Judge gets 13th briefing on RI pension suit talks; returning Fri.

January 6th, 2014 at 10:26 am by under Nesi's Notes, On the Main Site

The judge overseeing a union lawsuit challenging Rhode Island’s 2011 pension overhaul got another progress report on Monday about the progress of their court-ordered mediation talks – but it’s not the only update she’s set to receive from them this week.

Attorneys on both sides of the suit met this morning with R.I. Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter, court spokesman Craig Berke said. Taft-Carter ordered the state and the unions into a formal, closed-door mediation process overseen by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in December 2012.

Berke said Taft-Carter scheduled another status conference for Friday at 9 a.m. in Kent County Superior Court – the first time since the talks began that she asked to receive two updates in one week. The scheduling move will likely add more fuel to speculation that the two sides are getting closer to a deal.

Monday’s status conference was the 13th one the two sides have held since last winter. The previous ones were on Dec. 9, Nov. 21, Nov. 12, Oct. 28, Sept. 30, Sept. 5, Aug. 6, May 17, April 22, March 25, Feb. 28 and Feb. 1. Monday’s meeting was originally scheduled for Friday but was delayed by the nor’easter.

• Related: RI lawmakers worried about secret talks to rewrite pension law (Oct. 15)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Judge gets 13th briefing on RI pension suit talks; returning Fri.”

  1. George says:

    Interesting to see Fox and Paiva-Weed coming out strongly against mediation. Judge Taf-Carter has failed Rhode Island. I have been saying all along that this needs to be adjudicated. Then the loser can appeal and pension reform can get before the Supreme Court where it belongs. Whatever the outcome, we will be better off.
    How can you expect a negotiated settlement to hold when the general assembly isn’t involved. If GA leadership was in the room it may have made a difference. I believe the people of RI deserve settled law.

  2. Theresa A Paolucci says:

    In 2012, I received $652 a month from my pension. In 2013, I received $632 a month from my pension. This year, I will receive $618 a month from my pension. I worked for promised benefits that are no longer there. As the health care expenses keep going up yearly and will probably continue to go up, where does that leave me? If I was not married and did not also have my husband’s social security, where would that leave me? Where does it leave one income households?

    1. janri says:

      Where does it leave one income households? Out in the cold. Promised benefits are what retirees based their retirement on…its called retirement planning…so much for that…it crumbled with the pension reform that should have never been able to affect contractual benefits especially for those who were already retired. but when it is all said and done no good will come of with these court-ordered mediation talks, our contractual rights should never have been violated and they were. It’s politics as usual especially when the unions and the state get in bed together and that’s why the judge ordered it. She knows how the system works in RI and it takes the heat off her to make a correct decision. A dog never bites the hand that feeds it. Judges were exempt from a lot of the pension reform.

  3. stephen says:

    With all due respect Theresa how old are you 50? That’s the problem we know the amount is not much but many are retiring at 50 or 55.You should more angry that the judges and state police contribute nothing to their pension.

    1. entrel says:

      Stephen, so you have no idea how old she is, but you’ve decided she’s 50. But you have no clue. You’ve also decided ‘many’ retire at 50 or 55. Really? How ‘many’?? Or did you just make that up too. If you’ve got facts, let’s hear them. If not, dummy up….

  4. John says:

    Actually, Theresa retired 7 years ago at the age of 63. Her modest pension speaks for itself. People like Stephen like to make
    generalizations to buttress their preconceived notions. Worse than the uninformed like Stepen, are the deliberately misleading
    individuals like the General Treasurer who exploited the general public and the general assembly knuckleheads that the sky was
    falling when long term more modest adjustments to the system could probably have accomplished the desired result of a sustainable retirement system. But that would not have served the right wing political agenda being pursued across the country by
    the billionaire supporters of Ms. Raimondo.

    1. janri says:

      I retired in my 60s and now need a part time job because of pension reform. So much for retirement planning when they decide to change it on you AFTER you retire. Agree with you 100%.