Not all rehired retirees attempt to 'game' the system

From Ron Baker, April 25, 2011
Subject: HB 202

Dear Kathie,

I read your blog tonight about HB 202. I hope you are against this law! I retired, after thirty years, from teaching in 2006. Six months later, I returned to the field because there was a need for teachers at a DD school near me. To meet requirements, I took additional college classwork and earned masters degrees in Special Education and in Early Childhood. If HB 202 passes, then I am not sure if I can keep my job. I have invested a great deal of time and money to get trained for the job I now hold. My retirement will not pay for my student loans, house payment, and car payment. I probably don't need to tell you that a retired teacher does not earn that much money. After 34 years of teaching and three masters degrees, my current salary is $39,000. I pay into the retirement system 10% from this salary. I am very worried about the future of education in Ohio.

Please reply to my email. Thank you.

Ron Baker

--------

From STRS report on April 2011 board meeting:

On April 13, Rep. Richard Hollington introduced House Bill 202. This bill includes provisions dealing with reemployed public employees. Basically, it would require anyone who is receiving retirement benefits from one of the Ohio systems, including STRS Ohio, to forfeit $1 of their retirement benefit for each $2 earned above an annual threshold amount of $14,160. This threshold amount, or "excess earnings base" as it is referred to in the bill, would be adjusted each year by the actual average increase, if any, in the consumer price index (CPI).

Here's an example of how a reemployed retiree's pension could be reduced: Assume a retiree is receiving a yearly pension of $38,000. This individual returns to work in a public position covered by one of the Ohio retirement systems and receives an annual salary of $35,000. This salary exceeds the threshold amount of $14,160 by $20,840. The retiree's pension would be reduced by $10,420 (one-half of the excess amount). The bill's language does not detail how this new rule would be implemented, monitored or enforced.