Combining Randal Edgar‘s story in today’s Projo on the likely next step that follows the inability of the parties(*) in Cranston to agree upon a new police contract via negotiation…

After watching a tentative contract go down to defeat, the police officers union is taking its case to a new venue that could ultimately cost taxpayers far more — binding arbitration…
The [rejected] contract, retroactive to July 1, 2008, provided no raises — apart from longevity increases — until January 2010, when officers would have received a 1.5 percent raise. They would also receive a 2.95 percent raise at the start of year three.

…with some of the details from Philip Marcelo‘s story in yesterday’s paper on the state of affairs in Providence between Mayor, City Council and Police Department…

The City Council, which has cast a critical eye over Mayor David N. Cicilline’s spending choices in light of a deficit approaching $16 million this year, has more to consider in its opposition to pay raises for high-ranking police officers and the mayor’s hiring of a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm…
The council maintains that it never authorized Cicilline’s administration to give pay raises retroactive to two years to the officers, some of whom are now retired. Cicilline’s administration has said that the retroactive pay for the nonunion officers matches those awarded to police union members in arbitration in the last fiscal year.

…again raises the question of why an 18-month pay-freeze, with no retroactive make-up in the future, is being considered as something less than a real concession by several members of the City Council in Cranston.
(*) And just so there’s no confusion, I am including the City Council in the definition of “parties” in this post; there was some concern at Monday’s meeting that the meaning of “parties” didn’t include the City Council in the context of contracts with the City.