Republican Rep Gives Rell Tax Cap Second Look
by CTNewsjunkie Staff | February 18, 2008 7:00 AM
Posted to State Capitol
State Rep. Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, says he thinks Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s proposal to cap local property taxes is not getting a fair shake at the capital or from the news media.
That’s because no one is discussing how Rell’s proposal ties into the binding arbitration process, says Candelora, a first term representative who sits on the Appropriations Committee.
Binding arbitration is the process through which towns generally are forced to include annual raises in the contracts of unionized employees - whose salaries make up the bulk of every municipal budget - no matter how poorly the economy is performing.
“At first I was 100 percent against it,” Candelora said Friday of the governor’s proposal. “But when you read what she’s tied into it, it has some merit. She’s effectively taking away the 3 to 3.5 percent guaranteed annual raises for town employees.”
Candelora said public employee salary and benefits far outweigh those in the private sector, and “that’s where the debate really should be on this tax cap issue. There’s definitely room for debate on the subject. My guess is it’s not getting a fair shake.”
Arbitrations so seldom end in favor of local taxpayers that East Hartford officials were stunned in October 2006 when a panel of three arbiters turned heads around the state by deciding not to award raises to the town’s unionized teachers. According to the Journal Inquirer’s online archive, the arbiters’ report continually mentioned the town’s inability to pay as a major factor in the decision, adding that the ruling would “move the salaries of the teachers somewhat more in line with the town’s limited financial capabilities.”
But the good news for taxpayers in that panel’s report ended after the first year of the contract. The panel still gave the teachers 2.75 percent and 3 percent raises - with step increases - in the final two years of the deal ending in 2009-10.
Arguably, the economy has gotten even worse since that decision. Candelora says that when public employees get 3 and 4 percent pay increases every year, eventually something’s got to give.
“There’s no mechanism in place to allow towns to give less than 3 percent,” he says. “In some cases it’s like we’re following each other off the cliff. When you’re in tough times and your grand list is not growing, towns can’t issue 4 percent raises.”
Candelora noted that he is aware of the Stodder study, a union-financed analysis of Rell’s plan conducted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Economics Professor James Stodder and released this week. The study was critical of the cap proposal on many levels. Candelora said he disagrees with some of Stodder’s conclusions, but also that he isn’t surprised to see criticism of Rell’s plan from unions.
Click here to read the full report.
Specifically, Candelora said Rell’s plan would not necessarily hurt large cities more than affluent suburbs - as Stodder concluded - because every municipality would have the ability to break the cap if they saw fit.
But the crucial pieces of Rell’s proposal, Candelora said, are in changes to the contract arbitration process, where he says towns have been at a disadvantage. By and large, arbiters have been awarding pay raises based on what other towns have paid, Candelora says, instead of considering what a town is able to pay like the panel did for East Hartford in October 2006.
Under Rell’s proposal, Candelora said, arbiters would not be allowed to award a contractual pay increase that violates the proposed tax cap. And, he said, arbiters would not be allowed to take into consideration a town’s rainy day fund.
“What her tax cap proposal does is it brings it back to the town’s ability to pay,” Candelora said. “It’s really a discipline tool.”
This isn’t the first time Rell’s proposed the cap, nor is it the first time she’s been criticized for it. Big city mayors in Connecticut took aim at a similar Rell proposal in April 2007. That was after she floated the cap idea in the weeks following a budget address in which she included an income tax hike to pay for a landmark increase in education funding.
Comments (10)
Posted by: ctkeith | February 18, 2008 4:53 PM
"Candelora said public employee salary and benefits far outweigh those in the private sector"
Candelora,in this statement, shows he's a complete idiot.
People who work in the public sector, in the overwhelming majority of cases, make far less than their counterparts in the Private sector.
Posted by: doug | February 19, 2008 8:55 AM
Keith,
Rep. Candelora is a business owner and has enough expertise to speak with some authority here. He certainly doesn't deserve that kind of abuse. His point is simple: When a private business isn't doing well, no one gets raises. He wants to know why that same logic doesn't apply to town government.
There's at least one company in CT that hasn't given so much as a cost of living raise in 5 years. Zero pay adjustment. From a personal standpoint, my private sector starting salary was about half the lowest starting teacher salary in CT in the early 1990s, and still lags far behind teachers with the same number of years.
Teachers work hard and have an important job, but there are a lot of important jobs. If you've figured out how to get blood from a stone, then I stand corrected.
Posted by: ctkeith | February 20, 2008 10:01 AM
Doug,
I suggest you get another job. Teachers salaries today in ct start in the low to mid 30's after 4 yrs of college which is lower than most truck driving jobs.
Your average carpenter,plumber,electrician,machine operator and truck driver in the private sector makes almost 1.5 times the hourly wage with just as good benifits as the same job working for a municipality or the state.
In the IT feild the discrepency is even wider.
Candelora,like most Republicans,are so use to getting away with flat out lieing without being challenged he thought noting of doing it in this interview.
Posted by: ctkeith | February 20, 2008 10:30 AM
By the way Doug,
Since you brought up Candeloras being a buisness owner I googled him and found out he s the owner of Sportsplex in N. Branford.
I'll be sure to tell all my teacher and municipal employyee freinds here in Branford that the owner of Sportsplex (whiich depends largely on coaches who also happen to be schoolteachers recommending the place)thinks they're all overpaid and is supporting legislation that would assure they get smaller or no raises in the future.
Posted by: doug | February 20, 2008 11:36 AM
Apples to apples - 95 percent of the teachers in the state are public employees. Show me all the private sector teachers who start out making more money.
Not only do public school teachers make reasonable if not comfortable salaries from day 1, they also are insulated from the economy on the backs of taxpayers (suckers?) who work for a living as well -- people who haven't received even a cost-of-living pay increase in years.
You can't really think it's fair to keep asking those people, and small businesses in similar circumstances, for more money. They don't have any more to give. Candelora's argument not only has merit, in fact it RESONATES with taxpayers.
What I'd like to know is how many times contract arbitrations have ended in favor of the unions instead of the towns. That's probably a telling statistic. My guess is that it's fairly one-sided in favor of the unions. Otherwise, our property taxes would be a lot lower.
Clearly, we're having a discussion hear - which is basically what Candelora encouraging.
Posted by: ctkeith | February 20, 2008 1:25 PM
Doug,
I'm really sorry your lack of skills has kept you in a job where you haven't recieved a raise in 5 yrs. That, however, has no bearing on what professionals with Masters and PHDs degrees demand in boh the private and the pblic sector.
If you think 30-35k(starting saleries for a teacher in ct) a year makes for "comfortable" living in this state you must still be living home with your mommy.
As for arbitraton awards you should go do some research and you'll they'll average beween 3-5% .
Taking a job in the public sector does indeed provide greater security than many private sector jobs BUT the trade off is you more often than not get paid less.
Now, as to your apples to apples argument. As far as teachers in private and public school goes there isn't one.Most private schools don't demand you acheive a masters degree,continuued Eduucation and a host of other things public school teachers are required to do.
The Private school teachers aren't mandated to 1/4 of the things public school teachers are and in short trying to make an apples to apples comparison in this case shows a sprising lack of knowledge on your part.
Posted by: doug | February 20, 2008 2:20 PM
Yee-oinks! Unnecessarily insulting, and personal to boot!
Yes, arbitration awards generally fall between 3% and 5%, at the expense of the taxpayer. You are correct. And these aren't the days when teachers made $4,000 a year.
Just because someone becomes a teacher doesn't mean everyone else should have to take food off their own table to ensure the standard of living for teachers improves every year. You still haven't come close to refuting that.
Private sector teachers make less to start, whether they have a Ph.D. or a gum wrapper. Yes, there's a safety net for public school teachers. That's fine. When that safety net becomes a hot air balloon, that's different. That's what the discussion is about - excess at the expense of others. It's not about my skills or education, thank you very much.
And now you're saying $30-$35K isn't enough for a starting salary? Are teachers just in it for the money? So where shall we start the salaries? $45? $50? Will towns be handing out cell phones and $2,500 HDTVs as well? Nothing in the Constitution guarantees anyone the chance to be wealthy the moment they start their first job, nor does it say people should unionize just to screw their fellow man. Believe me, poverty is an ugly thing. But $30-$35K is a GREAT start for anyone who can live within their means.
Really rude. Talk radio rude. Rapaciously rude. You must be a lot of fun at union meetings.
OK, go ahead. Tee up another shot at my education, character, or intellect. The last word is all yours. I can take it. It's my own fault for engaging.
Posted by: ctkeith | February 20, 2008 2:42 PM
Sorry Doug,
But if you go look at starting salaries today for those with a 4 year college degree 30-35k isn't gong to get you too many of these folks to even get out of bed.
After completeing a 4 yr apprenticship in any trade someone can expect to make between 50-180k immediately.
A nuurse can expect a minimum of 60k her first year after finishing her degree.
I'm all for getting rid of arbitration awards completely because working people in this country did much better when puublic employees had the right to strike.
Arbitration is an outgrowth of the Taylor Laws which were the worst laws ever passed in this country.
With a little luck I can use this article to help make sure this Clown Candelorais a one termer.
Posted by: Christine | February 20, 2008 4:41 PM
CTKeith and Doug...STOP!
Posted by: doug | February 20, 2008 8:13 PM
I couldn't resist.
Personal attacks pretty much show that you're not willing to address the issue. For the record, people DO get out of bed for those salaries, particularly if it's the profession they love and believe in. Maybe not in Branford. I'm sure the hired help that works in Branford gets out of bed for those salaries, and there are plenty of those people in CT, far more than you think, obviously.
Usually, they stay out of bed to work a second job as well. But you wouldn't know that because you're so ridiculously out of touch. No, the trades aren't suffering through this economy like the rest of us non-union stiffs, and they don't have trouble paying their property taxes either. Right! Ask anyone who works for a living and they'll tell you property taxes are too high -- the trades are the first people to take a hit in a bad economy.
And then you go on and agree that arbitration doesn't work - Candelora's position. The reason they don't have the right to strike now? Because the kids are more important than their salaries. But that's neither here nor there because you still haven't explained how to get blood from a stone. He's just saying there's room for debate, but I guess there is none in Branford where everyone makes a minimum of $50K-$180K in their first job. If you don't like the guy, just say so. But your argument here does not pass muster.
If the private sector -- the free market -- is so great for the trades, then why not de-unionize teachers and let the free market sort it out for them as well?
It's almost as if you're saying towns should hike taxes up to pay teachers $50K in their first year. Brilliant! God help the Democrats if you're running their next campaign in Candelora's district. I'm guessing his seat will be safe.
I'm a registered Democrat, but if I lived in your town I'd be voting against you. Sorry Ashley.