The Court Appointed receiver can tell Central Falls what to do but doesn't have the power to throw out contracts and debts from creditors. Only Federal Chapter 9 Bankruptcy has that power.

What will really change here? Nothing.

The receiver will force them to raise taxes as much as possible - something that could be done without a receiver and they will have to have layoffs because they can't touch the contracts.

The funny thing is that raising taxes in CF will (I'll wager) mostly end up being paid by Uncle Sam through Section 8 so who will pay for this nightmare one way or the other? Taxpayers who actually pay taxes. The hard working people that live in CF & pay taxes (the real minority there), well I feel sorry for them. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Layoffs are the threat that make these muni unions jump. Carcieri had the opportunity to call the union bluff but wimped out. Larisa and company dealt with an expired contract and won but this situation is different.

The state should simply authorize Chapter 9 Bankruptcy but that would mean union losses and thats unacceptable to all the union supporter in the GA which is just about all of them.

ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS OF A MUNICIPALITY › TITLE 11 - US CODE - SUBCHAPTER I -
GENERAL PROVISIONS
11 USC 903 - Reservation of State power to control municipalities

This chapter does not limit or impair the power of a State to control, by legislation or otherwise, a municipality of or in such State in the exercise of the political or governmental powers of such municipality, including expenditures for such exercise, but

(1) a State law prescribing a method of composition of indebtedness of such municipality may not bind any creditor that does not consent to such composition; and

(2) a judgment entered under such a law may not bind a creditor that does not consent to such composition.

For better or worse, the Receiver Savage is the husband of the Superior Court Judge Savage ... who was appointed by Governor Sundlun even though she wasn't on the list of nominees, but was counsel with his staff.

In other words, we're talking very wired into the status quo Democrat power structure.

I don't know enough about him to know if he'll exercise independent judgment or "go along to get along" with the powers that be, but his relationship structure doesn't bode well for the average citizen of Rhode Island.

For better or worse, the Receiver Savage is the husband of the Superior Court Judge Savage ... who was appointed by Governor Sundlun even though she wasn't on the list of nominees, but was counsel with his staff.

In other words, we're talking very wired into the status quo Democrat power structure.

I don't know enough about him to know if he'll exercise independent judgment or "go along to get along" with the powers that be, but his relationship structure doesn't bode well for the average citizen of Rhode Island.

I know Jon and Judy Savage personally, not politically, because our kids went to the same school for years. Personally speaking, they are fine, fine people.

I also know of Jon's reputation in the restructuring community as my work has interacted with that community for years. While we have never worked together, I have heard good things about Jon's work. Due to the very nature of their work, restructuring people end up in difficult situations that require decisions that frequently make few people happy. All of which only becomes more complicated when dealing with public sector entities.

I don't know anything about Jon's politics and have no interest in speculating. My point here is to vouch for Judy and Jon personally, even if I might eventually disagree with what actions Jon takes.

Don,

FWIW, I respect your opinion so take comfort in your characterization of Mr. Savage.

As I'm sure you'll understand, I have that RI cynicism so am inclined to assume guilt first of anyone that is wired in with the RI Democrat Party / power structure. I don't think that "presumed guilty until proven innocent" is unreasonable with that crowd.

Ragin'

As to the role of politics in RI, some context about receivership practices is also relevant -

I have been a court-appointed receiver once in a different state - albeit of a private business, not a public sector entity.

Our power as receiver there was defined broadly by state receivership statute law and that provided general direction for the highly specific terms in the order issued by the judge appointing us. We then regularly reviewed the judge's order to make sure all of our actions were in compliance with his order.

So I would encourage everyone to focus primarily on the judge's order and then review state law in that context because that is likely the best framework for understanding what Jon can do or not do.

In our receivership role, we filed periodic progress reports with the court. These reports were public information as were our appearances before the judge to discuss those reports. These reports were structured to report any and all actions taken in accordance with the judge's order and provided a transparent trail for anyone following the case.

Therefore, I would watch out for those reports and encourage their public posting. There also will likely be court transcripts available after hearings and those should provide insight into both what Jon is doing and what outcomes other key stakeholders are encouraging or fighting against.