These arguments only make sense in the warped world of union-speak. The only reason why anyone would ever object to this is if they are dreading the public response. But there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in negotiations between public entities. If the union has nothing to be ashamed of, then it should jump at increased transparency in these negotiations. Aren't they always complaining about how unreasonable management is? Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

More proof that the phony savior of the bullied is nothing but a bully himself. All he does is run his mouth calling for people to be fired. One conversation with him and you soon realize what an A'hole he really is.

Couldn't agree more, Max. Shamefully, this shill 'represents' me though based on his voting records he really represents his own self serving interests. CANNOT wait until his days in the GA are done...bye bye tASSoni.

Agreed JTR... can't wait for his "service to the public" days in the GA are OVER.

I think this episode demonstrates a fundamental difference in people's thinking (label each group as you will)..

one group is saying that the town council gets elected to "server the people", yet should negotiate how to spend "the people's" money in secret. And only after the contract has been signed can the public see the contract.

The other group is saying, here we've negotiated a contract, here it is for everyone to see, we're signing it in two weeks. [IMHO the definition of transparency].

Begs the question of why would either side want to hide the details from those who are going to pay for it?

Imagine that. Openness. Transparency. Accountability. All good things in government.

Now I know you wrote this with government in mind, but does your concept of openness, accountability, and transparency extend to other organizations as well?

That depends. Where you going with this, Phil?

From The Guardian,, England
“Now the affidavit released on Tuesday suggests that BP knew more oil was coming out of the well in the early days after the explosion on 20 April 2010 than it was reporting to the federal government or the public.” This apparently is of no concern to Patrick Laverty and his transparency issue. Only Unions come under scrutiny while company actions draw no comment. Mr.. Laverty must look with both eyes, not with just one, or he could be accused of gross bias and a half hearted attempt at transparency truth.
Mr. Laverty might also wish to comment about transparency in light of the following, also from The Guardian: - “A day after the explosion, Kurt Mix, the former engineer charged on Tuesday, began modelling the potential flow rate from the BP well, according to the affidavit. He shared his estimates with an unnamed supervisor, suggesting the well was gushing between 64,000 and 138,000 barrels of oil a day.”
“At the time, however, BP and the coast guard were telling the public there was as little as 1,000 barrels of oil coming out of the well.”
How about some transparency concern here? Oh, I see BP is a business, and businesses are good while unions are bad – keeps the world simple when you blind yourself with your personal prejudices.
OldTimeLefty

Perhaps government should install cameras in everyone's home then - just in case you are involved in any "dangerous" activities. Or in every business, if you prefer.

Government employment is a different matter. If you don't want your work activities made public, don't work for the public. Sometimes it really is that simple.

OTL,
You're attack using what borders on a straw man argument is pretty desperate. Just because Patrick didn't write about it, doesn't mean he turns a blind eye to it. It's ironic that you would draw a parallel between outright fraud and government-labor contract negotiations. Your 'Yea but he did too' argument should be kept in the school yard where it belongs. If you have an adult reason why Patrick is wrong then we'd be glad to hear it.

Depends. You're the one who made the statement.

from your newspaper article this quote from the councilman

"Sooner or later we have to take a stand against the union. That's my personal belief," said Yazbak of the cost, adding that he believes the administrator's objection is based in her sympathy towards unions. "

So this isn't just about sunshine and light. Is it so hard to picture a politician salivating over the idea of leading a circus with tea partiers and anti tax people all hooting and hollering at this meetings. Good for a politician and good for theater but not so good for governing but maybe that's the goal here anyway. Obstruct and frustrate collective bargaining and call it a victory no matter the cost. Isn't that really the point.

Phil, yes, Yazbak let his feelings for unions be known in the article. If that's his motivation for making the process more transparent, fine, the transparency here is still a good thing.

Maybe the council does end up creating a circus for themselves, but that also means they're holding themselves accountable to the public. Would you agree to a contract that you know you're going to get blasted for? Don't forget, the public does not see the contract until it has been agreed upon by both sides. So this is the council saying "here is the contract we agreed to." If my council were to do that and it was ludicrous or reasonable alternatives were found, I'd think that those people might not deserve to be on the Council anymore and would look to replace them at the next election. So they're putting their own seats on the line by doing this. It's going to force them to negotiate what they feel is a contract that they can justify and explain to their constituents.

Hey OTL, you forgot to mention Watergate too. I never wrote about that one either. So I guess that means I support White House secret recordings.

I never wrote about the Trojan Horse. So I guess that means I support giving a large wooden horse to your opponent and then jumping out in the middle of the night and killing your enemies.

I never wrote about how Princess Leia stored the secret plans for the Death Star on R2D2 either. So I guess I supporte intergalactic espionage too, right?

Oh man, I've got so much to write about.

Thanks for the tip and setting me straight, OTL.

" Seeking public input on union contracts is not, for them, about transparency"

Yes, it is. The question here is, why are you averse to this transparency, Senator? What is it about these employment contracts that should not be made public? Could it be how generous they are compared to private sector contracts?

Tassoni is the poster child for what is wrong with Rhode Island. How dare the North Smithfield. Town council have the audacity to think the taxpayers have the right to know what they are paying for before they are forced to pay for it. Next thing you know, people will go to the store and want to see the merchandise they are paying for before they pay for it. Where will it end. This is exactly why we the voters need to push for RI to become a Right to Work state. We need to get rid of the Tassonis in the GA.

Mr. Laverty,
Your sarcasm is clever and totally misplaced. The plain fact is that you only look one way. That is my point and your smarmy riposts don't answer it. I suppose that you please your choir boy, Max D, but you again have failed to address the issue of one eyed looking.
OldTimeLefty

Congratulations on receiving your own nickname from OTL, Max. It means that you have become inconvenient enough to him to be dismissed out of hand - a kind of badge of honor. I still have seniority over you, though.

"I never wrote about how Princess Leia stored the secret plans for the Death Star on R2D2 either. So I guess I supporte intergalactic espionage too, right?"

Cue Pat Crowley: The silence is deafening!!!

OTL, I'll make you a truce deal, I will state that BP was wrong and a bad, bad company to grossly understate the extent of the oil spill, if you agree that the transparency that the North Smithfield Town Council is aiming for is a bad thing and Tassoni's comments are misguided.

Deal?

Would you agree to a contract that you know you're going to get blasted for?

Yes, if it is the right thing to do. So an elected representative does the hard work and gets what he/she believes to be a just settlement after many hours of discussion just to have a fellow member grandstand for the people who attend your public extravaganza. Why do restaurants seat and serve people? Why not let the sun shine in and throw open the doors to the kitchens and have them roam around sampling dishes ? Why not? They are going to buy the food so why can't they taste it first?
Why not hold elections every 2 to 4 years and allow as many as possible to vote for their representatives and then let them do what they were elected to do. All the people should decide, not just the self styled good government anti everything cranks.

It's a deal Mr. Laverty as long as you expend the same amount of text to denouncing BP as you have in the article that started this thread in the first place. Right here would be a good place to start.
OldTimeLefty

Dan plays John Alden to Max D's Miles Standish while Patrick Laverty is Priscilla Mullins.
OTL

Oh yes, OTL, Priscilla Mullins. She was one of your babysitters growing up, was she not?

OTL,
I was a choir boy however I doubt you reached that conclusion through any keen sense of perception. Speaking of transparency, you're veiled attempt at obfuscating Patrick's point by hijacking his thread gets a total Fail. That was pure political speak. Were you a politician in a previous life? You call Patrick's response smarmy ripost. I call your whiny remarks kettle black.

OTL, you bash me for not having written about an event in 2010 when I wasn't affiliated with Anchor Rising at the time? Using that logic, I can say the same about you. Why didn't you write about it? I haven't seen where you wrote about it here.

You want me to write about it now? About an event from two years ago? Yeah, that's timely. I'm sure people really care and will love it if I start writing about things that happened in the past. How far back should I go? Should I denounce Sirhan Sirhan while I'm at it? How about Michael Milken or Ivan Boesky? Would that be just enthralling to you for me to write about them in some negative way? Oh, I know, I can totally get into the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Now that'd be some good reading, eh?

As always OTL, thanks for reading and commenting.

Mr. Laverty,
You completely miss the point. To put it in plain terms, you only look at the world with one eye open. You show no concern for abuses by huge corporations and you rail against perceived ones when unions may be involved. You are neither fair or balanced. I'll be waiting a long time before you see fit to write about the next (one is sure to be forthcoming soon) corporate abuse of power. I will point it out to you after it occurs so that you will be aware and timely in your response.

Mr. OldTiredLiberal,
You completely miss the point. To put it in plain terms, you only look at the world with one eye open. You show no concern for abuses by unions and you (NEVER) rail against perceived ones when big corporations may be involved. You are neither fair or balanced. I'll be waiting a long time before you see fit to write about the next (one is sure to be forthcoming soon) union abuse of power. I will point it out to you after it occurs so that you will be aware and timely in your response.

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.
OTL, you're not only a hypocrite but you're quite disingenuous.
I believe that makes you a liberal, sir.
Though I will give you credit on one score. You can actually write in complete sentences which puts you light years ahead of John Tassoni on the evolution scale.