|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Despite the state Constitution, pols are back for another pay hike
|
Beacon Hill officials, eyeing the possible use of
the lame duck Legislature, are poised to give significant pay raises
to the governor, other elected constitutional officers, and House
and Senate leaders.
The pay hikes could boost top legislative leaders
well beyond their current $102,000 in total compensation. It could
also give increased cost-of-living raises to rank and file
lawmakers, and raise the governor’s salary more than $25,000.
The push for the increases began last summer when
legislative leaders used a little noticed budget rider to create a
special advisory commission on compensation. Proponents argue that
the top officials’ salaries lag far behind those of the employees
they manage and are far less than comparable private-sector
wages....
The commission — which has not yet reached final
conclusions — must publicly release its recommendations by Dec. 1.
But if lawmakers don’t approve the plan before the end of the
2013-14 legislative session, state conflict-of-interest laws could
block implementation of the pay hikes for two to four years.
To avoid such a delay, House and Senate leaders,
who have a personal stake in the outcome, could push for a vote on a
salary increase plan before Jan. 7....
Likewise, the cost-of-living raises for
rank-and-file lawmakers might be delayed unless they’re approved
this session.
The issue is particularly important for House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and incoming Senate President Stanley
Rosenberg, both of whom could see significant pay hikes....
The Legislature, by its own rules, has suspended
formal sessions for the year. The leaders could call lawmakers back
for a special formal meeting, but that would be unusual.
One alternative would be to use the informal
sessions that meet twice a week. But, under those rules, a single
lawmaker is able to put a hold on any consideration of a matter....
The seven-member compensation panel, whose
existence and work had gained little notice despite several public
hearings, was also charged by the legislative leadership to consider
a change in biannual cost of living raises for rank and file
legislators that, if adopted, would give them a $4,000 raise —
larger than one set by the current system, which has been
controversial.
If the new formula is approved, lawmakers could
get a raise to $63,994 this January above their current $60,032
salaries.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 20, 2014
State’s political leaders up for pay raises
Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the
Constitution
A YES vote would prohibit state legislators from
changing their base pay and instead would adjust that pay according
to changes in median household income.
SUMMARY: This proposed constitutional
amendment would prohibit the state Legislature from changing the
base compensation received by members of the Legislature as of
January 1, 1996. As of the first Wednesday in January of 2001, and
every second year thereafter, the base compensation would be
increased or decreased at the same rate as increases or decreases in
the median household income for the Commonwealth for the preceding
new year period, as ascertained by the Governor....
A "Yes" vote will prohibit legislators from
voting themselves across-the-board pay raises.
The Official Massachusetts Information for Voters
booklet
The 1998 Ballot Questions
Published by William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth
Hundreds of vacant state jobs have been
posted since Election Day — including dozens of high-level
positions in Gov. Deval Patrick’s lame-duck administration —
raising suspicions the departing Democrats might stage a hiring
party before Republican Gov.-elect Charlie Baker takes office.
“What I hope is not happening is that the
administration is packing positions as to preclude the new
administration from having the discretion and option of picking
the people that they trust and want,” said Greg Sullivan, a
former inspector general now at the Pioneer Institute.
“The government has to operate and it has to
perform essential functions no matter who is in the Corner
Office. But I don’t think it’s in the public interest for the
outgoing administration to be locking people into some of these
jobs.” ...
The posting spike comes as Patrick separately
is granting 500 managers union representation, shielding them
from any Baker house-cleaning.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Lame-duck hiring spree feared
Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing $66 million in
local aid cuts, a proposal that has municipal leaders howling.
Others note the Legislature’s unwillingness
to act on the cuts could effectively kick a looming budget
shortfall down the road to incoming Gov. Charlie Baker.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones called
Patrick’s proposal a “non-starter” for House Republicans, adding
he doesn’t see the Legislature “embracing” the bill in its
remaining informal sessions this year. Andrew Bagley of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation noted lawmakers have “never
historically decided to go for” cuts to local aid.
If the Legislature doesn’t act, and given all
pending bills die once the next governor takes the reins, any
necessary cuts, to local aid or otherwise, would then fall to
Baker, who a spokesman last night said “hopes local aid is the
last place the Legislature would ever look to for cuts.” ...
Jones questioned why Patrick didn’t consider
a hiring freeze to cut costs, noting a Herald story yesterday
that highlighted some 500 open positions around state
government, including dozens of administrator jobs.
“We have, what with six weeks left of the current
administration?” Jones said. “Hiring maybe should be left to the
next administration after all to avoid any political chicanery.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Deval Patrick plans to slash $66M from aid to cities, towns
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
In 1998 CLT and its members were the only
outspoken opponents to the Legislature's proposed constitutional
amendment when it appeared on the ballot. It was sold as a
means to prevent the Legislature from ever again hiking its own
salaries. This came after the infamous 55% pay grab the
Legislature voted for themselves in December of 1994, in a previous
lame-duck, post-election session.
 In
1995, CLT — as part of the
rapidly-formed Coalition for Payraise Repeal (composed of CLT,
before I worked for it; LIMITS, the state term limits group; United
We Stand America, the old Ross Perot group, and; the organization I
ran back then, No Means No/Freedom First; I was its chairman) —
collected signatures to put that 55% payraise on the ballot for
repeal. We called that coalition "CPR" (it's logo image
appears to the left.)
The Secretary of State (then Michael Joseph
Connolly) sought a legal opinion from the state Attorney General's
office (then Luther Scott Harshbarger) as to the constitutionality
of our ballot question effort. It was ruled unconstitutional
as it allegedly violated Article 48: "No law ... that
appropriates money ... shall be subject of of a referendum
petition." We then challenged that administrative
determination before the Superior Court, which also ruled against
us: Our effort was killed before the repeal could reach the
ballot for voters to decide whether legislators deserved an
immediate 55% pay raise.
A few short years later and still not forgotten
— with that indecent pay raise
comfortably secured and imbedded — the
Legislature moved to secure future pay raises in perpetuity and
forever beyond the reach of mere voters. It proposed an
amendment to the State Constitution which they sold as prohibiting
legislators from ever again voting themselves across-the-board pay
raises.
On September 1, 1998 I wrote:
CLT&G Update
Tuesday, September 1, 1998
http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg98-2/cltg98-09-01.html
Imagine, you're caught red-handed
stealing cookies from Mom's cookie jar. She scowls,
tapping her foot. Putting on your most innocent face,
you look up and plead, "Mom, if you don't punish me this
time, I promise I'll never do it again, honest."
But when she catches you elbow-deep
in the jar a week later, cookie crumbs all over your
chin, you implore: "I know I promised, mom, but it's
different this time."
In December of 1994, in a lame-duck,
post-election session, "The Best Legislature Money Can
Buy" took for itself an outrageous 55 percent pay raise.
The next year, threatened by our
initiative petition for "A Law to Encourage a Citizen
Legislature Accountable to the People" (aka, the CLT&G
Payraise Repeal), the Legislature took immediate steps
in a propaganda campaign to defuse our plan to cut not
only their pay but the legislative session in half as
well, to six months.
Having achieved one of the highest
salaries of any state legislature in the nation, the
Legislature is proposing a constitutional amendment that
will forever lock in the ill-gotten pay increase,
automatically adjust it to the economy every two years,
and enshrine it in the state Constitution, safeguarding
it forever from being tampered with by the voters.
That proposed constitutional
amendment will be Question 1 on the November ballot. If
approved by enough foolish voters, it will make our
legislators the only human beings in the history of the
world to have a constitutionally mandated and protected
salary and perpetual pay raises. (More on this later.)
But the other action they took in
their attempt to deflect our criticism was to establish
joint legislative rules that ended formal sessions in
election years not later than July 31st, before
legislators could get their hands on election-year
goodies or become "lame ducks" immune from voter
retribution. We were all supposed to be impressed.
But we knew then that, as soon as us
"stupid voters" were supposed to forget or looked the
other way the hands would be right back in the cookie
jar and the excuse would be, "But mom, things are
different now."
(Note:
When Barbara's CLT merged with my Freedom First in 1996
we agreed to change the organization's name to Citizens
for Limited Taxation and Government, which soon
after we discarded as too unwieldy.)
Proposed constitutional amendments must go before
the voters before being ensconced in the State Constitution forever,
for all intent. CLT and its members opposed it on a number of
grounds — one being the fact that such
an amendment could and would never be changed, as any citizen
petition to do so required a 25% favorable vote in the Legislature
to ever reach the ballot, and that would never happen. (The
citizens' "term limits" petitions [two different ballot
questions to accomplish the same end] and other attempted limitations on the Legislature's power have
never
achieved that goal.)
CLT did everything in its power at that critical
time to inform and alert voters to this false sales-pitch
— from news releases (Oct. 1, 1998, "CLT&G
Informs Public About Question One") to even buying
radio ads around the state.
Despite our best efforts to inform them, voters who
erroneously believed they were voting
to "prohibit legislators from voting themselves across-the-board pay
raises," overwhelmingly (over 60%) supported the constitutional
amendment by a vote of:
YES: 1,170,031
NO: 538,729
BLANKS: 225,517
Nonetheless, in 2003 then-House Speaker (and
since convicted felon) Thomas Finneran pushed to hike the pay of his "leadership
team" unilaterally (as we predicted would happen). As the Boston Herald reported on May 2, 2003 ("Speaker
takes floor to save biz tax credit"): "While most eyes
were on the House, the Senate, as expected, quietly approved a
controversial bill allowing leadership pay hikes without Romney's
OK."
So here we are —
again — with our alleged
representatives in the state House and Senate scheming on ways to
again profit themselves at our expense —
despite the Constitutional amendment they shoved past the voters
under a now-undeniable false premise —
that it would "prohibit legislators from voting themselves
across-the-board pay raises." How they plan to circumvent that
amendment of their own design and sales pitch is beyond me.
But unfortunately lately, too much that we once
believed as sacrosanct constitutional has been ignored when
inconvenient, relegated to history's dustbin until and unless we the
citizens rise up.
Meanwhile, another case of lame-duck government
is showing its darkest side, much like it did in 1995 when
legislators voted to hike their pay by 55%. Now it's outgoing
(at long last!) Gov. Deval Patrick, who is packing the eternal,
ever-expanding bureaucracy with his choices before the new,
Republican — Charlie Baker
— has a chance to be sworn in, never
mind pick his own administrators. This is after Gov. Patrick
made many if not all of those positions subject to him "granting 500
managers union representation, shielding them from any Baker
house-cleaning."
At the same time, outgoing (yea!) Gov. Patrick is
"pushing $66 million in local aid cuts" to balance his unbalanced
budget.
It appears — like
Mini-Me's joined-at-the-hip mentor, Mr. President Barack Hussein
Obama — he intends to take down what he
was elected to administer before stepping out and leaving us mere
taxpaying citizens behind, to fend for ourselves in his backwash.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 20, 2014
State’s political leaders up for pay raises
By Frank Phillips
Beacon Hill officials, eyeing the possible use of the lame duck
Legislature, are poised to give significant pay raises to the
governor, other elected constitutional officers, and House and
Senate leaders.
The pay hikes could boost top legislative leaders well beyond their
current $102,000 in total compensation. It could also give increased
cost-of-living raises to rank and file lawmakers, and raise the
governor’s salary more than $25,000.
The push for the increases began last summer when legislative
leaders used a little noticed budget rider to create a special
advisory commission on compensation. Proponents argue that the top
officials’ salaries lag far behind those of the employees they
manage and are far less than comparable private-sector wages.
The governor, for instance, earns a salary of $151,800, less than
the pay of his Cabinet members, state judges, and those who run the
university systems — by $20,000 or more. The attorney general is
paid $130,582, $40,000 a year less than what district attorneys
make.
“I think it is indefensible from a management perspective that the
CEO of a $36.5 billion institution earns less than his
direct-reports,’’ said Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission
and dean of the University of Massachusetts/Boston’s McCormick
Graduate School of Policy & Global Studies.
The pay for constitutional officers in Massachusetts is higher than
in most states, but less than in some comparable states, according
to the commission’s preliminary findings. The governor of
Pennsylvania, for instance, earns $187,818. The governor of New York
earns $179,000. The governor of Michigan is paid $159,300.
The Massachusetts secretary of state is paid $130,262. That’s less
than in Pennsylvania ($135,228) and Florida ($140,000) but more than
in New York ($120,800) and Connecticut ($110,000).
The commission — which has not yet reached final conclusions — must
publicly release its recommendations by Dec. 1. But if lawmakers
don’t approve the plan before the end of the 2013-14 legislative
session, state conflict-of-interest laws could block implementation
of the pay hikes for two to four years.
To avoid such a delay, House and Senate leaders, who have a personal
stake in the outcome, could push for a vote on a salary increase
plan before Jan. 7.
Here’s why the timing is critical: State law prohibits public
officials from participating in matters in which they have a
financial interest in the “reasonably foreseeable” future. But if
the raises for House speaker and Senate president are approved
before the end of the current session — and before the 2015-16
speaker and president are officially elected by their colleagues —
the incoming officials could have access to the increases.
Likewise, the cost-of-living raises for rank-and-file lawmakers
might be delayed unless they’re approved this session.
The issue is particularly important for House Speaker Robert DeLeo
and incoming Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, both of whom could
see significant pay hikes.
And for DeLeo, the value of his state pension is on the line. House
rules that dictate an eight-year term for a speaker bars him from
serving another term after the 2015-16 session. Pensions are based
on state employees’ top three earning years.
But getting approval this year could be a problem. The Legislature,
by its own rules, has suspended formal sessions for the year. The
leaders could call lawmakers back for a special formal meeting, but
that would be unusual.
One alternative would be to use the informal sessions that meet
twice a week. But, under those rules, a single lawmaker is able to
put a hold on any consideration of a matter.
Legislators do plan a return to the State House in mid-December,
when departing legislators have a chance to make farewell speeches.
Those informal House and Senate sessions could be converted to
formal sessions with a quick bang of the gavel, where roll call
votes can be taken. The leadership could also use the excuse of
calling back lawmakers to vote on budget cuts just submitted by
Governor Deval Patrick.
DeLeo’s spokesman Seth Gitell said the speaker would not comment on
the timing of any legislative action. He also said DeLeo wants to
review the final recommendations before commenting.
The seven-member compensation panel, whose existence and work had
gained little notice despite several public hearings, was also
charged by the legislative leadership to consider a change in
biannual cost of living raises for rank and file legislators that,
if adopted, would give them a $4,000 raise — larger than one set by
the current system, which has been controversial.
If the new formula is approved, lawmakers could get a raise to
$63,994 this January above their current $60,032 salaries.
A preliminary report issued the day after the Nov. 4 election makes
it clear that the panel is indeed charged with building a case for
significant upward adjustments.
For example, the Legislature directed the group to compare public
salaries to private sector pay for managers of similar enterprises.
The preliminary report repeatedly cites the large discrepancy
between elected officers holders and those they oversee.
For example, it clearly hints that the salaries of the House speaker
and Senate president could be raised by more than 50 percent. It
cites the “enormous authority” each positions wields and notes that
their annual pay is only 67 percent of the governor’s $151,800
salary. It even cites a 2008 “advisory board” recommendation to pay
them $159,000 each.
Comparing their salaries to the chairman of the boards of similarly
sized enterprises, the commission report claims the Senate president
and House speaker earn only 15 percent of the average $664,964.
The Official Massachusetts Information for
Voters booklet
The 1998 Ballot Questions
Published by William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth
Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution
A YES vote would prohibit state legislators from changing their base
pay and instead would adjust that pay according to changes in median
household income.
SUMMARY: This proposed constitutional amendment would
prohibit the state Legislature from changing the base compensation
received by members of the Legislature as of January 1, 1996.
As of the first Wednesday in January of 2001, and every second year
thereafter, the base compensation would be increased or decreased at
the same rate as increases or decreases in the median household
income for the Commonwealth for the preceding new year period, as
ascertained by the Governor.
IN FAVOR: A "Yes" vote would change the state constitution to
prohibit legislators from voting to increase their base salaries.
It would freeze these salaries until the year 2001 and then
legislators' salaries would be tied to the increase or decrease in
the median income in Massachusetts. It would also remove
legislators from the awkward and inherently controversial practice
of voting for their own pay levels.
If the median household income increases, then legislator's pay
would increase by that same rate. If the median household income
decreases, legislator's salaries would decrease by that same rate.
The salaries of legislators — just like
the salaries of everyone else — will be
tied to the economy.
A "Yes" vote will prohibit legislators from voting themselves
across-the-board pay raises.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Lame-duck hiring spree feared
By Matt Stout
Hundreds of vacant state jobs have been posted since Election Day —
including dozens of high-level positions in Gov. Deval Patrick’s
lame-duck administration — raising suspicions the departing
Democrats might stage a hiring party before Republican Gov.-elect
Charlie Baker takes office.
“What I hope is not happening is that the administration is packing
positions as to preclude the new administration from having the
discretion and option of picking the people that they trust and
want,” said Greg Sullivan, a former inspector general now at the
Pioneer Institute.
“The government has to operate and it has to perform essential
functions no matter who is in the Corner Office. But I don’t think
it’s in the public interest for the outgoing administration to be
locking people into some of these jobs.”
The state’s Human Resources Division has advertised 325 jobs since
Nov. 4, pushing the total number of vacancies, as of last night, to
just over 500 statewide as the state faces a $325 million budget
shortfall that Patrick is working to fill. Baker’s spokesman
declined to comment on the postings.
The positions range from clerical work at state agencies to adjunct
professorships at state colleges, and even a chaplaincy in the
Department of Correction. But 31 were for jobs identified as
administrators or managers. They include:
• Chief Technology Officer in the state’s IT division, a
$140,000-per-year job inside MassIT, the state’s lead tech agency,
and according to the post, the hire will “lead ... the technology
direction for the Commonwealth”;
• Director of Program Integrity at the Department of Children and
Families, one of at least seven open administrator posts at the
embattled agency that could command up to $100,000 annually;
• A $127,000-a-year post on the Sex Offender Registry Board, where
Patrick earlier this year fired the chairwoman;
• And a $116,800-a-year post as Director of the Division of Sexually
Transmitted Disease at DPH, which officials will begin interviews
for after removing the job posting this week.
Administration and Finance spokeswoman Alex Zaroulis said the number
of jobs posted each year is in the thousands. In 2013, 4,714 were
advertised. But with six weeks left this year, the state already has
logged nearly 5,200, a 10-percent jump over last year.
“With transition in full swing following this year’s election, it is
natural for there to be a substantial amount of turnover within
state government,” Zaroulis said.
A&F oversees MassIT, and Zaroulis said that while officials are
reviewing resumes, there is no timetable to fill the chief
technology officer role.
Officials at other agencies similarly indicated they have no
timeline to fill jobs.
The posting spike comes as Patrick separately is granting 500
managers union representation, shielding them from any Baker
house-cleaning.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Deval Patrick plans to slash $66M from aid to cities, towns
By Matt Stout
Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing $66 million in local aid cuts, a
proposal that has municipal leaders howling.
Others note the Legislature’s unwillingness to act on the cuts could
effectively kick a looming budget shortfall down the road to
incoming Gov. Charlie Baker.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones called Patrick’s proposal a
“non-starter” for House Republicans, adding he doesn’t see the
Legislature “embracing” the bill in its remaining informal sessions
this year. Andrew Bagley of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
noted lawmakers have “never historically decided to go for” cuts to
local aid.
If the Legislature doesn’t act, and given all pending bills die once
the next governor takes the reins, any necessary cuts, to local aid
or otherwise, would then fall to Baker, who a spokesman last night
said “hopes local aid is the last place the Legislature would ever
look to for cuts.”
“Massachusetts cities and towns deserve a dependable source of
funding for crucial projects,” Baker spokesman Tim Buckley said. “As
the transition process continues, Gov.-elect Baker looks forward to
developing a responsible budget that delivers the services the
people of Massachusetts need and protects taxpayers.”
To address a predicted $329 million gap, Patrick said yesterday he
is cutting $198 million from the executive branch and wants the
Legislature to approve millions more in cuts elsewhere, including
$25.5 million in aid to cities and towns. Geoff Beckwith, executive
director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, noted Patrick’s
unilateral cuts include another $40.3 million that directly hits
communities.
“The administration say they are not touching Chapter 70 aid,”
Beckwith said, referring to the name for local school aid. “However,
most of the $40 million in cuts to communities comes out of the
funding promised to local schools. ... The state’s budget problem,
under the governor’s plan, would lead directly to 351 budget
problems in every city and town hall and school district across the
state.”
Jones questioned why Patrick didn’t consider a hiring freeze to cut
costs, noting a Herald story yesterday that highlighted some 500
open positions around state government, including dozens of
administrator jobs.
“We have, what with six weeks left of the current administration?”
Jones said. “Hiring maybe should be left to the next administration
after all to avoid any political chicanery.”
Glen Shor, Patrick’s secretary of Administration and Finance, said
the state approached all cuts with a “balanced and thoughtful
approach,” and called on lawmakers to act “fairly soon.”
“We don’t have an alternative solution,” he said.
|
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|