Together, the committee reports, which are now posted on the Legislature’s website are about 800 pages. The talking points below are in response to an oral briefing NJEA received. They are not comprehensive. We will refine our response after analyzing the actual recommendations. Check this page for updates daily.
NJEA RESPONDS
For more than a decade, legislators and governors of both parties have badly mismanaged the state’s finances, beginning with Governor Whitman’s reckless income tax cuts and continuing with the annual under-funding of the state pension plans. Finally facing fiscal catastrophe, the Special Session of the Legislature has produced recommendations that will have far-reaching unintended consequences.
Taken together, the proposals seek to address the property tax problem all at once and largely at the expense of hard-working public employees.
While NJEA supports the committees’ recommendations that deal with ending pension abuses, among others, many of the recommendations would gravely damage public education in New Jersey, would undermine collective bargaining, and would make it more difficult to attract new teachers and school employees. Even proposing some of the changes to the pensions and post-retirement medical benefits may result in a mass exodus of teachers and school employees who are eligible for retirement.
Currently, 32,498 school employees are eligible to retire. That represents almost one in four, a stunning 23.3 percent. Many will leave before the end of this school year in order to be grandfathered and avoid paying the new premium on their post-retirement medical benefits. This could result in chaotic circumstances in the immediate future.
Big problems have far-reaching consequences. They need thoughtful analysis and careful scrutiny to ensure that any proposed solutions do not create new and more difficult problems in the long-term. NJEA will fiercely oppose those proposals that would be blatantly unfair to school employees, would make school employment far less competitive, and would damage the educational quality of our public schools. We will testify. We will lobby legislators in Trenton and in their district offices, and we will rally at the State House on December 11.
NJEA supports the following proposed concepts:
Providing incentives for the voluntary sharing of services.
Reducing property taxes by 20% with means testing.
Permitting no reduction in the state-paid employer contributions to the pension plans.
Use sound actuarial funding and accounting practices.
Eliminating the vote on school budgets that are under the cap.
Providing state support for full-day kindergarten in all districts and support for pre-school construction in A/B districts.
Providing some selective increase for in-district placement and inclusion of special education students if there is appropriate classroom support, class size reduction, and training.
Increasing bulk purchasing of pharmaceuticals.
Creating disease management programs, if carefully implemented.
Screening participants in the SHBP for eligibility.
Replacing the Homestead Rebate with credit on the property tax bill.
Respecting the collective bargaining process.
NJEA opposes the following proposed concepts:
Tiering the pension plan in any way because those benefits serve to attract and retain experienced employees. Two individuals doing exactly the same job should receive the same pension benefit.
Moving the early retirement age from 55 to 62 for new employees. This would also cost
districts more money in higher salaries and health insurance and contribute to higher property taxes.
Raising the retirement age to 62 for new hires. This also would cost districts more money in higher salaries and health insurance and contribute to higher property taxes.
Repealing new school employees’ non-forfeitable right to their pensions. In the 1990’s, NJEA gained employees’ “nonforfeitable right” to their pensions in return for withdrawing our legal challenge to the under-funding of the pension plan. The State should never renege on a deal it made with public employees.
Changing the pension formula calculation from an average of the three highest years to the five highest years. This amounts to an non-negotiated reduction in employees’ overall compensation package.
Moving n/55 back to n/60, a substantial reduction in benefits, for new hires. The state would be penalizing school employees for its fiscal mismanagement over the last decade. With ESEA and increased standardized testing, expectations of teachers have risen steadily. This is no time for what amounts to a decrease in teachers’ compensation.
Removing part-time employees making more than $5,000 from the Defined Benefit Pension plan and placing them in a Defined Contribution plan. Part-time school employees, such as food service workers, are career employees who serve their communities for a life-time. Although their pensions are very small, for many, their most important compensation is their pension and health benefits. With their low salaries, a defined contribution plan would not provide a dignified retirement, thus making those jobs less competitive.
Removing part-time employees making less than $5,000 from all pension plans. Part-time school employees, such as food service workers, are career employees who serve their communities for a life-time. For many, their most important compensation is their pension and health benefits. Removing those benefits will result in an unprecedented shortage of school employees in many important job categories.
Cap pensionable salary at $97,000 for 2007. Pension calculations should be based on actual salaries.
Reducing the level of benefits in the State Health Benefits Plan. We should be working to improve the health insurance available to all New Jerseyans, not trying to reduce that which is now available to some.
Requiring all active school employees to pay a premium on their health benefits now and in retirement.
Tiering health benefits for new retirees because those benefits serve to help retain experienced employees. This step would immediately create a mass exodus of employees.
Ten percent premium sharing for the new employees in the SHBP. This amounts to a “tax” on new participants in the SHBP. The state can negotiate this increase with the state employee unions, but such a change can only be negotiated for school employees at local bargaining tables.
Placing a $15,000 cap on sick leave buy-outs (to be put in place when current contracts expire). This directly undermines the collective bargaining process. It will most certainly result in litigation across the state.
Placing an even more restrictive cap on revenue and/or school budgets which could be raised only with a super majority of voters’ approval. There are serious emergencies and unanticipated conditions for which schools must be prepared to respond. Requiring a super majority of voters makes it almost impossible to remove the cap, even when it is the only responsible step to take.
Giving county superintendents enhanced authority over local budgets and out-of-district placements. This would reduce and undermine citizens’ control of their local public schools.
Moving school board elections to November. This move would politicize what is currently a non-partisan election process.
Applying the Abbott regulations to all districts. The applicability of each regulation must be analyzed and considered individually.
Providing grants to districts based on (test) outcomes. Scores are not an appropriate criteria because they put too much emphasis on superficial learning.
