Posted by Bob on April 30, 2010 under Daily Blogs | 
The Board of Mayor and Burgesses unanimously approved an extension to the AFSCME Public Works collective bargaining agreement through June 30, 2012. The Board voted seven (7) in favor and none opposed with two (2) abstentions due to potential conflict on two (2), related memorandums of agreement (“MOA”). The first (1st) MOA (which can be viewed here), in addition to several other provisions as discussed below, is the last to solidify 2009-2010 wage freezes that were budgeted last year.
In addition, the major points of the extension are as follows:
WAGES
- A zero (0%) percent increase for fiscal year 2009-2010;
- A one and one half (1 1/2%) percent increase effective July 1, 2010; with an additional one and one half (1 1/2%) percent increase effective January 1, 2011; and
- A one and one half (1 1/2%) percent increase effective July 1, 2011; with an additional one and one half (1 1/2%) percent increase effective January 1, 2012.
HEALTH INSURANCE
No changes to existing pricing and benefit structure.
PENSION
The Borough agreed to increase the pension benefits of existing bargaining members from the current multiplier of one and three quarters (1.75%) percent to two and one quarter (2.25%) percent in exchange for all new members of the bargaining unit entering a defined contribution pension plan similar to the private sector’s 401(k)-type structure. The contribution to the existing pension plan from current employees shall increase from three (3%) percent to four (4%) percent beginning July 1, 2011, which will offset some of the increased, short-term costs. The addendum to the pension plan can be viewed here.
OTHER HIGHLIGHTS
- Agreement by the bargaining unit to reorganize the department into the true public works model that we have been moving toward for the past year;
- Agreement to remove the mandatory, second (2nd) rider from winter snow plow trucks. This should begin to reduce winter overtime costs. Future use of the second (2nd) rider will be at management discretion.
- Agreement that Borough vehicles shall not be used for personal use without the consent of the mayor in consultation with the Director of Public Works.
- Agreement to allow the Borough to begin use of automated trash hauling.
The second (2nd) MOA (which can be viewed here), which can be viewed here, resolved outstanding issues related to previous past practices that existed under the former structure of the different departments and memorialized the Borough’s ability to change insurance carriers provided equal to or better coverage is offered.
The most significant aspect of the extension is the change to a defined contribution pension plan for new hires to the department. While the Borough will experience an increase in pension costs in the short term due to the increase in the existing multiplier, the long term benefits will achieve savings for future generations of Borough taxpayers. AFSCME Public Works represents the fourth (4th) Borough bargaining unit to change to a defined contribution pension plan for new hires this fiscal year. While obtaining wage freezes for the 2009-2010 fiscal year is certainly helpful given the current state of our economy, the long-term savings that will be obtained by switching to defined contribution pension plans will pale in comparison.
A fiscal analysis of the MOA can be viewed here.
I would like to thank the employees of AFSCME Public Works for reaching conclusion on both MOA’s. While not always in agreement on many issues, it was a pleasure working with their leadership in a respectful manner during a process which took several months. Their contributions to the Borough often go unnoticed and unappreciated. The truth is that the men and women of our public works department do an outstanding job with limited resources under the most difficult of New England weather conditions.
Posted by Bob on April 21, 2010 under Daily Blogs |
Spring is often a contentious time in the Borough. In odd-numbered years, the blossoming of tree leaves and start of baseball season is accompanied by municipal elections. Every year spring brings budget season, where elected and appointed members of our community attempt to meet increasing needs with limited resources.
I remember my first (1st) budget in 1999-2000, after being elected Burgess. It was the first of many times that I heard that it was going to be a “bad year” in Naugatuck. The specter of revaluation loomed over the Joint Boards of Finance and Mayor and Burgesses (“Joint Boards) due to Naugatuck’s failure to do what one hundred and sixty seven (167) other communities (us and Waterbury) had already done since 1979: revalue real property values . Due to such a long gap and rapid changes in the market, implementation of revaluation would mean that many residential property owners would experience a massive increase in their tax bills.
Revaluation was not implemented until the 2001-2002 budget. While other communities invested during the peace and prosperity of the 1990′s, Naugatuck had numerous “bad years” that resulted in little to no improvements to core infrastructure that did not include capital bonds. I was as guilty as anyone accepting that it was a “bad year” and urging caution. Comptroller Wayne McAllister often joke that the last “Good year” Naugatuck had was named Charles.
The 2009-2010 budget taught us really what a “bad year” means. Fueled by a global recession unlike anything seen since the Great Depression, the citizens of Naugatuck and many other communities experienced life-changing events such as job loss, foreclosure and reduction in the value of assets and savings in record numbers. The ability to pay for government services that many of us take for granted was dramatically reduced and local revenue stagnated or declined. The upcoming fiscal year of 2010-2011 offers more of the same.
Since taking office in May, 2009, a disproportionate amount of my time has been addressing the 2008-2009 Board of Education (“BoE”) deficit, the 2009-2010 BoE operating shortfall and the projected shortfall for the BoE’s 2010-2011 budget. While there were many issues which I have discussed in other posts involving 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 BoE budgets, difficult choices facing Naugatuck for the 2010-2011 school year are very similar to issues being hotly debated in school districts throughout Connecticut and the entire nation.
While most of the headlines have involved school issues, the municipal side of Naugatuck’s budget also presents numerous problems that will require tough choices. Our administration has asked department heads to submit budgets that essentially will maintain stagnant expenditure levels for the third (3rd) straight year. Given increases in contractual obligations (even with an across the board wage freeze for municipal bargaining units in 2009-2010), health care costs and utility prices, this is an extremely difficult request.
Reorganization of our Public Works Department and early retirement packages have resulted in the reduction of seven (7) municipal employees since 2008-2009 (according to the 2009-2010 Human Resource Report). Given that certain public safety obligations have minimum staffing requirements and employees are already responding to increasing challengers with less, additional reductions are difficult to achieve. We continue look for additional cuts.
The 2010-2011 Borough budget is further hindered by this startling fact: Even if both the municipal and BoE budgets were able to achieve another budget with no increase in expenditures, non-tax revenues are projected to decrease by approximately ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($1,200,000.00) DOLLARS. Approximately SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($650,000.00) DOLLARS of this revenue reduction is directly attributable to loss in state grant-in-aid. To reiterate, even if we have no spending increase in the entire Borough over 2009-2010 levels (which will be extremely difficult to achieve), we would still be approximately ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($1,200,000.00) DOLLARS in the hole. Grand list growth at 0.3 (0.3%) percent offers little relief.
Complaining or bearing news of gloom is not my intention. This will do us no good. I am simply attempting to put in perspective the serious financial issues facing our community. To believe we will endure these unprecedented economic times without sacrifice and pain is unrealistic. What we must not do, however, is allow difficult circumstances to tear us apart as a community.
We are a diverse Borough with many people who have passionate opinions on many issues. Honest and open debate is essential, but we must all realize that many will not agree with all decisions that are made. Choices such as cutting educators, closing and/or reconfiguring schools, raising taxes, laying-off employees and cutting municipal employees are inherently unpleasant. Universal consensus is an unrealistic goal destined for failure. Avoiding the tough choices or attempting to pass them along to someone else is not why we are elected.
As decisions are made in the coming weeks, our initial reaction will be how such actions affect our individual lives and our families. Undoubtedly many will disagree. We must not lose sight, however, that we are inherently all in this together. Naugatuck’s future may very well be defined on how we react to this “Great Recession”.
Failure to respect one another will lead to mistrust and lack of participation. Viewing the world only through our own eyes will yield decisions made more on self-interest than overall good. Lacking perspective that Naugatuck is not alone facing difficult decisions will diminish our sense of community pride. All of these results will leave Naugatuck ill-prepared to capitalize on opportunities that will present when the economy recovers.
We can, however, choose a different path. With challenge we have opportunity. Scarcity of resources forces us to closely examine how our government conducts business. Operating leaner and more efficiently will make Naugatuck a better, more affordable community in the long-term. Governing “smarter”, however, will involve some pain. Presuming otherwise is fantasy. Making government work better will require all of us to be more-informed, and open to new ideas. Many of us, including myself, will have many questions and at times feel uncomfortable with change. That is not an excuse not to do so.
When decisions are ultimately made, we must all agree to move forward. While decisions-makers need to be well-informed and vote in the best interests of the Borough, we as citizens must put in perspective that all of the choices we confront are less than ideal. Understanding each others’ positions, hopes and fears is a critical component of staying positive as a community. Naugatuck has no shortage of caring, intelligent people who can provide valuable input, participate in public debate and offer constructive solutions. While some will undoubtedly attempt to capitalize on our troubled times for personal or political gain, we must never forget that we are stronger as a Borough when we come together, respect one another and positively discuss solutions that will best position Naugatuck for economic recovery. Our ancestors did not always disagree, but the community which they built is testimony to what can be achieved when one places the greater good over self-interest.
We, the Borough of Naugatuck, will survive this Great Recession. It will not be without pain and making difficult choices many of us would rather not make; but we will be stronger because of it. As we work to address the issues we face in the coming weeks, let us not lose sight of all the wonderful people who live and work here in Naugatuck. Our collective history is that of a community that has never shied away from challenges throughout the years. Through information, respect for one another and vision for our future, we will persevere and be prepared for a better day. The tone we set will not only set an example for our children, but future generations that will learn from out actions.
Posted by Bob on April 15, 2010 under Daily Blogs |
The budget documents to be presented at tonight’s (Thursday, April 15 ,2010) meeting of the Board of Education are available electronically here. Tonight’s public meeting will take place at City Hill Middle School beginning at 7:00 PM. The vote to finalize the budget is likely to take place next week.
Posted by Bob on April 12, 2010 under Daily Blogs |
Tonight’s (Monday, April 12, 2010) Board of Education budget workshop will be held in the Resource Center at Naugatuck High School beginning at 7:15 PM. All meetings are open to the public.
Posted by Bob on April 11, 2010 under Daily Blogs |
I would like to commend the overwhelming majority of those who attended Thursday’s night’s (4/8/2010) contentious Board of Education meeting at Western Elementary School. The recent announcement of the Salem Elementary School closing is certainly one that has and will generate much passionate debate. Differences of opinion, however, are important to our democratic form of government. Provided we maintain a level of respect for one another, we will become stronger as a community for having an informed debate.
There were three (3) statements made at Thursday night’s meeting that I would like to address. The first was made by Salem Parent-Teacher Association President Shannon Lopes with regard to whether or not it was a conflict of interest for the mayor to vote on the Board of Education to close Salem while simultaneously discussing a reuse for the building. I would like to clarify from the start that I have known Shannon for many years, and her husband Pedro for even longer. They are both outstanding people and parents and I am honored to call both of them friends.
The term “conflict of interest” has significant meaning for someone who comes from my background. As an attorney, one can not practice law when there is actual, and in many cases, the appearance of conflict. The legal section of www.thefreedictionary.com generally defines a conflict of interest as follows:
“A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.
In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.
Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.”
I certainly have no personal and/or pecuniary interest in Salem School, the Town Hall or any other building in the Borough but for my home. The use of “conflict of interest” at the meeting referred to the fact that Naugatuck’s mayor sits as a voting member of the board of education (“BoE”) and the chief executive officer of the municipal side of Borough government. This is an unusual, but not unprecedented situation, the history of which began in the 1990′s.
The history has been described to me as follows: Sometime during former Mayor William Rado’s second tenure and final term as Naugatuck’s mayor, the BoE prevented Mayor Rado from taking part in executive session. While it very well may have been the BoE’s right and obligation to prevent the mayor from executive session under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Mayor Rado objected to the decision. A charter revision was formed and one (1) of the recommendations that resulted was to include Naugatuck’s mayor as a voting member of the BoE. The provision was approved by Naugatuck voters in the late 1990′s, and ultimately upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court after a lengthy legal battle.
I myself voted against the mayor’s inclusion as a voting member of the BoE many years ago. The fact of the matter, however, is that the matter has long since been settled. As mayor, I have a duty to participate in substantive matters brought before the BoE. If one interprets a “conflict of interest” in an extremely liberal manner outside the traditional definition of the term, then every vote the mayor takes on the BoE would be in conflict. Naugatuck’s mayor is a voting member of the BoE and also the head of municipal government that allocates the BoE’s funding. No claims of conflict were raised when I worked with members of the Joint Boards of Finance and Mayor and Burgesses (“Joint Boards”) to resolve the current year’s budget deficit by assuming part of the BoE’s operating shortfall. This saved jobs and programs that the BoE threatened to cut.
If I were to base my decisions purely from a political perspective, I would avoid matters involving the BoE like the plague. This is a luxury afforded to many mayors and first selectmen in other towns who do not sit on their respective boards of education. From my humble viewpoint, however, education is too important a topic not to have an opinion. I will honor my obligations as mayor and BoE member, even if members of our community respectfully disagree with my decisions.
Given the ethical obligations of my profession, I have a heightened sensitivity when one alleges a conflict of interest. While I understand the nature of the argument, I do not agree with its application in this instance.
The second (2nd) statement I would like to address is that made by Anne Ciacciarella at the end of Thursday’s (4/8/2010) meeting. Ms. Ciacciarella dramatically told the entire BoE that our “legacy” would be defined by closing Salem school. As I stated on the night I was sworn-in to office, my life will not be defined by anything I do as Naugatuck’s mayor. The most important role, or “legacy”, I will have in my life is that of a husband and father. Long after my days in public office are over, the never-ending and often failing goal to be the best Spouse and Dad I can be will be the most important focus of my life.
If I was so narcissistic to think of public service in terms of my legacy, it would be characterized by far simpler perimeters. I do not expect that everyone will agree with every decision I make. I strive to make decisions that are in the best interest of the only hometown I have ever known. Attempting to achieve universal consensus is not only impossible, but bad leadership. All I can do is analyze information, communicate openly and honestly, respect differences of opinion and vote my conscience. I do not shy away from disagreement, and often learn from opposing viewpoints.
I would be pleased to discuss this matter with Ms. Ciacciarella, but that dialogue has been lacking. Despite being a parent, former parent-school group president and the current mayor, I have been blocked from her Facebook site for which she deemed herself the leader. Apparently Ms. Ciacciarella does not share my belief in diversity of opinion, particularly when she is asked for substantive solutions to our community’s pressing matters and fails to offer any. I not only support but encourage the concept of the citizens’ audit committee that Ms. Ciacciarella has proposed. The results and/or recommendations that will result from the committee, however, will involve much more than painless antidotes to our current economic crisis. Improving “efficiency” ultimately involves eliminating jobs and programs and consolidating operations as is currently being proposed. The belief that there is a magic solution to the coming year’s budget problems that avoids sacrifice is pure fantasy.
The last matter from Thursday’s (4/8/2010) meeting I would like to address is the suggestion made by Prospect Street parent association member Phil Zembruski to form a elementary school building committee. I wholeheartedly agree that such a building committee should be formed. While the concept deserves more forethought than could be made “on-the-spot” at Thursday’s meeting, it is an excellent suggestion given the advice from the JCJ architectural study. While the Borough is in no place to fund the construction of another elementary school anytime soon, there certainly will be a need to modernize Naugatuck’s stock of elementary schools in the next five (5) to ten (10) years. Given the time it takes to determine a location, identify an architect, propose a building and identify funding; the groundwork for such an endeavor should begin now. Unlike previous school construction proposals, such a project is not about space but building equity and modernization. Naugatuck “dropped the ball” in the relatively wealthy decade of the 1990′s; we should not do so again during future times of prosperity. Bad economic times should not be an excuse for failing to foresee the needs of the future. Planning costs little to nothing, and our past history indicates that we, as a community, have been far more reactive than proactive in this area. Thanks to Mr. Zembruski for bringing this idea to the BoE’s attention.
This coming week will involve more meetings in preparation for a final budget. A workshop will take place on Monday, April 12, 2010, at 7:15 PM. Although I believe the BoE’s public hearing should coincide with the Joint Board’s annual budget public hearing, it appears BoE leadership would prefer to hold a separate BoE budget public hearing. Said hearing is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 15, 2010, 7:00 PM, at a location to be determined. All meetings are open to the public.
Posted by Bob on April 5, 2010 under Daily Blogs |
Reconfiguration plans are often unpopular with parents who are affected by changes. Closing a school, particularly a school with the tradition of Salem Elementary School, is a decision no one enjoys making. Unfortunately we are left with too many expenses and not enough dollars to pay for them. Communities throughout Connecticut and across the United States are being forced to make tough decisions. Workforces are being reduced, programs are being eliminated, and unfortunately, schools are being closed.
Believing that there exists a magic solution to prevent cuts and reconfiguration is fantasy. The alternative to this is raising taxes. I have heard little support for increasing costs to taxpayers during these trying economic times. The FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTEEN and 41/100THS ($424,417.41) DOLLARS worth of savings associated with the closing of Salem, which will increase in future years, saves the jobs of educators and support staff that would otherwise have to be cut. The dollar figure referenced was provided by the Board of Education’s business office and curriculum office.
Some people are rightfully upset with the decision. In a perfect world, districts like Naugatuck could maintain relatively small neighborhood schools disproportionate to surrounding communities. Class-size would never increase and cuts would not need to be made. Unfortunately this is not the reality in which we live. Given the fact that some would use this sad decision for political purposes, it is important that facts are separated from fiction.
No other alternatives were considered.
That is not true. The original intent of the JCJ Architecture facilities study was to analyze existing space and building equity and propose ways to better utilize space. The study commended all of Naugatuck’s schools for parental involvement and relative satisfaction. This came as no surprise as we have outstanding parents who are actively involved with our schools.
The study also happened to coincide with back-to-back years of financial problems experienced by the Board of Education (“BoE”). While reconfiguration was always an option, it received more focus when it became apparent just how much money would be needed by the BoE to meet expected costs for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. JCJ was involved with the BoE Facilities Committee throughout Winter and discussed some of the inherent issues confronting the operation of Salem School. The closing of other schools was considered, as was changing grade configurations. Dollars and student populations were analyzed for weeks by Business Manager Wayne McAllister and Director of Curriculum and Instruction Brigitte Crispino. Numerous options were considered by the Facilities Committee. While reasonable minds can differ about the ultimate result, decisions were not made without significant analysis; and, in most cases, much angst.
The need to cut expenses for 2010-2011 was the fault of Board of Education mismanagement.
False. The 2008-2009 deficit and the 2009-2010 operating shortfall were, in my opinion, the result of serious deficiencies in the BoE business office and poor decisions with regard to health insurance. The upcoming 2010-2011 budget is different and can best be described this way: For the BoE to provide the exact same level of service on July 1,2010 (the first day of the next fiscal year) as it did on the June 30, 2010 (the last day of the current fiscal year), costs would increase approximately SEVEN MILLION and 00/100THS ($7,000,000.00) DOLLARS. Yes, $7 million! The reasons for this drastic increase is attributable to only a couple, general line items: contractual increases for personnel and increases in health insurance. Certainly there are other areas that will require an increase, but how many personnel work for the district and to what level they are insured are the driving costs behind education in most communities, including Naugatuck.
If the BoE had proper information preparing for the 2009-2010 school year, it is likely that such drastic decisions would have to have been made last year. As it was, the 2009-2010 budget was resolved primarily through a combination of employee concessions, freezing all discretionary items, and an assumption of the operating deficit by the Borough. Had the decisions been made at the proper time for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, it is likely that school reconfiguration would have been discussed and occurred last year.
The alternative is for the Joint Boards of Finance and Mayor and Burgesses to allocate more money to the Board of Education. Since our grand list (or taxable, local property) increased by .3 percent (0.3%), and state funding has remained relatively flat, the only way of increasing funding would be to increase local property taxes. Again, I have heard very few individuals advocating for a tax increase.
Salem School has a deed restriction limiting it for education purposes only.
True, as do numerous properties throughout the State of Connecticut. It was common for wealthy philanthropists to make land grants to municipalities in the nineteenth (19th) century and restrict future use for educational, municipal and/or recreational purposes. It is quite common in Connecticut that the buildings built on such restricted land outlive there functionality. Connecticut law, operating under the “Cy Pres” doctrine, has allowed municipalities to alter the restrictions to a certain degree.
Cy Pres is a French word meaning “as close as possible” (See http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cy-pres-doctrine/). The legal theory, as applied in Connecticut to deed-restricted properties, seeks to protect the use of of a property to the closest degree possible given the changing of times. The Connecticut Attorney General’s office is charged with protecting the public trust, and is a party to any town’s request to alter such a restriction. For example, a property with an educational deed restriction is likely to be allowed to be used for another municipal use. This happens quite often in Connecticut. An applicant would have a more difficult time using a deed-restricted property for commercial purposes.
Salem School will go to waste and become and eyesore in Downtown Naugatuck.
False. It makes no sense why the Borough, which owns all the school buildings, would allow Salem to deteriorate. Whether a school or not, Salem is a Borough asset that will be protected. Based on its location and architectural structure, Salem is more likely to house an alternative use than most other Borough schools. Salem is not an old factory building or gas station/convenient store; it is a building of historical significance that will still be an important part of our community.
Salem will be the new Town Hall.
Not likely, at least in the short-term. While Salem certainly resembles some of the picturesque town halls located in other towns, it is unlikely that it could replace our existing town hall without significant upgrades. Town Hall contains six (6) vaults that require significant load-bearing capacity that Salem does not have. In addition, electrical and heating/venting/air-conditioning (“HVAC”) deficiencies as well as Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) compliance issues present certain obstacles. That is not to say, however, that Salem can not provide additional or “annex” space for various Borough departments, including the Board of Education if necessary. With proper funding in future years, Salem could serve as a classic New England town hall. Certain grant opportunities are available for buildings not used as schools, particularly with regard to ADA improvements.
The Reconfiguration Plan is subject to legal challenge.
True. Our legal system provides broad access to everyone, and initiating an action is not difficult. The real questions are on what basis will a challenge be made, what is the likelihood of success and what are the ultimate goals. The recent success of the Region 14 (Nonnewaug) reconfiguration challenge had a very different fact pattern and involved a regional district (a member of which apparently did not approve of the plan). The deed restriction issue is another possibility, but, as discussed above, their is a well-established procedure for addressing this common issue in Connecticut.
Even if, for the sake of discussion only, a legal challenge was successful, we as a community need to address what the goals would be. Any successful challenge, beyond an initial injunction, will be a lengthy process occurring over months if not years. In the end, Naugatuck would still face an approximate FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTEEN and 41/100THS ($424,417.41) DOLLAR budget shortfall for the 2010-2011 school year which would mean that we would likely have to choose from another sets of difficult choices: (i) close another school; (ii) cut educators and support staff; (iii) higher taxes; and/or (iv) a combination of the above.
There is another consideration: the lesson we teach our children in the process. Many individuals across our nation are feeling the impact of unprecedented economic turmoil. Some are losing their homes, their jobs and/or their life savings. Some are handling these life-changing events better than others. I do not seek to diminish the sadness of having to close a school or relocate student populations to other schools; but it is important to put this in perspective. If accommodating a new school environment is the worst challenge our children will face in their lives, we should consider them quite lucky. Our children will react to how we handle unfortunate changes to our Borough.
Conclusion
I realize that closing Salem School is not popular with many. The choices I make are done in what I believe to be the best interests of Naugatuck. I will not avoid my decisions, and welcome the opportunity to discuss them with anyone, even if we do not agree.
Loading ...