Report Inappropriate Comments

As previously stated in last Tuesday’s edition of this paper, my prediction of the so called “mayoral debate” was accurate and concise. A sole mayoral debate conducted by children serves no purpose for the residents or the community. If this type of forum was conducted after a number of worthwhile intellectual debates, I would have a different opinion. However, to appease my critics and to give them reason to differ with my opinion I will offer some highlights and substantiated facts of the sham debate forum.

When children are put in a position of a debate that has millions of dollars of taxpayers money on the table, one would have to question the motivation of the forum. I’ll answer that question last, but the fact is when children or any other person conducts this type of forum, they should be required to have actual knowledge of the specifics of the topics. It was crystal clear that this was not the case. When the moderators are unable to identify the incumbent’s attempts to change the subject and not answer the question, or to not be able to identify the challenger’s complete lack of knowledge of subject matter, no useful outcome becomes the result of the waste of time labeled as the “mayoral debate”.

Highlight #1 – The mayor was asked the following, - Given the fact that the city has an unfunded healthcare liability of $300 million with zero dollars in the fund as assets, how can the city continue to give away free lifetime healthcare to its retiree’s?

Mayors answer – We have re-amortized the pension plans realizing considerable savings. We are ½ way thru a 40 year plan.

Corrente’s answer – I will not take away pension benefits from our employees, I will offer a voluntary pension buy out.

The lack of interruption by the moderators proves my point. The pension plans have nothing to do with the separate $300 million completely unfunded healthcare plan. The mayor diverted the question, and Corrente was so unprepared, that he lost his best chance to hammer Avedisian, on the facts, which only proves my point further.

Highlight # 2 - The mayor was asked the following – The recent tax increased raised $4.7 million in revenue. Virtually 100% of that revenue went to raises and bonuses. With virtually every service line item in the budget cut, how is this fair to the taxpayer?

Mayors answer – I’m unaware of any services that have been cut.

Corrente’s answer – The mayor has raised taxes for 16 years. I will cut taxes and cut spending.

Once again, Corrente’s lack of knowledge and preparation was evident, and the moderators, who were unable to get any specifics from either candidate, showed that they were completely unprepared. Corrente lost another opportunity as he could have stated the reduction in the line item for road repair/paving, the continued cuts to the community policing program, the decrease in winter sanding, etc… He showed again that he was completely unfamiliar with any line item in the budget, and could have easily stated that the city council was unable to cut 5 cents from a $298 million dollar budget.

Highlight # 3 – Question to the mayor – The recent fire fighter contract increased the sick day bonus by 50% resulting in an annual increase of $932,500. How do you justify this when the department exceeds its budget by millions every year?

Mayors answer – It takes 6 years for the firefighters to realize the sick pay bonus. They shouldn’t have to be penalized and this is an incentive not to call in sick.

Correte’s answer – The majority of our fireman die of lung cancer. They face carcinogenic agents every day. They need this benefit.

Absolutely the most ridiculous and embarrassing part of the night for all 3 parties. First, the firefighters don’t get the benefit for the first 7 years of employment, (not 6 mayor) however, during that time, they still are allowed to bank 20 days per year until they reach 140 days. Then they start receiving an annual sick pay bonus check for 15 days. BUT, the first 140 that is banked is paid back to them at retirement at their pay rate upon retirement. Again, the exchange shows Avedisians ability to distort and distract, Corrente’s complete lack of knowledge of facts, and the children’s lack of any specific knowledge of city workings and increasing liabilities.

Final highlight as I could go on and on.

Question to Corrente – Mr. Corrente, can you point to 2 line items in the budget that you can cut to save money?

Corrente’s answer – I’ll offer tax incentives. Open a business, get a check. Move to Warwick, get a check.

Mayors rebuttal - I don’t think Mr. Corrente pointed to 2 line items.

Unfortunately the mayor was not held by the moderator to answer the same question.

As an outspoken critic of the mayor, and a taxpayer, I have the right to vigorously question him about his administration policies and the effect on the taxpayer. I also have the right to question any other candidate. How Mr. Corrente’s property tax default and subsequent superior court case against him for trespass and ejection was not brought up is disturbing to me as I believe his financial skills should be rigorously questioned.

Although I give the students credit for participation in the process contrived by John Howell of this paper, there was one thought provoking comment made by Mr. Corrente that went un-noticed. Mr. Corrente attempted to discredit Mayor Avedisian by stating “he is a professional politician who has never held any other job” and that “his first job was “given” to him by Mayor Lincoln Chaffee”. Mayor Avedisian corrected him by stating “ Mr. Corrente is wrong, John Howell “gave” me my first job which was at the Warwick Beacon”. Interesting, - which is my answer to the motivation question.