Editorial: Taxpayers lose in same old game on pensions

A lot has been going on in Illinois government lately, what with COVID-19 vaccine rollout, legislative and congressional redistricting, and a new House speaker for the post-Madigan era.

But then something comes along that hearkens back to our pre-coronavirus era and reminds us that the big problems facing the state then still challenge us now.

We're talking about public pensions, and a recent suburban episode warrants a reminder of the responsibility all public officials have to guard taxpayers' dollars.

The Daily Herald's Christopher Placek broke the story of an apparent side channel effort to help Elk Grove Township Elementary District 59 Superintendent Art Fessler maximize his pension benefits while leaving his $292,908-a-year job. Coming up 170 days short of the service time needed for the full pension, Fessler was to work a staff position at a Bartlett outdoor education center run by the Mount Prospect-based Northwest Suburban Special Education Organization. That initiative fell apart amid fallout from NSSEO partner school districts and board members who found out about the deal from Placek's news story.

The case raises questions: Was there a job opening at NSSEO? Was the job publicized? Why was the NSSEO governing board unaware when the District 59 board, which had not renewed Fessler's contract, was clued in?

On the pension front, there's a whiff of the misguided logic that has driven up costs for decades: It's not "our" money we're spending; it's the state's. It's hard to imagine the NSSEO idea getting so far along if either District 59 or NSSEO had to kick in for the added retirement income that 170-day job would afford Fessler for the rest of his life. But the state Teachers' Retirement System, not the local districts, handles benefits for retiring educators.

It's still taxpayers' money, and pension costs cut deeply into Illinois' ability to pay for schools, law enforcement and other priorities. Local public school authorities have to act like that matters.

Almost a decade ago, lawmakers pushed to shift the cost of teacher and administrator pensions onto local schools for this very reason. The idea was that school boards would control costs only if they had some skin in the game.

We acknowledged the logic but opposed the plan as potentially decimating for suburban school districts. Though we're still uneasy about simply dumping the pension problem on local schools, episodes like this one involving Fessler, District 59 and NSSEO sure weaken our argument.

District 59 taxpayers lose on another front. They'll pay extra for the district exceeding a limit put in place by lawmakers to control pension costs. The $40,000 Fessler will get for 35 unused vacation days puts him over the 6% limit on annual increases in pay, on which pensions are based.

The penalty: $10,000.

When it comes to tackling public pension costs, see how far we've come?