Hopkinton down another $200k

h/t RS for posting this link to a list of how much money each town will lose from the Governor’s proposed withholding of the car tax. If you caught my interview on the 6:00 ch 10 news you know I think this is good. The more pressure onto the towns the better. Sooner or later we are going to have to stop paying our public sector employees so much better than the private sector employees.

Hopefully, Hopkinton and all the other towns will look to cut spending rather than increase taxes.

See the list HERE.

If you are unfamiliar with the issue check out this morning’s ProJo article HERE and here is an excerpt:

While the governor can shut down state government on his own, he needs legislative approval for a second piece of his plan: withholding the last $32.5 million in promised car-tax reimbursements to cities and towns, which are already reeling from the elimination of a $55-million revenue-sharing program earlier this year. In short, he wants the lawmakers to restore to him an authority his predecessors had until 1996 to withhold money they have appropriated for a specific purpose

Pension pro-con or not

After speaking with Sylvia and re-reading some emails I can understand where the different views come from.

On the meeting of the 20th they voted on the contract. Apparently, she was relying on me to finish the evaluation for their meeting.  But I didn’t get it right until the 21.  I wasn’t so concerned. We had a few meetings and the votes were always 4 to 1. Technically they weren’t votes, they were consensus. We would have had to announce them to the pubic if they were votes.

 Actually, I’m surprised nobody has ever done an evaluation before.  This pension has been used since 1998 (voted on in 2000). There were three contract votes since then.

So Sylvia wrote from the perspective that the council was voting on the 19th and since my numbers weren’t good at that time they voted for the status quo.  She defended that vote by identifying my errors.

But even then, assuming Sylvia had the right number or not, why did they still vote for it. The early data had the liability at $55 million. Now we know its only $27 million.  That’s still 27 million dollars more than if we used a defined contribution plan. If it was only $10 m, would we accept that?  Why do we have to give them a pension that is anything more than the private sector?

Westerly Sun commentaries

Sylvia sent me the text of her piece and I will post mine below. Most disturbing to me was that the Westerly Sun called and asked that we send in essays debating the pension system. I even spoke with Sylvia around July 30 and she asked me about the data I was using. I explained that I found the other regs that increased the contribution rate and reduced the starting salary  and had updated the website. But she ignored that and wrote the following:

________________

July 20, 2009 the Hopkinton Town Council ratified a new 3-year contract with the International Brotherhood of Police, Local 498. Prior to this, Town Manager, Bill DiLibero and Council President Tom Buck spent many meetings and hours with union representatives. Each time they reported their progress, the council found we needed more information.

What was the total increase in salary for each officer after the yearly step increases, longevity and raises were factored in? Why in 1999 did a council incorporate the compounded COLA provision? Would this item lead to excessive pension payouts that the town could not afford? How could we get rid of it?

For years, residents have relayed serious concerns about the compounded COLA. Even a day before our July 20^thmeeting, it was reported in a local internet blog, this provision would provide $178,924 in an annual pension to a just retired 27-year town police officer when his retirement reaches its 28th year.

Earlier in July the blog reported officers that began employment at age 24, retired at 44, would get an annual pension of $75,000 and after 34 years of retirement, escalate to $198,925. Also it was claimed the police are only required to contribute 1% of their salary each year toward their pensions requiring the town to “…come up with the balance needed to meet the defined benefit”.

July 20 was the first time we had the police contract on the agenda for public discussion. I expected a crowd of concerned residents. Not a single comment or question.

Fortunately for all our sakes, the information in the blog was wrong. The data that follows was taken from town payrolls, RIGL, and a review of provisions of forty RI police department contracts.

An actual 2009 retired 20-year officer’s pension will be just under $31,100 not $75,000. The annual pension amount 34 years into retirement will be $82,487 not $198,925.

The just retired 27-year officer’s beginning annual pension will be just under $32,929 and 28 years into retirement will be $73,143 not $178,924. Also, pursuant to numerous RI pension laws, Hopkinton Police Officers are required to contribute 9% annually to their pension not 1%. The town’s contribution changes year to year and is currently at 18.43%. Also, the town stops paying into the pension when the officer retires.

The financial data reported on the blog was incorrect because pursuant to the RI Laws, the base annual pension is 50% of the highest salary, (derived from weekly salary, longevity, and holidays), not 100% and should not have included over time.

Bottom line, Hopkinton is one of only 4 communities that will pay dramatically less in pension payments than the other 36 cities and towns because they opted to foot the bill for retiree’s health insurance. The 1999 council did not and instead opted for the compounded COLA.

Currently, the cost for a family health care plan is around $15,000 per year. Do the math. Hopkinton could never afford to pay $15,000 per year, per retiree for years.

The agreement reached by the members of the council, in attendance at the July 20 meeting has a long list of subtle changes that will allow the town flexibility in managing the staff scheduling and will insure more control over spending. Due to language added, the police will not receive a raise this year. They will receive 1% next year and 2% the final year.

Steps were reduced, but not eliminated. Longevity was folded into the first year’s hourly wage, but is eliminated in year 2. They will increase their share of health care from 10% to 14% by the third year.

There are many other changes that were detailed page by page by Council President Tom Buck. Nothing was hidden and all was explained. The video of this meeting is not yet posted on the Town’s website (www.hopkintonri.org). However, consider picking up a copy of the contract at the town hall and watch the video when it’s posted to hear about all the changes.

Is it everything we wanted? No. Did the Town’s labor attorney, Dan Kinder assist during negotiations? Yes. Is statewide pension reform desperately needed? Yes. We also know our town’s contract developed over time and can’t be totally reversed overnight, but a little patience and hard work did equal progress.

______________

Here is the one I submitted:

Unemployment is at a 25 year high. Rhode Island was among the first in the recession and economists predict we will be among the last ones out. During these tough economic times public sector contracts continue to pay double-digit raises and provide benefits that will bankrupt our towns in the coming decades. The recently signed Hopkinton police contract is a perfect example.

The HPD contract, like most other public sector contracts, rewards seniority rather than performance. While the yearly “raises” have been kept low, the underlying “Step” increases combine to make a real “raise” as high as 16% per year – this at a time when we have asked every other employee in Hopkinton to accept a 2% raise.

But the most egregious item in the new contract, which was also passed in the previous three contracts, is the pension.

People that do not work for the state, or town, normally receive pensions that define how much money will be deposited into an account for the employee to draw from during retirement. These are called defined contribution plans.

Public sector pensions are defined benefitplans and they pay out more money for longer periods of time than defined contributions plans. The difference between the average private sector plan and the Hopkinton Police Department’s plan is shocking.

A Hopkinton police officer may retire after only 20 years (as young as 44) and will receive a percentage of their salary increasing at a rate of 3% compounded annually. As Einstein said compound interest is “the most powerful force in the universe.”

As an example, an officer leaving the force after 20 years, with a $70,000 salary, would receive $1,665,139 over the next thirty years. The amount paid by the town could be even more as people continue to live longer.

In a defined contribution plan, using the same employee terms, the maximum amount the town would be responsible for is $80,830, half of the accumulated $161,660 retirement pool. I know we all appreciate our police department, but giving them a pension that pays 10 times that of the private sector is too much.

There was a day when these employees received low salaries so the pensions balanced the deal. Today, the average Hopkinton police officer makes nearly $70,000 while the average Hopkinton income is closer to $47,000.

The Westerly Sun reported the Hopkinton council’s defense of the contract on two points: (1) they claimed “not to alter police pensions because of future pension reforms the state may make,” and, (2) that the town couldn’t change the pension because they “didn’t know what (they) wanted to trade off for something that huge.”

First of all, the council has more faith in Smith Hill than I do. The lawsuits filed by the unions in opposition to the current moderate reforms do not bode well for future more significant reforms.

Secondly, regarding the question of what we have that is “huge” enough to exchange for true pension reform – I can save the council time and say that we don’t have anything. Just because councils of the past made outrageous mistakes doesn’t mean we have to be bound by them.

There are currently 18 people eligible for, or already receiving, the HPD pension. Using the figure above as an average, the town of Hopkinton could reduce its liabilitycosts by over $27 million by simply ending the current program and providing a pension equivalent to those provided in the private market. Why are we mortgaging our children’s future for a select group of employees?

Town councils and school committees can continue to nibble at the edges of contract reform, but drastic measures are needed. It is time to treat public sector employees the same as private sector employees – no better, no worse.

_____________________

As an aside, if I used the $32,929 figure (Sylvia says  this is the accurate starting salary), that would make the 30 liability for the taxpayers $28,198,995. The difference between that and the 30 liability of a defined contribution plan would be $25,289,087.  

In my commentary I said it would be $27m.   Again, Sylvia knew I had updated the information because I told her about a week before she submitted her essay. But she ignored the question and decided to attack me instead.

Even though the Sun asked us to debate the pensions, Sylvia said she wrote the oped on the old data because it came out before a town council meeting.  But for those reading the paper it makes it look like I lied in my essay.

Total pension liability for Hopkinton right now is estimated at $55,329,372.

 The HPD infamous 3% compound COLA pension –

There has been a lot of talk, most notably from frmr town councilman John Matson, that the pension was not implemented according to the letter of the law. I asked the town’s solicitor about it and she said it looked as though Matson was right, but she wasn’t sure, and that if it was true there probably wasn’t anything we could do about it now.

I have spoken with one other council person and told them what I’m going to say here – for the protection of the town I think we should have a written opinion from our counsel ending this question once and for all. If there was anything improper can we do anything about it, and if not, why.

How much is our pension system going to cost us?

The contract states that longevity and holiday pay are included in the calculation for pensions. I don’t have average holiday pay, nor do I know if that includes comp and sick time, so I won’t include it just to play it safe.

I also used a conservative average yearly wage increase of 5% (the actual current average is 7%).

I used the actual pay numbers from our latest retiree and worked backwards to determine how much the employee contributed over the years. The employee works 20 years (contract minimum) and lives for another 28 years (from 55 to 78).

The defined contribution method (private sector) says the employee contributes 8% of salary and the employer matches it (which is rare in this economic times).

The accumulated pension in the private sector method gains 3% interest and is paid out over the same 28 years. 

The defined benefit method (HPD) has the same 8%  employee contribution, but the town contribution is based on what benefits are defined to be paid – in our case it is the gross salary with a 3% increase, compound yearly.\

I want to compare what it is going to cost the town if we used a defined contribution pension program like private sector businesses and the defined benefit pensions found in the public sector – using the HPD as an example.

So, let’s get started.
The most recent employee to retire (Patrolman Georgetti) had a total income of $80,550 last year. Using the 3% compound COLA and assuming he lives the average of 28 years after retirement, he will be receiving $178,924 per year by then. We will have paid him a total of $3,458,085 over those 28 years. For that the employee paid $82,678 into the system while the town has to cover the rest (approximately $3m).

Now let’s compare that to the private sector.  If the same employee, making the same income, paid into a defined contribution plan, the employee  would contribute the same $82,678 but the employee would contribute another $82,678 – NOT the estimated $3m to meet the defined benefit obligation.

Assuming we had all 16 employees retire tomorrow (after working the required 20 years) – and didn’t add a single additional employee ever again (like Exeter) our total liability would be $55,329,372. That’s what we owe right now – assuming nothing is done retroactively to remove this crazy pension gift.

This is very serious stuff for a small town. I hope when the HTC votes on this contract they have taken these numbers into consideration. Anything other than a defined contribution plan is going to bankrupt the town. I’m happy to recalculate is someone points out an error in the method.

	Total	8%
Year	Pay	Emp cont
1	30,395.83	2,431.67
2	31,995.61	2,559.65
3	33,679.59	2,694.37
4	35,452.20	2,836.18
5	37,318.11	2,985.45
6	39,282.22	3,142.58
7	41,349.70	3,307.98
8	43,526.01	3,482.08
9	45,816.85	3,665.35
10	48,228.26	3,858.26
11	50,766.59	4,061.33
12	53,438.52	4,275.08
13	56,251.07	4,500.09
14	59,211.65	4,736.93
15	62,328.05	4,986.24
16	65,608.48	5,248.68
17	69,061.56	5,524.92
18	72,696.38	5,815.71
19	76,522.50	6,121.80	Total paid in
20	80,550.00	6,444.00	82,678.33
Pension begins1	80,550.00
2	82,966.50
3	85,455.50
4	88,019.16
5	90,659.73
6	93,379.53
7	96,180.91
8	99,066.34
9	102,038.33
10	105,099.48
11	108,252.46
12	111,500.04
13	114,845.04
14	118,290.39
15	121,839.10
16	125,494.28
17	129,259.10
18	133,136.88
19	137,130.98
20	141,244.91
21	145,482.26
22	149,846.73
23	154,342.13
24	158,972.39
25	163,741.57
26	168,653.81
27	173,713.43
28	178,924.83
	Total 3,458,085.81
all 16	55,329,372.95

Police contracts and ’stuff’

Ultimate pensions – politicians and police calling each other corrupt – and the AG’s office in the mix.  Grab some popcorn…

Since leaving the school committee and joining the town council I don’t post here as often as I should. I get a lot of contact asking what I’m going to do with this site. Luckily, I’ve been so busy with my day job that I haven’t had time to make any decisions. But lately, the emails have turned more into – “why don’t you write about what’s going on?” and “are you going to ignore this stuff?” referring to the police contract and the lawsuits involving the police department and the related AG memos that are flying around town.  And, quite frankly, you are right. I haven’t been forthcoming with a lot of this information and I should have been. I could use the excuse that I was trying to get my feet under me and I thought I could get more done with honey than vinegar, but that didn’t seem to work and there is too much riding on this to keep quiet and hope for the best.

While there isn’t any penalty to divulging executive session material, I haven’t and don’t see a need right now but I can still talk about what is public knowledge.

I also feel fortunate to have an outsiders view of this stuff. I’m not a local and don’t have any preconceived ideas about the players.  I want to have a few more conversations before I get into details but basically I see a lot of bad actors in a falling house of cards – we have a police department being sued by a former building and zoning town employee and a police officer. The employee also had a case with Westerly PD (and won).  I see a lady who many say is nutty, but apparently she was smart enough to beat the HPD on this deal. And  I see a former town councilor, while not in litigation, seems even more aggressively in the mix than the first three.

I also see a police contract with some of the most generous benefits I have seen in the entire state. But most specifically, a pension program that IMHO could have only been passed by someone in an old boy network (I’ll describe that in a bit) or completely incompetent.

Plus the internal AG memos recently released that adds concern going back a few years.

As I said, I’ll give more thoughts after a few more conversation but this strikes me as a lot of bad actors all around.  They are all pointing fingers at each other saying the other guy is corrupt – and they might all be right.

I know our solicitor is not going to be happy with this post, but I’m not going to be a council person that walks away sayingI couldn’t do anything about it. If it means Hopkinton gets dragged naked through the streets but at the end of the day all is exposed and in the open and over with, then so be it. I’ve dealt with this ‘percieved’ air of corruption and old boy network in this town for too long. Former town councilors have left the state because of it and I’m not going to be one of those.  This will end one way or the other.

By ‘old boy network’ i don’t mean to suggest a body politic gone bad. The reality is that a relatively few number of bad actors can do a lot of damage – after all, who really has the ability to know what’s going on in all corners. Slick laws can be passed and councilors don’t read the fine print.

And I include the contract in the discussion because when you get the picture  of the contract that I am beginning to see you are going to ask yourself, ‘how in the heck did that happen” and the only logical solution that fits all the outlined issues is a ’scratch my back and i’ll scratch yours’ culture that is imploding (or again, completely incompetent people taken advantage of by the union).

But let me get to the contract and I can deal with that other ’stuff’ soon.

As was reported in the Sun, the council isn’t going to release the contract until after we ratify it – contrary to an expressed desire that towns do otherwise.  What was misleading in the paper was that it was a council  decision. Not true. I asked for and got the council’s endorsement of the 30 day rule back in January but the law didn’t pass and when the time came to actually show the public the contract, Tom Buck made the decision not to. I asked specifically if this would be a council decision and he said it was his alone. I don’t know if Barbara and Sylvia would have supported me or not although Sylvia’s comments suggest she would not have since she said she doesn’t want to be the first (technically, East Providence was teh first). I assume Tom can do that since the attorney was in the conversation when I asked if he had the authority.

I’m doing a very in depth analysis comparing our contract to every other one in the state. Today I just want to get the conversation started and establish some background. Then I will break the current contract down into pieces and make comparisons.

But before you get to that, I do want to review what I consider the most egregious part of the current contract

The pension in place now is a 3% compound COLA (cost of living adjustment) (RI Gen Law 45-21.2-5(9)). What that means is that each year after retirment the amount goes up by 3% and the interest compounds  upon itself- as Einstein said, “compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe.”

Now, a 3% cost of living adjustment is insane for a number of reasons. First of all, we are in a recession and the Consumer Price Index is actually negative. If the intent was to keep pace with the ‘cost of living’ then we would be reducing the amount, not increasing it.

But the compound nature is the insidious part. If a person starts the force at 24 and retires in 20 years (which they are able to do in Hopkinton) they will be 44 years old. If they retired with a $75,000 per year pension at age 44 (which isn’t that hard considering we include longevity and holiday pay with the ‘income’ for pension determination) by the time they reach the normal life span of 78 years old we will be paying them $198,925 per year. I am not kidding.

But that’s not the worst part of Hopkintons pension program. The worst part is how it is paid.

You may have heardthat as much as 1 in 5 private companies have stopped making matching payments to 401 K’s. THey just don’t have the money – the economy is tanking (because government- read public sector employees like police – are taking too much in taxes) and private companies can’t just raise the price of goods because competition maintains the market. So they have to cut where they can.

Normally a company will offer a 1 to 1 match up to a certain percentage. normally a small % of your salary that you can put in to a retirement saving account and your employer will match it. Whatever is in there is yours at retirement.

But in Hopkinton, the police are only required to contribute 1% of their salary. Yup, you read correctly – 1 percent (RI Gen Law 45-21-52). [note the law does not say it is ‘compound’ – thats why they had to pass a new law linked above - I’m still doing the research but it looks like that couldn’t be done without legislative support so I will see who is responsible and let you know).

But I digress – so, the police employee contributes 1 percent of their salary to get the most lucritive pension available – Does that mean Hopkinton contributes 1% too?

  NO!   The town has to put in much more than 1%. We must come up with the  balance needed to meet the defined benefit.

We are currently contributing 18%.  Read that again – it is a 1 to 18 match for the most generous pension package I have ever seen (and I study these things for a living). But thats nothing – that 18 percent just pays the employee who is collecting now – who recently retired. Wait until the compound interst adds up and their pension doubles and then triples Our contribution will have to double and triple.

UPDATE – I’m told there may be underlying law that requires an initial 6-7% employee contribution and the 1% mentioned above would be in addtion to. Let’s certainly hope so (not that the compound 3% isn’t bad enough) and I’ll let you know as soon as I learn more.

Does anyone else see a train coming?

But as I said, that’s just a taste. And there may be some irregularities with the way the pension was created that I’m looking into – I will provide more details on all levels of the contract with statewide comparissons soon. And more comments on what is the hot topic in town – the Matson/Mauti/Scunzio/??? peyton play.

PS. In the last meeting I also asked about the 550 hours of comp time Chief Scunzio has compiled. I was surprised that much could be accumulated but I was told that it will be paid by the confiscated drug money – like this matters. If we didn’t use the money to pay for comp time for the CEO of the organization (you know, like other CEO’s get comp time) we could have used the money for sand and salt so we didn’t have to raise your taxes. She missed my point but it did show what the mindset of was- defend and divert! 

PSS. I was pulled over on HWY 95 yesterday by a Providence Police Officer and State Cop (I haven’t been pulled over in 20 years) – luckily I had a witness in the car with me.  But I certainly don’t fear not having one with me – it is just nice to have witness to what was said.  You can find me on 95 north every weekday at 8ish.

For now, please see pasted below a list of towns compared on incomes – i sorted it on per capita. It will establish a good baseline to see where our expenses should line up compared to our income.  After all, if you are middle class, you don’t buy a Ferrari do you?

 Now lets look at the financial demographics of our lovely little village…

Rank	Place	Per Capita	Median House-	Median Family	Population	Number of
		Income	hold Income	Income		Households
1	Jamestown	$38,664	$63,073	$77,990	5,622	2,359
2	East Greenwich	$38,593	$70,063	$90,221	12,948	4,960
3	Barrington	$35,881	$74,591	$84,657	16,819	6,011
4	Little Compton	$32,513	$55,368	$62,750	3,593	1,475
5	New Shoreham	$29,188	$44,779	$59,844	1,010	472
6	Narragansett	$28,194	$50,363	$67,571	16,361	6,846
7	Portsmouth	$28,161	$58,835	$68,577	17,149	6,758
8	North Kingstown	$28,139	$60,027	$69,559	26,326	10,154
9	Scituate	$28,092	$60,788	$67,593	10,324	3,780
10	Lincoln	$26,779	$47,815	$61,257	20,898	8,243
11	Middletown	$25,857	$51,075	$57,322	17,334	6,993
12	West Greenwich	$25,750	$65,725	$71,332	5,085	1,749
13	Charlestown	$25,642	$51,491	$56,866	7,859	3,178
14	Cumberland	$25,592	$54,656	$63,194	31,840	12,198
15	Exeter	$25,530	$64,452	$74,157	6,045	2,085
16	Newport	$25,441	$40,669	$54,116	26,475	11,566
17	North Smithfield	$25,031	$58,602	$67,331	10,618	3,954
18	Westerly	$24,092	$44,613	$53,165	22,966	9,402
19	Hopkinton	$23,835	$52,181	$59,143	7,836	2,965
20	South Kingstown	$23,827	$56,325	$67,912	27,921	9,268
21	Warwick	$23,410	$46,483	$56,225	85,808	35,517
22	Smithfield	$23,224	$55,621	$66,320	20,613	7,194
23	Glocester	$22,914	$57,537	$62,679	9,948	3,559
24	Tiverton	$22,866	$49,977	$58,917	15,260	6,077
25	Warren	$22,448	$41,285	$52,824	11,360	4,708
26	Richmond	$22,351	$59,840	$64,688	7,222	2,537
27	Foster	$22,148	$59,673	$63,657	4,274	1,535
28	Coventry	$22,091	$51,987	$60,315	33,668	12,596
29	Cranston	$21,978	$44,108	$55,241	79,269	30,954
30	Bristol	$21,532	$43,689	$54,656	22,469	8,314
31	Johnston	$21,440	$43,514	$54,837	28,195	11,197
32	Burrillville	$21,096	$52,587	$58,979	15,796	5,559
33	West Warwick	$20,250	$39,505	$47,674	29,581	12,498
34	East Providence	$19,527	$39,108	$48,463	48,688	20,530
35	Pawtucket	$17,008	$31,775	$39,038	72,958	30,047
36	Woonsocket	$16,223	$30,819	$38,353	43,224	17,750
37	Providence	$15,525	$26,867	$32,058	173,618	62,389
38	North Providence	$13,489	$19,721	$31,655	32,411	14,351
39	Central Falls	$10,825	$22,628	$26,844	18,928	6,696

Working to increase contract understanding

Sylvia makes the best point towards the end of the article (emphasis added) -

From the Westerly Sun:

Union contracts up for vote next week

Hopkinton councilors weigh pacts with police, department heads and clerical workers.

By VICTORIA GOFF / Sun Staff Writer

HOPKINTON — The Town Council is expected to consider approving contracts for three unions next week after the existing pacts expire tomorrow.

The council will likely vote on the pacts for the unions — police, clerical and “professional and technical” (department heads) — on July 6, said former Town Manager William A. DiLibero and Council President Thomas E. Buck, who have been in private talks with the unions.

The police union has approved its contract. The council has not yet seen final versions of the other two contracts, and it is awaiting approval by the unions, said DiLibero, whose last day as town manager was Friday.

The council has not publicly offered details on what is contained in the new pacts, despite earlier this year supporting a bill that would have required municipalities and school districts to release a proposed contract and an accompanying fiscal impact statement 30 days before ratifying it.

The proposal to release the contracts prior to ratification was part of the governor’s budget-repair plan to close a multi-million dollar state deficit by June 30. It was later eliminated from the plan passed by state lawmakers.

In January, the council passed 4-1 a resolution that said the bill, along with three other measures proposed by the governor, would “improve the management and operations of the Chariho regional school system.” The council also supported other proposals included in the governor’s plan, saying they would lower municipal costs.

Councilor Beverly P. Kenney was the sole dissenter.

But since that vote, two councilors have changed their minds.

“I’m going to recant my vote on that,” Buck said Thursday. “That was one that was added to [the resolution] at the last minute. I didn’t have chance to review it.”

Asked why he doesn’t support releasing a contract to the public for review before it is ratified, Buck said, “It’s not the right way to do it. I was elected by the townspeople to negotiate their contracts.”

“Too many things come up, too many issues come up,” he said. “Too many things change in contract negotiations. As you get down the road, you trade off something for something else.”

Buck cut short the phone interview with The Sun Thursday because he said he was on another phone line with someone else. He did not respond to messages left at his home Friday and Saturday.

Councilor Sylvia K. Thompson had first suggested that the council endorse releasing contracts early, but recently said she no longer supports the measure.

As a member of the public, she said she would think: “You’re all done [with negotiations], you’re not going to do anything, so what good is that?”

“I could see where it could just irritate the taxpayer because what are you doing this for and shouldn’t you have done it before?” she added.

Instead, Thompson said she would support meeting with the public before negotiations start, like Chariho Regional School District officials did in December before they started talks with the teacher’s union. The council would give an overview of the current contract and its fiscal impact, she said, and then it would ask the public for its opinion on a new contract.

After a contract is ratified, she said the council should explain its “ins and outs” and financial effects.

Councilor William J. Felkner, an advocate for open contract negotiations, said he hopes that is an action the council will take.

“It’s the people’s money,” he said. “We’re spending their money. I think they should know what deal we just signed them up for the next three years.”

Councilor Barbara A. Capalbo said, “I don’t think that the majority of the people care about the intricacies [of a contract], but I do think that in general terms it must be discussed.” General terms, she said, would be “salaries, benefits.”

Capalbo said contract talks should occur privately “so people can be as clear and forthright as they want to be,” but noted she would support releasing a contract to the public once it is “clear” with the negotiating parties before ratification.

“We obviously can’t change everything at one time but I think it is good for the public to be aware of the changes in the contract,” she said.

Kenney said contract talks should always take place privately.

“I believe contract negotiations are a give and take, and working to get the best deal for the town is easier to do when it is in closed session,” she said.

But Thompson said she hopes state lawmakers would eventually pass a law to require contract talks to be held publicly to benefit municipalities, as she says unions currently have an advantage.

“They’re the ones that fundraise and many of them have a huge war chest in the bank for arbitration,” she said.

Another potential benefit, Thompson noted: “More people in town would be interested and take an active role in what these contracts really mean.”

While Thompson supports open negotiations, she doesn’t want to be the first community to lead the charge, if state law does not mandate public talks.

“It comes to picking your battles,” she said.

Did you know…

Did you know that 20% of the Hopkinton police force got a 16% raise last year?  Will you be happy if that is reduced to 12%?  10%?  Or would you expect them to receive the same 2% everyone else in town is making?

And Hopkinton is one of only 2-3 towns that give compound cola  pensions. If you heard my speech at the Tea Party you know that if a person retired at age 45 with a $70k pension (which is not as good as Col. Pare who retied at 43 with a larger pension) that person would be making $185,000 per year by the time they reached the average life expectancy of 78. We would have given them $4,000,000 over their retirement.

Just some things to think about.

Another one bites the dust

Good news out of Hopkinton last night – we voted to approve a resolution supporting the elimination of the straight party ticket.

For those who don’t know, this is when a ballot has the option to vote Democrat or Republican for all offices with one stroke of the pen. Opponents, like me, say that if we eliminate it people will be more inclined to only vote for races where they know what is going on. Or at least give thought to each person they are voting for.

Secondly, as the current system is made, if you voted for one of the parties but then wanted to vote for an independent or someone not in the same party farther down the ballot, it would disqualify your ballot all together because they would conflict.

The council voted to approve it 4-1 or 3-1-1.  Not sure how Bev Kenney voted – I didn’t hear her. Tom Buck voted against it.

While I consider Tom a friend and a nice guy, that’s the second thing he did last night that surprised me.

Exit 1 truck stop

There is a meeting Wednesday night with the planning board to discuss the possiblity of placing a Love’s Truck Stop at Exit 1. Meeting will be at 7 at the Town Hall.

LTE in Sun on Meal Site Program

Here is my response to the Sun’s report that the senior meal site may be eliminated.

Headline misrepresented senior lunch discussion

The Westerly Sun was irresponsi­ble when it reported that the Hop­kinton Town Council was considering eliminating the senior lunch pro­gram.   By the employee’s own admission, he has rarely been able to get seniors involved in any program other than the lunch. Hopkinton is essentially paying $46,761 for three hours of work each day, and the lunch isn’t even served 5 days every week.   Councilperson Capalbo and I sug­gested using resources already in town (libraries, churches, etc) to pro­vide a venue for speakers, computer lessons, or whatever the participants may want. But if participation does not materialize, we aren’t stuck with an employee with nothing to do.   We also suggested continuing the lunch program at the Crandall House with part-time or volunteer help and reached out to Chariho because they operate a culinary arts program where students could receive valuable work experience helping us fill this need. Hopefully they will have a pos­itive response.   Headlines like “Seniors could lose free lunch” sell more papers than “Councilors discuss how to provide more for less,” so we can only hope that readers keep this in mind when they are reading the “news.”   Bill Felkner Ashaway Bill Felkner is a member of the Hop­kinton Town Council and has been elected to the Chariho Regional School Committee.

On a related note, Thursday night we did revisit the issue and settled on paying just for the time serving meals and an additional $2000 to try (again) and develop some senior programs. Barbara also wants to pursue finding a senior advocate.

I voted against it for the following reasons.  Dilebro researched and found that Charlestown paid the most for their cook with $13 per hour.  We are going to pay $15 per hour – plus they proposed to pay for 20 hours per week thus putting them into the union and available for pension – thus it will end up costing us $18.27 per hour.  Hiring someone at 19 hours per week would have avoided the union and pension. 

Also, I asked that Delibero send a letter to Chariho asking  if the culinary arts program would send students to help (and give them experience).  The Rec Director could be licensed and anyone working under her (or volunteering) would be covered under that license. He did not send the letter to Chariho and pitched to keep the full program.

Aas an FYI – I just hired an office manager for $27k per year, no benefits and he is paid as a contractor so he takes care of his own taxes.  He is an honors graduate at RWU with federal congressional campaign experience – that works out to be less than what we pay our cook per hour and a good example of today’s  job market – at least in the private sector.

I did get a concession to NOT list the line item as salary so that if we wanted to just pay for lunches at Brick Oven or somewhere else in town we could.  Considering our budget works out to about $11 per meal (and that doens’t include the money the seniors give for the meal ($3)).  This will allow them to spend the money by going to Brick Oven and getting the $5.99 lunch special and save the town more money. 

As one person in the audience said (and she is a senior), spending this much money for something that could be purchased elsewhere for less ”is crazy.”

I also asked those representing the library if they could provide the same speakers, computer lessons, or whatever the seniors want at the libraries for no additional cost.  They said yes.

But the reality is this is small potatoes.  The town has a hole of about $600,000.  I also made the pitch for vouchers – which with a conservative estimate of 8% participation we would save $540,000.  Hopefully Represenative Kennedy and Senator Maher will help us out on that.