Commissioner Gist today announced that RI public schools should not allow “seniority” to stand in the way of putting the best teacher where they are most needed.
“In my view,” she (Gist) wrote in a press release, “no system that bases teacher assignments solely on seniority can comply with this new regulation.”
I’m told she has backed off that a bit by saying she was simply reiterating current regs, but I still like the tone of it.
At the House Labor Committee last night, the idea of eliminating mandates was brought up. They are looking for those involved (superintendents, school comm members, town councilors) to tell them which mandates to eliminate and why.
The Oct 26th workshop to discuss a school choice plan has been postponed. I believe it will be Nov 9th but will confirm and let you know.
I try not to do too much cross posting – but this is sooo sweet I can’t help myself. Get those tips flowing.
Contact: Parker Lacoste
P.O. Box 2401
Providence, RI 02906
Tel: 401-228-6691
PROVIDENCE, RI – The Ocean State Policy Research Institute announces that it is partnering with former ABC 6 reporter Jim Hummel and WPRO radio to launch the Hummel Report, which will investigate waste and corruption in state and local government.
Hummel’s investigations will debut on WPRO radio and its Web site and be posted in video form on www.hummelreport.com once a week.
“We’re excited to partner with WPRO, Jim Hummel and the dedicated Rhode Islanders that sponsor this important work,” said William Felkner, Director of Operations for the Hummel Report and President and Founder of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute (OSPRI). “This partnership is exactly what is needed to expose the government waste and corruption that has mired and embarrassed our state for decades.”
The Hummel Report Web site, which will feature its first report on October 15, also will provide a daily compilation of links to state, local, and town news and access to a database of municipal salaries, benefits, public employee union contracts, state legislative voting records, and other public document databases provided by OSPRI. Hummel will serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Hummel Report.
Hummel, who has nearly three decades experience as a television and newspaper reporter in Providence, brings a depth of institutional knowledge to the project. Hummel was a reporter for the local ABC affiliate, WLNE-TV Channel 6 in Providence, from 1995 to 2008. In the 1990s he led the station’s coverage of corruption at Providence City Hall. He also reported from Washington, DC on issues pertinent to Rhode Island. In 2004, he became the chief reporter, managing the station’s political and investigative unit and hosting the Sunday morning show, “Six News on the Record.”
Hummel also resurrected the “You Paid for It” news segments. In 2007, he won the Edward R. Murrow Award for Investigative Reportingfor a story on the North Kingstown school administration, which spent restricted federal special-education funds on food and drinks for a staff retreat. His two-part series, “Steak and Lobster,” prompted state and federal investigations into the district, resulting in the ouster of two top officials. The state concluded that the district had misspent nearly $250,000 in federal dollars.
Prior to joining ABC 6, Hummel was a reporter for the Providence Journal, where he was a reporter, editor, and manager for 13 years. While at the Journal, Hummel covered local politics, crime, the courts, the state General Assembly, and the Governor’s office. He also managed three of the newspaper’s local news offices.
“It’s great to be returning to the Rhode Island as part of such an innovative project,” Hummel said. “The combination of online media and talk radio formats, partnered with an organization that is committed to making government operations transparent, provides an outlet for information that is unequaled in the market today.”
Further distinguishing the Hummel Report from other media sources is its formation as a non-partisan, nonprofit entity. Dedicated to exposing waste and corruption for the people of Rhode Island, the Hummel Report is funded by tax-deductible donations.
“I’ve always felt that I worked for the people of Rhode Island,” said Hummel. “Now I really do. I take that as a great honor and responsibility and I will maintain the integrity and vigilance to my job that the public has come to expect.”
For more information, including how to donate, visit www.hummelreport.com.
About Ocean State Policy Research Institute:
Founded in 2007, OSPRI is a 501(c)(3) research institute that advocates for sound public policy based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, and traditional American values. We offer timely research and analysis on important issues for elected officials, the media, business leaders, community organizations, and citizens. We also maintain the Transparency Train-public financial and legislative information repository.
About The Hummel Report:
The Hummel Report is a non-profit 501 C-3 organization dedicated to exposing waste and corruption for the people of Rhode Island. Its investigative reports, produced by veteran reporter Jim Hummel and debuting on WPRO, will combine with news and public information to offer the first local multimedia news outlet of its kind at www.hummelreport.com.
About WPRO:
WPRO is the dominant news and talk radio station in Rhode Island. WPRO operates simultaneously broadcasts on 630 AM and 99.7 FM. With 167,000 listeners a week, WPRO has the largest audience in Rhode Island.
I’ve gotten some comments about the Ashaway fire district tax. I was as surprised as the next guy. My bill went from about $170 last year to $270 this year. Maybe the next time someone wants to spend tax dollars we should make sure they know the costs involved. I just thought I would start this post for people to comment on it.
There is a great show on FOX tonight at 8 and midnight – Tucker Carlson – Do you know what is in your kid’s textbook.
Try to catch it.
Sylvia and I have commentaries in the Westerly Sun today. I buy at the stand so don’t have it to cut and paste. If someone else has the text please forward. I can post mine but I would want to give Sylvia equal time.
Especially so since I was shocked at the strategy she employed in her response. Reminds me of Saul Alinsky.
Sylvia’s response basically said, “reports on the blog in early July said …. And they aren’t true. The contract is a good deal.”
What she neglected to be open about was that that first blog post she commented on said more data was being uncovered and would be reported, and that over the 6-7 posts we came to the most accurate data we could – which is what I reported in the paper. One of the errors she complained about was actually corrected 3 hours later on the blog. Again, she didn’t mention this in her commentary.
She never defended the accurate numbers.
I must say, I used to have a great deal of respect for her. But all she did was pick an early draft and criticize it while ignoring the most recent data. The sad part is that people reading the paper won’t know that the numbers I sent to the paper were the latest and NOT what Sylvia was talking about in her piece.
I could have used the print space to tell the wider public that they used “concensus” rather than votes so the public wasn’t notified. Or that we were using ‘unofficial’ negotiations so months. But I didn’t. I wanted to stick with the relevant data on the financials. I wish Sylvia would have done the same.
Lois asked where I got the starting salary from. That misses the point. THe starting salary to calculate pension liability would be based on the ending salary of each employee. Since some wont get their 20 years in for another 2 to 19 years, we don’t know what it would be. I used a number of $80k. People retiring today might be in the 70k range, people leaving in 10 years will probably be in the 90+ range. IF they retire in 19 years it will be much more. That doesn’t really matter. But if someone wants to make an estimate of each employee’s ending salary some time in the future I can plug it into the spreadsheet. But that’s not the point – the point is that defined benfit packages are incredibly more expensive than defined contribution plans. So when I say the difference between our plan and a defined contribution plan is about $23m, that is very very low compared to what it will really be.
Also, it was disapointing to see the Westerly Sun article and that the HTC said “there were no raises the first year.” Look at the contract – an employee starting today will jump to the 2nd step next year. That will produce an increase (in the range of 7%).
There are some pockets where there were no raises, but its not everyone. So why did we say that? I always thought it was the “other towns” that pulled that BS – trying to hide the truth from the public. But maybe the HTC did say it and the paper didn’t report. Maybe someone who saw the meeting could tell us.
How much do we love our police department? Very much by the looks of how much better we treat them than we treat each other in the private sector. The bottom line is this – if we used a defined contribution pension (like the real world does) the total amount paid by the town would be $93,013 per employee (using the most recently retired employee as the standard and the same contribution rate (9%) that the employees contribute) for a total of $1,488.210 for all 16 employees (this assumes we stop hiring today and never hire another police officer, you know, like Exeter - it also assume each employee started 20 years ago – which we know they didn’t and thus salaries will be higher than used in these calculation – but it works for the comparison).
But we use a defined benefit plan – which is much different. Using the percentages pointed out by Lois and the Dept of Municipal Affairs (they watch this website) we see that the town’s contribution for the newly retired employee who lives the average of 28 years after retirement will be $1,729,042 per employee – for a total of $27,664,686.
So, what’s the difference? What would Hopkinton save if we went to a defined contribution plan versus the defined benefit? We would save $23,200,056.
Calling all lawyers – who out there can convince our town council that it needs to stop treating the police so much better those of us paying the bills? And can you win this fight for less than 23 million because that’s what you would save us.
Here’s the numbers -
| Total | $0.09 | ||
| Year | Pay | Emp cont | |
| 1 | $30,395.83 | $2,735.62 | |
| 2 | $31,995.61 | $2,879.61 | |
| 3 | $33,679.59 | $3,031.16 | |
| 4 | $35,452.20 | $3,190.70 | |
| 5 | $37,318.11 | $3,358.63 | |
| 6 | $39,282.22 | $3,535.40 | |
| 7 | $41,349.70 | $3,721.47 | |
| 8 | $43,526.01 | $3,917.34 | |
| 9 | $45,816.85 | $4,123.52 | |
| 10 | $48,228.26 | $4,340.54 | |
| 11 | $50,766.59 | $4,568.99 | |
| 12 | $53,438.52 | $4,809.47 | |
| 13 | $56,251.07 | $5,062.60 | |
| 14 | $59,211.65 | $5,329.05 | |
| 15 | $62,328.05 | $5,609.52 | |
| 16 | $65,608.48 | $5,904.76 | |
| 17 | $69,061.56 | $6,215.54 | |
| 18 | $72,696.38 | $6,542.67 | |
| 19 | $76,522.50 | $6,887.03 | Total paid in |
| 20 | $80,550.00 | $7,249.50 | $93,013.13 |
| 1 | $40,275.00 | ||
| 2 | $41,483.25 | ||
| 3 | $42,727.75 | ||
| 4 | $44,009.58 | ||
| 5 | $45,329.87 | ||
| 6 | $46,689.76 | ||
| 7 | $48,090.46 | ||
| 8 | $49,533.17 | ||
| 9 | $51,019.17 | ||
| 10 | $52,549.74 | ||
| 11 | $54,126.23 | ||
| 12 | $55,750.02 | ||
| 13 | $57,422.52 | ||
| 14 | $59,145.20 | ||
| 15 | $60,919.55 | ||
| 16 | $62,747.14 | ||
| 17 | $64,629.55 | ||
| 18 | $66,568.44 | ||
| 19 | $68,565.49 | ||
| 20 | $70,622.46 | ||
| 21 | $72,741.13 | ||
| 22 | $74,923.36 | ||
| 23 | $77,171.06 | ||
| 24 | $79,486.20 | ||
| 25 | $81,870.78 | ||
| 26 | $84,326.91 | ||
| 27 | $86,856.71 | ||
| 28 | $89,462.41 | Employee contribution | |
| $1,729,042.90 | $93,013.13 | ||
| all 16 | $27,664,686.47 | $1,488,210.02 | |
| Town’s contribution | |||
| $26,176,476.46 | |||
| Defined Contribution | Employee | $1,488,210.02 | |
| Town | $1,488,210.02 | ||
| Total | $2,976,420.04 | ||
| Difference between defined contribution and defined benefit | |||
| $23,200,056.42 | |||
But hey, at least we aren’t the highest paid force in the state (but we are close to it).
Lois and DMA point out that pensions are paid 50% after 20 yrs and 75% after 30. with 9% contribution rate. Anyone want to do the spreadsheet and send it to me to post? I think I used 8% contribution rate from the emplyee.
I’m in PA but if not can do when I return.
Although, we still know the costs are considerably more than if it were a defined contribution plan not a defined benefit plan. Why do we treat our public sector workers so much better than the rest of us?
Did the contract get ratified?
DId they roll longevity into the salaries (creating another compound but saving us $ in the mid years)?
And is there anyone out there who gets health insurance from their employer after they retire?
