Globe West’s Dierdre Fernandez introduces a new topic into the mix in her article in today’s Globe West, “Newton mayor out in front on tax hike.” We all know how hard Mayor Warren is pushing this override, or rather, these overrides. He’s holding town halls, and according to Fernandez, he’s attended nearly 50 events since proposing the overrides in October.
I have no doubt that the mayor wants these overrides to pass because he believes the city needs the money. I also think the passage of the overrides will have little bearing on his popularity in Newton. If he wants to be mayor for four more years, he’s going to be mayor for four more years. And if the overrides fail — which I highly doubt — he’ll try again another time, and another way until he convinces taxpayers to do what he believes is right.
But, what about his political life beyond Newton, which we also know is in his future? If these overrides pass, is he in a better position moving forward? Certainly it takes a strong leader to convince people to raise their taxes in this economy. And, what if they fail? What message will that send about his stewardship?
Passage is only critical to Mayor Warren’s future if one or more of the overrides fails, AND if he actually sticks around to run for reelection. [Which I still have my doubts about]. If all three overrides pass, Warren would be nearly unbeatable in a reelection bid. If any of the overrides fail, he’ll need to start thinking “outside the box” to find solutions, and I’ve seen very little indication he’s capable of that.
I think Setti Warren has been a pretty good mayor, but he hasn’t been a great mayor. In order to be “great” in this day and age, a mayor needs to create new sources of revenue. Mayor Warren is taking the “old-school” approach [pun intended], trying to raise revenue through overrides. [And I hope those overrides pass]. But what this city really needs, is the same thing we’ve needed since Proposition 2-1/2 became law, a business oriented, visionary mayor who understands how to cultivate and develop alternative sources of revenue.
How about some wild predictions…
Imagine this, only debt-exclusion override questions pass. Scott Lennon runs for Alderman at- Large from Ward 1 (unopposed) and wins (not prediction, a given). Setti Warren runs and wins Lt Gov in 2014 and wins. Lennon is appointed Mayor, and there is yet another open Aldermanic seat in Ward 1.
Janet, one problem with that scenario is the open seat wil be closed in November of 2013.
I can’t believe there are all that many folks that are viewing the mayor’s advocacy for this override as being motivated by how it will help his future political career. In that regard, I thought the Globe article did Newton a disservice.
To me, the larger question is ” Is override passage critical to NEWTON’s future?”
It was CRITICAL that this administration go after our fiscal shambles aggressively and effectively, and Setti and his team have done that. That’s a measure of his competency, and I’d submit a solid reason to trust him now when he documents for us in detail why we need this upcoming override to move us into the next phase of Newton’s recovery.
@Dan Fahey. In the last month of so, we’ve been on the same page so often, it’s kind of scary. I’m not convinced that passage of these three measures is a slam dunk. I see more yes than no signs, but collectively they are found on only a small fraction of the lawns in Newton. The only successful political mini event I’ve ever had a strong hand in was placing lawn signs for Warren Tolman during the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Our signs were larger and crisper than the other candidates, and we clearly won the placement battle, particularly on the Northside. But when the dust cleared, we came in either 3rd or 4th and didn’t win a single precinct. Signs don’t win elections. Calls and personal contact do.
@Bob, forgetting signs, i do believe the majority of citizens do see the critical nature of these overrides. Most recognize that we first needed to demonstrate that fiscal discipline had been established, but that there had been so many major issues not tended to in the past that extra funding would be required. What was lacking 5 years ago, TRUST, has been established, and for most that also includes a belief that this administration has done a thorough analysis of our needs and is only asking for what is necessary, and no more.
Clearly, many of the “no” voters don’t see it that way, for whatever reasons, and that’s OK.
But i recognize the huge differences between 5 years ago, and today, and am acting accordingly, and am encouraging others to do the same.
Many seem to be positioning this override as a way to send your approval about Setti Warren’s mayorship, which I think is a flawed way of thinking. I think he is a decent mayor. A “GREAT” mayor would find a way to not put additional financial burden on its citizens in a horrible economy.
All that aside, this override is about far more than Setti. Many of us have 2+ aldermen representing us. Do you like YOUR “overall” representation. I find my overall representation, putting aldermen as high on the list as Setti, to be not much more than adequate. For me to vote yes, I would have to feel significantly more positive towards my OVERALL representation. As happy as I am that Cohen left in shame and that they recently replaced the traffic engineer who knew nothing about serving a community, there is still much more to improve to be a truly well run city where I feel my interests are in good hands.
Mike Striar is still advocating “a business oriented, visionary mayor who understands how to cultivate and develop alternative sources of revenue.”
So, at the risk of repeating myself, I’ll remind him that “business-orientation” eliminated lifetime pensions years ago, in favor of 401(k) plans where the employer’s obligation to the employee ends when the relationship ends, including health care. That’s never been suggested in Newton. It also pays attention to bottom lines and makes difficult cuts where necessary, which the Warren administration has really no interest in doing in order to not have to keep increasing taxes on its constituency.
I feel bad for the kids. They right now have run-down schools because the city was busy adding to the compensation of employees at an unreasonable rate. $250K plus benefits for someone to sit in the Superintendent of Schools’ office? NNHS? So, now let’s just take more money from the taxpayers so that we can squander it again.
@Barry, whether Newton wanted to go to a 401k plan style or not, it’s not permissible for municipalities under state law.
I do think this should be explored by the state, but…
GT, here’s what I’m happy about: Just before Setti Warren took office, three different studies were done on city finances – one by the Blue Ribbon Commission led by Paul Levy, one by David Cohen’s administrative team, and one by the CAG led by Malcolm Salter. All three projected our expenditures forward and determined that if we didn’t lower the slope of our spending curve we’d be $178 million in the red by 2015 or so. In the face of this threat Mayor Warren renegotiated our 17 municipal contracts so that our revenue and expense curves are now parallel, and our “structural deficit” has disappeared.
The Mayor did this at the bargaining table, treating our unions as our negotiation partners rather than our adversaries. As a result for the first time in a generation there was no job action by our teachers even thought their compensation growth was severely pinched. When we then needed to negotiate the state-mandated teacher evaluation provisions, we quickly came to agreement as we approached the discussions with mutual trust.
Don’t call the Mayor “great” if you don’t want. But you have to call him “pretty darn effective” at something that’s been critically important to our fiscal health. As a result of this effectiveness, I trust him to carry out the infrastructural and operational objectives he spells out in his city plan. I’m convinced we need them, and my responsibility and focus now is to help place our kids in better school buildings with reasonable class size. I don’t want them to have to wait any longer.
@Barry– I agree with you about pensions vs 401k, but Dan already laid out the facts.
Let’s remember, it’s not Setti Warren who created that particular problem, or most of the other problems we face as a city today. From what I’ve seen, Mayor Warren appears to be a problem solver, and I admire that. The fact that his solutions to various problems may not mirror solutions I would propose, doesn’t mean I won’t support his approach.
Right now, today, the Mayor and our city are faced with the awful situation you mentioned in your post, [and I’m glad you acknowledged]. We have hundreds of kids in school buildings that are in deplorable condition. Does it matter why that has happened? Of course it does. But recognizing the cause[s] doesn’t fix the problem. Clearly this issue with the school buildings must be rectified, and the override[s] is the only solution on the table to do that. Saying you “feel bad for the kids” is not enough. It is imperative that our community addresses these school infrastructure issues now.
Mike, I’d vote for the Angier and Cabot over-rides now, if they really could say what the costs were going to be, and could show that they weren’t building over-priced schools. Steve seems to have demonstrated that Angier is being done somewhat responsibly. The general over-ride is the biggest and has no clear compulsory use. Once in the budget, it can be used for anything. I’ll vote against it, even though I know that you think that separate directed over-rides are not to your liking. At least the money gets used for its intended purpose, with state oversight.
The mayor should advocate with his friend Deval Patrick that the pension system should be eliminated. I haven’t heard that he’s doing that. All the politicians benefit from this system, so why should they eliminate it? It’s the fox guarding the chicken coop, like the Congress determining what Senators and Congressmen should be paid. Until that’s done, we’ll all go deeper and deeper into debt and taxes will have to keep going up because of the arguments being used now, that we have no choice.
@Barry:
It’s true that government officials are not legally obligated to spend operating override money where they promised they will spend it, but that’s not an argument for voting against this operating override. It’s an argument for dismantling Proposition 2 1/2. If taxpayers didn’t have to approve sums of money to augment an operating budget for circumstances where extra money might be needed — like, to educate the 200 additional students who enroll in the community’s reputable schools every year — then the allocated money would be dispersed among line items in the budget.
Beyond that, are you suggesting that Mayor Warren would spend money anywhere other than where he says he going to spend it? As people have said repeatedly on this blog, the mayor has proven himself to be transparent. Why would that change now?
Gail,
Proposition 2 1/2 should never be dismantled, as long as we have a process to over-ride it if it’s really important. You think like the “Newton liberal” that you wrote so proudly about, don’t you, and don’t want limits on spending? Proposition 2 1/2 exists to force cities and towns to know in advance well into the future what their revenues will be. This should have forced them to negotiate strongly that pensions and high salaries be curbed, as well as much of the hiring, that METCO be finally abolished (giving us space and money), and that monstrosities like NNHS not be built. But, instead, the spending went on as if 2 1/2 didn’t exist, and instead, important city work was neglected to cover those expenses, and here we are. What we need is not the elimination of 2 1/2, but election of responsible people who will respect it, and not just do what their friends want who worked hard to get them elected.
Proposition is being respected. It limits growth to 2 1/2% year to year, but makes provision for exceptions, but even then only with voter approval.
And you know what the most likely examples an exception would be: infrastructure improvements like a new school or a fire station etc. Exactly what these overrides are about.
Dan,
Proposition 2 1/2 isn’t being respected. It’s mandated. It’s being disrespected when cities ignore this reality and spend on things that don’t deserve it at the expense of, in this case, the kids, and then whine that they don’t have enough money for what they could have afforded had they not abused the budget. You know, like your kid buying dope with his allowance and then complaining he doesn’t have lunch money, and needs a bigger allowance.
Aren’t all laws mandated? I don’t understand that comment.
Cities are not ignoring reality, they are following the law, and asking for approval to override 2 1/2. If voters say “yes” then the law has been followed. If they say ‘no” the law has been respected.
Your not agreeing with a result doesn’t constitute disrespecting the law.
Dan,
I’m saying, again, that Proposition 2 1/2 was intended to force cities to act responsibly because of the difficulty and exposure of trying to get more money, like you see now. But, if the cities disregard that, spend irresponsibly, and then tell us that we won’t have what we really need, then they disrespected that law (and us taxpayers as well). And, as I said in another blog, using the threat of kids not having good schools, after spending on the wrong things, is in my mind a form of extortion. Look up the definition.
@Barry: While Proposition 2 1/2 was passed to rein in uncontrolled spending, the reason it allows for override votes is to enable residents to choose to raise their taxes if they believe their municipality needs the money. There is nothing disrespectful about the request.
You wrote:
Again, I’m flattered that you continue to reference the “Newton liberal” column that I wrote 8 1/2 years ago — before I was even editor of the TAB. I hardly remember what I wrote and I no longer have a copy, but clearly you have either saved a copy that you read repeatedly or you have etched it into your memory. Regardless, I think there is probably a statute of limitations on op/ed columns.
Don’t be flattered, Gail. I remember the title, and I remember writing a letter that was published where I totally disagreed with what you said. Gee, kind of like today.
The argument going on here is circular. I’m not debating the legality or wisdom of the notion of an over-ride, or even the need for the money. I’m just exposing the irresponsible governance in Newton, and other cities, that got us into the situation, which probably didn’t have to exist. I also don’t like, as they say, “throwing good money after bad”. So, I won’t vote for a general over-ride that has no accountability.