March 5, 2011
Question #1 for David Cicilline on the Category 5 That's Hit Providence
In recent interviews with Scott MacKay of WRNI (1290AM) and Alisha Pina of the Projo, and in material available on the City of Providence website, David Cicilline claimed that he reduced costs by eliminating 445 positions in Providence government during his tenure as mayor.
However, the city's most recent "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" presents different numbers. Measured between June 30, 2002 (the last data point available in the report from before Mayor Cicilline took office) and June 30, 2010, only 222 full-time equivalents were eliminated. Measured between June 30, 2003 (where the baseline figure would include half of Mayor Cicilline's first term) and June 30, 2010, 247 full-time equivalents were eliminated. How should the official figures be reconciled with Congressman Cicilline's claim that 445 positions have been eliminated?
In addition, also according to the numbers in the comprehensive financial report, the reduction in total number full-time equivalents that occurred during the Cicilline administration occurred solely within the school department. Measured between 2003 and 2010, 278 full-time equivalents were eliminated from the school department, while 31 full-time equivalents were added to the municipal departments. Does the choice by Congressman Cicilline to use the number of city positions as a metric of fiscal and managerial responsibility, along with the actual changes in FTEs, reflect a belief on his part that the City of Providence's fiscal issues are primarily with the school-side of the budget, while the municipal side has been running at near-optimal efficiency?
Table: City of Providence Rhode Island, full-time equivalent employees as of June 30 of each year. Source: City of Providence, Rhode Island, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. Page 85.
| Year | # Municipal FTEs | # School FTEs | # Total FTEs |
| 2001 | 1,756 | 3,243 | 4,999 |
| 2002 | 1,792 | 3,382 | 5,174 |
| 2003 | 1,764 | 3,435 | 5,199 |
| 2004 | 1,747 | 3,473 | 5,220 |
| 2005 | 1,662 | 3,342 | 5,004 |
| 2006 | 1,683 | 3,333 | 5,016 |
| 2007 | 1,696 | 3,345 | 5,041 |
| 2008 | 1,786 | 3,300 | 5,086 |
| 2009 | 1,802 | 3,284 | 5,086 |
| 2010 | 1,795 | 3,157 | 4,952 |
I'm sorry but people in the city and statewide, know full well what the Jackass Party stands for-exponential union and crony giveaways, anchor babies, perverts, parasites, criminals, etc.
We keep voting for them.
We deserve everything we get.
Andrew,
I ran a spread sheet using the numbers provided from; Table: City of Providence Rhode Island, full-time equivalent employees as of June 30 of each year. Source: City of Providence, Rhode Island, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. Page 85. and summed up the difference of the numbers from each year to year and totaled the numbers and I only came up with a loss of 219 FTE positions not the 445 total FTE positions David Cicilline is claiming was eliminated!
ADDEMDUM:
David Cicilline maintains when he took office in year 2003 he reduced FTE positions by 445 positions during his tenure as mayor. Going back to my spread sheet using the numbers provided from; Table: City of Providence Rhode Island, full-time equivalent employees as of June 30 of each year. Source: City of Providence, Rhode Island, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. Page 85. by AR starting in year 2001; that accounts for only 36 FTE positions so my adjusted number for FTE positions eliminated is 255 which is way lower than David Cicilline is reporting.
Awesome job, Andrew.
He exaggerated by almost double the number of jobs he eliminated.
How do the teachers unions feel about him ADDING 31 FTE's to the municipal side? Never mind them - how do Prov taxpayers feel about it???
It appears that David Cicilline so wanted higher office that he became pathological about the city's fiscal condition and his role in it.
Posted by: Monique at March 6, 2011 9:50 AMI'm always amazed by the conservative fixation on the number of political employees. Honestly, if he deliberately inflated the number of reductions, it was probably to distract people from what seems to me the bigger issue: unfunded pension liabilities. No matter how many people they took off the rolls of active employees, there were still millions of dollars in pension payments the city was just not delivering. To me that seems a far bigger question mark than whether he laid off 200 or 400 people.
Posted by: Ron at March 6, 2011 10:00 AMYou're missing the point, Ron. This issue arose because Cicillini raised it in his defense when confronted about his deception regarding the city's finances. Now it turns out that even his cover story is full of lies. Exaggerating his cost-cutting measures two-fold is pretty significant in its own right.
Posted by: Dan at March 6, 2011 10:12 AMRon,
I agree with you in principle, but as Dan said, I decided to start off by looking at Congressman's Cicilline's most concrete claim.
Budget dollars will be a part of question 2, coming soon.