it after your hours may please the court we're here today a large part due to the fact that killed your school district decided to give a substitute teacher assignment to what is now  assessed what amounts to a penalty against the killdeer school district amounting to roughly forty fifty four thousand dollars not counting the her interest that is still accruing the basis for t r s's application of this penalty against the kilter school district is an error it's contrary to the statute what t r s decided at that point in time is bats the hiring of miss m d s a substitute teacher caused what was otherwise provide more than a six percent increase to a teacher and their final years of service at the school district has to pay for that difference for the impact that causes on the to rest retirement system it was a shifting of the perks of compensating the pension retirement system for what amounted to a long ongoing practice of providing teachers in their final years of service increases which would help their annuity that statute again past june first two thousand and five we choir school district which gave more than a six percent increase to pay for that bird however the statute also provided an exemption of grandfather clause it rightly said that if you had a collective bargaining agreement that was entered into before june first two thousand and five it was exempt from this new rule their own eeks provided to a teacher under the exempt contract would not be counted with respect to determining whether the six percent cap had been violated or exceed statutory language is pretty straightforward as far as what constitutes an exam contract if it was entered into before june first two thousand and five then it's exact there's no dispute over whether the contract was exam this one was but the issue is going back to teach become retired once you start receiving an annuity under t r s you're no longer paying the contribution as you were before so if you're limited as to how much service you can actually provided that status as a retired or annuity under t r s fifty five in order to retire and get your full benefits now you can retire if you're only fifty four at that point in time as long as you turn fifty five within six months and if you remember the record what it says is or what it's clear  sobbed in the kill to your district and because she had not started drawing the annuity again that didn't happen until december she had to make contributions of the school district had to make contributions on the substitute teaching assignment that she had any accrued under the exempt contract and assessed the penalty of the penalty that was assassin was for her service as a full time teacher in the final two years of her full time teaching experience and the reason why we think this is an error by aleisha the statute the statute doesn't say that you can't act as a substitute teacher during this hiatus period all the statute says is that to maintain the exemption you have to have entered into the contract before june first two thousand and five and according to t r s own rules as long as you don't amend that contract it's still an exempt contract now what ts is going to argue is that there was an amendment because of the sub assignment but that doesn't make any sense and has nothing in statute which spurred vides for that they're reading something that isn't there if you look at the regulations there's nothing in the regulations about losing the exempt status because of a subsequent subs sign and there's nothing even in their own guidance their publications their employer publications which are in the record nothing in there which justifies t r s decision now what t r s is going to argue is that this m p s continued service quote unquote continued service at the sub to sign and constitute a constituted a change in her retirement age that doesn't make any sense for her retirement date never changed she ended active service under rules on june eighth two thousand and eight didn't begin drawing the annuity from t r s until december fifth that is exactly the notice that ms and he gave under the exact contract back in two thousand and six that was never changed she never in part upon an employer publication that they issued in two thousand and nine that this is after the fact remember this and he retires in two thousand and eight in two thousand and nine years an employer bulletin that's been issued that says that changing a retirement date if you look at that employer bullets and they give an example of what they mean by change of retirement date and in that example in this is in the record thanks i'll refer to it it's in the record page fifty fifty eight or fifty nine is the employer bulletin if you read the example that's given it talks about a teacher who changes her retirement date in order to qualify for yarrow and it were to obtain the benefits under an exempt contract that makes sense if you change your retirement date in order to qualify for retirement i can see their position the bat is an amendment to an exempt contract and the status of exemption should be lost but that's not what happened in this empty miss n d qualify for yarrow qualify for the benefits under the contract on june the by june eighth two thousand and eight she did not need to sub assignments in order to qualify for  did not need the sub the simon were to receive the benefits of the contract she had already achieved that the district complied with the statute the district complied with its labor relations obligations in that they had  negotiated contract which said that it would provide two years of incentives retirement incentives to miss mt and they did and that was completed by june eighth miss n d did what she had to do she ended fulltime service as a tenured teacher two thousand and eight under yarrow and she did it properly she was eligible to go out under yellow at that point in time june eighth two thousand and eight so the purpose of the supplemental  substitute teaching assignment because miss andy had not yet begun drawing you knew would remember she begins wrong you know to young december fifth so from t r s's perspective she doesn't begin drawing the annuity until december fifth the substitute teaching assignment that occurs in the fall that runs up until twelve for two thousand and eight there has to be contributions paid on that and that's the reason for that document didn't change the amount of the annuity she was going to receive having substitute typos fifty  days it would go into the calculation of you knew what he did she would receive so it was that amount of that the substitute teaching assignment amounted to seven thousand seven hundred dollars roughly  the fifty four thousand dollar penalty against kildare that makes no sense today i don't know how that makes logical sense relative to the statute the statute is very clear it says that t r s shall exclude earnings under an exempt distinction that i think it's an error but i think what they're saying is that because she acted as a substitute that bat was in the same school district and the same school district that constituted and amendments were changing her retire and again if you look at what they're hanging their hat on which is that they are bulletin that i mentioned issued in two thousand and nine again of pages fifty eight fifty nine of the record i believe are going to hang their hat on that bulletin because that's really the only it's not in the regulations is not in the statute it says if you change a retirement date you lose your exemption but the example they give is talking about a teacher who changes the retirement date in order to get the retirement incentive benefits in order to qualify for yarrow that's not what every see very question that she increased through sorry because of the agreement or that the salary increases were triggered by the agreement to twenty percent increases were required by  thing now we're all saying it's a bad thing but in two thousand and two very common to have twenty percent bump ups in your final two years required it was teacher had given notice before the contract expired that they were going to go out at a specific time and service at a specific time if they did that they would get the twenty percent pop ups now the interest of the school was you would move along high paid staff so there was kind of an idea that you and sent the higher paid staff to maybe go out earlier than they might have otherwise but to do that you give them up to a twenty percent bump up in their salary those final two years god knows a bad thing now politically public policy wise but back in two thousand and two that's the way it was change that and you have to look at the collective bargaining agreement by that very language you don't look at what the individual does when she retires when she says she's going to retire what you look at is the contract itself that's all the statute sassed it's very simple that's it entered into before june first two thousand and five this clearly watts is centered into it in two thousand and two and it went through two thousand and six and that's the very type of contract that the exact clause was meant to  address it's pretty straightforward but i mean here we are and i need to be taking up your time with this i think i don't think there should be an issue here but the school district was assessed fifty four thousand dollars  interest is probably above sixty at this point and it's a very difficult hill for this district to swallow it did everything it was supposed to do it complied with its labor law obligations it complied with its t r s obligations it maintained the exempt status of that contract up through the point in time to miss mt and it full time service the other point i wanted to make quickly is aside as a substitute teacher she's not covered by any contract substitute teaching as you might know you're put into a pool you're not guaranteed an assignment you're not guaranteed continuing assignments you're a temporary employee you're not even a part time employee you're a temporary employee and that's what this ending was and the interesting thing is is that killdeer as a matter of public policy from his perspective likes to use its retired teachers to substitute teach because they know the district they know the students it's a good thing but it's very strange that had this ending not gone into the sub hole in killed here but went down the road to mine the wind when it there sub pool that we wouldn't be here that doesn't make any sense to me that kill deer would not have been assessed that penalty there is nothing in the statute either section f or g of sixteen dash one fifty eight which says that you have to look at the same employe retirement i don't think though that that's relevant i don't think there's any facts to support that so i don't think there's a factual dispute there i think what they're really saying is by perching back that she accepted the substituting assignment she amended her case before you involves a dispute between t r s and the kill their school district on whether or not the district is liable for a contribution under sixteen dash one fifty eight f of the school of the pension as a result of having increased the salary of one of its employees in this case barbara and having more than six percent over the prior school and is just spew facts in this case are very simple and very straightforward killed her school district entered into a collective bargaining agreement with its exclusive bar revolution which covered the school years two thousand to two thousand and six one of the provisions was that during the last two years of employment teachers could receive up to twenty percent salary increase over the prior school year in exchange for getting that retirement and send it however the employer yet to provide the school district with an unqualified notice of intent to retire and that's a key fact and as a result of that she then receive salary increases of twenty percent in two thousand and six two thousand and seven two thousand and seven thousand and eight the problem here is that rather than retire or leave her point with her school just time neither she nor the school district complied with the provisions of the collective bargain in continuing to substitute teach kill their school district or the first semester of the two thousand and eight two thousand and nine school year and one of the party to the collective bargaining whether the payments were made pursuant to an exempt it's not a past week relish but it's a task that really sort language she provides that payments have to be made under the terms of the time of the of the exam dockery what happened here was that the payments were not made under the contract because both the school district and mr andy disregarded the language in the collective bargaining agreement which provided that there has to be an justice it doesn't matter whether it's a substitute teaching situation here or whether it's a consulting contract which an administrator might be given the collective bargaining agreement which at a time she was an active member of the i r s was making contributions toward her retirement and was receiving service credit that was before she i submitted her retirement papers to but let's assume but i want to answer your question as i think it's appropriate because i've been told that some seminars but it's a good idea the language in the statute which talks about receiving the payments from the same employer really answers that question and that's why it may have been treated differently if as opposed to counsel says she'd gone down the street and taught member they may several other arguments here throughout their brief set up just touching on one of the arguments is that she ended her regular employment at the end of the two thousand seven two thousand and eight school year but if you look back at the language of the statute the language of the regulations it doesn't talk about regular appointments and you look at the collective bargaining agreement doesn't talk about regular employment it talks about retiring from your employment to the second argument which which they but isn't going to work is a study of the grade school instead of a subset of the teacher she would have been out of t r s and that would have had a fact because she wasn't she was employed as a as it teacher while she was an active member if if you're retired teacher and let's say you you're on your pension for three four years and somebody in the district gets real sick of or has a problem like this whatever the causes and they're looking around saying which come back and do a couple weeks for us to just cover the situation would have been a eight which was in large part the problem she couldn't of pretty tired in two thousand and six because you know she was still the point she was still receiving you know her salary and he active member of the r s till she submitted her retirement papers to t r s which happened in december two thousand and so if we want to address the hypothetical possibility of what would have happened if she'd gone on to line the language really the answer to that is found in the statute statutory language where it talks about payments from the same employer now we can i suppose argue about whether or not that is good policy bad policy makes sense here yes it's required to comply with the statute and the argument there i think really lies with so the the other argument that they've made has to do with well it's just a minimal payment once again the language of the collective bargaining agreement doesn't talk about minimum payments it doesn't make a distinction wouldn't make a statute i'm looking at the statute that would tell us she didn't comply and the school district by what you're saying is if you look at the collective bargaining agreement she didn't comply with bath and therefore well yes and no the the language she talks about exempt contracts which means to me that you actually have to comply with terms of the exam three which i think once again makes clear that you have to receive the benefits under the terms of contract but i think the contract was exempt simply because of statute we did pass regulations told by the ministry of procedures act and by our requirement under the statute that clear makes clear that the payment pas don't think you went on what we were allowed to do i don't even think kilgour school district says the regulations or not or not i know they disagree with how the think your honour's pump first of all i would like to say that it sounds like this point that to rest position is that we lost the exemption on this contract because we did not comply with the terms of the contract i hear them say that but i don't see how they're pointing that out the terms of the contract are pretty straightforward and they're in the record on page ninety eight and fox about what the employed has to do with it talks are asked relative to supposed to do so i don't know what they're saying and as far as i can tell is that what they're saying is that it's this substitute teaching that the staff which is that they didn't comply with the contract but the because she went back to before she was in time to actually receive benefits it wasn't really a return yes this is our viewers this is the answer to that i believe that is what he's saying but the problem with that argument is the statute doesn't prohibit that statute doesn't say that miss andy was unable to teach during that period of time do the regulations the regulations don't say that either the regulations don't say it and their own publications don't say that in fact they permit teachers to substitute teach during that time period the other thing that's important to remember here it's somewhat disingenuous to talk about you know retirements and use of that term as a term of art t r s has its definition in this case  that they say that you can go back and suck through that period did they being the school district you know the regulations regulations do not address that they never say that you cannot sub i challenge them to show me something in the statute yet ministr of code in their own publications which they have free reign over to issue and does and interpret i challenge them to show me where it says that you cannot substitute teach during that period or even if you do that that somehow causes an exempt contract to lose its exempt status it's know it doesn't exist frankly i think they made a mistake they made a mistake in applying the guide said the issue to two thousand  thinking that this was the type of situation that the retirement date was changed in order to allow a person to become qualified for those benefits that this ending was already qualified for again i have asked to look at that ploy or bullet d which is in the record pages fifty eight fifty nine is the two thousand and nine guidance it gives an example of what they mean and it talks about a teacher who needs to work ten more days into the next school year in order to become statute says you can still retires want to going to turn fifty five within six months which she did but under t r s rules they don't start paying that annuity until she turns fifty so that's why the substitute teaching assignment that