Gov. Recommends 5,466 Layoffs; $54 Million Cut To Cities and Towns
by Christine Stuart | Jun 28, 2011 5:26pm
(23) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget
(Updated 9:16 p.m.) In an effort to balance the two-year, $40.11 billion budget, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy recommended the elimination of 6,466 positions from the state budget Tuesday. About 1,000 of those positions are currently vacant which means nearly 5,500 state employees will lose their jobs if the legislature gives him the power to make the cuts. Malloy also recommended cutting $54 million a year in municipal aid.
The elimination of all 6,466 positions amounts to a 14.1 percent reduction of the state’s workforce, but depending on what state agency commissioners decide that number could be lower.
“These are the recommendations that were sent to the legislature, and if enacted, it will be left to each Commissioner to determine how to achieve the savings outlined,” Colleen Flanagan, Malloy’s spokeswoman said. “Some commissioners might choose to lay off more people to get to that number, some might choose to lay off a lower number — and find additional savings elsewhere.”
The number of layoffs could change depending on how each commissioner chooses to reduce its agency budget. They could choose to eliminate programs, rather than positions, Flanagan said.
The one-page spreadsheet put together by the Malloy administration shows the Department of Corrections would be hit especially hard if they follow the governor’s recommendations and eliminate 1,019 employees, which amounts to a 15.7 percent reduction in personnel.
The Corrections officers voted against the $1.6 billion concession package and are in the midst of renegotiating their contract with the state. In addition to the layoffs Corrections Commissioner Leo Arnone announced Tuesday that he will close Bergin Correctional by Aug. 15 and layoff notices will go out to the more than 200 employees at the facility by the end of this week. The inmate population at Bergin has decreased from 931 at the beginning of the year to around 620 over the past few months, according to sources. The prison had been on the chopping block earlier this year when it didn’t look like union leaders and the Malloy administration would be able to come up with a concession deal to offer union members.
The governor also recommended eliminating 817 workers from the Department of Transportation, 540 workers from Department of Development Services workers, 486 workers Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, 359 workers from the Department of Children and Families, and 333 from the University of Connecticut, and 165 from the UConn Health Center, just to name a few.
In addition to state agency reductions, Malloy recommended the elimination of 450 workers from the Judicial and 50 from the legislative branches of government. There was also a recommendation to eliminate three workers from the governor’s office and two from the lieutenant governor’s office.
The Department of Transportation takes the biggest hit to its budget. It’s being asked to find $78.33 million in savings in the first year of the budget and $83.1 million in the second year. Those dollar amounts are followed by the Corrections Department which is being asked to find $62.9 million in the first year and $78 million in the second year.
“We remain committed to seeing to it that the 45,000 members of the unions in SEBAC can play a positive role in helping to close the budget gap,” Matt O’Connor, SEBAC spokesman, said Tuesday evening. “Laying-off thousands of workers and slashing public services is not what Connecticut needs to get the economy moving.”
“The damage that these layoffs would cause make clear how important it is we come up with a solution that works for everyone in Connecticut,” O’Connor said.
But union leaders announced Monday the coalition has been unable to come up with a solution to the rejection of the concession deal. Union leaders tabled rejection of the tentative labor agreement.
Eleven of the 15 unions and 26 of 34 bargaining groups voted to ratify the agreement, but under the complicated bylaws of the coalition 14 of the 15 unions needed to ratify the agreement and 80 percent of the voting members also need to approve it. It failed to meet either threshold, even though a majority voted to ratify it.
While labor leaders ponder their next steps, Malloy is moving ahead with eliminating $1.6 billion from the two-year, $40.11 billion budget.
The recommendations Malloy made Tuesday eliminates $704 million in fiscal year 2012 and $905 million in fiscal year 2013. It also reduces town aid to municipalities by $54 million in each year of the budget.
“While the proposed municipal aid cuts could have been much worse, the $54.4 million cut next year is going to hurt,” Jim Finley, executive director and CEO of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said. “Many towns relied on this funding in their already adopted budgets.”
He said CCM will be asking the General Assembly to reject these cuts in municipal aid.
He will be joined in his opposition by the Council of Small Towns.
“The $54.4 million in cuts to municipal aid proposed by Governor Dannel P. Malloy decimates vital programs such as the Town Aid Road grant program. The Town Aid Road program - which provides much-needed revenues to towns to help maintain the safety of local road networks to benefit businesses and citizens - has historically been underfunded even though the cost of repairing and maintaining local roads has increased significantly,” Elizabeth Gara, COST Public Policy Director, said.
Malloy will ask the legislature on Thursday for increased rescission authority to make the cuts, but it’s still unclear exactly how much control over the budget he will ask for, or be granted. Democratic sources say he will ask for the same power he asked for back in February.
Currently, the governor has the authority to cut 5 percent of any appropriation and 3 percent of any fund in a financial crisis without legislative approval. In February, Malloy asked the legislature to increase the threshold to 10 percent of any appropriation and five percent of any fund. Further, Malloy asked the legislature to allow him to cut municipal aid without legislative approval.
Democratic leaders denied him the increased rescission authority during the legislative session, but Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, and Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said their caucus was willing to take decisive action on Thursday.
“There is complete agreement in our caucus that we need to take decisive action on Thursday,” Williams said. “Folks understand that the longer this drags on the worse it gets.”
Looney said statistics they received from the governor’s office inform them that every day past July 1 they wait to balance the budget the number of layoffs increases to 29 layoffs per day or $1.6 million per day they will have to cut.
Williams said giving the governor greater rescission authority gives them greater flexibility in making changes to the budget.
“If circumstances change, if in a couple of weeks or a couple of months better cuts present themselves and allow us to moderate some of the other cuts, such as some of the cuts to municipal aid, the governor has the ability to ratchet back, reduce, or cancel some of those rescissions and go in a different direction,” Williams said. “If we just voted on a cut package we’d have to come in again, and again to make those revisions.”
Williams said his caucus is mostly concerned with municipal aid. He said he was told by the governor’s staff that the $54 million per year in town grants, does not include Education Cost Sharing funds, which are generally the largest state grant to cities and towns.
Williams said his caucus was willing to extend Malloy’s rescission authority for two fiscal years.
House Speaker Chris Donovan declined comment until he can meet with members of his caucus Thursday morning.
Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, sent a letter to all lawmakers regarding Malloy’s request for increased budget cutting power.
“Some have strained to compare Governor Malloy’s request with prior instances where the legislature granted certain emergency rescission authority to Governor Rowland. However, the facts show that neither case involved the broad delegation of authority to make deep cuts that Governor Malloy is requesting,” McKinney wrote.
He said the first instance of a requested for increased rescission authority came in 2002 in the middle of the biennial budget cycle.
“As part of the budget adjustment bill, the legislature gave Governor Rowland the limited authority to cut spending by no more than $35 million. Such authority kicked in only if after October 1, 2002 budget resources were still insufficient to fund expenditures,” McKinney recalled. “Rather, he was given the very limited ability to address a mid-term budget shortfall by making small additional rescissions. In fact, it appears that Governor Rowland never exercised the excess rescission authority given him as his reductions never exceeded the existing statutory threshold.”
Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, said Tuesday that both Rowland and former Gov. M. Jodi Rell were given increased rescission authority during times when the legislature wasn’t in session and the budget was mid-way through the fiscal year. Not to mention the problem wasn’t to the magnitude of $1.6 billion, he added.
“They were problems of $40 million and $60 million, and the statute already recognizes it’s appropriate for the governor to have authority to make minor adjustments on the margins for unanticipated budget problems,” Roraback said. “We have a $1.6 billion, two-year crisis. This is not an unanticipated minor problem.”
Tags: Connecticut, Malloy, layoffs, labor, unions
(23) Comments
posted by: NOW What? | June 28, 2011 6:05pm
STATE EMLOYEES: PROTECT YOUR BARGAINING RIGHTS AND HARD-WON BENEFITS! URGE YOUR UNION AND SEBAC LEADERS TO RATIFY THIS AGREEMENT!
99.99% of the reason why we’re even IN this situation in the 1st place is because the State over the years has so severely and DELIBERATELY failed to contribute its share to our pension funds.
We need to start applying pressure - REAL pressure - on the LEGISLATURE to put an end to all of this craziness by allocating money into our pension funds to make up for all that THEY FAILED to put in over the years.
The members of the State’s General Assembly think they can *continue* to pit EVERY Governor against state employees while they just take it easy and deliberately underfund our pensions so they can take that money and put it into their bizarre pet projects.
Yes, SEBAC screwed up. The CT legislature has ALWAYS “played” the governor, knowing that EVERY governor comes into their job with a BIG ego thinking he/she can “fix” everything all on their own. So the legislators turn around and say to the governor “OK! You go right ahead while we go home!” - Then *they* screw with OUR money - and let the GOVERNOR take the heat for it… (and here comes Malloy falling RIGHT into their trap, TOTALLY unaware that he’s being “played” by them - just as they’ve done to EVERY governor).
Unfortunately, for many years SEBAC and the unions have failed to catch on to this little game that the LEGISLATURE plays with us and the governor, thus allowing our pension funds to remain underfunded.
It’s time we put an end to it. Let’s try to make good use of this “special session” by trying to get the legislators to do their jobs - for a change.
EVERYBODY should start writing their legislators, urging them to deal with this problem by FULLY FUNDING our pension funds and making up the State’s neglected contributions ASAP. Write to MALLOY, educating *him* about this “game” that the legislature plays with EVERY governor and that we’ll agree to savings on wages etc. if HE agrees to put pressure on the Assembly to MAKE OUR PENSION FUNDS FULLY WHOLE. Then write to SEBAC and your UNION, telling *them* to say the SAME THING TO MALLOY.
If Malloy really wants a deal with us, HE needs to whip the legislature into shape. The PORK needs to stop so our PENSIONS can be funded as they were INTENDED to be.
We’ve got a few weeks to try and make it happen; let’s use this “special legislative session” and SEBAC’s self-imposed “cooling off” period to our best advantage.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 28, 2011 6:53pm
Amazing. Some really deep cuts. Let’s see how Daniel’s managers do under pressure.
And ratify before the public gets used to the smaller government and Malloy starts sounding more and more like Walker.
posted by: CitizenCT | June 28, 2011 7:12pm
I would remove the $20M cut to Uconn, the $21M cut to state universities and the $54M municipal aid reduction. The school systems are a horse of a different color with tuition paying customers, can’t manage them the same as other cost centers. The municipal aid cut I’d normally go along with, but considering municipalities baked their budgets already, that’s not practical at this point. To cover this extra $95M, I’d eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit, which was about $100M. Other than that, the plan seems like a reasonable start. I particularly like not filling open positions.
posted by: sheepct | June 28, 2011 8:14pm
Malloy needs to save face. He sends out mass layoff notices for 9/1/11. Increased revenue from the tax everything state which starts 7/1/11 and bingo he lays off at the most 2000 people..or SEBAC comes back and asks for a revote to save the day. Have you all noticed that SEBAC has not been around at all to defend its members.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | June 28, 2011 8:48pm
a bit extreme, no? lots of overtime for correction officers so that won’t save any money.
let’s see 5500 people on unempoyment - $2.5M a week, $10M a month, $120M a year, (99 weeks of eligibility) $240M over the 2 year budget.
what’s the vacation payout? say they all have 2 weeks saved up at $30 an hour - about $13.2M.
foreclosures? let’s go conservative .. 10%? As there are no jobs anywhere that seems a minimum- that would be 550 additional foreclosures.
what else ...... the strain on social service agencies? hard to imagine, they are losing people too, but it’s got to be $millions.
cost to the economy cuz they are not spending? hmmm, $millions more i would guess.
so, someone help me….how is this a responsible move?
posted by: Bill$Ratepayer | June 28, 2011 9:27pm
If the unions that voted “NO” did not think they would get a bigger share of layoffs they were dreaming. And listen up municipalities and their workforce, you expected State workers to give up so you can keep your raises and have no concessions. guess what no one is immune. Maybe some unions will be revoting soon? How bad did the courts and judical marshalls get hit? State Police?
posted by: gutbomb86 | June 28, 2011 9:36pm
@sheep - SEBAC was very visible when it counted - they were there negotiating a deal the members should have accepted. An amazing deal. Now you’ve got sour grapes and no one to blame but yourselves. There’s no point in SEBAC standing around to take blame from the likes of yourself and others. Should have taken the deal. They could not have negotiated a better deal.
@HST - I don’t mean to mischaracterize your previous comments and please don’t take offense - it’s not personal. But why weren’t the members thinking about exactly those same issues when they voted no? You seem concerned about the overall well-being of the state in your comment, but I don’t know that the “no” voters cared about all that. They were more concerned about themselves - they’ve had great benefits and a retirement waiting for them for many years. I don’t really blame them for wanting to protect all that. But this is what we’re looking at now - a great deal gone by the wayside and dark days ahead because nothing from before is sustainable going forward.
Let’s hope that whatever comes of this mess will be sustainable for organized labor, sustainable for taxpayers of all income levels, and sustainable for the companies that employ people while paying their fair share of local property taxes as well as other big-ticket items like payroll taxes, unemployment, and others. Add them all up and it’s nearly impossible to start a legitimate business in CT. Nearly impossible, particularly if you need an office or retail space.
posted by: Ben Dover | June 28, 2011 9:36pm
Where is SECRAP in all this??? Why are they being cowards and tabling the decision????
STEP UP SECRAP and make the decision that NO, we’re NOT going to take it anymore. The POS agreement was TANKED for a reason. Start defending the reasons for it and NOT pointing fingers elsewhere!!!!
posted by: NotScared | June 28, 2011 9:47pm
Shared sacrifice huh? Funny how there are no cuts to welfare or other entitlement programs that reward the dregs of society to sit around and suck off the life of the providers (Also known as actual tax PAYERS, like state employees). This is why this state and country headed down the tubes. God forbid we cut the payouts to the welfare stealing sit around and do nothing democrat voting base…
posted by: hawkeye | June 28, 2011 9:59pm
Two former Governor’s in Illinois “have now bit the dust!” Will Malloy be the second governor in Connecticut to follow suit?
posted by: CTisFUBAR | June 28, 2011 9:59pm
SEBAC can table all they want. But as soon as they change the rules and vote yes, Dan gets to try out his trial law skills in federal court. And Steve, you must be Tier I. Let’s bring in the guy from New Jersey - at least he’ll cut EVERYONE’S benefits EVENLY.
posted by: BMS | June 28, 2011 11:43pm
21,415 unionized state employees out of 45,000 unionized state employees or 47,6% voted to make concessions under the threat of losing their jobs, Mean while the wealthiest state in the nation will protect its 11 billionaires by making the middle class pay for the crisis they created,
“Malloy, who was elected last November, is now being touted by the union bureaucracy and by sections of the media as the spokesman for a more realistic and effective model of budget cutting than that represented by such Republican governors as Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey. According to the Hartford Courant, published in the Connecticut capital, “Malloy’s deal with the union is likely to elevate his profile within the Democratic Party nationally, and his decision to treat public employees as partners and his willingness to propose tax hikes distinguished him from some other governors.”
It is not the public employees who are being treated as “partners,” however, but the union apparatus, which is working to impose the burden of the financial crisis on state workers while defending its own perks and privileges. In actuality, the squabbling between Republicans and Democrats only highlights their essential agreement on austerity and demands that the working class pay for the crisis. They differ only on how to impose these historic attacks.
The Connecticut deal follows similar assaults on state workers in New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and other states where Democrats control the executive and legislative branches of government. The response of these big business politicians to the eruption of mass opposition to attacks on workers’ rights in Wisconsin earlier this year is to work all the more energetically to show that they can play an indispensable role in imposing these attacks themselves.
What makes Malloy’s talk of “shared sacrifice” especially provocative is the fact that Connecticut happens to be the wealthiest of the 50 US states, as measured by per capita household income. The hedge funds headquartered in Greenwich and surrounding towns within easy commuting distance of Wall Street in Manhattan have been attracted to Connecticut by recent reductions in state corporate tax rates.
Connecticut, along with neighboring New York, is also one of the most unequal states in terms of wealth and poverty. Greenwich, Darien and New Canaan are among the richest areas in the entire country, while Hartford, Bridgeport and other major population centers are among the poorest cities nationwide.
State workers must reject the lie that concessions imposed by Democrats and the unions are any better than the attacks demanded by Republicans.”
posted by: Owukid | June 29, 2011 12:06am
I am not a State employee, just a taxpayer so it’s kind of amusing to see all the union guys eating each other up. There are 45,000 of you. Well there are 3.5 million people in the State, and many of us feel that we are being screwed by higher taxes to pay for your job that we arent sure we really need which is why in the general population there is not a lot of sympathy for you guys and also the reson Malloy’s approval rating is so low. We see State cops collecting massive OT on construction jobs and 10 times more DOT workers doing a job any private sector contractor could do it for or waiting endlessly in line at the DMV while you guys close windows to go take your breaks and there just isnt any sympathy for it. Sorry.
posted by: newview | June 29, 2011 5:25am
I think folks are missing the greater point here, and if SEBAC doesn’t take a stand on this one, there is no point in having SEBAC to begin with… Malloy is looking at LEGISLATING State Employee retirement benefit changes as opposed to NEGOTIATING retirement changes! This was the whole bag of beans right out of the gate, and Malloy is really looking at provoking a strike by state workers…AKA Wisconsin. This is why SEBAC is doing everything in its power, including looking at changing the by-laws, to fudge this thing through. SEBAC doesn’t want their base striking, nor do they want to lose these precious Union dues. The options for SEBAC are limited and most compromising.
I’m sorry, this goes beyond “shared sacrifice”. If the concessions failed, then fine, lay off employees. But then, the mere suggestion of legislating retirement benefits, whether it happens or not, defines the intent of this Governor.
This is not good, and really speaks to the credibility of this administiration. Legislators will be making a grave error in approving Malloy’s request for autonomic power in affectiing recissions, and this is a perfect reason for the denial of that request. If the Democrats uphold Malloy’s position, we are in for some very unsettled times. Not to mention of course, there isn’t a politician you can trust with the constituent’s best interest at heart. This is quickly becoming a beginning to an end, and I have some genuine fears for a lot of folks.
posted by: Mountain Man | June 29, 2011 7:13am
Don’t worry about offending the idiot who calls himself HST, gutbomb. He was one of the selfish short-sighted morons who was a “no” guy. Probably not even union. Just promoting the “no” vote so that he could retain what he sees as his “entitlements.” And now he’s saying the dominoes that have to fall due to that vote are irresponsible. I love this guy.
posted by: mmal231294 | June 29, 2011 8:01am
Hahahaha! Corrections officers, how you feel about the vote now?!?! LET THE LAYOFFS BEGIN!!!!
posted by: Leslie4 | June 29, 2011 10:33am
To Owukid; oh….there’s other lines you’ll be waiting in…(Ursala’s laugh) ah ha ha haha hahaha!!!!!
posted by: Luther Heggs | June 29, 2011 10:41am
SteveHC - what’s a pension?
99.99% of the reason why we’re even IN this situation in the 1st place is because the State over the years has so severely and DELIBERATELY failed to contribute its share to our pension funds.
posted by: hawkeye | June 29, 2011 11:12am
JonesAC12: It’s the one that starting his term, that I’m worried about! He is already exposing the skeleton’s in his closet, and is on course to make the state finish last!
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is finding that the Governor’s job, is a far cry, from his “loved my tenure as Mayor of Stamford!”
“Malloy is simply in over his head. after his fast-talking-lawyer, pre-election pitch to get elected!
posted by: LUNA | June 29, 2011 12:36pm
As a private sector employee, when the Unions voted NO, it was a gift. Fewer employees, fewer benifits, fewer expenses, the beginning of the end of the Unions, and their power in the elections.
Thank’s to all that voted NO !!
posted by: NotScared | June 29, 2011 3:09pm
@ Owukid: “We see State cops collecting massive OT on construction jobs and 10 times more DOT workers doing a job any private sector contractor could do it for..”
REALLY, educate yourself before you write gibberish, the state cop on a construction job actually MAKES money for the state. The State bills the private contractor much higher rates that it actually pays the trooper and to that OT does NOT count towards the Troopers retirement. And the private contractors certainly work no harder or better than the DOT workers do… Waterbury I-84 Redo is a good example of that waste of $. Think before you rant, I mean, Write.
posted by: NOW What? | June 29, 2011 4:54pm
“newview” - NOBODY expects to see state employees strike - or engage in ANY sort of “job action” for that matter - because *everyone* knows EXACTLY how *apathetic* state employees have become over the past 15 years or so… just as the state’s general citizenry has.
Pretty pathetic, no?