Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Milardo: Loffredo's Absence Forced Scheduling of Council Meeting

On Friday May 21, the Common Council met to vote on a mayoral veto of a Democratically-proposed amendment to the city budget which would have give the city control of payroll for non-certified Board of Education employees.  Democrats on the Council held the meeting despite the fact that all Republican members, and the mayor, who is Council Chair, reported that they would be absent, most attending the state Republican convention.

The Council needed eight votes to reject the veto, and the eight Democratic Council members in attendance voted the veto down.

In the latest chapter of a feud over the amendment, the veto, and the meeting, MMPA president John Milardo has criticized the timing of the vote in the latest MMPA newsletter.  He claims the vote was held on the Friday it was because on suceeding days leading up to the budget vote deadline, Democrats would not have had the needed votes:

When Councilman Daley comments about how he and his Democratic Council members made choices, “to do the City’s businesses.” Or, Councilman Loffredo comments, “We are the 8...” something else looms in the darkness.

The Democrats would not have had “the 8 votes” if the meeting was postponed! Councilman Loffredo was leaving the State for two (2) weeks; the motion to overturn the veto would have failed. That was the motive behind the Democrats big push for a Special meeting. They didn’t care that the Minority Council members or public didn’t have sufficient notice of the meeting. It was about getting their way. It was about having that “power” to do what they want.


When asked whether Loffredo's absence had anything to do with the decision to hold the meeting on that Friday, Majority leader and Council member Tom Serra repeated what he has already said about the meeting.

"Look, the bottom line is that the Republicans could have come to the meeting on that Friday," Serra said.  "We had a convention too, and we thought that city business was the priority."

Serra indicated that Democrats on the Council had convention commitments, and that the mayor, and the other Republicans could have used proxies to fill their spaces at the convention.

"We actually tried to get a special meeting of the Council on the previous Tuesday to discuss the situation where the police had taken over the Board of Education building," Serra said.  "But the mayor was at a ball game.  Other days were not available because of commitments in Council chambers, or conflicts with Council members."

When asked directly about Loffredo's planned absence, Serra said "it was not at the forefront of our thinking."

"The diversion of attention from real matters is a strategy that the accuser seems to be trying to do," Serra said.  "Communication has been sparse from the leadership on down.  Our party simply believes that city business is more important than political conventions."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

lets face it, the Dems need to move on with life...they are getting to old to run our city. They are holding on to thier power and turning mean because they lost the respect of the people. does not sound like a positive way of doing business with our taxes. find some young blood you cannot manipulate and step aside.

Anonymous said...

Dems need to go, pure and simple!

Anonymous said...

Tom Serra's response is less than honest and forthright. Sounds like Milardo made his point about being "hoodwinked".

Anonymous said...

However, Mr. Milardo enjoys the political game himself. How else can he justify giving away an MMPA union position to a non-union employee. I thought Mr. Milardo was all about staying united and following the contract. Stay united? Hardly.

John Milardo said...

To "Anonymous" of 12:08pm
You seem to be the same person I responded to once before. Your only intention is to continue spreading lies in an attempt to sway opinion away from the real issue at hand.
To correct your comment: The entire membership of MMPA voted on the item you are referrencing. Our Union does not do anything without it's members knoweldge and approval.
Keep up the good work trying to "hoodwink" everyone else.
John Milardo, MMPA President

Anonymous said...

How about the question being, "Why" was it brought to the membership for a vote as you did not negotiate anything in exchange. Does not appear you were looking out for the best interests of us, your "brothers and sisters" as you claim. This, like many other things you speak about, smells. I am not saying you did anything wrong, but it definately smells. Seems like it goes against the values you preach about. Just food for thought John.