According to the AJC
Two DeKalb County educators have filed a lawsuit against the school district and board for failing to make contributions over the last two years to a district employee retirement fund.
. . .
The plan was established in 1979 as an additional benefit to educators and an alternative to social security. It is separate from the state retirement fund and is paid into individual employee accounts, tax sheltered until withdrawn. The contributions make up about 6 percent of each employee’s annual salary – about $20 million per year, according to attorneys who filed the suit and board members.
The lawsuit, filed last week, accuses the board of reneging on its commitment by freezing contributions and failing to give the two-year notice beforehand, as required by board policy.
“This is about keeping promises the board made to employees,” said attorney John Salter of the Barnes Law Group, who is representing the educators.
School board chairman Tom Bowen said the board did not act improperly and has the right to amend its own policies. According to the suit, the board voted to waive the two-year notice in 2010, a year after the contributions were halted.
. . .
“A board can waive or go against its own policy because the board is the policy-setting body," Bowen said.
Really Tom? Really? That's your response for your actions?
Good for these two for being so brave! What the school system did was wrong IMO. Interesting that Womack was involved in both - the first time convincing them to ditch social security and go with the county plan - and the second time, when the benefits were cut.
74 comments:
I'm sorry, I don't feel for these teachers. They already have a retirement plan, via the TRS, which the school system pays into every month. Why, when most companies in this country have stopped altogether retirement plans for their employees, do these teachers feel they deserve two plans?
This really makes them look greedy in these really rough economic times.
"The plan was established in 1979 as an additional benefit to educators and an alternative to social security."
Without this plan, teachers should be able to participate in Social Security. As it is now, they have neither. They only have state teacher's retirement fund, which they pay into. That's the issue. This plan was costing 6% of teacher's pay. Social Security costs about 7% for the employer and another 7% for the employee.
“A board can waive or go against its own policy because the board is the policy-setting body," Bowen said.
Tom Bowen, our outstanding leader. Or not.
Hey Tom, for your re-election campaign, please disclose that you have relatives working for the school system.
What's the point of setting policy if it can simply be waived at any time for any reason?
School system funds used to pay for the defense of this suit. Am I right?
In many other counties in Georgia and in most counties in the U.S. the school system pays into Social Security as well as a Teacher's Retirement system. DeKalb does not pay the more expensive Social Security since they opted to pay into the Tax Sheltered Annuity (TSA) in 1978. Lewis and Tyson suspended the TSA to balance the budget (in lieu of trimming in the bloated admin and support area).
Here's a link to the Windfall Elimination Provision:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html
The only other system that has teachers depending entirely on TRS is Atlanta Public. But then they pay their teachers $4,000 to $5,000 more a year than DCSS.
DeKalb cannot continue on the route it's on and attract quality teachers.
Not paying into Social Security has adverse consequences for teachers who come from a system or job that required Social Security contributions. The Windfall Provision established during Reagan's era states that any employee who retires from a system that has opted out of Social Security and collects a pension shall be penalized.
I paid into Social Security for 17 years - some of them in the 70s when I was a DCSS teacher. Because I was in a well paying corporate job, I paid at the maximum rate for many more years. When I came back and taught in DCSS, I finished up my 30 years and now collect teacher's retirement. Because I collect a pension from a system that doesn't pay into Social Security, my Social Security has been reduced by about 60%. My TSA helps make up the difference.
I know good teachers who have left DCSS to finish up their last 5 years in a system that does pay into Social Security (Gwinnett, Cobb, etc.) so they won't be penalized.
For a number of years under Lewis, he would suspend teacher raises (sometimes step as well as COLA) because he said DCSS was strapped to pay into Teacher's Retirement (teachers pay 5.58% and at that time the county paid around 9%). So you see, in essence, most of the contributions were coming from teachers. All the while, Lewis was swelling the admin and support ranks and giving promotions to Central Office personnel so they would get double digit raises. Look how many times he raised the millage rate while not giving teachers any raises. We now know where the money went.
Ms. Tyson should have thinned those swelled admin and support ranks and cut the pay of the admin and support personnel to what they would be in private industry (which is why people have been so interested in the 2004 Ernst and Young audit). Cutting the TSA was a crude way to balance the budget. A scalpel was required rather than a meat cleaver.
I have no dog in this fight as a teacher, but as a taxpayer I'm concerned that right sizing the non-teaching side of DCSS was side stepped by eliminating the TSA.
DCSS will lose this suit on a motion for summary judgment. The Board violated their own policy. Then, a year AFTER violating their own policy, the Board voted to waive the requirement they'd alredy violated.
Game over.
Not only will the teachers get the contributions they earned and are owed, DCSS will waste millions of dollars fighting the suit so they can subsequently pay millions of dollars to the theachers' attorneys for their services.
Why? Because the Board cannot follow its own rules.
Great post @ 9:40 however Lewis, Tyson or any superintendent can't make the change to suspend payments into the retirement plan. Only Board members have that authority.
I don't believe the school system could cut enough staff to fund the retirement. The only other option would be to increase the millage rate. This was the consideration with bus drivers requested to be included in retirement system.
@ 9:47
"Lewis, Tyson or any superintendent can't make the change to suspend payments into the retirement plan. Only Board members have that authority."
Lewis and Tyson set the budget with these cuts and the BOE approved it.
Why is it all a zero sum? Ms. Tyson says cutting the Central Office employees will not balance the budget, and then uses this as a rationale not to make ANY cuts to the Central Office. She didn't want to outsource Security, Custodial, Food Services, Groundskeepers, Maintenance, Information Systems (MIS), etc. She didn't request an compensation audit to see how much of the non-teaching staff are being overpaid (we know teachers are not overpaid because we can compare their salaries with the teachers in all the other metro systems). She continued to ask that tens of millions be poured into the Heery lawsuit when we have little hope of winning that case.
I think there were many ways she could have cut without impacting the employees who teach students. The BOE has approved everything she asked for so I would say they are responsible as well.
@ Anon 9:43, you are 100% correct. Under GA law, an employer has the freedom to change its policies, including benefits and compensation, at any time, but those changes can only be applied prospectively, so any non-funding which occured before they officially changed it and announced it was unlawful and a violation of the contract to the teachers. Any non-contributions since then were lawful, but there may be an issue about whether this has opened teachers up to participating in Social Security and if in fact teachers should have been participating, both teachers and the county owe money to SSA. Either way, we're going to have to pay some money and if they system's retirement system was cheaper, then you'd think it would be in the county's best interest to fully fund that and not worry about the SSA implications. But what do I know, I'm only an employment lawyer!
Remember that those tens of millions that the Office of School Improvement is spending for those highly paid non-teaching positions is not all "free" money from federal funds. The retirement contributions and health care premiums for all those non-teaching jobs are NOT coming out of the "free" federal funds. Rather, those millions are coming out of the local tax dollars.
Already DCSS has 90 Instructional coaches paid $9,000,000 a year by the Office of School Improvement. That $100,000 per non-teaching "coach" includes a 25% benefits figure. That 25% is coming from local tax dollars. Now Ms. Berry is hiring 15 to 20 more non-teaching "coaches". That will be an additional $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 with 25% coming from local tax dollars for those benefits. And look at the 60 coordinators paid by the Office of School Improvement to the tune of $8,000,000 with 25% of that coming from local tax dollars. Graduation specialists for $3,300,000 - most of that coming completely from local tax dollars since Georgia doesn't fund them anymore.
And we can afford $7,000,000 a year for Fernbank Science Center, an outdated White Elephant with only 28 teachers to 36 admin and support personnel. Those 36 FSC admin and support staff cost $2,200,000 a year in salary and benefits.
Do you see why we need a scalpel?
@ Leo
"Any non-contributions since then were lawful, but there may be an issue about whether this has opened teachers up to participating in Social Security and if in fact teachers should have been participating, both teachers and the county owe money to SSA. "
You're absolutely right. It would be extremely expensive to join SSA again, but the county might not have a choice. Most other metro systems offer this in addition to TRS.
Lewis already cut the TSA completely for employees who have less than 3 years of employment and the TSA contribution was less than 6%. That was one of the first moves he made in 2004. 30% to 50% of our new teachers do not last until year 4 to collect, so you can do the math on that one and see how he got money for those raises and promotions and all those non-teaching jobs he added. No one protested then so I guess he figured he could go back to the well rather than cutting in non-essential areas and areas that are making over the marketplace in compensation.
If teachers can opt back into SSA, DCSS will be paying 7% for EVERY employee regardless of years of service. Uncle Sam doesn't let you opt out on SSA for employees until year 4. This is actually what most of the other metro area systems pay since many of them pay SSA and TRS. Doing the math, you can see how the TSA is a MUCH less expensive option than paying 7% to every employee.
I was a DCSS teacher in 1978 when we voted to opt out of SSA. DCSS was paying less than 6% in SSA at time and continued that same payment since that was a good deal for them (and us taxpayers) while other systems have borne the brunt of SSA raises.
I thought it was wrong when Lewis went down that path. He was trying to fund a lot of programs and departments at that time, and adding a lot of admin and support personnel. The county needs to rightsize the admin and support now. You can't keep up the friends and family plan forever.
Let's see. Teachers and DCSS do not pay Social Security tax to pay into the Ponzi scheme that pays my Social Security check each month. I always worked, and still do somewhat, in private industry and still pay Social Security taxes. I pay taxes to the state of Georgia and to DCSS to help finance TRS so that teachers can get paid their pension checks. I pay for them, but they will not pay for me. It really is a strange world.
DeKalb County's bond rating was just lowered, meaning that it will cost more to finance the $1.3 billion sewer/water repair. The County Board of Commissioners has just concluded that they might have to increase taxes after posturing that there would be no tax increases. The County CEO shows no desire to make the county government more efficient. Projected pension and health-care costs for County employees and retirees will become a heavy burden on taxpayers. Brookhaven is looking to form a separate city. This will further reduce the income of the city.
I think that both the County and DCSS should declare bankruptcy now and let a court-appointed receiver take over to straighten out the place. Margaret Thatcher summed it up nicely "liberalism (The County and DCSS job machines) works pretty well until it runs out of money"
Actually getting a receiver to undo the ponzis that have been misusing our tax dollars and siphoning them off into places like NB and others isn't such a bad idea..... it would be a way to get it all "right sized." I think that the kids would ultimately be the biggest beneficiaries.
@ anonymous 12:23
"I pay taxes to the state of Georgia and to DCSS to help finance TRS so that teachers can get paid their pension checks. I pay for them, but they will not pay for me. It really is a strange world."
Teachers have not had the option to pay into Social Security since 1978. I'm a retired teacher, and I paid into Social Security for 17 years from 1969 until 1986. For many years when I was in the corporate world I made so much money that I paid in until I reached the top cutoff point so you can say I paid at the maximum for years and years. Did you pay at the maximum rate?
Because I retired from a system that doesn't pay into Social Security, my benefits from Social Security are cut by 60%. You obviously don't understand the Windfall Elimination Provision law. This is true for many teachers - particularly those that worked in the 60s and 70s - most of those with under 10 years of paying into SSA will never receive a nickel. This is also true for people who left/are still leaving the private sector to teach.
So you see, you are the one who is benefiting from the money that thousands of teachers paid into SSA and will never receive.
As for the "liberals", Wall Street must have been composed of liberals when they created all those CDOs and synthetic CDOs and CDSs that tanked our economy. If you think that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
FYI - many of the public pension funds are down because they invested in these AAA investment instruments that were really no more than "junk bonds". Ga. TRS had their fair share, and they also lost a bundle on AIG. Did teachers tell those pension fund managers where to invest? Obviously not. Teachers have no control over the pension money. The same pension fund managers are still running Ga. TRS. They made a lot of money then, and they are making a lot of money now. Do you think all those pension fund managers are liberal?
Keep in mind that Lewis was a gym teacher, not a math teacher.
Great and insightful comments in this particular blog, especially the history of the DeKalb retirement plan.
Leo, given you are an employment lawyer, would you comment on Ms. Tyson's salary increase? Based on your understand, was there a legal obigation to provide that to her? Could the Board have kept her salary fixed during her term interim superintendent?
I believe that that board is in trouble for millions of dollars on this one. They must pay social security or TSA. I bet there is a huge penalty for them to go back into Social Security.
I believe that this is a prime example of the board/administration not thinking through the consequences of their actions and proceeding anyway. Why aren't lawyers looking at these actions before they are proceeded upon.
Well, I agree with many of the comments, but I also want to enlighten everyone that not all TSA contributions were halted. Only TSA contributions to people who qualify for TRS were halted. All the lower level employees still had their contirbutions made to their TSAs. Just a drop in the bucket with all the waste in the courtrooms.
That's odd. The lower level personnel have their own defined benefit retirement entity similar to TRS. What's the rationale for that? I knew this would be a mess. Teachers in DCSS should be pushing the administration for Social Security like all the other systems or maybe teachers will just opt for DCSS if they can't get jobs elsewhere. Such poor planning on the part of Lewis and Tyson. Where are they going to cut if they lose this case? I guess they'll try to put 40 kids to a classroom since Ms. Tyson already got the BOE to approve 39 per HS class as long as they aren't content area (36 for math, science, social studies and language arts - crowd control). Heaven forbid there are meaningful cuts outside the classroom.
If DeKalb teachers were a part of Social Security, DCSS would be required to pay this 7% they are using elsewhere in Social Security Taxes. I certainly don't mind paying my share of these taxes. This way they have avoided paying taxes and providing promised compensation in the form of a small retirement benefit.
@ 10:33
"Lewis and Tyson set the budget with these cuts and the BOE approved it. "
This is the misundertanding many seem to have. Superintendents are the ONLY employee of the Board and work at their direction. If the Board gives direction to present a balanced budget factoring in a revenune shortfall, that's what the superintendent will do. The Board still have final say on what the final budget will look like. If you remember the spreadsheet presented to the Board last year with various budget cutting options. The superintendent can make a recommendation but the Board makes the FINAL decision.
As a teacher, I for one am ecstatic that these teachers have taken the bull by the horns to attempt to gain redress for the funds that were taken from us by the unilateral Board action. Teachers have been too slow to get angry about this egregious attempt by the Board to go back on its word. The initial cut was billed as "temporary", and sadly, most teachers then seemed to believe that it would be restored as Dr. Lewis so often said would be the case.
The windfall elimination provision will cut my Social Security income significantly, while no substitute plan has been offered. I earned this social security money over the four decades of working before I became employed in DCSS--and now just having worked here for 10 years will reduce that income FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!! So for those of you who think that you're "paying for our benefits", perhaps there's some consolation there.
If you have seen how obscure the DCSS Administration can make even the simplest piece of information, just imagine how hard it is to get a straight answer from Marcus Turk and colleagues about retirement funds. Many teachers hire independent financial planners because the explanations DCSS gives of how TRS, Board TSA, and the Optional TSA, work, are incomprehensible. For example, a few years ago, one of the highest-ranked administrators told me that his wife had discovered the windfall elimination provision by accident three years after retiring from DCSS--and she had to pay back a lot of money to the Federal government.
The Board needs to be forced to consider the wellbeing of all of its employees, and hopefully, this suit will be a start in that direction. Go for it!
@ 5:48 pm
"If the Board gives direction to present a balanced budget factoring in a revenune shortfall, that's what the superintendent will do. "
That's not the way the BOE minutes read. First, Dr. Lewis and then Ms. Tyson made the proposal to eliminate the TSA, and then the BOE approved his/her recommendation to balance the budget.
Lewis and/or Tyson could have made a recommendation to balance the budget a different way. The BOE does not recommend. They only approve or disapprove of the superintendent's recommendation. Read all the online BOE minutes since 2002. You will not see a BOE member making financial recommendations on the details of balancing the budget.
As a teacher I pay money into my TRA each month. This is not a system pay in plan. This is a teacher pay in plan. We pay a great deal of money into this plan over the years in order to retire with 60% (30 years of service) to 70% (35 years of service) of our top pay for so many years.
Another issue not discussed here is how a spouse cannot draw their mates Social Security or gets it cut dramatically due to these provisions. Teachers who are not in social security get hurt by not receiving the money their spouse had put into social security. This has been a sore subjects to many retired women who think they would get their husband's social security benifits when the husband died. They have gotten a suprise.
@ Ella
That happened to a friend of mine recently. Her husband died a number of years ago when he was close to 50. He had paid into Social Security all his working life. When she tried to collect his Social Security like other widows do, she was told she had a pension from a system that did not pay into Social Security (Atlanta Public in this case). Therefore, the Windfall Elimination Provision precluded her collecting on her husbands Social Security. If she had NEVER worked she would have collected his SSA, but not in this case. This happens time and again with widows and widowers. The money goes in, but nothing comes out. BTW - my friend paid into SSA for 8 years when she was first employed by APS (before they opted out). She of course gets nothing for any of those contributions.
I don't think anyone realizes how much Social Security teachers DON'T get because of this Windfall provision. Most teachers have been in other systems or other jobs where they paid into Social Security, yet they get nothing or drastically decreased benefits because they retire from DCSS who doesn't pay into SSA.
The money goes into SSA, but it never comes out. I guess the people who collect Social Security are getting that money.
Teachers were not upset about this when they had the TSA, but now that the TSA is gone, they are realizing the implications of retiring from a system that doesn't pay into SSA.
Someone should clue the superintendent-candidates in on this blog!!!!
Can a teacher who has worked in DCSS and get another job that collects SSA get SSA benefits for myself and/or from my husband's benefits?
I am confused about this and didn't realize the implications on my SSI or my husband's benefits.
Anon 8:29-
According to the windfall elimination provision you will only get approximately 40% of your SS benefit (from yourself or your husband) since you earned a pension from a job in which you did not pay into Social Security.
We need to bring more attention to this issue- many people don't realize what they are losing until it's too late.
There is more information here:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html
Ask Paul Womack. He was on the board back when they made the decision to ditch social security.
We need to get DCSS back into Social Security!!
How can we force DCSS to allow another employee vote on this issue. When the original vote was held in 1978 the Windfall Elimination Provision didn't exist. (The WEP wasn't passed until 1983- thanks Reagan!)
I've talked with many teachers and I believe they would overwhelmingly choose to contribute to SS.
According to the Social Security website, "The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers"
As a DCSS teacher I would GLADLY pay 4.2% to be in Social Security!
I've searched and can't find the process we, as employees, need to follow to vote to go back into Social Security.
I agree that teachers would probably overwhelmingly vote to go back in.
"Can a teacher who has worked in DCSS and get another job that collects SSA get SSA benefits for myself and/or from my husband's benefits? "
You need to contact Social Security. If you collect a pension from an entity that does not pay into Social Security, you WILL be penalized. That's very clear. The only way you will get nearly full benefits is if you have paid into SSA for 30 years at a substantial rate (they have a chart showing the rate). Under 20 years of full time work paying into SSA will result in a 60% reduction of your SSA.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html
Personally, I think DCSS teachers should be investigating how they can opt back into SSA. Cobb teachers pay into SSA and TRS and Cobb Co. pays into SSA and TRS for their teachers. Some metro systems do this, and some don't.
The systems that don't pay into SSA pay into a TSA. DeKalb and Atlanta Public are the only systems that don't pay into SSA or a TSA. We seem to be more and more like Atlanta Public. Of course, APS pays their teachers several thousand a year more than DCSS.
You and your husband are right to be very concerned about this. All DCSS teachers who are considering retiring from DCSS need to be concerned. I've known teachers who left DCSS for systems that pay into SSA because they have quite a few years in the SSA system and want to make sure they get their full SSA benefits.
"I've searched and can't find the process we, as employees, need to follow to vote to go back into Social Security.
"
Why isn't ODE getting this information together for teachers and other employees?
http://www.odegaenea.org/
David Schutten
ODE Office
678-837-1170
presode@aol.com
Also, you might want to contact GAE.
http://gae2.org/
Hopefully, the lawyers in this lawsuit are finding out how DCSS employees can get back into SSA.
You don't have a process because you don't have a union. All you have is ODE. The administrators also belong to ODE.
There are many school systems all over the country that only have state teachers retirement for their employees. I know of many teachers in this situation. My sister lives in another state and falls under these guidelines. She was very surprised to hear that we had a board tax sheltered annuity which is considered a 403B.
I would love to be a part of social security because I will not receive any benefits under the social security guiedlines. You can call SSA any evenings to find out what your personal status would be.
I sure wish our tax dollars could go to help the teachers sue the system. Instead, WE are going to pay for the defense of this suit that shouldn't have been made in the first place if Turk, Tyson and Clew had done the hard work and sliced the budget instead of cutting out one line item which happens to be one of the most important line items for a teachers retirement. Once again the people that do the real work of educating get screwed while the Palace guard continues riding the gravy train right off a cliff.
Turk should resign today!
@ Anon 2:50
Without seeing her contract, I can't say whether they had an obligation to give Tyson a raise. Assuming that there was no contractual obligation to do so, then there was no legal reason they had to do it. There may have been other reasons (such as Tyson threatening to step down) which motivated the decision, but I have no info about that.
@6:10PM
"Lewis and/or Tyson could have made a recommendation to balance the budget a different way. The BOE does not recommend. They only approve or disapprove of the superintendent's recommendation."
Surely you don't believe there isn't something in the middle? Recall with the recent redistricting, Ms. Tyson made a recommendation and the Board 'modified' it before approving. You obviously don't recognize that the Board has final say on all matters.
School Boards typically approve most recommendations from the superintendent because they trust the judgment of the superintendent. When trust is lost, you see more meddling.
@ 9:38
But the BOE did not change Tyson's recommendations for cutting the TSA or increasing class sizes like they did the redistricting. Lewis came up with the idea of cutting the teacher's TSA, and Tyson carried that on. This seemed like an easy way to balance the budget. No thought on what personnel or programs were providing (or NOT providing) a Return on Investment - just lop off the TSA.
If DCSS teachers get back into the SSA system, can you guess where the employer's (DCSS) 7% contribution comes from? Silly me. It's me. The taxpayer. DeKalb County... where the taxpayer residents work for the employees.
@ 10:39
"But the BOE did not change Tyson's recommendations for cutting the TSA or increasing class sizes like they did the redistricting."
And if the BOE did not like the recommendation, they could reject or modify them. A recommendation is just that, a recommendation. As mentioned earlier, the BOE could either accept, accept with modifications, or reject a recommendation. The BOE has final say. The buck ultimately stops with them.
The BOE does as pointed questions regarding any recommendation that could suggest they may want to see changes. It happened with the budget last year when they decided to cut the number of para's in half from the recommendation.
Regarding class sizes, most school districts are increasing them because of the regulation change made by the legislature. Gwinnett announced they would probably do it yesterday and nary a peep.
I found this on a website that explains why teachers from another state are not on SSA.
TEACHERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY
Public school teachers in Connecticut are not covered by Social Security for their public school teaching service. Teachers and school districts make no contributions to the Social Security system for that work and teachers cannot collect benefits based on it. Instead, the state provides teachers with retirement benefits through the state Teachers' Retirement System (TRS).
This report answers frequently asked questions about (1) why teachers are not covered, (2) other states that have similar Social Security exclusions, (3) federal benefit reductions that apply when teachers qualify for Social Security from other employment, and (4) what the state would have to do to include teachers under Social Security.
WHY ARE CONNECTICUT TEACHERS EXCLUDED FROM SOCIAL SECURITY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING SERVICE?
When Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. The exclusion for state and local public employees was based on constitutional concerns about whether the federal government could impose taxes on state governments. In the early 1950s, Congress passed a law that allowed state and local government employees to be covered if they voluntarily chose coverage in a referendum. The then-members of the Teachers' Retirement System voted against joining the Social Security system. In 1959, at the request of the Connecticut Education Association, the General Assembly prohibited TRS members from holding another referendum (CGS § 5-158(d)). The ban on Social Security coverage for Connecticut teachers remains in place.
The proposal to reduce the size of the Board of Education has been added to SB 79 which will be sent to the House for a vote some time this week. If you support this effort, please reach out to your elected officials or anyone you know in the House.
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/bill-on-atlanta-dekalb-892870.html
To see a full copy of the proposed legislation, go here (this SB has a number of other initiatives that you may or may not oppose).
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/displaydoc.aspx?doc=/Legislation/20112012/114665.pdf
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/bill-on-atlanta-dekalb-892870.html
The powerful Rules Committee of the Georgia House voted Thursday to send to the full House a bill granting Gov. Nathan Deal the power to remove all members of the troubled Atlanta School Board.
Another last-minute add to the bill would cut the size of the DeKalb County school board from nine to seven members, over objections from the school board.
Well of course they objected.
It is disheartening to me to read comments like @7:25. Teachers salaries do not compare to what can be made in the private sector. Teachers contribute part of their salary to their retirement plan. Greed led to the notion that investing in Wall Street will sustain you in your old age. That wasn't an idea a teacher cooked up.
@725 would rather teachers work for peanuts and have no plan for the future. TRS won't make you rich. And the little bit of money you may get from the TSA isn't comparable to TRS or SS at all.
Anyone who is jealous of a teacher's meager pension should spend just one week in a classroom before opening their mouth. Would you work in a job where the duties and responsiblities change like the wind as it does in education?
Most teachers are woman which is why education is a yoyo. It is easier to discriminate against a group of woman than let's say the men in the gold dome and Washington DC. The tone is that clearly women don't deserve these benefits. They are supposed to take care of everyone else and get nothing in return. But it is perfectly fine for many husbands in the private sector to enjoy the benefits their teacher wives earn.
There is a difference between deserving and earning. Teachers have earned their benefits! @725 doesn't think teachers deserve these benefits from their employer in these really tough economic times.
I think the teachers who filed the lawsuit are brave and deserve our respect!
"If DCSS teachers get back into the SSA system, can you guess where the employer's (DCSS) 7% contribution comes from? Silly me. It's me. The taxpayer. DeKalb County... where the taxpayer residents work for the employees."
Why do you think that a government agency shouldn't have to pay federal emplooyment taxes?. Do you think that is not OK to pay into SS for police or firemen? What if it was your SS tax money that wasn't being paid?
@ 4:57 pm
""If DCSS teachers get back into the SSA system, can you guess where the employer's (DCSS) 7% contribution comes from? Silly me. It's me. The taxpayer. DeKalb County... where the taxpayer residents work for the employees.""
Cobb County and many other counties pay this 7% for Social Security as well as TRS and the counties that don't pay a TSA. The ONLY metro school system that only pays into TRS is DCSS and Atlanta Public (and APS pays $3,000 to $5,000 more a year in salary - compare the APS and DCSS teacher salary schedules).
Why do you think good teachers would choose DeKalb which is at the bottom of the barrel in student achievement and the bottom of the barrel in compensation?
Would you choose the hardest job for the least pay?
Everyone knows the teachers are among the least compensated in the county. Even the mechanics and Security Guards make more than teachers. The 2004 Compensation and Classification audit showed that 2,500 non-teaching employees are being overpaid to the tune of $14,800,000 a year, and that was BEFORE Lewis added so many friends and family and created positions out of thin air with high compensation.
You are looking in the wrong place. Do you think we can run the school system without quality teachers? This is serious stuff.
Personally, I think teachers should be asking the SSA if they can petition to go back into Social Security.
"
The powerful Rules Committee of the Georgia House voted Thursday to send to the full House a bill granting Gov. Nathan Deal the power to remove all members of the troubled Atlanta School Board."
Maureen Downey said this applies to all school systems, DCSS included.
To Anonymous (3-30 7:25 AM):
I do feel for these teachers, and as a DCSS teacher, I would gladly join this lawsuit. As a matter of fact, it should be a class-action lawsuit! If I had the money to hire an attorney, I would have sued a long time ago. You see, every cent in my TRS account has come out of my paycheck; DCSS has not contributed anything on my behalf. Add to that the increased cost of insurance, increased percent of employee contribution to TRS, increased central office / admin pay, and decreased teacher pay every year...I'm tired of being taken advantage of. Kudos to these teachers for doing what the majority of us have been thinking and talking about.
And while they're at it, can they sue to get that half-year's pay raise that Johnny Brown took when he became superintendent? We went from getting our raises in August to getting them in January. What happened to that 5 months pay in raises?
A few facts: The lawsuit is a class action. The original AJC online report said it was a class action, but then that wording mysteriously got deleted, but it is in fact a class action. The TRS alone is an adequate substitute for Social Security, so there will be no requirement for the DCSS to go back to Social Security. The DCSS does pay funds into the TRS. The Board acknowledged its violation of the two-year notice and represented that it would pay back the funds withheld for the year 2009-2010, but has made no commitment as to when it will do so. The official notice to the teachers by Lewis and a subsequent notice by him both promised that the suspension would be for one year only, and then the funding would be resumed for the 2010-2011 school year. That did not happen, and the funding remains suspended. The two-year notice requirement was not just a Board policy, it was part of the original resolution authorizing the switch from Social Security to the TSA. Social Security required a two-year notice to opt out, so likewise, there was a similar two-year notice established before any funding changes could be made to the TSA.
@ 12:30 am
"The TRS alone is an adequate substitute for Social Security, so there will be no requirement for the DCSS to go back to Social Security."
But can DCSS employees opt back in? They voted to opt out? What's the mechanism to opt back in? That's the real question.
The vote to opt out was an advisory vote only. At the time, it was a contentious issue, so the Board in its good graces decided to obtain a non-binding poll of the teachers to inform the Board's decision. The administration heavily favored the opt out, and there were issues that information sessions were not balanced, but biased towards the opt out. And for the teachers, it meant an immediate pay increase of 6% because they would no longer be required to contribute what they had been paying in to Social Security. Their contributions would become voluntary in an optional employee TSA that has not been well-publicized. So it would not be for the teachers to opt in, it would be for the Board to do it, and it is doubtful that the current Board would consider it or ask for the teacher's input on any such decision. It would mean that teachers would again be required to contribute, which would reduce their net take-home pay. And concerning the two-year notice, at the time these resolutions were passed establishing opting out of Social Security and establishing the TSA in its place, a Board member expressed a concern that a future Board might reduce or suspend its contributions, exactly as has happened. The response to that concern was to include in the resolution the two-year notice provision, so that a future Board couldn't just suspend contributions on short notice in order to address an immediate budget need, which is exactly what has happened. Only this Board was not aware of the two-year notice requirement at the time it agreed to suspend the benefits. It became aware of that requirement a year later, acknowledged its mistake and obligation to repay for the year 2009-2010, but has never repaid that year. Concerning 2010-2011, it can't merely waive/undo the notice just like any other policy, because it was an inherent condition to the plan and its passage in the first place. This is a question of the Board legally and morally honoring its commitments, which it has violated with impunity.
As mentioned before, there are several posters that have great insight and information regarding the retirement plan! This is an example of this blog at its best.
@ 12:30
"The TRS alone is an adequate substitute for Social Security, so there will be no requirement for the DCSS to go back to Social Security. The DCSS does pay funds into the TRS. "
TRS may legally be an adequate substitute for Social Security, but will prospective teachers consider it an adequate substitute for Social Security when all of the other metro systems (except APS) pay into Social Security or a TSA? That's the question that we need to ask as we try to attract quality personnel into our classrooms?
DCSS could cut teacher pay by $5,000 and that would be perfectly legal, but that would put us at a huge disadvantage relative to other systems when securing teachers (can we really run a school system without teachers?). What quality teacher would choose DCSS over Fulton or Cobb or Gwinnett for example if the pay was $5,000 less in this county.
That's the broader question here. Can we cut benefits so that a teacher's compensation is significantly lower in DCSS and still expect to get highly qualified teachers to choose DCSS over the other systems?
"The DCSS does pay funds into the TRS."
If that's the case, not only do I want the past two years back, I also want the three years prior where DCSS has not contributed to my account. Every penny in my account came out of my pay check!
"Lewis already cut the TSA completely for employees who have less than 3 years of employment and the TSA contribution was less than 6%. That was one of the first moves he made in 2004. 30% to 50% of our new teachers do not last until year 4 to collect..."
Exactly why I have had no DCSS contributions to my TSA. It was a surprise to me when I learned no contribution would be made until after year 3 since I remember asking this question at benefits orientation and getting a very different answer. I learned the "correct information" from checking my account and having to ask several people where the "other" money was. As soon as I was eligible, the suspension to TSA came.
If there is an audit available of the TSA payments to employees, it should reveal in the past that a payment was skipped for some 11 and 12 month employees. When this happened to me, back before 2007, I was told that the contribution did not have to be paid each month as the policy stated. So sometimes they paid 10 or 11 TSA months instead of 11 or 12. The CFO should be able to verify this.
FYI: Don't confuse TRS with TSA. Teacher Retirement System and Tax Shelter Annuity are two separate things.
@ 10:42
The point is that ALL of the other metro systems pay TRS and TSA or Social Security (with the exception of Atlanta Public which pays several thousands more in salary than DCSS).
No other way of looking at it - Lewis and Tyson did not think of attracting quality teachers by offering comparable compensation when they suspended the TSA.
One factual correction. I am pretty certain that Fulton also only has TRS. For those who were subjected to the three year waiting period and then had the suspension hit, you might want to consider contacting the Barnes firm lawyers to see if your issues can be addressed in the current lawsuit or a different lawsuit concerning that three year waiting period.
Ella works for Fulton Co. She should know.
For the first person who said this lawsuit makes the teachers look greedy: This is a case of merely asking the DCSS to honor its commitments, when they expect the teachers to honor theirs. This is about a Board and Administration that is incompetent and corrupt abusing and scorning their most primary resource that delivers the services of their mission to educate the children. They waste millions of dollars on attorneys fees and extravagant offices, they did not suspend the TSA for the superintendent (and perhaps other high level administrators). The annual cost of the TSA benefit is approximately 3.3 percent of the total annual budget. Not exactly a budget buster.
I think it's been a priority thing --read -- connections -- maybe the "enterprise" -- with the way DCSS has been using funds for at least the past 6-10 years.....
See BOE mmeting of 2/9/04 Work Session and Business Meeting- Proposed Modification to Board TSA Program for Selected Employees.
It looks like they immediately reduced employees who were employed AFTER April 1, 1986 down to 5%.
Was there supposed to be a 2 year waiting period before they began to reduce the contributions to all those employees who began with DCSS AFTER April 1, 1986 down to 5%?
Here are a few items:
"Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following section, effective as of March 1, 2004:
3.1 Initial Participation. Prior to July 1, 2003, an Eligible Employee shall become a Participant in the Plan, and accordingly, be eligible to receive Contributions, on the first date when he or she becomes actively employed by the Employer. With respect to a person whose Start Date as an Eligible Employee is on or after July 1, 2003, he or she shall become a Participant in the Plan, and accordingly, be eligible to receive Contributions, beginning with the first payroll payment that he or she receives for employment as an Eligible Employee after the third anniversary of his or her first Start Date as an Eligible Employee on or subsequent to July 1, 2003, regardless of whether his or her status as an Eligible Employee was continuous between his or her said Start Date and the date on which he or she becomes a Participant in the Plan......
(a) With respect to Participants who were hired before April 1, 1986, and who participate in either the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia or the Employees Retirement System of Georgia, the Employer shall make a Contribution to the Plan each payroll period equal to six and one-tenth percent (6.1%) of the Participant’s Compensation for the payroll period;...
(b) With respect to Participants who were hired on or after April 1, 1986, and who participate in either the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia or the Employees Retirement System of Georgia, the Employer shall make a Contribution to the Plan each payroll period equal to five percent (5.0%) of the Participant’s Compensation for the payroll period;..."
Here it is if you want to look at the entire document:
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4054&AID=85177&MID=4862
Here are the BOE meeting minutes pertaining to that meeting:
"....08.09
Mr. Jim Landon, attorney for Jones Day, recommended that the Board approve an amendment to the Board’s Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan for selected, identified employees. He explained that the amendment is comprised of three elements. The first element pertains to those participants in the plan who had previously invested in life insurance, which was an allowable investment in the past but is not currently an allowed investment for future direction of funds. The original provision required funds invested in life insurance to remain and the policies could not be surrendered. The amendment liberalizes the policy somewhat and permits employees who want to terminate their investment in life insurance to take the net cash value after a surrender fee and redirect that investment to the other funds that are available. The second element is to include those employees who are also participants in the public school retirement system in the Board sponsored TSA from their date of hire rather than the three-year waiting period imposed by the Board in July 2003. The third element is to increase the contribution made for those employees who participate in the TSERS to 7.5% from the current 6% or 7.1% of their compensation based on their date of hire.
Mr. Franzoni made a motion to approve the recommendation, Ms. Andrews seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
(A copy of the first amendment will be included in the official file of this meeting.)....
"
If you want to download the BOE minutes:
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4054&AID=85133&MID=4857
Interesting. I started in 2001 and got benefits immediately but had no idea that those who had worked for DCSS longer were collecting a high percentage. It becomes more and more baffling how these folks have been able to get away with so much!
"Interesting. I started in 2001 and got benefits immediately but had no idea that those who had worked for DCSS longer were collecting a high percentage."
You must not be a teacher. Teachers could not get benefits until after 3 years of service since this Board Policy change, but other employees got them immediately. (download the Board Policy to see they exempted some employees). I believe other employees are getting the TSA. It depends on your classification.
10:54, Yes, I am a teacher (7:10 post). In 2001, there was no waiting period--Check the info in the posts above mine.
The 1.1 percent difference for employees with dates of service before and after April 1, 1986 has to do with Medicare contributions. For those before that date, the Board did not have to contribute to Medicare, but for those after that date, they started to be obligated to contribute to Medicare,so that percentage was subtracted from the TSA amount. I have no idea if this affects Medicare benefits for the employees with the earlier date of employment for which Medicare contributions have not been made.
Illinois TRS created a scheme that allowed teachers and administrators and in some cases required teachers to trade TRS credit for FICA credit. Topics and Reports Spring 2002. Ask TRS and SSA for the ruling refernced referenced in newsletter.
My wife will not be able to collect Social Security survivor benefits when I die because she works for a system which does not participate in Social Security. This is simply wrong.
Post a Comment