While the city filed for the removal of 34 individuals listed in its suit to recover $385,000 in excess over time payments to firefighters, the suit is moving forward Mayor Frank Picozzi indicated Tuesday. He said defendants were being served that morning.

On Oct. 12, the city filed a notice of dismissal for 34 of the 246 names listed in the suit with the explanation, “The City inadvertently listed these individuals as defendants on the Rhode Island Judiciary Portal although they are not properly the subject or otherwise named in the complaint filed by the City.”

Picozzi did not say how or why the 34 were in initially named in the suit. From a review of the court documents, it appears that the list of defendants was copied from a document prepared by the city solicitor that included the names of inactive firefighters. What is puzzling is that the firefighters are clearly marked as being inactive and presumably are not parties to the suit.

The suit filed in Kent County Superior Court is against Local 2748, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO.

The suit is based on the Aug. 21, 2021, Marcum LLP report to the city finding the overpayments were made on the basis of an April 23, 2013, Memorandum of Agreement signed by former Fire Chief Edmund Armstrong and witnessed by the City Solicitor allowing firefighters to collect sick time beyond the 140-day cap in their contract agreement. To have amended the bargaining agreement would have required the mayor’s and City Council approval.

The overpayments were brought to light by Rob Cote who, acting on his own, obtained hundreds of department records through requests for public information that triggered an investigation including inquiries by the FBI and the Attorney General. The late Mayor Joseph Solomon stopped the payments on June 30, 2018.

Cote was critical of the latest development, observing that the improper listing of the 34 individuals opens the city to a defamation suit. Additionally, he has criticized the civil action on grounds that should  the court rule the MOA as invalid, it does not require for restitution of the overpayments.