Molly and Mary Ellen: How come THEY get the 88% and WE get the crumbs?
From: Mary Ellen Angeletti
Subject: Fwd: 35 yr rule Study
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005
Dr. Asbury and STRS Board members, I agree with everything that Molly says in this email. This inequity in retirement benefits MUST be studied completely and presented to our members. We deserve no less. We refuse to sit by and allow our pension system to be bankrupted by even more poor planning. These decisions (SB190) were made at a time when STRS money was considered to be Dyer's money to do with as he pleased. Statements were being made such as "STRS has more money than they know what to do with". Also Dyer was saying that STRS should get out of the health care business. IF you check, at least three STRS Board members (at that time) directly benefitted by this 35 years enhancement benefit of 88%. Mary E. Angeletti
From: Molly Janczyk
Date: November 20, 2005
To: Damon Asbury
Subject: 35 yr rule Study
It is all well and good to say not to disturb this and those that have, have. But, with all the talk, it does raise issues to the forefront. Retirees have a right to know how this rule : 35 yr enhancement impacts the pension system for all retirees-future and current. Not all want to or can go 35 yrs. and if they are being penalized by lack of funding due to overpaying others , as Dave Parshall says: Are we seting up a 2 party retire system: -the haves with 88% -the have nots with their paltry 66 or whatever %. Are they being punished for not working 35 yrs due to health, family responsibilities, etc.?
A true study on how this impacts ALL retirees AND STRS needs done and presented TO ALL MEMBERSHIP-not just those who CAN work 35 yrs.
DOES the 35yr enhancement/88% rule offset the 30 yr educator in pay outs by STRS due to 35 yr. retirees not taking from system for 5 add'tl yrs?
A study of this never has been presented to us; only STRS saying so.
HOW does it compare with OPERS payouts at 30 and 35 yrs.?
Isn't 35 yr. addt'l retirement step increase enough to work for vs. another 'sweet deal' the OEA dominated board approved for themselves?
Figures can be made to show many things:
We'd like a REAL study by YOU and others to show how the 35% rule affects our funds vs. NOT having it and just having increased %'s for add'tl years i line with the other increases.
I think OPERS should be called in to compare like areas and contrast others.
And factor in: -age for retirement being increased as with OPERS so we are not drawing as early and contributing longer. (grandfathered of course) -20 YR MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE AS WITH OTHER WORK FORCES! One of the troubles STRS has had is paying for all-down to 5 years in the past. -If you can afford to retire at 20 yrs: sliding scales for ALL medical costs: copays, deduc., RX's, etc. NOT simply premiums to REWARD CAREER TEACHERS: Rt. now, a 15 yr. educator gets all benefits I do for 30+ yrs. except they pay an add'tl premium for HC. ((THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE DISABILITY OF COURSE: SEPERATE SITUATION)). Again, this would be grandfathered 3-5 yrs. out to allow time for planning and working longer: CHOICES WE WERE NEVER GIVEN: WE WERE JUST SLAMMED !) THESE AREAS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR 3 YRS! YET, NO RESPONSE! COST SAVING AREAS! NOT APPLES AND ORANGES BUT CONSISTENT WITH PRUDENT AND CONSERVATIVE PLANNING AS OPERS VS LET'S GIVE IT ALL OUT TILL WE RUN OUT!
Subject: Fwd: 35 yr rule Study
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005
Dr. Asbury and STRS Board members, I agree with everything that Molly says in this email. This inequity in retirement benefits MUST be studied completely and presented to our members. We deserve no less. We refuse to sit by and allow our pension system to be bankrupted by even more poor planning. These decisions (SB190) were made at a time when STRS money was considered to be Dyer's money to do with as he pleased. Statements were being made such as "STRS has more money than they know what to do with". Also Dyer was saying that STRS should get out of the health care business. IF you check, at least three STRS Board members (at that time) directly benefitted by this 35 years enhancement benefit of 88%. Mary E. Angeletti
From: Molly Janczyk
Date: November 20, 2005
To: Damon Asbury
Subject: 35 yr rule Study
It is all well and good to say not to disturb this and those that have, have. But, with all the talk, it does raise issues to the forefront. Retirees have a right to know how this rule : 35 yr enhancement impacts the pension system for all retirees-future and current. Not all want to or can go 35 yrs. and if they are being penalized by lack of funding due to overpaying others , as Dave Parshall says: Are we seting up a 2 party retire system: -the haves with 88% -the have nots with their paltry 66 or whatever %. Are they being punished for not working 35 yrs due to health, family responsibilities, etc.?
A true study on how this impacts ALL retirees AND STRS needs done and presented TO ALL MEMBERSHIP-not just those who CAN work 35 yrs.
DOES the 35yr enhancement/88% rule offset the 30 yr educator in pay outs by STRS due to 35 yr. retirees not taking from system for 5 add'tl yrs?
A study of this never has been presented to us; only STRS saying so.
HOW does it compare with OPERS payouts at 30 and 35 yrs.?
Isn't 35 yr. addt'l retirement step increase enough to work for vs. another 'sweet deal' the OEA dominated board approved for themselves?
Figures can be made to show many things:
We'd like a REAL study by YOU and others to show how the 35% rule affects our funds vs. NOT having it and just having increased %'s for add'tl years i line with the other increases.
I think OPERS should be called in to compare like areas and contrast others.
And factor in: -age for retirement being increased as with OPERS so we are not drawing as early and contributing longer. (grandfathered of course) -20 YR MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE AS WITH OTHER WORK FORCES! One of the troubles STRS has had is paying for all-down to 5 years in the past. -If you can afford to retire at 20 yrs: sliding scales for ALL medical costs: copays, deduc., RX's, etc. NOT simply premiums to REWARD CAREER TEACHERS: Rt. now, a 15 yr. educator gets all benefits I do for 30+ yrs. except they pay an add'tl premium for HC. ((THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE DISABILITY OF COURSE: SEPERATE SITUATION)). Again, this would be grandfathered 3-5 yrs. out to allow time for planning and working longer: CHOICES WE WERE NEVER GIVEN: WE WERE JUST SLAMMED !) THESE AREAS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR 3 YRS! YET, NO RESPONSE! COST SAVING AREAS! NOT APPLES AND ORANGES BUT CONSISTENT WITH PRUDENT AND CONSERVATIVE PLANNING AS OPERS VS LET'S GIVE IT ALL OUT TILL WE RUN OUT!
posted by Kathie Bracy at 11:58 PM
<< Home