Additional Link for State and Local Information

While seethroughNY.net is a valuable link, the following link provides additional information on NY State municipal contracts.  I have also provided a link to Arbitration decisions and Fact-Finding results (e.g. teachers decisions (second link)).  

Just one note of caution the Contract link appears to have a glitch that generates a warning asking if you wish the scripts to stop running as they may cause your computer to become unresponsive.  I have clicked yes and the page I was seeking became available without any additional problems.  If you are uncomfortable with receiving the error message, do not proceed with the connection.  If attempts to close the website through clicking the "X" box are unsuccessful you can end the program by pressing Alt+Control+Delete simultaneously, which will start your computer's Task Manager.  You can then utilize Task Manager to end the program. 

The second link appears to work without difficulty. 

 

Jim Kirk

 

 

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbcontracts/

 

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/

NY Public Payroll Watch

 

December 2, 2009

Teachers clean up on “pension reform”

E.J. McMahon

Buried in the so-called Tier V pension bill just passed by the state Legislature is an incredible set of special concessions to unionized school teachers in New York.  None of these changes were contained in Governor Paterson’s original “pension reform” proposal, which was a colossal missed opportunity to begin with.  The worst of the giveaways to teachers in the final bill–effectively locking in one of the fastest-growing, most difficult to control components of school district compensation costs–is not even mentioned in Paterson’s press release hailing the bill’s passage.

The teachers’ union had their way on three major items:

  • While the minimum full-benefit retirement age after 30 years service was raised from 55 to 62 for all other civilian employees, it will set be at 57 for teachers.  In 2007-08, the median retirement age for New York State Teachers Retirement System (NYSTRS) members was 58.
  • The Legislature promised to enact a three-month early retirement window for teachers who are 55 but have only 25 years of service.  Districts will greet this as a cost savings, but it also will shift a so-far uncalculated cost to an already stressed pension fund.
  • Last but not least, the Tier V bill makes permanent a temporary law, annually renewed since 1994, barring school districts from “diminishing” health benefits for retired school district employees unless “a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions” applies to active workers.  Since changes in benefits for current employees must be collectively bargained, the provision effectively gives unions a veto on the matter.  This provision of Tier V, described the Assembly’s press release on the bill as “mak[ing] permanent retiree health protections,” goes unmentioned in the Governor’s celebratory release.

To be sure, the Assembly and Senate had long been in the habit of annually (and unanimously) rubber-stamping extensions of the retired teachers’ health coverage provision.  But as long as the provision was temporary, there was always a chance that some future occupant of the governor’s office would feel sufficiently emboldened to veto it or demand modifications as a condition for approval.  In general, any coveted benefit subject to periodic renewal also represents a significant point of potential leverage over the unions for a sufficiently reform-minded executive.

In one fell swoop, the Tier V bill will eliminate that leverage.  Further, it will embolden other public-sector unions that had been seeking the same permanent, perpetual benefits for their members.  The newly permanent provision for teachers becomes a precedent for everyone else.  Other public-sector units will now put strong election-year pressure on the governor and Legislature to give them same thing.  (Indeed, the Tier V bill also featured a four-year extension of compulsory arbitration rights for police and firefighters–another feature of current law that unions covet, for reasons explained here.)

Keeping in mind that the Tier V pension changes did not require bargaining with unions to begin with, Paterson and Legislature got very little from NYSUT in exchange for the special teacher goodies in the bill.  In fact, NYSUT’s sole concession apparently came down to this: while all other civilian employees in Tier V must contribute 3 percent of their salaries towards their pensions throughout their careers, teachers hired after Jan. 1 will pay 3.5 percent—a token one-half of a percentage point more, at a time when contributions are poised to increase by double-digit percentage rates.

According to the NYSTRS actuarial note pegged onto the Tier V bill, the hypothetical “entry rate” employer contribution for teachers under the new benefit structure will be about 26 percent below the rate for the current benefit structure.   This is equivalent to the projected savings for other Tier V non-uniformed members.  But, as in other areas, “it will be at least several years before [the change] has a noticeable impact on the employer contribution rate,” the actuarial note points out.

In the meantime, if the predicted path of employer contribution rate increases in the regular state retirement system is any guide, the rate for teachers is likely to rise from 6.17 percent to over 15 percent within the next few years.  NYSUT can always seek to claw back the benefit reductions before anyone in Tier V gets around to retiring–just as the union successfully did soon after Tier IV took effect in the early 1980s.  And again, districts are now more permanently stuck with costly early retiree health benefits–which, for example, amount to a $1 billion unfunded liability for the Buffalo city school district alone.

Unions are fond of using “fair share” analogies, but NYSUT is paying nowhere near its fair share for what it has gotten out of this bill.

The changes in police and fire pensions also included in the bill, especially the creation of a permanent employee contribution rate, will save more and represented a more significant change–but were balanced by the rote renewal of compulsory arbitration for those same unions.  Besides, when police and fire pensions are so much more expensive than those for everyone else, there’s scant rationale for pegging the contribution rate at the same 3 percent level as the one charged to non-uniformed employees, and below the 3.5 percent that will now be charged (but for how long?) to newly hired teachers.

Is the Tier V bill at least a step in the right direction?  Yes–only in the sense that if you are standing in Albany, face southwest and take one giant stride forward, you will be about three feet closer to an expense-paid vacation in Las Vegas.

Kent councilman seeks Putnam funding if police hurt on ERT

 Kent councilman seeks Putnam funding if police hurt on ERT

Michael Risinit
mrisinit@lohud.com

CARMEL — Police officers injured in the line of duty can receive their full pay from their employer while they recover — a cost Putnam County should bear, a Kent councilman says, if a Kent member of the county’s Emergency Response Team is injured on a county call.

The state’s 207c law allows injured law enforcement personnel to receive their salary and benefits for as long as it’s determined they can’t work or until retirement.

Kent Councilman Michael Tierney is worried about the cost to the town, should a Kent officer be injured on an ERT call, and whether its officers can continue participating under the current arrangement.

"Everyone has to be aware of what our exposure is. In this economy, we’re looking at everything," he said.

The team consists of eight Putnam County Sheriff’s Office members, 10 Carmel police officers, five Kent police officers and two members of the county’s Emergency Services Bureau. It was formed in 2005 and, Carmel Police Chief Michael Johnson said, "responds to incidents that can stress the capabilities of the individual respective patrol forces." Examples include calls for barricaded or armed suspects, he said.

Tierney met last month with the county Legislature’s Protective Services Committee about the matter and the Kent Town Board is to discuss the issue at its Dec. 7 meeting.

The legislative committee will revisit the issue at its meeting Monday.

Committee Chairwoman Mary Ellen Odell, R-Carmel, and Legislator Richard Othmer Jr., R-Kent, said legislators are waiting for an opinion from the county law department.

"But it looks like we may be successful deputizing them, in keeping them under the county," Odell said, referring to times when the officers are on an ERT call.

Much of the team’s training and equipment cost is covered by annual Homeland Security grants, although in 2010 only half of the grant — which is $109,500 this year— can go to reimbursing the agencies for overtime and filling the regular-duty slots of officers away on training.

Previously, there were no limits on applying the money. Tierney said he also had concerns about more of these costs coming to rest on Kent.

Lt. Alex DiVernieri of the Kent police said the department "applaud(ed)" Tierney’s efforts to reduce Kent’s costs.

"Bottom line, the members of the Kent Police Department that are on the Putnam County ERT are an integral part of providing safety to not only citizens of Kent but to the entire county," he said.

Through a spokesman, Sheriff Donald B. Smith acknowledged Tierney’s concerns and pointed out participation with the ERT benefits both the county team as well as the individual department.

"The participation of each of the law enforcement agencies in the ERT is voluntary and requires the approval of the governmental leadership of each respective municipality," sheriff’s spokesman Capt. William McNamara said.

Johnson, the Carmel police chief, said he wasn’t seeking to have the county cover his officers’ 207c costs but would ask for any of the same protections afforded Kent.

 

The full link to the article is here:  http://www.lohud.com/article/20091123/NEWS04/911230318/1205/NEWS0408/Kent-councilman-seeks-Putnam-funding-if-police-hurt-on-ERT

Term of office extension - Supervisor

Well, there was a smashing rejection of this proposal by the 3,009 voters (about 40% of those eligible to vote) who bothered to get their fat fannies out the door to vote!

Over 75% of voters said "NO" to the proposition.

So much for all of the (phantom) constituents that the 4 Republican Town Board members claimed had been bugging them for the increase in the Supervisor term of office!

Sadly, about 60% of eligible voters did not care enough to exercise their franchise.  I am for sanctions against those who don't vote.

Public Sector compensation in New York State

Carmel Central School District's "Community Open Forum"

As KFW members have discussed many times, the biggest slice of local taxes, by far, goes to fund the Carmel Central School District. I note that on the District's web site is a newly posted invitation to the annual Community Open Forum at which the Board of Education and the Superintendent "would like to get your feedback on several priority areas including Curriculum and Instruction, Communications, Budget and Finance, and Facilities and Transportation. Your input is valuable in assisting us in our planning, especially as we begin to prepare our 2010-2011 budget." The District will hold the forum on December 8 at 8:00 PM at the George Fischer Middle school. If you'd like to go, you have to register before December 2.

Sadly, the invitation fails to say what, if anything, will be done with the input the forum generates, and some of my cynical friends who have been to previous editions of this event claim its sole purpose is to let the District fill in a check box on some state form without having to lie about it. Still, it is a forum to talk to those who spend the bulk of our local taxes about what they're doing with all that money. And maybe the cynics have it all wrong. We can only hope so.

The 2009-2010 budget for the school district is here. The fiscal accountability supplement to the New York State School Report Card is here. And there's lots more on the District's budget page. So let 'em know you're coming, read up on where your money's going, and ask questions.

The town's 2010 budget

I wasted my time flapping my gums at the Public Hearing held tonight for the 2010 town budget.  There were 18 in the audience, including a couple of town employees and 4 Kent Fiscal Watch members.  I had my say and firmly believe that nobody listened.  For what it's worth, below are my remarks (I had to hurry the delivery, to fit into the 3 minutes allowed by the Supervisor):

 

 

"My name is Cliff Narbey.  I am a Kent resident and taxpayer.

I am a member of Kent Fiscal Watch, a non-partisan group that promotes transparency and fiscal responsibility in government.  It offers suggestions for ways to reduce spending while maintaining needed services.

This town board is to be commended for the improvement in fiscal management over the past 2 years.  In 2008, you achieved a surplus of $952,000 in the General Fund, over the previous administration’s budget.  In your budget for 2009 you planned a minor increase in taxes.  In this 2010 budget you reduce expenditures by 2%.

So it troubles me to come before you tonight and make some criticisms of your work.

You have publicly stated that you work hard on the budget and that you "do your homework".  Thus you know that Kent town taxes are almost $2 per $1,000 of property market value (mil. rate) higher than Patterson and Putnam Valley, towns that have the same assessment basis as Kent. You know that our mil. rate is 60% higher than theirs and that a Kent homeowner with a home valued at $300,000 pays almost $600 per year more in town tax than if that home was in Patterson or Putnam Valley.

You know that those neighboring towns spend less per resident than our town.

You know that the town of Fishkill, with a higher population (22,000), has a lower aggregate budget than Kent.

You know that the town of Patterson has passed a 2010 budget that reduces spending by 2.7%, after a 12% reduction in 2009.  The town of Southeast appears poised to pass a 2010 budget with reduced spending, after a 4% reduction in 2009.  I assume that, in doing your homework, you have analyzed and studied other towns’ budgets.

In my opinion, you have done a good "housekeeping" job, tidying up - but you have not addressed the deep-seated, structural spending habits of our town government, built up over decades.

You appear unwilling to utilize the powerful management tool of zero-based budgeting.  Properly implemented, this would enable you to review all of the services provided by the town, review the continued need for these and see any duplication.  You would review the resources needed to deliver these services and the optimal cost of these resources.

You would learn, for example, what the 4 full-time Kent police department’s detectives "detect" (at an aggregate cost of $½ million in salaries, benefits, use of vehicles and office space, continued training and education, etc.) and how many arrests they make in a year. [A board member corrected me – there are only 2 detectives, so my numbers are too high].

You would learn what the large number of highway workers’ aggregate hours produce – what they actually do.

You would learn why the municipal garage costs $621,000 per year – an average annual cost of over $7,000 per vehicle or piece of motorized equipment.  I note that you still do not recoup the entire cost of this garage from its users.

You appear unwilling to embrace consolidation of government services in a meaningful way.

You appear unwilling to use a purchase order system in order to control costs before they are incurred and appear before you as vouchers.

You appear unwilling to solve the case of police officers on town-paid disability for up to 2 decades.

You appear unwilling to address the rapid growth of post-retirement benefits that are non-contributory for the retirees (in this budget for $350,000).

You appear unwilling to address the extensive use of outside professionals (lawyers, engineers, human resource consultants, information technology consultants).

You appear to be unwilling to replace the Blackbaud bookkeeping software that is demonstrably not suitable for government (I believe that Kent is one of only 2 government users in all of America).

I respectfully ask you to consider my criticisms in the coming year.  I regret that Mr. Rohde will not be able to contribute to that and I salute his service, his sincerity and his independence.  I ask the Republican members to be true to the philosophy of their party – and not be "tax and spend" liberals."

Syndicate content