EARMARKING OF LOCAL AID Of Almn4m-efts
mot . vstan
TEL. (617) 722-1650
LINDA J. MELCONIAN
2N0 HAMPDEN-HAMPSHIRE ROOM 818 COMMITTEES:
DISTRICT JUDICIARY
INSURANCE
QISTRICT OFFICE: HUMAN SERVICES AND
375 WALNUT STREET EXT. ELDERLY AFFAIRS
AGAWAM. MA 01001 COMMERCE AND LABOR
TEL. W13) 786.6033 STATE ADMINISTRATION
March 13, 1984
Ms . Ursula Retzler
Clerk of the Council
Town of Agawam
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
■ Dear Ms . Retzler :
It is my understanding that my letter of March 7th, recently
addressed to the Agawam Town Council, included an incorrect state-
ment concerning the Council ' s position on earmarking.
I would like to apologize for this error and inform you that I
am aware that the Council voted 13-1 to oppose the earmarking of
local aid for specific education requirements . I would also like
to inform you that I am opposed to this concept as I have indicated
on serveral public occasions . I will support earmarking only if
a it amount of local aid is guaranteed for disbursement
' to cities and towns . In my opinion, the threshold amount which
can be categorized as "substantial" is $250 million. Until we
reach this level of local aid I will oppose any efforts to earmark.
' Once again, I thank you for expressing your views on this important
matter . I will continue to keep these views in mind should this
come before the Senate for consideration.
With best wishes ,
Sincerely, a
' LINDA J/MELCONIAN
State Senator
>e�
LJM:dkc
fV �
16
! 5 r . Poste
LINDA J. MEtCONIAN TEL. (6171 722-1660
' 2NO HAMPDEN-HAMPSHIRE ROOM 518 COMMITTEES.
DISTRICT
JUDICIARY
INSURANCE
DISTRICT OFFICE: HUMAN SERVICES AND
975 WALNUT STREET EXT. ELDERLY AFFAIRS
AGAWAM, MA 01001 COMMERCE AND LABOR
TEL. (413) 786-6033 STATE ADMINISTRATION
March 7, 1984
Ursula Retzler
Clerk of the Council
Town of Agawam
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
' Dear Ms. Retzler and Town Council Members:
Thank you for writing and communicating the recent Council
vote reflecting overwhelming support for Earmarking of Local
Aid.
I appreciate hearing from the Council on this important
issue and will keep the Council ' s views in mind when this issue
comes before the Senate.
IWith best wishes ,
Sincerely,.
LINDA J. MELCONIAN
State Senator
L JM/nimh
c
�Q
TOWN OF AGAW AM
36 MAID STREET AGAWAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01001
Tel. 413-7 86-0400
ATEU Mph
February 22 , 1984
Senator
Linda Melconian
State House
Boston, 14A 02133
Dear Senator Melconi.an :
Please be advised that the Agawam Town Council has supported
the attached resolution by a vote of thirteen ( 13 ) in favor ,
one ( i ) opposed and ( 1 ) absent , regarding the Earmarking of
Local Aid.
Sincerely,
Ursula Retzler
' Clerk of the Council
Enclosure
cc : Town Manager)with enclosure
Town Clerk } "
Council Members) "
i
f
RESOLUTION
of the Agawam Town Council
WHEREAS , it has come to the attention of the Agawam Town Council
that attempts may be made by the Governor and/or the Legislature
(1 ) to earmark local aid for communities for specific school de-
partment budget items or ( 2 ) to earmark portions of local aid
for communities if communities do not meet state requirements or
(3) to earmark portions of local aid for communities to fund new
educational programs mandated by the state ; and
WHEREAS it is the P g position of the Agawam Town Council that it
is the Town Council ' s responsibility to determine the allocation
of all funds to be spent by the Town of Agawam based on the
principie`, of home rule , responsiveness to individual community
needs , and the direction of the voters with respect to the re-
sponsibility for school budgets ;
NOW, THEREFORE , Town Council of the Town of Agawam hereby states
its opposition to such earmarking of local aid and directs the
Council Clerk to inform the State Senator and State Representative
representing the Town of Agawam of our position by copy of this
Resolution.
Approved by the Town Council of the Town of Agawam
this 21st day of February , 1984 by vote of
thirteen (13) in favor one {1) opposed, one ( 1) absent .
p
A" M r HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE HOUSE. 80STON 02133
t!= 31
V ,
WILEIAM G. ROBINSON !on D.Scarbarough
Republican Floor Leader Adminislrat;ve Assistant
722-2100
December 28, 1983
Dear Municipal Official:
must hrincr to vour attention a �7atter which c-ould create serious -'roblems i7or
VOL: as a local official. Governor Dukakis is finalizing his ';=Y''85 Local Aid
Proposal and i.t contains several provisions which seriously threatۥn municipal
management. The proposal is underfunded and contains a ci:nning method of earmarking.
The iirst problem is contained in the Governor's education initiatives. These
initiatives are clearly earmarking. They ;dace stipulations on ;ioiti your local
aid can be spent. 'Here are three separate _proposals which will severely tie
the hands of local officials. :although Secretary of Administration and Finance
Frank Keefe only provided sketchy details of tine ,proposals, he ;lid refer to t�tia
of the proposals as the school entitle.s?ent n rocyram and the school hudget maintenance
requirements. 'Ihe proposals would allow the state to earmark a certain
of -our local aid for education if your school department does not meet certain
state requirements . An example is the budget maintenance program. If your
community does not expend 85% of the state�cide average for per pupil expenditures,
"en the state can require that a portion of your local aid will be earmarked
for. education. :another proposal would allow the Commissioner of Education to
earmark portions of your local aid ii your schools do not meet state standards.
he final proposal would allow the state to earmark portions of your local aid
' to fund any new educational initiatives that the state may require •-our schools
to adopt. 'These proposals are a clear step towards outright earmarking.
The second problem concerns the level of funding. During the campaign, Governor
Dukakis promised to allot 40% of the growth taxes to Local aid. Last Tuesday,
Secretary Keefe announced that his projections place the 40% zt $156 million. I
propose to you that his estimate is low. My conservative estimates show it to
be at least $168 million.
Although the proposal lacks specific details, Secretary Keefe clearly enunciated
the Administration's opinion on local aid. The Dukakis Administration, according
to Keefe, ))elieves that local aid is o gi--t `-ror the state and -hat the state
has every right to dictate how these funds will be spent. I find this attitude
and the entire proposal dangerous. I strongly urge you to contact your representative
in the House and Senate promptly and perhaps together we can kill this proposal
quickly.
^yy
Sine ely,
n C!"
OO
. liam b on
House Republican Leader
WGR/bgs
Massacbusetts
I Association
1311emont Street
■ Boston,MassachuseMs 02111- (617)426-7272
' LEGISLATIVE ALERT ON EARMARKING
An aggressive effort is being made by teachers, school committees and
other education interests to earmark a portion of local revenues next year for
schools. A similar effort was made last year in the State Senate and it was
only because of a strenuous effort by the members of the House and the MA that
the bid to earmark local aid was not included in the final state budget. This
year the Governor has indicated his sympathy for the earmarking concept.
The earmarking proposal filed this year by the School Committee Association
requires communities to use for schools in M4, the same percentage of their
available funds and new local aid as the school budget represented of the whole
municipal budget in FY83. Thus, if a community in FY84 devoted 60% of its
budget to school spending, it would be required under the earmarking proposal to
spend at least the same percent of its budget in the next fiscal year Plus 60%
of any new local aid. In essence, the proposal requires every community to
spend more than what may be necessary for schools regardless of local conditions
such as declining enrollment, and without concern for the drain placed on
general government budgets which must pay escalating "fixed costs" such as
health insurance and worker's compensation.
OBJECTIONS TO EARMARKING
The fundamental reason the MMA opposes earmarking is that it takes the
decision on school spending out of the hands of local appropriating authorities.
It is a state mandate that dictates how much every locality must spend on the
largest single item in most municipal budgets. In addition, we believe that
state allocation of school budgets will lead to increased state control of local
school policy. 11
Earmarking is inherently unresponsive to local needs. Some communities may
have rapidly declining enrollments and be closing their schools. They may not
need to spend the amount of money for education that would be required under
' earmarking. on the other hand, communities with expanding school population may
need more money in their school budgets than earmarking would provide. Yet, the
political reality is that the spending floor under earmarking will likely become
the ceiling as well.
Proponents of earmarking are saying that school budgets have been "ravaged"
' in the first two years of Proposition 2�. It is true that in FY82--the first
year of "2h"-------school budgets were cut statewide. But these cuts were rough-
ly proportional to schools' share of total municipal budgets, and many
departments such as public works, libraries, recreation, and human services were
cut far more drastically. Preliminary data for FY1983 show that school spending
is rising in FY1983. Perhaps the most significant statistic of all is that even
in FY1982, when school bud is declined, because ofenrollment declines, per
pupil expenditures actually increased bX a small amount.
LEGISLATIVE ALERT -2- February 11 , 1983
Proponents are also attempting to make this into a pro-education vs.
anti-education issue, or pro-equality vs. anti-equality. The 1MA's position is
that schools are among the most important responsibilities of cities and towns;
that municipal governments take this responsibility seriously. The question
raised by earmarking is whether individual municipalities or the state should
Rave the power to appropriate the largest item in most municipal budgets. In ,
addition, what is being forgotten in this discussion is that because of the cap
on all municipalities, money allocated by the state for school spending will
inevitably have to come out of other departments.
In order to counter the efforts already being made by the education
interests, we urge you as soon as possible, to:
1) Call or write the Governor's office (State House, Boston, 02133, 727-3600)
to register your concern over earmarking and its effect in your community.
2) Contact your State Representative and Senator and inform him or her of why
you are strongly opposed to earmarking.
3) Discuss the earmarkinS issue and its effect on other municipal departments,
(such as human services, public works, libraries, public safety and
recreation) with municipal department heads and municipal workers.
4) Discuss earmarking and its effect on your community publicly, before the
media that cover your community, at a board meeting or committee meeting and
if possible, invite members of other departments in your community to be
present so that they can outline the effects on the services they provide,
of earmarking for school spending. The general public, the consumers of
these services, could be encouraged to call or write the Governor and their
legislators.
We will k ep you informed about the earmarking debate as it continues.
)Executive
cere ly, '
es W. Seg 1
Director
JWS jrr '
enclosure
� PERCENTAGE CHANGE - IN
� MUNICIPAL SPENDING
� BY DEPARTMENT
i
Department FY 1982 FY 1983
� POLICE —2S% +3.0%
FIRE 46% +2.3%
� SCHOOLS —BS°/a +3.7%
1
1 PUBLIC WORKS —8,8% +4.1 %
1
� LIBRARIES —11 .8% +2.3%
1
RECREATION —21 .3% —1 .3%
i
Source: wMn Surveys for w 1982 and w isea
— IffQfCtS"0P POICA KL '*m m
COMMITMENT, MASS. vs. U .S. AVERAGE
+zs% FY 980
+z2io
+ 17%
U.S. AVERAGE:
PEA- TEACHER TEACHER-
PUPIL SALARIES PUPIL
SPENDING RATIO
VERTICAL BARS REPRESENT MASS. DEVIATION FROM U.S. AVERAGE
Sources'. National Education Rsaacialion', U.S. Census Bureau
RESOLUTION
of the Agawam Town Council
WHEREAS , it has come to the attention of the Agawam Town Council
' that attempts may be made by the Governor and/or the Legislature
( 1) to earmark local aid for communities for specific school de-
partment budget items or (2 ) to earmark portions of local aid
1 for communities if communities do not meet state requirements or
( 3) to earmark portions of local aid for communities to fund new
educational programs mandated by the state ; and
WHEREAS , it is the position of the Agawam Town Council that it
is the Town Council ' s responsibility to determine the allocation
of all unds to be spent by the Town of Agawam based on the
' princip of home rule , responsiveness to individual community
needs , ald the direction of the voters with respect to the re-
sponsibility for school budgets ;
NOW, THEREFORE, Town Council of the Town of Agawam hereby states
its opposition to such earmarking of local aid and directs the
Council Clerk to inform the State Senator and State Representative
representing the Town of Agawam of our position by copy of this
Resolution.
Approved by the Town Council of the Town of Agawam
this day of February, 1984 by vote of
in favor opposed.
1
1
1
F AG,q
TOWN OF AGAWAM
a,6 ail ;,'►�' 36 MAIN STREET AGAWAM, vIASSACHUSETTS 01001
Te1. 413-786-0400
��ATED Mpy
February 22 , 1984
' Michael. Walsh
State Representative
of the 3rd Hampden District
State House
Boston, MA 02133
1
Dear Mr . Walsh :
' Please be advised that the Agawam Town Council has supported
the attached resolution by a vote of thirteen ( 13) in favor ,
one ( 1 ) opposed and ( 1) absent , regarding the Earmarking of
Local Aid .
Sincerely,
Ursula Retzler
' Clerk of the Council
' Enclosure
cc : Town Manager
Town Clerk
' Council Members
1