2007 House Bill 4799 (Limit dual state employee school pension/salary loophole ) (House Roll Call 174)
Passed in the House (58 to 45) on May 25, 2007, to revise a provision of the school employee pension law that allows an employee to “retire,” start collecting a pension, and then return to work for a school district, collecting a wage or salary while simultaneously collecting pension benefits. However, through 2009 a teacher would be allowed to collect both pension benefits and a salary if he or she was employed by a school district that has a teacher shortage. Note: In many if not most cases, this is currently the reason usually given to justify what has been characterized as “double dipping”. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 58 in favor, 45 opposed, and 7 not voting
(House Roll Call 174 at House Journal 53)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported 2007 House Bill 4799 (Limit dual state employee school pension/salary loophole ):
The following legislators opposed 2007 House Bill 4799 (Limit dual state employee school pension/salary loophole ):
The following legislators did not vote on 2007 House Bill 4799 (Limit dual state employee school pension/salary loophole ):
| Caswell (R) | Caul (R) | Cheeks (D) | Clack (D) | Garfield (R) | Moss (R) |
| Palmer (R) |
Most Recent Comments
1) "no vote explanation of" [by Admin003 on September 24, 2007]Senator Schauer, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurrence in the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole relative to House Bill No.4799 and Senate Bill Nos. 511 and 237.
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:
I voted "no," as did members of my caucus. That was a party-line vote on approving the report of the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole just adopted two bills. One bill was 177 pages long that amended the school aid act, full of cuts to a number of school programs that are very critical to the future of our state. Senate Bill No.511 was a 777-page bill. Both of these bills just landed on our desks. That was an omnibus budget bill that, combined with the other bill, provided for $900 million in cuts, colleagues, to our state--cuts which would hurt our future.
I was glad to vote "no" because this is clearly the wrong direction for our state. Unfortunately, this does nothing to move this process forward where we are striving for bipartissan agreement.
Reply
Why don't you ask your legislators to take a cut in pay and benifits as well as revise their pension. It seems to me they had something to do with the buget problem in michigan. Schools are being held hostage to a mismanaged buget. When schools become creative and find ways to save money within the law, some of the legislators want to change the law. Aren't you doing the same thing, by finding ways to get more money from your tax payers with out calling it a tax?It seems to me spending time trying to change laws , would be better spent on fixing the real problem;How you manage the budget. Again , I ask why haven't you taken a pay cut? If you work for the people why are you doing better than the people?
Reply
How does an inexperienced person get experience when there are 500 quasi-retired experienced administrators doing "the" job. By the way, these inexperienced individuals have paid thousands of dollars and spent hundreds if not thousands of hours for advanced graduate degrees at the State's Colleges. All for the chance to improve their lives and their communities. Retirees, you have had your time, please allow others a chance for theirs.
Reply
View Full Conversation
