A.J. Smith

TonyB states "Vet - Only one question: Who agreed to all of those things you list? No one forced this situation upon anyone. Not to mention that you compare a union situation in the public sector to a non-union situation in the private sector. Kind of an "apple - orange" comparison"


TonyB......Who agreed to all of those things you listed????? The people who agreed to those terms when they decided to take the jobs in the respective areas, be it private or public sector. You are correct, no one forced anyone to take these jobs but ya gotta work somewhere to live, don't you? The only ones that would be forced to take a job are the ones that are unemployed, have been looking for awhile, need the money to pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads and have obligations. Pretty much have to take anything that comes along if you are in a desperate situation. That is, until the job market opens up.

How in the world do you get that union/non-union/ public/private sector is an apples to oranges comparison????? The basics of each are already there and are not that different. It is the bennies, wages, the difference in the amount taken out of the paycheck for each, the pay for sick time accrued versus getting nothing by leaving in the private sector, the merit way of evaluation in the private sector versus the "contract for 3 years at a time" union wages for work not done yet that are the real differences. It is also a fact that private companies can afford to pay their workers wages and benny costs with the help of the employee sharing the premium costs (if they can't, they downsize and consolidate operations eliminating duplication of jobs. The cities, with their union employees, are finding out that they can no longer meet the demands of their union workers. I don't see the respective job duties as being apples to oranges.

Tony also states....

For someone as irrelevant as AJ Smith, there seems to be a lot of time and energy devoted to discussing him. Those of you who are supporters of SB5 seem to actually think that Mr. Smith is somehow a threat to this law staying a law.

Nope. I don't think anyone cares what Smith does to get SB5 repealed. The discussion concerning Smith has centered around the perceived conflict of interest involving Smith's activities with the special interest repeal group, and him drawing a paycheck as a field DIErector and his role as a councilperson and his obligations to the city. These two areas may be in conflict with each other as the repeal group, if successful, may place the city in a bind regarding negotiations and with limited funds to apply to union demands. JMO

Vet - Only one question: Who agreed to all of those things you list? No one forced this situation upon anyone. Not to mention that you compare a union situation in the public sector to a non-union situation in the private sector. Kind of an "apple - orange" comparison.

TonyB wrote: Vet - SB5 does not level the playing field. The field was already level. The FACT that the city is terrible at negotiation is the true detriment. City council only approves negotiated deals and recommends the parameters of the deal; they do not negotiate the deals themselves. The hypothetical "can be", "could", "might", is just that; supposition. Mr Laubach opposed the recent contracts while the other 6 members of council thought the deals were in the best interest of the city. Did Mr. Laubach support a position that was at odds with what is best for the city? The real issue will be decided by voters on SB5 provided it even makes it to the ballot. There is no sense in putting the cart before the horse in this case.

NOOOOOO, the playing field has NEVER been level Tony. You have not been paying attention to the comparisons between a union shop and a non-union shop and what the public world offers the employee and what the private world offers.

PUBLIC WORLD A right to collective bargaining-ie. discussion with the employer as to raises with a signed contract
PRIVATE WORLD No collective bargaining rights-take what they offer, no contract unless top level manager or CEO

PUBLIC WORLD Pay approx. 9% toward the premiums for health, dental bennies
PRIVATE WORLD Pay anywhere from 15% to 24% out of your paycheck for benefit premiums

PUBLIC WORLD Currently have step increases BETWEEN regular raises coupled with the regular negotiated raises per year
PRIVATE WORLD NO step increases available, no negotiated raises available

PUBLIC WORLD Automatic contract negotiated raises for years to come BEFORE BEING EVALUATED/BEFORE WORK IS DONE no matter what kind of job they do.
PRIVATE WORLD Year by year merit evaluation done by the contributions from the last year and already accomplished. Raise based on value to the company FOR THAT YEAR, not a predetermined unproven amount each year for many years.

PUBLIC WORLD Retirement paid for by public without contributions from employee
PRIVATE WORLD Retirement paid for by company with employee contributions in the amount of 5-10-15% deductions from employee paycheck

PUBLIC WORLD Sick time paid upon leaving the employment of said public employer
PRIVATE WORLD Sick time lost when you leave the company. No pay for accumulated sick time. Some employers don't even offer sick time hour accumulation.

PUBLIC WORLD (using the example from the recent school district early retirement package offered to the teachers) A cool $45,000 to leave plus all the sick time pay accumulated

PRIVATE WORLD (if you are downsized) A lump sum payment equal to a thousand bucks for every year you were there. (As in at P&G when I was downsized.

SB5 is just bringing the Public sector back in line with what the private sector has been receiving for many years.....and the public workers don't like their little world brought back to reality and they will not accept the fact that many cities can no longer afford to pay what the unions are asking for. Over the years, the unions have negotiated themselves out of reach of what the city employer can afford.


"City council only approves negotiated deals and recommends the parameters of the deal; they do not negotiate the deals themselves"

Then if they approve the negotiated deals (your words), they do have a sayso in the negotiations by being the final judge as to whether they will happen or not. Your statement tells me they can put the stop to the agreed upon contract and make the city leaders and the union go back to the neg. table to restart talks.

This doesn't look like the Public and Private sectors are on a level playing field to me.

I think you're right on this. Smith should recuse himself from all negotiations with public city employees.

acclaro wrote: In simplist term, Smith's actions are in violation of his office only when he casts votes associated with union workers and cuts. When that occurs, he should recuse himself, or Mr. Landen will do so for him in a formal request. Tony, this is really a no brainer. His role s council member is to act first and foremost, on what is best for the city and its constituents, not Barack Obama, the Democratic party, and certainly not SR5. Does he have a right to be paid by the group against SR5? Yes. Does he have a legal right to represent that organization, and agenda, and his vote be cast in parallel to that group? Of course not, an ethical violation, and a legal violation. When he recuses himself, he need to not worry. As long as he associates with the organization, is paid as such, he has no choice but to recuse himself.   So, its that easy, no more complication. A simple analogy would be an AK exec sitting on council and casting a vote for everything before council that benefits AK---it would not fly, and would be a clear conflict of interest. Nothing more needs to be stated.

Tonyb,

TonyB...you state


"Mr Smith does not negotiate city contracts". I was under the impression that city council does get involved in contract negotiations and has the final sayso in approval because it does affect the city budget and they are responsible for said budget.


"Yu seem to subscribe to the idea that there is only one side to this argument and that anyone who doesn't agree is either ethically challenged or just plain wrong"

That is correct. There is only one side. The one opposite the union stance. (Just kidding....it is still open for debate)

Mr Nagy's quote of the city charter is irrelevant in this instance because Mr. Smith is not profiting from any action taken by the city as regards contract negotiations"

Ahh, but Smith is benefitting from this situation because he is now collecting a paycheck for ciding with and supporting action that can be detrimental to the city as to negotiations.

Advocating the repeal of a law does not mean a conflict of interest"

It does in this case because if the law is repealed and the city loses the level playing field in negotiations and Smith is also representing the city in an official capacity, IMO, he has a conflict of interest because he is playing both sides of the fence.

Until someone puts there foot down A.J. is going to do what A.J. wants to do.Breaking laws,charters,or whatever doesnt mean a thing to the CHUMP.Yes A.J. I called you a chump.When you was born instead of smacking you on your butt the doctor needed to smack your mom for having such a disgrace as you are.

Tony, I believe I references I view Smith "irrelevant" so I will not be spending a minute of my time reporting any violation to the city, to the state, to the feds. It isn't required, council will see the clear conflict of interest. I realize from your mny posts, you support the union and government, that is your right and opinion, but you need to peel away facts from emotions.

acclaro - are you saying that Smith's vote on the recent city contracts with dispatchers was a conflict of interests? Is he lobbying the city government about SB5? Does that mean that anyone who supports an agenda of a political party and serves as a representative in government has a conflict of interests? Example of political cronyism? Violation of the law? Are you kidding me? According to Becker, this city violates the law on a regular and ongoing basis. Cite the ordinances Smith is in violation of and file a complaint; see how far that gets.

This one is really easy. Mr. Smith's work within the Dem party to get SB5 on the ballot, is really a paid lobbyist. His position if to support the Democratic objective, to win votes, and support the union, which gioves them boths. While not illegal, it is clearly a conflict of interest. As a consequence, he should have absolutely no vote on any issue pertaining to SB5 in the city of Middletown. I hope Mr. Landen reads these posts, or engageds legal acumen, as it will be a conflict of interest Smith must recuse himself from exercizing a "paid" vote. That in turn, would be an "illegal" activity. Really a blatant and irresponsible example of political cronysism and taking it a step further...he is paid to do this work and influence others, a serious ethical violation, a violation of city ordinance, and a violation of state and federal law.

Evidently Mr.Smith made this effort at a meeting supposedly focused as a community forum with a councilmember. Possible thorny issue being that this meeting and organized sb5 effort happened in city-owned property(community center I believe), which may well fly against any non-partisan political activity conditions. So--what do we have here?

Vet - I see this differently because there are dissenters in every legislative body. That isn't against the law. Council doesn't draw a "paycheck", they receive "compensation" for their time and all have other jobs. Is it a conflict of interest for the Mayor to be in the banking industry and also serve on the non-profit for economic development?

According to The Middletown Journal, AJ Smith is being paid to help repeal SB5.  But he has been doing so in his official capacity as a Middletown City Councilman.