Trina imparts more of her infinite wisdom to STRS board; too bad the truth doesn't make us proud to be members of such a weak pension system

Trina Prufer's speech to STRS board

May 20, 2026

"Should STRS even be called a retirement system if it does not meet even the most minimal standards of adequacy?"

My name is Trina Prufer, and I was a School Psychologist for 20 years.

The question I would like to address is:

Should a public retirement system, in a non–Social Security state, like STRS, EVER NOT have the funding architecture to support the payment of a COLA?

The pension literature repeatedly refers to “benefit adequacy” as the ability to provide a lifetime benefit, of about 70% replacement, throughout a 30 year retirement. At 60% replacement, members are able to adapt, but by 50%, and below, retired classroom teachers are in grave danger of not being able to meet basic needs. Many pre-2012 retirees, who retired at 66% more than14 years ago, are already at this stage.

The longer retirees live, the poorer they become in real terms. That is especially devastating for those who taught in low wealth districts, survivors, and the disabled, many of whom cannot return to the workforce to offset inflation losses.

Does STRS even track benefit adequacy? Of course it does, although members would never know this from what is presented at public meetings. However, I have no doubt that everyone here knows exactly what happens to retired teachers over time. That is their job.

Is STRS unique in its callousness? Most certainly. But why? Because it is the only public teacher retirement system in the nation, without Social Security, that removed the COLA after retirees were already in retirement status. It did so by claiming the system always had the legal right to reduce or eliminate the COLA for those already retired, but never acknowledged that members were led to believe that the COLA was an integral part of the benefit.

If this claim had been true, shouldn’t members have been provided with full disclosure? Of course. That would have been the obligation of STRS acting as a fiduciary. Because this was not revealed in benefit estimates, plan booklets or the ORC, members had inaccurate information in choosing whether to take the PLOP or not, as the risk of inflation was not a known factor.

Attaining 100% funding is nothing to be proud of if the system does so by impoverishing its most vulnerable members. The true measure of a retirement system is not whether the fund survives, it’s whether the people who devoted their lives to public education can survive along with it. That’s a pretty low bar. Should STRS even be called a retirement system if it does not meet even the most minimal standards of adequacy?