CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
PAYT scheme trashed without a yellow
plastic bag
MARBLEHEAD — An estimated 1,800 voters packed last
night's Special Town Meeting on pay-as-you-throw trash disposal and, by
the time they were done, the proposal itself was ready for curbside
pickup.
Proponents realized early on that they were swimming against the tide
with a plan that would have required residents to purchase trash bags at
$1 and $2. Still, they hoped residents would see the plan's ability to
raise about $850,000 per year, and free a matching amount, to reduce a
projected town budget deficit of $2 million.
"I wonder if everybody is really hearing the message," Finance Committee
member Susan Patoski said. "This town has a structural deficit. ...
Proposition 2½ no longer leaves this town with the ability to raise
enough in taxes. ... If this does not pass, then we have to come to the
town with a huge override."
If the override fails, Finance Committee Chairman David Harris said, the
deficit translates into 21 lost jobs, along with all of the services
those people provide....
"This isn't just a tax," John Hooper said. "This, in my mind, is a
super, super override." He compared the cost of the trash bags to an
identity sticker issued for the dump, which initially cost $2.
"The two dollars grew to five dollars," he said. "The five dollars grew
to 10. The 10 grew to 15. The 15 to ..." [currently $50] At that, he was
drowned out by cheers and laughter.The woman who helped make Proposition
2½ law 25 years ago, Barbara Anderson, won more cheers when she
recalled that in 2003 the town passed an override, claiming it was
needed to maintain trash pickup.
"Those were permanent overrides," she said. "We will pay that for the
rest of our lives. And now they want to charge us again by selling these
bags. ... I'm hoping you'll vote against this." ...
Acting Moderator Gary Spiess acknowledged reality when he hinted that it
was time to vote. "I don't want to forestall debate. At the same time,
one gets a little bit of a sense." ...
School Committee member Jonathan Lederman, an outspoken
opponent, took congratulations from voters as they filed out. He isn't overly
concerned about the budget. "I think we'll budget responsibly as we were elected
to do."
Town Administrator Tony Sasso said he was gratified at the turnout — pure
democracy in action. And in the days to come, he said with a shrug, "We'll work
on our budget."
The Salem News
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Voters doom pay-as-you-throw proposal
In the town where Proposition 2½ began nearly 25 years ago
(its chief architect, Barbara Anderson, lives here), a broad spectrum of
officials is now complaining that the tax-cutting measure has gone as far as it
can go.
Because of 2½, Marblehead can't pay its bills for the coming fiscal year, says
Selectman Jeff Shribman. And its unlikely the town will ever be able to pay its
bills, he adds, without annual overrides or painful, annual cuts in services.
But Marblehead resident Barbara Anderson, the driving force behind the measure
that was adopted statewide 25 years ago this November, says she's heard it all
before. Moreover, she faults town officials for failing to see that taxpayers
are often just as hard- pressed to pay their own bills....
"They all figure Proposition 2½ is over the hill," Anderson chuckles. "That it's
ready for euthanasia." She points out that while taxes are limited to a 2½
percent increase, town revenues are not. Money comes in from other sources,
including new homes and state aid. Generous state aid is an outgrowth of 2½, she
notes.
She acknowledges that towns like Marblehead have real money worries. But, she
says, "so do we. ... They talk about fixed costs as if they were handed down to
Moses. Those costs are created by decisions made with the town's unions." Deals
with teacher unions set the tone, with annual pay increases a given, she says.
Anderson recalls a moment at Town Meeting when voters were asked rhetorically
"Who doesn't get a yearly pay increase?' Hundreds of hands shot up. "Stupid,"
she says of the question.
Anderson isn't surprised that a number of former tax opponents seem to be
raising questions about 2½. She's seen it many times, she says. "They get
elected to something and become part of the problem."
And she doesn't buy the "structural deficit" argument. "The whole concept of a
structural deficit ... it is by definition the gap between the money they have
and the money they want."
In fact, she has a new project in the works, to counter efforts on Beacon Hill
to weaken Proposition 2½. She plans to seek a new referendum, she says, to give
voters the right to pass an "underride."
The Salem News
Monday, March 21, 2005
In the birthplace of Prop 2½, there's grumbling
It comes as little surprise that
Marblehead voters refused to buy into town officials' pleas for a
trash fee.
Trash collection, after all, is something that has traditionally
been provided by cities and towns using the property tax revenues
they collect from homeowners. And those attending last week's
special town meeting were smart enough to realize that once
taxpayers get used to paying for one service via a special fee,
others will surely follow....
Like it or not, Prop 2½ is the will of the commonwealth's voters
and the selectmen's time would be better spent keeping expenses in
check rather than trying to figure out a way around it.
A Salem News editorial
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Trash fee's defeat was no surprise
The U.S. Census Bureau released Public Education Finances
2003 last week, with page after page of statistics on federal, state and local
public education revenues and expenditures, including detailed figures for
school districts with enrollments of more than 10,000 students....
The Education Intelligence Agency
Communiqué - March 21, 2005
Teacher Compensation Is Largest Chunk of Per-Pupil Spending
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
On March 10, I reported on the mounting opposition to
a proposed Pay As You Throw (PAYT) scheme being railroaded through in
Marblehead. It was then coming up for a vote at a special town meeting.
[See "Town tosses around Pay-As-You-Throw trash plan," Lynn Item, Mar. 9]
By last Wednesday evening, the town fathers and
mothers (aka, Municipal Daddies and Mommies) had expected an overflow
crowd at the special town meeting and reserved not only the Middle
School's auditorium, where the meeting was scheduled to be held at 7:45
pm, but the gymnasium and music room as well with their closed-circuit
TVs.
Earlier that day, PAYT advocates were taking down opponents' flyers alerting citizens of the
special town meeting that night, removing them from car windshields and utility poles.
They also
complained to the town clerk. Tom McNulty, the clerk and also a
selectman, cited the flyers as illegal because they weren't printed with
who was paying for them. We opponents had a quick conference call
discussion over whether it was required under the state's
election law
statute because, 1) town meeting is not an "election," 2) there was
no "committee" formed to oppose the PAYT article, and 3) no
question was being "submitted to the votes; an article was being offered
at a special town meeting.
When called, the state Office of Campaign & Political Finance deferred
an opinion to the Essex County District Attorney's office; the DA's
office wouldn't take a position one way or the other either. In the end,
PAYT opposition leaders School Committeeman Jonathan Lederman and
Selectman John Liming hurriedly reprinted Liming's name on the back of
the flyers then continued circulating them for the remainder of the
day. They managed to get them all out, despite the effort by
tax-and-spenders to stifle town meeting attendance, a turnout which they
later had the hypocritical chutzpah to praise.
That evening, the town moderator postponed the start of the meeting,
citing long lines at the door still waiting to get in. When he returned
to the podium to announce another wait, impatient attendees insisted
that he call the meeting to order immediately.
Barbara and others said it was one of largest town meetings they've ever
seen, "special" or otherwise.
Town officials launched their PowerPoint propaganda presentation for a
half hour, which of course promoted a one-sided view of what a fantastic
deal PAYT would be. But the first citizen to step up to a
microphone and speak, John Hooper, set the tone for the remainder of the meeting; the
cheers and wild applause signaled to officials that their PAYT scheme was heading to the
town dump, er, "transfer station" -- and it
wasn't being delivered in any two dollar yellow plastic bag!
Citizen after citizen rose and spoke out against the scam, with perhaps
two or three speaking in favor, as the moderator switched from the crowd
in the auditorium to the crowd in the gym, to the crowd in the music
room.
We had planned to call for a secret ballot, but making those citizens
sit around and wait for ballots to be passed out, collected and counted
would only have angered the 1,800 attendees: the outcome already was
ordained.
As the lines of citizens waiting to approach the microphones grew,
finally the moderator announced that the writing on the wall was clear
even to obdurate town officials. One finance committeewoman rose to
justify all the "hard work" they'd put into the plan, lectured us about
how considerate they were to put it to a vote of the citizens, and
exhorted a lot more CYA drive. Then a selectman rose to insincerely
praise the value of town meetings in general and his support of
democracy. The town manager even called the huge turnout of angry
taxpayers a very successful town
meeting. Then a PAYT supporter proposed a desperate amendment which
would stipulate that only
town meeting could authorize increases in the cost of PAYT bags, instead
of being arbitrarily and unilaterally imposed by the board of health as
planned. It was shot down
and a vote was called. PAYT was crushed by us opponents.
It sure is nice to rout the special interests and win one at town meeting for a change, but the
tax-and-spenders will be back soon with their threatened next Prop 2½
override. Still, it was satisfying to come home with a win under our
belts: winning is always the best revenge.
In a new U.S. Census Bureau report (for 2002-03),
Massachusetts ranks 12th in "Percentage of All Per-Pupil Spending
Devoted to Teacher Compensation" [57.77%/U.S. Avg. = 55.63%]. It's
interesting to note that (including the District of Columbia), we rank 6th in "Per-Pupil Spending"
[$10,223/U.S. Avg. = $8,019], and 5th in "Teachers' Salaries
and Benefits" [$5,906/U.S. Avg. = $4,461].
It's a wonder how those other 45 states and the
District of Columbia manage to "attract and maintain good teachers."
Maybe all those other teachers are just not as good?
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Salem News
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Voters doom pay-as-you-throw proposal
By Alan Burke, Staff writer
MARBLEHEAD — An estimated 1,800 voters packed last night's Special Town
Meeting on pay-as-you-throw trash disposal and, by the time they were
done, the proposal itself was ready for curbside pickup.
Proponents realized early on that they were swimming against the tide
with a plan that would have required residents to purchase trash bags at
$1 and $2. Still, they hoped residents would see the plan's ability to
raise about $850,000 per year, and free a matching amount, to reduce a
projected town budget deficit of $2 million.
"I wonder if everybody is really hearing the message," Finance Committee
member Susan Patoski said. "This town has a structural deficit. ...
Proposition 2½ no longer leaves this town with the ability to raise
enough in taxes. ... If this does not pass, then we have to come to the
town with a huge override."
If the override fails, Finance Committee Chairman David Harris said, the
deficit translates into 21 lost jobs, along with all of the services
those people provide.
The meeting began late as voters queued up to get in. They filled the
middle school auditorium, then the gym, then the music room, with the
three groups participating via public address system. "We struck a
little bit of a nerve," said Selectman John Liming, an opponent of
pay-as-you-throw.
Proponents like environmentalist Jane Bright praised the plan for
providing a strong incentive for conservation.
"Every time every person in this town inhales, we are inhaling our own
trash," she said.
Board of Health Chairman Carl Goodman managed to coax
some applause even from opponents when he noted the hard work of
employees and unpaid board members in putting the proposal together.
"All these people deserve a thank-you. Whether or not you support the
proposal," he said.
But with the lukewarm reaction to the proponents' presentation, some
remarks were bitter.
"The opponents have made a wonderful campaign," Joann Silva said, "of
misinformation — and I'll say it — lies. ... You will pay for trash."
Critics, however, mainly held the floor, hammering at the plan, raising
questions about the town's ability to boost the trash bag fee and use it
as a de facto tax increase, bypassing Proposition 2½.
"This isn't just a tax," John Hooper said. "This, in my mind, is a
super, super override." He compared the cost of the trash bags to an
identity sticker issued for the dump, which initially cost $2.
"The two dollars grew to five dollars," he said. "The five dollars grew
to 10. The 10 grew to 15. The 15 to ..." [currently $50] At that, he was
drowned out by cheers and laughter.
The woman who helped make Proposition 2½ law 25 years ago, Barbara
Anderson, won more cheers when she recalled that in 2003 the town
passed an override, claiming it was needed to maintain trash pickup.
"Those were permanent overrides," she said. "We will pay that for the
rest of our lives. And now they want to charge us again by selling these
bags. ... I'm hoping you'll vote against this."
Acting Moderator Gary Spiess acknowledged reality when he hinted that it
was time to vote. "I don't want to forestall debate. At the same time,
one gets a little bit of a sense."
Voters looked around at the sea of hands raised in opposition and
promptly put on their coats and left.
School Committee member Jonathan Lederman, an outspoken opponent, took
congratulations from voters as they filed out. He isn't overly concerned
about the budget. "I think we'll budget responsibly as we were elected
to do."
Town Administrator Tony Sasso said he was gratified at the turnout —
pure democracy in action. And in the days to come, he said with a shrug,
"We'll work on our budget."
Return to top
The Salem News
Monday, March 21, 2005
In the birthplace of Prop 2½, there's grumbling
By Alan Burke, Staff writer
MARBLEHEAD — In the town where Proposition 2½ began nearly 25 years ago
(its chief architect, Barbara Anderson, lives here), a broad spectrum of
officials is now complaining that the tax-cutting measure has gone as
far as it can go.
Because of 2½, Marblehead can't pay its bills for the coming fiscal
year, says Selectman Jeff Shribman. And its unlikely the town will ever
be able to pay its bills, he adds, without annual overrides or painful,
annual cuts in services.
But Marblehead resident Barbara Anderson, the driving force
behind the measure that was adopted statewide 25 years ago this
November, says she's heard it all before. Moreover, she faults town
officials for failing to see that taxpayers are often just as hard-
pressed to pay their own bills.
Fresh doubts about Proposition 2½ began to surface here even before last
Wednesday's Special Town Meeting soundly defeated a proposal for
pay-as-you-throw trash collection. Town officials had hoped the trash
fees would generated $850,000 in new income.
With the measure's defeat, however, they face an anticipated $2 million
shortfall in the coming fiscal year's budget.
"This is not crying wolf," says Shribman. "If people do not want to pay
more (for trash collection), that is their right. Maybe they do not care
if they lose four policemen and four firefighters and 12 teachers."
In fact, Shribman estimates, the $2 million translates into 40 full-time
positions. To rescue some or all of them the town will have to pass a
substantial override of Proposition 2½ this June, just as they did last
year.
Now, even some people who have supported 2½ are blaming it for creating
a "structural deficit" that they can see no way around. Because so many
budget items rise at a rate faster than 2½ percent — sometimes much
faster — they say that overrides this year will likely be followed by
overrides next year, and the year after that, and on and on.
"All you have to know is that health care is going up by 15 percent,"
Shribman says.
Selectman Harry Christensen, a Republican and supporter of 2½, offers
little comfort to the anti-tax forces.
"I just don't see how we can cut," he says. Waste disposal costs are
rising by more than 7 percent a year, he notes. Police are pleading for
better equipment, driving battered, worn-out cars. And without pay
increases, he says, good people go elsewhere for work.
Time for tweaking?
"I was an advocate of Proposition 2½," Christensen muses. "Maybe we all
failed to see that Proposition 2½ might not have been realistic 20 or 30
years down the road." More flexibility for the 2½ figure might be an
improvement, he says.
He quickly adds that he continues to support 2½ and expects that an
override will deal with this year's shortfall.
Christensen's concerns echo those of recently retired Finance Director
Bart Snow, who has now spoken out against Proposition 2½, warning that
inflation is beginning to undo it.
It's a reckoning delayed, he says, first by efficient cost-cutting and
then by state aid. But now Snow sees nothing left to cut and a state
with nothing left to give.
But that doesn't faze Anderson.
"They all figure Proposition 2½ is over the hill," Anderson chuckles.
"That it's ready for euthanasia." She points out that while taxes are
limited to a 2½ percent increase, town revenues are not. Money comes in
from other sources, including new homes and state aid. Generous state
aid is an outgrowth of 2½, she notes.
She acknowledges that towns like Marblehead have real money worries.
But, she says, "so do we. ... They talk about fixed costs as if they
were handed down to Moses. Those costs are created by decisions made
with the town's unions." Deals with teacher unions set the tone, with
annual pay increases a given, she says.
Anderson recalls a moment at Town Meeting when voters were asked
rhetorically "Who doesn't get a yearly pay increase?' Hundreds of hands
shot up. "Stupid," she says of the question.
Anderson isn't surprised that a number of former tax opponents seem to
be raising questions about 2½. She's seen it many times, she says. "They
get elected to something and become part of the problem."
And she doesn't buy the "structural deficit" argument. "The whole
concept of a structural deficit ... it is by definition the gap between
the money they have and the money they want."
In fact, she has a new project in the works, to counter efforts on
Beacon Hill to weaken Proposition 2½. She plans to seek a new
referendum, she says, to give voters the right to pass an "underride."
Return to top
The Salem News
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
A Salem News editorial
Trash fee's defeat was no surprise
It comes as little surprise that Marblehead voters refused to buy into
town officials' pleas for a trash fee.
Trash collection, after all, is something that has traditionally been
provided by cities and towns using the property tax revenues they
collect from homeowners. And those attending last week's special town
meeting were smart enough to realize that once taxpayers get used to
paying for one service via a special fee, others will surely follow.
In fact, it's already happening for a lot of parents who pay extra so
their children can participate in sports or other extracurricular
activities. Such activities used to be part of a "public" education.
But today, at both the state and local levels, fees are being used to
supplement the revenue collected via taxation.
Selectmen and members of the Board of Health in Marblehead say the
town's normal revenue stream — limited by Proposition 2½
— is no longer sufficient to handle all its costs. So they proposed
charging residents to have their trash collected at curbside, a scheme
which they figured would raise an additional $850,000.
But keeping such costs in check was the very purpose of Prop 2½, which
also provides an option if citizens truly believe revenues are too
constrained — the override.
Town officials apparently have little confidence that a majority of
property owners would pass the permanent operating override necessary to
cover the $2 million shortfall projected for the next fiscal year. And
those on Beacon Hill, including Gov. Mitt Romney, have told them not to
expect the state to bail them out if they spend beyond their means.
Like it or not, Prop 2½ is the will of the commonwealth's voters and the
selectmen's time would be better spent keeping expenses in check rather
than trying to figure out a way around it.
The Education Intelligence Agency
Communiqué - March 21, 2005
On the Web at
http://www.eiaonline.com
Teacher Compensation Is Largest Chunk of Per-Pupil
Spending
The U.S. Census Bureau released Public Education Finances 2003 last
week, with page after page of statistics on federal, state and local
public education revenues and expenditures, including detailed figures
for school districts with enrollments of more than 10,000 students. EIA
will periodically highlight some of the data from the report.
Below is a state ranking by percentage of per-pupil spending devoted to
teacher compensation, derived from the numbers in Table 11 of the
report.
The first figure is current per-pupil expenditures for the 2002-03
school year.
The second figure is the amount per-pupil each state spends on teacher
salaries and benefits combined.
The third figure is the second divided by the first, or the percentage
of all per-pupil spending devoted to teacher compensation.
The U.S. average for that year was 55.63 percent.
As you can see, the range is fairly narrow from state to state, with
almost all states fitting in the 52-59% range, and many states extremely
close to each other.
[The full report:
"Federal, State, and Local Governments Public Elementary-Secondary
Education Finance Data".]
1) Rhode Island: $9,315 -$5,978 – 64.2%
2) New York: $12,140 -$7,765 – 64.0%
3) Maine: $8,847 - $5,345 – 60.4%
4) Utah: $4,860 - $2,891 – 59.5%
5) Georgia: $7,724 - $4,591 – 59.4%
6) Minnesota: $8,073 - $4,755 – 58.9%
7) New Hampshire: $8,285 - $4,869 – 58.8%
8) Connecticut: $10,372 - $6,051 – 58.34%
9) Indiana: $7,948 - $4,636 – 58.33%
10) West Virginia: $8,218 - $4,778 – 58.1%
11) Maryland: $8,921 - $5,160 – 57.84%
12) Massachusetts: $10,223 - $5,906 – 57.77%
[. . .]
US Avg.: $8,019 - $4,461 – 55.63%
50) Florida: $6,450 - $3,183 – 49.3%
51) DC: $13,328 - $5,435 – 40.8%
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
|