legislators to push for an override.

Instead of an override, two opposing bills were introduced. One mirrored all of Edgar’s changes, and the other retained student trustee elections. The House Higher Education Committee called the former and amended it to include the election provision. Following the committee vote, the full House passed the new bill, HB 2364, 115-2. The legislation now awaits Senate approval.

SIUC Student Trustee Pat Kelly, a supporter of the bill, is invigorated by Schuh’s statements and predicts successful passage in the spring.

I’m hopeful, and I’m confident, he said. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It (the bill) just seems to have a life of its own. I think it should go through the Senate in the spring.

Though he will not lead the charge anymore, Kelly said he will continue to promote HB 2364.

We need to concentrate on thanking the (representatives) for getting this through, and then we have to start talking to senators, Kelly said.

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, is disappointed with the results of the veto session. Bost said both bills were sensible and should have been passed.

The health insurance amendment, he said, was quashed thanks to the heavy lobbying efforts of northern legislators who do not represent university constituencies. He also said that the Bureau of the Budget offered inflated figures with regard to pay-out costs associated with Luechtefeld’s bill.

The bureau estimated it would cost the state $98 million over five years to finance the transition.

It’s disappointing, Bost said. They (the bureau) gave the worst-case scenario. With these high figures and a lot of the northern legislators leading the fight against it, it died.

Once again, it’s amazing. No man’s life, liberty and property are safe when the legislature is in session.

Hacking said the figures quoted by the bureau are highly suspect and probably influenced the Senate’s vote.

These numbers are not hard and fast numbers, he said. They’re all over the place.

The SIUC administration opposes both HB 2364 and Luechtefeld’s amendment.

Garrett Deakin, SIU lobbyist, said that while the University supports its workers and students, the two proposals were not suitable from an administrative perspective. He blamed time for their unsuccessful run.

We would love to see legislation to help any of our employees, he said, but the issue is too late now.