From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
October 14, 2005
WELCOME TO THE 57TH EDITION
OF
TAX TALK
Good Jobs First helps
grassroots groups and policy-makers ensure that economic
development subsidies are
accountable and effective.
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/
Nancy Wyman, State Comptroller’s Monthly Letter
to the Governor
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/reports/monthly/letter1005.htm
Retirement
Benefits for Connecticut
Legislators
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/lm/rpt/2003-R-0521.htm
Want to know if a company is registered in
Connecticut. Go to this website:
http://www.concord.sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/online?eid=99&sn=InquiryServlet
Many have written
and asked where to find the Hartford
Courant Article on Assessments. Here it
is…
http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-new_shoreline.artaug07,0,4636287.story?coll=hc-headlines-custom-specials
Visit the Heartland Institute:
http://heartland.org/
*****
As President of FCTO, I wish to extend my heartfelt
appreciation to Susan Alberty, Chair of Citizens for
Limited Taxation (CLT) who invited me to their September 29, 2005 Anniversary
Dinner. Susan and her colleagues are
certainly doing something right as the room was filled to capacity with
concerned taxpayers. I had an
opportunity to bring a message from the Federation and enjoy some good
conversation with those attending. Thank you Susan for inviting me. The taxpayers in Danielson and surrounding
communities are to be commended for the positions they have taken against
growing property taxes and eminent domain.
Susan Kniep
*****
On Friday, October 6, 2005, I accompanied New London homeowners into the New London
Development Corporation to review documentation under a Freedom of Information
request. The following link will take
you to Channel 8 who was there to greet us when we arrived. We will soon be reporting on our findings and
expect to request further information to help us to understand this
organization, the public and private money which supports it, and the impact
the NLDC and the New London City Council has had on the lives of nearly 100
families uprooted through the power of eminent domain abuse.
1.
|
Residents
investigating New London Development Corporation
(New
London-WTNH, Oct. 7, 2005 6:10 PM) _ The fight over eminent domain has sent
some residents on a fact finding mission. The residents say they are using
the Freedom of Information Act to get inside the New London Development
Corporation. by News Channel 8's Tina Detelj Armed with digital...
|
In addition
to the information we have sought, the following website http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/ was
forwarded to me. I suggest each and
every Connecticut
resident visit this website, and Follow the $$$$$ leaking from the NLDC pipeline http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/$.htm
.
Please also support the New London
slate of candidates running for office in their attempt to unseat those in
power who have forced New London
homeowners from their homes. It is only
through the voting booth that our power can be felt. In 2005, you have an opportunity to support
the candidates running for office in New London http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/contribute.htm who are attempting to protect the property rights of New London
homeowners.
As 28 States have effectively reformed their laws to protect
their constituents, Connecticut Democrats have
done little to protect the property rights of Connecticut homeowners. In 2006, if the State legislature has refused
to effectively protect our interests, you can exercise your vote to remove your
State elected officials from office and elect someone who understands your
concerns for losing your home to eminent domain.
Please read the following I received from Tom Pcinich of New
London. Susan Kniep
*****
Tom Picinich & Ellen Kleckner tomellen8@yahoo.com
New London
My name is
Tom Picinich. My wife and I are homeowners in New London, CT and I lost
my home to eminent domain in the infamous New
London Municipal Development Plan. As you know, this
is also the same MDP and city of which the Kelo US Supreme
Court Case originated. I'm writing to
ask if you could kindly publicize a new PAC
website that was formed to help us sweep out all our eminent domain abusers in
this November’s election! I've
never run for political office – but I am running now along with Michael Cristofaro- one of the Fort Trumbull
seven. The website of Free New London
is: http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/
*****
ctjodi@sbcglobal.net
Updated Mill
Rates, Budget Adoption Experiences, and CT Tax Increase Comparisons
Sept 14, 2005
Hi, all. Attached are
the updated Mill Rate Lists, Budget Adoption Experiences, and CT Tax Increase Comparisons
spreadsheet.
On the Mill Rate spreadsheet, 3 towns have reported
corrections (Orange, Pomfret,
and Hampton), and, with the passage of Watertown
IV, the mill rate has now been set at 21.35, for a total of four changes from
the Mill Rate list I last sent out. On the Budget Adoption Experiences
spreadsheet, we are now down to four towns with unapproved budgets: Coventry V, New
London III, Middlebury III, and Westbrook IV. Yesterday’s defeat of Westbrook III and
passage of Watertown
IV have been reflected. Two of the
unapproved towns, Coventry and Middlebury, are
considering zero mill increases, although Coventry
is looking for additional input at Town Meeting. We expect the New London referendum next week to fail,
although their form of town government and budget voting is not easy to reflect
in a spreadsheet. Canterbury’s and
Watertown’s budget passage is offset by the defeats in Coventry and Westbrook,
which drive the number of referendums required to pass a budget upward. Yet
another third party has emerged, and that is in East Hampton: the Chatham
party, which is generally based on last year’s usage of the “Chatham Roundtable Discussions” concept in
that town. In addition, I think it is
fair to call “Windsor
United” a third party, even though they are staunchly Democratic. The time is quickly coming in which we will
have to start coming up with a better definition of “third party.” “Third Party” may ultimately be defined as a
“Challenge Party” to the two established parties of Republicans and Democrats. The results of yesterday’s primaries should
raise eyebrows. Certainly challenge
slates and challenge candidates to party-endorsed slates and candidates were
more successful than has been seen in the past.
Many party-endorsed candidates (and in many cases, incumbents) were
defeated in primary, which was very surprising in at least four
towns. One of the most watched primaries
was in Middlebury; the showing made by Bollard-Carpinella
was respectable, even though they lost.
Their appeal to Unaffiliateds and Democrats
should make the November elections in Middlebury worthy of analysis. I think there is no doubt that these
challenge parties will have an impact in the November elections. What would be
interesting is to analyze other states, and see if challenge parties are also
emerging in those states, and what their level of success is. The statewide average of all approved budgets
– with multiple referendum votes and multiple defeated budget proposals
factored out – now stands at 4.34%. The
CT Tax Increase Comparisons spreadsheet has not statistically budged for
months, even though we are now down to just four towns with unapproved
budgets. The average
of all defeated budgets stands at 6.7%.
If you remember the analysis I sent you on May 4, following the first
round of voting in “Sweeps Week”, the data showed: Of the 28 passed budgets, the average tax increase is 4.35%, but the
vast majority of those passed budgets is correlated directly to the “method of
voting”, which at this point is being strongly influenced by towns in which the
funding authority is a Town Council, a BET, a BAT, or an RTM. Of the 15 failed budgets, the average failed
budget is 6.37% increase. The failed
budgets are likewise primarily in those towns which have referendums as the
charter-designated method of voting.
For the past three years, the data has been consistent in predicting the
ultimate results of statewide tax increase averages following the initial votes
in the first week of May. I expect this
consistency to continue next year. Any corrections, please let me know. Thanks, Donna Please see
attached excel spreadsheet!
**********
Flo Stahl, Avon Taxpayers Assocation
Subject: Susan Kniep's
Presentation on Eminent Domain
Sept 19, 2005
Dear Susan: I was
very pleased to have attended the Federalist Society "hearing" in the
Judiciary Room at the State Capitol and thought your presentation was, from a
common sense citizens' view, absolutely on point. Lawyers can and do parse
meanings, often in a tortured way. But your statement was clear and
unequivocal. Atty. Horton was rather flip, in my opinion, more interested in
his ego as having pleaded before the Supreme Court; Atty. Berliner was probably
the most realistic in predicting that nothing much is going to change, and
Atty. Rose was the pragmatist arguing that eminent domain is often the only
alternative. Berliner's plea that other alternatives be
seriously considered was brushed aside, but I hope will gain traction. Rose
and Horton missed the point about the misuse of eminent domain and private
development. They did not address that important issue at all, instead chose to
characterize those in opposition as not wanting eminent domain used at
all...ever. A common tactic when trying to mock your
adversaries. Flo
*****
WYMAN PROJECTS $29.1 MILLION SURPLUS FOR 2006, SAYS RISING
FUEL COSTS COULD WEAKEN ECONOMY
State Comptroller Nancy Wyman today projected the state will
end the 2006 fiscal year with a $29.1 million surplus. The estimated surplus is almost entirely
attributed to the recent spike in fuel prices, which create higher collection
of tax revenue from oil companies. But those rising prices also are dampening
the outlook for the state’s overall economy.
“Those prices may be bad news for Connecticut’s
economy if they continue to strain the resources of the consumer, businesses
and state government,” Wyman said. “The cost of energy combined with rising
interest rates could jeopardize the pace of economic growth in the coming
months.” The tax on oil company receipts
is expected to generate about $172 million in state revenue by the time the
fiscal year ends on June 30, 2006. That is about $40 million higher than
original estimates. Despite the rise in
fuel costs, Wyman said Connecticut’s
overall economy currently remains sound. The state added 1,600 jobs in August,
and corporate profits grew by a solid 6 percent over the last fiscal
quarter. Retail sales in August grew by
nearly 8 percent from the same time last year, and the major equity indexes
showed modest growth for the fiscal quarter that ended Sept. 30.
*****
Marvin Edelman, marvined@earthlink.net
Willimantic Taxpayers Assocation
Subject: Binding
Arbitration
October 7, 2005
Dear Sue:
Ken Mosher has written a very clear exposition of the regressive nature of
binding arbitration. Marvin
For those that are interested, I submitted the following testimony to a Connecticut legislative
committee that was holding a hearing on Binding Arbitration (for teachers).
Since teachers are prohibited from striking, Binding Arbitration is a way to
ensure that contract negotiations between the union and the board of education
are resolved definitively and on a fixed schedule. I believe that binding
arbitration is bad for taxpayers, and I presented my case to the committee via
the letter below. I hope my libertarian thinking is sound. Ken Mosher
Dear Committee Members, My name is Ken Mosher and I am an
elected member of the Board of Education
for Region 8 (RHAM). Region 8 is comprised of Hebron,
Andover and Marlborough.
As you know, between 70% to 80% of every town's budget goes to the public schools.
Furthermore, at least 70% of every school budget is for employee salaries and
benefits. This is why I sought election to the Board of Education. If I am able to
have any influence at all to lower taxes, it is to be done by addressing that
budget area that consumes the
most money. RHAM has had
many extremely contentious budget referendums in recent years. To the best of
my recall, in fiscal year 2002 we required 10 referendums to pass the budget, and in
fiscal year 2003 we required 12
referendums. You may notice that because of the 12 referendum votes in 2003, the people
were voting on, and the board was working on TWO budgets at the same time! I must emphasize
the budget difficulties
because it brings the harsh light of truth to the extreme dissatisfaction with overspending and overtaxation that the taxpayers of
the three towns are expressing. In conjunction with the budget
dissatisfaction, municipal elections and resignations have produced a high
turnover on the RHAM board of education.
We have recently replaced our Superintendent, and that, along with our current
incarnation represents the best hope in many years for containing spending (and therefore
taxation). The RHAM board of education
has just begun the process of negotiating the next contact with our teachers'
union. With the recent taxpayer unrest
with regard to spending and taxation, it is my intent and the intent of the negotiating team to keep any
increase in salaries and benefits as close to zero as possible. However, this
is largely an exercise
in futility, and Binding Arbitration is fully to blame! In the world of honest negotiations (the free
market), management is free to make an offer and labor is free
to accept or refuse. If an agreement cannot be reached workers can
find employment elsewhere, or in the
case of a union they can choose to strike. While a strike would certainly be
disruptive to the school schedule, I believe the right to strike is now a REQUIREMENT if any school
board is to make serious progress toward
reducing spending. I will explain my
belief. In the world of Binding Arbitration, if the school board and the
teachers' union cannot reach an agreement, the arbitrator will take the proposals from
each party and choose elements from
each. These chosen elements then become the new contract, beyond the control of
the board or the union. The arbitrator will always tend to maintain the status
quo, both the locally and regionally. He will never vary from "the norm."
Therefore, no board is able to lead the way in the restraint of spending
because a government approved bureaucrat assumes control if a voluntary
agreement cannot be reached. This arrangement may sound fair, but in reality it
takes 100% of the power
out of the hands of the taxpayers who elected the board of education members.
If the electorate chooses a board that takes a hard line on spending, they did so out of a
conscious desire to control spending and
taxation. However, it is not only within the purview of the arbitrator, but it is a *given* that
the arbitrator will make an award
> that is contrary to the will of the taxpayers because the arbitrator will not choose any proposal which deviates
from what he considers the norm. The
right to strike, however, returns the power back to the taxpayer, where it belongs in
a Constitutional Republic
such as the one we enjoy in the United States of America.
In that world, if an agreement cannot be reached the teachers' union may
choose to strike. If they strike, public sentiment will soon show one side
or the other that they are misguided. Disruption of the school schedule is an
important enough event
in the lives of most taxpayers that they will become educated on the issue and express an opinion. They will
say loud and clear, hold the line on spending or give the teachers
what they ask for. They can weigh in on specific items that may be stalling
negotiations and decide which side is right. Our republic REQUIRES voter involvement. It is
critical to the survival of our society. By removing control
over spending, and therefore taxation, from the voters, we enter the
world of socialism and tyranny. So, in
closing, I am saying that Binding Arbitration is wrong, moral,
socialist and tyrannical. It is antithetical to the existence of our republic and it
is abusive of the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut. I would say that I urge you, but in truth I
insist, that you abolish Binding Arbitration with regard to all
government employees and return the
right to strike, and therefore the right of the voting taxpayers to regain
their rightful control over their government. For without control of their
government they have no true control over their lives. And any man who does not
control his own life is nothing but a slave. Sincerely, Ken Mosher, 8 Bailey Rd Andover,
CT 06232 C: Rep. Pamela Sawyer
*****
From:
Theresa McGrath, Executive Director, FACE,
Family Alliance
for Children in Education
(860) 570-1203
FACE0203@comcast.net
School choice is really not as complicated as our CT State
Legislature makes it out to be. It is naturally happening under
NCLB. This school choice effect of NCLB is really the most cost
effective solution to allow children an equal opportunity to an
appropriate education. Those who oppose NCLB are realistically
looking at more funding into failing schools w/out allowing children
out of the failing cycle. Please read the article forwarded to me by D.Dowd Muska, Tax & Budget
Policy Expert, Yankee Institute.
62 Exercise
School Choice In NL
Only 12 participated in program last year
By DAN PEARSON
Day Staff Writer, Education Reporter
Published on 9/9/2005
New London — Sixty-two families, far more than last year,
have exercised the right to transfer their child from a school that is failing
to meet federal standards to another in the district that is not. In order to accommodate the transfers, 10
other students will have to change schools in the district and a first-grade
teacher will be moved from Jennings School to Nathan
Hale School. Last year, in the first year that New London
was required by the No Child Left Behind Act to offer “school choice,” a dozen
families chose to move their child out of either C.B. Jennings or Edgerton
schools to one of the city's three other elementary schools. Under the act, Jennings and Edgerton are required to offer
this choice because they are deemed “in need of improvement” for failing to
meet performance levels on standardized tests for at least two consecutive
years and because they receive Title I funds, federal money provided to schools
based on poverty and income levels. Assistant
Schools Superintendent Doreen Fuller said Thursday that about 70 percent of the
students exercising their right this year are from Jennings School, which is
now housed in a temporary structure at Veterans' Field until the original
school on Mercer Street is renovated and expanded in 2007. Fuller said the district has acted swiftly
since receiving choice requests from parents in order to minimize disruption to
classes. Parents exercising school
choice are asked to list their first, second or third choice for the transfer,
but are not guaranteed their first choice. The school district must provide
transportation for transfers by drawing on Title I funds, which Fuller said
would reduce or eliminate other Title I programs, which can range from
after-school programs to tutoring. In
order to maintain maximum class sizes, which are established in teacher
contracts and range from 24 to 28 students, the transfers will require five
Harbor third-graders and five Harbor first-graders to volunteer or be moved to
Nathan Hale. In addition, Jane Vernosky, a first
grade teacher at Jennings,
will be relocated to Nathan Hale. In
other news, the board became one of dozens in the state to endorse Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal's lawsuit against the federal government over the
act. Blumenthal, who has been supported
by both Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the State Department of
Education, believes the law is an illegal unfunded mandate that violates state
law and provisions within the 2002 law itself. Board member Shannon Heap
opposed the endorsement, saying that Blumenthal's suit was the “epitome of
hypocrisy” because the state imposes many unfunded mandates on municipalities. The board on Wednesday approved the creation
of a Bilingual/English as a Second Language Department Chairperson at Bennie Dover
Jackson Middle
School. A $2,700 stipend would be paid from a
state grant to an existing bilingual teacher who would assume the job and
title. Lisa Miko,
one of the district's four social workers, asked the board to restore a
part-time social worker cut last year. She said the hiring would improve
student attendance and performance. The
board on Wednesday directed Schools Superintendent Christopher Clouet to provide cost estimates for installing lights at
the Cannamella Field at New London High School,
a proposal put forward last month by City Councilor Margaret Curtin. As part of
the effort, board member Kevin Cavanagh asked Clouet to ensure the field would be used equally by girls'
and boys' teams. © The Day
Publishing Co., 2005
**********