Fending off retirement threats
At the Missouri NEA Representative Assembly in November,
delegates overwhelmingly passed a motion opposing changes
to the Missouri Public School Retirement System that would
attempt to:
-
Increase the number of years required for full retirement
benefits.
-
Cap the contribution rate at 12 percent if it is not
actuarially sound for the system.
-
Change PSRS or Public Education Employees Retirement
System from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution
plan.
-
Change the governance of the PSRS Board of Trustees
to increase the number of non-member positions while decreasing
the number of retired and active positions.
The MNEA Legislative Platform already clearly defines our
position on these issues. Why, then, was such a motion necessary?
This motion was a response to a resolution adopted this fall
by the Missouri School Boards Association to: “Support
legislation which ensures the future solvency of the School
Employees’ Retirement Fund.” MNEA certainly agrees
that to ensure the solvency of PSRS is critical. So where’s
the problem?
The rationale given to support this resolution—and
clarify its intent—is much more troublesome. It includes
capping the contribution rate at 12 percent, period, even
if to do so is not actuarially sound. It suggests exploring
alternative funding options, including extending service requirements—a
move that could actually cost districts more money through
higher salaries paid to experienced personnel.
But probably the most disturbing MSBA position is the suggestion
to “examine the fund’s governance model.”
Again, on the surface, this seems fairly innocuous. However,
the Lee’s Summit school board member sponsoring the
resolution, Jon Plaas, suggested in a letter to PSRS Executive
Director Steve Yokum earlier this year that, “With a
board controlled by recipients, it is always ethically conflicted.”
I certainly do not question Plaas’ patriotism. However,
to suggest that someone who is a member of the PSRS board
will “be ethically conflicted” because of his
or her self-interests is an insult to educators and contrary
to American representative democracy.
Just think: Perhaps being a parent should disqualify someone
from serving on a local school board? After all, isn’t
an individual’s own child’s best interests top
priority?
Perhaps the members of town councils should be from another
city. Perhaps our legislators should not live in the same
district as their constituents? And perhaps our Congressional
representatives should come from another country.
The education employees of Lee’s Summit, and throughout
Missouri, deserve a safe, secure defined-benefit plan that
allows them to maintain a decent standard of living after
years of devotion to the young people in our schools. We have
also earned this right through our personal contributions
and through monies that have been deferred through our school
districts’ contributions.
Public pension systems are being attacked in other states.
We need to make sure that this doesn’t happen in Missouri,
too.
by Martha Karlovetz
MNEA-Retired president |
