A Bill named Quinn

Note:  Here is the piece I referenced a few days ago.  It has been reviewed and edited a bit.

A very significant opinion piece appeared in the March 9, 2012 edition of the S-T.  The same concerned the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling on the "Quinn Bill" case as it applied to a contracts between the municipalities and police unions.  In a nutshell, a community is not responsible for the state's share of funding for the Quinn Bill police educational incentives.

A few communities had agreed to fund 100% of the Quinn Bill incentives regardless of state funding.  Those communities are most likely still on the hook for the full amount.  A number of other communities (including Fairhaven) specifically agreed that they would only be responsible for the community's 50% share.  

From a financial perspective, this was a huge ruling for Fairhaven and others.  An opposite decision would have resulted in significant past due payments, and additional funding for the upcoming year that would have, simply put, devastated Fairhaven's and other communities' budgets.  Simply put again, we would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

It is not a decision I celebrated with any great joy though.  Why not?  It is another example of just how communities are constantly forced into a position by the state where they find themselves between a rock and a hard place.  

The state creates a law.  Provides a local option.  Provides state funding for 50% of a program.  The program gets established, communities adopt it, you begin to see improvements, you begin to see how it works, and then the state backs out.  

Was money tight for the state.  Absolutely.  But the fact money would or could become tight should have been factored into the decision before adopting the law.  Why would you implement a program such a career educational incentives, on the magnitude that was done under the Quinn Bill, and then yank the rug out?  If this program was so important as to cause the adoption of a state statute, than it should have remained that important to the state.

This is unfortunately not a rare occurrence.  We see it with many programs, mandates, grants, and a host of other funding mechanisms.  

The result, lawsuits against communities because of something the state failed to do.  Union grievances against communities because of something the state did.  Employees who feel they have been wronged, and they have, by the state.  Communities who feel they have been left holding the bag, and they have, again by the state.

I get a kick out of some of the things I hear about how the communities need to do more to solve the local financial crisis.  Just what stellar examples has the state given us in solving the bigger financial crisis.  Pension reform that on the one hand makes what appears to be significant changes, and on the other either actually implements or provides for local options which will essentially eat up a significant portion of the savings from the reform.  I could go on, but I save that for another day.

As the S-T pointed out, nobody wins in the long run over the Quinn Bill ruling.

We at the town level get extremely involved over our local elections, we hear about the many things wrong, the need for change, the need for new blood.  We at the local level should in fact stay extremely involved on those issues.

But we also have to remember that it is at the state level where the rules and procedures for much of what goes on are established.  An open meeting law that has little application to our state legislature.  Campaign reform laws that do little to reform anything on the state level.  Creation of laws that take the local decision making process right out of the picture.  Special legislation tailored not to meet the needs or decision making process at the local level, but in fact to make local decisions nearly impossible (there will be more on this one at a later date).

The state, by its actions related to the Quinn Bill has created a situation of significant and long term ramifications.  It put in motion a program that in fact did make sense.  Over the years of existence the Quinn bill was fined tuned to the point where it seemed to be working as intended.  Not a simple feat for any state program.  When the state took away its share of the funding, it created an ugly standoff between communities and those in blue.

Everyone should have seen it coming.  It really shouldn't be a big surprise that it happened.  I think some seriously underestimated the willingness of those on the state level to take on what had been perceived as the political clout of a significant group.

It is now a local problem, as occurs too often when we at the local level agree to "partner" with the state in the cost of anything.

Someone commented to me there should be a law requiring the state to honor its share.  There was.  Except those empowered to make the law have the right to change the law.