The Globe’s Deirdre Fernandes reported yesterday that the number of Newton employees “who took home annual paychecks above $100,000 climbed from 185 to 199 — an 8 percent increase — and total pay for those high earners has ballooned by $2.7 million.”
Does the Globe report change your view of how you will vote on three tax overrides in a few weeks? Even if it doesn’t, does it make passing these tax hikes little harder for supporters and give opponents some fresh ammunition? Should it?
Yes I believe it does make the override a harder sell. The mayor is trying to make the case that he has squeezed savings out of every possible nook and cranny and is only coming to the voters because he really needs to. Articles like that, which show public sector workers taking home salaries that many in the private and even more in the nonprofit sectors wish they had, not to mention the secure retirements that public sector workers will have compared to the other 2 sectors, may cause some voters to conclude that not all the savings have been gained that could be, and thus vote no.
According to the article, a number of police officers and firefighters supplemented their regular pay with details, which pushed some of them over $100,000. It is important to keep in mind that details are paid for by the utilities companies and property owners who require them, and not be the city. And Maureen Lemieux is correct that the increase in details is a positive sign for the economy since it means there is more construction work going on.
@WholeTruth: Hopefully someone can find that link and post it. Or perhaps the Globe will post it.
It would be useful to know what the “number of officers and firefighters” Ted refers to is.
@Greg,
Can we get the link to the City list of earnings for employees? I know it has been posted in the past but I cant find it on the City website.
TWT, The calendar year earnings report for 2007-2012 are here.
Greg, I don’t have the answer to your question. I was referring to what the article said. But it is certainly a good question.
As Co-Chairman and Research Director of Moving Newton Forward, I think the fact that 80% of the City’s Budget and 84% of the Newton Public Schools Department Budget is wages and salaries are bigger catalysts for our argument rather than cops who made $100K or more thanks to details.
our arguments against the overrides.
Of the 438 police and fire employees in that 2012 calendar list, 93 had total pay over $100K, and nearly all (82) of them had detail pay.
Excluding detail pay (but including regular, overtime, longevity, educational incentives, and other pay), 39 police/fire employees had pay over $100K, averaging $121K.
Interesting comparisons between calendar years 2011 and 2012 for the aggregate police/fire pay in those years:
Total pay increased just 0.9%
Total pay excluding details increased just 0.3%
Detail pay increased 6.8% (largely reimbursed by utilities and owners)
Regular pay increased 3.9%
Overtime pay decreased 9.5% (a sign of efficiency)
Longevity pay decreased 2%
Other pay decreased 49.8%
Educational incentives were new in 2012.
These comparisons seem to be evidence of pretty good management of the budget.
Thanks Bruce.
Emily – Public employee with equivalent responsibilities to that of a private employee tend to be paid a lower salary. In addition, we’re surrounded by comparable communities willing to pay competitive salaries for the best candidates for these positions and willing to pass overrides every few years to do so.
Newton has passed 1 override in 32 years. Every other comparable community in the area has passed multiple overrides in that same period – overrides that have paid for improvements to their communities. So the real question is do we want to remain competitive with the comparable communities in the area, or are we willing to fall behind?
This override is about providing resources for the projects comparable communities have already passed overrides to complete: paying for the replacement of outdated school buildings and adding classroom space for schools that are bursting at the seams, renovate a fire station, and repair roads and sidewalks. It’s time to focus on the questions that will be on the ballot.
On a side note:
Here’s the elephant in the room. I hate the fact that this is not talked about in regular conversation, but the public should know whats in staore for them. In the next 5-10 years it’s very likely that we will have another much larger override for OPEB. This override could determine a lot. The override is likely to be over $30 million.
Here’s the question: Does having this override for streets, etc. going to put people off for the larger, more important override for OPEB. While I support all the things this override tries to do, I am very much concerned of the outcome of what will happen to the OPEB override.
If the $30 mil override doesn’t pass, 2 things may occur. The less likely is to send Newton and many,many cities/towns into bankruptcy (not likely) OR the state could lower our AAA bond rating. If the state (or whomever) lowers our bondrating all the interest rates for the municipal projects that we bonded will go up. That excess money to pay for the bonds will be taken from the general budget and we will have to make even more cuts.
People should be aware of this, so we can have all information to weigh our decision upon.
Tom, unfunded liability for OPEB is a problem for every community. You might be interested in a bill recently filed by Gov. Patrick to reform the system for providing OPEB benefits to retired state and municipal employees.
“Public employee with equivalent responsibilities to that of a private employee tend to be paid a lower salary.”
Yes, Jane, they do. And public employees also “tend” to have better retirement benefits, health care benefits and working conditions which are more normed to a 35-40 hour week than private employees do. They also “tend” to have union representation and job protection which at will private employees do not have. There’s a trade off.
I think the headline was very misleading. When you exclude the detail pay, which the City not only does not pay but makes money off of, the increases were reasonable. I’m sure my child’s elementary and middle school principals are on the list – because they’ve both been principals for over 10 years at their schools. Stable, long-term principals. to my mind, are a huge plus for the schools.
Ted,
Thanks I’ll read it later, but if you’re one of the few who think the state will allow ALL of the cities/towns walk away from that mess without any repercusions thanthere isn’t much to say. Thats why I said I dont think they will force Newton into bankruptcy, but they may take away our AAA bond rating. Ted, when it comes to financial matters, believe it or not, I respect you’re opinion…what do you honestly feel will happen to all of the cities/towns that owe money for OPEB?
The thing is that our taxes are paying these salaries and benefits. If someone makes X dollars and retires after 30 years and gets, say 80% of X for another 20 years after retirement, it’s like getting another (0.8)x(20/30) salary per year of employment or more than 50%. Someone earning $80K is kind of really earning more like $120K for time worked. Plus continuing health benefits. I don’t know what the real numbers are, so I’d appreciate input about it, but, it seems that we are subsidizing lifestyles that may exceed many of our own in jobs, unlike ours which have no after-employment benefits, that are really for the most part non-competitive, not oriented towards a profit or bottom line, and free of the fears of people in private industry.
I’m not crazy about spending my money this way.
I’d like to see this fixed before I agree to give the city even more money to waste.
Tom, no one disputes that OPEB is a big problem [assuming they are even aware of it].
but you should read the article Ted pointed out, because it one example of the kinds of actions that CAN be taken to mitigate the unfunded liability total. Se must reduce the unfunded liability by altering the programs contributing to the problem. We need the state to take the lead on that [as this instance demonstrates]. There’s more than can be done to reduce that unfunded liability, BUT at some point an override is likely to finish off the rest over time.
If reason prevails at the state level, [which by the way has its own huge OPEB problem] any necessary OPEB related override will be a lot less than the $30 million you mentioned.
What bugs me about stories like this one is the reporter — or her editor — chooses an arbitrary benchmark. Why $100K? Why is that the magic number? Why not the number of employees who make more money than the mayor, or who make more than the median income in Newton, or who have received X percent raises, or some number that means something?
I doubt you’d find many Angier, Cabot, Zervas, Burr, H-M, Countryside, M-R, or Bowen teachers and staff who think they have acceptable working conditions. The deplorable condition of the Newton elementary schools, as well as the condition of our fire stations, is what this override package is all about.
Ultimately, it comes down to this:
Do you want a new Angier School to replace a 90 year old building? It’s on the ballot
Do you want a new Cabot School to replace an almost 90 year old building? It’s on the ballot
Do you want modular classrooms to deal with the surge in school enrollment? It’s on the ballot
Do you want to renovate Fire Station #3: It’s on the ballot
Do you want to repair roads and sidewalks? It’s on the ballot
Do you think public or private sector workers get a better deal? It is not on the ballot.
We will live with the outcome of this election for years to come. If the override is approved, we will build 2 badly needed new schools, increase classroom space, and renovate a fire station, etc.
If the override fails, the two schools will not be built for many years, classroom space will not increase so class size will, and the fire station will not be renovated.
Jane, Doom and Gloom,
I hear it all the time from the Democrats at the national level. If we don’t raise taxes, we lose this and that, etc. Always has to do with things we hold near and dear: education, poverty, health, etc. Never a discussion about whether or not some of what falls in those categories is either unnecessary or overpriced. Just, woe is me, we won’t have it.
The total of the over-rides represents about an additional 3.5 % of the budget. So, don’t you think that perhaps some of what is in the over-rides could be done more cost-effectively and that some of what’s in the current budget could be eliminated so that the budget could be 3.5% lower and no over-rides would be required? Not even considered.
Why should so many people be taking in over $100K on our tax dollar? Is what they do really worth it? Is the Superintendent of Schools really giving us about $250K plus benefits worth of value? Or his high-paid subordinates? And, as I much as I respect a good teacher, salaries close to or above $90K for a job with a long summer off seems like something I don’t want to pay for. I know many salaries of hard-working people with degrees doing responsible work in the private sector who don’t come close to that.
We are being taken for a ride as taxpayers. Yes, we want decent schools, but not ritzy schools like NNHS. And is it possible that renovations could be done to some, if not all of the run-down schools to make them as we’d like without starting with a clean sheet of paper and having to pay for the demolition of the old schools, like we did for NNHS, and the architectural fees for totally new schools?
Folks, this is all of our money, and a bunch of spoiled politicians shouldn’t be using it so irresponsibly.
Dan and Ted,
Thanks, you’ve alleviated a lot of my concerns.
No doom and gloom – just reality.
suggest reading the city’s internal audit report scroll down to page 29 opening page with blue field. Note comments re: internal controls of Chris Rogers, CPA.
If these overrides do not pass the City will lose almost $30m in MSBA credits that will be go towards the building of Angier and Cabot. As Jane states (and I agree with her) the schools need to be rebuilt and the teachers are working in poor working conditions. If you in your ivory tower had to endure these working conditions, I am sure you would be demanding better. These teachers work hard and educate our children (our future) without complaint. If the override does not pass, the schools will eventually (not soon enough) have to be replaced and will cost the City and you, the tax payer, even more money! We all live in Newton for many different reasons…if we cut our nose to spite our face and do not pass an override now, we will be paying for in years to come. Would you like to walk in a teacher’s shoes and have to educate your children in over crowded classrooms and sub standard space? We need this override and we all have to do our part to ensure our wonderful City of Newton keeps building in the right directions.
I struggle with supporting the override initiatives for two key reasons:
• We were promised that our budget could absorb the obviously bloated cost of Newton North, and now clearly
had we conducted even a modicum of budget restraint we now would have money to address these new (and
needed) school capital requirements. I find it difficult to reward this lack of discipline and obvious common
sense.
• The Mayor is very pleased with the new union agreement. I give him some credit for a more realistic contract,
however the progress on normalizing employee contributions to benefits is nominal. Until Newton employees
share the cost of their health care and retirement in line with the private sector, I am loathe to give the City
any further money. The Mayor has made improvements, however more credibility must be established to
counter the historically low credibility of the Office of the Mayor. It does not seems that time has yet arrived.
Whether or not you care about the teachers’ working conditions, you should care about the children’s learning conditions. It’s not just overcrowding, it’s buildings that are falling apart. I’m one of the people who was against the new NNHS, but I’m very much in favor of replacing Angier and Cabot for the sakes of our kids, now that there’s a process in place that should avoid over-priced monuments.
Newton Mom,
“extortion:
Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority.”
When politicians use threats of loss of citizen benefits as a way to extract more money while continuing to waste the money they collect, this is extortion. You are buying into this. Let some of the higher earners take a 10 or 15% drop in their inflated salary and benefits and you won’t need an over-ride.
You know why corporate executives earn so much? Their salaries are determined by compensation committees on the boards of directors, which are composed of executives from other corporations. They compare salaries to industry averages and that keeps pushing up the industry averages as lower salaried executives are brought up. Never ends.
By the way, I’ve been inside Angier. It’s not great, but it wouldn’t take $40 million dollars to make the current building pretty pleasant.
I’d gladly vote for an over-ride, if needed, but not when it perpetuates a system of fiduciary irresponsibility that is an insult to our intelligence.
Waban Mom. Sorry.
Barry,
You have been inside Angier? Have you spent 180 day in a classroom that is 80 degrees? Have you had a child in a wheelchair that couldn’t enter the building because the lift is broken? Have you had to use those bathrooms? The building should not be renovated. It needs to be knocked do. The building has outlasted it’s usefulness.
Please, visiting Angier is not the same thing as being there every day for six years like our kids…or 20 like our teachers.
Newton Mom,
Are you an architect or an engineer? Do you know what it would take to fix the problems you’ve identified without demolishing the building? I’m not a young guy and both my elementary school and my high school buildings in Boston are still standing and being used as schools and were for quite some time before I was a student there. We have lots of fixes to be done in this city and to tear down every building that has defects is irresponsible. Maybe you wouldn’t get the glitz of NNHS, but we can’t afford to keep doing that.
MGWA said: “…now that there’s a process in place that should avoid over-priced monuments…”
What process?
What is the city doing to make sure we don’t have another override in the near future?
Despite what Dan F and Ted were saying regarding about OPEB, I talked to a member of the CAG this evening who knows all about the Governor’s initiative and this person tells me that OPEB will indeed be approximately 25-30 million override 5-10years from now.
Brookline did do a report on OPEB and in Brookline (as in most cities/towns) OPEB has gotten to a point where they figure if they do nothing that by the year 2040 just to stay even (current) with OPEB their payments would be the size of their entire fiscal year budget. They wouldnt have any money for anything else. Now you might say 2040? thats 27 years from now. But we’ve done nothing for 60 years and our elected “leaders” keep pushing the issue down the road….27 years is nothing.
Alarmist? Maybe.
Scary? Definitely
I disagree. I do not believe that the current building can be rehabbed. I attended a school that is the same age as Angier. It was an awful experience. I do t think a 1919 building should be rehabbed. I think a new building should be built. However the vote for the override is for a new Angier and a new Cabot and rehabbing zervas. Those are my choices. I am voting yes.
Neither of my children will attend the new Angier. In fact if the override passes, my kid attends a school across town for two years, and will never use the new building.
I do believe we need to stop overspending in newton. I believe that the public sector workers should be paying more towards health care. We need to get e fiscal house in order, however Angier and Cabot are not the newton north project.
I also believe in paying people a proper salary. Teachers should get paid a fair salary and so should principals. Principals who earn more an $100k….how much experience do they have? Is it better to hire inexperienced principals to save money? How much is a principal worth? There are people in the private sector who earn a lot of money. There are people in private sector who do not earn a lot of money.
No one goes into education to be a billionare….but neither should they take an oath of poverty. Fair salaries.
Tom, I did not mean to suggest that the governor’s OPEB reform bill will solve the problem. The unfunded liability for OPEB in Newton is huge. A multi-faceted approach will be necessary to fund OPEB moving forward until we get the unfunded liability down to nothing. And the fact Newton is not alone is cold comfort. The Mayor and CFO have said they are planning for this (it really does have to come from the Mayor’s office) so I would encourage you to go to one of the upcoming town meetings on the override and ask them what they plan to do about it.
Five years ago I disagreed with the Long Range Facility Plan’s recommendation to replace the existing Angier School, as I did not believe that their assessment was thorough and in my profession we successfully rehab older buildings all the time. I wanted Angier to be looked at again while asking how, and not whether we could make this building work.
For the past year as a member of the Angier School Building Committee I’ve watched the investigative process by project architects Dinisco Design. They came up with at least two workable plans to renovate and expand the existing building (based upon future enrollment need, space programming, and current state area recommendations Angier is to increase in size by 50%). Their work was both creative and impressive.
But the result, and I’ll go into details if anyone requests, was a building that was programmatically inferior and no less costly than building new, and it was a compromise in the use of the site which is very constrained. So we proved that it could be saved. But we also learned that saving this building did not represent the best value for taxpayer money.
To Barry’s comment, we don’t routinely throw buildings away although NNHS colors the landscape. In fact Newton has successfully worked on rehab/expansions of the Williams, Bowen, and Memorial Spaulding elementary schools, Oak Hill Middle School, and Newton South High School. A space reconfiguration and modest expansion of Day Middle School is underway as we speak. And the Carr Elementary School is nearly through the planning stages of a renovation/modernization that will allow it to well-serve our students for at least another generation or more, first as swing space and then as a permanent school building.
Steve – thank you for both the explanation and for your time serving on the committee.
Steve,
Thank you!
I also thought that part of the process from the state is when asking for money for a new school, the city/town had to prove that “rehabbing” wasn’t going to work. (I believe this stemmed from Newton North and changed how the state does business).
Thank you.
The state requires that we present our due diligence regarding not only working with the existing building, but also around the vetting of nearby sites with the idea that the current building might be preserved for another user.
Regarding nearby sites, the adjacent playing field as well as the Lincoln Playground behind the Windsor Club on Beacon Street were studied as possible locations for a new Angier building. Both sites are presently protected as parkland and would require an arduous and unlikely state approval process (via other agencies and the legislature) before being approved for use.
Yes, nobody can go rogue anymore when working with Newton’s partner on the Angier project, the Mass School Building Authority. The process they impose on partner municipalities is comprehensive and transparent, and they can shut a project down (as they recently did in Concord) if a project grows outside of defined and negotiated boundaries.
So, Steve, you seem to know the details about the Angier School, and it is appreciated.
It still avoids the issue of why we are struggling for money, of why we have to go to the voters for money beyond the annual 2 1/2% increase, while we pay salaries and benefits for civil service employees that seem out of line with many in the private sector, and it should be the other way around in my opinion.
And, while NNHS is admittedly water under the bridge, it’s a factor that got us into this, and I wonder if there’s a way to earn income by renting the ritzy space for private parties, meetings, athletic events etc., and get an annual income that way, if that’s not already being done. But not by selling naming rights, which I oppose.
And, to bring up a prior blog issue, why do we need so much more space when we can end the METCO program with 500 students? METCO is something I disagreed with from the start, but there was some justification. Today we are well past the situation of the sixties and seventies, where de facto racial segregation was a problem. It’s time to move on. Especially if we can’t afford the space or the cost to us.
@Barry, since 2000, the national CPI has averaged 2.43%, or essentially the amount of tax increase allowed by Proposition 2.5. Prop 2.5 was considered by its promoters as a floor, to be increased on occasion via overrides by cities and towns with special projects or needs. Not every municipality has used this funding tool – for example Boston and Waltham have such high commercial tax bases that they have never asked their taxpayers for an increase. Places like Newton and other residential suburbs have asked. Brookline and Lexington routinely ask their taxpayers for modest overrides and voters have often, but not always agreed.
For years the annual growth in Newton school department spending was as high as 6%, and since we must balance our budget this growth was afforded by cutting spending on the municipal side. This kept our tax growth rate to that allowed by Prop 2.5 but left us with deteriorating infrastructure and steady cuts to programs and services. You and I may be clear that this was shortsighted but it was the norm for a generation, since the 1980 passage of Prop 2.5.
Newton’s renegotiated labor contracts have finally allowed us to bring our compensation expenses to the same growth rate as our revenues. How do the salaries and benefits we pay compare to the private sector? Not sure, but I do know that they are not out of line with what is commonly paid by other municipalities for public sector employees. And although I don’t know what further changes the Mayor may propose to Newton employee compensation when contracts come up again, I know that the recent change in spending trajectory has already been large and impactful.
We do rent out school facilities to non-NPS athletic groups and other organizations. The amounts charged are modest and are intended to cover utilities, custodians, etc. Since most of the users are Newton residents they have already paid for these buildings and are now reaping some of the benefit.
METCO – By the way the students in this program number just over 400 and not 500. To your question, there are those in the city like you who are not interested in continuing our METCO participation, others are indifferent, still others want to do a deep evaluation to determine how METCO aligns with current community thinking and values, and there are those who continue to be passionate supporters. I have been a supporter but believe that, as should be the case with all programs undertaken in Newton, we study it closely, review its mission, its effectiveness at delivering on this mission, its cost including impact on school capacity, and possible changes to this never-updated, 47 year old program. After all the demographics of Boston and Newton are fundamentally different than they were in 1966. It is certainly possible that Newton may choose, as you hope, to cease participation completely. But any change, regardless of its nature, should consider the results of a community process. We are not there yet.
Can anyone tell me why the City pays the salary and benefits of the teacher’s union president, and not the union membership?
Janet, I don’t know the history of this contract provision but here is how it works: The NTA President is elected from the ranks of working Newton teachers. The expectation is that this is a temporary assignment and that the president will return to the teaching ranks after serving. Should the president wish to serve their union office full-time (this is the norm in Newton) they can request a leave of absence from their teaching duties, during which time their salary, benefits and seniority continue to accrue as they would if the president were still in the classroom. If the president is granted a leave of absence, they are replaced in the classroom and the salary (up to a Master’s Lane 4) and benefits of the replacement teacher are reimbursed in full to Newton.
Here is the full text from the Unit A teacher contract: