IPERSLaying
the Groundwork
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
"We will not pass any legislation
dealing with IPERS during the 1999 session." This is the latest message
from the leadership in both the House and the Senate.
In spite of the climate that currently exists in the Iowa legislature, we have been successful in getting two bills filed that would eliminate the seven-year final average salary and revert back to a three-year final average salary in computing retirement benefits. We are grateful to Representative Bev Nelson, Republican, District 64, Marshall County, for proposing HF 73 and to Senator Mary Lundby, Republican, District 26, Linn County, for sponsoring SF 191, a companion bill in the Iowa Senate. Both bills would eliminate the seven-year final average salary that is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2003, and revert immediately back to a three-year final average salary.
We are also grateful to the many members who have been in touch with their legislators on this issue. If nothing else, I think we have done an excellent job of making legislators more aware of the inequities that abound in stipulating a seven-year final average salary and how this impacts those individuals who will be retiring between now and January 1, 2003. With two bills on file and with our membership actively involved in the process, we have laid some excellent groundwork for next year-an "IPERS year" according to the tradition of addressing retirement issues on even-numbered years (election years, I might add!).
There is also another bill (HF 228) that was filed recently by Representative Phil Wise (et al.), Democrat, District 98, Henry and Lee counties. Under present law, the $55,000 "default factor" for higher paid employees is frozen until January 1, 2003 when the seven-year final average salary issue is scheduled to sunset. HF 228 raises the $55,000 default factor each year by $5,000. If HF 228 were to be adopted by the legislature, the default factor would be modified as follows:
HF 228 would be of some benefit to those individuals who retire prior to January 1, 2003. However, when comparing the benefits of HF 228 with HF 73, there really is no comparison. HF 73 (reverting back to a three-year final average salary) wins hands down!
While there are certain attractions to HF 228, there are also some pitfalls. For example, we would not want to have the legislature adopt HF 228 as a substitute for doing away with the seven-year final average salary. And too, there is a temptation to take what you can get and run with it.
In my view, HF 228 is a Band-Aid approach to a much larger problem. We need to stay the course on this one and go all out to get rid of the seven-year final average salary.
The subject of IPERS is a "hot-button" for many of our members. This should come as no surprise when you stop and think about yourself or a colleague who is getting close to retirement and begins to wonder what 35-40 years in education means in terms of retirement benefits. While IPERS should be an important topic for all public employees, it becomes much more significant the closer one gets to ending a career and entering the world of retirement.
I am painfully aware of the frustrations that exist among our membership on this topic because we are not in total agreement on what we should be doing and when. For example, we have individuals who believe we should leave well enough alone-"not to rock the boat and risk losing what we have gained in recent years." We have members who feel HF 228 (adjusting the $55,000 default factor) is the best way to go. We have members who believe that getting rid of the seven-year final average salary is the only option. And too, we have people who feel very strongly that we should be spending our time and resources suing the state of Iowa for "discriminating against higher paid employees."
This is a good test of our resolve (and our patience and persistence). We certainly did not get the retirement benefits that we have now by sitting back and waiting. For example, look at the impressive list of benefits that have been added just since 1996:
There is still much work to be done. For example, we need to get rid of the seven-year final average salary, we need to get an improved death benefit for surviving spouses, and we need to take a serious look at the Rule of 85.
SAI has been and will continue to be very persistent in our pursuit to improve IPERS benefits. Even though it is a struggle at times, our strategy is to work with (not against) legislators and IPERS management in helping to bring about these improvements.
HF 73 and SF 191 are the direct results of the tireless efforts of a lot of people. Our challenge as an organization will be to continue working in the same direction for the same outcome. We all know the ramifications of "divide and conquer" when it comes to legislative issues. If we don't stick together, we may as well save our breath because it will be an uphill battle as it is. We definitely don't need to be fighting each other in the process.
The SAI Representative Council has taken the position to stay the course-to pursue the notion of doing away with the seven-year final average salary as soon as possible. That will be our objective in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 if necessary. For the record, I believe that is our only and best course of action at this time.
We have an excellent start because of the groundwork that has been laid in recent weeks. Let's see what we can do by working together and staying in close communication with one another.
Pregnancy, the Family
Medical Leave Act, and your Master Contract
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
A school district in Ohio found out the hard way what happens when a
master contract provision conflicts with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
I offer it to you in furtherance of your education.
The district's master contract stated that if a teacher took parental leave after the first of January in any given year, the teacher would not be eligible to return to teaching that school year without special agreement of the superintendent. A teacher (Mrs. O'Hara) took leave in early February, when the FMLA first went into effect. It entitled her to twelve weeks of unpaid leave in any calendar year for (among other things) the birth or adoption of a child. She was eligible for and took it. After the birth of her child, she and her doctor anticipated that she would be physically able to return to work on April 26 and notified the superintendent accordingly. The school district, reading and following the master contract, wrote to her denying her the right to return at that time, but agreeing to accept her for the ensuing school year. Moreover, the district told her she would be responsible for payment of her insurance premiums while she was on unpaid leave through the FMLA, continuing until she returned to work, presumably in August. She brought suit rather than arbitrating her grievance.
A whole lot of trees lost their lives to enable the court to discuss whether this teacher had the right to go to court or whether she had to submit her dispute to arbitration. I won't compound that travesty. She had the right to go to court because the union can't waive a person's individual right to seek redress in court for civil rights violations. This is true unless the master contract language specifically gives the arbitrator the power to resolve statutory types of rights violations. (By the way, the same thing is not true for individual contracts for employment. You know, the kind you have as administrators. If you agree in your contract to arbitrate all "grievances" you may have against your employer for alleged statutory rights violations or for violating rights arising out of board policies, then you can't go to court. You have to submit the issue to the arbitrator. Just thought you might want to know.)
When the court finally got around to deciding whether the school district had violated the teacher's rights under the FMLA, I had almost forgotten what position they had taken. The wrong one, as it turns out. Here's what I learned:
Because April 26 (when Mrs. O'Hara was "ready" to return to work) was more than three weeks from the end of the school year, the teacher had a right to return.
(Pardon me for editorializing, but this is just another example of Congress usurping the freedom to negotiate under collective bargaining. Would somebody tell them to butt out, please?)
This case, while interpreting a law passed and put into effect in 1993, is consistent with a 1974 United States Supreme Court decision regarding pregnancy and return to work. In Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, the Supremes (not Diana, Flo, and Mary, but the then all-male black-robed nine) decided that school board policies requiring pregnant teachers to take a leave of absence four or five months prior to the birth of a child, and prohibiting them from returning to school sooner than three months after the birth, were unconstitutionally arbitrary. In that case, however, the Court acknowledged that "continuity of instruction is a significant and legitimate educational goal." Apparently Congress, in enacting the Family Medical Leave Act, which included specific provisions for school districts as employers, decided that continuity of instruction in the grading period is important but that three weeks is enough time for a returning teacher to overcome the disruption caused by changing teachers again.
There are some lessons to be learned here. Consult your attorney before denying (or approving) a pregnant teacher or new parent (male or female) something that might fall under the FMLA time off, status upon return, insurance, etc. There are a lot of laws out there; your master contract may not be the final word on any given subject!
Legal Tip of the Month
I'm going to experiment a little beginning with this column. I'm going
to write the answers to the most common question from the previous month
of phone calls, and see if repeat questions decline. That is, this will
be a check to see if (a) anyone's reading this column, and (b) whether they
are retaining what they read.
Tip of the Month: The new statutory probationary period for teachers is
as follows:
For teachers starting in your district in the 1998-99 school year:
For teachers who completed their first year of probation with you in the 1997-98 school year:
We don't know how to define or determine whether a teacher has "successfully completed" a probationary period elsewhere, but it could mean (a) they weren't fired during their probationary period; (b) if they were terminated at the end of two years of probation, it was due to a reduction in force; (c) in their previous supervisor's opinion they "successfully completed" probation; or (d) you decide, based on your review of their evaluations - which you obtain due to the teacher's waiver of confidentiality - whether they "successfully completed" their probationary period. There may be other options, but, frankly, if you're going to make a big deal out of the interpretation of this phrase, it had better be in a board policy, reprinted in the Teachers' Handbook. Got it? Good! Talk to you soon about something else!
Bipartisanship: Alive and Well... I think!
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
As this issue of the newsletter goes to print, we are approaching the midpoint of the 1999 legislative session. As happens each year, this session began with promises from legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle to work in a bipartisan manner on issues of importance to Iowans. Normally that means the two parties will work hard to get along, at least through the opening ceremonies on the first day of the session!
This year has had a different feel to it, however. Even though the Democrats took over the state house offices and the Republicans retained control of both chambers of the legislature, there still exists a spirit of bipartisanship several weeks into the session. Maybe this is a result of the internal bickering that took place last year during the so-called "Year of Education." No one wants to repeat THAT fiasco. Or maybe it's that Governor Vilsack is fresh out of the Senate and hasn't forgotten how the legislative process works. Either way, it's refreshing to see bipartisanship at work, even if it does become strained at times.
One of the first signs of that strain surfaced in the debate over the governor's proposals on reducing class size and bolstering reading instruction. Governor Vilsack campaigned hard on the notion that the state needed to commit a large infusion of dollars into these two areas. Specifically his budget request was for a $150 million appropriation over five years. Ten million would be committed for the first year and an additional $10 million appropriated for each of the following four years ($10 million for year one, $20 million for year two, $30 million for year three, $40 million for year four and $50 million for year five).
The House Education Committee debated the merits of Governor Vilsack's proposal and drastically reduced his appropriations request citing a reluctance to commit future legislatures to increased spending. They countered with a three-year proposal calling for $10 million each year for three years, for a total program commitment of $30 million.
During a "normal" legislative session, THIS is where bipartisanship would quickly break down with a lot of finger pointing, shouting, grandstanding and wringing of hands. Interestingly enough, even though both sides have staked out their positions and are currently $120 million apart, there is still a real sense that the issue can be dealt with (and resolved) in a bipartisan manner.
In spite of the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, there are two reasons for optimism in this debate. First, there is general consensus in the legislature and the governor's office that class size and reading instruction are important and need to be addressed. Second, instead of resorting to name-calling, both sides are still promising to resolve differences in a bipartisan manner.
The bill in question is HF 270. After passage in the House Education Committee it was referred to the House Appropriations Committee where it is hoped a compromise can be worked out. You may want to check the full text of this bill and contact your legislator to express your views regarding its content.
IPERS: We now have two bills (one in the House and one in the Senate) calling for the reduction of the seven-year average to a three-year average. HF 73 and SF 191 are companion bills, which have been assigned to the respective State Government Committee in each chamber. We've worked the House on this bill without much success. Now our attention shifts to the Senate. A subcommittee consisting of Senators Rittmer, Kibbie and Lundby is currently studying the bill and will make recommendations to the full committee regarding future action. We need to keep applying the pressure on legislators regarding this issue!
Instructional Support Program: Another bill receiving considerable attention
is SF 181, which would remove the statutory cap on state funding for the
instructional support program. Legislators have indicated they aren't hearing
much from their school administrators regarding this issue. In order to
get the state to meet its obligations regarding instructional support, SAI
members should contact their legislators immediately and let them know how
important it is to local school districts to have the legislature address
this issue.
Keep your legislators informed
Whether it's the issues mentioned in this article or other issues, it's
critically important for each and every one of you to build a positive relationship
with your representatives and senators. Let them know what your needs and
concerns are and give them feedback on bills being considered in the legislature.
Remember, you can find a list of education related bills at the SAI web
site. In addition, you can obtain the full text of any bill and a summary
of the bill's history by accessing the General Assembly's web site. Working
together we can make good things happen for SAI members and for our students!
Family Resource Centersplanning and
marketing are the keys to success
by Marti Kline, Community Relations Coordinator, Southeast Polk Community
School District, Runnells
Our changing social fabric has increasingly compelled school districts to
become involved in more than teaching the traditional curriculum.
A concept that is gaining ground in Iowa is that of the school-based "family resource center," which provides support services to students and their families. Some may say the concept further blurs the line between education and social services, but many others hold the view that if we are to teach children, they must first be ready to learn. They can't be ready if they are hungry, frightened, homeless, angry, or not in school at all. Although no one denies that parents should be responsible for their own childrenif they can't or won't take that responsibility, who pays? First the child, and then all of us. Hence the development of family resource centers in an attempt to connect families with the support they need to fulfill their proper role as caretakers of their childrenour students.
Following a three-year planning period, in July of 1995, the Southeast Polk Community School District opened Central Place Family Resource Center, with the goal of helping children and families solve problems by linking them with a wide range of social services, as well as access to referral agencies. Central Place connects district families with social service agencies, health providers, schools, churches, food programs, and other community organizations as needed.
The concept of Central Place came directly from two district belief statements
that arose from the strategic planning process directed by the board of
education: 1) . . . that the family unit is the primary influence in the
development of the individual; and 2). . .that family, community, and social
institutions all contribute to conditions of success. Board members served
both on the strategic planning committee and on the Central Place Council.
With this involvement, communication with the board has been open and informative,
as their support is vital to the program's success.
The key to planning and marketing such a program is involvement of as many
representative groups as possible in the development of the family resource
center. It is important that it be a community plan, and not a school plan.
A core council made up of a broad cross-section of the community was put
together, with representatives from school staff, counselors, nurses, and
administrators, plus community representation from business, government,
parents, service organizations, senior citizens, health care, and law enforcement.
Having these council members make presentations to community groups is essential
to bringing ideas and information to people's homes about the resources
available.
Selling the benefits of your program to teachers and other school staff members can provide countless ambassadors with lots of community connections. If you can "sell" the idea to the teachers and support staff that well-fed, healthy, secure children with a place to call home and a caring family are going to come to school much more eager and able to learn, they will see the carryover benefits of a more pleasant classroom with an atmosphere more conducive to learning.
Establishing a positive working relationship with your local media is essential. Invite a reporter to be on the council, and send press releases each time you have a new funding source, workshop, or project. Make sure the larger area media are aware of your program, as well. They can reach a lot of readers (which may include additional funding sources) with a feature story on your successes and innovation. Consistent communication with your legislators can be invaluable, both for publicity and as information sources for grants and other financial resources. Invite them to have a press conference at your site and ask them to announce a new program or talk about a recent accomplishment.
The theme and logo for the program should be consistent for the family resource center. Consistent symbols bring easy identification for all groups and individuals working with the center, and make it easier to recognize the various components of the center. Use the logo on anything that goes home in school bags, so parents will come to associate the logo with your center.
Southeast Polk's Central Place Family Resource Center has matured into a comprehensive, innovative center that provides services including: on-site chemical dependency assessments, food pantry, a resource for clothing and shelter, early learning program, support groups, immunization services, parenting education workshops, juvenile court advocacy, and much more. In order for a center like this to thrive, it must have not only the support of the district, but the support of the staff and the community. Gaining that support takes planning and organized, consistent communication. It also takes money, but communicating the needs and the successes of the program can help provide the needed support.
Planning notebooks are available from Central Place. Call 515-967-7806
for more information.