One year ago today, we wrote a post about the sudden halt in pay increases and the sudden rise of furloughs facing Maryland county employees in FY 2010. In the present fiscal year, those circumstances are arguably worse.
According to this month’s state Spending Affordability Briefing and our research from last year, the number of counties granting cost of living adjustments (COLAs) to non-school employees was 20 in FY 2009, 5 in FY 2010 and 1 this year, with another county decision still pending. The only COLA currently being granted is by Calvert County, which is offering a 0.5% raise. Non-school employees received step increases from 20 counties in FY 2009, 8 counties in FY 2010 and 4 counties in FY 2011.
The number of counties granting COLAs to school employees was 22 in FY 2009, 10 in FY 2010 and 3 this year, with two more county decisions pending. The three counties granting school employees COLAs are Cecil (1.8%), Allegany (1.0%) and Calvert (0.5%). School employees received step increases from 21 counties in FY 2009, 14 counties in FY 2010 and 9 counties in FY 2011.
State employees are getting no COLAs and their furloughs effectively cut their pay by 1.2-3.8%.
Wage increases are out and furloughs are in. In FY 2009, we know of just one county that furloughed its employees: Prince George’s. In FY 2010, 10 counties had furloughs and 12 had layoffs. In FY 2011, 9 counties had furloughs and 6 had layoffs, with another county considering layoffs. Anne Arundel leads the state in maximum furlough days (12) while Prince George’s leads in layoffs (183 workers in the school system with more to come in the rest of the government).
How will FY 2012 look? Consider the fact that the Governor, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House have said they will close the state’s $1.6 billion general fund deficit without tax increases. Next, consider that federal stimulus money is running out and that aid to local governments constitutes over 40% of state general fund spending. State aid accounts for over a quarter of the counties’ revenues. Five counties (Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Talbot, and Wicomico) have limitations on their ability to raise property taxes written into their charters. And the state could send a hefty chunk of teacher pension obligations down to the counties. All of these factors hitting at the same time will force the vast majority of the counties to scrutinize their labor costs.
So it’s not over yet.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
County Employee Pain Goes On
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
MCGEO Targets Schools in Questionnaire
The Municipal and County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO), which represents most county employees other than police officers, fire fighters and school workers, has included the following six questions in its questionnaire for County Council candidates.
Question 4.
The County Council cannot force the School Board to equitably share in the furloughs - this year or next. However, it is apparent to the Police Officers, Firefighters and MCGEO represented county employees that the council was collectively unable/unwilling to summon the political courage to cut the school budget deep enough to force the council to distribute equitable furloughs. While some councilmembers postured for a deeper cut (2%), it was never brought to a vote. In fact, some councilmembers seemed to turn weak in the knees when dealing with the Superintendent of schools. You all collectively sought the shelter of the “lowest common denominator” and cut only $24.4 million out of a $2-billion dollar budget. This lack of leadership resulted in the council willing to confine the furloughs to the only side of the budget which accounts for just 1/3 of the employees funded by it. This devalues our service and the services we provide. OUR MEMBERS ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES!
If you are an incumbent, please explain:
• How do you justify this?
• Do you admit that Jerry Weast is a better negotiator than you?
• What, if any, regrets do you have?
• Can we expect the same response next year?
If you are a challenger, please explain what you would do differently:
• Would you cut the school budget?
Question 5.
The County Council makes decisions to allocate resources that fund both the school board and county services. The school board currently gets 56-57% of the total funds allocated by the council.
Do you think the share should: (Circle One)
(A) Be increased
(B) Stay the same
(C) Be reduced to a more equitable balance
Question 14.
The current economic crisis is placing substantial pressure on the County budget which funds both County and School Board services. If the State mandated Maintenance of Effort (MOE) is not waived then the County side of the budget must absorb the vast majority of budget cuts, layoffs and furloughs. If the MOE is waived, then the resulting impact of cuts, especially number of furlough days could be more equitably distributed across both County government and School Board systems resulting in fewer furlough days per employee regardless of employer.
Would you waive MOE in order to more equitably distribute the sacrifice across the employers?
Yes No (Circle One)
Comments:
Would you temporarily waive MOE and disperse the pain more equitably?
Yes No (Circle One)
Comments:
Question 15.
Montgomery County has a system where all school board members are elected county wide, although 5 must live in a district and 2 can live anywhere in the County. Do you favor electing school board members by single member districts?
Yes No (Circle One)
Question 16.
Do you think it was fair that only county employees were asked to do furloughs and the school system refused to do so?
Yes No (Circle One)
Question 17.
If endorsed by our Union, will you commit to writing a $4,000-$5,000 check to our PAC, like you would to MCEA, to assist our Union’s campaign on your behalf?
#####
The intent behind these questions is obvious. MCGEO sees the budget as a zero-sum game between the county government (which also includes the police and the fire fighters) and the schools (which have three other unions including the teachers, supervisors and support staff). MCGEO is apparently trying to lock in County Council candidates to support its priorities even at the direct expense of the schools. So if any candidates agree with MCGEO, they put their endorsements from the teachers and the other school unions at risk. (To be fair, the teachers advocate for their budget too, but their questionnaires are not so heavy-handed.) And looming over all of this is the Washington Post, which is pressuring candidates to reject all public employee union support.
This is creating an impossible situation for any county-level politician who would like to deal reasonably, but not slavishly, with labor. We would not be surprised if more than one candidate refused to complete this questionnaire.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Duchy Reverses Position on Union Support
Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg has notified Montgomery County’s public employee unions that she will not be asking for their endorsements in this year’s elections, saying that would be “a conflict of interest” given her decision-making responsibilities on the budget. This is a significant reversal given her long record of accepting public sector union endorsements and contributions in the past.
Trachtenberg sent the following email to multiple county employee unions on Monday.From: Duchy Trachtenberg [duchy.trachtenberg@gmail.com]
This is a new position for Trachtenberg. She has taken six contributions from county employee unions in the past:
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 [Time Withheld]
To: [Emails Withheld]
Subject: Hard Copy Mailed Thursday/Friday
Thursday, May 27th
Dear [Union Leader]:
Montgomery County is weathering a financial storm, as are many other local jurisdictions across the country. This has been a challenge for all local governments and the many public employees we depend on each and every day. Here in Montgomery County we are mindful of the extraordinary contributions of our public employees. I am truly appreciative of [the union]’s willingness to participate in this year’s budget compromise and trust that this working partnership will continue into the future as we face unprecedented fiscal challenges.
I am not seeking a [union] endorsement during this year’s election cycle (I had notified MCEA of this last Tuesday). As the Chair of the Council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee, I play a central role in defining Council fiscal policy, including recommendations on compensation and benefits for our public employees. I believe it would be a conflict of interest for me to pursue endorsements from those whose compensation and benefits we ultimately approve and/or fund. As the MFP Chair, I have a primary fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and the financial interests of the county. There is a clear conflict between the financial interests of county government and the unions who negotiate for the employees. It would be inappropriate to signal any additional consideration or favorable intentions to any specific group of public employees, especially given our current financial climate. For me, this fiduciary responsibility and potential conflict of interests must outweigh any mere political considerations.
However, while I may not be able to seek an endorsement in good conscience from your membership, I would like the opportunity to speak with your membership. I believe a frank and constructive conversation with you on our current fiscal situation would be very helpful. Additionally, I would like the opportunity to discuss the rating agency process and the steps that are necessary for prudent, public debt management.
I thank you again for your thoughtful consideration of this brief letter and very much look forward to working with [the union] in the years ahead. I know we all agree that our main objective is to continue to provide quality county services despite our current fiscal challenges.
Sincerely,
Duchy Trachtenberg
MCGEO: $1,000 on 7/25/06
MCGEO: $4,000 on 12/18/06
MoCo Career Fire Fighters: $4,000 on 7/11/06
MoCo Career Fire Fighters: $2,000 on 7/21/06
Police Lodge 35 PAC: $500 on 10/20/06
SEIU Local 500 PAC: $500 on 7/12/06
Total: $12,000
Here is her endorsement page from 2006. See the logos of MCEA, the Fire Fighters, SEIU, the AFL-CIO, Progressive Maryland and MCGEO? Trachtenberg’s presence on the Apple Ballot was one of the biggest reasons she was elected.
Trachtenberg’s campaign account even contributed $6,000 to MCEA’s PAC on 6/4/07, the maximum amount permitted by law. This practice has been harshly condemned by the Post. And Trachtenberg’s payment to MCEA occurred after she had joined the council and assumed the Chair of its Management and Fiscal Policy Committee. If this sort of activity is a “conflict of interest” now, why wasn’t it a conflict then?
The truth is that Trachtenberg’s long record of voting against county employees after being elected with their support guaranteed that she would not earn any of their endorsements this year. And so she is trying to ingratiate herself with the one remaining influential endorsing organization that might back her – the union-bashing Washington Post – which has insisted that politicians reject public employee union contributions. But Trachtenberg crossed that bridge a long time ago.
Is there any chance the voters will see this for what it is?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Consequences of the Budget, Part Three
The school system was not the only powerful institution that was challenged by the budget. Also in the crosshairs were the public employee unions.
Labor
When analyzing the unions, it’s important to keep in mind their differences rather than assume them to be monolithic. There are six county employee unions. MCEA, which represents teachers, SEIU Local 500, which represents school support staff, and the Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP), which represents school supervisors, all have members in the school system. They negotiate their contracts with the Superintendent, who sends them to the elected Board of Education for approval. The County Council can set the overall size of the school budget, but they cannot dictate line items in school contracts or specific employee policies (like furloughs). The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 represents police officers, the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1664 represents career fire fighters and MCGEO represents nearly all other non-managerial line workers. These three unions negotiate contracts with the County Executive, which are then approved by the council. The County Council has lots of authority over these contracts, and can reject them, refuse to fund increases contained in them and can even strike individual provisions in them. In most years, the six unions get similar gains, but this year was different.
One significant result of this budget is an angry split between the public employee unions. None of them are getting general wage adjustments or step increases, but in other ways they are being treated differently. The County Executive’s original proposal subjected non-public safety employees to ten days of furloughs each. (The Executive does not have the authority to decide questions related to staffing in the school system.) So of the six public employee unions, only MCGEO – which represents nearly everyone except for police officers, fire fighters and education employees – would have been hit by furloughs.
MCGEO fought back, arguing that they were unfairly targeted and basic fairness held that all employees should be furloughed at the same rate. Four County Council Members agreed with MCGEO in principle at their parking garage rally. Council staff found that if furloughs were spread across the government, each employee would only have to take 1.5 days. This prompted a response from the school unions, who raised questions about the feasibility of furloughs in the schools and argued that changes to the county reserves would be sufficient to prevent all furloughs. But the council, which was under pressure from bond rating agencies, did not buy it. In the end, they chose to implement a progressive furlough structure of three to eight days for non-school employees, with higher-paid workers taking more furlough days. The school system took a budget cut but did not have to take furloughs.
This approach created winners and losers among the unions. MCGEO is a loser, but it did suffer fewer furlough days than under the Executive’s proposal. The police and fire fighters are big losers. The Executive did not propose furloughs for them, but the council implemented them anyway. The school unions successfully held off all furloughs.
Most importantly, the six unions could not agree on a common approach to the budget. While the three school unions largely stuck together, the remaining three county government unions (MCGEO, the police and fire fighters) not only went against the schools, they also went against each other. Next year could see a similar conflict. While there has always been occasional friction between the unions owing to different budget priorities and different styles (especially among the leaders), it has been a LONG time since they were this far apart.
This picture of a public safety worker protesting Council Member Nancy Navarro’s fundraiser says it all about the state of inter-union relations.
The big question is whether the unions’ disagreements over the budget will spill over into their electoral cooperation. Regardless of their squabbling, they are all better off if they make the same endorsements and work together on behalf of their candidates. If not, only their hardened enemies on the council will benefit.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at the long term.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Fragile
Roundabout. Long Distance Runaround. Mood for a Day. All are on the famous Yes album Fragile. And so should be the County Council, because that’s what they are: Fragile.
Rockville is uneasy at the moment. Gone are the loud explosions over Hillmead, the special elections, growth policy and the Council Presidency. There is a bit of rumbling in the distance, but less thunder and lightning than you might think. On the surface, the council appears united on some key issues in the Great 2010 Budget Crisis. But it is all Fragile.
First, the areas of agreement. The council’s unanimous repudiation of the MCGEO, police and fire fighter union contracts was an important moment in its history. So was its call for furloughs in all agencies, including MCPS. Such actions indicate a united and knowing attempt to take on the unions. The myth of labor domination has been shattered despite the rantings of the Post. This is an action taken not by choice, but by necessity. Even decades-long labor movement lifer Valerie Ervin supported this approach, leaving the unions nowhere to go.
The council is also uniformly hostile to MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast. His legal memo hinting at a lawsuit had the opposite effect from what he intended: it has galvanized the council against him. For the first time in Weast’s tenure, the council does not fear him. They believe his legal arguments are without merit and are ready to take him on.
Finally, many members do not respect the County Executive. He has styled himself a fiscal conservative yet continues to support numerous spending initiatives and even wants to use public bonds to finance private projects in the face of scrutiny by the bond agencies. His spokesman mocked Council Member George Leventhal for questioning the affordability of contracts that the Executive negotiated. Rightly or wrongly, the Council Members view themselves as the grown-ups who have to clean up the mess the Executive helped to make. Few of them regard Ike Leggett as the leader who will get them to budget stability.
That said, this is not a fully united body. There are four moving parts in closing the FY 2011 deficit: the energy tax, the reserve fund, furloughs and more cuts. As of the moment, the council has not agreed on the appropriate balance between them. This is a tough choice because giving up a little on one area means taking a little more from another. Business is putting up a big fight on the energy tax, but the school unions are sending hundreds of emails to the council protesting MCPS furloughs. The numbers between these options are VERY fluid right now.
There is also a big trust issue here. The three school unions have presented a counter-proposal to furloughs that mostly relies on money from the reserve fund. Most people in the council building disagree with the proposal from a policy perspective, but there are political considerations. Some union officials are spreading word that anyone who votes for mass furloughs will not be eligible for endorsements. That means there is a powerful incentive – especially for the at-large members – to be the only Council Member who supports their position in the event that no one else does. In that instance, labor might support one incumbent and perhaps one or two challengers in the at-large race. All of this is based on speculation, but the very possibility has the Council Members eyeing each other warily. There may be suspense on the vote until the very end.
We believe that the most likely outcome is a unanimous vote on a budget with a slightly lower energy tax hike and slightly larger labor cost cuts than the Executive proposed. That is the outcome most favorable to the incumbents because it reduces opportunities for differentiation between them among the endorsing groups, thus increasing all their chances of return. Labor should beware because if that happens, it is their prospects of success in the next term that may well be Fragile.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
SEIU: Stop the MCPS Furloughs!
From SEIU Local 500 President Merle Cuttitta, whose union represents school support staff.
AFL-CIO Suspends County Council Endorsement Process
In the clearest sign yet of labor discontent with the County Council, the Metro Washington AFL-CIO has suspended its endorsement process for council candidates because of the county budget "crisis" and its impact on affiliated unions. This sort of action by the labor federation may be unprecedented in MoCo politics.
The Post Owes the County Council an Apology
Do you still read the Washington Post’s coverage of Montgomery County? If you do, you know its editorials routinely portray MoCo politicians as tools of the public employee unions, especially the teachers, despite clear evidence that recent teacher pay increases have been comparable to other jurisdictions. Its reporting focuses on labor issues to the exclusion of most other matters. The Post even insinuated that the unions were involved in last year’s Council President fight when they had no evidence to back up that assertion. Post readers have been conditioned to believe that Montgomery County Council Members are nothing more than creatures of the unions who sell out taxpayers.
But the council has proven them wrong.
Yesterday, every single member of the County Council agreed to freeze county employee pay, take away a bargained pension benefit and spread furloughs across the entire county government – even onto the teachers. That followed a sharply-worded letter from the school unions arguing against it. The letter was signed by none other than MCEA, whom the Post accuses of wielding a “toxic influence” over the council because of the Apple Ballot.
Far from being tools of the unions, the council is currently in heated conflict with them. In many recent conversations your author has had with Council Members, fear of the unions has not been in evidence. Instead, they are all worried about the county’s bond rating and are intensely interested in protecting it. Several of the union leaders are FURIOUS at the council for not considering alternatives to furloughs, including drawing on the rainy day fund. One union leader even threatened to endorse exactly none of the incumbents. Is this really an instance of politicians being in the thrall of unions as the Post alleges?
Last week, the Post sent a delegation of editors and reporters to meet with the full council. They said they wanted to improve their coverage of the county and renew their relationship with Council Members. Several Council Members remarked on their “arrogance,” noting their gold cufflinks and their attitude that the council was lucky to receive such a visit. One Council Member even asked them why they were getting scooped by blogs. (The Post bosses admitted that was a problem for which they had no answer.) No one found the visit to be particularly useful.
If the Post truly wants a new beginning in Montgomery County, there is no need for delegation visits or the flashing of cufflinks. All they have to do is apologize to the council and stop portraying them as cartoon characters jerked around by the unions’ non-existent chains.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
SEIU Rings Alarm Bell on Furloughs
SEIU Local 500 President Merle Cuttitta sent out the following email to her members about school system furloughs today.
Dear [Member],
Your phone call or email today could not be more important. This past Thursday, April 29th, the Management and Fiscal Policy committee of the County Council voted unanimously in favor of a recommendation to furlough all county employees, including those of MCPS, in the name of 'equity.' Legally, the Council does not have the authority to furlough MCPS employees. Only the Board of Education can do that, and both the Board and the Superintendent are committed to not furloughing MCPS employees.
However, the Council staff recommended a furlough of five (5) days for all county and MCPS employees. This recommendation, if approved, would reduce the MCPS budget an additional $33.7 million beyond the cut of $ 137.7 million in the County Executive's plan.
If the additional cut of $33.7 million is enacted by the County Council, it will severely damage the chances of the State Board of Education approving a waiver of Maintenance of Effort for next year. That could cost MCPS an additional $51.3 million in state aid. MCPS would have to ELIMINATE AN ADDITIONAL 800-1,000 POSITIONS on top of the 270 positions already eliminated if these cuts occur due to the actions of the County Council. Make no mistake: this would mean LAYOFFS in every unit of MCPS- administrators, teachers, and support staff.
An additional cut to the MCPS budget is not necessary, nor are furloughs for ANY employees of the county, including MCPS. This year the County's reserve fund was 5% of the budget. Initially, County Executive Leggett proposed maintaining it at 5% for next year, and restoring it to the 6% policy level in FY12. Two weeks ago, the County Executive changed his recommendation and put an additional $37 million in next year's budget to restore the reserves to 6% in FY11. The County Council could simply increase the reserve fund from 5% this year to 5.6% next year and still be at 6% in FY12. By doing so, they could avoid furloughing any county employees.
Some on the County Council seem more concerned with pleasing the bond rating agencies on Wall Street than taking care of its employees and the children of MCPS during this time of economic turmoil and hardship: the very same bond rating agencies that brought us the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
The County Council's staff memo tries to justify furloughs of MCPS employees by stating that, "MCPS provides more generous health and retirement benefits than does any other agency." This is factually incorrect, unless one conveniently ignores the County's retirement plan for police, firefighters and sheriffs and also ignores the County's retiree health benefits for all its employees.
There are even indications that some on the County Council would like to double the cost of health insurance to MCPS employees, despite the agreement we negotiated with the Board of Education last year when we gave up our pay raise for the current year to maintain our health insurance premium co-pay formulas for the next four years.
WE URGE YOU to email, call, and write to the County Council immediately demanding that they adopt a budget that:
• Does not furlough ANY county employees
• Avoids any additional cuts to MCPS beyond the $137.7 already agreed to
• Raises the full $101 million proposed increase in the energy tax
• Phases in the restoration of the reserve fund by going to 5.6% in FY11 and then to 6% in FY12
ACT NOW! The Council will conduct a straw vote on the budget on May 20th.
For more information, read a joint MCPS union letter sent to Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, Chairperson of the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, who voted to recommend furloughs: http://www.seiu500.org/admin/Assets/AssetContent/e3b285a0-22a3-4358-84a8-2aea224be311/546bfa9e-94e2-495f-9d30-54cc81f55e47/3f701040-9719-4446-a78c-8038bd9d3847/1/jointunionletteronfurloughs.pdf
Contact the County Council TODAY:
• Phil Andrews (240) 777-7906 councilmember.andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Roger Berliner (240) 777-7828 councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Marc Elrich (240) 777-7966 councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Valerie Ervin (240) 777-7960 councilmember.ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Nancy Floreen (240) 777-7959 councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Mike Knapp (240) 777-7955 councilmember.knapp@montgomerycountymd.gov
• George Leventhal (240) 777-7811 councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Nancy Navarro (240) 777-7968 councilmember.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov
• Duchy Trachtenberg (240) 777-7964 councilmember.trachtenberg@montgomerycountymd.gov
Respectfully,
Merle Cuttitta
President
Council Unanimously Intends to Freeze Pay, Furlough All Agencies
Against the wishes of the school unions, the County Council has indicated its intent to freeze pay for all employees and spread furloughs across all agencies. Following is the council's press release.
Council Indicates Intent to Freeze Pay, End Imputed Pension Adjustments and Support Equitable Furloughs
Release ID: 10-084
Release Date: 5/4/2010
Contact: Neil H. Greenberger 240-777-7939 or Delphine Harriston 240-777-7931
From: Council Office
ROCKVILLE, Md., May 4, 2010— In actions reflecting the County’s severe fiscal situation, the Montgomery County Council today unanimously indicated its intent to freeze all employee pay in the coming fiscal year, FY11. The Council also unanimously adopted resolutions indicating its intent to reject all provisions in the collective bargaining agreements with County unions that have a fiscal impact on the County. These actions signal the Council’s determination to maintain the County’s AAA bond rating while preserving essential services during the worst fiscal crisis in the County’s history.
The Council also unanimously indicated its intent to enact Expedited Bill 16-10, which would eliminate the continuation of the imputed pension adjustment beyond the current fiscal year, saving taxpayers an estimated $7 million a year.
With respect to employee furloughs, the Council unanimously supported the principle of equitable treatment of all employees of all agencies serving County residents and directed its staff to provide a range of furlough options for review.
"This Council is facing very difficult decisions affecting thousands of lives," said Council President Nancy Floreen. "The unforeseen 20 percent drop in income tax revenue and other revenue shortfalls are causing us to face curtailing or eliminating key services, laying off more than 400 employees, furloughing thousands more, and doubling the County energy tax. This is very painful for us all.”
“These unprecedented fiscal facts mirror the pain that the County residents have felt in this recession. We would like to support bargained pay increases, but we agree with the Executive that under these severe conditions, that is simply not possible. We will come through this as a team, with everyone sharing the burden.”
In indicating its intent to freeze employee pay, the Council concluded that in view of pending employee layoffs and furloughs, pay increases cannot be justified. In addition, the Council indicated its intent to support the Executive’s removal of funding for tuition assistance in FY11.
The Council also indicated its intent to enact Expedited Bill 16-10, which eliminates the continuation of an imputed pension adjustment beyond the current fiscal year, FY10. The imputed pension adjustment refers to basing the calculation of an employee’s future pension benefit, for the rest of the employee’s career, on a bargained FY10 general wage adjustment that was not funded. Enactment of the bill would save $7 million per year starting in FY11.
The Council staff has begun work on a hard look at the structural deficit that the County faces, and the harder decisions the County must face to balance the budget in the future. (See http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/SCANNED_DOCS/042910.pdf.)
"Furloughs and tax increases cannot be an annual event," Council President Floreen said. “We are prepared to face the future – now."
“I have spent my entire adult life advocating for working families and for access to quality public education,” said Council Vice President Valerie Ervin. “However, during this extremely challenging fiscal climate the Council has had to make some tough choices on behalf of the county taxpayers for the long term fiscal health of the county. The Council has come together in our commitment to serve our most vulnerable residents, to preserve our long-standing credit rating, and to seek long-term fiscal viability.”
“The Council’s support for Bill 16-10, which would eliminate the use of canceled cost-of-living-adjustments in calculating pensions, will save taxpayers $7 million next year, more than $200 million overall, and signal to the rating agencies that the Council is committed to addressing unsustainable pension costs,” said Councilmember Phil Andrews, said Councilmember Phil Andrews, the measure’s lead sponsor.
“My colleagues and I are staunch supporters of our Montgomery County Public Schools. We have demonstrated that support year after year by approving 99 percent or more of the Board of Education’s budget and exceeding State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements,” said Councilmember Roger Berliner.
“We are now faced with unprecedented fiscal challenges. We cannot meet these challenges equitably and without imposing a devastating tax burden on homeowners, renters, and businesses unless the school system accepts further cuts to its FY11 operating budget. By willingly instituting furlough days for its employees, like all other County agencies have agreed to do, the school system can avoid further impacts to the classroom which would directly affect our students. The weeks ahead will be filled with many difficult decisions and I hope that we will be able to work collaboratively with our colleagues at MCPS to reach a mutually agreeable solution to the current fiscal crisis,” continued Berliner.
“Any solution has to fall on employees equitably. Every worker is valued and every worker does a valuable job. Every employee deserves to be treated fairly. I hope the Council will adapt a progressive solution that will impact those who make the least the least and those who make the most the most. I recognize the impact of lost days of work to a $40,000 per year employee is significantly different than a $100,000 employee,” said Councilmember Marc Elrich.
“I regret that the New York bonding agencies seem to indicate that we need to replenish our reserves to a full 6 percent all in one year at a time when we have had an unprecedented decline in revenue. We are laying off almost 240 employees and abolishing another 500 positions. We are cutting programs far beyond what we believe we should, not because we have found waste but because we do not have the money. We must balance the budget,” continued Elrich
“Years of spending without regard for sustainability coupled with a global economic meltdown got us into this situation. Since 2006, a new County Executive working with this Council has steadily decreased the growth in the spending. This year we will actually spend less than we did last year. Going forward, we must insure that spending is sustainable over the short and long term,” continued Elrich.
"None of us is happy about the choices we are forced to make as a result of the precipitous drop in county revenues. We all look forward to the day our economy recovers. Making wise decisions now will enable Montgomery County to emerge from these budgetary challenges stronger and more prosperous in the future. The County Council appreciates the excellent service provided to our residents by the county's superb employees and we regret the necessity of sharing these sacrifices. Elected officials will reduce our own pay by whatever amount is finally arrived at for all county employees," said Councilmember George Leventhal.
“My colleagues and I value our employees’ dedication and hard work, especially while they are being asked to do more with less during these difficult times. Unfortunately, this unprecedented fiscal crisis forces us to look for new revenue sources and make extremely painful cuts. While these are not easy or popular decisions, it is our responsibility to preserve the current and future stability of Montgomery County,” said Councilmember Nancy Navarro.
“I believe that we must be fair and measured in the difficult budget decisions that we will make. We would do well to remember that our County budget is a moral document - one that reflects our inter-connections as a community. It is important to note that the budget provides all of our neighbors benefit in some way, from the full range of public sources and resources we strive to maintain,” said Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg.
School Unions Hit Back on Furloughs
The three public school unions – MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and the Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAAP) – have written the County Council in opposition to the intention of some Council Members to spread furloughs to cover the school system. The council cannot mandate school furloughs, but it can cut the schools’ budget by an equivalent amount and leave it to the Board of Education and the Superintendent to figure out how to deal with the cut. Needless to say, this option is not favored by the school unions.
The three unions sent a joint letter to the council raising a number of logistical issues associated with furloughing school employees. Notably, they asked what would happen if the state denied the county’s newest Maintenance of Effort (MOE) waiver application. Would the fine be applied to the schools or to other parts of the budget? The unions also raised the question of whether furloughs are truly a way to deal with long-term deficits. Finally, the unions alleged that the county would not have to furlough anyone if it allowed Sunday sales at county-owned liquor stores and postponed restoring the rainy day fund to 6% of revenues by a year.
Our sense is that the council is rather united in asking for more cuts from the school system – an attitude reinforced by the schools’ consideration of legal options. The Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, which unanimously called for a “principle of equity” in furloughs, is comprised of union nemesis Duchy Trachtenberg as well as union allies Valerie Ervin and Nancy Navarro – both former members of the school board. If Ervin and Navarro are favoring furloughs in the school system, the school unions have nowhere else to go.
Following is the unions’ letter.
May 4, 2010
Ms. Duchy Trachtenberg, Chairperson
Management and Fiscal Policy Committee
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
RE: Proposed Furloughs
Dear Ms. Trachtenberg,
Last Thursday, your committee voted (3-0) to support the “principle of equity” in proposed employee furloughs for next year, as illustrated by a Council staff option presented to the Committee. Council staff made clear that the Council does not have the authority to mandate furloughs within the Montgomery County Public Schools. It is the Board of Education that has the ultimate decision-making authority over how to operate the school system to best achieve its desired outcomes. The option presented by Council staff proposed a five day furlough of all county employees, including all MCPS staff, at a cost of $34 million to the school system.
We understand, as Committee member Valerie Ervin made clear, that the ultimate decision on the budget is in the hands of the Council members and not the Council staff. However the option presented to the Committee raises a number of questions about what it means to apply furloughs “equitably” and whether there is any such thing as an “equitable” furlough.
As we have made clear in recent discussions with Council President Nancy Floreen and Vice-President Ervin, we do not believe it is possible to do furloughs equitably, and we believe the Council should be working to avoid furloughing anyone in county government or the agencies. The County Executive presented a budget that saved only $15.1 million through furloughs. We believe the Council can make choices to find that $15.1 million elsewhere and avoid furloughing anyone.
Can Furloughs Ever Be “Equitable”?
We have a number of questions about the “five-days-for-all” scenario presented by Council staff to your Committee and what it means to be “equitable.” We would appreciate your responses to the questions below, so we can better understand the thinking of the Committee on what you mean by “equitable.”
1. What is an “equitable” formula for determining the allocation of furlough costs across agencies?
MCPS represents approximately 50% of the tax-supported county budget. Yet on the scenario, MCPS is identified for absorbing $33.7 million of the total furlough costs of $48.2 million – or 70% of the furlough costs. Is that equitable and if not, how would the formula be adjusted?
2. Should MCPS be treated differently from other agencies?
The Council staff scenario proposed that Montgomery College and the Park and Planning Commission be allowed to develop a furlough plan to absorb the budget reductions already recommended by the County Executive, but in contrast suggested that the $33 million cost of the furlough plan be an additional cut to the MCPS budget on top of the budget reductions already recommended by the County Executive. Is that equitable and if not, how would the formula be adjusted?
3. Is a “five-days-for-all” furlough plan equitable when employees have different work years?
Most county employees are paid for a full work year of 260 days. Most MCPS employees are only paid to work 195 days. Is a furlough plan equitable if it represents 2.6% of some employees annual income (5/195) but only 1.9% of other employees annual income (5/260) and if not, how would the formula be adjusted?
4. Is it equitable to furlough part-time employees who are already having their hours permanently reduced?
More than 5,000 MCPS supporting services employees are part-time workers. We recognize that up to 244 county employees in filled positions face possible layoff, if they do not qualify and avail themselves of the proposed retirement incentive program. In MCPS, rather than laying off employees, the Board’s proposed budget reduces the work hours for several hundred part-time employees, and does not include any retirement incentive program. Primarily para-educators and media assistants, these employees have already been notified of permanent reductions in hours that are cutting their annual income from an average of $23,000 to just $15,400 (based on a reduction from 6 hrs/day to 4 hrs/day). Is it equitable that they be furloughed on top of that, and if not, how would the formula be adjusted?
5. How can the Committee ensure equitable treatment of pension impacts?
At last week’s meeting, the MFP Committee also unanimously recommended support for Bill 18-10, designed to prevent any adverse impact of furloughs on the defined benefit pension plans covering approximately 4,750 of the county’s employees. Under this bill, the county would still make pension contributions based on the full annual salary of these employees, as if they had not been furloughed. In addition, any employees retiring in the next three years would have their pension benefit calculated as if they had not been furloughed. We agree this is the right thing to do. However within MCPS, the majority of employees are in a state-controlled pension plan - and one that is less generous than the County’s defined benefit pension plans. Therefore MCPS has no ability to provide similar pension protection to its employees if they are furloughed. How can furloughs across agencies be equitable if some employees will have their pensions impacted and others will not?
6. How can school bus drivers and cafeteria workers be furloughed without reducing the number of school days?
The Council staff memo asserts that school employees can be furloughed “without affecting instructional days or the classroom.” However, school bus drivers and cafeteria workers only work on days that are student instructional days. So we are unclear on how they can be furloughed unless schools are closed. The Council staff memo refers to vacation days as an option; however none of the approximately 19,000 10-month employees in MCPS get vacation days. So how would furloughs be equitably applied to school bus drivers and cafeteria workers?
7. When is a furlough just a pay cut?
A furlough is typically defined as a temporary layoff from work. When an hourly employee is furloughed, they work fewer hours. However when salaried employees are furloughed, there’s usually no reduction in work. If teachers were furloughed on grading days, wouldn’t they still be expected to complete grades? If they were furloughed during pre-service week, wouldn’t they still be expected to have their classrooms set-up and be prepared to teach on day one? If “furloughing” salaried employees is really just a reduction in salary with no reduction in work, isn’t that really just a pay cut?
Will additional savings from expanding furloughs be dedicated to reducing layoffs?
The scenario presented to the Committee by Council staff suggested expanding furloughs to save the County more than $48 million, compared to the $15.1 million in savings recommended by the County Executive. No one wants to see employee layoffs, just as we hope no one wants to see reductions in hours for part-time workers who are already low- paid. If the Committee decides to expand rather than reduce furloughs, will the additional savings be used solely to avoid layoffs, or will the added savings be used to reduce the proposed energy tax or build up the reserves?
Will the Council absorb the state penalty for failure to meet the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement if the State Board of Education rejects reductions to the MCPS budget beyond the $137 million already proposed?
The State Board is scheduled to meet on May 25 to consider Montgomery County’s request for an MOE waiver based on the County Executive’s proposed $137 million reduction. If the Council imposes an additional reduction on MCPS in the name of furloughs, what will happen if the State Board rejects that additional reduction and withholds the $53 million in increased state aid already built into the proposed budget for MCPS? Will the Council absorb that additional shortfall, or is it your intent that MCPS would have to suffer that loss on top of whatever additional reduction the Council has imposed in the name of furloughs?
How Do Furloughs Help Solve the Long-Term Deficit?
Much has been made of the analysis that Montgomery County faces a long-term structural deficit. Addressing this will require difficult choices to bring projected revenues and projected expenses into line. The reality is that furloughs are not a solution to the long-term structural deficit. Furloughs are simply a one-time savings. Whatever is saved due to a furlough in FY11 has to be built back in to the FY12 budget – unless the intent is that it be a permanent pay cut for employees. Montgomery County needs solutions to the long-term structural deficit, not one-time quick fixes.
We understand that these are difficult times. We know that the shortfall in county revenue is real, and is deep. We know that vital county services all across the government and agencies are being reduced. By sacrificing their pay raises this year, and their pay raises and step increases next year, county employees across all agencies have collectively lost more than $281 million.
There Are Alternatives
Based on the most recent budget presented by the County Executive, the Council would only have to identify $15.1 million to avoid furloughs altogether. We believe that the Council could get there by doing the following:
1.Approval of the proposal to allow Sunday liquor sales is estimated to yield $1.5 to $2 million.
2.The County Executive originally proposed maintaining the County’s reserve funds at 5% of the budget for next year. In his most recent budget amendments, he realigned $36.6 million in order to increase the reserves to 6% next year. Instead, the Council could phase in restoration of the reserve by going to 5.6% next year and fully to 6% in FY12. Doing so would save an additional $14.6 million.
3. Combined, those steps would restore the $15.1 million needed to avoid furloughing anyone in the county.
We fully appreciate the concerns about maintaining Montgomery County’s AAA bond rating. However we are also mindful that the Fitch Ratings agency only stated a need to return to the county’s 6% reserve policy in FY12 – not in FY11. We also understand that these same rating agencies give Prince Georges County a AAA bond rating, despite their TRIM tax cap that so inhibits sound fiscal policy. And finally, we cannot help but point out that these are the same credit rating agencies that consistently gave AAA ratings to the credit default swaps and complex Wall Street derivatives that we now know were toxic junk and brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. Surely Montgomery County passes a much higher bar.
The Fitch Rating agency also said the following about Montgomery County in its most recent analysis:
“While reserves have declined, Montgomery County retains considerable flexibility…. A considerable and formidable economic base, anchored by the extensive presence of the U.S. government and expanding broadly into biotechnology, shows excellent prospects for continued expansion. Strong wealth and unemployment indicators underscore the county’s economic strengths.”
Given that strong assessment, there is little reason to believe that a phased restoration of the reserve (from 5% this year to 5.6% in FY11, to 6% in FY12) would put the County’s bond ratings at risk. Ultimately the County Council must make this decision. However given the emphasis that is being placed on ensuring that furloughs are “equitable”, we look forward to your responses to the questions outlined above, so we can better understand what the Committee means by equitable and what steps you would take to ensure that.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Doug Prouty
President
MCEA
Merle Cuttitta
President
SEIU Local 500
Rebecca Newman
President
MCAAP
cc: County Council Members
Board of Education Members
Montgomery County Legislative Delegation
All Association Members
MCPS/Council Relationship Hits Bottom
Budget pressures and rumors of litigation have caused a considerable rift between the County Council and the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) system. It is possible that the relationship between the two institutions has never been this bad.
All MPW readers know about the county’s nearly $1 billion deficit. That deficit has caused the Executive to recommend double-digit cuts to many county agencies, cuts which have grown due to new revenue writedowns. Among the county’s problems is its inability to meet the state’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) law, which requires counties to match per-pupil local school spending in succeeding years to be eligible for state aid increases. The state ruled last year that Montgomery’s accounting technique of charging $79.5 million to the school system in debt service violated MOE, but the county’s statehouse delegation was able to get the resulting fine waived. The county cannot meet MOE once again and is applying for another waiver valued at $58-139 million. (The amount varies depending on whether the $79.5 million debt service charge counts towards last year’s local contribution to the schools.)
The county’s budget problems are bad enough. But what has the schools really on edge is that many on the County Council would like to cut the schools’ budget even more. Some argue that the Executive’s budget proposal gives the school system almost everything it wants while other agencies are taking massive cuts. The fact that the Executive exempted the school system and public safety workers from furloughs is another bone of contention as some agree with MCGEO that the pain is unfairly concentrated on a minority of the county workforce. The council’s Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, consisting of Chair Duchy Trachtenberg and Council Members Valerie Ervin and Nancy Navarro, just unanimously voted to spread furloughs across all agencies, including the schools. The problem is that the County Council cannot order the school system to implement furloughs; they can only cut the schools by an equivalent amount of money. A five-day furlough plan the council is considering would cost MCPS $33.7 million.
MCPS is resolutely opposed to furloughs for school employees. The Gazette and the Post reported that the school system is threatening to sue the County Council to prevent cuts over and above the Executive’s proposal. But neither story is completely accurate. The truth reveals even MORE bad blood between MCPS and the council than is implied by the Gazette and Post articles.
The school system consulted its legal counsel for advice on how to fight additional cuts. The schools’ attorney reviewed state law and found Education Title 5, § 5-102(c), which says the following about local school budgets that are forwarded to County Executives and then sent to County Councils:(c) Reduction by county executive.-
The school system’s lawyer believes this language prohibits the council from cutting the school budget below the level recommended by the Executive. The council’s attorney disagrees. The matter awaits the courts if a suit is filed.
(1) This subsection applies only to a county that has a county governing body that consists of a county executive and county council.
(2) The county executive shall indicate in writing which major categories of the annual budget of the county board have been denied in whole or reduced in part and the reason for the denial or reduction.
(3) The county council may restore any denial or reduction made by the county executive in the annual budget submitted by the county board.
MCPS wrote an in-house draft based on this legal theory, which it shared with the County Attorney. The County Attorney then shared it with the council, which leaked it to the Gazette and the Post despite discussion of the issue in a closed session. In contrast to the published articles, the school system never formally threatened litigation. Therefore, a lawsuit is not quite on the table – YET.
Both sides are now pointing sharp-clawed fingers at the other. The council believes MCPS is playing politics by evaluating legal justifications for a lawsuit. MCPS believes the council is playing politics by leaking a secret in-house legal draft. The council will not accept any limits on its authority to cut the budget. MCPS will not support any MOE waiver which exceeds the County Executive’s proposed cut. Neither side is prepared to budge.
Anyone ever get behind the wheel and play a game of chicken blindfolded?
Monday, May 03, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
County Executive's Office: MCGEO Salary Study "Wholly Riddled with Factual Errors"
County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield has responded to MCGEO's comparative study of management salaries, saying that it is "wholly riddled with factual errors." We carry his response below.
#####
The purported MCGEO study comparing directors pay in the region is wholly riddled with factual errors.
Over the years Montgomery County government has always sought to recruit and retain the best individuals to manage the needs of a large, complex, and growing County. The current management salaries are consistent with a trend established by the County at least a dozen years ago.
The most telling comparison with Montgomery is Fairfax.
The salary numbers for Fairfax County, easily the closest comparison with Montgomery County, are almost totally wrong in the MCGEO study.
MCGEO says that the Fairfax Police Chief and Fire Chief are paid $105,800; they are actually paid $176,366. The Fairfax Finance Director is paid $152,356, not MCGEO’s $100,800. The Fairfax Human Resources Director is paid $152,296, not MCGEO’s $100,800. The Fairfax Budget Director is paid $166,116, not MCGEO’s $100,800. The Fairfax Information Systems Director is paid $174,389, not MCGEO’s $105,800. The Fairfax Library Director is paid $165,403, not MCGEO’s $100,800. This info comes straight from Fairfax County. And on it goes…
In fact, the study is full of errors – top to bottom. Prince George’s Police Chief makes $180,000, not MCGEO’s $98,000. Arlington’s Police Chief makes $163,000, not MCGEO’s $62,000. Arlington’s Information Services director makes $147,000, not MCGEO’s $62,000. Montgomery County’s Fire Chief makes $190,000, not MCGEO’s $211,000.
These mistakes –and many more – are available to view in the annual 2010 Local Government Personnel Association Benchmark Salary Survey, which carefully compares salaries in the region.
Take a look at the difference between what the Fairfax and Montgomery Chief Administrative Officers are actually paid and the difference is only 14 percent. Chief of Police difference: 22 percent. Fire Chief: 14 percent. County Attorney: 2 percent. Library Director: 7 percent.
These are differences, but nothing approaching the differences alleged by the flawed study.
Other things to keep in mind:
• Many department directors in other jurisdictions enjoy tenure or merit protection. Montgomery County directors do not enjoy job security – they serve at the will of the County Executive;
• Recently appointed directors in Montgomery County are in the defined contribution pension plan. Nearly all other directors in the region are in defined benefit plans – which are 50 percent or more more generous;
• Differences in job titles and responsibilities can make exact comparisons shaky;
• Pay may vary depending on years on the job. Someone with many years of experience as a director may be paid significantly more than someone starting as a director;
• Nearly all of the jurisdictions used for comparison are less populated than Montgomery County, most significantly smaller; and
• All Montgomery County department directors and the County Executive will be furloughed the same amount of days as other employees.
The County Executive is open to analyzing possible savings from whatever source. Any such savings, however, should be applied to closing the increasing revenue gap – not to substitute for other recommended reductions or add new spending into the budget.
We need the recommended reductions already on the table and increased savings from other sources to close the $168 million in tax revenue shortfalls for FY10 and FY11 that have developed since March 15.
Patrick Lacefield
Director
Montgomery County Office of Public Information
P.S. In answering Adam’s entry, of 21 directors appointed by County Executive Leggett in 2006 and 2007, 12 were hired at the same salary paid by County Executive Duncan, three were paid more, and six were paid less.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Should a Lot Pay a Little or a Little Pay a Lot?
The Leggett administration recently proposed ten furlough days for all non-school and non-public safety employees, an idea bitterly resisted by MCGEO, which represents many of those employees. New data provided by County Council staff provides a way out, but it would involve spreading the pain over the entire workforce.
Council staff director Steve Farber wrote the following in a budget memo to the council:The Executive proposes that except for public safety employees, full-time County Government employees be furloughed for 80 hours. The furlough for affected part-time employees would be prorated. The assumed savings is $15 million. Furloughed employees’ FYI1 pay would be reduced by 3.8 percent. The Executive first proposed five fixed furlough days and five floating days selected by the employee (subject to supervisor approval). He has since proposed that all ten furlough days be floating. OLO [Office of Legislative Services] is also reviewing the furlough plan…
MCGEO’s salary analysis shows just how low-paid some of the county employees targeted for furloughs really are. Here are a few county government wage scales for some of the affected classifications:
The math of the proposed furlough is instructive. The 10 furlough days would apply to about 6,000 out of 9,000 County Government employees, chiefly those represented by MCGEO and nonrepresented employees, with each day saving $1.5 million. One furlough day for all four tax-supported agencies would save $9.9 million - $2.3 million for County Government, $6.7 million for MCPS, $0.6 million for the College, and $0.3 million for M-NCPPC. Thus the $15 million savings goal could also be achieved by furloughing the 30,000+ employees of all four County agencies for 1.5 days each. This change would require collaboration with the police and firefighters unions in County Government and the unions and governing boards of MCPS, the College, and M-NCPPC.
The argument against this approach is understandable reluctance, especially in this year of pay freezes. The argument for it is that this is the time to break the mold for the sake of the larger community. Cases of school and public safety employees taking furloughs without disrupting services abound nationwide -for example, in Anne Arundel (schools) and Prince George's (public safety) Counties.
The issue is not the ability to do so but the will to do so. If the entire workforce agreed to take a 0.6 percent salary hit for 1.5 furlough days, then one-fifth of the workforce - including the people who help clear the snow, drive the buses, clean the buildings, and care for the poor and disabled - would not have to take a 3.8 percent hit. To protect lower-wage employees at all agencies, the furlough could be progressive, with high-wage employees absorbing more of the burden. This would be a powerful message of solidarity and community.
Security Guard: $35,900
Account Clerk, Journey Level: $33,100
Library Aide: $33,100
Office Support Specialist, Journey Level: $33,100
Secretary, Journey Level: $33,100
Data Entry Operator, Journey Level: $29,400
Laborer, Heavy: $28,200
Warehouse Worker, Journey Level: $28,200
Custodian: $27,200
General Clerk, Journey Level: $24,200
Should these workers be targeted for ten days of lost pay? Or should everyone give up 1.5 days to spare the poorest employees in the county workforce?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Bloated Management Salaries in MoCo Government
MCGEO, Montgomery County’s employee union, held a rally last week to protest what they believe are unfair budget cuts targeting their members. One of their complaints is that county managers are overpaid and are largely protected from the layoffs that will be imposed on rank-and-file workers. But MCGEO is not merely complaining – they hired McCarthy Consulting of Edgewater, Maryland to obtain salaries of county manager classifications and compare them to comparable classifications in other counties. And now we present that data to our readers. Brace yourselves, folks.
Following are salaries for all managers in the Montgomery County government who make more than $150,000 per year and comparative statistics for their peers across the region.
Chief Administrative Officer Salaries
Montgomery: $266,300
Fairfax: $240,200
Alexandria: $233,100
District of Columbia: $225,000
Baltimore County: $190,000
Howard: $125,000
Prince George’s: $120,200
Anne Arundel: $106,500
Mean Salary: $188,288
MoCo % Above Mean: 41%
Chief of Police Salaries
Montgomery: $216,600
District of Columbia: $201,100
Baltimore County: $195,000
Howard: $112,800
Baltimore City: $112,200
Fairfax: $105,800
Anne Arundel: $99,600
Prince George’s: $98,900
M-NCPPC: $90,800
Alexandria: $87,800
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $125,691
MoCo % Above Mean: 72%
Fire Chief Salaries
Montgomery: $211,800
District of Columbia: $181,800
Baltimore County: $172,500
Howard: $108,800
Fairfax: $105,800
Baltimore City: $104,000
Anne Arundel: $99,600
Prince George’s: $98,900
Alexandria: $87,800
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $122,600
MoCo % Above Mean: 73%
Chief Counsel/County Attorney Salaries
Montgomery: $206,500
Fairfax: $201,600
Alexandria: $195,000
Arlington: $187,500
Baltimore City: $160,000
Baltimore County: $158,700
WSSC: $138,900
District of Columbia: $118,700
Prince George’s: $109,000
Howard: $101,800
Anne Arundel: $99,600
Mean Salary: $152,482
MoCo % Above Mean: 35%
Finance Director Salaries
Montgomery: $195,600
M-NCPCC: $172,000
District of Columbia: $157,900
Baltimore City: $112,200
Fairfax: $100,800
Prince George’s: $98,900
WSSC: $92,300
Howard: $91,900
Anne Arundel: $88,100
Alexandria: $83,600
Baltimore County: $76,300
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $110,967
MoCo % Above Mean: 76%
Personnel/Human Resources Director Salaries
Montgomery: $195,200
Baltimore County: $130,400
District of Columbia: $128,300
Baltimore City: $112,200
Fairfax: $100,800
Prince George’s: $98,900
Anne Arundel: $88,100
WSSC: $83,800
Alexandria: $83,600
Howard: $82,900
M-NCPPC: $75,000
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $103,433
MoCo % Above Mean: 89%
Planning/Economic Development Director Salaries
Montgomery: $194,500
Baltimore County: $126,500
District of Columbia: $118,500
Baltimore City: $112,200
Fairfax: $100,800
Howard: $91,900
Anne Arundel: $88,100
Alexandria: $87,800
M-NCPPC: $75,000
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $105,730
MoCo % Above Mean: 84%
Budget Director Salaries
Montgomery: $194,500
Baltimore County: $158,700
District of Columbia: $157,900
Prince George’s: $109,000
Fairfax: $100,800
Anne Arundel: $99,600
Howard: $91,900
Baltimore City: $77,200
M-NCPPC: $75,000
WSSC: $74,000
Arlington: $59,100
Mean Salary: $108,882
MoCo % Above Mean: 79%
Information Systems Director Salaries
Baltimore County: $195,000
Montgomery: $194,500
District of Columbia: $128,300
Fairfax: $105,800
Prince George’s: $98,900
M-NCPPC: $91,000
Anne Arundel: $88,100
Alexandria: $87,800
Howard: $82,900
Baltimore City: $77,500
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $110,164
MoCo % Above Mean: 77%
Library Director Salaries
Baltimore County: $177,000
Montgomery: $169,500
District of Columbia: $133,900
Fairfax: $100,800
Alexandria: $83,600
Baltimore City: $77,200
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $114,857
MoCo % Above Mean: 48%
Public Information Director Salaries
Montgomery: $165,000
Baltimore County: $137,800
District of Columbia: $107,100
Fairfax: $87,700
WSSC: $83,800
Howard: $82,900
Alexandria: $79,700
M-NCPPC: $75,000
Anne Arundel: $72,300
Prince George’s: $70,300
Arlington: $62,000
Baltimore City: $39,700
Mean Salary: $88,608
MoCo % Above Mean: 86%
Director of Parks/Recreation Salaries
Montgomery: $162,000
Baltimore County: $155,600
District of Columbia: $118,500
Howard: $91,900
Anne Arundel: $88,100
Alexandria: $83,600
Baltimore City: $77,200
Arlington: $62,000
Mean Salary: $104,863
MoCo % Above Mean: 54%
Aging Director Salaries
Montgomery: $151,400
Baltimore County: $141,100
District of Columbia: $103,000
Prince George’s: $98,900
Anne Arundel: $88,100
Baltimore City: $77,200
Howard: $74,900
Fairfax: $69,100
Arlington: $53,000
Mean Salary: $95,189
MoCo % Above Mean: 59%
McCarthy Consulting also collected data on 59 rank-and-file occupations and found that MoCo workers made 10.7% more than area averages.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
MCGEO Lays Siege to Rockville
They came from every corner of the county, from every race, age and ethnicity of humankind, united only by their shirts of radioactive yellow. That is the war color of MCGEO, the giant Montgomery County government employees union. The union leaders sent out their call and in swarmed the members last night, over five hundred in number. First they yelled defiantly at the council building, fists pumping and signs aloft. Then they invaded.
MCGEO is known for its tough talk, its theatrics and its ability to mobilize bodies – lots and lots of bodies. They did not disappoint. Their yellow-clad hordes blanketed the council parking garage’s roof to hear the battle cries of their leadership. They also gathered to evaluate politicians, and many of them showed up. Some came to encourage. Others came to caution. Still others came to curry favor. But for whatever reason, the politicians came and that’s what mattered.
Four incumbent Council Members spoke to the teeming masses: George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin (a long-time member of MCGEO’s parent union), Marc Elrich and Nancy Navarro. Four challengers also spoke: at-large candidates Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner, District 1 challenger Ilaya Hopkins and District 2 challenger Sharon Dooley.
Left to right: George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin, Nancy Navarro and Marc Elrich.
The union did not ask any of the politicians to support pay increases, and none offered to do so. It is widely understood that the county’s budget problems prevent any pay hikes. Rather, MCGEO’s issue is fairness. They believe their members are carrying an unfair share of the County Executive’s proposed budget cuts.
MCGEO’s case rests on two issues. First, they are the only union whose members are to be furloughed. The school unions, the police and the fire fighters are exempt. The County Executive’s budget proposal cut the police and fire fighter budgets by single digits while several departments represented by MCGEO were cut by 20% or more. Second, the union claims management positions were largely spared while hundreds of rank-and-file workers will be laid off. That is because the agency budgets are developed by – you guessed it – managers. And the agency budgets collectively form the Executive’s proposal.
During his testimony before the County Council later that night, fearsome MCGEO President Gino Renne claimed that county managers made 59% more money than their counterparts in neighboring jurisdictions while line workers made just 10% more. And so the managers’ high pay is augmented by greater job security. Who says the county is not learning from the private sector?
MCGEO clearly wants the budget pain to be shared with other unions as well as management. That is a hard sell to the five other county employee unions, each of whom is going without pay increases. The teachers are about to endure an increase in average class size of one student. “How do you furlough teachers?” asked one MCEA member of your author. Such views do not elicit sympathy from MCGEO.
The budget process is producing some degree of split in labor. All observers noted the presence of two separate employee rallies: the yellow mass march of MCGEO and a smaller rally by the school unions held on the council steps at the same time. Ominously for the other unions, all four incumbent Council Members who spoke before MCGEO said they would work towards smoothing out the sacrifice. (George Leventhal even cried out, “The Washington Post wants us to beat up on you!” What will their rabidly anti-union editors think of that?) Whatever their budget differences, the unions must come together at election time. Otherwise, their enemies will triumph.
MCGEO Yellow and SEIU Purple in the council hearing room – a moment of solidarity.
Finally, the numbers, the yellow, the politicians, the chants and the unbearable crush of human flesh in the council hearing room were not enough for MCGEO. They needed a symbol for their outrage and they produced one: a gleaming golden toilet emblematic of the County Executive’s bathroom preferences. The toilet was so weighted down by its golden crust that it required four beefy union members to haul it up the steps to the speaking platform, where it was raised aloft for the cheering crowd like a royal trophy. Politicians should beware else they are flushed.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
County Employee Unions Holding Competing Rallies in Rockville
Montgomery County’s employee unions are trying to hold the line against more budget cuts tonight. But interestingly, they’re not doing it together.
MCGEO, the giant county employees union, is holding a rally on the top floor of the County Council’s parking garage tonight at 5:45 PM. Following is their press release.For Immediate Release
MCGEO’s guest list sends an interesting signal to the council. Besides including four incumbents who have often been allies, they are inviting three challengers to speak: at-large candidates Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner and District 1 candidate Ilaya Hopkins. MCGEO was displeased with incumbent at-large Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg and District 1 incumbent Roger Berliner for proposing “labor savings” two years ago. MCGEO has already given Wagner $3,000. If the union also chooses to back Hopkins, that will be helpful to her campaign, which could benefit from institutional support.
Date: April 5, 2010
Contact: Josh Ardison (240)876-0772, (301) 977-2447
Montgomery County Public Employees Press Conference and Rally at Budget Hearing Protesting “Californication” of Montgomery County
Who:
• Montgomery County Public Employees
• County Council Members George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin, Nancy Navarro, and Marc Elrich.
• Community Group leaders: CASA Gustavo Torres, NAACP-MOCO Henry Hailstock, Progressive Maryland Exec. Dir. Sean Dobson, Metropolitan Washington Council AFL-CIO President Jos Williams, Regional Director Al Vincent, UFCW International President Joe Hanson.
• County Council candidates Hans Riemer, Becky Wagner, and Ilaya Hopkins.
• MC: Local 1994 President Gino Renne
What: Press conference and rally against County budget decisions
Where: Council Office Building, Top of Parking Garage
When: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 5:45pm
Why: The Montgomery County Council is making budget decisions that will have a huge impact on services for county residents. Current round of cuts will hit transit, school health room aides who serve public school students, libraries, corrections and public safety. The county needs a new approach—reorganizing to eliminate structural inefficiencies.
Once, Montgomery was the leading jurisdiction in Maryland. It's now falling behind in job creation (7,000 jobs created last year; Fairfax added 40,000). Montgomery is going the way of California with decay, low growth and the attendant problems of funding and managing government services.
A coalition of labor, business and community organizations anticipating the ongoing budget problems in Montgomery County is adopting the slogan: “Don’t Californicate Montgomery County.”
UFCW Local 1994 President Gino Renne is spearheading the coalition calling on the county to reorganize itself and rethink its choices.
Perhaps not coincidental is the choice of MCGEO’s rally location. Given the configuration of the council building and the garage, its members will be yelling into the office windows of Trachtenberg, Berliner and their arch-enemy, Phil Andrews.
At the same time, the three school unions are holding a rally on the council steps along with the Montgomery County Council of PTAs. Here is their flyer.
Why aren’t the unions holding their rallies together? First, they have competing interests. In a tight budget, each faction may be looking to hold onto its own money. Second, MCGEO’s members are carrying a disproportionate burden of the budget crisis. None of the unions are likely to get cost-of-living adjustments or step increases this year. But the school unions, police and fire fighters are exempt from the County Executive’s furlough plan while MCGEO’s members are not. That may pose additional problems for labor solidarity.
Rockville is sure to be a noisy place tonight!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
County Employees at Risk
The awful condition of the state budget has attracted a lot of attention in recent months. But the county budgets are not doing much better. And one constituency is going to pay the price as much or more than anyone: county employees.
Below are the salary increases granted by counties to general government employees and teachers for Fiscal Year 2009, which ended on 6/30/09:
Twenty of the twenty-four jurisdictions granted both cost of living adjustments (COLAs) and step increases to general employees, which are hikes for employees advancing within their grades. Teachers received COLAs from twenty-two jurisdictions and steps from twenty-one jurisdictions. The mean COLA increase was 2.63% for general employees and 3.42% for teachers.
Now here are the salary increases granted by counties for Fiscal Year 2010, which ends on 6/30/10:
Only six jurisdictions granted COLAs and eight granted step increases to general government employees. Ten granted COLAs and fourteen granted step increases to teachers. The mean COLA increase was 0.48% for general employees and 0.65% for teachers.
In addition, ten counties are planning furloughs and twelve counties are planning layoffs in FY 2010.
Here’s a question: what happens if the responsibility for funding teacher pensions is passed down from the state to the counties? And what happens when federal stimulus aid dries up? The answer is inevitably salary reductions, layoffs, furloughs or some combination thereof.
