Hotel, fast food workers stand up for rights in RI


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

hilton 1stamend rallyThere’s a bit of low-wage worker uprising happening here in Rhode Island.

Hilton Providence employees are holding an action to support their coworkers who were they say were fired for speaking out about the need for a labor union. A tweet from Unite Here 217 organizer Andrew Tillet-Saks called it a “Funeral for US Constitution to protest mass firings.” On Monday, Steve Ahlquist interviewed Adrienne Jones, who said she was fired from the Hilton Providence for speaking out. On Tuesday it was learned two employees were fired for speaking out about the work conditions at the downtown Providence hotel and seven others were disciplined.

And on Tuesday, the Rhode Island fight for $15 an hour for fast food workers moves from a Wendy’s in Warwick to a McDonald’s in Providence, where activists (I’m not sure about workers yet) will protest in solidarity with the McDonalds workers in California, Michaigan and New York are suing the corporation saying they were “illegally underpaid employees by erasing hours from their timecards, not paying overtime and ordering them to work off the clock.”

This from Rhode Island Jobs With Justice:

Fast-food workers have been at the forefront for economic justice. They’ve gone on strike, fighting for $15 and the right to form a union, fueling a national debate on income inequality and creating momentum to raise wages.

But in addition to not paying a decent wage, fast-food companies are making it even harder for their workers to afford even the basic necessities by stealing their wages. That’s why fast-food workers are making their voices heard again.

Join fast food workers from RI and community allies on TUESDAY, MARCH 18th, at 12:30, at the McDonald’s at 343 Broad St. in Providence, as we stand in solidarity with workers across the country who filed a national law-suit against wage theft at McDonald’s!

 

RIC honors Richard Walton


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Richard Walton - June 1 2008As my co-editor, Rhode Island College (RIC) President Nancy Carriuolo will tell you that the late Richard Walton clearly understood the power of the emerging Internet and the power social media would wield in our daily lives.  The beloved social activist and educator who put tireless energy and effort into supporting many worthy causes began emailing and connecting to his family and vast network of friends electronically in the early 1990s. 

 Over 20 years, he would literally write thousands of correspondences on a vast array of topics including serious social causes, baseball and boxing, politics and even entertaining observations about Rhode Islanders and local events.

 Honoring the Late Richard Walton

According to Carriuolo, the late activists and educators love and active involvement in social media prompted the creation of our e-book, The Selected E-Mail Correspondences of Richard Walton, which offers his sampling of correspondence.  As co-editors of this tribute to Walton, we invite you to a RIC Foundation fundraiser, where we will unveil our e-book in his memory, from 2-3 p.m. on Sunday, March 23, at the RIC Student Union Ballroom, 600 Mt. Pleasant Ave., Providence. We will offer readings from this e-book. The suggested donation for the event is $10. Proceeds will be used to equip the English Department Conference Room, which will be named in Waltons honor.

Last winter, Facebook notification of a memorial event held at Roots Cafe in Waltons honor brought Nancy Carriuolo and I together with hundreds of others shortly after Richard’s death to celebrate his extraordinary life.   We began to correspond via Facebook.  She sent me an e-essay that Richard had sent her about the Encyclopedia Britannica going out of print and wondering what would happen to his Encyclopedia Britannica when he passed. In return, I sent her an essay titled The great and good Hammerin’ Hank Tears for my Boyhood Baseball Hero, telling his love and admiration for the legendary baseball player, Hank Greenberg, and the tears he shed for a long dead baseball player.

In our social media chats, Carriuolo admitted that she had saved some of Waltons emails.  Who could delete a correspondence with the subject line:  Do I Really Have to Wear Long Pants? which was written in response to her invitation to recognize Walton as a founding adjunct union president at my opening annual meeting of faculty, administrators, and staff, she remembers, telling me that  I just could not bear to delete any of his emails.  I shot back an email saying that I bet others had saved Richard’s emails, too, then asking her that maybe we should do an e-book?  That was the beginning of our editorial project.

 Waltons 91-page e-book is comprised of electronic correspondence shared by many of his friends and colleagues.  Being a brilliant writer and an observer of life, Walton covered topics as diverse as progressive issues on the topic of homelessness (spending Christmas at Amos House), the Rhode Island governor’s race, national politics, education and womens rights.  He jumped into giving his two cents about the Lions Head, his favorite New York hangout, as well as boxing and baseball, and even his views on religion.

In one of my favorite emails in our e-book, Walton shared his great admiration for the great first baseman, Hank Greenberg of the Detroit Tigers.  His love for this Jewish baseball player began as a small child when he grew up in Providence listening to the game on the radio with his grandfather during an era of rampant anti-Semitism and racism.  Even at the ripe old age of 72, the seasoned journalist wrote a powerful Op Ed in The Providence Journal about Greenberg after reading a four-star review of the movie, “The Live and Times of Hank Greenberg.”  He even admitted that he shed tears over “a long-dead baseball player,” this giving me a glimpse into how Walton as a young man would not accept the bigotry of his time and who would later turn his attention and tireless energy to fighting against society’s ignorance and indifference to the less fortunate.

 As to other e correspondences…

  • On his career choices: Walton admitted, I did turn down a job as an NBC News correspondent because I refused to shave my beard.
  • On the fact that at age 79 he traveled to Shanghai to teach children, he quipped, “It might turn up in a game of Trivial Pursuit some day.
  • On his losing battle with leukemia, Walton noted, Im going on a great adventure.

 The Life and Times of Richard Walton

 With his prominent long white beard and his red bandana, decked out in blue jean overalls and wearing a baseball cap, Walton, who passed in 2012 at the age of 84, was a well-known figure on the Rhode Island scene. In the early 80s, he ran as the Citizens Party vice presidential candidate. Later, he became an early member of the Green Party. At Rhode Island College, where he taught English for more than 25 years, he ran a successful campaign to unionize adjunct faculty, serving as the unions first president.  With his death, RIC President Carriuolo called for lowering the flags on campus to half-staff in his memory. 

Born in Saratoga Springs, New York, Walton grew up in South Providence in the 1930s, graduating from Classical High School in 1945.  After taking a two-year break from his studies at Brown University to serve as a journalist mate in the U.S. Navy, he returned to receive a bachelors degree in 1951.  He whet his appetite for music by working as disc jockey at Providence radio station WICE before enrolling in Columbia University School of Journalism where he later earned a masters in journalism degree in 1955. 

Waltons training at Brown and Columbia propelled him into a writing career.  During his early years he worked as a reporter at The Providence Journal, and the New York World Telegram and Sun. At Voice of America in Washington, D.C., Walton initially put in time reporting on African issues, ultimately being assigned to cover the United Nations.

The prolific writer would eventually publish 12 books, nine being written as critical assessments of U.S. foreign policy.  As a freelance writer in the late 1960s, he made his living by writing for The Nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Village Voice, Newsday, The [old] New Republic, Cosmopolitan, even Playboy.

A self-described peacenik, the journalist was known not only for his political views, but also for his charity and volunteer work with such fixtures as the Amos House homeless shelter, The George Wiley Center, grassroots agency that works to alleviate problems associated with poverty and the musical venue Stone Soup Coffeehouse. In fact, for many years he used his birthday party to host a highly regarded and well-attended annual fundraiser to support Rhode Islands homeless community.

 I know that throughout his life, Richard Walton served as a role model for generations of activists, watching out and protecting Rhode Islands voiceless citizens, showing all that positive societal changes could be made through sound arguments.

 E-Book Allows Us to Re-Experience Walton 

 While we can no longer see our friend, Richard Walton, in our daily travels, his essence, keen observations and thoughts about our wonderful world can be found in his e-writings.  As stated in my afterword in Waltons e-book, his emails will magically propel you into the distant past, when he stood among us, allowing us to easily remember our own philosophical banters and discussions with him, even giving us the opportunity to re-experiencing his sharp wit, humor and his humbleness. 

While so painful to admit that he is no longer here, his beautiful and thoughtful and provocative writings to his family and friends make him come alive once again to us.  Just close your eyes after you read the emails in our e-book.  I am sure you will once again feel his energy and essence.   

For more details about RICs reception to honor Walton or contribute to dedicate a room in his honor, contact Paul Brooks at (401) 456-8810. Donations should be made to the RIC Foundation with the notation:  Richard Walton.

David Cicilline is protecting your tax dollars against Congressional Republicans


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

cicillineThere’s little House Democrats can do if the Republican majority wants to spend its time suing President Obama. But Rhode Island Congressman David Cicilline has managed to at least hold the GOP fiscally responsible for doing so.

Wednesday the House of Representatives passed 233-181 the so-called ENFORCE Act. It would create a expedited process for members of Congress to sue the president if they feel he or she isn’t fully executing the law.

“Instead of tackling the real issues facing our country, the House Republicans continue to make a mockery out of Congress by bringing politically-motivated bills to the floor that do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Americans,” Cicilline said. “The ENFORCE Act would allow for a Congressional majority to sue the Executive Branch without any oversight, safeguards, or accountability to prevent abuse.”

On the House floor he said, “The bill raises its own constitutional issues, and fails to put in place responsible safeguards to prevent abuse. This I believe Mr. Chairman is dangerous attack that threatens the careful balance of power developed by our founding fathers.”

But Cicilline did more than just talk about the bill. He also authored a successful amendment that would attach a fiscal note to the ENFORCE Act.

“Ultimately, the tab for litigation under the ENFORCE Act is to be paid by the American people,” Cicilline said. “At a minimum, they should be informed of how much of their hard earned money is being spent pursuing these lawsuits.”

He said Republican leadership spent “up to $3 million” defending DOMA, the federal law that allowed states to ignore same-sex marriages before it was ruled unconstitutional and “we still do not have an adequate accounting of how much the House Majority has spent on defending this discriminatory law, or whether it continues to spend taxpayer funding on this matter.”

Cicilline and Rep. Jim Langevin both voted against the bill. Here’s video of Cicilline’s remarks:

State library funding rewards Barrington, punishes Central Falls


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There are several differences between the public library in Barrington and the one in Central Falls.

The Barrington library has more than 129,000 print items on its shelves and lent out 384,257 materials last year. The Central Falls library has about 34,000 print items on the shelves and lent out 14,994 materials last year. Barrington’s library is open seven days a week, and Monday through Thursday it’s open for 12 hours a day – 9 am to 9pm. Central Falls’ library is open six days a week; five hours a day on Saturdays and seven on weekdays. Barrington’s library employs 45 people, 15 of them full time, and Central Falls employs two full time and two part time people. The Barrington library’s annual budget is just over $1.5 million and the Central Falls library’s budget is $165,000.

Another difference is the amount each will get in state aid this year. Governor Chafee’s proposed budget would give $341,488 to Barrington and $17,569 to Central Falls. That’s because state library aid is appropriated based on a library’s budget rather than its need.

Here’s the law: “For each city or town, the state’s share to support local public library services shall be equal to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of both the amount appropriated and expended in the second preceding fiscal year by the city or town from local tax revenues and funds from the public library’s private endowment that supplement the municipal appropriation.”

As such, state taxpayers generally send more dollars per resident to suburban libraries than to urban libraries.

library funding

Deborah Barchi, director of the Barrington library and a past president of the Ocean State Libraries consortium, thinks the state funding formula for local libraries is fair.

“Each town makes those decisions based on what they value,” she said. “No matter what metric you use, there would be somebody who would feel they weren’t getting enough money.”

But Steve Larrick, the president of the Central Falls Public Library Board, disagrees.

“We think the state needs to play a role in our urban libraries,” he said. Rhode Island “needs to do a better job of thinking about these social determinants.”

Larrick, who is also the town planning director in Central Falls, explained what he meant about social determinants.

“Barrington doesn’t need a library to have access to tremendous resources,” he said. “They have great access to broadband in their homes, and their schools are top notch. Their school library is probably better than our public library. A dollar spent there will not be as meaningful as a dollar spent on the Central Falls library.”

Central Falls almost lost its library when the city filed for bankruptcy two years ago. Receiver Bob Flanders closed the library and a grassroots community effort aided by New York Times coverage and a $10,000 donation from Alec Baldwin, kept the doors open. But operating expenses were decimated, and because the funding formula uses budget numbers from two years ago it is hitting them in state funding this year.

“For this year and next year, the average is really down because of the bankruptcy,” Larrick said.

I asked Governor Chafee to comment on the disparity in funding between the Barrington and Central Falls libraries. Spokeswoman Faye Zuckerman sent this:

“As Governor, a former mayor and city councilor, Governor Chafee has been an advocate for Rhode Island’s cities and towns. Throughout his years in office, he has been working to reverse the damage done by the past administration to municipalities and the Rhode Island property taxpayer.”

Barth Bracy wags the dog


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Barth BracyThe hearings held in the State House Judiciary Committee had a slightly different format than usual.

With 12 bills on the agenda, the first 12 speaking positions were reserved for the legislators who introduced each piece of legislation. Seven of the bills introduced seek to expand women’s access to reproductive services and the remaining five seek to further limit this right.

Representatives Tomasso, O’Neill, Ferri, Handy, Tanzi, Finn and Almeida were all on hand to present the legislation they introduced to support women’s health care. Those introducing bills that would restrict women’s access, save for Representatives Macbeth and McLaughlin, were nowhere to be found.

Representatives Palumbo, Corvese and Fellela instead chose to allow lobbyist Barth Bracy, executive director of RI’s Right to Life organization, to introduce the bills for them. This does make a certain amount of sense, because it is probable that Bracy had quite a bit to do with authoring the bills these representatives put their names on, but literally could not be bothered to stand behind.

It must be easier for our state representatives to introduce bills that seek to strip away the reproductive rights of women when you don’t have to look them in the eye while you do so.

If self-congratulation could save the Earth


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Yesterday, March 12, 2014, the sponsors of Senate Bill 2690 held a hearing on their bill which has the following summary:

An Act Relating To Public Utilities And Carriers – The Distributed Generation Growth Program (would Create A Tariff-based Renewable Energy Distributed Generation Financing Program.)

The discussion left me in the state of bewilderment I anticipated. Self-congratulation and lots of words, but a near-total absence of substance.  Why this frustration, you might wonder. Let me explain.

Windmills-Kinderdijk-Netherlands

Here is a quote from the report of the hearing in the Providence Journal:

They [renewable energy developers and environmental advocates] said that proposed legislation to extend the life of what was originally created as a pilot program and increase its size would not only boost the state’s economy by creating clean energy jobs but would also help the environment by reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

“Reducing the carbon emissions!”  That should be good news for me and my friends of Fossil Free RI, who were well represented among the those who testified. Good news? Well, maybe. Let me mention that my testimony was in line with the views of  AFSC-SENE.  Of course, I am really shocked, shocked, shocked that none of my profound thoughts made into the ProJo report.  Here is the testimony I submitted for the record:

The DG bill is for a program to provide 160MW nameplate capacity over five years. What does this mean?

Power consumption per capita in the US is 1.5kW.  That is 1.5 GW for RI.

This five-year program will replace nominally 10% of RI Electric electric power: 2% per year.

The actual power is about 20% of nameplate power. That gets us to 0.4% per year.

Take into account that RI per capita power use is 60% of the national average and that electric power makes up for about 40% of our energy consumption.

Conclusion: the DG program will make a yearly change of 0.3% in our power consumption.

To prevent catastrophic climate change, we have to cut our carbon dioxide emissions by about 10% per year. In other words, to do what needs to be done, this program should be expanded by a factor of roughly 30; that might be “only” 20, if the “20% of nameplate power” is too conservative.

If the fossil fuel industry were to put in place a decoy program to guarantee their continued business as usual, it might look like this program.

This bill needs the following amendments:

  • A provision that power generation as a public utility be publicly owned and cooperatively operated.  The People of Rhode Island are fed up depending for power on National Grid, a corporation headquartered in the United Kingdom.
  • There will have to be:
    • occupational safety protections for the workers doing e.g. roof top installation and maintenance and
    • occupational injury benefits and retirement programs

By all means, please amend and adopt this bill, as long as you realize that it dramatically fails to accomplish what the physics of climate change demands.

This bill was probably formulated by people who may know exactly what they are doing. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen, but the decisions are made by people who seem totally oblivious how many injuries and fatalities their plans may make and what   to do about these consequences. Nor did they seem to know whether they are talking about a 0.1% 1%, or 10% fractional solution of our share of the climate change problem.

Can anyone expect this process to produce rational decisions?  Of course not, all we’ll get is just more bloody capitalism!  Is it a surprise that the People have no confidence in their representatives and increasingly tune out of the fact-free reporting perpetrated by the corporate media complex?

How Chafee just saved our economy from a $124 million hit


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

chafee sos1On Monday, Lincoln Chafee did something incredibly important for our state’s economy.  Following Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania, he stopped severe cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a program that provides food assistance to families at risk for hunger.  Passed in the most recent farm bill, these cuts were vigorously opposed by each member of our national delegation.

By increasing funding to the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by $1.4 million, Chafee has guaranteed the state an extra $69 million in SNAP funds.  According to the Department of Agriculture, the economic multiplier for SNAP is 1.79, so the $69 million will translate into a projected $124 million of GDP.  That would be a huge hit to the economy. Stopping it is very big news.

We face a hunger crisis in America.  Millions of families struggle to put food on the table.  Because of what Lincoln Chafee did, not only will our economy avoid a big hit, fewer Rhode Islanders will go to bed hungry.

Taveras, Pell take wait and see approach on legalizing marijuana


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras at Netroots Nation. (Photo by Bob Plain)Two of the Democrats running for governor are taking a wait-and-see what-happens-elsewhere approach to legalizing marijuana in Rhode Island.

In an email to RI Future today, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras said, “I am not currently supportive of legalization.  I think we need to wait and see what impact such a large change has on states like Colorado and Washington.” He pointed out that he did support last years’ successful effort to decriminalize marijuana, he said, “because it allows us to better focus police resources.”

Somewhat similarly, Clay Pell told WPRI Newsmakers in January, “I think that we need to take a look at what’s happening in Colorado and wait and see what’s happening in Washington. I don’t support taking any particular action at this time.”

Tim White pressed him a bit: “But right now that’s not a straight no. It sounds like you’re leaving the door open a little bit.?”

And Pell responded, “Look, I want the econ of Rhode Island to grow. I’m not sure if that is the place to begin. I’m happy to see what happens in Washington and Colorado…”

I asked Gina Raimondo on Twitter about a month ago but haven’t heard back from her.

Gov Chafee told RI Future earlier in the session he was taking a wait and see approach. After he spoke with Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, he said he would evaluate if and when the tax and regulate bill made it to his desk.

Is equal equitable on state education funding?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

woonsocket hsIs equal equitable with regard to state education funding? As it happens, even a progressive state funding formula isn’t equitable when it comes to helping Rhode Island’s economically diverse cities and towns provide an adequate education to all.

That’s what Pawtucket and Woonsocket are arguing before the state Supreme Court in a case that claims the state is unconstitutionally depriving these two school districts of its ability to properly educate its children.

The Department of Education says that the state constitution doesn’t obligate it to provide an adequate, equal or equitable education – only that it “promote” public education. Furthermore, many suburban school committee members, policy analysts and small government activists have pointed out that Rhode Island already imposes a progressive (i.e. not regressive) formula for funding local school districts based on need.

Comparing per-pupil spending between some of Rhode Island’s richest suburbs and poorest cities, it seems they are correct. Barrington and East Greenwich get about 10 percent of their per-pupil education budget from the state and Woonsocket and Pawtucket get more than 60 percent per pupil from the state.  In 2014, the state will pay $8,562 per pupil in Woonsocket and $8,270 in Pawtucket. Conversely, the state will pay $1,056 per pupil in Barrington and $987 in East Greenwich. (Ed. note: RIDE does not keep per pupil state aid data, according to RIDE spokesman Elliot Krieger, but you can do the math by dividing column H of this spreadsheet by column A of this spreadsheet, according to RIDE’s Office of Statewide Efficiencies Director Cynthia Brown.)

“At an order of magnitude difference Rhode Island’s funding formula sure does a lot of work to equalize spending,” said Jason Becker, who helped author the 2010 funding formula that Woonsocket and Pawtucket are challenging in court. “I don’t see how the state could do more without dramatically increasing the amount of state funding for education. With our budget and revenue issues I don’t see that happening anytime soon.”

But even with a progressive funding formula (the previous formula was not dramatically different for the richest and poorest communities) the results have been unequivocally regressive.

Take NECAP test results, for example. Barrington and East Greenwich 11th graders both scored 70 percent proficient on their math NECAP while Woonsocket 11th graders were 21 percent proficient and in Pawtucket 20 percent were proficient.

Perhaps the answer lies not within how much the aid the state gives each district, but how much aid each district needs. As Becker notes, the state funding formula equalizes spending. Even though Woonsocket and Pawtucket students have vastly different educational needs than East Greenwich and Barrington students, all four educations cost roughly the same.

In 2011, the most recent year I was able to find data on RIDE’s website, (Ed. note: still waiting to hear from RIDE Statewide Effeciencies Office if there is more recent data elsewhere), the average Woonsocket student cost $13,485 to educate and the average Pawtucket student cost $13,007. Meanwhile, the average East Greenwich student cost $13,973 and the average Barrington student cost $12,708. UPDATE: 2012 comparison here, courtesy of Elliot Krieger.

That may be equal. But considering the affluent suburbs seem to be able to do much more with a similar amount of money, it doesn’t seem equitable. Not even close.

East Greenwich recently built a brand new, “state-of-the-art” middle school building and also completed three major construction projects at the high school including an astroturf football stadium, a new entrance facade and new science labs. And next year, the EG School Committee plans to give every high school student their own laptop computer and add a staff member to facilitate the new program.

Meanwhile, this is what Providence City Councilor Sam Zurier, who is litigating the equitable funding lawsuit on behalf of Pawtucket and Woonsocket, said about the situation in Pawtucket:

“Pawtucket cannot afford to issue a separate text book for every child in some of its schools. You have laboratories with mold in them, the plumbing doesn’t work. You have classes in the elementary school that has two grades being taught by the same teacher. It’s often the case that schools run out of paper this time of year.”

Hilton employees say at least two have been fired for supporting union


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

DSC_9344Adrienne Jones isn’t the only one. According to a press release from Unite Here Local 217 two people have been fired from the Hilton Hotel in Providence for supporting an effort to form a union and several others disciplined. Nick Spino, who delivered room service, was the other.

“Since workers presenting management with their petition February 18th, management has terminated two public leaders for arbitrary reasons, suspended-pending-termination another, and issued arbitrary discipline to no less than seven workers at the forefront of the workers’ campaign for better jobs,” according to the release from Andrew Tillett-Saks.

The email said a follow-up action – a “‘mock funeral for the United States Constitution’ to bring light to the hotel’s trampling of workers’ freedom of speech” – involving “terminated workers, their co-workers, and other area hotel workers” is being organized.

Earlier this week, Steve Ahlquist reported that Adrienne Jones feels she was fired for supporting the effort to organize a union. Krystle Martin, a barrista at the Hilton Starbucks agrees.

“The company is firing many of us who they see as  leaders of the efforts to make these livable jobs,” she said according to the press release. “We shouldn’t be mistreated at work just because we want to have decent jobs. Bottom line, this is illegal but they think they’re above the law.”

Watch video and see pictures of the Feb. 18 action here.

Time to wake up the filibuster


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

time to wke up sheldon 50As I was writing this article, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and a number of his colleagues started tag-teaming an all-night marathon of speeches on climate change. The move feels like progress, but also has that “that should have happened 20 years ago” feeling that so many Democratic tactics have in Congress.

I can’t help but think of the filibuster every time I see one of Sen. Whitehouse’s speeches. While the filibuster of today is mostly a procedural technicality, some senators on the left and the right have taken to doing a real “talking filibuster” like the kind you might expect from a Webster or Calhoun of yore. But it’s time to wake up. Whitehouse needs to reevaluate his strategy on climate change and push more forcefully to stop it.

The filibuster is a powerful tool, having just recently killed a bill with majority support to remove sexual assault cases in the military from the DOD chain of command. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) was taken down by friendly fire within the party, as Sen. Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO) sought to keep prosecutorial decisions in the chain of command and proposed more minor changes to the assault process. Situations like this show how effectively the tool of obstruction can derail a good thing, even when it has fifty-five votes.

The filibuster has been a primarily rightwing tool in our history, although at times left-leaning senators like Bernie Sanders or the LaFollettes have used it for liberal causes. I think that Senator Whitehouse needs to rethink his strategizing around climate change to include the filibuster as a tool of obstruction for good rather than evil.

I’ve written elsewhere of the relative sanity of our dear senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, as compared to such uninspiring figures of my Pennsylvania upbringing as frothy-mouthed Rick Santorum. Rhode Island is lucky to have a senator like Sheldon Whitehouse, who embodies everything that is relatively sound about our otherwise dysfunctional Senate. I’m certainly surprised everyday to find myself feeling like I can respect someone in the Senate that I have the chance of voting for myself.

Senator Whitehouse has made a weekly speech about climate change on the Senate floor for over a year to the adulation of many liberals. While one usually refers to these speeches as being “to” the Senate, I think the more cynical C-Span junkies among us are aware that there are often very few actual co-members of either house that actually listen to them. Some of the best political speeches I’ve ever seen have included accidental pan-out by the cameraperson at the last moment to reveal just a couple of staffers and one or two congressional colleagues, a cameraman, and a stenographer in the audience.

Like Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Rand Paul (R, KY), Sen. Whitehouse represents a state in which being pushy about his ideals is a safe bet. Fully 92% of Rhode Islanders believe that climate change is caused by human actions. Certainly in a swing state like Ohio or Pennsylvania, or in a conservative state like Kentucky, giving a speech weekly on the need to address climate change would be ballsy, and no-doubt much of the pride that we get from seeing our dear Senator do this each week comes from the recognition of how far in advance of other states this puts our leaders. But by the same token, in a state where the public is so cognizant of the need for action, is making a weekly speech even touching the surface of what’s enough?

We need to understand laws in terms of power, and not just as some sweet exercise in reaching across the aisle. The historian Robert Caro, who has written biographies both of Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson, had this to say (video) about Johnson, who he calls “the Master of the Senate”:

You know today, political scientists say that the eleven weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day is too short a period of time for a president to learn–for a new president to learn–to be president. Well Lyndon Johnson’s preparation, his transition period, was two hours and six minutes. That’s the length of time between when he takes his oath on Air Force One to be President of the United States, the plane takes off immediately thereafter, and two hours and six minutes later it lands in Washington, and he has to be ready to step off that plane, and become president…Kennedy’s entire legislative program–his Civil Rights Act, his education act, his Medicare acts…all his major legislation, without exception–was stalled, completely stalled in Congress. It was going nowhere. . .[A]s you know, since 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Kennedy had not succeeded in getting a single piece of major domestic social welfare legislation through Congress. To see Johnson walk directly into a situation where Congress had completely stalled this bill, all these bills, and to see him get them up and running–within one week he has them all on the way, beginning at least, on their way to passage in Washington–to watch him do that is a lesson in what a president can do, if he not only knows all the levers to pull, but has the will, in Lyndon Johnson’s case the savage, almost vicious drive to win, to accomplish, is to say over and over again, ‘Wow, look what he’s doing! I never knew a president could do that!’ [my emphasis]

Caro explains in his multiple volumes how the Senate has historically used its filibuster mostly to the detriment of positive social change, between Reconstruction and the 1956 Civil Rights Act blocking each and every attempt to make even the most gradual changes for black people and unions in the United States–with Johnson himself often at the helm of such retrograde senatorial actions. The development of an uncompromising activist movement for change alongside a real son-of-a-bitch that was willing to do what he had to do in government meant reform.

Caro’s book shows that the obstructionism that we see today in the guise of the Tea Party is not a short-term strategy. Obstruction has been a good strategy for the right. As with the Goldwater campaign during the Johnson years, the right often loses in its first attempts to grasp for impossible ideas, but their willingness to go out on a limb with an unpopular view sets them up for victory later–the Reagan Revolution was staged, it’s said, on Goldwater’s shoulders. It doesn’t matter how objectionable the goal, the fact is that a political leader is willing to fight for it makes it part of the conversation, and that creates a new normal. Climate change denial, in fact, has become the ultimate example du jour of this strategy. There’s no rational reason for denial, as Sen. Whitehouse knows, but the media is only gradually waning from presenting both “sides” of the argument–and sadly, in many cases this waning still takes the form of shilling for natural gas companies or other dead end solutions. Whitehouse mistakes the problem. He can give a speech each week until the Potomac becomes brackish and comes lapping up to his knees on the Senate floor, but his colleagues that refuse to act on climate change won’t change their minds because of education. As with every great struggle in political history, this one is one of power. Indeed, it’s time to wake up.

Parliamentarian liberals perhaps don’t obstruct as often as their colleagues of the right because they see themselves as passers of bills. But perhaps we should start to look not just at what we can do about climate change, but also at what we can stop doing. In this regard I think that Whitehouse himiself has far to go.

Bikes and transit

Sen. Whitehouse has been an admirable advocate for funding of bike and transit projects, but hasn’t looked closely at the projects he advocates for that undermine his good work. In 2012, for instance, Whitehouse ingloriously begged (video) for a visit from then Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to come see the Mall and the huge highway interchange behind it, known as “the Viaduct.” To my eye, there is no feature of the Providence landscape that more deserves to be torn out than the highway stretch starting at that exchange and continuing through U.S. 6 & 10 to Roger Wms. Park. These highways are a jumbled mess that cut off local streets from one another, make it impossible to bike or walk between neighborhoods, and provide no transit alternatives other than to travel into Kennedy Plaza and wait to go back out on another ineffective bus. Yet to Whitehouse, who I’m sure was sincere, I think the lens was “What can we build?”

Caro, who was a scholar not just of Johnson but of Robert Moses–the architect of many of America’s urban transportation nightmares–said it well. It’s not just what we build that counts. It’s what we don’t build. I clipped (video) from a longer book discussion (video) on C-Span:

We have to remember that exhibits show you physical things, and the mark of Robert Moses is much more than anything you can see physically. In part you have to analyze in priorities, because he got enough power that decade after decade, certainly from 1945 forward, he set the city’s priorities. . . For decades he played a crucial role in determining where the city’s resources would go. In the book, I tried to detail the way he skewed spending away from the social welfare aspects of city government, and towards the physical construction of the city. . . Now, in the last years before the Second World War, let’s say 1939, ’40, ’41, the city was having an influx of people from the rural areas of Puerto Rico and the rural areas of the South, and he city’s elected officials, the officials that supposedly had the power, had an understanding that the city should reach out to them. . . [Mayor] LaGuardia had a unique empathy for people and for what they needed and it was really his idea to have what he called baby clinics, because he understood that people–poor people–were intimidated by hospitals. . . Year after year, the same thing would happen. At the last minute, LaGuardia would have it in the budget. He had promised when he ran for office that he would put money into schools, hospitals, and baby clinics, and year after year Robert Moses would show up, and it would always be with the same argument, that was can get 90% of the funding for this or that–some big highway or bridge project from the federal government–and if I can only get 10% to get it started. The 10% always had to come from somewhere, and it always seemed to come from this kind of program.

It’s interesting to think of the time in which Moses was playing these games, because these were times where, although the federal government had begun to play with the idea of deficit spending, people still thought in terms of priorities. Of course, at the local level, we still have to think that way. Yet as the idea of Keynesian growth has taken off, and as liberals like Sen. Whitehouse have adopted it, that idea has fallen away. Today we act almost as if there’s no connection between massive urban highways and their alternatives, or between the social malaise of our state and the unmet obligations it has–not to food stamps, or pensions, or schools–but to overgrown roads. Caro ends his anecdote with a letter to Moses from a New York City official, which underscored that if the transportation project was built, the baby clinics would not happen. “Where are the baby clinics?” the letter asked. I think we need to toss aside Keynesianism precisely because it fails to sharpen our minds around these questions of spending priorities.

The Highway Trust Fund gets appropriations reauthorized each year. Streetsblog has recently reported that Pres. Obama has put forward a much improved mix of spending for our transportation system, and if that can get passed as is, so be it. But the chances of that happening without hitches are nil. The most important reason that liberals like Sen. Whitehouse need to stop thinking of themselves solely as passers of bills is that it gives their opponents–the obstructors of bills–all the power. Tea Party extremists can challenge non-highway related allocations, like a bill sponsored by Rand Paul attempted to do, and liberals are then left scrambling trying to defend their allocation choices. Instead, why not go to the root of the problem and start chipping away directly at the highway part of the bill–insisting not just for a greater share of funding, but also for reductions in the size of the bill in total? Senators like Sheldon Whitehouse who care to see climate change halted need to see beyond just what they can pass affirmatively, and also see what they can stop. And if doing one of those speeches on the Senate floor–with teeth this time, as a filibuster–means that some bike path or bus improvement in Rhode Island gets delayed, transportation advocates should be willing to give Sheldon Whitehouse a pass if what we get in return is additional highway spending blocked, or another highway removed completely.

What I like most about this idea is that a filibuster of spending realigns the Congressional political landscape in a way that reflects conversations that have been happening at the grassroots for decades. Liberals like Jane Jacobs focused in the urbanist aspect of their activism on what could not be done to cities rather than what could be done and came butting heads directly against the likes of Robert Moses. Taking transportation debates to a place that liberals have been afraid to go–talking about reducing the role of the federal government in a way that would truly reduce the role of highways in our lives–by stopping the unhealthy diversion of money to rural states from urban ones through the Highway Trust Fund, by reducing the overall spending on highway infrastructure, and by talking openly about removing a lot of infrastructure–could potentially even pull misfit senators from the right-leaning woodwork to join dyed-in-the-wool progressives like Sanders and Warren.

The changes that our laws have experienced since that time are laudable in their context but they need to go further than they have ever been imagined before. We already know that Sheldon Whitehouse knows how to give a good speech, and he certainly has the level of stamina needed for the task of filibustering something. He just needs to put these skills to the test and go on the offensive.

~~~~

 

RI: the blue state that is very conservative on abortion issues


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

not our stateOn few issues is Rhode Island’s conservative streak more evident than with women’s rights and reproductive justice. NARAL Pro Choice’s 2013 report card gave the Ocean State a D+, along with Wyoming and North Carolina. Connecticut got an A and Massachusetts a B minus.

And things could get a lot worse for women here in Rhode Island thanks to what Planned Parenthood calls “five dangerous abortion restriction bills being heard together in the RI House Judiciary committee” this afternoon.

“We know these bills will do nothing to help empower Rhode Island women to plan their families nor help women prevent unintended pregnancies,” according to a Facebook invite to rally against these proposals today, 4:30 at the State House.

But on the other hand, things could also get a lot better for reproductive justice in Rhode Island too as the same committee will hear five bills that would help RI resemble Connecticut and Massachusetts when it comes to women’s rights rather than Wyoming and North Carolina.

“Dozens of organizations and the RI Coalition for Reproductive Justice aren’t stopping by just fighting the bad bills,” said Planned Parenthood’s Paula Hodges in an email. “We’re going to demand this legislature stand up for women.”

The latter group of bills would expand programs and privacy for women having an abortion and the aforementioned suite of legislation would do the opposite. Here’s a list of the bills being heard today. They span the entire political spectrum on abortion issues, but they are all sponsored by Democrats. Of the 30 signatures on the 12 different bills, there is only one Republican on the list.

An easy cheat sheet is if a bill has the names Corvese, MacBeth, Malik or McLoughlin it either slashes services or privacy provisions and if its got the names Ajello, Handy, Ferri, Tanzi or Valencia it helps women.

ACLU report shows record high racial disparities in school discipline rates


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluA report issued by the ACLU of Rhode Island today shows that Rhode Island’s public schools last year disproportionately suspended black students at the highest rates in nine years, while white students were suspended at record low rates. Like black children, Hispanic students remained severely over-suspended, with these disparities reaching all the way to the lowest grades. In addition, students generally – including elementary school children – were given out-of-school suspensions at alarming rates for minor disciplinary infractions.

The report, “Blacklisted: An Update,” is a follow-up to one the ACLU issued last June, which examined eight previous years of suspension data. That report also documented and explored the dangers of out-of-school suspensions and the disproportionate impact of suspensions on black and Hispanic youth, but the latest statistics demonstrate that the inappropriate and discriminatory use of out-of-school suspensions – even at the elementary school level – continues unabated across Rhode Island.

Among the findings from a review of data from the 2012-2013 school year:

  • Black students were suspended from school 2.19 times as often as would be expected based on their school population. This is a record high suspension disparity for black students over the nine years the ACLU has studied. Hispanic students were suspended over one-and-a-half times as often as expected. White students, in contrast, were suspended just 0.64 times what would be expected, a record low.
  • Twenty-five school districts disproportionately suspended black students. Twenty-six school districts disproportionately suspended Hispanic students.
  • Suspensions remained endemic at the lowest grades, and continued to disproportionately affect minority students. Nearly 1,400 elementary school students – and 147 first grade students – were suspended last year, and black elementary school students were suspended more than three times as often as expected based on their representation.
  • Despite nationwide efforts to promote the use of out-of-school suspensions only in extreme circumstances, over 60 percent of the suspensions for Rhode Island students last year were for low-risk behavioral infractions.
  • One-third of all suspensions were served for the vague infractions of “Disorderly Conduct” and “Insubordination/Disrespect.” In fact, thousands more suspensions occurred for “Disorderly Conduct” and “Insubordination/ Disrespect” than for assault, bomb threats, breaking and entering, possession or use of controlled substances, fire regulation violations, fighting, gang activity, harassment, hate crimes, hazing, larceny, threats, trespassing, vandalism or weapon possession combined.
  •  More than a quarter of elementary school suspensions were for “Disorderly Conduct” alone. Despite making up one-third of the elementary school population, black and Hispanic students constituted two-thirds of the elementary school students suspended for “Disorderly Conduct” or “Insubordination/Disrespect.”
  • Although the total number of suspensions overall was down from previous years, that reduction can be attributed almost exclusively to implementation of a law passed by the General Assembly in 2012 prohibiting out-of-school suspensions for attendance infractions. In fact, while overall suspensions decreased, the number of suspensions for low-risk behavioral infractions increased by more than 400.

The report concluded: “Rhode Island’s students deserve an education system that seeks to promote rather than punish them, and efforts by educators and the legislature in 2014 can make that possible. Swift action by Rhode Island’s leaders can ensure that another cohort of children does not find themselves the subject of increasingly grim statistics, and instead finds them granted all the educational opportunities we have to offer them.”

In finding little change from the eight years’ worth of statistics analyzed in its last report, the ACLU reiterated a series of recommendations for policy-makers to address this serious problem. Among the ACLU’s recommendations this year: the General Assembly should approve legislation limiting the use of out-of-school suspensions to serious offenses; school districts should examine annually their discipline rates for any racial or ethnic disparities, and identify ways to eliminate them; schools should ensure that punishments are clearly and evenly established for various offenses; and the state Department of Education should investigate and promote the use of alternative evidence-based disciplinary methods.

ProJo fails to identify marijuana special interest


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

reefer-madnessThe Providence Journal op/ed page ran two opposing letters to the editor this morning regarding marijuana legalization but only identified one writer as an advocate with a special interest – even though the unidentified writer is paid through a federal grant to advocate specifically against marijuana.

In one letter, Jim Vincent was well labeled as being the executive director of the Providence branch of the NAACP in which he wrote, “Marijuana prohibition has not prevented use or abuse. More disturbingly, enforcement has disproportionately focused on low income and minority communities.”

However, Debby Richards Perugini, who wrote a blistering critique of a ProJo news story, calling it one-sided journalism, was not identified as working for The BAY Team,” Barrington’s Drug Free Coalition,” according to its web site.

Perugrini’s public Facebook profile lists her as being a “project coordinator” for The Bay Team. A Barrington Patch article from 2012 says she was hired specifically to campaign against marijuana. According to the article: “Meet Debby Perugini — Barrington’s new anti-marijuana use project coordinator. Perugini joined the staff of The BAY Team – the town’s substance abuse prevention coalition — on Monday, Jan. 9.”

The letters seem intended to run in tandem: both were initially published online on Feb. 24 and both were published in print today. It’s unclear whether Perugini failed to identify herself as an advocate or if the ProJo op/ed page made an editorial decision to not label her as such. (I’ve reached out to both parties and will update this post if and when I hear back from them.)

In general, Perugini is entitled to express her opinions. In her letter, she claims that one of the medical marijuana centers was “recently advertising marijuana for non-medical use” which would be a crime. If this isn’t true  (and I don’t think it is) it could be libel and she’s not entitled to express libelous opinions. Neither is the Providence Journal, for that matter. But she and the ProJo op/ed page are certainly entitled to make vague references to tobacco industry lies and insinuate that taxing and regulating marijuana will cause more people to buy it illegally.

But Rhode Islanders are entitled to know who is expressing these opinions and why – especially given that, according to the Patch article, Perugini is being funded by federal taxes for her efforts. It says:

“Perugini will be paid out of a federal block grant to the state department of behavioral healthcare, development disabilities and hospitals. The annual award is $75,000 for the next three to five years. Barrington is one of eight towns to get this money for substance abuse-prevention, primarily because Rhode Island ranks first in its marijuana use, especially in the 12-17 and 18-25 age groups.”

So a Barrington mom is getting federal tax dollars to write inflammatory and reactionary letters to the editor on an issue the Providence NAACP says is unfairly affecting poor and minority inner city residents. And the Providence Journal op/ed page is labeling one as a special interest but not the other.

Welcome to how the war on drugs works. Or the New Jim Crow. It all depends on whether your a parent from Barrington trying to shield teens from marijuana or an inner city advocate fighting against latent racism.

Adrienne Jones says she was fired from Providence Hilton for supporting union organizing effort


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

DSC_9470Adrienne Jones says she was fired from her job at the Providence Hilton for supporting the effort of her colleagues to form a union.

She’s a lifelong Providence native and a graduate of Hope High School, CCRI and the Boston Bartending School. A divorced mom with a seven year old son, she has that easy gift of conversation and storytelling all the best bartenders have.

“I used to be anti-union,” says Jones, “I was a business student at CCRI, and in those classes we were taught that unions might have been necessary in the past, but that today modern labor laws provided more than enough protection for workers. My eyes have been opened. Now I’m fully committed to unions and fighting for worker’s rights.”

Jones has worked as a bartender for The Procaccianti Group (TPG) for the last 6 years. From March 2008 to October 2013 she worked at the Wyndham Garden in India Point, then moved to the Hilton Downtown.

“When I made the move over to the Hilton,” says Jones, “I was hoping to work 30-35 hours a week and be able to support myself more comfortably than I was at the Wyndham where I was only working about 20 hours a week. I was looking forward to making a vertical move and ending my dependence on state subsidized programs to help support my son and myself.”

Shortly after I making her move, Jones became aware of what she called “abhorrent” working conditions at the Hilton.

“I was made to work 15+ hour days without a break, over 50 hours a week,” she said. “Managers refuse to put shock absorbent mats behind the bar to make the long hours on our feet a little easier. Management would leave early on nights when we were unbelievably busy and we needed them most. I could go on just about the problems that happened in the restaurant alone…”

In her many years of working in the service industry, Jones has never witnessed a turnover rate as high as she has seen at the Hilton. High turnover is usually related to employee dissatisfaction, poor pay, unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, lack of promotion and career opportunities or conflict with management, among other reasons.

Jones is not alone in her feeling that employment conditions at the hotel were unfair and even illegal. “Recently, a housekeeper, who is pregnant with twins, brought in a note from a doctor asking her bosses to put her on light duty.  She expressed to her manager that she wanted to work until the end of her pregnancy so she could take her vacation time when the babies were born. However, management completely ignored her request and gave her even more rooms to clean per day.”

To the workers at the Hilton, this seemed like retaliation, and worse. “After all,” adds Jones, “if she quits before the babies are born, the hotel won’t have to pay for her time off, right?”

With complaints piling up about the unfair and abusive employment practices, the employees started to talk seriously about unionizing, to protect themselves and improve their working conditions. Jones found herself on the organizing committee for the union campaign currently going on at the Hilton.

“I have recruited several of my colleagues to sign the union’s petition and have attended committee meetings at the union office. On February 18, the union “blitzed” the hotel management by trying to present the petition, which 70% of Hilton employees signed, making the campaign public.”

Doug Koenig, the Hilton’s General Manager, refused to accept the petition, instead calling on the Providence Police Department and private security to bar union representatives from the hotel. Jones was unable to participate in that action because she was inside the hotel, working at the bar. The bar was extremely busy that night because there was a Providence College basketball game going on at the Dunkin’ Donuts Center next door. Event though she was not part of the union action that night, “It was obvious [to the hotel management] that I was a supporter,” says Jones.

Working part time at the Wyndham meant that Jones did not qualify to receive benefits. After three months working full time at the Hilton, however, she became entitled to benefits starting March 1st. “Three weeks paid vacation, health/dental/vision coverage and enrollment in their 401K,” says Jones wistfully, “benefits I have earned.”

Jones was terminated by the Hilton on February 26th, three days before her benefits kicked in. She thinks it was for supporting the union. They accused her of being late for a staff meeting which was scheduled on her day off.

“There had never been any issues with me in the past and this was the first time I had been in any kind of trouble at the Hilton,” she said. “It’s clear to everyone I worked with that I was terminated for being a Union supporter. I am the third person to have lost their job since then for supporting the Union.”

Despite laws that make it illegal for employers to fire workers seeking to form a union,  John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer, in a paper for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimate that almost one in seven union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities.

Jones has filed for unemployment and is waiting to hear back from the Department of Labor and Training regarding that. If she is denied, she will have to go through an appeal process before being eligible. In the meantime, she is searching for a new job and she and her son are getting by on her savings.

“I was born and raised in Providence. This is my home,” says Jones, “I want to be proud of being a Providence native, but I have been penalized for exercising my freedom of speech. I have filed a case with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and with the attorney for the Local 217. I am hoping to get my job back, be compensated for lost wages and receive the benefits I worked so hard for the past 6 years.”

Sheldon goes into belly of the beast this weekend


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

sheldon netrootsFirst it was Rhode Island. Then the hallowed halls of Congress and soon Iowa.

But the next stop for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s tour de force for progressive justice will be right into the belly of the beast. This weekend he’ll be in Sea Island, Georgia participating in the annual “World Forum” organized by the American Enterprise Institute.

AEI is, according to Right Wing Watch, “one of the oldest and most influential of the pro-business right-wing think tanks. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and has been extremely successful in placing its people in influential governmental positions, particularly in the Bush Administration. AEI has been described as one of the country’s main bastions of neoconservatism.”

Said Whitehouse about his decision to participate, “I expect my views on these issues will differ greatly with those of the leaders at AEI, but I look forward to a forthright discussion. Fair and efficient markets have always been the engine of broadly shared opportunity and prosperity in America. This is especially true for our health care and energy markets, where the stakes could not be higher.”

Whitehouse will participate on two panel discussions: on one he’ll talk about “the promise of health care delivery system reform,” according to his office, and on the other he will discuss “the market distortions created by the economy-wide costs of carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels.”

The wage gap for older women, in Rhode Island and nationally


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

equal-payFollowing on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last week, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing to put a Congressional spotlight on the alarming increase of older Americans becoming impoverished.  The GAO policy analysts concluded that a growing number of the nation’s elderly, especially women and minorities, could fall into poverty due to lower incomes associated with declining marriage rates and the higher living expenses that individuals bear.

As many as 48 percent of older Americans live in or on the edge of poverty.

“While many gains have been made over the years to reduce poverty, too many seniors still can’t afford basic necessities such as food, shelter and medicines,” said Aging Committee Chairman Bill Nelson (D-FL).

Policy experts told Senate lawmakers on Wednesday that millions of seniors have been spared from abject poverty thanks to federal programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, and food stamps.  The testimony contrasted with the picture painted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) earlier this week, who produced a report that labeled the federal government’s five-decade long war on poverty a failure.

Appearing before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Patricia Neuman, a senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, stressed the importance of federal anti-poverty programs.

“Between 1966 and 2011, the share of seniors living in poverty fell from more than 28 percent to about 9 percent, with the steepest drop occurring in the decade immediately following the start of the Medicare program,” said Neuman.  “The introduction of Medicare, coupled with Social Security, played a key role in lifting seniors out of poverty.”

Neuman’s remarks were echoed by Joan Entmacher of the National Women’s Law Center, who credited food stamps, unemployment insurance and Meals on Wheels, along with Social Security, for dramatically reducing poverty among seniors.

The report was highly critical of many programs designed to help the poor and elderly saying they contribute to the “poverty trap.”  Ryan and other House lawmakers have long proposed capping federal spending and turning Medicaid, food stamps and a host of other programs for the poor into state block grants.

Older Women and Pension Benefits

GAO’s Barbara Bovbjerg also brought her views to the Senate Select Committee on Aging hearing. Managing Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues,  she testified that the trends in marriage, work, and pension benefits have impacted the retirement incomes of older Americans.

Over the last five decades the composition of the American household has changed dramatically, stated Bovbjerg, noting that the proportion of unmarried individuals has increased steadily as couples have chosen to marry at ever-later ages and as divorce rates have risen.

“This is important because Social Security is not only available to workers but also to spouses and survivors.  The decline in marriage and the concomitant rise in single parenthood have been more pronounced among low-income, less educated individuals and some minorities,” she says.

As marriage and workforce patterns changed, so has the nation’s retirement system, adds Bovbjerg.  Since 1990, employers have increasingly turned away from traditional defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, she says, this ultimately shifting risk to individual employees and making it more likely they will receive lump sum benefits rather than annuities.

These trends have affected retirement incomes, especially for women and minorities, says Bovbjerg, that is fewer women today receive Social Security spousal and survivor benefits than in the past; most qualify for benefits on their own work history. While this shift may be positive, especially for those women with higher incomes, unmarried elderly women with low levels of lifetime earnings are expected to get less from Social Security than any other demographic group.

According to Bovbjerg, these trends have also affected household savings Married households are more likely to have retirement savings, but the majority of single-headed households have none. Obviously, single parents in particular tend to have fewer resources available to save for retirement during their working years.  With Defined Contribution pension plans becoming the norm for most, and with significant numbers not having these benefits, older Americans may well have to rely increasingly on Social Security as their primary or perhaps only source of retirement income.

Inside the Ocean State

Although the GAO report findings acknowledge a gender-based wage gap that pushes older woman into poverty, Maureen Maigret, policy consultant for the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island and Coordinator of the Rhode Island Older Woman’s Policy Group, observes that this inequity has been around since the 1970s when she chaired a legislative commission studying pay equity. “Progress in closing the gender wage gap has stagnated since 2000 with the wage ratio hovering around 76.5 percent,” she said.

GAO’s recent findings on gender based differences in poverty rates are consistent with what Maigret found researching the issue for the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island in 2010.  She found that some of the differences in the Ocean State can be attributed to the fact that older women are far less likely to be married than older men.  Almost three times as many older women are widowed when compared to men.

Maigret says that her research revealed that older women in Rhode Island are also less likely to live in family households and almost twice as likely as older men to live alone. Of those older women living alone or with non family members an estimated one out of five was living in poverty. For Rhode Island older women in non-family households living alone, estimated median income in 2009 was 85% that of male non-family householders living alone ($18,375 vs. $21,540).

Finally, Maigret’s report findings indicate that aound 11.3 percent of older Rhode Island women were living below the federal poverty level as compared to 7.3 percent of older men in the state. Older women’s average Social Security benefit was almost 30 percent less than that of older men and their earnings were only 58 percent that of older men’s earnings.

There is no getting around peoples’ fears about outliving their savings becoming a reality if they live long enough,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “One thing that the latest statistics reveals [including the GAO report] is the critical role Social Security plays when it comes to the ability of many seniors to meet monthly expenses. Social Security keeps about 38 percent of  Rhode Islanders age 65 and older out of poverty, according to a new study from the AARP Public Policy Institute.”

“Nationally, figures jump off the page,” Connell added. “Without Social Security benefits, 44.4 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line; all else being equal; with Social Security benefits, only 9.1 percent do, she says, noting that these benefits lift 15.3 million elderly Americans — including 9.0 million women — above the poverty line.”

“Just over 50 percent of Rhode Islanders age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half of their family income—and nearly 24 percent rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their family income” states Connell.

“Seniors trying to meet the increasing cost of utilities, prescription drugs and groceries would be desperate without monthly Social Security benefits they worked hard for and planned on. As buying power decreases, protecting Social Security becomes more important than ever. Older people know this; younger people should be aware of it and become more active in saving for retirement. Members of Congress need to remain aware of this as well,” adds Connell.

Kate Brewster, Executive Director of Rhode Island’s The Economic Progress Institute, agrees with Maigret that older women in Rhode Island are already at greater risk of poverty and economic security than older men.

“This [GAO] report highlights several trends that make it increasingly important to improve women’s earnings today so that they are economically secure in retirement.  Among the ‘policy to-do list’ is shrinking the wage gap, eliminating occupational segregation, and raising the minimum wage. State and federal proposals to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 would benefit more women than men, demonstrating the importance of this debate to women’s economic security today and tomorrow.”

House Speaker Gordon Fox is proud that the General Assembly in the last two legislation sessions voted to raise minimum wage to its current level of $8 per hour.  That puts Rhode Island at the same level as neighboring Massachusetts, and we far surpass the federal minimum wage of $7.25, he said.  He says he will carefully consider legislation that has been introduced to once again boost the minimum wage.

“Bridging this gap is not only the right thing to do to ensure that women are on the same financial footing as men, but it also makes economic sense”, says Rep. David N. Cicilline.

At the federal level, the Democratic Congressman has supported the ‘When Women Succeed, America Succeeds’ economic agenda that would address issues like the minimum wage, paycheck fairness, and access to quality and affordable child care. “Tackling these issues is a step toward helping women save and earn a secure retirement, but we also have to ensure individuals have a safety net so they can live with dignity in their retirement years,” says Cicilline.

With Republican Congressman Ryan in a GOP-controlled House, captured by the Tea Party, leading the charge to dismantle the federal government’s 50 year war on poverty, the casualties of this ideological skirmish if he succeeds will be America’s seniors.  Cutting the safety net that these programs created will make economic insecurity in your older years a very common occurrence.
Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket writer who covers aging, health care and medical issues.  He can be contacted at hweissri@aol.com.

Conservatives shouldn’t scapegoat their losing streak


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
General Assembly Races (02-12)

Justin Katz is really out in right field with this post. He starts off by making a decent point:

Even if every Rhode Islander disagreed with a person’s policy suggestions, that doesn’t mean that those suggestions are wrong or are not the wisest thing that the state could do, in a particular instance.

That’s right, though too often this can fall into a Jeremiah-wannabe trap, where someone expresses their unpopular opinion, is criticized, and essentially says “just you wait and see.” They can feel vindicated by the criticism, rather than addressing it. Here, Katz is responding to a point (as he perceives it) that the failure of Republican and conservative candidates in the state proves that conservatives are wrong.

I don’t actually think that’s the full argument. I believe the argument is that people generally vote for what they feel is best for them, and that if Republicans were putting forward policy proposals that appealed to the people of Rhode Island, they’d see victory. Anyhow, Katz comforts himself with:

a poll that Bryant University’s Hassenfeld Institute released, this week, finding that 82% of Rhode Islanders would grade their legislators negatively for effectiveness.

That’s not really true;  the pollster (Fleming & Associates) finds that 43% of polled Rhode Islanders graded their state elected leaders negatively for effectiveness. 39% said “just fair.” The poll groups those answers together to create the “negative rating” that was widely reported. Except “just fair” might be read as the neutral opinion; weighting the poll in the affirmative (the addition of maybe an “abysmal” option could’ve balanced the poll, as well as given more information on those who chose “poor”). I understand it’s standard to lump the negative and neutral ratings together, but I can’t find a decent explanation as to why it’s done. We also need to consider what constitutes an “elected leader;” is it all elected officials or just legislative leadership and the governor? Finally, the poll sample has double the representation of the elderly as actually live in Rhode Island, which is going to make the results more conservative.

I’m in agreement with Marc Comtois on this, the results of the Hassenfeld Institute poll “really don’t tell us anything new.

Katz then comes up with this gem:

the poll results only reinforce what could be inferred from the low turnout for elections.

So, this is the sort of opinionated thing that isn’t backed by data. If you look at page 385 (page 383 in the PDF) of the Official RI 2012 Countbook, you can find the eligible voter turnout going back to 1988. Averaged together, that gives us 61.77% for the 13 elections. That’s not high, but it’s far above the average for the United States from the same time period, which is 48.86%. The low point is the 49% turnout in 2010, a year when Democrats were demoralized, both nationally and locally. If you’re into that sort of thing, here’s a chart plotting turnout by year, and against the OECD average (which decayed 11 points from 1980 to the elections held before April 2011).

Voter Turnout (1988-2012)
(via Samuel G. Howard)

Katz might feel that turnout is low (and will no doubt point to the recent Woonsocket special election), but that’s not true. It’s consistently higher than the national average, and not appreciably tied to the national mood (it may be tied to the Democratic Party mood). Rhode Island could certainly boost turnout by rolling back voter ID, increasing poll operation hours, redesigning the ballot, instituting robust early voting, and/or instituting compulsory voting; but somehow I don’t see Katz leaping to advocate for any of that. In fact, decreased turnout helps the Republican Party, because Republicans win when Democrats don’t vote (see 2010).

Katz is right that policies aren’t proved correct by election results. But elections are where policies get debated and given mandates. In a given RI general election, anywhere from around a fifth to two-fifths of General Assembly seats aren’t contested; and those that are contested aren’t necessarily contested by a Republican. Suppose we accept two positions: 1) Rhode Islanders are fed up with their state government, and 2) Republicans will be the primary beneficiaries of that discontent (by no means assured). The problem is that Republicans can’t field enough candidates to capitalize on that. Here’s a graph illustrating that problem:

General Assembly Races (02-12)
(via Samuel G. Howard)

Democrats field roughly the same number candidates each year, leaving around four seats uncontested. The number of Republican candidates leapfrogs wildly, but we can make this rule of thumb: if the Republicans run more candidates they have a greater likelihood of winning more seats. Former Chairman Mark Zaccaria’s strategy of “quality over quantity” was disastrous, especially in a presidential election year. When Republicans don’t run, they can’t win, and cede the General Assembly to Democratic Party by default. Every year they leave votes on the table, votes that could tell them where their support is, what policies they advocate are popular, and what paths might advance their goals. Instead of realizing this, Katz puts the final cherry on top:

The emerging question — which is beginning to cross the threshold from private conversations to public speculation — is whether we’re living under a legitimate representative democracy.  It sure does seem as if the public is tuned out and hopeless, sensing that nothing can be changed through civic processes.

Not only is this bullshit, this is dangerous bullshit. This is the kind of rhetoric that seeks to illegitimate elections before they happen. It’s along the lines of the belief in voter fraud that people hold; a federal investigation found three instances of mail ballot procedure violations but no fraud. Because the right can’t win in this state because of a myriad of factors (its own incompetence, the power of incumbency, the unpopularity of its positions, etc.) then surely it must be because the public isn’t listening and/or because the government is illegitimate or somehow rigging the system.

That’s not what’s happening in Rhode Island. The Democratic Party is winning a majority of voters who show up, and the Republicans are losing. Quite possibly this is because the majority of Rhode Islanders are Democrats or Democratic partisans. But the lesson for conservatives like Katz is this: just because you consistently lose elections doesn’t make the rightfully elected government illegitimate.

South County residents protest Keystone XL Pipeline


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

keystone_pipelineNearly 30 people braved freezing temperatures and icy winds to protest the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline in Wakefield last Monday, February 24, from 6-7 pm. The action was organized by a coalition of environmental groups including 350.org, CREDO, and Rainforest Action Network in response to the State Department’s final Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline, released on January 31st.

It was originally planned for February 3rd, when over 300 vigils were held in 49 states with tens of thousands of people as part of a National Day of Action against the pipeline but, ironically, a winter storm brought heavy snowfall and slippery roads to the area on February 3rd, causing the vigil to be postponed to the 24th. A similar vigil in Providence went ahead as planned, but was sparsely attended.

The Wakefield vigil, held last Monday at Dale Carlia Corner, drew at least 28 people, who spread out over a traffic island and three corners of the intersection, holding signs they had made themselves. Drivers clearly noticed: some rolled down their windows to ask what it was about or to shout their agreement, and many tooted their horns in support.

The vigil was organized by the Green Task Force of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of South County (UUCSC), and over half the participants hailed from the congregation. Fossil Free RI, a new organization that is promoting divestment from fossil fuels, co-sponsored the event and helped with publicity. Essjay Foulkrod of Peace Dale, a member of UUCSC, saw the protest as a natural outgrowth of her faith:

It shows that we take seriously the words in our Covenant: “[Love is the spirit of this congregation,] and service is its prayer …” And also our Seventh Principle: “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”

Others spoke of protecting children:

Tar sands oil is highly toxic and there have been too many pipeline leaks already that have wreaked havoc on communities. This pipeline needs to be stopped for the sake of our children,

said longtime activist Pamela Brightman of East Providence. Jan Creamer of Wakefield expressed similar concerns:

I thought of all the destruction of people’s lives, the heartbreak this pipeline would create if it is approved, and standing out in the freezing cold seemed like a small sacrifice considering.

Mother Earth's is loosing her patience.
Mother Earth is losing her patience; Gail Burchard, Enid Flaherty, and Ann Nichols at Dale Carlia Corner.

Creamer sings in the choir at UUCSC, and is always seeking ways to change hearts and minds through music; at the vigil, she serenaded passing cars along with a few others from the congregation:

I was singing my guts out, making up my own words [about the pipeline] to “This Land is Your Land;” some rolled down their windows to hear us.

Most of the protesters attended a sign-making gathering at UUCSC just before the vigil, where they ate pizza and created signs bearing messages such as “No KXL” — “Listen to your Mother [Earth]” — “KXL: Pipeline to Hell,” and “Stand up for our Kids.”

Robert Malin provides a sense of direction at KXL Vigil in Wakefield, RI
Robert Malin provides a sense of direction at KXL Vigil in Wakefield, RI

The Keystone XL Pipeline would carry dirty tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico for export, threatening the drinking water for millions of Americans and a third of our nation’s agricultural water. As to jobs, a study by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute found that the project would create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary jobs—and even these jobs may be offset by job losses in farming, ranching, and tourism due to spills along the pipeline route, as well as further job losses due to rising oil prices in the Midwest. That’s right, the pipeline will cause oil prices to rise—not fall—in the Midwest. Why? Because the U.S. already imports tar sands oil from Canada through an existing pipeline. This oil is currently land-locked, resulting in lower prices for the region.  But Keystone XL would transport the oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast, where much of it would be sold for export, forcing customers in the Midwest to compete with international buyers.  So much for “energy independence.” Worst of all, because the tar sands oil reserves are so vast and because the extraction process is three times as polluting as for conventional oil, leading climatologist James Hansen warns that the pipeline would mean “game over” for our climate. While the State Department’s latest report denies this, their conclusion is based on the notion that the tar sands will be fully developed with or without the pipeline, which a new report by Carbon Tracker Institute finds to be false.

Some see the pipeline decision as a watershed moment for the Administration’s energy policy:

Approval or disapproval of this pipeline will be a pivotal moment for and symbol of our future direction. We need the powers that be to put their action where their talk is,

said Beth Milham, who chairs the “green team” at Channing Memorial Church in Newport and serves on the board of Rhode Island Interfaith Power and Light.

Peter Nightingale, a URI physics professor and a founding member of Fossil Free RI, made it clear that the opposition isn’t going away:

We should keep these vigils going until we win the battle for the Earth!

The State Department’s report ushered in a final comment period that ends this Friday, March 7th. To submit comments against the pipeline, click here.

Tell Fannie Mae: Don’t evict Providence resident!


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Lilia Abbatematteo, a 40-year Providence resident, is facing eviction by Fannie Mae following a foreclosure that took place in September. Lilia recently wrote a post on RI Future about her struggle. Now, after more than a year of giving her the run-around with the loan she inherited from her mother, Fannie Mae is trying to evict her and her family, including children and grandchildren, from her childhood home.

DARE – Direct Action for Rights and Equality – along with Lilia’s friends and neighbors, won’t let an agency, technically owned by the government, funded with our tax dollars, and that makes billions in profits, evict one of our community members!

Please sign the national petition to demand that FHFA director Mel Watt call off the eviction of Lilia and offer her an option to rent until she is able to purchase the home back at current value!

Click on the photo to sign the petition.
Click on the photo to sign the petition.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387