Mayor Allan Fung and the two announced Republican candidates to succeed him in the city’s top elected office sounded off on the mayor’s $302.9 million budget plan for the coming year this week – and the exchange between Fung and Farina grew particularly heated.

Farina on Monday issued a statement expressing “major concerns” with Fung’s proposal, which was unveiled during a virtual “State of the City” address last week.

“I am willing to take a fair look at all budget proposals however my early fiscal analysis of Mayor Fung’s proposed budget, set to take effect July 1, 2020, leads me to conclude that built into his proposed budget is a multi-million-dollar structural deficit,” Farina said in the statement.

The council president specifically cites Fung’s 20 percent reduction in expected restaurant and meals tax revenue, asserting that the city is likely to see a far steeper drop of more than 50 percent in that funding in the coming year.

Farina also points to overtime cost for first responders as an area of concern.

“In addition, the Administration’s budget assumes that there will be no additional overtime costs for our first responders? This is a wishful budget assumption,” he said in the statement. “With a potential second wave of COVID-19 in the fall, this single budget item could easily result in a $1 Million incremental expense not accounted for in Mayor Fung’s budget. Therefore, at a minimum, this results in a $2 Million budget deficit the City and Cranston taxpayers will face next year. The administration’s budget does not adequately take in to account the potential expenses and financial requirements Cranston will face next year in relation to COVID-19 expenses.”

The council president added: “The first rule of budget construction is that one can never build a municipal budget on false hope. A responsible and fiscally prudent budget MUST be based upon actual facts and reasonable budget assumptions … I was elected to lead and true leadership requires making hard fiscal choices and fact-based decisions. If Mayor Fung’s budget is passed ‘as is’ by the present City Council, such action may well require the incoming City Council and the next mayor to make the difficult decision on whether to propose major cuts in all City services; furlough and/or lay-offs of City employees; and/or enact a ‘Special Tax Assessment’ on the residents and taxpayers of Cranston. A big risk to put on the citizens of Cranston leaving them holding the bag.”

Shortly after Farina’s statement was released, Fung responded with a sharply worded statement of his own.

“I know that the Council President is upset that I didn’t endorse him after he sought my support, but ridiculous statements like this make me wonder if he really understands how to read a budget and why I am supporting Councilman Ken Hopkins to be my successor,” the mayor said in the statement.

He added: “I have seen the burden COVID-19 has put on our first responders, especially in terms of EMS, and actually increased overtime by a half a million dollars in this year's fire budget. Additionally, we reduced the meals tax assumptions by 20% from the state's estimates for the year starting July 1st, which will be about two months into the reopening of the economy. I do not share Councilman Farina’s bizarre expectation that fifty percent of Cranston's restaurants will not reopen. Councilman Farina is the type of old school politician who raises taxes when unemployment and financial stressors are at a boiling point for our residents. I’m glad he made that known now so the choice will be much easier for the voters of Cranston in this election.”

Hopkins later issued his own statement, calling for a “responsible review” of the budget proposal and defending Fung’s record and approach.

“In times of uncertainty, it is important that a leader keeps a steady hand. Though a difficult path for the economy on all levels of government may be ahead, it is important to lessen the burden for our citizens in any way possible,” Hopkins said in his statement. “I will work with Mayor Fung and my fellow council members to conduct a thorough review of the budget. It would be irresponsible to comment on such an important matter for purposes of political posturing before we take into full account the potential impacts of our current situation. That is what is expected of our leaders, and not a hasty criticism of the budget, as given by the city council president, in an attempt to utilize this moment for perceived political gain.”

Hopkins added: “This is not a time that tax increases upon the people of Cranston should be casually considered, as insinuated by the current council president in his attack on Mayor Fung’s budget. I can tell you this; Mayor Fung has had a decade long track record of fiscal responsibility. The people of Cranston are resilient, and I will continue to work to preserve the legacy of fiscal responsibility in the management of taxpayer dollars.”

Pay raise delay gains support

During last week’s budget address, Fung called on members of the City Council to delay pay raises that are set to take effect for the mayor and council members in the next term.

Fung allowed the increases – which would bring the mayor’s pay from $80,675 to $105,000; the annual compensation for council members from $4,000 to $6,000; and the pay for the council’s president from $5,000 to $8,000 – to become law without his signature in October.

“As a first step in this sign of solidarity to get us through the crisis, I am asking this council to introduce an ordinance to postpone the raise for the next mayor and council that I had to allocate in the budget because it was existing law,” Fung said during his address. “If the state does not come through with our projected revenues to help our hurting residents, all options are on the table and we will have to seek concessions as well as further staffing reductions such as furloughs and layoffs.”

Shortly after the address, Hopkins – who previously supported the increases – announced he would support the mayor’s request.

“The next mayor and city council should lead by example especially in these difficult times. The people of Cranston are hurting and struggling to pay their bills due to the economic effects of COVID-19. We must put our taxpayers first and do our part to help ease the tax burden on the people of this city anyway we can,” Hopkins said in the statement.

Citywide Councilman Steve Stycos, a Democratic candidate for mayor who had opposed the mayoral pay increase, issued his own statement calling for the pay hikes to be delayed. He noted that both Hopkins and Farina voted in favor of the proposal last year, and also reiterated his belief that the mayoral pay increase is excessive and takes resources that could best be directed elsewhere.

“The Mayor’s current salary is well above the median household income for families in our City, and increasing the Mayor’s salary by that much is irresponsible when so many vital community programs are underfunded. It is irresponsible today, just like it was last year when I voted against the proposal,” Stycos said in his statement.

He added: “I’m glad that other candidates for Mayor are coming around to agree with me that a huge increase to the mayor’s salary is inappropriate; it’s unfortunate that it took a pandemic for them to do so.”

Ward 3 Councilman John Donegan, who opposed the mayoral and council pay increases last year, subsequently wrote on Twitter: “I said from the beginning that we should put our budget priorities elsewhere. I voted against the salary increases then, and I’ll do so again now. I’m glad that other Council members – who voted for the increases – are coming around to agree with me.”

In a Facebook post, Ward 1 Councilwoman Lammis Vargas – who joined Donegan in opposition to the increases last year – also expressed support for delaying the pay raises.

“In his budget address [Fung] asked the council to postpone the council and mayor’s salary increase which I strongly agree with and would most likely be a vote for the council in order to do such,” she wrote.

Lynch Prata won’t seek reelection, applies for Supreme Court position

Saying it is time for her to “give back to the community in a new way,” state Sen. Erin Lynch Prata (D-Dist. 31, Warwick, Cranston) announced last week she is a candidate for the prospective vacancy on the Rhode Island Supreme Court and will not seek reelection to her current seat this fall.

Lynch Prata, who will have served in the Senate for 12 years as of this fall, disclosed that she filed a request with the Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on her application for an appointment to the Supreme Court.

“As a sitting Senator, I thought it important to request an opinion from the Commission to provide legal clarity relative to the concept of the revolving door to those who will consider my application. I believe my application is clearly within the parameters of the law, as any individual may apply at any time for an open constitutional office,” she wrote in an email.

She goes on to say, “I am committed to serving the law and my community and have always hoped to serve as a member of the Judiciary. I am excited to submit my application today and look forward to going through this extensive process.”

Lynch Prata is applying for the seat of Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia, who is retiring June 30. The deadline to apply for the position with a base salary of $189,424 was last week.

Sally Dowling, chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission, outlined the procedure for reviewing candidates for the position, which starts with reading applications.

As they can be lengthy, she said, “I give them [commission members] a lot of time to do that.” The process involves background checks, and once the commission arrives at the point of interviewing candidates, the names are released. By statute, the commission is charged with forwarding no less than three and no more than five candidates to the governor for a nomination. By statute, the governor has 21 days to make a selection and forward that to the House and Senate for approval or rejection.

In a brief interview, Lynch Prata said her first job as a lawyer was as a clerk to Supreme Court Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg and that the role of a justice “has always been a dream.”

Of her tenure in the Rhode Island Senate, where she serves as chair of the Judiciary Committee, Lynch Prata she has always sought to learn as much as possible and to make a difference. She said she would aim to do the same should she be appointed to the Supreme Court and after talking with her husband, made the decision to apply for the post.

“I have been honored and so grateful to have had the opportunity to serve the people of Warwick and the State of Rhode Island and to work with such a committed group of elected colleagues and staff,” Lynch Prata said.

In her letter to Jason M. Gramitt, executive director of the Ethics Commission, Lynch Prata reasons the Supreme Court is a constitutional office and therefore justices hold constitutional offices that differ from ordinary state employment. Under state law members of the General Assembly shall not accept or seek state employment while in office nor for one year after leaving legislative office.

In her letter, she asks the Ethics Commission to “provide me with guidance as to whether I am correct that the revolving door provision does not apply to a member of the General Assembly who seeks appointment by the Governor to the constitutional office of Supreme Court Justice.”

Lynch Prata was born on May 17, 1975. She is a graduate of Toll Gate High School and Boston College, where she earned a B.A. in history before earning her J.D. from the Catholic University School of Law.

Political Winds is a semi-regular feature focused on the 2020 election campaign. Candidates or those with political news may contact Daniel Kittredge, editor, at 732-3100, ext. 234, or dan@rhodybeat.com.