SENATE. 67TH CONGRESS, 2d Session. { REPORT No. 405. RETIREMENT OF PUBLIC-SCHOOL TEACHERS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. JANUARY 16, 1922.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. BALL (for Mr. ELKINS), from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 2589.] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2589) to amend section 11 of the act entitled "An act for the retirement of public-school teachers in the District of Columbia," approved January 15, 1920, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. In support of this measure the following letter from the auditor of the District of Columbia is hereby submitted: OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The COMMISSIONERS: Washington, December 23, 1921. Submitting the following on S. 2589, entitled "A bill to amend section 11 of the act entitled 'An act for the retirement of public-school teachers in the District of Columbia,' approved January 15, 1920, which you referred to me for report. On October 20, 1921, the auditor requested the superintendent of public schools to submit his views on the proposed amendment and suggested the advisability of having the amendment considered by the board of education. Under date of December 6, 1921, the secretary of the board of education informed the auditor that that board had indorsed the proposed amendment, and transmitted information giving the names of the several persons who would come under the retirement law in the event of the adoption by Congress of the amendment. It is proposed by the bill under consideration to amend section 11 of the teachers' retirement act approved January 15, 1920, which now reads: "SEC. 11. That the provisions of this act shall apply to all teachers who were on the rolls of the public schools of the District of Columbia for the month of June, 1919, if otherwise eligible ”— to read as follows: "SEC. 11. That the provisions of this act shall apply to all teachers who were on the rolls of the public schools of the District of Columbia for the month of June, 1919, if otherwise eligible, and to any teacher who having reached the age of forty-five, or who having taught continuously for fifteen years in the public schools of the District of Columbia, and by reason of accident or illness not due to vicious habits having become physically or mentally disabled and incapable of satisfactorily performing the duties of a teacher, resigned from the service, or was placed upon an inactive list by the board of education on or before June 1, 1919, if otherwise eligible." In a decision rendered by the Comptroller of the Treasury to the commissioners on October 11, 1921, section 11 as it now appears in the law is construed to prohibit the payment of an annuity to any teacher who was not in a pay status during the month of June, 1919, or since that time. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to bring under the retirement law some 28 teachers, as far as now known, who resigned from the school service prior to June 1, 1919, or were retired by the board of education and placed upon an inactive status before that date. The superintendent of public schools has furnished me with a statement giving the names of former teachers, so far as that office is able to ascertain, who may be entitled to benefits under the proposed change in the law. The names of the teachers, with the respective dates of appointments and resignations, or dates on which perpetual leave was granted, are as follows: E. L. Duvall, appointed September, 1877, resigned June, 1898. M. C. A. Lazenby, appointed May, 1877, resigned March, 1900. E. W. Dyer, appointed September, 1881, resigned April, 1901. M. G. Kelly, appointed September, 1869, resigned October, 1906. M. R. Hampson, appointed January, 1889, resigned April, 1909. E. A. Vorhees, appointed September, 1866, granted perpetual leave October, 1910. C. L. Wilson, appointed September, 1872, granted perpetual leave May, 1911. Phoebe Holmes, appointed September, 1891, resigned June, 1911. M. P. Wilson, appointed November, 1876, granted perpetual leave January, 1912. S. B. Brown, appointed September, 1876, granted perpetual leave, October, 1912. E. J. Young, appointed October, 1876, granted perpetual leave October, 1913. M. V. Slater, appointed October, 1899, resigned November, 1914. G. M. Parker, appointed July, 1887, granted perpetual leave January, 1915. E. L. Godey, appointed September, 1869, granted perpetual leave October, 1916. A. A. Chesney, appointed September, 1887, granted perpetual leave February, 1916. Leonora Merritt, appointed July, 1888, resigned October, 1918. Francis Schweinhaut, appointed October, 1888, granted leave October, 1916. M. F. Barker, appointed September, 1877, granted perpetual leave June, 1919. L. V. Fisher, appointed September, 1867. A. T. Howard, appointed March, 1868, granted perpetual leave January, 1918. H. P. Spencer, appointed January, 1869. E. V. George, appointed November, 1888, granted perpetual leave March 1, 1919. A. L. Lofton, appointed November, 1900, granted perpetual leave September, 1918. It will be noted in one case the teacher resigned from the school service in June, 1898, another March, 1900, another April, 1901, and another in October, 1905. These separations therefore occurred prior to the passage of the present organic act of the schools on June 20, 1906. The several other teachers resigned or were granted perpetual leave following that date. Difficulty will arise in the consideration of the cases of the teachers who resigned prior to June 20, 1906, unless some definite provision be contained in the law concerning the amount of annuity to which they shall severally be entitled, or a new basis established in determining the respective annuities, as the provisions of the present retirement law can not be applied to their cases. This statement also holds good regarding teachers who resigned or were granted perpetual leave after the passage of the act of June 20, 1906, and who were not assigned by the board of education to one of the salaries prescribed by that act. Section 1 of the teachers' retirement law (act of Jan. 15, 1920) provides: "That within sixty days after the passage of this act there shall be deducted and withheld from the basic salary of every teacher in the public schools of The the District of Columbia an amount computed to the nearest tenth of a dollar that will be sufficient, with interest thereon at 4 per centum per annum, compounded annually, to purchase, under the provisions of this act, an annuity equal to 1 per centum of his average annual basic salary received since the passage of public act numbered 254, approved June 20, 1906, for each year of his whole term of service, payable monthly throughout life, for every teacher who shall be entitled, as herein provided." This section of the retirement law discloses the difficulty which will be encountered in the event of the adoption of the proposed amendment, in respect to those teachers who have never received or been assigned a salary under the act of June 20, 1906. Such a salary and no other may be used in computing an annuity. Under section 3 of the retirement law a teacher may be retired by the board of education or he may be retired upon his own application upon attaining the age of 62 years, provided he shall have been employed as a teacher continuously in the District of Columbia from the time of his attaining the age of 52 years. Retirement may also be granted because of disability. A teacher who has reached the age of 45 years and has taught continuously in the public schools of the District of Columbia for 10 years immediately prior to his retirement, or who without regard to age had taught continuously for 15 years in the public schools of the District of Columbia, and who by reason of accident or illness not due to vicious habits has become physically or mentally disabled and incapable of satisfactorily performing the duties of teacher, may be retired by the board of education. Of the 28 names submitted by the board of education as those probably affected by the proposed amendment to the retirement law, this office has information upon which it is able to calculate the annuity in 18 cases. For these 18 teachers the additional appropriation required to pay annuities is $12,187.01, or an average per teacher of $677. The annuities range from the minimum for disability, namely, $420 per year, to $916.50. The auditor has not been able to determine the annuities of the other 10 persons included in the board of education's list of 28. I believe, however, that a safe estimate for an additional appropriation for all 28 teachers would be between $18,000 and $20,000. The question whether the commissioners should recommend the approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment is one which I believe they should decide. The several teachers under consideration either resigned or were placed on the perpetual leave list by the board of education prior to June 1, 1919, and in one case, as has been shown, the teacher resigned in June, 1898, and in three other cases the teachers resigned prior to the act of June 20, 1906. Of the 18 teachers who have furnished questionnaires to the auditor and in whose cases annuity computations have been made, the period of teaching service ranges from 19 years to 49 years. In those cases where resignations were submitted by school-teachers and accepted by the board of education no evidence has been presented to show the grounds which brought about the separations. It is now shown, for instance, that the resignations were due to accident or illness incapacitating the teachers, physically or mentally, from satisfactorily performing teaching duties. This information would have to be forthcoming should the amendment in question be enacted into law. I am in sympathy with the effort to obtain legislation to bring under the retirement law teachers whose cases are meritorious, but who, because of the construction placed upon section 11 of that law, can not now receive an annuity. But I question whether such teachers should be paid more than the minimum allowance of $420 as fixed by existing law, and this allowance should relate only to the period beginning with the date on which the amendment may be enacted into law. The purpose of this would be to prevent the teachers from claiming annuity payments for any time prior to the approval of the enactment. On the basis of an annuity of $420 to the 28 teachers involved an additional appropriation of $11,760 would be required for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923, beyond the amount of the estimate submitted by the commissioners for the payment of annuities to teachers during that year. D. J. DONOVAN, Auditor of the District of Columbia. After the letter of the auditor for the District of Columbia was transmitted to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, another name has been submitted to the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia by the superintendent of schools, which it is desired to be included in the list of teachers affected by the provisions of S. 2589, namely: Nannie Jackson Myers, granted leave of absence on April 1, 1919, on account of ill health, and has never been able to return to the system. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia, in the following letter, submit an opinion which advocates the passage of the bill: COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, December 30, 1921. Hon. L. HEISLER BALL, Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate. SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit the following on Senate bill 2589, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, entitled, "A bill to amend section 11 of the act entitled 'An act for the retirement of public-school teachers in the District of Columbia,' approved January 15, 1920," which you referred to them for report as to the merits of the bill and the propriety of its passage. The commissioners forwarded the bill to the auditor of the District of Columbia for report, and they inclose herewith his report, which is a complete discussion of the effect of the proposed amendment. As will be seen, the bill if enacted will extend the benefits of the teachers' retirement act to 28 former public-school teachers who do not come within the provisions of the present law. The commissioners are in receipt of a letter from the board of education indorsing the bill with no suggested changes. They believe, however, that a definite date should be fixed beyond the proposed amendment should not extend. This date they suggest be fixed as June 20, 1906, which is the date of approval of the present organic act of the school system. They further believe that annuities under the proposed bill should be limited to the minimum allowance of $420 per annum fixed by existing law, and that these annuities should be operative from the date of the approval of the teachers' retirement law, namely, January 15, 1920. Should this suggestion of the commissioners be followed, the 28 teachers in question, on the basis of the payment of the minimum annuity, would receive for the period between March, 1920, and June, 1922, a total of $27,440 for what might be termed “back pay." For the fiscal year 1923, also on the basis of the minimum annuity, an additional appropriation of $11,760 would be needed. The $27,440 would be payable from the balances of current appropriations for the payment of annuities for teachers, and if this were not sufficient a deficiency appropriation would have to be made. Annuities are now based by law on salaries paid under the present organic act of the schools approved June 20, 1906. Very respectfully, CUNO H. RUDOLPH, President. Mrs. Archibald Hopkins, president of the board of managers of the Washington Home for Incurables, submits a letter signed by herself and the entire board, which is as follows: WASHINGTON HOME FOR INCURABLES, To the Chairman and Members of the Senate Committee on the District of DEAR SIRS: We, the undersigned, the president and members of the board of the Washington Home for Incurables, understanding that there is before your committee a bill introduced by Senator Elkins, of West Virginia, to retire publicschool teachers over 45, or who have taught 15 years and resigned or were placed on the inactive list for physical disability, make this appeal in the interest of one of our inmates. She is a woman of the highest character, retired only after she became almost entirely helpless from that terrible disease, arthritis deformans, a progressive and most painful malady. Besides our personal interest in her, we know of many others under similar and even worse conditions, because unable to be placed in our home owing to our lack of accommodations. We do earnestly |