MORE PBA CONTRACT STUFF

The proposed PBA contract continues to be of interest. The interest is generated by a peculiar clause in the contract: the residency clause.

For background read The Record and/or the Times Union.

We find this fascinating on many levels.

1. Focusing on residency shifts attention from the remainder of the proposed contract. The media has failed to tell us the final dollar number for the contract. What will Trojans pay when all is said and done? That's not to say we don't support the contract. After all, we're the people that got the police that new car. We just believe that before you consent you should have all the facts.

2. The Record editorial praised Deputy Mayor Crawley and PBA President Fitzgerald for their hard work in hammering out a deal. In the same editorial, The Record states the contract addresses the sticky residency issue but acknowledges they cannot comment on the legality of the residency clause in the contract. Why is The Record praising Crawley when he hasn't finished his job? How has the residency issue been addressed? Until the Administration submits legislation that amends the law, the residency provision is meaningless. The Council can pass the contract and the legal provisions will go into effect. The residency clause will not hold-up passage. It will just be meaningless if challenged.

3. The idea that police officers have to give sell accrued time to live outside the city is odious while others in City Hall violate the residency laws. The Record supports the buy-back for police but refuses to address City Hall employees that get a free ride.

We don't want to pick on The Record. This particular editorial was lazy. Meanwhile, Jim Franco, in Monday's Talespin, gives us a good primer on the history of the various residency laws that impact City employees. Or would impact those employees if enforced.