Sometimes it appears as if candidate for mayor Ted Hess-Mahan misses the good old days when David Cohen was Newton’s mayor.
For example go to the 33:15 minute mark on the video from Tuesday’s debate (Globe story here). Hess-Mahan also praised the former mayor in this week’s TAB story (which unfortunately does does not yet seem to appear online and I’ve tossed our copy).
What do you think? Is Newton better off now under Mayor Setti Warren than it was four years ago under Mayor David Cohen?
Kevin Dutt wrote an excellent guest column in the Newton TAB in July and appeared on Ken Parker’s show in September in which he articulated how things remain the same or that any changes made were superficial at best. Kevin Dutt served on the CAG so when he speaks on Newton civic affairs, I’m going to listen and take notes.
http://www.newtv.org/video/common-ground/Kevin-Dutt/
Here’s a link to Kevin Dutt’s Newton TAB guest column:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/lifestyle/columnists/x997478595/Kevin-Dutt-Its-time-to-examine-Newtons-fiscal-performance
Greg, while provocative, your characterization misses the point of what I was trying to say. There were at least two points I was trying to make in the TAB editorial board interview and the most recent debate.
First, much of the “savings” that Mayor Warren keeps referring to are based on projected increases if the city had done nothing to address the existing structural deficit and renewed contracts with total compensation increases of over 4% per year. Based on recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Group on Newton’s finances, that did not happen under either administration precisely because they were not sustainable. In addition, Mayor Warren keeps pointing to the $40M in unfunded liability for OPEB that he “saved.” What he doesn’t say is that the previous fiscal year, in his first budget, the unfunded liability increased by nearly $108M, and that this past year the unfunded liability has crept back up to $602M. By contrast, in Mayor Cohen’s last budget, the unfunded liability decreased by $63M down to $532M from $595M the year before. The $500,000 the Warren administration has put in a trust to reduce unfunded OPEB liability thus far is less than 1% of the amount needed. Governor Patrick has proposed legislation which would make reforms that would make it possible, indeed imperative, for the state and municipalities to address their unfunded OPEB liabilities. During our TAB interview, the Mayor was noncommittal about this legislation. Although in some ways they probably do not go far enough, I support the Governor’s proposed reforms because we must make a start in order to continue to offer quality benefits as well as sustainable compensation packages to public employees and future retirees.
Second, I was trying to make the point that it was not as if everyone was sitting on their hands before the current administration took office. Mayor Cohen, the Board of Aldermen and the School Committee, recognizing the problem of an ever-increasing structural deficit, formed the Blue Ribbon Commission and subsequently the Citizens Advisory Group which came up with fiscal and operational recommendations to address the problems the city was facing, including unsustainable compensation packages, deferred maintenance of schools and infrastructure, etc. In addition, reforms at the state level, including allowing municipalities to opt in to the state insurance plan, gave Mayor Warren significant leverage in union negotiations around cost saving health plan design changes that previous administrations did not have. David Baier, the Massachusetts Municipal Association’s former legislative director, worked on this particular reform for over a decade before it was finally passed in 2010. Still, most public sector employees have premium shares that are far lower than what most employees in the private sector pay. While performance varies from year to year, over time the state health insurance plan has performed better than most municipalities’ health plans, including Newton’s. But part of the solution to the OPEB unfunded liability problem will have to be increasing premium shares for future employees and retirees, which is why the Governor’s proposed reforms are essential.
Kevin Dutt, who was a member of the Citizens Advisory Group, makes a number of important points about where the city is now compared to four years ago. I encourage everyone to watch the video and read his guest column in the TAB, which Joshua Norman has linked to.
The basics that both Mayoral candidates are missing are that it’s not true that overall employee compensation growth was fixed at 2.5%. The City is projecting growth in the number of teachers beyond the 50 added by override. That growth is aligned with growth in the student population. The contracts in combination with normal growth give us 3% compensation growth each year into the future. There are other growth points in operating expenses which gives us a combined 4% total expense growth each year. Moreover, the 17 union contracts need addressing again next year. Yet both candidates are holding the line on possible overrides?
Head in sand approaches. No wonder deficits are common place
From my perspective we are in a much better place than we were four years ago.
We can start with our citizen’s relationship with city government. Anecdotally the 311 plan has given the typical citizen the experience of a City Hall that is responsive to their basic needs. And our city’s top leadership is consistently accessible. Mayor Warren has held close to 100 town hall meetings across the city since taking office, covering a wide range of topics. My apolitical neighbor and yours can walk into a publicized town hall meeting and have a one on one conversation with the Mayor and his top staff.
The cynicism that many felt towards City Hall has been replaced with a strong sense of optimism that city government deserves our trust once again. Nothing illustrates this better than the 55% – 45% rejection of an override in 2008, and the acceptance of an override in 2013 by the same margin.
On the financial front, our Mayor negotiated employee contracts with growth rates no greater than the growth rate of city revenues. Yes, he had better tools and different circumstances that the previous mayor, but he stated his position on contract growth, was unwavering in his negotiating position, and he successfully used the tools available. The stable financial condition of our city and school system is directly attributable to his successful work on these new contracts.
We now have a 20 year capital plan that organizes all of our capital needs into one place, provides a quantitative method for prioritizing project sequence, and identifies established or potential funding sources. This replaces a short window, squeaky-wheel method of identifying and executing capital projects in the past.
Our building department has been stacked with talented professionals. Since Setti Warren took office the City has initiated and completed major renovations and an expansion of Day Middle School, the Carr School is undergoing a year-long renovation now to serve as swing space for our elementary school projects, the Angier Elementary School planning is progressing efficiently towards a project groundbreaking next summer, planning for the Zervas project is underway, and Newton is waiting for the Mass School Building Authority’s thumbs-up to start the Cabot planning process. The Mayor’s focus on infrastructure improvement and his success at strengthening the building department has made this progress possible.
We are a more energy-efficient city than ever before. Newton was the first city in the Commonwealth to adopt the energy stretch code. Every school but one is now heating with gas, a cleaner burning, more efficient, more economical fuel. Ongoing energy audits of our public buildings have resulted in energy and cost savings through more efficient equipment, high efficiency light bulbs, better insulation, and air infiltration sealing. We are about to fill a high-level municipal sustainability position that will consider life-span efficiency, economics, and environmental responsibility across all city functions.
Even while Kevin Dutt and Ted Hess-Mahan have identified areas for ongoing improvement, this City is in a much better place than it was four years ago, and we have Mayor Setti Warren to thank for this.
Steve, I have to disagree with your conclusions:
Paragraph 2: Is that why Setti didn’t respond to the LWVN questionnaire?
Paragraph 3: I think the reason why the override passed in 2013 was because the fiscal responsibility watchdogs that opposed the 2013 override were much less organized than the pro-override. Don’t count on a 2018 override to fund Lincoln-Eliot, Williams and Pierce or OPEB.
Paragraph 4: When Setti Warren and his crew were singing the song about 2.5% growth in the contracts, they did not tell people that if they included the impact of retirement benefit growth spending, it would be more like 3.33%.
Paragraph 5 & 6: As part of your capital plan, you have school building project cost projections soaring because the mayor and his school committee missed the sprinkler law passed by Newton’s Representative Ruth Balser. The city also made a huge mistake throwing out numbers months in advance before they did the due diligence.
Paragraph 7: Considering that natural gas prices dropped because of fracking, I should hope that the city would convert its school buildings to gas heat.
Paragraph 8: Kevin Dutt, Ted Hess-Mahan and myself can safely conclude that the same issues that Newton faced in 2009 still remain as of today.
What Steve said! And when I got involved in ’08 because of the joint insult of a $200 million NNHS project run amok, a financial situation we were just beginning to notice from outside the power structure then in place, and a$12 million override request, I was alarmed by the apparent laisse faire attitude of the then BOA, of which Ted had already been a part for 5 years.
Joshua,
Griping about small details doesn’t change that we are in much better shape as a city than we were 4 years ago.
That the Mayor didn’t respond to the LWV questionnaire last week doesn’t negate the impact of a great 311 program, 100 town hall meetings, and an optimism about city government that was absent in 2009.
Hypothesize about the impact of a functional “No” side all you want, but the fact is that with the override passage in the spring of 2013 we now have financial resources for school building construction, firehouse renovations, street and sidewalk repairs, and teacher hiring associated with enrollment growth that were unavailable to us 4 years ago.
The municipal contract negotiated two years ago means a significantly lower cost impact on city finances than with the prior contract. This is so, even while you fuss over details. And this is good, and results in a financial situation for the City much better than 4 years ago.
Does our missing of the impact of the sprinkler law relative to Day and three modular projects change anything regarding how prepared we have become to execute the coming projects in our 20 year capital plan? Does it mean that our excellent recent hires in the building department are not excellent after all? No and no. That we have this plan in place and are executing it demonstrates that our building planning and process are much better than 4 years ago.
Does it matter why gas prices are cheap? No. However, the City is proactively taking advantage of this fact by converting our heating systems, and as a result we have cost savings and energy efficiencies we did not have four years ago.
If one’s information and perspective are drawn narrowly enough, they can “safely conclude” whatever satisfies their bias. But frame the question broadly and be openminded about the answers, and conclusions usually reveal themselves. Are we better off than we were four years ago? It is pretty clear that we are.
Steve, Setti Warren has been mayor since 2010 and in that time this is his record:
* OPEB Liability has grown from $531M in FY 2010 to $602M in FY 2013
* Pension Liability has grown from $208M on January 1, 2010 to $244M on January 1, 2013
* Setti has racked up $12M in deficits in his first three years and will rack up another $12M in deficits according to his own five year financial forecast from 2015 to 2019 (Maureen Lemieux told me about how Newton can spend more than it takes in, draw-down prior year’s accumulated reserves and still have a technically balanced budget
These aforementioned facts are not little details
Paragraph 3: Regardless of the nifty 311 system or hundreds of town halls, the fact is that Newton has a structural spending problem regardless of what people perceive about city government
Paragraph 4: No, the override put $11.4M/year more into the pot and it sifted through and funded more of that 80% of what we fund all the time (compensation, benefits and out of district SPED).
Paragraph 5: The David Cohen era unsustainable contracts expired in 2009. Despite Setti Warren claiming $436M in savings, annual spending has still increased from $287.5M in 2010 to $331M in 2014 to $391M in 2019. Is expressing concern about last-day raises fussing over details?
Paragraph 6: That’s exactly why Newton is spending 38% more for Angier than Hingham spent for its new elementary school even though Hingham’s new elementary school is 20% larger than Newton
Paragraph 7: Newton taking advantage of lower gas prices is something I would expect it to do without seeking special recognition.
Paragraph 8: Explain how we are better off when Newton’s outstanding debt/retirement benefit liabilities has increased by over $113M?
Paragraph 8: Explain how we are better off when Newton’s outstanding debt/retirement benefit liabilities has increased by over $113M since Setti Warren took office.
Joshua,
I give you a ton of credit. Although I dont always agree with you and sometimes I dont agree with your behavior, but you have come up with a viable solution to the OPEB situation, while the Mayor in 4 years with all of his “best managers in the country” have not in 4 years. Kudos to you.
As far as this question is concerned:
The schools have gotten worse (Polled in at 20th in the state). The mentality of the school system is leading us right for mediocrity.
The streets are ripped up and are in disrepair. The traffic is worse. No plan for OPEB, while a concerned citizen came up with a viable plan in a month. It wouldnt surprise me if the Mayor isnt sitting on a plan that we all wouldnt embrace until after the election. The revolving door at city hall is a major problem in my mind. When you are trying to do major infrastructure projects it’s nice to have the right people in place.
Steve’s claim that the people have faith in this Mayor because of the override is a bogus claim simply because all the anti-cohen people switched, thats all it took. This means any new mayor would have gotten the same results. Steve’s other point about the Mayor being accessible is ridiculous. I worked my butt off for him and he never returned phone calls or emails. I know someone who donated to his senatorial run and called/emailed him and didnt get a response in over 6 months. These stories might be the minority, but I am hearing more and more stories like this.
@Randy, Was Himham a model school? What were the site restrictions? Wasn’t it bid during the construction collapse and lowest prices we’ve seen in a long time? What were the specifics for the demo of that building? Hazmat? If so, how much? What is the energy performance of the building? What is the life expectancy and the quality of all of the building materials? How does the square foot cost of the new Angier compare to other comparable schools that are in design now?
I just think that it’s not as simple as comparing one school to another without looking at the specifics. It’s no different than building a new house. There are hundreds of variables that significantly impact both the initial as well as long term operational and maintenance costs.
Maybe the Hingham School stacks up, and the impact of inflation and project variables makes no difference, but it would seem that it’s not as simple as you make it seem.
Sorry. @Joshua. Patriots game had me distracted…
Randy,
for a second I was worried that you were blogging to yourself. (Don’t worry it’s when you start answering yourself is when you should be concerned).
The current administration grossly underestimated school construction costs for Day, Carr and for adding modular classrooms, which are ate least double the original estimates. This was not just a “rounding error,” and was due to a lack of due diligence. In the case of Day and the modulars, the administration was inexplicably unaware of the well-publicized sprinkler law that was passed by Rep. Ruth Balser in response to a fatal fire in an office building right here in Newton. As for Carr, the administration attached numbers to the project before thoroughly analyzing the scope and breadth of renovations that were required. This Mayor should be held to the same standard as his predecessors for these kinds of cost overruns.
The current administration insists on moving forward with renovating or replacing the Zervas School at a cost of up to $40 million, which will only add a handful of classrooms. Zervas is not in the same dire state of disrepair as other schools like Angier. Meanwhile, Newton Upper Falls residents have no choice other than to drive or bus their kids to school, adding to already congested streets on the south side of the city and compelling many parents to incur bus fees so their children can get to school safely. While the city could use the revenue from the override to build a school in Upper Falls and upgrade the Zervas and Countryside schools, since additional funds raised by the override are “earmarked” for the stated spending purpose only in the first fiscal year, the current Mayor and School Committee (with the notable exception of Geoff Epstein) do not appear to be willing to consider it. Recent enrollment projections predict that rising numbers of students means having to add even more modulars elsewhere. So, incredibly, Newton could end up spending nearly $80 million to build two new schools within a mile or so of each other in Waban, and still have to add modulars to relieve overcrowding citywide. And Newton will move even farther away from having walkable, neighborhood schools and the sense of community they bring. This is the same kind of flawed decision-making process that led to the closing of Emerson and other schools a generation ago. Apparently, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Finally, from the time my eldest child was in kindergarten here (she is now a senior in college), I have been hearing why Newton cannot offer real full-day kindergarten, despite its undisputed benefits for our children and even though apparently 85% of Massachusetts schools are able to do it. It is a matter of priorities, and the Mayor– who is an ex officio member of the School Committee–has the power of the purse to push it along.
Sorry Joshua, but without context, numbers spit out of our city budget don’t tell a useful story.
For starters how do these numbers compare with other peer communities in eastern MA? As percentage of budget, per capita, etc.? Where are we problem outliers and where do our numbers reflect the norm for municipal governments? What numbers indicate careless fiscal management vs. proactive financial choices? Context allows us to see whether we are heading in the right direction or not. The numbers you pull are starting points (“Hmmm, I wonder what that means?”) and not conclusions.
Your ongoing mantra about Hingham is not a response to our sound long range capital plan and well staffed building department. And when you talk about school costs, please provide context by demonstrating knowledge of what factors contribute to one thing costing something different than another. Or ask. It doesn’t add to our understanding by simply stating that the cost/student or cost/square foot is higher in one town vs. another. These are just numbers, without context. How are these numbers impacted by space program differences, choices regarding up-front vs. long-term operating costs, siting differences, and regional cost differences? Refer back to all of Randy’s great questions.
“Special recognition” regarding us having lower energy costs in part due to our choice to convert our school heating plants to gas? Where did you come up with this? Go back to my original post — we are more energy efficient and have lower energy cost because we converted. I put this in the “we are better off” category, per the question posed by the blog thread. How do you view this?
Steve,
I am going pose a simple question to you, since and you and Geoff are the only SC regulars on the blog and Geoff is helping Margaret, is the city of Newton doing the absolute best it can for the schools? Forget about infrastructure (we all know thats time consuming), can the city do better? If it can, why doesn’t it?
Hi Ted,
You and I have had some very good conversation in the past about school planning and construction, and I have always appreciated your concerns.
Yet some of the issues you raise as criticisms are valid snapshots along a timeline – as such I see them as excellent markers for what good progress we’ve made as a city.
For example, considering the Sprinkler Law, the Day Middle School renovations and modulars construction: Actual costs were much higher than original budgeting. We missed the impact of the new Sprinkler Law** and our consultants had not done a deep enough investigation of existing conditions at Day before early cost estimates were shared. This was bad.
Then we expanded our building department staff with the hiring of the terrific Alex Valcarce who immediately determined what had been missed on the estimating side and got the project on track. Alex has been the key city person on Angier, a project considered by the MSBA to be a poster child for excellent process. The professionalism of our new Building Commissioner Josh Morse and the hiring of PM Adam Gilmore all bode extremely well for successful future building project outcomes.
The recent modular installations were planned with a full understanding of the Sprinkler Law impact, and any future school building additions and renovations within the city will also benefit from what we learned during the Day and 2011 modulars projects.
This is an example of this administration learning from experience and leading us to a better place than we were four years ago.
**How could we have missed this law? Well, it was brand new, was part of the fire code and not the main building code (a significant layer of separation from the main code, with which most building officials are very familiar), was at first publicized to municipal inspectional services departments and not building departments (as you know one department is about compliance and the other about planning), and there is not a person I polled within the community of design professionals I work with who knew about this law before I raised it to them. I point this out as I think it illustrative of the challenge of learning about and implementing new legislation; that Newton and many other municipalities only learned about it as they embarked on their first projects after law passage was not surprising).
@Tom: I sure hope we can keep doing better! Everything in our school system is a process — that means we are never “there” and we are always working to improve. Also there are many topics where opinions are across the board (FDK, a 16th elementary school, as two examples). It is the job of our elected officials and NPS staff to identify objectives, collect information, sort fact from speculation, understand and weigh perspectives of interest groups, do good analysis, and build consensus as part of a change and improvement process. This process is evolutionary — not revolutionary, and we are never done.
What has Newton done for the schools? They passed an override that funds our next round of building improvements and the hiring of teachers to cover student enrollment increase. The City and the Mayor have been tremendous friends of our schools.
Steve, you know I have the utmost respect for you, so I will come straight to the point. The previous administration also learned a lot from problems with the NNHS and NSHS construction projects. They were hard lessons, too. On the heels of getting it wrong on Day and the modulars because of the sprinkler law, this administration also grossly underestimated renovation costs for Carr. The original cost estimates of $5.2 million grew to $12.7 million, which had little or nothing to do with the sprinkler law. The original estimates for renovating one of the fire stations were also way off.
While I share your confidence in Josh Morse, who ironically enough was hired by the previous administration, I remain concerned that it took so many months to make him permanent head of the buildings department and that we have so many vacancies in City Hall that remain unfilled, including Josh’s former position as Director of Operations. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) oversight of the Angier school project has been a very good thing, but the MSBA will not be involved with Zervas because it is not providing the funding. So I remain skeptical that the cost of renovating or replacing Zervas will get the city the best bang for the buck.
We shall see what we shall see.
Ted –
I’m getting increasingly uncomfortable with how often you are bringing up the previous administration. I don’t see the relevance. The question in this particular post is “Is Newton better off than it was four years ago?” not “Is Setti Warren a better mayor than David Cohen?”.
I think I know you well enough to know you wouldn’t put yourself through this campaign just to defend David Cohen’s legacy, but why all the references? I’ve seen them in your blog posts, in the TAB, and in your responses during the most recent debate. Is the former mayor a campaign adviser?
@Ted,
You and I both agree on the facts you’ve identified. But per my comment to Joshua, these facts are starting points, each one raising the question “What does this mean?” I happen to think that taken together and in context, they mean we are better off than we were four years ago, even while some individual topics may not show this.
Yes, we shall see what we shall see. I’ve put down a calendar listing for November 4, 2015, to sit with you for coffee. Let’s compare notes about who was more accurate. In this case, the winner treats!
Steve, I will have a double espresso (same as always). 😉
Ted Hess Mahan entered the race saying every election needs a choice and he was running FOR Newton, not AGAINST Setti. That strategy lost 70 to 20 (%). Ted seems to be a quality public servant and a honorable person. Sorry that he took the low route after the primary. How does one recover after sucker punches to a strong party member? You can’t go around saying that reducing union contracts by $200mm and reducing OPEB by $40mm was easy-peasy, child’s play, happening under a favorable political current. And reducing operating expense by about $25mm happened w/o any backlash (remember the squawk about recorder lessons and taking ten minutes away from art class; to name just two). And selling THREE overrides was evil doing. Somehow the jab about losing 1/3 of City Hall was proven off a factor of three! Who jumps to make such claim w/o asking for a spreadsheet of names and hire dates?
Good idea – choice. Bad marketing and execution. Seems to me you only get one chance with a negative execution.
@Ted: My treat!
Steve, Newton is not better off than it was four years ago. In fact, I have shown that Newton’s financial position is undoubtedly worse off than it was four years ago.
@Joshua: Data, and deep context. That’s how you’ll catch people’s attention.
Steve, so you want data and context?
I just read Newton’s new Five-Year Financial Forecast and I hope you have read it too. It reinforces what Ted, Kevin and I have been saying with regards to how Newton is facing the same old story, same old song and dance regarding its financial performance.
On Page 25, Mayor Warren is touting his hundreds of millions of dollars created or saved narrative. He’s now claiming $436 Million in cumulative savings by 2019. I find it amusing that Mayor Warren is claiming that he saved $436 Million in cumulative savings from 2010 to 2019 when annual spending still increases from $287.5 Million in 2010 to $391.1 Million in 2019?
Despite Setti Warren claiming to save $436 Million, Newton is still expected to incur a cumulative general fund deficit of at least ~$12 Million from 2015 to 2019.
Despite Setti Warren’s claims of establishing a Rainy Day Stabilization fund of $13 Million, he incurred $12 Million of deficits from 2010 to 2013 (Page 8) and covered these deficits by drawing down cash accumulated in prior fiscal periods as well as increasing outstanding debt by $6 Million.
Feel free to also refer to my previous post. I think that there is enough data and context here to satisfy you.
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/11/is-newton-better-off-now-than-it-was-four-years-ago/#comment-39074
Hoss, Ted’s statitistics are accurate. The city lost 1/3 of the city employees over the course of the term. The Mayors term is 4 years, it is almost the same as when Rooney says that this year we lost 7.5%. They were comparing apples and oranges. :ooking at the city spread sheets the city lost 1/3 of their city employees over a 4 year term. Also, my understanding is that the ruduction of OPEB was due to the lower interest rates, not one thing the Mayor did. After 4 years, nay 60+ years this adminstration (along with many others) never had a plan. So, you’re criticizing the one person who has a plan. I know, let’s go with the Mayor’s plan. Here’s his plan: allow OPEb to grow another 4 years, donothing leave Newton for a Washington job and allow the next Mayor to deal with it. Sound good??? Thats his plan. You dont think he’s thought about OPEb and yet we hear nothing from him? The decline was due to the economy, it’s a joke.
Gail, You have problems with Ted bringing up Mayor Cohen’s case. I have a drinking game with my buddies and that is everytime he says during the debate he was left a financial basket case from the previous administration, we drink. We all got drunk that night:). You all know my feelings about the previous administration, but the Mayor has unecesarily attacked him, like the dems do the republicans in national issues (and vice versa). Quite frankly, I want to hear some guts from this Mayor, for once, and own the budget…not blame verything on everyone else.
Tom, I would have sworn that you’ve told me that you don’t drink. True or not?
Sorry Joshua, you are still just reporting numbers. Clearly you can extract them from our financial reports as well as anyone, but that’s not real analysis. Analysis imparts numbers with context and meaning so they can become useful policy guides.
And do please refer to my previous post as well! http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/11/is-newton-better-off-now-than-it-was-four-years-ago/#comment-39096
Thanks, Steve
I just started after I saw the results from the preliminary:).
Tom –
Touché.
Today Newton has enough classroom space to accommodate the population of students. Four years ago, we did not.
This year, we added 50 new teachers. Four years ago, we were cutting teachers yearly.
6 years ago, the Board of Aldermen approved a building that was $60 million over budget. MANY aldermen and school committee members were aware that the NNHS building was not the $141 building that the Mayor Cohen promised it to be, but that it would cost tens of millions of dollars. This year the new Angier school is coming in on time and under budget.
Four years ago, elementary schools were neglected, deteriorating badly and today those issues are being addressed.
Four years ago, the presentation of the yearly school budget was all doom and gloom. Today, we work through our issues, and come up with creative solutions.
Four years ago, the firefighters were locked in battle with Mayor Cohen over issues that reasonable people should have been able to work through. Today the mayor and the firefighters work collaboratively.
Four years ago, teachers were demoralized. Today we feel that we have a Mayor and Superintendent who treats us with respect.
Jane, what are you talking about under budget? Angier’s gross cost was projected to come in at $30 Million as recently as May 2012 and now its at $37.5 Million?
http://www3.newton.k12.ma.us/sites/default/files/facilities_Q_&_A_05_14_12_0.pdf
Steve, I’m going to have to disagree with you here. I demolished your thesis about how things about better off. Newton has been saddled with over $1 BILLION in debt/retirement benefit liabilities thanks to lavish retirement benefits for government unions and because of a white elephant high school building.
Perhaps the taxpayers could tolerate this borrowing binge if Newton used these dollars to maintain and improve our elementary schools, but they did not. Nor did Newton use these dollars to maintain and pave our streets and sidewalks either. In addition, Newton didn’t use these dollars to upgrade our water and sewerage infrastructure in order to eliminate its 60%+ inflow and infiltration rate, which has contributed to Newton’s expensive water bills that continue to grow at a rate well in excess of the reported CPI inflation rate.
Newton’s Taxpayers need the Board of Aldermen and School Committee to look to eliminating budgetary bloat instead of pushing for overrides every few years. Despite your statements about Setti Warren’s so-called savings, Newton’s annual spending continues to go up and up and up every year.
With regards to Hingham versus Angier, we spend 38% more to have a building that is 20% smaller? We’re paying more for less.
There are 24 school districts in Massachusetts that generate comparable or better academic performance than Newton even though they spend less. Then again, they don’t give away the store when it comes to compensation, not because of their demographic mixes.
Hingham, Winchester and Shrewsbury have stronger retirement benefit financial positions than Newton. Then again, its because they spend less on compensation than Newton.
As for saving money on heating costs, I’m not impressed considering that it was more than offset by the continuous growth in compensation and out-of-district SPED spending. Crowing about saving $2M/year on energy costs while annual compensation/out-of-district SPED spending increased by $33M/year is a classic case of style over substance.
@Joshua,
Just a suggestion, and take it or leave it as you will: Read the CAG report. I’m sure you’ve read much if not all of it, but read it again for the way in which it demonstrates useful, policy-guiding analysis.
The committee set objectives, collected data, interviewed stakeholders, developed perspectives, tested them, and then presented their findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a thoughtful, calm, dispassionate way. They understood and discussed how decisions would be made within a context that included majority, if not consensus values.
They had enough humility to acknowledge the limitations of their work. No insults, no bragging about how they nailed it, no hyperbolic adjectives, no threats about how they would stop our leaders from bad behavior in the future. No “demolishing” anyone they disagreed with.
Their approach and the quality of their work was solid and pretty much every candidate in the 2009 municipal elections referenced the report in their campaign as it was considered to be foundational for sound, analytically based governance.
If you want people to pay attention to your work, the CAG model may help.
Josh – Do you plan to move to Hingham? If not, why?
I have a new question: How much better off would we be if we had a mayor who worked on city issues full time (not just election time)?
Here’s an old political joke:
“When entering elected office, there will be three envelopes on your desk to assist your transition. After the first year, if the public starts getting cantankerous, you open the first envelope which states, “Blame everything on your predecessor”. This is meant to calm the masses and move you into the second year of office. If the pitch forks and torches are again handed out and the public is once more beating at the door, you are to open the second envelope which states, “Blame your staff”. So you reorganize, fire a bunch of people and hopefully yet again the masses are quelled. If the public subsequently gathers once more, you open the third envelope which states, “Prepare three envelopes”.
The Mayor has already blamed his predecessor
The Mayor is going through restructuring
The question is tomorrow the day he prepares 3 envelopes?
Tom,
I just read this and literally fell off my chair. I can’t stop laughing you should share this with former Mayor David Cohen at O’Hara’s over a beer.
Jane, I’m a lifelong Newton resident who is concerned that Newton’s Billion Dollar Borrowing Binge will irreparably damage the quality of life that lifelong Newton residents such as myself have come to enjoy. Unlike many of our elected officials, I didn’t move here for the schools and I’m not moving because I shouldn’t have to move considering that I’ve lived here longer than many of them.
I cite Hingham because that is an example of a well-run community that doesn’t give away the store on compensation. Why can’t Newton follow Hingham’s example with regards to compensation? I’m concerned that many of its elected officials and nearly all of its School Committee members did not grow up here and seem compelled to make Newton into a less affordable place to live.
Steve, I just read your blog post. I’ve actually chatted with many of the CAG’s membership. One of them remarked positively as to how I’ve been doing good work in bringing the NTA-Newton Taxpayers Association back into its core fiscal responsibility issues.
I read the CAG report and I disagreed with the conclusion that Newton had a $52M/year structural deficit. Newton has a structural spending problem that has contributed to its $1+ Billion Borrowing Binge. I didn’t demolish anyone I disagreed with, just their theses. I am hoping to publish the Newton Taxpayers Association’s evaluation of the CAG Report on or before April, to coincide with the 5th anniversary of the release of that report.
As for “No insults, no bragging about how they nailed it, no hyperbolic adjectives, no threats about how they would stop our leaders from bad behavior in the future.” fortunately, I managed to embed that into my research
As for “setting objectives, collected data, communicating with stakeholders, developed perspectives, tested them, and then presented my findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a thoughtful, calm, dispassionate way. They understood and discussed how decisions would be made within a context that included majority, if not consensus values.” Wow! It’s like you’ve known me all my life. That’s exactly what I do.
I understand and discussed how decisions would be made in Newton government. It is obvious that Newton’s government is dysfunctional and here is why:
Newton has racked up $1.07 BILLION in interest bearing liabilities
Newton’s infrastructure is rotting and decrepit
Newton pays $40,792 annually to the teachers union president to negotiate against us
Newton’s elected officials claim they saved $436 Million when they increased annual spending from $287.5 Million in 2010 to an estimated $391 Million in 2019
Newton sold off many of its elementary schools because the city statistician didn’t see any pregnant women in the supermarkets
Newton didn’t let its buildings go above 2.5 stories without a special permit and still doesn’t let its building go above 5 stories without a special permit
I think its alot simpler. Mayor Warren and his advisory boards (elected and unelected) can’t manage public works projects. Things have consistently been coming up overbudget and with unplanned surprises. And that is happening when the project isn’t a complete waste like the construction in Newton Centre.
Mayor Warren’s excuse is that the computer models (and bikeNEWTON) said it would all work for the better. Sadly there was no one smart/experienced enough to recognize when the computers are wrong. That had to be done on the taxpayers dime.
If we make it hard for small businesses to draw customers, then the small businesses will go away. The will be replaced by higher profit margin businesses that can sustain themselves on a smaller customer base e.g frozen yogurt shops and fast food joints. Fascinating how “smartgrowth” always seems to lead to more traffic jams and frozen yogurt shops.
Robert/Joseph/Wilbur: that’s an odd charge, that Bike Newton was behind Newton Centre construction, particularly since it had no bicycle accommodations. Care to provide proof?
Anonymity is allowed, but in the future, I’d ask that you use a valid and e-mail address and a consistent handle, or your posts will be removed.
I made a mistake, Perhaps BikeNEWTON as an organization was not explicitly involved. I believe that if you look at the names of the unelected people on the traffic advisory group and related boards, and then at the various bicycle/pedestrian activist organizations, you tend to see the same names over and over again.
It raises the question of if the mayor receiving high quality and unbiased advice? Are the taxpayers being well served??
When you have a failed project, it makes sense to think about where did the bad ideas come from, and who approved them, and why?
Wow Joshua, unexpectedly you missed the entire point of my last post, which is that the way the CAG did their work and the manner in which they presented it gave them much credibility. Well, good luck to you!
Steve, I don’t see why everyone pays homage to the CAG Report? Of its nine highly touted game changers, four of them perpetuate Newton’s structural spending problem and exacerbate Newton’s $1+ BILLION Borrowing Binge.
As for your suggestions about “setting objectives, collected data, communicating with stakeholders, developed perspectives, tested them, and then presented my findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a thoughtful, calm, dispassionate way.” I thought I made it abundantly clear that I already do that.
As for your other suggestions about “No insults, no bragging about how they nailed it, no hyperbolic adjectives, no threats about how they would stop our leaders from bad behavior in the future.” I thought I made that it abundantly clear that I already do that too.
I also thought I made it abundantly clear that former alumni of the CAG, Newton for Fiscal Responsibility and even Newton 20/20 have confirmed the goals I set out for the new Newton Taxpayers Association (NTA):
Bringing the Newton Taxpayers Association back into its core fiscal responsibility issues.
Reinvigorating the NTA from its five year somnolent slumber
Instilling a low-key, research-oriented approach to leading the NTA and providing a sharp contrast to Len Mead
Establishing the NTA as the most knowledgeable authority as to how Newton’s tax dollars are spent
Eliminating the NTA’s perception as a blanket opponent of tax increases and showing the ability to raise valid points that are well grounded in data
Being urged to amplify that data and to get it out there when Newton is negotiating its union contracts
Showing our aldermanic candidates the sobering deficits associated with Newton’s unfunded retirement benefit liabilities.
Identifying solutions to address unfunded retirement benefit liabilities without resorting to OPEB overrides like Wellesley
Point of clarification: I thought I made it abundantly clear that former alumni of the CAG, Newton for Fiscal Responsibility and even Newton 20/20 have confirmed that the NTA leadership team and I are achieving goals I set out for the (new) Newton Taxpayers Association.
Yes you did Joshua, abundantly.