Open forum: Too much is too much

For a number of years, a few residents who have paid close attention to county budgetary matters have been warning the county executives and the county councils that the county’s compounded spending rates, particularly for employee salaries, were unsustainable. Unfortunately, the warnings were either ignored or received very insufficient attention.

What received excessive attention from the county councils and county executives was the large pool of voters associated with the various unions representing the county’s 34,000 employees. We recognize that county employees are also taxpayers, but let us not forget that there are 940,000 other residents of the county who are not county employees.

This leads us to mention some truths that cannot be ignored.

Over the last 10 years the county government increased the number of their employees by 28 percent while population grew only 15 percent. Montgomery County Public Schools increased jobs by 30 percent as enrollment increased 7 percent.

With 80 percent of the county’s budget devoted to personnel costs, some basic arithmetic points the way for our elected officials (our public servants) in their budget decisions. The county’s tax supported budget is $3.770 billion; 80 percent of that is $3.016 billion; 5 percent of that figure (approximate cost of living increases) yields $150.8 million. Subtracting that figure from the county’s current shortfall of $297 million, leaves about $146.2 million to be paid for with property taxes, thus preserving the charter limit on property taxes.

The principle of ‘‘Where there’s a will there’s a way” leads us to mention the way. The way is County Code section 33-108. This allows for the renegotiation of county employee union contracts and reductions if sufficient funds are not appropriated. It must be pointed out here that the bargaining process used when unions reopen contracts to renegotiate salary and benefits with the county is in need of urgent repair. The unions have far too much leverage on their side, and the executive branch should address this factor with the greatest dispatch. We have stated the way, now the County Council and the county executive must exercise the will.

Here are a few examples of how the county got into this serious budget problem.

The MCPS Board of Education approved a contract for their 22,000 employees, which grants a compounded average salary increase of 9.28 percent per year. The firefighters union’s last two three-year contracts contained a compounded yearly increase of 11 percent. These are unsustainable increases. For the sake of comparison, the last three years of increases in Social Security payments were, 2.3 percent for 2008; 3.3 percent for 2007; and 4.1 percent for 2006. Social Security increases are based on rises in the cost of living. Does something seem to be out of balance here? We definitely think so.

In general, the wage and benefit agreements made with the county’s employees were far too generous and in view of the county’s current dire financial circumstances those excesses must now be corrected. The executive and the council can set an example and demonstrate leadership by volunteering to have their pay reduced by 5 percent also.

Additionally, if the charter limit on property taxes is not exceeded there is no possibility that the property tax base will be increased. If the property tax base is not increased it can’t serve as a larger target for the property tax charter limits of the future. In the past there have been adjustments to our property taxes in the form of credits and rate changes.

In order to augment the courage of our County Council and county executive to take these steps for fiscal prudence and logical budgeting we draw their attention to some recent events. One was the board of education election in which the candidate endorsed by the Apple Ballot (the good candidate seal of the teacher’s union) was a distant third in the voting. Another was the race to fill the vacancy on the County Council in District 4. Lo and behold, despite all the money from developers and unions, all the union members knocking on doors, the strong efforts of unions to influence the votes of members, the efforts of the superintendent, the Apple Ballot endorsement, and the seven glossy color mailings, Nancy Navarro (school board president) lost to Don Praisner. Mr. Praisner accepted no developer money and pledged to continue his late wife’s policy of fiscal prudence.

Take note county executive and County Council members: there will be a primary in September, 2010. The winds of change are blowing, and the eyes of the taxed are upon you.

To all the taxpayers and county voters: Unless you contact your elected officials in regard to excessive taxation and unsustainable county employee pay and benefits you will get what you don’t want. E-mail or phone the following and ask that property taxes be held to the charter limit, and to invoke County Code section 33-108 to correct the excessive county employee wage agreements. Unless they hear from you now, your assets will be the loser.

Contact: County Executive Ike Leggett at oce@montgomerycountymd.gov or 240-777-7500 or your council members at County.council@montgomerycountymd.gov or 240-777-7900.

Max Bronstein of Silver Spring is active in several civic groups, however, he is writing as an individual and not as a member of any group.