Chafee: RI may continue pension deal without police

April 8th, 2014 at 1:44 pm by under Nesi's Notes

By Dan McGowan

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) – R.I. Gov. Lincoln Chafee said Tuesday the state may consider moving forward with its pension settlement without the eligible police officers who voted to reject the deal.

“There are various options and that might be one,” Chafee said following a news conference at the U.S. Attorney’s Office Tuesday morning.

Read the rest of this story »

Tags: , , , ,

13 Responses to “Chafee: RI may continue pension deal without police”

  1. j m paras says:

    This is incredible. According to the judge, this was supposed to go to litigation. It failed in spite of the rigged election. Now they will again manipulate the voting process until the state gets the results it wants.

    1. John says:

      I totally agree that the changing of the guidelines set out before the vote clearly is evidence of judicial impropriety. What was the point of laying out the guidelines in such a definitive way only to flip flop when the outcome wasn’t what was evidently desired. The constitutional issues raised by the 2011 legislation is being deliberately avoided. Why? This whole process seems fixed for a preordained outcome. The actual outcome is the undermining of the judicial system.

  2. Tradita says:

    So, the State is just going to ignore the outcome of the vote, and ram this “settlement” down our throats anyway? Then why did they make us go through the charade of voting?

    Before the vote, we were told that if a majority of ANY one of the six groups voted against the settlement, it would go back to litigation. How many times are they going to lie to us?

  3. WAKE UP. says:

    MR.CHAFEE SHOULD GO TAKE A VERY LONG HIKE. OR BETTER YET: ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS “PENSION SETTLEMENT” SHOULD BE ASSIGNED A CLASSROOM TO TEACH FOR A PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN ONE SCHOOL YEAR. I DARE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. THEY WOULD NOT LAST A DAY.

  4. Bob says:

    teachers are the whiniest babies of them all.

    1. WAKE UP. says:

      Bob, Chafee will need a guide for his long walk. I think you would make the perfect person for the job. Happy trails to you.

  5. Snow says:

    The framers of this settlement knew from the beginning that there was a possibility that a small group, such as the police, might vote against the settlement, yet they decided that “any one” group could bring it down. How in the world can they change this now? We voted based on this concept, even though the vote itself was a sham. Isn’t the vote now null and void, since the terms themselves have been abridged? How can they cut the police out? All of this makes no sense. I’m willing to wager that all of this won’t get to the GA in time anyway. Maybe they’ll just give the police more until they agree. Will be all need to vote again? Some many lies and unanswered questions. So much deceit. From 2009 when this all began until now, this whole thing has been a disgrace.

    1. Tradita says:

      Snow, I have similar questions. I would like to know — what exactly are they now mediating? Are they negotiating new settlement terms just for the police? Or will any such new settlement terms apply to all six petitioner groups? And, if so, will we all need to vote again?

  6. George says:

    I can see a scenario where the rest of the plaintiffs take the cuts. The court then rules that the states fiscal situation doesn’t warrant cutting the police benefits. And the reason the state will be in better fiscal shape is because of all the cuts the other plaintiffs took. Lets go to court.

  7. B says:

    This is totally wrong, legally and morally, to change the rules in the middle of the game.
    Chafee and Raimondo, the dynamic duo, Wrong for RI then, and Wrong Now..!

    Also would like to know how many ballots were deemed “unqualified to be counted” and for what reason?

  8. Snow says:

    And all the while, Mattiello is talking tax cuts. All brought to you by pension theft. More corporate welfare on the backs of workers.

  9. Bea says:

    To change the voting process when you don’t like the outcome is just sheer chicanery and has no place in a court of law or in a democracy.

    1. WAKE UP. says:

      Bea, There were MANY aspects of the voting process that were unethical, however, in Rhode Island, the elite (REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION) manipulate the situation in any way they can. If I listed all the ways that this “voting” process was fixed, I’d be here for an hour. And why has no one discussed the second wave of voting ballots that were supposed to be sent out??? Bea- Do you have a retirement plan??? If so, how will you feel when someone decides to take that money to bail out one particular group or another??? It’s not a matter of IF, it’s a matter of WHEN. Get ready.