Private Member’s Proposed Amendments to RTAM’s Constitution and Bylaws

Joan Dawson, Chairperson- Bylaws and Policy Committee

The following interim policy changes have the approval of the Board of Directors of RTAM and will be brought to the May, 2015, AGM in Portage La Prairie for disposition:

Interim Policy Changes for AGM 2015

Policy Motion 1: (M/S Dawson/Sitter)

That SECTION 8 – COMMITTEES

8.01 Names of the Standing Committees

9) Political Action Committee be amended to read: Political Advocacy Committee

Rationale: RTAM Board consensus is that the phrase political action has developed a negative and aggressive connotation. The term political advocacy denotes a less confrontational and more positive collegial demeanour to the objectives of the committee.

Policy Motion 2: (M/S Dawson/Boyes)

That 8.06 (9) Political Action Committee be amended to read:

Political Advocacy Committee

The Political Advocacy Committee shall: c) Plan and organize political advocacy, if so directed by the Board.

Rationale: The new wording of this section is in line with the change of committee name in section 8.01.

Policy Motion 3: (M/S Dawson/Sitter)

That 8.06 (4) (i) Kit Sub-Committee be amended to read:

ADD in d) d) to all public schools in Manitoba

Rationale: This is a way to inform the active teachers in the province of RTAM activities and planned retirement seminars.

Policy Motion 4: (M/S Dawson/Boyes)

That 10.02 Reimbursement of Expenses

10.02 (1) Transportation

be amended to read:

ADD after the first sentence

Board members and Chapter representatives traveling from outside of Manitoba to attend

RTAM approved activities shall be reimbursed at the approved reasonable rates for the portion of their travel within Manitoba.

Rationale: This has been the past practice of reimbursement for RTAM related travel as per 10.02 (5) AGM Attendance Expenses (c) and now reinforces that this is the standard that applies to all RTAM approved activities.

Moved by: terry Clifford Seconded by: Gail Robertson 1) Emergent Meeting of Members

Definition: An Emergent Meeting of Members is a meeting to discuss topic(s) which are of sufficient importance, that deferral to the Annual General Meeting would be detrimental to the organisation or to its members. Calling a Emergent Meeting

An emergent meeting of members shall be called by the President should circumstances warrant.

The President shall call an emergent meeting of members when: a) a motion is passed by a 2/3 majority of the full Board or, b) there is a written request, electronic or other-

wise, from at least twenty (20) Chapters or, c) there are written requests, electronic or otherwise, from a total of at least fifty (50) members at large.

time and Location

The time and location of the meeting shall be determined by the President, but be held in either Winnipeg or Brandon. The date of the meeting after such time that members will have received information of the meeting. The meeting shall be held within 15 working days of the fulfilling of any of the conditions outlined above.

Informing members

All members shall be informed of the meeting and the agenda stated.

Agenda

Except for deletions, the agenda shall not be amended.

Expenses

Claimable expenses shall be identical to those for the Annual Meeting.

Cancelation

Should circumstance change and the need for the meeting cease, the meeting shall be cancelled.

Rationale: If there is an emergent issue identified by the Board, which would require a meeting of members to approve particular actions e.g. Changes to byLaws, there is no process in place to be able to call such a meeting.

Moved by: terry Clifford Seconded by: Gail Robertson 2) Section 4.02 be deleted. Rationale The intent of this section was to enable the Board to make such changes to the Bylaws in an emergency situation i.e. a situation which could not wait until the next AGM. In talking to at least one member of the Board the comment made was “if I do not like what the AGM voted for then using this clause, I can change it”. Such action is totally in conflict with the preceding section. It make AGM pointless and the wishes of the membership irrelevant. Moved by: terry Clifford Seconded by: Gail Robertson 3) Meeting of Presidents

A meeting of Presidents shall be called following: a) A motion passed by a simple majority of the board or b) A request signed by at least five (5) Chapter presidents, who shall state the reason for a meeting. These letters, by electronic or other means, shall be received by the President in time for the December meeting of the Board or the first meeting of the Board thereafter.

The date for a potential meeting shall be determined by the Board by September 30th and shall occur in either January or February. Chapter Presidents shall be informed within seven days of the date being determined.

The President shall notify all chapter presidents of the meeting, stating date, time and location and the reason for the meeting.

The President shall prepare the Agenda which may be amended at the meeting.

Motions

Motions may be made, tied votes shall be referred to the President for disposition. Motions are advisory to the Board

Voting

Each Chapter shall be entitled to two votes. While Board members will be expected to be in attendance, they have no right to enter discussions nor vote unless he/she is representing chapter. Board members may be asked to provide information by a chapter representative or by the President.

Minutes

Minutes will be taken and circulated to all chapters within two weeks and on the RTAM web page within four weeks.

Rationale: A meeting of Presidents is entirely at the whim of the Board, at this time. This change would enable a group of chapter president the ability to have a meeting called.

The above Private Member Bylaw changes have been referred to our Bylaws and Policy Committee for comment. Those comments will be shared at the AGM.

The Pension Committee would like to thank Ray Sitter for his work on outlining some options that could occur for the distribution of the Restricted Surplus.

What to do with the Restricted Surplus in our COLA account The Restricted Surplus is money that was available in our PAA (COLA) Account for distribution between the years 2008 and 2017 but because of Bill 45, it could not be distributed. What’s that you say? How does that work?

Every month that an active teacher makes a pension payment, most of it goes to Account A (the main pension account). A little over 16% of that money goes to the PAA Account to pay the COLA. Prior to Bill 45, pretty well all the money that went into the PAA Account was paid out as COLA the following year. Bill 45, which came into effect in 2008 and ends in 2017, has a clause that says that the maximum COLA that can be paid is 2/3 of CPI. If CPI (inflation) is very low, and the 16 plus % that came into PAA during the year would produce a COLA greater than 2/3 CPI, then what retired teachers will receive is 2/3rds of CPI as a COLA. The extra money, the amount that is the difference between what was paid and what could have been paid is the surplus, also called the Restricted Surplus because it cannot be distributed until 2017 when Bill 45 ends. Therefore, it is called Restricted.

This situation has occurred in 2013 and 2014. In 2013 there was $4,760,000 left over and in 2014 there was another similar amount left over. The end result is that there is, at this point in time, after those 2 years a total restricted surplus of $8,978,000 in the Restricted Surplus. It may occur again between now and 2017.It primarily depends upon there being very low inflation. This would normally create another Restricted Surplus. Since this Restricted Surplus cannot be paid out until 2017 or after or it is restricted from being paid out till then what do we do with it when it could be paid out?

TRAF has been tasked with the job of recommending the solution to this dilemma. They have said that they would listen to proposals from all interested parties. RTAM has been assured that it would be consulted. It should be pointed out that although we will be asked WE WILL NOT MAKE THE DECISION. We would like your input into what position we should take. Remember some positions would clearly provide an advantage to currently retired people. We recognize that we are not necessarily the most influential of the interested parties who will be asked for recommendations. We will work hard at putting forward your advised position.

Options available for distribution of the Restricted Surplus - there are a number of them, 5 that I can think of, there are probably more. 1. The first option is to distribute the money when it becomes available for distribution and in the same way as usual i.e. to all the teachers retired in 2017/2018 as a percentage of their pension.

This is the normal way of paying the available COLA amounts. The argument for this method is that it follows tradition and the normal way of doing things. All retired teachers will have paid money into the PAA account.

No deviation from the rules required and no precedence is being set. 2. The amount in the restricted surplus should be paid to the people who were retired in the years that the Restricted

Surplus was created. In the

“normal situation” this money would have been paid out to them at the time it was created. It would not have created a situation where the

COLA was greater than 100% at the time. So it should go to

them. The counter argument is that the law was in effect at that time and as a result the

Restricted Surplus occurred.

To do what is proposed here would require some retired teachers to be treated differently than others contrary to the normal process and could start a bad precedent. There could always be arguments for changing the pension rules and treating one group of retirees differently than the rest. Many would consider this unfair. 3. This option looks at the changes in the size of salaries most recently and therefore pensions of most recently retired individuals. Their salaries/pensions would be larger for more recently retired individuals and therefore they would get the same percentage increase due to COLA but the dollar value would be much larger.

This option would give all retirees an EQUAL share of the monies in the Restricted

Surplus when it becomes available. 4. One time, once only, separate payment to the poorest retired teachers. Compassion is the greatest argument in this option. To ensure that the applicants are “poor” it likely would require a family means

“test”. This also speaks to special treatment for one retired group over another. A separate payment is to prevent this payment from becoming a part of the pension and having future COLAs paid on this “special” amount as it happens for other COLA payments. 5. Leave the restricted Surplus in the PAA (COLA) Account. Let it be seed money that will grow to create a bigger COLA in the future. The argument against is that it is too small an amount of money to make an immediate difference.

HELP!!

Please consider these options and let us know what direction should be promoted by RTAM.

Contact the RTAM office at 1-204-889-3660, toll-free 1-800393-8082 or mail your thoughts to RTAM 206 St. James Street, Winnipeg, MB R3H 1B5.

Please indicate whether you are responding as an individual or as a representative of a group (chapter, retired teacher coffee group, or some other retired teacher group) also indicate the size of the group you represent.

volunTeeRinG WiTH TRavel

Carol Pelton, Chair, RTAM Travel Committee

Have you combined travel with a volunteer job in Canada or abroad? Let the Travel Committee know about your experience.

Would you like information about potential volunteer and travel opportunities? What areas are you interested in? Let the Travel Committee know about your area of interest.

Email either request to Carol Pelton or Carol Gillis at rtam@mymts.net.