Raptakis On Fire District Merger: General Assembly Won't Pass If Divisive
State Senate colleague Dawson Hodgson strongly disagrees.
Photos
State Sen. Lou Raptakis told the Town Council and Fire District commissioners Monday night that resolutions where there's disagreement between the parties fail "99 percent" of the time in General Assembly, breathing fresh life into some of the EGFD commissioners' hopes to be able to remain independent.
That was after about 45 minutes of heated debate over whether or not voters understood that the referendum they passed in November – to merge the Fire District with the town – would actually come to pass without another townwide vote. For video from the meeting, click here.
East Greenwich state legislators attended a joint meeting of the Town Council and the EG Fire District to discuss legislation the Council is drafting to create a municipal fire department and abolish the fire district. Three of the five Fire District Commissioners oppose the merger.
State Senate colleague Dawson Hodgson (R-EG, NK, SK, Narr.) strongly disagreed with Raptakis's assessment, arguing that the election results – in which two thirds of EG voters said in November they thought the Fire District should merge with the town – would be the General Assembly's guiding principle.
Raptakis (D-Coventry, EG, WW) defended his position, but was not able to name a specific example to illustrate his contention.
The Town Council will vote this coming Monday on the bill to submit to EG state legislators. Four of the five councilors are in favor of the merger; Michael Kiernan is opposed.
Kiernan made his position very clear Monday night, reiterating several times he'd seen nothing that showed folding the Fire District into the town would save money. In fact, he said, the only study he'd seen – done by the Fire District – suggested there were no savings to be had.
Early on in the proceedings, Fire Commissioner Bill Daly again said the legislation should include a reference to the fact that voters were told they were voting on a non-binding referendum.
That tried the patience of Town Council President Michael Isaacs. He read outloud the resolution* that was on the ballot in November, noting there was no mention of it being non-binding.
"Nowhere does that say, 'This is a nonbinding vote so if you want to vote for it, this totally is meaningless.' I’ve said this every single time we have met," Isaacs said in frustration. "It was nonbinding because we wanted the voters to understand that only the General Assembly had the authority to make this happen."
He said he would not support adding additional language to the bill.
"I’m sorry," said Isaacs, "but I really think that interjecting that adds nothing to the legislation, confuses the issue, and I know that you’re angling to try to get support for a way to challenge this and to go up to the legislature and argue before the committee that they should disregard the vote of the populace in the referendum. I’m not going to put that language in here because I think it’s irrelevant. People voted because they wanted to see this happen."
Afterwards, Raptakis emphasized that the legislation had several more votes to pass to become law. A Town Council approval will allow the state legislators – Anthony Giarrusso in the House and Hodgson and Raptakis in the Senate – to introduce the bill. From there it would go to the Municipal Government committee, where again it would have to pass a vote to come to the floor of the General Assembly and a vote there. Even if it passes all that, the governor would have to sign it into law.
If the committee takes it up, there will be a public hearing, at which time people from both sides could testify.
According to Raptakis, the two-to-one passage in East Greenwich is "evidence" on the Town Council's side, but it doesn't make it a slam dunk.
*The language of the resolution: ‘Merge the East Greenwich Fire District into the Town of East Greenwich. Some Rhode Island cities and towns maintain their own municipal fire departments while others are served by independent fire districts. East Greenwich is served by the East Greenwich Fire District, which is separate from the Town of East Greenwich. Are you in favor of merging the East Greenwich Fire District into the Town of East Greenwich, the result of which would be that the Town would maintain a municipal fire department and the separate fire district would cease to exist?'
BOB I
8:58 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
where did the "non binding"idea come from?seem a lot of people got this idea from some place.
Cecil B DeMille
9:31 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
How many different ways does the legislature have to hear that the people of East Greenwich want the two merged? Both the people of the town and the Town Council members that they elected have overwhelmingly supported merger. My bet is that the Friefighter's Union would probably support it as well. Mr. Daly's belief that the people of East Greenwich do not possess the intelligence to understand what they were voting for is insulting.
Heather Larkin
9:52 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Agreed, Cecil. Those opposed are continuing to push their agenda and not hearing what anyone else is saying. It is becoming clear that their objective is to hang on to the fiefdom.
chainsawman
10:03 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Watch Raptakis!! major snake in the grass. Look what he did in Coventry!!
Renu Englehart
10:23 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What did he do in Coventry? If you are going to allude to something then just say it. He has been an excellent Senator for East Greenwich in the past.
Tom B
10:26 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What due diligence has been conducted to determine the costs of the merger? There was a mention of a possible loss of revenues if the Fire District was merged, has that been investigated? The last review of the merger indicated no financial savings, so why the rush before the facts are made public. Ultimately if the residents want the Fire District merged, then so be it. But we should know the facts before and not become painfully aware of the true costs afterwards.
Time for change
1:33 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Pull up a chair, grab a tissue and take a deep breath...The Fire District is finally going to be held accountable. No one should have a problem with having the town take over the fire district and hold people accountable. It is very obvious that there is only a couple of fire commissioners and 1 staff member of the fire district that does not want to see this legislation pass. At the end of the day this legislation will pass because this is what the taxpayers want. The fire commissioners forget that they work for us and should not be spending their time fighting the legislation, but they should assist the town in getting this passed.
Gene Dumas
2:25 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I have attended numerous TC and FD meetings since the take over talk started. The FD defended its position by giving clear "pros and cons" in respect to fiscal responsibility. I have not seen that same "due diligence" on the part of the TC. I believe the TC must clearly state(ie: in writing) what the fire budget would look like under the control of the TC. If the residents could be assured of cost savings if this proposal were to be implemented then I say "Hooray."
The jury is still "out" on this one....
Bill Pett
4:10 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The jury is indeed still out. Where did "nonbinding resolution" come from? It's a fact and was well-known at the time of the vote. The Fire Commissioners were elected to work for the taxpayers by doing what they consider will best maintain the fire department, not what would best please the Town Council. Mike Isaacs should stop grumbling and make the case for why the Town Council should take over the Fire District. It is not yet clear that it would be a good idea.
Gene Dumas
4:39 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Thank you Mr. Pett for your comments. At Monday's joint meeting I did speak up to ask Mr. Isaacs if it was a non-binding vote that the TC put to the tax payers. I'm still waiting for an answer.... Maybe I'm not "entitled" to one....
Trying to change History is quite entertaining!
Chuck Newton
6:36 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The non-binding matter is a red herring, designed to distract from other important issues. The vote was mon-binding in the same sense that Hasbro could not vote to have CVS distribute free candy - Hasbro does not have that legal authority. Same thing for the town - it has no legal authority, through referendum or resolution, to dictate to the fire district. Only the General Assembly can do that and that us what the Town must now ask it to do.
Bill Pett
6:49 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The "non-binding matter" is hardly a red herring. The referendum was known to be non-binding, therefore it is far from clear that the voters just wanted the change so sail through without further information on exactly what the change would mean. If there is a red herring here, it is using this issue to claim that there is no need to defend the proposed change in management of the Fire Department.
Time for change
9:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Mr. Newton: I agree with you 100%. As I stated in some of my comments, a few people are trying to use that as an excuse. The town has to propose this legislation to the state, and the state needs to pass it because this is what the taxpayers want. The fire commissioners need to work with the town and not against them. I feel the fire commissioners know that this is going to pass at the state level. I'm afraid when this happens they will make unreasonable financial decisions to stick it to the town. A few of the fire commissioners need to realize that this is what is best for the town as a whole.
Gene Dumas
7:02 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
As one Great Lady sage said, "We have to pass this Bill to know whats in it."
The Emperor wears no clothes!!
Time for change
10:40 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The language of the resolution was very clear " Are you in favor of merging the East Greenwich Fire District into the Town of East Greenwich, the results of which would be that the town would maintain a municipal fire department and the separate fire district would cease to exist". The language was very clear and it passed by East Greenwich voters by a 2 to 1 margain. It makes me wonder why anyone would want to stop this from happening. I haven't seen anyone except Mr. Dumas and Mr. Daly argue against it out of a town of roughly 14,000 people.
Gene Dumas
7:53 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Mr or Ms. change: You did leave out a good amount of other voters plus a Town Councilor. Tfc, wouldn't you like to see a little more accountability or just "change for change sake"!
Time for change
8:45 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Mr Dumas: I understand we're you are coming from, and I feel the change would be great for the taxpayers and the town. The Fire District is saying there is no savings, but there is savings. The town saves the district money already by doing several services for free. The savings from the district would be not paying for another, attorney, treasurer, and the fire commissioners. Plus the elimination of the annual meeting along with several other areas that would create savings such as a larger pool of employees in health care. I feel the town could save at least $200,000 a year by merging the fire district with the town. I haven't heard not one employee from the firefighters stand up at a meeting against the town, so it makes me feel that they are in agreement with the taxpayers. Also I haven't seen the fire chief at the last 2 joint meetings with the town and commissioners. I wonder why????
Gene Dumas
4:48 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
That sounds great Tfc. You wording on this makes me believe you are close to the "inner circle." Maybe you could have the TC put your thoughts to paper and provide it to the attendees next Monday? What would that be like...OH TRANSPARENCY!!!
Time for change
8:16 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Mr. Dumas: I am not close to any "inner circle" that you refer to. You can try and spin it all you want. I have common sense about the savings and benefits. It seems you are very close to the "inner circle" on the other side. Since you are very big on "Transparency" maybe you can have the board of fire commissioners and the fire chief explain to the taxpayers why they were trying to give the fire chief a contract extension when he has 16 months left on his contract. I would love to hear them try to explain. It seems your "inner circle" keeps trying to put a spin on the resolution calling it non binding. At the end of the day it passed overwhelmingly by a 2-1 margin, and then you want me to believe that the taxpayers didn't know what they were voting on. The fire commissioners need to step up to the plate and help this resolution pass. "Good Luck" trying to spin the facts that I stated.
Time for change
8:27 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Mr Dumas: When a taxpayer asked Mr Daly chairman of the board of fire commissioners why they were trying to extend the fire chiefs contract that was not expiring till June 30, 2014...he replied that he couldn't discuss it because it was in executive session. Would you call that "Transparency"???? It is because of back door deals like this that makes taxpayers want better over site of the fire district. I know at the end of the day there will be savings from the town taking over the fire district, and even if there wasn't any savings I know that it would be better managed under the town.
Gene Dumas
8:45 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Tfc you're a good sport. I have never been accused of being a spin maven. Maybe thats a compliment! I do appreciate you expounding all these TC/FD morsels! I do think you are a little closer to the real action than I am! Keep up your good work!
Gene Dumas
10:20 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Hey Tfc, BTW it was a non-binding vote! Cant spin that!!
Time for change
9:59 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Mr. Dumas: You are also a good sport. I agree that it was a non-binding vote because the town has no authority to make it binding, only the state can. There are two different opinions on this matter, and we are on the opposite sides. At the end of the day I feel we all want what is best for the firefighters and the town.
Gene Dumas
10:37 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Oops! Tfc, I think you just contradicted yourself! "trying to put a spin on the resolution calling it non binding" and within a couple of hours "spinning" around and agreeing with my comments. Priceless!
James R
11:02 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Another example of RI government behaving badly. A bloated, unresponsive group of politicians defending their kingdom and dollars at the expense of taxpayers-- of which there are fewer every year. EG taxpayers must take a stand against the notion that the taxpayers work for the politicians and their friends. Scott MacKay said it best about RI: Rhode Island has 155 separate pension systems, 77 fire departments, 36 school superintendents, more than 100 water systems, 6 local tourism and visitors bureaus and scores of other governmental relics of the horse-and-buggy age.
We can do better than this.
Bill Pett
1:07 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
"A bloated, unresponsive groups of politicians defending their kingdom"--which group? That could just as easily be the Town Council as the Fire District Commissioners. Given Mr. Isaacs seeming reluctance to defend the proposal on its merits, I wonder just who should be trusted.
Marie C. Hennedy
6:05 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Does EG want to, and how will EG assume the EGFD's unfunded pension liabilities--$19 million and counting, I hear?
Time for change
10:02 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
This is one of the reasons that the fire district should be merged with the town. The taxpayers own that liability regardless.