One of the few things Gov. Dannel P. Malloy didn't get from his fellow Democrats in the legislature's majority is the power to cut municipal aid mid-year in the face of a fiscal emergency.
But if the state employee unions rejects a tentative concession deal later this month--punching a $700 million hole into next fiscal year's state budget and forcing officials to find cuts elsewhere--lawmakers might wish they had let Malloy be the bad guy.
Expanding the governor's budget authority "was a non-starter for us," House Majority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said Thursday, one day after the regular 2011 session adjourned. "Our members felt we could not hold back money to cities and towns after they begin their fiscal years."
Both Sharkey and Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said Democrats' reluctance to expand the governor's authority to adjust the budget without legislative consent had nothing to do with Malloy, but stemmed from concerns about separation of powers and the necessity of giving fiscal certainty to cities and towns.
"They've been putting together their budgets and relying on the municipal aid totals we've built into our budget," Looney said.
Both Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, and House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, said one of the party's top priorities this year was to solve the budget crisis without worsening a tax system that already relies heavily on property taxes.
"Businesses and families are still hurting from the worst recession in our lifetime," Williams said.
"Shifting costs to towns? What happens?" he added. "Local property taxes zoom and people pay through the nose."
Since the enactment of the state income tax, the legislature has granted the governor limited authority to unilaterally reduce many budget accounts by up to 5 percent, though municipal aid cannot be touched.
In his initial budget proposal in February, Malloy sought to raise the limit on rescissions to 10 percent, and more importantly, to end the exemption for municipal aid.
But while many segments of the budget technically are subject to the rescission clause, realistically they also cannot be touched. For example, state employee salaries and benefits, which represent nearly 30 percent of next fiscal year's $20.14 billion budget, are set by contract. Medicaid, which is more than 20 percent, is governed by federal entitlement rules that require states to serve all eligible patients, and debt service, about 11 percent, also is a legal obligation.
Past governors generally have cut spending by no more than $150 million through rescissions.
Doubling the limit to 10 percent presumably would allow Malloy to cancel closer to $300 million in spending. But ending the exemption for municipal grants, which total about $2.8 billion, would allow the governor to cut another $280 million without having to seek legislative permission.
James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, has said mid-year cuts to state aid would cripple local governments statewide because they have few options to adjust mid-year to reductions beyond layoffs, program cuts or supplemental property tax bills.
The governor has said that if unions reject the deal he would order thousands of layoffs, likely exceeding the 4,700 pink slips he issued earlier this year, and then withdrew after the tentative deal was announced in May.
But according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research, several factors typically cut into layoff savings in the first year, and one of those is the notice that must be given. The warning period varies based on each bargaining unit's contract, but it ranges from two to eight weeks.
So if Malloy is forced to look beyond layoffs to balance the budget, town aid is one of the last large areas that hasn't been touched yet.
The 34 bargaining units within 15 parent unions in state government aren't expected to complete their votes on the tentative concession deal before June 24. The package includes a two-year wage freeze, new limits on pension and retirement health benefits, a wellness-based health care program that adds costs to workers who don't receive regular physicals and other screenings. Workers would receive a four-year guarantee against layoffs in exchange for the givebacks in exchange for the deal, which the administration says is worth $700 million next year and $900 million in 2012-13.
Malloy said Thursday that while lawmakers might have been better served expanding his budgetary authority - and letting him take the heat if further tough cuts have to be made, he understood their reluctance wasn't personal.
"Their approach to additional rescissionary rights was based on their experience with past administrations," he said. "I'll work with them."
But the governor also said that if unions vote to reject the deal, state government would not ignore a $700 million hole. "We're going to have a balanced budget," he said.
With the exception of a Republican Senate majority in 1995 and 1996, both legislative chambers have been under Democratic control since 1986. And with Malloy, Connecticut's first Democratic governor since 1990, there is a new dynamic in Hartford that allows both the Executive and Legislative branches to respond quickly to problems, Donovan said.
"Instead of saying, 'We have differences, let's have a fight,' we say 'we have differences, let's sit down and figure them out,'" the speaker said.
I have seen official vote totals from a number of facilities and the yes vote is dramatically ahead of the no vote. So much so that I think it’s pretty much a done deal.
I'll give you one small example.
Connecticut Valley Hospital voted this past Tuesday. It was 566 Yes to 150 No. If you extrapolate that out then it looks like the Yes votes will blow out the No votes easily.
Please stop reporting fabricated results. Intended to manipulate opinion...it's unethical.
The truth: The MAJORITY of barganing units have not voted yet.
More truth: NO vote tallies will be released, TO ANYONE, let alone some peon posting on every web site until ALL BARGANING UNITS have voted, and the counts verified.
Some barganing units will not be voting until the week of June 20th. So, there will be NO OFFICAL counts until close to the end of June. So no one will know until that time.
Anything reported as of now, regarding vote counting, is hearsay and lies.
"Helen" - Even if the voting results you report are *real*, you really shouldn't report them publicly in a "forum" such as this one. I realize that it's *really* tempting to do so, but the unions really *do* want their members to vote based on the facts of the situation and the actual contents of the tentative agreement, *not* peer pressure or whatever. It's cool to talk publicly about the pro's and con's of the agreement - at least to *some* extent - but it really isn't a good idea to talk about voting results during the voting schedule. Connecticut's
Read More"Helen" - Even if the voting results you report are *real*, you really shouldn't report them publicly "
They are not real. Count totals are not being released until all barganing units have voted. Most have not.
You should not acknowledge Trolls directly. They go away if you ignore them.
They also go away if someone (like me) proves that they are full if it by showing factual information.
"EG" - No point to calling anyone online a "Troll," because we're ALL "trolls" when you really think about it LOL! The purpose of these "blogs" is really to just "capture our eyeballs" (ad revenue). Beyond that, they're just consumer-generated entertainment.
I did not "Call anyone a troll" I merely stated that there are Trolls in here, and there are.
I bring facts to the table for the purpose of informing readers about the truth.
And yes, people on these boards spreading, lies and attempting to influence others based on misinformation are exactly, by definition, trolls. Its not a derogatory name, its a classification of poster.
With apologies to Don Williams, why should we accept as fact that it is a bad thing to put any budget burden partly on towns and cities? Municipal government runs about as effectively and efficiently as does state government.
If cities and towns have to do with less, it's not a forgone conclusion that it will result in massive property tax increases. Look at New Haven for instance. In the face of a significant budget shortfall the mayor refused to raise taxes. Instead, he has instituted lay-offs, is privatizing some services, and is negotiating health/pension
Read MoreHey EG - Yeah I agree with you about people using these online "blogs" to deliberately spread misinformation & whatnot.
But you got me thinking about the definition of an online "troll" LOL! Just out of curiosity, I checked out Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
So I guess we're *both* wrong as far as Wikipedia's concerned LOL!!!
Now you can see the votes have no authenticity. They are in boxes with no oversight.
Helen you are very disturbing and you are clearly one of the union leaders that is selling this piece of crap health care.
Why is there so much secrecy around it?? www.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/6-health_care says it all. Bob Rinker was a part of Sustinet. One billion dollars for Uconn Bio Science Center is part of the Sustinet Obama Care it is all there in writing.
Why any state employee would vote yes when they have nothing in writing on the health care plan other than
Read MoreI find it disturbing that Dan Livingston our Chief Negotiator, Sal Luciano Executive Director of ASFCME, Bob Rinker Executive Director of CSEIU are all tied to universal health care, Sustinet, affordable health care. What are our union leaders doing on these boards?? It is unethical and huge conflict of interest.
Not once did the union discuss sustinet aka, partnership pooling, value health, enhancement health care, obama care, affordable health care with the union members not once in twelve years!!
THis was done in secrecy and behind our backs. I hope when this is said and done you are all removed.
Read MoreLet me correct my last line before someone makes a comment about my writing. I meant soul.
Helen people that do dirty business sooner or later get caught.
"josephine" - According to EG,myself AND Wikipedia, you're a "TROLL." So please do *yourself* a favor and just stop it, because it really just make you look silly - it really does - and it's painful for the rest of us to have to watch someone else make themselves look so foolish.
Getting back to the article's topic...
"Jeff Klaus" - Although I'm a unionist, I find myself having to agree with you. In fact, I think the whole concept of "state aid" to municipalities is counter-productive in the long run because I think it seriously diminishes poorer municipalities' will to "pull themselves up from their own bootstraps" and do what they really need to do to build up - or should I say *start* up - their own, local "economic engines." I honestly and truly believe that *general* state aid to municipalities should be gradually phased out, with the one possible
Read MoreNo matter which way the vote swings, Malloy ultimately is going to come out smelling roses, and a savior of the state from its fiscal ailment.
If the vote is in Malloy's favor, he will be a savior of all those recently hired state workers who desperately need jobs, from getting any pink slips.
If the vote is lost, Malloy can still introduce the early retirement incentives (despite Malloy's bravado that he would not offer that) in a special legislative session, and I am sure that not less than 10,000 senior state employees will take early retirement, thereby saving jobs
Read MoreTo all consumers there are now 20 shopping days left before Malloy and the dems start charging 6.35% on clothing under $50. The elderly on fixed incomes and young families with children will be hit hardest by this tax.
"realkook" - If the SEBAC agreement isn't ratified by unions' members there will be *no* "ERIP." And not just because Malloy says there won't be - there won't be one because the State simply doesn't have the CASH to be able to pay for an ERIP's "up-front" costs... it really doesn't. I think Malloy's estimate about needing to reduce the State's workforce by about 7,500 within 1-to-2 years - if the agreement isn't ratified - is about right; I arrived at the same number myself. Some of those 7,500 position losses would come from attrition - maybe 1,000, 2,000 *absolute*
Read Morerealkook there will not be an erip. Remember it is not who votes it is who counts the votes that is important
Hey larrye2011 - good to see you back!
Actually, there's a *lot* of oversight and supervision of the unions' voting, so I'm confident that it'll be honest. Don't listen to anyone who claims to know what the outcome will be because *nobody* is able to predict this one, and I mean *nobody*! Anybody who claims to "know" how the voting's going so far - whether "yes" or "no" - is deliberately spreading falsehood.
But yeah, there will be no "ERIP" regardless of the outcome, and anybody who *truly* believes there's even a *slight* chance of one is just deluding themselves
Read MoreSteveHC: What kind of "upfront costs" are you talking about? What tier of the state pension plans involves upfront costs? Please do not compartmentalize the costs. Net out the costs and the savings, no matter from what account you pay or save. No matter how you slice and dice, it is the tax payers that have to foot the bill. Pare down the pay roll and garner efficiencies.
On the other hand, will it be all right for people to collect unemployment benefit to stay at home and do no (that is "zero work") productive work in return? I
Read MoreSteve my biggest worry is that if people do not have money to spend the economy will continue to slow. Next month people will be surprised when they get their checks at what the income tax increase will mean. Then they will go to the store and a $20 shirt will cost 6.35% more. A business owner was telling me his problem is he is losing customers. If people stop shopping because the state takes their money business will be in trouble. I hope I'm wrong but i see small business getting crushed. I know I will
Read MoreMalloy said during the campaign he wanted to allow towns to have taxing power. He doesn't need the towns to get re-elected just the cities and unions. The unions are not likely to vote for a Republican so they're stuck. So he doesn't have anything to worry about if he cuts aid to towns since they didn't vote for him in the first place. So he'll dump town aid to compensate.
Haven't seen a freeze on hiring, or officials losing their cars and driver, or useless committees like the ones for each racial group being dropped. Yes Dan is really
Steve your a troll and you obviously are a union leader. You are a troll. Stop lying to people. You are making a fool of yourselve. You are on every site along with your buddy helen.
Oh Steve what is the matter the truth starting to bother you. It will all come out sooner or later.
There is plenty of evidence to support what I am saying. All one has to do is read. The agreement is a piece of crap with all kinds of holes and unanswered questions and extremely manipulative kind of like you.
larrye2011 - The problem for the State - and its taxpayers - with an ERIP is that it would require *far* more pension benefit pay-outs over the next 12 months (and longer) than there is money available in the pension funds to handle without them going completely broke. If the State tried to do it it would in all probability ultimately wind up having to cancel all pension benefits to new employees and have to *significantly* "jack up" both its own and current employees' payments into the funds, *well* beyond what the current SEBAC agreement would require. OR the State
Read MoreHaving said that, if any State employees are actually reading this stuff here, do your best to ignore it. Get the *facts* from the sources - the State and your union - then make up your *own* mind on how to vote. Try your best to ignore others' attempts to influence you.
This is a serious problem. Should the Unions pass on the deal, our Legislators may actually need to make a tough decision. They might even need to consider cutting a special interest program or two. (Like that would ever happen.) That certainly isn't what they usually do. It might be inconvenient come re-election time. Cutting the city and town’s aid may be even worse though. Us common folk might get mad and take it out at the voting booth. I really feel for you poor Lawmakers. Life has really dealt you a short straw.
SteveHC You say get the facts, that is a laugh, they will never give us the facts until this is voted in. We had someone come in with a "formula" to tell us how much it would cost us to "buy" our time to retire at 62. They couldn't ever explain the formula. The union leaders have just been told to sell this no matter what. The union reps that are state employees are voting no even though they are told to "sell" this no matter what. This is a horrible deal for Union Members.
Read MoreHelen reported the correct numbers but she had the categories backwards.
The CVH No vote was 566 and the Yes vote was 150...
Wishful thinking I guess.
One thing I'm kinda getting a chuckle over.... Having not listened to WTIC for a while having gotten fed up with Lowland's rants against state employees and how they should jump at this deal, listened to track recent bad weather and now he's backing off some and says there's a lot of murkiness involved and maybe it's not so great a deal.
Perhaps he looked and realized what will happen to his 'early retirement' package in a few years when he is eligible at 55 and the % cut per year (7 years 'early' from age 62) more than doubles./>
ALMOST worth voting yes out of spite (as I'm sure he would have done) but deal sucks so much overall it can't legitimately pass.
STATE EMPLOYEES:
Do not pay attention to ANYTHING you read on these "blogs" regarding the SEBAC agreement. There are people who want you to vote against the agreement to suit their OWN purposes, NOT yours. Anti-union, anti-employee people are actually posting "blog" entries under MULTIPLE names, making ridiculous and FALSE statements about the agreement and your unions, hoping to sway your vote.
Pay NO attention to ANYONE who tries to tell you how to vote, or who claims they "know" what the voting outcome will be - because NO ONE knows until all of the voting is completed.
READ the
Read MoreYes you steve. You are a union leader and stop lying to people. We want people to read the agreement or should I say lack off. Does this plan tell you anything that is covered?? If nothing is changing then why are we even voting?? If nothing is changing what happened to open enrollment in may isnt funny how open enrollment is coming out after voting??? Of yes in 2012 health care is up for bid?? Wonder if there is a bid opening??
REad sustinet 242 pages see if it doesnt mirror the health care they are offering. Oh yes
Read MoreSteve HC (HC = Health Care Is that a inside joke with your fellow union "trolls"?) Fess up, are you a union employee or just a rep? You sound like the union guys in my office, "Take a leap of faith."
Here we go again.................
>>.....But if the state employee unions rejects a tentative concession deal later this month--punching a $700 million hole into next fiscal year's state budget and forcing officials to find cuts elsewhere--lawmakers might wish they had let Malloy be the bad guy>>
From what I understand, 60% of this $700M is an unsubstantiated claim by comrade malloy - nothing more and nothing less.
It is also time for this site to become fair in its reporting and investigating. All too often, it seems writers are drinking Malloy's Kook Aid and not doing their duty as journalists.
Read MoreChicopee
It is very disturbing what is going on here and I can only imagine what is going on with the Federal Government.
We are clearly being censored. It is truly unbelievable. Dan Livingston, Bob Rinker, and Sal Luciano all need to be removed no matter what the vote. They sure were waiting for a legislature that had the majority of democrats and democratic Governor to institute their plans since 1999. Well I believe next year voting for some legislature is up for renewal ??? Is that why bills are flying through the legislature??
I am not sure why
Read MoreThere is no good choice here but the worst choice is going for this crooked deal.
Readers who think that voting "yes" would be in everyone's best interest -
Don't waste your breath here. Only a *few* of the "Vote NO!" posters around here are truly State employees; they're incredibly blind and/or self-centered ostriches who actually believe that if they just "pretend" the economy's not in the crapper long-term and the voters of the state don't exist, that if they vote "no" that nothing really "bad" will happen to them. The rest are private right-wing nut jobs; some are just *plain* nut-jobs who actually BELIEVE the garbage that "sheep" puts up on his "votenotoconcessions.com"
Read More"Chicopee" - SURELY you jest, right? I mean come on - ROWLAND??? He got carted off to federal prison on a corruption conviction, remember? And Rell? She didn't do anything... LITERALLY! She didn't do *anything* - other than to create a new position for herself as the State's "official grandma."
If the unions don't approve, Malloy will just shrug, blame it on Rowland and raise taxes. I don't believe he'll layoff in large numbers.
"Submitted by jschmidt27 on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 11:33pm.
If the unions don't approve, Malloy will just shrug, blame it on Rowland and raise taxes. I don't believe he'll layoff in large numbers."
- Well *I'M* certainly not going to count on that LOL!
No matter, the munis need to be weaned off state aid anyway, no time like the present to begin.
I just wish the voting were over so we could get on to plan b and then get back to work. Productivity has not been good the past few months thanks to malloy's inexperience.
If the agreement gets rejected, I wouldn't expect that you're "productivity" will get any higher than it is now; in fact, I'll bet it sinks considerably lower 'cause it's kinda tough when everybody's so busy bumping each other halfway across the state...
No more should municipalities rely on their State for every dime, nor should the States rely on the federal government for every dime.
WE have wandered so far from the original Framers' plan - this is the pain WE have subjected ourselves to in the process.
Once the concession package gets voted down, so will the Municpal Funding thereby truely leading to "Shared Sacrifice" amongst State and Municipal workers.
Why should the State Workers shoulder ALL the responsibility in this???
I studied this matter for a long time. I felt so shocked by the depth of the betrayal by Sal Luciano and Dan Livingston, among others. Now that we have been sold out by our own unions, what do we do? Only now have I gotten over the shock of this. All along the union leaders planned to convert our healthcare to Sustinet, and yet they still sat on SEBAC and pretended to be negotiating for what is best for state employees. And then they insist that it is absolutely not true that there was
Read MoreGee-Helen
Helen seems to know an awful lot?? I dont really think so. Helen is just scared that after 25 years of state service, she will lose her job due to layoff and actually have to work. I am not being mean, but it is the reality of some managers. She has what they call a cake job. I would be scared to lose that too. But to put out there that the votes are in and so far... THAT IS JUST SO TYPICAL of a scared state employee or a non-state employee that hates
"If the state does not change its demographic trajectory, it faces a bleak future."
A Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis report, "Recovery Stirring, But Will Connecticut be Too Old to Compete?"
Get the latest headlines right to your mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device
FOLLOW US ON: 
CT Mirror is now well into its 3rd year. Since our launch on Jan. 25, 2010, we've published more than 4,000 stories and had 3.5 million web visits.
From the start, our goal has been to offer readers information on Connecticut policies and politics - and the personalities behind both - to help residents make the best decisions possible about their lives and those of their families.
PROUD SPONSOR
CT JOBLESS RATE
January 2011: 9.3%
February 2011: 9.2%
March 2011: 9.1%
April 2011: 9.0%
May 2011: 8.9%
June 2011: 8.9%
July 2011: 8.9%
August 2011: 8.8%
September 2011: 8.6%
October 2011: 8.5%
November 2011: 8.3%
December 2011: 8.1%
January 2012: 8.0%
February 2012: 7.8%
March 2012: 7.7%
April 2012: 7.7%
PROUD SPONSOR
Printer-friendly version
Send to a friend