Home ::

What at first appeared to be a routine instance of rule “tweaking” at an October 2009 Teacher Retirement System committee meeting was revealed as an attempt to change a long-standing TRS policy regarding an important benefit for active school employees. TCTA’s objection to the proposed rule prompted a lengthy discussion and eventual tabling of the item.

Currently, school employees can earn a full year of TRS credit for a partial year of service. The TRS rule requires that the employee work at least 90 days, or 4.5 calendar months, or a full semester of at least four calendar months. In looser terms, this provision generally allows an employee to retire or stop employment over the December break and receive a full year of TRS credit.


TRS staff hoped to streamline the rule to provide a single rule that would apply to all TRS members. In presenting the proposed change, staff noted that there could be differences in the number of days worked for employees under the “full semester” rule – for example, a college professor could get a year of credit for a semester that runs from Aug. 20 to Dec. 19, while a plant worker at the same university would have to work 4.5 months (from Sept. 1 to Jan. 15). Asserting that this was unfair, the TRS staff proposed that the rule be changed to award credit for 90 days of service.

Unfortunately, this could be problematic for both employees and employers. With a mandatory start date in late August, most school district calendars include fewer than 90 days in the fall semester. Requiring 90 days of service to receive TRS credit would require employees to work a few days into the following semester in order to earn the credit. Leaving employment during the winter break is not simply a perk for
employees, but is an important way to avoid disruption for administrators and students as well.

The rule proposal included an exemption for employees who were working their last semester, i.e., retiring at the break. But the exemption would not have allowed service credit for those employees who were leaving during the winter break to, for example, move with the intent to begin a job the next fall in a new district, or take temporary disability leave, or conveniently schedule maternity leave – or any of a number of reasons that an employee might leave mid-year aside from retirement.

TCTA was the only group to testify on the proposed rule change. Our first goal was to inform TRS trustees about the ramifications of the proposal, given that the stated purpose was only to simplify the rule. Board members did not seem to be aware that it would directly reduce benefits for a number of TRS members.

TCTA, bolstered by comments from TRS active employee representative Charlotte Clifton and other Board members, also educated trustees about the different reasons an employee might leave mid-year, and why such a transition should take place during a break in instruction rather than at the 90-day mark.

Several trustees argued that, as the rule was in the earliest stages and was being proposed for public comment (rather than actually being voted on at this meeting), it should go forward as written so that comments could be gathered on what would clearly be a controversial proposal. Others felt that, given the controversy and the Board’s hesitance to reduce benefits, staff should go back to the drawing board to consider other ways of streamlining the process. In the end, the item was tabled, and TCTA is communicating with TRS staff to follow up on any future proposals related to this benefit.

Updated: 01/13/10