RH Jones: Treasurer's cost analysis of HB 315 correct?
RH Jones to Norton School Board treasurer, December 3, 2007
Subject: Treasurer's cost analysis of HB 315 correct?
Treasurer Stephanie Hagenbush of the NSB:
Re: HB 315 (The employer/employee increase for retired educator health care.)
At the Special Norton School Board (NSB) meeting of 10.22.07 a resolution was introduced by Mr. Collins, and was passed by a 5-0 vote, to oppose HB 315. I am concerned as to how the NSB arrived at $244-million cost figure to the Norton property owners - this resolution 07-214 states that: “it equates to .81 mills or 5.05 teachers”.
It seems to me that the cost of HB 315 would be modest compared with the costs to Norton for the many educators that will have to work on until they are eligible for Medicare. And, if some do not have a spouse that is eligible for Medicare, they would have to work on even further in their careers in Norton. Were not these longevity figures given a cost analysis? If not, why were they not? Without a proper cost analysis, how can the NSB vote in good conscience? Was inflation of the dollar taken into consideration in this negative NSB decision? After a more thorough and proper cost analysis is made, I think the NSB should reconvene in a special session to reconsider and change their negative vote.
It is my opinion that the NSB rubber-stamped 5-0 an under researched and wrongful decision made by the Ohio School Boards Association. And for the NSB to go on and put their names to such a misguided resolution that denies health care funds for their retired teachers is “beyond the pale” and even “hard-hearted” – especially when done so near to Christmastime. I seriously think the NSB made a thoughtless mistake.
As a retired teacher living and voting since moving here in 1960, my wife and I, who are childless, have never voted against a school levy. And there are many other retired educators living in Norton; and who, also, are informed voters. We spend our STRS checks in Norton businesses. And since having been promised by our school district employers, health care in our retirement, we will have to look very closely in the future at voting positive for new school levies, and at who is setting on our NSB.
Furthermore, we retired educators now pay 48% of our income on health care. In 2020,or so, we will pay 100%. So, without HB 315 being enacted into law, we will have even less to spend in Norton in the future. Note: also, without HB 315, the STRS cannot legally spend more of its budget on retiree health care.
Please respond.
Sincerely,
Robert Hudson Jones
Norton, OH, Ward 1, House District 41
CC: Sen. Kevin Couglin, Rep. Brian Williams
Subject: Treasurer's cost analysis of HB 315 correct?
Treasurer Stephanie Hagenbush of the NSB:
Re: HB 315 (The employer/employee increase for retired educator health care.)
At the Special Norton School Board (NSB) meeting of 10.22.07 a resolution was introduced by Mr. Collins, and was passed by a 5-0 vote, to oppose HB 315. I am concerned as to how the NSB arrived at $244-million cost figure to the Norton property owners - this resolution 07-214 states that: “it equates to .81 mills or 5.05 teachers”.
It seems to me that the cost of HB 315 would be modest compared with the costs to Norton for the many educators that will have to work on until they are eligible for Medicare. And, if some do not have a spouse that is eligible for Medicare, they would have to work on even further in their careers in Norton. Were not these longevity figures given a cost analysis? If not, why were they not? Without a proper cost analysis, how can the NSB vote in good conscience? Was inflation of the dollar taken into consideration in this negative NSB decision? After a more thorough and proper cost analysis is made, I think the NSB should reconvene in a special session to reconsider and change their negative vote.
It is my opinion that the NSB rubber-stamped 5-0 an under researched and wrongful decision made by the Ohio School Boards Association. And for the NSB to go on and put their names to such a misguided resolution that denies health care funds for their retired teachers is “beyond the pale” and even “hard-hearted” – especially when done so near to Christmastime. I seriously think the NSB made a thoughtless mistake.
As a retired teacher living and voting since moving here in 1960, my wife and I, who are childless, have never voted against a school levy. And there are many other retired educators living in Norton; and who, also, are informed voters. We spend our STRS checks in Norton businesses. And since having been promised by our school district employers, health care in our retirement, we will have to look very closely in the future at voting positive for new school levies, and at who is setting on our NSB.
Furthermore, we retired educators now pay 48% of our income on health care. In 2020,or so, we will pay 100%. So, without HB 315 being enacted into law, we will have even less to spend in Norton in the future. Note: also, without HB 315, the STRS cannot legally spend more of its budget on retiree health care.
Please respond.
Sincerely,
Robert Hudson Jones
Norton, OH, Ward 1, House District 41
CC: Sen. Kevin Couglin, Rep. Brian Williams
posted by Kathie Bracy at 10:14 PM
<< Home