Given Illinois' widening deficit and the repeated calls from editorial boards across the state to enact budgetary reforms, we were astonished to notice in recent weeks that not one major publication covered the final report issued last month by Gov. Pat Quinn's Pension Modernization Task Force.

The silence can be interpreted in a few ways. Maybe local reporters didn't think the report newsworthy because it was only approved by a plurality of the participants, not a majority.  Or perhaps the conclusions were ignored because they did not reinforce the opinions of most editorial boards across Illinois, which have consistently claimed that the size of state employee benefits packages are too large and have contributed heavily to the state's fiscal crisis.

That being said, the report finally garnered some attention yesterday when Illinois Statehouse News (ISN) -- a new online outfit in Springfield -- dug into the findings. Reporter Ben Yount accurately pointed out that, regardless of whether the legislature chooses to change the pension plan for future employees, the state will still need to cover its existing (and long overdue) pension obligations.  Yount also quoted AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall questioning the theory that offering future state employees a "defined contribution" retirement package (like a 401k) will provide noticeable cost savings:

Right now, the state does not pay Social Security benefits for public school teachers.  Teachers are the largest group covered by state pensions.  Switching from the defined benefit plan to a defined contribution system would force Illinois to pay those costs for hundreds of thousands of teachers across the state, [Lindall] said.

And the state would have to pay every year.  Lawmakers have skipped pension payments in the past.   The General Assembly has also refinanced the pension debt and borrowed to make payments.

There's one big problem with the piece, however: Yount doesn't ever specifically describe Quinn's pension reform proposal.

Back in the spring, the governor rolled out what the press called a "two-tiered" pension system for state workers: Current employees would receive their promised level of benefits when they retire, but new hires will face reduced benefits and, in some cases, a later retirement date. This plan is very different from state government choosing to offer a "defined-contribution" plan, which is what Lindall is quoted critiquing in Yount's article. In fact, Quinn told the GateHouse News Service last month that he is "committed to maintaining a defined benefit plan for all public employees, both current and future."

Even worse, the "defined contribution" plan has actually been proposed by the leading Republican gubernatorial candidates as a way to solve the budget crisis. Strangely, Yount doesn't mention them or any other Republicans in the piece.

UPDATE (3:15 pm): ISN editor Scott Reeder just wrote in to inform us that he has edited out the two paragraphs highlighted in the item above.  

To be clear, though, our fundamental problem with the piece is that it never explains in detail what Quinn is proposing and how it is distinct from the pension proposals being put forth by the Republicans.  When there are different types of "two-tiered" plans floating around, it's not enough to simply tell readers that Quinn proposes a "two-tiered" plan.