Green Party calls on Mayor Elorza to support Community Safety Act


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

2016-07-21 Pass the CSA 038The Green Party of Rhode Island is demanding that Providence pass the Community Safety Act.

“Further delays are inexcusable and potentially dangerous,” said Green Party spokesman Andrew Stewart in a press release sent on Sunday. “Providence should learn from other cities, and move quickly to prevent another tragedy.”

The Community Safety Act is a citizen-backed bill that would implement new safeguards against racial profiling when police detain and/or search a suspect. Proponents say it would “ban racial profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing.”

A subcommittee of the Providence City Council is supposed to consider the legislation in September. DARE, or Direct Action for Rights and Equality, has long championed the Community Safety Act. Recently members of the Providence Youth Student Movement and the White Noise Collective have formed an umbrella organization called the Step It Up Coalition to organize around the CSA. In July, activists held a mock city council meeting at Providence City Hall. Actors playing elected officials pretended to pass the legislation.

The Green Party’s support could add a new dimension of political pressure to efforts to pass the CSA. “Unless the ordinance is approved soon, the Green Party says further protests may be necessary,” according to the press release. “The Greens have written to Councillors Jo Ann Ryan, Brian Principe, Seth Yurdin, and John Igliozzi, urging them to move the ordinance to approval. Mayor Jorge Elorza has also heard from the Greens, who asked him to remind the Police Department that the CSA is an opportunity to build stronger community ties while making officers’ jobs more safe and secure.”

Here’s a copy of the email the Green Party sent to Mayor Elorza and other members of the city council.

Dear Mayor Elorza:

On behalf of the State Committee of the Green Party of Rhode Island, I am writing to urge you to support the Community Safety Act (CSA), which could make Providence a national leader in police/community relations.

As you know, the CSA would create stronger checks-and-balances for law enforcement, to ensure safer encounters between officers and residents. For example, it would prohibit racial and ethnic profiling, implement a “standardized encounter form” to document police-citizen interaction, and set limits on police use of non-essential traffic stops, warrantless surveillance, and the so-called ‘gang list’.

Your support now could make a difference. Please remind the Police Department that the CSA is in everyone’s best interest—the CSA would build stronger and safer communities—while making officers’ jobs more safe and secure.

We look forward to learning that your Administration has decided to support the CSA.

Andrew Stewart
For the State Committee
Green Party of Rhode Island
CC: Green Party State Committee

 

Where are the down-ballot Republicans?

Eliminating the master lever was supposed to assist the RI Republican Party (and strengthen RI’s democracy) by assisting in one of the most important things a party needs: candidate recruitment. The problem, as it was posed, was that the prevalence of the master lever basically acted as a deterrent for potential Republican candidates for the General Assembly; why put in the effort of running if loyal Democrats, voting for president or US senator or governor at the top of the ticket, would simply pull the master lever and obliterate down-ballot Republicans? Eliminating the option would allow Republican candidates to run without fear of such occurrences, thereby assisting efforts to recruit quality candidates.

The only issue is that the candidates haven’t materialized. Here’s the graph of seats (Republicans in red, independents in grey) contested by Republicans since legislative downsizing ahead of the 2002 elections:

Graph of Seats contested by Republicans and Democrats
Sam G Howard; Sources: RI Board of Elections, RI Secretary of State

This year, Republicans will contest 40 seats in the legislature. If they won all of them, they would barely break the Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and still fail to do so in the House. Keep in mind, 40 would be about twice as many districts as they have won, ever. There are only about 20 districts across the state that Republicans have ever won. Winning 20 districts would actually make this the most successful year the Republicans have ever had since the General Assembly reached its current size in 2002.*

Simply put, the Republican candidates necessary to make their party a functioning opposition haven’t materialized. And it’s noticeable to me that Republican recruitment issues have grown worse since 2010, when a Republican wave election empowered Republicans nationwide and gave them majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

The grey line is candidates running as Independents, and the point to notice here is that they have increased the number of seats contested over time. And Independents in Rhode Island often caucus with the Republican Party in the State House (e.g., Blake Filippi) or are already Republicans (e.g., perennial Providence candidate Luis Vargas who volunteered for the RI Republican Party). Not all, mind you, but many would’ve been Republicans.

Notably, these developments (the increasing difficulty of the Republicans to recruit candidates, and the increasing number of Independents) have happened pretty much independently of the master lever’s existence.

But these are just seats. What about the number of candidates? If Republicans have only ever been competitive in about 20 districts, then this could undercount candidates in safe Republican seats.

RI GA Contested Seats and Number of Candidates
Party Seats Contested Qualified Candidates
Democratic 108 138
Republican 40 43
Independent 31 35

As you can see, Republicans did fairly well in distributing their candidates for seats; as did the Independents (more remarkable because no one is organizing them). Meanwhile, the Democrats have more than enough candidates to contest all 113 General Assembly seats, but didn’t contest five of them: House Districts 30 (Incumbent: Giarusso – R), 36 (Incumbent: Filippi – I), and 48 (Incumbent: Newberry – R) and Senate Districts 35 (Incumbent: Gee – R) and 38 (Incumbent: Algiere – R).

Democrats’ recruitment advantage continues unabated. In fact, just on the numbers, Democrats could split into three parties that could each match Republican recruitment abilities.

The problem was never going to be the master lever for Republicans. The problem remains (as it has been since 2006) their party’s toxicity to a state that overwhelmingly supports Democratic policies. And even one of the most liberal state Republican Parties can’t overcome that obstacle – especially with Donald Trump on the top of the ticket. At this point, I think Republican hopes for growing their caucus (or even keep it the same size) this election is that the commentary on RI Future here is true: Clinton really is so unpopular that liberals will stay home and they can pick up low-turnout seats. The problem is that the people who dislike Clinton tend to be Republicans, and the people who dislike her as much as Trump aren’t really that big, certain in their choice, or even likely to be Democratic partisans.

Now, am I going to say RI Republicans will be massacred this year? No. I do not have a great track record there. But looking at past presidential elections and RI GA results, I’m going to guess the Democrats should win 100 seats and Republicans should win 12 seats. In each off-year election, Democrats have picked up 96 or 95 seats, and in each presidential year election they’ve picked up 99-102 seats.

The big question for me is what effect Trump will have. RI Republican office-holders have fairly closely embraced their presidential nominee, and nominees can have an effect down the ballot even to state legislatures. Trump seems more of an anathema to the average RI voter than a generic Republican, so theoretically, he could do serious damage to what remains of the RI Republican Party since the Bush years caused the liberal Republican to go extinct.

 

 

* An earlier version of this post inadvertently implied that Republicans have never been successful in GA races, that’s obviously not the case.

Jeff Grybowski: GOP corporate lawyer turned CEO climate hero


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
Jeff Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind.
Jeff Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind.

Jeff Grybowski didn’t set out to save the world from climate change. The CEO of Deepwater Wind, which just completed construction of the nation’s first offshore wind farm, wasn’t trying to be the first in the United States to commercially harness the offshore breeze and, in the process, potentially create a new sustainable industry for his home state.

“I freely admit that I didn’t know anything about energy before I started this,” he said, during an interview at Deepwater Wind’s downtown Providence office. “I didn’t think anything of it. I had no opinion.”

The Cumberland native and Brown grad was a corporate attorney in Providence, fresh off serving as chief of staff during conservative Republican Don Carcieri’s first term as governor, when a group from New Jersey approached him about the idea.

“It was the middle of 2008, that summer, when they called me and asked me how do we get a permit to build an offshore wind farm in Rhode Island,” he recalled. “I was doing regulatory law and we all started scratching our heads. But we were lawyers and we wanted to help answer the question.”

The process

Grybowski knew a thing or two about the regulatory process, both from his legal practice and his tenure in the executive branch at the State House, and that proved to be the name of the game.

“For offshore wind in the U.S. it’s never been about construction,” he told me. “It’s always been about the regulations and the legal structure that allows it to happen. Obviously we build things that are as big and as complex as an offshore wind farm. The offshore oil and gas, that stuff is much bigger. The question is can we as a society agree how to build these things, where to build them and what steps you need to take in order to get, let’s call it, community sign off. It was the newness of it, that was the biggest obstacle.”

The Block Island wind farm had to win approval from more than 20 federal, state and local government agencies before construction could start, he said.

“It was great that the U.S. Department of Energy says we think offshore wind is a huge resource and we should develop it,” he said, “but the reality is that really wasn’t as important to us as whether the town of New Shoreham thought it was a good idea.”

Navigating the regulatory process, Grybowski said, is Deepwater Wind’s “core competency.”

He explained, “You need to take it to not only all the agencies of the federal government and people who need to say yes, or who have a veto, and then you bring it down to the state government, all the different agencies, and then down to the local government. And all across that chain you have stakeholders who have the ability to influence the agencies. It’s a huge matrix. You’ve got to find a way to get yourself through that matrix of agencies and stakeholders, and that’s what I did.”

An energy transformation

Along the way, Grybowski also went from being the company’s legal counsel to being the company’s CEO. Eight years after the project was first conceived, Deepwater Wind just finished construction of the first offshore wind farm in the United States. The 5-unit array will produce 30 megawatts of power. Enough, Grybowski said, to power 17,000 average U.S. households.

It’s a relatively small amount of electricity, but Grybowski thinks it’s a big step in what he called an “energy transformation” away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources.

“I think offshore wind is about to become a huge component of this energy transformation,” he said. “As a native Rhode Islander I might have been quicker than others to recognize how ideally suited this state was because of our proximity to this enormous resource and because of some of the logistical advantages we have.”

It’s an obvious opportunity for the Ocean State, he thinks.

“We don’t generate a lot of resources locally,” Grybowski explained. “Coal gets shipped in. Gas gets piped in. We’re the end of the line from an energy perspective. But that’s one of the brilliant things about offshore wind for this region. We’re the beginning of the pipeline here because we control the resource. It’s right off our coast. It’s the single biggest natural resource that we have to produce energy in this region.”

The future for offshore wind

Deepwater Wind is already planning its second project. The company has leased 200 miles of ocean about 15 miles southeast of Block Island that could support 200 turbines, compared to the first farm’s five – or 1,000 megawatts compared to just 30. He thinks there is five times that much potential wind farm energy in the vicinity.

“There’s the capacity for 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind out there,” he said. “That’s just in the area that’s been identified in the near term, what could be developed in the next decade or so. That’s certainly not the limit of what we can do.”

Collectively, all the power plant in New England currently generates some 30,000 megawatts of power, Grybowski said. The northeast can expect offshore wind to meet a more substantial portion of its energy needs when it goes even farther offshore.

“That cable really isn’t that expensive,” he said. “It’s copper and plastic, so a little bit more really doesn’t matter that much. The other difference is it becomes deeper the further out you get so the steel structures that you have to use to put these on the ocean floor get taller and heavier. The equipment that you need to install it becomes bigger. Part of the science of the business is where is that sweet spot. Where is the sweet spot of the benefit of the wind versus the downside of the extra costs of getting to that wind.”

Grybowski added, “It’s a lot like the offshore oil business, forget about the resource. It’s the same kind of analysis we go through.”

Much of the offshore wind industry, he noted, is based on the offshore oil and gas industry. Deepwater Wind President Kris Van Beek relocated from the Netherlands to Providence. “He transitioned from offshore oil and gas to offshore wind and he moved to Rhode Island to do that,” Grybowski said. “He knows how to build things in the middle of the ocean.”

Rhode Island, energy exporter

It’s part of the energy transformation he spoke about.

“Unfortunately, the change from a micro-perspective seems really slow but I think the change is pretty inevitable,” Grybowski said. “It’s inevitable that, here in the Northeast, we are going to be building a lot of offshore wind in the coming decade. It’s impossible for us to meet our energy needs, and doubly impossible to address our energy needs and address climate change in a meaningful way, without building a significant amount of offshore wind.”

He was quite confident offshore wind would help us get the Ocean State to sustainability, boasting, “I think Rhode Island – for the first time in, maybe, forever – is going to be an energy exporter.”

Trump hits Minneapolis, the city hits back


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
Yusuf Dayur
Yusuf Dayur

Coincidentally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump came to Minneapolis MN on the same day I made my first visit to the city. This turned a day that I had planned to spend sightseeing into a day of traveling to three different anti-Trump events.

“Trump’s rhetoric is creating an unsafe environment for the Muslim community, for the Somali-American community, and we have seen an increase in Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim efforts across the state of Minnesota,” said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations- Minnesota (CAIR-MN), “We have seen, just a few weeks ago, an incident involving five young Muslim men who were shot… we believe that incident is a hate crime.”

Hussein believes that Trump’s extremist rhetoric is creating a hostile, unsafe environment for Muslim Americans and immigrants, and the effects are being felt by the most vulnerable.

Hussein introduced 13-year old Yusuf Dayur who has been experiencing bullying in his school because he is a Muslim. Hussein suggested that Dayur might one day be president. Though Dayur’s school is very proactive in providing Dayur time and space in which to pray, some of his fellow students do not trust him because he is a Muslim. Dayur bravely fought back tears as he described the difficulties he faces.

Jaylani Hussein’s full comments:

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 003After the press conference I headed across town to the Minnesota State Republican Offices where Cosecha Minnesota was holding a “Wall Off Trump” event. Cosecha is “a nonviolent decentralized movement that is focused on activating our immigrant community and the public to guarantee permanent and humane protection for immigrants in this country.”

Estaphania and another woman explained that their protest, in which they painted a wall, like the one Trump is promising on the Texas-Mexico border, is meant to draw attention to Trump’s extremist rhetoric that threatens the health and safety of immigrant Americans.

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 066My last stop was at the Minneapolis Convention Center, where people representing virtually everyone Trump has ever publicly maligned, including immigrants, black Americans, members of the LGBTQ community, women, Muslims, indigenous Americans and more, gathered together to denounce Trump ahead of his visit to a large donor rally.

This protest was organized by MIRAc, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, a group that, “fights for legalization for all, an end to immigration raids & deportations, an end to all anti-immigrant laws, and full equality in all areas of life.”

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 009Trump did not make a public appearance in Minnesota, or even speak to the press. He spoke to donors only at the Convention Center. But his very presence in the city was enough to galvanize this group to come out to speak, sing, dance and chant their opposition to Trump being president.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, after this event, as Trump donors left the convention center, they were confronted by angry demonstrators. “The demonstrators who harassed donors were not present earlier on, when the protest was peaceful. Many in the later group hid their faces behind scarves,” writes reporter Patrick Condon, “Minneapolis police spokeswoman Sgt. Catherine Michal said there were no arrests and no reported injuries. There was, however, minor damage, including graffiti on the walls of the Convention Center, and officers had to escort Trump supporters in and out of the lobby because they were being harshly confronted, Michal said.”

Below are the rest of the pictures and video from the three events.

2016-08-19 CAIR-MN 001
Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-MN

2016-08-19 CAIR-MN 002

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 001

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 002

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 003

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 004

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 005

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 006

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 007

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 001

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 007

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 008

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 009

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 013

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 015

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 018

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 021

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 029

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 031

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 032

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 034

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 038

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 043

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 052

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 054

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 060

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 064

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 066

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 073

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 077

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 084

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 089

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 091

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 094

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 097

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 099

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 100

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 102

Patreon

Calls in support for Senator Walaska are coming from state phone


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

When a Warwick resident and doctor checked his phone between appointments, he saw an unfamiliar number. Looking it up, he learned that the call came from Child Support Services, a state agency.

“Good afternoon,” said a male voice on his voicemail. “I’m a representative of Senator Walaska. We’re looking for some support this election if you go out and vote in the primary we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.”

After hearing the call, and believing the use of state phones for partisan campaign calls to be against the law, the Warwick resident, who asked not to be identified, contacted the Attorney General‘s office. They told him that the AG’s office is only interested in issues of campaign fraud. He was referred to the Secretary of State‘s office. The Secretary of State’s office was similarly disinterested, and referred him to the Board of Elections. According to the resident who sent me the call, the person from the Board of Elections searched through the relevant statutes in vain before giving up and telling the resident that he should call back when he learned exactly what law is being broken.

For future reference, that law seems to be:

§ 36-4-52. Restrictions on political activities of classified employees

No classified employee shall during working hours engage to any extent in any form of partisan politics except that he or she may attend and vote at any party caucus, primary, or election held during working hours. Outside of working hours a classified employee may attend any partisan political rally, club, or gathering and privately express his or her partisan political views but any further partisan political activity on his or her part shall be engaged in only in accordance with the personnel rules. A classified employee violating the provisions of § § 36-4-50–36-4-54, or of the personnel rules shall for a first offense be either demoted or dismissed and for a second offense dismissed. All charges of these violations shall be publicly heard by the personnel appeal board.

Robert Kando executive director of the Board of Elections could not be reached for comment.

John Marion of Common Cause said that the issue appears reminiscent of an ethics complaint against Susan Cicilline Buonanno when she ran for the House District 33 seat that Narragansett Democrat Donald Lally resigned. Buonanno, principal of Gladstone Elementary School in Cranston was accused of using school email and phones to advance her political campaign.

This case is different because it’s not the candidate, but someone claiming to represent the candidate who appears to be using state resources for partisan political purposes.

“As you might expect, using state work telephones for campaigning is forbidden, and so we would want to know if this sort of thing was taking place so that the charges could be investigated and suitable disciplinary action taken if warranted,” said Fred Sneesby, an administrator at Children’s & Family Services. The Warwick resident who sent me the call has been put in contact with Sneesby.

Contacted by phone, Senator Walaska, after I identified myself but before I could fully explain what I was calling about, said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

walaska callJeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat who is running against the 22-year incumbent, said that her husband, Daniel Calkin, received a similar call. A photo of her husband’s phone is on the left. Daniel Calkin, listening to the audio above, said he was “pretty sure it’s the same guy.”

“This looks like a very clear-cut violation,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the RI Progressive Democrats.”Campaign calls should not be made from state numbers. Being able to direct state workers to campaign for a candidate gives an enormously unfair advantage to powerful incumbents.”

Requests for comment from Representative Joseph McNamara and Brandon Bell, respective chairs for the Democratic and Republican parties in Rhode Island have gone unanswered.

As for the Warwick resident and doctor who sent me the call, he says that he is “disinclined to vote for Walaska.”

Patreon

J. Goodison plays nice as employees move closer to a 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

david ozunaSince declaring their intention to form a union, employees of J. Goodison, a marine repair business at Quonset, say work conditions have actually improved.

“At this moment they are kind of treating us right,” David Ozuna, one of the employees, said through a translator. “And that is because they know that we can do something. Every little thing we want they are giving it to us They are giving us attention, if we ask for something they are giving it to us because they know and they think that they can stop this by doing that.”

Before they began to organize as with District 11 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, company policy used to be that sandblasters would get a respirator after 90 days, Ozuna said. Not now that they’re organizing.

“Because they are seeing the pressure we are putting on them, they are giving them to us.” he said.

Respirators aren’t the only way J. Goodison is trying to convince its workers not to unionize. According to Justin Kelly, an organizer with IUPAT, the company has also hired a Los Angeles attorney named Carlos Flores to convince the mostly Latino workers not to vote to join the union. He told the workers and some of their supporters about it at a rally outside J. Goodison on Thursday afternoon.

J. Goodison management, which watched the rally from behind the company property line, declined to comment.

There are some 30 employees who have signed union cards. After a similar rally last week, the group filed for an election. If a majority vote to join the union, J. Goodison will have one year to negotiate a contract with the employees. While management has been kinder as of late, Ozuna said the work is still grueling – especially on hot humid days.

But Ozuna isn’t intimidated.

j goodison rally

CLF to PUC: Burrillville plant not needed


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
Jerry Elmer
Jerry Elmer

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today presented its arguments against Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in a brief filed with the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC is charged with rendering an advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) the board that will have the final say in whether the proposed plant gets built. In putting together their advisory opinion, the PUC will be considering briefs from the CLF, Invenergy, the Town of Burrillville and the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (Division).

The PUC’s mandate is to “conduct an investigation … and render an advisory opinion” as to the “need for the proposed facility,” says CLF attorneys Max Greene and Jerry Elmer in their brief, quoting Rhode Island General Laws § 42-98-9(d). The CLF “therefore presented unrefuted evidence that shows the plant is not needed, in the form of testimony from expert witness Robert Fagan.”

Though Invenergy’s expert witnesses “profess to disagree” with Fagan, they argue that the plant will provide a “social surplus” of energy and not that the plant is actually needed, says the CLF in their brief. In the recent ISO-NE forward capacity auction, Invenergy only sold half its capacity. If you subtract out Invenergy’s contribution to the energy markets the region still has nearly 1,000 megawatts of excess capacity, says the CLF.

Further, Invenergy and the Division presented no evidence at the hearings that the plant is needed. Instead, Invenergy made the claim that if the power plant sold energy in an ISO-NE forward capacity auction, this proves the plant must be needed.  The CLF argues that this is incorrect, maintaining that “… a CSO is not a showing of need but the result of a complex market mechanism that takes into account other factors such as cost.”

But even if we accept the “CSO equals need” argument, says the CLF, neither Invenergy nor the Division “has presented evidence to show that the proposed Invenergy plant is needed. This is because Invenergy has proposed a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant but has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant.” What Invenergy is defending is a one turbine plant, since that’s what sold at auction.

The PUC must consider the need of the power plant as proposed. What Invenergy has proposed is a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant. As the CLF brief makes clear, “Invenergy has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant,” it has, at best, demonstrated the need for a “485 MW project.”

“Not once does the EFSB Order describe the proposed Invenergy plant under consideration as a single-turbine, 485 MW generator. Instead, the Order says the proposed plant ‘will have a nominal power output at base load of approximately 850-1,000 megawatts” and that the plant will consist of two units. So defined, ‘the proposed facility’ and ‘the Project’ do not have a CSO.”

The PUC’s advisory opinion is due at the EFSB before final hearings start in September. The briefs from all intervenors are due at 4pm today (Thursday).

Patreon

Three progressive groups, three different sets of endorsements


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
Moira Walsh and Malcolm
Moira Walsh and Malcolm

Moira Walsh and Susan Donovan were endorsed by all three. Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, Lisa Scorpio, Teresa Tanzi and Jeanine Calkin won the endorsement of two of the three.  While the vast majority – 22 of the 36 endorsed candidates – were only endorsed by one of the three, so far. Such are some of the similarities and differences between the three general interest, progressive-leaning organizations making legislative endorsements this election cycle.

The RI Progressive Democrats, the Young Democrats of Rhode Island and the Working Families Party of Rhode Island have now each announced legislative endorsements. While all three groups say they will be making more endorsements in the days, weeks and months to come, to date it seems each group has different criteria for winning their endorsement.

endorsements
Click on the image for a larger version.

There are structural, rather than political, differences in some cases. For example, the Working Families Party and Progressive Democrats both endorsed candidates with primary opponents while the Young Dems endorsed several candidates who don’t.  But don’t be surprised if by the end of the campaign season if these three groups end up endorsing a slightly different slate of candidates.

Sierra Club endorses 17 candidates for legislature


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

RI Sierra Club Logo QuahogThe RI Chapter of the Sierra Club has endorsed 17 legislative candidates – 12 running for a seat in the House of Representatives and 5 running for Senate seats.

“Our political committee based these decisions on a shared questionnaire with Clean Water Action, sent to every candidate, that focused heavily on what the two groups see as the top challenges and goals of the upcoming legislative season,” according to a news release from the Sierra Club. “The candidates below are the ones the Sierra Club believes are both willing and capable of creating a truly resilient, renewable and environmentally responsible Rhode Island.”

The Sierra Club said it will be “adding more endorsements in the days to come for those unopposed or facing/ posing a November challenge. The below list of endorsements is specifically focused on the candidates involved in races we have determined to be key primaries.”

Representative in General Assembly
Moira Walsh, District 3  – Providence
Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, District 5  – Providence
Grace Diaz, District 11 – Providence
Lisa Scorpio, District 13 – Johnston/Providence
Nicholas Delmenico, District 27 – Coventry/Warwick/West Warwick
Teresa Tanzi, District 34 – Narragansett/South Kingstown
Kathleen Fogarty, District 35 – South Kingstown
William Deware, District 54 – North Providence
David Norton, District 60 – Pawtucket
Jason Knight, District 67 – Barrington/Warren
Susan Donovan, District 69 – Bristol/Portsmouth
Linda Finn, District 72 – Middletown/Newport/Portsmouth

Senator in General Assembly
Doris De Los Santos, District 7 – Providence/North Providence
Matt Fecteau, District 8 – Pawtucket
Daniel Issa, District 16 – Central Falls/Pawtucket
Dennis Lavallee, District 17 – Lincoln/North Providence/North Smithfield
Jeanine Calkin, District 30 – Warwick

Sidewalk 7 activists head to trial in resistance to fracked-gas


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

Four of the seven activists arrested for blocking the driveway at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) headquarters during Beyond Extreme Energy’s #RubberStampRebellion in May are taking their cases to trial.

Defendants and supporters at courthouse in D.C.
Defendants and supporters at courthouse in D.C.

At the Superior Court of the District of Columbia yesterday, #Sidewalk7 members Claude Guillemard of Baltimore, MD, Ellen Taylor of Washington, D.C., and Donald Weightman of Philadelphia, PA, said that they would go to trial, set for Dec. 8, for their May 9 blockade at the FERC.

Peter Nightingale, of Kingston, RI, was arraigned only yesterday because he was out of the country during the first court date. He says he intends to go to trial. BXE and other groups have long criticized the agency for rubber-stamping fracked-gas pipelines, compressor stations and export facilities that it reviews.

“We have been charged with unlawful entry,” Weightman said, “but the real crime is the unlawful entry of methane and carbon dioxide into our air, the unlawful entry of toxic waste into our water, and the unlawful entry of global warming into the future of our world. The real weapon is fracked gas; FERC is the real defendant; we will charge FERC with the commission of a crime.”

MelindaMurphyThe other three #Sidewalk7 activists – Melinda Tuhus of Connecticut, Clarke Herbert of Virginia and Linda Reik of New York – agreed to perform 32 hours of community service and to stay away from the 800 block of 1st Avenue NE, the area of the FERC offices, for four months.

The court actions yesterday were part of the ongoing resistance to fracked-gas infrastructure, including demanding a halt to expansion of Spectra’s AIM Project pipeline. #StopSpectra activists have declared a “state of emergency” in advance of a noon press conference Thursday outside the Manhattan offices of Sens. Charles Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The senators wrote a letter to FERC on Aug. 3 calling for construction to stop. In February, Gov. Andrew Cuomo also asked FERC to postpone the pipeline expansion.

After the court hearing, New York, BXE, and Fossil Free Rhode Island activists hand-delivered invitations to the press conference to the senators’ Washington offices.

The pipeline “would bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New England, despite a report from the Massachusetts Attorney General that shows no need for this gas,” the letter said. “In NY, if completed, the AIM Pipeline would carry gas through residential communities and within 105 feet of critical Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant safety facilities.

Just last April, Spectra Energy’s Texas Eastern line erupted into a giant explosion due to pipeline corrosion, and New Yorkers fear what an explosion of this magnitude could mean in such close proximity to Indian Point. Over the last several years, communities along the pipeline route have risen up against the pipeline, and are counting on New York senators to help stop this dangerous project.”

PeterWhitehouseActivists delivered a letter from Fossil Free Rhode Island to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s office.  The senator is generally considered to be a climate champion, but he supports fracked gas as a bridge fuel. The letter asks the senator to change his position so that it is consistent with science and with the nation’s obligations under international treaties, the Rio Declaration in particular.  The letter ends stating: “As a small step in that direction, maybe you could start by following Bill McKibben’s suggestion, ‘correcting the outmoded way the EPA calculates the warming effect of methane.’”

In June, DeSmog Blog reported  that a FERC employee who was the agency’s project manager for reviewing the then-proposed AIM pipeline had been hired by an engineering company that is one of Spectra’s main contractors. DeSmog Blog reported in May and July that a contractor hired by FERC to conduct an environmental review of a Spectra project was already working on related Spectra pipeline projects. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey have written to FERC Chairman Norman Bay asking about the “potential conflicts of interest.”

A campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience is also ongoing in West Roxbury, MA, where 165 people have been arrested so far blocking construction of the West Roxbury Lateral pipeline.   Resist the Pipeline is coordinating those actions. In addition, the City Council, mayor, the state representative, state senator and U.S. Congressman Stephen Lynch oppose the project.

Boston City Council President Michelle Wu said, “Climate change impacts us all and especially future generations. We need immediate, bold action to transition rapidly away from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy. Building new natural gas infrastructure, such as Spectra Energy’s West Roxbury Lateral Pipeline, is wrong for our communities and wrong for future generations. I applaud the thoughtful, purposeful, nonviolent civil disobedience West Roxbury residents and friends are practicing to accomplish what needs to get done.”

In addition, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled today that the state can’t force residential ratepayers to subsidize the construction of pipelines. “This is an incredibly important and timely decision,” said David Ismay, lead attorney on the case for Conservation Law Foundation. “Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and, thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales.”
[Based on a BXE press release.]

Court kills pipeline tariff in Mass, RI still considering


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
Margaret Curran
Margaret Curran

As the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission considers a request from National Grid to have ratepayers help subsidize a controversial pipeline project, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against such pipeline tariffs in a decision released Wednesday.

“This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay,  the Conservation Law Foundation’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.”

The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may have an impact on National Grid‘s proposed “pipeline tariff” here in Rhode Island. The Massachusetts court deemed “it unlawful for Massachusetts to force residential electricity customers to subsidize the construction of private gas pipelines, requiring the companies themselves to shoulder the substantial risks of such projects rather than allowing that risk to be placed on hardworking families across the Commonwealth,” according the the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) who brought the case.

The CLF was the plaintiff in the Massachusetts case. The CLF maintained in their motion to intervene in the Rhode Island case that “an electricity distribution company” entering “into a contract for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services” and receiving “cost recovery for its gas contract from electricity ratepayers” is “something that has never occurred in the United States since the Federal Power Act was enacted in 1935, during President Roosevelt’s first term in office.”

Megan Herzog, one of the two lawyers representing the CLF before the RIPUC said in a phone call that the “pipeline is a bad deal for the whole region and that the Massachusetts court affirmed that.” Though the judge ruled on the case using Massachusetts law, there are statutes in Rhode Island that reflect similar principles.

According to Craig S. Altemose, a senior advisor forthe anti-LNG advocacy group 350 Mass for a Better Future, “It is unclear how much this will be a fatal blow to any of Spectra’s proposed projects, but we have absolutely undercut their financing (to the tune of $3 billion), called into question similar pipeline tax proposals in other states, [italics added] and have given Spectra’s investors greater reason for pause. Either way, we have unambiguously won a victory that the people’s money should be not used for private projects that further commit us to climate catastrophe.”

“Today’s decision reinforces what we already know: it’s not in the public interest to subsidize new fossil fuel infrastructure. It deals a serious blow to companies like Spectra who wanted to subsidize their risky projects with handouts from ratepayers. Communities facing an onslaught of fracked gas projects in their backyards like those in Burrillville have good reason to feel hopeful right now. We urge Governor [Gina] Raimondo and the Rhode Island PUC to follow the lead of Massachusetts and reject the pipeline tax,” Ben Weilerstein, Rhode Island community organizer with Toxics Action Center said.

Though the ruling in Massachusetts has no statutory value in Rhode Island, it may establish some lines of legal reasoning that will be helpful as the Rhode Island Public Utilities (RIPUC) Commission decides on Docket 4267, the Rhode Island part of National Grid’s ambitious plan to charge electrical ratepayers not only for pipeline infrastructure investments, but also to guarantee the company’s profits as they do so.

National Grid responded with the following statement: “This is a disappointing setback for the project, which is designed to help secure New England’s clean energy future, ensure the reliability of the electricity system, and most importantly, save customers more than $1 billion annually on their electricity bills.  We will explore our options for a potential path forward with Access Northeast and pursue a balanced portfolio of solutions to provide the clean, reliable, and secure energy our customers deserve. While natural gas remains a key component in helping to secure New England’s long-term energy future, the recently passed clean energy bill also presents a welcomed opportunity to support the development of large-scale clean energy, such as hydro and wind.”

Yesterday The RIPUC held a hearing on Docket 4627, asking National Grid to explain why it used such a “broad brush” in redacting information in its application. In the meeting announcement it was said that RIPUC Chair Margaret Curran thought “it is not intuitively clear how the information redacted falls within the exception to the Access to Public Records Act.” Much of what National Grid argues that much of what it wants to keep secret falls into the category of trade secrets, and releasing the information would put it at an unfair disadvantage with competitors, such as NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra).

As pointed out previously, National Grid will not release how much money ratepayers will be on the hook for if this idea is approved by the RIPUC.

Here’s full video of the hearing:

NextEra brought a separate motion to allow its lawyers access to highly confidential parts of National Grid’s application.

Here’s the full video of that hearing:

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) released the following statement today in response to the favorable decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Conservation Law Foundation v. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU):

‘This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay, CLF’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.’

According to the opinion by Justice Cordy, DPU’s 2015 rule (“Order 15-37”) allowing Massachusetts electric customers to be charged for the construction of interstate gas pipelines is prohibited by the plain languages of statutes that have been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost two decades.

In his opinion, Justice Cordy wrote, Order 15-37 is ‘invalid in light of the statutory language and purpose of G. L. c. 164, § 94A, as amended by the restructuring act, because, among other things, it would undermine the main objectives of the act and reexpose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.’

Patreon

Franklin Graham’s hate and fear not wanted in Rhode Island


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
Franklin_Graham_2016 (1)
Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham, son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham, is coming to the south steps of the Rhode Island State House on August 31 at noon, to preach his message of anti-LGBTQ, anti-Islam, pro-theocracy intolerance. Graham is visiting Rhode Island as part of a 50-state tour.  “I’m going to every state in our country,” says Graham on his website, “to challenge Christians to live out their faith at home, in public and at the ballot box—and I will share the Gospel.”

Graham’s gospel includes the demonization of those who don’t subscribe to his narrow, biblical world view. Graham “and his pals,” writes Rob Boston, director of communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “lost the marriage equality case at the U.S. Supreme Court, but they didn’t let that slow them down. Almost immediately, they started attacking the transgender community.”

Graham’s tour is timed to have maximum impact on the coming presidential election, even as he tries to pretend that his message somehow transcends politics. “I am running a campaign, but I am running a campaign for God,” says Graham on his 50-state tour website. His message isn’t one of unity and peace, it’s one built on the familiar right-wing tropes of hate and fear.

“The secularists, the progressives, many of these people, most of them are people that would be atheistic, and we have taken God out of our country,” said Graham during his Facebook live prayer event, scheduled before the start of the Republican National Convention, “We have taken Him out of our nation; we have taken Him out of our government. We have taken Him out of the education system, and our country is beginning to implode. We’re on the precipice of anarchy.”

Graham reserves his most vile verbal venom for members of the LGBTQ community. “I want the school boards of America in the hands of evangelical Christians within the next four to six years,” said Graham to Fox NewsTodd Starnes, “And it can happen and that will have a huge impact because so many school districts now are controlled by wicked, evil people, and the gays and lesbians, and I keep bringing their name up, but they are at the forefront of this attack against Christianity in America.”

Franklin went to Russia in 2015 to praise “President Vladimir Putin’s protection of ‘traditional Christianity,’ including the passage of the 2013 ‘gay propaganda’ law that effectively criminalizes pro-gay-rights speech and advocacy.”

While in Russia, Graham didn’t miss his chance to put down the country of his birth. “[T]he situation in the US regarding religion is in decline. Secularism, which is almost no different from communism, is an atheistic movement. Our country is becoming more and more secular, more atheist, taking God out of government, taking God out of schools. We are witnessing America losing many religious freedoms. In your country over the past 30 years, we have seen positive changes. But over this same period of time in the US, the changes have been negative.”

If you’re not convinced that Franklin Graham is a monster, consider that he called the “first national monument to the gay rights movement near the site of the Stonewall protests in New York City” an “Unbelievable… monument to sin,” adding, “It’s no surprise that the three officials who represent the area and support the monument are all openly gay.”

Consider that Graham told a capacity crowd in Alabama that the idea of separating church and state is “just a lie that the enemy uses to try to keep your mouth shut.”

Consider that he lead the effort to boycott Girl Scout cookies because of the group’s acceptance of lesbian, bisexual, queer and transgender youth, saying, he “won’t be buying any Girl Scout cookies this year.”

Then there’s Graham’s anti-Islam rants, a featured part of his public comments and sermons since 9/11. In the aftermath of the attacks, writes William Alberts in Counterpunch, Graham called Islam a “very wicked and evil religion.” In the same Counterpunch piece Alberts wrote:

Rev. Graham’s glorification of his brand of Christianity depends on him condemning Islam as a “violent form of faith,” which led him to do violence to Islam with this glaring lie: “‘Nowhere in its history gives proof of peace (italics added).’” He continued, “‘Islam itself has not changed at all in 1500 years . . . It is the same. It is a religion of war.’” He cited the Islamic State, the Taliban and Boko Haram, and concluded, “This is Islam. It has not been hijacked by radicals. This is the faith, this is the religion. It is what it is. It speaks for itself.”

In Rhode Island, the LGBTQ and Muslim communities have united against hate and violence, especially in the wake of the Orlando shootings. When a mosque was vandalized in North Kingstown, members of the LGBTQ community attended an interfaith vigil in support.

Franklin Graham is visiting a state that was founded on principles diametrically opposed to his brand of intolerance, fear and stupidity. I am confident he will not find fertile ground for his bigotry in the state founded by Roger Williams.

Patreon

Sheldon calls on Cruz to hold congressional hearings on Trump, Russia


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

Trump - Col.Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Ted Cruz might team up to take on Donald Trump.

Rhode Island’s junior senator and Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, authored a letter to Cruz, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, asking him to hold hearings on Donald Trump’s recent “encouragement of a Russian cyber incursion of a U.S. presidential candidate.”

The two Democrats want the conservative Republican of Texas, an adversary of Trump’s, to “conduct an oversight hearing to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections,” according to the letter.

“Specifically,” reads the letter, “we ask that you consider whether requests for foreign entities to conduct cyber attacks on political opponents violate existing federal criminal statutes, and whether there are obstacles to the federal courts asserting jurisdiction to protect the integrity of our nation’s elections.”

No word yet on whether Cruz will agree to hold the hearings. While the climate change-denying Texan is no ally to Whitehouse, he may be a bigger enemy of Trump’s. When Cruz spoke at the Republican National Convention, he implored people to “vote your conscience” rather than voting for Trump, who purposefully interrupted Cruz’s speech. Before that, Trump insulted Cruz’s wife.

Read Whitehouse and Coon’s full letter to Cruz below:

Dear Chairman Cruz:

We write to express our concern regarding recent remarks made by presidential nominee Donald Trump and the threat of foreign influence in U.S. elections.  On July 27, reporters asked Mr. Trump several questions regarding the cyber breach of the Democratic National Committee and potential Russian involvement.  When asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to stay out of the United States’ presidential election, Mr. Trump stated:  “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”  Mr. Trump’s apparent encouragement of a foreign cyberattack on presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, a U.S. citizen and former Secretary of State, is dangerous and irresponsible.  We ask that you conduct an oversight hearing to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections.

As two dozen national security experts stated in a recent letter calling for a congressional investigation, this is “not a partisan issue” but rather “an assault on the integrity of the entire American political process.”  The “hacking of a political party’s email system by Russian intelligence agencies would, if proven, constitute unprecedented foreign interference in an American presidential campaign.”

Mr. Trump’s encouragement of a Russian cyber incursion of a U.S. presidential candidate represents an unprecedented call for a foreign government to spy on a U.S. citizen and interfere with a U.S. election.  The threat Russia poses to cybersecurity has long been recognized as a national security issue, with a 2009 National Intelligence Estimate warning that Russia had the most “robust, longstanding program that combines a patient, multidisciplinary approach to computer network operations with proven access and tradecraft.”  Recent Russian attempts to influence foreign elections – in Ukraine, Georgia, and France, for example – by engaging in cyberwarfare and orchestrated leaks are well documented.  Mr. Trump’s comments implicate U.S. criminal laws prohibiting engagement with foreign governments that threaten the country’s interests, including the Logan Act and the Espionage Act.  They threaten the privacy of a U.S. citizen and former government official, inviting Russia to engage in conduct that would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and, if performed by the U.S. government, would contravene the Fourth Amendment.  Finally, Mr. Trump has invited foreign interference with the presidential election, which we believe should be carefully guarded against under U.S. law.

To ensure the integrity of the presidential election and its insulation from Russian cyber threats, we ask that you conduct an oversight hearing to consider whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections.  Specifically, we ask that you consider whether requests for foreign entities to conduct cyber attacks on political opponents violate existing federal criminal statutes, and whether there are obstacles to the federal courts asserting jurisdiction to protect the integrity of our nation’s elections.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Coons                                                                         Sheldon Whitehouse

United States Senator                                                                           United States Senator

Grim Wisdom talks with Mike Araujo


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
Mike Araujo
Mike Araujo

Mike Araujo agreed to meet with me a second time for another podcast, so here it is! Topics include revolution, agency, and the labor movement (if there is such a thing–opinions differ). We also talked a little about the aspirational and inspirational Black Lives Matter platform, but we had some slight disagreements as to the best way to implement it, probably none of which will surprise you. In any event, enjoy!

Leader DeSimone’s legal skills help wage thief


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
John DeSimone
John DeSimone

House Majority Leader John DeSimone is also a lawyer and one of his clients is Chung Cho, a restaurant owner who was fined for wage theft in Connecticut and, more recently, faces a lawsuit for allegedly stealing wages from his employees at Gourmet Heaven in downtown Providence.

“Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny that plaintiffs were employed by Gourmet Heaven,” wrote DeSimone in a court filing on behalf of Cho.

Cho is facing a lawsuit from eight workers in Rhode Island for unpaid wages in violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act. The eight workers are being represented by Robert McCreanor and Marissa Janton of the RI Center for Justice. Gourmet Heaven, which Cho recently sold, has been the center of several public demonstrations.

In Connecticut, Cho was charged with “42 felony and misdemeanor counts of wage theft, larceny, and defrauding immigrant workers after a 2013 Connecticut Department of Labor investigation found that Cho owed over $218,000 in unpaid wages” to two dozen restaurant employees, according to a court filing.

Gourmet Heaven 010The Center for Justice initially filed its lawsuit in February, 2015, after “several requests for extension of the deadline for filing responsive pleadings”. DeSimone filed Cho’s legal response to the Rhode Island lawsuit on May 11, 2015. About a week later, on May 20, 2015, Cho sold Gourmet Heaven to GSP Corp for half a million dollars. At least some of the transactional paperwork for this sale was prepared by DeSimone.

Gourmet Heaven 004GSP Corp had come into existence about a month earlier, on April 9, “listing 173
Weybosset Street … as its address and Dae Hyun Yoo as its registered agent,” according to the lawsuit. Gourmet Heaven was incorporated at this address, which is also where the restaurant is located. “Dae Hyun Yoo (aka David Yoo) is the Chief Executive Officer of B.C.S. International Corporation (B.C.S.), a wholesale food supply company,” according to the filing. “While operating Gourmet Heaven, LLC, Defendant Chung Cho regularly ordered inventory from B.C.S. and two of its subsidiaries, Hyun Dai International Food Corp and New York Cheese Corp.”

DSC_2087-421x600 (1)After the sale was finalized on September 14, “$225,389.11 of the $500,000 purchase price was paid directly to B.C.S., Hyun Dai International Food Corp, and New York Cheese Corp, purportedly to satisfy existing debts.” In the closing statement, Chung Cho is listed as receiving only “$1,620.78 from the $500,000 purchase price” after other debts were settled.

In response to this “sale” (quotation marks are included in the complaint) the Center for Justice amended its complaint to include GSP Corp as a defendant., believing the “sale” is merely an attempt to evade liability. GSP Corp hired Brian LaPlante and Michael J Jacobs as lawyers and have moved to have the complaint against them dismissed. A judge will hear the motion on September 20.

Selling the business and pleading poverty to avoid responsibility seems to be Cho’s signature move. One month after he was arrested in Connecticut, he sold his Connecticut Gourmet Heaven stores to Good Nature Café Inc, which was incorporated the previous October.

After selling his Connecticut stores, “on September 30, 2015 Defendant Chung Cho filed for personal bankruptcy in Connecticut,” says the complaint, “In December of 2015 Defendant Chung Cho testified at a hearing in Connecticut that he has no assets, contradicting a previous sworn statement that he possessed between $1 million and $10 million in assets.”

Back in Providence, on September 16, 2015, GSP Corp took over operation of the store located at 173 Weybosset Street, and renamed it Serendipity Gourmet. “The store continues operation at the same address, with many of the same employees, and sells the same products. The signage on the store uses the same font and colors, and the word ‘Gourmet’ still appears in the name. Signs on the exterior of the store proclaimed that it was ‘under new management.’”

In March of this year, GSP Corp applied for a new food dispenser and holiday sales license with the Providence Board of Licenses for their newly minted Serendipity Gourmet. The board’s attorney is Louis DeSimone, Representative John DeSimone’s cousin.

Voters should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us. Anybody being sued deserves legal representation, but using slick legal moves to avoid paying workers their earned wages is simply gross.

DeSimone is facing a challenge to his House seat from Marcia Ranglin-Vassell.

DeSimone did not respond to requests for comment.

Patreon

Clinton is not a ‘lesser evil’


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

800px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropA recent RIF post got us into a “lesser evil” discussion about Hillary Clinton.  While I disagree with her about a few issues, that doesn’t make her “evil.” Its bad enough the right-wing attack machine has smeared Clinton for so long, calling her “crooked” even though determined, relentless investigations going back to Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate and more have never found anything crooked. For liberal/progressive sites to pile on is crazy.

I think there is no doubt Clinton will defend medicare/medicaid/social security, defend the medical insurance expansion of the ACA, stand up for reproductive freedom, the Iran nuclear deal, rights for immigrants, labor, the LGBT community, appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices, and maybe expand gun background checks, child care and family leave programs if Congress allows. Trump and the GOP will do the opposite on all of the above.

Of course Clinton is not perfect. I don’t trust her on trade, she may approve high levels of immigration that depress wages,  she has been too quick to intervene in foreign countries such as Libya and Honduras. But she and Obama did try to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resisted pressure to do more military stuff in Syria and Iran, and are being criticized for that and for not doing even more killing in opposing ISIS.  So I can’t see how putting these GOP critics in charge who got us into Iraq in the first place will do us any good.

On taxes, Trump is a mainstream GOP trickle-downer, proposing the end of estate taxes, big corporate and personal income tax reductions. We’ve been down that road, it would further transfer wealth to the 1%, further starve government programs. Clinton wouldn’t do that.

On the environment, Clinton would likely continue the mixed record of Obama while Trump and the GOP would be all in for coal and oil and fossil fuels, they even say they are. Clinton would resist the GOP assault on pubic land and on wildlife. And Transport Providence of all people should appreciate the Democratic support for bikes, transit, and trains (by the way, VP choice Tim Kaine promoted downtown Richmond passenger rail revival when he was Mayor), the national GOP wants to eliminate all Federal support for that.

Clinton is not a pacifist, socialist, or radical, so those that are have legit reasons for not backing her, but it still doesn’t make her “evil.”  Not being in those categories, I see it as an easy choice to back Clinton, and not just because of Trump.  Still, in Rhode Island we are so used to civil and reasonable Republicans who often back needed good government programs and watchdog excessive spending, we can forget the extremism of Trump and the national GOP these days.

I also frankly value the idea of finally electing a woman as President.  Eight years ago plenty of progressives said that about a first black President, but its not cool to say that now about a real chance to elect the first woman.

As for the interminable e-mail stuff, nobody cared that previous GOP Secretaries of State used a private e-mail server at times, and rightfully so. While Clinton was ill-advised to do this, it doesn’t make her “evil” it is just a political attack point which Sanders himself thought was a distraction.

To sum up, though far from perfect, she is a reasonable and decent choice to support for President.

Linc Chafee pushed DEA to reconsider cannabis


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 sail smile2The federal government might be comfortable equating marijuana to heroin, crack and meth, but Rhode Island isn’t. At least it wasn’t when Linc Chafee was our governor. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s recent headline-grabbing decision to keep cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug was the result of a request from the Chafee administration in 2011.

In a July 19 , Chuck Rosenberg, the acting administrator of the DEA, wrote, “On November 30, 2011, your predecessors, The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee and The Honorable Christine O. Gregoire, petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),” . “Specifically, your predecessors petitioned the DEA to have marijuana and “related items” removed from Schedule I of the CSA and rescheduled as medical cannabis in Schedule II.”

The DEA, it should be noted, disagreed, writing to Raimondo, “Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, the DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I.” It cited three main reasons: “Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” An editorial in today’s New York Times proves false each of those three reasons. The DEA was also responding to a request from the governor of Washington and a citizen of New Mexico.

While governor of Rhode Island, Chafee signed legislation to decriminalize less than an ounce of marijuana. But he declined to push Rhode Island to become the first state on the East Coast to tax and regulate marijuana. As a presidential candidate earlier this year, there was some reason to believe Chafee was considering campaigning as a pro-pot candidate after he said his position on full federal legalization would “evolve during the campaign.”

Governor Raimondo has taken a similar tack on taxing and legalizing marijuana as Chafee did during his tenure. “I could see Rhode Island eventually getting there, but I’m not going to rush,” she said in March. On medical marijuana, she pushed legislation that added a per-plant tax to patients who don’t grow their own.

According to a spokeswoman for Raimondo, the governor doesn’t plan to pursue the matter with the DEA any further. “This petition was submitted during the prior administration, so the governor does not plan to respond to the letter,” said Marie Aberger, who did not respond to a question asking if Raimondo thinks marijuana should be considered a Schedule 1 drug.

Rhode Island has the highest per capita marijuana users in the nation and a recent poll found 55 percent of Rhode Islanders favor legalization. A different poll found 53 percent of Americans favor legalization.

Congressmen Cicilline, Larson want to expand social security for retirees


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

social securityOn August 14, 1935 President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, perhaps one of the greatest and most important strands of the fraying American social safety net.

On Tuesday, Congressmen David Cicilline and  John Larson of Connecticut are celebrating social security’s 81st birthday in East Providence, in the community room of Rumford Towers, 95 Newman Ave.

“An estimated 165 million workers are covered by Social Security, with nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receiving these benefits,” according to a news release from Cicilline’s office. “A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Social Security keeps at least 22 million Americans out of poverty.”

But celebrating FDR’s achievement isn’t enough.

“Cicilline and Larson have introduced the Social Security 2100 Act (H.R. 1391) to expand benefits, cut taxes for millions of seniors, and ensure Social Security remains solvent through the end of the century,” said the news release. “Expanding benefits for current and future seniors will provide greater economic security and dignity at a time when millions of Americans are increasingly concerned about their retirement.”

The event is open to the public. It will be held at 3:30 in the Community Room at Rumford Towers, 95 Newman Avenue, in East Providence.

The #MaybeHillary movement


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

rs_1024x759-150709052426-1024.Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-JR-70915_copy#NeverHillary is a bit too flippant to me. The point of an election is to pressure a candidate, and get results. We have gotten some movement in the right direction, thanks to Bernie Sanders. Still, for many voters, there are still significant reasons not to want to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead of yelling “Never Hillary!” let’s take a more nuanced stance. It’s time for #MaybeHillary.

The #MaybeHillary movement is open to the idea that voting for a lesser evil is sometimes the right thing to do, but also seeks to push that lesser evil candidate to the maximum that is possible within the political situation. People who say that that’s already been done are ignoring Hillary Clinton’s very right-leaning (and sometimes rightwing) foreign policy stance, and her tepid stances on climate change.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also open to considering the relative strength or weakness of a Republican challenger. It should be agreed that we can’t allow a rightwing Republican like Donald Trump into office, but part of that equation should be constantly fine-tuning our assessment of just how likely his election is. With Republicans fleeing Trump for Clinton or sometimes even Gary Johnson, there is increasingly an opening to push Clinton to make sure she keeps and extends her progressive message.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also one that supports the idea of flexible strategies to reflect the differences of various states. Yes, it’s true that voting is a collective action, as Samuel G. Howard states, but in 2012, Barack Obama held Rhode Island by 27 points. Jill Stein would have to take that support, without Donald Trump losing any votes at all to the Libertarians, in order to act as a spoiler. And in a world where the Green Party did well enough to take 27 points of an election– even in a blue state– the political conversation on the Wednesday after election day would be one to look forward to.

Saying #MaybeHillary means not being aggressive and nasty to people who are voting for Clinton, because in an election like this one, who can blame voters for not wanting Donald Trump? Saying #MaybeHillary means being open to switching to Clinton if she satisfies enough major progressive pledges (for me, the two I think are most sorely missing are her foreign policy and climate change positions, but you can fill in your own in the comments section). Saying #MaybeHillary means having the kind of conversation with voters that can energize them to press the candidate for more in a viable way. The #NeverHillary movement shuts down conversations, and so does shaming people for voting their consciences. Let’s get people activated around issues, hold Clinton accountable, and get what we need.

Department of Health hears testimony on Burrillville power plant


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

Burrillville 45The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) held a public comment hearing in Burrillville Tuesday to solicit opinions on the potential health effects of building Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. RIDOH has been tasked by the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) to create a non-binding advisory opinion on potential public health concerns relating to the project, including but not limited to biological responses to power frequency, electric, and magnetic fields associated with the operation of the power plant, and the potential impacts on the quality of drinking water associated with the construction and operation of the plant. The final report is due in early September.

RIDOH has released a first draft of their report, which was consumed by Burrillville residents opposed to the plant. Much of the public comment centered around the idea that RIDOH wasn’t taking into account the compounded effects of the gas infrastructure in and around Burrillville but was instead concentrating on the proposed power plant by itself.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment of the evening came when Stephanie Sloman rose to give her testimony.

“I had a whole speech prepared,” said Sloman (see video #20 below), “but I noticed that Invenergy’s sitting over there, and I refuse to speak and read my speech in front of these people. I don’t think they should even be here, frankly.”

The evening’s meeting was made harder on residents of the town because at the same time as this meeting there was a meeting of the Harrisville Fire District and Water Board. This meant that some people (including me) had to run out to the other meeting and then return to the RIDOH hearing, still in progress.

Several Burrillville residents noted that Governor Gina Raimondo, during her visit to Burrillville in July, recommended that residents get involved in and trust the process. That seems awfully hard to do when two important meetings are scheduled at the same time .

Below is all the video from the event.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Patreon


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