Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
From: "Arline Isaacson" AISAACSON@massteacher.org
Subject: Legislative Update

State Budget
State revenue projections are continuing to fall. Anticipating a revenue shortfall on the order of $300m, Gov. Swift yesterday announced another round of "9C" cuts. "9C" cuts are those cuts the Governor can make unilaterally, by freezing accounts previously funded by the legislature.

Approximately 1/3 of the state budget consists of 'non-discretionary' accounts. These are accounts which the Governor cannot cut unilaterally or in most cases cannot cut at all (Debt Service, Pensions, etc). Therefore, only 63% of the budget is eligible for 9C cuts. Unfortunately, higher education and human service programs fall into that 63%.

The Governor cut $200m and called upon the legislature to pass another $100m in cuts to make up the anticipated shortfall of $300m.

Campus Accounts
The Governor cut $6m from Higher Education line items. $3m of that comes from UMass, $1.37m comes from cuts to State Colleges and $1.55m comes from Community Colleges. (see attached spreadsheet with details).

Health Insurance Premiums ("85/15")
Swift called upon the legislature to increase the cost borne by state employees for their group health insurance premiums. Specifically, she urged them to pass the same proposal she put forward in late July when she vetoed 85/15 in the state budget. Her proposal calls for a 3 tiered plan under which employees would pay more for their health insurance depending on their salary level. Swift asserted that this would garner the state an extra $12m in the current fiscal year.

While the vast majority of MTA's higher ed members would see their health insurance costs increase by several hundred to as much as $1300 under this 3 tiered system, all the public employee labor unions vigorously opposed this proposal when Swift first proffered it in July. The unions realized that while the lowest paid employees (those earning less than $35K) would have seen no immediate change in their health premiums under this plan, it was inevitable that as state revenues fell, the administration would have lowered the $35K threshold to $30K or $25K, thereby automatically increasing health insurance costs for even the lower paid state workers.

Additionally, we all agreed that increasing costs on this subset of the population was tantamount to a tax, albeit a selectively imposed tax. If the budget is to be adequately funded, it should not be on the backs of those who work for state government. Rather, it should be borne equally and equitably amongst all the people in the state.

Early Retirement
The Governor called upon the legislature to pass another early retirement plan similar to the one passed earlier this year. She believes such a proposal would save the state $10m.

Other
The Governor made numerous other cuts and proposals for legislative action (like repealing the Pacheco law). She furloughs state managers, cuts Kindergarten Programs and numerous health and human service accounts. She also cuts the $520 reimbursement to retired public employees for accessing supplemental Medicare policies.

MTA has called a mtg of the Public Employee Labor Lobbyists for next week. We will discuss this situation and assess the options available to us. We'll keep you informed of all developments.

Contract Funding
There have been several field mtgs of all the higher ed unions on getting the state employee contracts funded. The Plan of Action developed by this group is attached to this email. Funding of the higher ed contracts remains a top priority for MTA. While the legislature remains in 'Informal' sessions during which no controversial matter can be taken up, we continue to explore the possibility of getting the legislature to hold another 'formal' session in which the contract override could then voted on.

Unfortunately, changing the legislative rules to allow for a formal session requires 'unanimous consent' from the legislature. In short, ANY one legislator could (and probably would) block such an attempt. We are nonetheless, working closely with the other unions to explore different legislative strategies to deal with this quandary.

The unions have called upon their members to use October 16 as a Call-In day to the state legislature and in particular to the House members. On that day, it is hoped that the state reps will receive hundreds of messages from constituents asking them to fund the higher ed contracts. For your convenience, a sample phone script is attached below.

State representatives are also being asked to sign a letter to House Speaker Tom Finneran urging him to agree to call the legislature back into session in order to take up the contract override. Even if Finneran were to agree to do so however, it would still require the unanimous consent described above.

Contract Override Phone Script
Contract Funding Action Plan
Higher Ed Cuts (October 2002) Spreadsheet