New Haven Independent

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 21, 2007 8:02 AM

We lose again. When it comes to taxes and spending, taxpayers are on the losing end every single time. Where's the bargaining? This is no bargain. This is robbery.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 21, 2007 8:52 AM

Another important note that many people were asking about, the raise for the City Clerk's salary from $42,167 to $48,038 is for a part-time job.

If what is discussed in this article is of concern to you, you need to make arrangements to be at the BOA meeting on December 17, 2007.

Posted by: concrenedwestvilleres | November 21, 2007 9:15 AM

I was also there last night and gave testimony. The Mayor does deserve a raise, but the amount he requested was too large. What is left out in the article is that Hartford's Mayor's salary will jump from $125,000 to $146,000 per year. I assume Bridgeport will also increase its mayor's salary from the $121,500. There were comparisons to Manchester and Greenwich, but those are not good comparisons as Manchester has a significant amount of retail that contributes to a large portion of their budget and Greenwich is a wealthy city. The comparison needs to be with Hartford and Bridgeport. Hartford is bigger than New Haven both in size and population so DeStefano should not be at the same salary. Bridgeport has more people than New Haven and has had issues with corruption. I think an amount between the two is appropriate. $131,010 was "suggested" by Carl Goldfield (who is not a member of the committee but made a suggestion- most likely what the Mayor really wanted). I agree with Mr. Kerekes- if you don't like the amount of the raise or have an opinion then go the BOA meeting on December 17th and make your opinion known. Otherwise, the BOA will go ahead with the proposal if there isn't an outcry. I, for one, think this is a reasonable proposal and hope that it passes. I have greater hope that the citizens of New Haven will come out and let their voices be heard whether in favor or against the raise on December 17.

Posted by: Hiscoolness | November 21, 2007 9:18 AM

Those of us who promote open government and fiscal responsibility lost out by yesterday's decision to grant the Mayor and City Clerk a raise that was prepared in secrecy and sprung on the New Haven citizenry barely two days after the elections that returned him to a record 8th term.

If the salary of the Office of the Mayor is below comparable positions in Connecticut then this should be rectified and one cannot object to maintaining salary packages that allow the office holder a degree of financial security and to permit non-Bloomberg types to run for office.

What one can object to is the underhanded and sneaky way this increase was kept secret from the voters until two days after the election. It reflects a degree of distrust that the voters can absorb such information and still make an informed choice for mayor. The decision to keep this request secret is more than just sneaky, deceptive and underhanded. It was unnecessary.

Posted by: Minor Correction | November 21, 2007 9:44 AM

As of the last Census, New Haven had a larger population than Hartford by a couple hundred people for the first time in modern times (after both cities had corrections made to their counts), but should open up more of a lead by the 2010 count. It is very slightly larger in land area as well.

That's not to say we should judge ourselves by Hartford.

Posted by: concrenedwestvilleres | November 21, 2007 11:09 AM

The idea of whether this was sprung in secrecy was discussed at last night's meeting. Carl Goldfield made a solid argument that the reason for the delay was to avoid a mayor's salary becoming a political issue. Harry David countered that the mayor should have trusted the population. Judging from the turnout at the election and the mayor's opponents, I doubt it would have made a difference.

The City needs to revise the charter (next opportunity is in 2013 according to the rules of the charter) and dictate the adjustment of the mayor's salary. The current method was designed as a result of corruption and secrecy and a desire for New Haven to have a "weak mayor" political structure where power resided with the Aldermen. Until the charter can be revised, we are left with this method. There are arguments on both sides of the matter as to the appropriateness of waiting until after the election. The Mayor would not have had anything to lose by announcing it prior to the election, but maybe he really didn't want to politicize the issue and allow the Board of Aldermen to discuss it honestly as Carl Goldfield mentioned yesterday.

The comparison to Hartford and Bridgeport is legitimate as the three cities are similar in many ways. I believe that Hartford is larger than New Haven both in population and size and New Haven has a sizeable college population that leaves in May. I still believe a salary between Bridgeport and Hartford is legitimate for New Haven.

Posted by: PowertothePeople | November 21, 2007 11:09 AM

"If what is discussed in this article is of concern to you, you need to make arrangements to be at the BOA meeting on December 17, 2007."

Mr. Kerekes has nailed it. In fact why wait? Contact your Alderperson now (and often) and let them know what you think. Some of them aren't so easy to find or are not responsive but don't let that stop you. Hunt them down. I'm sure NHI would love to do a story about unresponsive Alders.

See you on the 17th.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 21, 2007 11:53 AM

So the mayor's monster pay package was put together in secret, and kept under wraps to avoid it being a political issue during the election. It would have been an issue and we had a right to know the facts before we all voted. Mr. Goldfield, who thinks ethics reform is a mere prophylactic, believes I guess that this is how things should be done in New Haven. Keep public policy and public spending out of sight until the last possible moment, and then spring it. Nice.

It must be nice to pass all kinds of new spending and higher taxes, and then give yourself a huge raise so you don't have to feel the pain the little people do. Nice work, Mayor.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | November 21, 2007 12:56 PM

To: concrenedwestvilleres

I would like to offer a couple of corrections to your last post.
1. The next time a charter revision can be held is this year, not 2013. In fact a charter change request was made and failed to pass the BOA in June of 2002. To my knowledge there had been no change request for the previous 20 years.

2. The charter is not currently structured in favor of the aldermen; on the contrary, it is structured in favor of the Mayor, making the chief executive the stronger party. One example is that the mayor appoints aldermen to vacant positions when there is less than 6 months left to the term. (See section 53 of the charter).

Raises should not be granted solely on the comparison basis with another city, one could easily search the entire state and U.S. for a comparable higher or lower salary.
Rather, the preferred method should be one based on a performance evaluation standard; similar to the one we all receive on our job.
Elections notwithstanding.

The proposal to raise the salaries was not a close secret, Burgett, Goldfield and several other aldermen were aware that it was coming. The mayor would have looked statelier had he announced the raise before the election and made it effective in July of 2008, commensurate with the 08/09 budget. The current budget does not contain money for such raises.

We now have to be concerned about the next proposal to raise the Aldermen's salary; after all they have now completed the salary raising cycle. $$$$ And the beat goes on $$$$.

Posted by: James | November 21, 2007 1:16 PM

I wonder what Smith did for King John this past election to deserve the royal treatment. Maybe he just did a bang-up job on, um... signing things these past few years. Congratulations to the board of alders for once again dropping trow and bending over for the administration while ignoring the wishes of your constituency. Remind me to vote republican next time.

Posted by: bill saunders | November 21, 2007 5:04 PM

Does anybody know there are any Knicks fans in the administration? Maybe Smith has a good connection for court-side seats from his NBA days.

Posted by: concrenedwestvilleres | November 21, 2007 8:04 PM

Webvloger 1:
Thank you for the corrections. I based the 2013 date on Article 39 Section 216 of the Charter which basically says that at least once every ten years after July 1, 1993 the Board of Aldermen should appoint a charter revision commission. It does not preclude the Board of Aldermen from appointing a charter revision commission at any other time as long as it is at least once in 10 years.

As for the weak mayor structure, the mayor's powers are limited to appointments and execution of the laws passed by the Board of Aldermen. While the mayor can appoint aldermen based upon terms, his powers are limited as evidenced by the fact that he can't veto the decisions of the Board of Aldermen.

As for the comparison to other cities, that should be a baseline of maximums. There are those, such as Goldfield and Blango, who think the mayor should get all he requested. With the current Board of Aldermen structure the mayor gets what he wants. If it was made up of more independents and third party candidates the mayor would have a tough time.

The reason the salary has to be effective in January is due to the charter Article 36 Section 208 which states that it has to be for the mayor's full term of the office and must take effect on January 1 after the election. This is another area of the charter that needs revision. You can find the charter at www.municode.com and look under online library.

Posted by: Dean Moriarty | November 21, 2007 10:44 PM

Gary Doyens wrote: "It must be nice to pass all kinds of new spending and higher taxes, and then give yourself a huge raise so you don't have to feel the pain the little people do. Nice work, Mayor."

Nail on the head. Any voter with a modicum of intelligence should rightfully feel deceived by this sneakiness. Any folk who were on the sidelines, unconvinced or just didn't see how corrupt this admin is, all I can say is look at your Mayor now. The saddest thing is that he shows no shame at all. No apologies to the people who pay his inflated salary.

Over $4,000 a year in taxes to New Haven, for what?? After 20 years of owning my home here I can't afford it anymore. The only thing keeping me here now is the hope that two years from now we may get someone in office who can run a city without running over it's residents (Gary D., are you listening?). New Haven has become a soap opera. A very bad one.

Posted by: Mycoolness | November 22, 2007 8:26 PM

I may be getting old, infirm and fatigued, but I am having a hard time getting too exercised about this $20K increase when we spend $445 million in the General Fund ($717 million from all sources) each year).

I would like to save some energy and passion for the City's declining balance sheet. We don't actually have one but if we did we would see the following on the "liability" side of the ledger:
1. City and Education debt in the range of $400 million. The City's entire tax capacity is under $200 million)
2. The Net PResent Value deficit in the City's two pension plans -- the CERF and the P&F. In plain english this means that the City's promises to it's retirees under existing contracts are not covered by the fund assets and will require either contract revisions of higher taxes to cover. I don't have my database with me but this number may be around $400 million depending on discount rate and actuarial assumptions.

The BOA is discussing alternatives to the current pension plans such as moving from a Defined Benefit plan we now have to a Defined Contribution plan such as is in use by most of private industry and about 40 Connecticut municipalities. In a Defined Benefit plan the City bears all the liabilities for paying a defined pension regardless of what funds are available. In contrast, a defined contribution plan is more like an IRA or 401(K) plan where you and your employer contribute so much and you get back what was contributed plus any growth in these assets based on your choice of investment vehicles the employee makes.

I would not be surprised that after all this discussion the City elects to move towards a statewide Municipal Employee REtirement Fund which is also a Defined Benefit plan.

3. The promise to fund retiree health care is another liability that is not funded. Under GASB 45 the extent of this liability must be reported for New Haven by 2007. While GASB does not require that this liability be funded, the magnitude of this liability will influence the bond rating agencies and hence the City's borrowing costs. I noticed a line item in the 2007-8 budget for a contribution of $125,000 for this retiree health care expense. Given that health care is costing the City over $8,000 per person per year, that the costs for such care is
increasing at double digit rates and that we potentially have 5,000 employees and liabilities whose health care is being guaranteed between retirement and the date of receiving Social Security, we should be worried as to the size of this liability.

When the City spends and makes committments to it's employees such amounts that are not funded from current funding sources, it leaves future generations of taxpayers with this responsibility. This will tend to discourage property purchases in NEw Haven, raise interest costs, and drive property prices down. AS property values decline the Grand List follows and a higher mil rate will be necessary to maintain the tax take.

And it does not make me feel better that about 50% of City spending comes from State and other sources. Ultimately, all City spending comes from one of my pockets and the pockets of all taxpayers.

And that is the opinion of this taxpayer on this Thanksgiving day.

Posted by: Mycoolness | November 22, 2007 8:32 PM

Correction. Para 6 of my previous post said "5000 employees and liabilities" It should have read "5000 employees and retirees".

Posted by: NHPD EMPLOYEE | November 27, 2007 2:31 AM

That's wonderful, now maybe the mayor can pay for the damage to my vehicle that was caused by one of