I had an interesting conversation with David Exter today, Chairperson of the Republican party in Cranston since January of 2006. Exter is a professional in a family appliance business in East Providence. We discussed the press release below.
I asked David Exter what he thought Cranston could do with the near $2 million dollar surplus that looks to be coming for Cranston’s fiscal year 2006-2007. He said he thought the money should go to more fully fund the pension system for city employees, which he said is now being underfunded. He also said that “you need to take a look at the schools.” While he cautioned that the city should be pressing for more financial accountability from the school department, he did not agree with Napolitano’s decision “not to give the schools a dollar more” in his budget.
I asked Exter to consider the possibility that Napolitano might have been trying to prepare the schools for a lean 2008 contract by putting them on a starvation diet in the 2006-2007 budget. Exter said if that were Napolitano’s intent, he might agree with it, but he did not believe that was Napolitano’s intent. I asked if he thought the bipartisan political machine of Cranston was just trying to go Caruolo so that everybody could call up their lawyer friends and get a piece of the action. He stated that School Committee Chairperson and former Republican Mayor Mike Traficante has been a close ally of Napolitano and has donated to Napolitano recently. We haggled about how recently — Exter said the numbers showed in the last report, but he was unsure when exactly Traficante made his most recent donation to Napolitano. It is an interesting question and perhaps a reader out there can be helpful and supply the answer. (Tom Cloonen? Mark Lucas?)
I say save the $2 million — we’re going to need it with everything going on including trying to settle the concrete plant problem and the teacher’s contract being up for renegotiation in 2008. And please, don’t go Caruolo, or there may be nothing left of the $2 million by the time the school contract negotiations get underway.
We also discussed some other issues in Cranston and Exter noted that his parents live in the neighborhood that closely borders the Mulligan’s Island area that is being considered for commercial development. He expressed concern about the way the Mayor is handling the planning commission and the fact that a needed appointment to that commission has not been successfully made yet by Napolitano. He also expressed concern about the decision to put artificial turf in at the Stadium football field, and suggested that if the general public knew more about this decision, it might not be happening.
But anyway, back to the budget:
CRANSTON, RI – Cranston Republican City Committee Chairman David Exter today criticized Mayor Michael Napolitano’s repeated fiscal assertions that the City is facing dire financial circumstances. Based on the un-audited year end financial reports the City of Cranston finished the 2006 -2007 fiscal year with an approximate $2 million surplus (June 2007 Financials – Page 5). Exter stated, “Since taking office Mayor Napolitano has painted a dark picture of the City’s fiscal health (Providence Journal, 3/30/07, 2/22/07, 1/3/07), blaming the 2006 – 2007 Laffey budget for his decision to level fund the schools while increasing property taxes over five percent. Now that the City’s fiscal year has ended with a multimillion dollar surplus the Mayor’s credibility is in question. The Mayor’s failure to foresee the large surplus and his decision to burden the taxpayers with a substantial tax increase is the type of fiscal incompetence that Cranston last saw under the O’Leary Administration.â€?
Former Cranston City Councilman and Candidate for Mayor Allan Fung had been reviewing the City’s monthly financial reports and expected this surplus for quite some time. Fung stated, “As early as the budget hearings, I anticipated that we would likely finish our budget in the black and I am glad to see that I was right. The Mayor and his administration should have forecast this surplus and reasonably used some of it to fund important expenditures, particularly the schools, in the 2007-08 budget. Instead, he chose to impose the maximum tax increase on us. He played the same old political game of taxing us to the max and blaming it on the prior administration.”
Exter added, “Mayor Napolitano continues to make decisions that have negative consequences for Cranston taxpayers and its students. This budget miscalculation combined with the Mayor’s failure to properly fund the schools and his proposal to under fund the police/fire pension by nearly a million dollars while pursuing artificial turf for the Cranston Stadium and giving the firefighters union an overly generous contract does not bode well for Cranston’s future. Taxpayers have already paid a heavy price for the Mayor’s misguided fiscal decisions and can only expect to pay more as additional irresponsible decisions are made.�
Kmareka.com 
Kiersten,
Just to provide and answer to the Traficante contribution, according to the Mayor’s report on the BOE, Traf contributed $ 150.00 on May 22 of this year.
Hope that helps.
Hmmmm, A $2 million surplus? But I thought there was a huge mistake in calculating expected tax revenue based on assessed property values. Am I mistaken? How can this be?
Hi Geoff, Thanks. I was wondering if the donation was before or after the budget had been proposed by the Mayor. Clearly it was after.
These guys are Republicans? Wow…. not that I would ever switch teams, but… damn
I don’t care if they’re from the Republican Party, Communist Party, or The Boston Tea Party. If we can get some sound fiscal leadership, I’ll vote for them. I voted for Mr Fung last time around, and I’ll do it again if he runs. And I hope he does.
We have got to get past this Rep/Dem thing, at least on the local level. Running a city is about sound judgment and remembering that you represent the people of your town, not special interests.
I agree Klaus. While party affliations may carry significant weight/baggage on a national level, I’m of the opinion that on a local level they are of little, if any, importance. Being responsible and responsive are the two main attributes I seek in elected city officials.
The ability to listen to and at times simply tolerate one’s constituents as they rant and rave about various issues is important. The ability to vote the will of the people who put you in office sounds relatively simple, but apparently it is an acquired talent.
I agree Klaus. While party affliations may carry significant weight/baggage on a national level, I’m of the opinion that on a local level they are of little, if any, importance. Being responsible and responsive are the two main attributes I seek in elected city officials.
The ability to listen to and at times simply tolerate one’s constituents as they rant and rave about various issues is important. The ability to vote the will of the people who put you in office sounds relatively simple, but apparently it is an acquired talent. The councilpeople who have listened to myself and other voters as well, know who they are, and know that I have the utmost respect for them.
Your absolutely right Richard, To vote the will of the people does appear to be an acquired talent that can also be forgotten. Sadly, it appears memory lapses or forgetfulness can occur all to often.
Et tu Santamaria?
*sigh*, I should have voted for Fung. H eonly lost by, what, 60 votes? haha
Kiersten,
You should know that School Committee member Frank Lombardi made a post-budget contribution to Napolitano just like Traf.
Also, there may be others on the School Committee who also “ponied up” post-budget that remain hidden in the aggregate-individual line items of Napolitano’s filings.
OK, let’s see if I have this right…
First the Republicans offer doomsday predictions leading up to the election, then they lose (down to an 8-1 Dem Council and no General Assembly seats), and then they continue to push the gloom and doom (for example, that the city is going to still ‘raid the surplus’ to balance the budget). THEN the budget Nap inherits ends with a $2 million surplus (Tom C.: That just means the actual surplus is $4 million, including $2 million to make up for Jerry Baron’s disastrous bookkeeping), and now they claim they were right the whole time — ?!
Something doesn’t seem all that logical here. (Not that I’m particularly surprised, given the source.)
It also seems that Mr. Exter is confusing the two budget years (purposely or otherwise). Talking about the potential surplus from last year, then attacking Nap over this year’s budget that didn’t ‘spend’ that potential surplus, seems only to cloud the issue.
And although Mr. Fung seems to style himself a municipal budget guru, there would not have been evidence of a surplus that could be ‘transferred’ to the 07-08 budget until the 06-07 budget was closed, and that didn’t happen until June 30 — or, more accurately, July 1. And even if a surplus had been forecast, Mayor Nap has made a point of insisting on accurate financial data (a full audit of city operations, etc.) before making decisions, so I find it hard to believe that this diligence makes him less credible.
—
klaus and Richard: to your discussion about party labels and what they mean locally, this is a perfect example — Fung supporters attempt to push the worst kind of double-standard simply because the mayor in office doesn’t have an ‘R’ after his name. I would also argue, that even if Fung HAD won the mayor’s office, we would still be seeing tax increases. It’s just that folks like Tom Cloonen would be making excuses for it, instead of spewing accusations.
The Republican party wants to keep making shots at Napolitano so it looks like Laffey is still a white knight. Clearly anyone who has been going to City Council meetings or reading can see Laffey misused some of the City’s money. Well, we all know Mr. Arrogant is going to take a stab at the governorship and it will be interesting to hear how he will justify some of his mistakes that have dearly cost us.
Fung was smart to state that he couldn’t promise anything on raising taxes – where Napolitano sang that line to be his key to getting elected. Albeit Nap might have been nieve, just as many of us that he could get by without doing so…in actuality, that just can’t happen due to the state the City has been left in. I don’t trust the trio of Laffey, Fung and Barone.
Here where I don’t follow, say you run for an office spot and someone gives you money – Are you supposed to check on the background of each source? It makes one really skeptical of the source – I also believe Nap did a thorough due diligence review and considering he wants a 2nd term – it would be illogical and suicidal to do anything but be thorough.
Jesse, here’s where you lose credibility. Your post is pure partisan hoo-ha. I am not a Republican; but don’t take my word for it; go ask the boys at Anchor Rising about my political leanings.
The point is that Nap totally overpromised. He promised not to raise taxes, he swore he would stop the concrete plant. Guess what? That he did this has nothing to do with his being a Dem or a Rep. It has to do with an utter and total lack of character. So now it seems like either he couldn’t stomach telling the voters the truth, or he he ran his mouth off without a full knowledge of the facts. If he didn’t know the actual state of the budget, he shouldn’t have made those promises, should he?
Which is it? Did he know and lie? Or did he not know and run his mouth? Take your pick.
Either way, this makes him a squishy little politician. At least Fung was honest enough to say he didn’t know what he could do. Is that gloom and doom?
Maybe I’m missing some of the details that you no doubt have, and will no doubt provide to “prove” me wrong, but that only reinforces your position as someone inside the Dem apparatus, which diminishes your credibility.
Look, I appreciate your input; just don’t think I’m stupid enough to buy that you are just an ordinary citizen who’s on the outside looking in.
So what does this have to do with Rep/Dem? Answer, nothing. It’s about personal character. And, while I could be wrong, I have the sense that Mr Fung has more of this than the current–or the previous–mayor.
Jesse,
Like Klaus and yourself, I am not a Republican. As I have stated before, I am a Democrat. I am a pro-labor, tax and spend liberal, anti-war, tree-hugging, Chappaquidick apologist. That being said, on THIS level,
the issues are local and party affiliations are secondary. I would think that the Republican City Committee would not be too pleased with Councilperson Barone voting for the Firefighter’s contract, and yet oddly enough your guy, the Democratic City Council President voted against the contract. Hmmm… Democrats= Pro-Labor? Right? If I had read that the City Council had approved the contract by an 8-1 margin, I would have bet the farm that Barone was the lone nay vote. Fast forward a few weeks later… When you think “friend of the wealthy”–you think Republican, at least I do. But again Councilperson Barone blurred the distinction and supported Councilperson Navarro’s Resident-Only Parking Ordinance, while 3 Democrats on the Ordinance Committee, managed to kill the measure. Ordinance Chair McFarland and Barone stood tall and were not swayed by the suits and geriatric business owners that the Domestic Millionaire’s Club rolled out to twist the language and intent of Navarro’s proposed ordinance. In the space of a few weeks…not one, but two examples of how little party affiliation matters on a local level–IT IS ABOUT TRUST, IT IS ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING, IT IS ABOUT VOTING THE WILL OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS (although according to Councilperson Lanni, he had to kill the measure, because, believe it or not 100% of the voters in his ward were against it…unity?, solidarity?, or just one hell of a support system to poll the voters of an entire ward without a single ballot being cast.)
Klaus & Richard,
Excellent points. I’ve been a card carrying republican for my entire adult life. My dad before me and my grandfather before him.
Interestingly, I supported Cindy Fogarty during her mayoral run. Not only did I make a financial commitment, but stumped for her on election night. Both my dad and I supported John Kerry during the last presidential election.
I’d like to believe that most people vote their conscience. That most individuals can see thru the rhetoric, and “smoke & mirrors”. That they actually vote for those that they believe are the better or should I say more capable candidate regardless of party affiliations.
klaus:
I would only ask that you withhold judgments about credibility, particularly when you base those judgments on association. I have stated previously that I volunteered for the Democrat citywide slate last year, so I take exception to your suggestion that I am somehow pretending to be someone “on the outside looking in.”
I support the Democrats — you know, the ones in power to make the decisions in this city. And I find that most of the posts on this blog recently barely rise above the level of potshots at those in power, with little to no actual basis in fact.
Also, I’ve explained that I’m not a big fan of Nap’s. I can’t answer your question as to why he’s doing what he’s doing, although I think you’d agree that the promises made on the campaign trail have very little to do with what happens after the election, generally speaking. That’s why I argue that Fung would have found himself in the very same situation, whatever his promises were. I also think that voters in Cranston knew his pedigree (read: attachment to Laffey) and understood that Fung’s promises were about as good as SL’s — that is, no good.
Richard:
I only wish more folks on this blog would recognize (as you suggest) that Aram votes on principle, not just following the majority — in the case of the firefighter’s contract, it was that the “savings” in one part of the pact were cancelled out in other parts. This was the same reason he opposed the new police contract — in the end, it will be clear that, at best, Cranston is breaking even on the new contracts. Still (and this is where I disagree slightly with Aram), that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I would also refer you to today’s ProJo editorial page where Nap argues that the new firefighters contract will provide more room for negotiation in the future (it wasn’t on the website as of 8:20 p.m. Monday, or I’d have the link).
And if you’re referring to Ray Durfee (“geriatric business owners”), I would only respond that Mr. Durfee’s business has been a fixture in the city for 80+ years, he’s fought against taxation of Internet sales, and he brought the Post Office to Rolfe Square. Res-only parking would hurt his business; I take his word for that, for what it’s worth.
Richard,
amen…….some either just don’t get it or perfer not to get it.
Richard:
I apologize for jumping to incorrect conclusions; no, I wasn’t aware that you so vocally supported Mr. Durfee.
You bring up a point that’s been offered many times — that Domestic insulted its neighbors and should have been punished — but as yet I still don’t understand why this would have been a legitimate use of government decision-making. I mean, I can sympathize with you as far as the treatment by Domestic, don’t get me wrong. But to insist that the only remedy was a punitive parking ordinance, well, that’s over the line in my book.
And it shouldn’t matter (whatever Tom Cloonen would say) that I support the Dems on the Council. Government is not a club to be used to pummel one group or another (or, as Councilman Lanni put it, a sledgehammer).
—
Tom C.:
And which one are you?
You’ve turned to posting pithy replies that, I suppose, are meant to be insulting (sorry, they’re not), rather than making valid arguments. I’m not sure that counts as “getting it.”
I wonder, do your employers “get it” that you’re playing politics on company time? In just a quick review of past threads you only seem to post mainly during business hours, i.e., 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. You also e-mail people from the firm’s address, so it seems you’re using business computers for political interests.
In most places I know, this would be a conflict of interest — particularly if their clients that you “serve” are from Cranston. I’d hate to think that your public stance on, let’s say, the concrete plant, would open your bosses to legal problems if they found themselves working on the case.
Now, maybe you’ve worked this out with your superiors. Maybe not. But it sure is ironic that you’re so intent on showing that you “get it” and that others don’t, when you’re engaging in this kind of behavior, whatever your employers may say. Legally speaking, it’s pretty shady.
(And yes, I’m still posting anonymously. That’s old news, so don’t rehash it. Just explain, if you can, why my associations make me so much less credible than you, knowing your associations.)
Jesse, I will not withhold judgment. What’s the point of that? As I take in information, I make judgments about its worth, usefulness, and validity. Otherwise, one swallows everything whole.
And I stand by my judgments. OK, I overstated about the “outside looking in.” My bad. My point is simply that you are way too adept with the Dem talking points. One might daresay it’s almost a knee-jerk reaction.
And Mr Fung may have found himself in the position of needing to raise taxes. The difference is that he didn’t promise not to. If you’re willing to allow politicians to lie to you during the campaign, that’s fine. I don’t like it, and it really annoys me when the lies probably tilted a very close election.
And I guess you’ve really run out of counterarguments when you have to resort to commentng that Tom C is posting on work time. That’s not exactly relevant to the discussion.
Look, I’m not hostile to you per se. I’m perfectly willing to listen to you; all I’m asking is that you don’t lay it on quite so thick. Citing the Dem playbook chapter and verse doesn’t cut it with me. I don’t have the detailed knowledge that you obviously do, but merely throwing a bag of facts at me isn’t the same thing as presenting an argument.
I forget who said in the earlier discussion, but at the local level Democrat/Republican does not make a difference. Last election was not a “fair” election at the local level. More people voted straight democratic to send Bush a message. At the local level- we are suffering through this error until the next election.
I am sure there is some method of measuring how many voted this way. It would be good data to see.
klaus:
I’m confused over one of your points, that I’m “citing the Dem playbook.”
Just who else in the city is making these points? Or, start with: Who else on this blog?
I don’t clear my statements with anyone. I don’t collude with anyone about what I write here. And I don’t see you making the same statements towards others on this blog (or this thread) who parrot Allen Fung and David Exter.
And as far as “throwing a bag of facts” at you, that’s where proper debate should start, in my mind — with facts. If people don’t have their facts straight, their arguments are invalid. As it happens, I’ve proven time and again that a review of the facts — not recycled talking points or character assassination — is enough to succeed.
I commend you for staying open-minded. I welcome your replies, in fact. But trying to be judge of credibility based on how my replies strike you is wrong. It’s arbitrary and subjective, to boot.
Prove me wrong based on the facts. I’m a big enough person to admit errors when I make them (as you see above). That I can prove use facts to support my POV should make me credible by definition.
I appreciate your opinion on replying to Tom. But he’s a bullying presence on the blog, and I think he should take some of his own medicine. So, I haven’t “run out of counterarguments,” in fact; I’m making one that’s exactly inversely proportional to his.
Ed:
There were figures published right after the election on stright-line voting. If I recall correctly, Dems had more but only because of their larger registered numbers. Proportionally, the numbers were about equal in both parties. I’m going to see if I can find anything online and get back to you.
But I’d also remind you that RI has a huge population of independent (or at least unaffiliated) voters, some of whom clearly voted straight-ticket as well.
I will concede that the Whitehouse race was certainly about Bush. Still, I don’t think that necessarily resulted in the Dem wins further down the ticket by itself. Exhibit 1: Carcieri vs. Fogarty. Generally, though, the Dems had a strong local ticket while the GOP was pretty weak. The GOP caucus in the Assembly still didn’t lose any ground, though.
Also, with all the GOP badmouthing of the Assembly leading up to last year’s election, it’s no surprise that the party couldn’t field enough candidates. Why run for something you don’t like? And don’t overlook the draining effect that the Laffey-Chafee primary had on the party locally.
Certainly, anti-Bush sentiment had a big effect last year (and will again in 08). But in RI it wasn’t the only factor in play.
Ed:
This is an excerpt from the ProJo of 11-27-06, Political Scene:
—
Master lever got a workout
For the record, more than 61,000 Rhode Island voters cast a single straight-party vote for U.S. Senate candidate Sheldon Whitehouse — and every other Democrat on the ballot — rather than pick and choose their way through the field of candidates on the ballot.
More specifically, there were 61,357 straight-party votes for the Democratic ticket mingled among Whitehouse’s final 206,110 votes, 18,424 straight-party GOP votes within the 179,001 who voted for Chafee, according to the state Board of Elections.
The elections board does not have reliable records of straight-party votes in past elections, according to its executive director, Robert Kando. But the Washington blog known as The Hill reported the number of Rhode Islanders choosing the one-stroke Democratic Party option went up by 23,000 — more than 60 percent — from what it was during the last mid-term election, in 2002. (Kando said he could not verify the numbers.)
—
Also, a recent bill to end straight ticket voting was tabled. See the report here:
http://ri12.blogspot.com/search/label/Voting
—
Here’s an op-ed by Rep. Susan Story (R-Dist. 66):
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/News/partyvotingoped.asp
—
For what it’s worth, I still say it was the overall strength of the Dem party (I seem to recall some talk radio discussion about how the Dems have a “deep bench” while the GOP is thin), rather than simple anti-Bush sentiment. I don’t think voters would have just gone Dem if they only meant to elect Whitehouse, in other words.