From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations, Inc. (FCTO)
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
April 9, 2005
WELCOME TO THE 47th
EDITION OF TAX TALK
Part 2
Review
Previous Tax Talk Issues on our Website at http://ctact.org/
***********
Office of Legislative Research
SELECTED MAJOR EDUCATION LAWS
FROM 1980 TO THE PRESENT
Jan 13, 2005
2005-R-0020
http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_olr.html
***********
IMPORTANT NUMBERS TO HAVE AVAILABLE WHEN YOU WISH TO SUPPORT A POSITION BY THE FEDERATION OF CONNECTICUT TAXPAYER ORGANIZATIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION
OR ISSUES:
CONNECTICUT
House Democrats: (800) 842-1902
Democrat Majority Leader Christopher Donovan
Email: Christopher.Donovan@cga.ct.gov
House Republicans: (800) 842-1423
Republican Minority Leader Robert Ward
Email: Robert.Ward@housegop.state.ct.us
Senate Democrats: (800) 842-1420
Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney
Email: Looney@senatedems.ct.gov
Senate Republicans: (800) 842-1421
Senate Republican Leader Louis C. DeLuca
Email: Louis.Deluca@cga.ct.gov
***********
SUSAN KNIEP, FCTO PRESIDENT, GUEST SPEAKER AT BRAD DAVIS
LUNCHEON: On April 4, Susan Kniep was the guest speaker at a luncheon sponsored by Brad
Davis, the well known and listened to talk show host of WDRC-AM 1360. Brad provides a forum for his listening
audience to speak on issues of importance to them and the public. Brad’s
program begins at 5:30 AM every weekday and
6 AM on Saturday.
To become an active participant in the program, call in to the show at, (888)574-2723. Susan’s presentation on taxpayer related
issues was made before 200 attendees.
The text is provided on our home page of FCTO’s
website. http://ctact.org/
***********
Flo Stahl, flostahl@snet.net
Avon Taxpayers Association
Subject: Taxpayer
Related Questions & Answers
April 1,
2005
RESPONDING TO
TAXPAYERS’ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q. Why, when property values
are increasing, students are achieving and the student population is growing
should we want to limit or reduce the increase in the Board of Education’s
budget?
A. Property values are unrealized
capital gains. Unlike stocks or bonds that are taxed when sold, people have to
pay taxes on their homes while living in them. Even if their homes are
worth more, the homeowners may not, themselves, have increased their income. Avon has the
cream of the student crop. It doesn’t have the high minority/low income problem
of cities. In addition, because of Binding Arbitration and the Teachers’ Union there is no
method of measuring the performance of one teacher over another. If students were not doing well and
property values were not high, the argument from the education lobby
would still be the same: “We need more money.”
Student growth is continually being addressed in many school
construction, expansion, and recon-figuration projects over the years.
Q. Why is it important to contain salaries and
benefits?
A. Because their impact on the budget is
enormous – almost 80% of the total. Every time a labor contract is signed we
should be provided with an estimated annual economic impact. This should also
be true for big ticket capital improvement borrowing. There has to be a point
of reasonableness. In Connecticut, public
education administrators and teachers are the highest paid in the nation, and
fringe benefits far exceed those in the private sector. The upward trend is not
sustainable.
Q. Why is the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) an appropriate benchmark for evaluating changes in property
tax over time?
A. Because it is an index
used by economists across the nation to measure the change in prices paid on
average for a shopping bag of goods the typical American consumer would buy.
Even with soaring energy costs, the CPI is projected at about 2.5%. There is no
better measure of inflation’s impact. It would take an overall budget reduction
of only 1.37% to achieve parity with the CPI.
Q. Why are there
restraints on government when it comes to spending taxpayer money to influence
or lobby for the outcome of a referendum?
A. In a democracy
there are always restraints on the absolute power of government. Attempting to influence a referendum is one
of them. Conn. State Elections Enforcement Commission Guide, Revised Feb. 1977,
Section VIII, states: In general, only private funds can be contributed or expended to
influence any person to vote for or against any referendum question. State or municipal
(public) funds can not be expended for this purpose, and any official who
authorizes such an improper expenditure can be held personally liable… An explanatory text of a local referendum
question may be printed with municipal funds…
The text must be prepared by the municipal clerk, subject to the
approval of the municipal attorney, and must specify the intent and purpose of
each such proposal or question. This
text must not advocate approval or disapproval of the proposal or question….
This prohibition includes the use of school children as couriers of information
that advocates a position on a referendum. (It may also be noted, that
since the government is proposing the spending it may be presumed to be in
favor of the measure it is proposing.)
Q. What are the
consequences of continuing the spending trend we have established for the past
5-6 consecutive years?
A. Property taxes are
taking an increasingly larger share of disposable income, leaving less to spend
on other things. It is of small comfort that this same phenomenon is going on
at the state and national levels.
Prepared by the Avon Taxpayers
Association, D. Holmes, Treasurer
***********
Robert and Edie Duncan, Weimar35@earthlink.net
Granby First
Subject: House Bill
6447
April 1, 2005
Gentlemen - My
husband and I and members of Granby First, a community action organization, are
writing to urge you to support HB6447, which we understand will remove a
municipality's Undesignated Fund Balance from Arbiter's consideration of the
municipality's ability to pay during arbitration. We also have heard that
this bill may remove only a portion of the fund balance and urge that
HB6447 not be diluted in this way. Including
the fund balance during arbitration acts to punish fiscally responsible
communities for setting aside emergency funds, lowers bond ratings
and increases interest rates when towns must borrow for items such as school
construction. Using a municipalities fund
balance as "available funds" for salary awards is simply another tax
levied on already overburdened property tax owners who now face yearly tax
raises of 5.5% across the state.
Thank you for your consideration.
***********
Robert Young, ryoung0@snet.net
Wethersfield Taxpayers
Association
Subject: WETHERSFIELD REPUBLICANS CALL
ON COUNCIL
TO LET THE VOTERS HAVE THEIR SAY
March 29,2005
At its regular
monthly meeting held on March 23, the Wethersfield Republican Town Committee
unanimously adopted a resolution which directs the Town Council to submit the
ordinance proposed in the recently submitted petitions to the voters at the
scheduled May referendum. The proposed ordinance, which would exempt
all town property from compliance with town planning and zoning regulation, is
set for a public hearing on Monday, April 4.
At that meeting, the Town Council may choose to adopt the ordinance or
send it to the voters. “The petitions were designed to streamline the
process for putting lights on Cottone Field, but the
proposed ordinance goes far beyond that one project. It is a blank check for this Council and all
future Councils to do anything they want with town property at any time,” said
Rich Roberts, chairman of the Town Committee.
Tom Fitzpatrick, a former four-term Council member added that “This
eliminates all of the checks and balances that have been in place for over
fifty years and puts every property owner and taxpayer at risk. The public is once again being sold a bill of
goods.” The impetus behind the
resolution was the fact that the Council could send the proposed ordinance to
referendum at no additional cost, since there is currently one scheduled for
mid-May on another proposed ordinance.
Doing so would avoid the estimated $12,500 that each town-wide
referendum costs. In addition, both the Republican Town Committee and
Republican members of the Town Council have consistently and repeatedly asked
that matters such as the installation of lights and artificial turf at Cottone Field be submitted to the voters because of the
magnitude of the impact, both financially and on the neighboring property
owners. Each time, the Democratic
majority has refused to honor that request.
Contact Richard Roberts (297-4695) with any questions
***********
Helene R. Groman , HRGroman@aol.com
New Britain Taxpayers
Association CPOA
Subject: House Bill
6447
April 1, 2005
Dear Representative: We,
the members of Conn.'s oldest taxpayer
organization, CPOA, New Britain's Citizens
Property Owners Assn. are following House Bill 6447. We beg of you not to
allow this bill to die in your committee. We taxpayers deserve to have this
bill heard by all. Thank you for
your attention to the appeal of your constituents. Helene R. Groman, Secry.,
CPOA
***********
Marvin Edelman, frogpond01@earthlink.net
Willimantic Taxpayers Association
Subject: More on Illegals
March 25, 2005
Dear Susan: You may
know about this legislation but just in case you do not, here it is ....
Hi Marvin: Taxpayers must
start some place. I think the initiatives being taken locally in lieu of the “nonrepresentatives” we have sent to Washington is essential. The article below is could be the wave of the future
if the average American can wake up and see beyond Provda
CBS, ABC, and NBC. Bob
NC bill is AZ Prop. 200:
Would cut illegal aliens off from welfare and voting
Posted on Friday, March 25 @ 10:48:02 EST
Topic: Laws
Webster moves to cut benefits
to illegals
3/24/2005
by James Moffat
Burlington Times-News
Topics: Illegal Immigration, Security, State Budget, NC, Licenses, Senate,
Legislation
A local legislator has introduced a bill aimed at stopping illegal
immigrants from receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits. The bill would also
require employers to provide medical coverage to illegal immigrants who work
for them.
Read the latest headlines
about illegal immigration.
N.C. Senate bill 976, filed by Sen. Hugh Webster, RAlamance, would require state or local agencies providing
public assistance to verify a person’s citizenship status before they could
receive Medicaid benefits and other public assistance.
Webster filed the bill, called the North Carolina Taxpayer and
Citizen Protection Act, just before Wednesday’s afternoon legislative deadline.
"The skyrocketing cost of Medicaid is
doing serious damage to local budgets," Webster
said. "We need to address this thing."
Learn
more about Senator Webster and read SB 976
The bill would allow people whose Featured Jobs status is questioned
to sign an affidavit in order to receive temporary benefits.
If the agency determines the person is not a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant, that person could face criminal
charges.
"My bill is addressing the issue of illegal immigration,"
Webster said. "That is criminal conduct. Where I come from, people who
violate the law are criminals."
The bill also states that any state or local government worker who
fails to report such violations would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Employers who
willingly refuse to provide medical coverage would be liable to reimburse the
state for medical services provided to their employees. "There might be
some big boys who don’t like that," Webster said.
The bill would allow illegal immigrants to receive emergency
medical assistance, which is a requirement under federal law.
Webster’s bill is modeled after Arizona’s Proposition 200 , which requires state and local officials to check the immigration
status of people applying for certain public benefits. Arizona voters approved the
initiative in November. Opponents call the
initiative unconstitutional because it gives immigration enforcement powers to
the state instead of the federal government.
Colorado and Idaho have seen similar bills filed in the wake of the Arizona voter referendum. Alamance County Commissioner Tim Sutton, a
longtime advocate of stricter immigration laws, praised Webster’s bill and was
"glad to see" someone in the state take action on an issue he said
the federal government has not addressed. "I think people are sick and
tired of paying money for the follies of the U.S. federal government," Sutton said.
Sutton, who sits on the county’s Department of Social Services
board, said the county’s Medicaid costs have risen each year he’s been a county
commissioner and attributes "a great portion of it" to illegal
immigrants receiving services. "Medicaid is out of sight," he said. "I hope (the bill)
passes."
Reuters news service
contributed to this report.
I've read enough. I'm ready
to join the fight against illegal immigration.
Read
the original article.
Read
ALIPAC's Mission Statement.
Discuss this article in our
Discussion Group.
***********
John Kane, newmilfordcitizen@earthlink.net
New Milford Taxpayers Group
Subject: Ethics
Complaint to go to Hearing
April 5, 2005
Waterbury Republican
Newspaper
New Milford sends
complaint forward for first time ever
Author: George Krimsky
NEW
MILFORD — The town Ethics Commission decided Monday evening for
the first time in its 18-year history to take a conflict-of-interest complaint against a town official to a public
hearing. The decision came in a
unanimous vote of the three commissioners
present to deny an appeal from John Spatola, a
local developer who serves on the Board
of Finance, to reconsider the commission's ruling last May. That ruling asserted there was
"probable cause" for the
public to hear a complaint against Spatola
brought by New Milford resident John
Kane. "It is the opinion of
this commission that (Spatola's) motion presents no new evidence" to
justify reconsideration of the
11-month-old decision, said Vice Chairman Joseph Failla. "This matter has gone on for far
too long," Failla told the contesting parties, after the commission
returned from closed-door deliberations
at Town Hall. "This is a
real victory," Arthur Peitler, Kane's atto! rney
and former mayor of New Milford, said
after the meeting. William
Wellman, Spatola's attorney, said he would not
comment, when asked. Both Spatola and Kane attended the public part of the
meeting, but sat apart from one another
with their lawyers. This case that came
to a head Monday has heated up the political arena in New Milford for more than
a year, leading some to suggest that a
new level of "incivility" has contaminated the public sector. At another level, the dispute is seen as a
new confrontation between those who
want to preserve New Milford's rural
character and those who want to develop the town's remaining available land.
Kane filed a series of complaints to the commission in February
2004 against Spatola.
The primary one that the commission will take to public hearing alleges that the developer
had a vested financial interest in
voting on the Board of Finance in 2002 to turn down a town request to buy a parcel of land for public
open! space. The land, which was sold by the United Water Co., was
later tu rned into a residential
subdivision, called Fieldstone Estates, from which Spatola profited, Kane alleged. The Commission was established in New Milford in 1987 and
since heard scores of complaints. But
this is the first time the Commission found
that "probable cause" existed for an ethics violation by a public official. Spatola challenged the ruling in court, but it was
upheld last September. Since then, the Ethics Commission has
been paralyzed by four resignations,
including the chairman, from the five-person board. Only last month, after the Town Council appointed
new members, did the
Commission decide to grapple again with its thorniest problem and
the only one remaining on its
plate. After hearing from the public
at a date yet to be decided, the
Commission must rule on whether the complaint against Spatola is valid or
not. If it determines that a violation has occurred, the official ` could face a fine
equal to three times the value of any profit obtained and suspension or
dismissal from public office. At
the last meeting of the commission March 23, the first in three months, Philip Spillane,
the new chairman, recused himself without explanation, leaving newcomer Failla to be chairman. Both are lawyers. It is common for officials to excuse
themselves from deliberating and voting
upon matters in which they may have a conflict of interest. "We're the Ethics Commission,
after all," said Myra Shaw, an alternate member who was sworn in Monday
evening to give the
commission a legal quorum.
The commission decided Monday to first hold a procedural
meeting April 20, prior to going to a public hearing, to allow all parties
to share documents and the identity of
witnesses they will bring before the
public. "We believe this is
fair to all sides," said Failla. The three also asked the town to
appoint outside counsel for the
commission on grounds that the town attorney, Randall DiBella, would
be in a position to represent Spatola in the
defendant's capacity as a town official.
***********
No Child Left Behind:
New York Times Article
Connecticut to Sue U.S. Over Cost of Testing Law, By
SAM DILLON , Published: April 6, 2005 - 
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/education/06child.html?
***********
ABC
News: Mothers Say Mistakes Led to Fallujah Tragedy - Details Uncovered by Mothers' Quest for JusticeApril 7, 2005 — http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/IraqCoverage/story?id=650816&page=1
***********
No Social Security 'Crisis' -Washington Post Tuesday, February 1, 2005; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52771-2005Jan31.html