To the Editor:

It now has become so transparent that we, as taxpayers, will never see the financial impact of the recent fireman’s contract, negotiated by Mayor Fung and approved by the Democrat-controlled City Council by an 8-1 vote. Only Ward 1 Councilman Steve Stycos had the fortitude to vote no! And at that he only mentioned his opposition to their 15 holidays versus the more traditional 10 to 12. They get 9/11 as a holiday when the NYC firemen do not!

But there is much more, they continue to control their working hours and approve of working with less than the approved contingent, both making overtime pay in the hundreds of thousands of dollars an annual affair. When you add in the overtime called for by the absence of fireman on the extended holiday program, even more overtime is guaranteed.

To be straightforward and honest, I want to point out here that I have talked, written and testified that the real cost of any public servant to the taxpayer, is determined in most cases, by the payment of 20 to 30 years of retirement pay, along with benefit pay, however I have not heard one councilman, union head, or administration making that obvious case to us the taxpayer.

So when the union points out with pride that they will forgo the hiring of seven or eight additional fireman (which sound so righteous) that becomes no more than a self-fulfilling offer or really just more propaganda. What they really want is that very lucrative overtime provision in the contract!

When you add that to their holiday package, time in grade adjustments, now you see and now you don’t COLAs, regular pay, it all adds up to a very lucrative package. According to the story printed in the Providence Journal’s Sunday, Feb. 14 edition it pointed out the following: “In 2013 Rhode Island topped some national charts for the cost of fire protection.” That was disputed due to a condition of ambulance services and volunteer fire service, however, an annual survey of state and local finances in 2013 (latest available) lists “Rhode Island first in per-capita spending for fire protection.” It further states that “Massachusetts, with similar firefighter and rescue service makeup, is ranked 13th, Connecticut 15th.”

It further stated that “Rhode Island had the highest level of fire protection expenditure per $1000 of personal income of any state in the nation,” and “Rhode Island’s $6.34 per $1,000 of personal income were more than double the national average of $3.09” and “exceeded the next highest state (Arizona) by 36.4 percent.”

In addition, all citizens must be made aware of the comparison between what we are obligated to pay our firemen versus our policemen. It is not fair and has not been for the police for a long time.

That is why I have asked for at several council meetings that they have their auditor (that we pay for) to do a fiscal analysis/impact of the recent fireman’s contract for this fiscal year, the year before and for the life of the contract.

So far they have utterly refused! Now ask why? Could it be that this is an election year?

If one reads this letter as only a hit on firemen, it really misses the point. That point being that the real cost to the taxpayers for any contract or expenditure must be spelled out to all in a mean full way, so that the ones who are paying the bills can be assured that all workers for the city are being treated fairly and within our ability to pay.

This contract was in the “bag” before it was even brought up by the council, which underlines the complete disdain they have for you and me. They ignored their oath of office to make sure the firemen support them in their individual campaigns for 2016.

And that also goes for the mayor. There is only one way to stop the utter disregard for all of the taxpayers who struggle to pay their real estate, sewerage, car tax, etc., to the city of Cranston, and that is at the ballot box come this November. We must tell them that they were not elected to “serve” any one group or contract, that they must serve all city employees equally with fairness to all, including the taxpayers. Then and only then will the citizens have confidence that all city expenditures are being spent according to our ability to pay, and not mortgaging our future.

Richard Tomlins

Cranston