First item on the docket? A pay raise!
"Panel quietly considers raises for top Beacon Hill officials; Lame duck Legislature would have to approve" by Frank Phillips, Globe Staff November 20, 2014
Beacon Hill officials, eyeing the possible use of the lame duck Legislature, are poised to give significant pay raises to the governor, other elected constitutional officers, and House and Senate leaders.
The pay hikes could boost top legislative leaders well beyond their current $102,000 in total compensation. It could also give increased cost-of-living raises to rank and file lawmakers, and raise the governor’s salary more than $25,000.
The push for the increases began last summer when legislative leaders used a little noticed budget rider to create a special advisory commission on compensation. Proponents argue that the top officials’ salaries lag far behind those of the employees they manage and are far less than comparable private-sector wages.
That is always the offered excuse to loot.
The governor, for instance, earns a salary of $151,800, less than the pay of his Cabinet members, state judges, and those who run the university systems — by $20,000 or more. The attorney general is paid $130,582, $40,000 a year less than what district attorneys make.
“I think it is indefensible from a management perspective that the CEO of a $36.5 billion institution earns less than his direct-reports,’’ said Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission and dean of the University of Massachusetts/Boston’s McCormick Graduate School of Policy & Global Studies.
Well, maybe their salaries should be lowered like the wages of the people rule. How about that?
The pay for constitutional officers in Massachusetts is higher than in most states, but less than in some comparable states, according to the commission’s preliminary findings.
Oh, they are STILL BEING PAID WELL but they WANT MORE!
Hey, if you don't like the pay don't take the job!
The governor of Pennsylvania, for instance, earns $187,818. The governor of New York earns $179,000. The governor of Michigan is paid $159,300.
The Massachusetts secretary of state is paid $130,262. That’s less than in Pennsylvania ($135,228) and Florida ($140,000) but more than in New York ($120,800) and Connecticut ($110,000).
The commission — which has not yet reached final conclusions — must publicly release its recommendations by Dec. 1. But if lawmakers don’t approve the plan before the end of the 2013-14 legislative session, state conflict-of-interest laws could block implementation of the pay hikes for two to four years.
To avoid such a delay, House and Senate leaders, who have a personal stake in the outcome, could push for a vote on a salary increase plan before Jan. 7.
Here’s why the timing is critical: State law prohibits public officials from participating in matters in which they have a financial interest in the “reasonably foreseeable” future. But if the raises for House speaker and Senate president are approved before the end of the current session — and before the 2015-16 speaker and president are officially elected by their colleagues — the incoming officials could have access to the increases.
Never mind that most of them are incumbents unopposed or reelected 99% of the time.
Likewise, the cost-of-living raises for rank-and-file lawmakers might be delayed unless they’re approved this session.
The issue is particularly important for House Speaker Robert DeLeo and incoming Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, both of whom could see significant pay hikes.
Just adds to my reservations about Rosenberg and confirms the $cumine$$ of DeLeo.
And for DeLeo, the value of his state pension is on the line. House rules that dictate an eight-year term for a speaker bars him from serving another term after the 2015-16 session. Pensions are based on state employees’ top three earning years.
But getting approval this year could be a problem. The Legislature, by its own rules, has suspended formal sessions for the year. The leaders could call lawmakers back for a special formal meeting, but that would be unusual.
And would make the money grab that much more obvious.
One alternative would be to use the informal sessions that meet twice a week. But, under those rules, a single lawmaker is able to put a hold on any consideration of a matter.
There had better be one with balls down there; otherwise, they should all be castrated.
Legislators do plan a return to the State House in mid-December, when departing legislators have a chance to make farewell speeches. Those informal House and Senate sessions could be converted to formal sessions with a quick bang of the gavel, where roll call votes can be taken. The leadership could also use the excuse of calling back lawmakers to vote on budget cuts just submitted by Governor Deval Patrick.
Budget cuts? Budget cuts?
And these guys are going to give themselves a raise?!!!!!
DeLeo’s spokesman Seth Gitell said the speaker would not comment on the timing of any legislative action. He also said DeLeo wants to review the final recommendations before commenting.
The seven-member compensation panel, whose existence and work had gained little notice despite several public hearings, was also charged by the legislative leadership to consider a change in biannual cost of living raises for rank and file legislators that, if adopted, would give them a $4,000 raise — larger than one set by the current system, which has been controversial.
It's grab whatever loot you can get away with, huh?
If the new formula is approved, lawmakers could get a raise to $63,994 this January above their current $60,032 salaries.
A preliminary report issued the day after the Nov. 4 election makes it clear that the panel is indeed charged with building a case for significant upward adjustments.
Good luck on the heels of budget cuts, $cum.
For example, the Legislature directed the group to compare public salaries to private sector pay for managers of similar enterprises. The preliminary report repeatedly cites the large discrepancy between elected officers holders and those they oversee.
For example, it clearly hints that the salaries of the House speaker and Senate president could be raised by more than 50 percent. It cites the “enormous authority” each positions wields and notes that their annual pay is only 67 percent of the governor’s $151,800 salary. It even cites a 2008 “advisory board” recommendation to pay them $159,000 each.
Didn't I see something about budget cuts?
Comparing their salaries to the chairman of the boards of similarly sized enterprises, the commission report claims the Senate president and House speaker earn only 15 percent of the average $664,964.
Why should $cum politicians all be making CEO pay?
--more--"
POOR PUBLIC $ERVANTS!
Even as “need has grown and services are overwhelmed?”
(Look who is the prime example of need! No raise for her!)
Now about those cuts:
"Governor proposes $329 million in midyear state budget cuts" by David Scharfenberg, Globe Staff November 20, 2014
Governor Deval Patrick pitched $329 million in midyear budget cuts Wednesday, but immediately faced strong opposition to proposed reductions in aid to cities and towns.
Patrick, facing a final budget challenge before he cedes the corner office to Governor-elect Charlie Baker in January, can unilaterally impose most of the cuts he unveiled.
His la$t legacy as he leaves.
Related: Patrick Protects Political Appointees
That means more pension costs for you, taxpayers whose services are being cut -- again!
But he needs legislative approval for about $58 million in reductions — including a $25.5 million proposed cut in general aid to municipalities. And there appeared to be little appetite among Democratic and Republican legislators to slice funding for local schools, libraries, and police forces.
But if the Hill needs a raise.... sigh!!
“From my perspective, a local aid cut is really a non-starter,” said House minority leader Bradley Jones, a Republican from North Reading.
With the Legislature in informal sessions until the end of the year, even a single lawmaker can block legislation.
Patrick’s broader package distributes cuts across wide swaths of state government, trimming from environmental protection, mental health services, and the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, which takes a $4.6 million hit.
I'm sure they will be able to make that up somewhere below.
As for the rest, notice debt interest payments to banks or corporate welfare to profitable Hollywood and pharmaceuticals is never considered for cuts. And this is Massachusetts!
Glen Shor, state secretary of administration and finance, told reporters Wednesday that the Patrick administration worked to minimize the impact of the reductions.
“We have done our very best to protect investments that are critical to the Commonwealth’s future and avoid negative impacts on the most vulnerable of our residents,” he said.
Why are cuts even necessary in this era of accelerating economic recovery? Unless....
The governor, he said, did not make any cuts to the Department of Children and Families, the state’s publicly funded colleges, and the main source of K-12 education funding.
But Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which represents cities and towns, said the administration’s claim that it is protecting education funding is misleading.
It's been that way for eight long years.
The governor is imposing more than $40 million in cuts to cities and towns that do not require legislative approval, according to the association’s tally. And the figure includes reductions in special education reimbursements and funding for school transportation.
And they claim they are protecting schools?
“There’s no other way to put it,” Beckwith said. “The governor’s proposal is an attempt to shift the state’s budget problems onto the backs of cities and towns all over Massachusetts.”
But he's been such a great governor according to Bo$ton Globe myth. A wonderful orator and skillful politician.
Shor, the governor’s budget chief, suggested the administration is just asking cities and towns to pitch in at a difficult moment.
Now what's my raise gonna be?!!
“Obviously, we’re asking cities and towns to help us in solving the state budget gap,” he said. “Many [state] executive branch agencies are going through the same dynamic — being asked to recalibrate their original expectations for the year.”
Midyear budget adjustments are common. Revenue sometimes falls short of expected levels, and unexpected expenses come up.
Look at the $ophi$try excusing lies.
Administration officials cited three main sources for the $329 million shortfall.
State law will likely trigger a decrease in the state’s income tax to 5.15 percent from 5.2 in January, costing the state $70 million.
An economic development bill passed this past summer will have an $80 million impact. And the state is coming up about $175 million short in various anticipated fees and reimbursements.
Meaning economic growth, if any, wasn't what they said it would be.
But the problem could be larger than the Patrick administration’s estimates. Andrew Bagley, director of research and public affairs at the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which tracks state finances, said the true budget gap could be $500 million to $600 million.
After all the taxes and fees being invented and raised all these years.
Where TF did ALL THE MONEY GO?!!!!!!!!!?????
A shortfall of that size would require Baker to take the knife to the state budget soon after coming into office, even as he puts together a spending blueprint for the new fiscal year that starts in July.
Way to $crew him, Deval, to protect your political legacy and try to get Coakley elected.
Baker’s response to Patrick’s midyear budget cuts suggests he won’t be looking to reduce local aid when he takes office.
“Governor-elect Baker hopes local aid is the last place the Legislature would ever look to for cuts because Massachusetts cities and towns deserve a dependable source of funding for crucial projects,” Baker spokesman Tim Buckley said in a statement Wednesday.
He's already been an improvement, but it didn't take much.
Patrick’s $58 million legislative package includes about $22 million in reductions to state agencies beyond his direct control, such as the attorney general’s office, the treasurer’s office, and the offices of the state’s district attorneys.
Those agencies would take 1.5 percent across-the-board reductions.
The governor is also asking for a $10 million reduction to the state Department of Transportation that he cannot impose on his own.
In addition to the cuts, Patrick wants lawmakers to direct about $20 million in fees from casino companies to the budget gap.
Without the Legislature’s intervention, that money will land in the state’s rainy day fund.
Cutting budgets while sitting on money?
The state’s top lawmakers, still poring over the details of Patrick’s proposal, offered only muted response Wednesday. The office of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, a Winthrop Democrat, said he was awaiting the Ways and Means Committee’s review.
In a statement, Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer praised the administration for steering clear of the rainy day fund and said he hopes that “as our economy continues to recover, our commitment to local aid receives the highest priority.”
He then dropped to his knees....
The Barre Democrat also sounded a note of sympathy for the departing governor.
unzipped trousers....
“I did not envy the executive office in its exercise of fiduciary responsibility,” he said.
I'll let you figure out the next move.
--more--"
I thought this next item might put the budget cuts and pay raises in context:
"Poverty rate in Mass. highest since 1960; Low-wage workers’ earnings are stagnant" by Katie Johnston | Globe Staff November 10, 2014
The poverty rate in Massachusetts is the highest it’s been since 1960. The inflation-adjusted wages of the lowest-paid workers haven’t budged in decades. Income inequality in the state has become greater than in the nation as a whole.
In a state largely controlled(?) by Democrats.
But it could be worse.
OMG!
Public benefit programs such as Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor, food stamps, and the early education program Head Start are keeping nearly 842,000 people out of poverty in Massachusetts.
Just barely, and I'm sure they are now due for some cuts.
A report out Monday by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center details the plight of the poor since President Johnson declared a war on poverty 50 years ago.
The war has been lo$t -- unle$$ you are part of the 1%.
The report’s findings were at the center of a symposium held Monday in Boston to take stock of Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives and to unite social service agencies, government officials, academic researchers, and others to set a new agenda for addressing poverty.
Let's not fool our$elves any longer about the altrui$m of our money-junkie leaders and their $lavi$h political cla$$.
“It’s so important to make the economy work for everyone,” said Joe Diamond, executive director of the Massachusetts Association for Community Action, a statewide association of agencies that help low-income residents. “Societies that have a widening gap between rich and poor become weaker and weaker.”
A contributing factor to AmeriKa's increasing irrelevance in the world.
US wages and productivity increased in tandem from 1948 into the mid-1970s, according to the report. Since then, workers’ earnings have flat-lined even as productivity has climbed.
Meaning corporations made boodles of loot.
***********
At the same time, wages for the top 1 percent of earners skyrocketed.
No kidding?
If wages across all income levels had grown equally, workers in the bottom 80 percent would be earning around $10,000 more a year, while the 1 percent would be earning almost $1 million less
A number of factors contributed to this divergence, said Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, including declining tax rates that encouraged firms and senior executives to keep more of the profits for themselves.Well-paying manufacturing jobs also started disappearing. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for more than one in four jobs in Massachusetts; by 2006, the industry accounted for just one in 12.
The loss of manufacturing jobs removed a ladder to the middle class for people with high school educations, creating an economy of higher-wage jobs for people with college and advanced degrees, and low-wage service jobs for those with less education.
“We face two challenges,” said Berger, “making sure that children in every community have access to great schools, and finding ways to increase the wages and improve the working conditions in low-wage jobs.”
What could be so hard about it? They are dancing all around the i$$ue because to point out the problem would be to call out the corrupt $y$tem itself and that is verboten!
State budget cuts have also hurt low-income families, the report said.
With more now on the way!
Over the past two decades, Massachusetts has implemented more than $3 billion in income tax cuts that have reduced funding for affordable housing, higher education, and other programs, according to the report.
It's not reduced taxes that are the problem. This goddamn government gets more than enough money. It is what they spend it on that is the problem.
Spending on early childhood education, which allows parents to work and gives children a leg up in learning, has been reduced 23 percent; workforce training programs have been slashed 38 percent.
The changes in the economy have made it difficult for people to get out of poverty. Between 1960 and 1970, with Johnson’s Great Society taking shape, the poverty rate declined sharply, but then subsequently rose. The official poverty rate in Massachusetts is 12 percent, the same as in 1960.
The poverty threshold is less than $19,000 a year for a family of three in Massachusetts. When the “near poor” — those with incomes twice the poverty rate — are included, one in four Massachusetts residents are considered to be in need.
Without programs such as food stamps and the earned income tax credit, the poverty rate would rise to nearly 27 percent.
This poverty measure shows how much public benefit programs have helped residents, Berger said, presenting “a clearer vision of what’s actually happening.”
At the same time, he noted: “We wouldn’t say that it’s a story of success.”
But the policies have been $uce$$ful for $ome!
--more--"
Related: Food pantry opening at church near UMass Dartmouth
I $uppo$e the proper analogy is taking food from the mouth:
"Beacon Hill pay raises can wait, Charlie Baker says" by Frank Phillips, Globe Staff November 21, 2014
Republican governor-elect Charlie Baker cautioned Beacon Hill leaders on Thursday against approving hefty pay raises for the state’s top elected officials, saying the Commonwealth faces a host of serious fiscal problems that need to be dealt with first.
“Given all the issues that are now before the Legislature and the governor, I think putting this off would be the right thing to do,’’ Baker said.
I'm already liking him more than the last guy.
Baker’s comments followed a Globe story outlining how House and Senate leaders were looking to use the lame-duck Legislature to raise their own salaries as well as greatly increase the pay for the governor and other elected constitutional officers.
An advisory commission, created by the leadership through a little-noticed budget rider last summer, is scheduled to release its recommendations Dec. 1.
Baker said he is not opposed to reviewing salaries for state officials “every few years” but said the timing is wrong for any pay raises while the state is grappling with budget woes and several costly health care issues.
“I think we should be focused on other things,’’ Baker said.
Agreed.
While opposed to the Legislature’s taking action on any proposed raises, Baker was clearly trying not to alienate the Democratic legislative leadership, with whom he will need to have good relations.
I'm at the point where I just want to say f*** them!
Picking his words carefully in a brief phone interview, he navigated between the realities of State House politics and his desire to make a statement over the optics of a lame-duck Legislature and a lame-duck governor implementing huge pay increases at a time of some fiscal distress.
The panel will very likely call for raising the House speaker and Senate president’s $102,000 salaries to as much as $150,000. It will probably propose adding $25,000 or more to the $151,800 paid to the governor and $40,000 or more to the attorney general’s current $130,582 salary.
It is also considering a change in biannual cost-of-living increases for the base salaries of rank-and-file legislators that, if adopted, would give them a raise of just under $4,000 in January and provide larger increases in the future.
If the Legislature puts off acting on the commission’s recommendations until the 2015 session that begins the first week in January, Baker, the Senate president and House speaker, and rank-and-file lawmakers cannot accept the raise until after the next state election, in 2016.
The state’s conflict-of-interest laws prohibit public officials from financially benefiting from matters in which they have acted on in their public positions. But a newly elected legislative body could, by most legal interpretations, take the raises if the current Legislative session enacted them.
Never mind that most of them are reelected incumbents.
That has created pressure on the lawmakers to consider getting approval from the Legislature and the outgoing governor, Deval Patrick, during the current lame-duck session.
For House Speaker Robert DeLeo, the issue is critical to his getting a better pension. He can serve only two more years as speaker.
So $elf-$erving, with pre$$titute $ympathy and everything.
The compensation commission has held several hearings across the state and published a Nov. 5 preliminary report but has not caught much public attention. Neither its creation nor its ongoing work was raised in the gubernatorial campaign.
Baker said he was not aware of the commission until he was asked about it the day after the election. He also said he is comfortable with the fact he would not be able to take the pay raise during his four-year term if he were to sign the legislation enacting the commission’s recommendations.
“I know what the job pays, and I have no strong feelings how it relates to me,’’ Baker said in an interview two days after the election.
He doesn't even need the pay, which tells you something right there.
--more--"
I'm not a fan of the guy, but I do believe he means well.
I can't say that about the $cum on the Hill:
"Top lawmakers reject Patrick’s proposal to cut local aid" by David Scharfenberg, Globe Staff November 21, 2014
Top lawmakers made it clear Thursday that they will not back Governor Deval Patrick’s proposed $25.5 million midyear cut in aid to cities and towns.
That still leaves over $300 million unaffected.
Explicit opposition from House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and implied resistance from Senate President Therese Murray snuffed out any hopes the administration may have had that the state Legislature would approve the reductions as part of a larger effort to close a $329 million budget shortfall.
Lawmakers have been working to rebuild local aid as the state pulls out of the recession. And they are generally loath to chop funding for schools, libraries, and police forces in their hometowns.
But if it's needed for a raise....
************
The rejection of the proposed local aid cut punches a sizable hole in the governor’s plan to address the $329 million shortfall for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
There are three major components to that plan.
Patrick’s budget team has identified $74 million in unanticipated state and federal revenue to help close the gap.
Just found money, huh?
The governor is allowed by law to make certain unilateral cuts. And he is using that authority to chop $198 million from mental health services, environmental protection, and a wide range of state services.
I guess that means the hellhole that is Bridgewater will be taking more cuts.
How much more proof do you need about how phony is this guy?
Patrick is asking the Legislature to approve $58 million in additional cuts to round out the package — including the $25.5 million in unrestricted local aid, which cities and towns can use for a variety of purposes.
The governor’s budget chief released the three-part plan late Wednesday. On Thursday, lawmakers were scrambling to find out which of their pet projects might be affected while interest groups sorted through the damage to their policy priorities.
George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said environmental protection has been repeatedly shortchanged in recent years and is taking outsized hits in the governor’s midyear plan.
“While we recognize that everybody needs to take a budget cut, we are consistently taking disproportionately steep budget cuts,” he said.
Environmentalists hope to do better going forward, Bachrach said. This fall, his group urged gubernatorial candidates to make environmental protection 1 percent of the state budget if elected. Republican Charlie Baker, who won the election and takes office in January, pledged to meet that goal during his first term.
Good luck, Chuck.
Al Norman, executive director of Mass Home Care, a network of nonprofit organizations that cares for seniors in their houses, took issue with Patrick’s $1.5 million in cuts for in-home help.
He said the reductions are shortsighted since the services help keep seniors out of expensive nursing homes. “The folly of all this is home care is one of the few programs where the return on investment is immediate,” he said.
Even with the $1.5 million midyear cut, though, funding for the program remains higher than it was last year.
Then everything's all right, everything's fine.
The Patrick administration declined to comment on the home care and environmental reductions. But the governor can impose the cuts on his own. The fate of his $58 million legislative package is far less clear.
If the $25.5 million in local aid cuts is dead on arrival, his call for $22 million in reductions to state agencies beyond his control — such as the attorney general’s and secretary of state’s offices and the state lottery commission — will face at least some opposition.
Treasurer Steve Grossman said he is willing to take a proposed 1.5 percent cut to his own office. But he objects to about $1.4 million in proposed reductions to the lottery commission, which he chairs.
With staff levels already low, he said, the commission cannot let go of workers. Instead, Grossman said, it would have to stop printing certain scratch tickets, potentially leading to millions in revenue losses.
Lottery proceeds help to fund the local aid lawmakers are committed to defending.
The governor’s budget office did not comment on the proposed lottery cuts. But officials pledged, broadly, to work with lawmakers on any adjustments to its legislative package.
“Balancing the state budget is a collaborative process,” Glen Shor, the state’s secretary of administration and finance, said in a statement. “Yesterday we put forward the Patrick administration’s solution to closing our budget gap. We look forward to seeing what the Legislature proposes, and to working together to ensure fiscal stability for the Commonwealth.”
Now about those raises....
--more--"
"Pay raise panel for lawmakers tries to minimize tax hit" by Gintautas Dumcius, State House News Service November 22, 2014
A special commission considering recommendations of increased compensation for public officials could launch an outreach effort after the panel releases its report in December.
Oh, now we need to be propagandized with a $ell job at taxpayer expense!!!
The report and legislative recommendations, which are expected to call for cost-neutral increases and salary tiers for public officials below the governor, are slated to be released at 10 a.m. Dec. 1.
That means MORE BUDGET CUTS!
The seven-member commission, created through the fiscal 2015 budget signed in July and convened for the first time in September, will meet at the UMass Club at 9:30 a.m. that day to give its final sign-off on the report.
The commission members met for about 40 minutes in downtown Boston on Friday, discussing the logistics of rolling out the report and raising the possibility of sitting down with newspaper editorial boards to lay out their case for the increases.
Talk about mouthpieces for government!
The commission’s purview includes comparing public officials’ compensation with their counterparts in other states and in the private sector, as well as reviewing the automatic, biannual adjustments in legislative base pay and per diems and expenses that legislators receive based on median household income trends.
Just a fancy way of excu$ing GREED.
Ira Jackson, chair of the commission and dean of the University of Massachusetts Boston’s McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies, said, “I don’t suspect our recommendations will be greeted with glee and joy,” especially in light of the Patrick administration’s efforts to close a $329 million budget gap five months into fiscal year 2015.
“We are cognizant of the revenue shortfalls that the Commonwealth faces and we’ve approached our work very seriously and prudently, with an eye toward minimizing any costs to taxpayers,” Jackson, who has also served as state revenue commissioner, told the News Service after the meeting.
That would be easy: NO RAISES! PERIOD!
Maybe even some CUTS! How about that?
“And we’ll have to wait to see what our commissioners finally approve in order to determine exactly what form that takes, but our intent all along has been to do this,” he added. “We’re advancing good management principles, we’re advancing reforms and compensation that we think will enhance public confidence and the integrity in state government, and we’re doing this in a way which minimizes any additional costs to taxpayers.”
Do you guys ever get tired of shoveling $hit?
As for confidence in the integrity of state government? Gone!
A draft copy of the report was unavailable Friday.
The commission held two public hearings, one in Boston and the other in Springfield, earlier this month.
A number of lawmakers asked about the potential for pay increases for themselves and other public officials sounded ambivalent notes Thursday and noted the optics of signing off on such raises while the Patrick administration seeks to fix a $329 million budget shortfall.
I love the term! They noted the "optics" -- meaning thieving hypocrisy!!!
I would call our legislators piggish, but that would be disrespectful to pigs.
One legislator, state Representative Geoff Diehl, Republican of Whitman, called any consideration of pay raises wrong and pledged to block the potential raises during informal sessions through the end of the year. Any lawmaker can halt legislation from advancing during an informal session.
I'm going to hold you to that.
Of course, they may go formal with a strike of the gavel.
Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and a member of the commission, said what lawmakers do with the commission’s report and recommendation is “up to them, of course.”
J. Lynn Griesemer, a fellow commission member and the associate vice president for economic development in the UMass president’s office, said the report will not have a “minority report” component because the panel is seeking consensus on what it adds to the final document, which will be “backed up by a lot of data.”
As if that $omehow makes the ca$h grab justified!
Jackson pointed to a previous panel’s report, which recommended increasing the governor’s salary from $151,800 to $175,000. If inflation is considered, that recommendation would now suggest a salary of $193,500, he said.
--more--"
"House staff gets 6 percent pay raises" by Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff November 27, 2014
Snuck it through on Thanksgiving Eve did the $cummy $lime!
On the eve of Thanksgiving, House leaders who have been seeking their own pay increases instead dished out raises of at least 6 percent to their employees at a cost of $1.6 million.
Yup, just THROWING MONEY AROUND while BUDGET CUTS are NEEDED!
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo announced the raises in a brief statement on Wednesday, a day when the State House is traditionally nearly empty.
It's even better than a Slow Saturday! Won't notice you got $tuffed while your eating your Turkey!
Some individuals’ pay will climb higher due to merit raises or promotions, spokesman Seth Gitell said. The changes are meant to reflect cost-of-living increases for this year and last, when staff did not receive raises, he noted.
Do they really deserve raises for what they do?
Gitell said the speaker was not available to speak to the Globe on Wednesday. Asked how DeLeo justifies the raises in light of emergency spending cuts recently proposed by the governor, Gitell would only reiterate his original written statement. “House of Representatives employees, almost 60 percent of whom make $40,000 or less per year, received salary adjustments based on a two-year annual 3 percent cost-of-living-adjustment factor; promotion or merit-based modifications,” the statement said. “The adjustments are commensurate with those realized by most state employees within collective bargaining units and will be supported by existing appropriations.”
They cited collective bargaining after making state grunts give back pension and health benefits while paying more for them?
What $cum!
A spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray said Senate employees could individually earn raises based on their reviews but would not get a blanket salary increase.
“There are no across-the-board raises in the Senate president’s office or in the Senate as a whole this year,” said Samantha Dallaire.
The move comes ahead of a report from a special commission empaneled by the Legislature to study raising the compensation of Massachusetts’ elected officials. The Globe previously reported that the panel may recommend increasing the $102,000 salaries of the Senate president and House speaker to at least $150,000.
Governor-elect Charlie Baker, who frowned upon pay hikes for elected officials last week, discouraged raises for House employees, too.
“While I appreciate that legislative staff are among the lowest-paid people in state government, this is probably not the time to be pursuing this, given the state is facing a large-scale budget deficit,” Baker said in a statement on Wednesday.
Funds to pay for the raises are on the chopping block. Governor Deval Patrick said last week that a projected $329 million budget gap has necessitated emergency spending cuts. Among the cuts the Patrick administration has proposed is a reduction of nearly $1.3 million to the Legislature’s operating budget. (The Legislature, which has balked at Patrick’s proposed spending cuts to city and town funding, would have to approve any reductions to its own budget.)
They never do.
Two years ago, there was a similar scenario. With state revenues then $256 million behind budget, legislative leaders announced staff raises. At the same time, the governor was cutting spending and halting pay raises for service workers for the homeless and developmentally disabled.
The Globe previously reported the special commission is expected to recommend increasing salary increases, including adding at least $25,000 to the governor’s $151,800 salary and adding $40,000 or more to the attorney general’s $130,582 salary. Changes in cost-of-living increases could also give rank-and-file legislators a raise of nearly $4,000 in January and larger increases in the future.
To affect legislators’ pay, any changes would have to be approved before the end of the current legislative session. The move has particular implications for the speaker, who will have served out his term after the next session and would lose the added compensation that comes with the role.
And we want to make sure that fat $hit is well-taken care of.
--more--"
"Commission backs big pay hikes for governor, top elected officials" by Joshua Miller, Globe Staff December 02, 2014
The top two Massachusetts legislative leaders would become the highest paid in the country, and the governor would become the second-highest paid nationally, if recommendations released Monday by a state panel become law.
That is NO ORDINARY RAISE for those who were doing BETTER THAN MOST!
So much for needed to make the pay competitive, blah, blah.
What a ne$t of liars!
The advisory commission recommended the governor’s salary be boosted from $151,800 to $185,000; the House speaker’s and Senate president’s jump from $102,279 to $175,000; and the attorney general’s increase from $130,582 to $175,000.
So they did what, upped them all above what was proposed?
The proposals on pay, which were coupled with recommended reforms in the panel’s final report, come as the state faces a budget gap and as polling data has found Massachusetts voters uneasy about their own economic prospects.
How can that be when this economy is performing better than the nation, etc?
In addition to the salary increase, the commission also proposed an additional $65,000-a-year housing allowance for the governor.
UN-FLIPPING-BELIEVABLE!
You know we have a HOMELESS CRISIS, right?
If the pay raises were adopted, the Massachusetts governor would trail only the governor of Pennsylvania, who makes $187,818; the House speaker and Senate president salaries would rank first among the 50 states, according to the report.
In a statement, Governor Deval Patrick said he supported the recommendations but said he would not approve salary-boosting legislation until the midyear budget gap, estimated to be $329 million, is bridged. Among other measures, Patrick has proposed cuts in aid to cities and towns, which legislators quickly rejected.
They look bad.
Governor-elect Charlie Baker poured cold water on the idea of salary increases with an unresolved state budget shortfall looming.
“Now is not the time to be talking about pay increases on Beacon Hill,” he said at news conference after the report was released.
I AGREE!
If the economic situation remained similar to what it is today and Baker received legislation raising top officials’ pay, he said he “would probably veto it.” He takes office Jan. 8.
The panel pegged the yearly net cost of the proposed changes, including the salary hikes, at about $934,000, a tiny part of the state’s more than $36 billion budget.
Yeah, it is just a MILLION a YEAR that will only GROW over TIME as the OBLIGATIONS GROW!!
Members of the panel said they expected the increases could be absorbed within existing budgets, without additional taxpayer expense.
Meaning cuts somewhere else, at taxpayer expense.
The elites of Ma$$achu$etts really do think you are stoopid.
Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission, defended the recommended salaries and said they were based on a thorough review of top elected officials’ responsibilities, other states’ levels of compensation, the high cost of living in Massachusetts, how much top executives in the private sector make, and a desire to attract talented people, regardless of means, to elected office.
Defending the indefen$ible!
“We conclude that the governor of Massachusetts is inadequately compensated,” he said, noting the 24/7 nature of the job and, among other factors, that more than 1,200 state employees earn more than the governor.
Still, Jackson, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, acknowledged that proposals for boosting public sector compensation are controversial and usually unpopular.
“Our democracy and form of self-government here in the Commonwealth will be strengthened if our reforms and recommendations are enacted,” he said at a news conference, announcing the commission’s final report.
Yeah, if you let these looting bastards have more of your money our government will be good!
Asked about the proposed gubernatorial housing allowance, Jackson said Massachusetts is one of only a few states that do not have an executive mansion or offer a housing allowance to the governor.
How about a housing allowance for the homeless?
**********
The reforms the panel proposed were boosting pay for other statewide elected constitutional officials. It also recommended boosting the office expense allowance for state legislators — more for those farther outside of Boston — while eliminating per diem reimbursements.
Legislators collect per diem payments for commuting to and from the State House from their home districts.
OUT HERE it COST MORE TRAVEL, so they are really screwing us in the West!!
Aides to the Senate president and the speaker of the House did not respond to questions about if or when the Legislature might take up pay-raise legislation.
Timing could matter.
If the lame duck Legislature and Patrick do not act to boost compensation before the new legislative session begins early next month, it might be years before pay raises could go into effect.
Oh, heavens!
The state’s conflict-of-interest law says public employees may not participate, as such, in matters that affect their own financial interest.
Isn't that what they are doing?
That could mean some of the recommendations would need to be passed during the lame duck session in order to take effect in January when new officials are sworn in.
“If our recommendations are to become law, they must be acted upon in this legislative session to be effective for the new governor, and other constitutional officers and the 200 . . . members of the Legislature,” Jackson said.
After passing a budget and other high-profile bills over the summer, the Legislature concluded formal business for the year. Still, it has met and advanced legislation in informal sessions. But in those sessions, a single legislator can derail proceedings.
The Legislature could call a full formal session however, which might allow it to push a pay-raise bill through.
I'm expecting $omething $neaky right around Christmas!!!!
In a statement, Speaker Robert A. DeLeo offered no guidance on where he stood on the panel’s proposals. “The report will now be reviewed,” he said.
State Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg, expected to be elected Senate president next month, called the commission’s conclusions “bold recommendations.”
No reservations?
Fiscal watchdogs decried the proposals.
“I have a problem with any pay hike when we’re in the midst of a fiscal crisis and they’re cutting local aid,” said Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, a Massachusetts-based antitax group.
Like ME!
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said, “Now is not the time to enrich elected officials and people who would benefit from this plan.”
I knew it was $elf-$erving $lop.
--more--"
"Tempered support for Beacon Hill pay raises; Budget shortfall cited as issue" by Joshua Miller, Globe Staff December 03, 2014
Three top state officials offered tempered support for proposed pay raises for high-ranking Beacon Hill politicos Tuesday but questioned their magnitude and time frame.
Yet with the state facing a budget gap, another top official, Attorney General-elect Maura Healey, said it was the wrong moment to increase pay.
The divergent takes underscored the political sensitivity of the issue, a day after a state panel released a report recommending big increases in compensation for the governor, the Legislature’s top two leaders, and other statewide elected officials, along with a few changes offered as reforms.
“Some increase is appropriate,” said Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who was reelected last month. He added the exact salary amounts should be subject to further review, discussion, and “maybe modification down.”
That's why they went to the top of the scale with the recommendations. Now the "modification down" will be what was originally proposed.
The state commission recommended boosting the secretary of state’s annual pay from $130,916 to $165,000.
Treasurer Steve Grossman, whose term ends early next month, alluded to a midyear state budget gap, estimated to be at least $329 million, and said the pay raises would make more sense if they were phased in over a couple of years, instead of all at once, as the panel recommended.
“Given the extremely challenging budgetary circumstances we’re experiencing, which are likely to continue for some time,” Grossman said, “I could not support the increases of the magnitude laid out in the report in one fell swoop.”
But, the treasurer said, to do it in a more measured way, over a period of time, would be “more respectful of circumstances and of taxpayers.”
And we don't notice as much when it is incremental.
In its report, the commission proposed raising the treasurer’s salary from $127,917 to $175,000 .
Christopher Loh, a spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, said in a statement that “the compensation proposal for constitutional officers is too large, and would be done too quickly. The attorney general believes that the Legislature should consider a more modest increase that would be phased in over time.”
Coakley’s term ends next month. The panel recommended boosting the attorney general’s salary from $130,582 to $175,000.
Healey, her successor, said in a statement that, with a budget deficit, “we need to focus on maintaining programs for vulnerable residents. I think this is the wrong time to raise salaries.”
Grossman’s successor as treasurer, Deb Goldberg, said in a statement she is “uncomfortable” with the proposed pay raises “during a time of tight budgetary constraints.”
Auditor Suzanne M. Bump, who was reelected last month, said the commission’s recommendations deserve to be considered.
The commission proposed increasing the auditor’s salary from $134,952 to $165,000.
The seven-member panel, created by a rider in this year’s state budget, also proposed salary boosts for the House speaker, Senate president, and the lieutenant governor.
On Monday, Governor-elect Charlie Baker said the time was not right to be discussing pay increases for Beacon Hill.
Governor Deval Patrick said Monday he supported the panel’s recommendations, but wouldn’t approve a salary-boosting bill until the budget gap is solved.
There is growing sense among politicians that moving a bill with the commission’s recommendations — including boosting the governor’s yearly compensation by almost $100,000 — could be a steep climb, between the budget shortfall and the informal meetings of the Legislature’s current lame-duck session, in which a single member can derail proceedings.
“It’s not like flying to the moon, but I just can’t really see it happening,” said one legislator.
The chairman of the commission, Ira A. Jackson, said the proposed pay raises would require approval in the current legislative session to be in effect when the new crop of Beacon Hill officials takes office early next month.
Under the panel’s proposal, the House speaker and the Senate president would see significant increases in salary: from $102,279 to $175,000.
In a statement issued Monday, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo did not telegraph where he stood on the panel’s proposals, saying only, “The report will now be reviewed.”
Asked Tuesday whether DeLeo supports the proposed raises and whether he expects to put some of the recommendations into legislation, spokesman Seth Gitell said he did not have any comment beyond Monday’s statement.
A spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray, Samantha Dallaire, said, “We are still reviewing the recommendations and have no further comment at this time.”
Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, offered support for some of the panel’s proposed changes, including prohibiting constitutional officers, the House speaker, and the Senate president from earning outside income, other than passive income from investments. But she suggested that the proposed pay raises should be reduced.
“The total package that the commission has proposed is” — she paused — “a fairly big number.”
A million a year still is despite the declining value.
--more--"
Related:
"Departing Senate President Therese Murray suggested Thursday evening that the state Legislature will not approve controversial pay hikes for the governor, top lawmakers, and other statewide elected officials this year. The comments come amid growing unease on Beacon Hill about passing the increases as the state cuts funding for environmental protection and mental-health services to close a budget shortfall of at least $329 million. Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission, acknowledged this week that pay raises for elected officials are controversial. But he said they were justified based on the officials’ responsibilities, compensation in other states, and the pay offered to private sector executives."
If you want private sector money, stay there!
Some pensions have already been paid:
"With big boost in pension, many Mass. judges retire; Some of the 32 to depart collect thousands more for unused benefits" by Andrea Estes, Globe Staff December 04, 2014
It was the largest retirement of Massachusetts judges in at least 15 years — and the most expensive in history.
The 32 judges retiring in 2014 range from the eminent to the controversial — from the chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to a district court judge assigned to desk duty after being caught at Logan Airport pocketing another traveler’s Cartier watch.
But the vast majority have one thing in common: They are eligible for enhanced retirement benefits that could total $500,000 each over 20 years thanks to a long-awaited salary hike that boosted their annual pensions by $22,500. Seventeen judges who had not reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 exited after July 1 when the pay raise took effect, some within days.
Some were also able to take weeks or even months off in 2014 while still collecting tens of thousands in payments for unused vacation and sick time on their way out the door. Liberal benefit policies allowed the retiring judges to collect an average of $27,000 for unused benefits, according to figures from the state comptroller.
Great deal if you can get it.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to go cut some budgets.
“I was proud and happy to serve the Commonwealth as a district court judge,” said western Massachusetts District Court Judge Rita S. Koenigs, 62, who retired on July 19 with an extra $50,979 for unused sick and vacation time despite taking vacation on nearly a third of the working days in 2014 before she stepped down. “I worked hard until my last assigned day.”
These elite $cum truly are delusional!
I'm not saying they didn't earn it, but.... !!!!
***********
The Legislature approved a $30,000 pay hike this year, which happened in two steps, January 1 and July 1, raising most judges’ pay to $159,694. But even after that increase, Massachusetts judicial salaries still ranked only 38th among the states, once the cost of living is factored in, according to survey by the National Center for State Courts.
Now it's the poor judges!
Martin W. Healy, the Massachusetts Bar Association’s chief legal counsel, said the raises were long overdue and gave some burnt out judges an incentive to leave and make way for new ones. “You can infuse new blood into a very staid system,” Healy said.
In fact, the retirements, combined with vacancies being filled from prior years, have allowed Governor Deval Patrick to nominate 45 judges in 2014, by far the most in his eight-year administration. That represents more than 10 percent of all state judges, extending Patrick’s legacy for decades after he leaves office next month.
I knew we wouldn't be free of him just because he left office.
But, first, court administrators had to navigate the costly exodus of judges lured by legislature-mandated retirement rules that created powerful incentives to cash in.
“It’s all about the pensions,” said Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation. Judges, as a group, she said, “maneuver themselves into higher pensions.”
Unlike most state employees, whose pensions are based on an average of their three highest earning years, judges who retire at age 65 with at least 15 years experience get a pension equal to 75 percent of their highest salary — even if they are paid that salary only for a day.
As a result, seven judges who retired in the week after the July 1 pay hike took effect got an annual pension boost of more than $10,000 compared to if they had retired on June 30. And their pension was more than $20,000 larger than they would have received on December 31, 2013, the day before the first $15,000 step of the $30,000 increase went into effect.
Retiring judges cash out in other ways, too, getting paid for up to 30 unused vacation days when they leave even if they’ve taken many weeks of vacation in the year they retire.
Koenigs, who served 24 years on the bench, said she had built up so much unused vacation and sick time from past years that she could afford to take 42 days of vacation — out of 138 working days in 2014 before she retired — and still save 30 unused vacation days to cash in at her July retirement, according to her statement.
But Koenigs stressed that she was only following the rules that were spelled out in state laws governing judges’ benefits.
“I carefully planned my time for 2013-14 in anticipation of my retirement,” she said in her statement. “On my last day of work, which was an administrative day, I finished my work . . . and left the courthouse at the normal closing hour.”
Similarly, Superior Court Judge Christine McEvoy, 63, stopped working by the 4th of July, taking unused vacation and personal days until her retirement took effect on Sept. 4. She still received a payment of $36,648 for unused sick and vacation time.
At least one other judge was more aggressive about minimizing his work while maximizing his payments in 2014: Charles R. Johnson, who was demoted from his position as chief of the Boston Municipal Court system at the end of 2013.
Johnson, 65, immediately took a three-month paid leave starting in January and then appeared in court only a handful of times in the three months before his retirement on July 5. He was also assigned to help his successor as chief of the municipal court system for a time in April.
Despite all of Johnson’s time off, he still received a payment of $40,200 for unused sick and vacation time when he retired days after the July 1 pay increase, according to the state comptroller.
Johnson, whose situation was reported by the Globe last month, did not respond to numerous requests for comment.
See: Judging Judge Johnson
Top court administrators have not challenged Johnson’s right to the time off or his payments, but they adopted a new policy to keep a closer eye on the amount of unused vacation and sick time judges accumulate as well as their right to paid leave. Starting in February, the central office in Boston will track these benefits, which “will allow greater accountability and consistency, as the judiciary continues to streamline its human resources practices,” according to a court spokesperson.
Retirement provided a soft landing for other controversial figures, including District Court Judge Patricia G. Curtin who was barred from hearing cases after being stopped by State Police at Logan Airport in February. She was paid half a year’s salary during which she was either on paid leave or restricted to administrative duties.
Curtin, who did not return phone calls seeking comment, was seen on surveillance video Feb. 25 taking a $4,000 silver Cartier watch that another woman had placed in a security bin, according to the State Police report.
Police found her a half hour later reading a newspaper at the American Airlines Admiral’s Club, where she admitted she had the watch but said she had tried to turn it in, and that the Transportation Security Administration employees were too busy to help her.
“It was an honest mistake,” she told police, who allowed her to continue on her flight to Hong Kong.
But Trooper William A. Thompson, according to his report, concluded “she had substantial opportunity to return the watch to the TSA and failed to do so.”
So the judge is a thieving liar, huh?
She was placed on paid leave until April when an East Boston clerk magistrate declined to bring larceny charges.
It's Ma$$achu$etts Ju$tu$!
After that, she was assigned to the district court’s administrative offices in downtown Boston, where she remained until retiring in August 4 at age 67, receiving $9,515 for unused vacation and sick time.
Though the number of judges retiring this year — 32, combining those reaching retirement age and voluntary retirements — is the largest in memory, some had predicted even more would leave.
“Once the pay raise actually went into effect, a number of judges had second thoughts,” said Healy, legal counsel of the Massachusetts Bar Association. “It was a reality check for a lot of judges. They know they have a good deal going in terms of their current rate of compensation and they decided to stay.”
But Trial Court Chief Justice Paula M. Carey, the chief justice for administration, said it is also evidence that many judges are dedicated to their work, choosing to stay on the bench despite the lure of a comfortable retirement.
One retiring judge, Robert F. Murray, had hoped to stay another year, but he could not continue to make judicial decisions after a stroke in May.
“He absolutely loved his job,” said Murray’s wife, Catherine. “He never wanted to leave.”
“The last pay increase prior to 2014 was in 2006,” so that justifies everything.
--more--"
At least the state pension fund is in good shape:
"Pension board hikes director’s annual salary to $360,000" by Beth HealyGlobe Staff December 02, 2014
The board of the Massachusetts state pension fund voted Tuesday to give executive director Michael Trotsky a $65,000 raise, to $360,000 a year, which will make him one of the dozen highest-paid officials in the state, including his bonus.
Trotsky has the potential to earn a 40 percent annual bonus, as he did this year, which could push his total pay to $504,000 in 2015.
Salaries of the staff at Pension Reserves Investment Management, which oversees the $60.2 billion retirement fund for state and local workers, do not come out of the state budget. But the vote came amid a broader discussion in Massachusetts about pay for public servants.
Outgoing Treasurer Steve Grossman was in the minority Tuesday as one of two “no” votes on Trotsky’s pay raise, while the seven other board members approved the increase. One of the representatives of Governor Deval Patrick also voted no, citing challenging budgetary times in the Commonwealth.
Grossman, in his final meeting as chairman of the pension board, praised Trotsky’s “outstanding performance” in his four years managing the fund but said the pay raise should be implemented over a longer period.
“This is not an appropriate time for compensation to be increased by that magnitude,”
Grossman said. Government pay raises should come in the context of “the challenges that all the people of Massachusetts are going through,’’ he said.
Grossman said he would say the same for the pay raises recommended this week by an advisory commission, which said the governor’s salary should be bumped up to $185,000 from $151,800 and the attorney general’s to $175,000 from $130,582. The treasurer’s pay also would rise.
Board member Robert Brousseau said Trotsky deserved the added pay and has not received a merit increase or asked for a raise since taking the job in August 2010. Two years ago, Trotsky took on the duties of a second job with the fund, chief investment officer, for $50,000 more than he was making at the time. At $295,000, he is making less for two jobs than his predecessor, Michael Travaglini, did for one job. Travaglini’s base pay, excluding bonus, was $322,000.
Looks like stealing to me.
So is the thing fully-funded yet?
Fund officials said Trotsky has saved the plan $300,000 a year by doing both jobs.
“I’m gratified by the confidence the board has shown in me and our entire team,” Trotsky said in a statement. “I look forward to working with the PRIM team to continue to grow and strengthen the [pension] fund through continued outstanding performance, in order to further reduce taxpayers’ pension obligations.”
Trotsky said Tuesday the pension fund earned a 9.4 percent return for the 12 months ended Oct. 31, beating the 7.1 percent return of a benchmark of hypothetical funds.
For the calendar year through October, the state fund has gained 6.9 percent, slightly more than a Vanguard Group fund that holds 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds, which was up 6.5 percent.
The best-performing parts of the fund this year have been long-term Treasury bonds — a sound bet made early this year that has delivered a 33 percent return. Private equity investments also have surged, climbing 24.7 percent.
All being puffed up by the inflated stock market.
Trotsky took the top job at the fund after the financial crisis, when it had shed 24 percent of its value. In the succeeding four years, he has focused on taking risk out of the portfolio and cutting fees. Producing an average annual return exceeding 13 percent, he has beaten the Harvard University endowment every year.
How's the pay for managing that?
Treasurer-elect Deb Goldberg, who was not at the pension board meeting Tuesday, in a statement applauded Trotsky’s performance but opposed his raise.
“When appropriate, it is critical that any compensation increases be implemented prudently and incrementally,” she said in the statement. Citing the threat of cuts for towns and cities, she said, “public servants need to also tighten their belts. In that context, a significant raise, albeit well-deserved, is uncomfortable and not necessarily appropriate at this time.”
Hard to do with the girth most of them carry.
The list of highest-paid state employees in 2013 was dominated by UMass employees, with the top salary of $816,602 for Michael Collins, chancellor of the UMass Medical School and senior vice president of health services.
The sports coaches are making how much?
--more--"
Related: State pension fund chief should get bump in pay
Who could argue with that?
And how are they going to pay for the raises while cutting the budgets?
"State hoping to hike user fees at many recreation facilities" by Jennette Barnes, Globe Correspondent November 29, 2014
Next year’s fun at state campgrounds, beaches, ice rinks, and other facilities could be a bit pricier.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation has drafted a proposed fee schedule that would raise some fees and create new ones.
UNREAL!
Let's charge the citizens more to enjoy what is theirs!
Bill Hickey, a spokesman for the Department of Conservation and Recreation, said prices are going up because they have not been raised in years — more than a decade at campgrounds — while the agency’s budget has been cut.
Seriously, WhereTF is ALL THE MONEY GOING?!!!!!!!!
“Even with these proposed fee increases, DCR is still providing a high quality recreational experience for a low cost to Massachusetts families,” Hickey said in an e-mail.
Yeah, right.
Have you seen the condition of the neglected state parks around here lately?
**********
Raymond Champagne, president of the Salisbury Beach Betterment Association, a residents’ group near Salisbury Beach State Reservation, said as maintenance expenses increase, the state needs adequate revenue to provide a quality beach, attract tourists, and keep businesses healthy.
Look at this crap!
“I think everyone appreciates everything that needs to be done,” he said.
Judy Lehrer Jacobs, executive director of the Friends of the Blue Hills, agreed the agency needs cash, but said she was concerned there might be new entrance fees for Boston-area parks where people from the city, some of them low-income, can go for free now.
What, you think this government cares about them?
Not to worry, Hickey said — Boston-area parks that are considered “urban parks” and are free, such as the beach at Houghton’s Pond in Milton, would remain free....
Yup, not to worry.
--more--"
Yeah, to HELL with TOURISM, too! I'm sure tourists would rather GO SOMEWHERE ELSE anyway!
Related: With funding low, many legal cases going undefended
Don't Lein on me.
Mass. lawmakers should increase funding for civil legal aid
Judge rules against taping female strip-searches
Girls need civil aid.
Governor Deval Patrick eyes job at MIT
Pardon?
