Local Aid Further Update

According to a joint statement from House and Senate legislative leaders, local aid will be cut no more than 4% and all schools will receive foundation aid at a minimum. I will seeking specific computations as to my communities. Please see the attached statement.

For additional details, to the effect that human service programs have been cut much more deeply than local aid, see this memorandum from House Ways and Means.

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

6 replies on “Local Aid Further Update”

  1. A quick question … yesterday’s news coverage said clearly (I heard this on multiple stations) that the advice was to expect a 4% cut to local aid but that education funding would *not* be cut. Today’s Globe says pretty clearly that the Chapter 70 funds *would* be cut by the same 4%.

    Can you clarify?

    Just as a data point, if this does apply to Chapter 70, in the community where I teach the cut amounts to about $200K, probably equaivalent to about 3 teachers, on top of cuts already announced due to previously known shortfalls. They might not cut teachers but they might well have to, having already cut everything else.

    Thanks …

    1. Trying to get clarity on this myself. I’m assuming that the amounts provided last year as ARRA funds to get communities up to 17.5% will be incorporated into Chapter 70, but not sure if 4% cut could apply from that base.

  2. Local aid is our money given back to us by the State.

    There have been thousands of new State jobs created in the last several years. Roll back the State employment to 2000 levels first before depriving the towns of OUR money.

    The State services have all been cut where is the money going?

  3. Mr Russell,
    I don’t believe you have your facts straight. According to this U.S. Census survey http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/ , here are the full-time and part-time counts of Massachusetts state employees:

    2008: 86,048 FT, 32,154 PT
    2000: 114,124 FT, 95,582 PT

    So it looks to me like “rolling back State employment to 2000 levels” would actually greatly increase the number of State employees. Do you have different facts that you are relying on?

    1. Mr. Goodman.

      The numbers which you present are not correct even according to the source you cite. The link which you provide actually shows the number of FT employees in 2000 to be 95,582 FTEs
      The site states that there are 114,124 employees (FT and PT) and together they equal 95,583 Full Time equivalent employees.

      Looking at the same numbers for 2008 the numbers show there are 97,601 FTEs in 2008 or over 2K MORE employees.

      Now look at the salaries…in 2008 the State employee salaries were 462,154,980 which is up from 345,257,144 in 2000..in other words…almost $120 M increase or about 1/3 ( A FAR GREATER RATE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR)

      Looking at the State’s Labor Board web site we see a similar trend. At the end of the year in 2000 there were 115 K +/- employees and at the end of the year in 2009 there were 125K employees.

      Either site shows a substantial increase in State employees and the cost of those employees. This is especially troubling considering that the State is cutting back on services to its citizens and the financial condition we are in. The private sector is shedding jobs but government grows and grows.

Comments are closed.