DATELINE MARCH 2, 2004
STATE EMPLOYEES RALLY FOR SUPPORT "THIS YEAR"
More than 400 state employees from across the state rallied at the State House this morning to ask for pay increases and restoration of health insurance benefits.
In a press conference sponsored by the South Carolina State Employees Association, Executive Director Broadus Jamerson said public employees need legislators' attention and support "not next year -- this year." The SCEA and SCSEA are partners in the South Carolina Coalition of Public Employees (COPE), and several COPE officers participated in the rally.
SCSEA President Johnny Dewese of Lancaster County reminded the media of the role played by public employees in the operation of the state's essential services and institutions. "In the face of looming budget shortfalls, no pay raises and continued reductions in health benefits, there is also a concentrated effort to scale back employee rights, eliminate the TERI program and to privatize state services," Dewese said. "The combination of no pay increases and the overall average increase of $68 per month to the health plan has gone well beyond employees' pay not keeping up with inflation."
Jamerson reinforced those remarks, adding, "We're here today to impress upon our House members and Senators that we cannot endure these hardships any more, and that our concerns must be addressed, not next year -- this year."
"We appreciate all that is being done, but we don't understand why the things we need and deserve aren't being provided," Jamerson said. "We can't afford more pay cuts. When you don't get a pay increase but your health insurance goes up, that's real simple math. It doesn't take a genius."
Sixty-two percent of all state employees earn salaries of less than $30,000, Dewese noted. Twenty-eight percent qualify for food stamps.
Rep. James Smith, House Minority Leader, issued a statement immediately following the press conference in which he advocated a five percent pay increase this year. The legislative majority, Smith said, "must realize the value of our state employees by affording them a five percent cost of living increase this year. With the reduction of state employees, fewer people are doing more work, saving the state millions of dollars. In light of state budget cuts and subsequent job losses, the remaining state employees have essentially taken a pay cut over the past two years."
"Whereas the county governments have compensated their employees in accordance with inflation, the state has failed to meet the needs of loyal men and woman who work hard each day to make sure South Carolina is at its best. It is our obligation to support our state workers."
DATELINE MARCH 4, 2004
BUDGET DEBATE THREATENS DEEP EDUCATION CUTS
The State House will begin debate on its budget bill on Tuesday. Cuts featured in the draft circulated this week include those approved by Rep. Roland Smith's Subcommittee on K-12 Education throughout February.
Governor Mark Sanford and legislative leaders have paid lip-service to funding education at a higher rate in 2004-05 than the previous year, and the budget bill proposes to increase the appropriation for the Education Finance Act's base student cost from $1,777 (appropriated, but not fully funded, in 2003-04) to $1,827. But the minor increase is not funded with new revenues. Instead, dozens of other education funding line items were cannibalized or eliminated in order to shift their revenues to the EFA line item.
Hence, the John de la Howe School is largely gone from the budget bill, a million dollars is stripped from four-year-old early childhood education, state and special school administrative budgets lose resources and manpower, and a host of smaller agencies and programs cease to be.
There is no mention of the Teachers and Employees Retention Incentive (TERI) in the budget proposal, which is neither good nor bad news. Proposals to eliminate the TERI program exist in both the Senate (sponsored by Sen. Greg Ryberg) and the House (sponsored by Rep. Herb Kirsh) but no debate has yet been heard on either, even at the subcommittee level. The SCEA opposes any change to the current program and continues to monitor those bills.
And funding for the state's national board certification loans and stipends remain for another year, though with a significant difference: New candidates applying after July 1, 2004 will have their first year's stipend docked by the amount of the $2,300 application fee. The SCEA opposes the change to the current program and will support any amendments that strip this new change from the budget bill.
The only bright spot for some public school employees is a provision to increase state employees' salaries by two percent in 2004-05. This does not include teachers and others on the certified salary schedules, but it helps education support personnel and other non-certified district employees who haven't gotten salary increases for the past three years. As a partner in the South Carolina Coalition of Public Employees (COPE), The SCEA supports a salary increase of five percent for all public employees, including certified and non-certified public school employees, and we will seek a budget amendment that addresses this need.
Further, it is not clear what provision the legislature intends to make for employees' health care premiums related to the State Health Plan. Costs to employees increased by an average $65 per month in 2004, at the same time the health benefits were cut. COPE members and more than 400 members of the South Carolina State Employees Association rallied in the Capitol on Tuesday to raise the issue with lawmakers, reportedly drawing the ire of some legislative majority leadership.
The budget debate will be led by Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. To have an impact on next week's debate, contact Harrell by telephone at 843-556-9075 or 843-572-1500 during the weekend, and 803-734-3144 in Columbia next week. He can also be reached by email at bobby@bobbyharrell.com.
DATELINE MARCH 9, 2004
FUNDING AMENDMENTS KILLED IN HOUSE DEBATE
The House majority began its budget debate today with assaults on First Steps and teacher salary funds, and it quickly killed a quartet of amendments that would restore funds cut from public education programs. All of these actions were taken before the House receded for lunch on Tuesday, and debate continues this afternoon.
Rep. James Smith of Richland County, House Minority Leader, opened the debate with questions for Rep. Roland Smith of Aiken County about the House Ways and Means Committee's decision to supplant several current education expenditures in the Education Improvement Act (1984) with lottery proceeds. Roland Smith is chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on K-12 Education, which approved many of the funding cuts and supplanting language included in the present budget document.
But Rep. Bobby Harrell of Charleston County, House Ways and Means chairman, took the podium from R. Smith to address the Minority Leader's questions. "'Supplanting' was specifically defined in the statute," Harrell said, suggesting that word's definition was drawn narrowly to allow the proposed activity. Smith questioned Harrell about the elimination of $1.3 million for the Governor's Institute for Reading. "This means the reading money that was coming to our middle schools will not be there next year," Smith said.
"I think it was a good program," Harrell replied. "The governor did this and we followed his lead on a lot of these issues."
Smith offered an amendment to restore the funding. "We beat on our chests, wave our hands and proclaim that education is our number-one priority," he said. "But it's not enough to do that; we have to put our money where our mouths are. If education is number one, why are we zeroing out an initiative like the Governor's Institute for Reading?"
Rep. Shirley Hinson of Berkeley County challenged Smith's interpretation of the funding cut. "The money zeroed out of that line item was rolled into the base student cost," she said.
Roland Smith moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 56-51. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Rep. Michael Pitts offered an amendment to eliminate $4 million in funding for First Steps, the state's early childhood education program, and to devote that funding to the purchase of new school buses. While First Steps might be a valuable program, Pitts said, the state's need for new buses to replace its 20-year-old fleet was greater.
Roland Smith moved to table Pitts's amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 95-6. The SCEA supported the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
James Smith returned to offer an amendment restoring $1 million through the Education Improvement Act (1984) for homework centers. Funding homework centers from lottery proceeds undermined the EIA, Smith argued. "It's eroding an important legacy established by Governor Dick Riley," Smith said. "There was a time when we did fully-fund the Education Finance Act [1977], and we didn't have a lottery. The EIA was never supposed to be the EFA; it was never meant to be used to fund the EFA. We're using the lottery as a crutch and that's fiscally irresponsible."
Rep. Harry Ott of Calhoun County favored Smith's amendment. "We talk a lot about accountability but when we identify programs that improve education, we're quick to take out an axe and chop 'em out. Let us not shirk our responsibility. Let us step up and be accountable to our children."
Roland Smith moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 69-42. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
James Smith continued his defense of the EIA with an amendment restoring $$ million for external review, intervention and assistance for low performing schools. "This House is going to erode the principles of the EIA and use the lottery proceeds to supplant education funding if we go along with this proposal," he said. "It's significant change in policy, it's not just moving numbers around."
Roland Smith moved to table this amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 73-39. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Rep. Pitts returned to the podium with an amendment to cut more than $9.5 million from teacher salary funding, and to devote those funds to the state employment benefits line item in the budget document. The result would prevent teacher salaries from reaching the southeastern average in 2004-05 but would represent a miniscule salary increase for all other state employees. Seeming stunned at the suggestion, James Smith asked Pitts, "You want to do that at the expense of teacher salaries?"
"I'm trying to take this money away because it has to come out of this budget somewhere," Pitts replied. He asserted that teachers continued to receive step movement on the state salary schedule, which he characterized as salary increases, while other state employees received no such increases in three years.
Still seeking clarity, Rep. Ken Kennedy of Greeleyville noted to Pitts, "You're taking money away from teachers."
"First," Pitts answered, "I'm not taking anything away from teachers because it hasn't been given to them yet."
Roland Smith moved to table Pitts's amendment, and the amendment was defeated by a vote of 100-5. The SCEA supported the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card. [The SCEA, as a partner in the South Carolina Coalition of Public Employees, supports a five-percent salary increase for all state employees.]
James Smith offered an amendment to restore mid-year cuts to arts curricula funding, an amendment representing only $73,000. "At what point will we choose to stop taking steps backward? To stop the bleeding? Last year's budget was pronounced balanced as it left the chamber, but surprise, surprise, surprise," he said. "We got across-the-board mid-year budget cuts."
"I have a personal belief that the arts are the last to get funded and the first to be cut," Smith said. "We need to draw a line in the sand and say it's going to stop here."
Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg noted for the House that she and Rep. Rick Quinn of Lexington County are co-chairs of the House Arts Caucus, but that she and Quinn had fallen short of their obligations. "We haven't done as good a job as we should have, because this is chump change here," she said, referring to the $73,000 funding restoration. "Research proves that the arts play a critical role in improving test scores across education."
Rep. Annette Young moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 62-42. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Before receding for lunch, House Speaker David Wilkins suggested that debate will continue past 7 p.m. The SCEA will inform members of new developments as they occur later today.
DATELINE MARCH 9, 2004 (Part Two)
BOWL GAME FUNDS SAVED, ED AMENDMENTS KILLED
Another handful of amendments designed to restore funding to public education programs were killed with tabling motions in this afternoon's House budget debate, but funds for a potential football bowl game at the Citadel were zealously preserved. At the end of the day, pro-education lawmakers had gained no ground in restoring funds and programs cut by Rep. Bobby Harrell's House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. James Smith of Richland County resumed his fight for education funding when session reconvened after lunch. Smith offered an amendment that would restore $302,000 to the Writing Improvement Network, which provides professional development to teachers who teach writing skills.
Funded by the legislature for the past 10 years, WIN has served more than 12,000 teachers in 760 schools, including training programs offered statewide, regionally or at individual school sites. Test scores of students in school served by WIN have increased by 30 percent, compared with the statewide average increase of 27 percent. At the same time that budget cuts have reduced the WIN staff from seven to three, the number of students and schools served by the program has increased. "It's when we provide accountability but we don't provide the tools to achieve standards that we really fail to do our jobs as leaders of this state," Smith said. "It's not complicated. When we delete funding for programs like this, we set South Carolina in the wrong direction, in a race to the bottom in education."
Appearing perturbed at the focus on education cuts and amendments to restore them, Harrell interrupted to ask whether Smith intended to take full advantage of House rules, spending the maximum amount of debate time on his amendments. Under the rules, a sponsor may speak (or answer questions) for up to 10 minutes, and may request an additional 10 minutes, but no speaker may hold the podium for more than 20 minutes on one amendment.
On most of his amendments to this point, questioners had held Smith at the podium for the full 20 minutes. "It's about time that we move on to another section of the budget," Harrell complained. "I understand the points you're making but you're repeating a lot of them."
"I intend to speak only as long as it's allowed under the rules and only about those concerns that many South Carolinians have expressed to me and to other members of the House," Smith replied. "I didn't sit down and think about how to take advantage of the chamber's time. I'm only bringing to the floor those amendments that I think are priorities. I have a host of amendments that won't even be seen. But I think the people deserve to have these debated in this House."
Rep. Roland Smith of Aiken County moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 64-39. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
James Smith continued with an amendment to provide $5 million to First Steps, the state's early childhood education program for four-year-olds. First Steps funding has been cut by 60 percent since its inception, Smith reminded lawmakers. "We've got a long way to go to keep up with our neighbors in early childhood education. North Carolina spends $300 million on this line item alone, and Georgia spends something similar," he explained. "I urge you to restore just a portion of what has been cut. This initiative has survived draconian cuts and they deserve the support of this General Assembly."
But Roland Smith again moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 66-41. The SCEA opposed the motion to table and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
The tone of debate turned when Rep. Joel Lourie of Richland County proposed an amendment to divert $700,000 from a line item for a "Palmetto Bowl" to restore about half of the funding cut from the Governor's Institute for Reading. It was the second time today that lawmakers sought to restore funding to the Institute. Rep. Joe Neal favored Lourie's amendment. "Many middle schoolers demonstrate a decline in reading performance," he noted.
"This General Assembly should think twice before cutting [the Institute] out completely," Lourie said. "I'm not asking for new money or offering an unfunded proposal. We have to make difficult decisions in this budget."
Rep. Ken Kennedy of Greeleyville expressed incredulity that the House Ways and Means Committee set aside $700,000 for a football game and pressed Lourie for details. Kennedy, who serves on the Ways and Means Committee, said the item was never discussed by the committee. "What is this money?" he asked. "I didn't hear about this. We did not talk about this in our committee meetings. Maybe this one went by me, but where is this money?"
As reported by the media since last week, the budget draft includes a line item in its Parks, Recreation and Tourism section setting aside $700,000 for a potential "Palmetto Bowl" football game that may be brought to South Carolina by ESPN. Funds would go to expand the existing football stadium at the Citadel. Curbing debate on this amendment, Roland Smith moved to table Lourie's amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 63-50. The SCEA opposed the motion to table and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
In one surprising twist, Rep. Anne Parks of McCormick County won the first round of her debate to restore funding to the John de la Howe School, but lost in the second round. Parks offered an amendment seeking to fully restore the $2.4 million operating budget of the school, which Governor Mark Sanford proposed to close in his budget recommendation to the legislature.
De la Howe is "a boarding school, a residential group care facility," Parks explained. Residents are referred by parents, guardians, counselors, local mental health agencies and the Department of Social Services. "De la Howe helps to prevent their ending up in the Department of Juvenile Justice. It teaches these children how to survive in society," she said.
"Do not close this school," Parks implored the chamber. "It provides services that no other school provides to these children. These counselors work with the whole family."
Closing the school will "devastate" the local economy in McCormick County, she said. McCormick is the state's least populous county -- its roughly 9,000 residents include a local prison population -- and the smallest in area. About one-third of its area is contained in a national forest and one-third is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers, leading Rep. Walt McLeod of Newberry to observe that the federal government's presence suppresses the county's ability to grow economically.
"If those 135 jobs are lost, it will cause 20 percent unemployment in the county," Parks continued. "We're talking about economic devastation."
Roland Smith again moved to table the amendment, but the tabling motion surprisingly failed by a two-vote margin, 53-55. The vote led Chairman Harrell to take the podium to urge the amendment's defeat in a straight up-or-down vote. In his comments, Harrell skirted the issue of funding for John de la Howe School, focusing only on maintaining his budget proposal's balance. "Our budget has to be balanced. If this amendment passes, we'll be almost $2.5 million out of balance. This isn't the way we've done business over the years," Harrell declared.
Rep. Leon Howard of Richland County sought to return the focus to the economic impact of closing the school in McCormick County. "Shouldn't the state be concerned with that? Did the Ways and Means Committee give that any consideration?"
"It ought to be part of the discussion but not all of the discussion," Harrell answered. The proposal to close the school came from Sanford, he said, but his committee chose merely to cut most of its funds and move the facility under the Department of Juvenile Justice's administration. "The members of the committee desired to bring costs under control," he said.
But Howard didn't budge. "I'm sure you could be more creative and do more for this school if you put your mind to it," he said. "We either put the investment there or we put the investment in the Department of Corrections. This is not a school for young criminals, it's a school for young people with challenges in their lives, so it's not appropriate to give this facility to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Would it not be an injustice to blend these kids with ones in DJJ?"
On the straight up-or-down vote on Parks's amendment, the funding restoration failed by a vote of 47-67. The SCEA supported Parks's amendment, and opposed Smith's motion to table it, and both votes will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Two more attempts to tap the mysterious funding for the "Palmetto Bowl" were made before session was adjourned for today. Rep. Harry Stille of Abbeville and Rep. Bob Walker of Landrum co-sponsored an amendment diverting the $700,000 from the football game line item to the State Health Plan, to offset the potential increase in state employees' health insurance premiums in 2005.
Only then did Chairman Harrell take the podium to explain the Palmetto Bowl funds. The cable sports channel ESPN has expressed interest in locating a bowl game in South Carolina if the state can provide a stadium large enough to host the event. The Citadel's current stadium holds 22,000 guests, but ESPN requires a seating capacity of at least 35,000. Harrell explained that the $700,000 represented $380,000 in state funds and $320,000 in local funds that would be set aside "in an escrow account" until a signed contract, a major corporate sponsor, and a local-community commitment was secured.
Further, the figure in the 2004-05 budget represented the first of 15 annual installments, and the investment was projected to create a local impact of $48 million annually.
Rep. Herb Kirsh of Clover, a member of Harrell's committee and a chairman of one of its subcommittees, rose to disagree with his chairman. "This is a local project. There's no sense building this with state dollars. Don't spend public, state dollars for what I call private enterprise," Kirsh said.
Commenting on reports that the Citadel has already raised $5 million for its stadium-expansion project, he added, "See, if they can raise five million, they can raise the rest of it."
This time, Rep. Dan Cooper of Anderson County moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 65-43. The SCEA opposed the motion to table the Stille-Walker amendment, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Finally, Rep. Parks offered an amendment diverting the same $700,000 in "Palmetto Bowl" funds to the John de la Howe School. "Now, how can this body give $700,000 to a bowl game? We're talking about local impact, but this is just for Charleston County," she said. "I bet none of the other 45 counties will see any of this 'local impact'."
But Cooper moved to table Parks's amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 57-44. The SCEA opposed the motion to table and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card. Budget debate will resume Wednesday at 9:30 a.m.
DATELINE MARCH 10, 2004
'TRUTH IN ED FUNDING' AMENDMENT KILLED
An amendment seeking to publish the base student cost required by the Education Finance Act in the annual budget was defeated this morning, as was every other amendment that would restore funding to public education in 2004-05. In Wednesday morning's House debate on the appropriations bills, funding for national board certification incentives also came under fire.
Rep. James Smith of Richland, the most vocal defender of public education in this budget debate, offered an amendment, which he called the 'Truth in Education Funding' amendment, that sought to publish the base student cost in the budget bill. Present budget language muddies the water, as it identifies the contributions of federal and local governments, but combines various state sources of funding into one misleading figure.
"The language in this section tells a story, but only part of a story, not the whole story," Smith said. "The Education Finance Act set a minimum level standard for education. While that standard continues to go up, our commitment continues to go down. This budget is a complete work of fiction, an artfully drawn work of fiction. It fails to fund the EFA to the tune of more than $250 million."
Rep. Joe Neal of Richland County echoed Smith's sentiments and supported the amendment. "We have been given faulty information and that's disturbing," Neal said. "We're expected to make decisions based on accurate information, and this is fallacious -- at best, wrong. This is creative accounting, what folk in the street would call funny money. I have to question why? What are we doing in education? Why are we distorting the picture? What don't we want the public to know about what we're doing to fund our schools?"
Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, explained to the chamber that public attention in recent years has focused too much, in his opinion, on the EFA's base student cost. Harrell said he asked the state Board of Economic Advisors to identify all of the sources and values of funding contributing to per pupil spending in South Carolina, and the result was reported in the budget bill. Harrell did not address the legislature's refusal to fully fund the base student cost as required by the EFA statute.
Rep. Lanny Littlejohn of Spartanburg County complained that politics were at the root of the debate over education funding. "The EIA penny was added when the Democrats were in control, and now we've been in control since 1994. That penny was supposed to be spent on just three things, but it isn't being spent as it was meant to be. Democrats started it and we may have finished it, but there's enough blame to go around."
Harrell moved to table Smith's 'Truth in Education Funding' amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 72-42. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Rep. Bob Walker of Landrum and Rep. Harry Stille of Abbeville co-sponsored an amendment that would end the application-fee loan to candidates for national board certification, then would reduce the NBC stipend from $7,500 annually to $5,000 annually beginning with new applicants after June 30, 2004. Walker characterized it as a "savings" of $5.6 million.
Rep. Joel Lourie of Richland County questioned Walker's intent. "Aren't you concerned that eliminating the loan provision would prohibit certain teachers from participating in this program? Wouldn't it limit the pool of applicants?"
"We don't do any loan provisions for the masters or the doctorate," Walker answered.
In previous debates on national board certification provisions, Walker has reminded the chamber that his wife, a retired teacher, earned a masters degree without state sponsorship. Rep. Seth Whipper drew a distinction between degrees and the national board certification, noting that holding an advanced degree in a particular field didn't indicate skill at teaching.
"Being a national board certified teacher doesn't mean you're a good teacher," Walker countered. The program was initiated in South Carolina, he suggested, "to attract teachers from out of state, because of the high dollars."
"I've been told by educators that they're not in it for the money, so the money's not the point," he added. Walker said he advocated a performance-based pay plan rather than standard salary schedules and incentives.
Stille followed Walker at the podium and reminded his colleagues, "I told you when we debated this program that you were buying a pig in a poke. Administrators have told me that it's a detriment to their districts."
Stille criticized the "national leaders" who have promoted the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, suggesting the board and its certification is a partisan program. Democratic U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, former President Bill Clinton, former S.C. Governor and U.S. Secretary of Education Dick Riley, former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt and former Florida Governor and U.S. Sen. Bob Graham were among the program's leading proponents.
"South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida have 46 percent of all the national board certified teachers in America," Stille declared. "This is rewarding purely introductory-level performance."
Harrell spoke briefly in favor of the program and against the Walker-Stille amendment, using the same argument that pro-education lawmakers have used in regard to other education programs for the past day and a half. "It's doing what we want it to do," he said.
Rep. Bill Cotty moved to table the Walker-Stille amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 84-20. The SCEA supported the motion to table, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Smith returned with an amendment that mirrored one offered by Sen. Nikki Setzler in last year's Senate budget debate, which would ensure that the EFA base student cost is fully funded before any other budget allocation is increased. "We ought to fund the EFA first, then fund the rest of state government," Smith said. "If you believe that our first priority should be public education, then let's put those words into action."
Neal noted that the state's property tax relief statute was designed to be suspended "unless and until" the EFA was funded, but that suspension hasn't happened.
Harrell took issue with Smith and Neal's comments. "I obviously am comfortable with where we are in education funding because we're spending more this year than we spent last year. Where is this money going to come from?"
Smith reminded Harrell that he and the minority members of the House "don't run this place. I don't have the votes to pass anything without the support of my colleagues. The majority runs this place, and you can choose to fund ways to meet these needs or you can choose not to. It's about a set of choices."
Rep. Roland Smith of Aiken County moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 72-38. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Debate continued after lunch this afternoon and will likely stretch into the evening hours. Educators and parents are urged to contact House members throughout the day and this evening, urging them to support pro-education budget amendments and to oppose motions to table those amendments.
DATELINE MARCH 10, 2004 (Part Two)
LOCAL ED FUNDING REQUIREMENT ELIMINATED
A requirement that local school districts maintain a standard level of support for public education -- a requirement that constituted part of the base student cost funding formula in the Education Finance Act of 1977 -- was eliminated from the budget bill in this afternoon's debate. Critics argued long that the change in public policy means, practically speaking, that economically challenged school districts will be allowed to reduce its contribution to local education programs, while wealthy districts will outpace them in provision for education opportunity.
Rep. Ronnie Townsend, chairman of the House Education Committee, offered the amendment to eliminate the 25-year-old local maintenance of effort requirement. Under the EFA, state and local governments agreed to fund local public education programs in a 70-30 split. Wealthier school districts -- those with healthy tax bases and fiscal autonomy -- have gone beyond their 30 percent stake in education, resulting in a natural disparity between those and poorer districts. But poorer districts have struggled to keep pace with their own share, and notions were discussed last year to eliminate their burden -- without any additional state subsidy to replace the lost funding.
Townsend's amendment drew a line of opponents to speak against the measure, who argued that the disparity would be exacerbated as a result. "This provision will take us backwards," said Rep. Jackie Hayes of Dillon County, an educator and football coach. "This has been one of the main topics in the funding equity lawsuit in Clarendon County, and a lot of my districts are plaintiffs in that lawsuit. When we bring this [requirement] back next year, locals will have to make up even more than they are now, and they won't be able to do it."
Rep. James Smith of Richland County said the elimination amounted to "yet another budget cut, and I think our schools have suffered enough budget cuts." He sought to have the amendment ruled out of order, and Speaker David Wilkins recessed the session briefly to consider the request.
Returning to session, Wilkins overruled the point of order and debate resumed. Rep. Joe Neal of Richland County said the measure would make "a bad situation worse, and thats not what the people need us to do."
"The outcome of this will be a widening of the gap between rich and poor districts," Neal explained. "It creates a system of education apartheid."
Rep. David Mack of Charleston County argued that the change in policy was being made without consulting education professionals in the school districts. "Funding does matter. If we're going to compete and draw industry to our state, we've got to get the education system intact. We can't play this game with mirrors," he said. "Let's listen to our educators on this. You know, this is the only profession that we treat this way -- we don't do attorneys like this, or doctors. Everybody acts like they know better about education than the educators themselves."
With Mack holding the podium in opposition to the amendment, Rep. Bessie Moody-Lawrence of York County asked him, "Tell me, who is under attack in this budget? Is it children? Teachers? Principals? Parents?"
"I would say all of the above," Mack replied. On a straight up-or-down vote (as opposed to a tabling motion), the amendment passed by a vote of 68-47. The SCEA opposed the amendment, as it opposes any measure that seeks to reduce necessary funding for public education in South Carolina, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
In other education-related business today:
--Rep. Roland Smith of Aiken County successfully tabled an amendment by Rep. James Smith of Richland County to restore funding award for SAT improvement. Awards of $50,000 and $10,000 have been given to public high schools whose average SAT scores gained the most ground in a year, but the Sanford-Harrell budget proposal ends the awards. The SCEA opposed Roland Smith's tabling motion, which passed by a vote of 58-24.
--Rep. Bobby Harrell of Charleston County successfully tabled an amendment by James Smith to delete a provision allowing local school districts to furlough educators. A similar provision was adopted in last year's budget but applied only to the 2003-04 school year. The Sanford-Harrell budget proposal removed the date limitation, essentially making the provision a permanent part of law, although contained in the budget document. The SCEA opposed Harrell's tabling motion, which passed by a vote of 61-43.
--Rep. Ronnie Townsend of Anderson County won adoption of an amendment allowing the conduct of a feasibility study on school bus privatization, the result of which would be reported to the General Assembly in January 2005. The SCEA supported this amendment, which replaced language directing the Department of Education to issue immediately a request for proposals from commercial transportation companies. But Townsend's amendment passed on a voice vote, meaning that no record of individual votes was made and the vote cannot be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
--Rep. Bob Walker of Landrum won adoption of an amendment devoting $2 million in lottery proceeds to fund a reading program in grades 6-8. Lottery proceeds already fund reading programs in grades 1-5, and Walker advocated extending the benefit of those programs through the middle grades. The SCEA supported this amendment but it passed on a voice vote, meaning that no record of individual votes was made and the vote cannot be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Debate will continue Thursday at 9:30 a.m. and it is likely that the chamber will conclude business on the budget bill sometime tomorrow. Educators and parents are urged to contact House members through tomorrow, urging them to support pro-education budget amendments and to oppose motions to table those amendments.
DATELINE MARCH 11, 2004
PAY RAISES FOR STATE WORKERS DEFEATED
While House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell won an amendment for some state law enforcement officers to receive pay raises of up to 9.5 percent, proposals to offer smaller increases to other state employees were soundly defeated. Harrell was aided in his opposition to state employee pay raises by House Speaker David Wilkins, who invoked cloture to curb debate on amendments to that budget section.
The House Ways and Means Committee adopted a two percent salary increase for most classifications of state employees, and this raise remains in the budget document. The proposal includes no raise for teachers. (Step movement on the salary schedule is funded, but it is The SCEA's position that salary steps reflect continually-accruing years of experience and do not constitute a base pay raise.)
But Rep. James Smith of Richland County offered an amendment this morning to provide a five percent base salary increase for all state employees, calling it "the right thing to do."
"While five percent sounds like a lot, it doesn’t match where they would have been if we had kept them up with inflation in recent years," Smith said.
Smith's amendment was supported by Rep. Walt McLeod of Newberry County, who suggested that the proposed budget treated state employees inequitably and unfairly. Employees of seven state agencies, McLeod noted, would receive average increases of 5.5 percent in the Sanford-Harrell proposal.
"State agencies and employees are kind of like the children of this General Assembly," McLeod suggested. "It seems that parents have a duty to treat its children with an even hand. Your proposal would narrow that gap and allow all employees to be treated in an even manner."
But Rep. Dan Cooper of Anderson County moved to table the amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 55-39. The SCEA opposed the motion to table, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Smith immediately returned with an amendment giving all state employees a four percent base pay increase effective January 1, 2005, instead of the two percent increase beginning July 1, 2004. The benefit of the postponed, higher increase would be a higher base salary for all state employees when the legislature considered next year's budget.
Rep. Doug Smith of Spartanburg County opposed the measure, arguing that "it locks us down next year and makes a huge difference." James Smith described the four percent difference "a very modest step, considering that we’ve cut their pay through increases to their health insurance. It’s time we try to make up for the serious loss in their income."
Doug Smith took the podium to speak against the amendment. "I’m concerned," he explained. "This isn’t about state employees. It’s difficult to give any kind of an increase this year, but the Chairman and the committee found a way to give a two percent raise."
"This is about the going back to a policy of promising now and paying later. It will prolong the pain that all of us have had for the last three years. No good deed goes unpunished," Doug Smith argued.
McLeod questioned Doug Smith’s perspective. "Fundamentally, you’re saying it’s big-time bad to raise the pay of state employees using this annualization. I complement you on being a student of the past, but I’m a student of the future, and the future looks bad. We are running out of cash."
Drawing the focus back to the question of reasonably paying state employees, James Smith said, "Either we’re going to take care of them and fund this, or we’re not."
Rep. Leon Howard took the floor to speak in favor of the four percent increase, "the very least we can do for our state employees." "We come up with all of these excuses. I find it interesting that we can fund $700,000 for a bowl game but we can’t fund a four percent increase for our workers," Howard said. "All you back slappers, telling [employees] what a great job they’re doing, telling them to keep up the good work, make it impossible for them to raise their families, to educate their children, to address these dinner-table issues. They can’t pay bills with compliments and niceness."
"I’ve heard you tell them that help's on the way, but today, help is on the [vote] board. Talk is cheap. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding‘s in this amendment," he said.
Interrupting debate to inform the body that nearly 30 additional amendments remained on issues related to salary and benefit increases for state employees, House Speaker David Wilkins invoked cloture, and the cloture motion passed by a vote of 81-33. The SCEA opposed the invocation of cloture, as it served to curb debate on issues of salary and benefits to public employees. The vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Rep. Adam Taylor of Laurens County then moved to table James Smith’s amendment, and the amendment was tabled by vote of 57-47. The SCEA opposed Taylor's motion to table, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Rep. Herb Kirsh of York County offered an amendment to provide a base pay increase for school bus drivers in the same manner as other state employees. The SCEA supported Kirsh's amendment, which would guarantee that the two percent increase allowed to other state employees in this budget would extend to school bus drivers. Kirsh's amendment passed on a voice vote, which means there is no record of individual votes and it cannot be included in the 2004 Legislator Report Card.
Rep. Bobby Harrell won adoption of an amendment that creates a salary increase fund for law enforcement officers "in pay band six and below." He explained that the change would allow distribution of salary increases evenly across agencies that employ law-enforcement officers, including SLED, the Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Natural Resources. It was his committee's intent to grant state troopers an increase of 7.5 percent this year, but the additional two percent for all state employees would apply to them as well, bringing their increases to 9.5 percent.
One last attempt to raise some employees' pay was made by Rep. Jerry Govan of Orangeburg County. Govan offered an amendment to raise school bus drivers' base salaries by three percent rather than two percent. "Drivers are so far down on the totem pole anyway, and many of them don’t have state health insurance because they are not full-time workers," Govan explained. "I thought we could show some compassion and give them a little extra as we did for troopers."
But Cooper of Anderson County moved again to table Govan's amendment, and the amendment was tabled by a vote of 61-34. The SCEA opposed Cooper’s motion to table, and the vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
Time is running out to influence the direction of the House budget debate. When recessing for lunch, Wilkins announced that the House would complete work on the budget before leaving Columbia today. At that time, the House had finished work on 63 of the budget's 70 sections. Educators and parents are urged to continue contacting House members through the afternoon, urging them to support pro-education budget amendments and to oppose motions to table those amendments.
DATELINE MARCH 12, 2004
MAJORITY ADOPT BUDGET
By a vote of 80-35, the House adopted its budget proposal for 2004–05 early this morning. While House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell emphasized that the budget includes more dollars for public education, the final document left in place deep cuts to many education programs and elimination of others, under-funded the Education Finance Act by more than $270 million, and artificially inflated its report of per-pupil state spending.
The House plan routes projected funding from the Education Improvement Act (1984) and the Education Accountability Act (1998) through the EFA, a ploy used this year for the first time.
In the end, only Harrell took to the podium to defend this budget, while Rep. James Smith of Richland County, Rep. Gilda Cobb Hunter of Orangeburg County, Rep. Joel Lourie of Richland County, and Rep. Joe Neal of Richland County urged colleagues to reject it. The SCEA opposed the passage of the budget proposal for the reasons identified above, and this vote will be included in the 2004 Legislative Report Card.
The marathon debate on Thursday included few surprises. A handful of lawmakers, including Rep. Rex Rice of Greenville County and Lourie of Richland, proposed various grades of tax increases, mainly on cigarettes with proceeds devoted to Medicaid. Rice's and Lourie's pleas, in particular, were impassioned but all of these attempts were rejected.
Efforts to divert funds to the State Health Plan to lessen the impact of potential health insurance premium increases on state employees failed. Rather, state employees -- now including full-time school bus drivers -- were granted a two percent base pay increase, the first increase for many in three years and insufficient to keep pace with inflation during those years.
An amendment to guarantee an annual cost of living adjustment for retirees, too, failed.
Rep. Anne Parks of McCormick County, whose district includes the John de la Howe School, tried gamely to divert funds from various sources, including the South Carolina Conservation Bank, to keep the school open. In January, Governor Mark Sanford recommended its closing. Parks finally sought a feasibility study of the school, to be conducted by the Legislative Audit Council, in an effort to stave off closure for another year. That effort, too, failed.
The last amendment of the three-day debate reduced funding for the proposed "Palmetto Bowl," a football game that may be played at the Citadel pending a variety of conditions, was reduced from $700,000 to $380,000. The project and the amendment was sponsored by Harrell. The figure represents the first of 15 annual investments in the sports event.
WHO FOUGHT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION?
Educators and parents are urge to thank James Smith of Richland County, the chamber's most vocal supporter of public education throughout the session. Smith sponsored more than three dozen amendments designed to restore funding cut from education programs; none of Smith’s amendments was approved by the majority.
Others who fought to protect and improve schools, school funding, and state employment benefits included Lourie, Cobb-Hunter, Neal, and Parks, as well as Rep. Ken Kennedy of Greeleyville, Rep. Leon Howard of Richland County, and Rep. Robert Brown of Charleston County. Rep. Herb Kirsh of York County is responsible for the inclusion of full-time school bus drivers in the base pay increase for state employees.
DATELINE MARCH 23, 2004
NEILSON CMTE TO DEBATE TERI-KILL BILL
The first legislative assault on the Teachers and Employees Retention Incentive (TERI), the state's deferred-retirement employee benefit, will be heard Wednesday by a House Ways and Means Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Denny Neilson of Darlington.
House Bill 4888, authored by Rep. Dan Cooper of Anderson County, seeks to eliminate TERI by closing enrollment after July 1, 2004 while allowing those already in the program to complete their five-year enrollment period Neilson's subcommittee will meet 90 minutes following adjournment of the House on Wednesday.
Cooper's bill would also force retirees who participate in the TERI program to terminate their employment at the end of the five-year enrollment period. Employees who choose not to participate in TERI, under Cooper's proposal, would be allowed to retire and return to employment -- if he/she is re-hired -- fifteen calendar days from their retirement date. Under current law, the waiting period is 60 days.
This provision of Cooper's bill, however, leaves re-employment to the discretion of an agency administrator rather than to the employee. Participation in TERI is available to all teachers and state employees at their discretion.
The SCEA was a leading proponent of the TERI program from its inception and is opposed to wholesale elimination of this employee benefit.
THE SCEA SETS APRIL RALLIES ON ED BUDGET
Acting on directives from The SCEA Delegate Assembly, The SCEA President Jan McCarthy announces that virtual and actual rallies have been scheduled in April. Educators and school district employees are encouraged to participate in a rally at the State House at noon on April 24, where education leaders, superintendents, lawmakers and others will ask the South Carolina Senate to fully-fund the Education Finance Act and to block many of the draconian budget cuts adopted by the House earlier this month.
Two virtual, or electronic, rallies have also been scheduled. Educators, parents and others are asked to focus electronic contacts by telephone and email on Wednesday, April 21 and Wednesday, April 28, days when most lawmakers will be in Columbia for session.
More than 500 educators and parents attended The SCEA rally in March, 2003 and a subsequent rally in April, co-sponsored by The SCEA, the S.C. School Boards Association, the S.C. Association of School Administrators and others.
A virtual rally conducted at the same time was successful, McCarthy said, because many educators in high schools and middle schools incorporated virtual-rally activities in their instruction on that date and encouraged students to participate.
RETIREES URGE COMMUNICATION WITH SENATORS
Sam Griswold, president of the S.C. Association of Retired State Employees, has urged state retirees to contact their Senators during the next month, when Senate Finance subcommittees will address, among other things, funding for the State Health Plan.
In an article published in his association's newsletter, Griswold draws a fine conclusion from potential Senate deliberations on the topic: "If you do not get your Senator to change the health insurance situation, you will see a monthly increase for the rest of your life."
The text of Griswold's article is reprinted below: "Before I tell you anything else, I must ask you to contact your state Senator -- preferably by phone or in person but at least by mail -- and ask him or her to fully fund employee/retiree health insurance, which needs $49 million new dollars to keep from reducing services or increasing your payment.
"You will hear 'it is a tight budget year' and 'we will do what we can.' You should respond that budgets are a matter of priorities and you expect that retirees, as one of their primary constituencies, should be the priority this year. If they can find the funds to create a new four-year college or fund a bowl football game (all of which they are proposing), they can fund your health insurance. It is a matter of priorities.
"If you do not do this, you will definitely pay an average $56.10 per month, per subscriber, increase in your health insurance costs for the rest of your life. That is the budget projection for just this year. Isn't that worth at least a phone call? PLEASE do this and do it now.
"Your association has been working hard with the S.C. Coalition of Public Employees (COPE) on three issues: a decent cost of living raise for active employees, full funding of the health insurance increase, and guaranteed cost of living increases for retirees.
"Here is what we have accomplished so far: The State House completed its budget work and voted for a 2% cost of living increase for active employees. This is far from the five percent deemed reasonable but is at least an acknowledgment that something needs to be done. The House also voted to devote $25 million to offset the increased cost in health insurance. But this is not an appropriation of funds from the General Fund of the state; it is in the form of a proviso which says the state shall privatize its motor vehicle fleet and sell the current fleet. Twenty-five million dollars of the proceeds will be used to offset the cost of health insurance. This source of money is so ridiculously speculative that the Board of Economic Advisors has not certified it to be reasonably expected revenue to the state.
"Friends, this is all 'smoke and mirrors' and you ought to call your House member to task on it. We must get the Senate to fund this from the General Fund and double the amount -- or we'll pay out of our pocket!
"Last, two companion bills -- Senate Bill 846 and House Bill 4746 -- have been introduced which guarantee cost of living increases to retirees, tied to inflation. These bills have been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. There is opposition to these bills and the Governor may even threaten a veto. Let your House and Senate members know that you want these bills passed and any veto overridden.
"That is what has happened to date. If you do not get your Senator to change the health insurance situation, you will see a monthly increase for the rest of your life. If you do not break the bills regarding cost of living increases out of committee, you will not be guaranteed these increases in the future. You personally must act. I cannot do it as one person talking to a few legislators. They must feel it from home."
DATELINE MARCH 24, 2004
TERI-KILL BILL PULLED FROM SUBCMTE AGENDA
A proposal to radically change the Teacher and Employees Retention Incentive (TERI) program was pulled from the House Ways and Means Personnel Benefits subcommittee agenda this afternoon. House Bill 4888, authored by Rep. Dan Cooper of Anderson County, seeks to eliminate TERI by closing enrollment after July 1, 2004 while allowing those already in the program to complete their five-year enrollment period.
While the subcommittee intends to meet on Thursday at 9 a.m., it is reported that H 4888 will not be on the agenda then, either. One member of the subcommittee and one co-sponsor of the bill reported that they received a few dozen emails each from concerned educators and state employees last night and this morning.
In response to emails from constituents in his own district, Cooper wrote that he requested to have the bill removed from today's subcommittee agenda. Cooper's email replies, some of which were forwarded to The SCEA for clarification, note that the Anderson County legislator was an original co-sponsor of the legislation which created the TERI program. Presently, Cooper's chief concern is the continued financial stability of the state retirement system, he states, and "I introduced it because the [state retirement system] suggested this was an alternative to TERI that people would like."
The SCEA President Jan McCarthy is seeking clarification from the retirement system's executive director, Peggy Boykin, on the retirement system's position in favor of, or in opposition to, TERI.
One criticism of the TERI program is that participation has lengthened the retirement account's long-term liability, or indebtedness, to 27 years. Thirty years is the limit for sound financial health. In August, 2003, Boykin testified to Governor Mark Sanford's Management, Accountability and Performance (MAP) Commission that if the legislature continued to invest in that system with additional direct appropriations or through an increased employer contribution for retirement, there is no reason that TERI should negatively affect the retirement system or cost-of-living adjustments in the future. The question, then, is the legislature's willingness to continue its investment in TERI and the retirement system through employer contributions.
Educators and state employees should remember four points:
(1) So long as the legislative majority chooses to continue investing in TERI and the state retirement system through direct appropriations or through increased employer contributions, these will remain in good health.
(2) If the legislature chooses not to continue investing in TERI and the state retirement system through direct appropriations or through increased employer contributions, the system's ability to fund retirement benefits will falter.
(3) Lawmakers who say that eliminating or substantially reducing the TERI program because of its fiscal impact on the state retirement system are ignoring -- and intentionally diverting constituents' attention from -- their ability and responsibility to continue investing in the system through direct appropriations or increased employer contributions.
(4) The South Carolina legislature has historically offered to strengthen employee benefits rather than improve salaries for educators and state employees, which is why salaries for most state employees remain relatively low. A rollback of employee benefits -- such as the elimination of TERI or increased premiums for health insurance through the State Health Plan -- is a violation of commitments made by lawmakers to strengthen benefits rather than improve salaries; in these cases, educators and state employees will be doubly-betrayed by their legislature.
Critics have argued during the past year that TERI has cost the state $650 million in long-term indebtedness, but an independent study delivered to the state Budget and Control Board last Thursday demonstrated that the figure was closer to $100 million. The study concluded that other factors, not the TERI program, may be weakening the retirement system.
One potential factor is the legislature's unwillingness to strengthen its employer contributions to the system's accounts. It is The SCEA's position that the TERI program is successfully addressing the need for which it was designed and implemented, offering an incentive to veteran educators and public school employees who might otherwise retire after 28 to 30 years of service in public schools.
This position is held also by the S.C. State Employees Association, the S.C. Retired Employees Association, the S.C. Association of School Administrators and others. Further, because the state salary schedule for educators includes only 22 steps, veteran educators receive no guaranteed rise in salary after the 22nd year of their service to schools. The TERI incentive is available to educators in their 28th year of service and, while it is not a true salary increase, it represents to many veteran educators a significant new benefit of salary.
The SCEA led support for this important employment benefit and worked to educate lawmakers during debate on the measure. For many, this incentive provides an important reason -- for some, the single most important reason, given ever-increasing demands and expectations -- to remain in the classroom.
The SCEA does not support wholesale elimination of the program but has offered to review any amendments to improve or refine the provisions of the TERI program. The association is willing to support those amendments that do not substantively undermine TERI's present purpose.
Some lawmakers have suggested that the legislature will wait until 2005 to address changes to the TERI program, since 2004 is an election year and changes to TERI legislation might serve to incite the state's 375,000 active and retired educators and state employees.
The SCEA will continue to monitor developments and report these to its members and others. In addition to Cooper's bill, two others seeking to eliminate the TERI program are pending, one sponsored by Sen. Greg Ryberg of Aiken County and one by Rep. Herb Kirsh of York County. Neither has yet been scheduled for committee debate.
DATELINE MARCH 31, 2004
SECOND TERI-KILL EFFORT SET FOR THURSDAY
A second legislative assault on the Teachers and Employees Retention Incentive (TERI) program will be heard on Thursday at 1 p.m. A special three-man subcommittee of Senate Finance has been appointed to hear debate on Senate Bill 779, sponsored by Sen. Greg Ryberg of Aiken County. Ryberg's bill to eliminate the TERI program by closing new enrollment as of July 1, 2004. Oddly, Ryberg will chair the subcommittee meeting tomorrow. His colleagues on the subcommittee are Sen. Tom Alexander of Oconee County and Sen. Nikki Setzler of Lexington.
Setzler told The SCEA this afternoon that he would maintain his consistent support for the TERI program. Alexander told the association that he supported TERI's passage and didn't know why the state shouldn't keep it intact, but that his first concern was the strength of the state retirement system. Alexander added that he would listen closely to input from the system's executive director, Peggy Boykin, at the hearing.
In August, 2003, Boykin testified to Governor Mark Sanford's Management, Accountability and Performance (MAP) Commission that if the legislature continued to invest in that system with additional direct appropriations or through an increased employer contribution for retirement, there is no reason that TERI should negatively affect the retirement system or cost-of-living adjustments in the future.
Ryberg filed S 779 in January 2003 and has spoken in favor of eliminating TERI several times since then, both in committee settings and during Senate sessions, charging that the program threatens the health and well being of the state retirement system. When an independent study was presented the Budget and Control Board earlier this month which showed that the TERI program did not threaten the system, Ryberg told The State newspaper that he "will continue fighting to dismantle the program regardless of the study's findings."
Ryberg's new line of attack on TERI, as identified in The State, is that it includes all state employees who want to participate in it. "The employer has to have the last say," Ryberg told reporter Valerie Bauerlein. "Otherwise, we can't control the quality of the work."
The text of Ryberg's bill can be found by clicking http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/779.htm
COMMITMENT TO BENEFIT IS KEY
The question is the legislature's willingness to continue its investment in TERI and the retirement system through employer contributions. Educators and state employees should remember four points:
(1) So long as the legislative majority chooses to continue investing in TERI and the state retirement system through direct appropriations or through increased employer contributions, these will remain in good health.
(2) If the legislature chooses not to continue investing in TERI and the state retirement system through direct appropriations or through increased employer contributions, the system's ability to fund retirement benefits will falter.
(3) Lawmakers who say that eliminating or substantially reducing the TERI program because of its fiscal impact on the state retirement system is the only option are ignoring -- and intentionally diverting constituents' attention from -- their ability and responsibility to continue investing in the system through direct appropriations or increased employer contributions.
(4) The South Carolina legislature has historically offered to strengthen employee benefits rather than improve salaries for educators and state employees, which is why salaries for most state employees remain relatively low. A rollback of employee benefits -- such as the elimination of TERI or increased premiums for health insurance through the State Health Plan -- is a violation of commitments made by lawmakers to strengthen benefits rather than improve salaries; in these cases, educators and state employees will be doubly-betrayed by their legislature.
Critics have argued during the past year that TERI has cost the state $650 million in long-term indebtedness, but an independent study delivered to the state Budget and Control Board last Thursday demonstrated that the figure was closer to $100 million. The study concluded that other factors, not the TERI program, may be weakening the retirement system. One potential factor is the legislature's unwillingness to strengthen its employer contributions to the system's accounts.
It is The SCEA's position that the TERI program is successfully addressing the need for which it was designed and implemented, offering an incentive to veteran educators and public school employees who might otherwise retire after 28 to 30 years of service in public schools.
This position is held also by the S.C. State Employees Association, the S.C. Retired Employees Association, the S.C. Association of School Administrators and others. Further, because the state salary schedule for educators includes only 22 steps, veteran educators receive no guaranteed rise in salary after the 22nd year of their service to schools. The TERI incentive is available to educators in their 28th year of service and, while it is not a true salary increase, it represents to many veteran educators a significant new benefit of salary.
The SCEA led support for this important employment benefit and worked to educate lawmakers during debate on the measure. For many, this incentive provides an important reason -- for some, the single most important reason, given ever-increasing demands and expectations -- to remain in the classroom.
The SCEA does not support wholesale elimination of the program but has offered to review any amendments to improve or refine the provisions of the TERI program. The association is willing to support those amendments that do not substantively undermine TERI's present purpose.
Some lawmakers have suggested that the legislature will wait until 2005 to address changes to the TERI program, since 2004 is an election year and changes to TERI legislation might serve to incite the state's 375,000 active and retired educators and state employees.
The SCEA will continue to monitor developments and report these to its members and others.
