A 'Set-up' to exploit OH STRS members?

From RH Jones, July 7, 2009

Dennis, Dave, John & Kathie,

Is there no one out there that agrees with me? I'm wondering if I am right or wrong. If I'm right, this practice of Akron/Cleveland "new Job plan" must be stopped in its tracks. It is hurtful to the STRS to artificially inflate the final 3-yr. average.

Bob

From RH Jones, July 5, 2009
Subject: A "Set-up" to exploit OH STRS members?

To all:

The Akron Beacon Journal, reporter John Higgins' article, 07/05/09, “B” Section, front page, reports: “Teachers to hear new job plan”[also posted below].

In this article, I wonder if Akron Board of Education (ABE), and the independent Akron Education Association (AEA), and Cleveland, must have sat up nights for a month figuring out how to try to exploit the STRS. Both active and retired teachers should be concerned that the “new job plan” relies on the STRS funds to create incentives to get career teachers to retire. This weakens the already weakened STRS.

The following is my brief synopsis of how they are proposing to do this is: They would add 10 days of work, without “kids”, to the year doing paper work (busy work?). They would be paid a daily rate of 3% of their top year salary for 2-years. And by “bumping up” the 3-yr. final average salary, just before retirement, would effectively increase the size of their pension. Note: For the complete story please read the Beacon article.

Of course, getting top paid experienced educators to retire saves districts money but costs the STRS. The district gains in short term but a further weakening of the retirement system benefits no one, not even the early retiring teacher. How well-off will they be in a few years without health care (HC), prescription insurance (Rx), and the simple 3% COLA? Note: unfortunately pension cuts are being currently being considered. And, further, when the age of Medicare comes around, will the STS have enough money to support the original reimbursement? Will the STRS be able to give them an inflation fighting supplemental (13th) check? Active teachers not ready to retire will also lose due to the further burdening of an already burdened system that has generously issued the 88% 35-yr. retirement for recent retirees -- a generosity that the STRS could not afford.

Every knowledgeable person knows that the older retired educators have already been burdened with cuts. To districts, unions, some active teachers, trying to gain at the expense of other educators, either active or retired, and me is unconscionable. It further weakens an already weakened retirement system.

This hurtful scheme was devised to spend $14-million in stimulus money to hire and fill new positions to improve literacy and special education. Surely Washington does not want these improvements to come, in part, at the expense of Ohio’s STRS, and especially those who would be hurt the most: the older retired teachers.

I strongly urge all caring individuals to not allow this “new job plan” to come to fruition. The 3-year final average salary computation should not be artificially “bumped-up”. The STRS was not formed to supplement school districts funding. It was formed to be a retirement system for educators. The “new job plan” should not, and cannot, be allowed to happen! This is solely my input and opinion, sadly stated.

Robert Hudson Jones, A retired Akron teacher member of the STRS, and the past treasurer of the AEA