RH Jones: It is good policy for school boards to support HB 315

From RH Jones, September 20, 2007
Subject: It is good policy for school boards to support HB 315

To all, especially members of the Ohio School Boards Association:

The following are some comments to me by K. Fluke, PhD., retired STRS annuitant member: “Why would any member of the Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA) be against HB 315 – the bill that would improve funding for the Health Care (HC) for retired teachers?

It is costly for school board districts to pay educators until age 65 and beyond – clients are not eligible for Medicare until the client age 65. The reasoning is: (1) Without HC coverage, they are more likely to stay on staff until age 65. Therefore they are more expensive than the younger employee who is at a lower pay scale. And, they generally require high paid premiums for HC/Rx, dental, eye and ear coverage paid for by the boards. Many boards are at tough negotiations, in sharp disagreement and are out of harmony with the unions over active teacher costs for HC benefits. Note: The younger educator tends to be healthier. (2) Although in general, some 65-year-old educators may be able to relate to the current lifestyle trends of the young, the 20-year-old employee would seem to be able to relate better, and to be educated in the newer teaching styles. Note: The general public usually prefers a gradual turnover and change of the educational atmosphere. (3) HB 315 is a fair pro-rated bill that has gradual increases in employer/employee percentages over 5-years. Therefore there is time for adjustment of the personnel budget.”

As retired annuitants, as Dr. Fluke and I, the writer, view the HB 315: When educators begin to retire earlier, it would be a board of education money saver for them and give them a chance to gain school faculties that are better balanced in age and teaching techniques.

Respectfully submitted by:
Robert Hudson Jones, STRS Ohio retired teacher annuitant