Cranston looks like a little oasis of peace, love and harmony compared to Providence as Mayor Fung negotiates a money-saving contract with the Cranston Firefighters Union. From the Projo:
CRANSTON — While the mayor and firefighters in neighboring Providence fume over a contract impasse, their counterparts in Cranston are hoping they have found a way to bridge differences and save some money.
A tentative agreement reached Wednesday would do just that, both sides said, saving nearly $3.3 million over 3½ years, mostly by leaving positions vacant, raising employees’ contributions to the cost of their health insurance and reducing planned pay raises.
In return for those concessions, the city would extend the current contract one year, giving firefighters a 3-percent raise on July 1, 2010, and a 2.5-percent raise on Jan. 1, 2011.
I have to say, having followed Cranston politics for a while now, I really admire the firefighters and am proud of their efforts on behalf of the city.
Regarding the Providence situation, Matt Jerzyk calls Mayor Cicilline on the carpet for not doing more to negotiate with the firefighters.
Kmareka.com 
Glad to see some good (albeit misleading*) news about contract negotiations.
*Here’s the misleading part: “Republican Mayor Allan W. Fung, who saw the all-Democrat City Council reject similar concessions this spring from the police union, said the deal is just what Cranston taxpayers need…”
Actually, as has been discussed at length previously, Fung did not offer “similar concessions” to the police union. The police contract proposal included some one-of-a-kind management rights giveaways and threats of layoffs.
So, unless there is contract language that the ProJo is not reporting (which would be equally misleading), it seems as though Mayor Fung has responded to the City Council’s reasonable objections to his police contract plan and come up with a good contract for both the firefighters and the city.
This must also be the source of Jeff Barone’s mystery $900,000 savings that he referred to recently.
Thread is here: https://kmareka.com/2009/05/16/cranston-council-overrides-mayoral-veto-8-0/#comments
Although, as the thread shows, I had already deduced he was talking about the firefighters.
And my rhetorical question — “Or, alternately, can (Fung) make a good enough deal to get five Council votes — and not look like he’s bowing to their will?” — now has an answer: Just give your spin to the ProJo and they’ll parrot it for you, at least for one day.
I wish Providence could resolve our firefighter contract. I don’t care how they spin it.
I noted Matt’s principled response,Nancy, on RIF.Surprised?I got to know Matt a little and while we agree about once in a blue moon,he is a pretty decent guy.This had to be hard for him because he’s been loyal to Cicilline(why I couldn’t say) and taking on a friend in public is a tough job.I’m not sure I would unless it was something really bad.
BTW Jesse-you called me a racist-it proves you to be an ignorant sh*tmop.
jb:
Your record of provocative, inflammatory, and factually wrong posts remains unblemished.
Now, do you have anything to say about the Cranston firefighters’ contract, or are you just trolling again? And by that I mean adding off-topic comments, making every post about yourself (I don’t really care what you think about Matt J at RIF or that it’s supposed to be surprise that you agree with him), and issuing completely false information about others on this blog.
Like this: “Jesse-you called me a racist-it proves you to be an ignorant sh*tmop.”
You’re impugning my behavior by calling me names and lying about what I’ve written before. (If you can link to a post where I wrote “you are a racist,” I’d be glad to offer a retraction and/or apology. But you won’t, because a.) it doesn’t exist, and b.) you’ve already reached your own conclusion and proof — no matter how strong — won’t change that.) On top of that, you’re offering nothing to the conversation.
Bottom line: If you have a point that relates to this thread, make it, like I have. Otherwise, take your business elsewhere.
(Apologies to Kiersten, but I can’t let this go without response. And I hope this thread doesn’t get shut down because of it, but given joe’s recent behavior, it may again be justified.)
You called my article on AR racist.Suggesting someone is a racist is serious crap and I have no such sentiments.
As far as making posts “about myself”it seems a lot of people here refer to their own experiences-I have no idea about who you are and what you do,and whether you care about what I write is the least of my concerns.I don’t give much credibility to people who hide behind a screen name.
As far as trolling,the reference to Jerzyk was contained in the original blogpost.
I don’t have to lie.Who in the hell are you that I would need to?
I also don’t notice that this is your blog.Start your own blog and you can be sure I will not comment on it.You intruded into an exchange between Klaus and myself.You should have kept your nose out of it if you didn’t want a comeback.
You display empty arrogance and a talking-down attitude.That’s common with a lot of liberals-delusions of moral superiority.
I would like to know what your life experience is that you think you can lecture me.I’m sure you would say it’s none of my business.
Bottom Line:If you don’t like what I write,don’t read it.
Okay,you didn’t use the word “racist”-you just said “hate speech”-now WTF does that imply if not racism because it was used in reference to my article on profiling in immigration enforcement.
I re-read my article.It is a straightforward account of how the job was done.It may not meet your lofty standards(sarcasm intended),but strangely I never had a problem with the courts or the Justice Dept.,for whom I worked.Homeland Security didn’t exist back then.
jb:
“ignorant sh*tmop”
“You display empty arrogance and a talking-down attitude.That’s common with a lot of liberals-delusions of moral superiority.”
See, I don’t need to argue “implications” about your posts — your motives are clear. And I won’t debate the term “hate speech” with you. Smearing people, making false accusations and name-calling isn’t exactly my definition of civilized debate.
Finally: “If you don’t like what I write,don’t read it.”
Then don’t reply to me directly any more. Problem solved.
Don’t make remarks about me anymore.Problem solved.
Well, getting back on track here…
The SOS notice went out that a special council meeting has been called for Thurs., June 18 to discuss the contract. The Executive Session is at 6pm, followed by the public session.
Nancy:
Thanks for the head’s-up.
I hope one factor in the Cranston City Council’s deliberations is how the new firefighters’ contract brings it into line with other city pacts. Higher medical co-pays should be part of any new agreements with unions, and grievance procedures should be uniform (except for the libraries because there’s a board of trustees involved).
That was the problem with the police proposal — it too radically changed the management structure for grievances.
The teachers are voting on their contract this week.
Speaking of teachers, In today’s projo, the article about Mr. Scherza staying on as a “consultant” to help with the transition. This is the most transparent form of politics I have ever seen. I asked my ward school committee person why this happened and am still awaiting an answer. so far I got that Mr. scherza is “lobbying” and helping out with stimlus money earmarked for the schools. I just feel that Mr. Nero, according to Mr. Trafficante,was well qualified to take over for Mr. Scherza and is a great choice. If so, then why do we need a consultant? As far as I know this was voted on 3 months ago, well before it was made public that Mr. Scherza was leaving.
This is a perfect example of “back room deals” that the taxpayers have no clue. I can just hope the Council steps up and makes this right.
It does seem like an awful lot of money to be paying someone who already made a lot of money. Meanwhile, at my daughter’s music recital at school, the microphone is so old it keeps cutting out and the curtains on the stage are yellowed and they are using a little old CD/tape player for music. I know — it’s two different issues, but sometimes they feel one and the same. We could do smarter things with the limited resources we have.
Can I also add Ray Votto’s being hired as CFO (or whatever his title is) immediately after his loss in the mayor’s race (following his work as chair of the school board for several years) in 1998 as an example of the school board’s arrogance?
I have to agree with Mr. Barone and Kiersten about the waste and corruption occurring under our noses. It’s also clear that the school board has perfected the art of clouding the issue — witness last week’s Herald report:
http://www.cranstononline.com/pages/full_story?article-Library%20staff%20cuts%20-just%20the%20beginning-%20=&page_label=news&id=2714925-Library+staff+cuts+-just+the+beginning-&widget=push&instance=special_coverage_bullets_right_column&open=&
I previously had respect for Mr. Nero, but his spin that “the schools spent the summer in court … being batted around by the city’s attorney” is just atrocious.
Did he not get the memo that the school board sued the city?! Can he really be so clueless as to forget (or ignore) the fact that the school department has been running deficits for years because of its own failures — and not because the city hasn’t handed over its annual ransom without question?!
As I’ve argued before, the real problem with the school department is the administrators. I believe the majority of school board members have good intentions when they are first elected, but once they fall under the spell of the $100,000+ tenured administrators, they give up their objective standards and instead become part of the problem.
The school committee is finally starting to show it has a spine, but there’s still a long way to go.