CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Boston Globe's bankrupt
integrity,
and other treacheries
The House was opening its annual budget debate, and
the first item of business was an attempt by Republicans to cut the
income tax. The arguments were familiar: In 1989 legislators raised
taxes temporarily -- many saying they expected that the rate would
revert to 5 percent -- and voters in 2000 endorsed a ballot question
mandating that figure. Fortunately, a solid majority has shuffled this
bad idea off to a study commission.
Both arguments from the past are unconvincing today....
The 5 percent figure has an almost mystical power on Beacon Hill. When
the Legislature froze the rate at 5.3 percent in 2002, the 5 percent
figure was so alluring that legislators included a provision that would
lower the rate to that figure by 2014 if revenues grew strongly. And
this week, legislators declined an opportunity to reject outright the
immediate cut to 5 percent and instead voted for the study proposed by
Representative John J. Binienda, a Worcester Democrat.
In the Legislature, studies are usually a polite form of burial ...
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Fixated on 5 percent
The Massachusetts House of Representatives this week
arrogantly nullified the people’s right to initiative petition — not once but
twice in the same day.
On a Democratic party-line vote, 135-21, the House rejected a budget amendment
to roll back the state income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, the rate
that prevailed before lawmakers in 1989 voted an emergency increase that hiked
the rate by 20 percent.
It is the latest in a series of setbacks for taxpayers. In 2000, after a decade
of legislative foot-dragging, frustrated voters passed a ballot measure
mandating a rollback to the original rate, by a 3-to-2 margin. The initiative,
calling for a return to 5 percent over three years, was intended to force the
Legislature to keep its promise that the income tax rate increase would be
temporary. Lawmakers began to comply, but they froze the rate at 5.3 percent
when the state’s economy soured in 2002....
Adding insult to injury, lawmakers also rebuffed the voters’ wishes to make
charitable contributions tax-deductible. The initiative, also on the 2000
ballot, had won by a landslide 3-to-1 margin....
As the party-line vote on the tax measures dramatized, legislative nullification
of initiatives is, in part, a toxic byproduct to the overwhelming one-party
dominance on Beacon Hill. Last fall’s elections, which boosted the Democrats’
majority, only aggravated the partisan imbalance.
Voters complain about the anti-constituent antics of the Legislature. Unless
they are willing to turn out incumbents who repeatedly thwart the will of the
people, shameful nullification votes such those in the House this week will
remain business as usual.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Nullified again (twice)
House continues to stifle the people’s voice
Governor Mitt Romney's administration announced yesterday
that it has reached labor agreements with 32,000 of the 39,000 workers in the
executive branch, with the governor's top budget aide boasting that he broke
with tradition by giving the employees modest salary hikes that will not exceed
the expected growth in state tax revenue.
Romney's budget chief Eric A. Kriss said the raises, which average less than 2
percent annually when spread over the time since the previous deals expired,
will help the state avoid layoffs if the economy deteriorates....
Grunko said the union will express its frustration by flexing its political
muscle in the 2006 governor's race....
Kriss has often played the role of Romney's heavy in the administration's
frequent clashes with unions. In speeches, he has repeatedly decried organized
labor's "monopoly" on state and municipal employment in Massachusetts, saying it
creates a drag on city and state budgets. Romney and Kriss have urged local
officials to follow their lead and take a harder line with public employees.
"The local level is where there are more serious problems," Kriss said
yesterday.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 28, 2005
State, unions reach agreements
Romney aide cites modest pay pacts
The effervescence of spring has arrived. While daffodils are
absorbing the sunshine and potholes are attacking suspension systems, public
employees, i.e., teachers and firefighters, are attempting to assault taxpayer
wallets, once again. Public-employee mentality has reached an apex at which more
is never enough and "wants" have drastically overridden "needs." In Spencer, two
Proposition 2½ override questions will be on the May 2 ballot to fund insatiable
and unquenchable employee appetites for bigger and better salaries and benefits
packages....
In the words of Chip Ford from Citizens for Limited Taxation,
"Override provisions are intended for municipal emergencies only. They were
never intended to fund bloated operating budgets and overly generous employee
pay raises and benefits for which they are being abused today.... The biggest
municipal emergency we have today is how to choke off the overspending. The
solution is not higher taxes."
The Telegram & Gazette
Monday, April 25, 2005
Public employees launch raid on taxpayers’ wallets again
By Jennifer Gaucher / As I See It
Worcester school officials say a $4.5 million budget deficit,
the result of rising operating costs and shrinking revenue from the state,
forced them to send layoff notices to 73 teachers and eliminate an additional 22
teaching positions by not replacing retiring teachers. Absent an increase in
state education funding this year, even more teachers could lose their jobs.
Overall, the department’s operating costs are expected to increase by $10.2
million, about twice as much as new revenues. Topping the increases are health
insurance costs, which will increase by about $3 million for school employees
this year....
Worcester employees now contribute as little as 10 percent of health insurance
costs, with the city paying a 90 percent share of employee health insurance
costs, significantly more generous than the benefit received by most public- and
private-sector employees.
A 75/25 split in contributions would yield savings of about $5 million in the
school department alone....
Incredibly, Louis J. Cornacchioli, EAW executive secretary, has proposed raising
taxes via a Proposition 2½ override, pointing out that the city legally could
raise taxes by $12 million. Can he seriously believe that Worcester property
owners, who have seen their tax bills and municipal fees rise sharply in recent
years, are undertaxed? ...
The EAW leaders consistently have turned thumbs down on proposals that might
have prevented most or all of the layoffs. Faced with the choice of concessions
or layoffs, they repeatedly have opted for layoffs.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Monday, April 25, 2005
School squeeze
EAW renews perennial push for tax increase
The state's crackdown regarding reimbursements to
cities and towns for school-building projects is long overdue and this
week's slap at 14 communities is likely only the beginning....
School officials often complain that residents don't understand their
plight and are skeptical of their financial requests. Well, the results
of the recent financial audits conducted by the state Department of
Education revealed why residents have those feelings. Because school
departments sometimes make unnecessary purchases....
The audits should serve as a warning to all communities that buying
unnecessary items at the state's expense must stop. We hope it's a
lesson learned quickly because, if not, local taxpayers will end up
paying the extra bills.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Clamping down on costs
Nearly six months after [Franklin] voters shot down an
override, those who voted for and against the tax-raising ballot question have
mixed views on the current budget situation.
Many believe the fiscal 2006 budget is not as dire as officials predicted in the
fall and are glad the $3.9 million Proposition 2½ override failed in
November....
"Many of the taxpayers who fought for the override feel misled about the town's
financial situation. We don't know if that was purposeful or not," said Ed
Cafasso, chairman of the former pro-override group Franklin Cares. He later
added, "The town seems to have a lot more financial flexibility than predicted a
year ago." ...
"The predictions of severe budget cuts seem to have been premature," said
Cafasso, who was appointed to the School Committee after the override vote.
Frank Cummings, a former councilor who opposed the override, said he thinks
officials cried wolf last year....
Looking back, Cummings, Findlen and Theresa Shea, former head of the loosely
organized anti-override group Franklin Taxpayer Objects, said they still do not
believe an override was needed....
Cafasso said he and others who fought for the override are "now wondering why
that very same plan couldn't have been proposed a year ago." ...
"Until every spare penny of change is used and something happens that puts us in
such a perilous situation where people think we need an override, I don't think
another one will pass," Trahan said.
Many said the trust between town officials and residents must first be rebuilt.
"They are going to have to wait a long time and really have some good facts,"
Findlen said.
The MetroWest Daily News
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Franklin budget viewed in new light
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
What a stark contrast between the integrity (the
utter void of it) of the Boston Globe, and the Worcester Telegram &
Gazette's with its respect for democracy, the voters, and their
decisions.
How often have we heard the liberal mantra
regurgitated by the Globe that "Every vote must count!"? Why bother
counting them, if after they're totaled Democrats -- and the Boston
Globe -- simply defy the results they don't like?
The liberal mantra should be revised to "Every vote
must count -- if we agree with the outcome!
*
*
*
Have you noticed that more and more citizens are
awakening to the avarice of public employee unions -- especially the
teachers unions' insatiable greed? Steadily, the number of aware
citizens across the commonwealth, across the nation in fact, is growing.
Taxpayers are
recognizing that inevitable tax increases are required to keep satisfying
the public employee unions, temporarily. More
Is Never Enough -- or else, is beginning to wear thin among an
expanding population who are paying the bill.
As more citizens feel themselves squeezed between the
proper role of government -- public safety, public works, etc. -- and
the endless demands of the Education-Industrial Complex, squeezed
between hanging onto their family homestead or handing teachers and
other "public servants" more, more, more every year, the
immutable survival instinct
is kicking in. We are quickly approaching critical mass -- fight or flee.
The unions' narrow self-interest and shortsighted greed have reduced this
situation to survival of the
fittest. At some point soon the taxpayers' spigot must be shut off or
run dry. Taxpayers eventually won't be unable to afford paying any more,
and that day of reckoning is not far off. The unions will have it all
and we'll be working full- instead of part-time for the "public
servants."
*
*
*
It also greatly helps when taxpaying voters become
aware of another scam, when a "The Sky Is Falling" routine is exposed as
just "Crying Wolf." It's especially useful for overburdened
taxpayers when a proponent of Proposition 2½ overrides, a
tax-and-spend leader like Ed Cafasso of Franklin, feels abused,
betrayed, and speaks out.
We suffered a similar but worse betrayal in
Marblehead a couple of years back. An override was passed allegedly
because of a threat that state local aid was about to be cut. When the
additional state aid nonetheless arrived, town officials decided to keep
the override's tax increase too! We're hoping abused Marblehead
taxpayers won't forget that bitter lesson in treachery when the next
override is served up to us in the coming months.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 28, 2005
A Boston Globe editorial
Fixated on 5 percent
The House was opening its annual budget debate, and the first item of
business was an attempt by Republicans to cut the income tax. The
arguments were familiar: In 1989 legislators raised taxes temporarily --
many saying they expected that the rate would revert to 5 percent -- and
voters in 2000 endorsed a ballot question mandating that figure.
Fortunately, a solid majority has shuffled this bad idea off to a study
commission.
Both arguments from the past are unconvincing today. In 2000, voters
acted under the misapprehension that the revenue boom of the late 1990s
would last. Supporters of the cut promised that services would not be
reduced, but they were, deeply, once the boom ended. Since 1993, state
government has made a commitment to offer a quality education to every
child in Massachusetts, an initiative that was not a factor in 1989.
Even at the current income tax rate of 5.3 percent, revenues are not
sufficient.
A cut to 5 percent would reduce state revenues by about $590 million a
year. That would be equivalent to a 16 percent reduction in the K-12
education allotment being considered by the House this week, or a 64
percent cut in the higher education budget, or a 50 percent reduction in
unrestricted local aid, or a 46 percent reduction in public safety
spending, or a 95 percent cut in the Department of Mental Health budget,
or the elimination of the Department of Public Health. Which of these
reductions would supporters of the tax cut like to put their names to
first?
The 5 percent figure has an almost mystical power on Beacon Hill. When
the Legislature froze the rate at 5.3 percent in 2002, the 5 percent
figure was so alluring that legislators included a provision that would
lower the rate to that figure by 2014 if revenues grew strongly. And
this week, legislators declined an opportunity to reject outright the
immediate cut to 5 percent and instead voted for the study proposed by
Representative John J. Binienda, a Worcester Democrat.
In the Legislature, studies are usually a polite form of burial, but
Binienda insisted over the telephone this week that "I want to know
exactly where the cuts would be." Binienda wants the Revenue Department
to conduct the study, but it is not the job of this tax-collecting
agency to outline budget cuts. Republicans in the Legislature ought to
present their own list.
Even as he spoke for the tax cut, Representative George N. Peterson Jr.
of Grafton said he and other Republicans wanted to increase local aid.
The Democratic majority in the Legislature ought to challenge this
inconsistency and present its own plan to provide the revenue necessary
for education and the other essential programs of state government.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, April 28, 2005
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Nullified again (twice)
House continues to stifle the people’s voice
The Massachusetts House of Representatives this week arrogantly
nullified the people’s right to initiative petition — not once but twice
in the same day.
On a Democratic party-line vote, 135-21, the House rejected a budget
amendment to roll back the state income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5
percent, the rate that prevailed before lawmakers in 1989 voted an
emergency increase that hiked the rate by 20 percent.
It is the latest in a series of setbacks for taxpayers. In 2000, after a
decade of legislative foot-dragging, frustrated voters passed a ballot
measure mandating a rollback to the original rate, by a 3-to-2 margin.
The initiative, calling for a return to 5 percent over three years, was
intended to force the Legislature to keep its promise that the income
tax rate increase would be temporary. Lawmakers began to comply, but
they froze the rate at 5.3 percent when the state’s economy soured in
2002.
That the House rejected the notion of raising the tax rate to 5.95
percent — floated by one of its big spenders during Monday’s debate — is
cold comfort, at best.
Opponents of the rollback pointed out that it would reduce state revenue
by more than $200 million in the first year, a noticeable sum even in
the context of a $24 billion state spending program. But as Rep. Lewis
G. Evangelidis, R-Holden, aptly noted, the money belongs to the
taxpayers, not to state officials. "I think the citizens of
Massachusetts have a better way to spend this $226 million than we do,"
he said.
We heartily agree.
Adding insult to injury, lawmakers also rebuffed the voters’ wishes to
make charitable contributions tax-deductible. The initiative, also on
the 2000 ballot, had won by a landslide 3-to-1 margin.
House Democrats could have demonstrated at least a modicum of good faith
by adopting one of the two taxpayer-friendly measures. Instead,
lawmakers opted to deliver a double slap in the face to their
constituents.
Unfortunately, the double betrayal was just the latest in a string of
assaults on the right of initiative petition enshrined in the state
constitution. In recent years, autocratic legislative leaders also have
succeeded in evading or nullifying the people’s will on term limits,
legislative salaries and more.
The right of initiative petition, established in 1917, was not intended
to usurp Legislative prerogatives — and certainly not to establish an ad
hoc People’s Legislature. (Heaven forfend.)
It was intended to give the electorate the option to make laws when
their elected lawmakers refuse to act.
As the party-line vote on the tax measures dramatized, legislative
nullification of initiatives is, in part, a toxic byproduct to the
overwhelming one-party dominance on Beacon Hill. Last fall’s elections,
which boosted the Democrats’ majority, only aggravated the partisan
imbalance.
Voters complain about the anti-constituent antics of the Legislature.
Unless they are willing to turn out incumbents who repeatedly thwart the
will of the people, shameful nullification votes such those in the House
this week will remain business as usual.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 28, 2005
State, unions reach agreements
Romney aide cites modest pay pacts
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney's administration announced yesterday that it has
reached labor agreements with 32,000 of the 39,000 workers in the
executive branch, with the governor's top budget aide boasting that he
broke with tradition by giving the employees modest salary hikes that
will not exceed the expected growth in state tax revenue.
Romney's budget chief Eric A. Kriss said the raises, which average less
than 2 percent annually when spread over the time since the previous
deals expired, will help the state avoid layoffs if the economy
deteriorates. At least two of the unions also agreed to cut medical
leave as part of their deals.
The state's last two contracts with workers in executive agencies
included raises of between 3.5 percent and 5 percent annually, according
to the administration. Kriss argues that raises of that size are not
prudent when the state's revenues are growing slowly and healthcare
costs are rising rapidly.
"This is the kind of thing that creates stability in the workforce,"
Kriss argued.
But leaders of two of the largest state workers' unions criticized the
agreements, saying they represent another example of the Republican
governor's animosity toward organized labor.
"We've dealt with Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, and
this is the first governor we've ever had who simply does not believe in
collective bargaining," said Kevin Preston, Massachusetts director of
the National Association of Government Employees. About 13,000
carpenters, electricians, lawyers, and accountants in the union ratified
contracts earlier this month. "We didn't have a choice. He's still going
to be in office. It was either take what little we could get or take
nothing."
NAGE's last contract expired in June 2003. Instead of giving union
members retroactive pay, the state gave them a 3 percent raise in
January and will give them another 2 percent bump in July. The new
contract expires in June 2006. Preston said managers in state government
have been getting raises of at least 3 percent since Romney took office
in January 2003.
Michael Grunko, president of Service Employees International Union Local
509, which represents about 8,000 social workers and employees in the
state's mental health and mental retardation agencies, said the
administration's agreement with his union includes a 2 percent raise
this January and another 2 percent increase next January.
Union members still have not ratified the deal, which would replace a
contract that expired in June 2004.
Grunko said the union will express its frustration by flexing its
political muscle in the 2006 governor's race.
"We'd been well over a year without an increase, and the prospect of
getting any more seemed really dim," he said. "We'd prefer to go ahead
and put our resources into fighting and getting a governor who
appreciates the work that Department of Social Services social workers
and folks in mental health and mental retardation do. Certainly, there
is a lot this governor has given to us to motivate us."
Kriss has often played the role of Romney's heavy in the
administration's frequent clashes with unions. In speeches, he has
repeatedly decried organized labor's "monopoly" on state and municipal
employment in Massachusetts, saying it creates a drag on city and state
budgets. Romney and Kriss have urged local officials to follow their
lead and take a harder line with public employees.
"The local level is where there are more serious problems," Kriss said
yesterday.
Preston and Grunko also pointed out that the new contracts reduce the
amount of time that workers can take off for medical emergencies. In
NAGE's contract, family and medical leave was reduced from 52 weeks to
26 weeks, and workers will be able to use 30, rather than 60, unused
sick days to care for a sick relative.
But Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman noted that 26 weeks is still more
than the 12 weeks that federal law requires. She also pointed out that
under the new NAGE contract, workers will for the first time be
reimbursed for parking and tolls when they are on official business. The
new deal also includes increases in the state's contribution toward
dental and vision insurance.
"These contracts are fair to state workers and fair to the taxpayers of
Massachusetts," Feddeman said.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Monday, April 25, 2005
Public employees launch raid on taxpayers’ wallets again
By Jennifer Gaucher / As I See It
The effervescence of spring has arrived. While daffodils are absorbing
the sunshine and potholes are attacking suspension systems, public
employees, i.e., teachers and firefighters, are attempting to assault
taxpayer wallets, once again. Public-employee mentality has reached an
apex at which more is never enough and "wants" have drastically
overridden "needs." In Spencer, two Proposition 2½ override questions
will be on the May 2 ballot to fund insatiable and unquenchable employee
appetites for bigger and better salaries and benefits packages.
A Proposition 2½ override is a permanent increase in property taxes
every single year.
In the words of Chip Ford from Citizens for Limited Taxation,
"Override provisions are intended for municipal emergencies only. They
were never intended to fund bloated operating budgets and overly
generous employee pay raises and benefits for which they are being
abused today.... The biggest municipal emergency we have today is how to
choke off the overspending. The solution is not higher taxes."
Question 1 asks residents to override Proposition 2-1/2 to fund annual
increases of more than 200 percent in insurance benefits that will
provide part-time, volunteer firefighters with a life insurance increase
from $100,000 to $500,000, medical expense coverage increase from
$25,000 to $100,000, maximum disability payments from $900 to $1,000 per
week for life and $5,000 funeral benefits. This $5,000 funeral benefit
also will be given to all volunteer town employees, annually.
Fact: Our current premiums are above average and our claims are below
average, according to the town’s insurance representative. In 20 years,
our firefighter claims total less than $6,000.
The facts do not justify the increases. The current annual insurance
premium is $7,800; the new annual insurance premium will be $23,800. The
town override drastically benefits insurance companies more than our
volunteer firefighters.
Question 2 will seek an override to fund annual salary and benefit
increases for teachers and administration on a permanent basis. Fact:
School employee salaries are increasing $525,037; benefits are
increasing $496,312. The School Committee has been aware of the
impending health insurance cost crisis for at least three years and has
blatantly refused to address the issue. Instead, it continues to support
annual requests from the teachers union for higher and higher salaries
and better and better benefit and perk packages.
School revenues have increased more than $1 million dollars in FY 2006,
but spending has continued to exceed revenue increases. Rampant
overspending at the school department has become a bad habit. As chief
financial officer, the superintendent commands a large salary and is
expected to be able to balance a budget, but CFOs/superintendents who
have never worked in the private sector prefer gouging the taxpayer to
holding themselves accountable. The use of overrides, by throwing more
money at a problem, does not solve the problem. The problem is
overspending that has gone on too long. The sad reality is that the
school override will drastically benefit the administration and
teachers, not the students. As public employees get fatter and fatter
incomes and better and better benefit packages, the taxpayer gets
poorer.
Fact: The average teacher’s salary in Spencer is $56,245; the average
per capita income in Spencer is $18,564; the average household income is
$42,335. Fact: Since 1996, student enrollment has decreased from 2,283
to 2,242 today.
The bottom line is that the town and the Spencer-East Brookfield
Regional School District have once again overspent their available
budgets, and the taxpayers are once again being asked to pick up the
slack through Proposition 2½ overrides.
"No" votes on the override questions would send a clear and urgent
message that we will not allow runaway spending to deplete our wallets
and that town government needs to adhere to budgets and spend only what
it has to spend, just as each one of us must do with each paycheck we
receive.
Jennifer Gaucher is a Spencer selectman.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Monday, April 25, 2005
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
School squeeze
EAW renews perennial push for tax increase
Worcester got a sobering glimpse of the toll soaring expenses could take
on its public schools — a net loss of 95 teachers in the coming year.
The teachers union response is disappointing, to say the least.
Every spring, school districts in Massachusetts are required to notify
teachers who may be laid off for the coming school year.
Worcester school officials say a $4.5 million budget deficit, the result
of rising operating costs and shrinking revenue from the state, forced
them to send layoff notices to 73 teachers and eliminate an additional
22 teaching positions by not replacing retiring teachers. Absent an
increase in state education funding this year, even more teachers could
lose their jobs.
Overall, the department’s operating costs are expected to increase by
$10.2 million, about twice as much as new revenues. Topping the
increases are health insurance costs, which will increase by about $3
million for school employees this year.
Worcester employees now contribute as little as 10 percent of health
insurance costs, with the city paying a 90 percent share of employee
health insurance costs, significantly more generous than the benefit
received by most public- and private-sector employees.
A 75/25 split in contributions would yield savings of about $5 million
in the school department alone. That would mean the teachers designated
for layoffs would be retained. It also would give the department some
wiggle room to negotiate a reasonable raise for all teachers in their
new contract.
Nonetheless, the teachers union is taking a hard line against a
health-benefit compromise. The solution urged by the Educational
Association of Worcester is unlikely to win many friends among Worcester
taxpayers.
Incredibly, Louis J. Cornacchioli, EAW executive secretary, has proposed
raising taxes via a Proposition 2½ override, pointing out that the city
legally could raise taxes by $12 million. Can he seriously believe that
Worcester property owners, who have seen their tax bills and municipal
fees rise sharply in recent years, are undertaxed?
Although the EAW leadership seems to have forgotten, Worcester
repeatedly has demonstrated support of its public schools and teachers.
Of all the departments that sought Proposition 2½ overrides during the
layoffs and austerity of the 1990s, voters approved continued, enhanced
funding only for the schools. For more than a decade, the public schools
have received by far the greatest share of state aid growth. Teachers
certainly deserve to be compensated in keeping with their abilities and
duties, but budget stability cannot be achieved if personnel costs — by
far the largest budget account — are taken off the table.
The EAW leaders consistently have turned thumbs down on proposals that
might have prevented most or all of the layoffs. Faced with the choice
of concessions or layoffs, they repeatedly have opted for layoffs.
The EAW rank and file should consider their situation in the larger
context of all the needs of the school system and urge their leadership
to consider job-saving options, such as increased benefit contributions.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
A Sun editorial
Clamping down on costs
The state's crackdown regarding reimbursements to cities and towns for
school-building projects is long overdue and this week's slap at 14
communities is likely only the beginning.
It is unconscionable that some school districts used school-construction
funds to purchase such items as sheet cakes and decorative bunting for
dedication ceremonies, T-shirts, floral arrangements, fliers and
baseball bats. How do those items directly relate to the construction of
academic buildings? They were added on simply because the state was
expected to pick up most of the tab.
Unfortunately, even though the state was funding the bulk of the
projects, all of the money actually comes from taxpayers.
School officials often complain that residents don't understand their
plight and are skeptical of their financial requests. Well, the results
of the recent financial audits conducted by the state Department of
Education revealed why residents have those feelings. Because school
departments sometimes make unnecessary purchases.
We applaud state Treasurer Tim Cahill, who now oversees the school
building authority, for his efforts. He is promising upcoming audits
will scour projects for similar problems, which is exactly the kind of
oversight all government projects need.
The state is refusing to reimburse Wilmington $116,468 in costs
associated with construction of the middle school. The audit found
Wilmington included items that didn't qualify as school-building
expenses. Included in the town's disallowed items were a $52 sheet cake
for the school's dedication ceremony, $1,211 in food services for an
open house and $519 for T-shirts. While celebrating the school's opening
sounds like a good idea, the state shouldn't be expected to pay for the
festivities.
The city of Lawrence received the biggest hit. It had $3.5 million in
costs rejected by the state, including a $26,000 truck, carpet for the
superintendent's office (which sits in a downtown office, not the
school) and interest costs higher than the state permitted.
The audits should serve as a warning to all communities that buying
unnecessary items at the state's expense must stop. We hope it's a
lesson learned quickly because, if not, local taxpayers will end up
paying the extra bills.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Franklin budget viewed in new light
By Eunice Kim, Daily News Staff
FRANKLIN -- Nearly six months after voters shot down an override, those
who voted for and against the tax-raising ballot question have mixed
views on the current budget situation.
Many believe the fiscal 2006 budget is not as dire as officials
predicted in the fall and are glad the $3.9 million Proposition 2½
override failed in November. Others believe the infusion of revenue was
necessary and will be needed in the future.
The lines today, though, are not clearly drawn between those who
supported the override and those who fought against it.
"Many of the taxpayers who fought for the override feel misled about the
town's financial situation. We don't know if that was purposeful or
not," said Ed Cafasso, chairman of the former pro-override group
Franklin Cares. He later added, "The town seems to have a lot more
financial flexibility than predicted a year ago."
In the fall, town officials backed the override that would have funded
eight firefighters and four police officers and kept the library open
the minimum 64 hours a week required by the state. The override would
have also covered a projected budget shortfall of about $3.3 million and
given the schools $1.9 million.
At the time, officials discussed possible cuts to make if the override
failed, including closing the King Street fire station. Since then,
officials have said the budget forecast for fiscal 2006 is better than
expected, partially due to higher proposed state aid figures. Many
councilors have said building closings will not be necessary.
"The predictions of severe budget cuts seem to have been premature,"
said Cafasso, who was appointed to the School Committee after the
override vote.
Frank Cummings, a former councilor who opposed the override, said he
thinks officials cried wolf last year.
Others -- including former Franklin Cares member Clara Lodi and Charlie
Findlen, who moderated the former interactive Web site the Franklin
Forum and voted against the override -- said officials last year likely
believed an override was needed. Lodi and Findlen, though, now said they
believe the budget is not as bad as predicted.
"I think the proof is that nothing is closing," Findlen said.
Looking back, Cummings, Findlen and Theresa Shea, former head of the
loosely organized anti-override group Franklin Taxpayer Objects, said
they still do not believe an override was needed.
Town Administrator Jeffrey Nutting has proposed a fiscal 2006 budget of
about $82.8 million, which includes using $600,000 in overlay surplus to
fill a projected deficit of the same amount. Nutting has also
recommended spending reserves to hire three additional police officers
and eight firefighters.
The Finance Committee begins its review of the budget this week, and the
council's budget process will begin after the Finance Committee makes
its recommendations.
Cafasso said he and others who fought for the override are "now
wondering why that very same plan couldn't have been proposed a year
ago."
Shea and Cummings said the council should have used reserves first.
Because the override failed, Shea said the council and administration
have been forced to do "what they needed to do in the first place, sit
down and fine tune" the budget.
Others, including former Franklin Cares members Lodi and Roberta Trahan,
said they think the override in November was necessary.
"(The fiscal 2006 budget) looks like it's better, but when you look at
it, do we have what we need? No. It's a perception thing," Trahan said.
Nutting's proposed budget holds the school budget's increase to $1.5
million, which is $480,000 short of what the School Committee said is
needed to cover fixed-cost increases, or about $1.13 million short if 13
teachers are also hired next school year. School officials are now
considering cuts and fee increases.
Looking forward, residents on both sides of the November override said
reserves should be used to help balance the budget. The stabilization
account contains about $6.6 million. According to the town's fiscal
policies, a minimum of $5 million is to be kept in that rainy day
account.
"There is a shortfall, and it has to be addressed," said former Franklin
Cares member Michael Doherty, who said he prefers spending reserves over
making cuts.
Cafasso said free cash is available for use toward the operating budget.
The town has about $2.4 million in free cash, which under adopted
policies, is to be used for the capital budget or unforeseen expenses.
"(The) town has enjoyed $2 million in free cash every year for 20
straight years. That is the exact definition of recurring revenue, but
the money has been spent on one-time projects," Cafasso said.
Eventually, Cafasso, Doherty and Trahan said they believe an override
will be needed. Doherty said the town cannot continue to use reserves to
support the budget as those funds, if not replenished, will run dry.
"Until every spare penny of change is used and something happens that
puts us in such a perilous situation where people think we need an
override, I don't think another one will pass," Trahan said.
Many said the trust between town officials and residents must first be
rebuilt. "They are going to have to wait a long time and really have
some good facts," Findlen said.
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
|