Enriching the pension and cutting take home pay for new teachers is hardly a way to retain them.

I expect that now that the powers that be got what they wanted out of the CFE lawsuit -- a massive increase in spending OUTSIDE NYC and earlier retirement with richer pensions inside, the budget for actual teaching will be cut back to what the state legislature considers appropriate.

We'll go back to the 1990s pattern. Teachers will come here, be incompenent for a year or two until they are trained, then move on as someplace else gets the benefit. Those who continue to be incompetent or demotivated will remain in the city schools.

When Klein talks about the difficulty of "firing" bad teachers, he's talking about getting their licenses taken away from them. That's hardly an issue in a revolving-door system, where a lot of talented people jump ship before tenure is granted or soon thereafter.

The new teachers are definately screwed to pay off those leaving, as they will be forced to contribute far more to the pension plan from day one whether they leave at 55 or not. It works out to be a financial loss for them. Those over 55 can walk out immediately without paying a dime; those older just pay a few years.

As for the city, the jury is out. The city has increased its pension contributions by $100 million, while cutting spending in the classroom. Bloomberg and the UFT claim that't it.

But based on what assumptions? I believe their assumptions on future investment returns continue to be excessive to justify the deals, as in the 2000 enhancement (described as free). Moreover, I don't think they included the cost of retiree health care -- they just ignored it. Paying more health care premiums for retirees means less for those working one way or the other.

So the answer is both -- the new teachers are screwed, and the children are screwed, and the taxpayers are screwed. And if the new teachers are screwed enough to affect the quality of teaching, the children are screwed again. But at least the state has taken steps to ensure that if the city is forced to hire incompetents, they will automatically be granted tenure.

BTW, I agree with your point about the next generation of teachers being screwed in favor of the current crop of soon-to-be retirees.

It was a committee of the whole, as it were.

A committee of the whole means something specific. It does not mean 104 out of the 148 members.

Under the proposed legislation, existing teachers get to retire at age 55 without paying much of anything.

But new teachers, the one we are looking to hire, will be forced to contribute far more to pension funds, reducing their take home pay. So much more, compared with the additional benefits they receive, that Bloomberg and the UFT claim that the city saves money be having less well off future teachers (I disagree).

This kind of "screw the newbie, flee to Florida" deal has been done over and over again. It's how we get the $25K cops.

That is why the deal was done in the dark. Imagine a public debate as to whether the city would be forced to hire future teachers at lower compensation levels, hurting education in the long run, or services for children would have to be slashed in the short run!

Your memory is a bit faulty. Lots of progressives were against the convention. Too much of a chance that a new constitution would be worse.

LL - Frankly they might be right. Who would nominate the members to a Constitutional convention?

Good news. So basically that implies that this is just political grandstanding on Dogan's part.

One of those times I'm glad legislators don't really get anything done!

Yes I remember it well. Former Governor Cuomo was pushing in favor of the convention.

But the public employee unions, lobbyists, certain business groups, and the legislature were opposed.

They raised lots of money and put out a series of ads, repeated over and over, that said that if there was a convention existing political interests would control who got elected to it, and we'd spend a whole lot of money and end up with something worse that before.

Literally, that's what they said. We've got you, and there is no way out.

It is the exact same as Brodsky's anti-CP argument that if the state and local govenrments get any more money for anything, he and the others would simply divert it to powerful organized interests no matter what.

It's a good argument.

I, of course, voted FOR the convention anyway even though I wasn't as knowledgable at the time how bad things were.

ARTICLE XIX

Amendments to Constitution

Section 1. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate and assembly... If the amendment or amendments as proposed or as amended shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, and the ayes and noes taken thereon, and referred to the next regular legislative session convening after the succeeding general election of members of the assembly, and shall be published for three months previous to the time of making such choice; and if in such legislative session, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit each proposed amendment or amendments to the people for approval in such manner and at such times as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution on the first day of January next after such approval.
2. At the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred fifty-seven, and every twentieth year thereafter, and also at such times as the legislature may by law provide, the question "Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution and amend the same?" shall be submitted to and decided by the electors of the state; and in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, the electors of every senate district of the state, as then organized, shall elect three delegates at the next ensuing general election, and the electors of the state voting at the same election shall elect fifteen delegates-at-large. The delegates so elected shall convene at the capitol on the first Tuesday of April next ensuing after their election, and shall continue their session until the business of such convention shall have been completed. Every delegate shall receive for his or her services the same compensation as shall then be annually payable to the members of the assembly and be reimbursed for actual traveling expenses, while the convention is in session, to the extent that a member of the assembly would then be entitled thereto in the case of a session of the legislature. A majority of the convention shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and no amendment to the constitution shall be submitted for approval to the electors as hereinafter provided, unless by the assent of a majority of all the delegates elected to the convention, the ayes and noes being entered on the journal to be kept. The convention shall have the power to appoint such officers, employees and assistants as it may deem necessary, and fix their compensation and to provide for the printing of its documents, journal, proceedings and other expenses of said convention. The convention shall determine the rules of its own proceedings, choose its own officers, and be the judge of the election, returns and qualifications of its members. In case of a vacancy, by death, resignation or other cause, of any district delegate elected to the convention, such vacancy shall be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates representing the district in which such vacancy occurs. If such vacancy occurs in the office of a delegate-at-large, such vacancy shall be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates-at-large. Any proposed constitution or constitutional amendment which shall have been adopted by such convention, shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state at the time and in the manner provided by such convention, at an election which shall be held not less than six weeks after the adjournment of such convention. Upon the approval of such constitution or constitutional amendments, in the manner provided in the last preceding section, such constitution or constitutional amendment, shall go into effect on the first day of January next after such approval.

Beyond that, though, a lot of assembly members and other elected officials did release statements or are on the record in some way about congestion pricing.

It may make sense to collect all these statements, quotations, etc. since virtually every one of them prefaced their opposition to congestion pricing with some words about how much they love mass transit, want transit to be funded adequately, hate traffic, are environmentalists, have a hybrid, never use a car, are off the grid, have a carbon footprint of one toe, etc.

This will be useful as we move to the next round -- getting $ for transit and beating back traffic using other tactics.

Anyone know why this was? Seems like we should have - we still have the same Albany dysfunction...

Yes, that may be correct- and you and I would know exactly where our respective representatives stand on CP. Instead, the ASSembly chose to leave us in the dark by closing the backroom doors, killing the proposal, and coming up with different lies to tell to cover their behinds.

There are extremely undemocratic powers that need to be stripped from the Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader and given back to the elected representatives.

We have a very good idea of where each assembly member was on this, using their public statements, etc. A vote would have merely confirmed that the majority of assembly members opposed congestion pricing, right?

Or do you think O'Donnell, Glick and the others would have come around just because their vote was recorded? Somehow, I think not.