|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 26, 2010 9:01:25 GMT -6
I think that any School District including D204 needs to reevaluate how they determine which teachers are to be given pink slips. Tenure alone as the absolute criteria is absurd. No one including the teachers can guarantee that a tenured teacher is potentially twice as effective or valuable as one who does not have as many years under their belt. In fact they in many cases are more valuable because they were " learning " about real life cases while they were happening in the real world and real world discussions and business cases. They are also more inclined to use current technology like the "magic blackboards" than lets say a tenured teacher just putting in their time. They generally have more energy and have not developed bad habits. I am not trying to slight our senior staff but telling us that a teacher is more/less qualified because they haven't been around long enough is somewhat discriminatory and just not true. Somewhere along the line they have equated length of service with quality and skill - not always so. You have to think that for every (1) old teacher we keep we have to let (2) non-tenured teachers go. Which means larger classrooms and higher pupil to teacher ratio. That can be avoided. Lastly I think that paying a Kindergarten or 1st Grade teacher $100k or more is insane. Nuff said. agreed - there has to be a measurement system, but the union will not allow it. Even the current president feels this way and we do not agree on too many items. Now putting in a word for older teachers- 2 of the most effective teachers @ Benet have 40 years + in -- yet they are more energentic than most people I know. One still coaches a varsity team ( and doing very well)- is there at 6 Am available for the kids and there after school. And the results of their classrooms speak for themselves - so I am not ready to make the jump that the younger ones are more prepared. It is a teacher to teacher decision that has to be made - but can't be done when they all get the same raises, all get lumped together in results etc. Much like the 70% pension plans- just not operating in the real world. Oh, and larger classrooms are coming - 35 likely...more ? possible? That also will free up even more than the 3807 open seats in ES today...school consolidations may be fast and furiuous because let's face it, the 2 biggest returns on cuts are people and bricks & mortar. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 26, 2010 9:08:07 GMT -6
I think that any School District including D204 needs to reevaluate how they determine which teachers are to be given pink slips. Tenure alone as the absolute criteria is absurd. No one including the teachers can guarantee that a tenured teacher is potentially twice as effective or valuable as one who does not have as many years under their belt. In fact they in many cases are more valuable because they were " learning " about real life cases while they were happening in the real world and real world discussions and business cases. They are also more inclined to use current technology like the "magic blackboards" than lets say a tenured teacher just putting in their time. They generally have more energy and have not developed bad habits. I am not trying to slight our senior staff but telling us that a teacher is more/less qualified because they haven't been around long enough is somewhat discriminatory and just not true. Somewhere along the line they have equated length of service with quality and skill - not always so. You have to think that for every (1) old teacher we keep we have to let (2) non-tenured teachers go. Which means larger classrooms and higher pupil to teacher ratio. That can be avoided. Lastly I think that paying a Kindergarten or 1st Grade teacher $100k or more is insane. Nuff said. You and I are thinking alike twhl, last night on the other thread i posted similar sentiment: As far as the unions go, they should understand that just like America walked away from the U.S. car companies when the competition was better, they will walk away from other things as well...as the trade shows are now walking away from Chicago. The current structure of education is already starting to crack as well with parents challenging the tenure and seniority rules. Eventually productivity will have to be addressed as well. Why not use Rosetta stone to assist in teaching language. Can history and geography be taught from interactive software? My bet is in the future it will be. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424....mCJ_h#printModewww.publicbroadcasting.net/kplu/n....ty.Reconsideredspecial.registerguard.com/jobs/teacher-seniority-rules-challenged/pattyebenson.wordpress.com/2010/0....seniority-rule/www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-e.... stion-10022201 |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Feb 26, 2010 9:30:17 GMT -6
I think that any School District including D204 needs to reevaluate how they determine which teachers are to be given pink slips. Tenure alone as the absolute criteria is absurd. No one including the teachers can guarantee that a tenured teacher is potentially twice as effective or valuable as one who does not have as many years under their belt. In fact they in many cases are more valuable because they were " learning " about real life cases while they were happening in the real world and real world discussions and business cases. They are also more inclined to use current technology like the "magic blackboards" than lets say a tenured teacher just putting in their time. They generally have more energy and have not developed bad habits. I am not trying to slight our senior staff but telling us that a teacher is more/less qualified because they haven't been around long enough is somewhat discriminatory and just not true. Somewhere along the line they have equated length of service with quality and skill - not always so. You have to think that for every (1) old teacher we keep we have to let (2) non-tenured teachers go. Which means larger classrooms and higher pupil to teacher ratio. That can be avoided. Lastly I think that paying a Kindergarten or 1st Grade teacher $100k or more is insane. Nuff said. I agree, but am also doubtful it would every happen. Unions are all about unity, until it means any risk to the old timers and leadership, even those that are woefully under performing or completely disengaged. It is the silliest way to manage that I've ever seen, and a vestige of a past era. I've never been a fan of time of employment being a significant criteria when making cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 26, 2010 10:22:03 GMT -6
I think that any School District including D204 needs to reevaluate how they determine which teachers are to be given pink slips. Tenure alone as the absolute criteria is absurd. No one including the teachers can guarantee that a tenured teacher is potentially twice as effective or valuable as one who does not have as many years under their belt. In fact they in many cases are more valuable because they were " learning " about real life cases while they were happening in the real world and real world discussions and business cases. They are also more inclined to use current technology like the "magic blackboards" than lets say a tenured teacher just putting in their time. They generally have more energy and have not developed bad habits. I am not trying to slight our senior staff but telling us that a teacher is more/less qualified because they haven't been around long enough is somewhat discriminatory and just not true. Somewhere along the line they have equated length of service with quality and skill - not always so. You have to think that for every (1) old teacher we keep we have to let (2) non-tenured teachers go. Which means larger classrooms and higher pupil to teacher ratio. That can be avoided. Lastly I think that paying a Kindergarten or 1st Grade teacher $100k or more is insane. Nuff said. I agree, but am also doubtful it would every happen. Unions are all about unity, until it means any risk to the old timers and leadership, even those that are woefully under performing or completely disengaged. It is the silliest way to manage that I've ever seen, and a vestige of a past era. I've never been a fan of time of employment being a significant criteria when making cuts. imho, eagledad, market forces are much stronger than any union. On a minor scale, the auto industry unions' compensation package, before that the steel industry. Market forces have brought down many nations in our history as well. Most notable, in recent history, was the USSR. You could see it happen in Greece soon, or Spain or Portugal. If you look at the United States, the awareness of public union gains, at the expense of private sector employees, is rising to the level that politicians with either change with that awareness or they won't be elected. The next decade, imo, will bring some radical change to "business as usual". |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 2, 2010 13:28:17 GMT -6
The Wall Street Journal
MARCH 1, 2010
Calpers Confronts Cuts to Return Rate
Trimming 7.75% Could Add to California's Woes; BlackRock to Board—'You'll Be Lucky to Get 6%'
By GINA CHON
Calpers is considering whether to reduce the projected rate of return used by the giant pension fund to make investment decisions. A cut could force cash-strapped governments in California to pay millions more each year to cover their employee pension obligations.
Since 2003, the California Public Employees' Retirement System has assumed that the value of its stocks, bonds and other holdings would increase by 7.75% a year. But the likelihood of an extended period of modest economic growth world-wide is fueling doubts inside Calpers that the pension fund can continue aiming so high.
No specific alternate targets have been discussed by Calpers officials, but the board has been encouraged to shrink its projected rate of return to as low as 6%.
"It's bruising...but it has to be done," said David Crane, a pension adviser to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Facing a projected budget deficit of nearly $20 billion, the Republican favors a lower target at Calpers, according to Mr. Crane. Calpers manages about $200 billion, making it the U.S.'s largest public pension fund.
The percentage is an important factor in calculations by Calpers officials of future contributions needed from employees and local governments to cover payouts promised to retirees and other beneficiaries. If the return assumption declines, contributors likely would have to make up the difference.
Paying more into Calpers could deepen the financial misery facing many California governments. Some likely would increase taxes or cut services.
For the pension fund, lower investment-return expectations could reduce the temptation to seek outsize profits through real-estate, private-equity and other nontraditional investments that wound up burning Calpers with big losses.
In its fiscal year ended June 30, Calpers was down 23%, or $58 billion, the worst performance in the pension fund's 78-year history. It was up 12% for the year ended Dec. 31. Calpers's annualized return over the past 20 fiscal years is slightly higher than the 7.75% target.
At a meeting of the pension fund's investment committee last month, some Calpers board members pressed to review whether the current 7.75% projected rate of return still is realistic.
"We intend to open that question," responded Joseph Dear, the pension fund's chief investment officer, according to a transcript of the meeting. "Should we be considering other possible outcomes?"
Patricia Macht, a Calpers spokeswoman, said Mr. Dear still feels comfortable that 7.75% "could be the right number, but he's not making that prediction." The pension fund wants to hear varying opinions so that it has the information it needs to make a decision, she added.
The decision isn't expected until early 2011. Calpers officials also are examining the pension fund's asset allocation, risk management and other areas as part of a routine review done every three years.
Pressure to lower the target has been building for months. "You'll be lucky to get 6% on your portfolios, maybe 5%," BlackRock Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Laurence Fink told Calpers board members last July.
Calpers is a client of the New York company. Mr. Fink declined to comment Friday.
Calpers last reduced its rate-of-return assumption in 2003 amid economic turbulence. The previous target was 8.25%.
The most common projected rate of return among public pensions in the U.S. is 8%, according to Pew Center on the States, a research unit of Pew Charitable Trusts. But that figure looks daunting following double-digit percentage losses at many pension funds amid the financial crisis.
Even though many pension funds topped their assumed returns over the long term, "whether or not that should be the rate going forward is another question," says Kil Huh, Pew research director.
William Atwood, executive director of the Illinois State Board of Investment, says he is comfortable with the pension fund's assumed 8.5%-a-year return, noting that Illinois has earned about 8.6% a year since 1970.
Still, public pension systems are watching Calpers closely because "they are the big kid on the block," Mr. Atwood says. The Illinois investment board manages three pension funds with $8.7 billion in assets.
At Calpers, about 75% of payouts come from the pension fund's investments, with the remaining 25% tied to contributions from California governments and employees.
According to Pew, a hypothetical $100 billion pension fund that achieved a 7.75% return rate for 10 years would have about $211 billion. With a 6% rate, the same fund would grow to $179 billion—a difference of $32 billion.
Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed as part of the budget being debated in Sacramento that state employees contribute an additional 5% for their retirement costs. While forcing outsiders to pump more into Calpers would be painful, there is no alternative given the huge liabilities facing the pension fund, said Mr. Crane, the governor's pension adviser.
Mr. Schwarzenegger had proposed that the state's contribution to Calpers increase to at least $4.5 billion in the next fiscal year. The pension fund, which can change the employer-contribution rate without legislative approval, agreed to a $3.5 billion payment. That would defer some of the cash payments needed to make up for investment losses and reduce the impact on local governments.
Another potential loser if Calpers decides to ratchet back its ambitions: private-equity firms. The pension fund was a private-equity pioneer, starting with a $1 billion allocation in 1990 that has since grown to about $25 billion.
A lower assumed rate of return could cause Calpers to reduce its exposure to private equity and other aggressive holdings. The pension fund already is looking to prune the number of private-equity firms with which it invests and reduce its fees by making direct investments in deals.
—Peter Lattman contributed to this article.
Write to Gina Chon at gina.chon@wsj.com
It is commonly assumed that outstanding pension liabilities are a result of inadequate yearly contributions by the legislature. While inadequate funding is no doubt a part of it, are the investment return assumptions currently used out of touch with today's reality? If they are, and beneficiaries aren't required to contribute more, who pays? The taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 2, 2010 14:01:53 GMT -6
This illustrates the folly of thinking that pensions are safer than 401k investments or aren't subject to the same market risks.
It reminds me of a few years ago, when I happened to look at a renovated condo in the Lincoln Park area. The owners had prepared a detailed financial analysis of why this would be such a great investment property. Even though the mortgage would be sky-high, the assessments obscene, the taxes and insurance astronomical, and the projected rents would only cover about 1/4 of the monthly nut, it was "a great deal." How could that be? Well, since property values would no doubt keep rising at a 20% clip forever, after a few years the increase in value would in theory dwarf the negative cash flow. We all know how that turned out...I just wonder if they ever found a sucker to buy in.
It's all about assumptions. Think about how these types of assumptions are keeping Calpers solvent, or even the banks that are purportedly on sound footing. The post office just announced a $7 billion deficit for next year, despite continual price increases above the cost of inflation. Where are these "unexpected" deficits coming from? The usual suspect...higher retiree pension and healthcare costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Mar 2, 2010 15:12:31 GMT -6
This illustrates the folly of thinking that pensions are safer than 401k investments or aren't subject to the same market risks. It reminds me of a few years ago, when I happened to look at a renovated condo in the Lincoln Park area. The owners had prepared a detailed financial analysis of why this would be such a great investment property. Even though the mortgage would be sky-high, the assessments obscene, the taxes and insurance astronomical, and the projected rents would only cover about 1/4 of the monthly nut, it was "a great deal." How could that be? Well, since property values would no doubt keep rising at a 20% clip forever, after a few years the increase in value would in theory dwarf the negative cash flow. We all know how that turned out...I just wonder if they ever found a sucker to buy in. It's all about assumptions. Think about how these types of assumptions are keeping Calpers solvent, or even the banks that are purportedly on sound footing. The post office just announced a $7 billion deficit for next year, despite continual price increases above the cost of inflation. Where are these "unexpected" deficits coming from? The usual suspect...higher retiree pension and healthcare costs. we were almost that sucker...so thankful we didn't go forward! Friends of ours did and are still sitting on their property losing money every month!!! (it was in Florida, but same idea...buy a house to rent out to vacationers...although won't rent for much due to rental competition being pretty tough, they said the prices of the houses were increasing so dramatically that huge gains would be made. Yea right! |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 3, 2010 14:19:14 GMT -6
bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/vote-on-city-pensions-lays-groundwork-for-battles-with-labor/?pagemode=printBay Area - 9 Counties, 8 Bridges, 7 Million People
March 3, 2010, 9:12 am
City Pension Vote Lays Groundwork for Labor Battles
By GERRY SHIH
When the full Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to pass a ballot proposal that would save San Francisco hundreds of millions of dollars in future pension costs, the initial sponsor of the measure, of all people, sat glumly in his chair, sighing and glowering.
In June, voters will see an item on their ballot that closely resembles Supervisor Sean Elsbernd’s original pension reform proposal, but with a slight twist. Instead of calculating public employee pensions based on an average salaries for the final three years, the proposal will calculate the annuities by averaging the last two years.
It’s a small change in the proposal’s language that could have huge fiscal implications. The idea was to curb “spiking,” the practice of managers giving city employees large raises in their last year of employment. Current pension calculations consider only the final salary level.
Mr. Elsbernd said that the three-year formula would save the city 50 percent more than the two-year formula. Figuring conservatively, that could mean the difference between savings of $600 million and $400 million over the next 25 years, he estimated. But he said Tuesday that pressure from labor interests persuaded enough supervisors to pass the milder version.
His three-year plan failed Tuesday; he was joined by Bevan Dufty, Carmen Chu and Sophie Maxwell in voting in favor. “What we’re really looking at is more savings for our future generations, or less,” Ms. Chu said. In defeat, Mr. Elsbernd nonetheless struck a combative pose. After the vote, he rose and turned directly toward the city employees sitting in the chamber. “I’m looking at the labor leaders,” he said, then warned that his aggressive campaign to trim ballooning labor costs remains unfinished.“I hear labor ask, is this the beginning, middle or end,” he said after the vote. “And I said: ‘Rest assured, we’re only at the beginning. Come May, I’ll be introducing another proposal, and I hope that you’ll cooperate.’ ” He paused, then added, “That part was tongue in cheek.” Mr. Elsbernd has been fighting labor unions in recent months in the name of fiscal prudence. For that, he has won widespread support, from the former mayor, Willie Brown, and even from his onetime political nemesis, the public defender Jeff Adachi . But if Tuesday signaled that labor in this labor town remains hardly a pushover, then recent events suggest he could soon confront even stiffer opposition. The Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which represents some 15,000 city workers, voted overwhelmingly over the weekend to elect new leadership. Sin Yee Poon, a human services agency worker who won the presidency, will enter office after three years of bitter infighting. Some members complained that the former president appointed by the international, Damita Davis-Howard, was transferring control of the union from local members to the top officials in Washington. The union was hamstrung by disorganization during that period. With her victory, Ms. Poon has vowed to consolidate control, rally the union against Mayor Gavin Newsom’s tough budget cuts and repair the union’s frayed relations with other labor groups in San Francisco.“It will be a huge challenge to rebuild a lot of things,” she said on Tuesday. “People feel that we’re finally back on the right track and have a lot of energy that we want to unleash.” She was not particularly conciliatory toward the ousted leadership. “It will be happier if they find another union with the perspectives that they have,” she said. Ms. Poon’s election is likely to bring a more unified labor movement here. Relations between Local 1021’s outgoing leadership and Mike Casey, the president of the San Francisco Labor Council, have been strained as Mr. Casey accused S.E.I.U. of raiding his hotel workers union, Unite HERE Local 2, for members. But even with a united and powerful labor front, Ms. Poon conceded that the unions must tread lightly heading into June. (In a sign of labor’s dwindling stock of goodwill among the public, scores of frustrated riders came out to protest fare hikes and service cuts this week after Muni operators refused concessions.)
(YA THINK?) During public comment period on Tuesday, Robert Haaland, an active S.E.I.U. member, proposed to move the pension reform piece back to the November ballot so the union could put forward other ideas, but it was rejected. Ms. Poon said there was some political calculus behind the request for postponement. “It’s not going to be a favorable climate,” Ms. Poon said. “June is also a time when the conservative voters come out.”------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is anyone paying attention to Greece and how they got where they are? Well if you don't get that, Spain is next. It is a problem 10x the size of Greece.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 5, 2010 21:36:04 GMT -6
An update to the above article post 169 on CalPers return assumptions: I have to say I am fascinated with the success of the Union negotiators and the deal they were able to get for the teachers, all public unions for that matter. I have to say until recently all this was off my radar. Working for a living tends to do that. You focus on work and family and there is little time for anything else, and that's when these kinds of deals get done. We all trust that our representatives will look out for us and that union employees will be fair. When it comes to pensions, however, this is nothing short of a transfer of wealth from the private sector employee to the public sector employee. If you compared the benefits in the public sector, I would estimate that no more than 5% in the public sector get this deal. But I digress. My point was to point out something related to this article on CALPERs reconsidering the actuarial assumption of 7.75% as being unrealistic. The relevance is "The percentage is an important factor in calculations by Calpers officials of future contributions needed from employees and local governments to cover payouts promised to retirees and other beneficiaries. If the return assumption declines, contributors likely would have to make up the difference." So what is the "return assumption" used in Illinois? Go to page 80 of this document and look under "Actuarial Assumptions" trs.illinois.gov/subsections/pubs/cafr/fy09/2009cafr.pdf (where the actuarial information is) trs.illinois.gov/subsections/general/pub13.pdf (shows the benefits, etc.) Only in Illinois,  as they say. Here the assumption is 8.5%, so to the extent this is not changed to reflect reality (as if 8.5% ever did) the burden falls exclusively on the taxpayer. In addition, you can see that the value of the assets fell in 2009. You the taxpayer have provided a "put" for the unions by guaranteeing to pick up any investment losses. |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 5, 2010 22:07:54 GMT -6
The only positive thing is that they assume inflation at 3.5%, which is much higher than it's been.
This whole subject of actuarial assumptions opens a can of worms I'm sure the unions do not want opened. Their numbers crunchers know that by assuming an unreasonably high expected return, the advertised cost of their future benefits will be low, and therefore more palatable to a gullible citizenry. When those returns inevitably don't pan out, the taxpayers are stuck holding the bag, as Mike said.
That's the type of reform our legislators should be working on. But like so many things that are common sense, like asking people to put 10-20% down on a house, politics and the desire to buy off huge segments of the populace get in the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 5, 2010 22:41:19 GMT -6
Missed this article on Naperville pensions. www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2064341,Naperville-eyes-pension-reform-options_NA022310.article# Naperville exploring pension reform Comments February 23, 2010 By JENETTE STURGES jsturges@stmedianetwork.com Having a hard time funding your retirement? If you're paying taxes in Naperville, you're also struggling to pay for the retirement of the city's police officers, firefighters and nearly 1,000 municipal workers.
Faced with a growing unfunded pension liability, which stands at $126 million, the Naperville City Council decided at a workshop Monday to investigate the cost and benefits of joining a lobbying coalition to begin pushing for statewide pension reform that would alleviate the burden on municipalities.
While city employees and taxpayers make contributions to pension plans, the pensions are regulated by the Public Pension Division of the Illinois Department of Insurance. Changes to benefits and how pensions are funded must go through the Illinois General Assembly and the governor.So, the city is looking to lobby Springfield for reform, as part of a coalition. By Monday's workshop, however, just what shape that reform would take was not determined. "We don't even know what we want," said Councilman James Boyajian. "All we know is we want change." While the council made no resolutions on the kinds of changes they'd like enacted in how pensions are funded or what they pay out, councilmen repeatedly discussed keeping all options on the table. One of those options included lobbying for a two-tiered pension system for new employees, which could include ending defined-benefit pension-type plans in favor of defined-contribution, 401(k)-type plans. But suggestions of any reforms entailing defined-contribution plans were met with emotional arguments from representatives of firefighter and police officer pension boards and unions. "What I'm asking for is if I'm willing to take this job, you're willing to take care of me, myself and my family," said union President Rick Sander of Naperville Professional Fire Fighters Local 4302. "It's unfair to compare our profession to the private sector," said Eddy Crews, legislative representative for the Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois. "What's the value of a firefighter?" Rather than look at changing the benefits offered to future workers, representatives for the city's employees focused on changing actuarial funding methods. "Our proposal is we go ahead and refinance with rolling amortization," said Jim McNamee, Illinois Public Pension Fund Association, which represents both the Police and Firefighters Pension Funds. McNamee described the current pension system as a mortgage with an adjustable rate. The IPPFA plan, he said, would be akin to a home refinancing, making the debt more manageable by shifting some of it down the road. "The goal here is to level out your payment," said McNamee. Pensions for police officers and firefighters are particularly substantial because both groups are excluded from the Social Security system, leaving pensions as the sole form of retirement security for these workers. But councilmen found the proposal brought by the IPPFA as unsustainable, saying it would hand debt down onto future generations. In fiscal year 2011, the city will contribute $12.2 million toward employee pensions, or $2.4 million more than last year. Pension contributions now make up nearly 20 percent of the total tax levy for the city.
"I just don't understand how you guys get to the point of saying that's our solution, when our problem is we can't afford what we have," said Boyajian. "The model as we see it is simply not a sustainable model."
Currently, the pensions of municipal workers, including firefighters and police officers, are protected by the Illinois Constitution, which states that benefits "cannot be diminished or impaired." Alice Phillips, lobbyist for the city of Naperville, said the constitutional protection on pensions presents a challenge for the city that is better tackled by a coalition. Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem Richard Furstenau said the city should be willing to spend somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000 to become an active member of such a coalition. "We need to be sitting at that table as the city of Naperville. Whatever that costs us, that's what we should pay." The council expects to vote on the decision to join a coalition at the March 2 City Council meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 5, 2010 22:47:40 GMT -6
City moves forward with pension reform push
Comments
March 4, 2010
From Submitted Reports
Not 24 hours after a vote to join the Pension Fairness for Illinois Communities, Naperville Mayor A. George Pradel was in Springfield to announce the coalition's launch and support pension reform bills in the General Assembly.
The council voted unanimously Tuesday night to join the Pension Fairness for Illinois Communities coalition, which, according to its Web site, is "aimed at bringing fairness to the public safety pension system in order to relieve the burden of escalating public safety pension costs on local taxpayers and ensure sustainable retirement benefits for our public safety employees."
At a pension workshop held by the city Feb. 22, council members expressed concern for the increase in contributions the city is making to fund municipal employee pensions. For the fiscal year beginning May 1, the city will contribute $12.2 million to employee pension programs, $2.4 million more than the previous year.
Public pensions, which are funded by local municipalities and their employees, are controlled by the state of Illinois, and changing retirement benefits for police officers, firefighters and other municipal employees would require changes to the Illinois Constitution.
Under advisement from Alice Phillips, the city's lobbyist, the Naperville City Council investigated joining a pension reform coalition to pool lobbying resources at the state capitol. The city has pledged $10,000 to Pension Reform for Illinois Communities to become a foundational partner, after council members decided Naperville should have "a seat at the table," in decision-making.
Though the group has yet to declare an official platform for pension reform, according to its Web site, many options are on the table, including consolidating employee pensions into one statewide fund, initiating a second-tier system for all new municipal hires, and "recalibrating the contribution level so that taxpayers and public safety employees are contributing equally toward providing pensions."
"As a member of this coalition, I believe we can make changes to the pension systems that are fair to pensioners and employees as well as Illinois taxpayers," Pradel said. "I am in a unique position being the Mayor and also a pensioner after 29 years as a Naperville police officer. I see both sides of this issue."
The coalition, however, is unlikely to gain support from local employee pension boards. Suggestions of any reforms entailing defined-contribution plans, two-tiered plans, and higher contributions have been met with vocal opposition from representatives of firefighter and police officer pension boards and unions at past workshops and meetings.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 5, 2010 22:53:22 GMT -6
www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cps-20100304,0,7866679.story chicagotribune.com The billion-dollar race
4:36 PM CST, March 4, 2010
Quantcast
Congratulations to Illinois for being named a finalist in the Obama administration's Race to the Top program. If the state wins, it could get some $500 million for education reform.
OK. Now let's talk about Chicago's Public Schools race to find $1 billion just to keep the schools running. That's the deficit the Chicago schools face in 2010-2011. Last week, CEO Ron Huberman outlined spending cuts that have been made and sent out a plea for help.
The response from teachers, through their union? Forget it. Don't look at us."I want to make it clear that we will not agree to any proposal that either destroys our contract or fails to maintain the integrity of our pension system," Chicago Teachers Union President Marilyn Stewart said. "Nor will we tolerate the implied threats being made by Mr. Huberman that he may have to cut programs and services for our students or lay off teachers."
Well, here we go. Huberman isn't making threats. He's talking about reality. There are enormous economic pressures on every level of government, from the cities to the schools to the state and to the feds. They have to run more efficiently. They have to run with the revenues available to them. Consider: 69 percent of the Chicago school system's spending goes to salary and benefits. CPS has laid off 536 nonunion workers from its central office this year. It has required nonunion workers to take six unpaid furlough days. Next year, another 500 central office and citywide service workers will lose their jobs. Those still employed will have to take an additional three weeks off without pay. Chicago Teachers Union members, though, are slated to get a 4 percent cost-of-living increase. With so-called step/lane increases, most will actually get about a 5.5 percent raise. The CPS contribution to the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund will nearly double in the next year, adding to the budget pressures. No threat, just reality: The teachers have to accept a pay freeze or a much lower pay increase. They have to contribute more to their pension system. They have to support reforms to that system. Those reforms should include increasing the retirement age, capping the maximum pension payout and slowing cost-of-living increases. The schools need to curb the growth in pension costs for current as well as future employees. What the state can't allow CPS to do is skip a pension contribution without substantially reducing its pension obligations. CPS wants the state to pump more money into the pension fund. But what's the chance of that? The state has no money. It's behind on its payments to the schools. The state is more likely to reduce its funding for schools than it is to hike the pension contribution. This comes at a tricky time. Stewart faces a stiff challenge in CTU elections in May. Her challengers may say she's not putting up enough resistance to management. Her rhetoric isn't likely to soften; opponents will try to out-tough her. But the CTU has to be a big part of the solution. The Chicago school system is cutting administrative costs. The costs of providing teachers has to come in line with what the schools can afford. We're all for the noble reform goals of the Obama administration. We hope Illinois gets a share of that pot. But you can't race to the top if the schoolhouse doors are locked. Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 5, 2010 23:01:43 GMT -6
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/napertalk/2075714,6_1_NA01_PAGE2COL_S1-100301.article# Teamwork needed to rein in pension beast
Comments
March 1, 2010
For many of us, pensions are a sort of magical, mythical creature from the days of yore that promised good fortune to hard-working peasants for many years of faithful service.
But they live on in the public sector, securing the retirements of our very deserving police officers, firefighters and other public servants, a fitting way to thank people who through their jobs serve the greater good.
But for a City Council trying to balance a budget with a growing pension liability, these guaranteed-benefit plans have become very real, temperamental, gold-hoarding beasts.
Representatives of fire and police pension funds at last week's workshop made compelling, emotional arguments, and they're right in saying we should feel a moral obligation to ensure, for one thing, that the families are provided for when death occurs in the line of duty. But councilmen had a point too: The city is to the point of reducing the number of officers patrolling the streets just to balance the budget. Something's gotta give somewhere.
Because of state mandates and economic woes, Naperville is now contributing almost $2 into pension funds for every $1 that a police officer or firefighter contributes -- and at a time when private sector employees are lucky to see any matching contribution at all. We as a community can debate whether we think this is fair until we're blue in the face (and thus in need of those paramedics); but when it comes down to it, it's not really up to us as a community. Pensions for municipal employees are state-controlled.That means any changes to the Illinois Constitution would have to come from municipalities and, hopefully, their employees working together from the bottom up to find agreement and bring that change to Springfield. Ideally, municipalities and their workers would both be able to make some concessions and change some of the system's flaws at the state level.
But it's really a shame we can't start from the very top. Amid this nationwide pension funding epidemic, CNN pointed out this past week that members of Congress still vest after only five years and can receive up to 80 percent of their average top salaries -- considerably better than what our local personnel get -- all for a much less dangerous gig. And that is truly beastly. Contact Jenette Sturges at jsturges@stmedianetwork.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 7, 2010 20:34:57 GMT -6
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104124088312524.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews#printModeMARCH 8, 2010
Schools' New Math: the Four-Day Week
By CHRIS HERRING
A small but growing number of school districts across the country are moving to a four-day week, in a shift they hope will help close gaping budget holes and stave off teacher layoffs, but that critics fear could hurt students' education.
State legislators and local school boards are giving administrators greater flexibility to set their academic calendars, making the four-day slate possible. But education experts say little research exists to show the impact of shortened weeks on learning. The missed hours are typically made up by lengthening remaining school days. Of the nearly 15,000-plus districts nationwide, more than 100 in at least 17 states currently use the four-day system, according to data culled from the Education Commission of the States. Dozens of other districts are contemplating making the change in the next year—a shift that is apt to create new challenges for working parents as well as thousands of school employees. The heightened interest in an abbreviated school week comes as the Obama administration prepares to plow $4.35 billion in extra federal funds into underperforming schools. The administration has been advocating for a stronger school system in a bid to make the U.S. more academically competitive on a global basis. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education said in an email that she couldn't comment on four-day weeks in specific districts. But "generally, we are concerned about financial constraints leading to a reduction in learning time." Some schools, meanwhile, say they are turning to the four-day schedule as a last resort. In North Branch, Minn., school Superintendent Deb Henton said her 3,500-student district, facing a $1.3 million deficit, is simply out of options."We've repeatedly asked our residents to pay higher taxes, cut some of our staff, and we may even close one of our schools," she said. "What else can you really do?" Despite a "lot of opposition" from parents, she said, the district is set to adopt a four-day week for next school year.
A new law in Georgia allows schools a choice between a 180-day school year "or the equivalent." Hawaii officials last October introduced 17 mandatory "Furlough Fridays" for state public schools. In Minnesota and Iowa, districts are drafting proposals for their state boards of education in hopes of implementing four-day schedules next school year. In the rural Peach County, Ga., district, a four-day week this school year helped school officials save more than $200,000 last semester, trimming costs for custodial and cafeteria workers and bus drivers as well as transportation expenses and utilities, said system spokeswoman Sara Mason. The district is on track to save 39 teaching positions and $400,000 by the end of the school year, helping to narrow a $1 million shortfall in the district's $30 million annual budget. "The savings so far have been phenomenal," said Ms. Mason, adding that she has fielded calls from officials at a dozen other Georgia schools considering making the switch. Teachers who still work the same number of hours over four days, instead of five, generally don't see a reduction in salary. But staff who can't make up the lost time, such as bus drivers and cafeteria workers, are often hard-hit, losing as much as 20% of their pay. The four-day school week isn't new. But until recently, it has been used mostly by small, rural districts. A few rural Colorado school districts implemented four-day calendars in the 1980s for financial reasons, and now about a third of the state's 178 districts operate on a four-day calendar. The system is currently most prevalent in Western states, where districts with four-day weeks in some cases comprise a quarter of the schools. Four-day weeks have been in place for decades in states like New Mexico, Idaho and Wyoming and initially came about as states were looking to combat growing energy prices. Last week, Pueblo School District 70 announced it would adopt the schedule next school year for its roughly 8,000 students. The shift has drawn scrutiny from some education and parents groups who say the shorter week hurts students academically and complicates child-care efforts. "There's no way a switch like that wouldn't negatively affect teaching and learning," said Tim Callahan, spokesman for the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, which is discouraging schools in the state from exploring four-day weeks. [SCHOOLS] Monte Thompson, superintendent of Gore Public Schools in Oklahoma, where the system is in its first year, said teachers have to do a "dog and pony show to keep kids' attention" for the extra hour and 40 minutes spent in class from Tuesday to Friday. "I get why schools have moved toward this, but I don't think finances justify hurting the kids educationally," said Mr. Thompson, who became the superintendent after the system was implemented. He said Gore schools are saving about $35,000 with the change, but will revert back to five days in the next school year. The schedules have struck a nerve with some working parents who have had to revamp child-care plans. Christina Long, a mother of three girls who attend North Branch, Minn., schools, said she will also have to rethink her career plans in light of next year's academic calendar. "I'd always said I would go back to full-time once my youngest was in school," said Ms. Long, who works part-time around her youngest daughter's school schedule. "Next year was supposed to be that year, but now I don't know what I can do job-wise with that four-day schedule." In Georgia's Peach County, the community has stepped up to assist parents who've been put in a bind by the Tuesday to Friday school schedule. Two different Boys and Girls Club sites and a church are offering affordable child care and tutoring, respectively, on Mondays for between $10 and $15. Officials in some districts say their students and teachers make good use of their day off. In Wyoming, many schools offer Friday tutoring sessions to keep students sharp, according to Dianne Frazier, an educational consultant with the state's department of education. She said students and teachers are expected to use Fridays to attend to various personal needs. "In a lot of cases, a trip to the dentist would be unexcused if it happened on a school day," she said. Many athletic events and practice sessions are also held on Fridays, she said. Research gauging the impact of a four-day school week on student learning is scant. Officials in various states claim that comparisons and conclusions are difficult to make. There has been no broad analysis of crucial test scores—on statewide achievement tests or college entrance exams—to show whether knowledge lags or not for students in four-day districts. Similarly, there have been no wide-ranging studies to indicate whether districts register comparable test scores after they make the jump. A 2009 report by the Idaho Department of Education said evidence was inconclusive as to whether student achievement was affected by four-day systems. Fourteen out of 115 school districts in the state have four-day school weeks. The Colorado Department of Education said the "jury is out on the question of student performance" under four-day weeks, according to a 2006 overview of the system.
|
|
