Teachers reach tentative agreement with School Committee

Posted

The Warwick Teachers' Union and the Warwick School Committee agreed to a tentative agreement for a new contract in the wee hours of Thursday morning, Oct. 19. 

"The parties worked very diligently and productively last evening and were focused on bringing all of their disputes to closure," said state-appointed mediator Vincent Ragosta. "I made several recommendations for compromise and they were embraced. And at approximately 12:30 [a.m.] we inked a document that just said very generally what the points were...beyond that we need to do more documentation but it's quite clear that we have an agreement."

The mediation session began on Wednesday evening at 7 p.m., meaning the parties spent over five hours in deliberations before the tentative agreement was reached. The exact details of the agreement are not being disclosed at this time.

As a result of the agreement, the school committee's early morning meeting, scheduled for 7:15 a.m. on Thursday, was cancelled. The topic of the meeting was to discuss how to carry out the temporary restraining order issued by Associate Justice Susan McGuirl on Tuesday. Such action, should the contract be finalized, will not be unnecessary.

The tentative agreement is the first step towards an end to the more than two years of controversy and discord that has been ongoing since the teachers' last collective bargaining agreement expired in August of 2015.

Rhode Island Department of Education Commissioner Dr. Ken Wagner released the following statement on Thursday morning:

“We are pleased that the Warwick School Committee and Warwick Teachers Union have come together for the good of their students and the community at large, reaching a tentative agreement that we hope will bring to an end what has been a difficult chapter for Warwick schools. We are eager to see the agreement finalized as quickly as possible so that all parties can continue to do what they do best – prepare Warwick students for their futures.”

Comments

37 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
ThatGuyInRI

The details will be good reading.

Thursday, October 19
Kammy

Compromise came only after multiple protests, sick outs, press releases and news articles. I can't wait to see what the end result was and just how much each side was wiling to give in order to resolve the issues.

Thursday, October 19
richardcorrente

WONDERFUL NEWS.

Thursday, October 19
Justanidiot

tank u mr mayer. you're tireless work has benefitted all. we can't wait until next year so we can re erect you and get the airport crisis sorted out.

Thursday, October 19
JusthaFacts

Good and it just took 2 face to face negotiations, but one was 3 years ago when Super Thornton was unprepared and embarrassed by the conflicts his cut backs and poor leadership caused when he first sat down with the teachers’ representatives. Now after more than 2 years of $100,000s in bills from hired attorney negotiators, a paid arbitrator, attorney bills for Labor Relations Board and Superior Court appearances, there is another real negotiation. After 2 years of parent and teacher protests; long, emotional School Committee Meetings; demoralized and detached staff forced to reject additional assignments and training without contract protections, and finally lost school days; Thornton lets another meeting take place, and there is quick agreement. What a waste of time and money. What incompetence. What an embarrassment for the School Committee. Now just a 3rd meeting is needed - to fire Thornton and start to rebuild the Warwick Schools.

Thursday, October 19
richardcorrente

Dear Justanidiot,

You are invited to join me.

Thank you for your humorous (although somewhat misspelled) comments, and thinly-veiled sarcasms against Mayor Avedisian.

I know, you know, what I would do in a situation like this, but for those who don't...

I would work on a new teachers contract EVERY DAY until we had a signed agreement. I wouldn't go on vacation once a month (or more). In fact I wouldn't go on vacation, even one time. I wouldn't put anything else as a higher priority. I would work fifteen hours a day, seven days a week, until we had a solution. It galls me that Mayor Avedisian had a "hands-off" policy until just recently. If the teachers and the School Committee were meeting and they wanted to meet alone, I wouldn't have had any problem with that. However, the minute the talks were interrupted I would have gotten involved. I would not have tried to influence the outcome but I would have done EVERYTHING IN MY POWER to keep the two sides talking. There is no way this should have taken so long, and we still haven't crossed the finish line.

It would never happen, if I was the Mayor of Warwick. Hold me to that.

Happy Autumn everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor

Thursday, October 19
Thecaptain

No wonder you defaulted on all of your taxes, you were too busy solving the teacher dispute and making sure that there was no tax increase this year. My my, you are a hard worker. Delusional, but hard.

Thursday, October 19
Reality

Warwick Taxpayers BEWARE.....if Scottie negotiated the contract, the taxpayers will be fleeced. Scottie has never negotiated a generous union contract he didn't like.

Thursday, October 19
WwkVoter

Reality, Not for nuthin but didn't Mayor Avedisian get a few years of zero-raise contracts agreed during the financial crisis? I think that showed the unions and the admin wanted to keep the city financially together and they all compromised to get that done.

Thursday, October 19
Reality

WwkVoter....do you really want to get into a discussion regarding Scottie's fiscal ineptitude?

Do you want to discuss how much the city side of the budget has exploded the last few yrs. while the schools were level funded?Do you want to discuss the drug cap benefit Scottie gave the city workers a few yrs ago that cost the taxpayers $4 million last yr? How about the health wellness bonus of $500 per family that costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands yearly? What about the new enhanced fire dept unused sick pay bonus? Get the point....I only just began. How about all the millionaire city retirees Scottie has created? There are so many more examples I could list of Scottie destroying Warwick's solvency just to garner the union vote but it would take all night.

Thursday, October 19
WwkVoter

Reality, I was just talking to your point that all the contracts were excessive and from my recollection reading this paper, some were zero raise contracts. Sounds like you know more than me and those things you mentioned look pretty expensive, but I'm no expert. Hopefully the school contract will be a healthy compromise that helps to solve the important issues.

Friday, October 20
CrickeeRaven

JusthaFacts:

For someone with that screen name, you sure don't live up to it. Ragosta stated that the parties met 25 times leading up to this week's tentative agreement: https://warwickpost.com/ragosta-wtu-committee-mediation-hinged-education-not-money/

That's the mediator talking -- not the WTU and not the school committee.

And to the fake "mayor's" claim that he would have "[kept] the two sides talking," here is what Ragosta said of Mayor Avedisian's role: “He was able to keep all of the parties talking."

As he has proven before, the fake "mayor" will not let reality get in the way of what he thinks is a good talking point, and will continue to humiliate himself in his future comments.

Friday, October 20
CrickeeRaven

Hello again Thecaptain:

Thanks again for pointing out the fake "mayor's" habit of claiming credit for things where he had no actual influence. I am sure you'll agree that we can probably expect to see these false claims on his campaign literature, in addition to all of the other statements he has made that were later proven to be lies.

What I wanted to get your opinion on was this statement from the article linked above: "The agreement struck at 12:30 a.m. hinged more on education matters than the money involved, [Ragosta] said."

Those "education matters," if the past several months are any indication, seem to include whether past grievances should be dropped, the number of IEP students in regular ed classes, and electronic grading.

I'm curious to know how you think they're going to be resolved? The grievances and IEP issues are related, so do you think WSC agreed to fix the IEP issue by realigning the affected classrooms so WTU would then drop the grievances?

Despite the last several months, I am optimistic that they reached a decent agreement with compromise from both sides.

Friday, October 20
davebarry109

I'm going to go out on a limb. At least 3% increase in pay per year with back pay going back to the last contract. These teachers are mercenary. The city cannot afford to give out 3% every year. It affects the deficit in pensions every single year. Particularly with compounding colas.

Friday, October 20
Thecaptain

My guess is that since the mayor was involved, (Avedisian, not the fake mayor) that he spared no expense. I'm guessing 11.5% raise, 0, 2.5, 3, 3, 3 for the pat 2 years and the coming contract. Most likely they took off the proposed layoff's that were on the table, and in turn lowered classroom size.

They had 18 days sick time and the option to pay into TDI but I am sure that has gotten a bit sweeter. Probably the TDI will be paid for by the taxpayer and the rank and file will get it for free. Can you remember back 3 years ago when up until then the teachers paid $11 per pay period for healthcare? Not a bad deal. I wonder how many teachers quit in the last 2 years because the job conditions and pay was so awful?

Friday, October 20
ThatGuyInRI

3% across the board would be the best raise of any teachers in the state...

We'll see when the contract is made public. And don't forget that tentative means the union body has to vote on it still, don't hold your breath.

Friday, October 20
CrickeeRaven

Hello davebarry109 and Thecaptain:

The 0/2.5/3/3/3 was, if I recall, the arbitrator's "leaning" as reported a few weeks back, so I'd wager that's the way it's going to go. On the layoffs/class size, I'm not quite as pessimistic, since the WSC won in court on the prior layoff issue.

In the end, they originally gave notices for 63 layoffs and wound up with a net of 22 after retirements and other departures [which I think partially answers your question, Cap]. So, that's - 63 and they can still go up to 20 more in each of the next three years.

ThatGuyinRI:

I agree, if there's any way for this deal to go off the rails, it's with the union not approving it. The no-confidence vote and sick-outs showed that Netcoh may not have the grip on the WTU that some may think -- she said 400 to 500 of 900 teachers participated in the vote, and that teachers at five schools coordinated their "sick days" without union approval.

I don't at all expect the union vote to be a slam-dunk, in other words. What I hope is that the teachers on either side of that divide -- those who participated in the PR stunts and those who did not -- all agree, in the end, that having a contract is the better resolution and will take what their leadership brings to them.

Friday, October 20
Kammy

JusthaFacts, your comment reminded me of a quote I heard one time.

“Why can’t I remember that not once have I ever seen a coin, whether grimy copper or bright gold, that had but one side.”

― Andrew Levkoff, A Mixture of Madness

Balance is key and negotiations are a two way street. If you chose to only demonize one side then you miss out on the bigger picture. No one side is always 100% right.

Friday, October 20
PaulHuff

Wwkvoter,

Great point in mentioning the zero raise contracts that the city negotiated against the municipal, fire, and police unions. If I recall correctly the teachers were asked to open their contract back then to help out with the fiscal crisis and refused.

Now they want exorbitant raises.

I hope the SC didn’t cave to these bullies.

Friday, October 20
Norwood

http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150611/NEWS/150619786

Seems fair that the teachers end up in the 9 to 10% range for 5 years after reading this link.

Friday, October 20
Justanidiot

Remember it is a tentative agreement. I hope those wild cat teachers who organized the sick out without the union's knowledge stick together and defeat it. Sending this whole process back to the drawing board would be a hoot.

Friday, October 20
Bg9385

Dave Barry:

If the percentages end up being what everyone is speculating, that's 11.5% over 5 years, so 2.3% per year. I've seen two average annual raises printed in terms of statewide averages, 1.7% and 2%. Not sure which one is accurate. Either way, it's not at least 3% - it's less, and it's not 3% in retro pay per year - it's less. What part of expecting a raise is considered mercenary behavior?

Friday, October 20
Thecaptain

Just a word or two pertaining to the subject matter of the "pay freeze period" of the 2013-15 contract. Through numerous APRA requests and hundreds of dollars I received the information on wages. During that period, every department, with exception of the police dept. had massive overtime increases. In addition, virtually every employee got step raises and increases in rank or position.

I received the 3 year salary list of all employees of DPW and WFD along with the actual 3 year period year end salaries. All wages increased between $6000 upwards of $40,000 on the WFD. I also received 3 random WFD employees W2 forms for the pay freeze period. The documents indicated between 3 men, a salary increase of $287,000 split between them.

So the "WAGE FREEZE" banter is just a talking point that can be circumvented several different ways by differed compensation.

Bear in mind, during that same time period the WFD also received a 3.1 million dollar federal grant to pay for new fire fighter wages for 2 years. Even with that infusion of dollars, the department blew thru their overtime budget by 2.3 million ( if I recall the numbers correctly). So as far as I am concerned, the "sacrifices" that the mayor indicates that the unions made, was a bunch of hooey as the documents indicate that EVERYONE made more money each year during the pay freeze period.

Friday, October 20
Bob_Cushman

Several individuals “WwkVoter” & “PaulHuff” have commented on the so called zero raise contracts the municipal, fire and police unions agreed to years ago.

As someone who has complied line item by line item budgetary data on the city budget from 2004 to the present and having served on the Warwick City Council and the Finance Committee, I can state that I have the specific factual knowledge to refute this claim of all municipal employees receiving no salary increases over the 3 year period from fiscal year 2013 (Starting July 1, 2012) through the end of fiscal year 2015 (ending June 30, 2015).

Even through the actual terms of the contract indicated no raises for the three years period as reported in a July 3, 2012 article titled “City pay pacts ease burden on taxpayers”, the actual dollars expended on the line items in the city budget associated with municipal, fire and police salary, step increases, overtime and sick time bonus pay, paint a far difference picture.

For the 3 year period from the end of the 2012 fiscal year to the end to the end of the 2015 fiscal year $1.7 million more was spent on these line items for an overall 2.77% increase in salary spending.

In addition when employee healthcare and pension and other benefits are factored into the equation the increase is much more dramatic. In 2015 employee benefit expense was $22.9 million growing to $25.9 or by $3 million three years later. That’s a 13.1 percent increase.

As an example of how salary and benefits were increased under the public radar, consider this. Within the provisions of that contract, all Warwick Police officers for the first time were provided with a $4,000 annual stipend ($12,000 over the course of the 3 year contract with annual $600,000 increase in cost) to fund a new Health Saving Account. Even through the administration during the budget hearing testified that the program would save taxpayers over 20% on the cost of police offers health insurance from the 2012 fiscal year, during the 2013 fiscal year, Mayor Avedisian increased the budgeted amount by $200,000 for police officers. By the close of that fiscal year police healthcare costs increased from the budgeted $2,765,543 to $3,229,613 or over budget by $464,070.

When the administration was asked by me at the 2013 budget hearing to disclose the analysis they performed that determined why the annual stipend was $4,000 as opposed to $3,000 or $2,000 to achieve the promised 20% savings at the end of the year, the Mayor indicated that no analysis was performed. When my follow up question asked, how did they come up with the $4,000 number, the Mayor indicated that they provided the same stipend as Cranston provided for their police officers.

At the end of the 2012 fiscal year, the city received $93.4 million in local tax dollars. By the end of the 2015 fiscal year local tax dollars allocated to the city budget increased to $94.2 million with another $3.6 million taken from the city rainy day fund to support the budget. One year later at the end of the fiscal 2016 year $108 million in local tax dollars was allocated to the city budget. That’s an astonishing $13.8 million increase in 1 year. During the same time period the number of jobs in the city also grew from 799 positions to 822 positions.

The bottom line is that the so called three years of zero, zero, zero in raises was a red herring publicity stunt by Mayor Avedisian that did not reduce the overall city budget but made great headlines in the newspaper and to this day folks such as “WwkVoter” & “PaulHuff” actually believe employee costs were reduced and something great was accomplish the Mayor in his negotiations. Nothing can be further from the truth!!!!

Friday, October 20
CrickeeRaven

Hello again davebarry109:

Kindly disregard the prior comment by admitted union member Bg, because his math is wrong:

Raises are compounded over time, so 2.5% one year and 3% the following three years is not a simple 11.5% increase.

Here's how it actually works: a teacher earning top step [rounding to $80,000] would get a 2.5% retro raise to $82,000 in the first year, then 3% of that, or $2,460 in the first year of the new contract; 3% of the new amount, or $2,534 in the second; and another 3% of the new amount, or $2,610 in the third, instead of $2,000 the first year and $2,400 in successive years which would be the case if the raises were only applied to the original $80,000 figure.

According to the district, some 87% of teachers, or about 750, would be getting this top-step pay rate [not counting stipends, coaching, longevity, or advanced degree payments]. So, 750 teachers getting a combined $9,600 over three years plus a retro year is about $7.2 million. Again, these are rough estimates and include only top step teachers.

Friday, October 20
PaulHuff

Mr. Cushman,

I was speaking about salaries. You are speaking about benefits and step increases.

The point is that they agreed to zeros for salary. And a 2.7% increase is easily explained due to numbers of employees ranks changing and things like that.

So while we were discussing salaries you wrote a manifesto about benefits.

Friday, October 20
Bg9385

Please disregard Raven's flawed math:

Per the expired contract, step 10 salary is $76,601. Retro pay of 2.5% is $78,516 or a bump of $1,915. First year compound of 3% is a salary of $80,871, a $2,355 raise. Then $83,297, a $2,426 raise. Finally $85,795, a $2,498 raise. Cumulative over the 750 teachers he's throwing out there is $6.89 million. If you're going to throw around fiscal figures, you can't be off by $300k.

Friday, October 20
Bob_Cushman

Paul seriously how can you even claim that step increases and onetime bonuses are not part of a person’s salary? That thinking defies logic.

The July 1, 2014 Warwick Beacon article states, [Some Warwick employees may not take the $1,000 bonuses included in the mayor’s budget after all, because they apparently believe they can do better. According to reports, Warwick Firefighters are balking at the bonus that the mayor proposed as a means of thanking city employees for having agreed to a three-year contract without a wage increase. All three unions agreed to the “zero contract,” as it has become known.

However, the third year of the contract, which the city is now in, includes a wage re-opening clause.

“At this point, this is a line item in the budget,” DePasquale said of the $800,000 earmarked for bonuses.”]

In private industry $0 means no money for a step increase. $0 means no money for a bonus. $0 means no increase in pay. $0 means a job hiring freeze and if you are promoted, no increase in pay. $0 means some employees will lose their job.

What it also means is that if you want to keep your job, you take on the extra responsibility of your co-worker or manager who was laid off, making the same pay and being thankful you still have a job.

And if you ask many of those people they will tell you that during that period of time, massive increases in the cost of healthcare benefits were passed along to them, many had their 401K company match reduced or eliminated, take home pay was actually reduced. None of those conditions was ever experienced in Warwick over that 3 year period.

Did you know that a recent NY Times article indicated that the State of Illinois pension and healthcare benefit cost as a percent of the general fund budget is 33%. The article went on to say that “the State of Illinois is past the point of no return. It does not have the ability to raise taxes or cut spending to the degree necessary to reduce the annual cost of bond and retiree benefits from 33% to a sustainable level”.

Do you know what Warwick’s health and pension benefit cost is as a percent of the general fund budget is?

It’s 28% without factoring in current bond costs and that number is growing each year. And if the city approves the $88 million bond money to fix schools that percent could well be in line with Illinois.

So we can argue over semantics over what $0, $0, $0 really represented or you and all the other municipal active and retired employees can wake up and become part of a process to reform the current system built on a house of cards, before Warwick reaches the point of no return.

And just so you know these warning are not from me. Read what the city actuarial expert testified to back in a June 11, 2015 Beacon Article “Tough choices over costs of retiree benefits”. [“The report reads, “If the cumulative costs are unsustainable, employees should be made aware of this unavoidable fact of life and the consequences of inaction.” It reasons that when faced with the prospect of a “lost decade with virtually no salary increases and chronic workforce attrition, many employees will eventually accept the need for change, especially if the reforms are phased in incrementally and designed thoughtfully.”

Looking at what’s happening in the city, Merolla asked Monday, “Where’s the breaking point? Is there a way to figure that out?”

“I think you’ve been there for a long time,” Cerrone answered. “If this was my business model I would run away from it.”]

Friday, October 20
PaulHuff

Mr. Cushman,

I don’t know about bonuses, but I do know that step increases are their own line item.

So yes, they are not part of an employees salary since salary is salary and step increases are a separate line item, and therefore not part of a salary.

Step increase is part of a benefit package but not part of a salary. Just like an hsa isn’t a stipend. It’s an incentive for the employee to spend their co-share wisely which saves money.

Feel free to write a third manifesto about a third topic (first was talking about benefits when we were talking about salaries, then you came back talking about bonuses and continued talking about insurance, who knows what will be next) to try to prove your prowess.

The topic at hand is all the other unions took zeros and the teachers didn’t. Now the teachers want exorbitant raises. Try to focus.

Friday, October 20
Thecaptain

Paul,

You clearly do not understand the spin that the mayor has been brilliant to cast upon the sheep in Warwick for so long. Can you stipulate for the record whether or not you have attended the budget hearings in 2013-14 and 15? Just asking. The mayor openly touted along with his cheer leaders from WFD, DPW, his then chief of staff Mark Corullo, that there was a ZERO increase in the departments budgets. They lied and then finance director Zymlinski swore to it. If you email me at cartaxrevolt@aol.com I will send you the official documents so you can review.

During this time the overtime blew threw the roof for no apparent reason. The department heads had no explanation to the council. Certain members of the council were furious but nothing was done and not 1 document was ever requested until I went on a rampage.

Because the city sends you the APRA requests in a locked PDF, I cant cut and paste all of the documents, but here are a few highlights from the pay freeze period.

Name Base salary 2013 2014 2015

BELLAVANCE $86,548 $102,823 $100,474 $107,769

BRADLEY $79,111 $108,082 $103,671 $100,570

COBB $79,854 $102,871 $97,825 $99,481

FAUCHER $76,880 $115,922 $140,950 $135,150

I could list everyone but if you really want the documents, just send me an email. Let me know that you actually want to see fact and we can have an intelligent discussion on how the administration disguises "UNION CONCESSIONS" by altering the equation and giving what is referred to as "DIFFERED COMPENSATION, STEP INCREASES, and RANK ADVANCEMENT"

I am anxious to send you the data so please respond.

Friday, October 20
Bob_Cushman

Paul, your claim, " I do know that step increases are their own line item. So yes, they are not part of an employees salary since salary is salary and step increases are a separate line item, and therefore not part of a salary".

Sorry Paul, you have no idea what you are takling about and clearly have no understanding of the budget.

Back in 2005 all line items in the budget ending with the number 150 contained the "Longevity" budgeted amounts.

For Police I Longevity, the line item 30-120. Police II was 30-121

Firefighter I Longevity was line item 35-122. Figefigheter II was 35-123

Starting in 2006 fiscal year Mayor Avedisian eliminated the line items containing all longevity budgeting. He rolled those amounts into the salary line item for each department calling the expense a "Step Increase" The mayor did this so that it would be more difficult for anyone to deermine how much this benefit is costing taxpayers.

So I will stand corected Paul if you can name the separate line items where employee salary and step increases are currently budgeted.

Friday, October 20
WwkVoter

I think there are some really smart people posting information in these comments. I don't like when it sometimes gets personal, but when its facts, I read every word.

Friday, October 20
Reality

Wwk Voter.....the more you read about the fiscal mess Avedisian has created, the more you appreciate the fact that Scottie has put us on the path to bankruptcy.

Saturday, October 21
Thecaptain

Paul and Wwkvoter,

To give you some more information about the deception that exists in the budget process. In the line item for the WFD 35-100 Sick leave, each year that amount when divided by the average day rate, it amounts to approximately 30 sick days per year. It was not until I exposed the fact that the numbers did not add up and I vigorously questioned the fire chief and the mayor to find that they only counted the non uniform personnel in the sick leave line item (35-100). Upon questioning the mayor and chief, they were forced to admit that they rolled the uniform sick time into the salary line item. Every department in the city breaks out the sick time with exception to the WFD. Why?????

Here's why. In the fiscal contract 2013 - 2015 we, the taxpayer, allocated 13,200 sick days to the WFD. The line item for all 3 years indicated a sick time use of 105 days. Being competent in math I knew something was wrong so I pushed and pushed and was met with roadblocks until I performed APRA requests and did the analysis. The reason that the WFD did not itemize the sick time was because they hide sick time under title 45. (http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE45/45-19/45-19-1.HTM ) I would encourage you to read this.

In fact we found 287 cases were after a fire fighter was on vacation for 3 shifts (12 days) the first day back they call in sick and the sick day is written of to illness job related. Now, it doesnt take Columbo to figure out that something is amiss.

Taking that data and cross referencing with the unused sick pay we have a conundrum. The past 3 fire chiefs all state at the budget hearings that the excessive overtime is due to numerous men on the sick list, yet the sick leave time shows a negligible number, and in the line item of the unused sick pay bonus, it indicates that virtually every man eligible received the maximum unused sick time pay. It simply didnt pass the smell test.

So we docketed a resolution to force the WFD to break out the sick time in a separate line item as every other department does. Guess what, they didnt do it. They violated the ordinance. Are you comprehending this yet??

So by obtaining the shift records we calculated the number of sick days and multiplied that by the average day rate to come up with a figure of in excess of $900,000 in sick time. That is why they dont break it out. If there is that much sick time, how did 114 men in 2015 and 139 men in 2016 get the maximum unused sick pay bonus? The math simply does not work.

Let's stipulate for the record, we can all spin any subject matter to whatever side we lean to , but mathematics never lies. The simple math shows that the WFD has been scheming the sick time and title 45 for decades. It needs to end and they need to be accountable. Its just that simple.

Let me leave you with this. If you are a public employee say for example DPW and you steal a pump and get caught, its called simple theft. If you have the department head enabling you to steal the pump its called conspiracy. If you have the "lookout" calling the department head telling you that the coast is clear, and the department head allows you to steal the pump, whats that called????? Its call racketeering. RICO.

When 2 or more people are knowingly involved in a a repetitive scheme to defraud, its called RICO.

Just think about it, you're a smart guy.

Saturday, October 21
richardcorrente

Dear CrickeeRaven,

I don't believe that the parties met "25 times", but even if that is true, what you are saying is that "over a period of approximately 800 days, the parties only met 25 times." If I was Mayor the parties would have met 25 times over the first 25 or 26 days. That's what I meant when I said "I would have kept the two sides talking".

Please don't misquote me.

Happy Autumn everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor

Monday, October 23
CrickeeRaven

"I don't believe that the parties met 25 times,'" writes the fake "mayor," proving once again that he lives in an imaginary world of his own creation and will not acknowledge fact if it gets in the way of his pathetic fantasy.

That he questions the neutral mediator is yet further proof of his clear intent to continually humiliate himself in his comments. He will certainly maintain that unblemished record in his next comments.

Monday, October 23
Thecaptain

Richard,

"If" you were the mayor, it would be the mayor of Munchkin Land and you would be in your green top hat singing, "I represent The Lollie Pop Guild,, The Lollie Pop Guild, The Lollie Pop Guild. And in the name of The Lollie Pop Guild, I wish to welcome you to my fantasy land !!

Monday, October 23