News and analysis from The Center for Michigan •
©2015 Bridge Michigan. All Rights Reserved. • Join us online at

Original article URL:

Public sector/Talent & education

Retirement lawsuit bites into school budgets

When legislative reform of the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System promised to cap school districts’ contributions at a flat 24.46 percent of payroll, many administrators reached for something else to uncap, in celebration.

However, months later, with challenges to the reforms working their way through the courts, the bottle being opened might be holding antacid.

With the future of Public Act 300 unsettled, school districts – the primary funders of the retirement system – have been informed the new contribution will be 25.36 percent of payroll for employees hired before July 1, 2010, and somewhat lower for those hired after, who are in a different, hybrid plan. The new assessment started Oct. 1, and will continue into the foreseeable future while the law remains under judicial review.

“The money is likely to be pulled out of fund equity, or in mid-year cuts for districts that don’t have it,” said Brendan Walsh, treasurer of the Grosse Pointe Public School System, which stood to save $1.9 million under PA 300. Statewide, the savings would have totaled nearly $250 million, or roughly $175 per pupil. Had the law not been passed, the school districts’ required contribution to the retirement system would have jumped to 27.37 percent. The 24.46 cap represents their contribution last year.

The revisions to the retirement plan were immediately challenged after Gov. Rick Snyder signed the bill, with the Michigan Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers claiming the window MPSERS members were given to make decisions about their pensions and retirement plans was unreasonably short. The groups also claimed changes to their constitutionally protected pensions were improper and illegal. An Ingham County judge issued a temporary restraining order in September, and Snyder sought intervention by the state Supreme Court. The high court declined, however, ruling a week ago that the suit should go through the full appeals process.

PA 300 made changes in the retirement system in an effort to control its unfunded liability; retirees would contribute more to their health care, younger members would contribute more, and those in between would have to choose between contributing more or freezing their pensions at current levels. The window for making that choice was to close Oct. 26, which the MEA said was not enough time. 

The temporary restraining order remains in effect, which requires local school districts to contribute at the higher rate for the time being.

And while the higher rate shouldn’t be crippling for most districts, it does frustrate the budgeting process, which is generally concluded in June.

In Livingston County, the savings would have been $4.5 million, which makes the delay frustrating, said Livingston Educational Service Agency Superintendent David Campbell.

“I didn’t go lay off a school psychologist” in response to the new assessment, Campbell said “That’s why you have a fund balance. But it’s frustrating trying to maintain a school budget when the (MPSERS contribution) rate keeps changing.”

If the 25.36 percent rate continues through the school year, Campbell estimates the district will be out about $200,000.

“Had schools known in June this would be happening, we should have planned for it. That’s why you’re always reminded as a school district to budget conservatively,” said Walsh. “When you budget conservatively, this is how you build up a fund equity.”

In an emailed statement, AFT President David Hecker said he hoped a study of the feasibility of  switching to a defined contribution-only plan – part of PA 300 – would show such a plan is inadequate to meet retirees’ needs. He wrote, “The current hybrid pension plan — a ‘combo plate’ of defined benefit and defined contribution, which is what newly hired school employees received, ‘meets the replacement ratio adequacy test,’ whereas the DC plan ‘falls short of the replacement ratio adequacy test.’ In other words, if we switch newly hired school employees to a defined contribution plan, their pensions will not enable them to live their senior years in dignity. …We do not want the people educating our children to fear outliving their pensions.”

Steve Cook, MEA president, said the union was looking forward to the Nov. 28 hearing in Inghan County court, adding, “If we feel there’s been a violation of the constitution, we won’t rest on that. The nexus of this, going all the way back, is the astounding failure of the state to even deal with this. It goes back to the Engler administration decision not to prefund (retiree health care), to go on a pay-as-you-go basis. If (the MEA) operated our pension plan the way the state does, we’d be in jail.”

Staff Writer Nancy Nall Derringer has been a writer, editor and teacher in Metro Detroit for seven years, and was a co-founder and editor of, an early experiment in hyperlocal journalism. Before that, she worked for 20 years in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where she won numerous state and national awards for her work as a columnist for The News-Sentinel.

3 comments from Bridge readers.Add mine!

  1. Graydon DeCamp

    So the AFT’s Hecker doesn’t “want the people educating our children to fear outliving their pensions.” How about the people who pay the people educating their children? We worry every day about outliving OUR pensions, What makes teachers more special than, say, plumbers, reporters, nurses, salesmen or programmers?

  2. Paul

    It’s about time someone challenges those Repug A–holes in the legislature and their anti-middle class legislation. Oh, everyone is challenging them about all their legislation, damn good thing. We got rid of a few of them this election and we will get rid of even more in 2014 and 2016. As long as they follow ALEC’s lead in throttling the middle class we will fight them at every turn. The middle class and working poor refuse to be the scapegoats for the greed of corporate AmeriKa.

  3. Chromex

    As someone familiar with the legislative negotiating process, I will say that it is virtually certain that school district administrators pushing for changes had a seat at the table and were told in strong terms by the MEA , et al that an unacceptable deal would be challenged in court. So if all administrators were not told that they had to sit down and reach agreement with all affected parties or the contribution rate would be uncertain, someone simply wasn’t doing their job. Given that the Unions have been quite successful with other aspects of this in court ( ie the 3% health care contribution ) no one should be surprised. Reaching agreement is difficult and I am not commenting on the substantive aspects of the law, but the hard, time-consuming work of reaching agreement is rewarded by certainty.

Leave your comment...

Your email address will not be published.

Currently on Bridge

Yes, fixing the roads is an urgent need, but no, Proposal 1 isn’t the way to do it

Tax burden Prop 1 would impose too heavy to bear

Todd Courser hits Lansing like a cannonball

Will we be better off if Proposal 1 passes? Former treasurer says yes

An Earth Day pitch: When you hang up the phone for good, toss it the right way

Michigan’s roads affect everyone, so a 'yes' vote on Proposal 1 makes sense

‘Diplomacy Begins Here’ conference aims to illuminate international relations

What NOT to post on Facebook: Jokes about prison rape, when you’re in charge of preventing prison rape

A program to give young offenders a second chance is sending many to prison

Similar accounts in suit over alleged teen prison rapes pose challenge to state's defense

‘New fish’ ‒ One teen inmate’s account of alleged sexual assault

Early learning summit in June could impact Michigan’s children

Money Smart Week: Be penny wise, and pound savvier

Plan B or no Plan B, here’s what happens if road proposal fails

The political tale behind the selling of Proposal 1

A Bridge primer: Untangling the pothole promise of Proposal 1

Who supports, and opposes, Proposal 1

Let's rebuild Michigan through its greatest asset: its water

Could a public boarding school model work in Detroit?

Coalition supporting Detroit schools a step in the city’s road back

Chasing fads? Today’s schools are struggling too much for that

For one Michigan legislative staffer, an hour or two in the spotlight

A cull is a kill, and it’s an overreaction to deer ‘problem’

Lack of college guidance keeps poor and rural students from applying

Those who can, do – and get their hands ‘dirty’ in the process

For one Detroit mom, a complicated path to employment

Detroit by the numbers – the truth about poverty

Michigan should require dental screening for all children entering kindergarten

Where in the world is the Center for Michigan?

After two years, hard to call ACA anything but a success

Bridge’s Academic State Champs emphasizes all the wrong measurements

A graying population poses challenges for Up North counties

Up North, isolation impedes health care for seniors

Enbridge oil pipes and the Straits of Mackinac: Too risky to ignore

Not bigger government, but better services when Community Health and Human Services merge

Invest in non-partisan journalism.

Donate to The Center for Michigan. Find out why.