Council Tables School Employees Pension Plan Decision
More than 200 Coventry school employees attended Monday's meeting in support of their underfunded pension plan.
Prior to the start of Monday's Town Council meeting, upwards of 200 Coventry School Department employees and union members stood outside of Town Hall holding picket signs in support of the Coventry Teachers' Alliance/School Related Personnel (CTA/SRP) Pension Plan. Once the meeting began, in order to comply with the Town Hall Chambers' capacity, many members of the crowd were asked to listen to the meeting from the building's lobby.
According to Town Manager Tom Hoover, the "Coventry School Employees Pension Plan and Trust", is approximately $24 million underfunded and the State Auditor General has asked the Town of Coventry to provide an individual position on the matter in regards to liability.
According to the Council's resolution, read in full by Town Clerk Cheryl George (see attached documents), the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the School Committee and CTA/SRP and Local 1075 Union, states "the School Committee shall provide a contribution to a pension plan", but does not specifically obligate the Committee to provide defined benefits outside of what is contractually required.
Hoover explained that because the Town and School Committee have both contributed to the plan what was contractually obligated of them in the past, the Town's position to be forwarded to the Auditor General is that it has no further obligation to the plan past what is stated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
"The School Committee's budget is in total approved by the Town Council and each year when we were obligated to put money in, we put in that amount," said Hoover. "I believe and suggest to this Council that we do not have the liability for this plan being underfunded."
Council President Gary Cote agreed with Hoover, stating that the pension plan's board of trustees (two members of the School Committee and two from the union) should be held accountable, and not the taxpayers who would ultimately foot the bill if the Town and/or School Committee are held responsible for making up the plan's deficit.
"As far as I can see from looking at all the facts, the Town of Coventry, the administration on this side of 117, was never responsible for administering this plan," said Cote. "Secondly, the taxpayers through the approval of the school budget every year have already paid their share of this pension. If the board of trustees for this pension plan did not look out for its financial best interest on behalf of its members, I don't think that means that the $24 million should be laid on the back of the taxpayers."
Many audience members argued that they are in fact, also taxpayers of the Town as well as school employees. Others inquired why the Town is contributing towards the police and municipal pension plans, both of which are also currently underfunded, in critical status and have implemented funding improvement plans to rectify the situation.
CTA President Kelly Erinakes spoke on behalf of the union, stating that present and past council members had in fact been aware of the plan's unfunded liability and should help protect the school employees who have undergone significant "Draconian changes" to their pensions and benefits in recent years.
"As members of this council, you are charged with the care and custody of this town and this befalls on you as well," said Erinakes.
Councilman Ted Jendzejec stated that he feels the community should pool its resources to help fund the plan, a sentiment that was met with applause and a standing ovation by audience members.
"I just think that sooner or later it's going to fall on the backs of the taxpayers if there's not a plan to help fund it now," he said. "We're a community here, not just school committee, SRP, town council - and we should all be putting our heads together to help all of the pensions in the town be funded. I just don't understand the division, pitting the town against the school committee, the citizens against the SRP, people against people. We should all be working together for one common goal. This is just not a good thing."
Jendzejec went on to suggest that the two newly-elected members of the Council, Karen Carlson and Greg Laboissonniere, be given more time to review the facts of the issue in order to make an educated decision. He also questioned why the Council was attempting to act on the matter when the School Committee had not done so yet, as is the usual procedure for matters pertaining to both entities.
Based on these points, Jendzejec motioned to table the agenda item for a future meeting - a decision approved by the rest of the Council.
The Coventry School Committee will discuss its position on the matter at Tuesday's meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. at the School Administration Offices in the Town Hall Annex.
Gunslinger
3:18 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
"As far as I can see from looking at all the facts, the Town of Coventry, the administration on this side of 117, was never responsible for administering this plan," said Cote. "Secondly, the taxpayers through the approval of the school budget every year have already paid their share of this pension. If the board of trustees for this pension plan did not look out for its financial best interest on behalf of its members, I don't think that means that the $24 million should be laid on the back of the taxpayers."
THANK YOU MR. HOOVER & MR. COTE FOR STANDING UP FOR THE TAXPAYER
Sara
6:03 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I totally agree Gunslinger. Thanks Mr. Hoover and Mr. Cote.
resident
9:15 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Wow, all this after the November elections, after the Teacher Contract was passed and after the School Department got their Bonds passed for school improvements (not funding capital improvements for decades).
Get rid of the Teacher's health care stipend to save $647,600 (Medical buyback).
Most companies in the 'real world' no longer offer stipends to employees who choose not to sign up for Health Coverage.
Teacher salaries are high enough for working 183 days, summers off and school year vacations.
For example from last year's budget line items:
$Salary Total/ Teachers Positions = Average Salary (not including benefits)
$9,005,899 / 111.8 = $80,553 Elementary
$5,411,117,495/68.5= $79,087 Middle
$8,977,282 /113.5 = $79,094 High School
NOTE: Does not include the $14,299,698 in benefits across the whole School Department Source:
http://www.coventryschools.net/Admin/Contracts/2012-2015_CTA_Contract_pt1.pdf
http://www.coventryschools.net/Admin/Contracts/2012-2015_CTA_Contract_pt2.pdf
http://www.coventryschools.net/Admin/2012-2013_Budget.pdf
TimeKeeper
2:35 pm on Friday, November 30, 2012
You are aware that most teachers work at home and on weekends right? No pay for that. Plus they usually participate in professional development in the summer AND take college classes (all at their own expense). So let's say your child's teacher were paid a babysitter's salary. Then the formula would look something like this:
7 hours x $3.00/hr = $21 a day per student.
$21/student x 25 students = $525 a day per class
36 weeks x 5 days per week = 180 days
$525 x 180 days = $94,500.00/year salary (without benefits)
Now imagine if they worked the 260 days per year on average...then their salary would equate to be $136,500. Oh and by the way, they actually have to TEACH your kid every day with or without your support.
Lastly, the medical buyback actually SAVES taxpayers money. If districts didn't offer a buyback, then all teachers would probably elect to take the coverage (don't tell me YOU wouldn't do that too if you had the option). So considering that it probably costs roughly $14,000 for a family medical plan - what's better? Having to pay out $11,760 (84%) per teacher for medical? Or pay out $3,000 (21%) per teacher instead? The math comes out to a savings of almost $800,000 if at least 90 teachers (the contractual minimum) opted out of coverage.
If you think teaching is such an easy gig, then why didn't you become a teacher? I doubt you'd last a day in the classroom and I sure wouldn't want you teaching my children!
A Taxpayer
10:15 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I think Ted Jendzejec should pool his own resources by selling his home and moving out of town. Keep your damn hands off of our money, Ted.
Jean Taxpayer
9:33 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
why do you think we the taxpayers should pay for your pension.
No one has paid for my retirement beside myself
Concerned taxpayer
11:44 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The problem is that nobody stood up to the unions who were asking for more than any of these employees deserved or that the town and taxpayers could afford. My standard of living continues to decline every time my taxes go up. It's time to grow up and face reality and admit these contracts should have been more realistic in the first place. I believe if the contracts are not reduced now, it is only going to get worse later. The truth is that we the taxpayers can't afford this, we are losing our homes and choosing to move out of town, because of our high taxes. Eventually these employees, who I totally respect and appreciate, will have to survive on less. I feel they should start preparing for that now, so the impact will be less later. If things continue like they are, eventually the town will have to file bankruptcy and these unrealistic contracts will no longer exist.
me
8:35 am on Thursday, December 13, 2012
The teachers get most of the town's budget as far as I can see. I personally can not afford any more. Unions have taken over and feel entitled to take from the taxpayers whatever they want. Meanwhile, I can't even find a job. I'M NOT PAYING ANYMORE TAXES TO THEM, THEY WANT TOO MUCH...