Looks like the Town Manager and his buddies at Town Hall will be going through this budget (along with a few bottles of Maalox) trying to figure out what to do with some numbers.
So exactly how will they translate this referendum's mandate to lower spending? Will they make some token cuts and have the Town go through another round of "Let's get signatures and wear T-shirts and put up lawn signs" or will they honestly give some needed tax relief to its citizens?
The Courant has already reported some "threats and mayhem" coming out of town Hall.
Curbside leaf pickup and .... increasing town fees, closing branch libraries on Friday nights and cutting back on pothole repairs in order to reduce public works staff are other options on the table.Cutting back on pothole repair? You mean they were doing that?
Closing Branch libraries? You mean instead of eliminating meals being delivered to Town Hall or giving out yearly bonuses to department heads?
And yet, Town Hall has heard from many residents already, from public hearings to emails to comments on the Courant's articles to local and humble blogs like these. But are they listening?
One thing is for certain they cannot cut programs and then turn around and give administrative raises and bonuses like they did last year. That is definitely not going to look good.
People will argue that "only 29% of the voters turned out" and so it isn't REALLY a representation of what everyone in town wants. That's nonsense. We had one of the highest percentages in voter turnout for this type of referendum in the state. Typically a 29% voter turnout is not seen. It is usually much less. And yes, that does say something about the overall political engagement of the public at large. People who don't bother to vote in these referendums generally don't vote because they either don't care, or they are willing to accept what comes out of the vote either way.
There was a shift of about 800 votes from "No" to Yes" if you compare the numbers to last year's referendum turnout and results. That is because the Education proponents were a bit more orchestrated. They had help from union head, Barbara Carpenter and the West Hartford Education Association as well, and they even had some Board of Education members fully participating (in retrospect, we wish we had taken photos of Jack Darcy in his little yellow "Vote YES" Tee as he did look "fetching"). But be that as it may - they still lost with a 65% to 35% loss, and that is significant.
What the Town Manager does with this is as good a guess as any to the average person. Only he and the Town Council know for sure at this point. They really need to be sensitive to what the economy overall is handing all of us. The TV news interviews showed consistently that people said that if they are forced to tighten their belts in this economy then so should the town. When people (West Hartford citizens and taxpayers) see the town putting down brick pavers and paying folks to water planters and building islands in roadways where they really seem to be unnecessary, then they are going to be very annoyed especially if they are having trouble paying for their own necessities. Yes, some will say they don't mind paying the premiums to live here, but there comes a point where they will mind. 65% in this referendum said they mind and they want to see spending reined in.
In any case, what's this all mean? Most people are saying that reductions can be spread around. We shouldn't be hacking off a program unless it isn't delivering the best value. Quite frankly, a management audit would show us where policies could get some cost benefit - a case in point is the fellow who testified at a Town Council meeting about getting a tax bill for 65 cents! and then getting another for 7 cents as a late fee. The processing of those bills were a waste. No doubt a management audit would uncover some of these practices that are wasteful.
Initial ideas (and they are not TOWH ideas) on reductions to the budget that have been floating around are:
Freezing salaries.
Freezing hiring.
No bonuses in 2008-09 for employees.
Eliminate or seriously reduce overtime.
Reduce consultants and do not hire back those who have retired.
Step up collection of delinquent fees and taxes due to the town.
Eliminate leaf collection (Those vacuum trucks really don't work anyway - they never come at appropriate times) and replace with leaf bag pick-up. Or perhaps do vacuum leaf collection only in the parts of town that have a lot of trees or chronically clogged storm drains.
Freeze on Meal allowances.
Freeze on Dues and Travel allowances.
De-commission some town vehicles and sell them.
Cut advertising costs.
Freeze costs on office equipment to last years amount.
Freeze rental and leases to last years amount.
Cut 1 person from each Town department and 1 person from each school.
Consolidate polling places in town (do we really need 20)?
Require Town department heads to deliver their budgets with just a 0-3% increase and let them decide where to make reductions.
Increase fees.
Reduce the number of personnel sent to 911 calls. (Do we really need 8 guys to show up with 3 or 4 vehicles to a 911 call?)
Drop the $100,000 lawsuit against Taubman
Cap costs on litigation
Reconsider the $40,000 being spent on rejoining CT Conference of Municipalities
So what are some of your ideas on where to cut without harming school programs or jeopardizing public safety?
With these guys in Town Hall making six figure salaries, now is the time for them to show us that they are worth what they are being paid. If they are good managers they will do what is needed to do and if that means firing a few people or using less gasoline and office supplies, then so be it. The Town Council majority keeps reminding the public that we have all these intelligent creative minds working at Town Hall. Now is the time for them to prove it. It's easy to be a good manager in high times, but can they be creative enough and courageous enough in these leaner times?
We will not see weeds growing in the streets and our kids won't turn out to be criminals and 911 calls will still be answered. So cheer up, we live in a great town and it's going to stay great even through difficult economic times.
15 WH Responses:
Your comments on the size of the vote/turnout are well taken.
It should also be pointed out, the the Town Council was voted in by roughly the same number of votes. The Dems got between ~7500-9000 votes and the GOP ~3500-3800.
So if the critics don't like the referendum and claim not enough people turned out for a meaningful vote, then I guess the Town Council should all step down for the same reasons
Let's start by re-allocating the $400K for parking meters.
How about killing the do nothing $300K DIP
The town needs to do two things.
1. Identify short-term cuts and freezes that will bring the budget down without compromising essentials (fire, police, senior services, and, yes, schools).
2. Change long-term spending patterns. Eke out another few years out of each vehicle, computer, office desk, etc. (Has anyone seen an old WH vehicle?)
Once these are proposals are in hand, then the town manager can go back to the residents with a coherent plan. Would people vote for a mild tax increase? Yes, of course they would, but only if they believe that long-term spending is under control.
Hi, good comments. What they should do is eliminate the jobs at town hall.. All they do is gossip..
Also, get rid of some of the educational programs...Other towns that spend less on education have better schools
Besides all the money reserved for educations is going only for the brightest students... accelerated programs etc... For the average student, you arent getting any of that... you dont matter
I do not understand the oft-repeated complaints about the hiring of retired town employees as consultants, and I do not see how a prohibition on such hiring will yield any savings for the town.
The suggestion that these people are somehow "double-dipping" is nonsense. The retirement benefits that they are receiving are benefits that they previously earned during their years as active employees, and to which they are fully entitled regardless of whether they return in a consulting capacity. Any assertion that they should not also be paid for additional consulting services that they may agree to provide is tantamount to suggesting that retirees should be expected to continue to work for the town for free. Does anyone really, truly believe that?
If the consulting that these retirees have been providing is necessary or otherwise beneficial to the town, then presumably the town would be paying someone for the consulting work in any event, and I have not heard anyone suggest that "non-retirees" would provide superior work, or charge less.
If, on the other hand, the work is neither necessary nor beneficial, then the problem is not that the checks for the consulting fees are made payable to retirees - the problem is that the checks are being written at all.
Thus, and as stated above, I do not see how a policy against hiring retired employees as consultants will yield any savings to the town. In fact, it is at least as likely that this practice, rather than creating additional expense, could potentially SAVE the town money, as retired employees will likely need less time to be brought "up to speed" on whatever issue they are addressing.
I think the question is more to the point why are we hiring back consultants to help with their old jobs?
The one that comes to mind was hired to assist the new principal at Conard learn his new position. The consulting salary I've heard for this was $150K/yr (if anyone knows otherwise please correct).
Are we hiring new principals who are unqualified for the positions they are assuming? in which case the town is then paying 2 to do the job of one!
What I don't understand is if these people want to work, then why did they "retire"? It is because they can double dip - collect retirement benefits while also getting a salary.
No one is saying they shouldn't get retirement benefits - but they ought to really retire instead of "fake retire". It's disingenuous at best.
I also think the previous poster is correct in saying that if we are hiring back these "retirees" to help the people who replaced them then we are not hiring capable replacements to begin with.
There is no "double-dipping" going on that I can see. Double-dipping generally refers to getting paid twice for the same thing. No one has suggested that is happening here.
Moe monee's characterization of "fake retirement" as being somehow "disingenuous" is absurd. Apparently, Moe monee is content for retirees to receive benefits they have fully earned, as long as they are constrained from working ever again.
How does Moe monee's suggestion of enforced idleness -- a truly extraordinary proposal in a capitalist society such as ours -- help the town? As has been mentioned above, assuming that the consulting services at issue are necessary or beneficial, the town will have to pay somebody, somewhere for them. Would Moe Monee be happier if the checks were made payable to John Smith, random consultant rather than Bill Jones, retired employee (who could perhaps use a few extra bucks to help pay his burgeoning property taxes)?
If new employees hired by the town are unqualified, a policy against hiring former employees as consultants is pointless, as it would not render the new employees any more qualified.
Separately, I have also heard the $150k figure Cynic mentioned in the preceding post, and I wonder about it. To the extent that it is even accurate, I would not be surprised if it reflects an annualized rate for a much briefer engagement, e.g., paying a former administrator $3k/week for a week or two in order to provide some orientation for a new principal (and perhaps some transition for the students and staff). I do not have a problem with that scenario, which is a VERY different thing than paying someone $150k over the course of a full year to help someone else do his/her job.
A policy against hiring former town employees in a consulting capacity is truly a solution in search of a problem. It will not save the town a dime, and could potentially result in additional expense. This proposal should be put to bed.
Also, get rid of some of the educational programs...Other towns that spend less on education have better schools
Besides all the money reserved for educations is going only for the brightest students... accelerated programs etc... For the average student, you arent getting any of that... you dont matter
Please provide some information on "better schools" which have lower per pupil expenditures and lower administrative costs.
I completely disagree that the "average student" does not benefit from programs offered in the WH Public Schools. There is very little money "reserved for... the brightest students." On the contrary, a lot of money is being spent on the DIP to bring up the lower end kids and we spend a lot on special education services, as well. There is plenty to offered to the "average" student, as well.
wh alum, we'd like to know how many administrators are categorized as "teachers" in order to keep this administrative cost category artificially low. (Come on, you know they play that game) How many classes are "teachers" required to teach? How many of our categorized "teachers" are not actually teachers?
I do not know the answer to that question. But if that is the case, that they are classified as "teachers" but acting as administrators, then aren't they being paid as "teachers" and not as administration? Seems like it would be a savings to me, paying someone for less than what you are getting out of them.
If you think that data is artificially low, then I guess you need to get in there and do some investigating. I'm not going to do it for you. I'm going to trust that they are recording their data honestly and accurately.
wh alum that is what a management audit would show.
Thanks for proving it.
WH Alum: "On the contrary, a lot of money is being spent on the DIP to bring up the lower end kids and we spend a lot on special education services, as well. "
Let's see if I understan the DIP.
Estimated cost $300K
Need to hire at least 1 new administrator to evaluate numbers generated. Need to purchse software for the data evaluation.
Spring 2007 - we finished #56 on the CMTs and discovered our students were deficient.
2008 Schol Year - 10th graders who last year faired poorly recieve no hlep to catch up. After all the DIP is not in place in 2008. The Plan was presented to the BOE in Nov 2007, just in time to make the deadline for presentation to the Sate for approval.
March 2008 Approval received from State. Too late in School year to impliment paln.
2009 School Year - DIP goes into place to collect data. Sophomores from 2007 who graduate or drop out by June 2009 receive no "benefit" from the plan.
School year 2009 - Data should now be available for evaluation.
How long will it now take to evaluate data and start remedial help. You've already lost 1 class.
Sorry that should have read:
2008 School Year - DIP goes into place to collect
Post a Comment