Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension And Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates whether to attest to no-contract-spiking under Batista v. ORS settlement; vote deferred
Summary
Trustees debated whether to pass a districtwide attestation requested under the Batista v. Office of Retirement Services settlement and ultimately deferred the item so staff can review salary schedules and return with more targeted language.
The board held a lengthy discussion about a statewide settlement in the long-running Batista litigation with the Michigan Office of Retirement Services (ORS) and whether Bloomfield Hills should pass a resolution attesting that the district did not "spike" final-average compensation for retirees. The settlement, reached in May 2025, allows employees who retired after 2021 to seek review of final-average compensation and includes a process in which a reporting unit's board can attest that certain pay increases were not made for the purpose of inflating pension calculations.
Superintendent West summarized the background and said the district likely has minimal exposure and identified two retirees who could fall into the category: a previous superintendent and a deputy superintendent, Keith McDonald. West told the board he was not aware of any spiking in the past 12 months and characterized the district's exposure as limited; he said legal counsel had supplied an opinion and a suggested resolution.
Board members raised multiple questions: whether the board can legitimately attest to payroll decisions it did not oversee; whether the resolution should be narrow and applied only to named individuals rather than a broad district-wide attestation; how the district should document "normal salary schedules" and whether those exist for unrepresented administrative staff; and what practical consequences might follow if the board does or does not pass the resolution. One trustee said the resolution felt "broad" and recommended tailoring it to individual retirees needing assistance. Another asked how other districts have responded; the superintendent said boards across the state are being asked to consider such resolutions.
Why it matters: the litigation concerns how ORS calculates retirement benefits for administrators and other employees whose contracts or compensation may have changed late in a career. An attestation from a board is one of three factors ORS might consider during a review; other factors include whether the employee was on a normal salary schedule or subject to a bona-fide compensation freeze.
Board action: Trustees decided to postpone action on the resolution to allow further review. The superintendent said he would have staff (including the HR and legal teams) review normal salary schedules and bring recommendations back; board members expressed a preference for a targeted approach and asked for more information about the practical implications of signing a broad resolution.
Ending: The board did not vote to adopt the resolution. Members asked staff to return with normal salary schedules, legal guidance, and possibly a narrower, person-specific attestation if appropriate.
