A New Senate Majority Website Wants Input on How to Reduce the State’s Budget
Deficit
Budget Discussions with the Governor
Budget Cut Alternatives to Layoffs for October 21, 2008 Meeting
Passage of S.6342/1898B Banning Mandatory Overtime for Nurses
PEF-State of New York 2007-2011 Tentative Agreement
Reminder of LM-30 Reporting Obligations and Update on Changes in the Law
New Promotion Examination Fees and Increased Open Competitive Exam Fees
TO:
Executive Board Members and Council Leaders
DATE:
February 13, 2009
RE: A New Senate Majority Website Wants Input on How to Reduce the State’s Budget Deficit
The New York State Senate
Majority has launched a website that is asking for feedback from state residents
on how to close the state’s budget gap. As you know PEF has advanced many
options to the budget cuts the Governor has proposed and they are posted on the
PEF website (The answers to the State Budget Deficit). In addition numerous
members have forwarded to us examples of state agency waste and the hiring
unnecessary new state agency managers that continue during these tough fiscal
times.
We want to make sure that the Senate Majority (Democrats) hear from our
members about our budget savings ideas and examples of waste in state government
and that their website doe not just receive input from conservative, anti-union
and pro-business groups. Please visit
www.nybudgetideas.org and let
them know how you would balance the state budget. Let them know how would you
increase revenues (e.g. raise the income tax on the wealthy, reducing the
contracting out of state services to private consultants, bottle bill expansion,
bulk purchase of prescription drugs, using rainy day funds, federal stimulus
money, reforming Empire Zones, and closing corporate tax loopholes) and any
waste you see in state agencies including unnecessary hiring of new managers.
Kenneth Brynien
cc:
Statewide Labor-Management Chairs
TO: Regional Coordinators, Executive Board Members and Council Leaders
DATE: October 21, 2008
RE: Budget Discussions with the Governor
Earlier today I met with the governor along with leaders from CSEA and OMCE regarding the state’s fiscal crisis.
The governor pointed out there are no sacred cows in the budget and that all options are on the table. However, although there are many rumors regarding actions to address the budget deficit, he repeatedly stated state employees have already taken the brunt of the cuts and he did not want to take more from the state workforce.
The governor called the meeting to hear directly from union leaders, our thoughts on ways to address the deficits.
Prior to the meeting I provided his office with detailed proposals to close the budget gap (see attached).
I took the opportunity at this meeting to reiterate these proposals. I emphasized the need to reduce the number of contractors and consultants and I also took the opportunity to point out areas of additional savings already available in our contract, including telecommuting, flexible scheduling and compressed work weeks. The governor agreed that contracting out has to stop and will stop and also agreed that agencies need to be more receptive to options available in our current contract.
The governor also asked for our support in convincing congress of the need for federal assistance in this crisis.
The governor has pledged that there will be follow up meetings with the unions as well as other stakeholders. I will continue to update you as information becomes available.
Kenneth Brynien, President
TO: Ken Brynien
FROM: Thomas Cetrino and Brian Curran
DATE: October 14, 2008
RE: Budget Cut Alternatives to Layoffs for October 21, 2008 Meeting
We believe the State must make every effort to avoid layoffs as layoffs and other serious cuts in State services are counterproductive in a recession and according to Joseph Stiglitz are more harmful to the State economy than a temporary income tax increase on wealthier New Yorkers. A the very least the State must close its up to $8 billion budget gap with an equal share of revenue raisers and budget cuts. The following options should help the State achieve that goal.
1. Increase the income tax on wealthier New Yorkers; ranging from the millionaire tax approved by the Assembly to the temporary surcharge that we enacted in 2001. This option will generate between $2 billion and $7 billion in revenue depending on the income levels and rates.
2. Reduce consultant costs by instituting a freeze on all new consultant contracts, requiring a budget waiver to enter into those contracts, and by examining all current consultant contracts as to which can be terminated and which can be done by State employees at a lower cost. Savings: up to $750 million a year.
Discussion
State expenditures for consultant contracts have increased from $2.26 billion in SFY 2003-04 to $2.78 billion in SFY 2007-08 (see Attachment 1). The largest increases have been in Information Technology (IT) Design and Development, IT Software Maintenance, IT Hardware Maintenance, and Engineering Supervision. Consultant contract expenditures for the first five months of SFY 2008-09 show little if any reduction form SFY 2007-08 (see Attachment 1). The Comptroller, KPMG, and PEF have done studies that show that consultants cost between 50% and 75% more than State employees who could do most of their work. During the last hiring freeze State agencies found it easier to hire consultants to get work done that had to be completed than to hire State employees even if it was less expensive to hire State employees. We have anecdotal evidence from our members that this is once again occurring. The Division of Budget needs to institute new restrictions on new consultant contracts and more aggressively review currant consultant contracts for potential savings.
3. Enact the bigger better bottle bill which will generate $200 million in additional revenue in a full fiscal year.
4. Collect taxes that are due – especially cigarette taxes on reservation purchases by non-Indians
– yield estimates range from $400 million to $1.6 billion a year.
5. Reform economic development programs to level the playing field among businesses in NYS:
improve the effectiveness and accountability of Industrial Development Agencies,
apply Brownfield Clean Up Program reforms to “grandfathered” projects, and
phase out the Empire Zones program (Savings begin at $50 million/yr, rising to $500 million after 10 years )6. Improve the way Limited Liability Company’s annual fees are calculated (DOB calculated $75 million/year in savings in 2007) and close other corporate tax loopholes.
7. Use the State’s tremendous purchasing power to see reduced prices from drug manufacturers for prescription drugs for Medicaid, State employees, and other State programs. This would generate approximately $100 million a year.
8. Use the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund and the Rainy Day Reserve Fund which together have $1 billion and are intended to be used in fiscal emergencies.
9. Eliminate all “occasional” employees who are retired but have returned to work for the State on a part-time basis. Freeze all new appointments that require 211 waivers. Estimated savings up to $150 million
Discussion
The State spent over $411.2 million in SFY 2007-08 on temporary employees and has spent $200.4 million on these employees during the first five months of SFY 2008-09 (see Attachment 2). This appears to be the same rate of spending on these employees as last year. Included in these costs are the salaries of State employees who retire and come back to work for the State at a salary below $30,000 (if they are paid more they must get a 211 waiver to work for the State and collect their retirement). These employees may be able to escape a layoff using normal layoff procedures by an agency just not targeting the title they work in. We believe such employees should be the first to leave the State payroll prior to implementing any layoffs. This is consistent with the law that requires provisional and temporary employees in a title that is targeted for layoff to be the first to lose their jobs. In addition the State should freeze all 211 waivers during the current fiscal crises. Employees who are supplementing their retirement salaries should not be working over employees who depend on their salaries for their daily existence.
10. Eliminate or severely restrict overtime by hiring full-time employees to handle the overtime hours. In SFY 2007-08 the State spent $485.7 million on overtime costs that are not contractually obligated and has spent $196.1 million on such costs in the first five months of SFY 2008-09 (see Attachment 2). This appears to be about the same rate of spending on overtime as the last fiscal year. If employees are hired to work this overtime the State would save up to $160 million a year.
TO: Regional Coordinators, Executive Board, and Statewide Nurses Committee
DATE: June 19, 2008
RE: Passage of S.6342/1898B Banning Mandatory Overtime for Nurses
I am pleased to inform you that late yesterday afternoon Governor Paterson, Assembly Speaker Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Bruno announced a three-way agreement on our bill to end mandatory overtime for nurses in New York State.
The agreement and imminent passage of the bill represents the culmination of nearly a decade of effort by PEF and our coalition partners SEIU, CWA, AFT, NYSUT, NYSNA, and CSEA. I would like to thank all of you who participated in our efforts over the years seeking passage of the bill, as well as the bill sponsors Senator Tom Morahan and Assembly Member Aileen Gunther. I especially want to thank our Legislative Director Brian Curran for his hard work and effort over the last several weeks to keep the bill on track and in the forefront of issues the legislature and governor were seeking to address.
Below is a brief summary of the bill and changes agreed to between the governor and the legislature.
Again, thank you for your efforts in achieving passage of this important piece of legislation.
Kenneth Brynien, President
TO:
Kenneth Brynien
Arlea Igoe
FROM: William P. Seamon
DATE: March 11, 2008
RE:
PEF-State of New York 2007-2011
Tentative Agreement
Our File No 7076-P
In light of yesterday’s announcements concerning the Governor, questions have arisen regarding what impact, if any, this would have on the PEF/State tentative collective bargaining agreement.
It is our legal opinion that the events disclosed yesterday should have absolutely no impact on the PEF-State tentative collective bargaining agreement. PEF and the State have entered into a tentative agreement subject only to the ratification process, which includes ratification by the PEF membership and action by the Legislature for implementation of any amendments of law or for the provision of funding. There is no provision under the Taylor Law which would permit the Chief Executive Officer, in this case a Governor, from refusing to proceed with the legislative ratification process.
Moreover, we have no reason to believe that the State of New York will not fulfill its statutory obligations in moving forward with the tentative agreement, and we expect that ratification will proceed as scheduled.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
WPS/mab
cc: Statewide Officers
Roger L. Scales
TO: Executive Board Members and Council Leaders
DATE:
March 18, 2009RE:
New Promotion Examination Fees and Increased Open Competitive Exam Fees
We have been getting a
number of calls about the new promotion examination fees that appear on new
examination announcements issued after March 13 and effective for exams
administered on or after May 30. The fees for open competitive exams are also
going to increase by $5. As you may remember the Department of Civil Service
informed PEF about these new fees in January and we wrote about them in our
January 23, 2009 memo to the Executive Board on the 30-day amendments to the
Executive Budget. The new fees are
|
Examination Title Grade |
New Promotion Exam Fee |
Increased O/C Exam Fee |
|
SG 3 – 12 |
$10 |
$25 |
|
SG 13 - 18 |
$15 |
$35 |
|
SG 19 -23 |
$20 |
$40 |
|
SG 24 and above |
$25 |
$45 |
The new promotion exams are expected to raise $850,000
annually and the increased open competitive examination fees are expected to
raise $210,000 annually. We are currently evaluating our options under the
Contract and under the Taylor Law to determine our recourse to challenge these
fees whether the setting of these new fees may be subject to a contract
grievance or improper practice charge. We will update you when any further
information is available.
Kenneth Brynien, President
cc:
Statewide Labor-Management Chairs