Mansfield politics

[buckman]

There is enough Mansfield guys here for our on thread.
What's your take on the schools threat to eliminate sports?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

There is enough Mansfield guys here for our on thread.
What's your take on the schools threat to eliminate sports?

Technically, not a threat. On the other hand, it was conveniently timed with the Selectmen/School Board/Finance Committee meeting last night.

The school can't sacrifice significantly more teachers and they saw that last year, when they did fire a lot of teachers, people in the town weren't outraged because the direct effects on their kids wasn't obvious. Fortunately, stimulus money came in from the state to hire some teachers back.

On the other hand, this will immediately and directly affect the residents kids. It also affects many parent's source for "after school child care". So this is the school's way of saying "hey, we've done all we can with the budget we've been provided. They're your kids, it's your money, you decide."

In my opinion, there's a huge budget gap that needs to be closed. The town doesn't want to fire many more teachers. After school sports and arts programs are elective. Schools are expected to but aren't required to have them. If the residents want a service, they're going to have to pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it (which I feel is an acceptable opinion to have), then they won't get the service.

[striperman36]

Several other towns have fee based sports. I think they will change to that policy.

It is not a large amount in the entire budget, so I also believe it is the scare tactic yet again.
bringing the class size up to 32 thats huge.

And turn those damn lights off!!!

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by striperman36

And turn those damn lights off!!!

Please tell me you're talking about the stadium lights for the practice field??

Sometimes I'd be driving home at 11pm and see the stadium lights on. Those drove me absolutely insane

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Please tell me you're talking about the stadium lights for the practice field??

Sometimes I'd be driving home at 11pm and see the stadium lights on. Those drove me absolutely insane

Yeah dem lights.

And, Buckman has it right.

[striperman36]

and thats why we're at SMCS and then Xvarian

[PaulS]

Looks like there should be a Mansfield fling!

BTW - where is Mansfield?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Looks like there should be a Mansfield fling!

BTW - where is Mansfield?

18 miles to the right of Cambridge

[buckman]

50 teachers have been let go in the last two years, others have been added.

The school system had a 14% increase last year (stimulas money. oh sh$t, we don't get that every year), They pushed off the hard choices thanks to Obama, now we start to see some of the cost of stimulas.

The town employees were asked last year to move to State pension plans, a move that would have saved the town big bucks. They refused.

The town hired a new Athletic Director just last week. Do these people have any clue.

NO to an overide.

[RIJIMMY]

I live and moved to Mansfield because they have good schools, I have young kids. I can understand that there has been a bubble of kids moving through teh schools which has added costs, but we also added Mansfield Commons and Covidien into the town tax pool. they dont send kids to school. I cant understand how that hasnt added lots of $$$ into the town? I can tell you that many of my neighbors are wondering why they would continue to live here if the schools go downwhil, I am one of them.

[fishbones]

Stay out of Easton!

[striperman36]

Oh yeah

[EarnedStripes44]

Mansfield is wack.

[buckman]

A big part of the problem is the forced "low income" apartments we had to have per state mandate. The project on West Street alone is killing us. These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by buckman

A big part of the problem is the forced "low income" apartments we had to have per state mandate. The project on West Street alone is killing us. These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

We had to take those to continue to get state matching funding for what portions of our budget?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by buckman

These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

Now if they would just relax the Mortgage requirements for these people so they could buy a house.....Oh, Wait...that didn't work very well before either.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Now if they would just relax the Mortgage requirements for these people so they could buy a house.....Oh, Wait...that didn't work very well before either.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

A big part of the problem is the forced "low income" apartments we had to have per state mandate. The project on West Street alone is killing us. These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

Everyone forgets the strange coincidence of the increased drug problems and crime after the Mansfield Depot was built. Lots of trash came into town with that place.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Everyone forgets the strange coincidence of the increased drug problems and crime after the Mansfield Depot was built. Lots of trash came into town with that place.

Lots of fights I remember that, my wife has experienced overflow from Fridays inside LLBEAN!!

[striperman36]

mansfield selectman transfer 890K from various funds to the school budget.

Mansfield will transfer funds to save school sports - The Boston Globe

okay, now the selectman will put the override on the table? Magic money.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by striperman36

mansfield selectman transfer 890K from various funds to the school budget.

Mansfield will transfer funds to save school sports - The Boston Globe

okay, now the selectman will put the override on the table? Magic money.

"In return, the committee will remove a property tax override vote from next month’s Town Meeting agenda."

Like I've been saying and as Miller was quoted, this is only a band-aid. The town keeps putting these band-aids on problems, yet it'll be an issue again next year - or the areas where they "transferred" funds from will be at contention next year. They've basically decided that instead of dealing with the PR backlash, they'll take funds away from areas that won't cause as much long-lasting, bad publicity for them come election time.

Hope we don't get too much snow next year or there will be a whole lot of snow days for the kids.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Everyone forgets the strange coincidence of the increased drug problems and crime after the Mansfield Depot was built. Lots of trash came into town with that place.

Bwaaaah.
You could buy craploads of drugs downtown long before the depot was even thought of.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by likwid

Bwaaaah.
You could buy craploads of drugs downtown long before the depot was even thought of.

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

When you say the Depot you mean the Section 8 apt complex

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

So tell me, which 'culture' is this?
Trash is trash man, no matter what 'culture' its from. Get over blaming one 'culture' over another.

[sokinwet]

"What they are looking for is about 1.5 million in somewhat painless concessions from the teachers union and town employees. either that or a lot of them will lose their jobs. Kind of a no-brainer."

From a public employee perspective. Why should public employees shoulder the financial burden for the whole community? They teach your kids, provide public safety, repair your streets....all things demanded by the "general public"; yet the general public doesn't want to pay for it....just ask your town employees to take the hit. How many of you would voluntarily reduce your pay, give back negotiated contract provisions and health benefits , take a furlough, etc. if your employer promised to give the $$ savings to your town?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

"What they are looking for is about 1.5 million in somewhat painless concessions from the teachers union and town employees. either that or a lot of them will lose their jobs. Kind of a no-brainer."

From a public employee perspective. Why should public employees shoulder the financial burden for the whole community? They teach your kids, provide public safety, repair your streets....all things demanded by the "general public"; yet the general public doesn't want to pay for it....just ask your town employees to take the hit. How many of you would voluntarily reduce your pay, give back negotiated contract provisions and health benefits , take a furlough, etc. if your employer promised to give the $$ savings to your town?

There are many instances of private sector businesses that ask for and get concessions from employees in order to survive. Private sector employees are probably more vulnerable in this respect because their companies can actually go out of business, whereas municipalities don't depend on profitable income, but the taxes imposed on the private sector. So long as there is a private sector to tax, the public sector will exist.

[sokinwet]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There are many instances of private sector businesses that ask for and get concessions from employees in order to survive. Private sector employees are probably more vulnerable in this respect because their companies can actually go out of business, whereas municipalities don't depend on profitable income, but the taxes imposed on the private sector. So long as there is a private sector to tax, the public sector will exist.

Totally agree with your 1st point DB; things are tough for "everyone"...including municipal employee's. A couple of points to consider in your private sector arguement. The "widget co." sells a bunch of widgets to consumers, makes a profit & hires a few employees. Things are lookin good...until the widget market dries up, then with less "demand", less $$ is coming in and something has to give. Maybe it's the co. or the employees that take the hit, regardless it's the reduced demand for the product that causes the problem and it's not really feasible to pass the costs on to the consumer due to decreased demand.
The situation for municipal government isn't the same; generally the demand for services increases, especially in a growing community (Mansfield?) that sees lots of residential development...more kids in schools, more roads to plow, etc. Municipal gov.is not a "profit making" enterprise, it's business is to provide public services at cost. The revenue coming into municipalities is severly impacted by the economy; less state aid coming in & reduced RE tax revenues due to delinquencies resulting from the poor economy, etc. However, municipalities are required by law to submit a balanced budget every year, so with 2 1/2 limitations and reduced revenues there are only so many options. Municipal governments responsibility is to operate as efficiently as possible while meeting the needs of residents, but beyond that when costs exceed revenues who should pay. It's either cut services, make public employees absorb the losses or everyone pays their fair share. Having just gone through the "budget battle" I can tell you that fat in municipal budgets is a thing of the past and the projections for the next fiscal year are worse. If you knew how many municipalities are close to "going out of business" you'd be shocked. It's time for tough "responsible" decisions on everyones part...I'm just glad I drive a 4WD truck and my kid is out of school!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

Totally agree with your 1st point DB; things are tough for "everyone"...including municipal employee's. A couple of points to consider in your private sector arguement. The "widget co." sells a bunch of widgets to consumers, makes a profit & hires a few employees. Things are lookin good...until the widget market dries up, then with less "demand", less $$ is coming in and something has to give. Maybe it's the co. or the employees that take the hit, regardless it's the reduced demand for the product that causes the problem and it's not really feasible to pass the costs on to the consumer due to decreased demand.

Reduced demand is one scenario. The private business offers a specific product for which demand wanes. The business must cut back or fold. The Public sector, as it grows to a complex offering of services, can impose "demands" which not every tax payer wants, needs, agrees with, or ever uses. Once upon a time it was illegal for public sector employees to strike. That was tested when friendly judges were in place, and voila, what was clearly illegal magically became OK. Public sector unions were formed and the ills that plagued the private sector and brought industries to their knees, now filtered into government. Services, especially for those who don't support them through tax donations, became a "demand" in plush times when they seemed affordable, and, voila, that which is encouraged, grows.

Another scenario is the effect of competition in the private sector. Private companies can suffer not only from the loss of demand, but from the inability to compete. The public sector is a monopoly and can dictate not only what is "demanded", but the quality and price. This often leads to not only providing services that the majority of taxpayers don't use, but to providing services at reduced efficiency and quality, and, since there is no alternative, at higher costs. It is a sorry phenomenon that government employees are now on aggregate at the high end in salaries and benefits for similar work.

The situation for municipal government isn't the same; generally the demand for services increases, especially in a growing community (Mansfield?) that sees lots of residential development...more kids in schools, more roads to plow, etc.

If the demand increases due to a growing community of tax-payers, which also includes more jobs and businesses to accomodate them, there should be enough money to cover costs due to the greater influx of revenue. Of course, if the growth is of the non-tax-contributing kind, and if "demands" were created for services to such growth, you have the reverse of private sector solution. You do pass the cost of your loss of revenue to the paying customer and call it his fair share.

Municipal gov.is not a "profit making" enterprise, it's business is to provide public services at cost. The revenue coming into municipalities is severly impacted by the economy; less state aid coming in & reduced RE tax revenues due to delinquencies resulting from the poor economy, etc. However, municipalities are required by law to submit a balanced budget every year, so with 2 1/2 limitations and reduced revenues there are only so many options. Municipal governments responsibility is to operate as efficiently as possible while meeting the needs of residents, but beyond that when costs exceed revenues who should pay. It's either cut services, make public employees absorb the losses or everyone pays their fair share. Having just gone through the "budget battle" I can tell you that fat in municipal budgets is a thing of the past and the projections for the next fiscal year are worse. If you knew how many municipalities are close to "going out of business" you'd be shocked. It's time for tough "responsible" decisions on everyones part...I'm just glad I drive a 4WD truck and my kid is out of school!

So is the answer to pass the higher "costs" (public employee rising pay and benefits) to a dwindling tax base? Is the fair share solely the responsibility of tax payers to see their take home pay reduced so that public employees don't have to suffer that fate?

[sokinwet]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So is the answer to pass the higher "costs" (public employee rising pay and benefits) to a dwindling tax base? Is the fair share solely the responsibility of tax payers to see their take home pay reduced so that public employees don't have to suffer that fate?

First, your perception of the current municipal finance situation in most communities is not based on the reality currently on the ground. As you may have surmised, I work in municipal gov't in one of the largest S.S. communities and have daily interaction with most of the surrounding communities. Here's a summary of the "public employee rising pay & benefits" we've had in the past few years...no COLA for 5 years running, increase in our H.C.plan costs, change in our H.C.plan to the state GIC program (to save the community/residents $), increase in our new GIC plan cost twice in 6 months, furloughs ranging from 1/3 weeks and layoffs in the coming year in virtually every dept. I think we've done our part, yet every week we hear the same BS you're preaching .
Just like the private employer, residents (the "ultimate" boss) must decide their priorities. If the employer wants to keep making wigets the costs of running a business must be paid, and decisions must be made on the best way to keep the business running. If residents want to maintain "their" level of services, costs have to be paid or decisions have to be made. If residents feel that they're not getting what they pay for, I agree with you, the changes have to come from the employee side; but if the service provided is good the only fair solution is to share the hit across the board. As I said before, governments job is to provided services "to you" as efficiently as it can, beyond that you only get what you pay for. You want to pay your employees $15 an hr.....you get $15 an hr. employees....and before long the widgets will be made in China and when you call your city clerks office you'll be speaking long distance to someone with an Indian accent.