Archive – September 27, 2011 |
Downloads / Podcasts | ||||||
| Show Summary
Guests included
|
|
13 Comments
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Archive – September 27, 2011 |
Downloads / Podcasts | ||||||
| Show Summary
Guests included
|
|
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I really enjoyed the interview with Dan Pierce. He brought up some great points about ‘local’ radio that I am sure you were smart enough to take note of.
Time to blow it up and start over. Let them live with the contract they negotiated this year. Maybe when the new contract negotiations start, they will start from scratch, eliminate all step and cost of living increases, go to a merit based raise, eliminate extra pay for things like being a club advisor and the $16.15 they get paid to babysit detention hall. Almost forgot the healthcare benefits – let them pay $20 to see the doctor when they get sick!
Three years ago the school district unions accepted a contract extension for taking health care concessions and giving up 2/3s of a year’s cost of living increase. All unions were asked too, but city unions only gave up the 2/3s cola. Three years have passed and we have witnessed our property taxes for city services increase by 18% while going down by 2% for schools (local and state taxes). Manchester pays a higher tax rate for city services than any city in NH and a lower rate for schools than any city. Yet many including Girard seem relentlessly focused on school costs and regularly give a pass to much more egregious city spending. That is not fiscally conservative. Understanding history and the big picture are essential to being fiscally responsible.
Certainly, a rethink of how the system works is long overdue.
Pete,
If you’re going to point to the unique concessions the teachers made during the last extension, you have to acknowledge why they HAD to be made. Remember, the administration OPPOSED the city deal because of the budget impact and proposed it’s own deal which would have saved more than triple the amount of money without health insurance concessions. But the union’s leadership wanted the “better deal” and that was the one from the aldermen, which was ratified by the membership with their blessings. In order to flip votes on the school board, which shot the contract down, the union HAD to give something. What did they give? 1/2 of 1% per year for 3 years on premium payments for the health insurance. What did they get? COLA’s which increased pay by a minimum of 10% over the life of the contract (for those who no longer receive step increases) and as much as a 27% increase in pay for those below the top step. This hardly a sacrifice akin to falling on one’s sword.
I agree that a rework of how the system works is long overdue.
Rich,
Your reply precisely exhibits exactly what I addressed. The largest issue Manchester has when considering its fiscal problems is that the elephant in the budget is not addressed. You make no mention of the elephant in the budget: Manchester’s exceptionally high costs and tax rates to cover city services. High and growing fastest: 3 year 18% increase versus 2% decrease – highest tax rate of any city to cover the cost of city services, but the lowest tax rate for schools. Yet, what is it you and most others choose to focus on? The little over a one third of our taxes for schools. How about spending more time on the two thirds of Manchester property taxes. Other cities have the opposite allocation.
Fact correction, 3 years:
– Concessions were not unique. All school district unions accepted them. No city unions did
– No concessions “HAD” to be made by teachers. Their contract was good for another year, like today
– Unlike this year, no membership vote was taken three years ago
– The health care concession was 2%(1/2% a year for 4 years) to premiums which were already higher than city employees’.
– Step increases that teachers get stop after 13 years and are reset when a teacher retires and a new one is hired in their place.
– The 2.5% was approved all unions.
– I never suggested teachers “sacrifice[d] akin to falling on one’s sword.” In fact, I have proposed for years that COLA be locked to the Urban inflation index. That locked COLA would be particularly value now under a tax cap. It would ensure COLAs never break the tax cap restricted budget, and would have been lower than 2.5% during the past three years.
Once again, the point is that a true, knowledgeable, fiscal conservative knows Manchester schools are a relatively small burden to the taxpayer when compared to our city services. Check any city or large town in NH to verify this. I understand that some merely prefer to bash teachers and public education, but some of us concerned with tax rates and spending, know where Manchester has outsized spending.
Pete,
Most of the municipalities that have the “opposite allocation” also have things like volunteer fire departments. Even when they don’t it’s not an honest comparison to to juxtapose Manchester versus a town like Bedford or Goffstown or even cities like Portsmouth.
Reminds me of when a friend of mine wanted to sell me his “Vette” years ago for $2,500. Who wouldn’t buy a Vette for $2,500? “Did it have an engine?” I asked. “Did it need body repairs?” “Was it working?” “It works great!” Gary exclaimed…only it turned out Gary had a Chevy CHEVETTE…Not quite the “Vette” he led me to believe he had. Hmmm.
As to the “tax argument,” you folks who use this avoid a number of variables:
1) Even in this proposed budget, our “expensive” city services (police, fire, roads, parks, trash, libraries, facilities, health, youth, elderly on and on and on) will total $133 million. The schools? $150 million. NOTE WELL, the union and non-affiliated employees in ALL of these departments have accepted the restructured health benefits rejected by the school unions…)
2) You don’t count the state property tax in the calculations, which also comes from the local taxpayers’ pocket.
3) You ignore the state adequacy grant which funds the schools and
4) You never mention the more than $30 million in federal funds that this year will increase total school spending (if the city appropriates $150 million) to approximately $183 million.
Finally, it would seem that you’re guilty of what you accuse me of…avoiding the issue. I intentionally left this reply out because I wanted to see whether or not you’d acknowledge, in any way, any validity to the points and you didn’t, which betrays a basic bias that says “we don’t need to do what others have done under these circumstances. Spending more money is the only acceptable answer.”
You complain about having made greater concessions than the other city unions three years ago, but ignore the circumstances that necessitated that concession.
You complain about lack of funding, but ignore that your own district’s leadership warned of the financial consequences of this deal and presented a rejected alternative that would have prevented it.
You throw around state statistics as proof that schools are underfunded, but ignore the same state statistics that show Manchester teachers are handsomely paid by comparison in those averages.
You call city services “expensive” and come up with contrived percentages to prove an non-existent point (Pete, I WROTE 5 city budgets, you don’t really don’t want to go there) but ignore more than $30 million in federal spending on the schools.
You demand higher “per pupil” spending, but ignore the costs of transportation, school lunches, debt service on building improvements and other items, all of which “benefit the kids” and boost the per pupil spend by more than 1/3.
And, my favorite, you complain bitterly about being singled out when, in fact, you’ve singled yourselves out by doing differently than virtually every other employee group has done in this situation.
How’s that for an answer to your 800 pound elephant?
Now, where’s the answer to these 800 pound gorillas?
En Garde! 🙂
School unions “had” to accept them to get the school board to go along. If you recall, they didn’t until August and did so under extreme union pressure.
True, there was a year left on the contract and the union did not “have to” accept any terms. But then there would’ve been some 80 laid off educators.
Not true, there was a membership vote as your union has never been able to accept negotiated terms without a ratification vote by the members. They ratified it, the aldermen ratified it, the school board did not. See point above about “having” to concede to get the basic deal.
Whether or not it was 1.5% or 2%, it was peanuts compared to what the teachers got in return. Not impressed.
Increase reaching the top step was significantly increased in the extension, but I’m not sure what this is a response to.
Yes, the 2.5 was approved by all, and would have continued in the extension that all but the teachers have accepted.
Just by making the point that the teachers made concessions that nobody else did back in 2009 is martyring them for the cause in an attempt to excuse this rejection. While I applaud your restrictive step formula, I could write for the next 3 hours on all the things I actually tried to enact during my decade in City Hall and have advocated for on both the city and school side of the budgets for 20 years. Sorry, but I don’t believe the teachers deserve any “credit” for their “extra” concessions as they ignored the math and went greedily with the “better deal” rather than reasonably with the mathematically honest one.
My public record on issues of government budgets, organization, efficiency, etc…is long, distinguished (dare I say?), has been in-arguably guided by conservative principals AND, most importantly, yielded results worth duplicating.
Rich,
I am talking about municipalities that offer the same services, such as Nashua. The towns you mentioned, such as Bedford, do not have the opposite allocation, they are even more lopsided, often around 75% ed, 25% local. Heck here are the numbers: Bedford town 4.23 (24%) versus schools 12.90 (76%). Nashua town 8.30 (47%) schools 9.16 (53%). Manchester town 11.62 (64%) schools 6.72 (36%). See the difference?
I did not count state ed or county tax, because BMA does not control those. In any case, state ed is the same for all municipalities – after equalization. Adequacy grants are received by all towns and depends primarily on the number of students with adds for certain high cost students. That is also true to all cities and town. The federal grants are primarily for special ed, which all other cities also get. When comparing Manchester to other towns there are a distraction – you can factor them in, but they factor in the same for everyone. The one exception is Title I funds, for students from low income families, but the federal government provides those, as schools must follow more expensive federal regulations for those schools.
With regard to concessions, if you read my original post you will see I did not complain about the concessions. The point is that any saved money does not end up in schools. Since the current contract, and a few years before, the districts adequacy grant, except this year, has gone up more than the budget has. FYI-, 3 years ago there was NO membership vote for the contract extension. The union’s executive board has the authority and made the decision. This time around the exec board was unanimously against, but the President, Ben Dick pushed for a membership vote. The exec board agreed, so there was one.
(I do not think you, as host, have the length limits on posts)
If you wrote 5 city budgets and do not understand how our schools are very economical compared to other cities’ schools, and think our city government is not heavy spending when compared to other city governments, then I will go there with you.
Rich I do not dispute your city record working on public budgets as a city employee, but I had worked for a decade finding efficiencies in much larger budgets in the private sector. Your comment about not wanting to go there with you amuses me. I would not hesitate “go there with you.” The leadership of Manchester in the 22 years I have owned a home here has always had trouble finding savings because of two primary reasons: they always look in the same place, schools, and two they always want to do everything the same way, but for less money. Businesses save significant money by doing things differently – generally requiring fewer people. I have made many suggestions that both the city and schools can do to achieve significant savings. No representatives, Repub or Dem pursue these significant savings. ???