The New York State Department of Labor has released Current Employment Survey data for December. And it appears that school districts in the rest of the state celebrated the Court of Appeals decision in Campaign for Fiscal Equity case, which held that New York City had been shortchanged by the state school aid formula by billions of dollars over the decades but also that the Court would allow this practice to continue without doing anything about it, in the usual way. By putting more people on the payroll to be “held harmless” later in any reorganization of the way state school aid works. From December 2005 to December 2006, local government elementary and secondary school employment rose by 2,300 in the part of New York State outside New York City, but fell by 800 in the city. During the entire 1990 to 2006 period, December public school employment is up by 9,800 in the city, a decline relative to enrollment growth, and up by 68,700 in the rest of the state. In that time, local government employment as a whole is down 18,600 in New York City but up 106,600 in the rest of the state. A spreadsheet is attached, and just for interest’s sake, and to give people some idea of the state’s priorities, I’ve included a tabulation of “shared sacrifice in tough times” that shows how local government employment changed in New York City and the rest of the state from 1994 to 1996, and from 2002 to 2004.
During the 1994 to 1996 fiscal crisis, employment in New York City’s public schools fell by 7,600 while employment in public schools elsewhere in the state increased by 7,400. For local government as a whole, employment fell by 16,500 in New York City while rising by 6,200 in the rest of the state. I believe that the rest of the state’s attitude toward public services in the city at the time was since there were a million people on welfare here, we didn’t deserve it.
During the 2002 to 2004 fiscal crisis, public school employment in the city was essentially unchanged while rising by 8,700 in the rest of the state. Total local government employment was down by 14,400 in the city, and up by 16,100 in the rest of the state. The rest of the state’s aid to New York City in the wake of 9/11 was essentially to allow the city to go further into debt, and to raise taxes on its own residents. With money scarce (much of the state’s tax revenue comes from New York City) the rest of the state focused on its own needs, but when it came to money for New York City, it didn’t have it.
In the 1990s boom between these two fiscal crises, and in the good times today, the city has been running surpluses, in large part because its taxes are so much higher than everywhere else. Even in good times the state fought the Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit tooth and nail while raising aid to the rest of the state via the STAR program. Money for the city, then-Governor Pataki said, would come when the state “could afford it.” But since city residents were used to inferior school and high taxes, and the City of New York is expected to act fiscally responsible rather than getting in trouble and begging for money, the rest of the state figured that when it came to state funds during good times, we didn’t need it.
Didn’t deserve it, didn’t need it, don’t have it. Will things be any different now?