I believe that the current system in our Commonwealth for public employee pensions and health care needs reform. We need to move public employees to a defined contribution plan (e.g. 401k Plans) rather than defined benefit plans, such as pensions. Even so, I would negotiate these changes with the collective bargaining units.
That said, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is way off the reservation with his attempt to essentially de-certify public employee unions. Wisconsin state Representative Mark Pocan has a blog where he gives his assessment of the current budget brouhaha in that state. His take, Walker has made this crisis up out of whole cloth.
The Standard Times ran this story last week about New Bedford's unfunded pension and health care liabilities of some $480 million ...
... and Dartmouth faces a similar, albeit, smaller problem($50 million). The Select Board recognizes the issue and had proposed a Town Meeting article last fall to start paying down the liability. It was a drop in the bucket but a lack of a quorum prevented even that from being appropriated. It will be brought up again at the Spring town Meeting.
I am sure to get comments on the incentive for the public bargaining units to accept the change. First, they will have to face having fewer town employees as funds are diverted to pay our obligations unless changes occur. Second, they live here too. They want the town to prosper and have adequate services, just like you and me.
What are your thoughts on any of this stuff? Tell us on comments.
Monday, February 21, 2011
What's going on in Wisconsin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
I wish the union workers in Wisconsin good luck. Both sides belong back at the table. They should be able to compromise. I'm glad to see the democrats holding fast on this.
Bill, The town employees that thought the bargaining was on the up and up are going to get screwed and so are the taxpayers who were hoodwinked, as both groups will have to make sacrifices to solve this problem. Below is a letter to the s-t editor that I submitted yesterday. Your blog readers can get the scoop.
Dear editor,
As readers of this newspaper are beginning to see, the problem of fiscal liabilities for states and municipalities are coming to light. The seemingly insurmountable debts are due to pension and post-employment benefit costs that have been negotiated with public employee unions.
In Dartmouth alone, the combined liabilities of pension and post retirement benefit funds is approximately $85million. Although this number will likely be adjusted down due to some minor reforms and an improving stock market, you can bet the farm that it’s still a whopper.
How did we accumulate this massive burden of debt? The answer is by using shoddy accounting practices that hid the liabilities for years from the people who approve the budget. In Dartmouth, these would be the Town Meeting members. To this day, nowhere on the budget given to Town Meeting is there anything that reflects the total amount of these liabilities. As a Finance Committee member, I am hoping to change that.
This leads to the question of whether or not the process resulting in the accumulation of this debt was fair. Personally, I feel that if ever there was a reason for people to be outraged at their government, this is it. Does anyone believe that those who hid these expenses didn’t know exactly what they were doing?
This is going to end badly for everyone and what is happening in Madison, WI is probably typical of what is in store for many people around the country. All of this could have been avoided if people knew these liabilities existed in the first place.
barry walker
Bill, you said...We need to move public employees to a defined contribution plan (e.g. 401k Plans) rather than defined benefit plans, such as pensions. Even so, I would negotiate these changes with the collective bargaining units.
These are non negotiable items, the only place the retirement system can be changed is on the state level, not the local level.
You do not have the authority (now anyway) to change a single thing about the Bristol County retirement system.
What happens when you get your wish of a 401k system? Day 1 the federal government starts collecting 14.4% of payroll, 6.2% which the town has to pay, and 6.2 the employee pays. Then say you match 3% of gross, that leaves the town paying 9.2 percent of payroll which is 40 million dollars.
Almost 3.7 million just for having a 401k plan, and you still have to fund the shortfall for members entitled to a pension.
Dartmouth pays LESS than that now and offers a defined benefit plan!!
Employees will pay 6.2 plus 3 % for 9.2 which is less than the 13% some are paying now. How can this possibly save the town money?
What?
Where does 14.4% come from?
Also 6.2% plus 6.2% adds up to 12.4%, not 14.4%
Matching 3% of gross? WOW! Wish I had that in one of the 401k plans I have been in.
So what about savings through eliminating collective bargaining? The town could easily save MILLIONS! It's coming folks. May take a few years, but since the unions will not make the necessary concessions, there will be no other choice.
Where does 14.4% come from?
Clumsy fingers and no proof reading.
Thanks for taking the time to read it anyway. Yes it is 12.4, and the rest of the numbers are correct.
How did we accumulate this massive burden of debt?
Underfunding the pension plan from 1940-1987 is the reason there is a large pension liability.
Paying a 50-50 split on health-care (minimum allowed by law) certainly didn't get us into this problem.
Our health-care is the reason the BOS added money to Mr. Cressman's compensation, because it is horrible compared to many other employers in the state and they would not have hired the man they wanted without concessions.
Bill,
If anon 6:49 and his lies are any indication of the prospects for negotiating our way to defined contribution plans for public employees, then I stand squarely behind Gov. Scott Walker and his attempts to weaken their collective bargaining power.
There is a police officer, in Florida I believe (could be wrong about the state), who authorities tried to let go twice because he is a bad cop. Rather than having him active on the police force, they decided to give him paid leave for the last 7 yrs. Now he is retiring at age 44. He will collect 80% of his pay for the rest of his life and if he has a surving spouse, she will collect his pension for the rest of her life. At age 44, it would be safe to assume he will be collecting for a long time on the backs of the taxpayers. If he had a 401K, this would not be the case. The upfront costs may be higher (not sure that is the case) but in the long run it would save taxpayers a ton of money. Not to mention the taxpayers would be fully aware of the costs upfront.
Still not sure where the 12.4% comes from. Are you adding on Social Security? If so why?
What Mr. Walker alludes to in his post is an attitude of either who cares or we will leave this up to the next guys to fix. Those who understood the numbers and authorized them are the guilty parties. Be they town management or the unions. All taxpayers who stand to pay for this mess without receiving any benefit from it should be outraged. To me this is a much larger issue than say the lifetime contracts. Any amounts projected for future liabilities are only estimates. I repeat ESTIMATES. Early retirees, fund earnings (or lack thereof), increased costs of benefits are but some of the variables. In Wisconsin, the unions are "throwing a bone" at the state government and claiming that they are willing to compromise. The problem is that "the bone" they are throwing is just a small part of the liability that the state is expected to somehow honor. Using Mr. Walker's estimate of $85 million in underfunded liabilities, what does that work out to per taxable taxpayer? Does an average of maybe $10k sound about right? With future amounts to be determined? Nobody I know wants to throw the good employees who make up the vast majority of our public servants under the bus. The only reasonable way out of this is for reasonable people to agree on some very substantial cost reductions to eliminate the future liabilities. I hold no hope for that happening. Why? In my experience, too often the people who wind up representing the unions have an ax to grind. Reasonable compromise becomes unachievable. Too bad for that solution. Say hello to the eventual removal of collective bargaining rights.
To Anon 8:09,
You say the rest of your numbers are correct in your 6:49 post????
Can you explain how you arrived at a $40million payroll?
No, you can't because it is a lie.
Let's just face the real facts. you are disseminating propaganda because you want to protect defined contribution pension plans. The more you lie, the firmer the resolve will be to weaken the union bargaining power.
Another reality check:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/16/residents_face_20b_retiree_health_tab/?camp=obinsite
The article highlights the underfunding issues that many local communities face.
This is just the start folks. As this battle between organized labor continues to spread people will become aware of just what a corrupt and gamed system we have allowed it to become.
Unions collect involuntary dues from their involuntary membership and then use that money to make donations to the Democratic party ($2.2 million to $10,000 was the latest discrepancy but when soft money is figured in the discrepancy is MUCH larget)
The candidates and soon to be legislators and and executives i.e Governor and Mayor types then sponsor legislation which gives Unions even greater power over the CB process (think binding arbitration and the Boston Firefighters contract and the Dartmouth Educators Association forcing the town to return private grant money) and they also negotiates sweeter and sweeter deals with the very unons that support them and donate generously to their campaigns. As long as those politicians toe the line and blindly support union objectives then they will have their support. The minute they start to look out for the average taxpayer and negoitiate more strongly they get slapped (See Mayor Lang and Firefighters contract and also see our pal Deval and the state police union over the detail pay)
The entire system is corrupt and gamed to prevent any reform by those who pay the bill. I cannot blame the Unions though, they are simply advocating for their constituency (members and themselves) and to hell with the average taxpayer. We allowed this to happen over time since 1962 when President Kennedy through executive fiat allowed CB for civil servants. That was the nose of the camel and now look what we have. A very powerful special interest group that while unelected, has a virtual stranglehold over us and the future of our children.
The only way to change the system is just how Gov Walker, Christie, Daniels and Kasich are doing and that is to rip out the heart of the the CB process and start over to negotiate in conformity with our current economic climate in mind.
a 401K is cheaper how?
The effect of the high employee contribution rates is that in Group 1 (general employees), an individual hired after 1996 is in fact financing most or all of his or her entire superannuation (normal) retirement benefit. For example, based on plan assumptions for a member hired after 1996 at age 25 with a starting salary of $30,000, contributions plus earnings will have accumulated to nearly $1.8 million to cover a benefit at 65 valued at approximately $1.5 million.
http://www.mass.gov/perac/report/stateofpension2009.pdf
So what about savings through eliminating collective bargaining?
Collective bargaining is two sides sitting down and coming to an agreement. No one twisted the town's arm to agree on contracts.
When Republicans take over the statehouse (hahaha as if!) I will begin to worry about Massachusetts stripping the collective bargaining rights from the public sector.
To quote Governer Christie of NJ:
"There can no longer be two classes of citizens. One that enjoys rich pay and benefits, and the many that pay for it".
Can you explain how you arrived at a $40million payroll? No, you can't because it is a lie.
I do not lie and object to you calling me such. If you are incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable (site motto) Perhaps you are on the wrong site.
Dartmouth $alaries
2008 Fiscal Year Total: $39,660,259.34
I got my data Ssraight from the standard times. Is it safe to assume that in 3 years the salaries rose from 39.66 million to 40 million or more. I am sure Bill could find the exact number.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=TOWN0203&appSession=652837821321043
I won't hold my breath for an apology but I do deserve one. No propaganda from me just the truth. Backed up with facts.
The problem with defined benefit programs is not what the current costs are but rather what future obligations will be. Even if the current costs are a few percent higher or lower, the long term costs have been higher in defined benefit plans. That is why the private sector has moved away from them. In defined contribution plans, once the provider has made their contribution, their liabiltity has ended.
Plain and simple: We need to bring jobs back to this country, instead of "outsourcing" everything to third world nations. It's the Internet and greedy corporations that have brought this state/country to its knees, and not the people who educate and protect its citizens.
February 22, 2011 3:05 PM
I find most of your post to be accurate and reasonable. I would suggest a different perspective though for your thoughts about Unions. Unions in my experience are typically for profit organizations. I do not believe in the Norma Rae concept. Unions in my experience are out to justify their existence and make money doing it these days. Ergo, the ability to fund the manipulation of elections much as big business does. This is not just my theory, as I have been a member of several Unions earlier in my life. This was, and remains, my personal observation. Benevolence and altruism need not apply.
I also have a link that highlights the dire financial state of PERA:
http://www.northsuburbanrepublicanforum.org/2011/01/pension-tensions-the-sweet-retirement-deal-public-employees-enjoy-just-may-spoil-a-few-things-for-the-rest-of-us/
Among the items addressed in the article is a reference to 20 state pension funds that will run out of money within the next decade. As in 40% of states are so badly underfunded through the collective bargaining process that they will become insolvent barring massive cash infusions or significant retirement benefit reductions. Not a pretty picture is it?
Once the system collapses and bankruptcy is declared then all agreements are wiped out and we start from scratch which is where this is headed.
The goal is to maintain decent standards for EVERYONE and not just the lucky few who are "employed" by the town and state.
If we dont fix the system now by eliminating collective bargaining we are doing a diservice to the many people who follow us and are dependent upon retirement systems remaining solvent.
To anon 9:27pm,
You don't get an apology because you don't deserve one. You need to subtract school employees when throwing out numbers for the bristol county retirement system. The schools are in the state pension system and need to be calculated on that seperate debacle. You are not allowed to mix and match numbers to suit your needs. You can apologize anytime now.
To: February 22, 2011 9:27 PM
Just another union negotiating ploy. Throw enough against the wall and see if some of it sticks. Been through negotiations before (2 companies that are now out of business at least in part because of high labor costs including 1 in Dartmouth) and this tactic was always used. Lie, deny, exaggerate and everything else but sticking to the facts. All too often presented to you by disgruntled and marginal employees. Hate to see good jobs go offshore, good companies to work at go out of business, and good people losing their jobs. But that is the reality of unions in the private sector over the last 30 years or so. Perhaps why privatization of public services is such a hot button topic? Perhaps why nearly 70% of the sample of an independent poll I heard this morning favored ending collective bargaining in the public sector?
You need to subtract school employees when throwing out numbers for the bristol county retirement system.
So are you saying the town does not save 6.2% on teachers salaries? OF course they do, so when I write about the amount of money the town is saving it has to be included.
I am able to do it without name calling or being mean-spirited. My Mother raised me to debate using facts not name calling.
Prop 2.5 will be eliminated long before the state goes bankrupt.
In Mr. Spillane's article in today's S-T, he points to several processes that we should all be aware of.
1. The greed of longer term public sector employees and their cavalier attitude towards their less senior brethren. To maintain the jobs and the excessive costs of long term employees with lower retirement contributions, layoffs of junior members who actually contribute more towards retirement benefits is a completely acceptable system. In the end further underfunding future liabilities.
2. The cavalier attitude towards the taxpayer liability as in "so what they can always pay more taxes".
3. The cavalier attitude towards other less protected unions, as in "lay off or privatize them instead of us".
As in the teachers who were willing to throw their younger coworkers who had less seniority than they did under the bus (no pun intended) rather than take a pay freeze.
Sorry, but this smacks of selfishness and greed to the nth degree, considering how all the money we should have given the schools in their $8.5+ override, and, of course, it was "all for the kids.'
Give me a break.
I just woke up from a long nap and checked onto the Dartmouhitchingpost. What in hell is going on with all this noise about underfunded retirement programs that is costing the town of Dartmouth a short fall of millions of dollars? Look here, I'm an easy going guy who worked for the town for 32 years and I'm collecting a retirement pension that I contributed into the Bristol county retirement system for 32 years. Each week the town deducted 5% of my salary that is sent to the Bristol county retirement system. According to my understanding the town also contributed 5% of my salary amount into the Bristol county retirement system.
Mr. Barry Walker made a statement that the town owes a large sum of money to something, for some reason that I'm not aware of. In the 32 years of town employment, I paid my 5% into the Bristol county retirement system. It was taken from my weekly salary. SO WHAT HAVE I DONE WRONG??
Mr. Walker appears to be a good man. He is a down to earth type of person with a brain. I just don't understand what Mr. Walker is telling me. How can this town owe so much money into a system of retirement or health that I do not know about, or understand what it is that I should or should not know.
At the time of my employment, the town and I both agreed that I will receive a retirement package equal to 80% of my salary years after completing 32 years of town employment. The understanding being I pay 5% of my salary and the town equals the same 5% into the Bristol county retirement system. What went wrong and why.
If anyone in the town of Dartmouth has messed with my retirement, or reneging on their agreed payment to the county, I assure everyone that the people involved will be taken to the wood shed. When I finish with what needs to be done, I will make sure that their life will be a circle of hell.
Before I jump into the circle of hate or retribution I wish Mr. Walker will explain in layman terms just what in the hell is going on and why?
I'd like to thank Mr. Walker for waking me up.
In 2004, new accounting rules (GASB43) were issued for pension plans which required the plans have a larger amount of money on hand to meet their projected obligations. The problem comes in because the new amounts were much higher than the old. The pension plans had been following the old rules and under those rules, they had enough funding. Suddenly, they were millions of dollars behind. Consequently, the state came up with a plan allowing the retirement systems, such as Bristol County Pension Fund, to catch up with the new amounts over a period of years. They do so by paying more into the plan than its obligations are currently growing. Due to the big hit that investments took when the financial system nearly collapsed in 2009, that catch up time was extended and now is set at 2026.
There was no funny business that went on with the funds before 2004, the plans were following the rules as they existed. Instead, the change in accounting rules was done to adjust the amounts needed in the funds for longer life spans, etc. which lead to the funds not having the required amounts.
Nonetheless, municipalities and the Commonwealth are now hit with increased contributions to keep up and to catch up with the new pension amounts.
Why isn't anyone addressing the cowardly act of the Democrats in Wisconsin for going AWOL on an issue they don't agree with? What if every partisan politician left their state to avoid voting on an issue they did not agree with? This is absolutely ridiculous. This is a direct slap in the face of our democratic system. We hold elections and the people decide who they want in office. The electred officials then vote according to their beliefs. The democrts should return ASAP and vote no to record their opposition. That's it. If it passes, it passes. The next election cycle will take care of itself.
to 'mr retired town employee' I'm glad you woke up. Now that you're awake how about picking up a newspaper every so often. If you do this simple task you will learn this is not a Dartmouth problem, or a state problem but a nationwide problem.
A bigger problem are those tht coast through life without having the slightest clue as what is going on. That attitude gets us in messes such as this one.
To Mr. Trimble's point:
Pension liability was previously calculated based upon current need. Essentially, do we have enough to meet amounts to be paid in the short term? What that translates to is as more people retire, pension payments increase, people live longer, benefit costs go sky high, and more; the assumption must have been that we go back to the taxpayer and ask for more money. This is completely inconsistent with normal accounting procedures which require you to accrue for these types of liabilities. If you look at the recent contract for the teacher's union in our town, there is a fairly small increase in base compensation. Putting that in perspective, amounts contributed by the teachers will not change substantially over the next 3 years. However, as more teachers retire over the next 3 years, the pension fund will be required to pay out more to cover those retirees. Not much change of cash in, much more in cash out. The market collapse in fall 2008 through the end of 2009 made the cash value of the pension funds much less. In reality, less money to pay out more obligations. Skyrocketing costs of benefits require even more funds be accrued to pay for those costs. A perfect storm affecting these poorly accounted for plans. The problem is not new. It has existed for decades. It just is formally presented as the real problem that it is now.
Bill,
I have to disagree with you that there was no funny business going on with these liabilities. Proper accounting procedures for these issues had been figured out a long, long time before now and they were NOT used. This is the reason that the private sector went to defined contribution plans back when I was still a child. Even the quasi-governmental agency called the US Postal Service had this figured out by the mid nineteen eighties. They have only offered a defined contribution plan to new hires since then. When you are 25 years slower than the Post Office, you should be seeing red flags.
If proper accounting procedures had been used since the eighties, people like our current Select Board and School Committee would have been using the proper numbers when negotiating contracts all along. Instead these committees still don't even know what their share of the liabilities are. Did you notice the silence from the school committee when I asked them if they knew and if they had used it for negotiating. Your answer on behalf of the Select Board was that the number didn't matter because we owe them the money anyway. COME ON Bill!
Known faulty accounting practices are the cause of these problems and I am pretty mad about it. It's not the union employees fault and it's certainly not the taxpayers fault either.
Who said accountants were boring?
If you notice Bill, I may be mad about this but I am sticking to the issue. We have been negotiating contracts with faulty financials for decades and now we're screwed.
A couple more things to chew on. There are also liabilities for sick leave buybacks that could be quite costly and the pension fund estimates are based on 8.25% earnings even in past years when the fund didn't earn it.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
To the person who posted the bad cop collecting a pension, and the wife will collect the same pension after he dies. This is not true. The police officer that you make reference, was never fired for any other reason than his own doing. He was not a bad cop. He was a good cop, with human frailties.
Police have the nations second highest rate of suicide. This information can be obtained from the national department of health. According to a study conducted by the congressional committee on public safety, police are consistently exposed to the negative result of human behavior. The committee on public safety mention that police confront 13.3 % of our national population. The remaining 86.7 % of our national population are law abiding.
Most police officer carry two firearms. One is visible and the second is concealed somewhere on the body. A large population of police officers are former military veterans. A long time on the street or patrol service shall expose a policeman to witness disturbing acts as it relates to death, and the destructive philosophy, history, science, of humanity. Nothing can properly train a fellow human to such atrocities.
When we read about a death related crash, the first thought is if we know the person who died. My first thought goes to the police officer who was the first to arrive at the scene. What did he/she see?? Who will notify the family members? The officer shall investigates the crash scene, but the issue never ends until all the attorney's have received their share. Investigative pictures are taken, but none to be used for the fireplace mantle. Those pictures are branded into the memory of the police officer forever.
Self inflicted gun shot suicides are the worse of the worse. A shot gun blast to the head will cause an horrific scene. The typical hanging has the same effect, but not as messy. Most suicides are crash related, but never reported as such. A driver left the roadway and smashed into an oak tree. The family collects the life insurance policy. The police officer knows the difference.
The average life expectancy of a police officer is 57.3 years. According to the information provided a police officer can retire at age 55 years or continue to the mandatory retirement age of 65 years. Simple math dictates that a policeman should retire at age 55 and expect to live 2.3 years, based on average.
According to the new Bristol county director, the Bristol count retirement system has 440 million dollars.
A few corrections to my previous comment are in order. The GASB rule change for pensions was GASB 34, not GASB 43, adopted in 1999, not 2004.
To respond to Mr. Walker, the method used prior to the new rule allowed for pay as you go accounting and the new rule required accural accounting. Many governments throughout the Commonwealth and nation used the same accounting method as the Bristol County Pension Board did prior to the change. Whether that method was advisable or prudent is a different discussion than whether the accounting was done according to the established rules. It was.
I am not sure what he was referring that I said "we owe the money anyway". Perhaps it is about whether or not any raises given to town employees increase our pension obligations. They do and the increased amount of that obligation would be proportional to the increase in wages. Since the contribution to the retirement fund is set as a percentage of compensation, the increased obligation is partially offset by this automatic increase in the amount put aside for the pension fund from the employees pay.
The Select Board and the financial officers of the town are well aware of the obligations that we have. The pension fund shortage is beng addressed already through an increased assessment into the pension fund from the Bristol County Board. As I said the catch up plan is scheduled to meet the requirements by 2026, although the current plan for the Bristol County Board reaches the goal two years earlier.
Other post retirement benefits still remain to be addressed. That is why a portion of the free cash from last year was on a warrant article to establish a fund to cover those costs. The article never came before the Fall Town Meeting because of a lack of a quorum. However the article will be re-introduced at the next Town Meeting. Additionally, the financial goals that were recently adopted at a joint meeting of the Select Board and Finance Committee specifically adress the need to fund the post retirement benefits for within operating funds if necessary.
Mr. Trimble,
There have been games played with accounting for pension plans requirements as far back as I can remember. I have personally seen our so-called big 8 (now big 4 and that is another story isn't it?) global accounting firms value the same plans differently. And, not coincidentally, occasionally announce to management that the plans are over funded and significant amounts of company obligations already paid in can be withdrawn and used for other purposes. There is no set formula. And I am not sure there ever could be. Too many variables. They all meet so-called reasonableness tests. We can throw darts and say we will be adequately funded by a certain date but there is absolutely no guarantee that that will happen. I commend your position of a conversion to defined contribution plans as the only way to lock in taxpayer liabilities going forward. Retaining defined benefit plans will always be an potentially expensive risk.
the pension fund estimates are based on 8.25% earnings even in past years when the fund didn't earn it.
Great post Barry, but you got this part wrong. Over the last 23 years the (since tracking of returns began) the average return on Bristol County Retirement System is over 10 percent.
Last night, the Providence School committee fired approximately 2,000 teachers. The teachers had expected there would be layoffs instead and were prepared for the union standard of a seniority based layoff. The cause was a $40 million dollar budget deficit. The layoff of less senior staff would have been done regardless of teacher ability, motivation, and classroom skills. Just seniority or lack thereof. More expensive and potentially less skilled teachers would have been retained. Now all have been fired and the union president is decrying the potential cherry picking of staff to be rehired. If the school department’s motives are honest, the rehires will be the most able teachers that the city can afford. The union finds this unacceptable and threatens legal action. Several years ago, we here in Dartmouth had a layoff of some teachers. I distinctly recall discussions between my child and some of his fellow classmates about how the system lost some fine teachers. Their point was why were they not retained instead of some other teachers they perceived as less able? Is that what we should plan on seeing here again in a few years?
Providences move was caused by years and years of gross mismanagement that caused a $40m deficit. Are you suggesting Dartmouth is in the same league and therefor should consider laying off its entire teaching force?
I applaud Providence. It took guts to do that.
Now the wheat will be separated from the chaff. Those teachers deserving of their jobs - - whether they are "experienced" or not, seniority or
not - - will be retained and those burned out or just putting their time in or just plain not qualified any longer or at all for whatever reason will be shown the door.
What an excellent way to clean house, rid the schools of the dead weight and retain only the best, not to mention not having to retain poor quality instructors simply because the city has to. A savings to the city and to the students who now will be assured they really are being given a quality education.
Experience does not equate with quality. Younger members of the teaching profession and those right out of college may be as good as and probably even better as teachers than some of the senior, "experienced" teachers currently taking up space in the classroom while they wait for their retirement and bennies at our expense.
We have all had a poor teacher and our children have likewise, if they have been in the school system for any length of time. We know they are bad teachers. But they still are there because they are "experienced" and have seniority.
We should all take a lesson from Providence. Start with a fresh slate of quality teachers and go from there. And you probably will find that you have a far more dedicated group of teachers as well. And most likely they will also appreciate having their jobs and will earn their salary and benefits, unlike many who should no longer be teaching.
For those reading this that take umbrage to this post, I am not lumping every teacher in the same category. While I can think of a few poor teachers I have had at DHS, I remember far more that were excellent.
Hats off to Providence!
So you've had far more good teachers than bad at DHS?
Fire them all anyway?
Sounds like a great way to build a workforce with a good morale and loyalty to our students!
Can people really be this ignorant?
To: February 26, 2011 5:52 AM
I suggested nothing in my post, merely presenting facts and asking if we should be prepared to repeat the mistake we made several years ago when we had seniority based layoff?
If I were to suggest anything, I would suggest you bone up on your reading and comprehension skills. Hopefully, you are not in a position to pass those poor quality skills to our children.
I'll quote myself: "Those teachers deserving of their jobs - - whether they are 'experienced' or not, seniority or not - - will be retained and those burned out or just putting their time in or just plain not qualified any longer or at all for whatever reason will be shown the door."
Can you read?
Now I'll quote you: "Can people really be this ignorant?"
Can read perfectly well and can also draw conclusions that are inferred by your post.
In the current system, the issue remains what can we afford? For now, we can afford the current system. Flawed as it is. The answer is not to just raise more taxes to pay excessive salary and benefit costs. That is just the pigs feeding at the trough. Most taxpayers are surely deeply offended by that attitude. The best solution is always to seek, employ, and retain the most skilled and motivated public servants we can afford. Mistakes will always be made. Clearing out the malcontents and underachievers is nearly impossible in the current system. I would venture to say the average taxpayer understands and appreciates the fine work done by the majority of our public servants. It is the people who do not believe they are public servants, but rather the public serves them that are the issue. In Wisconsin and Providence, radical steps are being undertaken to try and address this problem. Let's see how it works out.
"We should take a lesson from Providence. Start with a clean slate"
Tell me that does mean you wish to fire all teachers in Dartmouth.
You then go on to say we will retain the best. You further state those that are retained will appreciate their jobs and salary.
So-fire them all, even though by your own admission most of our teachers are good, - no particular reason other than to get to a clean slate - and this will allow us to have a better system and garner more loyalty from those same teachers? Pardon me if I don't follow your crystal clear logic.
I direct your attention to an article written by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation "Retiree Health Care: The Brick That Broke Municipalities' Backs." The article can be found at www.masstaxpayers.org.
The unfunded post employment benefit (estimated) liability for Dartmouth is $59 million.
Mr. Trimble discussed the funding article on Fall town warrant. The funding was going to be $75,000 (originally $50k, then adjusted). Using straight math, no interest, etc., it will take 786 + years to fund this liability. This is why Mr. Walker and other members of Fin Comm are pushing this issue to the forefront.
"So-fire them all, even though by your own admission most of our teachers are good."
I said I HAVE HAD good teachers at DHS. In fact, I think I said "excellent" teachers.
I was referencing the past tense, not the present, as you attribute to me.
A technicality, I know, but, again, a matter of reading.
I can assume that our teachers today, whether in Dartmouth or elsewhere, are mostly good teachers; I am not attesting to anything one way or another. I can state I have heard more parents say they like the teachers their children have, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have also heard parents say that they dislike some teachers. I'm sure the same was true when both you and I were in school, as well.
Now, lest we get into a battle because you incorrectly interpret my opinions, I will explain my posting.
First, in case you are unaware, Providence intends to rehire (retain, as I stated instead) most of its teachers. So - - firing all and bringing the more qualified teachers back into the classroom is a problem, why? Seems to me that the kids win - - teachers capable and willing to give them the best education they possibly can - - and the teachers win because, for the reasons stated between the dashes, they still have a job. I personally can't see how that would lower morale. Maybe it might make some rehired teachers upset because some of their colleagues were out of a job, but perhaps - - just perhaps - - these are precisely the teachers who should no longer be in the classroom.
Separating the wheat from the chaff.
And, let me explain my comment about a "clean slate": the "clean slate" I reference is the number of REHIRES (as in, let go and now brought back in, like being rehired" or my word, "retained") that have been selected from among all the fired teachers (in Providence) for reasons defined by the individuals selecting them. If these reasons are other than teacher burnout, teachers waiting to retire and just biding time until that date, or teachers never really belonging in the classroom to begin with, then I would say Providence might be on to something, other than reducing a deficit.
I said "FRESH (caps mine) slate, not "clean slate," by the way.
I am not interested in debating the quality of teachers, in Providence, Dartmouth, or East Oshkosh. I have no reason to do so. I am merely stating my opinion that I think the path that Providence is taking financially might also have the added benefit of helping the children educationally, as well.
Just, PLEASE read more carefully. Reread, if necessary. Or, maybe as a previous poster said, it is more a matter of comprehension.
What is happening in Wisconsin is coming here. This boob in the State House (now on his "tour") will continue to placeate the unions but eventually the numbers are the numbers and cuts will have to be made. We have wasted the last several years when we could have been slowly turning things but we refised to face the tough decisions that need to be made. In essence EVERYONE, taxpayer, state employee and tax recipients ALL have to expect and to take less. This means cuts in salaries and benefits, reductions in retirement benefits, education and government handouts.
It IS going to happen it is now a matter of when and how bad. Until we get people in office who are serious about taking on these special interest groups (Like Gov Walker) we are just postponing the inevitable and making it worse.
Yes mistakes have been made by past governments giving away the store and not setting enough aside to pay for bargained for benefits.
We cannot go back and change this the only thing we can do is to cut, cut and cut t balance the books ton ensure that we have something for retirees and that we do not bankrupt our kids taking care of this "special" segment of our population.
To put this issue in perspective, for the first time I can remember, at least a smidgeon of consideration is being taken into consideration for what we do now will affect the future. While I certainly understand the nature of a volunteer position is to address the now and let someone else worry about tomorrow, the cumulative effect of this approach can, and will, come back to bite this town big time. I have watched various SBs function from a range of taking care of their buddies without any consideration for the taxpayer all the way to sincerely addressing current issues. I have never seen a SB rise to the occasion of making painful decisions with the future of the town as the first priority. I give much credit to Mr. Michaud and Mr. Trimble for their enlightened attitudes in this regard. I must also acknowledge Ms. Nunes for being even more of an exception to tradition by not being a rubber stamp for the School Committee. Hands are clearly tied by state law limiting what can be done at the local level. I challenge the balance of the SB and School Committee to step up and institute reasonable and fair changes to the extent that it is possible, that will provide for the future of Dartmouth, not just the present.
An appropriate song to listen to while you ponder Dartmouth's unfunded liabilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikZwgj89HI
I think I'll listen to it tonight with a glass of whiskey(the cryin' kind)before tuning in to the Select Board meeting.
The next item that Gov. Walker is proposing cuts for is education aid. $900 million or a 9% overall reduction. Another piece of the cost cutting puzzle to try and address nearly $4 billion dollars in excess expenses to revenue in fiscal 2011. Massachusetts is in a similar deficit situation. By reducing local aid, each jurisdiction will be faced with the same dilemma. Raise local taxes or reduce services. Perhaps a combination of both. Frankly, exactly what should also be on the table here in Massachusetts. This is nothing more than living within your means. Deficit spending simply passes on the problem to our children. If you look at deficit issues in this honest and unbiased viewpoint, lowering costs rather than passing the whole problem onto the taxpayer makes a lot of sense. It will come to this right here in Dartmouth and to the state government. I hope it doesn't happen because we have become insolvent or incapable of borrowing more money and further mortgaging the future.
Post a Comment