CLT UPDATE
Friday, April 3, 2009
Reform -- really? A way to go yet
But while the House bill is a big step
in the right direction, it lacks two key reforms suggested by Patrick's
task force.... And the bill fails to give state law enforcement
officials the necessary power to use surveillance wires in corruption
probes.
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Cut the ethics deficit
In recent statements about a lucrative $175,000 position for
Senator Marian Walsh, Governor Deval Patrick characterized critics as harping on
a "trivial" matter. The announcement yesterday that the pay would be cut to
$120,000 shows that the governor's tuning fork has finally alerted him to public
outrage. Still, the appointment is outrageous.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The truth behind the triviality
By Marvin Gordon and Robert J. Ciolek
The hack du jour is Steve Crosby, a career coatholder
currently collecting $172,000 a year at the public trough....
I mention Crosby today only because he has just been handed yet another
big assignment. Gov. Free-fall Deval Patrick has asked him to conduct a
review of the salaries and benefits at those quasi-public authorities
like Massport and the Pike, and all the alphabet-soup acronym agencies
like MHEFA....
Crosby’s current job is “dean” of the John W. McCormack
Graduate School of Policy Studies at UMass, whatever that is. Crosby is
basically serving time to get himself a state pension. See, Crosby cashed out
his 2000-03 contributions that he made when he was working for Jane Swift. He’s
been chowing down at UMass since June 2006, but he still needs another five-plus
years, and he’ll have to buy back those three earlier years.
So by God he’s got to keep this job - his kiss in the mail is at stake.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 27, 2009
Are we being punked, Deval?
By Howie Carr
Two months after Governor Deval Patrick demanded swift
action, and even as the House last night approved a bill of its own, the Senate
still has not made visible moves to join the cause of ethics reform on Beacon
Hill.
The pace in the Senate stands out, considering the chamber was the epicenter of
the biggest scandal to rock state government last year: federal bribery charges
leveled at state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and her subsequent resignation. She
has been indicted by a grand jury and has pleaded not guilty.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 27, 2009
Senate slow to join ethics reform push
House unanimously approves own measure
Though the state's transportation system is in dire need of
more money for maintenance and debt service, Senate leaders have touted the
slogan "reform before revenue." Sure enough, the bill that passed the chamber
Wednesday contains no revenue. But its reforms leave much to be desired, too....
Anyway, crunching agencies together is only a sideshow.
According to the blue-ribbon Transportation Finance Commission, the real
potential for savings lies mainly in controlling the costs of employee benefits.
The Senate, to its credit, would upend rules that allow MBTA workers to retire
with full benefits after 23 years. But savings would be years away. And while
the bill would require T employees to join the state's main insurance plan if an
actuarial study deems it proper, the language of the bill may be too squishy to
force the issue.
A Boston Globe editorial
Friday, March 27, 2009
Reform, sort of, before revenue
When times are tough, usually equable Massachusetts voters
become far less forgiving. And times are only getting tougher. Which means
Patrick's margin for error has grown exceedingly slim.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 27, 2009
Governor, it's time to find your groove
By Scot Lehigh
You'd think we'd be mighty happy with our elected leaders
right now, what with all the ethics reforming at the State House....
And what about the House? Bless them for adopting most of the governor's
suggestions and improving on some of them.
But they didn't do their public image any favors by pulling out two very
important provisions....
It's hard to tell whether things will be any better in the Senate, where the
bill is headed next....
None of this petulance inspires immense confidence. Which is why when it comes
to this cast of characters, the clouds may yet linger over Beacon Hill.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
With this cast, a cloud
By Yvonne Abraham
A group of elected officials in this working-class city,
which struggles daily to provide services under the threat of severe budget
cuts, is reaping some extraordinary rewards for public service.
Through deft exploitation of state laws and local ordinances, a majority of
Revere's 11 part-time city councilors are collecting full city pensions while
remaining on the city payroll and receiving up to $25,000 a year in council
compensation, according to a Globe review of public records....
In many ways, the Revere council provides a case study in the myriad tactics
employed by some public officials in Massachusetts to maximize retirement
benefits.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Revere city council makes the most of retirement
Pensions brim with rich rewards
Call it the curse of high expectations. Governor Deval
Patrick is finding out what happens when hope meets the reality.
Only 34 percent of voters surveyed in a recent Suffolk University poll believe
the governor deserves reelection. That vote of no confidence reflects the gap
between what voters hoped Patrick would accomplish and their current view of his
achievements....
Hope alone won't cut it anymore. This governor needs results.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Governor, the ball's in your court
By Joan Vennochi
Lawmakers have talked a lot about reducing generous employee
benefits at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority as they work on
overhauling the state's debt-ridden transportation system.
But last week, moments after the Senate approved what legislators were
describing as a generational and money-saving reform effort, the head of the
MBTA's largest employee union was shaking hands with senators and thanking them
for their hard work.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
STARTS & STOPS
Overhaul is no hardship for labor
The cash-strapped MBTA could save as much as $1 billion over
the next two decades with changes to its health benefits for T workers and
retirees, according to a report set to be released Monday.
The analysis by the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said the
transit agency must rein in its "extraordinarily generous pension and health
care benefits that are way out of line with the norm in the public and private
sectors."
Associated Press
Monday, March 30, 2009
Report: MBTA could save $1B in health benefits
Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders are promising
reform of the state's costly public pension system. But such legislation should
go beyond putting a halt to those provisions that allow well-publicized abuses
of the system to change that will make this benefit fair and affordable for
all....
These are all reasonable reforms made more necessary by the fact that
pension-fund earnings have been on the decline and governmental resources are
shrinking. Taxpayers, many of whom are struggling mightily to keep their own
retirement nest eggs intact, have a right to expect quick action from their
representatives at the Statehouse.
A Salem News editorial
Monday, March 30, 2009
Real pension reform long overdue
It should probably come as no surprise that the Senate
version of the transportation "reform" bill is heavy on symbolism and light on
the more difficult money-saving measures....
"I don't think you're going to get enough savings from the reforms to pay for
the whole package," Salem Rep. John Keenan accurately observed in an interview
with The Salem News last week. But taxpayers deserve a lot more in the way of
reform than either the governor or Senate have offered before they're saddled
with any toll and/or tax hikes.
A Salem News editorial
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Flimsy reforms won't fix transportation mess
Two key business groups yesterday threatened to withdraw
support for a gas-tax hike if tougher reforms aren’t restored in what they
called a “gutted” Senate transportation bill.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties-Massachusetts - which were among five business
groups that endorsed a 25-cent gas-tax increase - say the Senate balked at
passing recommended changes to lucrative health-care and pension benefits
enjoyed by MBTA employees.
“If this is the extent of (the reforms), then there’s no way I would support a
gas-tax increase,” said Michael Widmer, president of the taxpayers foundation.
“They (senators) retreated on virtually every reform. . . . They gutted it.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 3, 2009
Biz groups fuming at fuel tax
See reform lacking
State lawmakers, in an effort to quell public anger,
displayed unified determination yesterday to wipe from the books some of the
generous deals, custom-tailored laws, and hidden provisions that for decades
have allowed some Massachusetts public employees to win enhanced retirement
benefits....
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, standing by her side, said the House would follow
in the next several weeks.
The effort by Murray and DeLeo essentially repudiates actions taken by the
Legislature in the past when its members responded to a variety of pension
requests by passing favorable, narrowly crafted legislation.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Legislature aiming to crack down on pension provisions
Leaders expect to save millions
The Special Commission on Pension Reform, which convened for
the first time yesterday - six months past the deadline specified under
Massachusetts law - comprises nine public employees, one retired public
employee, three officials from the public-employee retirement systems, and two
economists from private universities. By my reckoning, that makes 13 commission
members from the public sector and two from the private sector, which calls to
mind the old jape about democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner. It's an amusing quip, assuming you're not a sheep....
For years the political class has taken care of its own at taxpayers' expense.
That is why so many former public employees enjoy retirement perks far more
lucrative than anything typically found in the private sector....
Well, declarations are easy. True reform - not merely plugging the most
egregious abuses uncovered by the media, but thoroughly overhauling the
public-pension system - will be much harder. Sweet-talking the sheep won't do
the trick. Beacon Hill needs to slay some wolves.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Beware of wolves in suits
By Jeff Jacoby
As the first wave of 79 million baby boomers heads to
retirement, the nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who have
government benefits and those who don't. The gap is accelerating in every way —
pensions, medical benefits, retirement ages.
Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their
counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more
generous....
The pension gap will continue to widen because governments pump far more money
into employee pensions than companies do. Civil servants earn an average of
$12.38 an hour in benefits, about $5 an hour more than private-sector workers,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The difference was just $2.70 an
hour in 1995....
Contrary to a widely held notion, the extra government benefits aren't
compensation for lower pay. Most government workers are paid more than private
employees in similar jobs, and the wage gap is growing.
A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and
benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical
private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference
was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true for all types of
public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers. Better benefits for
government workers is the biggest reason for the growing compensation gap....
The boost in benefits since the 1960s reflects the rising power of public
employee unions ...
Pensions for civil servants often are superior to private pensions in subtle
ways that make a huge financial difference....
"It's a burden on taxpayers, of course," says Delores Mitchell, executive
director of the Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission, which runs the
program. But she doesn't foresee major benefit cuts. "States have a tradition of
treating retirees well."
USA Today
February 21, 2007
Pension gap divides public and private workers
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
All around us we hear
"Reform First!" Can't you just feel the tax hikes coming?
The pols are doing the necessary and obvious minimal
"reforms" because they know the natives are restless -- but they're not
doing all the heavy lifting we taxpayers are demanding; just enough to get by.
Oh they'll get some of the reforms right -- the most onerous and blatant --
they must -- but the little ones that won't be exposed until they're
exposed will be ignored. Dancing around the edges it's called.
Even the so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is pulling out of its call for a
25-cent gas tax hike, because there's not enough reform. Now you
know that "reform" on Bacon Hill is going badly!
Why can't the pols simply get government right, and
honest?
Why must we remain "cynical"
-- so vigilant?
Why can't we just live our lives, trust them to do the right thing
running government, their alleged profession?
Why don't we trust them to get it done?
Why can't we?
Once they get done with these reforms-around-the-edges, the tax
hikes will come -- after they've "done all they can" to reduce the
costs.
How did we get so "cynical," and why must we be?
Until enough taxpayers -- enough voters -- get
fed up with this dog-and-pony show, nothing will change.
Until we tire of being patted on
our heads then
shooed away nothing will improve.
Until there are consequences for policies
and positions, we will get
more of the same self-serving policies.
Until enough voters decide to change the cast, who
can expect anything different from the current incumbents?
Can we please try a new cast of characters --
elect some new faces -- it
can't be any worse, right?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A Boston Globe editorial
Cut the ethics deficit
The new House speaker, Robert DeLeo, has promised to restore the
public's faith in a body shaken by suspicions of ethical misconduct by
longtime legislators in both branches, and DeLeo is wasting no time. The
House is expected to vote today on a comprehensive ethics reform
proposal that draws heavily from Governor Patrick's January task force
on public integrity. Highlights include raising the maximum criminal
penalty for bribery; expanding the definition of lobbying to eliminate
the subterfuges used by lobbyists in sheep's clothing; prohibiting any
gift by a lobbyist to a public official; reinforcing the Ethics
Commission with regulatory authority; and granting subpoena power to the
secretary of state to enforce lobbying laws.
But while the House bill is a big step in the right direction, it lacks
two key reforms suggested by Patrick's task force. It fails to close a
legal loophole that allows public officials to accept gifts of unlimited
value from people with potential business before the Legislature. Now
it's open season, unless there is a clear link that the gift was made to
reward or influence a specific official act. And the bill fails to give
state law enforcement officials the necessary power to use surveillance
wires in corruption probes.
By fixing these two deficiencies - especially the gift loophole -
lawmakers can show they are serious about addressing the ethics deficit
on Beacon Hill.
In many other states, government employees simply cannot accept any but
the most trivial gifts based on their official positions, and private
parties cannot give them. Requiring authorities to prove that a lawmaker
cast a specific vote in exchange for, say, a free sports ticket is an
unrealistically high bar. Influence peddlers are patient types, happy to
pay now for future consideration. And even if a public official can be
brought to justice under the conflict-of-interest laws, the current
statute allows gift-givers to skate away.
House leaders fear an outright gratuities ban would keep them from
accepting even a plaque from a civic group. But sensible exemptions
could be built into the law. The Senate could and should put its own
stamp on the ethics reform bill by adding the gratuities ban if the
House doesn't.
The Senate should also strengthen the bill by giving the attorney
general power to authorize surreptitious recordings in the course of
public corruption probes. Most states allow anyone to record a
conversation with the consent of just one party. But in Massachusetts,
corruption investigators must rely on federal law and agents to gather
such evidence. Mindful of the state's privacy laws, Patrick's task force
wisely recommended that state law enforcement be granted such power only
with a Superior Court judge's consent.
The ethics reform bill still needs some sharpening before it becomes an
effective weapon against corruption.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The truth behind the triviality
By Marvin Gordon and Robert J. Ciolek
In recent statements about a lucrative $175,000 position for Senator
Marian Walsh, Governor Deval Patrick characterized critics as harping on
a "trivial" matter. The announcement yesterday that the pay would be cut
to $120,000 shows that the governor's tuning fork has finally alerted
him to public outrage. Still, the appointment is outrageous.
Walsh, who was named assistant executive director of the Massachusetts
Health and Educational Facilities Authority, has no experience in the
world of bond finance. She would be filling a position that is vacant,
purposeless, and unneeded. In order to pay her salary, the authority may
charge it to the nonprofits it serves, or reduce its charitable facility
grants to various Commonwealth Health Centers serving our needier
citizens. The authority's board of directors knows this, but its duty to
the institutions it serves is apparently trumped by its fealty to the
governor. Patrick should withdraw his support and the board should - in
a more public manner than its last vote - rescind the offer of
employment, which will send an important message to the institutions,
the bond rating agencies, and the marketplace that prices HEFA bonds.
The Health and Educational Facilities Authority was created 40 years ago
to assist Massachusetts nonprofit institutions, such as hospitals,
colleges, health clinics, and cultural groups, in accessing the
tax-exempt bond market. The purchase of these bonds by private investors
permits the institutions to build dormitories, hospital facilities, and
museums, and to acquire capital equipment.
The basis for establishing the authority as an independent entity was
the Legislature's understanding that it could perform the work and meet
the requirements of the federal tax code at no cost to taxpayers. And
while the staff of the authority is small - only 15 - its bond issuances
are large, given the significant number of nonprofits in the state. To
put it in perspective, there are about 8,000 entities with the power to
issue tax-exempt bonds, and the Health and Educational Facilities
Authority last year ranked sixth nationwide. Issuing bonds is what it
does. And, it does it well.
But, the present situation at the authority is of deeper concern. The
governor's plan is to put the authority out of business by folding it
into another state authority, the Massachusetts Development Finance
Authority.
The Development Finance Authority is an agency within the Office of
Administration and Finance and, although legally independent, it is
structurally much less independent than the Health and Educational
Facilities Authority. With overlapping power to issue tax-exempt bonds
for certain nonprofit institutions, the two authorities compete for
clients. This competition provides a benefit to those nonprofit
entities, in that each authority competes with the other by reducing
fees for bond issuances by hundreds of thousands of dollars.So why would
the governor now want to force a merger? The Development Finance
Authority, as the governor's development agency, has been asked to be
many things to many people. And it needs funding to do those things,
preferably money not from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. By becoming
the only issuer of bonds, the Development Finance Authority would be
able to end competition and, in all likelihood, raise the fees paid by
hospitals, clinics, and colleges for bond issuances. Worse, it could
raid funds controlled by the Health and Education Facilities Authority
for millions of dollars, currently held in Trust for the benefit of
charitable tax-exempt institutions. It is our hope that the charities
division of the attorney general's office reviews such an effort.
At its last meeting, the Board of Health and Education Facilities
Authority voted to create a committee "to reach out to (MDFA), to
identify efficiencies and cost savings that might be gained by working
together." That is code for putting the Health and Education Facilities
Authority out of business. It is instructive that no one from any
nonprofit institution to our knowledge has yet to be asked to serve on
that committee. These issues are being kept out of the public view.
In the end, it all comes down to money - not principle, not public
policy, and certainly not reform. It is often said that actions speak
louder than words, but sometimes words are far more illuminating than
actions. In this instance, the governor's version of "transparency" is
really a smoke-and-mirrors clouding of the public's view of the
political version of trivial pursuit.
Marvin Gordon is vice chairman and Robert J. Ciolek is former
executive director of the Health and Education Facilities Authority.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 27, 2009
Are we being punked, Deval?
By Howie Carr
The hack du jour is Steve Crosby, a career coatholder currently
collecting $172,000 a year at the public trough.
I’ve been keeping an eye on this 63-year-old hack’s hack since 2001,
when he attended some thumb-sucking conference and said:
“The Howie Carrs of the world, in my view, should go to jail.”
Because, you see, nobody should write anything bad about payroll
patriots like, well, Steve Crosby.
“There is a predisposition that - if you’re in this business, you’re a
slimeball.”
God forbid somebody should criticize the likes of, say, Sen. Marian
Walsh. She’s a fine person, probably would have become a nun, except she
couldn’t handle the vow of poverty.
I mention Crosby today only because he has just been handed yet another
big assignment. Gov. Free-fall Deval Patrick has asked him to conduct a
review of the salaries and benefits at those quasi-public authorities
like Massport and the Pike, and all the alphabet-soup acronym agencies
like MHEFA.
Surely, this is a gag, an early April Fools’ Day joke. How else can you
explain Deval ordering up a review of the hackerama from a hack who has
publicly opined that anyone who attempts to ferret out waste, fraud and
abuse in the public sector should be locked up?
I’m sure in his probe Crosby will leave no stone unturned, except of
course the ones that Sen. Walsh, the Aloisi siblings, Tom Kinton and all
the rest are hiding under.
Crosby is perfect for this job. See, he’s a Republican - a house
Republican. Think David Gergen, only smarmier. Crosby is so desperate to
please his Democrat masters that sometimes he goes overboard. Last year,
they put him on another one of their blue-ribbon commissions, to grease
the skids for some pay raises for hack judges and their political
patrons.
The chairman of that panel was Paul Guzzi, the $429,600-a-year head of
the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Guzzi was most recently seen
demanding an even higher increase in the gas tax than Deval wants - 25
cents. Providing cover, you might say.
Anyway, last year Guzzi and Crosby suggested jacking up the salaries of
the speaker and the Senate president to $160,000 - a 70 percent
increase. Even Sal DiMasi was embarrassed.
Crosby’s current job is “dean” of the John W. McCormack Graduate School
of Policy Studies at UMass, whatever that is. Crosby is basically
serving time to get himself a state pension. See, Crosby cashed out his
2000-03 contributions that he made when he was working for Jane Swift.
He’s been chowing down at UMass since June 2006, but he still needs
another five-plus years, and he’ll have to buy back those three earlier
years.
So by God he’s got to keep this job - his kiss in the mail is at stake.
You couldn’t pry him out of the trough with the Jaws of Life. And so
he’ll provide them the report they need - that our public servants in
the public authorities are woefully underpaid.
Hey, Deval, are you sure this isn’t an April Fools’ joke?
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 27, 2009
Senate slow to join ethics reform push
House unanimously approves own measure
By Matt Viser
Two months after Governor Deval Patrick demanded swift action, and even
as the House last night approved a bill of its own, the Senate still has
not made visible moves to join the cause of ethics reform on Beacon
Hill.
The pace in the Senate stands out, considering the chamber was the
epicenter of the biggest scandal to rock state government last year:
federal bribery charges leveled at state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and
her subsequent resignation. She has been indicted by a grand jury and
has pleaded not guilty.
Senators have been focused this week on a transportation overhaul and
are gearing up for a debate on pension reforms next week. Senate
President Therese Murray has declined to comment on joining Patrick and
the House in changing state ethics laws, and has not made it a major
priority in public remarks.
Murray declined a request for an interview yesterday and would not
comment aside from a statement released through her spokesman, David
Falcone, who said she "has been focused on the Senate's transportation
reform legislation and looks forward to continuing the reform agenda
with The 153-0 House approval last night gave Speaker Robert A. DeLeo
his first legislative victory since he succeeded Salvatore F. DiMasi,
who resigned in January amid an influence-peddling controversy involving
his close friends.
Yet, in the sort of internecine twists that can carry great weight in
the Legislature, top senators were miffed this week that DeLeo outlined
his proposal before negotiating a consensus package with the Senate.
"We're trying to spend more time to determine the best bill we can
pass," said Frederick Berry, the majority leader, who is also chairman
of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Rules.
Berry would not say what specific concerns senators have expressed about
the governor's bill or what the objections with the House version are.
The Senate, which spent several hours Wednesday approving a
transportation reform package, met for only six minutes yesterday.
"I don't know that anybody has focused on it," said Senator Michael
Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat. "We've spent the last two weeks on
transportation. I'm sure that we'll concentrate on it, but I don't know
that there's been any kind of agreement."
Still, several senators said ethics reform remains a priority.
"Most people recognize that there are laws that need to be strengthened
and updated on the books," said Richard Tisei, a Republican from
Wakefield and the Senate minority leader. "If anything, the Senate is
where we had a lot of distraction last session regarding ethics. There's
an appetite to change that."
"I think there's a recognition that we need to do something, and there's
general support for the governor's package," said Senator Jamie
Eldridge, a Democrat from Acton..
Eldridge will push for the ethics legislation to ban lobbyists from
raising money for politicians. He also wants state contractors with more
than $50,000 in business from the state to be prohibited from raising
money.
"This issue must be taken up soon, and it must be comprehensive," said
Senator Mark C. Montigny, a Democrat from New Bedford. "There shouldn't
be any interest in the Legislature to weaken what the governor has done.
If anything we should strengthen it. I remain optimistic that the Senate
will do that."
Patrick first filed ethics legislation two months ago, and DeLeo
followed this week with a package of ethics reforms that included
increasing penalties for ethics violations and granting subpoena power
to the secretary of state. The House bill would crack down on lobbyists
who fail to report their income, and it would broaden the definition of
lobbying to include "strategizing" or "planning." House lawmakers
yesterday unanimously approved a Republican-backed amendment to prohibit
lawmakers from using campaign accounts to pay ethics fines.
DeLeo has rejected Patrick's proposal to give the attorney general's
office wiretapping authority in public corruption cases, but the House
included a provision in its bill to study its own proposal.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 27, 2009
A Boston Globe editorial
Reform, sort of, before revenue
Though the state's transportation system is in dire need of more money
for maintenance and debt service, Senate leaders have touted the slogan
"reform before revenue." Sure enough, the bill that passed the chamber
Wednesday contains no revenue. But its reforms leave much to be desired,
too.
The centerpiece of the Senate bill is a restructuring of the state's
transportation bureaucracy. The MBTA, Turnpike Authority, and state
Highway Department would all be merged into one super-authority under an
independent board. Combining several transportation agencies into one
will yield efficiencies over time, the theory goes.
Even though the Senate predicts the merger will save $70 million in its
first year, the consolidation of disparate agencies will surely take
time and energy up front. The Senate bill would leave intact dozens of
separate bargaining units - raising the possibility that two workers
doing similar jobs for the new super-authority could be represented by
different unions.
Anyway, crunching agencies together is only a sideshow. According to the
blue-ribbon Transportation Finance Commission, the real potential for
savings lies mainly in controlling the costs of employee benefits. The
Senate, to its credit, would upend rules that allow MBTA workers to
retire with full benefits after 23 years. But savings would be years
away. And while the bill would require T employees to join the state's
main insurance plan if an actuarial study deems it proper, the language
of the bill may be too squishy to force the issue.
The full impact of the Senate bill is tough to assess, because it passed
with a raft of last-minute amendments. But skeptics are already
emerging. "There's essentially no savings of any size in this bill,"
says Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation president Michael Widmer, who
was a member of the Transportation Finance Commission.
When the House takes up the issue next week, members should take another
look at the reforms Governor Patrick has proposed. His plan takes a hard
line on overly generous pensions and health benefits.
Patrick, of course, has taken a hit politically for proposing a 19-cent
gas tax hike - never mind that it's an honest response to the debt and
deferred maintenance that are destroying the state's roads and transit
systems. Like the Senate, he also proposes a merger of current agencies.
His proposal would put them under a beefed-up transportation secretary.
This approach may be better than the Senate's, but has problems of its
own.
The state's transportation system has been suffering because
responsibility has been diffused, employee unions have been too
powerful, and public officials have been unwilling to level with the
public. The Senate has at least gotten the debate started. But more
revenue is needed - and so are tougher reforms.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 27, 2009
Governor, it's time to find your groove
By Scot Lehigh
It was Governor Patrick the Penitent who invited reporters to his office
for a Tuesday exercise in damage control.
Senator Marian Walsh, newly appointed to the plum patronage post of
assistant executive director of the Health and Educational Facilities
Authority, would take a $55,000 pay cut in her planned $175,000 salary,
he announced.
What's more, Stephen Crosby, the well-regarded dean of UMass-Boston's
John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies, would review pay
and perks at the state's quasi-independent agencies.
Throughout, Patrick was even-tempered and affable. Once again, though,
he was trying to climb out of a hole dug by his off-putting
doppelganger, Deval the Dismissive. Just a few days before, that
tin-eared pol had brushed off the public outcry over Walsh's appointment
and other personnel controversies as "trivial."
Patrick the Penitent issued a mea culpa for that remark.
"Uncle. Uncle. Uncle," said he. "I wish I'd never uttered the word."
Of course, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Alas for the man
from uncle, once done, political damage is not so easily undone.
Further, as walk-backs go, Tuesday's left a lot to be desired. Wasting
$120,000 a year is preferable to squandering $175,000, certainly. But
given that the bonding agency's number two spot had been vacant for a
dozen years, it strains credulity to think installing the lightly
qualified Walsh at HEFA is in any way vital.
A new Suffolk University poll shows how tenuous Patrick's situation has
become: Just 34 percent said he merits reelection, while 47 percent said
it is time for someone else.
Other results are murkier. Although Treasurer Timothy Cahill, who is
contemplating a gubernatorial run, was statistically tied with Patrick
in a general election head-to-head, that match-up, which assumes that
Cahill runs as an independent, did not include a GOP candidate. Thus
it's not an accurate barometer of how voters would break if a credible
Republican runs.
It's also worth noting that Patrick leads Cahill handily among Democrats
- and that this poll was taken before the news broke that the State
Ethics Commission is investigating Cahill's role in awarding a $21
million contract to a company that was secretly paying his close friend
and fund-raiser Tom Kelly.
Finally, a poll is only a snapshot in time.
All that said, however, Suffolk's poll is not a snapshot any incumbent
would want to blow up and hang on his wall.
In past surveys, voters have liked Patrick, even while giving him
mediocre job-performance reviews. But in the Suffolk poll, only 44
percent viewed the governor favorably, while 43 percent rated him
unfavorably.
"Usually his popularity has been above his job performance numbers, but
now it is dropping, and that drop is driven by independents," says David
Paleologos, director of the university's Political Research Center.
"They were quite taken with him during the election, but I am seeing a
very different opinion now."
In a state where independents are crucial, that's an ominous trend.
The administration attributes the lackluster results to the troubled
economic times and the controversial positions Patrick has taken.
Spokesman Joe Landolfi cites his reform of police details and auto
insurance, as well as his support for a gas tax increase and his call
for public pension reform.
"The governor feels very strongly that his reform agenda is going to
position the state for a much stronger upturn in the future, but we
realize that it comes with political costs," he said.
Certainly Patrick has done some difficult - and laudable - things. But
administration spin aside, his problems go well beyond voters alienated
by policy stands.
They even go beyond blunders like the Walsh appointment - and his verbal
penchant for using his toes for target practice.
After two-plus years, he hasn't been able to find the right working
distance from the Legislature, one that retains an aura of executive
independence and authority. Nor has he seemed convincingly in charge
since the state hit rough water.
Further, people still complain that he doesn't listen.
When times are tough, usually equable Massachusetts voters become far
less forgiving. And times are only getting tougher. Which means
Patrick's margin for error has grown exceedingly slim.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
With this cast, a cloud
By Yvonne Abraham
You'd think we'd be mighty happy with our elected leaders right now,
what with all the ethics reforming at the State House.
After last fall's snapshots of state Senator Dianne Wilkerson stuffing
cash into her unmentionables, Governor Deval Patrick proposed a giant
overhaul of ethics rules. That excellent, sweeping plan was designed to
blow the dark cloud of mistrust off the golden dome.
And, immediately following the resignation of House Speaker Sal DiMasi
amid accusations of influence-peddling, his successor, Robert DeLeo,
invoked his own white-horse rhetoric, vowing to make the overhaul his
first priority.
True to his word, the House unanimously passed a giant set of new ethics
rules on Thursday night that included much of what the governor had
asked for: bigger fines for ethics violations, stricter oversight of
lobbyists, the kinds of things the watchdogs have been seeking for
decades.
Yep, these should be heady days for the skeptics who thought the thing
would never fly.
So why are the pols' approval ratings through the floor?
Maybe it's because, even as they do things that should make us proud in
some departments, our tin-eared leaders act nit-wittishly in others.
Take the governor, for example. He loudly led the charge to cleanse the
State House of suspicion's stain. This made him look like one of the
good guys. But he is also the guy who - in the midst of his ethics
reform spectacular - gave a big, fat $175,000 job to state Senator
Marian Walsh, and then made out it was someone else's idea. Then, after
he was pilloried for declaring the controversy "trivial" when thousands
of his constituents are struggling to get by on unemployment, he reduced
his loyal supporter's fat salary to a portly $120,000.
That cloud ain't budging.
And what about the House? Bless them for adopting most of the governor's
suggestions and improving on some of them.
But they didn't do their public image any favors by pulling out two very
important provisions.
First, legislators put the kibosh on a proposal allowing state
investigators to wiretap conversations in corruption probes, electing to
study the matter further. Federal investigators can already record those
conversations. And the attorney general wouldn't be running around
pointing microphones at legislators willy-nilly: A court would have to
decide she had just cause. So what would any honest legislator have to
fear here?
Second, they pulled a provision tightening restrictions on gifts from
people who might want to influence lawmakers' actions. When the outcry
over that grew loud enough, they inserted an amendment that did little
but re-state the original, murky rule.
Is it any wonder the public worries their hearts aren't really in this?
It's hard to tell whether things will be any better in the Senate, where
the bill is headed next.
That's because Senate President Terry Murray has been largely absent
from the public discussions of ethics reform since she stood before
reporters in a State House lobby back in October, steaming at
Wilkerson's transgressions. When Patrick first proposed his reforms,
Murray was, again, hopping mad, believing him to be grandstanding, and
directing his criticisms at her chamber, said people who spoke with her
at the time. Lately, she has given no hint of what she likes and
dislikes in the proposals by the governor and the House, and no inkling
of when she would take up the matter.
And though he has spoken of the Senate's commitment to reform during
hearings, Senate Ethics Committee chairman Frederick Berry's response to
the House package has so far consisted of belly-aching about not being
consulted by DeLeo.
None of this petulance inspires immense confidence. Which is why when it
comes to this cast of characters, the clouds may yet linger over Beacon
Hill.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Revere city council makes the most of retirement
Pensions brim with rich rewards
By Sean P. Murphy
REVERE - A group of elected officials in this working-class city, which
struggles daily to provide services under the threat of severe budget
cuts, is reaping some extraordinary rewards for public service.
Through deft exploitation of state laws and local ordinances, a majority
of Revere's 11 part-time city councilors are collecting full city
pensions while remaining on the city payroll and receiving up to $25,000
a year in council compensation, according to a Globe review of public
records.
One councilor began collecting his city pension without retiring. Two
others left the council, began collecting their retirement benefits, and
returned to the council with no interruption or reduction of their
pensions. Some have tacked extra years onto pensions with just a few
days' work. They also have used annual bonuses that accumulate for
multiple years of service, called "longevity pay," to pad their pensions
and council salaries simultaneously.
In many ways, the Revere council provides a case study in the myriad
tactics employed by some public officials in Massachusetts to maximize
retirement benefits. But it also is an extreme case, according to the
Globe review. The use of so many different retirement provisions - by
retirees still on a public payroll - is rare if not unique, compensation
specialists said.
Fred Foulkes, a Boston University professor and director of the
university's Human Policy Institute, said Revere city councilors may
have seized every available advantage in state and local rules to
increase their income.
"There are a lot of these quirks around to take advantage of," he said.
"The average citizen doesn't know about things like this."
The pensions are an example of the kind of nest-feathering that has
infuriated the public and recently prompted Governor Deval Patrick and
some lawmakers to call for an overhaul of the pension system.
The Globe has published stories about town moderators and a library
trustee who counted their volunteer service toward pensions, and public
officials who began collecting early, enhanced pensions after they were
fired from state government.
Revere officials say they are doing nothing improper, and that the
provisions they have used to increase their pensions are part of state
and local codes.
"I take what is given to me - that's my stand on it," said Councilor
George V. Colella, a former Revere mayor.
Seven of the 11 Revere councilors receive pensions, ranging up to
$57,000 a year. In addition, they receive base city council pay of
$14,650, plus automatic expense stipends of $7,200 (recently reduced by
20 percent, in a nod to the budget crisis), plus the accumulating
bonuses for years worked, called longevity bonuses.
The combined take for some councilors is more than $85,000 a year, in a
city of 55,000 people where the median income hovers around $45,000
annually. By comparison, Malden, with about the same population and
demographics, pays councilors $17,500. Only one Malden councilor
receives a city pension.
Some of the Revere councilors built up pensions while serving as
full-time city employees; others earned pensions based largely on
serving as council and School Committee members. Two of the retirees
served the city as both mayor and councilor; one as only a councilor;
one as a firefighter; one as a police officer; and one served in the
state's employment training department.
"Revere may be unique in electing so many retirees to the city council,"
said Anthony T. Zambuto, one of the few councilors who does not receive
a public pension.
Councilor Arthur Guinasso, for example, retired as a councilor in 2002
at age 62, began receiving a $10,000 annual pension, and then returned
to the council two years later, collecting both his pension and the
councilor compensation package, which together equals a combined
$31,700. Guinasso did not return telephone calls.
Councilor Robert J. Haas Jr. "retired" from his career as a mayor and
councilor in 2005 at age 62, and just kept going, never breaking his
service on the council. The only change for Haas was that he began
drawing his $47,500 pension on top of his councilor's pay and expenses
of about $25,000.
These moves are legal because city councilors and other elected
officials in Massachusetts are exempt from the restrictions and
financial penalties the law imposes on most government retirees who want
to continuing working and drawing paychecks beyond their retirement. The
law imposes no such restrictions on retirees who hold elected office.
The state rules also allow City Council members to count their
part-time, elected jobs as full years of pension credit. The council
usually meets three times a month, for as long as five hours per
session. On average, that is about four hours a week throughout the
year. They also spend various amounts of time on constituent work.
Councilors bristled at the suggestion they are taking advantage of the
system.
"Everybody says it's part-time work," said Ira Novoselsky, a councilor
who combined state employment and a stint on the city planning board to
retire at age 55 with an annual pension of about $30,000, on top of his
council compensation of more than $26,500. "But you don't get calls at
two o'clock in the morning from [angry] constituents."
Revere City Council members have also used the so-called one-day rule to
boost their pensions, in a fashion similar to other officials around the
state. It allows public officials to collect a full year of credit
toward a pension for as little as one day of work in a calendar year.
The rule was devised by the state Legislature, whose departing members
typically gain an extra year of credit when they remain in office for a
few days in January while awaiting the swearing-in of their successors.
In Revere, the terms of mayor, councilors, and School Committee members
also extend into the first week of January. (Two out of six School
Committee members in Revere also receive city pensions, plus pay and
health benefits.)
Haas took advantage of the one-day rule in 2005, boosting his eventual
pension by about $1,500 a year for life by serving two days as a
councilor in January.
Colella used it three times in his long political career, twice when
leaving office as mayor and once when leaving office as councilor,
allowing him to ring up an extra $5,000 in his annual pension for 10
days' work - for life. Since he began collecting a pension 17 years ago,
the one-day rule in Colella's case has cost the city about $85,000.
Colella said the one-day rule was spawned by the Legislature.
"I had nothing to do with it," he said.
But another key benefit was established by the council. The council
voted in 2000 to boost members' pay - and their eventual pensions - by
giving themselves automatic annual longevity bonuses based on the length
of their public employment. Longevity pay is practically unheard of for
city councilors and other elected officials in surrounding
municipalities, according to a survey of those cities.
The Revere city council also then further enhanced the benefits of
longevity. Councilors voted, in the same year, to allow longevity
payments they receive to be used in calculating their pensions.
Longevity bonuses are awarded at $500 a year for the first nine years of
service, and then boosted by $200 for every year after that, up to a
maximum of $6,300.
Haas, for example, receives about $2,500 a year of his $47,500 annual
pension in recognition for the longevity he amassed as a councilor and
mayor in the 1980s and 1990s. And he is using those same years a second
time to collect $3,700 a year in longevity pay as a councilor.
Haas said he did not realize councilors were getting the advantages of
longevity bonuses twice, until it was pointed out by the Globe.
"I think we have to address it," he said. "It may be a small amount in
dollars, but it's symbolic. If it is wrong, we will do something about
it."
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Governor, the ball's in your court
By Joan Vennochi
Call it the curse of high expectations. Governor Deval Patrick is
finding out what happens when hope meets the reality.
Only 34 percent of voters surveyed in a recent Suffolk University poll
believe the governor deserves reelection. That vote of no confidence
reflects the gap between what voters hoped Patrick would accomplish and
their current view of his achievements.
Patrick ran an inspirational campaign as a political outsider who
relished taking on entrenched Beacon Hill interests.
Hope over fear. Together we can. A different kind of politics.
Those phrases propelled him to victory as the state's first
African-American governor and the first Democratic governor in 16 years.
Yet two-plus years into his first term, it's hard to imagine another
Massachusetts candidate winning state office solely on the basis of such
sweet-sounding slogans.
His high-minded rhetoric started losing altitude soon after his
election.
What Patrick viewed as trivial decisions to lease a Cadillac and put up
new office drapes led to serious questions about just how different a
politician he would be. His first year agenda was stifled by a speaker
of the House with an agenda of his own. Patrick squandered time and
energy on a push for casinos that disappointed progressive supporters
and failed in the face of opposition from then-Speaker Salvatore F.
DiMasi.
Only after DiMasi was weakened by ethics-related investigations was
Patrick able to muscle through some initiatives of his own. Then, DiMasi
resigned, leaving Patrick to work out a relationship with a new House
speaker at a time of fiscal crisis. Massive budget cuts are necessary
and new taxes are on the table.
This year, Patrick is promising major ethics, transportation, and
pension reform. Meanwhile, what Patrick first viewed as "trivial"
disclosures - for example, a high-paying job given to a state senator
who is also a Patrick supporter - undercut his reformer image and took
on the same negative symbolism as the Cadillac and curtains.
As a candidate, he reveled in words and symbols. As governor, he often
finds them beneath his dignity.
Voters are disappointed, as a result. Unfortunately, Patrick interprets
disappointment as cynicism.
But disappointment is what happens when people let down their guard and
believe, even for one election cycle, that a politician can be
different, as advertised. If it turns out to be business as usual, why
shouldn't they feel betrayed?
It is Patrick's responsibility to give Massachusetts voters a reason to
keep the faith. From the big picture to the small, he should engage in a
daily battle of message and massage with as much zest as he did as a
candidate.
Patrick can't lower property taxes, as he promised during the governor's
race. Indeed, he wants to increase the gas tax. It's not a popular
cause. But there should be some respect for a governor who is willing to
tell people the unpleasant fiscal truth. For years, a succession of
governors declined to do that and state lawmakers gladly kept on their
blinders.
Patrick is starting to explain why he believes state Senator Marian
Walsh is needed at the Health and Educational Facilities Authority. His
explanation, that this is an out-of-control authority led by an
antireform holdover from the Romney administration, comes much too late
to defuse the criticism. But during a Thursday night town hall meeting
broadcast by New England Cable News, Patrick made an eloquent case for
giving Walsh a chance.
Thanks to Patrick's close relationship with President Obama,
Massachusetts is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal
stimulus money. In just the past week, Patrick announced $764 million
for healthcare, $168 million for Massachusetts schools, $280 million for
special education funding, and $162 million for higher education, which
allowed UMass to roll back increases in student fees. The Patrick
administration also announced eight infrastructure projects, and broke
ground on the Chelsea Street Bridge, which will immediately produce 150
construction jobs.
With that money comes a duty to spend it responsibly. Patrick should do
everything to avoid a Big Dig fiasco of his own.
Hope alone won't cut it anymore. This governor needs results.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 29, 2009
STARTS & STOPS
Overhaul is no hardship for labor
By Noah Bierman
Lawmakers have talked a lot about reducing generous employee benefits at
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority as they work on
overhauling the state's debt-ridden transportation system.
But last week, moments after the Senate approved what legislators were
describing as a generational and money-saving reform effort, the head of
the MBTA's largest employee union was shaking hands with senators and
thanking them for their hard work.
In an interview conducted between handshakes in the Senate lobby, Steve
MacDougall, president of the MBTA Carmen's Union, said he remained
unhappy with the bill because it attacks "100 years of collective
bargaining."
But . . . still . . . he also said the bill was "better than it
started."
So what happened to put MacDougall in such a good mood?
1) The famous change to the MBTA's "23 and out" rule that lets workers
retire with meaty pensions in their early 40s will affect only new hires
if the Senate bill becomes law, meaning it will take another generation
to matter.
2) Language that would force all current employees into the state
healthcare system, which is much less expensive than the T's, was
removed. Under the revised version, the state would conduct an actuarial
study to see whether it could save money to move workers to the state
healthcare system, leaving lots of wiggle room.
3) Language granting the MBTA supervisors "management rights" - the
ability to hand out work assignments regardless of union seniority - was
taken out.
Senator Steven A. Baddour, a Methuen Democrat who cochairs the
Transportation Committee, said after the vote that the bill, which would
also reorganize several state agencies, would save billions of dollars
over 20 years and fundamentally change the way transportation is
delivered.
"This was a grand-slam home run for the Carmen's Union," said Michael J.
Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "They
celebrated. This is a huge victory."
Widmer said the Senate bill was watered down - actually "watered down is
being kind" - and will not save the billions predicted if it becomes
law.
But MacDougall pointed out that the fight is not over: "This is one of
three required branches."
Governor Deval Patrick submitted his own bill, which is not as kind to
the unions. And the House is expected to weigh in with its version when
members debate transportation later this week.
Associated Press
Monday, March 30, 2009
Report: MBTA could save $1B in health benefits
By Steve LeBlanc
BOSTON -- The cash-strapped MBTA could save as much as $1 billion over
the next two decades with changes to its health benefits for T workers
and retirees, according to a report set to be released Monday.
The analysis by the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
said the transit agency must rein in its "extraordinarily generous
pension and health care benefits that are way out of line with the norm
in the public and private sectors."
Among a series of six recommendations offered by the group is a proposal
to require all employees and retirees under the age of 65 to pay the
difference between regular HMO coverage and more expensive plans -- a
change that could save $20 million a year.
By contributing 85 percent of premium contributions for both types of
plans, the group said the MBTA creates a "perverse incentive" for
employees and retirees to select the more expensive plans.
Other recommendations include introducing tiered network health plans;
adjusting T benefits so they are comparable with benefits for other
public employees; and eliminating reimbursement for retirees' share of
Medicare Part B premiums.
A spokesman for the MBTA declined to comment until the agency had a
chance for a full review of the report.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority General Manager Daniel
Grabauskas has already had some luck in forcing MBTA retirees to pay
more for their health care, including increases in co-payments and
deductibles.
But the T's rocky fiscal shape is putting more pressure on the agency to
make even more dramatic changes. The T needs to fill a $160 million hole
in its budget for the fiscal year starting July 1.
If it can't, Grabauskas said the agency will have to raise fares and cut
back on services. The T has already raised fares three times -- more
than 75 percent -- during the last eight years.
Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed his own series of health benefit reforms
at the MBTA, and a bill approved by the Massachusetts Senate would ban
MBTA workers from receiving pension benefits greater than those enjoyed
by members of the state's broader health insurance system.
The Senate bill would also change the system at the MBTA that allows
workers to retire after 23 years with full benefits regardless of their
age. It would require they put in at least 25 years and would set a
minimum retirement age of 55.
Grabauskas supports the change, which T workers have resisted.
The Salem News
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Salem News editorial
Real pension reform long overdue
Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders are promising reform of the
state's costly public pension system. But such legislation should go
beyond putting a halt to those provisions that allow well-publicized
abuses of the system to change that will make this benefit fair and
affordable for all.
"The Commonwealth's public employees and taxpayers deserve a system that
is completely transparent and tied much more closely to actual
contributions than the one we currently have," the Pioneer Institute, a
well-respected Boston think tank, declared in a release issued last
week. Our leaders on Beacon Hill would do well to heed some of its
recommendations.
The majority of public employees work hard over many years, contributing
to their pension fund along the way, so that they might enjoy a
comfortable retirement. (The average state employee receives $24,000 a
year in retirement, in lieu of Social Security for which they are not
eligible.)
But the gaming of the system by some state and municipal employees,
often with the active participation of legislators, has added
immeasurably to its cost. According to this week's release, "In 2006, a
Pioneer report determined that loopholes and special legislation
targeting specific employees or classes of employees added at least $3
billion to our unfunded pension liability."
Those loopholes should have been fixed then, but weren't. Call your
legislator and tell him or her they must be addressed this time.
Fundamental to such reform is a change in attitude so that public
pensions are not viewed as a way to easy riches before one goes on to
his or her next career, but rather as a reward for long and competent
service to city, town or commonwealth. On the other hand, as the Pioneer
report points out, many entering public service today may not view it as
a lifetime career, and thus provisions should be made to allow them to
carry earned benefits over to private-sector employment.
"Younger generations of employees do not seek the same level of
professional stability that their parents and grandparents did," the
Pioneer report notes. "The Commonwealth needs a pension system that is
as flexible as the workforce it hopes to recruit and retain."
The public-policy research group proposes several specific reform that
merit serious consideration. Among them:
Eliminate the practice of allowing employees to receive credit for years
of service in non-governmental and less-than-half-time jobs.
Eliminate provisions that provide enhanced benefits for those who are
discharged from their positions. (There have been instances of employees
planning to leave state employment who've arranged to be "fired" in
order to pad their pensions. These enhanced benefits are also available,
incredibly, to lawmakers who've been voted out of office.)
Require that someone have worked at least six months in order to receive
credit for a full year's service. Currently one can work a day or two
past one's anniversary and receive credit for a full year of employment.
End the practices of "salary spiking" and "group jumping" whereby
individuals or groups of employees can enhance their retirement payout
by moving up in grade late in their careers.
These are all reasonable reforms made more necessary by the fact that
pension-fund earnings have been on the decline and governmental
resources are shrinking. Taxpayers, many of whom are struggling mightily
to keep their own retirement nest eggs intact, have a right to expect
quick action from their representatives at the Statehouse.
The Salem News
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A Salem News editorial
Flimsy reforms won't fix transportation mess
It should probably come as no surprise that the Senate version of the
transportation "reform" bill is heavy on symbolism and light on the more
difficult money-saving measures.
After all, Senate President Therese Murray and Transportation Committee
co-chairman Steven Baddour took pains at the public hearing a few weeks
ago to tell the unions that their objections would be taken into
consideration.
That they were. Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
has termed the Senate version of the transportation bill "a grand-slam
home run for the Carmen's Union." It explains all the winking and
smiling that went on when the spokesman for the union representing MBTA
workers testified that day.
For while there are some good things in the Senate bill including the
consolidation of the Highway Department and Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority and an end to the notorious "23 years and out" MBTA retirement
policy, the changes don't go nearly far enough to justify the kind of
tax increases being contemplated to prop up these agencies.
In a report released Monday, the MTF notes that "the Senate legislation
passed last week would produce no short-term savings and uncertain
savings over the long term, falling dramatically short of the
recommendation of the Transportation Finance Commission."
The Senate bill calls only for a study of the potential savings to be
had by placing MBTA employees into the same health insurance group as
other state employees. The MTF, on the other hand, is suggesting six
changes in transit workers' health plans which, if implemented
immediately, it says could save $1 billion over the next two decades.
"MBTA General Manager Daniel Grabauskas has already had some luck in
forcing retirees to pay more for their health care, including increases
in co-payments and deductibles," The Associated Press reported Monday.
"But the T's rocky fiscal shape is putting more pressure on the agency
to make even more dramatic changes. The T needs to fill a $160-million
hole in its budget for the fiscal year starting July 1. If it can't,
Grabauskas said the agency will have to raise fares and cut back on
services."
Fares have already been increased several times during the last eight
years, and those using the commuter rail parking lots here on the North
Shore and elsewhere were recently hit with a doubling of the daily fee.
Nobody said reform would be easy, and it is especially difficult for a
Democratic majority that has long been beholden to the public employee
unions. With the governor and Senate having already weighed in on the
issue, it's now up to the House of Representatives to consider what
savings might be achieved.
"I don't think you're going to get enough savings from the reforms to
pay for the whole package," Salem Rep. John Keenan accurately observed
in an interview with The Salem News last week. But taxpayers deserve a
lot more in the way of reform than either the governor or Senate have
offered before they're saddled with any toll and/or tax hikes.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 3, 2009
Biz groups fuming at fuel tax
See reform lacking
By Jay Fitzgerald
Two key business groups yesterday threatened to withdraw support for a
gas-tax hike if tougher reforms aren’t restored in what they called a
“gutted” Senate transportation bill.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties-Massachusetts - which were among five
business groups that endorsed a 25-cent gas-tax increase - say the
Senate balked at passing recommended changes to lucrative health-care
and pension benefits enjoyed by MBTA employees.
“If this is the extent of (the reforms), then there’s no way I would
support a gas-tax increase,” said Michael Widmer, president of the
taxpayers foundation. “They (senators) retreated on virtually every
reform. . . . They gutted it.”
Pushing T workers into the state’s general health-insurance fund, as
recommended by a Senate committee, would have saved the debt-ridden MBTA
$25 million a year, Widmer said.
But the final Senate plan merely calls for more study of what health
plan T workers should use in the future, he said.
The Senate also didn’t adopt Gov. Deval Patrick’s recommendation that
the so-called “23 years and out” retirement provision for T workers
should be eliminated for employees with fewer than 10 years service,
Widmer said.
The Senate bill passed last week eliminated the early-retirement clause
only for new employees.
David Begelfer, head of NAIOP-Massachusetts, said his business group is
now “a little skeptical if enough reforms are in there to justify new
(gas-tax) revenues.”
Sen. Steve Baddour (D-Methuen), chairman of the Senate Transportation
Committee, blasted critics.
“I don’t know what the critics are smoking but it’s causing brain damage
because they clearly haven’t read the bill,” said Baddour, whose fellow
senators have vowed that “reforms before revenue” is their mantra.
He said there were legal and financial questions about benefits reforms
- and insisted the Senate is committed to saving billions of dollars via
fundamentally changing how the state’s transportation system is run.
He noted the Senate bill eliminates the Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority, implements tort reform, commits to moving T workers to the
least expensive health-care system in future years and eliminates “23
and out” for all new T employees.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Legislature aiming to crack down on pension provisions
Leaders expect to save millions
By Matt Viser
State lawmakers, in an effort to quell public anger, displayed unified
determination yesterday to wipe from the books some of the generous
deals, custom-tailored laws, and hidden provisions that for decades have
allowed some Massachusetts public employees to win enhanced retirement
benefits.
Senate President Therese Murray announced that the Senate today planned
to quickly approve seven proposals aimed at closing what critics call
unfair pension provisions that have fattened the retirement benefits of
untold numbers of public employees.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, standing by her side, said the House
would follow in the next several weeks.
The effort by Murray and DeLeo essentially repudiates actions taken by
the Legislature in the past when its members responded to a variety of
pension requests by passing favorable, narrowly crafted legislation.
State senators did not have an estimate on how much money the changes
would save, but said it would be in the "millions."
"Eliminating loopholes and clarifying the current laws is going to go a
long way to restoring public trust and confidence in the system," Murray
said. "The time for talk is over, and the time for action is now."
The announcement of the Senate proposal, which does not go as far as a
similar plan announced last week by Governor Deval Patrick, means there
will almost certainly be an overhaul of the pension laws this year,
although there are still questions over details.
Senate Republicans, who also support the legislation, plan to offer
several amendments to make the laws tighter, said Senate minority leader
Richard Tisei.
"Overall I think it's a good first step from the Senate, but I'd like to
see the package strengthened," said Michael Widmer, who is president of
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and has been pushing for changes
to the laws for years. "The governor has gone a bit further, and in a
constructive way."
Patrick, for example, eliminates the provision that allows state
employees to boost their pensions if they are fired. The Senate version
only eliminates that provision for elected officials, who are able to
boost their pensions if they are not nominated or reelected.
DeLeo said he supported the general parameters, but added that he did
not endorse the Senate version because it was not final and there could
be changes.
"Conceptually I think that the House is in agreement of many of the
items being addressed by the Senate," he said at a press conference in
the Senate Reading Room.
Patrick called Murray's announcement "wonderful news" that will help in
"modernizing the public pension system and helping to restore public
trust."
"Putting an end to abuses in our pension systems is a key part of my
reform agenda," Patrick said in a statement. "And I look forward to
working closely with my partners in the House and Senate to finalize
this important reform bill over the coming weeks."
The Senate bill would remove a provision that credits a full year of
service to employees after they have worked as little as one day in that
year.
The Senate plan, which would also establish a commission to recommend
broader pension changes by Sept. 1, would not apply to future retirees.
Lawmakers have been eager to project that they are busy on major
changes. Last week, the Senate approved transportation overhaul, which
the House plans to take up next week. The House adopted an ethics reform
proposal last week.
The moves come in response to diminishing public confidence in the
ability of elected officials to tighten state ethics and lobbying laws.
A recent poll of 400 Massachusetts voters found that only 12 percent
rated the level of ethics as good or excellent.
The Globe has published stories about town moderators and a library
trustee who counted their volunteer service toward pensions, and public
officials who began collecting early, enhanced pensions after they were
fired from state government.
The Globe reported Sunday that a majority of Revere's 11 part-time city
councilors are collecting full pensions while remaining on the municipal
payroll and collecting about $25,000 in annual council compensation.
Revere is part of DeLeo's district, a topic that the speaker did not
address during the press conference.
The Senate plan would also:
= Prohibit
municipal officials from being able to establish pension credit for time
spent working in nonpaying public jobs.
The law has allowed officials such as two town moderators from Canton
and Milton, as well as lobbyist John A. Brennan Jr., to receive pension
credit for essentially volunteer work.
= Change the
current accidental disability retirement benefit for individuals who are
injured while temporarily filing in for their supervisor.
Some firefighters in Boston have collected pension benefits based on
their bosses' higher pay level after they were injured on the job while
subbing for them.
= Limit the
definition of "compensation" to only wages and salary, and specifically
exclude housing benefits, annuities, or the use of motor vehicles.
This would prevent presidents at the state's public colleges and
universities from counting housing and transportation allowances as
compensation.
William Bulger, a former University of Massachusetts president, fought
for this perk and won, increasing his pension by $17,000 to $196,000 a
year.
= Prohibit
public employees from combining their pensions from two separate
positions, which can increase the overall pension.
Instead, an individual who is a member of two or more systems must
retire separately from each system.
= Align MBTA
employees' pension with the state system and eliminate the policy that
allows employees with 23 years of service to retire with benefits
regardless of their age.
The provision has allowed workers to retire in their 40s and then take
other jobs while collecting pensions.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Beware of wolves in suits
By Jeff Jacoby
The Special Commission on Pension Reform, which convened for the first
time yesterday - six months past the deadline specified under
Massachusetts law - comprises nine public employees, one retired public
employee, three officials from the public-employee retirement systems,
and two economists from private universities. By my reckoning, that
makes 13 commission members from the public sector and two from the
private sector, which calls to mind the old jape about democracy being
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's an
amusing quip, assuming you're not a sheep.
The special commission is only the latest group to cast a critical gaze
at the state's woeful public-employee pension system. In February, the
House Special Committee on Pensions issued its report and
recommendations - not to be confused with the earlier report and
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on the Massachusetts Pension
Classification System, or with the White Paper on Public Pensions
prepared by the Pioneer Institute in 2006.
On Monday, meanwhile, Senate President Therese Murray put forth her own
package of suggested pension reforms. That was about a week after
Governor Deval Patrick had outlined his plan. For the layman, keeping up
with this parade of public-pension panels and proposals can be a
challenge.
It can be even more challenging - it is certainly more maddening - to
keep up with the seemingly endless train of public-pension abuses.
The latest outrage, exposed by Sean Murphy in Sunday's Globe, comes from
Revere, where most members of the City Council have figured out a way to
collect full pensions while continuing to take a city paycheck.
"One councilor began collecting his city pension without retiring,"
Murphy reported. "Two others left the council, began collecting their
retirement benefits, and returned to the council with no interruption or
reduction of their pensions. Some have tacked extra years onto pensions
with just a few days' work. They also have used annual bonuses that
accumulate for multiple years of service, called 'longevity pay,' to pad
their pensions and council salaries simultaneously . . . The combined
take for some councilors is more than $85,000 a year." The work is not
exactly strenuous: In the course of a year, City Council meets an
average of four hours per week.
These pension-abuse stories are never complete without a disobliging
brush-off from one of the abusers. "I take what is given to me - that's
my stand on it," Councilor George Colella told the Globe.
That has been the attitude for years - the attitude of MBTA employees
who retire with full pensions after working just 23 years; the attitude
of retirees who get pension credit for volunteering as library trustees
or town moderators; the attitude of ex-lawmakers whose pensions soar
when they are defeated for reelection or quit under an ethical cloud;
the attitude of Boston firefighters whose tax-free disability pensions
are fattened if they claim to have been injured while filling in for a
supervisor; the attitude of the scores of government retirees who
collect annual pensions of $100,000 and up. Like Colella, they will all
gladly take every nickel the taxpayers can be coerced or gulled or
manipulated into giving.
For years the political class has taken care of its own at taxpayers'
expense. That is why so many former public employees enjoy retirement
perks far more lucrative than anything typically found in the private
sector. "The nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who
have government benefits and those who don't," USA Today noted
[see inclusion below] in 2007. "The
gap is accelerating in every way - pensions, medical benefits,
retirement ages."
All of that was galling enough when the economy was strong and the Dow
was flying high. Now - in the midst of deep recession, with the market
prostrate, millions out of work, and retirement portfolios worth far
less than they used to be - it is infuriating. Beacon Hill's worthies
can feel the growing backlash, which is why they declare so solemnly
that pension reform is a "priority."
Well, declarations are easy. True reform - not merely plugging the most
egregious abuses uncovered by the media, but thoroughly overhauling the
public-pension system - will be much harder. Sweet-talking the sheep
won't do the trick. Beacon Hill needs to slay some wolves.
USA Today
February 21, 2007
Pension gap divides public and private workers
By Dennis Cauchon
Johnnie Nichols, a civilian Defense Department employee, contributes to
a federal pension that will let him retire at age 56, after 32 years of
service.
His wife, Kimberly, a math teacher at a private business college, has no
pension after two decades of teaching and running a horse farm. Their
marriage reflects the new world of retirement: government employees who
have secure benefits and private workers who increasingly are on their
own.
"If we were both in her shoes, we'd be in a world of hurt," says
Nichols, 45, an information technology manager in Middletown, Ind. "We
wouldn't be able to retire until age 67."
As the first wave of 79 million baby boomers heads to retirement, the
nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who have
government benefits and those who don't. The gap is accelerating in
every way — pensions, medical benefits, retirement ages.
Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their
counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more
generous. The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers,
police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640
in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million
private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.
Governments' generosity could have serious consequences for taxpayers
and pensioners. Some states — including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New
Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia — have troubled retirement systems that
may require huge tax increases, spending cuts or even defaulting on
promised benefits. The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability
for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than
it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion).
The pension gap will continue to widen because governments pump far more
money into employee pensions than companies do. Civil servants earn an
average of $12.38 an hour in benefits, about $5 an hour more than
private-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The
difference was just $2.70 an hour in 1995.
Pension promises have "gotten out of hand," says Peter Hanson, 73,
chairman of NAI James E. Hanson Inc., a real estate firm in Hackensack,
N.J. His firm offers a healthy private pension — up to 25% of
compensation, given to employee retirement accounts — but it is tied to
profits and given as a lump sum, not a lifetime promise of benefits.
Supporters of government pensions say the decline in private pensions is
the problem, not the generosity of public retirement plans. "Rather than
lower the bar for public employees, we need to stabilize retirement
programs for everyone," says Richard Ferlauto, director of pension and
benefit policy for the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, a union with 1.4 million members.
He acknowledges public pensions are getting more scrutiny. "People want
to know, 'Why should you have more security than us?' " he says. "It's
pension envy."
A sharp contrast
State and local governments have sweetened retirement benefits during
the past decade at a time when corporations have soured on them because
of their cost. Only 18% of private workers now have traditional defined
benefit pension plans, compared with more than 80% of government
employees.
Contrary to a widely held notion, the extra government benefits aren't
compensation for lower pay. Most government workers are paid more than
private employees in similar jobs, and the wage gap is growing.
A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in
wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a
typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
The difference was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true
for all types of public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers.
Better benefits for government workers is the biggest reason for the
growing compensation gap.
"The government is in direct competition with us for employees. It's
hard to compete against these benefit packages," says James Bellis,
owner of Tree Tech, a 120-worker tree trimming company in Randolph, N.J.
His company has a 401(k) plan that matches up to 2% of employee pay.
By comparison, tree trimmers working for a government in New Jersey
would get a pension benefit worth more than three times that.
Superior retirement benefits for civil servants can be traced to the
establishment of Social Security, which originally did not cover
government employees, says E.J. McMahon, a pension expert at the
Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with economic
policy. Today, three-fourths of government workers participate in Social
Security, but their overall benefits have not been reduced accordingly,
he says.
The boost in benefits since the 1960s reflects the rising power of
public employee unions, which have thrived as industrial labor unions
and the benefits they won have eroded, he says.
The growing benefit gap makes government an increasingly attractive
employer.
Anneliese Crosby, 46, who codes medical records at a private hospital in
Manchester, N.H., is trying to get a government job for financial
reasons — better pay, benefits and job security. The hospital recently
ended its pension plan for new employees. That didn't affect Crosby, but
her retirement depends mostly on contributions to her tax-deferred
retirement account.
"It's scary. I feel like I need a second job or to be on the lookout for
a new job," she says. "I should put more in my retirement account, but I
can't afford it."
Her solution: Apply for a similar job at a Veterans Affairs hospital.
She'd get a pay raise, better benefits and a secure future. "My
ex-husband keeps encouraging me to get a government job, and he's right
about that," she says.
Pensions for civil servants often are superior to private pensions in
subtle ways that make a huge financial difference. For example,
government pensions:
• Generally base benefits on a worker's top three earning years. Private
pensions typically base benefits on the top five years of pay, which
lowers the average.
• Often let retirees add the value of overtime, unused leave and other
benefits into the pension formula. The results can be extreme. Dover,
N.H., Police Chief William Fenniman, 46, added more than $200,000 for
severance, sick leave and other payouts into his three-year salary
average when he retired in January. This will boost his retirement
benefit to as much as $125,000 a year, more than he made as chief.
• Permit early retirement at age 50 or 55 with less of a benefit
reduction than private pensions.
• Provide free or subsidized medical care for retirees under age 65 and
supplemental coverage after that for those on Medicare.
• More often provide automatic cost-of-living increases to benefits.
Baby boomer retirements will force governments to confront the rising
costs of civil servant benefits. The U.S. government's unfunded
retirement obligation grew $200 billion last year to $4.7 trillion.
That's the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning
investment returns, to pay for promised retirement benefits.
'You have to be aggressive'
Before 1984, federal workers had a defined benefit plan and no Social
Security. Today, new employees have Social Security and a pension that
is part defined benefit plan (lifetime monthly payments) and part
defined contribution (a lump sum at retirement).
The pension is more generous than most private pensions, but workers
have to pay more to take advantage of the plan. "You have to be
aggressive about making contributions if you want a good retirement,"
says Nichols, the Defense Department employee.
Unlike private pensions, though, the federal system still encourages
early retirement. "The sweet spot for me is about age 56. When I run the
numbers, the system almost forces me to retire" early, Nichols says. For
example, he expects to qualify for a free supplemental annuity at age 56
that provides a benefit equal to what he'd get at age 62 under Social
Security.
Another big incentive to retire early: Most governments offer health
insurance to early retirees until they qualify for Medicare at 65.
Massachusetts spent $377 million on retiree medical benefits last year.
The state's unfunded liability for such costs is $13.3 billion, nearly
as much as its actual debt of $18.5 billion, which is counted
separately.
"It's a burden on taxpayers, of course," says Delores Mitchell,
executive director of the Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission,
which runs the program. But she doesn't foresee major benefit cuts.
"States have a tradition of treating retirees well."
Medical insurance may be the most vulnerable benefit because it has
fewer legal protections than pensions, which often are guaranteed in
state constitutions. Orange County, Calif., recently slashed promised
retiree medical benefits, cutting its liability from $1.4 billion to
$600 million. The county hasn't done anything about its pension problem.
"Pension benefits are like a lobster trap. You can get in, but you can't
get out," says John Moorlach, an Orange County supervisor who has tried
to reduce retirement benefits for government workers.
He blames elected officials for awarding unsustainable retirement
benefits to win support from employee unions. "Elected officials love to
give generous retirement benefits because they don't cost anything today
and they'll be out of office when the payments come due," Moorlach says.
"And the public? Eyes droop with boredom when you bring up the topic."
Taxpayers on the hook
The financial soundness of civil servant pensions varies across the
country. Government pensions are, on average, in a similar condition as
private pensions — about 20% below the assets needed to be properly
funded. But some states, especially in the industrial Midwest, have
severely troubled pensions.
"The taxes needed to pay for these promises would push many of these
states' economies into a death spiral," Chicago bankruptcy lawyer James
Spiotto says.
He says public employee unions should not overestimate legal protections
for pension benefits. Localities can shed their obligations in a
bankruptcy filing, and states, as sovereign governments, can ignore the
requirements, he says. "Unions can win all the litigation and still lose
because the judgments can't be enforced," Spiotto says.
Tim Lee, executive director of the Texas Retired Teachers Association,
says unions understand the cost of the retirement benefits. He says his
association's top goal is improving the financial health of the pension
fund, not winning new benefits.
As expensive as government pensions are to taxpayers, civil servants
don't feel the benefits make them rich. Frank Caron, 49, maintains lab
equipment at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He makes about
$40,000 a year.
He has contributed heavily to his pension, including an extra $74 a week
to restore pension credit for earlier government jobs. That will let him
retire:
• At 55 with 47% of pay;
• At 60 with 72% of pay;
• Or at 65 with 103% of pay.
He also will have medical benefits and be eligible for Social Security
at 62. "I've worked hard to have my ducks lined up in a row for
retirement," he says.
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
|
