WJCC Board Wrestles With Longevity Pay Issue

By Amber Lester Kennedy Thursday, February 03, 2011

Williamsburg-James City County teachers have waited anxiously for two years to see whether they would benefit from a longevity pay incentive that is costing the division too much money.

Their first hint of an answer came in 2009, when the board agreed to phase out the program by no longer offering the supplement to employees hired after March 26, 2009. The board still wants to honor its commitment to offer the supplement to teachers who have worked 20-25 years in the system, but is wrestling with how to handle the teachers caught in the middle.

That problem dominated discussion at Tuesday night’s school board meeting, where the board received the results of a compensation study conducted by Evergreen Solutions, LLC earlier this year, then reviewed recommended changes to the division’s compensation strategy. The changes proposed by Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services Scott Burckbuchler reflected the findings of the study, but showed that money-wise, the division can’t afford to implement all of those recommendations right now.

After a prolonged debate over whether they could approve all or some of Burckbuchler’s suggestions, the board finally voted 4-2 to move forward with his proposal, but only so he could prepare the superintendent’s budget in time for their next meeting. The members indicated the issue of longevity pay will be revisited later this year, when they begin to discuss the proposed budget in more detail.

The proposal featured four recommended changes to the division’s compensation strategy. In his presentation Tuesday, Burckbuchler said the four changes were presented as a package because the issues are interrelated. The changes addressed longevity pay, adjusting the pay scale, continuing the employee retirement incentive program and requiring new employees to contribute toward their retirement plans.

The proposal suggested the division continue to offer longevity supplements to the approximately 310 teachers currently receiving them, but at a reduced rate. The supplements will be reduced by $490 to payments of $3,150 for serving 20 years or $6,790 for 25 years. The reduction amount is approximately 1 percent of the lowest teacher salary of $49,466.

The rate would have to be reduced because Burckbuchler was also recommending a 1 percent base pay increase, and reducing the longevity payments was the only feasible way to achieve that increase. Burckbuchler said the teachers affected won’t see a reduction in their total payment, however.

For example, a faculty member with a bachelor’s degree who is receiving longevity pay currently earns a base pay of $49,466 and a longevity supplement of $3,640 for a total of $53,106. Next year, that same faculty member will receive a larger base pay of $49,961, but receive a reduced longevity supplement of $3,150 for a total payment of $53,111.

Burckbuchler’s proposal also included a cut-off for employees receiving the longevity payments. If approved in the final budget, about 20 teachers who are eligible to receive the 20-year supplement by September would receive the revised supplement amount of $3,150. Teachers eligible in the future for the increased 25-year supplement will not receive it, however. Burckbuchler said about 120 teachers are within five years of becoming eligible for the supplements. He also noted that the compensation study recommended phasing out the supplement.

Evergreen Solutions Manager Brian Wolfe presented a lengthy review of the compensation study findings, and recommended a 2.5 percent pay scale adjustment for full-time employees, along with implementation of a 22-step pay grade system. Neither is realistic with the current budget constraints, but Burckbuchler did recommend the 1 percent adjustment for now.

The division will also offer a voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program for the second year in a row, as suggested by the proposal. Employees eligible for retirement can retire early and receive a 15 percent one-time payment.

Finally, the proposal recommended WJCC continue to foot the bill for employees’ Virginia Retirement System payments. Gov. Bob McDonnell’s budget proposal, released in December 2010, suggested localities be given the opportunity to ask employees to contribute to their retirement plans, provided they receive a 3 percent raise.

On Tuesday, Burckbuchler said the notion of having employees pay into their retirement plans, then receive a pay increase doesn’t benefit employees or employers. He did recommend the division have new employees, hired after June 30, 2010, pay 5 percent of their income into VRS starting in the next fiscal year.

After Burckbuchler’s presentation, the board members quickly agreed to support the early retirement incentive program, and seemed to come to a consensus on everything except the longevity pay issue. Elise Emanuel said she had heard from many teachers who were not happy with the reduction in longevity pay in order to pay for a 1 percent increase, but Board Chair Jim Nickols pointed out the proposal’s pieces were linked. “If we accept some, but don’t accept others, we’re going to be in a bind,” he said.

The words of Williamsburg-James City County Education Association President Karen Armistead seemed to affect the members as they discussed the issue. Earlier in the night, Armistead had warned that morale is at an all-time low and teachers felt they weren’t being appreciated in their compensation.

“When I hear Karen up here talking about the morale issue and the fact we haven’t been able to give raises for three years, it really makes you feel rotten because if there was any way that we could give raises, I really hope that we would,” said Ruth Larson, vice chair of the board. But she pushed the board to make a decision, later saying, “This has been out there for two years…we either all need to be ready to vote or we’re not.”

The board members briefly considered trying to reach a consensus, rather than an official vote, to give Burckbuchler an idea of how to proceed. After sitting silently through an hour of debate, new Superintendent Steven Constantino finally interjected to push the members toward a decision.

“I’m fuzzy as to how we can table parts of this discussion on the 1 percent change and present a budget in two weeks,” he said. “I see the two concepts as incongruent. I understand conceptually this is distasteful, but I’m going to need a little more direction in terms of whether the budget is going to be prepared with or without the thought process in place.”

Quickly after, the board voted to move forward with the entire proposal. Emanuel and member Oscar Prater dissented.