EDUCATION:

To save, district pulls back carrot for early retirement, critics warn of costs

Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Retired teachers’ health plan pact reached (5-7-2008)
To keep teachers in classrooms (2-28-2008)
Teachers grab extra incentive to retire (7-25-2007)

The Clark County School District will suspend a program that encourages longtime employees to retire early.

Ending the incentive, originally intended to help the district shed its most expensive employees, will save about $2.5 million a year and follows a state directive to prepare budget cuts of $120 million in the district for the next biennium.

With the district facing deficits, in dollars and experienced educators, it can’t afford to encourage veterans to leave, officials said.

“I have every bit of empathy for the employees who were looking forward to this (retirement incentive) sometime in the future,” Superintendent Walt Rulffes said at Thursday’s School Board meeting, where the panel voted to suspend the program. “But we’re looking at trade-offs now.”

But some employees criticized the move, saying it’s shortsighted and will end up costing the district more money in the long run.

The program allows employees — teachers, administrators and support staff — who have 15 to 29 years with the district and have accrued at least 110 days of sick leave to convert some of the unused sick days into credits toward retirement. The greater the number of unused sick days, the greater the district’s contribution toward credits with the state’s Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Elementary literacy specialist Lynn Gustafson told the School Board that suspending the provision is a blow to the “long-term employees who are dedicated to the efficient running of our schools.” It will also increase employee absenteeism, she said.

“If there is no long-term incentive for any of the employees ... to use their sick days very sparingly, I think you will see efficiency and morale decrease at all levels in a way you can’t put a dollar figure on,” Gustafson said. “The cost of hiring substitutes will offset the gains of suspending this program.”

Next week, the district will hold town hall meetings to ask the public to prioritize budget cuts. The early retirement incentive landed on the chopping block early because regulations require employees receive at least six months notice of any changes to retirement regulations, Rulffes said.

The incentive program, which has typically drawn the participation of 110 to 125 employees a year, will be suspended in August.

During the 2007-08 academic year, 233 employees cashed out early, putting the district’s costs at $4.2 million. The spike was due to a Sept. 1 deadline for district employees to sign up for subsidized retirement health coverage through the state’s health plan.

The district’s licensed personnel, who include teachers, school nurses, psychologists and speech pathologists, still have an early retirement option. Under the terms of the negotiated contract, licensed personnel with 29 years tenure at least 100 days of sick leave can retire early, with the district picking up the cost of the 30th year’s retirement credit.

Ruben Murillo, president of the Clark County Education Association, asked the School Board to hold off on suspending the policy until January, when the union and district sit down to hash out the next contract.

Though the incentive program is not subject to collective bargaining, it would show good faith for the district to wait and “talk about possible solutions,” Murillo said.

There have been opportunities for the union to ask for a sit-down. The district first brought the incentive program up for discussion in February.

But Stephen Augspurger, executive director of the district’s administrators union, said given the ongoing budget crisis the district would be better off without the policy.

“Philosophically, the regulation is designed to encourage our most experienced administrators to leave early,” he said. Given that a third of the district’s principals have three years or less experience in the post, “now is not the time to tell your most senior people to leave.”

Discussion: 9 comments so far…

By 2zero

11/11/08 at 5:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

First there is the issue of honesty; if a teacher is sick, stay home and do not spread it to children...if a teacher is not sick they need to be honest and go to school, teach and work for the pay they collect!

No one else in this world gets to retire early for doing their job; Monday through Friday except spring break and winter break and all summer and Holidays and election day and ....! Maybe the new contract should eliminate, at least reduce the number of paid sick days.

Then eliminate the the program that allows teachers to retire, with benefits, and then go back to a teaching "job" with full+ pay. The two "perks" combine to encourage teachers to "double dip" at an outrageous cost to "taxpayers".

If you retire then go golfing or get a job at home depot like the rest of us. The teachers union has done good things for teachers pay, but the focus should be on entry level pay and not on loopholes and leveraging for teachers at the end of a 15 or 20 year career...who else gets to retire after 15 years?
By NVCitizen

11/11/08 at 7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Once again the Governor (and perhaps even the Mayors of many of our cities) look to the teachers for getting money to fix the budget crises, without looking at other, more acceptable methods of raising revenue.
Why is is that a teacher, who has devoted 30 years or more to teaching, has several Masters Degrees, and is underpaid to begin with, is always the first to be asked to "bite the bullet"? There are other Municipal employees who can retire after only 20 years on FULL benefits, including FULL SALARY and FULL HEALTH CARE benefits, and they are not being asked to do their part. Letter writer 2zero obviously is not aware of who can actually retire after 20 years and collect FULL BENEFITS! It's NOT teachers! Do some research! If 2zero would like to go back and get an advanced degree in Math or Science, then s/he could get a second career as a teacher. It is only in these fields that retired teachers are brought back to teach, after completing a career of 25 years (or more).
Obviously Gibbons is protecting the mining industry, from where he got his start in business, and whom he doesn't want to upset. And if Gibbons wants to give back some (or ALL) of his salary, I say we take it! He's certainly not worth what we're paying him as it is!
By ZeddyBear

11/11/08 at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Some folks think that teachers get "paid" holidays and vacations. That is NOT true. Yes, we get the time off -- without pay, On the other hand, Rulffes and his administrator compadres get PAID vacations at the tune of 2 vacation days per month , i.e., 24 days of PAID vacation a year. Now why not cut this perk and see how much money CCSD can save per year. Have these administrator fat-cats get the SAME days off -- without compensation. Of course, Murillo of CCEA would NEVER recommend this to CCSD and Walt Rulffes would NEVER accept this as a way to save money. No, let's balance this budget on the ones who have the least to show for their efforts. That seems fair doesn't it?
By spocchia

11/11/08 at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

As we all face the impacts budget cuts will have on us, I am heartened to see how many are working together to find solutions. Our teachers, bus drivers, custodians, secretaries, administrators, casino dealers, porters, maids, waitresses, salespeople, students, stay-at-home parents, retirees, etc - all of us are cautiously awaiting decisions from our companies, legislators, or boards. Eliminating the early retirement incentive is just one of many tough decisions that need to be made. I have no doubt the District conducted a cost benefit analysis and determined this cut would save money. It's important for all of us to use our voice and provide input; to be in charge of our destiny and not victims of our own apathy. Write your legislator, attend public input meetings, and let your voice be heard.
By gmag39

11/11/08 at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

spocchia, such a voice of reason amongst a sea of emotional tirades. Very well said.
By redferret

11/11/08 at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

If money is such an issue, why are administrators paid more than the President? Savings should start at the top.
By vc

11/11/08 at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Teachers want more pay etc etc, but they also want to be able to retire early. Gimme a break. They should work till retirement age just like anyone else. I am so sick of public employees taking advantage of the tax payer.
By NVCitizen

11/11/08 at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Teachers can retire at any time they want, but they cannot receive retirment benfits until they are 60-years of age, and have a minimum of 25 years with CCSD. But there are no health care benefits available to them, like in other States, or for other Nevada State workers. And unlike other workers, teachers cannot pay into Social Security and then receive Medicare at age 65. So again, no health care benefits.
Are you tired of ALL public employees, like teachers, or perhaps you also have a beef with the police, who patrol your streets, or the firemen who put out the fire in your house, or the municipal workers who repair the potholes in the street so you can drive safely? You really need to be more specific when spreading your vitriole!
By alpacinofan

11/19/08 at 8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

There are too many illegals moving here, and crowding up our schools, hospitals, and other services. It is going to get WORST instead of better. It is a shame that no one wants to face the problems, but it is our kids who are suffering because of it. Twenty years ago this problem was building up, and no one wanted to admit it or deal with it. Something has to be done. These people are having more and more children, and the schools are bursting at the seams. we have to stand up and say NO MORE!!! These Hispanic women have to take the blame for their own actions, and stop having so many children, because the American citizens have to pay for them. It is NOT FAIR that we have to support them for deciding not to take birth control measures. I am just stating facts, and I am not being prejudiced or anything. I know what I am talking about. People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and if the schools have to start closing the door on accepting more and more kids, then what?? Then the Hispanics will say, we are being prejudiced and we hate them, but that would not be true, we have to start to say, ENOUGH!!! At some point, THIS WILL HAPPEN.