To the editor:
I was chatting with a friend about the disproportionate number of unaffiliated voters both here in Portsmouth and statewide. We didn’t quite know why, but related what we have …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
I was chatting with a friend about the disproportionate number of unaffiliated voters both here in Portsmouth and statewide. We didn’t quite know why, but related what we have heard from our unaffiliated friends and relatives: “We vote for the individual, not the political party members.”
We wondered who was informing these voters as to who would be the best candidates to vote for. The major parties develop platforms and pick candidates for office who to some extent mirror their philosophies, but that doesn’t always happen. Ballots usually offer only major party candidates, occasionally an independent — usually not elected.
We thought that maybe we should organize an “unaffiliated party” to get more voters into the conversation and help pick the best folks to be in office. Example: The print media seems to be getting fewer and fewer readers. So what did you miss if you don’t read The Portsmouth Times, or the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)? The Times editorialized on April 25 that public sector unions were basically taking advantage of the taxpayers. That resulted in the unions striking back with a letter on May 2 taking the opposite position.
In between those dates I read a WSJ opinion written on April 30 that presented the unions as flawed and presented bunches of numbers to back up the logic presented.
Most recently I read a report authored by the R.I. Center of Freedom and Prosperity. You can get to it at www.RIFreedom.org/unions#GovUnionsRI. This should be required reading for all Rhode Island voters but particularly the unaffiliated voter.
As a Portsmouth voter and taxpayer, I was not happy to learn that my town was singled out to be an example of how Rhode Island towns have managed money. Page 17 of the report makes the assertion that Portsmouth’s elected officials allowed the unions to insert provisions in the FY16 contracts that resulted in: overtime — $1,043.082; extra sick leave — $1,027,458; compensated absence payments — $745,822; extra holidays — $543,499; extracurricular — $208,744; extra personal days — $152,992; clothing — $143,682; aabbatical — $74,2290; healthcare buyback — $46,100; tuition — $16,000; release time for union work — $8,176.
That total of $4,018,845 represented 8 percent of the town’s tax levy in FY 2016. So, doing the math we might conclude as the WSJ did in its article that “Growth by political coercion is not a sustainable model.” There are ways to get Rhode Island back on track, but it will take the informed efforts of voters, particularly the unaffiliated voters, to manage them. Right-to-work laws would help. Pension reform is another absolute.
When all else fails, start a conversation with your elected officials, asking for specifics on how they intend to manage going forward. What are they actually accomplishing for you? If you find they are giving away the store, fire them.
Jeffrey Richard
55 Wamsutta Lane
Portsmouth