CLT
UPDATE
Friday, September 29, 2006
Taxpayers are sick from public
servants' abuses
How much sick time do public employees take?
Following the case of the Brockton policeman who was roundly criticized
by state officials for using 251 sick days over three years while
simultaneously working two public jobs, the Globe decided to find out.
The common perception has been that public employees take more sick days
than workers in the private business world.
And that view appears to be on the mark in five local communities...
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, a taxpayer advocacy group, said municipal leaders should
exercise tighter control over employees' use of sick time, which some
workers apparently see as allowable personal time.
"Somehow they think sick leave is time off, rather than time when you
are supposed to be in bed with a fever," she said. "As long as cities
and towns have plenty of money to throw around, and apparently they do,
there will be abuse of sick leave and pensions and overtime. That's the
way it is."
The Boston Globe (South edition)
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Out sick. Again?
It's true:
Some in public work take off more than those in business
While the Romney administration has criticized excessive sick
time payouts at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, another agency the
governor controls, the Massachusetts Port Authority, has paid more than $6.2
million to departing employees for unused sick time over the past five years.
The payments were made under an unusually generous policy that allows retiring
employees to cash out 100 percent of their unused sick days, far more than the
20 percent to which other state employees are entitled....
The payments are funded by tolls collected at the Tobin Bridge and other fees
paid at Logan Airport.
Compensation for unused sick time is a benefit that is rarely given in the
private sector....
After the Globe began asking Massport for data on the sick time policy last
week, Thomas J. Kinton Jr., the Massport executive director, called Romney's
office to inform him of the long-standing sick time policy -- and that questions
were being asked about it, a Romney aide said.
Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for Romney, on Friday afternoon said Kinton's call
was the first the governor's office had heard of the policy.
"It's an outrageous and overly generous policy," Fehrnstrom said. "Governor
Romney made his views clear to Tom Kinton." ...
"It makes no sense to pay someone because they are lucky enough not to be out
sick with cancer or the flu," said Barbara Anderson, executive director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation, an advocacy group. It's simple greed --
another public sector method to grab all the salary and benefits they can get
without getting caught."
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Massport's lavish payouts
Sick time policy tops Mass. Pike's
It's become a staple of state and local news coverage: The
public employee who abuses sick leave or vacation time policies in ways that
would be unimaginable in the private sector....
"The public sector has a long way to go in terms of managing its resources and
its personnel policies," says Sam Tyler, president of the Boston Municipal
Research Bureau. "There really hasn't been any overall comprehensive review of
personnel practices at the state or local level."
Establishing policies that look more like the private sector's would be one way
to reassure the public that government is well run. And it would help put an end
to the well-publicized abuses we've seen in the last month - abuses that should
make every honorable public servant cringe.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Personnel policies need scrutiny
By Scot Lehigh
Change is in the air for Massachusetts voters.
At least that's what the four gubernatorial candidates would have us believe.
While Democratic candidate Deval Patrick, Independent candidate Christy Mihos
and Green-Rainbow candidate Grace Ross have an obvious reason to highlight the
need for new leadership, even sitting Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey's campaign is
getting in on the act.
"I think voters do want a change," Healey's spokesman, Nate Little, said
yesterday. "It just depends on what kind of change they're going to have. Kerry
Healey's change would lower taxes, and her opponents' changes would only raise
them. We think voters will want Kerry Healey's kind of change." ...
Barbara Anderson, director of Citizens for Limited Taxation and a
Healey supporter, said the public might crave a little variety -- but only so
much.
"People have wanted change from the beginning of time because there's always
something that needs changing," Anderson said. "But the question is, 'How far do
you want to go?' People don't want a complete amateur in the office."
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Candidates agree voters want change but differ on how much
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
CLT has long complained about the divide between
public employees and the real world jobs those of us hold in the private
sector, the disparity between what's expected from and by those who work
directly for government paid by us, and those of us who must compete and
perform to secure and hold our jobs -- and pay the salaries, pensions
and benefits of our public employees.
In my CLT Update commentary of Jan. 25, 2005, "Property
taxes skyrocket while Public Employees swim in salaries," I wrote:
Property tax increases have been growing in leaps
and bounds, driving some lifelong residents out of their homes. The
most specific cause for these double-digit tax increases increases is
becoming all too clear. Public employee unions such as the teachers
unions are reaping the benefits at everyone else's expense and misery.
This awareness is spreading, beginning to be recognized and more
highly publicized. Until enough taxpayers wake up and realize they're
being bled dry by government employees and their powerful unions,
until outrage reaches a critical mass, until more discover they can no
longer afford ever-increasing property taxes, never-ending annual
overrides -- until taxpayers put down their collective foot and start
revolting while they still have homes -- politics-as-usual in
Massachusetts will continue to thrive
This was followed by reports of the cushy retirement
packages public employees are entitled to at taxpayer expense (CLT
Update, Mar. 8, 2005, "Taxpayers'
employees, a class of their own"). ""Only government employment is
immune from the vicissitudes of economic cycles," I wrote in that day's
commentary, comparing public employee pensions to ours.
In the CLT Update of Apr. 24, 2005, "The
secret ticking time bomb: "public service" pensions, health insurance
giveaways," in a column for Fortune magazine, writer Janice Revell
revealed:
There is a time bomb quietly ticking away in the
netherlands of state and local government, and it is set to blow up in
the next few years. When it detonates, the damage will easily run into
the hundreds of billions of dollars—forcing tax hikes and public
service cuts that will affect the lives of millions of Americans
unless dramatic action is taken soon. Why? Because, unlike the private
sector, the majority of government employers — 48 out of 50 states and
more than half of all municipalities — still provide health-care
benefits for their workers after retirement. The problem is, lawmakers
haven't bothered to set aside nearly enough money to pay for these
contractually guaranteed benefits. With health-care costs soaring and
the rolls of public workers at retirement age growing fast, the tab
for these obligations is expanding exponentially. And the bill is now
coming due....
Compounding the problem is the fact that public-sector workers are
typically eligible to retire with full pension and health benefits at
a much younger age (often in their mid-50s) than their private-sector
counterparts. That puts the government employer on the hook for even
more years of retiree health care. And all this is happening against a
backdrop of health costs escalating at a far greater pace than the tax
base.
Now, to add insult to injury -- perhaps unrecoverable
injury coming down the road at us -- we learn that public employees get
extra pay for not being sick.
If a government worker shows up every day on the job
for which he/she is hired -- the job for which they are paid with
regular union-negotiated increases, with a pension most of us will never
see upon retirement, at an age when most of us will still be working for
years to come, receiving health care benefits at little cost for the
remainder of their lives -- if this public servant just shows up without
having to call in sick, they take a fat bonus out the door with them
upon leaving that job.
How is it that government employment can be so much
more lucrative in so many ways than that of those public servants'
employers, us taxpayers? How many private sector employers hand
out going-away bonuses of thousands, if not tens of thousands of
dollars, simply because you showed up for work like you were supposed
to, expected to when you were hired?
How did we ever get here? More importantly,
what can be done about it?
When asked about how much change she thought voters
wanted in the upcoming election, Barbara responded, "People have wanted
change from the beginning of time because there's always something that
needs changing. But the question is, 'How far do you want to go?'"
I say the question instead should be, where and when
will we pull out the brooms and begin. We can figure out how far
to go when some of the dust has settled. Let's get started right
here and now by putting our collective foot down, reminding our public
servants just who they work for. "We can no longer afford the
lifestyle to which you've become accustomed." If they won't work
for the compensation the rest accept, if they can't adjust to the
conditions most of us take for granted, then there's the door. And
don't expect a bonus for not letting it hit you in the backside on your
way out.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe (South edition)
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Out sick. Again?
It's true:
Some in public work take off more than those in business
By Matt Carroll, Globe Staff
How much sick time do public employees take?
Following the case of the Brockton policeman who was roundly criticized
by state officials for using 251 sick days over three years while
simultaneously working two public jobs, the Globe decided to find out.
The common perception has been that public employees take more sick days
than workers in the private business world.
And that view appears to be on the mark in five local communities:
Municipal workers in Brockton, Dedham, Plymouth, Quincy, and Weymouth
take up to 50 percent more sick days than employees in the private
sector overall, based on sick-time records from those communities and a
survey of private industry.
On average, public employees in the five communities called in sick
about eight or nine days a year. In the private sector, it's about five
or six days, according to business groups.
The Globe analyzed a year's worth of sick-time data from the five
municipalities for all but school department employees. The numbers,
from either 2005 or the fiscal year that ended June 30 of this year,
were relatively consistent: Municipal employees took approximately eight
sick days in Brockton, seven in Dedham, and nine in Plymouth, Quincy,
and Weymouth. Brockton and Dedham provided numbers for the fiscal year,
the others for 2005.
The data also showed that about 25 percent or more of the public
employees in the five communities called in sick at least 10 days during
the year. No such data were available from the private sector.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, a taxpayer advocacy group, said municipal leaders should
exercise tighter control over employees' use of sick time, which some
workers apparently see as allowable personal time.
"Somehow they think sick leave is time off, rather than time when you
are supposed to be in bed with a fever," she said. "As long as cities
and towns have plenty of money to throw around, and apparently they do,
there will be abuse of sick leave and pensions and overtime. That's the
way it is."
Local officials acknowledge that some public workers view sick time as
"earned days" that could be used at any point, but that sick-time
abusers are few and far between. Most employees are conscientious and
hard working, they say, and some jobs -- such as public safety positions
like police and fire -- can be so tough and stressful they cannot
reasonably be compared with private-sector jobs. Those jobs wear a
person down and more sick time might be expected, they say.
The officials also note that, in today's workplace, single parents or
households with two working spouses need unscheduled time to stay home
with a sick child or to help an infirm parent. Some argue that town
employees have historically made less than those working in the business
sector, and make up for the lower pay somewhat with better benefits.
"I do not look at eight or nine days sick as an abuse of sick time,"
said Marie-Louise Kehoe, chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen in Dedham.
The town has hard-working employees, she said, who should not go to work
if they have a contagious illness like a cold or the flu, which could
get others sick.
Weymouth Mayor David M. Madden conceded some public employees see a sick
day "as a day they are entitled to, for whatever they want to use them
for. There's a mindset."
But he and other municipal officials insisted they did not have a
problem with an employee who has to stay home with a sick child. "It's
the person who thinks it is a vacation day or uses it to go golfing,"
Madden said.
The Globe asked for sick-time records from five sample municipalities in
the area following the widely publicized case of Charles B. Lincoln,
who, according to a report released in May by state Inspector General
Gregory W. Sullivan, used 251 sick days over three years on his two jobs
as a Brockton police lieutenant and Plymouth County jail security
director. Sullivan blasted Lincoln's remarkable use of sick time as
"shocking and alarming."
Lincoln has been sued by the City of Brockton and the Plymouth sheriff's
department for fraud. He worked for Brockton for more than 30 years and
the sheriff's department for three years. The city and sheriff's
department stated in their lawsuits that Lincoln would call in sick on
one job and then work at the other.
More recently, Boston officials said they are examining the case of
Officer Christine Meegan, who allegedly took advantage of the
department's generous sick-time and vacation policies to take off more
than 100 days from work between July of last year and March of this
year. A department official said the days off were allowed under the
union contract but were improper.
But the two cases are exceptions, according to local officials, who say
they monitor sick time, do not tolerate abuse, and make changes when
needed.
Quincy said it recently fired one worker, at least in part for sick-time
abuse, and tightened contract language, while Weymouth has suspended
several employees. Brockton, Dedham, and Plymouth reported no recent
suspensions or firings.
Brockton Mayor James E. Harrington said tracking sick time beyond the
department level was difficult because records are still kept on paper,
not computers. An upgrade by the end of the year should fix the problem,
he said.
Using sick days as personal days is not just a problem in the public
sector. Private companies wrestle with the issue, although they
generally offer fewer sick days as a benefit and fewer such days are
taken.
Like their publicly employed counterparts, most hourly employees in the
private sector will take a sick day as additional time off, said Lynda
Slevoski, a vice president at Associated Industries of Massachusetts , a
nonprofit, business advocacy group. "They don't look at it as for when
they are sick. `If you give it to me, I should take it ' is the
mindset."
Most public employees in Brockton, Dedham, Plymouth, Quincy, and
Weymouth get 15 sick days a year. Some municipalities allow the days to
be carried over indefinitely while others, including Quincy, have a cap
on the maximum number of carryover sick days.
But only between 3 and 6 percent of private companies offer as many as
10 to 15 days of sick time, according to a survey of companies in
Massachusetts by Associated Industries. Overall, paid sick leave is
offered by about 60 percent of the nation's firms, according to the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Private-industry employees take fewer sick days, too. Data from CCH
Inc., an Illinois-based company that tracks business data, indicate that
those workers take, on average, about five to six "unscheduled absences"
from work per year.
Companies -- or municipalities -- with sick-time issues usually can
trace them to poor morale, said Thomas A. Kochan, a professor who
teaches work and employment relations at MIT's Sloan School of
Management.
"Where people are motivated, committed, and satisfied with their work
environment," Kochan said, "you see a lower rate of use of sick leave or
other forms of leave. When they don't, they feel it is an entitlement."
Managers in the public sector, though, often feel they have less
flexibility in dealing with the sick-time issue because it is often tied
up in collective bargaining, he said. In the past, public employees have
tended to receive better benefits -- such as sick time -- because their
pay was lower than in the private sector, Kochan and others said.
Sometimes, a high number of workers calling in sick can be attributed to
the makeup of the department.
In Dedham, seven of 21 library workers called in sick 10 or more days,
and library director Patricia Lambert said the illnesses were simply a
matter of the library's older workforce. "They don't go out for a day;
they go out for a month," she said. "The joke among staff is, 'Can't you
ever get sick for just a day?'"
In Weymouth, Fire Chief Robert Leary attributed the number of
firefighters out for 10 sick days or more to family leave and injuries
in outside activities, such as sports. "It's a very young department,"
he said. "I believe we've had six children born in the past year."
Kevin Dawyskiba, president of the Weymouth firefighters' union, noted
the stressful nature of the job. Also, he said, the department has been
undermanned, increasing the risk of illness and injury to all.
George Crombie, director of the Plymouth Highway Department, said he was
not surprised that more than half of his 30-man crew was out of work 10
days or more last year. He said it was the difficult nature of the work.
In the Brockton Building Department, where 18 of 28 employees were sick
10 days or more last year, Superintendent Joseph Vasapollo blamed
on-the-job injuries. Some workers, he said, took sick days to take care
of their families.
"It's all documented pretty well."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Massport's lavish payouts
Sick time policy tops Mass. Pike's
By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff
While the Romney administration has criticized excessive sick time
payouts at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, another agency the
governor controls, the Massachusetts Port Authority, has paid more than
$6.2 million to departing employees for unused sick time over the past
five years.
The payments were made under an unusually generous policy that allows
retiring employees to cash out 100 percent of their unused sick days,
far more than the 20 percent to which other state employees are
entitled. Massport workers who leave the agency but do not retire are
reimbursed for 50 percent of their sick days.
Massport employees accumulate 15 sick days a year, and the agency has
cut checks for as much as $201,000 to longtime employees, according to a
Globe review of Massport records.
Robert Dursin, for example, served as the Massport budget director at a
salary of $110,000 a year. When he retired in 2003, he had 475 unused
sick days accumulated over 35 years. That gave Dursin a $201,000
windfall.
Even Craig P. Coy, who was Massport's executive director for just over
four years, pocketed a check for almost $28,000 on his way out the door,
courtesy of the little-publicized sick time policy.
In the five years examined by the Globe, 287 employees received a total
of $6.2 million from Massport for 24,850 unused sick days. Had they been
compensated according to the sick time policy that covers the vast
majority of state employees, only $1.1 million would have been paid out.
The payments are funded by tolls collected at the Tobin Bridge and other
fees paid at Logan Airport.
Compensation for unused sick time is a benefit that is rarely given in
the private sector.
After the Globe began asking Massport for data on the sick time policy
last week, Thomas J. Kinton Jr., the Massport executive director, called
Romney's office to inform him of the long-standing sick time policy --
and that questions were being asked about it, a Romney aide said.
Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for Romney, on Friday afternoon said Kinton's
call was the first the governor's office had heard of the policy.
"It's an outrageous and overly generous policy," Fehrnstrom said.
"Governor Romney made his views clear to Tom Kinton."
Romney told Kinton that he expected the Massport policy to be quickly
revised to cap the percentage of sick days that can be cashed in at 20
percent -- the norm in state agencies. The next Massport board meeting
is Oct. 19.
Kinton, a Massport executive for 30 years who earns $255,000 and would
be affected by any change in policy, did not respond to phone messages
left at his office Friday. In response to Globe questions, Danny Levy, a
Massport spokeswoman, said the policy was adopted more than 30 years ago
to help the agency "attract qualified professionals."
Levy said the policy had been reviewed "from time to time" by the
agency's chief executive officer and the board of directors, but said
she had no further information, and could not say whether Coy reviewed
or considered changing the policy during his tenure at Massport.
Another former executive director, Virginia Buckingham, who led the
agency for just 24 months, received $5,850 for unused sick days after
she was ousted from her job in 2001.
Levy said Massport's approximately 1,600 employees, most of whom are in
administrative or managerial jobs, are well aware of the policy.
"We definitely have a nice, generous sick time policy," she said.
Employees are entitled to cash in unused sick days as long as they have
been with Massport at least two years. Those with 20 years of service,
or 10 years at the age of 55 or above, can retire and receive
compensation for 100 percent of the days. Those who leave but do not
meet the requirements for retirement are paid for 50 percent of the
days. Most other state agencies pay nothing to non-retiring employees.
Fehrnstrom said Romney and other top officials in his administration
were unaware of the Massport policy, even though four of the seven
Massport board members are Romney appointees, including Ranch Kimball,
Romney's former economic development secretary who has been on the board
since 2005.
"I was unaware of the policy until I got a call this morning," Kimball
said Friday. "I don't know any of the details of the Massport policy,
but I do know it's a whole lot better than what I get as an ordinary
state employee."
The issue of sick time exploded into public view last month when the
Romney administration, having forced Matthew J. Amorello to resign as
Turnpike chairman, publicized the turnpike authority's policy as an
example of Amorello's mismanagement.
On July 7, Amorello unilaterally and without public notice sweetened the
agency's sick time policy, increasing the percentage of sick days that
Turnpike managers and administrative staffers could cash in from 20
percent to 50 percent. Amorello at the same time extended the benefit
beyond retiring employees to those who were resigning from the Turnpike.
Seven Turnpike employees took advantage of the revised policy before it
was repealed last month by John Cogliano, Romney's secretary of
transportation. Five of the workers were retiring from the agency, and
together received $133,163 more than they would have had Amorello not
changed the policy. The biggest beneficiary, Marie Hayman, the Turnpike
chief of staff who worked closely with Amorello, gained an extra $34,248
with the stroke of Amorello's pen.
The two employees in the group who resigned were entitled to nothing
before Amorello acted. As a result of his revisions, one received
$12,567 and the other $4,312.
But even the now repealed policy at the Turnpike seems modest compared
with the one at Massport. No other agency in state government is as
liberal in its sick time compensation as Massport.
Last month, for example, Jessie Chen, the Massport comptroller, retired
and received $137,808 for 301 days of unused sick time accrued during 28
years at Massport. If Chen had retired under the policy most state
employees are covered by, which caps sick time compensation at 20
percent, she would have received $27,562.
Also this year, Stanley Phillips, the utilities manager, received
$127,519 for his 346 days of unused sick time, and Salvatore Demetrios,
an electrical foreman, cashed in his 389 days for $123,318. Under the 20
percent policy, Phillips would have received $25,503 and Demetrios
$24,663.
During his four-year tenure at Massport, Coy accumulated 58 unused sick
days, good for $27,980, according to records. Coy arrived at Massport
with a mandate to take patronage and politics out of Massport. A message
left on his cellphone was not returned.
"It makes no sense to pay someone because they are lucky enough not to
be out sick with cancer or the flu," said Barbara Anderson,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, an advocacy
group. It's simple greed -- another public sector method to grab all the
salary and benefits they can get without getting caught."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Personnel policies need scrutiny
By Scot Lehigh
It's become a staple of state and local news coverage: The public
employee who abuses sick leave or vacation time policies in ways that
would be unimaginable in the private sector.
The latest example came last week, with the Globe's report on Boston
Police officer Christine Meegan, who took more than 100 work days off in
less than a year by gaming the department's sick time and vacation
policies.
Mayor Tom Menino, who has been prodded for years to tighten the
management at both the police and fire departments, has, of course,
demanded a full investigation. But here's the real scandal: According to
the Globe story, what Meegan did was apparently permitted under the
department's union contract.
In mid-August, meanwhile, we had a sterling example of greed in the
persons of Matt Amorello, former chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority, and some members of his management team.
On their way out the door at the turnpike, Amorello and his managers
made off with something that really should belong to you and me. Like,
say, several hundred thousand dollars.
Oh, I know, I know, it's all perfectly legal.
It's money they were entitled to for vacation they didn't take or sick
time they didn't use.
Of course, Amorello went the extra mile to ensure his minions could
enjoy a public-sector pig-out.
He changed the turnpike's sick-leave policy on his own initiative back
on July 5 to allow managers to cash in up to 50 percent of their unused
sick leave whenever they left the turnpike.
It was bad enough before, when they, like other executive branch
employees, could cash in 20 percent of their sick leave upon retirement.
Amorello, meanwhile, got a check for 450 hours of supposedly unused
vacation.
So let's review the record of this selfless civil servant.
We start with a man who never should have had this job in the first
place, who was hired in February 2002 at $170,481 a year. Because of
both automatic salary adjustments and raises voted him by the board,
four years later, he was making $226,348 - an increase of 33 percent
over four years.
Under the arrangement he got upon resigning his post in the aftermath of
the Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse, Amorello will continue to receive
his salary until February, after walking out the door with an extra
$54,000 for cashing in his unused vacation time.
Those with particularly long memories may recall this sort of thing
happening before at the Pike.
When Allan McKinnon left as turnpike chairman back in 1996, he got
$84,000 for supposedly unused sick time and vacation time - even though
agency parking records cast strong doubt on his claim to have taken
little time off during his last 18 months on the job.
Amorello also seems to have been a Cal Ripken-like public servant.
If turnpike records are to be believed, Amorello didn't take any
vacation in 2002, and with the exception of 2004, took 11 or fewer days
off in each of his other years at the Pike.
It's not just Amorello who made out like a bandit, however.
His team of, well, highwaymen, were also taken care of. Under Amorello's
new policy, for example, flak Mariellen Burns walked off with $25,100,
though part of that, I hasten to add, was $17,692 in "special
recognition pay" - for a job she had held for a year and a half.
We also recently read about retired Brockton police lieutenant Charles
Lincoln, who was able to exploit lax sick-day policies to work - ah,
make that hold - two full-time public positions for several years.
For three years, he worked both for the Brockton police and as director
of security for the Plymouth County House of Correction, something he
managed in part by abusing the sick-day policies of both. In the three
years of his dual employment, Lincoln called in sick 222 times from his
Brockton Police post, and 29 times from his Plymouth County job. On many
of the days when he was supposedly out sick from one job, he showed up
for the other. His twin posts have qualified him for a pension of
$140,000 a year, though his case is under investigation by the Public
Employee Retirement and Administration Commission.
Now, I'm not one who thinks that the average public employee is a hack
or a layabout or an abuser of the system. There are plenty of good,
honest, dedicated, hard-working people in the public sector.
But it's also apparent that lax and generous personnel policies have led
to too much abuse. Certainly, the average private sector worker can't
trade in unused sick leave or vacation time.
If I were one of the legislative patrons whom Amorello long depended on
to protect his job - and then, when his departure became inevitable
after the Big Dig tunnel tragedy, to insist that he be fairly treated -
I'd be furious.
The turnpike's personnel policies have now been changed back to what
they were before.
Still, Senate President Robert Travaglini, who tightened the Senate's
personnel policies some upon assuming the leadership post, thinks the
state's policies also need more scrutiny.
"It's time to review the rules that govern reimbursement at the time of
departure as it relates to vacation and sick time," Travaglini says.
That's something that should happen not just at quasi-independent
authorities, but at every level of public employment, including city and
town labor forces.
"The public sector has a long way to go in terms of managing its
resources and its personnel policies," says Sam Tyler, president of the
Boston Municipal Research Bureau. "There really hasn't been any overall
comprehensive review of personnel practices at the state or local
level."
Establishing policies that look more like the private sector's would be
one way to reassure the public that government is well run. And it would
help put an end to the well-publicized abuses we've seen in the last
month - abuses that should make every honorable public servant cringe.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Candidates agree voters want change but differ on how much
By Hillary Chabot, Sun Staff
Change is in the air for Massachusetts voters.
At least that's what the four gubernatorial candidates would have us
believe. While Democratic candidate Deval Patrick, Independent candidate
Christy Mihos and Green-Rainbow candidate Grace Ross have an obvious
reason to highlight the need for new leadership, even sitting Lt. Gov.
Kerry Healey's campaign is getting in on the act.
"I think voters do want a change," Healey's spokesman, Nate Little, said
yesterday. "It just depends on what kind of change they're going to
have. Kerry Healey's change would lower taxes, and her opponents'
changes would only raise them. We think voters will want Kerry Healey's
kind of change."
Voters have stayed the course in the corner office for the past 16
years, faithfully electing a Republican governor to act as a balance to
the largely Democratic Legislature.
Change became a buzzword in the campaign last year, when people began to
express discontent with the direction the state was going. While polls
taken in September 2005 showed only 39 percent of voters believe
Massachusetts was on the wrong track, that number jumped to 48 percent
by June 2006.
Recent problems with the Big Dig and a population loss across the state
have highlighted a desire to ring in the new, said David Paleologos,
director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
But the thirst for something different doesn't necessarily mean voters
want a new political party in the corner office, said Paleologos.
"It means that the candidate who's perceived to be tied to (the
Statehouse) is the candidate they're not going to elect," Paleologos
said.
Outsiders like Patrick have jumped on that distinction.
"People have concerns about the direction the (Gov. Mitt) Romney/Healey
administration has taken the state," said Patrick spokeswoman Libby
DeVecchi. "Deval thinks that what people are looking for is an outsider
to make independent decisions."
Mihos has taken it a step further, claiming that neither Republicans nor
Democrats can make effective governors.
"The only change agent is an independent who's not beholden to the
Democrats in the system or blocked by their opposition," Mihos said.
"Roughly 50 percent of Massachusetts are independent voters, and I think
they're thirsting for a change."
Ross believes the move for change is a reaction by middle- to
lower-income voters who are struggling to make ends meet.
"I'm thrilled they've called for a change in government," Ross said.
Barbara Anderson, director of Citizens for Limited Taxation
and a Healey supporter, said the public might crave a little variety --
but only so much.
"People have wanted change from the beginning of time because there's
always something that needs changing," Anderson said. "But the question
is, 'How far do you want to go?' People don't want a complete amateur in
the office."
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
|