It should be obvious to everyone that an unexpected increase in retirees last June can only benefit the DOE financially, immediately and in the long run. Most will have to be replaced, but by educators at a much lower salary level, on average.

No matter how the retroactive pay is be to be funded, the DOE should have already begun the calculations for individuals. It seems fair to start such calculations with those who retired during the 2009–10 school year, and work forward from there. We should not hear of any “shortfall” until they get to the 2013–14 school year.

As the city drags out the calculations and the payments, it will be saving money in the new school year(s), due to the lower salaries: the money that they expected to pay that 48 percent increase in retirees can go into the “retro pay” pool.

All these retirees — along with most educators still working — were only promised money that they had already worked for. It is “retroactive pay,” not a gift nor a windfall.

Finally, we deserve to see some real numbers. How many UFT members retired during the period covered by the contract? How much money was set aside for them? Requiring reasonable interest payments for the delay might encourage the city to get on with it. After all, Bloomberg is finally gone, isn’t he?

Lem Chastain, retired