| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2011 : 10:53:53 PM
|
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t feel that it is always the Administration’s role to educate the City Council on issues, especially on those that are (or I guess in this case, should be) as widely known as health care reform. When I vote for someone to hold a seat on the City Council, I expect them to be able to do their own homework and be knowledgeable about these types of issues. This issue, in particular, was widely reported. One neighboring community already acted on this weeks ago without the need to send it out to committee and they are ready to implement it January. If some of the council members don’t understand all the details of this type of issue, I have no problem with them asking the administration for help since these legislators are only part-timers. But I strongly feel that it is each member’s own responsibility to make sure that they have all the knowledge they need to vote on such issues.
The main part of this issue is easy. Since it has been so hard to get public unions to budge on making any concessions on health insurance, this law was passed that will allow cities and towns to have more control over two specific components of health care coverage, deductibles and co-pays. The unions still have some bargaining rights even on those issues, but they are much more limited. The reason for passing such a law was to give municipalities a tool to help reduce health care costs, thereby either reducing property taxes or freeing up money to be spent on other things. So the bottom line on whether or not you vote to accept the law is whether or not you feel it is appropriate to take away some power away from the unions in order to benefit property taxpayers.
It shouldn’t matter to any legislator how each of the unions feels about the issue; it’s should be how they personally feel about the issue. It’s pretty obvious how the unions will feel about having any of their power taken away, especially in this city. During the current economic downturn, union members in this city have continued to receive raises and no union positions have been eliminated except by voluntary programs like the separation incentive. It hasn’t been like that in every other municipality.
Maybe I wouldn’t be as vocal on this issue as I am but I just don’t feel that it is necessary or appropriate to send items like this committee just so that the City Council gets itself involved in union issues. Both the old and the new charters clearly state that negotiations are solely the responsibility of the administration. I didn’t like it the last time the council got involved with the Mayor efforts to actual make some cuts to budgets by eliminating or reassigning some union positions (even though, once I found out what the proposed cuts were, I didn’t necessarily agree with them). It’s just not the Council’s place to get involved. It subverts the Administration ability to negotiate with the unions. If the unions want to lobby individual councilors on the acceptance of the local option, that is certainly their right; just as it the right of the taxpayers to make their feelings known to their legislators. But negotiations shouldn’t be done in the public eye. Just my opinions though.
But since I dragged my soap box out tonight and it appers that I’m on a roll, I have to address an issue that I just let slide by last week. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. But once Alderman McGonagle stated last week that it is required by Massachusetts General Law, I just didn’t understand why the issue was even up for discussion. Our city’s legislature is going to send Brookline a resolution to tell them to obey the law? Is that really necessary? Again, just my opinion. |
 |
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
 Posted - 10/03/2011 : 11:06:30 PM
|
| I didn't get the impression that the CC members wanted to be part of union negotiations but wanted to know more about the plans that the city put together. It just seems that it was another push from the administration to move ahead without full disclosure. Committee might have spelled out the plans and more about how the savings were calculated. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2011 : 1:23:45 PM
|
I knew that when I was putting together my post last night, it was likely that it wouldn’t receive a great reception (I expected worse than I got though) as it seems to be supportive of the Administration’s position. I understand that but I just don’t see it that way. I just feel that I was speaking up for what I feel is right.
I’m usually one of the first ones to complain when I believe that something is being shoved down the City Council’s throat; I just don’t see it this time. I’ve previously explained that I expected City Council members to already be somewhat versed in the basics of this legislation. Common Council members can’t rightfully claim that they didn’t know it was coming for all the publicity the legislation received nor can they claim that they were behind the eight-ball on this one due to the fact that they were the second of city’s legislative bodies to deliberate on this piece.
What I feel the City Council was being asked to vote on was whether or not they believe that the law was an appropriate tool to be adopted in Everett, not the details of any plan that may be considered during negotiations I feel that it is just not their place to get involved in the process any further than that. Look at this way. If a few years down the road, the tool is in place and the current Administration at that time decides that the amounts of the co-pay and the deductibles need to be re-addressed, what right would the City Council have to get involved in the process at that time?
I guess that I wouldn’t have had so much of a problem with the piece being sent to committee if I felt that this was only an effort to get more information about the legislation. But once the suggestion was made to bring the unions to the meeting, it became clear to me how this would likely play out as we’ve seen this before. And where was the representation for the opposite side of the issue? Was there any invitation extended to taxpayers to come to the committee meeting to express how they feel about it?
I didn’t include this in my post last night but I also feel that the Administration may have also dropped the ball on this one by actually providing information about the savings that the adoption of specific plans would provide. I think that they did so with the best of intentions; but I also believe that by doing so, they took the focus off the issue of whether or not the City Council could support the adoption of such a tool and put it on what plan would be adopted and what the savings and costs would be. And certainly there was no need for the Administration to tip its hand any further by releasing the information that there was another plan that could be considered which would provide less relief to the taxpayer and, presumably, less of an increase to co-pays and deductibles before negotiations even get started.
I get that some posters will be against this because it was supported by most of the players that can usually be expected to support the Administration’s positions. Do I think that they voted for it only for the right reasons? I’d like to think so but I’m not that naïve.
I get that some posters will be upset that the “taxpayers” only seem to be considered when it is convenient.
I get that some posters will be upset with last night’s vote because they have a vested interest in the process.
What I don’t get though is that it is highly likely that the city will find itself in court if such a plan is adopted. As was said last night, anybody can take anything to court. But while legislation is sometimes overturned by the court system, I’d find it hard to believe that there wasn’t some existing, solid legal basis for this legislation. If not, I feel that there would have been much more push back on the state level by the unions. There was virtually none.
Again, just my opinions. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2011 : 3:30:08 PM
|
| I'm one of those that would have liked to have seen this go to a committee and those councilors that did (I feel) were trying to protect everyone. Not to negotiate with the Unions but to do this correctly and not rush through it. I did not see the reason for the rush. They waited all this time, what's one more week? I've said it before, I know Unions are hard to deal with but they are there for the protection of the employees and those employees pay Union dues. They are our police, fire, teachers, administrators, service works etc....and deserve better than that. When you start to fiddle around with their rights, and their health insurance, I would like all facts before I vote to give the administration the upper hand, especially with having a history of not being truthful. With anything, there are pros and cons. The city council chambers (I feel) is not the place to debate this, and the place it should have been in to begin with is committee. In committee I would have asked what the administration plans to do with the savings they anticipate. I heard a lot of screaming "The Taxpayers, The Taxpayers" but no promise to apply this to overhead/fixed costs. I'd hate to see the savings get spent foolishly. A $15.00 jump in co-pay is a lot. Just my opinions too :) |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2011 : 5:09:45 PM
|
As I said, if the issue went to committee for information only purposes on the law itself, I could have accepted and may be even welcomed that if it was a constructive session. But we all know that's not how it would have turned out; it's just not possible with the cast of characters.
If anyone had stood up and said that they disagreed with this option because it takes rights away from unions, I would have nothing but respect for them and I'd actually have to agree with them. But the only way that were all going to get thru the ever escalating healthcare cost crisis is to compromise. The difficulties in getting public unions to compromise is what has led to this local option being put in place.
Healthcare costs almost took down this country's auto industry and it probably would have if not for a federal bailout. Like it or not, entitlement reform is probably in all of futures and we're not going to have much say in that. And it's likely that we'll all be on Medicare when our time comes.
The Mayor was asked the question at one of the ward meetings on how the healthcare savings would be used. He didn't have much of answer other than to say that he'd let it end up as part of next year's free cash. It's too bad that this process couldn't have been expedited so that it could be completed before the FY12 tax rate was set. Then, it would have been possible to reduce the tax levy and provide a little bit of property tax relief. Instead, money will be collected thru FY12 property taxes that is not really necessary to run the city in that year. |
Edited by - tetris on 10/04/2011 5:22:43 PM |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
3 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2011 : 06:33:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tails
I'm one of those that would have liked to have seen this go to a committee and those councilors that did (I feel) were trying to protect everyone. Not to negotiate with the Unions but to do this correctly and not rush through it. I did not see the reason for the rush. They waited all this time, what's one more week? I've said it before, I know Unions are hard to deal with but they are there for the protection of the employees and those employees pay Union dues. They are our police, fire, teachers, administrators, service works etc....and deserve better than that. When you start to fiddle around with their rights, and their health insurance, I would like all facts before I vote to give the administration the upper hand, especially with having a history of not being truthful. With anything, there are pros and cons. The city council chambers (I feel) is not the place to debate this, and the place it should have been in to begin with is committee. In committee I would have asked what the administration plans to do with the savings they anticipate. I heard a lot of screaming "The Taxpayers, The Taxpayers" but no promise to apply this to overhead/fixed costs. I'd hate to see the savings get spent foolishly. A $15.00 jump in co-pay is a lot. Just my opinions too :)
you really are bitch read the post on top of you. This is a savings to the taxpayers and people will have bigger checks every week. You complaign over something good. The administration worked hard to get this pased the taxpayer cant afford it. They should be commended for there work. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2011 : 09:06:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dawg
quote:
Originally posted by Tails
I'm one of those that would have liked to have seen this go to a committee and those councilors that did (I feel) were trying to protect everyone. Not to negotiate with the Unions but to do this correctly and not rush through it. I did not see the reason for the rush. They waited all this time, what's one more week? I've said it before, I know Unions are hard to deal with but they are there for the protection of the employees and those employees pay Union dues. They are our police, fire, teachers, administrators, service works etc....and deserve better than that. When you start to fiddle around with their rights, and their health insurance, I would like all facts before I vote to give the administration the upper hand, especially with having a history of not being truthful. With anything, there are pros and cons. The city council chambers (I feel) is not the place to debate this, and the place it should have been in to begin with is committee. In committee I would have asked what the administration plans to do with the savings they anticipate. I heard a lot of screaming "The Taxpayers, The Taxpayers" but no promise to apply this to overhead/fixed costs. I'd hate to see the savings get spent foolishly. A $15.00 jump in co-pay is a lot. Just my opinions too :)
you really are bitch read the post on top of you. This is a savings to the taxpayers and people will have bigger checks every week. You complaign over something good. The administration worked hard to get this pased the taxpayer cant afford it. They should be commended for there work.
First of all, please take an English class. I believe they have night classes at the High School. There is no reason to get upset and you know the old saying about sticks and stones...you can take those sticks and stones and you know what to do with them! I never said I was against it ( I actually said it could be a good thing) I only thought that more effort could be made to bring those concerned together BEFORE giving "the administration" the upper hand. Everyone is screaming the TAXPAYERS and how this is going to save the taxpayers money. Well...the mayor was asked what he's going to do with the savings, and if you view the tape he looked dumbfounded. I think his mind was going a mile a minute on how he could SPEND it instead. Looks as if from a prior post that it will go into FY/12 Free Cash which means NOTHING to the taxpayer's bill. I know the city council is there for "the taxpayers" but they are also there for the best interest of the city to include those employees effected. As far as fiddling around with people's health insurance there's a lot to be worked out. I see it on TV all the time people with these HMO look a likes going broke to pay for treatments for themselves or family members. God forbid someone comes down with cancer. Under the forced look a like, will they still be entitled to all the treatments or will they be cut off because it's an HMO look a like? Would the small saving in their paychecks every week really be worth it?? There's also increases in co-pays and meds which probably end up being a wash.
That's a worse case scenario question.... but BEFORE you shove this down people's throats just because the administration SAYS SO know ALL the facts first. We are talking about people that do a service to the city and they deserve better than a rush job! You can name call all you want, it does not bother me because I know I'm better than that, and I feel sorry for you that you use this issue of all to revert to name calling. Sure, sometimes we joke around, but it's not hatred.
I'm not denying taking this option is a savings to municipalities... I can read.
I'm also not sure what there is to be "commended" either. Here is the link to GIC where the state did all the work. You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
waterboy
Senior Member
101 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2011 : 10:40:02 AM
|
| I AGREE WITH YOU TAILS WHY RUSH PEOPLE WILL BE SUFFERING IN THE LONG RUN SAUGUS TOOK IT AND NOW THEY ARE SORRY THEY DID. MUCH NEEDED RESOURCE HAS TO GO INTO THIS I CAN SEE THIS HEADING TO COURT |
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2011 : 11:05:04 AM
|
| Tails, EXACTLY. I think that the councilors who wanted it to go to committee were in favor or the intent of the program; however, what exactly does Everett plan to do. Each city gets to make their own plan so it doesn't matter what other cities do. They should have received a spreadsheet comparison showing all the associated costs now and what the costs and coverages will be with the look-a-like plans. I think that those 5 councilors were looking out not for the unions or any particular group, they only want all the relevant facts. Yes, this was to get approval from State, but history shows that once they go that way, the council loses any input. I commend those the really look out for "the taxpayers" and not speak only for the Mayor. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2011 : 09:15:05 AM
|
AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2011,
7:00 PM, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 3RD FL., EVERETT, MASS 02149
PAPERS FROM THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
1. A0169-11 Order/s/Alderman Michael K. Marchese, as President
To accept the donations totaling $6,500.00 from the following: Daniel P. Kelley $5,000
and Pension Technology Group, Inc. $1,500. These will be deposited into the 9/11
Memorial Fund Account, and used by the City to construct the 9/11 Memorial Project in
Everett Square. (Passed sent down for concurrence)
2. A0170-11 Order/s/Alderman Michael K. Marchese, as President
To accept the donation of $3,000.00 from D'Ambrosio, LLP to the 9/11 Memorial Fund
Account, to be used by the City to design and construct the 9/11 Memorial Project in
Everett Square. (Passed sent down for concurrence)
3. A0165-11 Ordinance/s/Alderman Michael K. Marchese, as President
To amend Chapter 17 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett by adding new
Section 17-99 - Authorizing City Services Department to make temporary repairs on
private ways which have been opened to public use for six years or more only upon
listed terms and conditions. (Ordained sent down for ordainment)
4. A0171-11 Resolution/s/Alderman Sal Sachetta
To have the Chairperson/President of the Common Council and or the Board of
Aldermen make an announcement before all meetings start, that if any members at the
meeting have to leave the meeting to attend any hearings being held at City Hall at the
same time as their respective meeting pertaining to their ward or of their interest, to let it
be known they are leaving the meeting for that purpose, so as to keep a quorum to
conduct city council business. (Passed sent down for concurrence)
COMMUNICATIONS
5. C0170-11
Favorable response for 2013, and a location at the corner of Villa and Ferry Street, from
the Director of Veteran Services on Order offered by Councilor Jason Marcus-To honor
of Robert Sheehan, a Veteran of D-Day, and John Sheehan, a WWII Vet, by dedicating
a Square in their honor.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
6. C0056-11Committee on Rules & Ordinances Report
On Resolution offered by Councilors Sergio Cornelio, Carlie Smith and Jason Marcus-
To have all companies that do work for the City of Everett E-Verify (the voluntary
program run by the United States Government) to help certify that employees hired by
companies are legal residents and legally authorized to work in the United States; with a
recommendation to lay the matter over until the next Committee meeting pursuant to
Joint Rule 9.1.
7. C0060-11Committee on Rules & Ordinances Report
On Order from His Honor The Mayor-To petition the Great and General Court to enable
legislation for an act authorizing the City of Everett to establish a linkage fee revolving
fund. To be used for the maintenance of streets, parks and public recreational facilities
within the city and the mayor shall administer the funds for said purposes; with a
recommendation to grant further time.
8. C0113-11Committee on Rules & Ordinances Report
On Order offered by Councilors David Rodrigues, Daniel Napolitano and Adam Ragucci-
That the City of Everett amend or establish all necessary ordinances in order to
establish fines directed at the owners and caregivers of nuisance properties - that is,
properties that have received numerous police complaints within a stated time period
and continue to cause issues in neighborhoods; with a recommendation to grant further
time.
9. C0122-10 Committee on Public Safety Report
On Resolution offered by Councilor Peter A. Napolitano relative to updates from Wood
Waste of Boston; with a recommendation to refer back to Sponsor.
10. C0099-11Committee on Public Safety Report
On Resolution offered by Councilor Leo McKinnon-That the NO PARKING HERE TO
CORNER areas be marked and strictly and strongly enforced all over the City; with a
recommendation to refer back to Sponsor pursuant to requirement of Joint Rule 9.1.
11. C0106-11Committee on Public Safety Report
On Resolution offered by Councilor John Leo McKinnon - To find out what the disaster
response and what takes place in the event of an emergency; with a recommendation to
refer back to Sponsor pursuant to the requirement of Joint Rule 9.1.
12. C0165-11Committee on Public Safety Report
On Resolution offered by Councilor Peter Napolitano-That the Acting Director of City
Services appear to explain what is being done regarding the high number of trees
hanging over the sidewalks and blocking access in the majority of our neighborhoods;
with a recommendation to refer back to Sponsor.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13. C0132-11 Resolution/s/Councilors Leo McKinnon and Lou Sierra
To invite Sheriff Peter J. Koutoujian to appear this meeting to describe some of the
programs he is planning to do with the City of Everett.
14. C0156-11 Resolution/s/Councilor John Leo McKinnon
To request a representative from Congressman Markey's Office to appear next meeting
to update on request for efforts to plant a tree from Massachusetts at the 9/11 site in
New York City.
15. C0172-11 Resolution/s/Councilor Anthony Ranieri
That a representative from "Just Energy" appear next meeting to explain to the
community exactly what they are trying to do.
NEW BUSINESS
16. C0174-11 Resolution/s/Councilor Jason Marcus
That the Mayor consider appearing next meeting relative to discussing settlement from
utility companies concerning poles in the City of Everett.
17. C0175-11 Resolution/s/Councilor John Leo McKinnon
That the Chairman of the Charter Commission, Paul Scholsberg, appear before us next
meeting to explain the 20%if someone was to vacate a position or leave a position on
the council or the mayor or school committee, to discuss filling a vacancy, and also the
recall process.
18. C0177-11 Worksheet
1. Sponsor: Councilors Adam Ragucci, Daniel Napolitano and Leo McKinnon-To place
“No Parking” on both sides of Shute Street starting at Marie Avenue to Ferry Street, due
to traffic flow problems at the intersection
Referred to: Traffic Commission
2. Sponsor: Councilor Adam Ragucci-To replace the stop sign at the bottom of Coolidge
Street, at the intersection of Edith Street, as it is faded.
Referred to: City Services Sign Division
3. Sponsor: Councilor Catherine Tomassi Hicks-That the Police Traffic Division increase
monitoring Beacon Street due to recent rash of break-ins.
Referred to: Police Traffic Division and Chief Mazzie.
4. Sponsor: Councilor Catherine Tomassi Hicks-To replace the May Street sign.
Referred to: City Services Sign Division
5. Sponsor: Councilor Catherine Tomassi Hicks-That the trash barrel is replaced at the
bottom of Oak Street.
Referred to: City Services Department
6. Sponsors: Councilor DJ Napolitano-To clean the area behind the dugouts at Edith
Street Park. This area runs along the length of the park on the side opposite the
Lafayette School.
Referred to: City Services and Mayor’s Office
7. Sponsors: Councilors Cynthia Sarnie and Rosa DiFlorio-To look into remarking
crosswalk lines on top of Forest Ave, to Liberty Street, where they have been in the past
years, at the request of the neighborhoods.
Referred to: Mayor DeMaria and City Services
8. Sponsor: Councilor Cynthia Sarnie-Crime units investigate the area at lower Appleton
Street, next to business, regarding activity.
Referred to: Police Chief and Crime Unit
Adjournment
Reminder:
10-18 6PM Committee on Bills & Accounts
10-18 6PM Committee on Finance
10-24 7PM Board of Aldermen
11-9 7PM Common Council (Wednesday)
You must be logged in to see this link.
Respectfully submitted:
Caroline McCorry
Administrative Assistant/Office Manager
Everett City Council Office
council@ci.everett.ma.us
|
|
|
|
waterboy
Senior Member
101 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2011 : 09:44:42 AM
|
17. C0175-11 Resolution/s/Councilor John Leo McKinnon
That the Chairman of the Charter Commission, Paul Scholsberg, appear before us next
meeting to explain the 20%if someone was to vacate a position or leave a position on
the council or the mayor or school committee, to discuss filling a vacancy, and also the
recall process.
Charter hasn't even passed and they have this on now. Why cause Billy is stacking the deck for Paul Scholsberg to get back on the C.C. the guy is a nut case. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2011 : 09:55:33 AM
|
| Well, the chairman did not show up for Mike Marchese to explain how tax payer money was spent, so I cant see him showing up for this. I'm still not in favor of charter changes but in fairness to all (with the exception of how money was spent) all these questions should have been brought up at the final public hearing. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2011 : 10:37:33 AM
|
| Unless "next" is supposed to mean Monday's meeting, this makes absolutely no sense at this point. The Common Council won't meet again until after the election. So it is no help in deciding how to vote on the charter and there is no guarantee that charter will pass. And, FYI, the 20% condition has no bearing on the office of Mayor anyways. Again, someone else that never showed up at a charter meeeting. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2011 : 9:06:49 PM
|
| No agenda for the Common Council meeting on the City's web site yet. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2011 : 1:54:10 PM
|
| Isn't that something the City Clerk does? If it's his, I'm sure he was too busy with the election to give it much thought. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2011 Common Council
