| In 1989 our original choice was totally taken away from us. On the last day of the session an amendment was attached to a bill that was over 100-pages long that eliminated the Variable Plan; all money that a teacher had in the Variable plan was �mandatorily� transferred to the High 5 Formula Plan--the bill passed. The Pension Commission had not discussed the amendment and the bill did not have a hearing. Those of us who chose a plan other than the IMP had only one option, no input, no restitution, no added benefits, and no �Savings Clause.� Our �irrevocable� choice was gone. We were treated differently from those IMP teachers that were teaching beside us in 1968-69. All teachers that taught during the 1968-69 school year paid in the same percentage of their salaries to TRA over the years, but only one of the five groups--those that did not return their ballot or those that choose the IMP plan-- received two pension choices. Those who currently get to choose IMP at retirement will receive an average of $1,000 more per month for life, with additional cost of living adjustments. We have examined all correspondence from 1973 to 1999 from the Teachers Retirement Association to teachers (including a 1994 handbook). Nowhere do these terms appear: The bill that we are proposing would not use any general state funds, but would come from the TRA surplus that these senior TRA members have contributed to over the past 30 years. |
| Grrr!! |
| � �Improved Money Purchase.� Our teachers did not know that the IMP pension was even still available. � �Savings Clause.� We did not know that the IMP teachers got a second retirement option. � "20% increase." We did not know that the IMP plan included a 20% increase. |
 |
 |