Board reviews resolution tied to Batista v. Office of Retirement Services settlement (first reading)
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board reviewed a first reading of a resolution attesting that the district did not provide compensation increases intended to inflate pensions under the Batista settlement; staff said the resolution affects about 106 non‑union employees and the item will return for action.
The Farmington Public Schools Board of Education held a first reading on Sept. 9 of a resolution related to the settlement in Batista v. Office of Retirement Services, a legal dispute over what compensation counts toward public‑school employee pensions.
The resolution, read at the meeting, would certify that the board “has never provided an increase to any employee's compensation for the purpose of spiking the amount of the employee's final average compensation” as calculated by the Michigan Office of Retirement Services. The resolution is presented to help local boards comply with the settlement terms reached May 16, 2025, in case number 19‑000019‑MZ.
District counsel and staff explained that the settlement affects employees who work outside collective bargaining — described in the meeting as central office, executive assistants and other non‑unit, non‑affiliated employees — and that approximately 106 staff fall into that category. The district's attorney had recommended the resolution, staff said, and the board indicated it would move the item to the action portion of a future meeting for final adoption.
Why it matters: The settlement clarifies how compensation calculations affect state pension benefits for certain public‑school employees. A local resolution attesting to past practices is a common step districts are taking to conform with the settlement and reduce future disputes with the Office of Retirement Services.
What comes next: The board held only a first reading on Sept. 9; staff said the resolution will be moved to an action item at the next meeting for a vote.
Ending: No vote occurred on Sept. 9; trustees heard staff context and will consider formal adoption at a future meeting.