CCM Still Doesn’t Get It

October 9, 2008

If you’re looking for reasons why the Nutmeg State can’t find a way out of its property-tax quagmire, the “candidate bulletin” issued last month by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) is a good place to start.

CCM, which claims to be “the voice of local government,” is a skilled lobbying shop -- a major player in the grab-for-cash that takes place every year in Hartford. Unfortunately, as a problem-solver and innovator, the organization falls short.

The first part of “The State of Connecticut Towns and Cities 2008” trots out the tired mantras that local government is too “dependent” on the property tax, and “the educational opportunity a child has is directly tied to the property tax wealth of the community in which he or she lives.” Successful charter schools in the state’s cities disprove the latter. So does the work of the Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation of Connecticut, which rescues students from lousy schools in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford by subsidizing private-school tuition.

As for property-tax “dependency,” just what is the proper amount of revenue the levy should produce for municipalities? CCM and like-minded groups never seem to offer specifics on that question. They simply repeat, ad nauseam, that more state “aid” is essential. But if, as the bulletin notes, “citizens feel a stronger sense of control over local government -- it’s understandable; their councilmembers, mayor or selectmen are people they may know,” then why shouldn’t locally generated revenue provide the bulk of funding for “the services with which the public comes in contact on a daily basis”?

Research on government schools, the biggest expense for municipalities in Connecticut and elsewhere, continues to reveal that property-tax “dependent” states have among the highest student-achievement rankings. Harvard education economist Caroline M. Hoxby has “consistently found evidence that both students and taxpayers are better off under locally based systems of school funding and school control.” That’s true within states as well -- generally, the more a district relies on non-local revenue, the worse its students perform on assessments.

Connecticut’s property-tax crisis isn’t a revenue problem -- it’s a spending problem. The bulletin is on track when it notes that the 1,203 state mandates placed on Connecticut’s cities and towns drive the runaway growth of municipal expenditures. But it veers off course when it claims prevailing-wage, binding-arbitration, and tax-exemption mandates are “the big ones.” In reality, two mandates that don’t merit mentions by CCM account for the bulk of municipal spending: state government’s delegation of its constitutional requirement to provide schools, and forced unionism for employees.

School choice promises not only a way for parents to seek the most appropriate settings for their children to learn, but big savings for taxpayers. CCM is -- and always has been -- AWOL on choice, despite the reform’s proven record of success. If anything, the organization wants to go in the opposite direction, particularly for Connecticut’s neediest students: “If there’s ever a program where state takeover of administration and funding is called for, it’s Special Education.” CCM appears ignorant of the success of voucher programs that permit families a way out of the expensive and often contentious special-education process.

The latest data from the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in Connecticut, private-sector wages are much lower than the pay of state- and local-government employees. (For service jobs, the hourly rate is nearly half.) The disparity is even more pronounced for non-wage compensation. Healthcare and pension benefits are far superior for public-sector employment, as is paid leave. (Milford’s retiring city attorney recently walked away with $52,295 for unused vacation time.)

Since the bulk of municipal costs are devoted to personnel, there’s no hope of restraining property taxes without constricting the wildly generous compensation bestowed on local-government employees. The Teacher Negotiation Act and Municipal Employee Relations Act must be repealed, thus empowering managers to fire the worst, hire the best, and provide pay and benefit packages that are tied to each worker’s productivity. (You know, like in the real world?)

Combating municipal government’s two biggest burdens with school choice and the repeal of forced unionism would spark a revolution in the way Connecticut’s cities and towns operate. Costs would plummet, and services would improve. But CCM wants no part of such bold right-sizing.

That’s why legislative candidates should pitch the organization’s bulletin into the recycling bin. It offers no useful recommendations for addressing the state’s municipal-spending explosion -- just the same old shibboleths that have failed to provide real relief for Connecticut’s taxpayers.

D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com.

# # # # #