Report Inappropriate Comments

See, WwkVoter, the core issue with Bob is that he wants people to assume the worst about all public employees to distract from his own record.

When he talks about politically-connected employees who he thinks are unfairly profiting from their municipal jobs, he doesn't mention his own history of getting a politically-connected job in Cranston -- only to resign when the city council wouldn't approve his appointment because he wasn't qualified.

Here's the Beacon article where he announced he'd be taking the position of economic development director in Cranston, despite acknowledging that he had "no real history of job creation or actual experience bringing new business to any community."

http://warwickonline.com/stories/cushman-joins-laffey-team,17575?

That article was published on March 31, 2005. On April 22, 2005, the city council voted to deny his appointment -- here's the minutes from that meeting: http://www.cranstonri.com/pdf/calendar_meetings/Apr25,2005_276.pdf

Bob finally resigned in August: https://www.cranstonri.com/pdf/calendar_meetings/Aug22,2005_1877.pdf

So, he was an unqualified applicant getting a politically-connected job that, according to the above article, was "eligible for additional fringe benefits offered other city workers within the mayor's administration."

[One interesting footnote is that current Cranston Mayor and former city councilman Fung voted to give Bob the job.]

This may explain some of the chip that Bob carries on his shoulder about public employees -- that he was denied the chance to be one.

And more to the point, Warwick would already be in a fiscal mess if what he's been saying were true. There's only so much that underlying financial problems can be papered over -- so, as I said before, either the city has been dealing with these issues and Bob is falsely claiming otherwise, or the city council has been directly complicit in failing to address the issues and he's trying to relieve them of any responsibility for it.

You may also notice that the people he names are no longer on the city council, and that some of the current city councilors have been there for almost two decades, yet he doesn't mention their role in passing a FY18 budget that included a 99-percent tax collection rate -- a typical "papering over" move that never works. And it didn't work in Warwick -- that decision by the current city council directly resulted in a $4.2 million deficit in the FY19 budget that raises taxes to the state-imposed limit.

Does Bob mention that in his letter to the editor? No, he doesn't.

Now, please don't think that I disagree about voters getting more educated and electing responsive and responsible officials. If you've gathered anything from my comments, I hope it's that collecting information is important if you're going to debate the issues.

I've presented information about someone who sets himself up as an authority on the city's finances, and about the current budget situation in Warwick, which is now in the hands of his party's city council. [While he has disaffiliated for voting purposes, Bob ran as a Democratic candidate in '02, '06, and '08, and filed campaign finance documents in January with the Board of Elections stating his affiliation as Democratic: https://bit.ly/2l6Kt2y ]

He replies by talking about the past, offering conspiracy theories, and trying to deflect from the current council's responsibilities for its actions.

So when Bob talks about recognizing the problem, I agree that voters should educate themselves so that they don't simply depend on his limited and partisan perspective.