10/17 Meet the candidates forum

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   At last evening’s “Meet The Candidates Forum” at the Community Center, incumbent Ward Four Councilperson Dan Picard took the other candidates to task for allegedly not taking a stance on State Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5), indicating that he was the only candidate brave enough to take a stance on the issue while all others tried to talk around it.
I feel that I must reply, if for no other reason than to help to educate Mr. Picard.
As I clearly stated in my answer last Thursday at the Kiwanis forum, the City of Middletown is presently in negotiations with at least one of the unions that serve our city.  (It could be more than one.  It is difficult to know since our city government likes to keep us mere citizens in the dark as much as possible and is always nefariously vague about the subjects of their executive sessions.)  There were three sitting council persons (Lawrence Mulligan, Mr. Picard, and Anita Scott-Jones) at the Kiwanis forum that will have to vote on any contract if that vote is taken before the end of 2011.  There were four people at the Kiwanis forum (the mayor-elect, two at-large councilpersons-elect, and the Ward One councilperson-elect) that will have to vote on any contract if that vote does not happen until after the New Year.  Those are the facts.  (Although perhaps now some should abstain.)
Now I cannot speak for Mr. Picard.  Perhaps he does not have any experience negotiating with unions.  Most people do not.  I don’t know that.  Regardless, he is entitled to his opinion.
Likewise, I am entitled to my opinion, and I do have experience in union negotiations.  Negotiations at the bargaining table are often difficult, to say the least, and I am aware that there are varying strategies.  However, I am not aware of ANY valid theory of bargaining in such negotiations that contends it is of any advantage to make public the position of those who must APPROVE one side’s tentative agreement while the negotiations are ongoing.
The essence of bargaining is that it proceeds in “good faith”, and that the bargaining representatives are that, “representatives”, but with the understanding that any tentative agreement must be approved and can be approved:  on the union’s side by the rank-and-file, and on management’s side by (in the case of municipalities) the legislative authority, that is, the City Council!   If either side takes a stance that they know IN ADVANCE that the parties that they represent will likely not approve, then they are NOT “negotiating in good faith”!  
For the opposing side in negotiations with the city to know in advance where three or four of the seven who will be voting on their contract stand on Issue 2, whether those three or four are either FOR or AGAINST, would unfairly impact the contract negotiations that are ongoing right now, and hamstring the ones who are doing the negotiating!  (Consider for a moment how the negotiators for the unions might alter their stance if ALL NINE candidates would have stated that they were strongly IN FAVOR of Issue 2.  Then consider how they might bargain if we had all stated that we were strongly AGAINST that issue, and consider how the City’s negotiators are hamstrung if the unions have that knowledge.)
It was unfair to both the unions AND the city for the candidates or the sitting councilpersons to have expressed their opinion on this issue.  I understand this because I’ve been there.  I also understand why most of the other candidates didn’t understand this on the spur of the moment.  They don’t have the same life experiences as I do.  
Perhaps an attorney like Mr. Picard should’ve understood it.  Perhaps he was just pandering for votes last night, or perhaps he just hasn’t thought it through…I don’t know.
But to those of you in the First Ward:  If you want someone who will pander for votes, do NOT vote for me!  I will do what I think is best for ALL of the people in the City of Middletown.  I will do what I believe is RIGHT, I will do what is FAIR.  I have the common sense and life experience to enable me to do so.   That is why I was able to answer correctly on the spur of the moment. 
That is why my answer last Thursday was the CORRECT answer. Mr. Picard was WRONG last Thursday, and he was WRONG last evening.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Mike_Presta Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483	Post Options Post Reply Quote Mike_Presta Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: 10/17 Meet the candidates forum Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 5:42am
	At last evening’s “Meet The Candidates Forum” at the Community Center, incumbent Ward Four Councilperson Dan Picard took the other candidates to task for allegedly not taking a stance on State Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5), indicating that he was the only candidate brave enough to take a stance on the issue while all others tried to talk around it. I feel that I must reply, if for no other reason than to help to educate Mr. Picard. As I clearly stated in my answer last Thursday at the Kiwanis forum, the City of Middletown is presently in negotiations with at least one of the unions that serve our city. (It could be more than one. It is difficult to know since our city government likes to keep us mere citizens in the dark as much as possible and is always nefariously vague about the subjects of their executive sessions.) There were three sitting council persons (Lawrence Mulligan, Mr. Picard, and Anita Scott-Jones) at the Kiwanis forum that will have to vote on any contract if that vote is taken before the end of 2011. There were four people at the Kiwanis forum (the mayor-elect, two at-large councilpersons-elect, and the Ward One councilperson-elect) that will have to vote on any contract if that vote does not happen until after the New Year. Those are the facts. (Although perhaps now some should abstain.) Now I cannot speak for Mr. Picard. Perhaps he does not have any experience negotiating with unions. Most people do not. I don’t know that. Regardless, he is entitled to his opinion. Likewise, I am entitled to my opinion, and I do have experience in union negotiations. Negotiations at the bargaining table are often difficult, to say the least, and I am aware that there are varying strategies. However, I am not aware of ANY valid theory of bargaining in such negotiations that contends it is of any advantage to make public the position of those who must APPROVE one side’s tentative agreement while the negotiations are ongoing. The essence of bargaining is that it proceeds in “good faith”, and that the bargaining representatives are that, “representatives”, but with the understanding that any tentative agreement must be approved and can be approved: on the union’s side by the rank-and-file, and on management’s side by (in the case of municipalities) the legislative authority, that is, the City Council! If either side takes a stance that they know IN ADVANCE that the parties that they represent will likely not approve, then they are NOT “negotiating in good faith”! For the opposing side in negotiations with the city to know in advance where three or four of the seven who will be voting on their contract stand on Issue 2, *whether those three or four are either FOR or AGAINST, would unfairly impact the contract negotiations that are ongoing right now, and hamstring the ones who are doing the negotiating! (Consider for a moment how the negotiators for the unions might alter their stance if ALL NINE* candidates would have stated that they were strongly IN FAVOR of Issue 2. Then consider how they might bargain if we had *all* stated that we were strongly AGAINST that issue, and consider how the City’s negotiators are hamstrung if the unions have that knowledge.) It was unfair to both the unions AND the city for the candidates or the sitting councilpersons to have expressed their opinion on this issue. I understand this because I’ve been there. I also understand why most of the other candidates didn’t understand this on the spur of the moment. They don’t have the same life experiences as I do. Perhaps an attorney like Mr. Picard should’ve understood it. Perhaps he was just pandering for votes last night, or perhaps he just hasn’t thought it through…I don’t know. But to those of you in the First Ward: If you want someone who will pander for votes, do NOT vote for me! I will do what I think is best for ALL of the people in the City of Middletown. I will do what I believe is RIGHT, I will do what is FAIR. I have the common sense and life experience to enable me to do so. That is why I was able to answer correctly on the spur of the moment. That is why my answer last Thursday was the CORRECT answer. Mr. Picard was WRONG last Thursday, and he was WRONG last evening.
	“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012

Mike_Presta Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483	Post Options Post Reply Quote Mike_Presta Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 5:55am
	Nor will I be bullied by Mr. Picard...or anyone else if I am elected!!!
	“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012

acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 12:38pm
	Mr. Presta, you are giving Mr. Picard far more credit than is deserving. Of course he is pandering for votes, and shown very poor judgment in my opinion. The issue is to be voted upon across Ohio, and will be decided within a matter of a few weeks. Why make it an issue now---the state voters will determine its fate, and it is simply WRONG for Dan Picard to voice his opinion on a voting choice. Further, one either fundamentally realizes state's have the right and need to negotiate on terms which they can afford. Corporations do, don't they? One either believes Ohio is out to screw the unions, the ones whom have all the power which has led to this problem, or you are a union member, and simply wish not to give up the entitlement. In my opinion, Mr. Picard is putting his own election motives over the city and the need to contain costs, and his own constituents. There will be voters in Middletown who will vote on this issue, as there will be voters within the state whom also do same. He played his hand, pandering his personal choice to give him an edge he felt, in the polls. This is the essence of the many problems in Middletown: entitlement. A reasonable thinking person would know the perks and bennies of a state worker, or city, county firemen, police officer, and teacher, and the double, triple dip, to be the best perks in any indistry sector, public or private. It should be passed. But that is a decision for the voters, whom have the right to vote, and will. There is a reason there is a curtain in the voting booth, it is to Mr. Picard's disadvantage he elected to open that curtain and tell all union workers, he stands with them. I pray he is not registered a conservative.

middletownscouter Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 11 2010 Location: Sunset Park Status: Offline Points: 501	Post Options Post Reply Quote middletownscouter Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 12:57pm
	I have to disagree with both of you in this regards. As a voter I have an obligation to choose the person that I think best represents both my interests as a voter and citizen and also what I think the best interests are of the community as a whole. Regarding something like Issue 2 where the effects will have pretty significant repercussions on the city and on me and my family personally (whether directly or indirectly), it is my duty as a voter to know the facts about how the candidates I may vote for fall on each side of the issue. We as voters must choose those who represent us. To not answer if you are for or against the changes that will be made should Issue 2 pass does not help me make a decision as a voter if the candidate is someone I want to represent me.

acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 1:16pm
	Dare I say Middletownscouter, you are an employee in the city, school system, state? Firstly, as Anita Scott Jones did correctly state last week, council does not set direction, but affirms or disagrees with the recommendations of city leadership. Therefore, if the city either wants Issue 2 to fail or pass, council then would vote upon it. Why would one prejudice himself/ herself on any issue? Following your logic, then every council person should voice their opinion before you vote for them, whether they support Mitt Romney or Barack Obama for next year's President? Or, I as a current council member, as I am really heavily into green, recycling, and such, should state I am opposed to any efforts the state of Ohio will have associated with natural gas exploration? If that also be the case, I as a council person, should tell my position before an election, as to whether I thought Cincinnati State was good or bad for the city of Middletown. Goodness, where was Mr. Picard there on that issue? Was he not concerned about the effects on MUM? What about the expenditure and how that money could have been used elsewhere in the city for a better purpose? Perhaps helping you and your desire to save Sunset (which I agreed)? With all due respect, I think your support is self serving on Mr. Picard. No candidate should have to voice their opinion one way or another on an issue which is before the general electorate. Does Mr. Picard favor abortion? Does he favor casinos in Ohio? If I dsagree, then I don't vote for him unless he holds my position? City council slightly different than running for Governor or President scouter. The pandering is quite evident.

middletownscouter Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 11 2010 Location: Sunset Park Status: Offline Points: 501	Post Options Post Reply Quote middletownscouter Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 1:58pm
	Acclaro, you are so far off base with your assumptions about me that it borders on the absurd. I have not now nor have I ever endorsed any council member in this election or previously. I am neither a supporter or detractor of Mr. Picard, Ms. Scott-Jones, Mr. Presta or any other candidate for this election. Nor am I an employee of the City, School District, or State. Neither is my wife for that matter, and neither are we members of any public or private labor unions. What I am is a voter who likes to be educated about the candidates I'm voting for. You can try to paint it any way you like if it makes you feel better, but that's all it is. By the way, awesome hyperbole but it is entirely disingenuous. Does the fact of who is POTUS directly affect our city council and the decisions they have to make? Not really, no. Does state legislation like SB5 (being decided by Issue 2) directly affect how our council and city operates and negotiates with it's employees? Absolutely. So shouldn't I have some knowledge of how that candidate feels about unions and negotiating with them before I cast my vote? You betcha. I thought we wanted our voters to be informed about who they were voting for?

acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 2:51pm
	Middletownscouter- I respectfully continue to point out, and I think 9/10 would agree, it is pandering. You continue to miss the point which is critical to comprehending the working city hall. Council does not set agenda, and it does not negotiate with the unions, the city does, council approves, or disapproves. Hence, your rationale is flawed from the get go. Mr. Picard or any city council member, is not a negotiator, he/she/they are affirmers or rejectors. His personal political view then would have no bearing, as HE DOES NOT VOTE on a union issue. However, by stating he supports the union position is playing a political hand to pander for a segmentation of voters, those that obviously want SR5 defeated. As far as the disingeneous comparison and hyperbole, it is correct on point. If you hold the opinion you should know a city council's position (or candidate), as it effects public safety, a reason which just is flawed, as the flexibility to have enhanced bargaining while maintaining public staff is a positive aspect of the yes vote on the bill, not a negative, then you would also demand any canddiate running for office would tell you their voting preference for Pontus. Is it not true Obama would give the teachers union and public saftey union workers more money in funding, than a conservative opponent? And that trickle down effect would therefore have an impact on the city, as you would argue well, Obama will give us more money that the state and city doesn't have from the fed government, and therefore, I cast my vote for him. That is your precise arguemnt in support of the pandering effort by Mr. Picard. In conclusion, the effort is pandering and placating a certain electorate. You must not realize scouter, council doesn't set policy, they don't sit down to bargain, but they adopt or reject the decision of those whom do. You are arguing it is perfectly acceptable to have such prejudice instilled within the system, and you should know about beforehand. If that were true across the board, the position and rationale you communicate, our blind justice system would be tainted badly, and justice served would be based upon doctrine and philosophy, than any aspect of equality. Candidly, I am glad Mr. Picard made the statement, it is so blatantly self serving, I know exactly why this council needs to be altered, but why Issue 2 must be passed, or only the public employees, will be immune to the misfortune running amok in the private sector.