SB1895 amends the Illinois Pension Code section governing the State Universities Retirement System (SURS) final rate of earnings calculation for Tier 2 members. For employees paid hourly or on an academic-year installment salary, the bill would allow the final average annual earnings to be calculated using the greater of two methods: the current 96 consecutive months with the highest earnings within the last 120 months, or the highest 8 consecutive academic years within the last 10 years of service. The bill states that this change is a correction and clarification of existing law and would apply retroactively to January 1, 2011.
The measure also preserves the existing rules for Tier 1 members and other categories of employees, while leaving in place related provisions on leave, disability, overtime limits, excluded compensation, and the 20% annual earnings increase cap. In practical terms, the bill appears aimed at ensuring that certain SURS Tier 2 academic employees are not disadvantaged by the earnings averaging formula and may receive a higher pensionable final rate of earnings if the academic-year method is more favorable.
Impact
SB1895 would amend 40 ILCS 5/15-112 in the State Universities Article of the Illinois Pension Code, changing how final rate of earnings is determined for Tier 2 SURS members who are hourly employees or who are paid in academic-year installments. By adding an alternative calculation based on the highest 8 consecutive academic years within the prior 10 years, the bill could increase pension benefit calculations for some affected employees and potentially increase employer and system liabilities. The bill also declares the amendment retroactive to January 1, 2011, which could affect past and pending benefit determinations for eligible members.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears supportive of SURS Tier 2 employees, particularly academic staff whose earnings patterns may not be fully captured by a 96-month averaging method. The sponsor’s framing of the change as a correction and clarification suggests the bill is intended to address an interpretation issue rather than create a wholly new benefit.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is fiscal impact: expanding the earnings calculation to the more favorable of two methods could raise pension benefits and system costs for SURS and participating employers. Another possible issue is the retroactive application back to 2011, which may prompt concerns about reopening settled benefit calculations or creating administrative complexity. Support would likely come from affected university employees, unions, and pension advocates, while opposition would likely come from fiscal watchdogs, budget-focused legislators, or employer representatives concerned about added liabilities.