As Legislature Spends Money, Cities Feel Pinch
By in RIFuture.org
I see from the Providence Journal that the new state-appointed budget
commission has decided that the city council and Mayor Fontaine were exactly
right to request permission from the state to impose a supplemental tax
increase on their citizens.
Last week, after an
impassioned speech by Rep. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, the House rejected Woonsocket
For some reason state legislators seem to get this idea
in their heads that though they were elected on promises of fiscal responsibility,
and intend to carry through on them, city council members and mayors get
elected by promising to spend like drunken sailors.
This is not only bizarre, but entirely backwards.
By almost any
measurement you care to make, it’s the state that has been the fiscal problem
child over the past couple of decades, not the cities and towns.
The difference is that
the state has power over the cities and towns: they have more money, and stand
uphill in a legal and constitutional sense, too.
But the General
Assembly continues to resist the appeals of the duly elected leaders of our
cities and towns, feeling that they know better.
This year, Governor
Chafee infuriated organized labor by offering several “tools” to municipal
officials to help them control pension costs.
I tend to agree with
the labor folks here, that the state should stay out of these issues, and that
passing state laws to trump local bargaining agreements is only a good idea in
a very limited short-term sense.
But the Assembly has
shown no interest in believing Mayors when they complain about financial
stress, so if you don’t want more bankrupt cities, what should you do? It
seems to me that Chafee wasn’t so much sticking his thumb in Labor’s eye as
making a realistic assessment of the Assembly and acting accordingly.
Or maybe not. It appears that the Assembly
leadership isn’t interested in Chafee’s suggestions, and pretty much none of
them were put into the House budget.
This reminds me of the time in 2005 when the Carcieri
administration came up with some personnel reforms that might have saved around $32 million.
They were the usual sort of benefit cuts, limits on
vacation time and sick time and an end to “statutory status” which is a kind of
state employee tenure.
Whatever you think
about the wisdom of those reforms, it’s hard to praise the Assembly for what
happened next. The legislature rejected the reforms — but left the $32
million in savings in the budget. So the administration was faced with
finding $32 million in savings, but without the law changes to do it.
How, exactly was that responsible?
So now the Assembly is
poised to do the exact same thing, and act to increase the pressure on cities
and towns — not enough money to support their commitments, but no relief from
those commitments, either.
The only difference
this year from previous years is that now we have some Assembly appointees
joining the Mayors in the hot seat, begging that they not be put in the same
position as the Mayor and City Council of Woonsocket.
Mayor Leo Fontaine and
the Council have failed to keep Woonsocket
I simply can’t agree
with the people who imagine that dragging each of our cities into bankruptcy is
a sensible strategy — in either the long or short term — for our state.
The Assembly can act
here. Sensible options are available, that take into account the actual
realities facing our cities. But will it? So far, it does not
appear likely.
Related
posts:
- Care
providers feel sting of state cuts to disabled
- RIPEC
Report: State Cuts Strangled Struggling Cities
- Carcieri
Passes Buck for Stiffing Cities and Towns
- Legislature
Considers Better Public Records Act
- Decriminalizing Pot
Would Save State Money