New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 9, 2008 8:20 AM

First...lingering question..Jorge had an amendment for a list of consultants in this budget which was approved the city had one month to produce that information...what ever happened??? Dead??

Second the city keeps putting its eggs in one dang basket!! The state funds are drying up..going to hartford is NOT going to get us more money!! It will hopfully keep us from getting less!! But with todays news...

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10412789

the city really needs to start listening to the people. These layoff need to happen now!! And every dept. in the city need to take a SERIOUS look at what can be cut! And the BOE part of the general fund is the first place to start!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | September 9, 2008 9:58 AM

Melissa & Paul:

If the city is in violation of the charter, is there any remedy available to the people? Can we sue, get an injunction, hold someone liable?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 9, 2008 10:14 AM

The longer the layoffs are delayed, the smaller the impact of any single layoff. This means you will actually have to lay off more people than you would have two months ago in order to achieve the same result.

They may seem mundane, but every expenditure should be scoured for savings including out of the city/state travel, personal use of city owned cars, bottled water, buying new cars for city executives together with hiring freezes and layoffs.

From having studied this budget across the last four or five years, it is clear to me there is much that could be cut. Spending increased in one year by more than $30 million - twice the normal rate of increases - start there. Cap the number of cops at 350 - not 400.

Look at the education budget - fully allocate all the costs to arrive at a the real investment in education (include health and other benefits). It may then be possible to actually cut unnecessary spending and still achieve the MBR the state wants without penalty. With the State projecting a $145 million deficit this year, don't count on a bailout from that arena.

Posted by: reality | September 9, 2008 10:26 AM

The City is not in violation of the charter. The Mayor budgeted an amount and he has until next June 30th to get it out of the unions. IF it looks like they won't get it, they will just lay people off. What they did was actually farily responsible, as they will continue to have options all year long. I know some of you cranks hate the Mayor and want to be destructive and contrarian, but on this issue you gyus are just wrong.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 9, 2008 11:17 AM

Reality:

It may be best to read both the charter and the budget - one requires a balanced budget; the other is a blueprint for revenue and spending. They were out of balance when the BOA vote was taken. It's out of balance now. In fact, the mayor's budget as initially submitted to the BOA was out of balance. In both budgets, the mayor relied on revenue projections and assumptions he knew in advance were not real or at best, highly questionable.

And no, the mayor doesn't have until next June 30th to bring it into balance. The longer a solution is delayed, the harder it will be to balance the budget. Unless the mayor plans on setting up another off balance sheet entity which can then borrow in the bond market...its time to make the tough decisions.

Unless that is, DeStefano hopes an Obama win will yield a cushy federal job in D.C. so he can leave this financial mess behind him.

Posted by: RIGHTWING | September 9, 2008 11:28 AM

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we enforce the traffic laws. Ticketing and fining just a small percentage of the violators would bring a giant windfall to the city.

Posted by: raven | September 9, 2008 11:46 AM

Reality--

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...........

What planet do you live on?

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | September 9, 2008 1:10 PM

The city should not be posting to fill new positions when they are in a tight fiscal situation when layoffs are being contemplated. That does not make sense in the slightest. That would seem to be step #1 wouldn't it?

Posted by: Steve | September 9, 2008 2:16 PM

Dear Reality,

Assuming you are right and the projected budget shortfall of $6MM to $10MM, as a result of the Mayor's phony stream of State funding, wasn't a REALITY for FY 2008/09. Could we be in a surplus situation next year and allow for some tax relief if he took action now?

Maybe Mayor Johnnie just follows the Federal Budget Deficet Plans and let's it happen. Just pass the blame and then pass it on to the residents.

Do you think that this delay is a face saver with the Unions so he can get their support in his next "Clownish" run for Governor~~

Posted by: fed up | September 9, 2008 2:28 PM

I think the city should consider all the positions that lead to nowhere like consultants first before laying off actual people who do the work who dont make the salary that a consultant does, some consulants are already retired from the city and came back as a consultant.

Posted by: John Tulin | September 9, 2008 9:26 PM

Not to say that their isn't waste in the education department, there absolutely is....

...But the teacher's union has given enough. This mayor has lied to the teachers too many times and still the union again offered concessions (contrary to what the register and downtown suggest)!!!

This is what happens when you burn a bridge, you can't go back and cross it.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 10, 2008 8:34 AM

John Tulin not so sure it is teachers that people are after. Although I am sure their is some review on that. Over staffing of Principles, Asst. principles, consultants, and contractors are the things I personally would like to review.

RIGHTWING
I kind of blew your comment off..thinking this can not help with the budget....but as channel surfing last night I saw this story
http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7397383&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Something to look into.

Posted by: Ouch | September 10, 2008 8:38 AM

This website has gotten quite sick with its commenters desire to lay people off. Maybe the city is delaying layoffs because it knows these are real families with children to feed at home in the middle of a growing unemployment problem.

And maybe it knows that these are the people we all rely on when the economy is in a downturn. Has anyone noticed the dramatic rise in the number of homeless people on the green. Certainly tied directly to the cuts in homeless programming.

When layoffs occur, they will hit those services for the poor most directly -- homeless, elderly, libraries, etc.

So maybe it's time for the Independent to start reporting on what will happen with deep layoffs, and stop facilitating a know-nothing approach to local government.

As to the state government. Saying that we should all know that the state will not pay its fair share is ridiculous. We should all know that the Democratic majorities are spineless and that the Governor does not care about cities. We should plan for this. We should have a budget which reflects ongoing cuts?

Well guess what -- what services would you cut. Here's a list of some that are paid for out of the general fund budget (from state or local taxes):

homeless shelters
elderly centers
restaurant inspection
STD clinics
summer jobs for youth
library branches
fire stations
police officers
housing inspection
inspection of new construction

Which of these would you suggest cutting? And who actually thinks we would not be paying more in the short term. Let's cut the libraries and youth programs -- okay but then expect to hire more police.

Cut homeless services -- fine but expect to step over more people walking downtown.

Wanna pay for a major epidemic -- cut the health department. Who do you think drops the mosquito killer in the storm drains to fight west nile? Who do you think ensures that you can eat out without getting killed off.

Come on people - this is ridiculous. New Haven is going to lay the people off in the end.

There is no need to gloat about these people losing their jobs during a recession and guess what . . . nothing is free.

We will reap what we sow. Maybe at some point this newspaper (which oddly is reactionary with regard to tax policy) will honestly publish some stories on that.

Maybe Mr. Bass needs to start doing a city employee of the week and not just a cop of the week so people can see what else the city does.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 10, 2008 10:52 AM

Ouch:

No poster on here revels in the prospect of layoffs. Saying the city is delaying layoffs because these are real people with families implies many of us don't know these are real people. Of course they are.

But you can't get away from the fact that the city now employs close to 5,000 people for a population of some 120K +. That's extraordinary. Most of these employees have robust benefit packages far exceeding the private sector; and there is another army of contract workers not even included in that number.

The mayor has locked us into huge, long term debt that saps tremendous amounts of cash each fiscal year and his appetite for more borrowing is not slacking.

Meanwhile, there has been tremendous mission creep in terms of city services which has lead to more employees and bigger departmental expansions which equal more spending.

When homeowners are faced with declining values and 15% annual property tax increases - you're at a crossroads of being locked into past spending and management decisions, unsustainable spending and flat state revenue. The largest single expense is employees.

What would you cut? What changes would you make? Or would you just raise taxes to 18 or 20% annual increases?

Posted by: elmcityguy | September 10, 2008 12:07 PM

I've noticed the change in the green, I have to admit. More shady characters, the green itself is a bit shabbier than in the past.

But, I just don't care anymore. I can't afford the taxes going up. On my house, on my car, everywhere I turn, taxes. I'd rather stop the tax BREAKS that seem to be given to any company who flirts with moving to New Haven, but we're at the point where we can't afford the services we have.

Posted by: The Truth | September 10, 2008 12:40 PM

The voters put DeStefano in power. They must pay for his follies. The mil rate must go up. Thats only fair. Punishing city employees is not going to work. If you are complaining now about nothing getting done think what it will be like with less people to do the work.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | September 10, 2008 1:25 PM

Best suggestions I've heard:

1) stop posting to fill new positions;
2) stop all outside contracting;
3) have an independent, outside, non-political auditor study the city budget and suggest consolidations, and other cost saving measures;and
4) file a lawsuit against the state to get them to fund the state PILOT at the 77 % level promised by state statute.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 10, 2008 2:17 PM

strangerthanfiction

I have looked into the last one. We can not! Loop hole..."if the funds are available" is stated.

Posted by: Ouch | September 10, 2008 5:30 PM

Ummm. Wait a second Mr. Doyens and everybody else on here.

The total number of city employees has been going down for years.

We have 5000 employees in New Haven because we have something like 25,000 students in our school system. At least half of city employees work for the board of ed. So take 2500 employees and assume that they reflect about 10 employees for every kid. Then assume that we still want kids in a school to have art, gym, maybe some music and how about special education teachers, paraprofessionals, and custodians to clean up the place. (I mean do we really need those crossing guards?) And now all of the sudden it doesn't look like we have an extravagant board of ed.

Remember that there is a state constitutionally required minimum educational requirement in terms of annual expenditures per child. New Haven barely reaches it. So if there is fat to cut in the BOE, you are going to save next to nothing. Because STATE LAW says you have to fund the BOE at a specific level (then does not give the city the money to do so). So the BOE is basically out.

You wanna change the BOE, be my guest. Maybe there are better outcomes to be had, but you will not save city taxpayer money because there is a state law requiring you to fund at about where we currently fund.

Then of the remaining non-board of ed employees what do you cut? Seriously name something to cut, not anonymous "contractors." Who are these contractors? You mean the contractors who run the homeless shelters?

See here's the deal. You can make these cuts, and the city will almost surely have layoffs because there are enough union members with seniority that they will outvote the more junior union members who actually will get laid off.

As soon as the city produces a list then most people will know they did not get laid off, so then what, we ask them to take a pay cut to protect other peoples jobs? These aren't unions of coalminers made up of Norma Raes here.

And most of these employees do not live in the city because another state law says they don't have to and New Haven cannot require them to. So it's not like homeless people are congregating on their green in Branford.

But most of them do actually do something useful and most do care about the job they do.

As you beg for cuts, understand that when these people are laid off, libraries will close, more homeless people will take up residence on the green, graffiti will not get removed, homes will not get inspected for fire detectors, while others will not get boarded up.

Your tax dollars buy services. Maybe we cannot afford those services anymore. But we will lose a lot as a result. There is no good here. There is no policy argument.

What happened is that New Haven exists in a state where most people live in towns with volunteer fire departments, where the state police provide their protection, they lack sidewalks or sewer systems, and they take their trash to the dump. These people don't want to pay for the cities, even though they then rely on those cities for jobs, entertainment, hospitals, higher education, technological innovation, and to take care of the state's poor. These towns legislators make up the overwhelming majority of the votes in the capitol, and their governor is in the state house. So we don't get fully funded PILOT and the taxes on their McMansions and relatively high incomes stay low.

This is not a problem of New Haven's making, just ours to suffer through.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | September 10, 2008 9:08 PM

Ouch,
The city has less than 21,000 students and enrollment is not going up. They are now selling school buildings to bail out the sinking ship.

In terms of operating dollars, NHPS spends twice the state's minimum expenditure at about $13k per student. Make no mistake, New Haven is a VERY extravagant BOE. Look at the administration's wages.

But the operating expenditures are peanuts compared to the capital spending. In terms of capx, DeStefano has presided over the most wasteful school facility program in the history of our country by spending about $95,000 per student in school construction.

How did this happen? Because the state foolishly agreed to fund magnet school construction at over 90 cents on the dollar in order to encourage integration efforts. The mayor, never one to turn away pork, took the state to the cleaners. Unfortunately he took us local taxpayers there as well. Look back in the news archives. His school construction budget was originally $180 million. Now it is ten times that and still going strong.

And if you drive by these schools, it is not hard to see the unbelievable waste. Just look at the new Columbus school on Grand and Blatchley. They should rename it the Michelangelo school.

And even though property taxes are DOUBLING over the next 5 year phase-in to pay for this folly, the real problem is that what was all that investment for? Education quality has remained at the bottom of the heap under his watch. The only gap that he closed was the wealth gap for architects, developers, and contractors, the vast majority of whom live outside of town.

The entire spending spree is an unreported scandal of enormous proportions - and we get to pay for it.

Posted by: Ouch | September 11, 2008 8:34 AM

Fix the Schools,

No doubt you hate DeStefano. You have made that clear, every time you write a post. Not sure why this is but probably goes well beyond your commitment to education.

You are right that New Haven built very nice schools, mostly on the state's nickel and the jury is more than out on whether this will improve student outcomes.

But as usual, you miss the point I made. There are plenty of reasons that New Haven is in a tough financial position, including very high debt service to pay for new school construction.

One can argue over whether this is an appropriate expenditure of money. I actually like the way the new schools look and think infrastructure investments usually make sense over the long haul. We would be paying a lot to repair the hideous and virtually windowless prior Columbus School . . . no? And this would have not had a fraction of the state subsidy . . . yes?

But none of that was my point. Thanks for the corrections on the numbers of students, though I think that may undercount GED programs and the like, but let's use your numbers. Could New Haven actually make any substantial cut to the Board of Education under state law? Any cut that would reduce taxes?

Again, you may feel there is a better way to run the schools, I might even agree but under state law could New Haven actually cut its contribution in any meaningful way?

No it can't and it's time to be honest about that. So that leaves non-board of ed employees. These employees are exactly where the cuts have been made over the last decade. These cuts have led directly to the growing homeless problem, to the increase in crime (remember when thru attrition we reduced the police force pretty dramatically) and loss of library hours.

Now even someone who believes that the solution to every problem is a good education (and who could argue with that) has to think that cuts in libraries, homeless services, health inspectors, etc., etc. is not a particularly good thing.

Our city will have to make these cuts. They will not be visited in the end on education, fire or police. So expect to feel them in the parks, libraries, graffiti removal, treatment of people with sexually transmitted diseases, and just about anywhere else that the city's substantial lower income population actually lives.

Could we have spent less on beautiful schools. Sure but I for one can't get too overwhelmed that we spent too much on attractive buildings for our children, most of whom are lower income. Especially in a state where the hard working families of those same children pay for the police force and street sweeping that keeps suburbanites happy when they visit our lovely downtown to work, eat, or see a show.

See I have a general view of the world which is when one group keeps getting the short end of the stick, don't spend your time focused on the end of the stick they are holding onto, look at the other end of the stick to see who is holding them down.

But that's just me.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | September 11, 2008 9:32 AM

Of course the BOE could cut if it wanted, and in a way that could impact property taxes. To be honest, could you imagine that the schools could do any worse if they had half what they get? They have squandered the vast amounts that gets poured into the BOE by creating an entire infrastructure focused almost exclusively on employing adults.

But if given an offer to keep the Ed. budget where it was, or even INCREASE it, I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat if the quid pro quo was that the achievement gap would be cut by, say half.

The thing Destefano doesn't get (I don't hate him, just think he has no vision and he stands in the way of progress)is that if he had a strategy for cutting off the pipeline to poverty by improving the schools, this city could have it all! It could finance real school improvement with state, federal, and private $, PLUS not have to make terrible decisions about necessary and valuable city services.

But we are plagued by his lack of vision around education, his penchant for patronage, and his decision to invest limited resources into non-productive assets (palacial school buildings)and all we have to show for it are thousands and thousands of under-educated citizens who are facing a very tough road ahead in the new global economy.

But don't listen to me. Go hear it from a real expert on this stuff. Joel Klein is speaking in Bridgeport on Friday morning, October 17th. Sign up. Go see what someone with a real vision for public education has to say.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 11, 2008 10:41 AM

Ouch:

You keep repeating that the school budget can't be cut because of the MBR. That appears to be a myth. New Haven doesn't even count all the expenditures to reach a real understanding of its MBR. Health and other benefits have been extracted from the BOE budget and show up elsewhere in the budget. If these were added back in, we'd far surpass the MBR and could still make efficiency cuts. Since the BOE is a favorite parking spot for patronage jobs, this mythical MBR claim sure seems like a way to insulate those jobs and avoid a serious review of the BOE budget.

Fix the Schools is abosolutely correct on this school construction. We desperately needed new schools - but we didn't NEED these monuments and level of extravagance. They are overbuilt, over-architected and so much so, the state SDE is rejecting millions of dollars the BOE spent. Two months ago, the BOA approved borrowing another $48 million to cover expenditures the state rejected.

Posted by: Ouch | September 11, 2008 12:09 PM

Again Mr. Fix the Schools,

We don't have disagreement on the need to fix the schools. We have a disagreement that there is money to be saved there. Saying it is so, does not make it so. Be honest about this and hook your fix the schools carriage elsewhere. The problem is that no one confronts the anti-tax attitude of this site with the reality that layoffs are bad for the city. So are high taxes but we hear about that here everyday. Making cuts at the board of ed will not save the city money and the city could never lay off teachers or cut their health or pensions since no threat of layoffs is meaningful to a union that knows the city cannot find enough teachers to hire as the baby boomers retire.

I have a very basic point -- board of ed, fire and police are all off the table for layoffs. Everyone who knows what they are talking about knows that. So that leaves a whole bunch of important stuff that actu

And could you possibly be any less condescending. You go to Mr. Klein's speech. This is your issue that you look to educate us all on all the time. And while there, ask Mr. Klein how he is doing with high school students when you are there. Not so good? eh?

Gary,

Saying something appears to be a myth is not an argument. Taking things on and off budget may be interesting games that the city plays for who knows what reason but they are irrelevant to how the state computes whether the city has met its obligation to fund the schools. And as to patronage jobs at the Board of Ed, okay let's say I agree with you, if you empty out the patronage jobs, it does nothing to reduce the city's obligation to fully fund education at the level of state mandate (almost exactly where New Haven currently funds it). You might get better employees but you will do nothing to change the tax rate.

To the New Haven Independent -- really now that you have created a forum for every anti-tax position to appear mainstream, can't you start to push back against what will likely destroy New Haven. Did you like having an understaffed police department? Do you like the abundance of homeless on the green? Do you think it's a good idea to cut library hours?

Or is this really just a reactionary bastion of anti-tax zealots? I don't like paying high taxes either but I know that this is a result of state and federal policies much more than city ones. Whatever happened to the COPS program that used to pay for those extra police. Oh yeah, Bush eliminated it to pay for a war in Iraq.

But here on NHI we get -- that damn DeStefano, why couldn't he pay for more cops without raising our taxes.

Posted by: James | September 11, 2008 2:25 PM

I would just like to point out, once again, the unnecessary and insulting raises taken by DeStefano and Ron Smith. I would like for DeStefano to take one laid-off employee aside and explain to them, "I'm sorry that you have to lose your job, but I really need that extra $30k." How do you lay people off before showing any willingness to make personal sacrifices? I'd say the same for Smith, but I know full well he would gladly make such a statement without compunction.

Where is the show of solidarity? How can the mayor ask the entire city to tighten our belts, lay people off with the winter cold coming, not to mention holidays, and still cling greedily to his raise? How can he justify throwing a bone to Ron "No Show King" Smith in this environment? And why is nobody else pissed off about this? Yes, it's a small amount of money when compared tot he deficit, but it's a huge insult to the taxpayers.

NHI, why don't you ask the mayor this very question. If giving back or deferring your raise could keep one employee from getting laid off, would you do it? If it keeps one family from going hungry or without heat, would you do it? And then ask Smith if, being the community leader that he claims to be, if he is comfortable driving around in his new Mercedes knowing that some poor schmoe who picks up garbage in the park might lose his job so Ron could upgrade his ride. Ask them, Paul.

Posted by: teacher | September 11, 2008 3:18 PM

Fix the schools:

The short answer to your question is yes. I'm sure you have to be facetious when you say "To be honest, could you imagine that the schools could do any worse if they had half what they get?"

I agree that the BOE wasteful. I believe that some serious paycuts and layoffs could/should be made at 54 Meadow Street. However, inside our schools, personel are stretched thin in every department: administration, teaching, paraprofessional, custodial, special education, and other student services.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 11, 2008 4:13 PM

Ouch:

No department and no budget should be "off the table." There are no sacred cows. In a proper budget review, fire, police and the BOE should be included. I agree with Teacher that the waste is rarely found at the school level - it's in other places. But it is a fact that the BOE budget doesn't include health and other benefits.

I'd also like to know if the enrollment in public schools is going up or down - if I remember right, the system used to have more than 23,000 kids - now, it's 20,759 according the BOE website. That conflicts with an NHI story the other day where DeStefano et all welcomed back "17,000 students."

You still haven't answered my question: If you don't want to make cuts, are you prepared to tell working families they should budget 18 - 20% annual property tax increases?

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | September 11, 2008 6:57 PM

Teacher,

Thanks for weighing in. Good points.

But, think about it this way. 15 years ago NHPS spent $8,000 per student. At that time, less than 10% of minority students passed all four strands of the CAPT test in high school. Today, NHPS spends $13,000 per student - and voila'...less than 10% of minority students pass the CAPT. The high school graduation rate has only gone down over time.

So, the question is, what did that $5,000 per student buy us? Here's another way to look at it, outlandish as it might be: What would happen if we could legally slash $2,000 - $3,000 per student off of the budget next year and the system was forced to double class size in some cases, reduce para-professionals in some schools, cut the school day to noon, lay-off highly paid administrators at Gateway, stopped the pork school construction racket? What would happen to educational outcomes? The sad fact is that the academic results couldn't be much worse. Zero is only a few percentage points away. So why waste the money? If all of these resources haven't contributed to increased education, then why continue to invest in a system that doesn't work?

Think about that extreme case for a moment, and try to answer the last question but only as it pertains to the interest of the student - not the teachers or administrators.

Obviously the picture I painted is not reality. We couldn't slash the budget like that and get away with it. However, when will people (even teachers) start to say we need to aggressively try different approaches? I'd be interested in what you thought about the Michelle Rhee story in the DC schools (also featured in the current edition of NHI).

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | September 11, 2008 9:14 PM

Cedar Hill:
You're right the state statute to fund the state PILOT at the 77 % level does say basically "if the funds are available" but top lawyers say it could and should be challenged in court. The statute basically nullifies itself. It sets the PILOT at 77% but then says it can be cut to zero by the state if it wants. It's self-contradictory.

Posted by: teacher | September 14, 2008 12:38 PM

Fix the Schools:

I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner, but honestly, I'm been working!

I'm definitely thinking of the kids. Increasing class size while decreasing actual adult bodies in the classroom ("reducing number of para-professionals in some schools") would definitely have dire results. Test scores and graduate rates have plenty of room to plummet.

However, I can agree with you on slowing/freezing (in a responsible way) school construction, and trimming the fat from 54 Meadow Street (Gateway). Another possible cost-saving possibility could be to extend the schoolday Monday through Thursday and close schools on Fridays. This type of adjustment could cut down on operations costs, such as fuel. I think our district has to look at the budget critically and creatively.

Lastly, I really appreciate that you and I seem to be engaged in civilized, intelligent dialogue together, rather than some of the nasty, sarcastic rants a person often reads in the NHI comments.

Posted by: teacher | September 14, 2008 1:01 PM

Fis the schools:

I did a quick NHI search and couldn't find Michelle Rhee, but I read about her in some articles from the Washintonian and the Washington Post. She sounds good. Here's what jumped out at me:

1. She's not into titles for people in the central office, but in the tasks that they actually do.

2. She wants to move people in and out of her district according to their job performance, whether they work in the central office or in a 4th grade classroom.

Here's what we can learn from her first year:

1. Test scores don't pop right up after a change like that.

2. A Chancellor like Rhee makes as many, or more enemies as she does allies. Enemies can get in the way of good change and good ideas.

Thank you for tuning me into her. I'll watch closely what happens in DC in the next few years.