Be Here Now

On living in the moment (and adding "at this time" to union resolutions)

There’s a 1971 book called, Be Here Now. I don’t think I’ve ever read it. It may have been popular with friends of mine at some point. I recall seeing it around, but I don’t think I followed up. The concept is appealing nonetheless.

I taught nights at Queens College for around 20 years, and only gave it up when I became a chapter leader. As a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, I noticed the adult students who struggled the most were those with their noses perpetually buried in dictionaries.

They’d be looking up a word that had come up minutes ago, and by the time they found it, we’d be on to something else. They’d have to dive back into the dictionary to seek another word on which the class was no longer focused. These students were not living in the moment.

I left Queens College to focus on being chapter leader of a large, overcrowded school. Though supporting members was very fulfilling, the job kind of took over my life. There were so many things going on. I’d have driven myself nuts over if I hadn’t learned to compartmentalize. I’d focus on one thing now, and another later. Be here now is a simple but useful concept. It served me well as chapter leader, and if I could only have impressed the concept more on some of my adult students, they’d have benefited too. One caution, though:

Be here now doesn’t work well on resolutions.

When you make a resolution, you say we’ve determined this or that, we feel strongly about it, and we wish to take action. If you modify it to say we believe it “at this time,” it means you will not believe it at another time. When is that time? Is it next year? Next month? Five minutes from now? Who’s to say?

Our Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC ) can oppose something, vote on it, and formalize our position. We did that just last week. We passed a resolution opposing the re-amortization bill currently before Governor Kathy Hochul. There’s been a lot said and written about it. It’s come from many sources. Unity accuses folks of misinformation, but the fact is if we’d depended on them we would never have even known about this.

RTC passed a resolution in opposition, posted below. Below that is the resolution RTC wants to present to the UFT Delegate Assembly (DA). It’s modified to say we oppose it “at this time.”

If we ever manage to pass this at the DA, it will signify little. Our trustees declared they don’t support the bill at this time, and stated it was because they were not confident in our partner, presumably the mayor. It seems unlikely, to me at least, that Mayor Adams will win a second term. In that case, there’ll be a new mayor next year, and it’s likely the trustees will reconsider.

The question is this—do we oppose the bill, or do we just oppose it “at this time?”

And if we do indeed oppose it “at this time,” why oppose it at all? In one moment, it will literally be another time.

Here’s the thing—regardless of our resolution, the trustees can and will do whatever they please. They will not be in violation of policy, because the policy we now propose is effectively meaningless.

Meanwhile, there’s much criticism of the bill. I hear UFT Trustee Tom Brown does not much care for this criticism. Unity has suggested those who brought it up are liars. Trustee Victoria Lee has publicly labeled the ABC pieces that informed membership as misinformation.

Gaslighting 101: Unity Edition:

Step 1: Do something bad.

Step 2: Say it didn’t happen.

Step 3: Blame the people who noticed.

Someone reported to me that Brown prefers the term “smoothing.” It is indeed a much-used term. It’s been used extensively on a national level. Here’s a 2014 Times article about it, and I’ve removed the paywall for you.

We can let companies pay less for pensions now and more later, but there is a time between now and later. If companies go bankrupt in the interim, their pension funds will be less funded than they should have been.

In our case, if revenues don’t meet expectations, we won’t lose our pensions. They’re guaranteed by the NY State Constitution. But someone, somewhere, some time will have to pay. Maybe that raise for in-service employees will just have to wait. Maybe we double co-pays to squeeze money from those who get sick. Maybe we tack on a medical premium. Who knows? Here’s another possibility, from TWU President John V. Chiarello:

Chiarillo says “they’re trying to underfund our pension and take a five-year pause in contributions. As I walked the halls in Albany, I told them, hell no – we’re not doing that. I’m a NYCERS Trustee. Our NYCERS pension is good. If you ever want to get Tier 6 changed, you can never underfund the pension, because that’s where the money comes from. Local 100 is against any underfunding of this pension.”

So according to him, this move imperils fixing Tier 6. Why? Because they are not protected by the NY State Constitution. UFT Trustees stressed current retirees wouldn’t be affected, but is that enough?

Even if WE are not hurt, doesn’t it behoove us to look out for those who follow in our footsteps?

Tom Brown stated the word “trust” is in trustee. That implies, of course, that they should be trusted by virtue of their titles alone. I don’t advocate basing your trust on people’s titles. But since Brown evidently does, I must point out that Chiarello is also a trustee. On that basis, we must trust him too. What to do? It’s a real quandary.

The notion of paying less now and more later could work out if investments do well. They have before. However, it does not always work. In Connecticut it did not, and they found themselves facing a 550 million dollar shortfall. Well that’s inconvenient, to say the least.

I don’t know about you, but with all the economic uncertainty we’re facing today, and lacking a functioning crystal ball, I’m less than bullish on the economy. I don’t feel like it’s time to buy stocks. Of course I could be wrong. I’m not a financial whiz. I’m not a trustee. However if I were, I would not pretend to know everything, let alone forbid people from questioning my judgment.

When people try to sell you investments, there are cautions, in writing, that past performance does not guarantee future results. However, that also suggests that while smoothing may have worked out ten or so years ago, there’s no guarantee it will work again now.

Again, below you will find the resolution we passed at RTC last week. Under it is the proposed resolution for the Delegate Assembly. I’ve bolded the words “at this time,” repeated three times, To my mind, the revised resolution is substantially watered down, essentially neutered.

UFT retirees do not oppose Medicare Advantage “at this time.” We oppose it, full stop. Opposing something “at this time” indicates we barely take any position at all.

Cops and firefighters have trustees too. They did not determine this to be a good idea for their pension systems. Why not?

What do you think?

Resolution: To Fully Fund Our Pension Systems by Following NYC's Current Schedule of Payments

WHEREAS New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed a FY 2026 Budget Amendment (70043-04-5) that would change the annual schedule of payments that New York City contributes to three of the city pension systems - TRSNYC, BERS, and NYCERS - which includes both systems that enroll UFT represented employees and retirees; and

WHEREAS the proposed schedule of payments would delay the full funding of those pension systems from 2032 to 2044; and

WHEREAS the proposed schedule of payments lowers the City's pension contributions by an estimated $8.6 billion from 2025 to 2032, it then requires increased contributions of $13.8 billion from 2033 to 2044; * and

WHEREAS those future payments risk straining the city budget in ways that could lead to cuts in education and other essential services; and

WHEREAS the UFT Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC) opposes changing the City's schedule of payments; and

WHEREAS NYC Comptroller Brad Lander does not support changing the City's current schedule of payments; * and

WHEREAS the Teacher Trustees of the Teachers Retirement System of NYC do not support changing the City's current schedule of payments; ** and

WHEREAS the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer of the United Federation of Teachers do not support changing the City's current schedule of payments; ** be it

RESOLVED that the RTC shall contact New York Governor Kathy Hochul, State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, and other State Legislators to inform them of the RTC's opposition to the proposed amendment; and be it further

RESOLVED that the RTC will take this resolution to the UFT Delegate Assembly and ask our union to inform our State Legislators that the UFT is opposed to putting Budget Amendment 70043-04-5 into the FY 2026 NY State budget.

_________________

* NYC Comptroller Brad Lander's testimony at the FY 2026 Preliminary Budget Hearing before the NY City Council Committee on Finance, 3/5/2025

** TRSNYC Teacher Trustees in their email to RTC chapter members on 3/10/2025, and their email to NYC Actuary Marek Tyskiewicz on 3/6/2025.

Resolution: To Oppose Budget Amendment 70043-04-5

WHEREAS New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed a FY 2026 Budget Amendment (70043-04-5) that would change the annual schedule of payments that New York City contributes to three of the city pension systems - TRSNYC, BERS, and NYCERS - which includes both systems that enroll UFT represented employees and retirees; and

WHEREAS the proposed schedule of payments lowers the City's pension contributions by an estimated $8.6 billion from 2025 to 2032, it then requires increased contributions of $13.8 billion from 2033 to 2044; and

WHEREAS those future payments risk straining the city budget in ways that could lead to cuts in education and other essential services; and

WHEREAS the UFT Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC) opposes changing the City's schedule of payments; and

WHEREAS NYC Comptroller Brad Lander does not support changing the City's current schedule of payments at this time; and

WHEREAS the Teacher Trustees of the Teachers Retirement System of NYC do not support changing the City's current schedule of payments at this time; and

WHEREAS the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer of the United Federation of Teachers do not support changing the City's current schedule of payments at this time; therefore, be it

RESOLVED that the UFT shall contact New York Governor Kathy Hochul, State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, and other State Legislators to inform them of the UFT’s opposition to the proposed amendment; and be it further

RESOLVED that the UFT will inform our State Legislators that we are opposed to putting Budget Amendment 70043-04-5 into the FY 2026 NY State budget.