Semantics and the Size of State Government
By Steve PoftakDecember 16th, 2009
The Herald took a shot at the Patrick Administration yesterday, claiming they have added 1,300 people to the state payroll over the last year.
We’ve written a bunch on this issue. In particular to question why the safety net agencies are taking such a dramatic hit relative to others.) Also, to note how difficult is has been to get this administration to play straight with disclosing the numbers.
In response to the Herald piece, Secretary of A&F Jay Gonzalez shot back that the Governor has eliminated 1,930 positions.
Semantics matter here. The state’s human resource system is littered with ‘open positions’ that may never be filled. Taking one of these positions off the rolls might possibly prevent spending in the future, but it doesn’t save you money in the near term.
What does save you money is not backfilling retirees and, regrettably, layoffs. As of October 2009, the administration had laid off 802 people from the executive branch over the course of calendar year 2008 and 2009. Go look at the data yourself (be sure to look at all three workbooks). That number has undoubtedly increased, but its markedly different from the 1,930 being peddled and accepted at face value by many.
So, count me as a skeptic of the “positions eliminated” figure being anything more than window dressing. What really matters is the net change and for that, I’m waiting for the Comptroller’s office to release the 2009 CAFR, which will have a independent, apples-to-apples assessment of the net change in state workforce. I’ll report back when it comes out.
Entry Filed under: News
2 Comments Add your own
1. Michael J. Widmer | December 17th, 2009 at 10:45 am
The Herald was making the point that 1,300 people have been hired in the past year. Even if the total payroll has declined, the hiring of 1,300 employees in the midst of this fiscal meltdown strikes me as a very large number. Of course, there needs to be some hiring to fill critical positions, but the administration has not clarified the review process to ensure that the number is kept to a minimum.
2. Steve@Pioneer | December 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Agree with you and the Herald’s article. My blog post was not meant to question the Herald’s figure, but upon rereading I can see that is not clear enough. And I agree the hiring 1,300 in the teeth of a recession is bad policy.
My primary point was to take issue with the “positions eliminated” statement, which is a very careful parsing of the term, and usually confuses most people.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed