CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, July 3, 2003
"What goes around comes
around"
Soon the votes of those million-plus people who elect a governor could be rendered virtually meaningless by the blatant power grab being attempted by Speaker Finneran, who is seeking to overturn Romney's veto of a bill that would give him and his successors unlimited authority to reward friends and punish enemies within the rank and file....
How bad is this? Well, it's got people on both sides of the aisle screaming for the public's assistance in thwarting this most undemocratic piece of legislation.
Veteran Democratic consultant Michael Goldman, who assisted in the successful campaign to unseat one House speaker and the failed effort to send then-Senate President Bill Bulger into early retirement, calls it "the culmination of a power grab that's been going on for years."
Meanwhile Citizens for Limited Taxation's Barbara Anderson, normally on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Goldman, says, "This power grab allows the speaker to spend taxpayer dollars without gubernatorial oversight. Once he has the potential to reward two-thirds of the House with extra pay, he has the ability to override any gubernatorial veto, (and) the public rationale for electing a Republican governor for balance is gone."
A Salem News editorial
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Override would truly make it 'Finneran's House'
Barbara Anderson and Doug Petersen?
Like oil and water.
Except that Petersen, the progressive Marblehead representative, and Anderson, the Marblehead tax cutter who transformed the state through Proposition
2½, have now teamed up against a common foe -- Tom Finneran, speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives....
Together, the political Odd Couple helped convince Gov. Mitt Romney to veto the bill, after it passed on a vote of 100 to 50 in April. According to Petersen, Finneran is now busily seeking votes to override the veto.
The Salem News
Thursday, July 3, 2003
The Odd Couple vs. Finneran
Gov. Mitt Romney has figured out a way to play hardball with House Speaker Tom Finneran on the issue of legislative pay hikes, and it's simply, well, delicious....
The governor, of course, vetoed the attempted power play that would allow legislative leaders to set the pay of their top lieutenants and committee chairs internally without need for further legislation. And in doing so he referenced a 1996 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court which said that legislative pay had to be set by statute, not by internal rules.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Hardball over pay hikes
Gov. Mitt Romney's top budget chief accused lawmakers yesterday of pushing the state toward fiscal disaster, after legislative leaders threatened to restore a significant portion of the governor's $200 million in budget vetoes.
Administration and Finance Secretary Eric Kriss reiterated Romney's contention lawmakers sent him a spending plan out of balance by at least $200 million. Kriss demanded lawmakers offer reforms or additional cuts to make up for any money they tack back on to the state's bottom line.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Romney aide rips solons' plans to override state budget cuts
If the Legislature next week does override some of Mr. Romney's vetoes, as many expect, it must simultaneously find ways to pay for any programs which are reinstated. That is the difficult part, especially with the possibility of raising taxes to pay for them off the table. After observing the way in which they handled the budget, we wonder if lawmakers have the wherewithal to do that.
Whatever programs are restored, if any, will hopefully be ones which serve the public, and not the private interests of some legislator....
As Massachusetts continues its devolution from a state that tried to be all things to all people - then ran out of money - it must keep in check those who would blame Mr. Romney. Someone had to made these cuts and, for better or worse, he got the job done.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Solomon's burden
Gov. Romney gets the task of balancing the budget
Governor Mitt Romney, stepping up his confrontation with organized labor, this week severed a "sweetheart" deal that allowed 12 state employees to collect a combined $540,000 a year on the public payroll while devoting as much as 35 hours a week to union business....
All told, the state spends about $1.5 million a year on wages for so-called "paid-release" state employees who spend most of their work week conducting union business, Fehrnstrom said. No other state employees are authorized to work for outside organizations while on the clock. Contracts covering the other "paid release" workers have not expired, he said, adding that the administration will end them when they do. "That $1.5 million could keep rape crisis centers open, or it could go out to our cities and towns in the form of local aid," Fehrnstrom said....
Union officials defend the practice, saying it promotes efficiency in the ranks by creating a direct, in-house line of communication between rank-and-file state workers and high-ranking members of the union.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Governor halts deal for 12 in union
The Massachusetts Legislature seems likely to attempt an override of the governor's veto of a $36 million prescription tax, but the pharmacy industry says it is prepared to challenge the law again in court if that happens....
C. Daniel Haron, a vice president at Brooks Pharmacy, the state's second-largest chain, said even if an override is successful the pharmacy industry would return to court to get it thrown out....
The prescription tax has been knocked out twice, once by a judge's decision and now by a Romney veto, but it refuses to die. House leaders, many of whom are convinced that the state's Medicaid program is too generous to pharmacies, have kept pushing it and other measures that cut into pharmacy revenue....
Administration officials say Romney made up the $36 million shortfall by vetoing language that would have authorized the expenditure of $21 million raised from a nursing home fee and by making additional cuts elsewhere in the budget....
Haron also objected to House characterizations of the prescription tax as a user fee. He noted a state judge has called it an excise tax, the attorney general has called it a tax, and the federal government has characterized it as a tax.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Legislators likely to try to fight drug-tax veto
While the governor's budget does not "veto" the User Fee enhancement per se, it would give the administration broad discretion to spend "up to" $288.5 million on Medicaid rates for nursing home care, a budgetary sleight-of-hand that would allow the administration to spend that entire amount or nothing at all. If the governor's proposed language is allowed to stand, nursing homes would be assessed $145 million in user fee payments and then may not receive any additional reimbursement as intended under the program....
As in most states, seven out of every ten nursing home residents in Massachusetts have their care paid for by the jointly funded state-federal Medicaid program. Last year, the Legislature passed the Nursing Facility User Fee program that triggers additional federal Medicaid spending without the state having to increase its portion.
Massachusetts Extended Care Federation
News Release - July 2, 2003
After Senate report says nursing homes at the end of their financial rope
...
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Boston Herald editorial today called Romney's
"hardball" veto of the Finneran Pay-Raise Power-Grab
"delicious" -- but wait until you hear why it's even more
satisfying!
In 1995 CLT's Coalition for Payraise Repeal (CPR) ballot committee did a successful initiative petition drive in response to the Legislature's then-recent 55% pay raise. After we got the necessary first round of signatures, the Legislature
challenged the constitutionality of our petition, seeking an advisory opinion from the state Supreme Judicial Court. In the end, the SJC tossed out our petition and the Legislature kept its outrageous pay grab.
However, in its 1996 opinion the court agreed with us on one important point concerning the legitimate use of the initiative process to make laws, though not rules, making it clear that legislative compensation issues related to
law and required action by both the House and Senate then the governor.
Two years later the Legislature put its
constitutional amendment on the ballot that guaranteed them biennial pay
raises and protected their pay forever from any future threat from
taxpayers. That was the 1998 ballot question that allegedly promised to
prevent the Legislature from ever raising its own salary ever again if
voters would approve it, remember?
But it was that very 1996 SJC opinion which now opens
Finneran's 2003 Pay-Raise Power-Grab to constitutional challenge, and we may
soon get to throw it right back in his and the court's faces!
"What goes around comes around," or as
someone else put it, "Turnabout is fair play."
"Delicious" indeed! As the Herald's
editorial concluded, "it doesn't get any better than this."
What goes around comes around to bite the nursing
home industry as well. As co-conspirators with the Legislature last
year, the nursing home vultures supported imposing a "user
fee" on elderly nursing home patients who were responsible enough
to plan ahead and are paying their own way, not a burden on government
and taxpayers to support them. In turn, the state was supposed to take
the "fee" from those paying their own expense, launder it
through the federal government's Medicaid program whereby doubling it
for those supported by the government program, then return it to the
nursing home industry.
The industry was perfectly satisfied with the sleazy
arrangement -- until now, when they aren't being paid off for their
complicity in the "user fee" scam.
We have argued for over a year that this "user
fee" is unconstitutional, that it provides for no specific
additional government service to those who must pay it -- that it is in
fact an illegal tax, just as the "user fee" imposed on
self-payers of prescription drugs is an illegal tax.
The pharmacists fought back against the "user
fee" on prescriptions and ultimately won in court. Governor Romney
has vetoed the Legislature's effort to reimpose it.
Sometimes there is a degree of justice in the end.
You've just got to be patient ... unless of course you're spending your
final days in a nursing home, paying your own way and forced to also
fund those who aren't through an illegal tax.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
Your rep and senator need to know you
oppose the Finneran pay-raise power-grab and will not forget how they vote.
This is a critical turning point in
Massachusetts history, a point that will define our very form of government.
Don't let it pass by without voicing
your opinion. Find
your rep and senator now, and let him or her know where you stand: for
democracy or for a "Finneran Rules" autocracy.
When you call, just tell whoever
answers the phone that you're a constituent and would like the representative or
senator to sustain the governor's veto on the Finneran Power-Grab. If there's a
question, refer them to the CLT
memo that was delivered to their offices on June 25.
The Salem News
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Editorial
Override would truly make it 'Finneran's House'
Last November 1,091,988 Massachusetts voters cast ballots for Mitt Romney, electing him governor of the commonwealth. Meanwhile in Boston's 12th Suffolk District, 7,616 voters cast ballots for Thomas Finneran, who ran unopposed, giving him another term as their state representative. The following January Finneran needed the votes of only a majority of the 160 people who serve in the House of Representatives to retain his post as speaker.
Soon the votes of those million-plus people who elect a governor could be rendered virtually meaningless by the blatant power grab being attempted by Speaker Finneran, who is seeking to overturn Romney's veto of a bill that would give him and his successors unlimited authority to reward friends and punish enemies within the rank and file.
As usual, it's all about money.
Finneran's bill would make the creation of legislative committees and the establishment of pay scales for committee chairs and other members of the House leadership a matter of a simple rules change rather than law.
Currently the speaker has unlimited authority to appoint committee chairmen and other members of his "team." But in order to create a new committee or authorize additional pay, he must follow the normal legislative process, which requires public hearings and gubernatorial review.
Such oversight does not sit well with Finneran, who has demonstrated little inclination to follow the mandate of voters statewide. His priority is the further consolidation of power within that small universe of people who inhabit the halls of the Statehouse.
And what better way to accomplish that than by being able to create new positions or increase the pay of those who have shown a willingness to put the speaker's wishes ahead even of the will or best interests of their own constituents?
There are some 50 legislative positions that carry extra pay ($15,000 for committee chairs, $7,500 for vice chairmen) now. Finneran's bill would increase that number to almost 60, which, when you count the leadership wannabes, gives him a near unassailable bloc of votes for any issue that comes before the majority caucus.
And what's the price of bucking the speaker on an issue near and dear to his heart? Ask Reps. Doug Petersen, D-Marblehead, or Harriett Stanley, D-West Newbury, able and veteran legislators who were demoted when they refused to vote in accord with Finneran's orders. Petersen and Stanley stood by their principles, but too many of their colleagues will quickly jettison those for the chance to enhance their present pay and future pensions.
How bad is this? Well, it's got people on both sides of the aisle screaming for the public's assistance in thwarting this most undemocratic piece of legislation.
Veteran Democratic consultant Michael Goldman, who assisted in the successful campaign to unseat one House speaker and the failed effort to send then-Senate President Bill Bulger into early retirement, calls it "the culmination of a power grab that's been going on for years."
Meanwhile Citizens for Limited Taxation's Barbara Anderson, normally on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Goldman, says, "This power grab allows the speaker to spend taxpayer dollars without gubernatorial oversight. Once he has the potential to reward two-thirds of the House with extra pay, he has the ability to override any gubernatorial veto, (and) the public rationale for electing a Republican governor for balance is gone."
Fortunately, House Republicans led by Minority Leader Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, who initially indicated a willingness to go along with Finneran's subterfuge, now say they will vote to uphold Romney's veto.
By joining with a brave bloc of dissident Democrats, they may be able to come up with the votes necessary to preserve a least some semblance of independence within the House of Representatives. Make sure to note how your representative votes on this issue.
Return to
top
The Salem News
Thursday, July 3, 2003
The Odd Couple vs. Finneran
By Alan Burke, Staff writer
Barbara Anderson and Doug Petersen?
Like oil and water.
Except that Petersen, the progressive Marblehead representative, and Anderson, the Marblehead tax cutter who transformed the state through Proposition 2½, have now teamed up against a common foe -- Tom Finneran, speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
The issue that brought Anderson and Petersen together is complicated, but both believe its impact would be simple -- to give Finneran and every subsequent speaker more power than any other state official, including the governor.
It's all in a bill that would allow the speaker to create chairmen and vice-chairmen of legislative committees, and pay them anywhere from $7,500 to $15,000 a year extra.
Together, the political Odd Couple helped convince Gov. Mitt Romney to veto the bill, after it passed on a vote of 100 to 50 in April. According to Petersen, Finneran is now busily seeking votes to override the veto.
Petersen finds his alliance with Anderson less surprising than others might.
"From the get-go, I found I had Barbara Anderson in my back yard," he says, "and I decided I better have a relationship with this person. ... We've been in communication a lot around issues."
For one, they found themselves in sympathy when Petersen opposed Finneran's efforts to gut the Clean Elections law, a measure that allows public financing of campaigns and which passed by referendum. "It's a reform issue," he points out. "Barbara is a genuine reformer."
For her part, after decades lobbying state government, Anderson has grown accustomed to shifting alliances.
"I don't have any problem with liberals," she says. "Liberals are a lot like us -- only they're on the other side. The ones that drive you crazy are the ones that are on your side and they turn against you."
Petersen, she notes, has been "good" on helping to preserve Prop 2½. He's voted with her on issues as often as not.
"I didn't vote for him," Anderson says, mainly because he voted to undo an earlier initiative petition rolling back taxes. "But he's still my rep and I expect him to be treated with respect."
He's a good sport, too, she says. In the past, he has filed bills on her behalf while groaning good-naturedly, "Don't make me do this."
And despite their policy differences, she frankly admires Petersen's often lonely efforts to oppose Finneran, saying, "I'm always very proud of my representative when he stands up to the leadership."
And that's what's united them on this issue.
Until now, promotions and pay upgrades in the House required the governor's signature. Under the proposed bill, they would be approved just like any other House rule.
And such pay increases are not a small matter, Petersen says. They could have enormous influence over the representatives and all their votes. Legislators aren't rich now. "Go in our parking lot and you'll find Fords and
Chevys," he says.
Anderson, who has worked closely on legislative matters for years, points out that one-third of House members already receive these perks. Given free rein, Finneran could include one-third more and have a veto-proof majority of members financially beholden to him.
Even Republicans, says Petersen, as ranking committee members would be included, making the speaker's reach total. Significantly, about half the House Republicans voted for the measure.
Representatives like Ted Speliotis, D-Danvers, have a different view of all this. The new bill merely allows the speaker to "reorganize" the House, giving pay increases to members whose workload merits it. Finneran would have done this under the old procedure, Speliotis says, but the governor was demanding concessions in exchange for his support.
"It becomes part of a horse-trading thing," he laments.
Nor does Speliotis see any long-term implications if the governor's veto is overridden. The increase in Finneran's power would be "marginal" he says. "It's not a big issue. It only affects a couple of people." Speliotis himself won't be one of those impacted, he adds.
While he is careful not to characterize himself as a Finneran supporter, Speliotis argues that the speaker has less power now than he did in the past. "Until this governor took over," he says, "(Finneran) virtually ran the state."
For his part, Petersen has seen Finneran's power up close. When Petersen opposed Finneran on the Clean Elections Law, he soon lost his chairmanship -- and then his vice-chairmanship.
In fighting the pay raise bill, Petersen united with a group of Beacon Hill progressives identified with Boston Rep. Byron Rushing. Some moderates and about half of the House Republicans also came on board.
Then, Petersen saw an opportunity to broaden the coalition, and he contacted Anderson, his Marblehead neighbor, who readily signed on. "We (at
Citizens for Limited Taxation) saw this as an assault on the balance of power," she says.
Both made calls to the governor's staff and both believe their input was crucial to helping Romney see that he must change his position and veto the bill.
She dismisses the possibility that Finneran's purpose might be as benign as Speliotis suggests.
"Does he really know he's a megalomaniac?" she asks rhetorically. "We call it a power grab. That's what it is."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Hardball over pay hikes
A Boston Herald editorial
Gov. Mitt Romney has figured out a way to play hardball with House Speaker Tom Finneran on the issue of legislative pay hikes, and it's simply, well, delicious.
The governor, of course, vetoed the attempted power play that would allow legislative leaders to set the pay of their top lieutenants and committee chairs internally without need for further legislation. And in doing so he referenced a 1996 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court which said that legislative pay had to be set by statute, not by internal rules. So now the battle lines have been drawn. If the speaker thinks he has the votes to override (and given the original 100-50 vote on the measure, it'll be a close call), the governor goes to Plan B. And that strategy amounts to "I'll see you in court."
For those who think there ought to be some brakes on the power of the speaker and Senate president, this is the time to take a stand. And for those who simply enjoy the game of politics, it doesn't get any better than this.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Romney aide rips solons' plans to override state budget cuts
Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Gov. Mitt Romney's top budget chief accused lawmakers yesterday of pushing the state toward fiscal disaster, after legislative leaders threatened to restore a significant portion of the governor's $200 million in budget vetoes.
Administration and Finance Secretary Eric Kriss reiterated Romney's contention lawmakers sent him a spending plan out of balance by at least $200 million. Kriss demanded lawmakers offer reforms or additional cuts to make up for any money they tack back on to the state's bottom line.
"We have an unyielding constitutional requirement to sign a budget that is balanced," Kriss said. "It would be irresponsible and fiscally disastrous to override vetoes."
The administration's salvo came in response to legislative leaders' angry proclamations yesterday that Romney's vetoes cut deeper than necessary to balance the $22.1 billion budget.
The overwhelmingly Democratic state Legislature is expected to begin overturning Romney's vetoes next week.
House Majority Leader Salvatore DiMasi indicated yesterday House lawmakers, who control potential vetoes, are looking to undo a "substantial amount" of Romney's 372 cuts.
"He's really going to extremes on these cuts," DiMasi told the State House News Service. "I think he's wrong on the premise that he needed to cut $200 million."
Kriss suggested lawmakers adopt Romney's proposal to merge the Turnpike Authority and state Highway Department, which would allow the state to grab the Turnpike's $191 million in reserves.
"For them to override vetoes and not do the reforms is just irresponsible," Kriss said.
House and Senate lawmakers, who already rejected the Turnpike proposal, fired back that burning through one-time reserve funds would only add to the state's structural deficit.
"All you're doing is putting off the difficult decisions," said Senate Transportation Chairman Steven Baddour (D-Methuen).
But Kriss hinted the administration might use emergency budget-cutting powers, saying, "it's the responsibility of the executive branch to take all necessary actions."
Return to
top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Editorial
Solomon's burden
Gov. Romney gets the task of balancing the budget
It was no surprise that the state budget was completed on time this year for the first time in seven years - the Legislature clearly couldn't get rid of this hot potato fast enough.
But they handed Gov. Mitt Romney an impossible task: fixing a budget that was $200 million out of balance, and cutting popular services whose elimination would be politically damaging. It is the same spineless tactic lawmakers used with Gov. Jane M. Swift last year.
Some of these programs are, no doubt, important ones that help meet the pressing needs of teenage parents, the blind and local communities. But it fell to Mr. Romney to decide what would be spared and what would be removed to balance the budget.
If the Legislature next week does override some of Mr. Romney's vetoes, as many expect, it must simultaneously find ways to pay for any programs which are reinstated. That is the difficult part, especially with the possibility of raising taxes to pay for them off the table. After observing the way in which they handled the budget, we wonder if lawmakers have the wherewithal to do that.
Whatever programs are restored, if any, will hopefully be ones which serve the public, and not the private interests of some legislator. With so little money available, there is no room for pork-barrel patronage. This year starts a new era, when no longer can citizens expect the state to solve their problems. Self-reliance and resourcefulness will be needed to meet basic needs, as well as increasing help from the private sector and volunteers.
As Massachusetts continues its devolution from a state that tried to be all things to all people - then ran out of money - it must keep in check those who would blame Mr. Romney. Someone had to made these cuts and, for better or worse, he got the job done.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Governor halts deal for 12 in union
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney, stepping up his confrontation with organized labor, this week severed a "sweetheart" deal that allowed 12 state employees to collect a combined $540,000 a year on the public payroll while devoting as much as 35 hours a week to union business.
The deal, part of a little-known pact with the National Association of Government Employees
(NAGE), was signed three years ago by Governor Paul Cellucci, who had won the union's support in his successful 1998 gubernatorial campaign.
The pact was brokered by former State Personnel Administrator James J. Hartnett Jr., who last year was fined $4,000 by the state Ethics Commission for improperly accepting meals, entertainment, and gifts from a longtime NAGE executive who has since retired.
"This is a sweetheart deal that can't be justified any time, but certainly not during a fiscal crisis," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said.
The 12 employees were granted paid leave time to do union work in three legal agreements that accompanied NAGE's three-year collective bargaining agreement, which officially expired Monday. Union lawyers say the deals extend until a new labor agreement is signed, but the Romney administration contends the pacts -- unlike the contract -- do not automatically extend.
Lawyers for NAGE, which represents 14,000 state employees, have filed papers in state court to block Romney's move, saying the administration violated its contractual obligations by severing the deal. Four of the 12 employees work for the Department of Mental Health, two work for the Department of Revenue, and the rest are scattered across six other agencies. All accrue credits toward a state pension, accumulate sick and vacation time, and enjoy annual step increases as do their other colleagues in state government, Fehrnstrom said. They will now be expected to put 100 percent of their work time into state business, he said.
Union officials say the deal was hashed out in good faith over the bargaining table, and it would violate both the spirit and the letter of the agreement to throw it out now.
"Governor Romney is violating these contracts," said Lesa Lessard, a spokeswoman for
SEIU/NAGE. "It would be as if he were questioning our dental or vision trust fund, or vacation schedules. This is all part of what was negotiated at the collective bargaining table. We can't decide to work 20 hours a week, for instance, because that too was decided at the collective bargaining table."
According to NAGE's collective bargaining agreement, which went from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003, the union "may be granted" the state-funded positions that Romney has now decided to take away. That language, Fehrnstrom said, clearly indicates that the state has always had the option to end the arrangement upon its expiration.
But the union argues that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement remain in effect until a successor contract is ratified, or an impasse is reached in negotiations -- neither of which has occurred yet. As a result, the union said, Romney cannot change the terms of the original agreement.
All told, the state spends about $1.5 million a year on wages for so-called "paid-release" state employees who spend most of their work week conducting union business, Fehrnstrom said. No other state employees are authorized to work for outside organizations while on the clock. Contracts covering the other "paid release" workers have not expired, he said, adding that the administration will end them when they do. "That $1.5 million could keep rape crisis centers open, or it could go out to our cities and towns in the form of local aid," Fehrnstrom said.
Romney has had public employee unions in his crosshairs since unveiling his bid for the governorship last year. As a centerpiece to his government reform package, Romney pledged to change the practice of using union members as managers in state government, and vowed to dismantle seniority rules that he says impede attempts to weed out unproductive workers.
In addition, Romney has railed against the so-called Pacheco Law, which protects public-sector union workers from having their positions shifted to private, non-union contractors.
Democrats have so far rebuffed all of those efforts.
In addition, Lessard says Romney has gone out of his way to alienate NAGE and its president, David J.
Holway.
"President Holway has requested numerous meetings, both in the form of a personal phone call, and letters, [to the governor] and has never once received a communication back," Lessard said. "If we had the opportunity to sit down and speak with him, we'd be able to give a clearer understanding of what this [paid-release arrangement] is about."
But Fehrnstrom insists that it is Holway who has thumbed his nose at communication with Romney. The governor hosted a meeting with all the state's public-sector unions on March 28, but Holway was the only official who failed to show, Fehrnstrom said.
Romney is not the first to target the practice of embedding union workers on the state payroll. In 1998 the Cellucci administration vowed to end the practice, after the Globe reported that four state Department of Correction employees were working under a similar arrangement.
But Cellucci, then acting governor and campaigning for election, did not make good on the promise. The little-known NAGE agreement was inked two years later.
Union officials defend the practice, saying it promotes efficiency in the ranks by creating a direct, in-house line of communication between rank-and-file state workers and high-ranking members of the union.
Eight state employees -- Daniel Messia, Donna Jackson, Leo Munroe, Anne Christianson, Theresa
McGoldrick, Gregory Sorozan, Richard Waring and Christopher Ryan -- spend most of their workdays on union business. Another four -- John Mann, Margaret Fisher, Linda Bratton and Susie
McLean-Zady -- spend one or two days a week working for the union on state time.
When drafting the legal pact signed in April 2000, state and union officials agreed that "economy of time and human resources would be best preserved through the grant of paid leave for approved union activities to a limited number of" NAGE officials.
NAGE officials said they were further annoyed on Monday when they received a fund-raising letter from Romney on behalf of the state Republican Party. Just above Romney's signature, the form letter says, "I am grateful for your consideration and would be honored to have you on our team."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Legislators likely to try to fight drug-tax veto
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff
The Massachusetts Legislature seems likely to attempt an override of the governor's veto of a $36 million prescription tax, but the pharmacy industry says it is prepared to challenge the law again in court if that happens.
A spokesman for House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said yesterday no final decision has been made on an override attempt, but he said an attempt is likely early next week. "That's a fair implication" of the speaker's concerns about the loss of the $36 million plus another $36 million in federal matching funds, said Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen.
State Representative Daniel Keenan, a Democrat from Southwick and a House specialist on Medicaid, said he has been canvassing lawmakers on the prescription fee and said feelings are mixed on the issue. "There's opposition to a tax, but there's also a lot of concern about the Medicaid program itself," he said.
Carmelo Cinqueonce, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Pharmacists Association, said he was convinced the House would override Romney's veto. He said the pharmacy industry has a better chance of blocking an override in the Senate. Senate officials could not be reached for comment.
C. Daniel Haron, a vice president at Brooks Pharmacy, the state's second-largest chain, said even if an override is successful the pharmacy industry would return to court to get it thrown out.
"If this thing does live on, we think we would have sound legal basis to revisit the judge again," Haron said. "I think we would, and have a better-than-fair chance of prevailing there."
The prescription tax has been knocked out twice, once by a judge's decision and now by a Romney veto, but it refuses to die. House leaders, many of whom are convinced that the state's Medicaid program is too generous to pharmacies, have kept pushing it and other measures that cut into pharmacy revenue.
The prescription tax was originally approved as part of last year's budget. It assessed a per-prescription charge on pharmacies for each non-Medicaid prescription they filled and used the money to pay for Medicaid, the state-administered health insurance program for the poor and elderly. The $36 million raised would have been matched by the federal government.
Early last month, a state judge ruled the tax invalid, largely on procedural grounds, and ordered the return of any money already collected. Legislative conferees quickly made changes in the budget for the current fiscal year to address the judge's concerns and made the newly crafted tax retroactive to July 1, 2002. They also sharply reduced the dispensing fees pharmacies receive for filling Medicaid prescriptions.
Romney, who has walked the fine line of opposing new taxes while raising state fees dramatically, vetoed the prescription tax and the lower dispensing fees on Monday, along with $201 million in other spending. The governor said the burden of the prescription tax would have indirectly fallen on seniors in the form of reduced pharmacy services. Administration officials say Romney made up the $36 million shortfall by vetoing language that would have authorized the expenditure of $21 million raised from a nursing home fee and by making additional cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Haron, who was on Beacon Hill Tuesday urging lawmakers to let the tax die, said he has argued that more changes in Medicaid are needed to bring the program's spending under control.
Haron also objected to House characterizations of the prescription tax as a user fee. He noted a state judge has called it an excise tax, the attorney general has called it a tax, and the federal government has characterized it as a tax.
Return to
top
Massachusetts Extended Care Federation
News Release
July 2, 2003
After Senate report says nursing homes at the end of their financial rope,
Romney administration fashions a noose for user fee in budget amendment
Less than a week after the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight detailed the financial turmoil roiling nursing homes in Massachusetts, the Romney Administration has sent back to the Legislature an amendment to the FY 2004 budget that would gut the User Fee enhancements created by the Legislature last year to provide critically needed funding for nursing home care without any additional state cost.
While the governor's budget does not "veto" the User Fee enhancement per se, it would give the administration broad discretion to spend "up to" $288.5 million on Medicaid rates for nursing home care, a budgetary sleight-of-hand that would allow the administration to spend that entire amount or nothing at all. If the governor's proposed language is allowed to stand, nursing homes would be assessed $145 million in user fee payments and then may not receive any additional reimbursement as intended under the program.
The user fee program, in widespread use in nearly two dozen other states, has been used by the Romney Administration as a hedge against budget deficits rather than to stabilize a fragile long term care system caring for some 50,000 frail elderly and disabled citizens. House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini have fiercely defended the integrity of the program and have fought to assure its intended implementation.
The governor has claimed that the administration wants the amendment in order to give the state "flexibility" to decide where to spend the funds. "Based on our experience with the administration last year on this issue, they really want discretion on whether to spend the money, not how to spend the money," said Massachusetts Extended Care Federation
(MECF) President Ned Morse. "Last week's Senate Post Audit Committee Report detailed the financial respirator that nursing homes are on. This amendment would allow the governor to pull the plug on that respirator."
The Senate Post Audit and Oversight report - "Crisis at Home: The Impact of Massachusetts' Nursing Home Closures" - released last week by Committee Chair Senator Marc R. Pacheco, details the steady deterioration of the state's nursing home system due principally to inadequate Medicaid rates. Ironically, one of the warnings sounded in the Post Audit report was a specific recommendation not to allow the User Fee funds to be diverted to other uses.
As in most states, seven out of every ten nursing home residents in Massachusetts have their care paid for by the jointly funded state-federal Medicaid program. Last year, the Legislature passed the Nursing Facility User Fee program that triggers additional federal Medicaid spending without the state having to increase its portion. The Romney Administration delayed implementation of the program for eight months and then cut Medicaid rates to homes even as it was collecting the fee from facilities. The Legislature's current FY 2004 budget would specifically require that the User Fee funds be used as intended and not diverted for non-nursing home purposes as it was last year.
"A significant amount of the additional federal funds generated by the User Fee program would support increased wages and benefits for our workforce," said Morse. "This program is revenue neutral for the state and it will substantially improve the quality of care that we can provide to the 50,000 frail elderly and disabled residents in nursing homes," said Morse. "We cannot provide that care as long as this funding threat remains."
The Post Audit report validates the devastating impact low government reimbursement has had on the Commonwealth's nursing homes and warns that additional homes may be forced to close unless strong government action is forthcoming. The report finds that there is roughly a $20 per day difference between what it costs to care for each resident and the amount the state reimburses for nursing home care. This deficit has resulted in a cumulative loss of $288.6 million from 1995 to 2001 for the state's nursing homes. The report states "approximately 10% of Massachusetts nursing homes are in serious financial jeopardy and face possible closure." In fact, since the report was released, two additional nursing homes have announced their intention to close. The report further finds that half of all health service sub-areas in the state are at risk of having no available beds should just one home in those areas close.
The Massachusetts Extended Care Federation (MECF) is the state's largest long term care provider association, representing over 500 nursing and rehabilitation facilities, hospital-based transitional care units, assisted living residences and continuing care retirement communities. In all, MECF member facilities provide housing, health care and support services to more than 50,000 people in Massachusetts.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|