The Town of Barnstable has more closely integrated town and school functions in order to increase transparency, improve service and save money. This report from the Pioneer Institute gives some of the details.
I am intrigued by the concept and would like to see the Town explore the possibilities. The report lists several steps which should be taken when embarking upon a plan such as this. The steps are
1. Gauge the Political Will
2. Know the Goal and Assess the Capacity
for Change
3. Draft a Clear Plan on which All
Parties Agree
4. Implementation
5. Constant Evaluation and External Input
The Town and School Department currently duplicate some functions when it comes to managing budgets. By consolidating these functions within the Town Budget and Finance department duplication might be avoided and efficiencies might be increased.
The school department has the most employees of all the town departments by a wide margin. The school department generally does a good job with their personnel administration with one or two exceptions. In contrast, ...
...the other town department personnel functions are a mishmash. Some departments handle their own personnel functions, others rely on the Office of Budget and Finance, and some do little at all. Since the School Department does the bulk of the work now and does a better job than some Town departments, it makes sense to me that they could take over those functions for most or all other departments. Once again, there may be reduction in duplication and efficiencies that arise from such a consolidation.
This evening the Select Board, Finance Committee and School Committee willl meet jointly to discuss the upcoming budget process. I plan to raise the issue of consolidating functions in order to investigate the first step needed in this process, Gauge the political will.
What are your thoughts about such a plan? Tell us in comments.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Town and school should integrate functions for savings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Let's at least explore this possible savings for the town. We need to think outside the box and be creative when it comes to our current economy.
Good luck thinking "outside the Box" with the collective Bargaining Unions. The minute you propose anything that adversely impacts them in any way it will be the end of the process. They will file unfair labor complaints, legal complaints and organize politically against any politician who advocates such. As long as Unions are part of the process there will be no "process" so suck it up and get ready to pay more in taxes.
Unions are a product of employer abuses. Uncontrolled union activity is a product of employer shutting down, or going elsewhere. Where can the public sector move too?? We can play the blame game or face up to the fact that we all need to sit, and discuss what is in the best interest of the town, employee's, and tax payers. Sitting at a select board meeting and rattling off about unions, will not help. All town employee's, and union officials, should sit down at the D.H.S. auditorium to discuss town monetary issues, and employee concerns. A 2% employee across the board raise will cost the town 1.4 million dollars. The town can not afford this type of raise increase.
Sit and talk, don't talk and walk. If you can't see the train wreck, just wait and listen....I hear a train coming. Remember a few years ago, when all town employee's, except the teachers, agreed not to take their salary increases. Enough said. This will be a train wreck. S.O.S. and S.0.S. Save our schools....save our students...time to get the signs.
Mr. Michaud's sage advice about how to approach this nearly impossible task was right on target. His warning of union related issues stonewalling any progress in this area was absolutely correct. His guarded comment about over compensation for the typical unionized employee was also well stated. Good luck on this project, Lord only knows you will need it.
The problem is not the employees but the unions and their leadership, this town is blessed with great employees who can see that there must be give and take on both sides. The unfortunate part is that the Unions negotiate for them and they are unwilling to EVER GIVE BACK anything so we are stuck. Giving pay raises just adds to the costs for the town and are not appreciated by Union leadership.
It would be great to sit down and work together as a team to address our mutual problems but the Unions don't see it as a mutual problem they see it as OUR problem and we need to ask taxpayers to pay more to fund pay raises and benefits.
Last year we agreed to give them a 2% pay raise and now we are in a deficit again so any over ride is clearly intended to pay for the pay raise.
Something has to give and until we elect leaders who stand up to unions it will always be us the taxpayer that "gives" (no pun intended)
Good Luck on that Bill.
His guarded comment about over compensation for the typical unionized employee was also well stated.
Take a good look, the highest paid positions in this town are NON union administrative positions.
Gagne's replacement came into a NEW job with 4 weeks vacation and more money than Michael was making with 20 years on the job!
Chief Lee is making what the former Chief made and started with 4 weeks vacation and hired a secretary making over 60,000 per year. It takes over 200,000 dollars to do the job Chief Pacheco was doing for 129,000.
Don't blame the cop or secretary making 45,000 dollars, paying 13 percent into retirement and 50 percent of healthcare for this mess.
Cressman has a clause in his contract that guarantees him a raise equal to the raise received by non union tall hall employees PLUS a merit increase for the great job he is doing!! So when a town hall worker gets 2%, Cressman gets 2% plus 3-5% more for MERIT. 5-7% on a salary of 135,000 is a lot more than 2% of 45,000.
Public schools have a much larger problem than educating students. You and I can not walk into a public school while students are attending school. The school department has a full time police officer at the Dartmouth high school and the Dartmouth middle school. These two officer are full time, police trained, to protect public safety. During the school year they are assigned to the above mentioned schools at a total cost of approximately 150,000 thousand dollars. What is so wrong with public education that we must have two full time police officers assigned to protect the students and the teachers. Something is awfully wrong with public education. I know for a fact that most school teachers fear for their safety. School teachers and school administrators are in fear of disciplining a rouge student. Did you ever consider a police officer to be assigned to protect teachers and students? Not in my life time. I can remember when schools/students were controlled by the teachers, and administrators. Did you know that smoking is not allowed on school property? If you could enter the school property during the lunch period you can see a cloud of cigaret smoke coming from behind the high school building next to the woods. The teachers know the students are smoking, the administrators know the students are smoking, the police officer know the students are smoking. Is anyone getting the picture that the students run DHS and not the school employee's. The teachers are intimidated, the administrators are intimidated, and the Dartmouth cop is intimidated. We have five elected members on the school committee. Why can't our elected school committee members walk into DHS unannounced and seek out the administrator and take a walk to the dining area during lunch time, while walking out in back of the school and see how many students are smoking or making out. I'll tell you why..because the school committee has rules of conduct and must allow the school administrator proper notice prior to any school committee member can visit the school for the purpose of checking thing out. Walk into the boy's rest room and smell the smoke. Why do we have a cop at the schools? Put this police officer back in the cruiser and patrol the town. If the schools want a cop, just like with the football games, basketball games, contact the police station and request a police officer. The notice will be put on the police assignment sheet and a police officer can bid on the detail. I'M surprised the police union has not file a grievance with the town selectmen.
The bluster continues. Still singing the praises of Miller and his gang? Of course you are. Who cares about the average taxpayer? Certainly you don't. They certainly didn't. Still all about getting as much as you can from the town regardless of whether the town can afford it or not? What will eventually happen is either reasonable minds prevail or the town (and county and state) get into loggerheads with the unions. What could happen then? That would be very interesting. Ever heard of the ERISA laws? Do you know what happens when pensions default now? If you are educated in this, you would know the Federal government takes them over. Of course, the benefits are typically greatly reduced. Sorry about that, no further options available to the unions. If the town can't make payroll for essential services do you know what options the town has then? Check it out, educate yourself. Like I said, my hope is that reasonable people work out this problem. You need not apply.
ERISA requires plans to provide participants with plan information including important information about plan features and funding; provides fiduciary responsibilities for those who manage and control plan assets; requires plans to establish a grievance and appeals process for participants to get benefits from their plans; and gives participants the right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty.
Oh and Erisa Laws require the Cities and towns to pay their SHARE into the retirement fund. The same fund cities and towns have been underfunding since the 1940's. There is no insolvency in the plan, just unpaid monies by cities and towns.
I am not worried and I thank you for funding my Golden years since you think you are, but the truth is you aren't. The 13% I pay weekly almost covers my entire retirement.
Last year we agreed to give them a 2% pay raise and now we are in a deficit again so any over ride is clearly intended to pay for the pay raise???
Cherry picking the facts again I see. A 3 year contract was signed 0% first year, 2% second year 0.5% third year.
The Town placed 5 million dollars in the reserve account so where is the deficit you speak of?
Misleading people is not the right way to make a point, but that doesn't seem to deter people on this blog.
The SRO program is in place and works well. Catching students breaking the law is on the bottom end of the SRO's job but gets done.
Where was your outrage at officers in the school when a young woman approached Officer Arruda (who she trusted) to inform him of a student making threats to enter the school with a gun and kill people?
Building a rapport with young children, having them trust the police and dealing with minor problems before they become MAJOR problems is his job.
The cost of the SRO program is less than the 150,000 you claim, but even at your heightened assessment the program is well worth the cost.
Wrong again. First, the amount contributed does not nearly cover pension related costs. Not even close. That is why these municipal, county and state plans are so underfunded. That is the sad fact of where this very significant problem is. The simply equation of taking more out of a fund than a combination of contributions and fund earnings dooms it to insolvency over time. Follow me so far? What happens if, or when, there is no money left? There is no individual amount set aside just for you while nobody else gets paid. Just no money left. That is the road these types of plans are on. Good luck to you and the taxpayers.
Cahill seems to disagree and says Todays employees contributing 13% will fund their own retirement. He further states that the reason for the shortfall now is previous employees paying 5% into the system, the assets weren't invested, and the state wasn't paying it's share.
Cahill said...
The truth is the average pension in the state of Massachusetts is about $25,000. Very few people are getting rich on the state pension system. As we go forward, most of those pensions are going to be self-funded, meaning people (state employees) will be using their own investments, their own assets to pay for their own pension.
What we're doing now is paying for mistakes of the past, when the system was not funded prior to 1985, when people were just putting in 5 percent and the assets weren't invested.
Within the next 20 years or less, we should have a fully funded pension system. And then the taxpayers will not be paying for that unfunded liability, and it will be funded primarily by state employees....
Here is mass the average employee pays 11% on his/her earnings plus 2% more on wages over 30,000 dollars. The state pays 1-2% into the system, so it is definitely self funded more than you would like to admit. The state pays 1-2% while saving 6.2% by not having to pay social security, yet they cry about unfunded mandates. The state is making money by having a pension system!!
For good measure I will throw in this article from the Globe.
Among other things, the Patrick proposal unveiled this week would require future state and municipal employees to work five years longer and contribute more to their pensions before qualifying. Early retirement would mean smaller benefits. New employees would pay more than 90 percent of the cost of their retirement. These are measures that would make a difference over the long haul.
New employees paying 90% of their retirement, the state paying 10%. If a new employee is paying 10.5% plus 2% over 30,000 for a total of 12.5% of salary then the states share is 1.25%.
The State still saves the 6.2 percent from their Social Security exemption so in effect the state is making 5% from the pension plan! Even after playing catchup they are still way ahead.
I see the pension debate is back. Here is my two cents.
I have trouble believing if someone works 30 years, all the while paying 10% into a retirement account, then lives for another 30 years collecting 80 % of his pay with COLA's, that the fund wouldn't run out of money before the employees demise.
If employees are certain there would be enough money then I have a fantastic offer for them. We, the taxpayers will give you a match for a 401k up to 5%. If you continue to put your 10% in, you will be saving a total of 15% toward your retirement, giving an even better retirement than you have now.
Since the transition would be difficult, we could continue with the system we now have and only implement the (superior by your logic)401k plan for new employees.
This would yield a higher retirement income for employees and allow the town to pay 5% of its payroll toward pensions each year with no worries about the funds coming up short later. The whole argument about who is responsible for pension system shortfalls could be eliminated. A WIN-WIN situation. Of course this argument does not work if you are wrong about 13% being enough to cover an employees retirement.
Besides, the 401k will work out better for my friend's family. He is a long time town employee who smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish. There is no way he is going to live long enough to get his money back. With the 401k, at least his wife and kids will get the money he put in.
Do we have a deal?
When you switch to a 401k system and match 5% you are now not providing a pension and have to pay 6.2 Social security tax.
5 + 6.2 would be 11.2% which is 9-10% more than the town contributes now. How is that a Win/Win?
The pension system is the win/win. Towns contribute less than they would under a 401k system and the employees have a defined benefit.
5 + 6.2 would be 11.2% which is 9-10% more than the town contributes now. How is that a Win/Win?
Is this a clueless calculation or what? The 5% match you refer to is typically paid only on the amount deferred by the participant. The match could be anywhere from $.01 to $1.00 on the amount deferred by the plan participant. Typically, the match is limited to an amount of 6% or less of the actual amount deferred by the participant. An example would be a $.25 match on the first $6.00 of amount deferred. The match would total $1.50 for the first $6.00 invested, none after that. If the participant makes $50k per year and defers 6% ($3k), then the total match would be $750 or 1.5% of total salary or wages. Please explain how your 11.2% number makes any sense.
Do you realize that the town is currently paying over 30% on payroll for the pension system? $3.4million on $11,000,000 payroll. I would never offer Popcorn's deal though. Let's just not pay it so that the employees are eventually forced to renegotiate the percentage of their high three.
Allow the states to declare bankruptcy and then all the "defined benefit programs" can be renegotiated to reflect current economic times. Attempts to work with CBUs are a waste of time as they will never allow anything but nibbles around the edges.
The bottom line is that the sackless politicians of the 60s-90s have written checks and made promises we cannot cash or keep and the longer we avoid throwing this corrupt system out the worse it will become. In the words of Bob Michaud "let's blow it up and start over!"
Defined benefit programs are a one way street. The town unions are a collective bus that runs over taxpayer after taxpayer to get guaranteed amounts in their retirement checks. Regardless of what is contributed and regardless of what the funds earn or lose. They remain the elephant in the room for the taxpayer. Eventually, the system will have to change. The question will be how ugly will it get to achieve acceptable change?
Do you realize that the town is currently paying over 30% on payroll for the pension system? $3.4million on $11,000,000 payroll?
Payroll is 39 million.
Post a Comment