An Early Retirement Incentive Exists! But, what does it say?
Seriously, can you read this?
Please tell us what it says.
This is from the New York State budget, just passed, or in the process of passing. Here’s the source.
9 Section 1. This act enacts into law components of legislation that
10 would enable the city of New York and the board of education of the city
11 of New York to offer a temporary retirement incentive to their employ-
12 ees, as well as to provide an age 55/25 years temporary incentive for
13 certain public employees. Each component is wholly contained within a
14 Subpart identified as Subparts A and B. The effective date for each
15 particular provision contained within such Subpart is set forth in the
16 last section of such Subpart. Any provision in any section contained
17 within a Subpart, including the effective date of the Subpart, which
18 makes reference to a section "of this act", when used in connection with
19 that particular component, shall be deemed to mean and refer to the
20 corresponding section of the Subpart in which it is found, unless noted
21 otherwise. Section three of this act contains a severability clause for
22 all provisions contained in each Subpart of this Part. Section four of
23 this act sets forth the general effective date of this Part.
24 § 2. Legislative findings. The legislature finds and declares that the
25 retirement benefits provided for in this act are designed to achieve
26 cost-savings for public employers and to avoid layoffs of public employ-
27 ees in this time of fiscal need. Therefore, the retirement incentive
28 benefit provided for in Subpart A of this act and the age 55/25 years
29 retirement benefit provided for in Subpart B of this act are intended
30 only to be temporary in nature for employees who are eligible to receive
31 and qualify for the applicable benefit during the applicable time peri-
32 ods specified within each Subpart. Further, nothing in this act shall be
33 construed to create an expectation of a future or continuing retirement
34 benefit for any public employee who is not eligible to receive and qual-
35 ify for the retirement benefits in this act during the applicable time
36 periods.
37 SUBPART A
38 Section 1. Definitions. As used in this act, unless the context clear-
39 ly requires otherwise:
40 a. "Retirement system" means the New York city teachers' retirement
41 system, the New York city board of education retirement system or the
42 New York city employees' retirement system, exclusive of the retirement
43 plans established pursuant to sections 13-156 and 13-157 of the adminis-
44 trative code of the city of New York.
45 b. "Teachers' retirement system" means the New York city teachers'
46 retirement system.
47 c. (a) "Participating employer" means the city of New York or the
48 board of education of the city of New York.
49 (b) "Educational employer" means a participating employer which is the
50 board of education of the city of New York.
51 d. "Eligible employee" means a person who is a member of a retirement
52 system who is an employee of the city of New York or the board of educa-
S. 2509--C 184 A. 3009--C
1 tion of the city of New York, but such term shall not include the
2 following persons:
3 (a) elected officials, judges or justices appointed to or serving in a
4 court of record;
5 (b) chief administrative officers of employers which participate in a
6 teachers' retirement system; and
7 (c) appointed members of boards or commissions any of whose members
8 are appointed by the governor or by another public officer or body;
9 e. "Eligible title" means any title where a certain number of posi-
10 tions in that title, as identified by agency, department, work location
11 or appointing authority, as the case may be, would otherwise be identi-
12 fied for layoff but for this act because of economy, consolidation or
13 abolition of functions, curtailment of activities or otherwise. However,
14 an eligible title can also include a title as identified by an agency,
15 department, work location or appointing authority in which positions
16 would not be eliminated but into which employees in titles affected by
17 layoff can be transferred or reassigned pursuant to the civil service
18 law, rule or regulation. The determination of eligible titles shall be
19 made by the chief executive officer of the city of New York or other
20 comparable official of a participating employer.
21 f. "Active service" means service while being paid on the payroll,
22 provided that (a) a leave of absence with pay shall be deemed active
23 service; (b) other approved leave without pay not to exceed twelve weeks
24 prior to the commencement of the designated open period; and (c) the
25 period of time subsequent to a June school term and on or before August
26 31 of the year for which an open period is designated for a teacher (or
27 other employee employed on a school-year basis) who is otherwise in
28 active service on the effective date of this act shall be deemed active
29 service.
30 g. "Open period" means the period beginning with the commencement date
31 as defined in subdivision h of this section and shall not be more than
32 ninety days nor less than thirty days in length, as specified by the
33 participating employer; provided however that any such period shall not
34 extend beyond October 31, 2021 for participating employers, and not
35 beyond August 31, 2021 for educational employers. For the purposes of
36 retirement pursuant to this act, a service retirement application must
37 be filed with the appropriate retirement system not less than fourteen
38 days prior to the effective date of retirement to become effective,
39 unless a shorter period of time is permitted under law.
40 h. "Commencement date" means the first day the retirement incentive
41 authorized by this act shall be made available, which shall mean a date
42 or dates on or after the effective date of this act to be determined by
43 a participating employer. The chief executive officer or other compara-
44 ble official of a participating employer shall notify the heads of the
45 appropriate retirement systems of the dates of each open period prior to
46 the commencement dates of such periods.
47 § 2. The determination of whether a title shall be considered eligible
48 shall consider whether the reduction of a specific number of positions
49 within a title would unacceptably:
50 a. Directly result in a reduction of the level of service required or
51 mandated to protect and care for clients of a participating employer or
52 to assure public health and safety;
53 b. Endanger the health or safety of employees of a participating
54 employer; or
55 c. Clearly result in a loss of significant revenue to a participating
56 employer or result in substantially increased overtime or contractual
S. 2509--C 185 A. 3009--C
1 costs. However, any title may be determined eligible if the vacancies
2 created can be controlled by the use of transfer or reassignment
3 provisions of the civil service law, rules or regulations or other
4 deployment of employees.
5 § 3. a. Eligibility for inclusion in the retirement incentive provided
6 by section six of this act shall be determined by seniority for employ-
7 ees of a participating employer; seniority shall mean the date of
8 original permanent appointment in the civil service of the city adjusted
9 to include veteran's credits for those entitled to receive such credits
10 pursuant to sections 80, 80-a and 85, if applicable, of the civil
11 service law, as established in the official records of the New York city
12 department of citywide administrative services, regardless of the juris-
13 dictional classification of the position or the status of the incumbent.
14 b. All eligible employees serving in eligible titles desiring to avail
15 themselves of the retirement incentive provided by section six of this
16 act shall provide written notice to his or her employer on or before the
17 twenty-first day preceding the end of the open period. Failure to
18 provide such written notice shall render the employee ineligible for the
19 retirement incentive provided by this act.
20 § 4. a. On or before June 30, 2021, a participating employer may elect
21 to provide its employees the retirement incentive authorized by this act
22 by (a) the enactment of a local law, or (b) in the case of a participat-
23 ing employer which is not so empowered to act by local law, by the
24 resolution of its governing body; provided however, no local law or
25 resolution enacted pursuant to this section shall in any manner super-
26 sede any local charter, provided further that, for an educational
27 employer such election must be made by May 31, 2021. The local law or
28 resolution shall specify the commencement date of the program and the
29 length of the open period or periods. A copy of such law or resolution
30 shall be filed with the appropriate retirement system or systems, and,
31 if applicable, on forms provided by such system. The local law or resol-
32 ution shall be accompanied by the affidavit of the chief executive offi-
33 cer or other comparable official certifying to the information contained
34 in subdivision c of this section.
35 b. The commencement date of an open period for eligible employees of a
36 retirement system of the city of New York who elect retirement benefits
37 pursuant to this section may be up to one hundred eighty days after the
38 end of the open period for other eligible employees, if requested by
39 such system.
40 c. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the benefits provided
41 by this act shall not be made available to any person who (a) has
42 received any retirement incentive authorized by any provision of state
43 law, or (b) who receives, has received or is eligible to receive a
44 payment in a lump sum or in another form from a retirement incentive
45 pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement or by
46 other arrangement with his or her employer, unless such person files a
47 written statement with his or her employer, a copy of which shall be
48 forwarded to the appropriate retirement system, that he or she agrees to
49 waive any right to such payment. If a participating employer has offered
50 a retirement incentive pursuant to the provisions of a collective
51 bargaining agreement or by other arrangement, such employer shall
52 prepare, and file with each retirement system, a list containing the
53 names and social security numbers of all persons described in this
54 subdivision. The employer is authorized, however, to exempt persons in
55 its employ from the provisions of paragraph (b) of this subdivision.
S. 2509--C 186 A. 3009--C
1 Such exemption shall be made part of the election made pursuant to this
2 section.
3 § 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any eligible employee
4 serving in an eligible title who:
5 a. has been continuously in the active service of a participating
6 employer prior to the commencement date of the applicable open period;
7 b. files an application for service retirement that is effective
8 during the open period; and
9 c. is otherwise eligible for a service retirement as of the effective
10 date of the application for retirement shall be entitled to the retire-
11 ment incentive provided in section six of this act. If not otherwise
12 eligible for a service retirement, the following person shall be deemed
13 to satisfy the eligibility condition of this section: a person who is at
14 least age fifty with ten or more years service as of the effective date
15 of retirement (other than a member of a retirement plan which provides
16 for half-pay pension upon completion of twenty-five years or less
17 service without regard to age); or a member of a retirement plan which
18 provides for half-pay pension upon completion of twenty-five years of
19 service without regard to age who has not accrued, excluding additional
20 credit granted pursuant to this act, the minimum number of years of
21 service required to retire with an allowance equal to fifty percent of
22 final average salary under such plan, but has, with the inclusion of the
23 additional credit provided under this act, accrued such number of years
24 of credit.
25 § 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an eligible employee
26 serving in an eligible title who is a member of a retirement system and
27 who is entitled to a retirement incentive pursuant to section five of
28 this act shall receive a retirement incentive of one-twelfth of a year
29 of additional retirement credit for each year of pension service credit-
30 ed as of the date of retirement, up to a maximum of three years of
31 retirement service credit at the time of retirement, provided, however,
32 that service credit provided under the provisions of sections 902 and
33 911 of the retirement and social security law shall not be included when
34 calculating the additional retirement credit awarded pursuant to this
35 act. For the New York city teachers' retirement system, the New York
36 city employees' retirement system and the New York city board of educa-
37 tion retirement system such incentive shall be available for all
38 purposes, including fulfilling the qualifying service requirements of
39 plan A and C, if applicable.
40 An eligible employee who is covered by the provisions of article 15 of
41 the retirement and social security law shall retire under the provisions
42 of article 15 of the retirement and social security law. The amount of
43 such benefit for an eligible employee who is covered by article 15 of
44 the retirement and social security law and retires under the provisions
45 of this section (other than a member with thirty or more years of
46 service in the New York city employees' retirement system, the New York
47 city teachers' retirement system, or the New York city board of educa-
48 tion retirement system) shall be reduced by six percent for each of the
49 first two years by which retirement precedes age sixty-two, plus a
50 further reduction of three percent for each year by which retirement
51 precedes age sixty. Such reduction shall be prorated for partial years.
52 The amount of such benefit for an eligible employee with thirty or more
53 years of service who is a member of the New York city employees' retire-
54 ment system, the New York city teachers' retirement system, or the New
55 York city board of education retirement system, or an eligible employee
56 who is a participant in the optional twenty-five year early retirement
S. 2509--C 187 A. 3009--C
1 program for certain New York city members governed by section 604-c of
2 the retirement and social security law, as added by chapter 96 of the
3 laws of 1995 or a twenty-five year participant in the age fifty-five
4 retirement program governed by section 604-i of the retirement and
5 social security law, with twenty-five or more years of service and who
6 is covered by article 15 of the retirement and social security law shall
7 be reduced by five percent for each year by which retirement pursuant to
8 this section precedes age fifty-five. The amount of such benefit for an
9 eligible New York city employee with five or more years of service and
10 who is a participant in the age fifty-seven retirement program governed
11 by section 604-d of the retirement and social security law shall be
12 reduced by one-thirtieth for the first two years by which retirement
13 precedes age fifty-seven plus a further reduction of one-twentieth for
14 each year by which retirement precedes age fifty-five. Such reduction
15 shall be prorated for partial years. There shall be no reduction for an
16 eligible New York city employee in a physically taxing position with
17 twenty-five or more years of service and who is a participant (i) in the
18 optional twenty-five year early retirement program for certain members
19 governed by section 604-c of the retirement and social security law, as
20 added by chapter 96 of the laws of 1995, or (ii) in the age fifty-seven
21 retirement program governed by section 604-d of the retirement and
22 social security law.
23 An eligible employee serving in an eligible title who is covered by
24 article 11 of the retirement and social security law shall retire under
25 the provisions of such article. There shall be no reduction in retire-
26 ment benefit provided that such employee retires with thirty or more
27 years of service at age fifty-five or older. The amount of such benefit
28 for an eligible employee covered by article 11 of the retirement and
29 social security law other than a member of a teachers' retirement system
30 with thirty or more years of service, a participant in the optional age
31 fifty-five improved benefit retirement program for certain New York city
32 employees governed by section 445-d of the retirement and social securi-
33 ty law, as added by chapter 96 of the laws of 1995, with twenty-five or
34 more years of service, or a participant in the optional age fifty-five
35 retirement program for New York city teachers and certain other members
36 governed by section 445-i of the retirement and social security law,
37 with twenty-five or more years of service, shall be reduced by six
38 percent for each of the first two years by which retirement pursuant to
39 this section precedes age sixty-two, plus a further reduction of three
40 percent for each year by which retirement pursuant to this section
41 precedes age sixty, provided, however, the foregoing reduction shall not
42 apply in any case where an eligible employee can retire pursuant to a
43 plan which permits retirement for service with immediate payability,
44 exclusive of this act, prior to the age of fifty-five. Such reduction
45 shall be prorated for partial years. The amount of such benefit for an
46 eligible employee who is a member of a teachers' retirement system with
47 thirty or more years of service, a participant in the optional age
48 fifty-five improved benefit retirement program for certain New York city
49 employees governed by section 445-d of the retirement and social securi-
50 ty law, as added by chapter 96 of the laws of 1995, with twenty-five or
51 more years of service, or a participant in the optional age fifty-five
52 retirement program for New York city teachers and certain other members
53 governed by section 445-i of the retirement and social security law,
54 with twenty-five or more years of service and who is covered by article
55 11 of the retirement and social security law shall be reduced by five
56 percent for each year by which retirement pursuant to this section
S. 2509--C 188 A. 3009--C
1 precedes age fifty-five. Such reduction shall be prorated for partial
2 years. There shall be no reduction for an eligible New York city employ-
3 ee in a physically taxing position and who is a participant in the
4 optional age fifty-five improved benefit retirement program for certain
5 New York city employees governed by section 445-d of the retirement and
6 social security law, as added by chapter 96 of the laws of 1995, with
7 twenty-five or more years of service.
8 An eligible employee serving in an eligible title who is not covered
9 by article 11 or 15 of the retirement and social security law shall
10 retire under the provisions of the plan by which he or she is covered.
11 The amount of such benefit shall be reduced by five percent for each
12 year by which retirement pursuant to this section precedes age fifty-
13 five, provided, however, the foregoing reduction shall not apply in any
14 case where an eligible employee can retire pursuant to a plan which
15 permits retirement for service with immediate payability, exclusive of
16 this act, prior to the age of fifty-five. Such reduction shall be
17 prorated for partial years.
18 An eligible employee serving in an eligible title who participates in
19 a retirement plan which provides for a retirement allowance equal to
20 fifty percent of final average salary upon the completion of twenty-five
21 years of service without regard to age and who is otherwise eligible to
22 retire shall retire under the provisions of such plan. Such employee
23 shall, at the time of retirement, be credited with one-twelfth of a year
24 of additional retirement service credit for each year of service credit-
25 ed under such plan as of the date of retirement, up to a maximum of
26 three years of retirement service credit. If such employee has not
27 accrued, excluding additional credit granted pursuant to this act, the
28 minimum number of years of service required to retire with an allowance
29 equal to fifty percent of final average salary under such plan, but has,
30 with the inclusion of the additional credit provided under this act,
31 accrued such number of years of credit, the benefit payable shall be the
32 percentage of final average salary that would ordinarily be applicable
33 to such individual upon retirement with such amount of credit (including
34 incentive credit), reduced by five per centum per year for each year by
35 which the number of years of service otherwise required to retire with
36 an allowance equal to fifty percent of final average salary under such
37 plan exceeds the amount of service credited to such employee under such
38 plan at retirement (excluding the additional retirement incentive
39 service credit provided pursuant to this act). Such reduction shall be
40 prorated for partial years.
41 § 7. a. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any termination
42 pay or leave arising from accrued sick leave or accrued annual leave for
43 an eligible employee who has elected the retirement incentive provided
44 by this act and who is a member of the New York city teachers' retire-
45 ment system employed by the board of education of the city of New York
46 shall be paid in three equal installments during a twenty-four month
47 period commencing on such eligible employee's effective date of retire-
48 ment.
49 b. An employee of the city of New York who retires under the retire-
50 ment incentive provided by this act, who is eligible for terminal leave
51 pursuant to an applicable collective bargaining agreement or a personnel
52 policy or rule or retirement leave pursuant to section 3107 of the
53 education law or who has an accrued annual leave balance on the effec-
54 tive date of retirement shall be paid in three equal installments two
55 months, fourteen months and twenty-four months following such eligible
56 employee's effective date of retirement.
S. 2509--C 189 A. 3009--C
1 § 8. a. A participating employer, if it elects the retirement incen-
2 tive provided by this act shall be required to demonstrate the savings
3 of their election by either eliminating positions vacated as a result of
4 an eligible employee in an eligible title receiving the incentive
5 provided by section six of this act or demonstrating a compensation
6 savings such that the total amount of base salary paid for the two-year
7 period subsequent to the effective date of retirement for such eligible
8 employees in eligible titles to new hires, if any, who otherwise would
9 not have been hired by such employer after the effective date of this
10 act but for the retirement incentive provided herein shall be no more
11 than one-half of the total amount of base salary that would have been
12 paid to such eligible employees from their date of retirement for such
13 two-year period. A participating employer may also demonstrate savings,
14 however, by identifying a vacant position into which another employee
15 can be appointed, transferred, or reassigned pursuant to the civil
16 service law, rules or regulations, in which case the former position of
17 the employee so appointed, transferred, or reassigned shall be elimi-
18 nated. A participating employer shall make available its plans for
19 achieving the savings described herein.
20 b. The New York city department of citywide administrative services
21 shall prepare a report designating the title, grade level, salary, and
22 classification, according to appointing authority, (i) of each position
23 which is eliminated pursuant to subdivision a of this section, (ii) of
24 each position into which another employee was appointed, transferred, or
25 reassigned and the former position of such employee, and (iii) of each
26 position which is eliminated as a result of an appointment, transfer or
27 reassignment referred to in paragraph (ii) of this subdivision. Such
28 report shall be available no later than ninety days after the last date
29 of the open period related to such positions.
30 § 9. Nothing in this act shall be used to provide benefits that shall
31 exceed the limits contained in section 415 of the internal revenue code.
32 Provided, however, any service retirement benefit which has been reduced
33 because of section 415 of the internal revenue code shall be increased
34 when (and consistent with) the dollar limits in section 415 of the
35 internal revenue code are adjusted by the internal revenue service for
36 cost of living increases. Such increases shall not increase the benefit
37 in excess of the service retirement benefit otherwise payable.
38 § 10. Any eligible employee who retires pursuant to the provisions of
39 this act and enters or reenters public service as defined in subdivision
40 e of section 210 of the retirement and social security law and joins or
41 rejoins any public retirement system of the state shall if the addi-
42 tional benefit was provided pursuant to: (a) section six of this act,
43 forfeit the additional benefit authorized by this act at the time of his
44 or her subsequent retirement; or (b) repay to the participating employer
45 such additional contribution together with the appropriate interest as
46 determined by the appropriate retirement system.
47 § 11. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the service
48 retirement benefit of a member of a retirement system is subject to a
49 maximum retirement benefit, the additional benefit authorized by this
50 act will be computed by multiplying the final average salary times the
51 number of years of service credit granted by section six of this act
52 times the benefit fraction of the plan under which such member retires.
53 § 12. The provisions of section 430 of the retirement and social secu-
54 rity law shall not apply to any benefit or benefit improvement provided
55 by this act.
S. 2509--C 190 A. 3009--C
1 § 13. The pension benefit costs of section six of this act shall be
2 paid by participating employers as provided by applicable law for each
3 retirement system covered by this act over a period not to exceed five
4 years commencing in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which
5 this act shall have become a law.
6 § 14. Where an employee is eligible to receive the benefit authorized
7 under section six and the retirement benefit provided for under section
8 five of subpart B of this act, such employee may elect a section under
9 which he or she will participate. In no event shall the benefits
10 provided for in section six of this act be received by any employee in
11 conjunction with the benefits of section five of subpart B of this act.
12 § 15. This act shall take effect immediately.
13 SUBPART B
14 Section 1. Definitions. As used in this act, unless the context clear-
15 ly requires otherwise:
16 a. "Retirement system" means the New York city teachers' retirement
17 system, the New York city board of education retirement system or the
18 New York city employees' retirement system, exclusive of the retirement
19 plans established pursuant to sections 13-156 and 13-157 of the adminis-
20 trative code of the city of New York.
21 b. "Teachers' retirement system" means the New York city teachers'
22 retirement system.
23 c. (a) "Participating employer" means the city of New York or the
24 board of education of the city of New York.
25 (b) "Educational employer" means a participating employer which is the
26 board of education of the city of New York.
27 d. "Eligible employee" means a person who is a member of a retirement
28 system of the city of New York and who is an employee of the city of New
29 York or the board of education of the city of New York who has attained
30 age fifty-five and has at least twenty-five years of creditable service
31 in a retirement system, but such term shall not include the following
32 persons:
33 (a) elected officials, judges or justices appointed to or serving in
34 court of record;
35 (b) chief administrative officers of employers which participate in a
36 teachers' retirement system; and
37 (c) appointed members of boards or commissions any of whose members
38 are appointed by the governor or by another public officer or body.
39 e. "Active service" means service while being paid on the payroll,
40 provided that (a) a leave of absence with pay shall be deemed active
41 service; (b) other approved leave without pay not to exceed twelve weeks
42 prior to the commencement of the designated open period; and (c) the
43 period of time subsequent to a June school term and on or before August
44 31 of the year for which an open period is designated for a teacher (or
45 other employee employed on a school-year basis) who is otherwise in
46 active service on the effective date of this act shall be deemed active
47 service.
48 f. "Open period" means the period beginning with the commencement date
49 as defined in subdivision g of this section and shall be ninety days in
50 length; provided however that there shall be only one such open period
51 and any such period shall not extend beyond October 31, 2021 for partic-
52 ipating employers. For educational employers who make election after
53 April 1, 2021, the open period shall begin immediately after such
54 election, and shall not extend beyond August 31, 2021. For the purposes
S. 2509--C 191 A. 3009--C
1 of retirement pursuant to this act, a service retirement application
2 must be filed with the appropriate retirement system not less than four-
3 teen days prior to the effective date of retirement to become effective,
4 unless a shorter period of time is permitted under law.
5 g. "Commencement date" means the first day the retirement benefit
6 mandated by this act shall be made available, which shall mean a date or
7 dates on or after the effective date of this act for participating
8 employers. The chief executive officer or other comparable official of
9 a participating employer shall notify the head of the appropriate
10 retirement system of the date of the open periods prior to the commence-
11 ment dates of such periods.
12 § 2. A participating employer, if it elects to participate pursuant to
13 section three of this act shall establish a commencement date for the
14 retirement benefit established under section five of this act in the
15 following manner: (a) for participating employers that are not the city
16 of New York, its governing body shall adopt a resolution establishing a
17 commencement date; and (b) for the city of New York the chief executive
18 officer shall issue an executive order establishing such commencement
19 date, provided, however, no executive order shall in any manner super-
20 sede any local charter. A copy of any such executive order or resolution
21 establishing a commencement date shall be filed with the appropriate
22 retirement system or systems, and, if applicable, on forms provided by
23 such system. The executive order or resolution shall be accompanied by
24 the affidavit of the chief executive officer or other comparable offi-
25 cial of a participating employer certifying the commencement date.
26 § 3. a. On or before June 30, 2021, a participating employer may elect
27 to provide its employees the retirement incentive authorized by this act
28 by the enactment of a local law or adoption of a resolution provided
29 however, no local law or resolution enacted or adopted pursuant to this
30 section shall in any manner supersede any local charter, provided
31 further that, for an educational employer such election must be made by
32 May 31, 2021. A copy of such law or resolution shall be filed with the
33 appropriate retirement system or systems, and, if applicable, on forms
34 provided by such system. The local law shall be accompanied by the affi-
35 davit of the chief executive officer or other comparable official of a
36 participating employer certifying the validity of such law.
37 b. The commencement date of an open period for eligible employees of a
38 retirement system of the city of New York who elect retirement benefits
39 pursuant to this section may be up to one hundred eighty days after the
40 end of the open period for other eligible employees, if requested by
41 such system.
42 § 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any eligible employee
43 who (a) has been continuously in the active service of a participating
44 employer prior to the commencement date of the applicable open period,
45 (b) files an application for service retirement that is effective during
46 the open period, and (c) is otherwise eligible for a service retirement
47 as of the effective date of the application for retirement shall be
48 entitled to the retirement benefit provided in section five of this act.
49 § 5. a. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an eligible
50 employee who is: (a) a member of a retirement system and (b) who is
51 entitled to a retirement benefit pursuant to section four of this act
52 may retire during the open period without the reduction of his or her
53 retirement benefit that would otherwise be imposed by article 11 or 15
54 of the retirement and social security law if he or she has attained the
55 age of fifty-five and has completed at least twenty-five or more years
56 of creditable service. An eligible employee who is covered by the
S. 2509--C 192 A. 3009--C
1 provisions of articles 11 and 15 of the retirement and social security
2 law shall retire under the provisions of articles 11 and 15 of the
3 retirement and social security law.
4 b. A participating employer may deny participation in the retirement
5 benefit provided by subdivision a of this section if such employer makes
6 a determination that the employee holds a position that is deemed crit-
7 ical to the maintenance of public health and safety.
8 c. Where an employee is eligible for the retirement benefit under this
9 section and the retirement incentive authorized pursuant to section six
10 of subpart A of this act, such employee shall elect a section under
11 which he or she will participate. The benefits provided by subdivision a
12 of this section shall not be conditioned upon a participating employer
13 making the benefits of section six of subpart A of this act available to
14 employees in their employ. Further, the benefits provided by subdivision
15 a of this section shall not be available in conjunction with the bene-
16 fits of section six of subpart A of this act.
17 d. The action of a participating employer in denying the retirement
18 benefit provided for in subdivision a of this section to any individual
19 shall be subject to review in the manner provided for in article 78 of
20 the civil practice law and rules. Such action for review pursuant to
21 article 78 of the civil practice law and rules shall only be commenced
22 by the individual that was denied the retirement benefit provided by
23 subdivision a of this section.
24 e. After making any such determination under subdivision b of this
25 section the participating employer shall notify the appropriate retire-
26 ment system or teachers' retirement system of its determination.
27 § 6. The pension benefit costs of section five of this act shall be
28 paid by participating employers as provided by applicable law for each
29 retirement system covered by this act over a period not to exceed five
30 years commencing in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which
31 this act shall have become a law.
32 § 7. This act shall take effect immediately.
33 § 3. Severability clause. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivi-
34 sion, section or part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of
35 competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
36 impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in
37 its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section
38 or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judg-
39 ment shall have been rendered. It is hereby declared to be the intent of
40 the legislature that this act would have been enacted even if such
41 invalid provisions had not been included herein.
42 § 4. This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however, that
43 the applicable effective date of Subparts A and B of this act shall be
44 as specifically set forth in the last section of such Subparts.
FISCAL NOTE.--Pursuant to Legislative Law, Section 50:
SUMMARY OF BILL: This proposed legislation, as it relates to the New
York City Retirement Systems and Pension Funds (NYCRS), would provide
for a temporary Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERI Program) to
allow certain members of the New York City Employees' Retirement System
(NYCERS), the New York City Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), and the
New York City Board of Education Retirement System (BERS), who are
employees of the City of New York (City) or the New York City Department
of Education (DOE) and meet enumerated criteria, to elect immediate
retirement with enhanced benefits.
The ERI Program consists of two parts and is contingent upon the
employer's election to participate in the Program. Part A would provide
S. 2509--C 193 A. 3009--C
to eligible members, determined by title, seniority, and enumerated
policy considerations, an additional service credit. Part B would remove
the application of early retirement reduction factors for qualifying
members. The benefits of the respective Parts cannot be combined.
Eligible NYCRS members would have anywhere from 30 to 90 days in an
open period to elect and retire under Part A or within a 90-day open
period following the commencement date to retire under Part B of the ERI
Program. Multiple open periods, not to exceed 180 days from the end of
an open period for other employees, may be requested by NYCRS. Should
the City or the DOE elect to participate in the ERI Program provided by
this Act, it would be required to demonstrate the savings related to the
election.
A member is eligible to participate in Part A of the ERI Program if he
or she:
* Is otherwise eligible for service retirement;
* Is at least age 50 with 10 or more years of service and is not in
a plan which permits retirement at half-pay with 25 or fewer years of
service without regard to age; or
* Is in a plan that permits retirement at half-pay at 25 years of
service without regard to age and would reach 25 years of service
considering the additional service credit provided in Part A.
A member is eligible to participate in Part B of the ERI Program if he
or she is age 55 or older and has at least 25 years of service.
In addition to the eligibility conditions above, members must also:
* Be in continuous active service preceding the commencement date of
the open period;
* For Part A - provide timely written notice of the intent to avail
himself or herself of the ERI and file for service retirement that is
effective within the open period;
* For Part B - file for service retirement that is effective within
the open period and otherwise be eligible to retire for service as of
the effective date of retirement.
Effective Date: Upon enactment and as determined by the respective
open periods contained in Parts A and B.
IMPACT ON BENEFITS: Part A would provide one-twelfth of a year of
additional retirement service credit for each year of pension service,
up to a maximum of three years of additional retirement service credit.
Some benefits provided under Part A could be subject to Early Retirement
Factors (ERF) as specified in the proposed legislation.
Part B would allow members to retire with an unreduced benefit if they
are at least age 55 with 25 or more years of service.
FINANCIAL IMPACT - OVERVIEW: There is no credible data available to
estimate the number of members who will retire under the current ERI
Program and potentially benefit from this proposed legislation. There-
fore, the estimated financial impact has been calculated on a per event
basis equal to the average increase in the Present Value of future
employer contributions and in the annual employer contributions for
members who would benefit from the proposed legislation.
The Present Value of future employer contributions is the net result
of the increase in the Present Value of Future Benefits (PVFB) and the
decrease in the Present Value of member contributions.
For the purposes of this Fiscal Note, the increase in Present Value of
future employer contributions was amortized over a five-year period
(four payments under the One-Year Lag Methodology (OYLM)) using level
dollar payments, the maximum allowable period under the proposed legis-
S. 2509--C 194 A. 3009--C
lation. This amortized value is the estimated increase in annual employ-
er contributions.
There will also be future savings in Employer Contributions assuming
that these members are not replaced. This additional savings is not
included here.
With respect to an individual member, the additional cost of this
proposed legislation could vary greatly depending on the member's length
of service, age, and salary history.
FINANCIAL IMPACT - SUMMARY: Based on the census data and the actuarial
assumptions and methods described herein, the enactment of this proposed
legislation would result in an increase in the Present Value of Employer
Contributions and annual employer contributions. The estimated pension
financial impact has been calculated as the average increase per person.
A breakdown of the financial impact by NYCRS is shown in the table
below:
Additional
Present Value of Estimated
NYCRS Future Employer Annual Employer
Contributions Contributions
($ Per Person) ($ Per Person)
Part A Only
NYCERS $80,700 $24,600
TRS 84,800 25,900
BERS 37,900 11,600
Average $77,900 $23,800
Part B Only
NYCERS $113,600 $34,700
TRS 68,000 20,800
BERS 98,400 30,100
Average $109,200 $33,300
Both A & B
NYCERS $96,500 $29,500
TRS 85,000 26,000
BERS 43,700 13,400
Average $87,700 $26,800
CONTRIBUTION TIMING: For the purposes of this Fiscal Note, it is
assumed that the changes in the Present Value of future employer
contributions and annual employer contributions would be reflected for
the first time in the Final June 30, 2020 actuarial valuations of
NYCERS, TRS, and BERS. In accordance with the OYLM used to determine
employer contributions, the increase in employer contributions would
first be reflected in Fiscal Year 2022.
CENSUS DATA: For purposes of this Fiscal Note, it was assumed that the
census data had the same age, gender, and service characteristics as the
census data used in the Preliminary June 30, 2019 (Lag) actuarial valu-
ations of NYCERS, TRS, and BERS to determine the Preliminary Fiscal Year
2021 employer contributions. Active members' salaries have been adjusted
to reflect estimated salary increases from June 30, 2019 to June 30,
2020.
The table below contains the census data for members who meet the
eligibility requirements and would be impacted by the proposed legis-
S. 2509--C 195 A. 3009--C
lation (Potential Elections), and for a subset of those members who
would benefit actuarially (Assumed to Elect).
NYCRS Potential Elections
Part A Only Count Avg Age Avg Svc Avg Salary
NYCERS 34,147 58.5 22.3 $83,900
TRS 31,727 57.7 21.2 101,300
BERS 9,736 60.2 15.8 49,900
Total 75,610 58.4 21.0 $86,800
Part B Only Count Avg Age Avg Svc Avg Salary
NYCERS 5,990 58.2 30.2 $88,600
TRS 569 58.0 26.9 110,100
BERS 430 58.6 29.5 72,700
Total 6,989 58.2 29.9 $89,400
Both A & B Count Avg Age Avg Svc Avg Salary
NYCERS 34,147 58.5 22.3 $83,900
TRS 31,727 57.7 21.2 101,300
BERS 9,736 60.2 15.8 49,900
Total 75,610 58.4 21.0 $86,800
NYCRS Assumed to Elect
Part A Only Count Avg Age Avg Svc Avg Salary
NYCERS 19,259 60.4 26.3 $87,600
TRS 11,436 61.3 27.0 109,000
BERS 3,318 63.6 21.6 51,600
Total 34,013 61.0 26.1 $91,300
Part B Only Count Avg Age Avg Svc Avg Salary
NYCERS 5,941 58.2 30.2 $88,400
TRS 530 57.9 26.9 109,900
BERS 423 58.6 29.5 71,500
Total 6,894 58.2 29.9 $89,000
BOTH A & B Count Avg Age Avg Svc Avg Salary
NYCERS 20,204 60.2 26.4 $88,000
TRS 11,588 61.2 27.0 109,000
BERS 3,331 63.6 21.6 51,900
Total 35,123 60.9 26.2 $91,500
ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS: The changes in the Present Value of
future employer contributions and annual employer contributions
presented herein have been calculated based on the actuarial assumptions
and methods in effect for the June 30, 2019 (Lag) actuarial valuations
used to determine the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2021 employer contrib-
utions of NYCERS, TRS, and BERS.
S. 2509--C 196 A. 3009--C
The Actuary is proposing a set of changes for use in the June 30, 2019
(Lag) actuarial valuations of NYCRS to determine the Final Fiscal Year
2021 Employer Contributions (2021 A&M). If the 2021 A&M is enacted it is
estimated that it would produce increases in the Present Value of
Employer Contributions and annual employer contributions that are
approximately 1% larger than the results shown above.
To determine the impact of the elective nature of the proposed legis-
lation, a subgroup based on who could potentially benefit actuarially
was used. The Present Value of future employer costs (i.e. the PVFB less
the Present Value of future member contributions) of each member's bene-
fit was determined under their current plan and as if retiring imme-
diately under the ERI Program. If the Present Value of future employer
cost under the ERI Program was greater than or equal to the Present
Value of future employer cost under the member's current plan, then the
member was deemed to benefit actuarially.
Based on this analysis, the costs presented in this Fiscal Note are
borne only from current NYCERS, TRS, and BERS members who are employed
by the City and assumed to benefit from, and thus opt to retire under,
the ERI Program.
RISK AND UNCERTAINTY: The costs presented in this Fiscal Note depend
highly on the realization of the actuarial assumptions used, as well as
certain demographic characteristics of NYCERS, TRS, and BERS, and other
exogenous factors such as investment, contribution, and other risks. If
actual experience deviates from actuarial assumptions, the actual costs
could differ from those presented herein. Costs are also dependent on
the actuarial methods used, and therefore different actuarial methods
could produce different results. Quantifying these risks is beyond the
scope of this Fiscal Note.
Not measured in this Fiscal Note are the following:
* The offsetting reduction in salary due to retirements earlier than
expected.
* The impact of potential new hires replacing members who retire due
to the ERI Program.
* The initial, additional administrative costs to implement the
proposed legislation.
* The impact of this proposed legislation on Other Postemployment
Benefit (OPEB) costs.
STATEMENT OF ACTUARIAL OPINION: I, Sherry S. Chan, am the Chief Actu-
ary for, and independent of, the New York City Retirement Systems and
Pension Funds. I am a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, an Enrolled
Actuary under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974, a
Member of the American Academy of Actuaries, and a Fellow of the Confer-
ence of Consulting Actuaries. I meet the Qualification Standards of the
American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained
herein. To the best of my knowledge, the results contained herein have
been prepared in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles
and procedures and with the Actuarial Standards of Practice issued by
the Actuarial Standards Board.
FISCAL NOTE IDENTIFICATION: This Fiscal Note 2021-19 dated April 5,
2021 was prepared by the Chief Actuary for the New York City Employees'
Retirement System, the New York City Teachers' Retirement System, and
the New York City Board of Education Retirement System. This estimate
is intended for use only during the 2021 Legislative Session.
A Year Ago, Today
I didn’t learn about Tom Waters’ death until almost a week after the date, April 4, 2020.
Tom’s son was my student. He was more of a humanities kid, but did fine in two courses. His final project for an elective, Combinatorics, was a nicely presented bijection between parenthesization and Dyck Paths (Catalan). He was also a standout in the Drama Club, but my role there as “advisor” was less than minimal. Carmen (and Lillie) were really in charge.
But there were parent-teacher conferences. I met Tom and Hillary several times. I knew they were progressives, some sort of activists, but not much more.
When I heard of his passing, I looked him up. I was stunned. Tom was a housing activist, whose work affected many. I will not summarize – instead I implore you to read this memorial/obituary. Take a moment to look at how young he was. But please read – Tom strove to make a difference for renters in New York City – and he sometimes succeeded.
Reading this article a year ago (the tab is still open. Bad habit, I know, but I have periodically returned to read more) I was amazed that I had met such an activist, but had not thought to ask him about his work. It was the wrong feeling, I know, but I felt sorry for myself, for not having learned from him.
I tweeted – and got an unexpected reply:
Lazar was referring to the work I have been involved in, trying to increase representation/diversity at my high school. We first met when Lazar visited the UFT Specialized High School Task Force (I was cochair), and stayed in contact after that work stalled, as I fashioned proposals specific for my school.
So here I was, taken aback by the great work Tom Waters had done, stunned by the death of someone my age.
But there was more. I had decamped to Essex County, New York. I had run away. I was desperately trying to teach. I was worried by my union’s tepid response to a serious matter. I was enraged by Cuomo and de Blasio’s recklessness. I was exhausted. I was trying to function as chapter leader. Every day I was learning new technology. The news was frightening, and relentless. I had already lost a faculty member (car accident) and another member of our small staff. I was overwhelmed. I had not had time to process this, any of it.
And so there I was taken aback by the great work Tom Waters had done, stunned by the death of someone my age. And I read Lazar’s words. And couldn’t believe that this guy who I was regretting not talking to had actually thought highly of me. And for the first time since the pandemic hit, I cried.
A Year Ago Today – COVID hit close
April 4, 2020. I had already lost a cousin to the pandemic, but I didn’t know that. And I didn’t know that cousin well. But on April 4 last year – it was a Friday – Ulises Castro died.
Castro was a Lehman College Peace Officer. He was assigned to our school – the High School of American Studies at Lehman College, for most terms over the last 16 years.
I spent hours talking talking to Castro when I stayed late -which was often. That was his shift. We were both strongly pro-union – he was a teamster, and that colored the conversations. But I recall him often digging not into who was right and who was wrong, but into the psychology behind people’s decisions. Castro often had an interesting angle.
My walks take me by campus, almost every day. And almost every day I am reminded of our loss. I glance up, foolishly, at the booth at Gate 8. But he is not there. And I know he is not in the high school…
Here’s what I wrote a year ago: https://jd2718.org/2020/04/07/in-memory/
Here’s the CUNY memorial page. Here’s the Teamster memorial page (I’d never seen such a young and trim photo!).
Here’s the smiling officer I remember:
The Global View – 3 Maps
The first map is the number of COVID cases since we started counting in early 2020 or late 2019. These are cumulative totals (as a proportion of the population)
What jumps out? Asia? Africa? the Pacific? It looks like practically no cases in 2/3rds of the world.
But didn’t China have a lot of cases? Early on, yes. But they controlled the pandemic, which governments in Europe and the Americas did not. As of today China has had 90,000 cases, mostly in the first quarter of 2020. The US has had 31,000,000 cases, half of them in the last four months. Yesterday there were 68,000 new cases in the US, and 11 new cases in China.
What about South Asia? West Africa? Is this just underreporting? There is underreporting. But the March 1, 2021 New Yorker had a fascinating piece, Why Does the Pandemic Seem to Be Hitting Some Countries Harder Than Others? By Siddhartha Mukherjee that dissected what is going on. Underreporting? Certainly. But that hardly explains the bulk of the difference. Younger populations? Yes, but again it only explains a bit of the difference. Government response? That explains Vietnam and New Zealand, but not most of the rest. Could exposure to other corona viruses impart partial immunity? That is a fascinating idea that needs to be further explored.
So this is a funny picture. We have a worldwide pandemic, with the bulk of the cases in the Americas, especially the United States, and in most of Europe.
The next map is the number of COVID-19 deaths since we started counting.
It looks like the previous map. A lot. So where are the differences?
- Mexico and most of South America show worse on the mortality map than they did on the number of cases map.
- Most of Europe shows up worse on the number of cases map than on the mortality map
- New York shows up much worse on the mortality map than on the number of cases map.
In fact, New York shows up the worst in the world on the mortality map. This represents one decision, by one man. Over 14,000 people died in New York nursing homes. That is, 1 out of every 200 people who succumbed to COVID worldwide was in a nursing home subject to Andrew Cuomo’s executive order.
The third map is the current new case rate. Look at problem areas:
- France
- to a lesser extent Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway
- central Europe (except Germany)
- southeastern Europe
- Turkey
- Brazil and Uruguay
- to a lesser extent, the southern cone of South America
- the northeast United States, especially New York and New Jersey. Also Michigan
Inconsistent government response is a common denominator. Opening up too soon and allowing the virus to roar back, creating fertile ground for imported variants, or new mutations. In NY, allowing extensive local travel is clearly a factor.
it is worrying for the US, Brazil and Europe that new cases are mostly occurring in those places – it is as if there is no possibility of local mitigation. These leaders will keep opening things up and letting people get sick and die, with the promise that one day enough people will be vaccinated.
In the meantime… it’s as if the meantime doesn’t matter to Cuomo.
Why do these COVID maps look different?
The first map I created, using NPR’s spread-tracking webpage. They, in turn, take their data from Johns Hopkins. The second map I found on the buzzfeed version of the widely-reported story about the CDC’s Rochelle Walensky‘s very candid comments yesterday. The map itself seems to have originated at The New York Times.
The maps look different because they are reporting different things. My map indicates if the current rate is high or low. The Times’ indicates if the rate is going up or down.
Look at Hawaii. Hawaii currently is experiencing 7 new cases daily for every 100,000 people who live there. In the US today, that’s almost the lowest rate. On my map Hawaii shows up green – my low category. But a few days ago Hawaii’s number was 4. From 4 to 7 – that’s huge increase by percentage, and the Times shows Hawaii pretty red.
Look at Idaho. Idaho’s current rate is 16 per 100,000, higher than Washington (12), Oregon (8), Nevada (9), Utah (13), Wyoming (11), and Montana (14) – all of its neighbors. But because Idaho’s numbers are still falling, it shows up green on the Times map. In fact, all of these states have significantly lower current numbers than New England and the mid-Atlantic.
Look at New Jersey. The Times shows it light red, not as bad as its neighbors. But Jersey’s numbers started higher than all of its neighbors, except New York. Even with a slower growth rate, the new case rate is 50 for every 100,000 – the second highest in the country. After New York.
Overall, the maps look similar. For those of you who like saying it this way, my map is the current proportion, the Times is the first derivative with respect to time. They do not look very different. But where there are differences, you probably want to go with me, not the other guys, especially when you consider how the other guys have covered the pandemic.
It started for me a year ago
I didn’t even know it.
COVID was all around us, dominated the news. Schools had closed, and were now reopening remotely. I was reeling, not only from the “big picture,” but having just lost a colleague of 18 years. It was a car accident, but somehow it felt related to the pandemic. He was visiting a home-bound friend in New Jersey.
My father, 82, is the youngest son of a youngest son – and my grandfather had kids late. All my father’s cousins are older than him. Most are gone, but the rabbi in Queens, Moishe Kwalbrun, must have been mid to late 80s. I don’t think we would have recognized each other in the street. But his mother and my grandfather were sister and brother, who arrived together, with their mother, in December 1923. I used to hear about Moishe from my uncle, with whom he regularly talked philosophy and politics and probably much more.
I learned in May that Moishe died of COVID-19 at the end of March, 2020.
US Covid numbers moving in 2 directions
New infections rates have dropped under 10 cases per 100,000 population (less than 1% of 1%) in a dozen states from Alabama to Oregon. That’s getting pretty low.
But in New York and New Jersey and some neighbors the number has stayed above 25, and is holding steady or rising. New Jersey, at 49 cases per 100,000 and rising, and New York, at 50 lead the country.
When I wrote that something was wrong with New York’s numbers back in December, it seemed strange. Almost no one else was noticing. The major media were oblivious, or worse (New York Times) saw the data and ignored it because it did not fit their narrative. But the shape of the curve in New York did not match the shape in the rest of country. Same wave, different impact. There must have been different facts on the ground.
Today we know that the British variant and a homegrown New York variant are big parts of the answer. I suspect that local travel patterns (lots of drivable vacation spots. Lots of second “country” homes) are also a part of the answer. And staying with class – I wonder if the service economy is just different here, with massive demand from safe/at-home office professionals for service work (delivery workers, retail workers, food delivery workers, food service workers). But the variants are the clearest part of the answer.
And all the media now knows about it. I heard about it today on NPR, and read about it in the Post. And they are questioning reopening at this moment. Fauci is warning that some states are reopening too quickly, that this is a dangerous moment.
And New York and New Jersey’s numbers are rising during a huge vaccination campaign. What would we be facing if the vaccine rollout had been slower? Were we inches from disaster? Thankfully we will never know.
And at the same time, a swath of the West, Southwest, and South is watching numbers drop well below September numbers.
Recap:
- huge spike in October/November in South Dakota and neighboring states.
- 3rd wave begins in lead up to Thanksgiving. Post Thanksgiving surge, followed by a dip (except NY) and then another, higher surge post-Christmas and New Years.
- 3rd wave recedes in February, but with numbers left at elevated November levels (higher in NY). NY and NJ actually plateau and stop falling.
- Now, numbers continue to recede in most of the country – but begin to rise again in NY, NJ and their neighbors.
Look at the maps from today, mid-March, start of March, mid-Februrary, start of Februrary, mid-January, and New Years (I am showing low rates, below 10 new cases per 100,000, in green)
High School Classes Continue. High School Buildings Open.
Tomorrow is the day. High schools finally …..
Reopen? Bullshit.
High schools have been open since September. Even then, the bulk of our teaching was via zoom and other remote platforms. Tomorrow, the bulk of our teaching will be via zoom and other remote platforms.
In fact today more students will be fully remote than back in September.
Because they chose to be remote.
Something ridiculously high in high schools – what, 70%? More?
In fact high schools are reporting additional families switched to remote instruction since the de Blasio/Porter announcement.
So what’s happening?
Tomorrow all high school buildings are opening, and some minimal version of “blended learning” will engage 10-20% of high school students. Over 90% of classes will remain on-line.
All buildings will open. With 15% of students. With less than 10% of classes. de Blasio will be talking about buildings, not students or classes.
Tomorrow de Blasio is making a great show out of opening the buildings. That’s all. It is a show. Instruction will continue for most students and most teachers on line. It is a political show. He wants to say he has opened schools. It is a political boast. He likes saying “New York City was the only large school district to reopen for in-person learning in September.” Actually, that last one is Mulgrew. Also a political boast. But whichever of these two is boasting obscures the fact that despite open buildings, despite some “in-person learning” New York City has been a largely remote-instruction city for schools, and an overwhelmingly remote-instruction city for high schools for these last seven months.
Both the DoE and UFT know that tomorrow’s change will have little practical direct impact on instruction. The Department of Education was most brazen. They know this is show. Read this from them:
- Taking into consideration the complexity of high school scheduling, schools can come up with creative and flexible programming solutions to have students in buildings as much as possible, including having students engage in remote learning while reporting to school buildings in-person.
Do you see that last phrase? “including having students engage in remote learning while reporting to school buildings in-person” Do you know what that means? The DoE wants the kid, instead of sitting at her desk in her apartment, opening her laptop and joining her classes, to sit at a desk in school, open her laptop and join her classes.
The UFT’s email to high school members 2 weeks ago, signed by Mulgrew, Janella Hinds, and Sterling Roberson, discusses testing and vaccination, and safety protocols, but nothing about instruction, or work rules related to in-person instruction. That is not an oversight. You can open this and zoom to read it:
There have been some questions since, but most I have heard were about whether teachers who teach on-line need to come to the building? (may depend on whether they teach in-person as well?)
Why should we care?
We should care because de Blasio is perpetuating a fraud. And we know. And remaining silent would be remaining complicit.
We should care because every high school administrator should have just had their actual work, which might be related to kids’ wellbeing and kids’ learning, disrupted for two weeks, to make this little show work.
We should care because even with safety protocols in place, the additional risk to staff and students is not worth having kids in a classroom, headphones on, joining classes on their laptops.
We should care because people are getting sick in NYC every day. Instead of our numbers going down, they are going up. This is a bad time to throw a few thousand more into public transport.
Mercifully, the number will not be very large – but those who end up getting sick will get little comfort from that.
Mulgrew and Porter statements seem contradictory
How can they both be right?
I think that Mulgrew’s words have to be read very carefully. They have lawyers and others at 52 Broadway, I am guessing, who carefully help craft lawyerly ways of saying things. Everything written since last March has to be carefully parsed, not read at face value. Did he say something would not happen, or that he did not expect it? Did he say that something was wrong, or that the UFT would actually fight it? You can’t go by a first read. But in this case, he states details of the CDC guidance that are correct, and says it would be complicated, and that the DoE would have a lot to figure out. He does not say that the UFT would fight it. (I didn’t expect that). He does not say the UFT would fight the DoE if they violated state guidelines. (Too bad, I thought he might).
Read it yourself, see if you agree.
Meisha Porter is a new entity – and in her first meaningful act – sounds like Bill de Blasio is speaking. I’m not shocked to be disappointed, although I had hopes otherwise. And I’m a little surprised to be disappointed so swiftly. I think she is ignoring the State, and ignoring that there is no actual plan. I’m also not wild the way she addresses teachers. Lots of people make us feel like pawns, but sometimes it takes more than a week.
Read for yourself, see if you agree:
|
|
Dear Colleagues,
Happy Friday! I hope you are well today.
As you may have heard, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) today announced that it is updating its recommendations for physical distancing in schools, decreasing from six feet to three feet for most students in most cases.
This is welcome news with respect to in-person learning, allowing us to bring more students back into buildings. In response, we now plan to open another opt-in window beginning next week for all families. Our 3K, Pre-K, Elementary, and District 75 Elementary students who opt-in will begin returning to buildings in April; details to come on middle and high school student start dates.
While this is exciting news that allows us to continue to both best serve our children and lead the nation in in-person learning, it is also a complex undertaking, and I know many of you will have questions about what this means for you. Please trust that we are actively working with our partners at the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to evaluate the CDC guidance and provide detailed answers as soon as possible. But in the meantime, here’s what I can tell you for now:
· For our principals, I know you want to give your students the best chance for success. I know this will be hard work, but the reward will be on the faces of our kids when they return to buildings. Being a principal for ten years, I understand that any changes now pose major challenges, but we stand ready to support you, troubleshoot, and help any student who wants to be back in the physical classroom get there.
· For teachers, paraprofessionals and other in person classroom staff, we are going to consider health and safety in every single decision we make. I also understand that each school community is different, and we will be flexible and take into account the specific needs of each school as we work closely with our labor partners every step of the way.
· For school support and all other staff, our hard-working custodial workers, food service employees, school aides, parent coordinators — thank you. From my 20 years in the DOE, I know you all are the ones who keep it all together. This has been a year unlike any other.
One thing this year has taught us is that any time in the physical classroom is valuable. And because we still have a third of the school year left, the DOE is going to do what we have always done during the pandemic: act in the best interest of our school communities, keeping health and safety front and center.
On a personal note, let me say that my first week as Chancellor has certainly been memorable, eventful, and uplifting! As we look forward to the reopening of our high school buildings on Monday and the opt-in opportunities going forward, I hope you will take a couple of minutes to watch this video of me describing why I am so proud to lead you and what lies ahead for us. Thank you so much, and have a wonderful weekend!
Sincerely,
Meisha
Meisha Porter
Chancellor, New York City Public Schools
she/her/hers
New York City Department of Education
52 Chambers Street | New York, NY 10007
Postscript – the UFT responded:
March 14, 2020
One year ago today.
One year ago today was Saturday. NYC public school attendance had been plummeting. But schools were scheduled normally for Monday, March 16.
Cuomo and de Blasio were still insisting that schools stay open. Not just de Blasio, but Cuomo too. Those of you blinded by him not being batshit nuts during his press conferences, don’t forget how bad he was. And not just about nursing homes. And group homes for the developmentally disabled. March 14, 2021, the mayor and governor were insisting that schools stay open.
1199 did not want to close schools. They were concerned about how their members – crucial hospital workers – could work if they suddenly had childcare needs thrown on them. Many teachers were sympathetic. Eventually we got REC centers, but on March 14 this was very much part of the conversation.
The UFT was recommending to de Blasio that he close schools. “Recommend” is weak language, right? And that recommendation was not made until Friday March 13. Read Mulgrew’s press release. He agreed to disagree? Also, the UFT leadership started a petition on March 13 to de Blasio to close schools. It got lots of signatures, though not nearly as many as the earlier member-initiated petition to Cuomo.
Side note – it was already clear that the UFT leadership was afraid of criticizing Cuomo. This foreshadowed April, when they went ballistic when de Blasio took away Good Friday, but Mulgrew told members to suck it up when Cuomo stole Spring Break.
I have heard some confusion about Mulgrew threatening to go to court. We need to be precise. Mulgrew DID threaten court action – but it was not to close NYC public schools. The NYCDoE was violating its own rules and keeping schools open after a positive COVID-19 case. UFT members were terrified. Terrified. And the UFT leadership knew that members were being sent back into buildings where there were positive cases the previous day. A good union leader would have shown up at the school and said “our members, your employees, will not be put at risk. Our students, your students, will not be put at risk. No one is entering this building today.” That’s what a good union leader would have done. But the DoE and the UFT are infested by lawyers and people who trust lawyers more than they trust teachers. Mulgrew did not stand in front of a school and say “No, not today, we will not let you put our members and students at risk.” Mulgrew did tell his lawyers to file some papers – not to close the NYC public school system, but to enforce the rule closing a school after a positive case.
Teachers were waiting. Calm before the storm. The MORE caucus was organizing a sickout for Monday, March 16. After a large amount of initial interest, teachers I knew were deciding that they were not quite ready. But I’ll tell you what. Mulgrew knew about the threatened sickout. de Blasio knew about the threatened sickout. And Cuomo knew about the threatened sickout. And even if Monday would have been a day (or two, or three) early, certainly some teachers would have joined the sickout. And other teachers would have called out sick, without being part of the sickout, but who would have known the difference? And that would have added numbers. And a small sickout Monday would have been larger Tuesday, and larger… The threat was real, it was on the union leaders’ and politician’s minds. And it helped get to shutdown faster. And organizing a credible threat is hard. Just ask UFT reps about the end of August 2020. MORE is due credit here.
March 14, 2020 COVID-19 was spreading, rapidly, in New York. We did not know the extent. Routine testing was not in place. But we’d seen the news. We knew that numbers might rise quickly. And they did. March 16 there were 235 new cases in New York State. On March 20 3053. On March 24 5518. On March 28 7253. And there were 8107 new cases on April 1.
Saturday March 14, 2020 was a strange day for teachers. We had this feeling in the pit of our stomachs. We did not know what to expect. The stores were running out of the three major food groups: pasta, hand sanitizer, and paper towels. The politicians were dithering. Cuomo and de Blasio were squabbling idiots. Our union was moving, but with caution, when we needed swift action. The news was scary.
The next day, Sunday March 15, 1199 president George Gresham changed his mind, and supported closing schools. Then Cuomo fell into line. And then, late Sunday afternoon de Blasio.
None of us yet knew how crummy remote teaching would be. Few of us had lost friends, family, colleagues, or acquaintances. And none of us knew how long this crisis would last. But at that moment: deep sigh of relief.
Farewell, Carranza
Yesterday was Richard Carranza’s last day. He won’t be missed.
Sadly.
Because he arrived with good intentions. He arrived with a good attitude. He seemed friendly towards teachers.
But he was probably not ready for New York City, and definitely not for the NYC Department of Education.
His hires were semi-qualified cronies, and insiders pushed on him by City Hall. Anything he attempted bogged down almost immediately. Moving through the DoE bureaucracy is like trying to walk through a river of molasses. And ham-fisted de Blasio was calling many of the (wrong) shots.
We expected much change on instruction for children whose first language is not English. And there was the issue of school segregation…
On ESL, a leader who gets it! Ready to undo the lousy policies he inherited! (from the state, but also how the city coped with it). Where’s the progress? Where? Nowhere.
The integration initiatives were way overdue. He rolled out de Blasio’s specialized high school initiative about as clumsily as he could have. But that was de Blasio. They caught allies off guard. They angered friends. They really angered enemies. In the end it did not matter that it was a good proposal. The School Diversity Advisory Group – another study?!? No, it was serious, important work. And the most important parts were ignored. Carranza just pretends that the Group and its report did not exist.
What will we remember in 10 years? Principals will remember some of his angry, hectoring speeches. Segregationists will remember his rant directed at a parent who opposed integration. Many of us will have an image of him holding a guitar (though I predict no one will remember what he played on it).
But I think I want to remember his goodbye letter. Mostly platitudes. But look at this story:
I hope you recognize it. It is the gee whiz story told by a TfAer, sweet and touching, about a system he never really understood.
His poor judgment hurt. His displays of temper (there were quite a few) hurt. His lack of understanding of New York City hurt. And his lack of familiarity with the NYCDoE hurt – right, he didn’t get Board of Ed culture.
But ultimately it was his boss that made Richard Carranza the forgettable chancellor that he was. And that’s a shame.
Which state has the worst COVID-19 numbers today?
This whole week it’s been New York and New Jersey, neck and neck.
For months I’ve been wondering what’s wrong with New York. We have the answer – we have a variant.
So when the country peaked after Thanksgiving, and then everyone else saw a dip, we did not. Same thing after Christmas. And finally when the third wave (I’m counting the summer as a second wave – it was in other parts of the US) ended, the case rate in New York State was half the peak rate – the rest of the country had a much bigger recovery.
Many people look at the test positivity rate. I pay less attention to that. The data on active cases is a little bit wonky. But the data on new cases is pretty consistent. I have it reported at daily new cases per 100,000 population – and New Jersey and New York are today at 39 and 38, easily the highest in the country.
This is important to remember: The news media is reminding us daily that Andrew Cuomo is a sexual predator. But don’t forget, Emmy or not, he’s also presided over the worst COVID-19 record in the United States.
And daily new cases in New York State are at the immediate post-Thanksgiving level, and rising again.
Even while daily new cases in the rest of the country are way down, and flat:
And while my map is not dramatic, only a few states are in the 25-50 new cases per 100,000 range, and the others are much lower than Jersey and New York:
And mortality – just like at it. Fourth in the number of cases – but almost tied for first in the number of deaths, with double the rate of California (actually New York’s rate is second – after, of course – New Jersey’s)
Sources:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Evaluate This
I’ve just spent the last two hours reading the evaluation letter that Mulgrew sent out. (Letter linked here). I’ll probably write much more, later. But for now I have a few observations:
Unnecessary
Why was this necessary? (I know, there is a state law – which the UFT helped pass – and which Mulgrew used to claim credit for helping to write)
Where was the fight to twist Cuomo’s arm?
Where was the full court press to get Cuomo to waive this nonsense for this year? (there was no full court press – why not?). Cuomo is wounded, vulnerable. It may have been possible to stop this.
Where is the guide to teaching during a pandemic?
Where is the “research-based” framework that we were trained on for remote and hybrid teaching? (there is none, just a rewrite of the Danielson framework. And – oh oh oh – Danielson herself says that it is inappropriate to use it to evaluate teachers! So, Mulgrew and Carranza, if Danielson did not think her stuff was appropriate for evaluation, who decided to use it anyhow?)
Did Danielson really say this is not appropriate? Take a look. Focus on
√ No Rubric. “Teachers need support, not scores. Now is not the time to be thinking about how to evaluate teacher performance.”
Here is the link. Scroll to page 4.
Have the evaluators successfully taught during a pandemic?
Kid, on a driving test, runs a stop sign, runs a red light, speeds. The DMV agent makes him pull over. “You are not driving another inch!” Kid pulls over. And they wait. Kid asks, “aren’t you going to drive us back?” The DMV guy says, “no, I don’t have a license. We gotta wait for someone.”
MOSL? Are you serious?
Measures of Student Learning. Really? Students will learn less during a pandemic. I don’t need a PhD or an office with an expense account, or a media staff to figure that out.
We need another look, another day, at why Mulgrew and the UFT’s Unity leadership are so heavily invested in infusing junk science into our evaluations. But they are. (“Randomized junk science that is rigged towards the middle-top of the range reduces the chances of large numbers of adverse ratings. We don’t care that the junk is meaningless, as long as most teachers are safe, but we won’t say that the junk is meaningless because we are heavily invested in this boondoggle” they will never tell us).
A MOSL committee? More meetings?
Another damned committee? What are we supposed to do? Guess which “measure of student learning,” which actually measures nothing, will do our members the least harm? I’m tempted to boycott, but I don’t think I could get my consultation committee to agree.
Systemwide MOSL?
Seriously, the default is a systemwide MOSL. Of course, I don’t know exactly what goes into that calculation. I am sure someone does know. But Mulgrew did not think it was necessary to share details.
Why should a teacher in the Bronx be rated based on how teachers in Manhattan or Brooklyn do?
I’m not happy being evaluated based on how well a Staten Islander teaches.
I’m furious about being evaluated based on how poorly a Staten Islander negotiated.
Mulgrew Letter on Evaluation
|
|
Pace Yourselves
Today, February 22, 2021, is the first day back from break. In the fall we have days off here and there – but in the spring we move from break to break uninterrupted. This year, mercifully, there are just five weeks from Winter Break to Spring Break – but that’s five uninterrupted weeks. (And we have 7 weeks after until Memorial Day – just a long weekend, but I don’t want to think about that. Not yet.)
The stretch from Winter Break to Spring Break is always the toughest of the year, under normal circumstances. We start full of energy, but by the time that last Friday comes we are wondering what took it so long. Teaching takes stamina. It is exhausting. Under normal circumstances.
This is traumatic. Has Richard Carranza watched 19 hours of video on trauma-informed supervision? “In Unity” he certainly hasn’t.
These are not normal circumstances. This teaching is exhausting. Preparation is different, and hard. Screen time is off the charts. Grading takes forever. Sitting still for hours is tiring. And hurts. All the normal interactions are changed, or gone. The pleasure in teaching is social, and it helps make up for how hard teaching is. And now that aspect is barely there, or completely gone.
And I do not have a colleague in the next room or down the hall to support me. At the end of each day when I was a brand new teacher I was drained, wiped out. But the days were shorter than today. And I was a quarter of a century younger. This is traumatic. Has Richard Carranza watched 19 hours of video on trauma-informed supervision? “In Unity” he certainly hasn’t.
So, it’s tough teaching. And I didn’t mention the possibility hanging over our heads of in-person instruction restarting. Then restopping. Then rerestarting. And rererestopping. I’m not sure how badly this plays out for an elementary teacher with all the subjects for her class, I’m guessing it’s very disruptive. But for subject area classes in high schools (and some middle schools) – whoa – that’s not good for education. But with Mulgrew, Carranza, Cuomo, Weingarten, de blasio, and the New York Times and Wall Street Journal all in on getting some of us in….
I’ll cut this short. These five weeks are going to be long. Very long. Try to slow down. Try to pace yourself. Your colleagues will not be able to see if you are struggling. You have to be responsible more than usual for taking care of yourself. Slow down. Pace yourself. Five weeks.
Watching New Cases Fall – the US and NY
I pay too much attention to numbers. That’s me. I did it when I was a little boy. The sports section! What six year old runs to the box scores? At ten I was scouring the almanac for old election results and weather history. That was me.
I limit myself, somewhat, today. But in this pandemic I am at times drawn to look at the numbers. To understand what is happening I have settled on three categories: current case rates, new cases, and deaths.
Deaths, while up substantially during this (fading) third wave, are down substantially as a proportion of people who get sick, and as a proportion of people who get hospitalized. That is, if you got sick a year ago, you had a decent chance of dying. If you get sick today, that chance is much, much lower. Also, if you got sent to the hospital a year ago, you had a substantial risk of not coming out. If you get hospitalized today that risk is much lower. The number of daily new cases at the peak of this wave was 8 times greater than in the spring – but the number of daily deaths at the peak of the third wave was 1.5 times greater than in the spring.
Current Case Rates I have been plotting every day or every few days since November. Here is a 3 month overview. Here is the most recent trend.
New Cases in the US
New Cases. That’s what I want to look at today. Let’s start with the chart for the US as a whole:
This is the number of new cases per day (averaged over the course of a week to smooth things out – better for looking at the big picture) for the entire United States, starting last February.
There are three waves – but that may not be obvious.
The first wave was nightmarish scary – where it hit. But it was largely limited to the west Coast, and the NYC metropolitan area, with some additional pockets. Also, many fewer people were being tested; there were likely many more undiagnosed cases. But that little rise to a little plateau in April? Felt like Armageddon to New Yorkers. We were the global epicenter of the global pandemic. The sirens. The news. The wondering who would die next. Were there enough hospital beds? Enough ventilators?
The second wave is there – see that lump that rises through July with its hump at the end of the month? – New Yorkers might be scratching their heads. The second wave was not felt much or at all in the places that experienced the first wave. But for those places whose first encounter with large numbers of COVID cases was the summer, that second wave was very real.
The third wave is interesting
- Start – look not where the rise begins modestly (late September), but where it zooms – which part looks most, if you let it rotate, like the bottom of the bowl? (second derivative). That’s the last week in October.
- First hump – there was a huge spike in the northern plains and upper midwest before the third wave engulfed the entire country. Because it was only one region, it appears like a hump, not a spike. Peak November 24. It is absent from the graphs in states outside of that region, including New York.
- Middle hump – Thanksgiving surge. December 6 – December 24, with a flatter top, but peaks at December 18.
- Dip between the holidays – December 27 – December 31
- Christmas/New Years peak – January 9 – January 13
- Detail: The Christmas/New Years peak was 14% higher than the Thanksgiving Peak.
- The wave recedes – January 13 – today
- Detail 1: The numbers today are near the numbers from October 31
- Detail 2: The numbers today are 32% as high as the top of the Christmas/New Years peak
New York
In New York the first wave looks very large (it was hard to see on the US graph), though not as high as the US as a whole. The second wave, expectedly, is absent.
New York’s 3rd Wave Looks Different
- Start – New York did not participate in the October surge (that was Iowa and Wyoming) so the start is a bit later. I mark November 7, approximately.
- Thanksgiving surge – this is different from the national graph. December 1 – December 7 there is a very sharp increase.
- Middle rise – This is also different from the nation as a whole. Where the number of cases in the US was plateauing, in NY the number of cases continued to go up. From December 9 to December 24 there is not as much of an increase as right afterThanksgiving, but there is still increase.
- Dip between the holidays – Not in New York! This appears to be the only place in the country where new cases rose from Thanksgiving through Christmas and New Years without a break.
- Christmas/New Years peak – January 9 – January 13
- Detail: The Christmas/New Years peak was 57% than the Thanksgiving Peak.
- The wave recedes – January 13 – today
- Detail 1: The numbers today are near the numbers from December 2
- Detail 2: The numbers today are 45% as high as the top of the Christmas/New Years peak
The 3rd wave was tougher in New York than the rest of the country. It started a month later than in some other states, but cases rose more steeply, and cases continued to rise between the holidays – which was not the case anywhere else, including New York’s immediate neighbors.
As the wave recedes, it recedes more slowly in New York than in any other state (with some recent indication that the numbers are not falling).
What is Going On?
Clearly something is wrong, but it is beyond me to do more than offer some ideas.
New variants? Yes, the British variant is here. And yes, it may in the very near future cause us much suffering. But for today the numbers are too low for it to be driving New York’s numbers.
Bad leadership? Yes, we have a serious problem here, but no, Cuomo did not take measures that were appreciably worse than what other governors did. He earned a positive reputation in the spring for holding sane press conferences. But holding a sane press conference is a very low bar, set and not met by former president Donald Trump. He told people to wear masks, and some listened. But there are plenty of governors who did the same. His color zones were arbitrary and inconsistent. So I don’t give him credit for much, but I don’t blame him for the 3rd wave or New York’s delayed recovery.
Different travel patterns? Do more out of towners, both domestic and foreign, find their way to New York than to any other large city? Do more New Yorkers travel to more places around the country and around the world, then people from other cities? Do more New Yorkers travel to more corners of our own state…?
Unique urban concentrations of poverty, overcrowded housing, maskless Trump voters, and Hasidim? Der ferter ferd? Nah. Each one of these is a problem, but something unique is happening in New York, and having things in NY that are the same as elsewhere, but a little bit more, that wouldn’t do it.
This is becoming urgent. This is a city of 8 1/2 million. A state of almost 20 million. This is not an orange microcluster. We need real epidemiologists looking, trying to find out what is going wrong in New York.
NYCDOE Sabbatical Applications Open – Take One if You Can
On a full year study sabbatical you get 70% of your pay while taking 16 credits. You come refreshed, rejuvenated, and, frankly, a better teacher.
Learning: it is very different being a student than being a teacher. The new perspective is valuable.
Content: you can learn more in your content area, or explore something related.
Money: July 2021 is at full pay. August is at 70% – until the next July 2022 which is still at 70%. Finally August 2022 would be 100% – so that’s 12 months at 70%, 2 months at 100%. Also, the tax taken go down considerably.
Rights: This is an amazing contractual right. People should use it.
Me: I took a sabbatical 2013-2014.
- I learned stuff that I applied to the classroom. I learned stuff that was fun. I was reminded what it was like to be a student. And I still correspond with two of my professors.
- I made my schedule Tuesday/Thursday – which left me with long weekends for short trips, and college breaks for long trips. I spent more time with friends, with family. I went to Pittsburgh, Toronto, the Galapagos, Morocco, Chattanooga… I think I went to Florida and Maine…
- I did feel the paycut, but not by much. The drop in taxes made much of it up.
- Do it? A few people say they get bored. I don’t get that. The vast majority of people I know who have taken them think they were amazing and are glad they did.
More info?
- Timeline – I posted below
- The full memo – Sabbatical Memo 2021-2022 FEB 9th UFT and CSA (2A)
- Workshops – UFT borough offices run them. Call and ask when the next one is (now – since the application period is open)
Here’s the timeline:
Full Year (2021-2022) Sabbaticals (16 Credits Required) Application Dates:
February 12, 2021 Application period open.
March 17, 2021 Final date for employee to submit application via SOLAS.
March 24, 2021 Final date for Principal’s recommendation to Superintendent in SOLAS.
April 14, 2021 Final date in SOLAS for Superintendent to inform employee if (a) coursework is not rigorous and job-related and/or (b) taking of the sabbatical will create a hardship for the school. All communications will be handled via SOLAS.
April 28, 2021 Final date in SOLAS for employee to resubmit coursework to Superintendent, if applicable.
May 5, 2021 If applicable, Superintendent informs employee in SOLAS that resubmitted coursework is not rigorous, job-related or if taking the sabbatical will cause a hardship.
May 5, 2021 Final date for Superintendent’s determination in SOLAS.
September 30, 2022 Submission of official transcript(s) required for Study Sabbaticals. (See Section 2D for details)
The third wave recedes
Cases per 100,000, February 2021, starting at the beginning of the month, up through yesterday.
South Carolina is at 52. New York is at 40. All the other states are lower.
Nursing Home Scandal: Timeline
Today I received a timeline of Cuomo’s nursing home mistake and coverup from Alessandra Biaggi.
I reprint the email:
Friends –
There is a lot of confusion surrounding Governor Cuomo’s nursing home scandal, some of it deliberate, so we thought it useful to create an easy-to-digest timeline of events for you, and then we’re going to ask you to take action to make your voice heard on this issue.
March 1, 2020: New York has its first known and confirmed coronavirus case.
March 25, 2020: Governor Cuomo’s administration decrees nursing homes must accept “medically stable” COVID-positive patients, and that COVID-positive but asymptomatic nursing home staff are allowed to keep working.
April 2, 2020: Andrew Cuomo’s state budget passes, including retroactive liability protection for nursing home executives “arising from certain decisions, actions and/or omissions related to the care of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Alessandra Biaggi votes no and says, “when we look back on this time, what we’re going to be judged by is how we protected those who are the most vulnerable.”
April 3, 2020: Andrew Cuomo signs the state budget.
April 20, 2020:Andrew Cuomo says he wasn’t aware of his own policy mandating that nursing homes accept COVID-positive patients. New York’s Health Director reiterates “if you are positive, you should be admitted back to a nursing home.”
April 23, 2020:After hearing countless objections and questions about his nursing home mandate, Andrew Cuomo says at a daily briefing that nursing homes “don’t have a right to object. That is the rule and that is the regulation and they have to comply with that.”
May 10, 2020: Andrew Cuomo finally rescinds his nursing home order.
May 20, 2020: Andrew Cuomo blames Trump and CDC guidance for his nursing home decision — a claim Politifact rated “mostly false” several weeks later. It is also worth noting that Connecticut and Massachusetts chose to send COVID-positive nursing home patients to facilities reserved for those who tested positive.
June 6, 2020: Alessandra Biaggi introduces legislation to repeal immunity granted by Governor Cuomo to nursing home executives.
July 24, 2020: Andrew Cuomo brags that New York has a low number of nursing home deaths compared to other states.
October 13, 2020: Andrew Cuomo releases his book on leadership during the pandemic. He says that criticism of the state’s policy on nursing homes is “despicable.”
November 23, 2020: Andrew Cuomo accepts an Emmy Award for his daily briefings — says “they only offered one thing: authentic truth.”
January 28, 2021:New York Attorney General Tish James releases a report stating Governor Cuomo’s administration undercounted COVID-19 nursing home and long-term facility deaths by up to 50%.
February 10, 2021: A top aide to Governor Cuomo admits the administration hid the actual count of nursing home deaths from press and legislators.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW
- The legislature must revoke the emergency powers granted to Andrew Cuomo at the start of the COVID crisis. The legislature is a co-equal branch of government and it’s clear the power given the governor is no longer appropriate.
- The legislature must repeal the immunity provisions Andrew Cuomo granted nursing homes and other health care facilities from liability for actions during the COVID crisis.
Shortly after the critical moment in the pandemic Andrew Cuomo forced nursing homes to take in COVID-positive patients and declared that asymptomatic staff in nursing homes could keep working, he gave nursing home executives immunity so families could not pursue legal recourse for negligence or malpractice if they had a loved one die.
This is a scandal. It requires hearings and accountability.
Thanks for adding your name.
– Team Biaggi
Freedom and Music
I’ve been thinking about politics and music. I recently saw One Night in Miami (more about that below) which involves Sam Cooke singing “A Change is Gonna Come.” More about that, below.
But I wanted to put a spotlight on an amazing composition by Max Roach – a five part concept piece, from slavery, emancipation, protest, pan-Africanism, and on to apartheid. It’s called “We Insist!” and is subtitled “Max Roach’s Freedom Now Suite.”
Maybe it’s when I grew up, but avant-garde jazz FEELS liberating. The themes and the themes mesh, work together.
Max Roach, jazz drummer, African-American, born in North Carolina, raised in Brooklyn, innovator, began planning, in 1959, a major piece for 1963, for the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. But events added urgency, and he rushed it to release in 1960.
Ironic, sad, over 60 years, and how much that needed to happen still needs to happen. They move on from the US to South Africa, as if South Africa was next. But that’s not quite right.
Ronald Reagan obnoxiously called for patience with the apartheid regime, pointing out that just decades earlier the US practiced legal segregation. The comparison was wrong, and his goal was to shield apartheid from sanctions, but almost 40 years later… Which country has made more progress? It’s a close call.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In One Night in Miami, Malcolm X, Jim Brown and Sam Cooke spend the evening in Mohammad Ali’s motel room, the night after his victory over Sonny Liston. (Mohammad Ali had not yet adopted his name, and was still known as Cassius Clay). During the evening the conversation gets sharp. At one point Malcolm X ridicules the music that Sam Cooke makes. Cooke counters that protest music isn’t commercially viable.
One of the ideas in the movie is that each character changes in some way after the conversations. Cassius Clay adopts the name Mohammad Ali. Jim Brown leaves football. Malcolm X breaks with the Nation of Islam. And Sam Cooke sings “A Change Is Gonna Come” on the Ed Sullivan show.
Now, the conversation, even the meeting, is fictional. But the events referred to are real, even if the chronology is a bit off. Sam Cooke sang A Change is Gonna Come on February 7, 1964. The Liston fight was February 25, 1964. That day Ali announced he would be known as Cassius X, rejecting his slave name. (I am having trouble pinning down when he changed from Cassius X to Mohammad Ali). On March 8 Malcolm X broke publicly with the Nation of Islam.
Anyway, I didn’t want to talk about One Night in Miami (though it’s worth seeing. And worth thinking about how hard it would have been to predict the trajectories of these men’s lives after 1964.) I wanted to talk about Sam Cooke deciding to sing a political song.
And while reading about this, I stumbled on We Insist! – thus this post.
Enjoy.
Freedom Day – NYC – February 3, 1964
Freedom Day – NYC – February 3, 1964.
Half a million boycotted school, demanding integration.
How come we don’t know about this? How come we don’t teach it?
I’ve been talking about it. Now let’s have some others do the talking:
From Time Magazine, September 2020:
(that’s an 8 minute video. There’s also a print story)
From WNYC Radio, story by Yasmeen Khan, February 2016:
(that’s a 7 minute audio)
Why is NY’s Covid Decline Less than Everywhere Else?
The United States is on the declining side of a third major COVID wave. The first, March – April 2020, largely hit the west coast and the Northeast. The second, summer 2020, was felt in those places that had not been as severely effected in the spring. And the third, present everywhere except Hawaii, began in the fall and had two peaks associated with Thanksgiving and New Years.
That third wave, this current wave, is subsiding everywhere. But less in New York than in any other state. How do we know this? And what is going on?
Comparing Waves – Not So Easy
During the first wave, testing and reporting was all over the place. Each state had its own methodology (and to some extent still do, but there’s been convergence). COVID was not as quickly or readily identified. If we look at a graph of new cases for a state that was in the first and third waves, we will see two humps – but we won’t be able to compare the sizes of those humps, because testing and reporting are much more consistent today than they were 11 months ago. For the US as a whole, the 3rd wave hump appears 8 times higher than the first wave hump – but it is likely that the two waves actually have peaks that are not so different from each other.
Treatment now is better. The proportion of cases that lead to hospitalization is down. The use of drugs, the use of ventilators – changed. Better drugs are being used. And proportionately more people who get sick are recovering.
What we can tell from New Case Graphs
- We can see whether or not a wave affected a state. There’s a visible hump in the new cases graph. Easy.
- We can see when a wave began, when it ended, whether it included peaks and declines.
- We can see how steep an outbreak is, and how sharp or how incomplete the fall-off after.
I will look at New Case Graphs in my next post.
Case Rates
I started collecting maps of case rates in November, and continue updating every few days. Andrew Cuomo got on tv, said New York is doing well, and pitied states in the upper midwest, great plains, and Rocky Mountains that had been hit with an early outbreak in what would become our third wave. He dragged out the name of the state “Wyoming” several times, in some sort of awkward joke about other people’s suffering. I said to myself, “Cuomo’s an asshole. People need to be reminded.” And I like maps, so I started making some.
In this series of maps you can see the Wyoming spike, surges in Rhode Island, Delaware, eventually a spread into south… and the retreat, starting in the northern Plains, then the west and the midwest, leaving the southwest, south, and northeast lagging.
Because of my scale (over 25 cases per 100,000, over 50, over 75, etc) something is missed. Anything at 25 or over indicates community spread. So that pale yellow is not as bad as deep orange, but it is still bad. And now, as we are on the downward slope, I wish I had distinguished between 40 (NY is at 46 cases per 100,000) and 30. The map doesn’t tell you this: New York State has the second highest case rate in the country, and is coming down more slowly than anywhere else.
November 22. Huge spike in the Dakotas. New York’s numbers are lower – barely in the community spread range.
December 2. Spike is falling off. Rising numbers in Midwest and Appalachia.
December 15. Numbers rising in the southwest, lower midwest, southeast, northeast. New York’s numbers are rising, but not like its neighbors.
January 1. Decline in the northern Plains. Near peak in the southwest and south. Northeast is steady.
January 15. High numbers in Arizona. Surges in the southeast, northeast. New York stands out, but is still near the bottom of the range (maybe 10th in the country). But the direction is bad.
February 1. Numbers are declining pretty much everywhere. More than a dozen states are below 25 cases per 100,000 (threshold for community spread). Higher rates in the south and northeast. New York is starting to stand out.
Third wave is ending. Numbers are declining everywhere. NY at 46 cases per 100,000 is second highest in the country, and declining more slowly than all other states. New York and South Carolina are the only states with worse numbers today than they had in mid-November.
Next
I’m taking a look at New Case Graphs – there’s a lot to look at. I’m hoping for later this week.
For now, let me leave you with a few New Case graphs. How does New York’s graph compare to the US as a whole, and to our neighbors Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Why does New York show no post-Thanksgiving and post-Christmas dips? Why have we only fallen to our post-Thanksgiving level? – and not the early November level that the rest of the country has returned to? And why are we still at 60% of our third wave peak? – and not at 50% like Penna., 40% like the country as a whole, or 30% like Massachusetts?
Why are our new cases remaining so high, even as the third wave recedes? What’s going wrong in New York? For next time.
The Day After NYC Freedom Day
My birthday story
Last week I turned 57. And in class, I told kids a meandering story. It started with my birthday, but it went other places. And it had a Big Point, which I got to at the end, though it took a while to get there.
Growing up I listened to a Thanksgiving song. It began on Thanksgiving, but it meandered. And it had a Big Point at the end, though it took a while to get there.
Now I’m not good enough to copy Alice’s Restaurant. Not even a pale imitation. I certainly can’t sing, though Arlo to be perfectly honest doesn’t really sing his song either. But I think my Big Point was a good Big Point (so was Arlo’s) and hope that makes up for my overlong story.
Anyhow, here’s the story I told, some full text, some outline… meandering freely and widely… until I get to Freedom Day.
Born 2/4/64 – kind of cool, all powers of 2. 
I was born in Grace-New Haven Hospital (my mom won’t see this, but if she did she would quickly object that it was Yale-New Haven, but I have my baby book, and in her handwriting it says Grace-New Haven). Yale didn’t get its name on the place for another year. I did hold up my baby book as a prop, and marvel at all the details my mother recorded. All the presents I got for being born. First foods, first words. When I held my head up, turned over, crawled… Even a little chart that tracked my sleeping and eating and other bodily functions. That happens with a first child. My sister’s baby book starts when she was born, but the next entry a year later is a short sentence: “Rebecca turned one today”…
So New Haven, Connecticut. But it used to be just New Haven. New Haven was its own colony, separate from Connecticut (which my students learned about a couple years back, but, to be honest, most forgot.) New Haven was founded by some serious puritans – all religion and business. We think of hard-core religion going along with rightwing politics, but at the time they were the radicals, sort of, or they had been.
After the restoration of the monarchy in England puritans were on their heels. The new king was Charles II. Not Charles I. Charles I had been executed. Tried and executed. Dozens of people signed his death warrant. And Charles II when he came to power, went after them. The most prominent, Oliver Cromwell, was already dead. Charles dug him up and hung the corpse. Others fled to the Netherlands.
Charles I’s Death Warrant. Cromwell and Whalley signed at the bottom of the first column
And some fled to the North American colonies. When Massachusetts couldn’t protect regicides (king killers) New Model Army General Edward Whalley and his son-in-law Colonel William Goffe, they joined another regicide, John Dixwell, who was already in New Haven, where the hardcore puritans were deeply anti-monarchist, and gladly sheltered them. When British agents came close, they hid in a jumble of rocks on a hill in the northwest of New Haven – the hill is called West Rock. While at the cave they were brought food by locals, including Richard Sperry.
Today the trail on West Rock is the Regicides Trail. The rock jumble is called Three Judges Cave. The short Broadway in New Haven branches into Whalley Avenue, Goffe Street, and Dixwell Avenue. And I went to school with Susan Sperry, whose great-great-great…
But the New Haven I was born in was not a puritan bastion. There had been huge Irish immigration in the middle of the 19th Century.
In the later part of 19th Century and the start of the 20th Century there was a huge Italian immigration. But that’s not fully right. It wasn’t immigrants from every corner of Italy – immigration came largely from one region in the south – Calabria. And then I talked about the language/dialect/accent. We say “Galabrayze”. I showed the kids a sign from Sally’s Appiza, and made them guess which letter is silent (the second A, no one got it). I told them about Bob, who pointed at a menu in a restaurant when he was a kid, and asked his mother what “Manicotti” was. “Bobby, that’s manigot!”
At the same time there was Jewish immigration from eastern Europe. Also not fair. Not really all of eastern Europe – but focused on the Polish governates of the Russian empire, and on part of the Ukraine. That’s where my family came in – one side from each of those regions. But we are still not ready to fast forward to me being born.
. 
At the start of the 20th Century there was Black migration from the South. Well, we can be more accurate. Black migration to New Haven was mostly from North Carolina.
And then in the 50s and 60s people moved to New Haven from Puerto Rico (I don’t know if the immigration was primarily from a single region or district).
1940’s neighborhoods, left, and population drop in the second half of the 20th C, right
Now, we are in New York. New York City is much bigger. People, in the same immigrant waves, came from different regions in their places of origin. But at first they lived with people from their particular district or region or country. And over time they blended with others… except, for the most part, Blacks. That’s not really a choice – but was imposed by the government – through whites-only suburbs, Blacks-only public housing, redlining and other restrictions on mortgages. We will come back to this.
Redlining, NYC
The 1960s were a tumultuous decade. But one year stands out – you could teach a whole course about it. (My students knew – 1968). We listed some big events. Assassination of MLK. Assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Mexico City (showed off my laptop’s wallpaper – Tommy Smith and John Carlos and Peter Norman). Prague. French May. But 1964 was a pretty interesting year too. The March on Washington had just occurred (I showed photos, talked about the organizer Bayard Rustin). One quarter of a million people converged on DC. That’s huge. The Civil Rights Act. I talked about “One Night in Miami” and pointed out that while the conversations were fictional, most of the events they (Malcolm X, Cassius Clay, Jim Brown, and Sam Cooke) referred to happened a few weeks before or after I was born.
Before the tyranny of zip codes and 2 letter state codes, this is how we abbreviated Pennsylvania
So here we are. 1964. March on Washington has just happened. Housing has been segregated by government policy. And schools in NYC, following housing patterns are segregated. Separate. And unequal. There are vocational and academic high schools in NYC. There are no academic high schools in Black neighborhoods. When there are cutbacks, they don’t hit academic high schools. Double sessions. The physical condition of Black schools is inferior. Not enough bathrooms in some. Repairs not made. Legally enforced segregation had been made illegal – but northern segregation was not written in law books, and was exempt.
And half a year after the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin and others in New York City organized Freedom Day. Students boycotted New York City schools, one day, February 3, one day before I was born. A one-day boycott for school integration. And while the March on Washington had a quarter of a million, Freedom Day had almost half a million. Not in the history books, but it happened. 480,000 students.
Half a million at an action for Civil Rights? That is tremendous. An amazing success! Not really. What happened? Studies. Thinking. Commissions. Almost three generations later, segregation remains in NYC, maybe the worst in the country.
So here it is. Maybe you’ll remember my powers of two birthday. But I’m hoping some of you remember the day before, February 3, 1964. Freedom Day in New York City.
And one more: After three generations, are we being patient? Why? If someone asks you to be patient, but they really are asking you to be quiet because they don’t plan on doing anything…
On the day, I went on long, but I allowed quite a bit of back and forth. In some classes there were other tangents – they come so naturally to me. It was too much to take all of it in. This is not the stuff I know how to teach. But Freedom Day? I think most kids got that. And I got some requests for more information. And some thank yous. I got this one five minutes after my first class:
Happy Birthday! Thank you for being such a great math teacher and thank you for taking the time to teach us about Freedom Day. I always look forward to your classes and I am really happy to be your student. I hope you have a great day :)
And, having read that note, I did.
Abel Meeropol, author of Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit” mentioned by UFT
I get this newsletter in my email. And it is true. But maybe a bit incomplete.
Abel Meeropol was a member of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) – but not in 1937 when he wrote “Bitter Fruit” (Billie Holiday first sang it two years later, as “Strange Fruit” and it became a signature song.) The UFT did not yet exist. Meeropol was a member of the Communist-led New York Teachers Union (TU). Not only that, it was the TU that published the poem in its newsletter. Before I continue, if you do not know the song – go listen to the song. If you do not know the words,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swingin’ in the Southern breeze
Strange fruit hangin’ from the poplar trees
The bulgin’ eyes and the twisted mouth
Scent of magnolias sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burnin’ flesh
For the wind to suck
For the sun to rot
For the tree to drop
Here is a strange and bitter crop
(the link is to a website with some more history, and annotations)
So this poem was first published in 1937 in “The New York Teacher” – not the UFT newspaper, but the NYC Teacher Union magazine. The TU was red-baited out of existence, but in any case was never the bargaining agent for all NYC teachers. The TU was actually still around in 1960 when the UFT was founded, but the TU members joined the UFT, and the TU closed up shop in 1964. And at that time (I’m guessing 1960) Abel Meeropol joined the UFT.
There’s got to be culture shock, in a lot of ways. One that jumps out is going from an organization that is essentially anti-war, to the UFT, led by “state department socialists” – including Albert Shanker, well-known for his early, vocal support of the Vietnam War. Former TU members opposed him. I do not know what year Meeropol retired (he was 65 in ’68) or whether he was actively opposed to pro-war Shanker, but he may well have been. Eventually the UFT did change position and oppose the war. But the legacy remains. Eleven years ago I attended the AFT Convention in Seattle, and was horrified to read two resolutions, giving the AFT’s justification-in-advance for sanctions against Cuba and war against Iran. In a fitting twist, the pro-war “socialist” who wrote them now runs the Shanker Institute.
But when I saw Abel Meeropol’s name, I did not first think of the TU, or of DeWitt Clinton HS (a few blocks from me) where he taught English (and where James Baldwin was one of his students). No, I thought of the boys he adopted. Anne and Abel Meeropol adopted Robert and Michael, and Robert and Michael adopted the Meeropol name. They were the children of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Not only did the government execute the boys’ parents, but they did nothing as campaigns to identify and harass the children succeeded in plastering their photos across front pages, and forcing them out of school. The Meeropol’s gave the boys a home, a new name, and protected them.
There was an article about Robert and Michael, and it opens with Abel, published last month in Current Affairs. I’m copying the first four paragraphs, a teaser. You should go read the whole thing.
The left would go crazy over Jewish American dissidents Abel and Anne Meeropol if they were alive today. Their tale is a radical epic so poignant that one wonders where the 10-part miniseries is. It covers a range of contemporary themes: children separated from parents, the political persecution of dissidents, and social justice warriors doing battle against a racist, xenophobic, increasingly fascistic America.
It’s a story so fantastical, and containing so many celebrated names, that it’s hard to believe it hasn’t stuck better into the mainstream. Then again, a tale involving judicial executions on fake charges of espionage and the heroism of Jewish and Black radicals probably wouldn’t get the prestige TV greenlight. The only way the Meeropols’ story would get approved by network executives is if it were pitched by someone like Aaron Sorkin—who would no doubt fill his script with speechifying neoliberals.
While Hollywood isn’t going to tell the real story of the Meeropols anytime soon, if I were to make that TV series, I would open it on a party scene in the front parlor of a Brooklyn brownstone. The room is decorated for Christmas. The house belongs to Black socialist and civil rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois. It’s December 1953.
At the party, perhaps standing off to the side of the partygoers, is the poet-songwriter Abel Meeropol (also known by his pen name, Lewis Allan), the author of famous anti-lynching song, “Strange Fruit.” He stands beside his wife, Anne Meeropol, a public school teacher and union organizer. They are waiting patiently for the orphaned sons of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg to arrive. Abel and Anne are going to be their new parents…
There’s more. You should click and read.
It was a good reminder, in the Team HS Newsletter, about Abel Meeropol. It was a reminder about his artistic contribution to the anti-lynching movement, an earlier incarnation of the current movement against officially sanctioned violence agains Black folks (including #BLM). And a reminder about protecting children, at least for those of us who know how he and Anne protected the Rosenberg boys.
I am going to close this post by making donations to the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which supports children whose parents have been targeted as progressive activists, and also children who themselves have been targeted… and to Mothers Against Police Brutality. And I urge you to do the same.
Karen Lewis 1953 – 2021
This is not an obituary. I could not do her justice. But one summer I flew to Chicago then on to Minneapolis, and while in Chicago I spoke (indirectly) to Karen, and in Minneapolis I met her, and it makes a little story. Here’s how I told it, the evening after the one and only time I met Karen Lewis.
AFT Convention 2016 – Meeting the President
Not that one. Obama’s not here in Minneapolis. And not the next one – she left. And not the AFT President. I’ve met Randi many times before, argued with her, agreed with her, e-mailed, etc. And not Mulgrew, we’ve met.
This is the story of how I met the President of AFT Local 1, the Chicago Federation of Teachers, Karen Lewis.
OK, so I could have walked up to her and said hello, but my story is a little more convoluted.
Four days ago, before the AFT Convention, I was in Chicago, debating Fred Klonsky. Actually, I was staying with Fred and Anne. But little debates broke out. Yankees vs Cubs. Hillary vs Jill.
But our strangest debate was about the relative importance of Belief vs Acts in Judaism. Both Fred and I have tenuous links, not enough to claim expertise. Anne suggested we ask Karen. So we did. Fred texted her a series of questions. Each of which she answered with a question. Quite appropriate, we thought.
So I’m off to Minneapolis and Fred says I have to meet Karen. The first day I look a little for her, but don’t really know where to look. I don’t find her. Fred texts, says Karen expects me.
I look harder Day 2. Still don’t find her. I start introducing myself to Chicago delegates, and asking “Where’s Karen?” At drinks that evening I meet Michelle Gunderson (we’ve been tweeting/retweeting each other). Fred is a good calling card with Michelle (really, with all the Chicago people). And the fact that we won seats in NYC, people get that this is a big deal. Anyhow, Michelle tells me that Karen has not been in for all of the sessions, but that she will contact me when Karen is available.
Next morning I go to contact Michelle – can’t message her. Hmmph. But as I walk out, I see her, and we exchange numbers. Session proceeds.
It Unfolds
At 11:34 I got a message “Meet me at mic 5 so we can introduce you to Karen” I dropped my phone, mid-tweet, left the computer open on a letter I was writing. The mics are spread around the room, I checked, 5 was behind me, towards the back. I briskly walked over. Michelle smiled, said “he’s going to take you to Karen.” There was a CTU delegate who I had met briefly the day before. He headed off, with me half a step behind. We reached the far side of the floor. “Over there, she’s waiting for you” and he motioned up the aisle. He turned away.
I walked 15 steps to two people, standing in the aisle. I said hello as Karen turned to me, and introduced myself. Here I am, speaking to the president of a fighting local, sort of a teacher union hero, and we proceed to chat about militant unionism? Nope. Prayer (dovening) and the Lubavitch. I even forget to wish her happy birthday. Schmuck.
But that’s how I met Karen Lewis.
JD2718 