From:
Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of
Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: ctact.org
860-528-0323
October 7, 2003
WELCOME TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION OF
TAX TALK
Your weekly update on what
others are thinking, doing, and planning
Send your comments or questions to me, and
I will include in next week's publication.
Susan Kniep, katzrus50e@aol.com
East Hartford Taxpayers Association
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Date: October 7, 2003
The results of our mailing
letters (posted on our website ctact.org) to towns throughout Connecticut
regarding Binding Arbitration is beginning to yield results. We will soon
be posting the information on our website. In the interim, please note
that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities has posted the following on
their website.
Binding Arbitration Reform a Possibility in Upcoming Special Session
October 2, 2003 Reforms to the binding arbitration process are being considered
as the state legislature prepares to convene in special session this fall.
House and Senate Democratic leaders have scheduled caucuses on October 14th to
discuss whether various subjects, including binding arbitration, will be
brought before the chamber for a vote. Help Keep the Door Open for Binding
Arbitration Reform YOUR ACTION NEEDED Call your state legislative delegation
RIGHT AWAY. Urge them to speak up in caucus in support of bringing reform of
binding arbitration to a vote. TELL THEM:
That your municipality supports opening discussions on binding arbitration
reform.
To keep proposals to reform binding arbitration on the table as they convene in
caucus and prepare for the special legislative session.
***********************************************************
Gus Masiello, augiemm@direcway.com
Taxpayer Group: Citizens for Prudent spending, Inc.,
Woodstock
Subject: Voting allowed to non-residents
Date: October 7, 2003
Susan: Here in
Woodstock, and I believe in Connecticut in general, those who have property and
pay taxes are permitted to attend and vote on taxing measures. I do not believe
that is irresponsible.A book that should be recommended to all, especially,
where we are trying to remove the arbitration laws from our backs is "Worm
in the Apple". Written by an economist from Forbes publications is a very
worthwhile use of time.
I will send you more on this, but I would make people know their enemy.
Gus
*************************************************************
Tom Durso, TDurso8217@aol.com
Oakville Taxpayers Association
Op-Ed published in Waterbury Repulican Aug 17 by Tom Durso:
For True Neutrals, Think Jury Duty
Date: October 1, 2003
A typical excuse which local Boards of Education use to justify
super-inflationary raises for teachers and administrators goes something
like this: " Well, if we didn't give away the store we'd have to go
to arbitration where we'd get hit even harder." Sure enough, a quick
review of arbitrated awards show that the ostensibly neutral arbiters
consistently hand out salary increases above the municipalities' last offer.
There should be no surprise at this since the pool of arbiters are neither
strangers nor unbiased triers of facts, but more like fellow
travelers with the government education establishment in
Connecticut.
Arbiters attain his or her pool position through
political sponsorship; they are not chosen at random
from electronic data bases for example. To be selected for a
panel to decide a labor contract, both the Board of Education
and the teachers union representative have the right to reject an
arbiter who is perceived to be biased, so it behooves arbiters
not to be stingy toward labor or risk being passed
over next time. On the other side of the table there's really not much
resistance from Boards of Education since it's easy to be a good
sport with other peoples' money. Further, many if not most members of
local Boards of Education include current or retired teachers,
administrators and other individuals who are sympathetic to the
wishes of the local education establishment; besides, how does one
"just say no" to a friend? The real combatants in the
battle over teacher compensation are the education
establishment v. local taxpayers, where the establishment includes the Boards
of Education, the unions, the PTO's and other such front-groups and
advocates for unquestioned school spending. This setup has
financially served the public education workforce well since
1979 when it was implemented but these professional educators have paid a steep
price in loss of respect and unjustified vilification. Further,
their long term cause is not helped by the rise of taxpayers groups
such as our Watertown/Oakville Taxpayers Association, who know
a rigged game when they see one; nor should local residents cheer when
their money is diverted away from other town accounts such as
police and fire services.
As a former member of Watertown's Town Council budget
subcommittee who on at least one occasion voted to fund raises for
teachers and administrators, I know the pressure which can
be exerted on Board and Council members to "do it for the kids--- or
else we'll be dragged to arbitration." There
is, I believe, an equitable solution to the question of what taxpayers
should pony up to pay local teachers and administrators; we could
replicate the system by which citizens are called for jury duty.
Rather than continuing with the heavily influenced insider- arbiters, why
not electronically cull irreproachable neutrals from property
tax, DMV or voter databases ? In such an arrangement municipal taxpayers
would be represented on the same plane
as establishment promoters . It would be akin to using a
fresh, sealed deck of cards for each game. Of course there would be stiff
resistance to this idea from the status quo supporters just as there would
be from a "lucky" casino gambler who's been disconnected
from a friendly Black Jack dealer. We will hear the
weeping and gnashing of teeth from the educrats who will insist
that us common folk simply can't be deciding questions of this
magnitude. Yeah right. While Joe and Jane Six-pack can decide from a
jury booth who lives or dies, egad, how on earth can they know how much
to pay teachers and school principals? Only Zeus-like insiders from
the our establishment Mt. Olympus are wise enough for
that!
Short of outright repeal of binding arbitration which is not
in the cards given the umbilical connection between labor unions and the
current legislative leadership, the least that taxpayers should demand is
that the system for arbitration of teacher compensation be truly
neutral, in contrast to the extant artifice which is an
insult to taxpayers' intelligence. The present scheme
spawns citizens' disrespect of public school professionals, anger over the
coerced diversion of local funds, school budget referendum defeats,
and it adds to a widespread skepticism of the
education establishment's fiduciary stewardship.
Public school teachers and local taxpayers
deserve nothing less than equal standing on questions
of salary levels but the existing Potemkin Village-system
of insider arbiters is a powerful engine driving up property taxes in
our shrinking state. Governor Rowland and his legislative allies won't find a
more worthwhile, legacy-building cause.