I just received a very interesting phone call from Gov. Rell, herself.
She called because she said that she wanted to correct some of the comments that I made yesterday in the Hartford Courant and the New Britain Herald, that she has been advocating for to cut in half the $8.4 million in increased state aid she proposed for New Britain in her original budget back in February.
She assured me that this was not correct, and told me that she had not abandoned her budget proposal. She explained that she was actually advocating for more money in the second year of the two year budget than the Democrats had proposed. The Democratic budget called for $1.8 billion for Educational Cost Sharing (ECS) grants to cities and towns in the 2007-08 year, and then the same $1.8 billion in the 2008-09 year. (Democratic leaders have told me that they did this because it is important to deal with this coming year's budget this year, and they would take up the next year's increase next year. I told Gov. Rell that I would like an increase for next year, as well.)
I told her that I apologized if I was wrong, but I explained to her that what I had said was what I had heard that the Governor's own negotiators had put on the table. I would add that I have repeatedly heard the same thing from other legislators at the Capitol, and almost every Democratic legislator I have spoken to about this agrees that the Governor had given up advocating for her original budget - including her education funding plan.But, if I got some of the facts wrong, I do apologize.
Her word that she is committed to her original education plan is reassuring. At least if she is committed her proposal for the coming year, it would mean that the city budget just approved would be balanced.
But, is the Governor really committed to her whole original education plan? She has made a very public point of abandoning the revenue plan that she proposed back in February as essential to fund, not just this year's proposed education increases, but the second year's education funding, as well. This is just the opposite of her claim that she supports more education funding in the 2008-09 budget year. And it would certainly mean that she has no plans to fund the third, fourth and fifth year of this five-year education plan.
So, it is clear that she has abandoned what was a very good and bold plan to increase education funding for New Britain and the state, as a whole. This is unfortunate.
The fact, in very practical terms, is that Democrats' budget plan would increase New Britain's grants for education and mill rate relief for the coming year by about $10 million, compared with the Governor's proposal for $8.4 million. The best way for Gov. Rell to support New Britain in the state budget would be to agree to sign the Democrats' budget.
I appreciated the opportunity to talk with Gov. Rell about these issues. I can tell you that even state legislators do not get a call from the Governor every day. I thank her for taking the time to contact me about this.
Update, June 23, 2007:
It turns out, the Governor was not truthful with me when she told me that she was not negotiating against her own education funding proposal. In fact, as it turns out, the following, which I had removed from this post because I began to question my understanding of what she had told me, turned out to be exactly what the Governor was doing:
She called because she said that she wanted to correct some of the comments that I made yesterday in the Hartford Courant and the New Britain Herald, that she has been advocating for to cut in half the $8.4 million in increased state aid she proposed for New Britain in her original budget back in February.
She assured me that this was not correct, and told me that she had not abandoned her budget proposal. She explained that she was actually advocating for more money in the second year of the two year budget than the Democrats had proposed. The Democratic budget called for $1.8 billion for Educational Cost Sharing (ECS) grants to cities and towns in the 2007-08 year, and then the same $1.8 billion in the 2008-09 year. (Democratic leaders have told me that they did this because it is important to deal with this coming year's budget this year, and they would take up the next year's increase next year. I told Gov. Rell that I would like an increase for next year, as well.)
I told her that I apologized if I was wrong, but I explained to her that what I had said was what I had heard that the Governor's own negotiators had put on the table. I would add that I have repeatedly heard the same thing from other legislators at the Capitol, and almost every Democratic legislator I have spoken to about this agrees that the Governor had given up advocating for her original budget - including her education funding plan.
But, is the Governor really committed to her whole original education plan? She has made a very public point of abandoning the revenue plan that she proposed back in February as essential to fund, not just this year's proposed education increases, but the second year's education funding, as well. This is just the opposite of her claim that she supports more education funding in the 2008-09 budget year. And it would certainly mean that she has no plans to fund the third, fourth and fifth year of this five-year education plan.
So, it is clear that she has abandoned what was a very good and bold plan to increase education funding for New Britain and the state, as a whole. This is unfortunate.
The fact, in very practical terms, is that Democrats' budget plan would increase New Britain's grants for education and mill rate relief for the coming year by about $10 million, compared with the Governor's proposal for $8.4 million. The best way for Gov. Rell to support New Britain in the state budget would be to agree to sign the Democrats' budget.
I appreciated the opportunity to talk with Gov. Rell about these issues. I can tell you that even state legislators do not get a call from the Governor every day. I thank her for taking the time to contact me about this.
Update, June 23, 2007:
It turns out, the Governor was not truthful with me when she told me that she was not negotiating against her own education funding proposal. In fact, as it turns out, the following, which I had removed from this post because I began to question my understanding of what she had told me, turned out to be exactly what the Governor was doing:
But the Governor then told me something that sounded very similar to the very thing that I had based my comment on: She suggested that her negotiators may have offered to spread some of the education funding around from the first year of the budget to allow the education funding to increase for the second year.And this comment I made not only turned out to be true, but the concern I expressed, here, turned out to be very much what happened:
If she has proposed cutting from education this coming year to spend more on it the year after that, it still means that this year's budget would decrease. And that would, as I suggested, leave a hole in the City's budget. Even if it is not a $4 million hole, a $2 million hole would still be very harmful. [Except that it turned out to be a $600k hole.]In fact, the Governor did, as I originally said, negotiate against her own education funding plan. And, as I said...
...based on the Governor's own comments, it sounds like my understanding of things was more or less accurate....I was correct. The Governor, as opposed to what she told me, was negotiating against her own budget proposal.
