Randal Edgar tells the story of how Cranston passed the budget. From the Projo:
CRANSTON — Responding to mayoral vetoes that trimmed more than $2.2 million from next year’s budget, the City Council voted Friday to restore that money and send Mayor Allan W. Fung a message that cutting costs by cutting jobs should be a last resort.
The latest round in the budget dispute between the all-Democratic council and the Republican mayor saw the council vote 8 to 0 to override Fung’s vetoes — measures that Fung had said were needed to avoid running a deficit.
The result is a $233.5-million fiscal 2010 budget that counts on $2.2 million in yet-to-be-negotiated union concessions, though council member Emilio L. Navarro said after the vote that Fung can still lay off employees, if needed, to save money.
Kmareka.com 
I think we all want to avoid layoffs — when good employees have the rug pulled out from under them it leads to substantial emotional distress. However, it’s happening all around us and it seems almost unrealistic to think Cranston can make changes that will reduce our budget without at least some layoffs. Ultimately, it’s duly noted that Navarro said the layoffs could still happen, “if needed, to save money.”
Will this budget give Fung more leverage to get concessions in the next year, or is it setting him up for failure? If Napolitano could not get $1.5 million in concessions during his tenure, will Fung be able to negotiate even more than that?
Kiersten, I definitely agree about budgeting in concessions again when last time it was added almost as a “wish list item” to the budget and didn’t happen. If the concessions aren’t made and the budgeted amount met, it just puts Cranston in an even worse financial position.
Kiersten,
Just a quick correction in your recent post; During the last administration, I was on the Council and I remember distinctly that out of the $1.5 million union concessions asked for and put in the revenue column of the ’08-’09 budget, only one union came forward with approximately $900,000 in concessions. Mr. Wearner, for what ever reason, thought those numbers were fabricated and the Council relied on his expertise. (I should say not all council members felt the same way.) It was then that an executive session was called and after that union was not allowed to be part of that meeting to defend their numbers and only the opposition was invited, it was then I left the meeting in protest and I never followed up on the proposal that was put fourth by that union.
I do hear the same union came to the table with nearly $4 million in further concessions that will affect the ’09 / ’10 budget but is still waiting to hear back from the present administration. I am pretty sure this happened early on in the year.
Thanks, Jeffrey. So did we get the $900,000 in concessions from that union? It’s not clear from your description what happened in the end.
Kiersten,
Given the combative (at best) relationship between Mayor Fung and the Council it would be easy to envision a scenario where the Mayor was “set up to fail” by the Council—however I do not think that this is the case here. Councilperson Navarro states that the Mayor could still impliment layoffs “if needed, to save money”, a statement that in my opinion actually gives the Mayor additional leverage in negotiating concessions from our city’s unions. Based on the numbers that Mayor Fung released in regards to the concessions he had agreed to with the police union and assuming that he could reach similar agreements with the fire, teachers and laborer’s unions the $2.2M in union concessions is indeed a realistic goal. What the Mayor is not seeing here is the opportunity to negotiate with the unions from a position of strength, oddly enough it is the Council’s budget proposal that affords him this opportunity.
In the ProJo piece the Mayor claims that “assuming concessions…is an unsound
budgeting practice that could lead to deficits in coming years”… yet it was the backloading of the failed police contract that ultimately led to it’s failure to get past the Finance Committee and later the entire Council. I feel confident that Mayor Fung will be able to successfully negotiate the necessary concessions from our city’s unions and hopefully not feel compelled to impliment the layoffs of city employees to simply spite our City Council.
The $900,000 from that one union was never brought up in a public meeting so it was never accepted by the administration or the council.
Oddly enough, the same union brought up approximately $4.4 million in concessions to this administration and they are still awaiting an answer. Hopefuly they will accept it. I don’t have details as far as how long it will take to appreciate the savings or if the current contract needs to be extended. I only know that we sure can use $4.4 million so people can keep jobs. I am sure Mayor Fung does not want to lay anyone off, I will bet my life on that.
Mr. Barone’s posts suggest that the $4.4 million in concessions would be for a new contract. I would guess, then, that he’s referring to the library staff or the Teamsters, as they are the only other unions with upcoming expiration dates — the Teamsters contract ran out last year, and NAGE runs out this year.
(The firefighters’ contract runs through 2010 and the LIUNA pact runs through 2011, by the way. It’s all on the City Hall website at the Personnel page: http://www.cranstonri.com/generalpage.php?page=30)
Now, as to why Mr. Barone is playing coy about which union he’s describing, maybe he can explain. He’s under no obligation to protect union negotiations because he’s not on the Council, and if he’s trying to keep the Mayor’s discussions protected somehow, posting them on a public forum is not the right way to do it. It also leaves his claim unverifiable (and, to him, apparently, unquestionable), which makes it less believable — not more.
—
And as to his point that “I am sure Mayor Fung does not want to lay anyone off”, the Mayor’s own words belie this.
Mayor Fung built his budget proposal on layoffs, he attempted to ram through an irresponsible police contract by threatening layoffs, and he’s claiming the only way to correct what he calls the Council’s “illusory budgeting practices” is through — wait for it — layoffs.
So I, unlike Mr. Barone, am not so certain that the Mayor is trying to avoid layoffs.
Richard:
I made a very similar point on another thread. Here’s the truncated version:
Instead of complaining, Fung should get to work negotiating those union concessions — he may even be able to do a better job than Nap, who failed to hit the $1.5 million target the Council set last fiscal year. Plus, Fung has a lot more time to work on concessions.
Fung has an opportunity to do something positive; he should recognize the situation as such and take advantage of it. This continued spat with the Council will do him no good, especially if he’s planning any kind of run for office next year.
(Odds are he’s eyeing the AG’s office, by the way.)
If he were smart, Fung would stop trying to hold the monopoly on how things are done in the city and try to turn the Council’s decisions to his own advantage. He should know that vetoing the budget will be an empty and meaningless gesture, and that he’ll have to run the city under the budget guidelines anyway.
(Not to confuse readers, just wanted to transfer the previous comments to this new thread.)
Jeffrey and Jesse,
Jesse you beat to the punch/reply to Jeffrey’s post #6. On a personal level I like Mayor Fung and I would like to think that Jeff’s POV on the Mayor’s feelings about potential layoffs was correct. However, as Jesse remarks, his words do in fact seem to belie Jeffrey’s claims. In my opinion we need to go back to December of 2008 to find the genesis of this battle of wills between the Council and the Mayor. In Dec. of 08 the Council voted to accept the contract that then-Mayor Napolitano had negotiated with the Laborer’s Union. Mayor-elect Fung railed long and loud about the Laborer’s contract, telling the ProJo, the Herald and anyone who would listen that the outgoing Mayor and “his” City Council had thrown fiscal responsibility to the wind and acted irresponsibly in accepting this contract.Members of the Council felt that the Mayor-elect was grandstanding,and undermining their efforts. The Laborer’s deal breaks down as follows: no raise in year 1(08-09), 2.9% in year two and 3.0% in the contract’s third and final year…5.9% over three years with the average Laborer earning $35,000 per year–keep these figures in mind. Fast-forward to late winter/early spring of 09…the City Council’s Finance Committee reserves judgement on now-Mayor Fung’s negotiated deal with the Police Union: no raise in year one, followed by a 1.50% raise in year two and a 2.95% raise in the contract’s third year for a total increase of 4.45% over the life of the contract. Percentage wise 5.9% trumps 4.45%, BUT, when one factors in the average annual salary of a Cranston Policeman vs that of a Laborer and also factors in the total of number of Police officers vs the city’s 70 odd Laborer’s—it is fairly obvious that the Napolitano negotiated Laborer’s contract is a far better deal for the citizens of our city than the now dead proposed Police pact negotiated by Mayor Fung. As a former City Council member, Mayor Fung knows that it is in fact the City Council that ultimately controls the city’s purse strings, and to enter into negotiations with the Police Union without including the Council in the process is akin to banging one’s head against a wall and expecting it not to hurt.
I only hope that cooler heads will prevail and that our city’s hardworking union employees will not be put out of work because our city’s elected officials have entered into a game of political “chicken”.
Jesse From Cranston,
Nice try but very wrong. And the only reason I won’t mention the union is because The Mayor has not made a decision as to weather or not he will accept the offer. Also, if you knew your contract law, a contract can be reopened anytime as long as both parties agree so it very well may not be an expired contract who’s union will give up concessions.
The reason I bring this issue up is simply because I think the people of Cranston need to know that there are some people out there who are really trying to put Cranston back to where it should be.
Another point you brought up; The Mayor built his budget on fiscal responsibilty and the thought that both houses would work together. I would like to know what employees got raises that didn’t deserve them, or step increases, or paid health insurance like last year, or did you forget that?
As far as being unverifiable, at this point it is but either way, the public will know about it because if the Mayor accepts or not, I am sure that union will make it known. But I am very optomistic that it will be fine.
Mr. Barone:
I think what you mean by “The Mayor has not made a decision as to weather (sic) or not he will accept the offer” is “Fung hasn’t figured out how to avoid looking like he’s flip-flopping on union concessions.”
Wasn’t it only six weeks ago that he was blaming the Council for essentially derailing any of his attempts at concessions?
Why, yes, it was! From the March 29 ProJo:
“(Muksian-Schutt) said that by tabling (the police contract), the council’s Finance Committee sent a message that it would not act on Fung’s efforts to negotiate contracts or gain concessions from the police or with other unions.
‘It stopped all concession talks, because the council made it very clear that they’re not moving on anything,’ she said.”
And now we hear (from you and you only) that Fung has a secret concession offer in his back pocket. Sorry. I’m not buying it.
I think what “the people of Cranston need to know” is that Mayor Fung has dug himself such a hole through his petulant behavior that he can’t even do something right without doing it wrong. He blamed the Council for preventing him from making concessions; now that he’s (possibly) getting them, can he really expect the Council’s approval? Or, alternately, can he make a good enough deal to get five Council votes — and not look like he’s bowing to their will?
I will say, though, that I agree with your statement that “it will be fine.” It’s just our respective ideas of “fine” that are different. You seem to think Mayor Fung can somehow say two different things and make them both true, while presumably boosting his political profile. I believe he is defeating himself through his own ineptitude and will be defeated in any race he runs outside of Cranston next year.
—
(I know well enough about contract law to understand that CBAs can be reopened with consent of both parties. So now it’s either the firefighters or the Laborers — but since the Laborers got a contract last December, I doubt it’s them. Doesn’t matter, in the end — I’m tired of playing your little game.)
—
Oh, and please clarify this: “I would like to know what employees got raises that didn’t deserve them, or step increases, or paid health insurance like last year, or did you forget that?”
I have no idea what to make of this question. Although I think you’re talking about the last-minute approval of the Laborer’s Union contract in December. So, no, I didn’t forget it — though I can’t say I agree with your characterization.
Mr Barone,
Don’t bother to respond to JFC’s pretentious ramblings. You’ve heard the phrase, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS”. Enough said.
JFC states it like it is on most issues from where I see it on my cloud. Sometimes when you slither amongst the union thugs, Wiseguy wanna be’s and going to bed in your BVD’s that say “Councilman Forever”…it’s hard to be able to rebut certain venues because you wear blinders and ‘are dazzled’ by that image in the mirror.
So typically Laffey et al., putting out unsubstantiated information and then not being able to be specific and detailed when folks ask questions. Awwww, and we were so looking forward to dancing the Chicken.
EDC:
Hmmm… name-calling, use of an old cliche expression for insult, slavish support for a former Republican office-holder, zero proof offered to show what I’ve said is incorrect, and a last line of “Enough said.”
I think I’ve seen your posts here before. But since I can’t engage in guessing your real name, I’ll just wish you good luck in trying to photograph the nonexistent cars that supposedly park in front of your house all the time.
Get back to your cave, troll.
And by the way, the Herald has its report on the Council’s override of Fung’s veto. One part that caught my eye was Fung’s insistence that $2.2 million in concessions would be “unrealistic.”
Well, then, maybe it’s time to unveil Mr. Barone’s secret $900,000 concession offer — that’s almost half of the line item in the budget, making $2.2 million not all that unrealistic.
Or maybe not, because of how it would show Fung to be, at best, stubborn and at worst, dishonest.
Here’s the Herald article:
http://www.cranstononline.com/pages/full_story?article-Fung%20objections%20futile-%20council%20nixes%20veto%20=&page_label=home_top_stories_news&id=2592697-Fung+objections+futile-+council+nixes+veto&widget=push&instance=home_news_2nd_left&open=&
I would like to know what employees got raises that didn’t deserve them, or step increases, or paid health insurance like last year, or did you forget that?
Didn’t the Director of Administration position get a $14k bump when RMS was hired?