Blame districts, state
The news story “Latrobe officials stress retirement needs” (May 15 and TribLIVE.com) fails to mention several points. The reason Greater Latrobe School District, like many throughout the state, has such a significant increase in its Public School Employees' Retirement System (PERS) contributions is that district officials, with the permission of the state Legislature, took a 10-year deferment in making payments into the system. The state took the same hiatus.
For 10 years, the only people putting money into PERS were the education professionals, teachers and administrators alike, who consistently contribute 7.5 percent of their salaries.
Now that the deferment period is over, the state and school districts all over Pennsylvania find they have enormous bills to pay. It's not as if these entities were ignorant of the debt; they have known for 10 years that the piper would have to be paid. Furthermore, nothing the state or districts do now, aside from paying what they owe, will change or erase that debt.
Expecting the state to fix the problem is ludicrous. It owes, too, and starting a new system will only increase the state's debt because it would have to spend an additional $1 million to do so.
Bottom line: When bad decisions are made by elected officials, everybody pays.
The writer is president of the Greater Latrobe Education Association.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.