After working on and off for over two years on a retirement incentive that would be agreeable to both parties, the Levittown School District and Levittown United Teachers (LUT) have agreed upon a retirement incentive to be offered to district teachers for the next four years.

In November of 1998, the LUT submitted a retirement incentive proposal to the school district. The district then offered their own incentive, which was unacceptable to the teachers' union. The LUT proposal would have included an incentive payment of 50 percent of a retirement-eligible teacher's final salary if that teacher retired in June 1999. The district's counter-proposal was for 40 percent of a retirement-eligible teacher's accrued sick time. Every year the teachers can accrue a total of 12-17 days. Over a period of 15-20 years a teacher may have saved up to 180 days, but if a teacher had used too many days over the previous three years they would start losing a percentage of that 40 percent. These terms were refused by the LUT and a stalemate was reached.

Negotiations regarding a retirement incentive were picked up again this year. The board of education approved a retirement incentive on Feb. 1. According to Dr. Alan Groveman, assistant superintendent for business in the Levittown School District, the incentive would be open to teachers who are eligible to retire and would give them a percentage of their final year's salary as an incentive to leave earlier than they might ordinarily. According to Groveman, "It's the administration's belief that it's in the best interest of the district." A retirement incentive gives the district the opportunity to replace much higher paid teachers with teachers who are lower on the pay-scale. The incentive was tied into an attendance clause which Groveman stated, "is designed to both encourage good attendance and reduce the incentive for poor attendance." He added that so far it appears as though the possibility of this incentive has had a positive impact on teacher attendance. When asked how this attendance clause differed from the one that the LUT refused last year, Groveman stated, "We made some modifications in it to allow for people that had longer bouts of illness, so to speak, and as a result we came to an agreement with the union on this year's incentive."

Despite the approval by the board of education, the proposal of the district was once again refused by the teachers. According to LUT President Charles Kemnitzer, "There's a provision in there which basically says that individuals who have disciplinary charges pending against them may not participate in the incentive program unless they are completely exonerated of said charges. All other aspects of the incentive agreement are acceptable to us except that."

The main difficulty with the district's incentive proposal, according to many, was the wording. There was some confusion on both the district's and LUT's parts.

At the Feb. 9 Board of Education meeting, a district resident, Carol Caserta raised the issue of the rejected incentive during the Public be Heard portion of the meeting. "It seems that vague or misunderstood wordings in the contract is the problematic issue. Teaching is a profession which requires dedication, patience, creativity and countless other qualities," said Caserta. "I respect and admire most of the teachers in our district. Most of our teachers are dedicated professionals, who spark the potential of our children but, as in any profession, there comes a time when we are not as sharp as we once were. This fate, unresolved, could prove to be detrimental to the quality education our children deserve."

Caserta went on to say, "We as parents and taxpayers deserve a top-of-the-line, quality education for our children. We need fresh ideas from fresh faces. Our children deserve to have teachers that are excited about teaching our children. Our children deserve to have teachers with positive attitudes. Our children deserve to have teachers who are not going to damage our children's chance of graduating because the teacher got caught up in the days off they were entitled to rather than the importance of the child's education." Caserta noted that many of the teachers who are eligible for retirement would be missed but encouraged the board to consider re-offering a clearly worded incentive to the retirement-eligible teachers. "As parents, I appeal to your expectations of your own children. Re-word the retirement incentive and don't sacrifice our children's future," concluded Caserta.

Following Caserta's plea, School Board President Michael Moriarity stated, "We have convened and sat down this morning with the union president, Dr. Sirois, and myself. We have come to an understanding which the board will vote on tonight." When the board voted on the revised incentive, it was approved 5-2, with only Board Vice President Ronald Kinberg and Board Trustee Paul Granger opposing the motion.

Kemnitzer said, in an interview following the board's decision to revise the incentive, that the provision the LUT found unacceptable had been adjusted. He noted that while the incentive that the district offered last year was totally unacceptable, this year the problem was more of a language problem. When asked if he felt that this proposal was a good one, the union president responded, "I think this was going to be the best proposal that we were going to get from the district. We've been trying to get something for two years now and this proposal was considerably better than what was offered last year."

The retirement incentive offers teachers who retire when they are first eligible, if they have not been absent more than 30 days in any three of the last four years, 45 percent of their final year's salary as a lump payment incentive to retire. According to Kemnitzer, this incentive will be offered for any teacher who has reached retirement eligibility prior to this year for the first year of the incentive and in the next three years the teacher must retire the year they first become eligible. They will not be entitled to the incentive in subsequent years.

Retirement eligibility is based upon what tier the teacher is in. There are currently four tiers in the retirement system, explained Kemnitzer. For teachers in tier 1 the eligibility is age 55 with at least 20 years of service in the system. For tiers 2, 3, and 4 the eligibility is age 55 with 30 years of service or age 62 with 20 years of service. Kemnitzer noted that this Friday the teachers who have met the eligibility requirements must let the district know if they plan on taking the incentive. "I expect we're going to have at least 30," said Kemnitzer.

The union president said that he thinks this retirement incentive will really benefit the district financially. "The vast majority of the people that will retire this year, with the incentive, would not have retired this year and would have stayed at least two more years and that being the case, I believe the district is really likely to save millions of dollars," Kemnitzer added.

Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Robert Davis explained that the district will not reap the financial benefits in the first year because they will be paying the teachers a portion of their last year's salary but acknowledged the district will benefit in the second year.

Another advantage to offering the incentive this year, according to Davis, is that there are rumors in the education community that there will be a shortage of teachers and a greater need for teachers in the coming years. "This gives us the opportunity to go in a little earlier, this year as opposed to maybe more people in the second or third year. It gives us the advantage of having better pickings from the available pool of teachers," said Davis.

"We also have some advantage built into the way the retirement incentive is structured because it's structured around teacher attendance and it seems pretty clear to us that it will improve attendance in the next number of years for a good deal of our staff because there's an attendance clause built in," added Davis.

In general, it appears as though both sides are satisfied with the conclusion of the retirement incentive proceedings. Kemnitzer concluded, "It's a win/win situation for both teachers and the district in that those teachers who retire with this incentive will have an increased pension as a result, which really does not cost the district any money above and beyond the incentive that they're giving, and it's beneficial to the district in that the district is likely to save a considerable amount of money."