Early retirement package
rejected by school board
Loss of experienced
teachers mentioned
as negative aspect
BY DAVE BENJAMIN
Staff Writer

ENGLISHTOWN — An early retirement incentive program created by the state of New Jersey has been rejected by the Board of Education.

Members of the Manalapan-Englishtown Regional School District board voted 7-0 to reject the program. Board members Lucille Benedetti and Michael Corvino were absent from the meeting.

"The board went through the provisions as presented by the state in unison with the our staffing and based upon the criteria set forth in the state provisions, it is not in the best interests of this district," said board President James Mumolie. "Educationally, it would impact on the seasoned staff that we have in our district."

Mumolie said it would also not be economically feasible for the K-8 district or the taxpayers in Manalapan and Englishtown.

"There are 147 staff members and this involves more than just teachers," said Joseph F. Passiment Jr., the board’s business administrator. "It includes teachers, administrators and others."

Passiment said there are 40 non-certificated staff members — secretaries, custodial workers, maintenance staff, bus drivers and assistants, and there are 107 certificated staff members, which includes teachers, administrators and those with certificates.

"The calculations were performed to see [what it would cost] if individuals elected to retire under this system," said Passiment. "If all 147 eligible persons retired, it would cost the school district $2,638,462 per year for 15 years. On top of that, the board would be liable for other costs, vacations and sick leave reimbursement. That would be another $671,000."

Passiment also said the board would be liable for three years of health benefits, which would cost $1.4 million.

Together, that is $4,739,755 that the board would be required to pay out in the first three years of the plan, Passiment said.

"Obviously, the board cannot afford to do that," the business administrator said. "In taking a look at the 147 people that are eligible, there is no one who would retire that we would not replace. It would be a one-for-one replacement."

The board would not benefit from this program, Passiment said.

"We would be losing valuable individ­uals who have a wealth of experience and expertise, and the cost down the road would be more than allowing the person to go the normal course toward retire­ment," said Passiment.

"This plan doesn’t only effect teach­ers," added Mumolie. "This goes from administrators down to custodians."

The board president described the pro­gram as a program put forth by Trenton politicians to garner the labor movement vote.

Mumolie said if every school district took advantage of this, there would not be enough teachers to fill classrooms, par­ticularly with a present shortage of teachers.

"When an employee retires pursuant to their contract, or their desire, the state picks up the retirement benefits," he said. "[Under the early retirement program], we, as a district, would be forced for three years to pick up the retirement."

Although a few school districts have opted to participate in the program, the board president said, the only type of dis­trict that would benefit would be a small district or one that is downsizing, where there is little growth.

"Why would I get rid of my senior teachers in a time when [government] pressure is being put on for achievement levels to be elevated?" he asked Mumolie. "To have freshmen staff come in and ex­pect them to provide experience and knowledge that a senior teacher would have is not logical. It doesn’t make sense.

"Educationally, it’s inappropriate," said Mumolie. "The only thing that I be­lieve this retirement thing is for is all the politicians in Trenton. They should take their own retirement and maybe the state would be better off. Educationally, it doesn’t make sense to get rid of your sea­soned teachers and hire [replacements] on step one. It just doesn’t make sense."