Thus, ANY shift of responsibility of payment of the cost of pensions should also include a shift of power over those pensions so counties can control their costs. I think the price the employer (taxpayers) currently contributes to the pensions is obscene. By the way, I was in Annapolis last night protesting the pro-union “Keep the Promise” rally.

I also want you to understand why SB 629 is a bad bill. I’ve actually researched pay scales in different parts of the state as well as cost of living indexes to see if the arguments used to support this bill are valid. They are not, and this is why: The median pay scale does not work as a measurement because it will change every year. There will be no certainty as to whether a county will have to contribute to the pensions or not from year to year. It will ultimately come down to the teacher turnover rate. Cecil County has one of the lower pay scales in the state. Yet it only takes a teacher with a bachelor’s degree 9 years to make above the median pay rate (52k) for the state. So that means that if Cecil County is able to hold on to its teachers, so that most of the teachers have been there more than 9 years, Cecil County will in effect be punished for that by the bill. If a county has a high teacher turnover rate, with most of its teachers being inexperienced, that county won’t be punished, even if the pay scale in that particular county is higher.

Allegany County is a perfect example. I called there today and inquired about teacher pay. From what I was told, they actually have one of the lowest pay scales in the state, yet they still have a higher median salary (I guess their teachers like it there). This bill will make taxpayers in Allegany County responsible for part of the pensions for that district, even though their Board of Education has not agreed to exorbitant amounts of pay for their teachers. I know Pipkin has tried to work in language to exempt his district from having to pay this. There is no certainty in that though, and even the new fiscal note only states that an “alternative interpretation of the bill” states that only those who fall above the median salary would have to pay. I am uncomfortable with a bill that has two interpretations; I’m not sure which will actually be implemented.

But even if we do get an exemption initially, is that really what we want to go for– a corn-husker kickback? Or do we want to reform the system? As a conservative, I support real reform, not special benefits for one group over another for political points. Now why don’t you go back and actually try to understand my last post. This whole debate is about SB 629, so unless you are going to actually discuss what that bill is about, whatever you say is irrelevant. LOCAL BOARDS OF ED. CANNOT MAKE TEACHERS PAY MORE, AND SB 629 will not change that. All teachers in Maryland pay the same percentage of their payroll because that was determined by the state legislature in an agreement with the Maryland State Education Association, not the local union chapters. The pay scale is the only thing that is determined locally. That is why ALL of the reform proposals for pensions are happening at the state level. If it could happen locally, we could do it right now, but unless the state passes a law to give us that power, which they haven’t and probably never will, we can not change the agreement.

Teachers need to step up, stop spewing Maryland State Teacher union talking points and realize the local governments negotiate excessive contract benifits to attract new teachers, then send the bill to the state. Locals governments bid new teacher benefits higher and higher, thus creating a structural deficit the state simply can not afford.

Just because the state provided the locals a credit card doesn’t mean they have to keep providing a line of credit. Local governments certainly can permit teachers to assume total responsibility for their own retirement i.e. 401ks or whatever. Teachers will have a much better retirement than the state now provides if they take personal responsibility for their own retirements in negotiating their contract with the county.

Now is a good time to shift this responsibility to where it belongs, to the individual teacher. As you said, the state has messed teacher pensions up and always will. How can teachers trust the state to fix what they consistently screw up?

The state must at least shift teacher pension costs to the local governments where the debt is created to stop teacher pension Gravy Train wreck that is now upon us.

Also, pay is usually different based on working conditions. Teachers who work in urban areas have issues to deal with that are virtually non-existent in suburban or rural areas, such as gangs, etc. When working conditions are deficient, salaries are usually higher to compensate for the additional risk and difficulties those teachers face. Also, since this bill is based on a median salary, which is approx. 52k for teachers in Maryland, isn’t it basically punishing districts who have high teacher retention rates? If most of the teachers in a district have been there for more than 10 years, the average pay for that district will certainly be above the median range.

Teachers are currently vested in their pensions after 5 years. If pensions were to be controlled locally and vary from county to county, it would not mean that a teacher would lose his/her pension simply by moving if he/she were already vested in that system. It may mean enrollment in a new pension which he/she would have to become vested in, or a 401 k.

It is no different than what our sheriff’s office has. The state doesn’t control their pensions, and their benefits vary from county to county. People earn different things according to where they live, or the conditions under which they work. People in regular jobs, get different pensions or 401ks depending on what their place of employment sees fit to give them. It is fair. That’s life, and it is the real world that most people live in.

The “It’s not fair, and I deserve more” line is getting old. I am a teacher who believes the state needs to deal with the mess it created, and who also believes that the MSEA and its members should be more concerned with the health and well-being of the children whom they are responsible for educating. Many of the parents of these kids are taxpayers who are struggling to keep a roof over their children’s heads and to feed and clothe them. To demand more, more, more, while those who are funding the pensions are losing jobs and experiencing pay cuts is unconscionable.