Last November the Levittown United Teachers submitted a retirement incentive proposal to the Levittown School District. Since that time the district has brought forth their own proposal which is quite different from the LUT suggestion.

The LUT proposal provided for an incentive payment of 50 percent of a retirement-eligible teacher's final year's salary if that teacher retired in June 1999. In that proposal if the teacher did not retire in June the incentive would be lost.

The Levittown School District's proposal is for 40 percent of a retirement-eligible teacher's accrued sick time. Every year teachers get to accrue a total of 12-17 days. Over a period of 15-20 years a teacher may have saved up to 180 days. In the district's plan if a teacher has saved those days the district would buy back 40 percent of them as a retirement incentive. The catch, according to Dr. Alan Groveman, assistant superintendent for business, is that if a teacher has used too many days over the last three years they start losing a percentage of that 40 percent. He stated, "There is a very involved attendance incentive requirement for any kind of retirement benefit."

The LUT believes that the benefit of their incentive proposal would be tremendous. According to Charles Kemnitzer, president of the LUT, 34 teachers have signed letters indicating that they would seriously consider retiring under the LUT proposal. He added, "However, even if only 30 teachers took the incentive the district could save tens of thousands of dollars in the first year and well over $1,000,000 in the second year." Kemnitzer went on to say that under the district's proposal 23 of the 34 teachers who indicated an interest in retiring under the LUT proposal would be penalized under the district's proposal, to the point of not making the incentive worthwhile.

Groveman explained that the problem with retirement incentives is that you never know whether teachers who retire would have retired that year anyway. He said that if less or the same number of teachers were to retire under the incentive all the district has done is give away money, but if more teachers retire than there is the potential for large savings. With a retirement incentive, according to Groveman, "We see a potential for saving money, not nearly as much as they're [the LUT] suggesting and certainly not with the figures they've put out with 50 percent."

Kemnitzer and the LUT believe that if the district were to offer a retirement incentive of only 40 percent of a teacher's final year's salary, the vast majority of interested teachers would take even that. He stated that in order for this incentive to be viable it "would have to be devoid of unreasonable attendance provisions." Kemnitzer went on to say, "If an additional 25 teachers were to retire this year with a 40 percent retirement incentive who would not have retired without one (and the LUT sincerely believes that those teachers will not retire without an incentive), the district could save upwards of $250,000 next year and $1,500,000 the following year."

Groveman stated that the district has found that people usually only leave 1-2 years earlier with an incentive than they would ordinarily have without a retirement incentive, unless the incentive is so good that nobody could refuse it. He added that if a teacher were to retire 2-3 years earlier, then that would be where the district would really save but that Levittown could not offer an incentive that would be so rich as to attract those extra retirees. Groveman believes that with a retirement incentive the district could save anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000, depending on how many teachers retire and how early that retirement is.

The savings for the district would come because the new teachers they hired would be hired at a much lower salary than the teachers would retire at. An added benefit for the district would be the influx of new, energetic teachers who may bring fresh ideas into the classrooms.

The district is negotiating with the LUT and has given them until March 30 to decide if they want to accept the district's proposal and have the names and numbers of people retiring because the district must know by then how many teachers they are going to have to hire to replace those retiring.

Groveman stated, "I believe that whatever retirement incentive the district would accept is only one that would be beneficial to the district...we always have to be very careful to balance out the fiscal interests and the educational interests of the district in any plans, proposals, or discussions with any bargaining group."

Kemnitzer concluded, "If the district does not take the factors that we have pointed out into consideration and alter its intentions accordingly, the LUT can only conclude that the district is not really interested in offering a viable retirement incentive. If that is the case the district's position will be a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. That will be too bad. It will be too bad for the teachers and too bad for the district because a golden opportunity for both will have been squandered."