VEA General Assembly Daily Reports

Share the Truth About School Funding!

2012-01-27T15:08:00.003-05:00

I’ve addressed the need to keep the education funding debate honest in previous postings, but I’d like to retrace my steps to add a bit of additional information.

In the Governor’s budget address, in his State of the State address, and frequently since he cited the JLARC Review of State Spending to justify his proposed education funding levels saying:

“… in K-12 education, according to the JLARC report, total funding has grown 41% over the last decade, while student enrollment has only gone up 6%.”

VEA members hear this and wonder why their classes are bigger, supplies are in short supply, and their salaries have, in most places, been cut or are stagnant.

This nugget from the Senate Finance Committee comes explains why reality does not comport with the Governor’s statement:

"GF and NGF Appropriations Over Ten Years (GF and NGF) –FY 2002 to FY 2011. Per JLARC’s annual report on State Spending, total Direct Aid (GF and NGF) increased 41 percent while enrollment increased 6 percent and inflation increased 23 percent. This results in an inflation-adjusted per pupil increase of about 12 percent over ten years."

However, Page 14 of the JLARC State Spending report the Governor references also offers a telling analysis:

“DOE (Direct Aid) … was not among the ten fastest growing agencies …, having grown more slowly (21%) than inflation, which grew 23% over the period.” (Table references are deleted.)

The report points out that the implementation of the federal mandates associated with NCLB and special education requirements had a substantial impact on the cost of public education.

Page 3 says, “… this report does not address the merits or adequacy of funding for governmental functions, agencies, or programs.”

Let’s look at the facts. Virginia’s per-pupil spending from state sources ranks 35th in the nation (CQ Education State Ranking 2011-2012). Our average teacher salary is $4,510 below the national average (CQ Education State Ranking 2011-2012). But, we are the 7th wealthiest state in per capita personal income (CQ State Rankings 2011).

In year two of the proposed budget we will be running our schools on $547 less per-pupil than in FY 2009. We have 2,116 fewer teachers in our schools today (VA DOE) than we did in 2009 , but we have about 45,000 more students (Weldon Cooper Center).

Spread the truth as you talk to folks this weekend, and have a good one.

GA Schizophrenic on Labor Day, Wants Homeschoolers to Play on Public School Sports Teams

2012-01-26T18:29:00.004-05:00

This was an eventful day and long for education related legislation. The Students and Early Education subcommittee of the House Education Committee, which meets at 7:30 a.m., took up two bills relating to home schooling.

Delegate Rob Bell's HB 947 prohibits public schools from joining the Virginia High School, which does not allow participation of home schooled in sports, and allows home schooled students to participate in public school sports programs. The vote was as follows:

YEAS--Bell, Richard P., Landes, Stolle, Robinson, Yost, Morrissey--6.

NAYS--Alexander, Keam--2.

In the Senate Education and Health Committee, efforts to repeal the "King's Dominion Act" (SB 257)and grant local school boards control of the school calendar failed despite the Governor's support of the legislation. The vote was as follows (The motion was to pass by indefinitely, so a yes vote was a vote against the bill):

YEAS--Martin, Lucas, Newman, Barker, Northam, Miller, J.C., McWaters, Black, Carrico--9.

NAYS--Saslaw, Howell, Blevins, Locke, Smith, Garrett--6.

At the 5 p.m. meeting of the Teachers and Administrative Action Subcommittee of the House Education Committee, Delegate Bob Tata’s HB 1063, which repeals the “King’s Dominion Act” and grants local school boards control of the school calendar reported on the following 7-1 vote”

YEAS – LeMunyon, Robinson, Yost, McClellan, Morrissey, Keam –7

NAYS – Cole – 1

So, the school calendar bill is dead in the Senate, but alive in the House. Please call your delegate urging support of HB 1063. It should be in full committee on Monday and, we hope, heading to the floor after that.

Click here to find your delegate's phone number.

The Annual Contract Bills

2012-01-25T18:09:00.002-05:00

I usually write the entries on this blog, but what follows was written by VEA Senior Staff Attorney Dena Rosenkrantz, who is providing able assistance to the VEA Lobby Cadre as we lobby the Governor’s annual contract bill.

House Bill 576 (Richard Bell) and the companion Senate Bill 438 (Obenshain) propose radical changes in teacher contracts. As these bills move through the General Assembly, where they will surely be amended, pay careful attention to how the law changes the answers to these questions:

• How can a new teacher be dismissed during the school/contract year?
New teachers are currently employed on an annual contract. The teacher is entitled to statutory notice and hearing procedures on a recommendation to dismiss or terminate the contract during the school/contract year. As introduced, HB 576 provides new teachers employment only on a probationary contract allowing “dismissal without cause.” This leaves new teachers with no right to notice or hearing, and open to dismissal during the school year for any or no reason.

• Who is a new teacher subject to dismissal without cause?
Currently, even an experienced teacher who moves from one Virginia school division to another can be required to complete one year of probationary service before returning to continuing contract. As introduced, HB 576 and SB 438 require every teacher new to the division to have a probationary contract regardless of previous employment in another school division. And, once again, the probationary contract allows “dismissal without cause.”

• Who is a teacher?
As introduced, HB 576 and SB 438 define a teacher as a person who “holds a valid teaching license” and “is regularly employed full-time as a teacher, guidance counselor, speech language pathologist, or library-media specialist /librarian.” If personnel such as school psychologists, diagnosticians, technology resource teachers and others licensed by the State Board and working with students are not listed in the definition, will they continue to be employed on teacher contracts?

• Who decides how a teacher is evaluated?
Local school boards are now required to develop an appropriate evaluation procedure that addresses student academic progress and the skills and knowledge of instructional personnel, including instructional methodology, classroom management and subject matter knowledge. HB 576 and SB 438 require using procedures the Board of Education introduced as Guidelines. No one has experience with the Board of Education Guidelines or understands how they will be applied to the majority of teachers in subjects without standardized tests.

• Who decides how often/when a teacher is evaluated?
State law currently requires annual evaluation of new, annual contract teachers. The local school board decides when and how often to evaluate more experienced, continuing contract teachers. Many school divisions put experienced teachers on two- or three-year evaluation cycles. HB 576 and SB 438 require all new teachers (including experienced teachers who transfer from one division to another) to be evaluated twice a year. Then all teachers have to be evaluated each school year. The expense and personnel needed for annual evaluations makes this bill controversial even with school boards and administrators.

• Who decides the order of layoff in case of reduction in force?
Currently, local school boards do. Continuing contract does not protect a teacher from termination in a reduction in force. However, school boards can use length of service in making layoff decisions. HB 576 and SB 438 require the employee with the lowest performance evaluation to be released first when a reduction in force is necessary. Employees cannot be retained based on seniority.

• How is an experienced teacher judged “incompetent” and let go?
State law currently defines incompetence as including but not limited to “consistent failure to meet the endorsement requirements for the position or performance that is documented through evaluation to be consistently less than satisfactory.” The teacher accused of incompetence must get notice and opportunity for hearing before being dismissed. HB 576 and SB 438 specify two consecutive years of unacceptable evaluations, two out of three years of unacceptable evaluations, and any combination of needs improvement and unacceptable evaluations in three out of the past five years as just cause to dismiss a teacher. Further and most important, HB 576 specifies that experienced teachers are employed on annual contract, meaning experienced teachers can be denied employment for the next school year without receiving dismissal notice and hearing.

HB 576 and SB 438 will make radical changes in teacher employment—most especially how teachers are judged incompetent and fired. As introduced, the bill provides new teachers a probationary contract allowing “dismissal without cause.” Therefore, new teachers will have no right to notice or hearing, and could be dismissed during the school year for any or no reason. And the bill provides experienced teachers with the limited protection of annual contract. Experienced teachers will have the notice and hearing protection for dismissal during the school/contract year, but can be denied reemployment for the next school year with notice by June 15th. Keep your eyes on this bill and let your Delegate and Senator know how you feel.

I thank Dena for her good work on these bills.

HB 576 will be heard in the House Education Subcommittee on Teachers and Administrative Action on February 2 at 5 p.m. The committee members are as follows (all phone numbers are in 804):

LeMunyon (Chair) 698-1067, DelJLeMunyon@house.virgnia.gov
Cole 698-1088, DelMCole@house.virginia.gov
Robinson 698-1027, DelRRobinson@house.virginia.gov
Yost 698-1-12, DelJYost@house.virginia.gov
Yancey 698-1094, DelDYancey@house.virginia.gov
McClellan 698-1171, DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov
Morrissey 698-1074, DelJMorrissey@house.virginia.gov
Keam 698-1035, DelMKeam@house.virginia.gov

SB 438 will be heard by the Education Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Health. The committee members are as follows:
Blevins (Chair) 698-7514, district14@senate.virginia.gov
Howell 698-7532, district32@senate.virginia.gov
Locke 698-7502, district02@senate.virginia.gov
Black 698-7513, district13@senate.viginia.gov
Carrico 698-7540, district40@senate.virginia.gov

A More Complete Summary of the VRS Bills

2012-01-24T14:52:00.001-05:00

Earlier in the session, I posted a summary of the retirement legislation that would have an impact on the teacher group (all covered school board employees). Since then a number of additional bills have been introduced, and the VEA Legislative Committee has taken a position on some of these bills. For the others, the committee will take a position at tomorrow’s meeting. What follows is a summary of each of the bills and an indication of VEA’s position.

But, first, I want to commend our Governor for stepping up to the plate and addressing the underfunding of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). For 20 years, the General Assembly and various governors have kicked the can down the road, shifting the burden for paying the bill into the future. Bob McDonnell is committed to properly funding the VRS. On this issue he is dead right, and he deserves credit.

Here are the bills, and my goal is to stick to the facts.

HB 208 (Jackson Miller) and SB 216 (Barker) - This bill allows retired law enforcement officers to be employed as school security personnel without losing their retirement benefits. The bill requires a gap in service to be determined by the VRS Board of Trustees. It prohibits individuals who are participating in early retirement incentive programs from becoming employed. It stipulates that no additional VRS benefits will result from this employment. VEA supports these bills.

SB 243 (Obenshain) – This bill, among other things not related to retirement, allows a public charter school to decide whether or not its teachers participate in VRS. VEA has yet to take a position on this bill.

SB 298 (Janet Howell) – Requires the VRS Board of Trustees to conduct a fiscal impact analysis whenever the appropriation for employer contribution rates included in the budget bill submitted by the Governor to the General Assembly is less than the Board-certified contribution rate, or when either house of the General Assembly adopts an amendment to the budget appropriating less than the Board-certified contribution rate. VEA supports this bill.

SB 497 (Watkins) – Allows school boards to phase in the 5% employee contribution over a maximum of five years. In other words, your school board could decrease your pay each year by 1% until your VRS employee contribution reaches 5%. VEA has yet to take a position on this bill.

SB 498 (Watkins) – Creates a new hybrid retirement program, administered by the VRS, that contains a defined-contribution and a defined-benefit component. All new state and local employees commencing employment on or after January 1, 2014 would make an irrevocable election to participate in the hybrid plan or the traditional retirement plan. Employees in-service on December 31, 2013 would be given the opportunity to make a one-time, irrevocable election to participate in the new hybrid program. VEA has yet to take a position on this bill.

HB 257 (Stolle) and SB 506 (Wagner) – This bill enables local governments to establish their own defined-contribution plans for new hires. The new hires would not participate in the VRS. The local government or school board would determine the specifics of the plan. VEA opposes these bills.

HB 702 (Filler-Corn) and SB 198 (Marsden) – This bill provides the retiree health care credit to support personnel who are not presently eligible for the credit. VEA supports these bills.

HB 792 (Tata) – This bill allows local government employees to participate in the VRS deferred compensation plan. This would give a VRS-run option to corporate 403(b)/401(k) providers. VEA supports this bill.

HB 1129 (Bill Howell and Chris Jones) – Makes several changes to the VRS benefit structure. Some of these changes affect current employees.

As background, remember that your VRS retirement benefit is currently based on the following formula:

Average Final Compensation X 1.7 X Years of Service = Annual Benefit

Under the provisions of HB 1129, the calculation of average final compensation changes to cover a period of 60 months rather than 36 months. Under current law, the use of a 60-month period applies only to those employees hired on or after July 1, 2010. However, current employees affected by this change in average final compensation may use the 36-month period of calculation for compensation received prior to January 1, 2013, if it is greater than the 60-month period of calculation.

The bill reduces the cost of living adjustments (COLA) to those employees who reach the age for unreduced retirement benefits. Further, it reduces the COLA to the first two percent of inflation plus one-half of the next two percent, for a maximum total of three percent. Under current law, the COLA is the first three percent of inflation plus one-half of the next four percent, for a maximum total of five percent. Employees who are within five years of their unreduced retirement date at that time are grandfathered and not affected by this new cap on the COLA.

Finally, for those hired on or after January 1, 2013, the bill reduces the multiplier from 1.7 to 1.6.

VEA opposes this bill.

SJR 5 (Janet Howell) – This resolution proposes a rather complex amendment to the Constitution. Without going into the details, it requires that the state fund the VRS in accordance with the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees. The VEA is yet to take a position on this bill.

HJ 136 (Anderson) SJ 48 (Barker) - Directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to study the system for determining eligibility for disability claims under the Virginia Sickness and Disability Program administered by the Virginia Retirement System. In conducting the study, JLARC shall (i) examine and compare the system operating when determinations of eligibility were made by Virginia physicians and health care professionals to the current system where the determinations are made by a contractor, (ii) review the differences in the rates of approval and denial under the two systems, and (iii) review and compare the rate of appeals under the two systems and the decisions of hearing officers regarding such appeals. The VEA is yet to take a position on this bill.

VEA's Lobby Day Message

2012-01-23T07:05:00.002-05:00

Here is the message our lobby day participants deliverd to their delegates and senators:

Summary of VEA’s top concerns in the 2012 Session

Broad Principles

 The VEA supports the Governor’s plan to fund VRS, but supports maintaining the defined benefit retirement system and maintenance of the current benefit structure.
 The VEA opposes the diversion of public funds via tax credits or vouchers to create the new entitlement of paying private school tuitions at the taxpayer’s expense.
 The VEA opposes the elimination of continuing contract.
 The VEA will oppose any measures that narrow the taxing authority of local governments or reduce the ability of local governments to fund public schools in this time of extreme fiscal stress.
 The VEA opposes the provisions in the Governor’s transportation plan to reduce the General Fund by over $110 million in the next biennium, and, consequently, take money away from public schools.
 The VEA calls upon the Governor and the General Assembly to give priority to restoring funding for public education if the February revenue forecast provides additional funding.
 The VEA supports efforts to return control of the school calendar to the local school boards.
 The VEA supports efforts to logically fund virtual education programs.
Budget Issues

Fully Funding the Standards of Quality

The introduced budget underfunds the Standards of Quality by over $300 million in the next biennium. The VEA supports fully funding the standards.

Teacher Salary

If the February revenue forecast provides sufficient funds, provide funding for the state share of a 4% salary increase ($146 million).

No salary incentive funding has been provided by the state for teachers since 2008.

The current estimate for the state's share of 1.0 percent increase is $36.5 million per year.

The last time DOE determined the cost of raising Virginia’s teacher salary to the national average they estimated the FY 2012 share of the state cost would be $544 million.

Based on 2008-09 data, the Virginia teacher salary average is now about 12 percent below the national teacher salary average.

Analysis of Statewide Health Insurance - $0.5 million (Feasibility Study)

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission’s (JLARC) December 2010 report on Use of Cooperative Procurement by Virginia School Divisions found that the “State could achieve savings by promoting more cooperative procurement use, and by consolidating school division health insurance plans.” The study asserted that, “Employee health insurance represents the area for greatest potential savings.”

JLARC said the savings would be substantial:

Although the amount of savings through such an arrangement is unknown without an actuarial analysis, three states that either recently implemented or considered implementing a statewide
public school health insurance plan estimated savings of between five and seven percent annually. Assuming Virginia would experience similar savings, between $47 million and $66 million would be saved annually (given $948 million in health insurance expenditures
in FY 2009).

In December of 2010, JLARC made the following recommendation:

Recommendation (1). The General Assembly may wish to direct that an actuarial analysis be conducted to determine the expected fiscal impact to the State, local school divisions, and other local jurisdictions of expanding the State employee health plan to include all public bodies in Virginia. The analysis should consider the impacts, if any, of the change upon State and local Standards of Quality costs for health insurance.

Assault on the Teaching Profession

2012-01-20T16:38:00.001-05:00

What’s with House Bill 576, which will deprive Virginia’s experienced teachers of continuing contract status?

This bill is a solution looking for a problem. First, Virginia’s teachers, despite the public perception indicating otherwise, do not have “tenure.” What we do have is continuing contract, which is earned after three years of successful service and satisfactory evaluations. The notion that teachers in Virginia cannot be fired is simply not founded in fact.

Second, the performance of Virginia’s teachers is a significant factor for our state being routinely recognized as having among the best school systems in our nation. This month, Virginia was recognized as having the fourth best school system in the nation by Education Week’s “Quality Counts 2012.” Virginia’s grade was a B. However, under “The Teaching Profession” subcategory, Virginia received a B+ for teacher “Accountability for quality.”

The timing of this proposal could not be worse. It comes at a time when we are shifting to new performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers, based in part on student performance data, which will be implemented beginning July 1, 2012. Initial implementation of this plan will require extensive training and will require collegial interaction between and extensive training of teachers and their instructional leaders. Incidentally, the Governor provides $415,500 for this training on this new evaluation plan, which works out to $4.21 per teacher.

We can’t afford to make Virginia a less attractive place to teach. Our teacher salary is 12 percent behind the national average, our retirement benefits have been degraded in recent years, and this bill would make Virginia’s teachers stand alone in the region in regard to a lack of job security and access to fair dismissal procedures. One-fifth of our teachers are over 55. Recruiting high quality new teachers to replace those retiring in the next decade will be a major challenge. The passage of this bill will have a very serious, negative impact on this effort.

Please click here to send your delegate a letter urging opposition to HB 576.

Three Bills/Fight Tomorrow

2012-01-19T20:00:00.009-05:00

The Senate Education and Health Committee took up a bill addressed in an earlier posting this morning. SB329, Senator Carrico’s bill to bar children prom pre-school if their parents fail to successfully complete a parenting course, failed to report. The debate was a microcosm of what it appears is happening in the Republican Senate caucus.

I won’t mention the Democrats other than to say that they all voted against it, and that Senator Saslaw was most outspoken in objecting to a bill that punishes children for the behavior of their parents.

The Republicans were divided, with the more conservative and newly elected members (Black, Carrico and Garrett) voting for the bill, and the more experienced Republicans voting against the measure (Martin, Newman, McWaters and Smith).

Over VEA objections, Senator Smith’s bill, SB 278, to change the date on which teachers on probationary contract must be non-renewed from April 15 to June 15 passed unanimously. The rationale for the change is that evaluations will now be based in part, up to 40%, on student test scores, and the scores won’t be ready in time for the April date. If this bill becomes law, teachers will have a longer window in which to seek other employment, but little notice that they do not have a job the following year.

This evening, Delegate Cline’s HB 250, which would have required school divisions to spend 67% of funds on instruction, was amended to only require reporting in the percentage by divisions.

Some of the battles are shaping up, and we’ll start fighting tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Bad Bill Killed/Funding Clarification

2012-01-18T15:19:00.002-05:00

Much of VEA’s work at the GA is working to keep bad things from happening. This work often goes unnoticed, but it makes a huge difference in the long run.

Yesterday, a bill we had been lobbying against failed in the Standards of Quality Subcommittee of the House Education Committee.

The bill was Delegate Cole’s HB 138. The bill would have required public schools to determine whether each student enrolling in a public school was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States. Essentially, it would have made school personnel perform the duties of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. This would have been a new burden on our schools, and would have undermined the relationship between school personnel and immigrant communities. An unintended consequence would have been a fear on the part of immigrants that would motivate keeping children away from school. In essence the children of undocumented aliens, some of whom are U.S. citizens, would be punished for the behavior of their parents.

Delegate Bulova made the motion to table and only Chairman Lingamfelter voted against the motion.

One of the statements that the Governor has been repeating like a mantra is harming our efforts to gain funding for public education in Virginia. Whenever he discusses public school funding he says, “… in K-12 education, according to the JLARC report, total funding has grown 41% over the last decade, while student enrollment has only gone up 6%.”

Yesterday, Sarah Herzog of the Senate Finance Committee staff told the rest of the story:

GF and NGF Appropriations Over Ten Years (GF and NGF) – FY 2002 to FY 2011. Per JLARC’s annual report on State Spending, total Direct Aid (GF and NGF) increased 41 percent while enrollment increased 6 percent and inflation increased 23 percent. This results in an inflation-adjusted per pupil increase of about 12 percent over ten years.

Note: GF = General Fund and NGF = Non General Fund

The JLARC State Spending report the Governor quotes points out that the implementation of the federal mandates associated with NCLB and special education requirements had a substantial impact on the cost of public education during this period.

Don't Let Them Use JLARC to Destroy VRS

2012-01-17T17:31:00.003-05:00

There are a number of bills being considered by the General Assembly. I’d bet my last dollar that the proponents of these bill will all claim that the recent JLARC report, "Review of Retirement Benefits for State and Local Government Employees," recommended what they are doing in their bill. In fact, the Governor has already claimed that the report supports his VRS proposals. In fact, some of his proposals run counter to what the report recommended. The JLARC report explored a number of options, but it did not recommend shifting from a defined-benefit pension. Let's look at each bill, and then at some of what JLARC said.

But, first, let’s look at the brief summary from the JLARC report:

The defined benefit retirement plans administered by the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) are an important part of the total compensation provided to employees and have helped the State remain competitive as an employer, albeit marginally in 2011.

The retirement plans are effective at helping to maintain a stable and qualified public workforce. When paired with Social Security, the benefits provide employees with adequate income in retirement after a full career.

The asset to liability ratio of the plans has declined, which is due partly to the historical tendency for the State to pay less in payroll based contributions than is necessary to fully cover the costs of the plans. If the trend of paying lower than necessary contributions continues, the existing unfunded liabilities ($19.9 billion in FY 2011) will increase.

The General Assembly has options to modify the plans’ provisions to reduce future costs, although benefit reductions could diminish the State’s competitiveness. The General Assembly also has options to introduce an alternative plan for employees, and either a defined contribution or a combination plan would have advantages, depending on the State’s objectives. Neither is projected to produce substantial cost savings over the next ten years and could result in higher costs.

HB 257 (Stolle) – This bill enables local governments to establish their own defined-contribution plans for new hires. The new hires would not participate in the VRS. The local government or school board would determine the specifics of the plan.

What did JLARC say? The report said, “It appears that closing the defined benefit plans would not be advantageous for the State and local governments as employers from either a cost or a human resources perspective, or advantageous for most employees.”

“…retaining the defined benefit plan is a better workforce management strategy.”

SB 498 (John Watkins) creates an optional hybrid retirement program for state and local employees. The employee has 60 days to opt into this plan. If they do not opt in, they go into the existing DB plan. This bill offers a plan containing a defined benefit (DB) pension with a 1% multiplier and a defined contribution plan (DC). The employer contributes to the DB at the designated rate and 1.5% to the DC plus a match to employee contributions up to 2%. The employee would make a mandatory contribution of 4% to the DB and 3% to the DC. The employee could contribute up to an additional 2% to the DC in ½% increments (.5, 1, 1.5, 2).

Here is part of what the JLARC report said about this plan:

With the provisions that would be offered in this optional combination plan, employees at each income level used to measure income replacement could potentially exceed the income replacement targets if they could defer five percent of their salary to their retirement account in addition to the four percent required to the defined benefit portion, for a total of nine percent throughout their career. As discussed earlier in this chapter, however, a nine percent deferment level appears to be unlikely for most employees, given relatively low average salaries. Therefore, the maximum scenario is unlikely. However, even if employees deferred only five percent of their salary, which is the current rate at which State employees must contribute to the existing defined benefit plan, those with salaries at or below $60,000 at retirement could meet the target income replacements.
In the case of a retiree with 37 years of service, he or she will be guaranteed 37 percent of average final compensation at retirement through the defined benefit component, not including Social Security.

HB 1129 (Bill Howell and Chris Jones) – Makes several changes to the VRS benefit structure. Some of these changes affect current employees.

Under the provisions of this bill, the calculation of average final compensation changes to cover a period of 60 months rather than 36 months. Under current law, the use of a 60-month period applies only to those employees hired on or after July 1, 2010. However, current employees affected by this change in average final compensation may use the 36-month period of calculation for compensation received prior to January 1, 2013, if it is greater than the 60-month period of calculation.

In regard to this proposed change, the JLARC report said, “It is less likely that this option alone would significantly impair employees’ ability to retire at an appropriate time and with adequate income. However, this option may provide employees with some incentive to work longer in order to potentially increase the AFC on which their future benefit is calculated.”

In regard to the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), first, the bill delays the COLA for early retirees until they reach the age for unreduced retirement benefits.

The report says that, “In addition to cost savings, this option could result in retaining more experienced employees in the State and local workforce because it would create a disincentive for retiring early.”

Second, it reduces the COLA to the first two percent of inflation plus one-half of the next two percent, for a maximum total of three percent. Under current law, the COLA is the first three percent of inflation plus one-half of the next four percent, for a maximum total of five percent. Employees who are within five years of their unreduced retirement date at that time are grandfathered and not affected by this new cap on the COLA.

“PwC’s assessment of this COLA option in 2008 was that it would not have a substantially adverse impact on future retirees’ income or active employees’ ability to retire. In their analysis of this COLA option, Mercer found that it would not significantly impair the State’s competitiveness.”

"Ten years after retiring, this COLA would have resulted in a benefit approximately six percent below the current Plan 1 approach.”

Finally, for those hired on or after January 1, 2013, HB 1129 reduces the multiplier from 1.7 to 1.6.

The report said that, “For lower salaried employees whose income replacement needs are highest, their ability to retire with adequate income would be a concern under this option.”

Further, the report points out that, “Nationally, for states that participate in Social Security, the average benefit multiplier is 1.97 percent.”

"A slightly lower multiplier will be perceived by prospective employees as less generous than that provided by other states, and certainly less generous than that provided to existing employees. It is possible that this change could have a negative impact on the State’s recruitment goals. It would also result in a less competitive total compensation package for newly hired employees. Finally, employees hired under this provision could be paying contributions equal to those of employees receiving greater benefits.”

In general, the report points out that, “it appears that further modifications to the defined benefit plans could diminish the ability of some agencies to recruit qualified employees.”

We have a battle ahead in the 2012 session. Many will be trying to diminish our retirement benefits and the benefits of future education employees. I hope this posting arms you with information which will help you defend our pension benefits as you interact with your senator and delegate.

The Legislative Committees Swung Into Action Today

2012-01-16T17:04:00.000-05:00

MLK Day was business as usual at the General Assembly. The Committees and subcommittees began their work, and motorcyclists, gun rights advocates, Soil and Water Conservation Boards, and the Family Foundation all had their legislatives days.

The House Appropriations Committee took up Delegate Massie’s tuition tax credit bill (HB 321) to provide the new entitlement of tax-payer financed tuition to private schools, only to re-refer the bill. It is not clear where the bill is headed at this time.

The Public Education Subcommittee of the Senate Education and Health Committee took up a number of bills. Senator John C. Miller’s SB 185, which calls for eliminating the science and social studies testing at the third grade level was reported. This bill was recommended by the JLARC study of Third Grade Reading Performance in Virginia. This study had recommended that:

“To help schools bring greater focus to reading skill development in third grade, the Board of Education should limit the SOL tests taken by third grade students to reading and math.”

The subcommittee favorably reported SB 185 to the full committee.

The Subcommittee also took up Senator Charles W. Carrico’s SB 329. This bill would have required parents of children participating in pre-school programs to satisfactorily complete “all parenting classes.” If the parents did not do this the child would have been removed from the program. VEA joined others in testifying against this bill, which punishes the child for the actions of his parents, and the subcommittee recommended passing the bill by indefinitely on a 3 to 2 vote.

These two bills should be heard by the full committee on Thursday.

Please check in tomorrow.

VRS Legislation

2012-01-13T14:40:00.001-05:00

Friday the 13th is not a good day to have 140 legislators rushing home on Virginia’s highways. But, the first week of the session is over and they are heading home. I wish them safe passage, and I am glad to see things shut down for the weekend.

Today, I’ll address the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) bills that could affect public school employees.

But, first, I want to commend our Governor for stepping up to the plate and addressing the underfunding of the VRS. For 20 years, the General Assembly and various governors have kicked the can down the road, shifting the burden for paying the bill into the future. Bob McDonnell is committed to properly funding the VRS. On this issue he is dead right, and he deserves credit.

Here are the bills, and my goal is to stick to the facts. Once the VEA Legislative Committee provides direction on the bills, we will shift to advocacy of VEA’s positions.

HB 208 (Jackson Miller) - This bill allows retired law enforcement officers to be employed as school security personnel without losing their retirement benefits. The bill requires a gap in service to be determined by the VRS Board of Trustees. It prohibits individuals who are participating in early retirement incentive programs from becoming employed. It stipulates that no additional VRS benefits will result from this employment.

HB 257 (Stolle) – This bill enables local governments to establish their own defined-contribution plans for new hires. The new hires would not participate in the VRS. The local government or school board would determine the specifics of the plan.

HB 702 (Filler-Corn) – This bill provides the retiree health care credit to support personnel who are not presently eligible for the credit.

HB 792 (Tata) – This bill allows local government employees to participate in the VRS deferred compensation plan. This would give a VRS-run option to corporate 403(b)/401(k) providers.

HB 1129 (Bill Howell and Chris Jones) – Makes several changes to the VRS benefit structure. Some of these changes affect current employees.

As background, remember that your VRS retirement benefit is currently based on the following formula:

Average Final Compensation X 1.7 X Years of Service = Annual Benefit

Under the provisions of this bill, the calculation of average final compensation changes to cover a period of 60 months rather than 36 months. Under current law, the use of a 60-month period applies only to those employees hired on or after July 1, 2010. However, current employees affected by this change in average final compensation may use the 36-month period of calculation for compensation received prior to January 1, 2013, if it is greater than the 60-month period of calculation.

The bill reduces the cost of living adjustments (COLA) to those employees who reach the age for unreduced retirement benefits. Further, it reduces the COLA to the first two percent of inflation plus one-half of the next two percent, for a maximum total of three percent. Under current law, the COLA is the first three percent of inflation plus one-half of the next four percent, for a maximum total of five percent. Employees who are within five years of their unreduced retirement date at that time are grandfathered and not affected by this new cap on the COLA.

Finally, for those hired on or after January 1, 2013, the bill reduces the multiplier from 1.7 to 1.6.

SJR 5 (Janet Howell) – This resolution proposes a rather complex amendment to the Constitution. Without going into the details, it requires that the state fund the VRS in accordance with the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees.

Annual Contract - What does our Governor mean?

2012-01-12T14:41:00.003-05:00

What does the Governor mean when he says annual contract? My goal below is to summarize the bill in an unbiased manner. Our legislative committee is yet to act on the bill.

Governor McDonnell proposes the elimination of continuing contract. Here is what he said in last night’s State of the Commonwealth address:

“I am asking that we remove the continuing contract status from teachers and principals and provide an annual contract in its place. This will allow us to implement an improved evaluation system that really works and give principals a new tool to utilize in managing their schools. Along with the merit pay pilot program we approved last year, we will provide more incentives and accountability to attract and retain the best and brightest teachers.”

To understand what he is proposing let’s look at the bill, HB 576, patroned by Delegate Richard P. Bell, which, if passed, will implement the Govenor’s proposal. The provisions apply to principals, assistant principals and teachers. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the word teacher to apply to all three.

But, before we dive into the bill it is important to note that the backdrop for the bill is the soon to be implemented “Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals and Superintendents.” This is the plan which makes student test scores a major component of teacher evaluation.

What does HB 576 propose. I’ll try to give the broad strokes.

First, the probationary period is shortened from three years to two years (probationary teachers may be dismissed without cause). During the probationary period, teachers will be evaluated twice yearly – mid-year and at year’s end. Under the current system, a teacher with satisfactory evaluations moves to continuing contract after three years of service. Under the new system a teacher with satisfactory evaluations moves to annual contract after two years. Teachers on annual contract will be evaluated on an annual basis.

Second, if a teacher on annual contract has unsatisfactory evaluations for two or two of three years, they can be moved to probationary contract or dismissed.

Assistance must be provided prior to termination.

Teachers on annual contract must be given a “notice of noncontinuation” by June 15 (under current law this notice must be given by April 15), and resignations can be offered after the June 15 date as well.

The bill contains the following reduction in force (RIF) provisions:

“If workforce reduction is needed, a division school board shall retain employees based upon educational program needs and the performance evaluations of employees within the affected program areas. Within the program areas requiring reduction, the employee with the lowest performance evaluations shall be the first to be released. A division school board shall not prioritize retention of employees based solely upon seniority.”

Thanks for checking in today. I'll address the retirement issue tomorrow.

Here We Go Again!

2012-01-11T17:44:00.002-05:00

Here we go again!

The session has just begun, and efforts to discount the credibility of education advocates are already underway. The truth is the best way to counter these efforts we are seeing to cover up Virginia’s underfunding of our schools.

First of all, what is being said to cloud the waters?

The Governor’s budget address cited the JLARC Review of State Spending to justify his proposed education funding levels saying:

“… in K-12 education, according to the JLARC report, total funding has grown 41% over the last decade, while student enrollment has only gone up 6%.”

However, Page 14 of the same report offers a more telling analysis:

“DOE (Direct Aid) … was not among the ten fastest growing agencies …, having grown more slowly (21%) than inflation, which grew 23% over the period.”

The report points out that the implementation of the federal mandates associated with NCLB and special education requirements had a substantial impact on the cost of public education.

Page 3 says, “this report does not address the merits or adequacy of funding for governmental functions, agencies, or programs.”

In this morning’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Speaker of the House, William Howell, said, “The Virginia Education Association is going to say, "We're not getting enough for K-12 education. You're starving us. You're cutting us." Well, in fact, we'll be giving them a good bit more money, but they like to call that a cut because it's not as much as they would have liked.”

Let’s look at the facts. Virginia’s per-pupil spending from state sources ranks 35th in the nation (CQ Education State Ranking 2011-2012). Our average teacher salary is $4,510 below the national average (CQ Education State Ranking 2011-2012). But, we are the 7th wealthiest state in per capita personal income (CQ State Rankings 2011).

In year two of the proposed budget we will be running our schools on $547 less per-pupil than in FY 2009. We have 2,116 fewer teachers in our schools today (VA DOE) than we did in 2009 , but we have about 45,000 more students (Weldon Cooper Center).

We’ll be doing our best to make sure that the decisions regarding funding our schools are based on facts rather than sound-bites. Please help by sharing the facts with your Senator and Delegate.

Thanks for checking in on the first day of the session. Please check this post again tomorrow, and please plan to attend VEA Lobby Day on January 23.

Daily Reports Begin Wednesday, January 11

2012-01-10T12:44:00.002-05:00

VEA's General Assembly Daily Reports (2012 edition) start up tomorrow, January 11. Be sure to check the blog every day to stay on top on the legislation that can influence schools for better or worse. Robley Jones, VEA Director of Government Relations and Research, distills what you need to know.

Click the link on the right to review VEA's Legislative Agenda for the 2012 session.

Below: VEA President Dr. Kitty Boitnott responds to Governor Bob McDonnell's education proposals at a news conference Jan. 9.

VEA Wins 4 of 5 During Veto Session

2011-04-07T12:09:00.003-04:00

VEA’s lobby effort was successful on four of five key issues in yesterday’s Reconvened (AKA Veto Session).

Our only loss was on the Virtual School issue. The manner in which virtual schools are being funded in Virginia makes no sense, but sense did not prevail on this issue. Governor McDonnell offered a budget amendment striking the language we had worked to gain from the budget bill. The Governor’s amendment prevailed in the House on a 94-6 vote and in the Senate on a 23-17 vote. Big money corporate lobbying prevailed, and the states will continue to spend far more on virtual school education than is warranted.

Governor McDonnell’s amendment to allow your local school board to require that you pay the 5% VRS employee contribution was defeated in the House 38 to 60 (NAY was a “right” vote). The vote was as follows:

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Anderson, Athey, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Brink, Carrico, Cleaveland, Cole, Comstock, Cox, M.K., Englin, Greason, Hugo, Ingram, Jones, Lingamfelter, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, Miller, J.H., Morgan, O'Bannon, Poindexter, Purkey, Putney, Robinson, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Stolle, Tata, Villanueva, Ware, R.L., Wilt, Wright, Mr. Speaker--38.

NAYS--Abbott, Alexander, Armstrong, BaCote, Bell, Robert B., Bulova, Byron, Carr, Cline, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Crockett-Stark, Dance, Ebbin, Edmunds, Filler-Corn, Garrett, Gilbert, Habeeb, Herring, Hope, Howell, A.T., Iaquinto, James, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Kory, Landes, LeMunyon, Loupassi, McClellan, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morrissey, Nutter, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Plum, Pogge, Pollard, Rust, Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Surovell, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Ware, O., Watts--60.

NOT VOTING--Helsel, Lewis--2.

Governor McDonnell’s amendment to create a defined contribution (401K) option passed the House and was killed in the Senate. Here are the votes (NAY is a “right” vote):

House Vote

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Anderson, Athey, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Byron, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Dance, Edmunds, Garrett, Gilbert, Greason, Habeeb, Helsel, Howell, A.T., Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LeMunyon, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, Merricks, Morefield, Morgan, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Pogge, Poindexter, Purkey, Putney, Robinson, Rust, Scott, E.T., Sherwood, Stolle, Tata, Villanueva, Ware, R.L., Wilt, Wright, Mr. Speaker--58.

NAYS--Abbott, Alexander, Armstrong, BaCote, Brink, Bulova, Carr, Carrico, Crockett-Stark, Ebbin, Englin, Filler-Corn, Herring, Hope, Hugo, James, Johnson, Keam, Kory, McClellan, McQuinn, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morrissey, Nutter, Phillips, Plum, Pollard, Scott, J.M., Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Surovell, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Ware, O., Watts--39.

NOT VOTING--Bell, Robert B., Cox, M.K., Jones--3.

Senate Vote

YEAS--Blevins, Martin, McDougle, McWaters, Newman, Obenshain, Ruff, Smith, Stanley, Stosch, Stuart, Vogel, Wagner, Watkins--14.

NAYS--Barker, Colgan, Deeds, Edwards, Hanger, Herring, Houck, Howell, Locke, Lucas, Marsden, Marsh, McEachin, Miller, J.C., Miller, Y.B., Norment, Northam, Petersen, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Saslaw, Ticer, Wampler, Whipple--26.

In another attempt to weaken VRS by creating a defined contribution option, the Governor substituted a DC bill for Delegate Tata’s HB1795. His substitute for HB1795 passed in the House and was killed in the Senate. I will not provide the votes, as they are virtually identical to the votes above.

Finally, the Governor was with us on the veto of SB966 – the “PE Bill.” The Senate sustained the Governor’s veto, killing the bill, on a 16-24 vote (NAY was a vote to kill the bill).

YEAS--Barker, Colgan, Deeds, Edwards, Herring, Locke, Marsh, McEachin, Miller, J.C., Miller, Y.B., Northam, Petersen, Puckett, Puller, Saslaw, Whipple--16.

NAYS--Blevins, Hanger, Houck, Howell, Lucas, Marsden, Martin, McDougle, McWaters, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, Quayle, Reynolds, Ruff, Smith, Stanley, Stosch, Stuart, Ticer, Vogel, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins--24.

We won on 4 of the 5 key votes because of the great job you do of communicating with your legislators. Thank you!!!!!!

Sine Die!!!!!!!

2011-02-27T19:14:00.002-05:00

Sine Die!

At a much quicker pace than anticipated the House and Senate concluded the session this evening.

In the broadest strokes, for VEA members there is no change relating to VRS (a major victory), and the Senate held strong on PreK-12 funding. Remember the House bill added no new funds for public education, while the Senate increased funding by a little more than $100 million. The bottom line is that the adopted budget includes $76,120,208 more in 2011-2012 Direct Aid for Public Education.

One wrinkle to our disadvantage is that, upon the insistence of the House conferees, the new funds for public education will be “taken out of the base expenditure totals for the purposes of calculating the cost of the FY 2012-2014 biennial budget and for future rebenchmarking considerations.”

If you want to see the bottom line for your school division please click on this link:

http://hac.state.va.us/Committee/files/2011/2-27-11/Public_Education-Appendix_B-FY_2012.pdf

Thanks for all you have done to advance the cause of public education as you have lobbied for our cause in the 2011 session.

Sine Die, NOT!

2011-02-26T11:42:00.000-05:00

I am told that the $75 million above the Governor’s introduced budget for PreK-12 will be proportionally distributed based on the Senate’s approach. The money will be used for direct aid and for “hold-harmless.” We will share the spread sheets showing the appropriations for each division ASAP.

The VRS issues remain unresolved, though I am told that school employees will not be included in the 5 and 5 plan being considered for state employees.

There is no expectation that the budget will be completed on time. House conferees seem to think things will be wrapped up as soon as Sunday. Senators are saying Monday or Tuesday.

House Pulls Senate Down/Retirements

2011-02-25T16:23:00.001-05:00

The word from the budget conferees is that they have agreed to increase PreK-12 funding by $75 million dollars. They are yet to agree on how to “slice the $75 million pie.” Remember the Senate started at $103 million

Unfortunately, this amount of money won’t go far, but here would be some good uses for the funds:

funding for resource teachers (art, music and PE) in grades six and seven ($34 million)

funding for school buses ($37.7 million)

funding for text books ($17 million)

Pre-K funding ($11.2 million)

support for school employee salaries (about $24 million per 1%)

Please continue to call conferees – see numbers on yesterday’s posting.

Senators Ticer and Whipple have both announced their retirements, and Delegate Pollard announced his retirement today.

Beginning of the End of the Labor Day Bill?

2011-02-24T14:33:00.003-05:00

The word on the budget is that the discussions are not proceeding swimmingly, and it looks like a vote on the budget will be on Tuesday rather than Saturday. PreK-12 funding remains a matter of contention.

The Roanoke City Labor Day waiver bill, HB1483, finally came to vote in the Senate today. At long and at last, HB1483 passed the Senate on a 22-18 vote. My hope is that this marks the beginning of the end of the Labor Day law in Virginia!

Please keep the pressure on the budget conferees to move toward the Senate position on PreK-12 funding.

Senate All tel. #’s are area code 804

Charles J. Colgan district29@senate.virginia.gov 698-7529

William C. Wampler, Jr. district40@senate.virginia.gov 698-7540

R. Edward Houck district17@senate.virginia.gov 698-7517

Janet D. Howell district32@senate.virginia.gov 698-7532

Richard L. Saslaw district35@senate.virginia.gov 698-7535

Walter A. Stosch district12@senate.virginia.gov 698-7512

House

Lacey E. Putney DelLPutney@house.virginia.gov 698-1019

M. Kirkland Cox DelKCox@house.virginia.gov 698-1066

Beverly J. Sherwood DelBSherwood@house.virginia.gov 698-1029

R. Steven Landes DelSLandes@house.virginia.gov 698-1025

S. Chris Jones DelCJones@house.virginia.gov 698-1076

Johnny S. Joannou (D-Portsmouth) (no e-mail address) 698-1079

Keep the Pressure On re HB1483 and the Budget

2011-02-23T15:45:00.002-05:00

The word from the budget conferees is encouraging today. In contrast with yesterdays “buzz,” Senate conferees tell me they are holding firm on PreK-12 funding.

The Senate yet again delayed a final vote on Delegate Cleaveland’s HB 1483, the bill giving the students of Roanoke City a level playing field by allowing them, like their Roanoke County neighbors, to start school two weeks before Labor Day. This bill affords them equal instructional time prior to IB and SOL tests. Opponents of the bill said that amendments to the bill were not printed and that consideration should be delayed.

Please call your Senator urging her/him to resist amendments to HB1483 and to vote to pass the bill, and urge your senator to ask the Senate budget conferees to hold firm on PreK-12 funding.

Lost One/One Delayed

2011-02-22T13:45:00.003-05:00

Consideration of HB1483, the bill to exempt Roanoke City from the post- Labor-Day school opening requirement, was delayed for another day. One suspects that some fierce arm twisting must be taking place behind the scenes on this one. We obviously had the votes for passage on Monday, when efforts to re-refer the bill to Commerce and Labor garnered only 13 votes.

We were beaten badly on HB2494. Our locals will have to pay close attention to plans from local school boards to see exemptions from state standards to make sure that we watch out for the interest of students and those who work in our schools. We were shellacked on a 33-7 vote.

The word from the budget conference committee is that progress is being made. The buzz is that the House and Senate have agreed to meet half way, but no final decisions have been made regarding the policy issues relating to PreK-12. What is disturbing is that the VRS issues, employee payment of the 5% and the defined contribution option, are still being promoted by the House conferees despite the fact that all bills to forward this agenda were defeated.

Please call your Senator urging support of HB1483.

Call Your Senator Today

2011-02-21T14:36:00.004-05:00

No holiday on Capitol Hill!

HB 1483 is a narrowly crafted Labor Day bill providing a level playing field to the students of Roanoke City, a location surrounded by a county (Roanoke County) with a Labor Day waiver. County students have two more weeks of instruction before IB and SOL tests than their city neighbors. This bill will fix that.

As reported earlier, this bill reported from the Senate Committee on Education and Health on a 10-5 vote. Senators Saslaw and Norment led efforts to re-refer the bill to the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, where Labor Day bills are routinely killed. Big News!!! The motion to re-refer failed in the Senate on a 13-26 vote. Norment then moved that the bill go by for the day. The final vote should be tomorrow. Please call your Senator urging support of HB 1483.

HB 1548 was a bill that would have unnecessarily burdened teachers and other school personnel with additional reporting requirements. It required the reporting of every act which singularly or in cumulative effect is likely to result in the student’s suspension or the filing of a court petition.

The removal of professional discretion as to when to report infractions to parents would have undermined the position of the classroom teacher and would have imposed an unnecessary burden on those already overburdened. This bill was defeated by the Senate on a 12-28 vote. VEA joined forces with VSBA and VASS to defeat this bill, which was supported by the Family Foundation.

Finally, HB 2494, which allows local school divisions to seek waivers to the rules and regulations governing our schools, went by for the day to delay the final Senate vote until tomorrow. One of the reasons why we have the fourth best schools in the nation is that we hold our schools to uniform standards. Our biggest concern is that this bill could erode these standards and be used to reduce planning time, increase class sizes, and reduce access to school nurses, guidance counselors, and libraries.

Please call your Senators urging support for HB1483 and opposition to 2494. Need your Senator's number? Click here.

It's Up to the Budget Conferees

2011-02-18T17:04:00.003-05:00

This is the hardest part of the session. This is when lobbyists feel most helpless to influence what is going one in the places where the budget conferees hide to have fateful and consequential discussions. From time to time you are called in to have confidential discussions with this Senator, that Delegate or that staff member so they can guage your reaction to various trial balloons.

Between now and a week from tomorrow the following conferees will decide the fate of public education in the year ahead:

Senate All tel. #’s are area code 804

Charles J. Colgan district29@senate.virginia.gov 698-7529

William C. Wampler, Jr. district40@senate.virginia.gov 698-7540

R. Edward Houck district17@senate.virginia.gov 698-7517

Janet D. Howell district32@senate.virginia.gov 698-7532

Richard L. Saslaw district35@senate.virginia.gov 698-7535

Walter A. Stosch district12@senate.virginia.gov 698-7512

House
Lacey E. Putney DelLPutney@house.virginia.gov 698-1019

M. Kirkland Cox DelKCox@house.virginia.gov 698-1066

Beverly J. Sherwood DelBSherwood@house.virginia.gov 698-1029

R. Steven Landes DelSLandes@house.virginia.gov 698-1025

S. Chris Jones DelCJones@house.virginia.gov 698-1076

Johnny S. Joannou (D-Portsmouth) (no e-mail address) 698-1079

Let’s hope that children and public education will be a priority.

Wild Day at the Capitol

2011-02-17T17:01:00.001-05:00

The Senate Committee on Education and Health could not have been crazier. The docket was loaded with controversial bills from abortion to the 65% solution.

There was even a contingent of nuns favoring a bill for the benefit of “Little Sisters for the Poor,” a wonderful organization that provides for the impoverished elderly.

With you help, HB 1416, the 65% Solution bill, failed to report.

YEAS--Quayle, Martin, Newman, Ruff, Blevins--5.

NAYS--Houck, Saslaw, Lucas, Howell, Edwards, Whipple, Locke, Barker, Northam, Miller, J.C.--10.

HB 1483, a narrowly crafted Labor Day bill, which provides a level playing field to the students of Roanoke City, a location surrounded by a county with a Labor Day waiver, was reported on a 10-5 vote. County students have two more weeks of instruction before IB and SOL tests than their city neighbors. This bill will fix that.

YEAS--Houck, Lucas, Howell, Quayle, Edwards, Whipple, Blevins, Locke, Northam, Miller, J.C.--10.

NAYS--Saslaw, Martin, Newman, Ruff, Barker--5.

HB 1548 is a bill that will unnecessarily burden teachers and other school personnel with additional reporting requirements. It requires the reporting of every act which singularly or in cumulative effect is likely to result in the student’s suspension or the filing of a court petition.

The removal of professional discretion as to when to report infractions to parents undermines the position of the classroom teacher and imposes an unnecessary burden on those already overburdened. This bill reported on an 8-7 vote and heads to the full Senate.

YEAS--Saslaw, Lucas, Howell, Quayle, Martin, Edwards, Whipple, Barker--8.

NAYS--Houck, Newman, Ruff, Blevins, Locke, Northam, Miller, J.C.--7.

HB 2494 is that this bill could be used to reduce planning time, increase class sizes, and reduce access to school nurses, guidance counselors, and libraries. This bill reported on a 8-7 vote as well and is headed to the full senate.

Please write your Senator now urging support of 1483 and opposition to 1548 and 2494. Click on write now.

Having passed the Senate on a 25-12 vote, Senator Marden’s SB 805 failed to report from the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Compensation and Retirement on a 3-1 vote. Delegate O. Ware moved to report. There was no second. Delegate Ingram moved to table, and Delegate C. Jones and Delegate Poindexter joined him in voting to table. Delegate Tata was not in the room. Thanks to VRTA for rising with VEA in support of the bill.

VRS Victory - Are We There Yet?

2011-02-16T10:57:00.004-05:00

It is never over until it is over, but it appears that we have a major victory. When VEA ended up being the only organization standing in opposition to Chairman Putney’s HB2410, which imposed the 5% employee contribution to VRS and weakened VRS by providing a defined contribution plan to future hires, I hoped and prayed that we were doing the right thing.

We were! Delegate Putney announced, when presenting his bill to the Senate Finance Committee today, that teachers and local government employees are now left out of the bill. I personally thanked Delegate Putney after the meeting.

Although, there may be efforts on the part of the House, in the budget deliberations, to revisit this issue – our chances of successfully avoiding the imposition of the 5% employee contribution and defending VRS have improved dramatically.

Thanks to each of you who took the time to write your legislator in opposition to HB2410. You made a difference

Voucher Bill Bites the Dust/Big VRS Vote Tomorrow

2011-02-15T15:26:00.004-05:00

Consideration of the Massie Voucher Bill (HB2314) resulted in quite a show at today’s Senate Finance Committee meeting. The bill was targeted at children who qualify for free- and reduced-lunch. The same ploy was used in Florida, but as soon as the voucher door was opened by exploiting poor children, the plan was expanded to create a new entitlement program providing private school vouchers to even the wealthiest children.

Private school students were brought in to testify to the bill, and some of them cried when it failed.

What was most surprising was that representatives of Verizon (Can you hear me now?) and Waste Management, Inc. (Think Green), testified in support of the voucher bill. This is the first time I ever recall major corporations publicly undermining public education in the General Assembly. Senator Wampler moved to report the bill. Senator Saslaw moved a substitute motion to pass by indefinitely (PBI). Senators Marsh and Houck debated against the bill. Wampler and Stosch praised the bill.

The vote on the bill was a straight party-line vote, with the nine Democrats voting to kill the bill (YEA) and the six Republicans voting against the motion to PBI (NAY).

YEAS--Colgan, Houck, Howell, Saslaw, Miller, Y.B., Marsh, Lucas, Whipple, Reynolds--9.
NAYS--Wampler, Stosch, Quayle, Norment, Hanger, Watkins--6.

Lukily the Verizon call was dropped and it was all too apparent that the only green Waste Management was thinking about was reducing their corporate tax bill.

The big vote on Delegate Putney’s HB2410, which creates a defined-contribution option for future hires, is tomorrow in the same Senate Finance committee. It’s not too late to call members of the Senate Finance Committee (see names in vote above) to ask them not to mess with our VRS!

Won One/Lost One/Repair the Damage Rally

2011-02-14T19:50:00.003-05:00

Delegate Cleaveland’s HB1483, a Labor Day Bill exempting Roanoke City from the Labor Day law, cleared another hurdle today when it was reported from the Senate Committee on Education and Health. Could it be that the dam is ready to break on this issue? The fact that Roanoke City’s youth have two weeks less time to prepare for IB and other tests was an issue. I think it may be time for a frontal assault on the Labor Day bill. Shall we put that on next year’s agenda? Delegate Cleaveland is a highly effective advocate for his legislation, especially considering that this is his first session.

We were less lucky on the PE bill. O’Bannon’s bill was reported from the same committee on a 3-2 vote.

Tomorrow will be a big day in the Senate Finance Committee, Delegate Massie’s voucher bill, SB2314, will come up. It’s not too late to make calls to members of that committee urging defeat of SB2314.

Thanks to all who attended today’s “Repair the Damage” rally. Please check out the coverage on the VEA website.

Senate, Hold Firm!!!

2011-02-11T13:40:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, I addressed some aspects of the House budget. Today, let’s look at the Senate budget.

First, it provides $100.6 million more funding for public education than the Governor’s introduced budget. Remember, the House cuts $93.1 million.

The 97 school divisions harmed by the Governor’s cuts in the “LCI Hold Harmless” are made whole in the Senate budget.

It eliminates the 2% reduction in pay provision – remember, the Governor said school employees would pay the 5% VRS employee contribution if local school divisions provided a 3% increase. The Senate budget leaves things as they now are.

The Senate restores some Standards of Quality (SOQ) funding for school operating, construction costs, textbooks, ESL and remedial summer school.

The Senate chose not to give any salary increases. They said if we can’t do for all, we won’t do for any. The Governor had funds for state worker increases, but nothing for school employees.

The Senate puts $31 million into VRS teacher fund and raises the employer contribution rate by 2.4% to strengthen the fund.

The Senate cuts funding for the College Lab Schools from $0.6 million to $0.3 million, and cuts the funding for the Governor’s merit pay plan from $3 million to $1 million.

In keeping with a long and hard battle for VEA, the Senate provides $0.5 million for an “Analysis of Statewide Health Insurance.” As statewide plan could save the state, localities and VEA members a fortune in health insurance costs.

We can only hope that the Senate holds firm in their fight to increase funding for our schools now that the budget deliberations are underway.

Tell Your Delegate to Fix the House Budget!

2011-02-10T17:42:00.000-05:00

Despite improving revenues on the state level, the proposed House Budget Bill, HB1500, continues to inflict permanent damage to the Standards of Quality, the school funding formula in Virginia. Despite the fact that Virginia now ranks 38th in the nation in state funding per pupil, the house budget makes the following permanent cuts:

• Eliminates funding for resource teachers (art, music and PE) in grades six and seven

• Eliminates funding for school buses

• Reduces funding for text books

• Cuts Pre-K funding

As Virginia’s finances improve, we should be repairing the damage done to your schools by the deep cuts of the recessionary years. We should not be making additional cuts.

Please urge your delegate to restore these cuts and to begin repairing the damage done to our schools.

Click on Write Now!

Great Intentions/Bad Bill

2011-02-09T22:02:00.004-05:00

While the goal of increasing the physical activity of our children to reduce childhood obesity is one upon which we all agree. The manner in which this issue is addressed in SB966 is most problematic.

Those who do not work in schools are not aware of just how jam-packed the school day is. If we provide the minimum of 150 minutes per week for physical activity we will have to take time away from other activities such as remediation, music, art and foreign language instruction unless we lengthen the school day.

To improve the health of our children, the envisioned physical activity should involve rigorous uninterrupted physical activity for at least thirty minutes. Especially for our older students, grades 5-8, the students will need to change before and shower afterwards. Locker rooms and showers are not present at most of our elementary schools.

The proponents of this bill advocate shifting P.E. instructional responsibility to the classroom teacher and away from the P. E. teachers. It is ironic that the experts in our schools in the realm of physical education will lose their jobs as this bill is implemented. We fear that music and art programs will be eliminated as well.

There are no inclement weather provisions in the bill, and for schools without gymnasiums, this is a problem.

If the state would share in the cost of implementing this state policy shift, by providing the state share of funding the facilities, lengthened day and additional teachers we would support it. But at this point, the
bill is a costly and unfunded mandate.

Please click on the link below to send a message to your delegate urging oppositions to SB966.

http://capwiz.com/nea/va/issues/alert/?alertid=26919511&queueid=6437180991

Votes to Remember in November

2011-02-08T17:04:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, I referred to three bills of special interest to VEA. Today, I’ll let you know where these three bills stand as we reach crossover. On the House side is the HB2410, Delegate Putney’s bill to create a defined contribution option; and HB2314, Delegate Massie’s voucher bill.

Delegate Jennifer McClellan led the debate against the voucher bill yesterday, and the 55-44 vote to pass the bill in the House was close.

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Anderson, Athey, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Byron, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Garrett, Gilbert, Greason, Habeeb, Howell, A.T., Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Jones, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LeMunyon, Lingamfelter, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, Miller, J.H., Morgan, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Robinson, Scott, E.T., Sherwood, Stolle, Tata, Villanueva, Ware, R.L., Wilt, Mr. Speaker--54.

NAYS--Abbott, Alexander, Armstrong, BaCote, Barlow, Brink, Bulova, Carr, Carrico, Crockett-Stark, Dance, Ebbin, Edmunds, Englin, Filler-Corn, Herring, Hope, Hugo, James, Johnson, Keam, Kory, Lewis, McClellan, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morrissey, Nutter, Phillips, Plum, Rust, Scott, J.M., Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Surovell, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Ware, O., Watts, Wright--45.

We will now go to work in an effort to kill this bill in the Senate.

The House vote on HB2410, the bill to weaken VRS by creating a defined contribution option, was as follows:

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Anderson, Athey, BaCote, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Brink, Byron, Carrico, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Dance, Edmunds, Garrett, Gilbert, Greason, Habeeb, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Jones, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LeMunyon, Lingamfelter, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morgan, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Robinson, Rust, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Sherwood, Shuler, Spruill, Stolle, Tata, Torian, Villanueva, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Wilt, Wright, Mr. Speaker--72.

NAYS--Abbott, Alexander, Armstrong, Bulova, Carr, Crockett-Stark, Ebbin, Filler-Corn, Herring, Hope, James, Johnson, Kory, Lewis, McClellan, Morefield, Morrissey, Nutter, Phillips, Plum, Sickles, Surovell, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Watts--26.

Englin’s no vote should be recorded later. He said his “Nay” button malfunctioned.

We will need to work our hardest to defeat this bill in the Senate.

On the Senate side, SB1031, Senator Barker’s bill to allow school boards to retain unspent funds at year’s end failed on a close vote (17-23):

YEAS--Barker, Colgan, Edwards, Herring, Houck, Howell, Locke, Marsden, McEachin, Miller, J.C., Miller, Y.B., Petersen, Puller, Reynolds, Saslaw, Ticer, Whipple--17.

NAYS--Blevins, Deeds, Hanger, Lucas, Marsh, Martin, McDougle, McWaters, Newman, Norment, Northam, Obenshain, Puckett, Quayle, Ruff, Smith, Stanley, Stosch, Stuart, Vogel, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins--23.

Please plan to attend the “Repair the Damage” rally in Richmond on February 14th.

Crossover & Three Major Votes Tomorrow

2011-02-07T16:32:00.002-05:00

The House and Senate calendars are full as we approach Crossover. Three bills are of special interest to VEA.

On the House side is the HB2410, Delegate Putney’s bill to create a defined contribution option; and HB2314, Delegate Massie’s voucher bill.

After lengthy debate of the voucher bill, the bill was engrossed and passed to the third reading. The final house vote on this bill will be on Tuesday. Please use the link below to write your delegate urging opposition to HB2314:

http://capwiz.com/nea/va/issues/alert/?alertid=25928501&queueid=6419770286

HB2410, too, was engrossed and passed to its third reading. The final vote is tomorrow. Please click the link below to write your delegate urging opposition to this effort to weaken the VRS.

http://capwiz.com/nea/va/issues/alert/?alertid=25712501&queueid=6412064421

On the Senate side, we have SB1031, Senator Barker’s bill to allow school boards to retain unspent funds at year’s end. This bill was engrossed and advance to its third reading tomorrow. That will be the final vote. Please use this link to email your senator urging support for SB1031.

http://capwiz.com/nea/va/issues/alert/?alertid=25997501&queueid=6421919921

Please plan to attend the “Repair the Damage” rally in Richmond on February 14th.

What Super Bowl? It's Budget Sunday.

2011-02-06T17:18:00.002-05:00

The House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees presented their budgets today, so that lobbyists would not be able to watch the Super Bowl.

I am going to offer very broad-stroke observations based on my first glance of the two proposals. More detail will follow.

First, let’s look at the FY 2012 Direct Aid to Public Education provided in each budget:

House $5,404,513,733 Senate $5,597,954,315

Remember, the Governor provided $5,497,604,129.

So the House actually cuts $93,090,396 in addition to the Governor’s cuts.

The Senate increased K-12 funding by $100,350,186.

On a per pupil basis, here is how it breaks down:

Governor: $4,519
House: $4,441
Senate: $4.600

The House calls or a 2% teacher salary bonus, and allows the imposition of the 5% employee contribution to VRS only if a 5% raise in provided.

The Senate does not mention a salary target, but provides much more money to school divisions.

In the days ahead, the House will reject the Senate budget - the Senate will reject the House budget - and a committee on conference will be appointed to come up with a joint conference proposal.

One way to pressure the House to move in the Senate's position is to attend the "Repair the Damage to Public Education" rally on February 14th.

My quotes of the day come from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Colgan, who said:

“Despite these significant ‘short session’ restorations, we are mindful of the unprecedented magnitude of the reductions in this area over the past two years. The final FY 2010 general fund Direct Aid to Education appropriation was reduced almost 20 percent from the original appropriation, to below the FY 2007 level.”

And from Senator Yvonne Miller, who said,

“… we have elected not to reinstate payment of the five percent employee retirement contribution at this time. …Our state employees, faculty, teachers, and state-supported local government have stuck by us during these hard times. Now is not the time to thank them with a … reduction in pay.”

Urge Your Senator to Support SB1031

2011-02-05T10:21:00.004-05:00

SB1031 should come up for final vote on Tuesday.

SB1031 allows local school boards to retain unspent funds at the end of the year. This change in policy rewards sound fiscal stewardship, eliminates the “spend it or lose it” mentality, and affords education a higher priority in the budget process.

This bill is one small step to help local school divisions in these hard economic times.

Click on "Take Action!" to urge your Senator to vote for SB1031

Act Now to Stop HB2314

2011-02-04T16:24:00.002-05:00

The House will debate Delegate Massie’s HB2314, a private school voucher bill, on Monday. The final vote should be on Tuesday. Please click on “Take Action!” to send your delegate a message urging the defeat of HB2314.

This bill will create a new entitlement, the state provision of funds for private school tuitions. Although the bill claims to benefit only poor children, it is a foot in the door. The bill is modeled on Florida’s voucher program. Newsweek reported on January 24, 2011, that, “Gov. Rick Scott is the first [Governor] to propose making vouchers available to all students, not just those in low-income areas.”

The bill will drain the General Fund of up to $25 million dollars by providing a 70% tax credit to corporations contributing to private school voucher foundations. Public schools would lose the state funding for the children who receive the vouchers.

This bill is being proposed at a time when we have seen Virginia’s state per-pupil funding fall from a 2009 level of $5,274 to the 2012 level of $4,519 proposed by the Governor on December 17th.

This bill will deplete the General Fund, which presently does not adequately fund core services, including education, for the purpose of offering a financial incentive to abandon our public schools. The $25 million could be better used to begin repairing the damage done to our schools by the funding cuts of the last three years.

This bill will provide a greater incentive (70% credit) to corporations to contribute to private schools than is provided for contributions to public school foundations, which are considered a charitable donation and not eligible for a tax credit.

The worth of the vouchers will vary by locality. The range is from $1,300 to $6,700. This amount is not sufficient to provide for the tuition of a poor child to attend a private school of high quality. The qualifying family of four, earning $40,793, could certainly not bridge the gap to pay the tuition of a high quality private school, many of which approach or exceed $20,000.

No accountability provisions for the academic performance of the schools which will benefit from the state’s support are included in the bill. Should not schools benefiting from state funding, even if it is indirect, be held to the same SOL accountability system as our public schools?

They Really Don't Know What They Are Doing!

2011-02-03T15:45:00.003-05:00

I try to refrain from being too critical of our elected leaders, as they are dealing with so many complex issues, and most are, like the rest of us, giving it their best try. But in the case of HB2410, I have to say that they literally do not know what they are doing. Some have admitted to me that they to not understand the bill, but they vote for it.

VEA, by virtue of a long-held position of our board of directors, supports the exclusive maintenance of the defined benefit plan for school employees. HB2410, which is now before the full House, creates an optional defined contribution (DC) plan for future hires.

One of the reasons for considering this bill is the $17 billion VRS unfunded liability, and the other is the hope of controlling future costs of the system. HB2410 does not change the unfunded liability of the current plan. The Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS) says, “… current unfunded liabilities for the DB pension and retiree healthcare benefits will remain substantially unchanged.” Further, the FIS says HB2410 will increase the cost of the current plan - “As fewer hires join the current DB [defined benefit] plan, the payroll base under this plan would begin to decline immediately. Since the payroll base is used to fund the DB system’s unfunded accrued liabilities (UAL), the financial burden as a percent of payroll will increase.” The FIS also says it “will increase the contribution required to the DB plan, at least in the near term.”

In plain English this means that the bill will weaken the current plan, make the current plan more expensive and do nothing to address the unfunded liability.
The FIS also says, “It will take many years before the System may begin to realize any benefits anticipated by creating a DC plan.”

Adequate deliberation of the question before the House should include the consideration of the impact of the plan on future retirees.

The DC model in the 2008 JLARC report on State Compensation according to PricewaterhouseCoopers would offer 52% of the benefit of the current plan. The House canot tell us what the ultimate value to retirees of the plan in HB2410? Should they vote without knowing the answer to this question?

Asking a 22 year-old new hire, who knows nothing about the virtues or risks of the various plans, to make an irrevocable election of tremendous consequence is unwise and unfair.

This is too big an issue to address in this short session. There is over $50 billion in the fund – retirees will be paid. The actuarial horizon of the unfunded liability is 85 years. Please urge your Delegate to vote to defeat HB2410 and to study a bit more before making this decision which is of tremendous consequence to future employees.

What a difference: House and Senate

2011-02-02T13:37:00.001-05:00

I started my day in the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on Compensation and Retirement as they took up two bills to create a defined contribution plan for future hires in Virginia. I summarized the retirement bills in an earlier posting. Delegate Jones’ HB2465 (the mandatory bill) was incorporated into Delegate Putney’s HB2410 (option bill).

On the House side, VEA stood alone in opposing the bill, and it was reported on the following recorded official vote:

YEAS--Jones, Tata, Ingram, May, Poindexter, Joannou, Ware, O.--7.
NAYS--0.

Soon after, in the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Watkins was carrying SB1008 and SB1115, which also would have created a defined contribution option for future hires. VEA was joined in opposition here by the firefighters, the state police, and the local police.

The unofficial vote on a motion from J. Howell to kill the bill (PBI) was as follows:

Yeas – Colgan, Wampler, Howell, Saslaw, Houck, Hanger, Y. B. Miller, Marsh, Lucas, Whipple and Reynolds
Nays – Stosch, Quayle and Watkins

I offered the following testimony in both chambers:

VEA by virtue of a long-held position of our board of directors supports the exclusive maintenance of the defined benefit plan.

Offering a defined contribution option to future hires has no impact on the VRS unfunded liability.

Adequate deliberation of the question before you should include the consideration of the impact of the plan on future retirees.

The DC model in the 2008 JLARC report on State Compensation according to PricewaterhouseCoopers would offer 52% of the benefit of the current plan. Can you tell us what the ultimate value to retirees of the plan before us?

Asking a 22 year-old new hire, who knows nothing about the virtues or risks of the various plans, to make an irrevocable elections of tremendous consequence is unwise and unfair.

This is too big an issue to address in this short session. There is over $50 billion in the fund – retirees will be paid. The actuarial horizon of the unfunded liability is 85 years. Please study a bit more before making this decision which is of tremendous consequence to future employees.

ESP Health Care Credit Advances

2011-02-01T14:02:00.002-05:00

Another bill on VEA’s legislative agenda, Senator Marsden’s SB805, which provides local governments with the option of providing the retiree health care credit to support personnel, was reported from the Senate Finance Committee on a 7-5 vote. Senator Howell moved to report the bill, and Senator Houck seconded the motion. It appeared that the bill had failed on a voice vote, but then there was a call for a recorded vote, and the bill passed on the following vote:

YEAS--Houck, Howell, Miller, Y.B., Marsh, Lucas, Whipple, Reynolds--7.
NAYS--Colgan, Wampler, Stosch, Saslaw, Watkins--5.
ABSTENTIONS--Quayle, Norment--2.

Please call your senator urging support for SB805

The Finance Committee was the scene of one of the most spirited debates of the session, when Senator McWaters tried to advance his SB1394. The bill would have diverted $1 billion in general fund revenue, now used to support education and other core services, over the next ten years, to fund transportation projects in NOVA and Hampton Roads. When asked about the impact of the bill on funding for education, McWaters said that teachers are “missionaries” who would understand why money needs to be diverted from education to transportation. When President Boitnott rose to speak to the bill, she stated that, “Teachers are highly skilled professionals who should be fairly compensated.” Senator Lucas moved that the bill be Passed by Indefinitely (PBI) – and so the bill died on a voice vote.

Last year, in my mind, was the “more with less” session. I remember the Governor saying that teachers would once again, “do more with less.” That you have done. This year is the much, much more with even less session. This morning a House Education Subcommittee voted to go forward with requiring that schools teach an additional financial literacy course with no state funding to do so. That same subcommittee had earlier required that K-8 students have 30 minutes of physical education per day, but provided no funds to implement this laudable policy. You know that test scores are going to have to rise 5 points per year until 2014 – there’s no additional money for that either. How much more can you do with much, much less?

Labor Day Bill + VEA Bill Advances

2011-01-31T18:14:00.008-05:00

The last day of January was an interesting one at the General Assembly.

First, in an unexpected development, a Labor Day bill granting Roanoke City a waiver from the mandatory post Labor Day school opening passed the House Education Committee on a 14-8 vote. Republican Delegate Cleaveland did an excellent job of presenting the bill, HB1483, and his Democratic Roanoke Valley neighbor, Delegate O. Ware, offered able support, pointing out that the city’s children were at a disadvantage in competing with their Roanoke County neighbors, as the county starts school two weeks before Labor Day, and both localities have to give the SOL tests at the same time. I think the dam is breaking – doing away with the Labor Day Bill statewide is looking like a possibility in the years ahead.

A bill on VEA’s legislative agenda, Senator Barker’s SB1031, was reported from the Senate Committee on Education and Health Subcommittee on Public Education on a 5-0 vote! This is the bill to allow school boards to retain unspent funds at the end of the fiscal year rather than having them revert to the city council or board of supervisors.

Please check your email, you should have a cyber-lobby alert.

Think Before You Mess With VRS!

2011-01-28T13:20:00.002-05:00

There seems less certainty now regarding how the session will address VRS reform. That is good news. A knee-jerk reaction to the Governor’s Chicken Little rhetoric could have a negative impact upon the ability of the commonwealth to attract and retain high quality personnel and, there are legitimate questions regarding the adequacy of some of the proposals on the table to afford retirees some dignity in their final years.

It seems that if we are going to take a rational approach in regard to Virginia Retirement System reform, some questions should be answered regarding the pending retirement legislation and the degree to which they will “fix” VRS.

1. Does changing who pays the 5% employee contribution add one cent to the fund?

2. Is there a danger that current retirees won’t get their checks in the years ahead?

3. Does creating a defined contribution plan for future hires, be it optional or mandatory, reduce the $17.6 billion unfunded liability of VRS?

4. If we adhere to the ten year repayment schedule, in regard to last year’s VRS contribution shortfall, and; from this day forward, honor the VRS Board of Trustee’s certified rate; won’t we achieve a sounder funding status? If we follow this path, isn’t it likely that we will move to a much firmer footing within a decade?

5. Isn’t the actuarial horizon of the $17.6 billion rather long? Consequently, don’t we have decades to address this problem?

6. I keep hearing that the current system is not sustainable. Isn’t it a fact, that if we bite the bullet and pay the certified rate that the system is sustainable?

7. Aren’t the high anticipated contribution rates, which will be a burden in the short-run, just a repayment for our failure to make appropriate contributions most of the time over the past twenty years?

8. In the 2008 JLARC report on state compensation, PricewaterhousCoopers found that the defined contribution model in the report d would provide 52% of the replacement income of the current defined benefit plan. Shouldn’t we take the time to do this same kind of analysis on each proposal to know the expected consequence of each on those that will retire after years of honorable service to the commonwealth?

Your legislators, both delegates and senators, are heading home for the weekend. Look for a chance, by letter, call, email or in face-to face conversation to ask them if this isn’t just too big an issue to address in a short session when so many questions remain unanswered.

An Overview of Key VRS Bills

2011-01-27T19:52:00.001-05:00

My day was a strange one. The General Assembly is in session, but I spent the day in the hospital with my mother who had hip surgery. She is doing well, but there were complications and her recovery will take a bit longer than anticipated.

I managed to turn off the damn TV in the waiting area and analyze what seem to be the most important of the forty-one VRS related bills.

HB1784 (Tata) and SB861 (Wagner) allow local governments to establish their own retirement systems in lieu of VRS.

HB2410 (Putney) provides for an optional defined contribution plan for new hires. New hires will have to make an irrevocable election of the defined contribution plan or the defined benefit plan within the first 60 days of employment.

This bill provides for an employer contribution of 2%, a 100% employer match of the first 5% the employee contributes, and a 50% match of the next 3%. So, if the employee contributes 8% the employer provides a 8.5% contribution.

If the employee leaves with two years of experience, he receives 50% of the employer contribution.

If the employee leaves with three years of experience, he receives 75% of the employer contribution.

If the employee leaves with four or more years of experience, he receives 100% of the employer contribution.

If one leaves before two years of service the employer contribution is forfeited.

The employee directs all investment decisions.

No loans or hardship distributions are allowed from the employer contribution.

Current VRS participants can switch to the defined contribution plan no later than March 31, 2012.

HB2465 (C. Jones) creates a mandatory defined contribution plan for those who hire on after January 1, 2012.

The employer match is 50% of the first 5% the employee contributes.

If the employee leaves with two years of experience, he receives 50% of the employer contribution.

If the employee leaves with three years of experience, he receives 75% of the employer contribution.

If the employee leaves with four or more years of experience, he receives 100% of the employer contribution.

If one leaves before two years of service the employer contribution is forfeited.

No loans or hardship distributions are allowed from the employer contribution.

Current VRS defined benefit plan participants can switch to the defined contribution plan no later than March 31, 2012.

SB1115 (Watkins/Stosch) establishes an optional defined contribution plan for new hires. Those hired after January 1, 2012 must make an irrevocable election when hired.

This bill provides for an employer contribution of 2%, a 100% employer match of the first 5% the employee contributes, and a 50% match of the next 3%. So, if the employee contributes 8% the employer provides a 8.5% contribution.

If the employee leaves with two years of experience, he receives 50% of the employer contribution.

If the employee leaves with three years of experience, he receives 75% of the employer contribution.

If the employee leaves with four or more years of experience, he receives 100% of the employer contribution.

If one leaves before two years of service the employer contribution is forfeited.

No loans or hardship distributions are allowed from the employer contribution.

SB1008 (Watkins/Stosch) requires that the employee pay the 5% employee contribution, but allows a 1% per year phase-in. The contribution increases by 1% in years when the employee gets at least a 1% increase. It provides for an optional defined contribution plan.

Current defined benefit plan participants can switch to this plan by October 1, 2011.

This bill provides for an employer contribution of 2%, a 100% employer match of the first 5% the employee contributes, and a 50% match of the next 3%. So, if the employee contributes 8% the employer provides a 8.5% contribution.

If an employee participates in the defined contribution plan and moves to a locality that does not offer the defined contribution plan, he can use funs from his defined contribution account to purchase service credit in the defined benefit plan at a rate determined by the VRS Board.

An employee must have five years of service to collect the employer contribution upon termination of service.

Are Elementary Art and Music Programs Threatened?

2011-01-26T13:25:00.001-05:00

To follow up on yesterday’s posting, the new language Delegate O’Bannon’s HB1644 inserts into the code reads as follows:

“A program of daily physical education available to all students in grades kindergarten through eight consisting of at least 150 minutes per week on average during the regular school year. Each local school board shall incorporate into its local wellness policy a goal for the implementation of a similar program for high school students during the regular school year.”

The following words are the final words of the bill:

“That the provisions of this act shall become effective beginning with the 2014 - 2015 school year.”

These words allegedly provide time for the bill’s implementation, but the true purpose of these words may me to keep the bill from having a fiscal impact on the current budget cycle, to allow the bill’s sponsor to claim no fiscal impact and to keep the bill’s costs from being taken into consideration.

This strategy worked today, and the efforts of those, who favor increasing the time students have for physical activity without harming our music art and other programs failed.

More time for physical education should be provided. Doing this will probably require more P.E. teachers and a longer school day. This will cost money, and if the General Assembly chooses to impose this good policy on our schools, the General Assembly should help pay the costs.

It appears that the General Assembly will not even examine the cost implications of the bill.

My fear now is that localities will implement the policy with no help from the state, and that the localities which are cash poor at this juncture and tired of unfunded state mandates will do so at the cost of art and music.

This bill is headed to the full house following a 16-6 Education Committee vote to report the bill. There may be an effort on the floor to refer this bill to the Appropriations Committee to examine the costs. Please call or email your delegate urging them to support referring the bill back to Appropriations.

Childhood Obesity and Physical Education

2011-01-25T12:46:00.004-05:00

No one doubts that we have a child-hood obesity problem in Virginia. We also know that increasing the portion of the day our children devote to physical activity is one component of addressing this problem, along with proper diet, sleep habits and other factors.

That is why House bills 1644 (O’Bannon) and 1710 (A. Howell) along with Senate bills 803 (Lucas), 966 (Northam) and 934 (John Miller) are on the fast track.

HB1710 has been rolled into O’Bannon’s HB1644, and two of the Senate bills were rolled into Northam’s SB966. Perhaps it is a coincidence that physicians are carrying both of the surviving bills, but the two doctors certainly understand the health consequences of Virginia’s childhood obesity epidemic. Senator Saslaw, though not a physician, provided a quip that reveals the problem, “Some of our kids look like circus freaks.”

It appears that in both the House and Senate, the surviving bills require 150 minutes of “daily physical education” per week in grades K-8 and “a goal for implementation of a similar program in high school students.” They give our schools until 2014-2015 to meet the requirement.

None of the bills speak to the costs associated with implementing this policy. To his credit, House Education Subcommittee Chairman Scott Lingamfelter steered the house bill to the House Appropriations Committee for an examination of the fiscal impact of the legislation.

The costs are but one factor to consider. If the time for physical education in the school day is expanded, what will we take out of the day? In many of our elementary schools, physical education, music, art and sometimes library time are provided on a rotating basis. If daily physical education is required, what becomes of music and art? It appears that the school day would need to be extended to preserve these programs. This could make the costs of implementation high.

The physical education, music, art and library time rotations also provide the planning time for elementary teachers. If more physical education teachers are not provided to implement the requirement, when will elementary teachers have time to plan?

In addition, currently, students are pulled for tutoring during this time period. The fact that the target test scores to meet AYP have been ratcheted-up yet again makes this tutoring all the more important. When will these tutoring sessions take place?

It seems that implementing these bills will be a far more complicated, consequential and expensive that the bill’s sponsors imagined. It’s the right thing to do, but will the state come up with the funds to implement the policy? Don’t hold your breath.

Although VEA has not taken a position on this legislation, we are trying to ask the right questions. You may wish to weigh (no pun intended) in on the issue with your delegate and senator.

350 Lobby Day Participants

2011-01-24T11:26:00.002-05:00

Three hundred and fifty VEA members participated in our 2011 VEA Lobby Day. We thank each and every one of them for standing up for public education on this cold day in Richmond.

Here is the lobby day message they delivered to legislators:

1. As Virginia’s economy recovers from the Great Recession, and state revenues pick up – place high priority on repairing the damage done to our schools in the past two years, when we have seen state funding per-pupil fall by almost 15%.

2. Please support the budget amendments from Delegate Tata and Senator Houck to provide 3% salary increases to school employees (see the one-sider in your folder).

3. Please protect the VRS defined benefit program, reject the notion of re-imposing the 5% employee contribution, and reject efforts to move to a defined contribution plan. Please commit to repaying last year’s VRS shortfall and to honoring the certified contribution rate from the VRS Board of Trustees in the future. That is the route to a strong VRS (see the one-sider in your folder) .

4. Please protect the General Fund, upon which core services such as public education depend for funding. Reject efforts to increase debt and future debt service costs and reject tax credits which deplete the fund. The percentage of the state budget going to public education is at an all-time low point (29.88%) and “shrinking the pie” will only make things worse. The course we are on will “starve” our schools.

5. Restore the “Hold Harmless” funds appropriated in Chapter 874. Cutting these funds cuts instructional funding in 97 school divisions.

Please share with your representatives how the cuts to public education are eroding the quality of the educational opportunity of the children you serve.

65% Passes House by a Two Vote Margin

2011-01-23T16:13:00.003-05:00

The vote on Delegate Loupassi’s “65% Solution” bill was interesting. Our goal was to weaken the bill as much as possible in the House to make it easier to kill in the Senate. The 48-46 vote to pass the bill was far from a party-line vote. Twelve Republicans voted with us, and two Democrats voted against us. A "NAY" vote supported the VEA position.

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Anderson, Athey, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Byron, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Garrett, Gilbert, Greason, Iaquinto, Joannou, Jones, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LeMunyon, Lingamfelter, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, Morefield, Morgan, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Putney, Robinson, Sherwood, Stolle, Villanueva, Ware, R.L., Wilt, Wright, Mr. Speaker--48.

NAYS--Abbott, Alexander, Armstrong, BaCote, Barlow, Bulova, Carr, Cleaveland, Crockett-Stark, Dance, Ebbin, Edmunds, Englin, Filler-Corn, Habeeb, Herring, Hope, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Ingram, James, Johnson, Keam, Kory, Lewis, McClellan, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Phillips, Plum, Purkey, Rust, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Tata, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Ware, O., Watts--46.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Brink, Janis, Morrissey, Nutter, Surovell--5.

Of those not voting, Surovell told VEA that he had to be in Northern Virginia on Friday to attend to pressing personal business.

Let’s watch this one on the Senate after crossover.

Please make a point of thanking your delegate if she/he voted right on this one.

Hope for a Better Budget for Education

2011-01-21T08:34:00.004-05:00

Following the development of Virginia’s budget is even more difficult than following the process for bills. Many of the decisions are made in behind-the-scenes meetings that are technically open to the public, but the unspoken word is that you attend to the detriment of your cause.

Yesterday, member’s budget amendments were posted, and these amendments provide an insight regarding their respective priorities. Look, for example, at the amendments proposed by Delegates O’Bannon and Cox. You can view the Delegates and Senator’s amendments at the following sites:

House - http://leg2.state.va.us/WebData/11amend.nsf/House+Patron?OpenForm

Senate - http://leg2.state.va.us/WebData/11amend.nsf/Senate+Patron?OpenForm

Thanks to Delegate Tata and Senator Houck, we are still in the battle to win a pay increase for school employees. Although Tata’s budget amendment is entitled with the word “teacher,” it includes all SOQ positions. Houck’s K-12 funding amendment is a “place holder” for funds to provide the option of improving pay or saving jobs.

We are fortunate, too, that a number of members from both parties are fighting to restore the Hold Harmless funds that were slashed by the Governor ($57,599,781).

House Amendments
Bacote - 132 6h Restore Composite Index in FY2012 $57,599,781
Carr - 132 5h Restore Composite Index in FY2012 $57,599,781
Tata - 132 1h Teacher 3% Salary Adjustment $99,355,544
- 132 2h Restore Composite Index in FY2012 $57,599,781

Senate Amendments

Barker - 1 3s Jt. Sub. To Study Virtual School Funding
- 30 1s JLARC Study of VRS
- 132 4s Freeze Virtual School Enrollment
Houck - 132 7s K-12 Funding YR1 $83,159,970 YR2 $87,698,039
Marsh - 132 2s Restore FY12 LCI Hold Harmless $57,599,781
Quayle - 132 1s Restore FY12 LCI Hold Harmless $57,599,781
Reynolds - 132 3s Restore FY12 LCI Hold Harmless $57,599,781

Our job now is to support these amendments to make the reports that come out of the House Appropriations Committee and Senate Finance Committee more generous to public education than what the Governor proposed on December 17th.

65% and Home Schoolers on Public School Sports Teams

2011-01-20T17:21:00.003-05:00

HB 1416 was taken up on second reading in the House today, and after an acrimonious debate in which the Virginia Education Association and the Virginia Association of School Superintendents were said to be unions by the bill’s sponsor Manoli Loupassi. Delegate Pollard pointed out to Loupassi public employees in Virginia, by law, cannot unionize. Delegate Morrisey did an excellent job of revealing the bill’s flaws to no avail, and the bill passed on a voice vote. The final vote will be tomorrow.

The goal of the bill, getting more money into the classroom, is laudable, but the real impact of the bill will be cutting the support services so important to the success of teachers in the classroom (librarians, counselors, bus drivers, custodians and etc.).

This morning the Students and Daycare Subcommittee of the House Education Committee reported Delegate Bell’s HB2395, a bill to allow home schooled students to participate in interscholastic (public school) sports, to the full committee. This bill should come before the House Education Committee on VEA Lobby Day, this Monday. Please contact the House Education Committee members urging opposition to HB2395 (link to committee information).

If we do this for public schools shouldn’t we do this for our public universities? Why should you have to go to UVA to play on the sports teams?

It’s time for some sober reflection on the VRS issues: The sky is not falling.

2011-01-19T14:29:00.001-05:00

Virginia is confronted with an unfunded liability in the various Virginia Retirement System (VRS) funds of $17.6 billion. The General Assembly has failed to adequately fund the VRS. They have provided sufficient funds to meet the VRS Board of Trustee’s certified contribution rate only four times in the last twenty years for the teacher fund and six times in the last twenty years for the state employee fund.

It has taken us a decade to dig the hole we are in. As recently as 2001, the teacher fund, for example, was actually over-funded (106%).

The VRS plan for teachers is relatively conservative in its benefit structure. In terms of replacement income, we rank 37th among the states.

We strongly support efforts to make the VRS fiscally sound, but we do not feel that taking money from under-paid teachers, ESP, and from our school divisions is the best way to address this problem.

It is important to recognize that the sky is not falling. The market value of the VRS fund now exceeds $50 billion. Current retirees need not live in fear of losing their benefits.

The Governor suggests that we address this problem by making employees pay the 5% employee contribution to VRS, by giving future hires a choice of participating in VRS as we know it or in a defined-contribution plan, and by increasing the employer contribution rate for school board employees by 2% in the year ahead.

This plan breaks a promise made to state workers and school board employees who were told in the 1980s that the 5% employee contribution would be paid on their behalf in lieu of a raise. We were told that this was an irrevocable decision.

This action was taken by the state and local school boards because it was less expensive for the employer to pick up the 5% contribution than to provide a 5% salary increase, since the increased costs of certain fringe benefits would not have to be provided (FICA and VRS). Employees saw a 5% increase in take home pay, but it cost the employer less than 5%.

The Governor’s plan for a one time infusion of $311 million, a third or which comes from local revenue, will do little to address a $17.6-billion problem.

The actuarial horizon of the unfunded liability is, according the VRS, 80 to 90 years. We don’t have to repair the damage of underfunding and the Great Recession in a day. The best course of action is to follow the ten year repayment schedule for last year’s underfunding which was adopted in the biennial budget and to honor the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees in all future years. That is a reasonable approach to fill the hole, and an approach that does not impose an unfair hardship on VRS members.

Virginia, the 7th wealthiest state in the nation, currently pays her teachers a salary $5,400 below the national average. When we compare the average pay of teachers to the average pay of all workers in each state, only South Dakota teachers fare worse than Virginia’s teachers.

Most Virginia’s teachers have earned the same pay for the last three years, and many of them have seen salary reductions from cuts and furloughs.

This is no time to cut the salaries of Virginia’s teachers by re-imposing the 5% employee VRS employee contribution.

The Commonwealth is also considering the bifurcation of the teacher retirement plan by offering a defined-contribution option to future hires.

“The process by which the level of salaries and benefits is considered should be based on an established set of principles and goals.” - JLARC Review of State Employee Compensation, Oct. 2008

In the case of instructional staff in our public schools, the primary goal should be to attract and retain highly skilled teachers. Research indicates that, “Skilled teachers are the most critical of all schooling inputs.” – Dr. Ronald Ferguson, Harvard University

“Studies at the state, district, school, and individual level have found that teachers’ academic background, preparation for teaching, and certification status, as well as their experience, significantly affect their students’ achievement.” - Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University

While providing a defined-contribution option to school employees may in the long-term reduce the cost of providing a retirement benefit to employees, and it might even be attractive to prospective teachers who have no long-term commitment to the teaching profession, such a course is contrary to what should be the state’s goal of retaining experienced teachers in Virginia’s classrooms. The required service of 30 years to achieve full retirement benefits is a significant factor in retaining experienced teachers.

JLARC found that, “The defined benefit retirement plans the State provides are competitive
with what other employers offer and achieve their goals of retaining longer-tenured employees and providing an adequate benefit to retire.” – JLARC Review of State Employee Compensation, Oct. 2008

The adequacy of the retirement benefit generated by a defined-contribution plan to meet the needs of dedicated school board employees in their final years is questionable. PwC, in the 2008 JLARC study of Total Compensation for State Employees, found that “after 30 years of service, the defined contribution plan would have approximately 52 percent of the value of the current defined benefit plan. With Social Security, the defined contribution plan would also provide an income replacement of approximately 29 percent less than the current defined benefit plan.”

A Bedford County teacher, for example, who retires after 30 years experience in the current VRS pension will receive an annual benefit of $26, 223 (30 x 01.7% x $51,417). Using the PwC analysis, she would receive an annual benefit of $13,636 had she been in the defined-contribution plan.

A young person fresh out of college is not in the best position to make a decision of this consequence to her long-term well-being.

The defined-contribution option is not the best policy for the Commonwealth if our goal is to attract and retain high-quality personnel in our schools, and it is certainly not the best option for teachers and other school board employees.

As we work with the General Assembly in the days ahead, our shared goal should be to ensure the financial viability of VRS and to treat employees in an equitable manner that does not show them the door.

65%, Merit Pay and Vouchers

2011-01-18T15:48:00.003-05:00

I am going to delay the posting of the promised retirement legislation analysis as more urgent legislative issues have arisen.

In a close vote (11-9) the House Education Committee voted Monday morning to report Delegate Manoli Loupassi’s HB 1416, the 65% solution bill. The bill will provide pressure on local school divisions to spend 65% of funding on instruction.

The ongoing concern regarding the bill is that it may negatively impact the programs not included in the USDOE definition of instruction such as guidance counselors librarians, pupil transportation, principals and assistant pricipals, nurses, food services, facilities maintenance (heating and cooling), testing to comply with SOLs and NCLB, curriculum development, PTs and OTs and other services necessary for SPED.

YEAS--Landes, Cole, Athey, Pogge, Massie, Loupassi, Greason, Bell, Richard P., Stolle, LeMunyon, Robinson--11.

NAYS--Tata, Rust, Shuler, Alexander, Ebbin, McClellan, Tyler, Bulova, Morrissey--9.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Lingamfelter, Ware, O.--2.

The bottom line is that if this bill passes, the jobs of many who are necessary to support classroom instruction will be lost. The most threatened positions are custodians, bus drivers, librarians, guidance counselors, schools social workers, physical and occupational therapists, food service workers and maintenance personnel.

Please call your delegate today urging him/her to vote against HB 1416.

The Governor held a press conference this morning to proclaim his support of pay-for-performance and Delegate Massie’s tuition tax credit bill, HB 2314.

The merit pay initiative will provide $3 million dollars to pilot pay-for-performance in eight hard-to-staff divisions. The bonus payments will be $5000 per teacher.

The voucher bill will drain $25 million from the General fund to provide $4,500 private school scholarships to students who qualify for free-or-reduced lunch. It should be noted that private school tuitions in Virginia can be as much as $20,000.

So, our Governor, who cut $50 million in public education funding with his introduced budget amendments, is now proposing that the state spend $25 million to provide private school vouchers.

VRS Legislation from the Democrats

2011-01-17T08:01:00.002-05:00

Friday we examined the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) legislation from the Republican side of the aisle. Today, let’s look at the bills from the Democratic legislators.

HJ 649 from Delegate Plum directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study the Virginia Retirement System to determine whether the General Assembly is complying with its Constitutional obligation to fund the Virginia Retirement System using methods that are consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles.

HJ 680 from Delegate Englin proposes a Constitutional amendment requiring that contributions to defined benefit retirement plans that are maintained for state employees and employees of participating political subdivisions and school divisions be made in strict adherence with contribution rates and times for the payment of the contributions as recommended by the Board of Trustees of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS).

The contrast between what is proposed by the two parties is sharp.

Tomorrow, I’ll post your lobbyists take on where we stand on VRS legislation.

Retirement Legislation Part One

2011-01-14T17:42:00.003-05:00

Virginia’s two political parties have sharply contrasting approaches in regard to pension legislation. The following three bills are the most significant bills from the Republican side of the aisle.

Two Virginia Beach Republicans, Delegate Tata and Senator Wagner, have submitted companion bills (HB 1784 and SB 861). These bills permit “any locality or school board to establish a defined contribution retirement plan in lieu of any other retirement plan, for employees hired after such plan is established.” Stated more simply, any locality could choose not to be in VRS. The consequence of this bill would be severely reduced retirement benefits for teachers and other local employees.

Two central Virginia Republican Senators , Stosch and Watkins, have submitted the Governor’s bill, SB 1008. This bill “allows political subdivisions that participate in the Virginia Retirement System to establish a … defined contribution plan.”

The adequacy of the retirement benefit generated by a defined contribution plan to meet the needs of dedicated school board employees in their final years is questionable. PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the 2008 JLARC study of Total Compensation for State Employees, found that “after 30 years of service, the defined contribution plan would have approximately 52 percent of the value of the current defined benefit plan. With Social Security, the defined contribution plan would also provide an income replacement of approximately 29 percent less than the current defined benefit plan.”

A Bedford County teacher, for example, who retires after 30 years experience in the current VRS pension plan will receive an annual benefit of $26, 223 (30 x 01.7% x $51,417). Using the PwC analysis, she would receive an annual benefit of $13,636 had she been in the defined contribution plan.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute found that fewer than 50% of workers in defined contribution plans had more than $25,000 saved. A quarter of workers had put away next to nothing.

In SB 1008, Local employers would retain the option of paying member retirement contributions on behalf of their employees participating in the Virginia Retirement System.

The Governor indicated that he will submit legislation to do the following:

Require employees hired after 7/2011 to pay the 5% VRS employee contribution

Allow school divisions to make employees hired before 7/2010 to pay the 5%---if pay raise given of at least 3%. No phase in of 5% allowed.

Hired after 7/2010 but before 7/2011? Who knows?

I am yet to find these provisions in a bill and legislation is required to enact these proposals.

In a subsequent posting, I will summarize the bills from the Democratic side of the aisle.

VEA Initiated Legislation

2011-01-13T07:31:00.003-05:00

Your lobbyists are swamped by the thousands of bills that have been filed, and we are working to identify those that will affect students, those who work in schools, and the quality of public education. The following measures that VEA has initiated are now “Prefiled and ordered printed”:

HB 1786 School boards; funds appropriated by locality shall be reappropriated to board.

A BILL to amend and reenact § 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, relating to unexpended local school and educational funds.

Summary as introduced:

Local school boards; unexpended funds. Provides that any funds appropriated by the locality to a local school board that are not expended in any fiscal year must not revert to the locality but shall be reappropriated to the local school board.

Patron: Tata

HJ 649 Study; Virginia Retirement System; report.

Directing the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study the Virginia Retirement System. Report.

Summary as introduced:

Study; Virginia Retirement System; report. Directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study the Virginia Retirement System to determine whether the General Assembly is complying with its Constitutional obligation to fund the Virginia Retirement System using methods that are consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles.

Patron: Plum

SB 805 Health insurance; credits for retired school division employees.

A BILL to amend and reenact § 51.1-1401 of the Code of Virginia, relating to health insurance credits for retired school division employees.

Summary as introduced:

Health insurance credits for retired school division employees. Provides that the health insurance credit currently being provided to retired teachers would also be provided to all retired employees of the local school division at the option of the local school division and as a cost borne by the local government.

Patron: Marsden

SB 1022 Virginia Retirement System; creditable compensation of teachers.
A BILL to amend and reenact § 51.1-124.3 of the Code of Virginia, relating to creditable compensation of teachers under the Virginia Retirement System.

Summary as introduced:

Virginia Retirement System; creditable compensation of teachers. Provides that the creditable compensation of teachers for retirement purposes under the Virginia Retirement System shall include all compensation payable to teachers by their public school boards, including compensation that is not pursuant to a contract for teaching.

Patron: Puckett

SB 1031 Public schools; unexpended funds.

A BILL to amend and reenact § 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, relating to unexpended school funds.

Summary as introduced:

Public schools; unexpended funds. Allows local school divisions to keep any unexpended funds from the Commonwealth or local sources for use the next year.

Patron: Barker

Much more information regarding VEA’s bills will follow, but this will give you the bill numbers to reference as you advocate for the VEA agenda. Please note that the bill numbers are “hot links” which will take you to a display of the status and history of the bills.

Tangentially, economist, Robert Reich recently did an interview on NPR which explains why it is so hard to gain support for public education in today’s America. I think you will find it most insightful.

The General Assembly Session Begins Today

2011-01-12T09:47:00.002-05:00

The General Assembly technically starts at noon today, but the Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on public education met yesterday afternoon, and Sarah Herzog, legislative analyst for public education issues, presented an Overview of the Governor's Proposed Amendments to the 2010-2012 Budget for Public Education and Other Education Agencies. Although the Governor had one half of a billion dollars in additional revenue, he actually cut public education by over $50 million. In light of the more than 14 percent cuts in public education funding since 2009, at least some of the additional funds should have gone to repairing the damage to our schools.

Job #1 for your VEA lobbyists will be to urge legislators to develop a budget proposal more in keeping with the values of Virginia – a budget which restores our investment in the education of the children of Virginia.

VEA Legislative News Flash is Out

2011-01-04T15:00:00.000-05:00

The Pre-Session issue of the Legislative News Flash is now available. View or download a copy below. We'll publish other print versions of the News Flash during the session, but the most recent information will always be at this blog.

VEA Legislative News Flash, Pre-Session Issue

The Governor's Amendments

2010-12-21T10:04:00.002-05:00

The Governor’s budget amendments constitute the continuation of Virginia’s disinvestment in public education even as revenues are increasing. This is particularly disheartening, as Candidate McDonnell asserted that, “We need to fund education well, while also looking for innovative and creative ways to ensure that our children are getting the very best education in the nation.” The Governor's amendments include $509.9 million more in available resources. This is the additional money the Governor had to work with. Of this, none goes to public education, even though per-pupil state funding for public education has declined by over 14% since the 2008-09 school year. The percentage of the budget devoted to public education has been in steady decline (see below).

K-12 Direct Aid as a Percentage of General Fund Budget
FY 2009 – 34.63%
FY 2010 – 32.26%
FY 2011 – 30.49%
FY 2012 – 29.88%

The General Assembly has failed to adequately fund the Virginia Retirement System. They have provided sufficient funds to meet the VRS Board of Trustee’s certified contribution rate only four times in the last twenty years for the teacher fund and six times in the last twenty years for state employees. Now the Governor wishes to tax state employees and teachers to address a problem they did not create. To address this problem the Governor also diverts funding from schools to the detriment of Virginia’s children, who are the most tragic victims of Virginia’s disinvestment in public education.

Teachers and all local government employees are not given equal treatment as compared to state employees. State employees who would pay the 5% VRS employee contribution will receive a 3% salary increase and are eligible for a 2% bonus. Hence, the first-year impact of the 5% shift is zero. For teachers and all local government employees the 5% shift requires a 3% salary increase from local funds, so the impact on take-home pay is -2%. In addition, while the health insurance costs for state employees will remain the same, they will be going up for many teachers and local government employees. It should be noted that shifting the 5% employee contribution back to the employees does not change the amount of funding going to VRS, it just changes who is paying it.
Once again we see funds provided for state employees, both a salary increase and a bonus. No such funds are provided for teachers and other school board employees. No funds have been provided by the state specifically for teacher salary increases since December 2007. Historically, the state has provided parallel increases for teachers when state employees were provided increases. Why the break with tradition – is this in keeping with the values of Virginians?
The $57.6 million for the 50% of the Local Composite Index hold harmless, $53.2 million of which was redirected to the VRS teacher fund, had been discretionary funding which could have been used for the benefit of instruction. Though this money will still be considered direct aid to public education, it cannot be used for educational purposes. Ninety-seven school divisions will see a change in the discretionary funding available to them. In some cases the decrease in discretionary funding will be substantial and will harm instructional programs. Virginia Beach loses over $7 million, Richmond City loses $5.5 million, and Bedford County loses $1.7 million. The continuing impact of the recession on local property values and resulting real estate revenues will make it difficult for localities to make up for this lost discretionary revenue.
We share a concern that debt service is a rapidly growing general fund obligation. The cost of servicing the state’s increasing debt is taking General Fund dollars from our schools and other core services.
The Governor’s amendments shift costs to localities at a time when they have endured severe cuts in past budgets, and when they are under severe fiscal stress. Those costs include the 3% salary increase and the 2% increase in the VRS rate.
What is the efficacy of funding pay-for-performance pilots when there is no funding for pay?
The defined contribution option for future hires will be harmful to future employees who will see drastically decreased retirement benefits (PwC’s analysis shows that after 30 years of service, the defined contribution plan would have approximately 52 percent of the value of the current defined benefit plan) and it will have a negative impact on the VRS fund as fewer employees will be contributing.

It is important for Virginians to look to what our leaders do rather than what they say as we try to size them up. Public education was not a priority to those who crafted these amendments. These amendments do not reflect the values held by Virginians who place high priority on the quality of public education.

Help Secure a 3-Percent Raise. Act Now!

2010-12-01T12:53:00.000-05:00

VEA members are contacting their elected representatives asking for the state to fund its share of a 3-percent pay hike for school board employees. Add your voice now!

Click here to send your message now.

Get Ready for the 2011 General Assembly Session

2010-11-30T16:32:00.001-05:00

The next session of the General Assembly kicks off on January 12, 2011. VEA members and staff have been preparing for months, and we aim to make this a successful session for public education.

During the session, look here for daily reports on the issues you need to know about and act on. And please check out the links to the right for great background information.

See you in 2011!

Become a VEA Cyberlobbyist

2009-11-06T09:13:00.001-05:00

VEA needs you to hold lawmakers accountable. When you sign up to be a VEA cyberlobbyist, you'll receive occasional e-mails from our Government Relations team on critical education legislation. (No, we won't bombard you with daily messages.) Some of the messages will include links you can click on to easily e-mail the Governor or your representatives in the General Assembly. When we ask you to send a message, we provide talking points you can quickly personalize to get your point across. It's that easy.

Click here or go to www.veanea.org/legislative/cyberlobbyist.html to become a VEA cyberlobbyist. Or, if you prefer, call VEA Government Relations at 800-552-9554.

Why Get Involved in Politics?

2009-11-06T08:33:00.001-05:00

Public education is too often a punching bag in our society. And too many of our citizens do not currently have children in public school and therefore do not see the need to spend tax dollars on a service they do not personally use.

Through our education programs VEA provides the information about the benefits of a strong public education system.

In addition, active engagement in our democracy empowers our members and gives us voice.

Since our elected officials decide the quality of our public education system, we must ensure that these decisions are not made in a vacuum. Our members‘ stories are important to ensure that our politicians make informed decisions. Our members are on the front lines and see the breakdowns—and the solutions for repair—of what is happening in our public schools and what is happening with the students we teach and the systems in which we work.

This role is at the core of the mission of our Association. We must continue to carry it out by actively participating in the work of democracy.

Get involved yourself and get other members involved because if one person can make a difference, just imagine what a thousand can do! That‘s the way laws change. Sometimes it takes decades to make the change—and thousands of people working for the same cause.