|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: Bankrupt town in Rhode Island loses right to democracy |
 |
|
| Quote: |
CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. (AP) � When the state stepped in to take over financially struggling Central Falls in 2010, Rhode Island's smallest city lost something fundamental: its democratic government.
Mayor Charles Moreau would be forced to give back his key to City Hall, and the City Council was relegated to advisory status � unsure for months whether it was even allowed to convene.
"They're being governed without elected representation," state Sen. Elizabeth Crowley said of Central Falls' 19,000 residents. "That flies in the face of the democratic principle that our country is founded on, not only our little city. Maybe we should have a tea party and dump some tea in the Blackstone" River.
Crowley, a Democrat and lifelong Central Falls resident, uses a twist on Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to describe government there, under a state-appointed receiver, these days: "of the receiver, by the receiver and for the receiver."
That receiver, former state Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Flanders Jr., is often criticized for sweeping like a dictator into a city he doesn't know, where he doesn't live and where, with the state's blessing, he unilaterally decides matters that go far beyond the fiscal.
The General Assembly passed the "Fiscal Stability Act" in direct response to Central Falls' financial crisis � giving the receiver authority to file for bankruptcy, which city officials did not have. It allows him not only to "exercise the powers of the elected officials" on fiscal issues but says his powers supersede theirs.
With virtually no pushback from the Legislature, the receiver's office has broadly interpreted that law as it works to get the 1.3-square-mile city, just north of Providence, back on sound financial footing. |
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CENTRAL_FALLS_DEMOCRACY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-15-11-49-45 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
detonate
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Governments need to be decreased in size anyways.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm dying to hear our board's creditors apologist defend this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I'm dying to hear our board's creditors apologist defend this one. |
Rhode Island city administrators were pretty stupid across the board. My understanding is that many of them opted out of the state-run pension fund in favor of city-run schemes. At the same time, they were giving pretty much anything to police and fire departments (and depending on the high annual returns offered by risky investments to pay pensions, etc.) As such, many of them are really, really broke. On top of this, the state suffers from it's tiny size and proximity to other major cities, allowing people to bail on the mess they took part in creating by moving up the road to the South Shore or Boston suburbs.
Does this suck? Yes. But no one put a gun to their heads and told them to opt out of the state run pension program. Likewise, no one forced them to offer unaffordable benefits to their public safety officers (of which, by many accounts, they had too many). The ball had to drop at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, get off it. They aren't being governed without elected representatives. They're being governed by the state. Unless there's been a major rebellion in the United States that has escaped my notice, the folks in that city still get to vote for their state representatives and their governor. The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law and, as provided for by law, the state government has taken over those duties. The state government, mind you, is still an elected government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, get off it. They aren't being governed without elected representatives. They're being governed by the state. Unless there's been a major rebellion in the United States that has escaped my notice, the folks in that city still get to vote for their state representatives and their governor. The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law and, as provided for by law, the state government has taken over those duties. The state government, mind you, is still an elected government. |
Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government or checks and balances at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, get off it. They aren't being governed without elected representatives. They're being governed by the state. Unless there's been a major rebellion in the United States that has escaped my notice, the folks in that city still get to vote for their state representatives and their governor. The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law and, as provided for by law, the state government has taken over those duties. The state government, mind you, is still an elected government. |
Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government or checks and balances at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job? |
He never said that. He clearly pointed out "The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law."
It would seem that you are proposing that we ignore such things? If the municipal government is UNABLE TO GOVERN...then another level of government needs to step in and re-order things properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, get off it. They aren't being governed without elected representatives. They're being governed by the state. Unless there's been a major rebellion in the United States that has escaped my notice, the folks in that city still get to vote for their state representatives and their governor. The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law and, as provided for by law, the state government has taken over those duties. The state government, mind you, is still an elected government. |
Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government or checks and balances at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job? |
He never said that. He clearly pointed out "The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law."
It would seem that you are proposing that we ignore such things? If the municipal government is UNABLE TO GOVERN...then another level of government needs to step in and re-order things properly. |
The municipal government is not unable to govern . . . unless the trash isn't collected, police aren't patrolling the streets, the courts aren't functioning (assuming it has its own courts), firemen aren't fighting fires, etc.
No, the town's operating expenses exceeded its income plus its reserves. Let's not act as if the State has one choice and only one choice, and that is receivership. After all, the Feds bailed out just about every State.
But, granted, democracy hasn't been entirely stalled. They can still vote and act on a State and Federal level. But let's not poo-poo the cost of this receivership, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The municipal government is not unable to govern . . . unless the trash isn't collected, police aren't patrolling the streets, the courts aren't functioning (assuming it has its own courts), firemen aren't fighting fires, etc.
No, the town's operating expenses exceeded its income plus its reserves. Let's not act as if the State has one choice and only one choice, and that is receivership. After all, the Feds bailed out just about every State. |
Exactly.
| Quote: |
| But, granted, democracy hasn't been entirely stalled. They can still vote and act on a State and Federal level. But let's not poo-poo the cost of this receivership, either. |
Well, if cities can be taken into receivership, then why not states? And if states can be taken into receivership, then why not the federal government? In fact, following this route to its conclusion, perhaps the Federal Reserve should just drop all pretense and become the new banking dictator of the nation? I mean, if credit-worthiness trumps democracy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government or checks and balances at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job? |
Don't be silly. The existence of municipal and state government in a state does not constitute checks and balances in the government. What does constitute checks and balances is the division of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
But go ahead and keep pretending I said something I did not. It's kind of amusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Don't be silly. The existence of municipal and state government in a state does not constitute checks and balances in the government. What does constitute checks and balances is the division of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. |
Oh please. That was not the sense in which I meant "checks and balances"; I was obviously just referring to the notion of decentralized power (ie. states rights etc.) functioning as a check/balance against central authority. But nice attempt at dodging the rest of what I wrote.
Anyway, my bad, so allow me amend it for you:
| Quote: |
| Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job? |
Better for you?
| Quote: |
| But go ahead and keep pretending I said something I did not. It's kind of amusing. |
Somebody needs to get over himself... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, get off it. They aren't being governed without elected representatives. They're being governed by the state. Unless there's been a major rebellion in the United States that has escaped my notice, the folks in that city still get to vote for their state representatives and their governor. The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law and, as provided for by law, the state government has taken over those duties. The state government, mind you, is still an elected government. |
Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government or checks and balances at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job? |
He never said that. He clearly pointed out "The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law."
It would seem that you are proposing that we ignore such things? If the municipal government is UNABLE TO GOVERN...then another level of government needs to step in and re-order things properly. |
The municipal government is not unable to govern . . . unless the trash isn't collected, police aren't patrolling the streets, the courts aren't functioning (assuming it has its own courts), firemen aren't fighting fires, etc.
No, the town's operating expenses exceeded its income plus its reserves. . |
And given that just how long do you expect trash to be collected, police to patrol the streets, the courts to function, firemen to fight fires, etc...?
So yes they've clearly shown themselves unable to govern.
Not that this makes me a supporter of the state's response so let's drop this red herring please.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Let's not act as if the State has one choice and only one choice, and that is receivership |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, get off it. They aren't being governed without elected representatives. They're being governed by the state. Unless there's been a major rebellion in the United States that has escaped my notice, the folks in that city still get to vote for their state representatives and their governor. The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law and, as provided for by law, the state government has taken over those duties. The state government, mind you, is still an elected government. |
Oh, so I guess we should just do away with municipal governments altogether then? Hell, why have levels of government or checks and balances at all? Maybe we can just vote to give nation-wide dictatorial power to an emperor each 4 years, let him appoint state and municipal legates (also with dictatorial power over their people) and hope they do a good job? |
He never said that. He clearly pointed out "The municipal government has not fulfilled its duties as required by law."
It would seem that you are proposing that we ignore such things? If the municipal government is UNABLE TO GOVERN...then another level of government needs to step in and re-order things properly. |
The municipal government is not unable to govern . . . unless the trash isn't collected, police aren't patrolling the streets, the courts aren't functioning (assuming it has its own courts), firemen aren't fighting fires, etc.
No, the town's operating expenses exceeded its income plus its reserves. . |
And given that just how long do you expect trash to be collected, police to patrol the streets, the courts to function, firemen to fight fires, etc...?
So yes they've clearly shown themselves unable to govern.
|
If going into debt means a polity is unable to govern, then the entire Western world can fairly be characterized as barbaric and beyond hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Somebody needs to get over himself... |
Nope. Someone needs to get a grip. You're still inaccurately describing the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Central Falls Bankruptcy
| Quote: |
Central Falls�s economy began to decline in the 1970s with the departure of manufacturers including textile makers from Providence north to the Massachusetts line. At least 11 textile plants closed from 1997 through 2009, eliminating almost 1,400 jobs, among them the 280 at the city�s Elizabeth Webbing Mills, National Council of Textile Organizations data show.
The city�s demographics also changed with an influx of people from Latin America including Mexico and Colombia, as well as from Puerto Rico and Portugal. By 2000, the population was almost half Hispanic, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. By 2010, that ratio had risen to about 60 percent.
By the early 1990s, the state had taken over the city�s schools, including 100 percent of the funding. The march toward bankruptcy began in the past few years as Rhode Island slashed local aid to cope with the financial crisis and the recession it spawned, said state Senator Elizabeth Crowley, a Central Falls Democrat.
The city has about $21 million of debt outstanding, New York-based Moody�s said. Per-capita income in Central Falls is 50 percent of the Rhode Island average, the company said. Bondholders may have the most protection in the bankruptcy filing because a new state law gives them a �priority lien� on city revenue, according to Moody�s.
While �the legislation obliges cities, towns and districts to dedicate property taxes and other general revenues to pay debt service before any other claims or payments,� Moody�s said in a statement today, �it is unclear how the federal court will treat the tenets of this new law in a bankruptcy proceeding.� |
I would take the complaints about the suspension of democracy with a grain of salt.
| Quote: |
| Flanders, who filed for bankruptcy on Central Falls' behalf in August, said the bankruptcy gave him the power to impose new contracts and slash pensions, but the agreements were reached voluntarily |
Wow, Chapter 9 allows the individual who declared bankruptcy on behalf of the town to also become the receiver?
I hope everyone realizes that continued bad governance could make this a reality for whatever political system they come from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
