Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

WELCOME TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION OF
TAX TALK
Your weekly update on what others are thinking, doing, and planning
Send your comments or questions to me, and
I will include in next week's publication.

Susan Kniep, katzrus50e@aol.com                                                                                                             East Hartford Taxpayers Association
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Date: October 7, 2003

The results of our mailing letters (posted on our website ctact.org) to towns throughout Connecticut regarding Binding Arbitration is beginning to yield results. We will soon be posting the information on our website. In the interim, please note that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities has posted the following on their website.

Binding Arbitration Reform a Possibility in Upcoming Special Session
October 2, 2003 Reforms to the binding arbitration process are being considered as the state legislature prepares to convene in special session this fall. House and Senate Democratic leaders have scheduled caucuses on October 14th to discuss whether various subjects, including binding arbitration, will be brought before the chamber for a vote. Help Keep the Door Open for Binding Arbitration Reform YOUR ACTION NEEDED Call your state legislative delegation RIGHT AWAY. Urge them to speak up in caucus in support of bringing reform of binding arbitration to a vote. TELL THEM:
That your municipality supports opening discussions on binding arbitration reform.
To keep proposals to reform binding arbitration on the table as they convene in caucus and prepare for the special legislative session.
***********************************************************
Gus Masiello, augiemm@direcway.com                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Taxpayer Group: Citizens for Prudent spending, Inc., Woodstock
Subject: Voting allowed to non-residents
Date: October 7, 2003
Susan: Here in Woodstock, and I believe in Connecticut in general, those who have property and pay taxes are permitted to attend and vote on taxing measures. I do not believe that is irresponsible.A book that should be recommended to all, especially, where we are trying to remove the arbitration laws from our backs is "Worm in the Apple". Written by an economist from Forbes publications is a very worthwhile use of time.
I will send you more on this, but I would make people know their enemy.
Gus
*************************************************************

Tom Durso, TDurso8217@aol.com
Oakville Taxpayers Association
Op-Ed published in Waterbury Repulican Aug 17 by Tom Durso:
For True Neutrals, Think Jury Duty
Date: October 1, 2003
A typical excuse which local Boards of Education use to justify super-inflationary raises for teachers and administrators goes something like this: " Well, if we didn't give away the store we'd have to go to arbitration where we'd get hit even harder." Sure enough, a quick review of arbitrated awards show that the ostensibly neutral arbiters consistently hand out salary increases above the municipalities' last offer. There should be no surprise at this since the pool of arbiters are neither strangers nor unbiased triers of facts, but more like fellow travelers with the government education establishment in Connecticut.
     Arbiters attain his or her pool position through political sponsorship; they are not chosen at random   from electronic data bases for example. To be selected for a panel to decide a labor contract, both the Board of Education and the teachers union representative have the right to reject an arbiter who is perceived to be biased, so it behooves arbiters not to be stingy toward labor or risk being passed over next time. On the other side of the table there's really not much resistance from Boards of Education since it's easy to be a good sport with other peoples' money. Further, many if not most members of local Boards of Education include current or retired teachers, administrators and other individuals who are sympathetic to the wishes of the local education establishment; besides, how does one "just say no" to a friend? The real combatants in the battle over teacher compensation are the education establishment v. local taxpayers, where the establishment includes the Boards of Education, the unions, the PTO's and other such front-groups and advocates for unquestioned school spending.  This setup has financially served the public education workforce well since 1979 when it was implemented but these professional educators have paid a steep price in loss of respect and unjustified vilification. Further, their long term cause is not helped by the rise of taxpayers groups such as our Watertown/Oakville Taxpayers Association,  who know a rigged game when they see one; nor should local residents cheer  when their money  is diverted away from other town accounts such as police and fire services.
    As a former member of Watertown's Town Council budget subcommittee who on at least one occasion voted to fund raises for teachers and administrators, I know the pressure which can be exerted on Board and Council members to "do it for the kids--- or else we'll be dragged to arbitration."   There is, I believe, an equitable solution to the question of what taxpayers should pony up to pay local teachers and administrators; we could replicate the system by which citizens are called for jury duty. Rather than continuing with the heavily influenced insider- arbiters, why not electronically cull irreproachable neutrals from property tax, DMV or voter databases ? In such an arrangement municipal taxpayers would be represented on the same plane as establishment promoters . It would be akin to using a fresh, sealed deck of cards for each game. Of course there would be stiff resistance to this idea from the status quo supporters just as there would be from a "lucky" casino gambler who's been disconnected from a friendly Black Jack dealer.  We will hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the educrats who will insist that us common folk simply can't be deciding questions of this magnitude. Yeah right. While Joe and Jane Six-pack can decide from a jury booth who lives or dies, egad, how on earth can they know how much to pay teachers and school principals? Only Zeus-like insiders from the our establishment Mt. Olympus are wise enough for that!
    Short of outright repeal of binding arbitration which is not in the cards given the umbilical connection between labor unions and the current legislative leadership, the least that taxpayers should demand is that the system for arbitration of teacher compensation be truly neutral, in contrast to the extant artifice which is an insult to taxpayers' intelligence. The present  scheme spawns citizens' disrespect of public school professionals, anger over the coerced diversion of local funds, school budget referendum defeats, and it adds to a widespread skepticism of the education establishment's fiduciary stewardship.
    Public school teachers and local taxpayers deserve nothing less than equal standing on questions of  salary levels but the existing Potemkin Village-system of insider arbiters is a powerful engine driving up property taxes in our shrinking state. Governor Rowland and his legislative allies won't find a more worthwhile, legacy-building cause.