We invite you to join with
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. (FCTO) and work to
State and local government
officials must understand that with every tax increase, they are negatively
affecting the quality of life of Connecticut citizens who are left with less
money to support their families. As you read the following, we ask that you
consider signing FCTO’s Plan of Action which offers a viable Plan to control
state spending and reduce your state and local taxes by
Connecticut’s government is
in fiscal chaos. Your local property taxes are directly affected by the amount
of money your Town or City receives from the State.
THE
FEDERATION OF CT. TAXPAYER ORGANIZATIONS, INC. has issued
an urgent call to Connecticut elected officials and those campaigning for state
office to address the following issues.
(1) Review
and revise binding arbitration laws and eliminate “secret” union contract
negotiations …….. State legislators must give more control over the
costs of government union contracts to the taxpayers who fund them.
Approximately 70% to 90% of municipal budgets pay for government personnel
expenses to include salaries, pensions, and healthcare. Union contract
decisions are being made by independent arbitrators with no relationship to the
municipality they are fiscally impacting.
Union contracts also
continue to chisel away at management rights. A municipal Police Chief is
prohibited from developing a cost effective work schedule without union
approval in labor negotiations. Unions have also been successful in winning
cases before arbitrators based on “Past Practice.” This is when an issue of
dispute is not contained within a union contract but the union contends they
have been allowed to do it over a period of time. Arbitrators have ruled that
due to past practice management cannot prohibit the practice of driving home
town owned vehicles.
As taxpayers are forced to
fund lucrative government union contracts, the negotiation table should be
moved out from behind closed doors and into the light of public debate!
Union contracts should also
be subject to voter approval. An elected official wishing to win favor with the
union, may sacrifice the interests of the taxpayers. In one town, the
administration negotiated a lucrative pension contract which allows police
personnel to work for five years prior to retirement, receive their full pay
with overtime, concurrently assume retirement status, and have 96% of their
pension deposited into a savings plan. At the end of five years, the employee
will be given a check for the money which had been accumulating in their savings
account. With some police retiring at $50,000, $60,000, and even $70,000 and
more, that check can amount to over $350,000. With one union not wanting to be
outdone by another, this perk will be showing up in union contracts throughout
Connecticut.
(2) Limit
Corporate Welfare and Connecticut’s Bonded Debt by requiring public financial
disclosure of all corporations receiving state tax dollars….
Currently, millions of Connecticut taxpayer dollars have been invested in
Corporations not required to publicly disclose their financial status or
stability. The State’s bonded debt has increased to support these investments.
Legislators should require that companies open their books to the public before
investing our tax dollars.
(3)
Establish fair and equitable taxation and control government spending by
supporting Connecticut Proposition CT13….. State lawmakers should
embrace Connecticut Proposition CT13 (Web site cttaxreform.com) which protects
local property taxpayers by restricting the maximum amount of any ad valorum
tax on real property to 1% of its full cash value, restricting property tax
increases to a maximum of 2% in a calendar year as dictated by cost of living
increases, and eliminating unfunded state mandates.
(4)
Establish Local Top-Down Budgeting…..Prior to the enactment of
Connecticut Proposition CT13, local property taxes can be brought under control
through the adoption of Top-Down Budgeting. This method imposes a spending
limit on local officials, similar to the Spending Cap limitation enacted at the
State level. As taxpayers must live within their financial means, this method
of budgeting forces local government officials to do the same.