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
Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Out with the old, in with the new


Citizens for Limited Taxation, which faces fiscal problems of its own, continues to be in the forefront of efforts to block changes to the state’s property tax limitation law, Proposition 2˝, which it says would impose an unfair burden on homeowners....

CLT is hoping the election of Charlie Baker will help discourage Democratic initiatives to pad government payrolls via tax increases.

The Salem News
Friday, December 12, 2014
Fighting the fight for Prop. 2˝
By Nelson Benton


November tax collections were strong enough to trip the trigger requiring the state income tax rate to drop to 5.15 percent from 5.2 percent on Jan. 1, 2015.

The Department of Revenue on Wednesday reported collecting $1.59 billion in taxes in November, a 1.5 percent increase over last November....

Massachusetts voters in 2000 passed an initiative petition calling for a 5 percent income tax rate. Rate reduction efforts were frozen in 2002, when a set of triggers was adopted to guide further rate cuts.

Over the first five months of fiscal 2015, tax collections are up 2.7 percent over the same period in fiscal 2014. The state budget signed by Patrick in July calls for a 5.6 percent increase in spending....

Reacting to the income tax cut, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center noted Patrick's recent spending cuts to school transportation, job training, health care, and "other investments that support and strengthen our people and our economy." Center officials said the income tax reduction was a reason for the spending reductions.

"While our Commonwealth could be making investments to expand opportunity for all of our children and improve lives in our communities, this automatic tax cut will primarily benefit the wealthy and it will likely force cuts in education, transportation, and other investments in our people and our economy," MassBudget President Noah Berger said in a statement.

State House News Service
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Mass. residents to get New Year's income tax cut


The first couple of days after the news broke about the state legislative commission and its proposed fat pay raises for top officials, there was something some of us were expecting to hear but didn't: How do pay raises for lawmakers square with the state constitution?

I'm no constitutional scholar and you probably aren't one, either. But if you lived in Massachusetts and paid attention and voted in 1998, you were aware that Ballot Question 1 came with a promise: Write this amendment into the Constitution, and we the Legislature will stop sneaking around when we decide we want to pay ourselves more money....

As it happens, Barbara Anderson, [president] of Citizens for Limited Taxation, was doing a not-so-slow burn as I was. She was as surprised by the commission's recommendations as anyone.

"It is so bizarre. I wrote my column about it," she told me. "I don't even know where to start. The timing. Whose bright idea was this? Who are these geniuses who think that Massachusetts suffers from a lack of a governor's mansion?"

Naturally Citizens for Limited Taxation fired off memos to the Legislature and governor pointing out the clear language of the Constitution and vowing to file a lawsuit if this ever passes.

Fact is, the constitutional amendment has actually been doing what it was supposed to do, raise, and sometimes lower, legislative pay, tracking median household income without rancorous debate.

Leave it alone.

The New Bedford Standard-Times
Thursday, December 4, 2013
Who remembers the state constitution?
By Steve Urbon


Do you deserve a raise? Well of course you do. And if asked, surely you could come up with 10 or more reasons why you aren’t paid enough.

Better yet, why not ask a buddy to put the reasons together for you, write it up in a big report and then have your buddy submit it to the payroll clerk? Now that would be better — makes it look like your fingerprints aren’t on it ... even though everyone knows that they are.

That’s the charade that played out this week, as a blue-ribbon panel released a report arguing that our top legislators and elected officials deserve handsome pay raises. Just like the rest of us, they are woefully underpaid.

But unlike the rest of us, they can do an end-run around the real bosses — the taxpayers — and simply get the House members and senators in the Legislature to do the dirty work....

The timing of this report reminds us of a nasty old habit here in our state. Massachusetts lawmakers have a notorious way of rewarding themselves with fat raises shortly after elections are over and it’s relatively safe to incur the public’s wrath. Longtime followers of state politics may recall one of the worst examples — the 55 percent pay raise that lawmakers gave themselves in 1995, shortly after the 1994 election had been decided. It caused a furor among taxpayers, many of whom were still having a hard time making ends meet in the wake of the collapse of the “Massachusetts Miracle” economy. Lawmakers shrewdly reasoned that the furor would be forgotten by the time the 1996 election was held, and they were right.

A Salem News editorial
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
A poorly timed pay raise proposal


An advisory commission is recommending pay increases for all the top elected state officials in Massachusetts, including hefty hikes in the salaries for the governor, the House speaker and Senate president. A fiscal watchdog is critical. Legislators have reacted cautiously....

Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, blasted the panel’s proposals.

"My first reaction is you've got to be kidding me. In the middle of a budget deficit half way through the fiscal year when the governor is talking about cutting local aid?"

Pointing to this year’s race for governor, Anderson scoffed at the suggestion that a higher salary was needed to attract talented people.

"There were what ten people who ran in the primaries. These people not only want to run, they leave jobs with higher salaries to run, leave secure jobs to run."

WAMC - Northeast Public Radio
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Big Pay Hikes Proposed For Top Elected State Officials


Departing Senate President Therese Murray suggested Thursday evening that the state Legislature will not approve controversial pay hikes for the governor, top lawmakers, and other statewide elected officials this year.

“The Senate can’t act unless the House does, and I don’t see that there’s a movement to do that,” she said, speaking to reporters after delivering her farewell speech in the Senate chamber.

The comments come amid growing unease on Beacon Hill about passing the increases as the state cuts funding for environmental protection and mental-health services to close a budget shortfall of at least $329 million....

The Legislature could approve pay raises when it reconvenes next year, but some of them might not take effect until the session that begins in 2017....

Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission, acknowledged this week that pay raises for elected officials are controversial. But he said they were justified based on the officials’ responsibilities, compensation in other states, and the pay offered to private sector executives.

The Boston Globe
Friday, December 5, 2014
State Senate president suggests pay raise vote unlikely this year


Last week we learned that House Speaker Robert DeLeo had dished out 6 percent across-the-board raises to 459 House staffers, even as he and his colleagues are staring into a $329 million hole in the state budget. Turns out the Senate has been doing some pay “adjustments” of its own.

Senate President Therese Murray’s office didn’t provide the Herald with comprehensive numbers for salary increases provided to individual senators’ staffers, which Murray must approve (hey, who needs transparency?). But the Herald reported on some individual beneficiaries....

Now, it’s important to acknowledge that these salary hikes came before news broke of the budget deficit. In some cases the added pay really does reflect added responsibility. In our view DeLeo’s decision to jack up the entire House staff’s salary — with full *knowledge* of the budget deficit — was far more problematic.

Still, it’s important for taxpayers to understand the nitty gritty details of taxpayer-funded compensation, since the perpetual cry on Beacon Hill is that it isn’t nearly enough.

A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Hey, it’s just money...


Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, has a different opinion. She told Beacon Hill Roll Call, "The Massachusetts constitution allows rank-and-file legislators’ pay to increase with median household income. The commission's report changes 'median household income' to another determinant, which would allow a higher increase for legislators; but the change would require a constitutional amendment, which couldn’t be approved by voters until 2018."

Beacon Hill Roll Call
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Legislature's selected commission says politicians should get big pay hikes


There's a glimmer of good news in the recent recommendation by a special advisory commission to boost salaries paid to the governor and other top public officials: the findings were released in the full light of day, with two public hearings and online access to the study explaining the recommendations.

Transparency is welcome. But it doesn’t change the optics or the bottom line. This is not the right time to raise salaries — not when the state faces a $329 million budget shortfall and many Massachusetts families still face uncertain economic times....

The state’s conflict of interest law prohibits public employees from participating in matters that affect their own financial interest. To avoid that problem, the commission’s proposals would have to be passed by the current lame duck Legislature, to take effect in January when new officials are sworn in. According to departing Senate President Therese Murray, it’s unlikely that will happen, given the controversy stirred up by the commission’s suggestions.

“The Senate can’t act unless the House does, and I don’t see that there’s a movement to do that,” said Murray, after delivering her farewell speech in the Senate chamber.

This is one time legislative inaction is the preferred outcome.

A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
With Mass. facing budget gap, it’s not the time to raise salaries


Criticism of the recent report by a nonpartisan commission calling for reforms and overdue increases in compensation for public leaders focuses on two main points: the terrible timing against a backdrop of budget cuts and the contention that salary increases aren’t necessary to attract talented individuals to public service. As members of the commission, we want to address these two challenges head-on, and highlight several points that did not receive much public attention....

While any recommendation to increase compensation for state leaders is controversial, especially in a tough fiscal climate, the commission believes these increases, coupled with the adoption of major reforms, should be considered and debated seriously.

For democracy to work so that average citizens can be civic leaders, conversations around the adequacy of public compensation need to take place in the open, as we have tried to do, and with regularity. It may not be an easy conversation, but for our government to work effectively and honestly, this is just the kind of mature discourse that is needed.

The Boston Globe
Friday, December 26, 2014
Increase pay for public office holders
By Ira Jackson and Cathy Minehan


As they grapple with budget problems in the dying days of the Patrick administration, aides to the governor are also busy trying to calculate an adjustment in the base pay for lawmakers....

Under the constitution, Patrick must rule by the first Wednesday in January of odd-numbered years - Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015 - the day before Charlie Baker is sworn in as his successor, on the size of pay adjustments for the 200 members of the state Legislature.

The constitution requires that the base compensation of lawmakers "be increased or decreased at the same rate as increases or decreases in the median household income for the commonwealth for the preceding two year period, as ascertained by the governor."

Administration officials declined to discuss their approach to the upcoming adjustment in legislative base pay, or the timing of their announcement, noting only that an adjustment must be made by the first Wednesday in January, or Jan. 7, 2015....

"Legislative pay has long been a source of controversy on Beacon Hill; before 1998, it was determined by lawmakers themselves," the commission, chaired by former state revenue commissioner Ira Jackson, said in a preliminary report. "A public furor followed passage of the infamous 'Halloween' pay raise of 1980, when lawmakers approved a $1,800 pay raise during an Oct. 31 session."

That increase was later overturned through a referendum.

State House News Service
Monday, December 29, 2014
Patrick expected to adjust base pay of lawmakers


Gov.-elect Charlie Baker is throwing cold water on a Beacon Hill push to hike the pay for state lawmakers, saying the “timing isn’t right” for a raise considering the new administration is inheriting a huge hole in the budget from lame-duck Gov. Deval Patrick....

“It surely is going to go up. The question is how much,” Michael Widmer, outgoing president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said of lawmakers’ pay, which is tied to median household income under a 1998 constitutional amendment but is left to the governor to determine....

One indicator Patrick has used — the U.S. Census’s American Community Survey — is updated only through 2013, and to help fill in the gap for 2014, his office could turn to state wage data, as he has before....

But Patrick could use an entirely different method, like the one proposed by the committee studying state pay that included Widmer. It urged moving to federal data that would bump lawmakers’ pay by 6.6 percent, or nearly $4,000 a year.

The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Baker decries raises for state lawmakers
Deval to boost payday before he leaves office


Could there be some behind-the-scenes deal-making in the works?

Beacon Hill salaries have been of course a matter of some controversy in recent months. Under the state Constitution the governor every two years must calculate any change in median family [sic household] income, then base salaries for lawmakers are adjusted accordingly. But hanging over that task this year is a report from a very “special” commission that recently called for jacking up salaries for many of the top brass....

But even that modest change would require amending the Constitution....

The current leadership on Beacon Hill didn’t exactly throw cold water on the idea of adopting some of the salary recommendations in the lame-duck session that ends next week. It would be a long-shot, yes, but it’s remarkable what power a deal that is made attractive to all parties (well, except the taxpayers) can have.

But a naked money grab when few are paying attention — and when there’s a hole in the state budget that keeps getting bigger — would be an affront to the taxpayers. Just in case anyone has any ideas.

A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
It pays to be transparent


Chip Ford's CLT Commentary

As 2014 fades into the rearview mirror, so far the Legislature has not yet acted to unconstitutionally hike its own base pay — but out-going Governor Patrick may do it for them in the week ahead.  If any pay raise for Legislators is based on anything but "median household income" it will be illegal, a direct violation of the state constitution.

But Patrick could use an entirely different method, like the one proposed by the committee studying state pay that included Widmer. It urged moving to federal data that would bump lawmakers’ pay by 6.6 percent, or nearly $4,000 a year.

Of course our out-going governor has "a pen and a phone" too, like his mentor who has no regard whatsoever for constitutions, limitations on executive power, or the rule of law.

The good news is that the twenty-five year old "temporary" state income tax increase is about to be reduced, albeit only by another five one-hundredths of one percent.  The Best Legislature Money Can Buy gave voters the middle-finger Beacon Hill salute in 2002 and "froze" the voting majority's 2000 rollback mandate.  At least the rate is moving — glacially slowly — in the right direction .

Even this miniscule rollback galls the Gimme Lobby to no end.

"While our Commonwealth could be making investments to expand opportunity for all of our children and improve lives in our communities, this automatic tax cut will primarily benefit the wealthy and it will likely force cuts in education, transportation, and other investments in our people and our economy," MassBudget President Noah Berger said in a statement.

This fiscal year's (FY2015) budget, passed in July, was a 5.6 percent increase over last year's (CLT Update — Jul. 5, 2014 — "New state budget increases spending by $2.5 billion").

Gov. Deval Patrick last month cited the income tax cut, worth $70 million this fiscal year, as well as underperforming non-tax revenues and the challenge of paying for a job creation law passed last summer as reasons for opening up the $36.5 billion budget and making spending cuts.

My goodness, the poor state.  Keeping a quarter-century old broken promise with an occasional five one-hundredths of one percent reduction is breaking its financial back.  $70 million out of a $36.5 billion budget of relentless overspending is just so cruel to that Gimme Lobby, so selfish and uncaring of us greedy taxpayers!

The state should never have had that $70 million and multi-millions more of our money to play with and spend.  With the overwhelming passage of CLT's ballot question #4 in 2000, the rate was supposed to be rolled back to 5 percent by 2004a decade ago.

Happy New Year!

Chip Ford


 

The Salem News
Friday, December 12, 2014

Fighting the fight for Prop. 2˝
By Nelson Benton


Citizens for Limited Taxation, which faces fiscal problems of its own, continues to be in the forefront of efforts to block changes to the state’s property tax limitation law, Proposition 2˝, which it says would impose an unfair burden on homeowners.

Certainly those in Peabody, Beverly and other North Shore communities who have seen their tax bills increase recently in spite of the voter-mandated limits, might agree.

Writing in a recent newspaper back-and-forth with Melrose Mayor Robert Dolan, longtime CLT director (and fellow Salem News columnist) Barbara Anderson of Marblehead rightly noted, “Along with cutting/limiting property taxes, Prop 2˝ encouraged the sharing of state revenues with cities and towns. Unfortunately, too much of that local aid windfall was negotiated away to public employee unions, providing extraordinary benefits, which is why some communities now carry unfunded pension and health insurance liabilities. This problem shouldn’t be solved with tax hikes on other working people who struggle to pay their own retirement and health insurance”

CLT is hoping the election of Charlie Baker will help discourage Democratic initiatives to pad government payrolls via tax increases.


State House News Service
Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Mass. residents to get New Year's income tax cut
By Michael Norton


November tax collections were strong enough to trip the trigger requiring the state income tax rate to drop to 5.15 percent from 5.2 percent on Jan. 1, 2015.

The Department of Revenue on Wednesday reported collecting $1.59 billion in taxes in November, a 1.5 percent increase over last November.

Tax collections missed the monthly benchmark by $9 million and are trailing the fiscal 2015 benchmark by just over $40 million.

Gov. Deval Patrick last month cited the income tax cut, worth $70 million this fiscal year, as well as underperforming non-tax revenues and the challenge of paying for a job creation law passed last summer as reasons for opening up the $36.5 billion budget and making spending cuts.

Patrick slashed $198 million in spending unilaterally and asked lawmakers to pass other spending cuts. Legislative leaders have not taken action on his proposal, while taking a dim view of his call to reduce local aid to cities and towns by more than $25 million.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Brian Dempsey told the News Service Wednesday that he hopes to advance a budget-balancing bill through the House during December's lightly attended informal sessions and before Governor-elect Charles Baker takes office in January. Dempsey said he is actively examining a corporate tax amnesty program recommended by House Minority Leader Brad Jones and is still reviewing Patrick's plan for spending cuts at state departments.

Massachusetts voters in 2000 passed an initiative petition calling for a 5 percent income tax rate. Rate reduction efforts were frozen in 2002, when a set of triggers was adopted to guide further rate cuts.

Over the first five months of fiscal 2015, tax collections are up 2.7 percent over the same period in fiscal 2014. The state budget signed by Patrick in July calls for a 5.6 percent increase in spending.

Revenue Commissioner Amy Pitter reported Wednesday that tax refunds in November were greater than expected while sales, corporate and business tax collections were lower than expected. Withholding collections were strong, revenue officials said, and individual estimated tax payments were better than expected.

A two-month tax amnesty program that allowed delinquent taxpayers to pay up without paying penalties ended on October 31, and revenue officials are preliminarily estimating $57 million in payments made in connection with that program.

Reacting to the income tax cut, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center noted Patrick's recent spending cuts to school transportation, job training, health care, and "other investments that support and strengthen our people and our economy." Center officials said the income tax reduction was a reason for the spending reductions.

"While our Commonwealth could be making investments to expand opportunity for all of our children and improve lives in our communities, this automatic tax cut will primarily benefit the wealthy and it will likely force cuts in education, transportation, and other investments in our people and our economy," MassBudget President Noah Berger said in a statement.


The New Bedford Standard-Times
Thursday, December 4, 2013

Who remembers the state constitution?
By Steve Urbon


The first couple of days after the news broke about the state legislative commission and its proposed fat pay raises for top officials, there was something some of us were expecting to hear but didn't: How do pay raises for lawmakers square with the state constitution?

I'm no constitutional scholar and you probably aren't one, either. But if you lived in Massachusetts and paid attention and voted in 1998, you were aware that Ballot Question 1 came with a promise: Write this amendment into the Constitution, and we the Legislature will stop sneaking around when we decide we want to pay ourselves more money.

The amendment passed easily, with 60 percent of the voters apparently persuaded that the Legislature really wanted to be kept away from temptation and wouldn't play tricks to get more money. It was time to try this because recent years had been shameful.

Starting in late 1979, the Legislature had craftily awarded itself pay raises on several occasions. But in 1994 they really outdid themselves, passing, with Gov. William Weld's blessing, a 55 percent pay raise. And they did it in a lame-duck session like the one we have now, just to add insult to injury.

That was about it. The ill will didn't dissipate and lawsuits to block the raises had failed. So along came the constitutional amendment, and we the people bought it.

It was a simple, small paragraph, and the voters guide spelled out what it would do:

"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."

The median household income, which is determined by the census after a lag of a year or two. That's what it calls for. No wiggle room.

Except that the pay raise commission suggested a new formula, using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to measure the quarterly change in salaries and wages in Massachusetts for the most recent eight quarters. Calculated that way, lawmakers' pay would have increased by $4,000 last year, instead of dropping by 1.8 percent.

That can't be legal, can it? I asked.

As it happens, Barbara Anderson, [president] of Citizens for Limited Taxation, was doing a not-so-slow burn as I was. She was as surprised by the commission's recommendations as anyone.

"It is so bizarre. I wrote my column about it," she told me. "I don't even know where to start. The timing. Whose bright idea was this? Who are these geniuses who think that Massachusetts suffers from a lack of a governor's mansion?"

Naturally Citizens for Limited Taxation fired off memos to the Legislature and governor pointing out the clear language of the Constitution and vowing to file a lawsuit if this ever passes.

Fact is, the constitutional amendment has actually been doing what it was supposed to do, raise, and sometimes lower, legislative pay, tracking median household income without rancorous debate.

Leave it alone.


The Salem News
Wednesday, December 3, 2014

A Salem News editorial
A poorly timed pay raise proposal


Do you deserve a raise? Well of course you do. And if asked, surely you could come up with 10 or more reasons why you aren’t paid enough.

Better yet, why not ask a buddy to put the reasons together for you, write it up in a big report and then have your buddy submit it to the payroll clerk? Now that would be better — makes it look like your fingerprints aren’t on it ... even though everyone knows that they are.

That’s the charade that played out this week, as a blue-ribbon panel released a report arguing that our top legislators and elected officials deserve handsome pay raises. Just like the rest of us, they are woefully underpaid.

But unlike the rest of us, they can do an end-run around the real bosses — the taxpayers — and simply get the House members and senators in the Legislature to do the dirty work.

The report, written by a committee chaired by University of Massachusetts dean Ira Jackson, argues that the governor deserves a $250,000 annual salary, which is a nice bump up from the paltry $151,000 he currently makes. Included in that $250,000 salary is a $65,000 housing allowance. Massachusetts is one of only five states that doesn’t have an executive mansion, and thus the supposed reason why we need one — or at least a housing allowance.

People in Massachusetts have never taken a particular liking to housing their governors, or to executive mansions. Just ask Thomas Hutchinson, a lieutenant governor who build a magnificent mansion for himself and proceeded to make some politically unpopular decisions in the parlor. He managed to bolt out the door just as the angry mob bashed its way in, trashed the house and even tore the fancy cupola off the roof. That was in 1765, when Massachusetts politics was a little more rambunctious than today. Still, we Bay Staters have never had a particular liking for gubernatorial digs — there have been numerous attempts since the 1850s to buy one or build one, and they’ve all failed. So the blue ribbon committee came up with a clever way to get around this political hot potato.

Under the blue ribbon commission’s recommendations, various other elected officials would also be in for substantial raises. Among them would be the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, who would see their salaries grow to $175,000, a 72 percent raise. Well now, that would take some serious hoot-spa to walk into the boss’ office and say it’s time to cough up a 72 percent raise at the same time that the boss needs to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from programs for the poor, school kids, and various others who don’t have a very high seat at the table.

The self-serving report pays little heed to the political realities of state government. One of the most obvious is the fact that none of our recent governors has had a hard time scratching up money to pay the rent and the household bills. Indeed, we’ve had a long string of well-heeled governors, and none of them has griped about the pay. The governors office attracts job applicants who have interests beyond the paycheck.

The timing of this report reminds us of a nasty old habit here in our state. Massachusetts lawmakers have a notorious way of rewarding themselves with fat raises shortly after elections are over and it’s relatively safe to incur the public’s wrath. Longtime followers of state politics may recall one of the worst examples — the 55 percent pay raise that lawmakers gave themselves in 1995, shortly after the 1994 election had been decided. It caused a furor among taxpayers, many of whom were still having a hard time making ends meet in the wake of the collapse of the “Massachusetts Miracle” economy. Lawmakers shrewdly reasoned that the furor would be forgotten by the time the 1996 election was held, and they were right.


WAMC Northeast Public Radio
Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Big Pay Hikes Proposed For Top Elected State Officials
By Paul Tuthill


An advisory commission is recommending pay increases for all the top elected state officials in Massachusetts, including hefty hikes in the salaries for the governor, the House speaker and Senate president. A fiscal watchdog is critical. Legislators have reacted cautiously.

The panel’s proposal, if adopted, would make the Massachusetts governor the second highest paid nationally — behind Pennsylvania — raising the annual salary from the current $151,800 to $185,000. There is also a recommendation for a $65,000 housing allowance for the governor.

The two top legislative leaders would become the highest paid in the country, with salaries jumping from $102,279 to $175,000. Pay hikes are also recommended for the lieutenant governor, attorney general, treasurer, secretary of state, and auditor.

Ira Jackson, the chairman of the commission, said the recommendations are based on a review of the responsibilities of each elected official, along with comparisons with other states and with top executives in the private sector.

"We find that the compensation for the governor in particular is inadequate."

The panel estimated the net annual cost of the proposals would be just under $1 million, and Jackson said that should be easily absorbed into the state’s $36 billion budget with no additional burden on taxpayers.

"We propose that if the legislature embraces our recommendations that there be a statutory requirement that mandates( the officials) all identify how they will save the increases in their salaries in their office budgets and the legislature similarly. There would have to be a public accounting."

He stressed the panel’s proposals include reforms such as a ban on the House speaker and Senate president earning outside income except from investments and an elimination of per diem reimbursements for legislators to commute to the State House from their homes.

Jackson, who is dean of the McCormack Graduate School at UMass Boston, acknowledges that public sector pay raises are controversial.

"We don't think this should be ignored. We are going to build up more inequities and we will preclude the kind of talent we need and want in a democracy," said Jackson.

Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, blasted the panel’s proposals.

"My first reaction is you've got to be kidding me. In the middle of a budget deficit half way through the fiscal year when the governor is talking about cutting local aid?"

Pointing to this year’s race for governor, Anderson scoffed at the suggestion that a higher salary was needed to attract talented people.

"There were what ten people who ran in the primaries. These people not only want to run, they leave jobs with higher salaries to run, leave secure jobs to run."

A spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo said the compensation panel’s report is being reviewed. Likewise, a statement from Senate President Therese Murray offered no clue on where she stands on the recommendations.

Democratic State Rep. Angelo Puppolo of Springfield concedes it is a not a good time to talk about pay raises when the state is facing a large projected budget deficit requiring mid-fiscal year spending cuts.

"Timing-wise I think it is not the best time to do this."

The lame duck legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick would have to act on the commission’s recommendations before January or the raises could not take effect for years because of the state’s conflict-of-interest law. Governor-elect Charlie Baker said he would veto a pay raise bill.


The Boston Globe
Friday, December 5, 2014

State Senate president suggests pay raise vote unlikely this year
By David Scharfenberg


Departing Senate President Therese Murray suggested Thursday evening that the state Legislature will not approve controversial pay hikes for the governor, top lawmakers, and other statewide elected officials this year.

“The Senate can’t act unless the House does, and I don’t see that there’s a movement to do that,” she said, speaking to reporters after delivering her farewell speech in the Senate chamber.

The comments come amid growing unease on Beacon Hill about passing the increases as the state cuts funding for environmental protection and mental-health services to close a budget shortfall of at least $329 million.

Governor-elect Charlie Baker and Attorney General-elect Maura Healey have come out against the proposed salary hikes. And three sitting, statewide elected officials have offered only tempered support, suggesting more modest increases or hikes phased in over time.

A salary advisory commission established by the Legislature released its recommendations for the pay increases Monday.

The panel suggested boosting the governor’s annual pay from $151,800 to $185,000, the attorney general’s salary from $130,582 to $175,000, and the Senate president’s and House speaker’s compensation from $102,279 to $175,000.

If adopted, the increases would make the Massachusetts governor the second-highest paid in the nation, after Pennsylvania. The legislative leaders would be the best-paid in the country, according to the commission’s report.

Lawmakers would probably have to pass increases before the end of the year if they were to take effect for the new class of statewide officials and legislators taking office in January.

But winning approval for the hikes this month would be difficult even without substantial political headwinds. The Legislature is in informal sessions until the end of the year. And a single lawmaker has the power to block legislation.

If legislative leaders gavel in a formal session in December, the proposed increases would stand a better chance of passage. But Murray, speaking on an unrelated question, said “there will not be a formal session” this month.

The Legislature could approve pay raises when it reconvenes next year, but some of them might not take effect until the session that begins in 2017.

Murray, who is leaving the Legislature, would not benefit from any pay hikes approved this month. But House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo would see a substantial raise. And the increase would have a long-term impact on his pension, which is calculated based on his top three earning years.

DeLeo released a statement earlier this week thanking the advisory commission for its work and saying “the report will now be reviewed.” A spokesman for the House speaker declined to offer any new comments Thursday.

Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission, acknowledged this week that pay raises for elected officials are controversial. But he said they were justified based on the officials’ responsibilities, compensation in other states, and the pay offered to private sector executives.

The panel estimated that its proposed hikes, which also would cover the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, and auditor, would have a yearly net cost of about $934,000, out of a total state budget of more than $36 billion.

Murray, in her remarks to reporters Thursday, indicated that she has an idea of what she will do when she leaves office. But she said she will not reveal her intentions until January, when the new class of lawmakers is sworn in.

Her future plans have been a subject of speculation for months on Beacon Hill.


The Boston Herald
Saturday, December 6, 2014

A Boston Herald editorial
Hey, it’s just money...


The next time an elected official laments the plight of the underpaid Beacon Hill staffer, we implore taxpayers to remember this moment.

Last week we learned that House Speaker Robert DeLeo had dished out 6 percent across-the-board raises to 459 House staffers, even as he and his colleagues are staring into a $329 million hole in the state budget. Turns out the Senate has been doing some pay “adjustments” of its own.

Senate President Therese Murray’s office didn’t provide the Herald with comprehensive numbers for salary increases provided to individual senators’ staffers, which Murray must approve (hey, who needs transparency?). But the Herald reported on some individual beneficiaries.

Murray’s legal counsel got a $20,000 raise when she took on chief of staff duties back in April; her salary jumped from $130,000 to $150,000. A policy adviser saw her salary grow by 12 percent, while Murray’s spokeswoman got a 7 percent raise. And all 10 staffers in the Senate clerk’s office got raises, too; the clerk himself scored 5 percent.

Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stephen Brewer (D-Barre), who like Murray is leaving the Senate in a few weeks, doled out 8 percent raises to his chief of staff and his budget director this year. And Senate minority leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) gave his chief of staff a nearly 20 percent raise, noting that he had taken on added responsibilities. That does lead us to wonder, when you’re the “chief of staff” how many more responsibilities really are there to take on?

Now, it’s important to acknowledge that these salary hikes came before news broke of the budget deficit. In some cases the added pay really does reflect added responsibility. In our view DeLeo’s decision to jack up the entire House staff’s salary — with full *knowledge* of the budget deficit — was far more problematic.

Still, it’s important for taxpayers to understand the nitty gritty details of taxpayer-funded compensation, since the perpetual cry on Beacon Hill is that it isn’t nearly enough.


Beacon Hill Roll Call
Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Legislature's selected commission says politicians should get big pay hikes


The commission concluded that the methods used to make that adjustment vary from governor to governor because the decision by the governor has to made in January, and the median household income figures published by the Census Bureau from the prior year are not available at that time.

The panel said it has researched a number of options and data sources for calculating the change and recommends using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that measures the quarterly change in salaries and wages. The panel argues that the BEA figures are more up-to-date compared to the census ones. If the BEA system of calculating had been in use starting in 2007, the current legislative salary would be $6,378 higher at $66,410 instead of $60,032.

Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, has a different opinion. She told Beacon Hill Roll Call, "The Massachusetts constitution allows rank-and-file legislators’ pay to increase with median household income. The commission's report changes 'median household income' to another determinant, which would allow a higher increase for legislators; but the change would require a constitutional amendment, which couldn’t be approved by voters until 2018."


The Boston Globe
Tuesday, December 9, 2014

A Boston Globe editorial
With Mass. facing budget gap, it’s not the time to raise salaries


There's a glimmer of good news in the recent recommendation by a special advisory commission to boost salaries paid to the governor and other top public officials: the findings were released in the full light of day, with two public hearings and online access to the study explaining the recommendations.

Transparency is welcome. But it doesn’t change the optics or the bottom line. This is not the right time to raise salaries — not when the state faces a $329 million budget shortfall and many Massachusetts families still face uncertain economic times.

The commission did its homework and presents a well-researched case for salary hikes for the state’s six constitutional offices, as well as for the House speaker and Senate president. But the research falls short of demonstrating any pressing need to follow the recommendations.

At $151,800, the current salary for the governor of Massachusetts is the 11th highest in the country. However, some 1,200 state employees earn more than that — and, according to the commission, that’s a key rationale for hiking the governor’s paycheck to $185,000. Yet, doing that would make the governor of Massachusetts the second-highest-paid governor in the country. And that’s without factoring in an additional $65,000 housing allowance the commission also recommends.

Under the commission’s proposal, the salaries of the House speaker and Senate president would also increase from $102,279 to $175,000 — an increase that would make them the highest-paid legislative leaders in the country.

The commission argues that the current compensation formula for statewide office holders is outdated and should be increased to attract more qualified people, presumably from the private sector. But attracting quality private sector candidates isn’t a real problem here. Take the recent governor’s race: Of five candidates on the general election ballot, three were wealthy businessmen, including the winner, Republican Charlie Baker.

Besides, if a candidate begins a quest for office with the feeling that a public sector salary represents nothing but sacrifice, that’s the wrong midset. It might be nice to have more candidates of modest income who are actually in touch with life as most people live it.

The state’s conflict of interest law prohibits public employees from participating in matters that affect their own financial interest. To avoid that problem, the commission’s proposals would have to be passed by the current lame duck Legislature, to take effect in January when new officials are sworn in. According to departing Senate President Therese Murray, it’s unlikely that will happen, given the controversy stirred up by the commission’s suggestions.

“The Senate can’t act unless the House does, and I don’t see that there’s a movement to do that,” said Murray, after delivering her farewell speech in the Senate chamber.

This is one time legislative inaction is the preferred outcome.


The Boston Globe
Friday, December 26, 2014

Increase pay for public office holders
By Ira Jackson and Cathy Minehan


Criticism of the recent report by a nonpartisan commission calling for reforms and overdue increases in compensation for public leaders focuses on two main points: the terrible timing against a backdrop of budget cuts and the contention that salary increases aren’t necessary to attract talented individuals to public service. As members of the commission, we want to address these two challenges head-on, and highlight several points that did not receive much public attention.

First, we are acutely aware of the difficult fiscal climate in the Commonwealth. The commission was created by legislation and mandated to report back in less than 90 days. The timing, while far from ideal, was not in our control. However, there is never a good time to have a serious public discourse about compensation for state leaders. The last time it happened was in 2008, and the commission’s proposed salary increases for the governor and other constitutional officers were not implemented.

Second, we recognize that public office is a tremendous privilege that offers intrinsic satisfaction and rewards. The commission commends the numerous sacrifices people make to enter public service. During its deliberations, we sought to establish a compensation system that enables the state to attract and retain diverse, highly qualified professionals to public service regardless of their means or proximity to Boston. In other words, personal wealth should not be a prerequisite for public service.

The report also made a number of other recommended reforms, including:

  Funding any compensation increases in a cost-neutral manner to taxpayers through efficiencies and savings identified by state lawmakers and reported on an annual basis to ensure accountability and transparency;

  Prohibiting outside employment through a first-in-the-nation statute precluding the constitutional officers, House speaker, and Senate president from earning outside income, other than passive income;

  Eliminating legislative per diem payments;

  Determining the biennial adjustment in legislative pay through a consistent, transparent process using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis;

  Calculating any increase or decrease in compensation for all constitutional cfficers and the House Speaker and Senate president every two years using the Bureau’s data.

Guided by its legislative mandate, the commission conducted a transparent, data-driven process that included eight open public meetings, two public hearings, and extensive analysis of the current system. The commission’s report, with input from the public, builds a foundation for public trust.

What is the appropriate level of compensation for the chief executive of the Commonwealth, who manages an annual budget in excess of $36 billion? Should the attorney general earn less than the state’s district attorneys and judges? What statewide reforms are needed to strengthen public trust in our constitutional offices and the Legislature?

Based on our analysis of the data, the commission recommends establishing three tiers of salaries for the state’s top leaders that we believe reflect the duties and responsibilities of the jobs they perform. If no action is taken on these recommendations and we kick the can down the road, we are only making things more difficult to resolve in the future.

While any recommendation to increase compensation for state leaders is controversial, especially in a tough fiscal climate, the commission believes these increases, coupled with the adoption of major reforms, should be considered and debated seriously.

For democracy to work so that average citizens can be civic leaders, conversations around the adequacy of public compensation need to take place in the open, as we have tried to do, and with regularity. It may not be an easy conversation, but for our government to work effectively and honestly, this is just the kind of mature discourse that is needed.

Ira Jackson is dean of the McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston and former commissioner of revenue. Cathy Minehan is dean of the Simmons College School of Management and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.


State House News Service
Monday, December 29, 2014

Patrick expected to adjust base pay of lawmakers
By Michael Norton


As they grapple with budget problems in the dying days of the Patrick administration, aides to the governor are also busy trying to calculate an adjustment in the base pay for lawmakers.

While most lawmakers receive additional pay associated with assignments given to them by legislative leaders, their base pay has fallen since 2009, a year when some lawmakers rejected a 5.6 percent pay raise or donated their raises to charity because the state was in the midst of painful budget cutting.

Under the constitution, Patrick must rule by the first Wednesday in January of odd-numbered years Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015 the day before Charlie Baker is sworn in as his successor, on the size of pay adjustments for the 200 members of the state Legislature.

The constitution requires that the base compensation of lawmakers "be increased or decreased at the same rate as increases or decreases in the median household income for the commonwealth for the preceding two year period, as ascertained by the governor."

Administration officials declined to discuss their approach to the upcoming adjustment in legislative base pay, or the timing of their announcement, noting only that an adjustment must be made by the first Wednesday in January, or Jan. 7, 2015.

Two years ago, Patrick cut the base pay of lawmakers by $1,100 to $60,033 based on median income information drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community survey and other reports of average weekly wages in Massachusetts.

Lawmakers also took a pay cut in January 2011 when the governor directed a reduction of one half of 1 percent, or $307, reducing the base salary to $61,133.

Rep. Garrett Bradley (D-Hingham) and former Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury), who is set to be sworn in as lieutenant governor on Jan. 8, were among lawmakers who rejected a $3,243, or 5.6 percent, raise in January 2009, when Patrick set the base salary at $61,440.

At the time, Polito said money set aside for raises would be better spent on local aid increases and to offset toll increases.

According to research performed by a public compensation commission set up earlier this year, the average total pay for state legislators came to $73,175 in 2013, with lawmakers averaging $13,142 in special compensation on top of their $60,033 base salary.

Each lawmaker receives $7,200 a year for expenses and is eligible for per idem payments for travel, ranging from $10 to $100 based on their proximity to Beacon Hill.

Voters agreed to tie legislators' salaries to median household income through a 1998 constitutional amendment, which went into effect in 2001.

"However, the lack of timely median household income data has forced administrations to improvise when estimating the growth in income for the year preceding the start of each session," according findings released by the public compensation commission. "As a result, there is no consistent method for determining the biennial change in legislative salaries."

Along with salary increases for constitutional officers and legislative leaders, the commission recommended in December the elimination of per diems, an increase in legislative office expenses, and a "totally transparent" way to determine legislators' base salary.

"Legislative pay has long been a source of controversy on Beacon Hill; before 1998, it was determined by lawmakers themselves," the commission, chaired by former state revenue commissioner Ira Jackson, said in a preliminary report. "A public furor followed passage of the infamous 'Halloween' pay raise of 1980, when lawmakers approved a $1,800 pay raise during an Oct. 31 session."

That increase was later overturned through a referendum.

Gintautas Dumcius contributed reporting.


The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Baker decries raises for state lawmakers
Deval to boost payday before he leaves office
By Matt Stout


Gov.-elect Charlie Baker is throwing cold water on a Beacon Hill push to hike the pay for state lawmakers, saying the “timing isn’t right” for a raise considering the new administration is inheriting a huge hole in the budget from lame-duck Gov. Deval Patrick.

“The governor-elect does not feel the timing is right for pay raises for legislators given the fact that there is a massive budget deficit as well as a host of serious issues taxpayers’ funds would be better spent addressing,” Baker spokesman Tim Buckley said.

Despite a deficit that’s been pegged as high as $750 million, lawmakers are primed to get their first pay raise in six years, one fiscal watchdog says — though how big of a boost will be determined by Patrick, who leaves office next week.

“It surely is going to go up. The question is how much,” Michael Widmer, outgoing president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said of lawmakers’ pay, which is tied to median household income under a 1998 constitutional amendment but is left to the governor to determine.

Patrick’s aides yesterday declined to say how they’ll calculate the raise, saying only that they will “comply with the constitutionally required timeline” of deciding by the first Wednesday of January. That puts the deadline on Jan. 7 — the day before Baker is to be sworn in.

Though the amendment automatically calls for the raise to be based on typical household income, the Corner Office has wide latitude in calculating it.

One indicator Patrick has used — the U.S. Census’s American Community Survey — is updated only through 2013, and to help fill in the gap for 2014, his office could turn to state wage data, as he has before.

In 2009, Patrick ordered a 5.5 percent increase in the midst of the recession, though several lawmakers — including then state rep. and current Lt. Gov.-elect Karyn Polito — rejected it. Two years later, Patrick ordered a 0.5 percent cut, and followed with another 1.8 percent cut in 2013, putting legislators’ pay at its current $60,032, not including perks such as travel expenses and leadership bonuses.

The census data this time showed a roughly 2.2 percent increase in 2013, while average weekly wages in the first three months of 2014 rose 3.1 percent from the previous quarter, according to data kept by the Office of Labor and Workforce Development. Together, it would equate to a 5.3 percent increase.

But Patrick could use an entirely different method, like the one proposed by the committee studying state pay that included Widmer. It urged moving to federal data that would bump lawmakers’ pay by 6.6 percent, or nearly $4,000 a year.

“The economy is clearly improving, income is improving,” Widmer told the Herald. “The whole rationale for this whole constitutional amendment made sense. It took it out of the political arena. ... And I think that’s fair.”


The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 30, 2014

A Boston Herald editorial
It pays to be transparent


Patrick administration officials are staying mum as they work on calculating an adjustment in legislative pay, according to the State House News Service, which they are required to do by Jan. 7.

Could there be some behind-the-scenes deal-making in the works?

Beacon Hill salaries have been of course a matter of some controversy in recent months. Under the state Constitution the governor every two years must calculate any change in median family [sic household] income, then base salaries for lawmakers are adjusted accordingly. But hanging over that task this year is a report from a very “special” commission that recently called for jacking up salaries for many of the top brass.

Among the panel’s recommendations was a sensible one — to set up a precise method for calculating changes in median income. Right now it’s left to the governor to “ascertain” that figure.

But even that modest change would require amending the Constitution. Meanwhile the rest of the panel’s recommendations seemed to come from another planet. They recommended increasing salaries for the House speaker and Senate president to $175,000, for example, which would top all 50 states.

The current leadership on Beacon Hill didn’t exactly throw cold water on the idea of adopting some of the salary recommendations in the lame-duck session that ends next week. It would be a long-shot, yes, but it’s remarkable what power a deal that is made attractive to all parties (well, except the taxpayers) can have.

But a naked money grab when few are paying attention — and when there’s a hole in the state budget that keeps getting bigger — would be an affront to the taxpayers. Just in case anyone has any ideas.

 

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