Retired Harvard teachers were probably not surprised when they read the letter the selectmen sent them last week. They might have wished it would contain seeds of hope for a more compassionate long-term solution to the issue of rising health care costs. Instead, the selectmen’s message was simply a justification for their earlier decision to switch insurers for retired teachers, thereby undermining long-standing retirement plans. And their assertion that their primary purpose was to create parity among all town employees was not convincing.
The selectmen’s letter correctly asserts that the town’s health care costs have risen significantly since 1972, from 1 percent of the town budget to 13 percent. In a letter to the editor this week, teacher Sharlene Tuttle points out that the increase is at least partly because the school population has grown, requiring more teachers and staff. Selectwoman Kara Minar makes the same point in this week’s article about the selectmen’s letter. What isn’t mentioned is the marked increase in nonschool town employees in the past 45 years.
In 1972, there was no town administrator, assistant town administrator, executive assistant, finance director, assistant town clerk, Council on Aging director, or even a full-time fire chief. There was no real police station and only a few full-time officers. Without question, things have changed since then and will continue to do so.
But that’s no reason for the town to renege on the implicit promise it made to dedicated employees who served the town well for decades. In this week’s issue, two present-day teachers make a compelling case for grandfathering the current split in retired teachers’ benefit costs.
Although grandfathering current retiree benefits would delay the savings the selectmen hope to achieve, the Press believes the town should honor its promises, and we urge the selectmen to reconsider their earlier decision.
