Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An example that you may be familiar with already, or can easily find out about.
Early 2000’s, a well known band teacher at Lewis Palmer high school suddenly is no longer the band teacher, but instead he moved into a much higher paid administrator position at the school. He stays three or four more years and then retires. The result? Depending on the exact rules in place at the time, he has a pension that is based in whole or in part on an administrator salary level rather than a band director salary level.
Are you unaware of this type of thing happening?
If the taxpayers approve of a salary and retirement package for music teacher, but end up paying retirement for a higher paid administrator, there’s a problem. Is it allowed for under the contract? Most assuredly. But it is certainly not what the taxpayers believed they were signing up for.
Police officers in many departments are able to do this. Just before retirement, they are making their normal salary of $80,000. But then by working significant overtime, and cashing in vacation and sick time, suddenly they have qualifying compensation of $150,000, and a pension based on $150,000 rather than $80,000. Do you believe that the taxpayers knew they were signing up for this?
Well, school board meetings are open to the public. There are no secrets, except in terms of legal confidentiality.
But I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. When you hire someone with a contract that promises x, y, and z, you honor that contract. If you want to change contracts, you change the contracts of new employees. If you stray from that principle, then no contracts are valid.
Well, school board meetings are open to the public. There are no secrets, except in terms of legal confidentiality.
Except the tax paying public doesnt care, until it hits them in the pocketbook. Fact.
Then the payers get concerned. Also a fact. That is how government works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
But I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. When you hire someone with a contract that promises x, y, and z, you honor that contract. If you want to change contracts, you change the contracts of new employees. If you stray from that principle, then no contracts are valid.
I could not agree more. Except in many places (see California, Illinois and New York as examples) the contract changing never happens. Especially when you have powerful public sector labor factions, hand in hand with govt itself, "lobbying" for the govt workers, then the same old, same old goes on until it will all collapse.
Except the tax paying public doesnt care, until it hits them in the pocketbook. Fact.
Then the payers get concerned. Also a fact. That is how government works.
I could not agree more. Except in many places (see California, Illinois and New York as examples) the contract changing never happens. Especially when you have powerful public sector labor factions, hand in hand with govt itself, "lobbying" for the govt workers, then the same old, same old goes on until it will all collapse.
Okay, that is how government works. Government is elected. Don't like who's elected...get involved.
Well, school board meetings are open to the public. There are no secrets, except in terms of legal confidentiality.
That’s a cop-out and you know it.
Quote:
But I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. When you hire someone with a contract that promises x, y, and z, you honor that contract. If you want to change contracts, you change the contracts of new employees. If you stray from that principle, then no contracts are valid.
Do you approve of what I have described?
Perhaps my example hits a little close to home for you. . .
An example that you may be familiar with already, or can easily find out about.
Early 2000’s, a well known band teacher at Lewis Palmer high school suddenly is no longer the band teacher, but instead he moved into a much higher paid administrator position at the school. He stays three or four more years and then retires. The result? Depending on the exact rules in place at the time, he has a pension that is based in whole or in part on an administrator salary level rather than a band director salary level.
Are you unaware of this type of thing happening?
If the taxpayers approve of a salary and retirement package for music teacher, but end up paying retirement for a higher paid administrator, there’s a problem. Is it allowed for under the contract? Most assuredly. But it is certainly not what the taxpayers believed they were signing up for.
Police officers in many departments are able to do this. Just before retirement, they are making their normal salary of $80,000. But then by working significant overtime, and cashing in vacation and sick time, suddenly they have qualifying compensation of $150,000, and a pension based on $150,000 rather than $80,000. Do you believe that the taxpayers knew they were signing up for this?
Except teachers can't typically pension stuff. Moving into administration is just about the only way teachers can increase their salary (most systems don't count emoluments such as for coaching or department chair {I got $750/year as one. It was cut to $375] for pension purposes.
And, in reality, school based administrators don't really make that much more than senior teachers in many systems.
I've mentioned this before, but my take home was less at year 30 than at year 20. Over the course of that 10 years steps had been eliminated for those over 20 years and we received a cumulative 2.5% COLA during that time. My pension contribution alone increased from 5% to 7%, not to mention negotiated increases in what I paid for insurance.
Had I gone in administration for that last 10 years I don't know what my exit pension would have been because, while teachers were frozen administrators still received COLAs. But, I was still making more than one of our VPs.
Well, school board meetings are open to the public. There are no secrets, except in terms of legal confidentiality.
But I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. When you hire someone with a contract that promises x, y, and z, you honor that contract. If you want to change contracts, you change the contracts of new employees. If you stray from that principle, then no contracts are valid.
In the school district in question, personnel matters are handled in executive session which isn't open to the public. This is very common, as I'm sure you know.
In the school district in question, personnel matters are handled in executive session which isn't open to the public. This is very common, as I'm sure you know.
The ones I'm familiar with, and keep in mind I come under Open Meetings law wearing one of my hats, things like promotions, while discussed in executive session, have to be confirmed publicly. In many cases so do terminations.
Perhaps my example hits a little close to home for you. . .
No, it isn't a cop out. Except when the names of students or, sometimes, the names of adults working for the school district are being discussed (personnel decisions), school board meetings are open to the public, and school board members can be questioned about hiring policies and benefits.
In your many posts, I have noted your tendency to believe that everyone has to respond to your posts in the way you want them to respond. Well, sorry Charlie, I'm going to respond in the way that reflects my POV.
What you don't seem to understand is that the issue you're describing isn't just the gods of education or police standing on high and saying, "Oh let's toss out oodles of bennies for all our people". The benefits develop because the government agencies involved are trying to attract candidates to take the jobs that are open and that requires competition with other agencies hiring from the same pool of candidates. I have seen the flight of good teachers from Prince Georges County in Maryland to Montgomery County in Maryland and Northern Virginia school systems. And it was salary, benefits, and retirement benefits (along with teaching conditions) that brought along the flight. Especially with most teachers who are raising a family, they have to look at where will I be paid the most and receive the most positive benefits.
I don't care what profession it is, private or public, when a company or government entity offers benefits in a contract, those benefits need to be paid off. There's no justification for CHEATING and suddenly changing the rules in the middle of the game. If you want to change the rules, you do so for future employees, not the people you've already contracted with.
In the school district in question, personnel matters are handled in executive session which isn't open to the public. This is very common, as I'm sure you know.
Which is exactly what I meant by legal confidentiality. It isn't "common", it's required by law.
However, talk about benefits and pensions and such is not legally confidential. There's nothing secret about what these policies are, and many school systems and states post them right on the internet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
