Followup on New Longmeadow Town Bylaw….

In accordance with the new town bylaw 2-320, copies of the current “negotiated labor contracts” were deposited at Storrs Library. I spent time last Thursday at Storrs Library to determine what information could be found.

Here is a list of the current labor contracts that are available at Storrs Library...

Longmeadow Education Association
1. Unit A- 9/01/09 - 8/31/11
2. Unit B- 7/01/09 - 6/30/11
3. Unit D- 7/01/09 - 6/30/11
4. Unit E- 8/31/09 – 8/31/11
5. Unit F (educational assistants)- 9/01/09 - 8/31/11
6. Unit H (custodians)- 7/01/09 - 6/30/11

Longmeadow Organization of Clerical Workers
(full time clerical employees for Town Clerk, DPW, Police, etc.
7/01/05 – 6/30/08- contract has expired

Longmeadow Local 1903 Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters
7/01/08 – 6/30/09- contract has expired

Longmeadow Int’l Brotherhood of Police Officers, Chapter 370
7/01/08 – 6/30/09- contract has expired

Longmeadow Police Supervisors
7/01/09 – 6/30/12

Longmeadow police officers, fire fighters and clerical workers have not completed collective bargaining contract negotiations with the town.

Longmeadow teachers, educational assistants and custodians as well as the Longmeadow Police Supervisors have existing contracts- each with a 0% COLA. All of the existing Longmeadow Teachers contracts expire during FY2011. For those who are interested, here is the Longmeadow teachers' salary structure including steps, education and longevity factors.

I did not read each of these contracts in their entirety but plan to do so at some time in the near future.

The current employment contracts for the Town Manager and School Superintendent which were of greatest interest to me were not included with the contracts at Storrs Library.

The new bylaw says “negotiated labor contracts” – which must have been narrowly interpreted so as to not include the TM and Superintendent’ contracts.

I have subsequently obtained copies of both contracts which are public documents and plan to share details and commentary in my next blog post.

The Issue

What is before Longmeadow voters?

We have 1 issue to decide tomorrow night: whether to accept Commonwealth money earmarked for Longmeadow's High School, or to reject that offer.

Yes or no.

If we vote no, there is not another plan waiting in the wings. We would need to start from square one, and the money the Commonwealth held for us will go back into their general pool for building projects. The LHS would not get repaired; nothing constructive would happen as a result of a no vote.

If we choose YES, however, we benefit in many ways. One way is through the favorable economic climate for such large scale projects. Our interest rate would be at an historic low, and construction bids would likely come in lower than at another time. Evidence from other districts bears this out. Another way is that the timeframe for building would be expedited. Two years--two years without kids in trailers.

The Finance Committee's opinions on this project matter to some degree, since they are the long range planning financial group for Town Meeting. As of this writing, they have not presented Longmeadow with a long range plan, however. Any informal discussion that they may have had regarding other projects is uninformed by a variety of factors: What is the cost for each item? Will we receive grants or other aid from the state or federal government for such projects? There are too many unknowns for the FC to make any valid claim about the future. It is a shame that our FC would waste time discussing that which they have no control over.

Aristotle even classifies deliberation as that which includes practical matters within people’s power (In The Rhetoric, 1359a); there are too many unknowns for them to deliberate about such possible future items. They are inconsequential to the issue before us.

We know the consequences of inaction-voting no. We know the benefits of acting positively with a YES vote. Those concerns, plus our values and interests, are legitimate to consider. I hope Town Meeting decides to keep its eyes on the prize.

Rebecca M. Townsend

Looking for a Choice at Town Meeting?

Longmeadow News- May 14, 2009
[click image to read entire article]

In the May 14, 2009 issue of the Longmeadow News, Mr. Alex Grant wrote in an opinion piece that the voters of Longmeadow were “missing … a choice” in the budget. Mr. Grant wrote that Longmeadow residents “have little choice but to approve the budget presented to them.”

Although Mr. Grant’s observation is correct that the town residents were given but one budget option to either approve or disapprove, I submit that the floor of the town meeting is not the place to write a $52 million budget. What is missing from Mr. Grant’s essay is the fact that the School Committee, the Select Board, and the Finance Committee jointly developed the proposed budget over a period of nearly six months – during which time there were numerous opportunities for public input. By the time of the Town Meeting, residents should expect the budget to be finalized and presented for approval by the residents of the town.

The complexity of the budget, and the requirement that it be balanced, is such that its development by 11,000 town voters, or even 150 town meeting attendees is not practical. The budget is appropriately, in my opinion, prepared by the three committees that are charged with representing the town residents. The members of these committees take into account the needs of the town as well as input from residents. They assure that legal constraints (mandated programs) are financed, and that other statutory requirements are met (such as having a balance between income and expenses).

Once the proposed budget is developed and finalized, what the Town Meeting should do is provide a forum for:

• Those developing the budget to explain what they did and how they made the choices that were made. Options that were considered and rejected could be presented, but a review of six months of budget development would are not needed. Nothing would be served by rehashing at the town meeting each controversy or compromise that took place during the preparation of the budget. The Town Manager’s presentation met these objectives.
  
• Individuals to ask questions regarding the budget process, the bases for decisions that were made, and the budget recommendations.
  
• Individuals and groups with alternate positions on budget items (income or expenditures) to communicate their position and seek support from the town voters acting as the legislative branch of our government. Alternative proposals for additional spending should include either equivalent spending reductions in other line items or a source of income to support the added line expense.

Even with the prior development of the budget, residents still have the option of rejecting the budget on the floor of the town meeting – although I would submit that such action should be accompanied by a clear directive of how the proposed budget should be revised.

Mr. Grant acknowledged that the operating budget presented at this year’s Town Meeting “looked like a reasonable product of tough times and hard choice”. However, I could not disagree more strongly to his other comment that “the 150 residents who attended should be under no illusion that they wielded any significant power at that meeting.” Those 150 people did far more than pass a budget that that had been written, debated, and rewritten over a period of six months; they acted on 33 other articles on the Warrant, several of which had not been subject to that same level of public review over the prior several months. It is most interesting to note, that indeed, many of the articles and motions that failed to gain residents’ support at the town meeting were those that had not been broadly considered prior to the meeting.

The issue that appeared to be of greatest interest to Mr. Grant (and perhaps to those who were in attendance) was the issue of postponing the vote on the budget. Although the tri-committees (School, Select Board, Finance) had met the evening before the town meeting to discuss this issue, the short notice prior to that meeting and technical difficulties at LCTV (which prevented it from being televised) essentially made this a “new” issue to most of the electorate when it was proposed on the floor of the meeting. As a new issue, the debate was lively and polarized. I would guess that opinions were voiced at the Town Meeting that had not been heard the evening before. With the State Aid budget still not in place two weeks after the town meeting, it appears that the decision reached by the town’s electorate prevented an unnecessary delay in the approval of the budget that was developed over months of effort.

Other articles that seemed perfunctory when posted (such as articles 13 for remote reading water meters, articles 16 and 18 on parking and snow removal and article 32 on outdoor water use) also failed when questions arose on the floor of the town meeting that might have been addressed or at least anticipated had these items been given the same opportunity for prior public review.

Contrast these articles that did not pass with the passage of articles that included the approval of large expenditures. No, Mr. Grant, the passage of these articles was not a “foregone conclusion”, but their passage was rather an indication that the appropriate amount of planning and review had been completed prior to the evening of the meeting. In addition to the budget, the capital expenditures and the Community Preservation expenditures had been the subject of multiple publically held committee hearings over many months. Input from individuals and groups potentially affected by these warrant articles had been considered prior to the votes at the town meeting

Yes, Mr. Grant, only 150 people participated in this year’s town meeting, but whether in the vote on postponement of the budget or any of the 34 scheduled Warrant Articles, these people had significant power – and hopefully next year will see ten times as many voters at the Longmeadow Town Meeting to show the power of the people.

Mark P. Gold

Mark Gold is the chairman of the Capital Planning Committee and is a candidate for the one year seat on the Select Board. See his website at GoldforSelectBoard.com for additional information.

It’s all about the money!

The following are excerpts from an April 30 Longmeadow School Committee PR.

“The Longmeadow School Committee and the Longmeadow Teachers Union have been engaged in “Interest Based Bargaining” since January. As of April 29, a settlement had not been reached and both negotiating teams have agreed to jointly file for mediation with the Division of Labor Relations for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The School Committee is hopeful that with the assistance of a state mediator, the parties will reach resolution on a successor agreement before the August 31 expiration of the current agreement.”

“The School Committee recognizes that the current financial climate makes collective bargaining extremely difficult for both management and the union. The School Department budget, recently approved at Town Meeting, included more than $200,000 in step increases imbedded in the current collective bargaining agreement for the teachers, but did not include additional funds for a cost of living adjustment (COLA). The Committee recognizes that there is a potential $600,000 deficit for the FY2010 budget and that such a deficit will place an even greater strain on the District’s limited resources. In the next two weeks, the School Committee will be taking the difficult action of reducing its workforce for the 2009/2010 school year.”

In the May 14 issue of the Springfield Republican, there was an article about the upcoming SC/ teacher’s union mediation process. Marcia Haar, president of the Longmeadow Education Association, was quoted “These difficult economic times require a level of creativity in negotiations that a mediator should be able to facilitate.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who has been reading my posts on LongmeadowBuzz, you will know that I believe we as a town need to be realistic as to what we can afford whether it comes to teacher (and other town employee) salaries, building a new high school or repairing our decaying town infrastructure (water/ sewer lines, DPW facility, etc.).

Longmeadow is certainly not isolated from the difficult economic times that the world is now experiencing. The town is receiving significantly less state aid than in previous years and our other revenue sources (auto excise taxes, interest on town deposits, etc.) are down sharply. At the same time some of our expenses, particularly those related to Special Education are escalating at a fast pace.

In the world around us, we are seeing skyrocketing unemployment/ job losses, business bankruptcies, crashing stock markets and collapse of some of our best know financial institutions. For even the most savvy people, financial survival is becoming more and more difficult with every passing day. No one knows for sure when this crisis will be over.

Now back to the subject at hand….Looking from the outside it would appear that one of the key obstacles in these SC/teacher union negotiations is likely related to cost of living adjustments (COLA) and other salary/ benefit considerations that need be factored into the new three year teachers contract.

In other words…. “it’s all about the money!”

From what I understand about the Longmeadow teacher’s contract there are at least three components that make up total teacher compensation. These components include step increases, education credit raises and a COLA.

According to my source the step salary schedule for the current contract ending August 31 provides for an average of ~2.8% for every year up to 15th year.

[It is interesting to note in the SC press release that $200,000 for step increases has been “allocated” in the FY2010 budget. However, at the April 27 Select Board meeting the Finance Committee chairman stated that the current teachers’ contract has ~ $350,000 for step increases. Does that mean that the FY2010 school dept budget as approved at Town Meeting does not include the full allocation of salary step increases and is $150,000 short? How about the allocation of funds for education credit raises in FY2010?]

The current contract provides for teacher advancement of their Masters Degree and education credit raises of ~ 1.5 - 2.7% for every 15 credit hours achieved. Obviously, this salary increase is not achieved every year.

For teachers who have been in the system longer than 15 years and who are approaching retirement there are longevity pay increments during the last three years of employment. The current increment is a $3000 increase for each of the last three years.

In today’s uncertain times, a “no cut” employment contract would appear to be a great job benefit. According to the current contract, notice of termination must be given to a teacher before June 15 otherwise employment is guaranteed until the end of the following school year. There are not many people employed in business today that have such an employment contract. Usually, it is 2 weeks notice or less.

Town Meeting passed the FY2010 budget without provisions for teacher or police/fire COLAs. Each 1% COLA that is agreed to will cost the town ~$300,000/year. Now that the teachers union and SC have initiated mediation, the police and fire unions will likely await the outcome and not be inclined to settle for anything less than what the teachers receive.

It is interesting to note that April Consumer Price Index (CPI) data reported today showed prices were unchanged from March and 0.7% lower than one year ago- the largest 12 month drop since 1955. If this is the case, why is there a need for a “cost of living adjustment”?

As reported at Town Meeting, the town has $2.1 million in its Operational Stabilization Fund (aka “rainy day” fund) which will likely be used to meet any contract financial obligations and to balance the FY2010 budget. Let’s be careful that we do not use all of this money too quickly or else we may find that it is still raining for the next two years or more and we have no easy remedy.

Let me repeat what I said three weeks ago in previous Buzz posting…

"I am hoping that the teachers and town employee unions will agree to a 0% COLA for at least one year. We need all of our town employees and teachers to help maintain the quality of life and education in our town. We also need to recognize the difficult financial circumstances that lie ahead and plan accordingly."

It’s not getting any brighter….

A frontpage article in today’s (5/06/09) Republican newspaper (read the full story) paints a still gloomier picture of the state’s financial condition which could have a very large impact on Longmeadow’s FY09 and FY10 budgets.

Here are some quotes from the article….
- “Senators will be building their fiscal 2010 budget on an estimate that the state will collect $18.1 billion in revenues, nearly $1.5 billion less than the number used by the state House of Representatives.”

- “Senators may cut state aid to cities and towns more than the House.”

In an online Boston Globe article yesterday, it was reported that April state revenues were $456 million below expectations and the deficit for the remaining 3 months in FY2009 are now expected to drop $963 million below expections.

According to Michael Widmer, president of the Mass Taxpayers Foundation, the state may need to use up to $800 million from state’s rainy day fund to balance the the current FY2009 budget leaving only $500 million for FY2010.

Last week’s Town Meeting decision to vote on the FY2010 budget even though accurate numbers on state aid for Longmeadow were not available may not have been the right choice. At Town Meeting it was thought that because of revenue shortfalls, our FY2010 revenue would be $600,000 (or more) short of the FY2010 budget spending levels.

Because it looked like FY2010 state aid was going to be reduced further and create an even larger deficit the Longmeadow School Committee recommended that we “adjourn” the vote on the FY2010 budget until the Town Meeting was reconvened on June 2 so that additional state aid information could be assessed and the FY2010 budget adjusted if necessary.

Christine Swanson, Chairperson explained the logic of June 2 date selection as follows:

• If the Town Meeting voted and approved the budget on April 28, the Longmeadow School Department would have only two weeks (--> May 12) to issue potential “layoff notices” to teachers.
• June 2 was before the Annual Town Elections (June 9) so that the current town leaders (Select Board and School Committee) would be the making the needed budget corrections. In addition, there would be sufficient time before June 15- the latest date for teacher layoff notifications.

While SelectBoard chairman Paul Santaniello was in favor of adjournment of the budget vote, the Select Board was split (Santaniello/Barkett --> favored postponing vote, Grady/Scibelli --> against postponing vote) so the Select Board did not have a recommendation for the Town Meeting to consider.

Select Person Kathy Grady as well as a number of Town Meeting members felt that it was unlikely that even on June 2 there would not be much additional information on state aid and because we have $2 million in the Operational Stabilization Fund (aka “rainy day” fund) that we could use it if necessary to fund any town revenue shortfalls.

The Finance Committee also supported the recommendation by the School Committee for adjournment on the budget vote. Chairman Mark Barowsky also emphasized that the town should not be so quick to count on the Operation Stabilization Fund because it was his opinion at that time that the state’s financial condition and funding for FY2009 and FY2010 was going to continue to worsen.

I have been writing about this impending financial crisis since early January (see 1/16/09 post- A Financial Tsunami is Heading Toward Us! and things have only gotten much worse since then.
At that time I asked “What are town leaders (Select Board/ Town Manager + School Committee) doing right now to prepare for the tsunami wave that has already been formed in Boston and is heading west towards us?

Comment: It would appear that we have experienced additional financial “aftershocks” in Boston and a financial tsunami is still heading our way!

Despite the uptick since March in the stock market and calmer financial markets, it is likely that unemployment will continue to increase (a lagging indicator of the economy) and state + local revenues will continue to erode for some time- probably well into 2010. It seems to me that prudent fiscal policy for Longmeadow would be to use the Operational Stabilization Fund only as a last resort. If FY2010 appears to be a difficult year, FY2011 may be even worse and it would be prudent to have some remaining financial resources to soften any hardship.

A couple of additional issues….

1. There are no cost of living adjustments (school or town employees) included with the FY2010 budget that was voted at last week’s Annual Town Meeting. With both town employee and school department teachers contracts expiring in June and August, there is a potential increase in overall costs of $300,000 with every % increase in COLA.

2. Based upon what I heard at the town meeting, it would appear that next Tuesday, May 12 (also the Select Board preliminary run-off election) is the last day for the School Department to issue layoffs notices. If there are none issued, there can be no teacher layoffs in FY2010.

A couple of questions for our town leaders….

1. When will the collective bargaining agreements with the teachers union as well as the fire and police unions be signed? Will they include any cost of living adjustments?

2. Given all of the FY2010 budget uncertainties, will there be any teacher layoff notices issued before the May 12 deadline?

3. How do you plan to balance the FY09 and FY10 budgets? Are we going to simply use the “rainy day” fund and not worry at this time about future financial revenue shortfalls?

Tonight is the Select Board forum at Glenbrook Middle School (7 PM) in which eight candidates currently running for Select Board will be participating- three of which will be elected and be deeply involved with our FY2009 and FY2010 budget problems.

Take the time to attend the meeting, ask a question or simply watch the broadcast on LCTV. See the event notice for additional information on this important forum.

Finance Committee Public Forum

On April 7 I attended a Finance Committee Public Forum about the FY10 budget in order to get a better understanding of the financial difficulties that our town is facing. I was pretty disappointed with the poor attendance for this forum. In addition to the Finance Committee members and Rob Aseltine representing the School Committee, there was a total of two town residents including myself in attendance.

While there was not a formal presentation or overview of the FY10 budget, a number of specific subjects were discussed that provided me with a clearer picture of the financial issues facing the town of Longmeadow.

Below are some highlights from this meeting…

• One of the largest and fastest growing segments of the town budget is the money allocated to Special Education (SPED). According to Rob Aseltine, approximately $10 million out of a total FY2010 budget of ~ $52 million is spent on SPED services and these costs are escalating at a rate of ~ 8-10% year. This increase in SPED costs every year pretty much consumes the allowable 2½% increase in revenues from property taxes. For FY2010, increased property taxes (limited by Proposition 2½) amounted to ~ $1 million over FY2009 vs. $800,000 increase in SPED costs.
  
• Mr. Aseltine summarized the status of the federal stimulus money that was recently announced by Governor Patrick (see Springfield Republican article). The town of Longmeadow will be receiving approximately $418,000 for use with SPED. According to Mr. Aseltine, 50% of this money must be used for SPED program enhancements while the other 50% could be used for direct SPED costs. According to the news article, 50% of this money was to be disbursed to the towns by the end of April and other 50% in the Fall 2009.
  
• At this point in the meeting there was considerable debate led by Chair- Mark Barowsky suggesting that at least a portion of this federal grant be allocated to town services since a signficant portion of the SPED program is funded by money from the General Fund. Mr. Aseltine argued that a major portion of this money be “invested” to improve the efficiency of delivering SPED services through the implementation of a new program called “Response to Invention”. RTI is a method of academic intervention used in the United States designed to provide early, effective assistance to children who are having difficulty learning. The ultimate goal would be to at least significantly reduce the rate of change for delivering SPED services.
  
• It is interesting to note that Robin Crosbie, Town Manager made a similar recommendation about the cost of SPED services in a LongmeadowBuzz commentary last year and was soundly rebuked by members of the Longmeadow School Committee.
  
  Here is an excerpt from her posting....
  "Now that I am on the topic of special education, let me say that residents, including parents of special needs students, have expressed concerns to me about the effectiveness and costs of the special education program. No one doubts or disputes the intentions and commitment of the school department to serving these students and families. But it may be time for the town to fund an outside managment study of the organization and effectiveness of pupil services. System assessments, whether of human or capital infrastructure, can be very helpful in seeing the big picture, developing specific remedies and recommending long-term planning and funding.” Robin Crosbie, Town Manager
  
• Combine the increase in SPED costs + the significant reduction in state aid for Longmeadow for both the current FY2009 as well as FY2010, there is no room for salary increases for the town’s 650 employees without a significant reduction in town services. With most of the town employee labor contracts still being negotiated, there is considerable uncertainty about the level of town services for FY2010.
  
  There are no cost of living adjustments (school or town) included with the FY2010 budget to be voted on at next week’s Annual Town Meeting. With town employee and school department teachers contracts expiring in June and August, there is a potential increase in overall costs of $300,000 with every % increase in COLA.
  
  The Longmeadow School Committee is meeting next Monday night (April 27) in executive session to discuss “strategy with respect to collective bargaining”. Is it possible that all or a portion of the $417,000 in federal stimulus money will be used by the School Committee will be used to provide a COLA adjustments to the teacher’s contract?

I am hoping that the teachers and town employee unions will agree to a 0% COLA for at least one year. We need our town employees and teachers to help maintain the quality of life and education in our town. We also need to recognize the difficult financial circumstances that lie ahead and plan accordingly.

Everyone should plan to attend the Annual Town Meeting on Tuesday, April 28 at 7 PM in the Longmeadow HS gymnasium.

The LONGMEADOW FINANCE COMMITTEE is looking forward….

As I highlighted in my last Buzz posting… in order to live within the town’s financial means there is a need to look at longer term fiscal planning.

Last week the LONGMEADOW FINANCE COMMITTEE issued their report to the Annual Town Meeting and recommended that the General Fund operating budget be reduced by $89,000 rather than using $89,000 from the Operating Stabilization Fund.

The committee recommended against supporting the General Operating Budget as proposed. “….we feel we need to reduce this proposed budget by $89,000 and save all we can for 2010.”

Their reasoning was based upon looking forward at next year’s (FY2010) difficult budget process wherein all town employees salary contracts (including teachers) will be renegotiated.

Last year’s BUDGET STRATEGIES COMMITTEE proposed a path forward through 2010 after recommending a Prop 2½ $2.15 million override. It was clear at that time that balancing the FY2010 budget without a Prop 2½ override was going to be a challenge.

Some excerpts from the latest LFC report…

The first responsibility of the Finance Committee is to present to Town Meeting and all the citizens of Longmeadow a budget that balances the interests of all citizens, regardless of what level they use our myriad of premium town services, and a budget that is sustainable over the long term. …. Integrated in our challenge to balance resources and uses for the next fiscal year we are charged to advise the town on the impact the proposed budget will have on long term fiscal planning. As a town our challenge is to live within the means of the allowed annual 2 ½% increase in the tax levy without frequent Proposition 2 ½ overrides to finance our shortfalls.

The FC report also recommends a series of “facilitated forums” starting in September 2008 to get resident input on how to meet the upcoming FY2010 budget challenges. This is certainly a step in the right direction but how about extending the path forward to FY2012 rather than reverting back to the one year at a time planning process. And while this planning process is underway the town should also consider integration of possible future major capital expenditures (new/ renovated high school, DPW facility, et al) into the budget process in a more comprehensive approach to town finances.

I would strongly recommend that town residents read both the ATM warrant and the Longmeadow Finance Committee report and attend Tuesday night’s Annual Town Meeting. (starts at 7 PM at Longmeadow HS).