The Boston Globe
Monday, April 8, 2002
Teachers' group crafts big ad campaign
to lobby for education funds
By Peter Demarco
Globe Correspondent
The Massachusetts Teachers Association today will launch its
largest advertising campaign ever, with television ads set to run statewide urging legislators to raise revenues and scrap
proposed cuts to education.
In one 30-second spot, viewers are told that budget cuts
will threaten much of the progress made since the state began pumping dollars to communities to help fund the Education
Reform Act of 1993.
"There will be no new teachers and classrooms. Just drastic
cuts, courses canceled, teacher layoffs ... and lots more students per teacher," the commercial says.
A school custodian, cafeteria worker, bus driver, crossing
guard, sign language interpreter, and an office staff worker are featured in another ad.
"With all the cuts and layoffs, who will be left to do their
jobs? The kids?" the ad says. The commercial ends with scenes of children mopping floors and driving a school bus.
The MTA, the state's largest teachers' union with 95,000
members who work in public schools and colleges, is spending $1.1 million on the two spots and a third commercial
concerning MCAS graduation requirements. The expenditure is nearly double
the amount the union has spent on any other campaign, said spokesman Bob Duffy.
"This is a fairly significant commitment in terms of dollars
and advertising," he said. "But this is a fairly significant problem the state is looking at. It requires a response."
The state's budget crisis, brought on by a weakened economy
and the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, is expected to result in a $455 million shortfall this year. That
figure could rise to $2 billion in 2003.
Local aid to communities, as well as funding for school
building programs and state colleges and universities such as the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, could see cuts
unless the state raises more revenue. One way to do that would be to put a hold on tax breaks
approved last year, Duffy said.
Return to top
Letter to the Editor
The Boston Globe
Submitted: April 8, 2002
Re: "Teachers' group crafts big ad campaign to lobby for
education funds," by Peter Demarco (Apr. 8)
Dear editor:
In his report, "Teachers' group crafts big ad campaign to
lobby for education funds," Peter Demarco reported: "The [$1.1 million] expenditure is nearly double the amount the union has
spent on any other campaign, said spokesman Bob Duffy."
That statement is demonstrably false.
Actually, the Massachusetts Teachers Association spent
$1,050,000 of the combined teachers unions' expenditure of $1,760,000 in their unsuccessful campaign to defeat our tax
rollback, Question 4 on the 2000 ballot. This is the voter-mandated rollback that the MTA
now wants legislators to overturn -- a fine lesson for it to be teaching the children
about democracy.
Stopping the rollback would be a tax hike, and therefore a
pay cut for all workers. So this new tax campaign should be remembered by local taxpayers when the teachers union
selfishly seeks a collective bargaining pay raise at taxpayers' expense
for its members only.
Chip Ford
Director of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Source: Office of Campaign & Political Finance
Ballot Committee - OCPF #: 95286
The Campaign for Massachusetts' Future (No on Question 4)
Dec. 21, 1999 - Nov. 15, 2000
$5,000 - 2/09/00
- Boston Teachers Union
$50,000 - 6/26/00 - Boston Teachers Union
$5,000 - 2/09/00 - Mass. Federation of Teachers
$30,000 - 6/26/00 - Mass. Federation of Teachers
$50,000 - 9/15/00 - Boston Teachers Union
$170,000 - 9/13/00 - Mass. Federation of Teachers
$350,000 - 10/10/00 - National Education Association
$50,000 - 11/03/00 - Boston Teachers Union
$75,000 - 9/03/00 - Mass. Teachers
Association
$425,000 - 10/05/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$425,000 - 10/16/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$75,000 - 10/19/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$50,000 - 11/02/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
Mass. Teachers Association TOTAL: $1,050,000
Combined teachers unions total: $1,760,000
Return to top
Associated Press
Sunday, April 7, 2002
Lawmakers reap thousands
in taxpayer-funded travel expenses
BOSTON - Lawmakers pulled in an average of $4,216 each last
year under a taxpayer-funded program designed to reimburse them for the cost of commuting to the
Statehouse.
Lawmakers voted to double the rates, based on the distance
from a lawmaker's home to Beacon Hill, in 2000 and last year was the first year they received the higher per-mile
reimbursement.
While 23 lawmakers choose not to file for the travel
allowance, those who did reaped a total of nearly $750,000 or an average of $4,216 each, according to an Associated Press
review of reimbursement records.
In 2000, the total spent on per diems was about $364,000.
Critics say per diems are just another way for lawmakers to
pad their paychecks. Most ordinary workers are not paid extra money to cover their commuting costs, opponents say.
Not surprisingly, lawmakers who live in the western edge of
the state received the largest checks. Rep. Daniel Bosley, who lives in North Adams, saw his daily rate jump from $45 to
$90.
Bosley made 172 round trips in 2001 and received $15,480,
the most of any lawmaker.
But he wasn't even in the top 10 when it came to claiming
the most days spent at the Statehouse.
That distinction went to Rep. Theodore Speliotis, D-Danvers.
Speliotis filed for 246 days, virtually every workday in 2001, minus state holidays. Speliotis received a check for $4,428,
about $18 per round trip.
Although he accepts the extra money, known as "per diems,"
Speliotis said he can understand why some might be skeptical.
"Coming from Danvers, do I think there should be a per diem?
Probably not," Speliotis said. "From 20 miles away it's difficult to justify. Coming from 100 miles away it's a
different story."
Coming in a close second in the House was Rep. John
Binienda, D-Worcester. Binienda filed for 245 days and received a check for $8,820, or about $36 per round trip.
Binienda defended the extra income, saying he hasn't taken a
vacation in years and routinely comes to the Statehouse to attend meetings as House chair of the Energy Committee.
No bills approved by the Energy Committee were signed into
law in 2001.
"It's reasonable. You put in for the days you're there, you
don't put in for the days you're not there," he said. "Sometimes I am there on Saturday and Sunday just for the
workload and I don't put in for Saturday and Sunday."
State Sen. Guy Glodis, D-Worcester, topped the list on the
Senate side. Glodis claimed 230 trips to the Statehouse in 2001 and received $8,280 or about $36 per trip.
Glodis said he spent more time in Boston during 2001 after
losing the lease on his district office in Auburn. Being the chairman of two Senate committees also required many visits to
the Statehouse, he said.
"I tend to meet constituents in Boston. I schedule a lot of
meetings in Boston," he said. "I pride myself on being a busy state senator."
Per diems are hard to justify given that the Senate met in
formal session just 16 times last year and the House had just 22 formal sessions, said Ken White of Common Cause, a
government watchdog group.
"Per diems were historical artifacts from the days when
legislators had to stay overnight or when travel was much more difficult," he said. "What were they doing during the five
months the budget was late? The entire state legislative process was gridlocked."
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, did not file for
per diem reimbursement in 2001. Senate President Thomas Birmingham, who lives in Chelsea, filed for 174 days and
received a check for $1,740 or about $10 per round trip.
The per diem hike was one of a series of moves designed to
increase the amount of money going to Beacon Hill lawmakers in recent years.
Lawmakers received an 8 percent pay raise last year,
boosting their base pay from $46,410 to $50,123. Voters in 1998 approved the change to the state constitution which tied
lawmakers' salaries to state residents' income.
Lawmakers also doubled their office expenses in 2000, from
$3,600 to $7,200. Lawmakers do not have to say how they spend the office money.
Critics said the hikes were intended as a hedge against the
Clean Elections law, which provides public campaign dollars to candidates who agree to fund-raising and spending
limits.
In addition to the travel and office perks, lawmakers who
serve in leadership positions can earn significantly more than the base pay.
There are more than 50 leadership positions in the House and
Senate. Stipends range from an extra $7,500 for chairmanships of lower-level committees to an extra $35,000 for House
speaker and Senate president.
Earlier this year, Finneran urged fellow House members to
agree to an eight-day furlough - or unpaid vacation - to help ease the state budget crisis. Many state workers have been
asked to take similar furloughs.
The furlough would cost the average lawmaker about $1,800 -
less than half what the average lawmaker received in per diems during 2001.
House members have until April 15 to decide whether to agree
to the furlough.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 8, 2002
A Boston Herald editorial
Beacon Hill insiders bilk the taxpayers
Governmental malpractice in Massachusetts is like an onion -
layers beneath layers.
So it is with early retirements for state employees, an
outrage the investigation of which Treasurer Shannon O'Brien is oddly reluctant to extend back before her accession to office
in 1999.
The outrage first came to attention in February with the
denial of a pension to Peter Forman, chief of staff for acting Gov. Jane Swift, when he joined the campaign of Patrick
Guerriero. (At the time Guerriero was seeking the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor.)
Somebody apparently doubted that Forman really had been fired, even though he
presented the Retirement Board a letter from Swift that he had been.
Taxpayers learned that state law permits an employee with 20
years service, if fired, to claim a special pension of one-third the average of his three best-paid years. The
payments last until age 55, when eligibility for a regular pension begins. For Forman, this would would have
been worth $420,000 over 12 years.
This largesse is offered by a state government that can't
pay court employees and has laid off social workers. And they wonder why we resist tax increases!
Now CommonWealth magazine, put out by the MassInc think-tank, has shown more layers
of the onion. Politicians defeated for renomination or election may claim the same
pension (again with 20 years in). We have tried hard to think of a justification, but we're stumped.
And here's another layer of the onion: In its study of 1,100
early pensions granted since 1990, the magazine found four ex-legislators, not defeated but simply retired, getting this
kiss in the mail. Among them was Richard Voke, who was majority leader of the House before
calling it quits a few years ago.
Or take Ilyas Bhatti. In 1998 he left the Highway Department, where he had been associate
director of the Big Dig (which was transferred to the Turnpike). He had a letter that
he had been "removed." But a department spokesman said Bhatti left on his own.
Or take former Gov. Paul Cellucci. He was entitled to an
immediate regular pension, he said, on the basis of 30 years of service (the law permits this also). But that counted six years
as a selectman in Hudson, a part-time position paying $1,500 a year. Part-time ought not to
count.
The study found that one-third of the 1,100 people had been
fired - if that is the right word - within a year of passing their 20th anniversary, and 10 percent within a month. We'd bet
more than doughnuts that a statistical test would show so many legitimate firings in such
intervals to be wildly improbable.
All this reeks. Yet O'Brien told the magazine, "I think my
first responsibility is to make sure that all of the claims under this board under my administration are valid." She
protested that "hundreds and hundreds of cases" await anybody looking further back than 1999.
She has asked the Legislature's Public Service Committee to
establish a study commission to make recommendations. She doesn't need recommendations. She needs to have a chat with
the attorney general, and above all to use whatever clout she has to get the Legislature to
shut down this long-standing insider plundering of taxpayers.
Return to top
