Governor Patrick’s Readiness Report has been released, and a lot of talk and blogging has occurred over this subject already. I have attached the report below. Much of the coverage has centered on the ability to finance some of Governor Patrick’s ambitious education agenda, with a possible increase in the sales tax mentioned as a possible funding source. Of course the mantra of the day is no revenue increases without “reform”, so the Readiness Committee had some suggestions. From the State House News Service:
According the report, the potential cost savings measures include moving municipalities into the Group Insurance Commission to reduce municipal employee health insurance costs ($200 million); reducing teacher retiree benefit costs by moving them into Medicare ($135 million); regionalizing schools’ food services, transportation and building maintenance (almost $20 million); maximizing federal Medicaid reimbursements for special education (over $100 million); reducing energy costs through better purchasing, conservation campaigns and energy savings companies (over $100 million); and enacting procurement reform and coordinating the purchase of utilities, bookstore contracts, office supplies, vending contracts, (savings “range”).
Haddad said she would push for regionalization, which some communities oppose because they want to keep handling matters on their own, as a top priority. “I think that hard times like this are the times that you can make big institutional changes and they make sense,” she said. “You never make changes like this in good times.”
What great ideas! Moving municipalities into the GIC? Regionalizing Building Maintenance and Food Service? Maybe someone should tell Rep. Haddad that the Commonwealth will not even allow consolidation of some of those functions WITHIN city boundaries! And of course these proposed reforms will draw the ire of school officials and some in the media, who will now charge the State with being “power hungry”. I guess that is a little better than mayors and managers being charged with being power hungry, and appears to be the political front slogan used to stymie real reform. I won’t even bother to make any sarcastic remarks over the GIC. But one more tidbit picked from the pile has to do with the recommendation for a statewide “master teacher contract”. From the Readiness Report:
Launch a Statewide Master Teacher Contract Initiative that would start a critical conversation about transforming the educator compensation and benefit structure to attract top talent into teaching by, for example, offering flexibility for teachers to receive different pay and benefit packages at different stages of their careers. In this kind of scenario, new teachers might have the option of choosing higher compensation in lieu of longer-term benefits. Such a contract might also provide for more equitable distribution of teachers throughout the state while creating the possibility of various cost savings. For example, the Master Teacher Contract would provide a vehicle for addressing escalating health care costs, disparities in pay across regions of the state, pension portability and other issues. Such a contract would achieve the efficiency of eliminating contract negotiations in more than 300 separate school districts.
So we go from me advocating for additional mayoral input on local teacher contracts to the Governor’s Readiness Task Force advocating that no local school districts enter into separate contracts with teachers, leaving that job fully to the Commonwealth. Now that is one hefty “power grab”. I wonder where the cries of “dictator” will come from now. With all of my sarcasm aside the idea of a state “master contract” with the teachers needs to be looked at seriously, for it has some real advantages and has the potential for some cost savings as well. Reforming a system that has a built in structural deficit is never easy, and will be bitterly resisted by those that benefit from the status quo. In government we have a tendency to overly complicate matters that need not be complex. In the case of education and municipalities either you forcefully reduce costs (and bruise some political heavyweights) or you bring in more money to place the system in balance. Since all seem to agree that new revenues are off the table I guess cost reductions are all that is left.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
I congratulate you on a fine crafted response to this obvious attempt to take over the cities and towns by the future Tsar of all Massachusetts His Supreme Holiness Deval “tax cut” Patrick.
By the time he gets through with you, your major job will be to meet me for coffee. I will be the fellow with the big grin and the tricked out name tag that says “I told you so”.
It was you who, prior to the Democratic landslides,”…if only I can get my friends in office……”. Well you got your wish. Has it helped?
I have a question, if the politburo gets to negotiate with teachers, does the state pay their salaries? (I know the answer, I was just being a wise guy)
You did impress me when you, in frustration wrote, “…appears to be the political front slogan used to stymie real reform. Now you are getting the concept of the “Democratic Phrase Translator”.
You say you see some advantages with part of the “master contract” “reform”. The only thing to do with it is to destroy it. You can’t use part of it without it polluting the state, period.
So, your Honor, what happens next. Do we roll over?
Do you need a permit to build a bomb shelter?
We got keep this one going.
Jules
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor:
I have much to learn about local Massachusetts politics, this blog is the beginning of my education …
Why would we not want to move educational / contract decisions to a state level (and the funding too, of course)? Besides the potential economies of scale, shouldn’t we be producing students that can compete on a global scale, and not just with their neighbor localities? What are the benefits of keeping decision making at the local level (which I gather are mostly up to the school committee in terms of direction, city council in terms of funding).
It has always seemed to me that the way we fund schools in this country is one of the reasons we’re in the global position we’re in.
Please don’t be afraid to be sarcastic (c.f. GIC) – it helps the uninitiated learn something of the history …
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
I believe my sarcasm here has sent out a mixed message. Maybe it was not my best posting, as sarcasm does not come of well in written form. Your point is one that I agree with. My sarcasm stemmed from an earlier post I had done indicating that I thought Mayors and Managers ought to have additional input (with legal teeth) over school side collective bargaining contracts. Without rehashing that debate I can tell you that I was fairly well criticized in the local paper, in the response section, with folks essentially saying that I was trying to grab power, and not cut costs. My point in this posting was to ask those critics if they would level the same criticism at those advocating far more substantial change.But having said all that I do believe that a Master Teacher contract, entered into at the state level, would be a good thing. Your point on how we fund schools is right on, and I can tell you that funding K-12 education through the property tax is one of the worst things we have ever done as a country. It is inherently unequal and has a host of other problems that are so extensive that they require a separate posting.
My other points relate to Rep Haddad saying she is for moving municipal employees into the state health plan (the GIC), as well as regionalizing building maintenance and food service. Mayors and Managers throughout the State have been advocating for the legislature to strip away the current provision that allows such a move into the GIC only with the approval of seventy percent of the unions in the community. We have also advocated for the ability to consolidate city and school functions WITHIN city limits. The legislature has refused to allow this without prior approval of school committees,which is a non starter for reasons of turf. Rep Haddad now proposes that we regionalize these items when the legislature would not even allow such consolidations WITHIN cities and towns? I have no problem with expanding such cost saving efforts to a regional basis, and would be supportive of such an effort. But you can understand why I am mystified that someone would think that a regional effort would be succesful politically, when the much smaller effort failed to gather any legislative support. That is my rant for the day!
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Can you see that these changes will dilute democracy and center all the powers in Boston.
The unions, activists, power brokers and a host of other self serving people and organizations will now have a direct line to the governor and Legislature. This will leave your constituents open to corruption and funding the(additional) excess that will follow.
I can’t believe so many people do not understand the meaning and practice of democracy. The more we concentrate power at the top, the more we lose our freedom.
I hope Fred sees this. The State is no more capable of serving the citizens than the local equivalent. Another advantage of keeping things local is to influence events as much as possible. You vote for (or against) all the politicians that run the town. Kick this up to state level and now events are controlled by state wide politicians. If you want something done you have to convince a representative from other districts who are looking for funds for their own districts. Now you are competing for resources from all the other districts in Mass. As you can see from the mayor’s discussion, we are well on the way to concentrating power in Boston now. Be warned.
Jules
LikeLike