CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Legislature almost went home for
good
. . .
then changed its mind
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue began
notifying 48,000 taxpayers yesterday that they owe capital gains taxes
on the sale of assets that occurred nearly four years ago, outraging
consumer advocates and business leaders who called the retroactive
taxation plan unfair....
"I think there are a lot of people who are going to be shocked when they
get this bill," said Mark Bernardin, an Andover man who together with
five friends formed Citizens Against Retroactive Taxation. "This is not
just taking a windfall from rich people. It's hitting ordinary people,
and it's not a good way to run government." ...
Governor Mitt Romney and legislative Republicans urged lawmakers to set
2003 as the starting date, which would have meant that many taxpayers
would be owed a rebate for taxes they had paid on transactions that
occurred in the last eight months of 2002. Democrats rejected that plan,
however, arguing that the state could not afford the roughly $275
million the refunds would cost.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 10, 2005
State is sending notifications of retroactive taxes
48,000 residents face 2002 billings
A growing number of Democrats may be poised to join Gov.
Romney and other Republicans in the campaign to roll back a retroactive capital
gains tax assessment about to hit tens of thousands of Bay Staters.
The Department of Revenue is in the process of mailing out bills informing
nearly 50,000 taxpayers that, as the result of a Supreme Judicial Court ruling
that lawmakers had illegally raised the capital gains tax in mid-2002, they must
now come up with an estimated $175 million in back taxes....
The committee did not take action on the bill following Tuesday's hearing and
there was no word as to when it would surface....
Some speculate that a growing number of Democrats may support the governor's
bill as they hear from more and more constituents angered over their mail from
the Revenue Department.
One House Democrat who showed up at the morning hearing to testify on a separate
bill had comments reinforcing that contention. "I'm in support of the
Republicans on this," said Democratic Rep. Anne Paulsen of Belmont. "We can
afford it."
State House News Service
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Debate over 2002 'Cap' Gains Tax change
continues on eve of recess
The state Senate on Tuesday padded a $241 million mid-year
spending bill with scores of amendments advancing pet projects and initiatives
in their districts. Few of the amendments were debated and the session was
capped with the adoption of a bundle of amendments that were not described in
any manner.
The bill is significantly different from one approved by the House and appears
headed for a conference committee. It's not clear how much spending was added to
the budget via the amendments.
State House News Service
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Senate approves supplemental budget
Legislators are splurging on pet projects in their home
districts as they look to spend what’s left of a budget surplus from the last
fiscal year.
"The state has come out of the fiscal crisis, it’s rolling in our dough," said
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
"It is so much fun to spend our money, especially when you want to get
re-elected, and so they’re rolling out the pork projects." ...
Budget watchdogs perennially criticize legislators for the way in which those
with enough pull get money for projects in their districts, even though they are
relatively low on the statewide priority list.
"There’s clearly a lot of purely local stuff in the supplemental budget that’s
either low down or not on the list of capital priorities at all," said Cam Huff,
senior research associate with the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "This is
clearly a product of good times." ...
Sen. Robert Hedlund of Weymouth made an unsuccessful try to add his own pet
projects to the mid-year budget, although the odds were stacked against him as a
member of the minority Republican Party.
"Some of the items in this bill are of questionable priority," Hedlund said.
"They all may be nice, they all may be needed at some level. But from a capital
planning standpoint, would they survive the normal capital budgeting process
through state bonding? Probably not."
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Beacon Hill spending spree:
Legislators use surplus to splurge
on pet projects in home districts
The Massachusetts Senate has agreed to push the salaries of
the state's 14 sheriffs to $123,209 a year, boosting their pay far above the
national average.
The salary increase, included in a sprawling spending bill passed Tuesday night,
approves pay increases ranging from $16,000 to $39,000 a year for the sheriffs.
The sheriffs serving the state's three least-populous counties -- Nantucket,
Dukes, and Franklin -- would see their pay jump 46 percent, from their current
$84,583....
If the salary increase becomes law, Massachusetts sheriffs would be paid far
more than their sheriffs across the country, according to recent surveys. A 2003
US Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, relying on 2000 data, found that the
average salary nationwide was $49,400 to $51,900 a year, or roughly $70,000 less
than Massachusetts sheriffs would make under the Senate legislation....
The bill would make the sheriff of the least populous county in Massachusetts,
Nantucket, the highest-paid sheriff in the state, because the Senate bill left
intact a little-known law that allows that officeholder to retain all fees
collected for serving summonses. In fiscal 2005, those fees totaled $3,236,
according to the Nantucket County treasurer's office.
As a result, Nantucket County Sheriff Richard M. Bretschneider would make
$126,000 a year if the Senate bill became law, or about $1,000 more than the
$124,920 the lieutenant governor would make under the Senate bill....
Barbara Anderson, who heads Citizens for Limited Taxation,
questioned why the Senate was handing out pay raises when 48,000 state residents
are receiving retroactive capital gains tax bills. She also questioned why
Nantucket's sheriff deserved such a big raise and, for that matter, the very
existence of a Nantucket sheriff's office.
"Can't the local police serve process?" Anderson said. "I don't think that's an
unreasonable question. I guess you have to keep an eye on the sea for all those
pirates coming in from the Caribbean."
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Senate OK's big increase in salaries for sheriffs
New levels would surpass US average
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has put off consideration
of a controversial bill that would extend in-state tuition rates to undocumented
immigrants, but supporters and foes of the measure expect a pitched battle over
the proposal early next year.
Yesterday marked the end of this year's formal legislative session, and DiMasi,
a supporter of the bill, apparently lacked enough votes to pass the bill with a
two-thirds majority, the margin needed to override an expected veto by Governor
Mitt Romney.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 17, 2005
House delays tuition bill vote
Immigrant proposal to be debated in '06
The Senate adjourned suddenly at 7:26 pm, surprising some
House members, and wrapping up scheduled formal sessions for the year without
completing action on a host of advancing measures....
Before adjourning, the Senate, and later the House, adopted an order allowing
the branches to circumvent their legislative rules and hold a special formal
session sometime between tomorrow and Jan. 4, 2006 to continue lawmaking ...
State House News Service
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Unfinished business means major lawmaking
may continue over the holidays
Lawmakers debated a slew of bills during the last day of their formal session
Wednesday, but failed to take final action on some signature pieces of
legislation, including a massive overhaul of the state's health care system....
A spokeswoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini said the Senate could take
a final vote on some of the bills during the informal session.
Both branches also left the door open to coming back into special formal session
before the end of the year to vote on some higher profile bills ...
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Lawmakers end session without final action
on some key bills
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
"No man's liberty or property is safe while the
legislature is in session," Mark Twain once commented. Despite the last
minute "strategic chaos" on Beacon Hill this week, we thought threats to
our liberty and property would soon be over at least until after the
holidays when it starts all over again. No such luck, not in
Massachusetts, not where "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy" diddles
all year until it runs out of time.
Our Legislature never truly calls it quits,
"prorogues" for the year like legislatures do all over the country, some
as early as March and April. For every day still in session per
diems, travel allowances, and federal tax write-offs are available.
The tradition of the Massachusetts General Court is to "recess" for
another extended holiday break but officially continue on in the
occasional "informal session." This year is a bit of a break with
tradition: they plan to all get together on December 20th for a
sort of holidays reunion.
There must have been too many citizens unexpectedly
paying attention this week -- with the retroactive capital gains tax,
in-state tuition for illegal aliens, and other hot-button issues
beginning to glow white. So now we must remain ever vigilant
through the remainder of the year so nothing bad is snuck through by a
handful of legislators during an "informal" session -- or when the pols
meet for their unusual reunion, just five days before Christmas while
the public's expected to be dreaming of sugar-plums dancing in our
heads.
During the "strategic chaos," the Senate passed a
supplemental budget filled with so much pork nobody has yet figured out
its bottom line -- how much they voted without debate to spend of our
income tax overpayment.
All over again, a billion-dollars-plus-and-growing of
surplus revenue is being quickly squandered so it's not there to give
back to taxpayers.
"Few of the amendments were debated and the session
was capped with the adoption of a bundle of amendments that were not
described in any manner," the State House News Service reported.
One of the spending
bills the Senate passed was pay raises for county sheriffs, as well as
the state's top elected officials, assistant district attorneys, and a
15 percent increase to
trial court judges, according to The Boston
Globe:
"Asked if [the Nantucket sheriff] was worth roughly
$126,000 a year, [Sen. Therese
Murray, D-Plymouth] said, 'I don't know. That's what [the Massachusetts
Sheriffs Association] tells me.'"
Now there's an unbiased authority. No wonder
Sen. Murray makes the big bucks as chairwoman of the Senate Ways and
Means Committee, with that kind of detailed knowledge and
intensive probing.
"A 2003 US Bureau of Justice Statistics survey,
relying on 2000 data, found that the average salary nationwide was
$49,400 to $51,900 a year, or roughly $70,000 less than Massachusetts
sheriffs would make under the Senate legislation."
Whatever happened to abolishing county government in
Massachusetts?
Nantucket County, with its total land area of 48 square miles
(water area: 255.8 sq. mi) and a population of about 10,000 (43
"institutionalized") needs us to pay $126,000 a year for a sheriff?
Compare this to
Middlesex County, with its total land area of 823.5 square miles
and its population of 1,465,396 (16,580 "institutionalized").
The heat apparently got to House Speaker Sal DiMasi
yesterday: even he couldn't round enough votes to pass the tuition bill
for illegal aliens over the governor's promised veto.
Naturally, it's not over. Already its advocates are vowing to
continue the fight.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts
Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, The Boston Globe reported,
vowed "This is going to come up in the race for governor ... It will
move forward early in the new year, and in our view, education will
triumph over fear."
"Fear"? Surely he meant to say, "triumph over law and
order."
Nothing happened on the retroactive capital gains tax
bill, though we were hoping the retroactivity would be quickly removed,
its effective date to at least a reasonable fair 2003.
Tomorrow afternoon Governor Romney will hold a State
House news conference. CLT and some of our affected members have
been invited to join him when he signs his amendment to the
Legislature's retroactive bill and sends it back to them.
|
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 10, 2005
State is sending notifications of retroactive taxes
48,000 residents face 2002 billings
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue began notifying 48,000 taxpayers
yesterday that they owe capital gains taxes on the sale of assets that
occurred nearly four years ago, outraging consumer advocates and
business leaders who called the retroactive taxation plan unfair.
The average bill will total about $4,200, but would drop to $3,725 under
a measure the Legislature expects to send to the governor today. That
measure would waive any interest the taxpayers would owe and exempt
those who owe $100 or less.
According to Revenue Commissioner Alan LeBovidge, almost half of the tax
money the state will reap from the retroactive tax payments, about $78
million, is owed by just 278 wealthy individuals. Their average bill
will be about $281,000. But roughly one-third of those who will receive
the tax bills made less than $70,000 in 2002, he said.
"I think there are a lot of people who are going to be shocked when they
get this bill," said Mark Bernardin, an Andover man who together with
five friends formed Citizens Against Retroactive Taxation. "This is not
just taking a windfall from rich people. It's hitting ordinary people,
and it's not a good way to run government."
The mailings that began going out yesterday are preliminary bills that
inform taxpayers of the amount that the state will seek, LeBovidge said.
Once they receive the notice, taxpayers have 30 days to either pay the
bill or notify the Revenue Department that they dispute the amount they
owe.
"I'm going into hiding," LeBovidge joked. "I think we could get a lot of
calls."
The tax levies are the result of a 2004 Supreme Judicial Court ruling
that overturned a decision by the Legislature in 2002 to raise the
state's capital gains tax rate to 5.3 percent midway through that year.
The SJC ruled that the state could not change the rate in midyear,
leaving the state with the choice of making the higher rate effective in
January 2003 or January 2002.
Governor Mitt Romney and legislative Republicans urged lawmakers to set
2003 as the starting date, which would have meant that many taxpayers
would be owed a rebate for taxes they had paid on transactions that
occurred in the last eight months of 2002. Democrats rejected that plan,
however, arguing that the state could not afford the roughly $275
million the refunds would cost.
The alternative favored by the Democrats, making the tax increase
effective at the beginning of 2002, means that taxpayers now owe capital
gains taxes on transactions made during the first four months of the
year.
Yesterday, seeking to blunt the political fallout of the unusual tax
increase, House Democrats approved a Senate measure to waive interest on
the new capital gains payments and to exempt any taxpayer who owes $100
or less. That bill would shave about $45 million off the $150 million to
$205 million that the tax hikes will reap, LeBovidge said. It would also
reduce the number of people who owe money from 48,000 to 40,000, he
said.
But Romney and other Republicans blasted the interest waiver as a
transparent effort to mask a tax hike. Lawmakers also said they expected
Romney to send the bill back to the Legislature with an amendment that
again calls for the tax hike to become effective on Jan. 1, 2003.
"I don't want to discuss strategy, but it's fair to say the governor
intends to use every tool at his disposal to fight for the interests of
fairness," Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said. He
added, "People who sold assets in 2002 did so based on the tax laws at
the time. For the state to come back three years later with a surprise
tax bill has the potential to create real economic hardship for
thousands of citizens."
Some taxpayers, bracing for the retroactive bills, have been trying to
fight the Legislature's plans.
Steven Buckley, a Canton lawyer who in 2002 sold a four-family house in
South Boston, was outraged when he learned from his accountant months
ago that he owed $19,000 in retroactive taxes on the transaction. He
paid the money, but has been hoping that Romney would prevail so he
could get the money back.
"I paid approximately $19,000 in gains that I wouldn't have had to pay
if I had sold in 2001," Buckley said. "Had I known then what I know now,
my decisions would definitely have been different."
Michael J. Widmer -- president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, a business-backed watchdog group -- said he doubted that the
bill to waive interest payments would do much to appease those who
receive new bills.
"This is arbitrary and capricious, and its impact is very uneven and
unfair," Widmer said. "Individuals sell something under one set of
rules; they suddenly get hit with a substantial retroactive tax. That is
not how the tax code is supposed to work. It may be constitutional, but
it is inequitable."
Return to top
State House News Service
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Debate over 2002 'Cap' Gains Tax change
continues on eve of recess
By Helen Woodman
A growing number of Democrats may be poised to join Gov. Romney and
other Republicans in the campaign to roll back a retroactive capital
gains tax assessment about to hit tens of thousands of Bay Staters.
The Department of Revenue is in the process of mailing out bills
informing nearly 50,000 taxpayers that, as the result of a Supreme
Judicial Court ruling that lawmakers had illegally raised the capital
gains tax in mid-2002, they must now come up with an estimated $175
million in back taxes.
The high court decreed that all taxpayers must be treated the same way
in any given year. That left state officials with one option of backing
up the effective date of the hike to January of 2002, causing everyone
who experienced a capital gain in the first five months of that year to
be taxed to the tune of $175 million. Or they could fast forward it to
Jan. 1, 2003 thereby not affecting any taxpayers in 2002. That option
would cause about $250 million in refunds to taxpayers who had paid the
levy.
Romney has lobbied for the latter option, arguing that people should not
be unfairly penalized four years later. He has asked lawmakers to
correct their mistake by approving his bill to set Jan. 1, 2003 as the
effective date of the change in the capital gains law. He and others
have cited higher-than-anticipated revenue collections as yet another
reason for that course of action.
"What we have here is a good faith mistake by the Legislature. It would
be unfair to ask the citizens of the commonwealth to pay for the
mistakes of its government," said Romney's Director of Communications
Eric Ferhrnstrom in a late afternoon interview.
The Romney bill finally got a public hearing Tuesday before the Revenue
Committee - just a day before formal sessions for the year are to be
suspended until January.
House Republican leaders urged the committee to make things right by
moving the bill. "It's morally wrong and reprehensible to go back
retroactively," said Assistant Minority Leader George Peterson of
Grafton. "We are faced with a fork in the road and I would suggest we
make the right choice," Republican Leader Bradley Jones of North Reading
advised his colleagues who sit on the Revenue Committee.
The committee did not take action on the bill following Tuesday's
hearing and there was no word as to when it would surface.
Jones said he expects that Romney will use another vehicle already on
his desk to prod action. He has until Sunday to act on legislation aimed
at closing $85 million in tax loopholes and that bill contains a
provision exempting from interest and penalties any person who realized
less than $100 in 2002 gains. Ferhrnstrom said that bill may be sent
back to the House and Senate with amendments affecting the capital gains
tax but no decisions have yet been made.
Some speculate that a growing number of Democrats may support the
governor's bill as they hear from more and more constituents angered
over their mail from the Revenue Department.
One House Democrat who showed up at the morning hearing to testify on a
separate bill had comments reinforcing that contention. "I'm in support
of the Republicans on this," said Democratic Rep. Anne Paulsen of
Belmont. "We can afford it."
Return to top
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Beacon Hill spending spree:
Legislators use surplus to splurge on pet projects in home districts
By Tom Benner and Rick Collins
Patriot Ledger State House Bureau
Renovations to an athletic field at Houghtons Pond: $300,000.
Upgrades to a state pool in Brockton: $1.2 million.
Better marketing for Plimoth Plantation: $250,000.
Legislators are splurging on pet projects in their home districts as
they look to spend what’s left of a budget surplus from the last fiscal
year.
"The state has come out of the fiscal crisis, it’s rolling in our
dough," said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens
for Limited Taxation. "It is so much fun to spend our money,
especially when you want to get re-elected, and so they’re rolling out
the pork projects."
The Senate worked overtime yesterday to advance a $241 million
supplemental budget before the end of formal legislative sessions today.
Lawmakers must get the bill to Gov. Mitt Romney’s desk in short order,
since appropriations bills cannot be carried from one calendar year to
the next without a special vote.
Budget watchdogs perennially criticize legislators for the way in which
those with enough pull get money for projects in their districts, even
though they are relatively low on the statewide priority list.
"There’s clearly a lot of purely local stuff in the supplemental budget
that’s either low down or not on the list of capital priorities at all,"
said Cam Huff, senior research associate with the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation. "This is clearly a product of good times."
Senate Democrats including Therese Murray of Plymouth, Brian Joyce of
Milton, Michael Morrissey of Quincy and Robert Creedon of Brockton
successfully added pet projects to the supplemental budget. Murray, who
is chairwoman of the Senate’s Ways and Means Committee, is the Senate’s
gatekeeper for spending projects across the state.
Senate spokeswoman Ann Dufresne defended the mid-year budget, saying it
will cover priorities including substance abuse programs, work force
development and services for the elderly and homeless.
"It fills in the holes of programs and initiatives that have been
underfunded or where the need for services has grown," Dufresne said.
Sen. Robert Hedlund of Weymouth made an unsuccessful try to add his own
pet projects to the mid-year budget, although the odds were stacked
against him as a member of the minority Republican Party.
"Some of the items in this bill are of questionable priority," Hedlund
said. "They all may be nice, they all may be needed at some level. But
from a capital planning standpoint, would they survive the normal
capital budgeting process through state bonding? Probably not."
The supplemental budget also includes $7 million to help police
officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officers replace a
problematic type of bullet-proof vest. The money would be made available
to any public safety agency whose employees use bullet-proof vests made
with a synthetic material called Zylon.
Second Chance Body Armor Inc. of Central Lake, Mich., which makes the
vests, is currently under federal and state investigation for hiding
information on flaws in the vests.
Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier, who is also president of the
Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association, said the group hadn’t been
actively lobbying for the money, but welcomes state help for officers
switching to a different type of vest.
"Officers are all going to a different product," he said.
Frazier said Braintree police officers have already made the switch.
Supplemental budget items
—$1.2 million to repair and upgrade Manning Pool in Brockton
—$336,000 for a municipal garage on Bolivar Street in Canton
—$160,000 for an elevator in Sharon Community Center
—$100,000 for clearing and dredging of Pine Tree Brook in Milton
—$100,000 for maintenance programs at Squantum Point Park in Quincy
—$100,000 for renovations at Pembroke Council of Aging
—$100,000 for a bandstand at Sunset Lake in Braintree
—$75,000 for Plymouth County convention and visitors bureau for a new
web site
—$41,000 for Quincy Asian Resources Inc. to provide outreach and
services to Asian-Americans
—$25,000 for improvements to the Braintree Council on Aging building
—Payments in lieu of taxes for towns that contain the Blue Hills
Reservation: Braintree, $4,850; Canton, $86,040; Milton, $118,026;
Quincy, $175,556; Randolph, $51,516.
Source: Massachusetts Senate
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Senate OK's big increase in salaries for sheriffs
New levels would surpass US average
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
The Massachusetts Senate has agreed to push the salaries of the state's
14 sheriffs to $123,209 a year, boosting their pay far above the
national average.
The salary increase, included in a sprawling spending bill passed
Tuesday night, approves pay increases ranging from $16,000 to $39,000 a
year for the sheriffs. The sheriffs serving the state's three
least-populous counties -- Nantucket, Dukes, and Franklin -- would see
their pay jump 46 percent, from their current $84,583.
Under the bill, Norfolk County Sheriff Michael G. Bellotti's salary
would increase from $101,499 to $123,209, while Suffolk Sheriff Andrea
Cabral would see her pay rise from $107,138 to $123,209.
The spending bill would also give $5,000 raises to the state's top
elected officials, as well as 5 percent pay hikes to assistant district
attorneys and 15 percent increases to trial court judges. The spending
bill now must be reconciled with a similar House bill before the
legislation is sent to Governor Mitt Romney.
Senator Therese Murray, the Senate Ways and Means Committee chairwoman,
said the sheriffs had been lobbying for at least three years to
establish pay parity among all 14 sheriffs. "Every one of them does
something different, so it's been a bone of contention" that some make
more than others, she said.
If the salary increase becomes law, Massachusetts sheriffs would be paid
far more than their sheriffs across the country, according to recent
surveys. A 2003 US Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, relying on 2000
data, found that the average salary nationwide was $49,400 to $51,900 a
year, or roughly $70,000 less than Massachusetts sheriffs would make
under the Senate legislation.
A 2003 survey conducted by the National Association of Counties
determined that sheriffs in the Northeast made an average salary of
$63,279.
In Massachusetts, sheriffs' pay is currently tied to two things: the
size of the resident and inmate populations of the county in which they
serve and the salary of trial court judges. The sheriffs serving the
seven most heavily populated counties -- such as Middlesex, Essex,
Suffolk, and Worcester -- receive 95 percent of the trial court judges'
pay, which currently stands at $112,777. The four sheriffs serving
somewhat smaller counties, such as Berkshire and Hampden, receive 90
percent, and the sheriffs representing the three smallest counties get
just 75 percent.
The bill passed by the Senate Tuesday would scrap that system and pay
all the sheriffs 95 percent of the trial court judges' pay.
Because the bill would hike the judges' salaries to $129,694 a year, all
sheriffs would now be paid $123,209 annually. That means the sheriffs of
Dukes, Nantucket, and Franklin counties, which have a collective
population of fewer than 100,000 people, will each get 46 percent
raises, or roughly $39,000.
The bill would make the sheriff of the least populous county in
Massachusetts, Nantucket, the highest-paid sheriff in the state, because
the Senate bill left intact a little-known law that allows that
officeholder to retain all fees collected for serving summonses. In
fiscal 2005, those fees totaled $3,236, according to the Nantucket
County treasurer's office.
As a result, Nantucket County Sheriff Richard M. Bretschneider would
make $126,000 a year if the Senate bill became law, or about $1,000 more
than the $124,920 the lieutenant governor would make under the Senate
bill.
Asked if Bretschneider's work was worth roughly $126,000 a year, Senator
Murray said, "I don't know. That's what [the Massachusetts Sheriffs
Association] tells me." But she added, "He does everything on the
island. He's a one-man band. He transports prisoners, does all the civil
process work."
Bretschneider did not return calls seeking comment, and the
Massachusetts Sheriffs Association declined to comment.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey also determined that pay varied
widely, depending on the size of the county a sheriff served, much as
the current Massachusetts law calls for. Those working in counties with
1 million or more residents were paid $99,300 to $105,400, while those
serving counties with 10,000 to 24,999 people were paid $33,800 to
$35,000.
The US Census Bureau estimates that Nantucket County has a year-round
population of 10,124, making it the most sparsely populated county in
Massachusetts. It is also the only county that does not have a prison.
The $241 million spending bill would also establish retroactive pay
raises for the state's constitutional officers, something that Governor
Mitt Romney called for earlier this year. Under the measure, the
attorney general, the auditor, the secretary of state, and the treasurer
would all receive roughly $5,000 pay hikes beginning July 1 of this
year. If signed into law, the attorney general would make $127,523, and
the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, and auditor
would make $124,920.
The measure would also boost the governor's pay roughly $5,000 to
$140,535. However, neither Romney nor Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey
take their salaries.
Barbara Anderson, who heads Citizens for Limited Taxation,
questioned why the Senate was handing out pay raises when 48,000 state
residents are receiving retroactive capital gains tax bills. She also
questioned why Nantucket's sheriff deserved such a big raise and, for
that matter, the very existence of a Nantucket sheriff's office.
"Can't the local police serve process?" Anderson said. "I don't think
that's an unreasonable question. I guess you have to keep an eye on the
sea for all those pirates coming in from the Caribbean."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 17, 2005
House delays tuition bill vote
Immigrant proposal to be debated in '06
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has put off consideration of a
controversial bill that would extend in-state tuition rates to
undocumented immigrants, but supporters and foes of the measure expect a
pitched battle over the proposal early next year.
Yesterday marked the end of this year's formal legislative session, and
DiMasi, a supporter of the bill, apparently lacked enough votes to pass
the bill with a two-thirds majority, the margin needed to override an
expected veto by Governor Mitt Romney.
Opponents, who said they were gratified by the news, said they believe
that their argument that the move would be fiscally irresponsible is
starting to resonate with the public.
"It's a victory for the Commonwealth and the taxpayer," said Bob
Casimiro, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for
Immigration Reform. "This will give us a breather. But I know they'll be
back, because they have the resources."
The measure would allow undocumented immigrants to attend state colleges
for approximately $9,300 annually, the same amount charged state
residents. Such a reduction would be a significant discount from the
$18,000 that undocumented immigrants are currently charged for tuition
and fees at state colleges. Under the proposed law, they would qualify
for in-state tuition if they graduate from a Massachusetts high school
after attending it for at least three years and if they sign an
affidavit affirming that they intend to seek citizenship.
Advocates say that only about 400 students would take advantage of the
lower tuition and that the cost to the state would be about $15 million
annually.
But Casimiro and other members of the coalition have been lobbying
legislators for months, saying that undocumented immigrants have not
earned the rights that US citizens enjoy. They also worry that approving
in-state tuition would encourage officials to grant driver's licenses
and work authorizations to undocumented immigrants, as well.
The issue gained attention two weeks ago during a radio debate between
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly,
both probable gubernatorial candidates.
Healey was criticized for suggesting that the immigrant students could
"go to private schools" if they were unhappy with tuition rates at state
colleges. Healey also argued that the bill will cost the state millions
of dollars because it would eventually require the state to offer
in-state rates to students from outside Massachusetts.
"The biggest credit you have to give for this is to Governor Romney and
Lieutenant Governor Healey," Casimiro said. "They have been very firm on
this and very explicit in their opposition."
The national debate over immigration has also added fervor to the
appeals of opponents. And in Massachusetts, changing demographics have
made the issue more immediate for residents. One in 5 residents of the
Bay State is foreign born.
"These are children of families who have been in Massachusetts for
years, and they know of no other home than the Commonwealth," said Ali
Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee
Advocacy Coalition. "They've been paying taxes, contributing to the
economy, and all they want to do is go to college at the same rate as
their high school classmates."
Representative Marie J. Parente, a Milford Democrat, said she has
received a mountain of mail about the issue, mostly from opponents. She
said more debate is needed. Legislators "might have thought they'd be
able to slip the bill through," Parente said. "I don't think they
realized how much it meant to people."
Both sides say they expect the bill to be a key issue in next year's
gubernatorial contest.
"This is going to come up in the race for governor," Noorani said. "...
It will move forward early in the new year, and in our view, education
will triumph over fear."
Return to top
State House News Service
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Unfinished business means major lawmaking
may continue over the holidays
The Senate adjourned suddenly at 7:26 pm, surprising some House members,
and wrapping up scheduled formal sessions for the year without
completing action on a host of advancing measures.
Action was not completed, as many hoped, on bills dealing with heating
aid to the poor, opening up the wine sales market, and offering property
tax relief to senior citizens. A series of more far-reaching measures
dealing with health insurance affordability and access, job creation,
welfare reform, and a mid-year spending bill are also in limbo.
Before adjourning, the Senate, and later the House, adopted an order
allowing the branches to circumvent their legislative rules and hold a
special formal session sometime between tomorrow and Jan. 4, 2006 to
continue lawmaking on the health care, jobs, spending and welfare bills.
The Senate and House meet again on Thursday in informal sessions, during
which the objections of a single member can stop any legislation in its
tracks.
Sen. Michael Morrissey, one of the lead negotiators on the wine sales
and energy relief bills, told his colleagues on the floor that he had
reached an agreement with the House on those bills. He said he expects
both bills to reach the governor on Thursday.
House members [were] surprised by the Senate’s sudden adjournment;
leaders huddled behind closed doors between 8 and 9 pm, and then adopted
the Senate order just after 9 pm.
Asked at about 7:45 pm outside the House chamber about the Senate's
decision to adopt the special order and adjourn without waiting for the
House's response, Sen. Michael Morrissey said, "We'd love to come back
and do some business if necessary. And if they don't agree, then that's
news to me."
Return to top
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Lawmakers end session without final action
on some key bills
By Steve LeBlanc
Lawmakers debated a slew of bills during the last day of their formal
session Wednesday, but failed to take final action on some signature
pieces of legislation, including a massive overhaul of the state's
health care system.
Some of the bills lawmakers had worked to place on Gov. Mitt Romney's
desk included a tax relief package for senior citizens, a series of tax
breaks designed to lure filmmakers to Massachusetts, a measure allowing
the purchase of out of state wines over the Internet and an energy aid
bill.
But a decision by the Senate to abruptly adjourn at about 7:30 p.m. left
the fate of many of those bills in limbo and irked some House lawmakers.
The Legislature is in informal session for the rest of the year, during
which the objection of a single member can stop a bill.
One bill that made it all the way to Romney's desk would exempt from the
state sales tax purchases made during the filming of a movie, as long as
the production company intended to spend at least $250,000 in
Massachusetts. The tax break would also apply to film students.
Sen. Cynthia Creem, one of the sponsors of the bill, said the new
economic activity would more than make up for any lost tax revenue.
"In fact, Disney Studios is waiting for this bill to become law before
giving final approval for several projects that they would like to film
in Massachusetts next year," Creem said.
A bill that stopped short of reaching Romney's desk would encourage
cities and towns to build more housing even if that means bringing more
school age children into their communities. Some cities and towns balk
at building new housing because of the costs associated with expanding
schools.
The bill was awaiting final action by the Senate.
Another bill waiting final action would extend existing tax credits to
more senior homeowners and renters. The bill made its way through the
House and is waiting a final vote in the Senate.
A spokeswoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini said the Senate
could take a final vote on some of the bills during the informal
session.
Both branches also left the door open to coming back into special formal
session before the end of the year to vote on some higher profile bills,
including the proposed health care overhaul, a welfare reform bills and
a jobs bill.
The bills are currently before six-member conference committees trying
to hammer out differences between House and Senate versions.
House lawmakers set aside Dec. 20 as the date for a possible formal
session if a final agreement is worked out on any of the bills. House
Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, said he still hopes to get the
health care bill to Romney this year, if possible.
"I think it's important to get it done this year," he 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
|