The benefits of political incumbency are well documented: the power that comes from being a for-now-at-least maker of decisions and exerter of influence; the luxury of already being in office, rather than trying to cram in a campaign around another, full-time job; the ability to summon the press whenever you want some attention.
Of course, those perks are mitigated when the incumbent is also the bearer of unwelcome news. Last week, Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno found himself in the unenviable position—with just a little more than six months to go until Election Day—of calling for city employees to accept wage freezes and 12 unpaid furlough days to help offset a deficit in the coming fiscal year’s municipal budget. The gap started out at nearly $50 million, much of which has already been made up through other cost-cutting measures.
The employee concessions would save the city $5.4 million in the coming year, according to Sarno’s office—a relatively small portion of the original $50 million, but nonetheless significant, both financially and politically. About 1,500 city workers would be affected. (School Department employees would not be affected—at least not yet. City officials are expected to announce shortly cost-cutting measures for the city schools, which face their own deficit of $18 million.)
The pressure on the city budget is due, in part, to an expected 7 percent cut in local aid from the state. Cities and towns have seen their state aid cut every year for the past four years—a trend that, unhappily for Sarno, coincides with the four years he’s held the office of mayor. Since 2008, state aid has been cut by more than one-third.
The city will close the rest of the gap by dipping into its surplus fund to balance its $550 million budget. Sarno and his financial team had already announced other strategies to cut costs, including a hiring freeze, the elimination of unfilled positions, and cuts to overtime for police and firefighters.
If the city workers affected by last week’s announcement don’t agree to the concessions, at least some could find themselves without jobs, the mayor has made plain; a memo announcing last week’s press conference noted that city officials would “provide details about requested employee concessions and/or layoffs of municipal workers.” Up to 120 city workers could be laid off.
While Sarno acknowledged that the news/threat would not be warmly received—”Is this pleasant? No,” the mayor said. “Is it necessary? Yes.”—he delivered it with a determined air.
City Hall officials have begun talking to the various unions that represent those workers who would be affected, with the hope of resolving the issue within the next few weeks. Initial response from the unions thus far has been, predictably, unenthusiastic.
Sarno’s critics, meanwhile, have seized the opportunity to point out other places the administration could, and should, have saved money. At-large Councilor Tim Rooke reiterated his frustration over the decisions not to seek competitive bids for a lease on the new School Department headquarters (the offices were instead moved to the old federal building on Main Street in a no-bid deal) or for a new city health insurance plan. Rooke has also been pushing for a new, bag-based pay-as-you-throw trash collection system over a graduated-bin plan proposed by the mayor. Although the administration’s financial team acknowledges that the plan backed by Rooke would cost about half a million dollars less, they still support Sarno’s plan.
City Council President (and mayoral candidate) Jose Tosado went hard after the incumbent, calling Sarno’s call for concessions “the latest example of an alarming pattern of basic financial mismanagement”—a list, he charges, that includes payroll mistakes that resulted in city teachers being overpaid by $1.2 million, uncollected excise taxes, and certain federal funds for the redevelopment of Union Station expiring during delays in the project.
“The way to prevent a budget crisis is to control spending over the course of a budget year. Instead, the mayor has hired hundreds of employees, and promoted hundreds more—including the city’s budget chief, who is paid $150,000 a year,” Tosado said. “After all the help we received from the state to get out of financial ruin just a few years ago, we should not be here again. And now taxpayers have to bail out the city again, and live with further reduced services because of fiscal mismanagement.”
Ward 8 Councilor John Lysak, meanwhile, has proposed an alternative to the concessions-or-layoffs scenario, suggesting the city might make up the money by offering an early retirement deal to employees. “This is a win-win solution for the city as well as workers who are near retirement time,” he said.
“Furloughs and layoffs should be something used as a last resort method for reigning in the budget of our city, not a first and only priority,” Lysak said. “It’s time we as a city thought outside the box. Furloughs and layoffs would cause a severe economic hardship on our employees and further cut services to our residents. This is something I’m not in agreement with.”
Of course, not everyone in the city will necessarily be dismayed by Sarno’s call for employee concessions. As recent dustups in Wisconsin and around the country have shown, not everyone holds a sympathetic view of public employees, and even those residents who aren’t anti-union could see the mayor’s call as a necessary, if not especially happy, move.
In addition, the bad news could present an opportunity for Sarno to show the kind of tough leadership skills his critics accuse him of lacking—and perhaps also show some solidarity with city workers, by taking his own unpaid furlough days. As the mayor noted at last week’s announcement, “I’m looking for concessions from every employee, top to bottom.”
The mayor cannot, however, be subject to a wage freeze, because he does not receive regular raises. Instead, the mayor’s salary remains static until changed by a vote by the City Council. A proposal to boost the mayoral pay from its current $95,000—which supporters hope would attract a stronger and deeper field of candidates for the job—has been kicking around for a couple of years but has failed to inspire much public support. With threats of layoffs now hanging over City Hall, proponents of hiking the mayor’s pay—already about $60,000 more than the median household income in Springfield—will have an even tougher time selling the idea.
