 |
Director's NoteJohn Roberts |
First item is a green action. I have been told that since many people exclusively use the on-line SSEC project list they would be more than happy to not receive a paper project list every month to recycle. Since you can now easily print a copy of the project list off of our web site we will no longer automatically print project lists for everyone. However, if you would still like to receive a printed project list every month please send an email to Soniya Patel indicating that and we will provide them. (Thank you for the suggestions, Claire and Fred)
The next item is a summary of the Rehired Annuitant issue that has been in the newspapers for a couple of weeks, often labeled “double dipping.” As a rehired annuitant, as well as a Center administrator, I have followed this activity quite closely. A “Rehired Annuitant” is someone who retires from a position covered by the State of Wisconsin Employee Trust (ETF) fund and then is rehired into a position also covered by the ETF. This activity was set off by an Administration Officer at the UW-Green Bay who retired and was rehired into his old position and supposedly had an employment contract in place before he left.
This action, if true, violates the ETF rules and guidelines that preclude having a written agreement to return to your position when you retire. The penalty for breaking this rule is that your retirement annuity is suspended until you really retire. The simple solution would be to enforce the rule. But many politicians believe, rather than enforcing the existing rules, they need to write new rules. So, there is now a bill in the State Assembly making it illegal for a retiree to work 50% or more under an ETF eligible position and still collect their annuity. Another bill would require that rehiring annuitants not happen until six months after they retire. These bills are solutions searching for a problem. None of the editorials or interviews produced one shred of evidence that there was a problem to be solved. The first logical step in problem solving is to define the problem. The legislature, the newspapers, and the letter to the editor writers have not been able to do this before the solutions started flying.
The simply stated facts are:
“Double Dipping” is defined as collecting a “State Pension” and a “State Paycheck.”
The annuity annuitants receive was earned over a lifetime of service, it belongs to the employee, and it is NOT State money. (Very much the same as a 401K or IRA.)
Rehired annuitants are not eligible for employer provided health insurance, so they cost less.
Rehired annuitants have no guarantee of future employment of any length, so if budgets drop they can be off the payroll in a day.
“Double dipping” is a derogatory term and would not be allowed in polite company if applied to a specific gender, race or religion. It is somehow acceptable to use this language to describe the action of state employees. “Dipping” refers to dipping into the public trough, the strong implication being that we don’t work hard for our money. It is interesting that none of these critics are referring to retired military people now working for the state as “double dipping”.
There is NO Harm to the ETF funds caused by rehired annuitants. It makes zero difference to the ETF if a retiree chooses to work at McDonalds or the UW after they retire. After they return to work, neither contributes to the ETF and neither receives a reduced annuity pay out. The ETF was somehow unable to explain this to the newspaper reporter.
The same legislature and the Governor’s office that supported the UW-Madison’s request for a more flexible personnel system so we can more effectively compete Nationally and Internationally for staff and research dollars, is now proposing to move in the opposite direction by implementing a law against hiring back people with the specific talents in research, technology or administration that we need to compete.
The legislation, as currently written, would even apply to rehired annuitants who are Principal Investigators paid entirely on Federal fund that only they can bring in to the State of Wisconsin. These folks not only support themselves 100% but also support many of the rest of us.
Yes, this path sounds eerily like the path to furloughs. Nobody in the Governor’s office or anywhere else could explain the logic of furloughing people when it cost the State money to do so, but they did it anyway.
Now my hope is that someone can either kill this bill or at the very least modify it so it does NOT apply to those rehired annuitants funded on non-state money.
The SSEC position on rehired annuitants is that they are a valuable resource to the Center and are critical contributors to our continuing success. This message has been passed up to University Senior Management and it was understood and well received.
I hope this helps to clarify.
Cheers!
