CLT
UPDATE
Friday, June 3, 2005
Prop 2½ override
epidemic meets
"fed up" taxpayers' immune system
It seems that local residents have taken up the cry
of George Bush (the old one, not the one who holds hands with other guys
and dances in public). Only this time, they mean it.
Read their lips -- or, in this case, their ballots: No new taxes.
In the most recent local attempt to override Proposition 2½,
in Tyngsboro last week, voters were given a smorgasbord of options --
$1.9 million, $1.6 million and $1.25 million. But they really only
needed one: no.
They voted no in droves on all three questions. Earlier this spring,
voters in Westford and Littleton said no to override questions.
What's it all mean?
Does it mean those who voted against overrides in Tyngsboro, Littleton
and Westford are cheapskates?
Does it mean they want to see town employees laid off, cutbacks in
school and recreational programs, little kids walking two miles to and
from school, uphill both ways?
No, it means they're fed up....
Of course, override supporters can still donate more of their money --
perhaps even the extra money they would have willingly paid in higher
property taxes -- to the town if they so desire. Sure, just make the
check out to the Town of Tyngsboro and drop it in the mailbox.
They're probably lining up now to do just that, right?
The Lowell Sun
Monday, May 16, 2005
Local voters' overriding message: No new taxes
Let the parents of those children raise the money to fix
their own schools, came the reply.
It does not work that way. All the schools are our schools. We cast our lot
together, for good or ill. The majority rules. That means: Win some, lose some.
When Wellesley voters rejected a budget proposal this month that would have
earmarked money for elementary school and 6th-grade Spanish, supporters of a
worthy program lost one. That the ballot question failed by only 17 votes is
frustrating, but it's beside the point.
The take-away lesson for disappointed parents might have been the need to do a
better job next time convincing townspeople of their point of view, or to do a
more aggressive job of getting like-minded residents to the polls.
Persuasion and participation usually win the day. Whatever happened to losing
gracefully, and living to fight another day? Instead, parents indignant that
they lost such a close vote launched a fund-raising drive to use private
resources to pay for a core curriculum public-school program....
No matter how committed they are, no matter how worthy their goal, these parents
are sending a message that their cause is more legitimate than the democratic
process.
That is not a civics lesson our children need to learn.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 19, 2005
Learning, the hard way
By Eileen McNamara
After the override failed, parents organized Citizens to Save
Spanish and raised a $320,000 of the $472,000 needed for the Grade 2-to-5
program. They also raised $60,000 to keep Spanish in the sixth grade. The School
Committee turned down both contributions on the grounds that it was not right to
accept private donations for a regular academic program. The committee is right
that funding the public schools cannot be left to the whims of wealthy donors.
But by rejecting the money, it denied students an opportunity to learn a crucial
skill -- lost years of learning that will never be regained. On balance, it
would have been better to keep the program alive with the donated money.
A Boston Globe editorial
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Español in Wellesley
Do you want to know the real reason our town is facing a "structural deficit"
and a $2.7 million override? It is primarily due to salary increases and benefit
costs for our town employees.
Upwards of 70 percent of our town's budget is spent on salaries and benefits. If
town employees receive yearly raises greater than 2½ percent (the automatic
increase from Prop 2½) without a corresponding cut somewhere else, then you can
expect an override. Sure, energy costs have contributed to our deficit, and the
cost of hauling away trash from the dump continues to rise, but just these costs
alone would not be enough to require an override....
Certainly our town employees need to make a living and deserve the best
compensation package we can afford. We should expect and support modest
overrides for unusual circumstances or to correct such things as one-time salary
imbalances. However, this vicious cycle of negotiating compensation packages
above the 2.5 percent limits and then requiring an override to fix a "structural
deficit" cannot go on indefinitely.
The Marblehead Reporter
Thursday, June 2, 2005
The override - The story behind the story
By Jack Buba
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
As what's become annual override fever sweeps the
state, some common threads run through every one of them. The towns have
adopted the
bête noire -- "structural deficit" -- that the so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
supplied to the state for an eternal excuse for not rolling back the
income tax. That catchy phrase has now become the battle cry of
municipal leaders as well. They toss it out as if this spending is beyond their
control, as if it weren't they who've created this "structural
deficit."
But what has created this epidemic of "structural
deficits"? And more importantly, what are our elected officials doing to alleviate it?
This brings us to the second common thread: what's
causing this epidemic. To answer this quandary, one need only look at
where this annual demand for more and more "revenue" is targeted to be
spent. You need look no further than the education-industrial complex --
a.k.a., the teachers unions. In town after town the demand for more and
more taxes is required to satisfy this one special interest, for now.
Police and fire -- collectively public safety,
highway departments, libraries -- every other municipal department --
must compete with the teachers unions for more, and they're usually too
timid to stand on their own and denounce the insatiable greed of their
competitors.
We've got another override coming up on June 15 here
in Marblehead . . . so what's new. Barbara recently noted that if this
keeps up, pretty soon there will be no other town services, no need for
other town departments, no need even for a board of selectman or town
manager: all we'll need is a rubber-stamp school committee to transfer
the town's tax revenue to the schools and call for the next override
each year.
The third common thread is fed and expanded by the
second -- the "structural deficit" caused by overly generous benefits
packages provided to government employees that are unheard of in the
private sector. Marblehead finance committee member Jack Buba laid it
out so perfectly there's nothing more that needs to be said.
You might read over his column
below then apply it to your
own city or town. Only the numbers will change.
The final thread is how the tax-and-spenders have
confused "need" with "want."
When I first began reading Boston Globe columnist
Eileen McNamara's column, "Learning, the hard way," I thought she had
finally got it: if you want something beyond basic taxpayer-provided education, then raise the money among yourselves and fund it
privately for your kids who'll benefit from the frills. I
couldn't believe my eyes -- but it didn't take reading much further to
bring me back to ground. That's exactly the opposite of the point
she was trying to make, her point much more in character. I should have
known better as I began reading.
Of course the follow-up Boston Globe editorial chose
to have it both ways, illustrating once again that More Is Never Enough
(MINE) and never will be. The Wellesley school committee should have
accepted the privately-raised donations that covered the cost of frills,
according to the Boston Globe editorial elites
-- then pushed hard for more taxpayer funding later.
Dan Phelps of the Lowell Sun got the message and
related it best in his column reporting on override failures, "Local voters' overriding message: No new
taxes":
Does it mean they want to see town employees
laid off, cutbacks in school and recreational programs, little kids
walking two miles to and from school, uphill both ways?
No, it means they're fed up.
Fed up. That says it pretty well.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Lowell Sun
Monday, May 16, 2005
Local voters' overriding message: No new taxes
By Dan Phelps
It seems that local residents have taken up the cry of George Bush (the
old one, not the one who holds hands with other guys and dances in
public). Only this time, they mean it.
Read their lips -- or, in this case, their ballots: No new taxes.
In the most recent local attempt to override Proposition 2½, in
Tyngsboro last week, voters were given a smorgasbord of options -- $1.9
million, $1.6 million and $1.25 million. But they really only needed
one: no.
They voted no in droves on all three questions. Earlier this spring,
voters in Westford and Littleton said no to override questions.
What's it all mean?
Does it mean those who voted against overrides in Tyngsboro, Littleton
and Westford are cheapskates?
Does it mean they want to see town employees laid off, cutbacks in
school and recreational programs, little kids walking two miles to and
from school, uphill both ways?
No, it means they're fed up.
While only the people who voted against the overrides can speak for
themselves, I'll take a stab at it. They're probably a little sick of
hearing town officials cry poor, then magically find a way to fund the
items they said they'd cut if the override didn't pass.
They're struggling to make ends meet at a time when a pay raise is a
luxury, not something they can bargain into their contracts for
themselves every year. Town and school employees' and administrators'
salaries rise every single year -- at the expense of the same people
whose wallets town officials are trying to raid for even more money.
These people are sick and tired of having their hard-earned money going
to pay other people's ever-rising salaries when their own aren't rising.
These people are hurting. Many are working multiple jobs to support
their families -- never mind the families of town and school employees.
And those town and school employees should take heed: If voters in your
town rejected an override, it doesn't mean you can turn around and raise
fees for everything from school buses to playing field hockey. It
doesn't mean find another way to get the money out of their pockets. It
means make the cuts you have to make to straighten out this mess.
You can say the state is being remiss in sending its share of money to
the communities, and you'd probably be right. But that doesn't justify
hitting the taxpayer up for that money.
And though taxpayers who helped defeat the overrides shouldn't gloat,
they can take comfort in the fact that they stood up and said, “Enough
is enough. Spend within your means. If you can't afford raises for town
employees, don't give them this year. If they don't want their jobs,
there are others who will be glad to have them.”
Hey, life is tough. Sometimes, you have to do the difficult thing when
the easy thing -- asking people to fork over more money -- doesn't work.
That's what people do when they can't afford stuff. They either don't
buy the stuff or they cut back on other stuff so they can afford the
stuff that's really needed. It's called a budget. A majority of voters
in those towns obviously feel the town and the schools aren't budgeting
their money appropriately.
Of course, override supporters can still donate more of their money --
perhaps even the extra money they would have willingly paid in higher
property taxes -- to the town if they so desire. Sure, just make the
check out to the Town of Tyngsboro and drop it in the mailbox.
They're probably lining up now to do just that, right?
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 19, 2005
Learning, the hard way
By Eileen McNamara, Globe Columnist
WELLESLEY -- It didn't start with writing personal checks to pay for
elementary school Spanish classes.
The confusion in this western suburb about the definition of public
education dates back at least 14 years.
That is when my oldest son entered kindergarten. At the first PTO
meeting of the year, a dad whipped out his checkbook and urged the rest
of us to do the same.
The issue then was the modular classrooms that had sprung up over the
summer to accommodate the burgeoning enrollment.
The father suggested: Why not just build a permanent addition to the
school and be done with it? "If everyone in this room tonight wrote a
check," I remember him saying, "we could start construction this fall."
Apparently the balance in his checking account was a little different
than mine. So was his idea of a public school. It was amazing to listen
to the school superintendent have to explain the concept of collective
responsibility to well-educated adults. If people of means finance a
building project for their neighborhood school, she asked patiently,
what about other similarly overcrowded schools around town?
Let the parents of those children raise the money to fix their own
schools, came the reply.
It does not work that way. All the schools are our schools. We cast our
lot together, for good or ill. The majority rules. That means: Win some,
lose some.
When Wellesley voters rejected a budget proposal this month that would
have earmarked money for elementary school and 6th-grade Spanish,
supporters of a worthy program lost one. That the ballot question failed
by only 17 votes is frustrating, but it's beside the point.
The take-away lesson for disappointed parents might have been the need
to do a better job next time convincing townspeople of their point of
view, or to do a more aggressive job of getting like-minded residents to
the polls.
Persuasion and participation usually win the day. Whatever happened to
losing gracefully, and living to fight another day? Instead, parents
indignant that they lost such a close vote launched a fund-raising drive
to use private resources to pay for a core curriculum public-school
program.
All parents want the best education for their children. That's why so
many of the well heeled send their offspring to private schools. It is
why so many people of more modest means assume mortgages they can barely
afford to live in communities with good public school systems. It is why
residents of poorer cities and towns will forever be shortchanged by an
educational funding system that is so dependent on property taxes.
In the face of the fundamental inequity in educational opportunity we do
not need Citizens to Save Spanish, parents determined to circumvent the
will of a majority when they do not prevail at the polls. No matter how
committed they are, no matter how worthy their goal, these parents are
sending a message that their cause is more legitimate than the
democratic process.
That is not a civics lesson our children need to learn.
The children of suburban parents already have educational advantages
that their public school counterparts in less affluent communities could
hardly imagine. A silent auction for one of Wellesley's elementary
schools this year raised more than $80,000 that can be used to purchase
equipment or to fund enrichment programs. In only a few weeks this
month, parents raised $380,000 in their failed bid to restore Spanish
classes. That ought to be enough to hire private tutors.
It didn't start with writing personal checks to pay for elementary
school Spanish classes and it won't end there, either. The same vote
that rejected funds for Spanish also eliminated money for Wellesley's
two branch libraries. The Committee to Save the Branch Libraries meets
on Wednesday. Bring your checkbook.
Eileen McNamara is a Globe columnist.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
A Boston Globe editorial
Español in Wellesley
Foreign language instruction ought to be part of the core curriculum of
any school system, starting in the elementary grades. The decision by
the Wellesley School Committee to drop an innovative Spanish program
even though parents volunteered to pick up much of the cost shows the
need for greater citizen mobilization to make this a priority.
Wellesley voters killed the Spanish program May 10 when they opted for a
$2.6 million property tax override instead of a $3.6 million option that
was also on the ballot. Their decision also means that two branch
libraries will close and the town recycling center will be open fewer
days of the week.
Library and recycling services can be restored without difficulty if
more money becomes available in later years. The elimination of Spanish,
however, means that some children in Wellesley will be denied a year or
more of instruction in the early grades, when their minds are receptive
to new languages.
The Spanish-language program, according to Wellesley's curriculum
director, Judy Boroschek, was well liked. Since its inception in 1998,
native Spanish speakers have conducted Spanish-only instruction in the
spoken language for 15 minutes a day, four times a week, starting in
second grade. A year ago, Wellesley fifth-graders scored well on a
Spanish-language assessment conducted by the Center for Applied
Linguistics in Washington.
After the override failed, parents organized Citizens to Save Spanish
and raised a $320,000 of the $472,000 needed for the Grade 2-to-5
program. They also raised $60,000 to keep Spanish in the sixth grade.
The School Committee turned down both contributions on the grounds that
it was not right to accept private donations for a regular academic
program. The committee is right that funding the public schools cannot
be left to the whims of wealthy donors. But by rejecting the money, it
denied students an opportunity to learn a crucial skill -- lost years of
learning that will never be regained. On balance, it would have been
better to keep the program alive with the donated money.
Still, at best, the donations could have gained the program only a
one-year reprieve. Organizers of the citizens' campaign showed great
skill in generating a huge fund-raising response so soon after the
override defeat. Now they can use those same talents for a longer
campaign to persuade the townspeople and the School Committee to restore
Spanish to the regular curriculum.
Anyone who has strolled around a major US city knows that this is a
multicultural nation, and Spanish is the second-most-common language.
Wellesley, one of the most affluent communities in Massachusetts, ought
to find the money and show the good sense to make it part of the
formative experience of every student in the public schools.
Return to top
The Marblehead Reporter
Thursday, June 2, 2005
The override - The story behind the story
By Jack Buba
Do you want to know the real reason our town is facing a "structural
deficit" and a $2.7 million override? It is primarily due to salary
increases and benefit costs for our town employees.
Upwards of 70 percent of our town's budget is spent on salaries and
benefits. If town employees receive yearly raises greater than 2½
percent (the automatic increase from Prop 2½) without a corresponding
cut somewhere else, then you can expect an override. Sure, energy costs
have contributed to our deficit, and the cost of hauling away trash from
the dump continues to rise, but just these costs alone would not be
enough to require an override.
So why isn't anyone talking about this? Why don't we hear the School
Committee or selectmen saying that they are going to rein in these
costs? Because it is illegal for them to speak out on this! Under the
fair-labor laws, the School Committee and selectmen are part of the
bargaining team. They are therefore prohibited from saying anything in
public that supports salary reductions or reduced benefits for union
employees. Should any elected board member speak out, he or she could be
brought before the Labor Relations Commission for "negotiating in bad
faith," and the town could be ordered to pay huge settlement costs.
Since salaries and benefits are the major contributors to the
"structural deficit" and since our town leaders are prohibited from
rallying public support to reduce this largest contributor to our
shortfall, here is some information to consider as our town grapples
with this yearly problem.
Raises and steps: Most town employees have two primary ways to increase
their pay. First, they receive a regular annual increase that is
negotiated with the town. Second, many also receive a yearly "step"
increase for completing a year of service.
Under the school system's current contract, there are 11 steps. Each
step represents an automatic 4 percent increase - except for the last
step, which is an automatic 8 percent increase. Also, because of
turnover of personnel and retirements, in any given year just about
two-thirds of the teachers receive an annual 4 percent step increase.
Even last year, when the teachers delayed their negotiated raise,
two-thirds of them received their automatic 4 percent step increase.
This year, those teachers will receive the 3.25 percent deferred raise
on top of their step raise, for a 7.25 percent total increase this year
(and a total 11.25 percent increase over the last two years.)
Furthermore, negotiations for this year's increase, which would be over
and above this 7.25 percent, are on hold pending the results of the
override. So, the raises for this year could be even higher.
Our other town employees also have step increases, with most town jobs
having five steps. However, since most of the non-school employees are
at the top step, their only real salary increase is their annual raise.
Benefits: The cost of benefits (medical and retirement) is also
increasing, by as much as 14 percent annually. This is happening in both
the public and private sectors. While these costs are often described as
"uncontrollable" in the public sector, the private sector has dealt with
this problem through consolidating plans, increasing employee
contributions and raising deductibles.
In Marblehead, our benefit costs are also increased by generous policy
decisions such as allowing part-time employees to be eligible for
full-time benefits when they work over 22 hours a week. Additional costs
are incurred by such actions as the School Department's decision to
officially start school on Aug. 31. By including this one day in August
in the schedule, all eligible part-time employees of the school receive
full benefits for the entire month of August, costing the town $50,000.
In another example, most town employees are eligible to retire before
age 60 with 80 percent of their pay and with the town picking up 80
percent of their health-insurance costs until they are eligible for
Medicare. The town continues to subsidize the non-Medicare portion of
their insurance for the rest of their lives.
All of which brings us to the upcoming override. Let's do the math. If
we do not contain the town's share of health and retirement costs, and
if we keep giving both annual and step raises greater than 2½ percent to
our town employees, then we will always be in a "structural deficit"
mode that will require yearly overrides. In the past, this problem was
solved by state aid. With state aid all but dried up, the decision falls
to Marblehead's voters.
If Question 5 passes, the average Marblehead household will pay an
additional $475 in taxes this year compared to last year: $116 from the
automatic 2.5 percent increase plus $359 from the override. These
amounts will be added to your tax bill every year, forever.
This year, the automatic increase from Prop 2½ will bring in $880,000.
New construction in the town adds another $500,000. When coupled with
the $1.2 million we have been awarded in state aid, the town already has
$2,580,000 in new monies to spend. This is before we even consider the
additional $2.7 million requested in the override.
Certainly our town employees need to make a living and deserve the best
compensation package we can afford. We should expect and support modest
overrides for unusual circumstances or to correct such things as
one-time salary imbalances. However, this vicious cycle of negotiating
compensation packages above the 2.5 percent limits and then requiring an
override to fix a "structural deficit" cannot go on indefinitely. Saying
no to the all-or-nothing Question 5 is the only way to stop these annual
overrides, send a message to town officials and force Marblehead to
begin to deal with the real problem.
Jack Buba is a member of the Marblehead Finance Committee.
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
|