United Faculty of Florida-Pensacola Chapter

Despite your efforts, legislators have pushed through SB-6/HB-7189. We must urge the Governor to exercise his veto pen. Contact him now! Governor Crist has publically indicated that he has concerns about this bill (see below). He can veto this bill anytime up until close of business next Friday, April 15th.

 
Governor Charlie Crist, The Capitol,
400 S. Monroe St., Plaza Level 05,
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001.
Governor's e-mail: charlie.crist@myflorida.com
Web Site: http://charliecrist.com/
Gov. office Ph#: 850-488-7146
If the voice mail is full try: Crist Campaign office: 850-907-1218
or fax a message: 850-487-0801

(Excerpt from Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau  In Print: Thursday, April 8, 2010)

Using his strongest language yet, Gov. Charlie Crist said that the Legislature should soften a controversial bill that would link teacher pay to student performance and criticized Republican leaders for trying to block any floor amendments....

... Crist said he does not want to veto the bill, but said he was concerned how the legislation would affect special-needs teachers. "I had a conversation with a friend of mine for many years, he was concerned about the provisions of the bill that require progress. And he's like, 'How can my son have progress?' " Crist said. "It's very challenging. And that's weighing on me heavily." Crist acknowledged he was shifting his opinion. "Shame on any public servant Who doesn't listen to the people," he said.

By Cristina Silva, Steve Bousquet and Mary Ellen Klas, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
In Print: Thursday, April 8, 2010

HB 5701 by Rep. Rivera, R-112, Miami, a bill eliminating the Health Insurance Subsidy (HIS) for FRS retirees passed the House of Representatives.  In a House Floor vote this afternoon, HB 5701 first failed on a vote of 57 yeas and 59 nays.  But the House Leadership immediately pushed through a motion to reconsider this vote under which HB 5701 failed to pass.  After winning the Motion to Reconsider, the House voted again on HB 5701 and with this vote passed HB 5701 on a vote of 63 yeas and 56 nays. 

Legislators who changed their vote from “no” to “yes” on the second vote on HB 5701 are Homan (R-60, Tampa), Kelly (R-24, Ocala), Kreegel (R-72, Punta Gorda), McBurney (R-16, Jacksonville), and Trudy Williams (R-75, Ft. Myers).  Legislators who did not vote at all on the 1^st vote on HB 5701, but voted “yes” on the second vote are Adams (R-33, Oviedo), Eisnaugle (R-40, Orlando), and Kelly (R-24, Ocala). 

The bill is being sent immediately to the Senate for Senate consideration and a Senate floor vote.  This bill would have eliminated a benefit that all retirees under the FRS receive; consisting of a $5 per month subsidy for every year they worked. The subsidy is capped to 30 years, which equals up to $150 per month subsidy toward their monthly insurance coverage. 

Contact your Senators and urge them to vote “no” on HB 5701.  To find your Senators, go to www.flsenate.gov and look for “Find Your Legislators” at the bottom of the menu on the left side of the web site. 

HB 1319 by Rep. Grady, R-76, Naples, remains stalled in the House Committee on Governmental Affairs Policy.  The bill has never received a hearing in the Committee and the Committee has now concluded its hearings for the 2010 Legislative Session.  However, there are still significant threats to pensions.  The possibility remains that 1319 (or pieces of it) might be amended onto another piece of legislation.  Keep those phone calls and emails going into Legislators offices urging them to oppose HB 1319 and any attempts to amend it onto other legislation. 

HB 1543 by Rep. Zapata, R-119, Miami, has been withdrawn from further consideration during this 2010 Legislative Session. 

SB 2022 by Senator J.D. Alexander, R-17, Lake Wales, passed a Senate floor vote on Wednesday, March 31, 2010, despite public testimony against the bill from FEA, AFSCME, the Police Benevolent Association, and the Firefighters when Senator Alexander held hearings on the bill on March 25, 2010.  SB 2022 re-establishes an employee contribution – which has not existed since July 1, 1974.  Although this bill does not propose reductions to FRS retirement benefits, it does propose that beginning July 1, 2010, public employees participating in the FRS plan AND the optional retirement plan begin making employee contributions to the respective plan  Employees participating in FRS retirement will be hit with a contribution rate of 0.25 % of their gross annual compensation (payroll deduction).  If passed into law, the contribution rates would be set by law in the annual rate bill.  This bill will probably be sent to the House for consideration and a House floor vote.  Contact your Legislators and urge them to vote “no”. 

SB 1902 by Senator Mike Bennett, R-21, Bradenton, is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee on Community Affairs on April 7, 2010.  This bill addresses issues applicable to the Special Risk class of participants in FRS (i.e., police, firefighters, and emergency responders).  However, the bill also includes provisions that could be construed as applicable to other FRS participant classes.  These provisions limit the benefits payable to a member of a retirement system or plan who has not attained ten years of service by July 1, 2010, to not exceed 70 percent of his or her highest annual base pay, excluding overtime and other additional compensation. This section limits the benefits to 90 percent in situations where the member’s employer does not participate in the federal Social Security Act. 

FEA remains vigilant in opposing FRS changes

We are operating in a very fluid situation on the retirement bills proposed during the 2010 Legislative Session.  Although the 30 retirement bills introduced in this 2010 Legislative Session has whittled down to 2 or 3 active ones, we must remain vigilant in our opposition to changes in FRS retirement benefits.   The extraordinary response from FEA members voicing their opposition to any reduction in FRS retirement benefits has slowed or stalled all but two or three of these bills.  However, the legislative process operates in a way that makes it possible for any part, or all, of a stalled bill to be amended onto some other piece of legislation.  This is why we must continue to voice our opposition, despite the lack of specifics regarding which bill number may be moved to committee or floor vote or amended onto other legislation. We must not allow FEA members to become discouraged or confused by Legislators who respond by saying these bills are dead, or that we have our facts wrong.  There remain legislators who hope to slide through changes and reductions in retirement benefits by playing word games with those opposing these changes and by disguising these changes under cover of non-retirement legislation that is still active. 

FEA Statement of Position on All Retirement Bill

FEA remains OPPOSED to any changes to the Florida Retirement System that would result in reduced benefits or out-of-pocket costs for public employees and retirees.  FEA remains opposed to any changes to, or the elimination of, the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP).  FEA is opposed to any attempt to reduce or eliminate the Health Insurance Subsidy (HIS).  FEA is opposed to out-of-pocket costs - an employee’s contribution - for a participating membership in the defined benefit plan.  And, FEA is opposed to retreating from a true Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

While the FRS system experienced a short term loss in the recent market down turn, we know that the system is invested for the long term and is a financially sound, expertly run retirement system.  The Legislature is focusing on the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and all employee benefits to raise revenues to address the state’s budget shortfall.  These bills have been filed to slow or eliminate the long-term costs of employee benefit programs to the state. 

You help is still needed by keeping the pressure on your legislators about these issues and by calling or writing to let them know that they must defend and protect the public employee participants in the Florida Retirement System.

Thank you for your strong response to the legislative attacks on the Florida Retirement System (FRS).   As a result of the flood of messages legislators are receiving, the enthusiasm for using money from FRS funds to cover part of the $3 billion budget hole in Florida has slowed.  HB 1319 (Grady) no longer appears headed on a fast track for final vote.  (In any event, the legal counsel for the Florida Education Association informs us that Florida law has been interpreted as meaning a pension contribution already vested becomes a property right and cannot be taken away by legislators). 

However, there are still significant threats to pensions.  Several bills have been filed that would subtract funds from the FRS pension fund.  The possibility remains that 1319 (or pieces of it) might be amended onto another piece of legislation.  Because a bill can move quickly depending on circumstances, and because there are several legislators now targeting teachers, faculty, and public employees for severe treatment, we expect there will be legislators ready to move against our interests at any time -- up to and including the end of the session.  As one education lobbyist put it, “They are coming at us from all directions.  ”

The safest path for faculty who want to defend pensions is to leave phone messages for legislators each week (only one or two sentences) until the session closes. The message is: Oppose any reduction in FRS pensions. 

You can find the phone numbers for your senators and representatives at www.myfloridahouse.gov .  Click “find representative” and enter your address. 

Sincerely,

Tom Auxter

President, United Faculty of Florida

Contact legislators now.

Today SB 6 passed the Senate by a vote of 21 to 14 – Four Republicans joined the Democrats in voting NO!  Be sure to thank Republican Senators Dean, Dockery, Jones and Villalobos for standing up against the Republican Party of Florida Chair and sponsor of the bill John Thrasher for their courageous vote.  We have seen before the wrath that going against the Party can bring upon members.  These folks deserve our thanks and support for doing the right thing.  We also thank the Senate Democrats for standing strong for us against this bill.

Now we move to the House …

So far PKP2 (which will be numbered after it passes the committee) looks very similar to SB 6.   We will be working today with the House Republicans and Democrats to attempt to amend the House version, but we need to turn up the volume in the House.  The proposed committee bill will be heard Thursday in the House Education PreK-12 Policy Committee- please contact the following members and urge them to vote against the House version of SB6.  You should be able to click on their names for their contact information.

Legg, John (R)  Chair  
Fresen, Erik (R)        Vice Chair     
Bullard, Dwight M. (D)  Democratic Ranking Member      
Burgin, Rachel V. (R)          
Coley, Marti (R)               
Flores, Anitere (R)            
Gonzalez, Eduardo (R)          
Jones, Mia L. (D)              
Kiar, Martin David (D)         
Plakon, Scott (R)              
Rader, Kevin J. G. (D)         
Schwartz, Elaine J. (D)        
Stargel, Kelli (R)             
Weinstein, Michael B. (R)

Public Employee Retirement and FRS Issues

Oppose these Retirement Bills:  HB 1319 by Rep. Grady, R-76, Naples

HB 1543 by Rep. Zapata, 119,-Miami

SB 1902 by Sen. Bennett, 21, Bradenton

These bills are being moved onto a fast track for passage in the 2010 Florida Legislative Session.  One of these bills is scheduled to be voted on in the House Governmental Affairs Policy Committee next week  --  HB 1319, by Rep Grady.  We are hearing that an amendment is being drafted that will make the bill effective immediately (instead of the bill’s current effective date of 7/01/2011). 

HB 1319 makes the following changes: 

•       Employees hired on or after 7/01/2011, and employees entering DROP on or after 7/01/2011, will be required to pay 1% of gross salary as contribution to FRS

•       The definition of average final salary calculation is changed from the highest five years to the average of total career service and salary

•       Overtime and other types of compensation (such as leave payouts) may not be included in pension calculations

•       Public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS could retire after 33 years instead of the current 30 years (effective 7/01/2011)

•       For public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS, the retirement age would rise to 65 years from the current 62 years

•       For public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS, the FRS accrual rate is lowered to 1.44% from the current 1.6% (effective 9/30/2011)

•       Vesting (eligibility for retirement) changes as follows (effective 7/01/2011): 

o       From 6 years and age 62, to 6 years and age 65

o       From 30 years at any age, to 33 years at any age

•       Employees retiring on or after July 1, 2010 may not exceed 80% of their average final compensation (current law:  may not exceed 100%)

The sponsors of these bills claim that revising FRS and public employee retirement benefits would save the state money during this time of declining revenues and the need to fund a $3 billion budget deficit.   Sponsors of this legislation believe that changes to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) could reduce costs to Florida’s budget. 

HB 1319 would result in out-of-pocket costs for public education employees who would suffer reduction of their actual retirement benefit the retiree receives.   Further, HB 1319 would result in out-of-pocket costs for public education employees who would be required to make increased payroll deductions towards their retirement plan. 

Call your Legislator today and tell them not to balance the budget on the backs of Florida’s employees and retirees.  Tell your Legislator to vote no on HB 1319 (and HB 1543, and SB 1902)! 

 SB 6 appears to affect every educator not just educators hired after the effective date of the bill (July 1, 2010).

We have received a number of questions about Senate Bill 6 and whether the provisions in the bill would affect existing employees. We hope the following points clarify our belief that existing teachers would be dramatically affected by passage of SB 6.

In very flawed ways, the bill attempts to “differentiate” the effectiveness of teachers using criteria to be developed by the Florida Department of Education.  The criteria would be used on decisions for evaluation, compensation, promotion, termination, assignment contracts (?) and due process.  Accordingly, all teachers are potentially affected.

Specifically:

·       Districts may not use time served (seniority) or advanced degrees- held in setting pay schedules for teachers. This appears to affect all teachers.

·       The bill requires differentiated pay based on assignment to a high priority location, teaching in a critical shortage area (high need or STEM), or the assignment of additional teaching responsibilities for all teachers. This appears to affect all teachers.

·       For the appraisal process, four effectiveness levels are prescribed (highly effective, effective, needs improvement, unsatisfactory) and beginning 2014-15, no personnel may be rated as effective or highly effective if their students fail to demonstrate learning gains. This appears to affect all teachers.

·       Beginning with the 2014-15 year, all teachers would have to meet the new requirements for renewal of a professional certificate which is defined as evidence of effectiveness. Specifically, current teachers who now hold PSCs would maintain those contracts UNLESS they fail to meet the recertification requirements. Essentially, the contract is only as good as the effectiveness rating.  This is the provision that definitively catches existing contract holders.

·       Absent any language in the bill to the contrary, there is a significant question about whether existing PSC holders will operate under a different salary schedule.  The bill analysis states, “It is not anticipated that the bill revises the total funds for teacher and administrator compensation but rather, it provides a means by which compensation can be based on performance.”  This seems to say there will be no additional money to structure the new schedule so we conclude the intent is that current salaries would finance the reform.

·       Bill language requires reductions in force decisions to be made primarily on performance and not seniority.  Absent a successful legal challenge, these decisions would no longer be made pursuant to bargained agreements. This seems to implicate all teachers.

And what about Education Support Personnel? Like many of the ideas that come out of Tallahassee, SB 6 is an unfunded mandate.   Districts will have to ‘cobble-together’ the funding to put all the provisions into place – or they will be penalized and lose more state funding.  In a time of low tax collections and budget cuts we know that ESP jobs will be on the chopping block or privatized.  The days of belt tightening are long gone – now the Senate wants to take the belt away.  Districts will be forced to do all they can to make sure funding in the classroom is the least impacted by cuts…or they will lose 5 percent of their state funding and be forced to raise local property taxes.