EDITORIAL

Showing who's in charge

Posted 12/19/19

Lovers of dramatic city politics will get a great early Christmas gift in Warwick this year. A special meeting has been called - utilizing a dusty provision within the city charter allowing a five-person City Council majority to call for one - which

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
EDITORIAL

Showing who's in charge

Posted

Lovers of dramatic city politics will get a great early Christmas gift in Warwick this year.

A special meeting has been called – utilizing a dusty provision within the city charter allowing a five-person City Council majority to call for one – which indicates five council members are intending to approve the tentatively agreed fire contract before the New Year, as opposed to the Council’s decision on Monday night, which would have picked the issue back up for more discussion on Jan. 6.

This is interesting for a few reasons. Primarily, it shows that a five-person majority is exercising its power in numbers over Council President Steve Merolla and finance committee chairman Ed Ladouceur – the two most outspoken councilmen who have often dictated the tenor of Warwick’s legislative body, whether that be through the grilling of city employees over bids by Ladouceur or the characterization of Warwick’s hotly debated fiscal situation as perilous, which Merolla has often done.

Five members making this stand will presumably result in approval of the contract and, certainly, satisfy the wishes of Mayor Solomon. There is little doubt he is eager to put an end to this chapter of his mayoral tenure behind him, as his last attempt at securing this new contract resulted in a premature media announcement and a resounding rejection from the union.

We also see no reason to doubt that Solomon believes this new agreement is for the best of the city, the firefighters and the taxpayers. Solomon is the person, after all, who led the effort to give contract ratification rights to the council. He also stopped a shady “side deal” that came from an improperly altered contract without council approval, and he has turned his words into actions by implementing meaningful changes to how contractual changes are tracked and transparently presented to the council. Those are all positive bullet points on Solomon’s mayoral resume, for which we applaud him.

Regardless, this development of five council members uniting in favor of Solomon’s desired outcome is certainly interesting. It will send a clear message to Merolla and Ladouceur, who have emerged as Solomon’s only consistent critics within the ranks of the City Council, of who is really in charge. This is obviously another win for Solomon, who clearly has whipped enough support on the council – at least on this issue – to overcome their outspoken opposition.

We must ponder, however, what the other implications of this are. We didn’t hear much in the way of strong opinions on the fire contract from any council members besides the aforementioned Merolla, Ladouceur, and a little bit from Ward 1 Councilman Rick Corley – who has shown himself to be a wild card vote on more than a few issues since Solomon assumed mayoral duties – during the six-hour long back-and-forth discussing the issue on Monday night.

There were, however, strong opinions voiced for why taking a little more time in fleshing out some of the concerns regarding the contract might be a prudent idea. Rob Cote presented a clear oversight in the vacation day payout line of the contract, which if enacted could have reasonably wound up causing an issue or even a grievance due to misunderstanding. Bob Cushman outlined legitimate concerns regarding the OPEB trust and not having the right contingencies in place prior to enacting the agreement.

At the end of the day, waiting two weeks to discuss the matter further on January 6 is not going to cost the taxpayers some exorbitant amount of money. Rushing the contract through without taking time to hear out legitimate concerns regarding ambiguous contract language, however, could.

The argument that the council has had multiple weeks with the contract to go over these details is a flawed one. The taxpayers – the ones who are on the hook for the financial implications of this contract – only just got the chance to voice their concerns on the contract on Monday, and they certainly weren’t provided a copy of the full tentative agreement weeks in advance.

Regardless of the ability for Solomon to use his support on the council to drive this contract over the goal line, it doesn’t mean inherently that he should. So rarely does the city move at such a blistering pace to approve something that we can’t help but wonder if doing so is truly in the best interest of the citizenry.

Comments

3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Daydreambeliever

    I’m unsure who wrote this article but in the next to last paragraph it states “ The taxpayers- the ones on the hook for the financial implications of this contract- only just got the chance to voice there concerns on the contract on Monday, and they certainly weren’t provided a copy of the full tentative agreement weeks in advance.

    Tell me I’m wrong but Captain Blabbermouth in other comment sections admitted he had a copy of the new proposal and contract through a supposed APRA request.

    If this is true there is absolutely no excuse for our elected officials not to also read.

    There is a leak somewhere to obtain information on the council I’m sure of it the more I read and listen.

    Sooner or later someone will get exposed who hopefully it’s the councilman from ward 9 who plans to run for mayor.

    Thursday, December 19, 2019 Report this

  • davebarry109

    Where is the investigation into who told citizens that they couldn't speak at the last meeting? This type of thuggery is reminiscent of the illicit teamsters union when they were firmly under the mafia's influence/direction. The rust to get this done smells highly of some corruption. it cannot be good for we taxpayers.

    Tuesday, December 24, 2019 Report this

  • patientman

    A contract with ramifications for 6 or 7 decades should be fully vetted by an actuarial firm. The fact that a Warwick resident, deeply informed on local Rhode Island politics, offered to pay for such a study tells me one hasn't been done. Our City Council is horrible.

    Friday, January 3, 2020 Report this