Featured – RI Future

October 29, 2016

Burrillville residents refuse to drink tax treaty Kool-Aid

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

2016-10-27 Burrillville Town Council 07 — Michael McElroy

Wednesday night’s Burrillville Town Council meeting hearkened back to the early days of public opposition against Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant planned for the town. Back then, we saw a public that was distrustful of the town council, and a town council that was not receptive to the idea of opposing the power plant, early on claiming to be powerless against the combined might of Invenergy, Governor Gina Raimondo’s office and regulators.

The town council then took the position, contrary to the Open Meetings Act, that people in the town were only allowed to talk about issues and subjects that were specifically listed on the town council’s agenda, cutting off discussion about the Algonquin pipeline if the power plant was on the agenda, or vice versa. In December of last year, calls from the town council to trust them elicited groans of dismay from the audience.

Then, in April of this year, it was learned that the town council had been in secret negotiations for a tax treaty with Invenergy for months. The town council was still forcing residents to only speak about “agenda items” and working hard to curtail public discussion, contrary to the Open Meetings Act. The growing resistance in Burrillville to the power plant felt disempowered. Not only were they fighting a multi-billion dollar power plant company funded by a Russian oligarch, they were fighting both the state and local governments. The fight seemed impossible and trust between the town council and residents couldn’t be worse. Or so they thought.

At an April 14 town council meeting Council President John Pacheco said that the town council learned about Invenergy’s plans when everyone else did, during a press conference held by Governor Raimondo announcing the plant, saying, “As a town council, we did not know this plant was actually going to happen until the Governor announced it.”

This turned out to be inaccurate. Videos of town council meetings from February and March of 2015, on the town council’s own website, showed the town council and state legislators paving the way for the controversial Invenergy power plant months before the governor officially announced the project. Over time some of the details about how Invenergy approached the town came to light, but the complete story, and who opened what doors to the power plant, has yet to be revealed.

The town council eventually came to a public position regarding the power plant: The town council would put on a public display of strict neutrality, taking no position for or against the power plant, until after all the advisory opinions from various town boards had been completed. This was so as to appear to not influence the outcomes of the various advisory opinions and give the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) a reason to suspect that the opinions might be slanted in some way.

State legislators Cale Keable and Paul Fogarty went a different route. They entered legislation at the state level that if passed, would give voters in Burrillville the ability to approve or reject any tax treaty negotiated between the town council and Invenergy.

The bill passed the House and was due for consideration and a vote in the Senate when the town council passed a resolution in opposition to the Keable Bill at the 11th hour, giving the Senate Judiciary Committee enough of a reason to vote down the bill. The relationship between the town council and residents was now overtly acrimonious. There were tears from Town Councilor Kimberly Brissette Brown and anger and accusations from Town Councilor Donald Fox. Residents spoke of feeling “humiliated” at the State House as the press release announcing the resolution was sprung on them by Senators Frank Lombardi and Steven Archambeault, who treated the residents with risible condescension.

Since that low point, the town council and residents worked to rebuild trust. Residents by this time were long past being held to arbitrary and incorrect readings of the Open Meetings Act. They spoke their minds, expressed their concerns and the town council, to their credit, finally seemed to be listening. They seemed to come together as a town when Governor Gina Raimondo visited to hear resident concerns about the power plant.

After the lengthy process of creating the advisory opinions concluded, the town council passed an extremely robust resolution opposing the power plant and asked other city and town councils in and around Rhode Island to join them in opposition. Many already have and many more are considering joining Burrillville in opposition to the plant. But the Burrillville Town Council’s opposition came with a caveat: They still planned to sign a tax treaty with Invenergy, a tax treaty that the town residents want to hold off on signing.

At issue is the timing. The town council maintains that they have negotiated a solid tax treaty that will protect the town in the event the power plant is built, and guarantee a steady stream of income to the town. The residents want to wait until after the EFSB decides on Invenergy’s application before signing any treaty. Right now, the power plant’s application is suspended, pending Invenergy’s search for a new source of water. Signing the tax treaty, say residents, gives Invenergy extra leverage in negotiating a deal with another municipality, like, let’s say, Woonsocket, to purchase water. The town’s opposition to the power plant must be unified and consistent. Opposing the power plant with a resolution sends one message, signing a tax treaty with Invenergy sends another.

At Wednesday night’s hearing, Attorney Michael McElroy, who negotiated the tax treaty, said that the opposing the power plant and signing a tax treaty were not inconsistent actions and would not be seen that way. “I want to make it… clear that I see no inconsistency between entering into these agreements and dead set opposition to the plant,” said McElroy.

But McElroy is a lawyer. He is not a business man trying to buy water to cool a power plant. What businessman wouldn’t mention the tax treaty as proof that the town council is actually okay with having the power plant sited in their town? The resolution in opposition will be described behind closed doors as merely political theater, something to satisfy the rubes while the real business of government is imposed by the movers and shakers in secret meetings paid for with political contributions.

McElroy did his best to sell the tax treaty to the residents. He spent 45 minutes outlining the deal, expressing the need for a treaty. One reason McElroy gave, that didn’t sit well with residents, was that, “I want to get paid.” The money generated by this tax treaty will give the Town of Burrillville the money it needs to fight the siting of the power plant all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be. The lawyers and experts needed to fight such a case cost money, said McElroy, who included himself in those expenses.

McElroy suggested that if the town council did not pass the tax treaty, Invenergy might pull it off the table. He assured the audience that contrary to what Conservation Law Foundation senior attorney Jerry Elmer says, the plant will be built without a tax treaty in place.

Residents weren’t buying it. Towards the end of what turned out to be a five hours plus meeting, it was obvious that the town’s people were not willing to drink the tax treaty Kool-Aid. Forty people spoke against passing the tax treaty. Two spoke in favor of trusting the town council and McElroy’s advice.

Ultimately the town council recessed without doing anything on the tax treaty. There is a plan to take up the issue again next week.

2016-10-27 Burrillville Town Council 03 — Midnight, during a short break

October 28, 2016October 29, 2016

Pat Morgan is RI’s representative to ALEC

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

ALEC is back in Rhode Island. Republican legislator Pat Morgan confirmed she’s a member of the American Legislative Exchange Committee, a business-backed bill mill that pairs corporate donors with state legislators.

“I found it to be a really good group,” she told RI Future.

ALEC’s website lists Morgan as the state director in Rhode Island. Her 2016 financial disclosure form shows two trips to ALEC conferences – to San Diego, for $1,400 and to Phoenix for $1,100. ALEC membership in Rhode Island was a hot button issue in 2012, when the group’s model Stand Your Ground bill became controversial after it helped exonerate George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin. That year 24 local legislators, half of whom were Democrats, were members. By 2013, there were only six ALEC members in the General Assembly (though on p. 39 ALEC lists 12 members in 2013). In February 2015, RI Future reported that the last legislative membership in ALEC had expired on the last day of 2014. Morgan said she has been an ALEC member since January of 2015, but she was unsure of the exact month.

Morgan said she does not know anything about ALEC’s involvement with Stand Your Ground laws, and did not know the group had been controversial in Rhode Island.

She also said she does not where ALEC’s funding comes from. When informed it comes from corporations, she said, “I’m just as much against corporate welfare as you are. My idea is to do what’s right for Rhode Islanders, not for corporations.”

Her campaign opponent, independent Vincent Marzulo, is raising Morgan’s involvement in ALEC as a reason to vote against her. (Democrat Anthony Paolino is also running against Morgan).

“Her advocacy for private profit at the public’s expense raises serious questions concerning her commitment to the public good,” said Marzulo. “The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a secretive, right-wing, Koch Brothers-funded corporate advocacy group that seeks private profit at the expense of public interest.”

Sam Bell, state director of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, added, “A far-right group that takes uses a money hose of corporate money to influence state politics, ALEC has wreaked great damage all across our country. From stand your ground laws and voter ID to an ocean of bills to help corporate special interests, ALEC has been uniquely effective at pushing awful public policy on the American people. It is hardly surprising that ALEC would align itself with Pat Morgan, a Wall Street politician known for supporting nutty right wing policies. For instance, Pat Morgan actually signed onto a bill to privatize roads and put tolls on cars.”

Morgan said doesn’t think of ALEC as being “conservative or liberal”. She said her relationship with ALEC has already paid dividends for Rhode Island. She said at a conference she learned about the drug Vivitrol, used to help people ween off drug addiction. She said the product is now used at the Adult Correctional Institute, in part because of her.

She said she doesn’t agree with everything ALEC pushes – citing a “session on international relationships.” She said she did not remember the specifics of the session. She also said there was an ALEC session on legalizing marijuana, an issue she said she does not agree with.

When asked if she thinks ALEC cares more about its corporate sponsors or her constituents, Morgan said, “I believe they care more about good policy that helps average people lead good lives.”

17 minutes into our interview, Morgan asked if she was on or off the record. I told her I identified myself as the editor of RI Future when I first called. Morgan feels I should have also informed her that I was writing a story. She hung up on me, and called back a few minutes later yelling. She said she does not think I have integrity.

House spokesman Larry Berman said the legislature does not pay dues of any ALEC legislators, as was the practice in 2012.

For more on ALEC.

October 28, 2016October 28, 2016

Voter says campaign surrogate changed her ballot

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

A voter filed a complaint with the Providence Board of Canvassers alleging her mail ballot was tampered with by supporters of Rep. John DeSimone, an incumbent legislator who lost in the Democratic primary for the District 5 House seat and is subsequently staging a write-in campaign.

Joanne St. Lawrence, who is 55 years old, disabled and does not drive, said three people came to her home on Phoebe Street to collect her mail ballot. She was expecting someone from the campaign of her preferred candidate, Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, who upset DeSimone in the primary. Instead, St. Lawrence says she was greeted by DeSimone supporters.

“They asked me if I had filled in for John DeSimone,” St. Lawrence told RI Future. “I said no. They said, ‘did you vote for Marcia?’ I said yes.”

That’s when one of them asked St. Lawrence for an eraser, she said. When erasing her ballot failed – St. Lawrence filled it out in pen – one of the people, “took it and wrote his name in. They had me sign it and they both signed it,” St. Lawrence said.

She said she knew something wasn’t right, but didn’t know how to stop the people from changing her ballot. “I wasn’t thinking clearly,” St. Lawrence said. “I just woke up.”

“I’m really concerned about this,” she told RI Future. “My vote is supposed to count.”

The Providence Board of Canvassers confirmed St. Lawrence filed a complaint with their office Wednesday. Kathy Placencia, the administrator of elections for the board, said she sent the complaint to the state Board of Elections. The state Board of Elections declined to comment. Bob Rapoza, the acting director, did not return several phone calls over several days.

St. Lawrence said she was told the Board of Elections would consider her complaint today. While the Board does meet today, no agenda lists her complaint specifically. An agenda says the Board will meet today at 2pm and “may” certify mail ballots. The agenda says, “Any individual seeking to represent a candidate or party during the mail certification process must submit written authorization from the represented party or candidate prior to appearing before the board, pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws Section l7-22-2″

UPDATE: Rapoza returned RI Future’s call shortly after this post was published. He said the complaint process will start at the Providence Board of Canvassers. He said his office did receive a copy of the complaint from the Board of Canvassers. “I have no comment on how this would work at this time,” Rapoza said.

On the advice of the Ranglin Vassell campaign, St. Lawrence said she plans to request a provisional ballot on election day. “If my [mail] ballot doesn’t show up, they have to take that,” St. Lawrence said. “So hopefully it doesn’t show up or hopefully they will see that it was changed.”

She said she is also considering filing criminal charges. The people who took her ballot signed it as witnesses, St. Lawrence said, but she does not know if they signed their actual names.

St. Lawrence said she is supporting Ranglin-Vassell because “she’s on the same level as a lot of people in the neighborhood. I don’t know who this John DeSimone is.”

October 27, 2016

Good Republican discourse in Burrillville

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

“So fucking recall me,” said Burrillville Town Councillor Donald Fox, then, turning to the Burrillville residents who had stopped to watch the argument, continued, “and that’s going for all you guys listening. Recall me. It’s okay.”

After Wednesday night’s record breaking Burrillville Town Council meeting, which lasted until twenty minutes past midnight and resolved nothing regarding the tax treaty between the town and Invenergy, the company that wants to bring a $700 fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant to the town, Burrillville Town Councillor Donald Fox was heard having a loud conversation with candidate for town council Ray Trinque, who also serves on the town’s sewer commission.

The discussion was in the parking lot of the Burrillville High School, after the town council finished its business. Several people were in the parking lot watching and listening to the conversation, including Jeremy Bailey, a Burrillville resident and a Democratic candidate for town council.

The conversation between Fox and Trinque is “about the sewer commission’s role with Invenergy’s application,” but it quickly dovetailed into events that happened earlier in the year, when Burrillville residents were considering initiating a recall petition against members of the town council. Trinque claims to have interceded on behalf of Fox.

Here’s the transcript, as best as I could hear:

“So why are you trying to make people think that we can stop it, that if the sewers are…” says Fox in the video.

“I didn’t say that…” interrupts Trinque.

“But that’s what everyone in that fucking theater thinks,” exclaims Fox, gesturing towards the high school auditorium.

“I asked a question,” counters Trinque, “But this is why I’ve avoided these town council meetings…”

“Well you should if you’re going to bring up shit like that because you know we can’t do anything about it!”

“Yeah but the whole point is, the first one I get to, I mean [garbled] because I’m not loyal enough…”

“I don’t give a shit!” says Fox.

[crosstalk]

“I’m as loyal as they get!” says Trinque.

“I don’t care about that at all,” says Fox.

[crosstalk]

“Ray, that has nothing to do with this process.”

“This has to do with this process,” says Trinque, “because when these guys were going to recall all of you and wanted you number one…”

“Fucking recall me!” exclaims Fox, “It’s okay!”

“Let me tell you, I talked them into not doing it…” Trinque tries to say.

“It’s okay!” exclaims Fox again, “You know me…”

“Because it would have been ultimately unsuccessful and it would have…”

“You know I don’t care,” says Fox, exasperated, “I’ve got better things to do.”

“I understand that,” says Trinque.

“So fucking recall me,” says Fox, then, turning to the Burrillville residents who had stopped to watch the argument, “and that’s going for all you guys listening. Recall me. It’s okay.”

It’s at this point in the video that Fox notices Bailey recording the conversation.

“You’re going to film it? You’re filming it?” Fox asks.

“Yup,” says Bailey.

“You are such an unbelievable,” says Fox.

“Listen,” says Fox, turning his attention back to Trinque, “It doesn’t matter. You know that we can do nothing about the sewer commission… We’re doing what’s right and you know that. We’re doing everything by the book and to throw stuff out like that is…”

At this point the pair are interrupted by a person in a car.

“Can I help out?” asks the motorist.

“No, this is two Republicans going at it,” says Fox.

“You know,” says Trinque, “Good Republican discourse.”

“We got the Hollywood guy over here filming,” says Fox, gesturing towards Bailey.

In an email, Fox wrote a lengthy reply to the video, which I am including in it’s entirety below:

Ray and I were arguing about the sewer commission’s role with Invenergy’s application. I took exception to him making public comments about the sewer commission’s capacity when he knows very well that the Town Council cannot control what the Sewer Commission does. Plus, if the power plant company gets their DEM permitting and all is in order according to State regulations, the Sewer Commission cannot stop them from using the system. But to bring that up in that manner, when the residents were there to talk about the proposed tax treaty agreements, can lead people to incorrectly believe that the TC can do something about it. We cannot. I repeat that we cannot stop Invenergy from using the sewer plant for discharge.

“I have known Ray Trinque for years and appreciate the service he has done for this town through is efforts on the School Committee. We have often talked about the town, the role of the TC, the role of the School Committee. It was this Council that appointed Ray to the Sewer Commission. We have attended many events together and I am proud to call him my friend for the wonderful work that he does with the veterans groups. So we feel very easy talking about any issue, whether we agree or not. Ray mentioned a recall effort and I told him that I do not care if I am recalled for doing what is right. I have never done public service for anything but that – public service. I will always do what is correct for the Town, not what is correct for politics. I hate how the power plant issue has been used as a political tool by some in town. And I am proud of the efforts made by this Town Council to stay away from that and not make it a political issue. If Council members wanted to use this as a political tool that effort would have been made 2 years ago when Rep. Cale Keable brought the plant to town.

“I have heard about the recall rumors for months and my stance has not changed or been influenced by that. Let me give you some background on myself. I never did military service when I was younger and am so very proud of the men and women that I know in my life who have done such service. One of my best friends has done multiple tours overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, in horrific conditions. I feel that serving on boards, commission and Council has been my small way of doing something worthwhile for the greater good of my community. While it can in no way be compared to the sacrifices that our armed forces make, I take a page from my friend’s book – I do not back down to pressure and will always do what is right. Recall rumors do not affect me and I do not care about them. That is political garbage and it will not sway me on how I conduct myself as a Council member.

“Let me repeat that, I do not care about such things. If the constituents of this town feel that I should be recalled for executing, to the best of my abilities, the responsibilities of a Council Member then that is their legal right. My voting record is clear. My actions are clear. My stances are clear. I believe in Burrillville. I want to protect it as much as anyone. I am raising my 3 children and family here. I invested $1.1 million of my own money in a new building in Burrillville, when there were cheaper options to build or lease elsewhere in RI and in MA.. I put my money where my mouth is because I believe in this town.

“So when someone like Jeremy Bailey wants to film me and Ray Trinque having a passionate argument about what is good for Burrillville, I do not care. As I said, Ray and I are friends who have both long served the town, supported the town and care about this town. According to this week’s Bargain Buyer, Mr. Bailey is a one topic candidate and does not deserve votes in this community due to potential conflict of interest that he has. The ad questions how he can vote on power plant related issues when he is listed on the abutter list in the PVGA. I have to agree with whoever placed that ad. Mr. Bailey not only has his facts wrong, but he has been a pawn of the Democratic Town Committee in its effort to make the power plant a political issue. Mr. Bailey’s actions as a sneaky filmmaker do not concern me. What concerns me is doing what is right for this town. What concerns me is being part of a Council that has done things the right way since the plant came to town in December of 2014. What concerns me is that our Council has worked and continues to work for the good of this town and has put aside political aspirations and goals while doing work on the power plant issue. No one can accuse this Council of not doing what if feels is best for the town as a whole.

“You in your blog very early on questioned this Council for its neutrality so that our boards’ advisory opinions would not be tainted. Turned out that we did the right thing for the town as a whole. Yet we were attacked repeatedly by you and others for making this difficult stance. If people want to recall me for taking such actions, then recall me. No one will ever accuse me or anyone on this very sound and professional Council of doing anything but what is best for the town. If you are going to write about this, please include my complete reply herein.”

October 27, 2016

TD Bank targeted by protesters for DAPL support

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

The FANG Collective staged a demonstration outside TD Bank Wednesday to protest the company’s support of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which is even now being blocked by First Nation protesters from many different tribes. TD Bank is one of many lending institutions financing the pipeline.

This protest follows an action last week in which two protesters locked themselves down in the bank’s lobby and had to be removed by police. Wednesday’s action, which was publicly announced on Facebook, drew a Providence Police detail, but the entire affair was very low key, and no arrests were made.

Protesters handed out flyers and held signs. One woman, Amy, after hearing from protester Sally Mendzela about the bank’s involvement with DAPL, told me that though she had come to open an account with the bank, she was not. Mendzela said that the woman was the second person to be dissuaded from doing business with TD Bank since she arrived.

Meanwhile, tensions remain high between the “water protecters” and DAPL developer Energy Transfer Partners. Tribes are invoking their treaty rights even as the developer threatens arrests and even violence. As reported by Mary Annette Pember, “the Morton County Sheriff’s Department backed by North Dakota Governor Jack Dalyrmple continued to ratchet up displays of military-style police force.”

The video below, published by Jennifer Minor on October 25, shows police using pepper spray before arresting protesters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066h12rmcDQ

October 27, 2016

EPA forced to confront water pollution 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

ri_mashapaugpond_litter3_clf — Mashapaug Pond

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) argued Tuesday before the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island concerning the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adequately protect Rhode Island waterbodies from ongoing and devastating stormwater pollution. Despite determinations from EPA and Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management (DEM) that Mashapaug Pond, Bailey’s Brook, North Easton Pond, and other nearby waters are seriously harmed by runoff from surrounding commercial and industrial properties, EPA failed to require dischargers to obtain the necessary permits under the federal Clean Water Act.

ri_mashapaugpond_drain_clf — Mashapaug Pond

“One of the great sources of pride for Rhode Island – the Ocean State – ought to be our ponds, rivers and beautiful coastline, but decades of toxic runoff has imperiled our waters, closed our beaches and endangered important wildlife habitats,” said CLF attorney Max Greene. “There’s no question that nasty pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus, the precursors to toxic algae blooms, are constantly flowing from industrial campuses and commercial shopping centers into nearby waterways, yet EPA has sat on its hands rather than take the legally-required steps to address this rampant contamination. Today, EPA was forced to answer for that neglect in federal court, and we’re optimistic that Rhode Island waters will soon be on the path to recovery.”

Today’s hearing comes on the heels of an announcement from Rhode Island DEM earlier this month that lower Narragansett Bay, lower Sakonnet River, and a portion of Rhode Island Sound are being closed due to toxic shellfish findings associated with harmful algae blooms.

For more information on CLF’s fight to protect Rhode Island from stormwater runoff, please see CLF’s white paper on the issue, “Closing the Clean Water Gap: Protecting our Waterways by Making All Polluters Pay.”

A copy of CLF’s filing can be read here, and photos of the endangered Mashapaug Pond can be seen here.

October 27, 2016

Don’t like the car tax? Blame the RI Vehicle Value Commission

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

Like the weather, it appears that everybody in Rhode Island loves to talk about the state’s car tax but nobody ends up actually doing anything about it. The Vehicle Value Commission has the power to do something about it, and bears responsibility for the frustration and, sometimes, anger that taxpayers in the state have about it. For years, the ACLU of Rhode Island has submitted testimony to the Commission to encourage revisions to these regulations in order to address that frustration and bring some semblance of fairness to the valuation process. No revisions have ensued, unfortunately. Despite our lack of optimism that this year will be any different, we offer our views once again.”

So begins the ACLU of Rhode Island’s detailed seven-page testimony to the Rhode Island Vehicle Value Commission submitted this week in advance of a public hearing on the Commission regulations on November 10th. The testimony includes a thorough review of the car tax statute and regulation’s history.

According to the Commission, the ACLU’s testimony notes, almost all of the approximately 900,000 cars registered within the state are free of mechanical defects, have only “minor surface scratching with a high gloss finish and shine,” an interior that “reflects minimal soiling and wear,” and “all equipment in complete working order.” That is because the regulations establish the value of used cars up to 17 years old by relying solely on the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) designated “clean retail value” of the car based on its make and model. Such a presumption, claims the ACLU testimony, “defies reality.”

The ACLU of Rhode Island has long called on the R.I. Vehicle Value Commission to stop using this unrealistic vehicle valuation to determine car taxes and to also adopt a meaningful appeals process for Rhode Island car owners, and this year’s testimony does the same.

Not only do Rhode Island drivers face heavy taxes that do not match the true value of their vehicles, they are also denied any meaningful appeal process to have their vehicles recognized fairly. The Commission’s consideration of appeals of its “presumptive value” consists solely of checking for clerical errors, allowing adjustments to be made only when an incorrect NADA car value was inadvertently imposed, not when the taxpayer challenges the NADA figure itself based on, for example, local selling conditions.

In its written testimony, the ACLU said: “Such cold efficiency, which essentially rewrites the word ‘presumptive’ out of the statute, is a disservice to the taxpayers and to basic principles of due process.” The testimony continued: “[W]e leave it to the Commission members and others to suggest alternative methods of establishing a ‘presumptive value’ for motor vehicles; all that we can say is that something more meaningful than the current procedure is essential in order to add some fairness to the methodology.” The ACLU noted that the Commission could consider using local retail sales prices to set vehicle values, break down car models into categories by years, or consider other factors. As it has done at past hearings, the ACLU also called on the Commission to establish a meaningful appeals process.

A copy of the ACLU’s testimony is available here.

October 26, 2016

There are no legal protections against workplace bullying

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

On October 23 RI state co-coordinators Emilia DaSilva-Tavarez and I organized a rally in support of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill S2377, which was introduced last March 2015 by Senator Frank Ciccone.

The rally was held in Roger Williams National Memorial Park on North Main street in glorious weather. There were people standing on North Main holding “STOP WORKPLACE BULLYING” signs and handing flyers thru car windows and to pedestrians while engaging them in conversation to either hear their stories of being bullied in the workplace or educating them on what we and others in every state are trying to accomplish.

One of the people most instrumental in inspiring and showing the ropes to us, Debra Falzoi, a Massachusetts co-coordinator for the Healthy Workplace Bill, came down to join the protest with us.

The younger people in the group made colorful “STOP BULLYING” T-shirts and wore them as they handed out flyers to passersby.

Andrew Winters and his husband Don Smith traveled to be with us to lend us their most important support. Andrew has had his story published in RIFuture. I highly recommend that people read it to see what depths people will go to in the showing of abject unwarranted cruelty of unimaginable levels.

Often people are isolated to be better attacked and threatened by the bully – one cannot simply argue with their boss without fear they’ll be labeled insubordinate and people cannot do their work and, without proper training OR involving HR, confront a hostile coworker. People are forced to go out on medical leave for ulcers, migraines, heart ailments and more to get time to figure out the most feasible action to take. They and their negatively impacted families must do what’s best financially, in terms of a search for the next job, in terms of what will best protect the fragile health they have sunk to and more. It is a tightrope not easily walked. None of them knows how or if they’ll get a next job when they come to realize they may have PTSD from their experience.

Also, once isolated, the target of bullying is often forced to withdraw from a society that is slow to understand what has happened in our work and money driven culture to come to grips with what has happened, sometimes feeling unreasonable shame that this happened to them along with intense fear that they will be further harmed and retaliated against if they say or do anything.

In a lot of ways, workplace bullying mirrors child abuse and domestic violence – they are all forms of bullying. “If you tell anyone, I’ll kill you.”

Humanity needs to evolve past this barbarity. What can happen to one can eventually and has been proven to happen to all. We must learn to care for one another, not go after each other with bared teeth.

Workplace bullying can take many forms but primarily it is a harsh unwarranted attack on any employee with the intent of inflicting harm thru cruel acts, words, exclusion, gas-lighting (encouraging the employee to believe that they are incompetent), work sabotage, lies, false accusations and more to cause the targeted employee to want to leave their job. Usually the brightest, most talented, high performing employees are targeted because a manager or coworker is threatened by their capabilities and they want to force that employee to quit.

People have actually been physically threatened, accosted and had death threats made against them.

It is never the fault of the targeted employee that they are so treated.

The targeted employee suffers health and emotional harm which can be irreversible depending on the length and type of attack. The work of the employee and therefore of the company suffers. Companies allowing and encouraging this behavior lose their most talented employees and will not be able to get talent to join them as word gets out using such agencies as Glassdoor and even Monster. People are becoming more and more aware of the existence of this problem, but more are needed to be made aware.

Currently there are no protections against this kind of unwarranted, malicious attack.

There are laws against sexual harassment and harassment of employees having protected status but workplace bullying can happen to anyone of any age, either gender, sexual orientation, race and or religious preference. There is currently no protection, workplace policy or legal recourse for anyone suffering this type of abuse.

People do commit suicide after being horrifically bullied and, we believe, engage in workplace violence that is never investigated as to what the violent employee had to endure before they “went postal.” They are only portrayed on the news as either a criminal or mentally ill. We have FOIA requests to help us make that link between workplace bullying and suicide (“bullycide”) and/or workplace violence which often ends in the suicide of the perpetrator.

At the rally, there were many cars honking in support and giving many thumbs up. A couple from Connecticut stopped when they saw our signs, wanting information on how they could help there.

For information on Workplace Bullying and how you can get involved, please go to WorkplaceBullying.org.

Go to the Rhode Island Anti-Bullying Healthy Workplace Advocates Facebook page to get action alerts and much more information and a place to post your own story or get people you know to write their story – anonymously, if needed, take a survey, sign a petition and much more.

For information on the Healthy Workplace Bill, please go to HealthyWorkplaceBill.org.

Get involved! Call your state senator, representative and congressman and urge them to support the Workplace Bullying Bill.

October 26, 2016

Proposed Burrillville power plant proves a windfall for Woonsocket Mayor Baldelli-Hunt

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

If you want to buy municipal water from Woonsocket, the first meeting with the mayor is free. The second meeting might cost a campaign donation. That is the appearance given when Adler, Pollack and Sheehan, the law firm representing the proposed power plant in Burrillville, had two meetings in September with Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, separated by an expensive fundraiser in a high end Italian eatery.

The revelation prompted one Burrillville resident to quip,”Maybe we should be giving the mayor some money.”

On September 7, according to information gleaned via an Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request, representatives from Mayor Baldelli-Hunt’s office met with representatives from Invenergy. City councilors, who were briefed after the fact, confirmed the meeting pertained to selling water to the power plant to cool its turbines.

This meeting lasted 30 minutes. City Solicitor Michael Marcello, who is also a state representative from District 41 representing Scituate and Cranston, would release no further information about this meeting, saying that the details are secret at this time. Marcello served with Baldelli-Hunt when she was a state rep from 2006-2013.

On September 15, at a fundraising event held at Trattoria Romana, three lawyers from the company Adler, Pollock and Sheehan (APS), the law firm representing Invenergy before the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, donated a total of $1,000 to Baldelli-Hunt’s campaign, according to the Mayor’s campaign finance reports – including a $250 donation from a lobbyist for Invenergy.

Robert Brooks, Managing Partner and Chairman of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Group, donated $250. This is the first time Brooks, a prolific political donor, has given Baldelli-Hunt any money.

Stephen Ucci, who is also a state representative for District 42, representing Cranston and Johnston, and who sits on the House’s Labor and Rules committees, donated $500. Ucci, who served with Baldelli-Hunt and Woonsocket City Solicitor Marcello while they both served in the House, has given a total of $750 to the mayor in the past.

Richard Beretta Jr, is not only listed on the APS website as “currently engaged in the permitting process for a 1000 MW power plant” (the one Invenergy plans for Burrillville) but is also listed by the Rhode Island Secretary of State as a registered lobbyist for Invenergy. Beretta gave $250 on September 15. He previously gave Baldelli-Hunt $200 in February of 2015.

Four days after this fundraiser, in which employees of APS gave Baldelli-Hunt at least $1000, Invenergy had a second meeting with Baldelli-Hunt’s office. This meeting was also about procuring water and lasted an hour.

Mayor Baldelli-Hunt, who is running on a “pro-business” platform, has another fundraiser planned for November 3 at River Falls Restaurant, from 6-9pm.

Invenergy was recently granted a 90-day extension on their application because the company has failed to come up a with a water source to cool the plant. The Woonsocket Call reported yesterday that City Councillor Daniel Gendron knew nothing about the two meetings, saying, “Really? That’s more than I knew. And that in itself is concerning.”

According to The Call, Gendron and Council Vice President Albert Brien Jr “sent Baldelli-Hunt an e-mail Monday advising her that the City Charter requires the administration to keep members of the council in the loop about the status of business negotiations.” They have requested that the mayor, “expeditiously communicate with the council and provide ALL pertinent emails and other relevant communications between the city and representatives of Invenergy together with any other information that may enlighten all of us as to what exactly is being negotiated at this time.”

Baldelli-Hunt has refused frequent calls for comment from RI Future for weeks now. At a candidate forum in Chan’s Restaurant in Woonsocket last night, Woonsocket Public’s Safety Director Eugene Jalette refused to let residents of Burrillville, Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective or this reporter approach the mayor to ask questions.

October 26, 2016

Pipeline tariff killed in Connecticut, Rhode Island an outlier

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

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has decided against the proposal for gas capacity tariffs on the Spectra Access Northeast pipeline. This announcement comes on the heels of decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission rejecting similar proposals. The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) declined to kill the local version of the plan in September, but the plan seems doomed anyway.

“With yet another state abandoning proposals for more natural gas pipeline capacity, these efforts to expand fossil fuel infrastructure in New England have hit a virtually unsurpassable roadblock,” said Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) president Bradley Campbell in a statement. “Without Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Connecticut in the mix, Spectra has lost a whopping 84 percent of the customer base needed to finance this ill-conceived proposal. It’s time to kill this project altogether and look forward to opportunities for the clean, renewable alternatives that our families demand, our markets expect and our laws require.”

It is unknown when the RIPUC will act to reject the proposal here.

October 26, 2016

Providence’s parkway proposal: the essence of community development

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

Please join me in giving a round of applause to Mayor Elorza and the Providence Department of Planning and Development for their hard work and due diligence every step of the way during the 6/10 Connector’s community engagement process.

The city has been extremely transparent and open, taking the public’s input into consideration while drafting their design for the future of the 6/10 Connector. It is reassuring to know that the mayor and the planning department are actively listening to the needs and wants of the community. By taking a bottom-up approach, the City of Providence is conveying that its interests align with that of its communities, and appreciates the ideas and solutions that its residents bring to the table. Who else knows what’s best for the City of Providence other than the residents that live, work, and thrive here.

On Monday, October 3, the City released their draft plans for the future of the 6/10 Corridor at a public forum held at the Doorley Jr. Municipal Building in downtown Providence. While the City’s plans do not call for a surface boulevard that I and other community members would have liked to see presented, I can tolerate the parkway design. The parkway concept addresses the concerns of both sides about the looming question, “What should the future of the 6/10 Connector look like?” The plan addresses the need to fast-track the reconstruction of the structurally deficient Huntington Viaduct, out of concern that the structure might collapse. The plan appeases auto-interests as well as those citizens who want to see a concept that is more pedestrian and bike friendly, although we would much prefer a pure boulevard instead of a parkway.

The proposed parkway plan frees up land for development (approximately 50 acres), expands the footprint of DePasquale Square, adds two new off-street bike paths, creates a new exit to West Exchange Street, adds additional connections to the existing street grid, and reconnects parts of Olneyville to the urban fabric of Providence, among other things as well. The proposed “halo” elevated rotary where Route 6 merges with Route 10 allows for the potential to incorporate boulevard elements into sections of the route further down the line. While the entire length of the 6/10 Connector isn’t the pure boulevard that many of us had envisioned, the two-phased parkway plan allows the City and State to revisit the compelling arguments made in favor of an intermodal boulevard.

The most important aspect of the plan isn’t the plan itself. Rather, it is culmination of everything that has led to the plan being drafted in the first place. It is the countless hours spent by engaged citizens, who took it upon themselves to get involved, speak out, and voice their opinions about the project; citizens who persevered even when things weren’t going their way because they knew that this is a critical, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to turn the 6/10 Connector into something truly special. Without vocal citizens and lots of vigorous discussions, RIDOT would probably have elected to refurbish the highway a long time ago, and that wouldn’t have worked for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and city residents alike.

The future of the 6/10 Connector will single-handedly change the physical, social, and economic makeup of the city for generations to come. It is up to us as citizens to decide whether or not we want to make Providence a more livable community for our children, our children’s children, and ourselves. Or, if we want to sit idle, content with the current economic conditions in our Capital City. The choice is ours. RIDOT has the final say about the project’s design, and I strongly encourage my fellow Rhode Islanders to continue to be actively involved in the process, and vocal about the future we envision for a livable, thriving city for decades to come.

October 26, 2016October 26, 2016

South Kingstown biology teacher Jeff Johnson challenges Langevin

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

Jeff Johnson was my high school biology teacher at South Kingstown High School. Students like me know him as the teacher who consistently dresses poorly and reads poetry out loud for fun. In many ways, he lives a life of absolutes. His desk is eternally messy; his glasses are always missing. His vocabulary and control over language are often awe-inspiring; his typing speed, not so much. He is universally loved by his students. He is fiercely intelligent and curious. But most importantly, he is so incredibly caring, not only to his students and to his family but also to our planet and to all its citizens.

Mr. Johnson has spent the past three decades fighting for the people and the issues politicians don’t care to talk about. Since the 1970s, Mr. Johnson has been engaged in the fight against climate change, and in March 2016, he helped organize a Climate March in South Kingstown. In the late 1990s, Mr. Johnson became heavily involved in the protests against the inhumanity of the American sanctions on Iraq which killed an estimated 500,000 children. Opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, Mr. Johnson, alongside thousands of people, participated in the Iraq War demonstration in NYC on February 15, 2003. Over the years, Mr. Johnson has brought to the high school activists like Ralph Nader and the late Howard Zinn to speak on issues ranging from climate change to perpetual war.

But even with all of these things going on, Mr. Johnson always finds time to help his students. When I was at the high school, Mr. Johnson was always helping someone after school, whether it was with biology concepts, family problems, writing an essay or a science fair project. These conversations would go well into the afternoon, sometimes into the night. And it was one of these late afternoon conversations that sparked the idea for this campaign.

Today, his campaign is run by the volunteer work of a dozen of his students (current and former). We have spent countless hours working on a campaign platform (available online) that covers everything from agricultural policy to social security reform. We have been kicked out of libraries while collecting signatures outside. We have marched through torrential rain holding deteriorating cardboard box anti-war signs in our arms. We have designed a bumper stickers and yard signs, brochures and a website. We do this because we have talked to Mr. Johnson; we have gotten to know what a passionate man he is; and we really believe that he has the ability to affect change, meaningful change, where Mr. Langevin hasn’t in his decade and a half.

To Mr. Johnson, and perhaps to his campaign’s detriment, the election isn’t just about winning and a job in Congress— it is about his students. “The reason why I got into politics was because I was always talking about issues like climate change, but if all you do is talk about them, all you do is depress kids,” he told me earlier today in his classroom, “I felt like I had to do more than a hollow, academic exercise. It had to be a tangible part of my life. I was tired of feeling guilty.” This same feeling motivated Mr. Johnson to run in 1994, 1998 and then again in 2000 for statewide office. In 1994, Mr. Johnson ran for Lieutenant Governor as a Green, receiving about 6% of the vote. To date, no statewide election has matched that vote share result for a Green candidate.

Mr. Johnson is a candidate who will not represent corporate greed and war. He will never take money, as Mr. Langevin has, from defense contractors: General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. He will not be passive as climate change ravages our world— he will be practicing civil disobedience with the activists— he will be getting arrested on the streets so that people will pay attention. Mr. Johnson is a person who understands the plight of the “American dream” and the American worker. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and today, he holds four degrees. He has worked as a submarine welder, a quahogger, a farmer, a prison dishwasher, a medical technician, a Ford assembly line operator, a gas station mechanic, a painter, a landscaper, a book editor and a paperboy. Nowadays, in addition to the high school, he commutes to Providence to work in DCYF group homes on weekends. Private sector, public sector, white collar, blue collar, Mr. Johnson has seen it all. He has seen for himself the struggle and hardship Americans must face every day.

This election season, we hang on the precipice. We must think carefully about whether we want to maintain this status quo of wage stagnation and environmental degradation. We must be open to alternatives, no matter our political affiliation or views. And more than anything, we must courageously vote our conscience after we have given all candidates a fair assessment. Mr. Johnson, I believe, offers alternatives to our status quo, alternatives that will leave a healthy planet for future generations, alternatives that will heal our economic system so that it is more equitable and fair for both the American people and those abroad.

If you want to read more about our campaign and our views, please visit out website. And check out our Facebook page!

October 25, 2016October 25, 2016

‘We have no fossil fuel industry here in Rhode Island,’ said Governor Raimondo this morning, but actually…

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

Governor Gina Raimondo was the introductory speaker Tuesday morning at the AWEA Offshore WindPower 2016 conference in Warwick. Raimondo spoke to the conference attendees, mostly representatives of various wind power companies and allied industries, with some federal and state government employees on hand as well. Raimondo was keen on selling Rhode Island as a place for the growth and development of renewable energy such as solar and wind.”

“I am an advocate for the environment,” said Raimondo, “and I usually begin my comments in audiences such as these talking about the reality of climate change… Climate change is real, caused by human activity and not going to go away on it’s own. It’s up to us, policy makers, business leaders, entrepreneurs to meet the challenge of climate change.”

Comparing the problem of climate change to her work on pension reform, Raimondo said, “Climate change isn’t that different from big, thorny fiscal issues, which is to say it’s not going to go away unless we take action and it’s only going to get harder the longer we wait. So we have to meet the challenges of climate change with urgency and a seriousness of purpose, in the same way we would with other fiscal challenges.”

The governor then made her pitch for creating jobs in the state. “As Governor of Rhode Island I want my state to be a leader. Number one, it’s the right thing to do, number two, I want our state to be known as the state that solves problems and meets challenges. But number three, the silver lining in meeting the challenge of climate change is that we can create jobs.

“The good news here is that we can create jobs in solar, in wind, in energy efficiency, and those are the kind of jobs that I want to have here in Rhode Island.

“My message is that all the things about Rhode Island that enabled us to be first, with Deepwater Wind, are the reason you ought to think about doing business in Rhode Island,” said Raimondo, before making a very questionable claim that, “we have no fossil fuel industry here in Rhode Island. We’re not ‘as attached’ to [the] ‘good old’ fossil fuel industry. That’s a big deal. That means we have a culture embracing of this industry [wind energy].”

The governor’s press secretary, David Ortiz, later clarified what Governor Raimondo meant by this statement, saying that, “her point was that the state has no fossil fuel deposits and does not extract natural gas, crude oil or coal.”

2016-10-25-wind-conference-02 — Jeff Grybowski

Though this is true, it does not follow that Rhode Island has a “culture” embracing alternative energy. The fossil fuel industry has a giant economic, political and environmental presence in the state.

Putting aside the proposed Burrillville power plant, or any other of the proposed LNG infrastructure expansions in various stages of being approved, “Rhode Island’s Port of Providence,” according to the US Energy Information Administration (USEIA), “is a key regional transportation and heating fuel products hub” and “natural gas fueled 95 percent of Rhode Island’s net electricity generation in 2015.”

The USEIA goes on to say that Rhode Island “does not produce or refine petroleum,” as Raimondo’s office clarified, but, “Almost all of the transportation and heating fuel products consumed in Rhode Island, eastern Connecticut, and parts of Massachusetts are supplied via marine shipments through the Port of Providence. The port area has petroleum storage tanks, and a small-capacity petroleum product pipeline runs from the port to central Massachusetts.”

Rhode Island is heavily dependent on LNG imports. “Electric power generators and the residential sector are Rhode Island’s largest natural gas consumers. More than half of the natural gas consumed in the state goes to the electric power sector and almost all in-state electricity generation is fueled with natural gas,” says the USEIA, “Historically, natural gas has arrived in Rhode Island from producing areas in Canada and from the U.S. Gulf Coast and Mid-Continent regions, but increasing amounts of natural gas are coming from Appalachian Shales, particularly the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania.” This makes Rhode Island heavily dependent on fracked gas for its power generation.

And finally, as far as the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, goes, “Providence is one of the leading coal import centers in the northeast, receiving one-tenth of the imported coal delivered to eastern customs districts in 2015. The state is part of the six-state Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE) regional grid. And, although Rhode Island and Vermont are the only two states in the nation with no coal-fired electricity generation, the ISO-NE grid remains dependent on coal-fired facilities during periods of peak electricity demand.”

So, although Rhode Island has no industry producing or refining fossil fuels, Rhode Island is heavily burdened and intertwined with the fossil fuel industry. We are soaking in fossil fuels as an importer and exporter. We fund the fracking of America with our energy choices, and even as we are economically and politically dictated to by companies like National Grid, Spectra, Invenergy and Motiva (a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco and Shell Oil Company, we bear the environmental scars of their abuse of our habitats and our health.

This is the fossil fuel industry in Rhode Island.

It is massive and it is killing us.

Also speaking at the AWEA Offshore WindPower 2016 conference was Deepwater Wind’s Jeff Grybowski, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative David Cicilline.

October 24, 2016October 24, 2016

Racial and economic equity important to Kennedy Plaza debate

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

dsc_8749-600x365-2 — Police in Kennedy Plaza

Rhode Island’s cultural diversity is one of our great assets, but our communities often experience different opportunities to engage and enjoy. If we want our state to be more equitable, we require courageous leadership and intentional investments in racial and economic equity and access.

As organizations committed to racial justice, we feel the issue of race has been missing from the discussion about Kennedy Plaza. We all want to see vibrant community commons that support our economic and community development. But we recognize that strategies like increased policing will continue to disadvantage the poor, especially people of color, and siphon dollars away from social safety net programs that uplift those most marginalized.

New England communities were built with public “commons,” but despite their name these public spaces have always excluded the most disenfranchised: the indigenous people whose land was stolen, the enslaved Africans who quite literally built our communities, and those who did not fit society’s image of proper decorum. This continues today, with increase policing and criminalization of black and brown bodies, those exhibiting impact of addiction or mental illness, and the poor and homeless.

As our allies who are advocating for the homeless pointed out in their excellent “Reclaiming our Public Spaces” report, we cannot simply sweep away the poverty that many don’t want to see. Poverty and homelessness have disproportionate impact on communities of color, in large part because of public policies that exclude particular racial and ethnic groups from the supports that help build wealth and economic stability. Public policies fit together like bricks to shape our society, and our vision for racial justice requires some shifts in thinking. More people with criminal records, out of our workforce and warehoused at public cost, doesn’t help us build the society we envision.

Rather than seeking to invest our resources in short-sighted efforts to remove people we have deemed “undesirable,” let’s make real investments in the type of community supports and assets that eliminate the need for panhandling, support mental health and addiction recovery, and provide living wage jobs for everyone, including those with criminal records. Let’s engage our business community support in increased wages, publicly funded detox and recovery support, development of affordable housing, and compliance with First Source and Ban the Box laws. Let’s provide meaningful, well-paying work opportunities for adults with moderate education, and support public access to skilled training and higher education for our youth. Let’s recognize that amenities like public restrooms, drinking fountains, increased seating, and charging stations will support many types of users. And let’s bring love and compassion to the struggle of all those in our community, even those whose circumstances or behavior might make us uncomfortable.

Mike Araujo, Executive Director, Rhode Island Jobs with Justice

James Vincent, President, NAACP Providence Branch

Chanda Womack, President, Board of Directors, Cambodian Society of Rhode Island

On behalf of the Racial Justice Coalition.

October 24, 2016

Frias versus Mattiello in the shadow of prison gerrymandering

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

The electoral race between Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello and his Republican challenger Steven Frias has, for obvious reasons, drawn an incredible amount of attention. Both candidates are working very hard to capture every vote they can in their district. But one exceptional aspect of their race has gone unmentioned: they have fewer people to convince to vote for them than in all but one other House district.

The reason for this anomaly is the very undemocratic (small d) practice of prison gerrymandering. Prison gerrymandering refers to counting all of the people incarcerated at a prison in the district where the prison is located for purposes of creating district lines, even if they don’t legally reside there, are barred from voting there, and must vote (absentee) from their actual home addresses. District 15 has approximately 1,230 of these incarcerated persons being counted as constituents there.

This skewing has a number of consequences. Specifically, as noted above, it means that Speaker Mattiello and challenger Frias actually have 1,230 fewer constituents they have to reach out to and represent. Although they are treated as residents of District 15 for purposes of carving up that district, these incarcerated persons are not considered residents there for any other meaningful purpose, including for purposes of voting. In fact, the many ACI inmates who remain eligible to vote despite being incarcerated are essentially barred by state law from voting in this House race. Instead, they must vote (by absentee ballot, of course) in the election that is taking place where they previously resided.

There is another impact that flows from this practice: the voting strength of the communities from which the inmates come is diluted, while the political influence of the city residents in which the prison is located is inflated. By inappropriately counting the 1,230 ACI inmates as District 15 residents, every resident of the state not living there has his or her representation diluted by about 8% compared to residents in district 15. Put another way, by virtue of his location, the House Speaker is more powerful than other legislators not just because of his title, but because 92 constituents of his House District have the same influence as 100 residents in almost every other district. (Only neighboring District 20, which also includes portions of the ACI, wields a bigger disproportionate influence.)

In 2013, the ACLU sued to challenge this practice. In a major decision, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux agreed that prison gerrymandering violated the one person, one vote requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston reversed that decision.

As a result, it is now up to elected officials to address the issue. For the past three years, the state Senate has passed a bill that would ban prison gerrymandering, something that four other states and a few hundred municipalities across the country have done in recognition of this problem. Unfortunately, the bill has died in the House in past years. And at the local level, Cranston officials decided it was worth spending taxpayer money (to the tune of $250,000 even before the appeal) rather than make their municipal districts more equitable as so many other localities have voluntarily done.

Once all the votes are counted in the District 15 race on November 8th, we will only be able to speculate what the outcome might have been if the two candidates had to increase their door-knocking to persuade hundreds of additional people (more closely matching the number of constituents that candidates in other districts generally must represent) to vote for them.

We should stop speculating by eliminating its cause. There is no question that Speaker Mattiello cares deeply about his community, just as we are sure Mr. Frias does. Let’s halt the practice of prison gerrymandering so that 1,000 more people can benefit from that care and stewardship, and so that District 15 (and District 20) more fairly represents the same number of residents as other districts.

October 24, 2016October 25, 2016

Burrillville Town Council about to have its Gaspee moment

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

On Wednesday the Burrillville Town Council will be discussing the proposed tax treaty with Invenergy, the company that wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The timing of this discussion could not be worse. Invenergy just successfully petitioned the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the governmental body tasked with with approving or rejecting the plant, for a 90 day extension on their application. Because Invenergy can’t find the water it needs to cool the plant, for the first time the company is on the ropes. Approving a tax treaty at this time will give the company a much needed win, and might turn the tide in their favor.

Invenergy is searching for the water they need. An Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request from RI Future has revealed that Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Badelli-Hunt’s office has had two meetings with Invenergy officials. On September 7 there was a 30 minute meeting and on September 20 there was a 60 minute meeting. Other meetings may have occurred since then. We know from statements made at the October 3 Woonsocket Town Council meeting that these discussions were not about siting the plant in Woonsocket. These discussions, assumed to be ongoing, are about water. Whatever bargaining position Invenergy has in their discussions with Woonsocket, or any other entity contemplating providing the water Invenergy needs, will be enhanced by the existence of an approved tax treaty.

Passing a tax treaty will send mixed signals to the rest of the state. On September 22 the Burrillville Town Council issued a strong statement in opposition to the proposed power plant. They sent out missives to cities and towns through Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts asking for other town and city councils to pass resolutions in solidarity with Burrillville. So far at least four municipalities have done so, Lincoln, Glocester, North Smithfield and Middletown. How foolish will these councils feel if Burrillville proceeds to negotiate with the company they’ve asked for support in opposing? How eager will other municipalities be to pass their own resolutions going forward?

Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) believes that the Town of Burrillville “is under zero obligation to enter into a tax treaty,” adding, “By ‘zero obligation,’ I mean: zero legal obligation, zero ethical obligation, zero political obligation. The Town has tax laws on the books, and those existing tax laws will determine Invenergy’s tax obligation if there is no tax treaty.

“Invenergy can (and likely will) make all kinds of threats about what will or will not happen in the absence of a tax treaty, but the threats are empty,” continues Elmer, “The bottom line is that: (a) The Town can simply choose not to enter into a tax treaty. (b) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty there is nothing that Invenergy can do. (c) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty, it is virtually certain that Invenergy will go away.

“But can’t Invenergy sue the Town of Burrillville to try to force the Town to enter a tax treaty?” asks Elmer, before answering, “Technically, the answer is “yes,” Invenergy can sue the town – and, yes, the town would have to spend some money to defend such a lawsuit. But Invenergy could not win such a lawsuit. Remember what law school professors like to say: ‘You can always sue.’ I can sue you for wearing a blue suit (or for your taste in movies). But just because one can bring such a stupid, frivolous lawsuit does not mean that one can win such a stupid lawsuit.

“So, too, with Invenergy and a tax treaty. The Town of Burrillville can decline to enter into a tax treaty with Invenergy, and there is nothing Invenergy can do to force the issue.

“The message to each and every member of the Town Council is simple, so simple it can be put into a single sentence: ‘Vote down any tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t even vote on a tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t vote on a tax treaty, and don’t approve a tax treaty.’ None of those sentences is complicated; none of those involves weird, technical legal mumbo-jumbo. Everyone can understand the point.”

Attorney Alan Shoer, of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, has been representing Invenergy during their application process in front of the EFSB. A look at Shoer’s bio page on his law firm’s website runs down his skills and accomplishments. Shoer is presented as an expert in “all aspects of energy, environmental, and public utility law.” He has “experience in wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy matters,” and “has represented developers, investors, contractors, utilities, and municipalities in several successful and innovative sustainable energy projects.”

Note what Shoer does not include in his online resumé: Anything at all to do with his strong advocacy for companies that want to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fracked gas.

Like Governor Gina Raimondo, who never misses an opportunity to publicly champion wind and solar power but downplays her support of fracked gas, and like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who humbly accepts the laurels heaped upon him for his environmental activism in the Senate but can’t find the time to publicly oppose fracked gas infrastructure in his own state, Alan Shoer seems to want his paid advocacy for fossil fuels companies like Invenergy to go unnoticed.

And this is for a good reason: Twenty years from now, no one will want their name to be attached to the moldering LNG monstrosities, brown fields and contaminated properties left in the wake of the coming fossil fuel collapse. Who wants to tell their children and their grandchildren that they helped destroy the environment when they knew the world was under threat and they knew that they were championing a dying and deadly industry? Carefully shaping their public image today is a way, hopes Raimondo, Whitehouse and Shoer, of shaping the way history will judge them.

But we won’t let the world forget their part in this, will we?

This is why Invenergy would be foolish in suing Burrillville. Not only can they not win, as Jerry Elmer points out above, but in doing so they will be exposing themselves as the villains they are. Burrillville may have to spend money defending themselves against such a lawsuit, but I will bet that most or all of the money Burrillville needs to defend themselves could come from something like an online GoFundMe effort. Fracked gas is enormously unpopular in New England, and becoming more unpopular by the day. Only those who continue to believe the lies of the fossil fuel companies, (and they’ve been lying for decades about climate change, as it turns out) that is, the most gullible or ideologically pathological, believe that fossil fuels are the future.

About 244 years ago, a group of Rhode Islanders in Warwick stood up against British tyranny and torched the Gaspee, starting a series of events that led to the American Revolution. Today, in Burrillville, a group of Rhode Islanders is standing up to the fossil fuel oligarchy and when they win, it will mark a turning point in the climate change battle, and the effects could be as significant as those at Gaspee Point in 1772. Rhode will become, in the words of Timmons Roberts, writing for the Brookings Institute, “a leader of a new energy age for the U.S.,” instead of “a middling actor locked into fossil fuel infrastructure for decades.”

The Burrillville Town Council has an opportunity Wednesday night to save the town, the state, and the world.

Be there.

October 24, 2016

How would you spend $17 million on downtown transit?

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

Have you heard about the $17 million “Downtown Enhanced Transit Corridor” grant that the city of Providence received for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority to develop a 6-stop enhanced bus corridor to run from the Providence Railroad station to a new bus hub in the hospital district? Its largely the route originally planned to be for a streetcar.

RIPTA is organizing a “stakeholder” group to advise on implementation, the first meeting of which is scheduled for October 24. The RIPTA Riders Alliance, of which I am a member, was invited to participate. An open public meeting for all may be scheduled later.

$17 million should be enough to be a potential game-changer for downtown and for RIPTA, both of which are struggling. Indeed RIPTA ridership has dropped significantly in the last 2 years, from about 20 to 18 million riders. Not long ago the RIDOT Director publicly called RIPTA a “failure” because of our low commute by transit rate. The decision by Citizens Bank to locate a huge corporate “campus” west of I-295 where there is no transit is an indication of how little RIPTA can matter to employers. Downtown is hurting too, from the long empty “Superman” building to the well publicized perception of unpleasant conditions and “chaos” in Kennedy Plaza.

RIPTA planners have said they intend to use the $17 million grant to jazz up the bus stops with enhanced amenities, to buy some ultra-clean hybrid buses, and have six of their lines (#1,3,6,51,58,72) routed on the
corridor to ensure very frequent service.

While this includes some good ideas, at $2/ride, soon likely to be $2.50, I don’t see how this will attract many new riders who don’t already have a pass or ride free anyway. I don’t see how this expensive fare will do much to attract attention of those wanting to do business that might lead to economic redevelopment. Thus I suggest that the buses RIPTA wants to buy be used to establish a free loop on that corridor.

About a year ago the Coalition for Transportation Choices hosted a meeting here with invited speakers from Denver, Minneapolis and Hartford where transit initiatives were successful in building ridership and spurring economic development. One thing Denver and Hartford (New Haven too) did to help do this was to institute a free bus shuttle connecting their train stations, also on the periphery, to key central locations. So this can be done! I’ll also add that having lived in Oregon 1974-75 when Portland OR was considered a failed city with a dead downtown, one thing they did, (Seattle too) to turn things around was to institute a fare-free downtown zone to get people more used to using transit and to come downtown where they can get around easily. This was a great success even if it could not be sustained through the 2008 recession.

Not just those that love cities, we all have a stake in having our central city and transit system succeed as they have so much potential to contribute to the problem of combating climate change.

Those who think this is an idea worth exploring need to encourage RIPTA to reconsider. Operating funds for the shuttle is a problem, but if there is a will to do so perhaps Federal “CMAQ ” funds can be reprogrammed for this purpose, at least for a few years. (CMAQ helped support operating the old Providence-Newport ferry and the South County commuter rail.) After the bad publicity on Kennedy Plaza, both for the buses and the city, something needs to be done to get positive attention. And a free shuttle will help strengthen the value of our Northeast Corridor location and commuter rail access TO Providence, from the north and south.

This project, together with enhanced policing and better services for the homeless and mentally ill in the Plaza, can begin to turn the situation around for the better. For reasons of environment, economy, and quality of life, and for those who love cities, we don’t want to squander this opportunity created by this grant to make a real improvement on our economy, environment, and quality of life.

October 23, 2016October 25, 2016

Vote like your life depends on it

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

2016-06-02 Orange for Gun Violence 009 — Jennifer Boylan

This coming December will mark four years since the shooting of 20 first graders and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Since that shooting, our federal government has not passed a single law to protect Americans from senseless gun violence.

Fortunately, Congress isn’t the only avenue for change. Efforts at passing meaningful legislation at the state level, especially in the northeast, have been a totally different story. Picking up where the federal government has failed us, the state first out of the gate was New York in January 2013. The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act expanded the definition of assault weapons banned in New York, created a state database for pistol permits, reduced the maximum number of rounds legally allowed in magazines from ten to seven, and required universal background checks on all gun sales.

In April 2013, Connecticut passed new restrictions to the state’s existing assault weapons ban and required universal background checks for all firearm purchases. Governor Malloy signed them into law later the same day.

Also in April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, banning the purchase of 45 types of assault weapons and limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds. It requires handgun licensing and fingerprinting for new gun owners, and bans those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility from buying a gun.

Then in August, 2014, our neighbors in Massachusetts passed a bill reforming the state’s gun laws, with provisions focused on school safety, mental health, background checks and enhanced criminal penalties for gun crimes.

So what has Rhode Island’s General Assembly been doing about gun violence? So far, virtually nothing. Other than one small measure to require that courts report those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions, our lawmakers have yet to enact any significant gun laws since Sandy Hook.

Rhode Island can and should be doing more to protect citizens from senseless gun violence. This past session, the Rhode Island chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America supported a bill sponsored by Representative Teresa Tanzi (D – Naragansett, South Kingstown) that would have effectively kept guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. This bill represents a modest and reasonable improvement to our state gun laws, generally bringing Rhode Island law in line with federal law. The bill is straightforward: if you are a domestic abuser, you should not have access to firearms. Polling results that show that four out of five Rhode Islanders agree that domestic abusers should be prohibited from having guns[i]. And we know that domestic violence affects Rhode Island’s most vulnerable citizens: children, women, and families.

Why have our neighbors in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts passed meaningful gun laws in recent years, while Rhode Island can’t so much as advance a relatively modest, commonsense bill out of committee? The disconnect lies with our elected officials and includes leadership in both chambers of the legislature. Increasingly, it appears that elected officials are more inclined to listen to the gun lobby than their constituents.

But this November, every registered voter can make an informed decision about who gets their vote. I urge all Rhode Island voters to pledge to support candidates who will fight for common-sense laws to reduce gun violence. Take a few minutes to contact candidates if you do not know where they stand on gun issues and vote accordingly. Vote like your life depends on it. Because with over 33,000 deaths from gun violence every single year in our country, your life and the lives of your loved ones very well may.

October 23, 2016

Jackson’s lawsuit against people organizing recall is wrong, says ACLU

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

2016-09-28 East Side CSA 004 — Kevin Jackson

Steve Brown, the executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU has issued a statement regarding Providence City Councillor Kevin Jackson’s lawsuit against the two people, Patricia Kammerer and Karina Holyoak Wood, who have organized a recall effort and petition against him.

Jackson’s lawsuit also names the City of Providence and the Providence Board of Canvassers.

“The ACLU is not familiar enough with the mechanics of the City’s recall mechanism to comment on the specifics of the allegations contained in Councilor Jackson’s complaint,” said Brown in the RI ACLU statement, “We do agree that certain due process standards are essential before subjecting elected officials to the burdens imposed in having to defend themselves against removal from an elected position they obtained through a democratic process.

“At the same time, we are deeply troubled that, in addition to suing City officials and the Board of Canvassers, which is responsible for overseeing the recall petition process, the lawsuit names as defendants the two private individuals who have been involved in mounting this recall campaign. Their involvement in the suit is completely unnecessary in order for a court to address any legitimate due process concerns raised by the petition process. Thus, the inclusion of these two individuals as defendants strikes us a classic SLAPP suit – an attempt to silence private citizens for seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to petition government.

“As Rhode Island’s SLAPP suit statute notes, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern before the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies and in other public fora are essential to the democratic process.’ These two Providence residents should not be forced to defend themselves in a court of law for exercising petition rights granted them by the City Charter. The ACLU urges Councilor Jackson to amend his complaint and remove these two private citizens as defendants.”

In a statement the Kammerer and Holyoak Wood called Jackson’s lawsuit “an obvious delaying tactic.” Holyoak Wood was the campaign manager of Marcus Mitchell, who ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Jackson two years ago.

October 22, 2016

Boycott Wendy’s protest in Providence

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

Nearly three dozen people marched and chanted outside Wendy’s on Charles St in Providence Friday afternoon to call attention to the boycott of the food chain called by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a group that has fought for farmworker’s rights and fair treatment for two decades. Wendy’s remains the largest fast food chain that refuses to ethically source their produce from CIW supported growers. Rather than supporting the efforts of the CIW, Wendy’s began purchasing its produce from Mexico, where workers “continue to confront wage theft, sexual harassment, child labor and even slavery.”

CIW member Julia de la Cruz lead the protest, assisted by members of the Brown University Student Labor Alliance, the AFSC, Fuerza Laboral and the Fair Food Alliance.

When a coalition of five protesters approached the restaurant to deliver a message to the manager, they were loudly asked to leave the property, and did. The protest lasted 90 minutes and garnered the support and interest of many passersby.

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