I want to thank all of you for your comments on the recent post "A Little Known Perk at the Wicomico County Board of Education" which appeared both on Delmarva Dealings and on Salisbury News. Whether you supported by point of view (POV) or not, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I am responding in a separate post because I feel the need to correct a few misconceptions, clarify a couple of things and also to acknowledge an error on my part.
First of all a minor point; Joe Albero did not write this post. For those of you reading on Salisbury News, don't hang him with this one. He catches enough grief about things he writes himself. My name is clearly at the bottom of the post (I realize most folks don't look for it since Salisbury News is Joe's blog) and it's cross posted to Delmarva Dealings.
Second, I made an error in the original post. After a lengthy discussion with the good folks over at the WCBOE, I was well aware that one of the justifications given for the Early Notification Program (ENP) was its use as a planning tool. One commenter pointed out that the BOE would use the ENP to help put people into slots as teachers and staff put in for retirement and the BOE could now time such moves more precisely.
Lastly, I want to clarify some items because I evidently wasn't very clear to some readers.
A few of you think that I'm blaming teachers or the MSTA (teachers' union) for the ENP. First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I clearly state in the post that the WCBOE "has a program to give teachers and staff a 10% raise for each of their last three years on the job". A minor point I know, but several folks seem to be really worried about that one. As for blaming the union, that is not the case. I am a big believer that management bears 100% of the burden of any labor contract that is adopted. It is the union's job to try and get the best package for its members. If management can't live with the contract don't agree to it. To go off point a bit, that is a real bone in my craw. I hear people complain about unions destroying the American economy. B.S.! Every contract that management complains of now was agreed to by one of their predecessors. To be completely candid, I also believe that management has a perfect right to bring in replacements if they feel that a strike or work action will be too detrimental to the financial health of that enterprise.
Back to the comments.
Several readers claim that I misconstrue the BOE when they claim that the ENP is a retention tool. You state that the teachers that are leaving are not the ones ready to retire. True enough. Again, I was well aware of this but failed to explain it properly in the original post. According to the WCBOE they face a problem with teachers leaving who have 20 - 25 years of service. Evidently, this is because you need to have X years in at the new school district to take full benefit of that county's retirement package. The idea behind the ENP is to give an incentive for teachers to stay because they will reap this benefit in later years (right before retirement).
Remember, the state picks up the tab for the pension. The county is on the hook for the retiree medical benefits. Currently WCBOE pays 55% of a retiree's premium for an individual policy only. According to the WCBOE, Worcester County pays 90% of any plan (single, retiree and spouse, family). I have no evidence to contradict this.
There are also numerous comments that seem to confuse two separate issues raised in the post. One is the ENP and the other is a claim often put forth by teachers that they should be paid comparably to the private sector. For the purposes of the post these are totally separate.
Thanks for the comments.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Wicomico, politics, Wicomico politics, education
First of all a minor point; Joe Albero did not write this post. For those of you reading on Salisbury News, don't hang him with this one. He catches enough grief about things he writes himself. My name is clearly at the bottom of the post (I realize most folks don't look for it since Salisbury News is Joe's blog) and it's cross posted to Delmarva Dealings.
Second, I made an error in the original post. After a lengthy discussion with the good folks over at the WCBOE, I was well aware that one of the justifications given for the Early Notification Program (ENP) was its use as a planning tool. One commenter pointed out that the BOE would use the ENP to help put people into slots as teachers and staff put in for retirement and the BOE could now time such moves more precisely.
Lastly, I want to clarify some items because I evidently wasn't very clear to some readers.
A few of you think that I'm blaming teachers or the MSTA (teachers' union) for the ENP. First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I clearly state in the post that the WCBOE "has a program to give teachers and staff a 10% raise for each of their last three years on the job". A minor point I know, but several folks seem to be really worried about that one. As for blaming the union, that is not the case. I am a big believer that management bears 100% of the burden of any labor contract that is adopted. It is the union's job to try and get the best package for its members. If management can't live with the contract don't agree to it. To go off point a bit, that is a real bone in my craw. I hear people complain about unions destroying the American economy. B.S.! Every contract that management complains of now was agreed to by one of their predecessors. To be completely candid, I also believe that management has a perfect right to bring in replacements if they feel that a strike or work action will be too detrimental to the financial health of that enterprise.
Back to the comments.
Several readers claim that I misconstrue the BOE when they claim that the ENP is a retention tool. You state that the teachers that are leaving are not the ones ready to retire. True enough. Again, I was well aware of this but failed to explain it properly in the original post. According to the WCBOE they face a problem with teachers leaving who have 20 - 25 years of service. Evidently, this is because you need to have X years in at the new school district to take full benefit of that county's retirement package. The idea behind the ENP is to give an incentive for teachers to stay because they will reap this benefit in later years (right before retirement).
Remember, the state picks up the tab for the pension. The county is on the hook for the retiree medical benefits. Currently WCBOE pays 55% of a retiree's premium for an individual policy only. According to the WCBOE, Worcester County pays 90% of any plan (single, retiree and spouse, family). I have no evidence to contradict this.
There are also numerous comments that seem to confuse two separate issues raised in the post. One is the ENP and the other is a claim often put forth by teachers that they should be paid comparably to the private sector. For the purposes of the post these are totally separate.
Thanks for the comments.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Wicomico, politics, Wicomico politics, education
Powered by ScribeFire.
You did a good job explaining ENP. Teachers with 20 years or less experience are the ones leaving the county. So why not increase salary or benefits for that group? ENP does nothing for the group they know is leaving while giving bonuses to those near or well past 30 years. Do we expect the public to believe that teachers with 30-35 years experience are being drawn to Worcester or Talbot? Central office people have larger salaries and are getting more benefit from ENP than teachers are. The two or three central office people who have left took jobs in Virginia or Delaware so they could get a Maryland pension and still draw a salary. One in central office left due to marriage. So why the huge bonus for them? Is the public supposed to believe that central office people are being lured to Worcester so we need for them to have 10% raises? Are secretaries and assistants going to Worcester in droves because they got the 10% bonus too? The Bd. answered your questions with information about losing teachers, but the ENP does not address those leaving and includes many from groups not leaving. Your point on management accepting expensive proposals from labor is well written, but you need to understand that the reverse happened here. Bd management OFFERED ENP, and the teachers accepted it. The question of why this was never publicized remains.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect you misunderstood me. The BOE claims that one purpose of the ENP is as a future benefit that can only be received by a teacher or staff member if they stay until the end of their career.
ReplyDeleteRather than raise pay rates across the board, this "bonus" can only be collected by those who stay.
In theory saying someone would stay 5-10 years to get the ENP program at the end of their career is reasonable. Actually, everyone in the system knew that Thornton funding would be greatly reduced for the coming year. Of course that is what is happening. To say that teachers thought this benefit would be available for them many years down the road is an interesting comment.
ReplyDeleteYou know what else is interesting about this 10% for the last three years,is how it plays out on the teachers retiremeent income. Under the current system in Maryland your last three years of salary figure into what you receive as a retirement retainer. So, in effect, giving teachers this 30% increase in the last three years of salaries, also gives them a big boost in the retirement payments to them. Boy! I sure wish us librarians had such a bonus built into the retirement package! And we are under the same teachers retirement system, but without the bonus.
ReplyDeleteA. Goetz
No, Mr. Goetz, this is not true. The State Pension Board denied ENP earnings as part of the pension calculation (even though it had been allowed in other counties). BOE employees knew this and were given extra time to reconsider their decisions when the official ruling came down.
ReplyDeleteAn assistent who lives in my building said that you do not have to pay the money back if you take the 10% but then don't retire. I don't think that could be right but she says it is. Does any one know?
ReplyDelete