Latest news with #BetterGovernmentAssociation
Chicago Tribune
27-05-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Civic leaders: State lawmakers still have time to adopt a measured fix for Tier 2 pension problem
Illinois faces a defining fiscal challenge: a staggering $144 billion in unfunded liabilities across its five state pension systems. This immense burden strains state resources; crowds out critical investments in education, public safety and infrastructure; and undermines economic confidence. Meaningful pension reform isn't just desirable; it's essential for Illinois' future solvency and prosperity. And a 'fix' to one key pension issue — the need to address some evident shortcomings in the state's Tier 2 pensions — could yet happen before the legislature adjourns on May 31. The Civic Committee, Civic Federation and Better Government Association have consistently advocated for comprehensive solutions to address this major, intractable issue. Today, we urge the legislature to take a careful and fiscally responsible approach to a specific aspect of the system that demands attention: the growing concern that Tier 2 pensions will eventually fall short of federal 'safe harbor' rules that ensure public pension benefits are deemed equivalent to those paid to Social Security recipients. Tier 2 refers to the benefit structure offered to people who started working for the state on or after Jan. 1, 2011. The cost-saving new tier raised the retirement age, capped pensionable salaries, lengthened the number of years of salary used to calculate benefits and reduced post-retirement benefit increases. These changes significantly improved the trajectory of Illinois' pension systems, but they also put Tier 2 pensions at future risk of violating safe harbor rules. Gov. JB Pritzker's budget proposal currently under consideration in Springfield includes a plan to address this risk. Specifically, his plan calls for a $78 million set-aside to address potential Tier 2 compliance costs. This measured approach does what responsible fiscal management requires: It acknowledges the Tier 2 risk, sets aside funds and stops short of overcommitting before more is known. That is the right approach. Similarly, any permanent changes to Tier 2 should only proceed based on clear, actuarially sound analysis. A well-justified fix is appropriate and necessary but only when federal requirements are in jeopardy, and only to the extent required to meet those legal obligations. Once a pension benefit is promised in Illinois, the state constitution prevents it from ever being reduced or revoked. We strongly caution against any effort to turn this Tier 2 fix into an opportunity to add enhancements — so-called 'sweeteners' — that would deepen Illinois' already-substantial pension challenges. Lawmakers should resist that temptation. A responsible Tier 2 fix is one of 10 principles of pension reform our organizations published last fall to guide fair and sustainable pension policy. Illinois desperately needs progress on pensions; this measure is an essential building block for the larger solution ahead. What the state does not need, and cannot afford, is any form of pension 'reform' that makes matters worse. A Tier 2 fix should be no more than is needed, when it is needed, as determined by reliable, public-facing estimates of timing and cost. At present, the analysis showing exactly when a Tier 2 fix is required simply is not available. No state official, agency or consultant has put out a comprehensive estimate of how many employees or retirees might be affected and when. Such data is needed in order for policymakers, and the public, to understand both the scale of the problem and the timeline by which it must be addressed. Likewise, there is no complete estimate for some of the more ambitious proposals put forward by those arguing to 'undo Tier 2' by essentially replacing those pensions with the higher level of benefits that put Illinois' pension systems into such fiscal trouble in the first place. For example, cost estimates for a bill backed by a coalition of unions do not include cost projections for local plans, which would also be covered by the bill. Implementing pension changes without knowing the true cost is one of the original sins of past pension reforms — a grave mistake state lawmakers must not repeat this time. The magnitude of potential costs for making changes to Tier 2 benefits underscores the importance of being cautious. According to a report by the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, implementing the bill would increase the state's pension liabilities by roughly $60 billion and would increase required contributions to the pensions by $30 billion through 2045. This is hardly the first time these data deficiencies have been brought to light: The Tribune Editorial Board made a similar argument in February, and other civic leaders have said as much, too. Now is the time for policymakers and the public to focus on gathering the essential data that can help draw the map toward responsible pension reform. Only then will we know if Pritzker's proposed $78 million set-aside is the appropriate target number, one that will address Tier 2's shortcomings and set the stage for tackling even greater pension challenges still ahead.
Chicago Tribune
17-04-2025
- Health
- Chicago Tribune
Mark Clifton: How consolidating mosquito control in Cook County would backfire
Consolidation advocates such as the Better Government Association and the Civic Federation are taking a dangerous gamble with public health in Cook County — and it's the residents who stand to lose. Critics of Illinois' special-purpose districts argue that mosquito abatement districts (MADs), despite their essential role, are an anachronism. They claim that folding MAD responsibilities into municipal or county government would save money, improve efficiency and increase accountability. But these promises lack any evidence at all — and the risks are higher than most people realize. In fact, consolidating MADs could undermine public health at the worst possible time. First and foremost, climate change is amplifying the threat posed by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests. Rising temperatures are expanding the ranges and seasons of vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks and rodents — along with the diseases they carry. The Chicago region is already a hot spot for the West Nile virus, and climate change will intensify the danger. Without sustained and proactive control, more people will become ill from vector-borne diseases than we've seen in generations. This isn't alarmism — it's the consensus of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cook County's MADs are preparing for that future. Last year, the state legislature passed Public Act 103-0932, expanding MAD authority to address emerging threats from ticks and rats as well as mosquitoes. Far from being outdated, MADs are evolving to meet the moment. Consolidation advocates rarely acknowledge this progress, the dire prognosis for the future or the increased risk residents would face if these specialized agencies were weakened or dismantled. There's also a troubling disconnect between consolidation advocates and the actual work of mosquito control. Many proponents of consolidation seem to have little understanding of what MADs do — or little interest in learning. Before pushing for drastic structural changes, it's critical to engage with the people who deliver these services every day. MADs are transparent, cost-effective and accountable to local taxpayers. Reorganizing them without due diligence undercuts the credibility of those calling for reform. More importantly, health departments, cities and counties all have a poor track record of managing mosquito control programs. A 2023 report by the National Association of County and City Health Officials found that 89% of local health departments and 90% of city and county mosquito programs 'needed improvement.' In contrast, just 38% of mosquito abatement districts nationwide were flagged for improvement. MADs were six times more likely to be 'fully capable' than other governments. NACCHO's conclusion was clear: We may need more MADs, not fewer. Real-world failures make the risks of consolidation clear. In 2012, Dallas County, Texas' under-resourced program failed to stop a West Nile virus outbreak that sickened nearly 1,000 people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and killed almost 20. In 2016, the overwhelmed mosquito control system in Miami-Dade County, Florida, struggled to contain Zika, leading to $30 million in emergency response costs. That wake-up call prompted a major investment — Miami-Dade now spends $14 million annually on mosquito control, 86% more per capita than suburban Cook County. In 2021, Maricopa County, Arizona, faced one of the largest West Nile virus outbreaks in U.S. history, with more than 100 deaths and over 1,500 becoming seriously ill. In each case, mosquito control programs embedded within county or health department structures failed to prevent disaster. And if you think it can't happen here, think again. In 1975 and 2002, the Chicago region experienced deadly mosquito-borne disease outbreaks that resulted in dozens of fatalities. History shows what happens when mosquito control is underfunded, underprepared or ignored. There are also serious environmental risks to consider. MADs provide expert-led, comprehensive and ecologically informed services that balance public health needs with environmental protection. In contrast, under-resourced or substandard county programs leave gaps that push residents toward fragmented, do-it-yourself efforts using over-the-counter pesticides. This every-household-for-itself approach can significantly increase pesticide use, harming pollinators and increasing overall pesticide load on the environment. Illinois is home to endangered species such as the monarch butterfly and the rusty patched bumblebee — both of which are vulnerable to uncoordinated, excessive or indiscriminate pesticide applications. A balanced, communitywide strategy remains the most effective way to protect public health while preserving local ecosystems. Finally, consider the timing. Earlier this year, the federal government blocked more than $400 million in current and future CDC grants to the Illinois Department of Public Health. These funds help support mosquito disease surveillance, especially in areas without a MAD. If mosquito control had been consolidated under the county government, as consolidation advocates suggest, many communities would now be facing serious gaps in protection. In fact, many communities outside of Cook County are going to face serious gaps in protection because of this funding hole. However, residents in MAD-covered areas remain protected, thanks to local funding that doesn't fluctuate with state or federal budgets. And this example is exactly why MADs exist: to provide consistent, reliable protection now and in the future. Yes, Illinois may have an abundance of local government units. But targeting MADs as an example for consolidation is misguided. These districts are necessary, effective and critical to public health in an era of accelerating climate change and emerging disease threats. MADs save lives and not just money. If the goal is to streamline local government, there are plenty of other places to start. But rolling the dice on mosquito control is a gamble we can't afford to take.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Reformers push Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to adopt Law Department changes
CHICAGO — Would-be reformers are firing back against Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's administration, arguing ethics changes targeting the city's Law Department can move forward. Inspector General Deborah Witzburg first proposed the changes last month in an effort to bolster her office's investigative independence. The mayor-controlled Law Department has long hindered investigations that 'may result in embarrassment or political consequences to City leaders,' she told aldermen. A Johnson ally quickly stalled the reform package when it was introduced at the City Council. The mayor's corporation counsel, Mary Richardson-Lowry, also blasted it as a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the law.' But a legal opinion the Better Government Association announced Tuesday determined Richardson-Lowry is wrong to argue such changes would be prohibited by state and city law. 'The answer is no, there are no such prohibitions of which I am aware or have been able to identify,' attorney Matt Topic of law firm Loevy & Loevy wrote in the non-binding opinion the BGA obtained from the firm. The Law Department did not immediately respond to questions about the opinion Tuesday morning. Witzburg's 14-page letter to aldermen that sparked the debate said the Law Department under Johnson and other mayors selectively impeded investigations by withholding records, slow-walking compliance with inspector general's office subpoenas and demanding top mayoral lawyers be allowed to attend confidential investigative interviews. She asked aldermen to change city law to eliminate the Law Department's discretion over inspector general subpoena enforcement, block city attorneys from sitting in on investigative interviews and prevent the department from asserting attorney-client privilege to avoid sharing records. After Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, proposed an ordinance last month aligned with Witzburg's recommendations, Richardson-Lowry argued the reforms 'would dismantle guardrails.' She told reporters the ordinance was 'legally deficient on its face' and added Witzburg had not asked her for a legal opinion. 'There has been no such request, but we will be issuing a full-throated legal opinion on the issues that she surfaced,' Richardson-Lowry said. 'And we will share it with the aldercore, who should be privy to why the thing that she's proposing fails on its face.' Witzburg told the Tribune she did ask Richardson-Lowry for a legal opinion, but in response received legal analysis that she felt did not clearly respond to the proposed ordinance. The Law Department did not immediately share any such analysis when asked Tuesday. The inspector general praised the BGA-commissioned legal opinion as 'helpful and clarifying.' She believes Johnson's opposition to the ordinance is a 'policy position,' she said. The mayor's administration may not prefer the changes she proposed, but that does not make them illegal, she argued. 'There are no legal barriers to these changes,' Witzburg said. 'There's a choice here for the city to make between the status quo and a better, more accountable government.' The proposed changes held up in the City Council's Rules Committee would bring Chicago more in line with other major cities, BGA Vice President Bryan Zarou said. There is 'absolutely no legal impediment' blocking the ordinance, he added. 'If they are trying to make a political argument, then we are fine with it,' Zarou said. 'But if they are making a legal argument, it is not legally sound, unless they come up with something we haven't seen yet.' Martin said he met with the Law Department earlier this month to start 'flushing out concerns' about the ordinance and will continue the discussions. He plans to move forward with a revised version of the ordinance, he said. 'I feel confident that we will be able to move forward with an ordinance that addresses any remaining legal concerns that the Law Department has,' Martin said. 'I think that the Law Department shared their concerns, some of which they characterized as legal and some of which they characterized as policy.' The ongoing Law Department tiff is far from Johnson's first tense run-in with ethics reform groups and the inspector general. He pushed back against efforts to restrict lobbyist donations to mayoral candidates last year. Johnson has also harshly criticized calls for more transparent handling of gifts since a late January report by Witzburg said the mayor improperly blocked public access to City Hall's gift room and failed to properly log gift information. ____
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Reformers push Mayor Brandon Johnson to adopt Law Department changes
Would-be reformers are firing back against Mayor Brandon Johnson's administration, arguing ethics changes targeting the city's Law Department can move forward. Inspector General Deborah Witzburg first proposed the changes last month in an effort to bolster her office's investigative independence. The mayor-controlled Law Department has long hindered investigations that 'may result in embarrassment or political consequences to City leaders,' she told aldermen. A Johnson ally quickly stalled the reform package when it was introduced at the City Council. The mayor's corporation counsel, Mary Richardson-Lowry, also blasted it as a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the law.' But a legal opinion the Better Government Association announced Tuesday determined Richardson-Lowry is wrong to argue such changes would be prohibited by state and city law. 'The answer is no, there are no such prohibitions of which I am aware or have been able to identify,' attorney Matt Topic of law firm Loevy & Loevy wrote in the non-binding opinion the BGA obtained from the firm. The Law Department did not immediately respond to questions about the opinion Tuesday morning. Witzburg's 14-page letter to aldermen that sparked the debate said the Law Department under Johnson and other mayors selectively impeded investigations by withholding records, slow-walking compliance with inspector general's office subpoenas and demanding top mayoral lawyers be allowed to attend confidential investigative interviews. She asked aldermen to change city law to eliminate the Law Department's discretion over inspector general subpoena enforcement, block city attorneys from sitting in on investigative interviews and prevent the department from asserting attorney-client privilege to avoid sharing records. After Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, proposed an ordinance last month aligned with Witzburg's recommendations, Richardson-Lowry argued the reforms 'would dismantle guardrails.' She told reporters the ordinance was 'legally deficient on its face' and added Witzburg had not asked her for a legal opinion. 'There has been no such request, but we will be issuing a full-throated legal opinion on the issues that she surfaced,' Richardson-Lowry said. 'And we will share it with the aldercore, who should be privy to why the thing that she's proposing fails on its face.' Witzburg told the Tribune she did ask Richardson-Lowry for a legal opinion, but in response received legal analysis that she felt did not clearly respond to the proposed ordinance. The Law Department did not immediately share any such analysis when asked Tuesday. The inspector general praised the BGA-commissioned legal opinion as 'helpful and clarifying.' She believes Johnson's opposition to the ordinance is a 'policy position,' she said. The mayor's administration may not prefer the changes she proposed, but that does not make them illegal, she argued. 'There are no legal barriers to these changes,' Witzburg said. 'There's a choice here for the city to make between the status quo and a better, more accountable government.' The proposed changes held up in the City Council's Rules Committee would bring Chicago more in line with other major cities, BGA Vice President Bryan Zarou said. There is 'absolutely no legal impediment' blocking the ordinance, he added. 'If they are trying to make a political argument, then we are fine with it,' Zarou said. 'But if they are making a legal argument, it is not legally sound, unless they come up with something we haven't seen yet.' Martin said he met with the Law Department earlier this month to start 'flushing out concerns' about the ordinance and will continue the discussions. He plans to move forward with a revised version of the ordinance, he said. 'I feel confident that we will be able to move forward with an ordinance that addresses any remaining legal concerns that the Law Department has,' Martin said. 'I think that the Law Department shared their concerns, some of which they characterized as legal and some of which they characterized as policy.' The ongoing Law Department tiff is far from Johnson's first tense run-in with ethics reform groups and the inspector general. He pushed back against efforts to restrict lobbyist donations to mayoral candidates last year. Johnson has also harshly criticized calls for more transparent handling of gifts since a late January report by Witzburg said the mayor improperly blocked public access to City Hall's gift room and failed to properly log gift information.
Chicago Tribune
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Reformers push Mayor Brandon Johnson to adopt Law Department changes
Would-be reformers are firing back against Mayor Brandon Johnson's administration, arguing ethics changes targeting the city's Law Department can move forward. Inspector General Deborah Witzburg first proposed the changes last month in an effort to bolster her office's investigative independence. The mayor-controlled Law Department has long hindered investigations that 'may result in embarrassment or political consequences to City leaders,' she told aldermen. A Johnson ally quickly stalled the reform package when it was introduced at the City Council. The mayor's corporation counsel, Mary Richardson-Lowry, also blasted it as a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the law.' But a legal opinion the Better Government Association announced Tuesday determined Richardson-Lowry is wrong to argue such changes would be prohibited by state and city law. 'The answer is no, there are no such prohibitions of which I am aware or have been able to identify,' attorney Matt Topic of law firm Loevy & Loevy wrote in the non-binding opinion the BGA obtained from the firm. The Law Department did not immediately respond to questions about the opinion Tuesday morning. Witzburg's 14-page letter to aldermen that sparked the debate said the Law Department under Johnson and other mayors selectively impeded investigations by withholding records, slow-walking compliance with inspector general's office subpoenas and demanding top mayoral lawyers be allowed to attend confidential investigative interviews. She asked aldermen to change city law to eliminate the Law Department's discretion over inspector general subpoena enforcement, block city attorneys from sitting in on investigative interviews and prevent the department from asserting attorney-client privilege to avoid sharing records. After Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, proposed an ordinance last month aligned with Witzburg's recommendations, Richardson-Lowry argued the reforms 'would dismantle guardrails.' She told reporters the ordinance was 'legally deficient on its face' and added Witzburg had not asked her for a legal opinion. 'There has been no such request, but we will be issuing a full-throated legal opinion on the issues that she surfaced,' Richardson-Lowry said. 'And we will share it with the aldercore, who should be privy to why the thing that she's proposing fails on its face.' Witzburg told the Tribune she did ask Richardson-Lowry for a legal opinion, but in response received legal analysis that she felt did not clearly respond to the proposed ordinance. The Law Department did not immediately share any such analysis when asked Tuesday. The inspector general praised the BGA-commissioned legal opinion as 'helpful and clarifying.' She believes Johnson's opposition to the ordinance is a 'policy position,' she said. The mayor's administration may not prefer the changes she proposed, but that does not make them illegal, she argued. 'There are no legal barriers to these changes,' Witzburg said. 'There's a choice here for the city to make between the status quo and a better, more accountable government.' The proposed changes held up in the City Council's Rules Committee would bring Chicago more in line with other major cities, BGA Vice President Bryan Zarou said. There is 'absolutely no legal impediment' blocking the ordinance, he added. 'If they are trying to make a political argument, then we are fine with it,' Zarou said. 'But if they are making a legal argument, it is not legally sound, unless they come up with something we haven't seen yet.' Martin said he met with the Law Department earlier this month to start 'flushing out concerns' about the ordinance and will continue the discussions. He plans to move forward with a revised version of the ordinance, he said. 'I feel confident that we will be able to move forward with an ordinance that addresses any remaining legal concerns that the Law Department has,' Martin said. 'I think that the Law Department shared their concerns, some of which they characterized as legal and some of which they characterized as policy.' The ongoing Law Department tiff is far from Johnson's first tense run-in with ethics reform groups and the inspector general. He pushed back against efforts to restrict lobbyist donations to mayoral candidates last year.
