Municipal Aid Reductions Eliminated - 1,000 More State Jobs May Be Cut
by Christine Stuart and Hugh McQuaid | Jun 30, 2011 5:54pm
(19) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, Local Politics, State Budget
(Updated 7:38 p.m.) The House Democratic caucus succeeded Thursday in getting Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to take $54 million in municipal aid cuts off the table in exchange for another 1,000 state employee layoffs.
On top of $54 million in municipal aid cuts, Malloy had recommended the elimination of 6,466 jobs from the state budget, including about 1,000 vacant positions and layoffs for nearly 5,500 state employees. In lieu of the municipal aid cuts, the grand total of job cuts is up to about 7,500 — a figure Malloy had previously suggested as a two-year target.
“They know there are a very limited number of ways to make up that cut and they were told it would come in state employee layoffs,” Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy’s senior communications adviser, said of the restoration of municipal aid. The talks regarding municipal aid took the better part of the afternoon.
The new deal also cost the legislature its vote on any of Malloy’s rescissions, according to sources, which would mean that if the agreement holds up, it will be up to Malloy to make all the cuts.
House Speaker Chris Donovan, however, denied that the legislature had ceded that authority during a news conference shortly after 6 p.m.
“No, no, no,” Donovan said. “May to shall. It could be shall and we decide not to come in. It could be may and we decide to come in.”
House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, jumped in to add that “if we don’t like those changes, we’re absolutely committed to making those changes.”
“Our hope is we don’t do any of these cuts and that the state employees eventually ratify the agreement and avert all layoffs and avert all cuts,” Donovan said. “In the meantime our caucus was very clear the cuts to municipalities, which was something we’ve never done in terms of rescission.”
Sharkey said the bill will say the governor has to present his rescissions to the legislature by July 15 and will give the governor three months of rescission authority over 10 percent of state funds. The legislature will maintain power over the rescission of state funds “ back to dollar one,” Sharkey said.
Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, said the municipal aid cuts would have forced New Haven and Hamden to layoff employees and send out supplemental property tax bills. He said the Democratic caucus was very concerned about ceding for the first time ever its power to the governor to cut municipal aid.
Malloy’s staff didn’t delineate the town-by-town impact of municipal aid cuts, but New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said Wednesday his staff was projecting it would add up to $5 million to $7 million.
Just last Friday, after the stunning torpedoing of Malloy’s concession plan, the governor assured DeStefano and other mayors that cities wouldn’t feel much of the sting of new cuts until the second year of the budget.
“As it turns out, that wasn’t the case,” DeStefano said Wednesday.
Though disappointed by the numbers released Wednesday, DeStefano made sure to note that Malloy, a former Stamford mayor, has “been very supportive of municipal budgets” process overall.
Rep. Edward Moukawsher, D-Groton, credited Rep. Linda Schofield, D-Simsbury, Thursday for putting the conversation about municipal aid into the spotlight by introducing an amendment that would take the money from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
“We’re not negotiating the budget right now,” Donovan said. “There could be other ways of doing it and that’s why we’re going to be working with the governor’s office.”
Malloy’s proposal also called for reducing the Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax credit given to working poor, from 30 percent to 25 percent to save $18 million.
As a former mayor, Malloy is sensitive to cuts in municipal aid.
“You guys have all been around the governor long enough to know how hard he worked to protect municipal aid in this budget,” Occhiogrosso said Thursday. “The proposal put forward in the last couple of days trimmed it modestly, really modestly given what other states have done.”
Jim Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, lobbied against the municipal aid cuts. Finley said he appreciated the decision not to cut municipal aid and was especially thankful to the House Democratic caucus.
Rep. Phil Miller, D-Essex, who is also the full-time first selectman the town, said when he learned that the labor concession package was in danger of not passing he didn’t think there was any way town aid would escape cuts.
That’s why he was skeptical when he received emails from groups representing municipalities urging town executives to contact the legislature to fight against the cuts, he said.
“But when we caucused today, the overwhelming response of the Democrats was that we’ve all been in touch with our first selectmen and mayors and their budgets are done at this point,” he said.
While most towns have undesignated fund for unforeseen circumstances, those funds are usually used up dealing with unexpected things like bad ice storms.
Miller had trouble coming to a conclusion whether saving the towns from cuts was worth the estimated 1,000 additional layoffs to the state workforce, which he said troubled him.
“I’d be in the minority if I said, ‘Oh yeah, just let the cities and towns make a little bit of it up.’ So I’m glad that it won’t fall to the cities and towns and I’m just hoping that something can still be salvaged with the SEBAC accord,” he said.
Rep. Gerald Fox III, D-Stamford, said that according to a town-by-town estimate generated by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, his town would have lost around $450,000 under the proposed cuts. But he said he wasn’t convinced those estimates were accurate.
He said his town like other towns would have had to figure it out.
“It’s something you think towns could absorb. They do face a number of emergencies over the course of a year,” he said.
Was it worth the layoffs?
“It’s a difficult call. I recognize no one wants to make either choice but if we continue down this path I do think that municipal aid is going to have to be on the table next year,” he said. “Cities and towns should be ready for it.”
Tags: connecticut, layoffs, municipal aid, budget, Malloy, House of Representatives
(19) Comments
posted by: Puzzled... | June 30, 2011 6:20pm
After having read all of the news articles and whatnot, I REALLY want to make sure I understand this situation correctly regarding State Employees:
The Unions and the State reached an agreement that called for a basic wage freeze, some minor changes in their health insurance and a few changes in their pensions, in exchange for no layoffs for 4 years and guaranteed pension and health insurance benefits until the year 2022.
Most of them voted for the deal, but enough voted no to kill it.
Then the State Police said “the heck with it, we’ll cut our OWN deal with the State.”
So NOW the State says to the REST of them it’ll give them ANOTHER chance to reconsider the deal, and if they DON’T accept it they’ll cut some of their benefits ANYWAY, guarantee their pension and health insurance benefits only until the year 2017, and lay off around 5.000 - 6,000 of them.
Then the legislature says they don’t want to cut State Aid to Municipalities, so Malloy says “OK, so I’ll lay off ANOTHER 1,000 employees to make up the difference.” So NOW they’re up to 6,000 - 7,000 layoffs.
And the Unions’ response to the State NOW is “no thanks, we’ll take our chances with the layoffs, benefit reductions and contracting out,” CORRECTIONS employees block any possible changes, and the rest of them are OK with this.
Just one question:
Are these state employees out of their MINDS? Am I MISSING something?
posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 30, 2011 6:26pm
Did you really think municipalities would be hit? God forbid any teachers would be laid off…when I was a kid in parochial school the nuns taught us in classes of 40 kids….and we learned. Now, in this bizzaro world we live in, they cannot possibly teach more than, what, 18?
Malloy is pulling out all stops to freak out state workers…..steady, steady, folks. Stand your ground….he doesn’t really think laying off 8000 workers would help the economy. This dog and pony show is leading up to one thing….he wants a revote on the agreement and wants people shaking in their bones in order to get it. Stand firm! Don’t be intimidated by this career politician who already has his sights set WAY above Governor of CT!
posted by: Puzzled... | June 30, 2011 6:36pm
oliviahuxtable - Sounds like you’re just being foolishly stubborn. You’ve heard the phrase “cut off your nose to spite your face”?
posted by: BMS | June 30, 2011 7:48pm
Puzzled. the origin of the expression of to cut your nose to spite your face, came from nuns cutting their noses so they would not be raped when vikings were plundering the villages they lived in. Malloy the horrible is raping tier 2 pensions perhaps some employees don’t want to get screwed.
posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 30, 2011 7:50pm
Puzzled….no, not stubborn….I have conviction. This Governor, instead of asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, and asking corporations to pay their fair share, has instead dropped the burden of 2 billion dollars in the laps of 45000 people. Even though I gave up a lot two years ago, I would have given up again, in the short term, to help solve this short term fiscal problem. But he is asking labor for Lo g-term concessions that eviserate my health care and pension. But believe me, I can appreciate where you, and many other private sectors folks are, as I spent most of my career in the private sector…..I had my hours of work increased with no commensurate raise in wages; I had my health insurance degraded, I had my pension turned into a 401k that rather than being stable and providing old age security is subject to the whims of the market….so I know the post-1980’s world has been tough on workers. We’ve been living in a new Gilded Age where the rich are getting richer and we are losing ground…..it is boldly disturbing. But what you private sector folks have to understand is as unions get weaker and our benefits dwindle, yours will too, and quicker, because you have no collective ability to bargain against the powers that are richer than you and can afford the fight.
The answer? Elect legislators that demand the corporations do the right thing….and punish those that take jobs overseas, that take tax incentives but don’t pay prevailing wages, etc. The trick is finding legislators that, because of the way campaigns are funded, are not in the pocket with the money interests. The answer to that? Public financing of elections.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | June 30, 2011 8:00pm
The state workers must remeber everyone of those Politicians who help sell them out at election time.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | June 30, 2011 8:36pm
Puzzled,
Don’t criticize until you have walked the mile in their shoes. They have a healthcare and pension agreement until 2017 that many many people have been working under and plan to retire under. That deal won’t be changed.
The state needs help for this budget cycle st the moment, this is not the time for smoke and mirrors. Let’s talk concrete numbers - furloughs and wages.
posted by: perturbed | June 30, 2011 8:41pm
Puzzled…
Yup. Actually, you’re missing quite a few things. I don’t blame you, though. They’re not widely reported. (But really, after reading all the news articles, it’s a sad commentary on the media that you would be lacking so many details at this late point in time.)
In the “few changes in their pensions” category:
—> delaying normal retirement age eligibility by three (3) years for everyone except Tier I and Hazardous duty employees, effective July 1, 2022
—> a 100% increase (a doubling) of the current penalty for anyone qualified for early retirement—based on the “new normal” age—from 3% per year to 6% per year early (not including the standard 1.33% per year reduction for each year early), effective July 1, 2011
—> a 20% reduction in the typical COLA, effective September 2, 2011
In the “minor changes in their health insurance” category, besides minor changes in co-pays, and relatively minor “Health Enhancement Program” requirements:
—> a mandatory 3% wage reduction (separate from the 2-year direct hard wage freeze) across the board for all employees for the equivalent of 10 years to be used to pay into a “Retiree Health Care Trust Fund”, phased in over 2 years beginning July 1, 2013
—> a Health Care Premium (Penalty) for early retirees, ranging from 2% to 40% of the cost of their health care, depending on years of service and years early, effective July 1, 2011
In the “intangible” category:
—> the knowledge that once the pension promises are broken the first time, they can be raided at any point in the future with less resistance
—> the knowledge that our lead negotiators are leaders in the health care reform movement, and that during the negotiation process health care reform bills were being shepherded through the legislature, and that the negotiations were “air-tight” this time (Roy Occhiogrosso’s own phrase) and our individual bargaining unit representatives were locked out
—> the fact that we were told the last year of wage increases, due just before the expiration of the layoff protection, was really just a bargaining chip for future negotiations to avoid additional concessions
In the “voting” category:
—> technically, most members did NOT vote for this agreement. Fifty-seven percent of those that cast ballots voted for the agreement. But in truth, the number of votes in favor of the agreement adds up to less than 50% of the membership. (Really.)
—> the state does not control SEBAC’s voting process, and technically, this vote hasn’t been completed yet
In the “general” category:
—> you asked 2 questions.
—perturbed
posted by: johnnyb | June 30, 2011 8:42pm
First of all ask Malloy or his little toady Ochiogrosso how much money is saved by another 1,000 layoffs. Add up the accrued vacation and sick which must be paid by last paycheck, unemployment for 99 weeks, money to pay for privatization to help fill the gaps, money to pay for someone to come up with contracts and scope of work for the privates, money to pay for the screwups of the privates- I-84 anyone? Malloy is a child and is acting like it. You could tell by all his air time during the snow storms that he has a Napoleon complex. He has not cut the 6 to 1 manager to worker ratio has he. King Dan needs the legislature to grow a pair and do the hard work of getting things right when it comes to not spending on farces like the busway. Good luck with that. If you are such a tough guy Dan why don’t you save the State money and do away with the protection force around you and also drive you own butt to work like the rest of us.
posted by: Puzzled... | June 30, 2011 8:54pm
*NOW* I know why this state is SO screwed up - NOBODY can agree with ANYBODY on ANYTHING, and there’s NOBODY steering the ship!
The Senate can’t agree with the House. NEITHER of them can agree with MALLOY. The State employees can’t agree with each other on ANYTHING, so their UNIONS are stuck with trying to represent a totally dysfunctional collection of members.
Well, have a great summer, everybody!
P.S. State employees - Better get your act together before it’s too late.
posted by: CitizenCT | June 30, 2011 9:22pm
Olivia, municipal budgets have more checks and balances. Many have referendums to pass budgets, which keeps tax increases down. In fact, it’s state law that requires municipalities to never spend less than the prior year on education, even as school population drops. It’s the state that has allowed its expenses to get out of controlled and through mandates constrains municipalities ability to manage costs.
posted by: hawkeye | June 30, 2011 9:34pm
Gov. Malloy continues his “cat and mouse game”—and leaving a lot of people with different conclusions.
posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 30, 2011 10:13pm
You people really think these “decisions” by the house and senate to rebuff the gov’s desire about longevity, privitization, etc is a WIN for the unions? PLEASE!
What you are witnessing tonight is well-orchestrated theater….the gov’s office, the senate, the house, sebac….they’re all in on it. Here’s what’s happening:
The gov asks for what he doesn’t really want—-the sick day issue, longevity issue, privitization issue—he asks for them because he wants to give the dems in the house and senate cover by allowing them to rebuff him—-while they give him what he REALLY wants—-additional recission authority. So the dems can say—hey, we stopped him on those issues, but we HAD to give him something!
Malloy doesn’t want 8000 layoffs—-he will lay off only as political theater to scare the pettipants off of state employees and then sebac will ask for a re-vote and voila! some of the NO votes soften and turn to YES votes—-mission accomplished, pernicious agreement passed, all employees called back, Malloy looks like a genius and runs for higher office in the not-too-distant-future…
Ladies and gents—-I’ve seen it done on the local level, and now it’ll play out on the state level.
At the end of it all, give them a standing ovation..and the Oscar goes to—the Dems who screwed labor!
posted by: illogicallylogical | June 30, 2011 11:36pm
I have spent the last few days watching our politicians take shot after shot on the unions. Gov. Malloy is pulling out all of the stops in an attempt to force Union members to accept this deal. Malloy is engaging in an elaborate form of extortion, and every union leader is silent. Furthermore, certain bargaining units are trying back-door secret deals without the unity of the other bargaining units. Based on all of the information being presented, one “might” conclude that this is all an elaborate plan to get a re-vote and scare everyone into voting “yes”. Malloy is in on it, the rest of CT’s politicians are in on it, and SEBAC has to be in on it if they are remaining silent for so long. The hilarious thing is, I am willing to bet that something so simple as re-writing the contract so it excluded the new “Obamacare” or Sustinet (or whatever you want to call it)...you would have gotten your “yes” votes…seriously…it’s that simple…doesn’t take a Mensan to figure that out.
posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | July 1, 2011 12:58am
The same concession deal will not pass on a re-vote. All of this highly orchestrated, phony, transparent, insulting, nonsense by Malloy, the legislature and SEBAC is just aggravating members. It is causing some to rethink their Yes vote. The Nos will not change. No voters already knew and accepted the risks associated with voting No. Almost every clown in the Senate and House who plays a part in threatening to or actually harming state employee compensation will have a very tough time getting re-elected. Union members will not fund their re-election campaigns, but will oppose their re-election by supporting their opponents.
SEBAC reps can’t change the voting rules and approve the deal themselves. According to Article 10(b), SEBAC cannot amend the voting rules regarding reopening the SEBAC Agreement unless (1) 4/5ths of the SEBAC reps vote in favor of changing the voting rules for reopening the current agreement and (2) not more than one bargaining agent votes against. In other words, the same super-majority threshold in Article 10 that was not met when the proposed 2011 SEBAC deal failed also applies to any attempt to revise Article 10 to lower the requirements for reopening the current agreement to accept the 2011 deal. If any 2 union reps vote No, the proposed rule change fails. It also fails if it is not passed by 80% of members’ union weighted votes. So, if AFSCME votes no, it fails bc it is 33% of SEBAC. SEBAC cannot use Article 9 to change the Article 10 voting rules by a 2/3 majority vote. Article 10(b) provides the only method by which the Article 10 can be amended. For an amendment of Article 10 to pass, the reps of 3 of the 4 unions that voted No would have to vote Yes.
The only way out of this win where everyone gets what they wants is to re-negotiate a deal that includes wage freezes for some years, many furlough days for some years, giving up longevity payments for some years, increased contributions and co-pays for the current health care plan, no changes to health care plan and retirement plans, and create new pay scales and retirement and health care plans for all new hires starting after this deal is accepted.
posted by: ohmygoodness | July 1, 2011 5:44am
New hires after this deal is accepted???? There should be NO NEW HIRES for a few YEARS!!!! Start getting rid of all the top Managers - that is where one will find the BIG MONEY and top salaries! As for the pension…why is mileage REIMBURSEMENT being added? We sure did elect a bunch of incompetent ‘leaders’. I used to take pride in living and working in CT… no more !
posted by: newview | July 1, 2011 6:43am
Please, SEBAC is going to change the by-laws. They are going to back to the table (yucka-yucka) to put a little fluff into a “re-negotiated” agreement, and SEBAC will take it back to the employees as a new agreement. It sure makes it look better than just changing the by-laws to pass the last agreement. Folks, not need of working yourselves into a lather, this is your typical political dance.
What is amazing, and certainly not to be taken lightly, 45,000 Union employees have held the House and Senate in a state of total dysfunction. Their hands have been tied knowing the impact of either the ratification or the how ugly it will be if this “NO” vote holds. Simply…amazing!
posted by: Roger Sherman | July 1, 2011 9:10am
What is up with Reps. Fox and Miller? I don’t always agree with the CT Conference of Municipalities, but their information is the best. People at the Capitol know they do all the heavy lifting on behalf of towns and cities.
posted by: jeff672 | July 1, 2011 11:24am
SEBAC can’t change the rules for voting, they do NOT have enough union’s on board the change the voting rules. So what’s next? The Union’s will have to ask the governor, if the TA can be tweaked to something that could be revoted on under the same SEBAC voting rules. If the governor agree’s, which I think he would, because he really doesn’t want to lay anybody off, negotiation’s will begin again. Everybody say’s healthcare is what killed it, along with the increased penalty for retiring early, and raising the retirement age. Those were the big 3. So if they can be fixed, then have a revote, and it should pass. In term’s of layoff’s, I heard that although correction’s were supposed to get 1019 layoff, actually it was only 200, so Malloy is over inflating the number’s to try to scare union member’s. Finally, the 2.5% cost of living increase does take effect to day, but if the concession agreement is passed, that would end.