Important: the BoE is accepting written comments on the Gist renewal up until June 1. No vote was to be taken tonight.  Submit early, submit often.

For those of you who want a blow-by-blow account of the early part of the meeting, look at my Tweets: @gusuht

More importantly, I suspect that an audio recording of the meeting, or a lot of it, will be provided by our fearless editor and publisher Bob Plain. I saw him place himself at the end of the reserved seating section, on the floor, and setup something electronic. I presume he will post something shortly about the event.

Those who did get to speak were outstanding. The vast majority of the speakers were teachers with lots to say. Chairman Mancuso, noticing the lack of time, bumped up parents and students to the front of the line. By far the most telling and moving testimony was given by a student who graduated from a RI High School a year ago, and has since been in college. Roughly, he said that in high school, with all of the testing and teaching to the test and test practice he had lost his love for learning. Once in college he was freed from the dehumanizing testing regime and regained this love. The Gist reforms had hindered his learning, not helped it. It had emptied his spirit, not nurtured it. I hope Bob caught his name. Interestingly, he was the only one who came without a prepared text, but I think he had the most impact. Or I hope so.

OK, my almost-testimony. Actually, the major part of it was a Letter to the Editor, by someone else,  in a New Yorker issue late last year. The Letter was in response to an article in an earlier issue (“Public Defender,” by David Denby, the New Yorker, November 19, 2012). That article was about the famous reformed education-reformer Dr. Diane Ravitch. Briefly, up until ten years ago she was a leader of the education reform movement, pushing testing, charter schools, etc. What happened? Ten years ago she looked at the results and they stank. So she switched 180 degrees and is now speaking out around the country against the education reform movement.

Here’s the Letter; it’s from the December 24 & 31, 2012 issue of the New Yorker, in the Mail section, page 8. I have not modified it in any way.

 As Ravitch argues, reform strategies based on extensive reading and math tests, followed by rewards and punishments for teachers and schools based on those test scores, along with the encouragement of vast charter-school expansion, have not brought about significant improvements in student performance. Tellingly, no nation,  state, or district that has gone from mediocre to world-class in the past twenty years — including Ontario, Canada; Massachusetts; Finland; Singapore; and even the Aspire charter schools — has followed this strategy. Successful schools and districts have supported the development of professional teamwork, and have completely revamped how they attract, train, and support teachers. Building the teaching profession around what is known about quality teaching, and allowing teachers the time and giving them the support to continually get better at what they do, has been the secret of educational success around the world.

Bill Honig, Chair, Instructional Quality Commission,  California Department of Education, Mill Valley, Calif.

On an historical note, the New York Times columnist Gail Collins has written in her recent book ( “As Texas Goes….,” Liveright Publishing, 2012) about the origins and history of “No Child Left Behind.” That is/was former President George W. Bush’s signature education reform program that is the major source of all of the fuss today. Bush actually started an equivalent program  in Texas when he was governor there, before becoming president. Going on to Washington he foisted his miracle cure onto the entire nation. Unfortunately, back in Texas they discovered that the program didn’t work. Somehow that never visibly appeared in the national conversation. And the bad idea spread throughout the land.

After much discussion with Randall Rose of Occupy Providence, who educated me quite a bit, and Sam Bell of RIPDA, I looked into the relevant documents in detail and rethought the 38 Studios bonds default/repayment issue. Most of what follows is derived from Randall’s research. I’m only going to cover the directly-relevant points of what convinced me to change my tune; I’ll leave the full story to Randall to write.

First, a little background on bonds. There are two basic types. General Obligation bonds are fully backed by the state, including use of its taxing authority to cover the bonds. In Rhode Island’s case the voters have to approve the bonds via a referendum.

Revenue bonds, the second type, are issued by non-state authorities who repay the bonds from income generated by the activity funded by the bonds in the first place. They are typically used to avoid getting the approval of the state’s voters for their issuance.

“Moral Obligation” bonds are Revenue bonds with perhaps a casual (or more rigorous) assurance by the state that it will repay the bonds if there is a default. HOWEVER: more often than not detailed or specific guarantees don’t appear in any document. Moral Obligation bonds are very fuzzy, seemingly used to make Revenue bonds be as safe as General Obligation bonds while providing a higher interest rate to the investors (bondholders).

The 38 Studios bonds are revenue bonds issued by the quasi-public RI Economic Development Corporation. BUT: are they moral obligation bonds? Is the situation just really a matter of keeping our word to cover them? No and no indeed.

The most important and telling documents in this case are the 38 Studios and EDC Loan and Trust Agreement and the RI law governing the rules of these specific loan guarantees. Let’s take a look….

In the Loan and Trust Agreement on page 9 is the text:

“This  Bond  is  issued pursuant  to  and  in  full  compliance  with the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island. This  Bond  is  a  special obligation  of  the  Corporation,  payable  solely out  of  the  revenues  or  other  receipts,  funds  or moneys  of  the  Corporation  pledged  under  the  Agreement  for  its  payment….

Neither the  State of  Rhode  Island nor  any  municipality  thereof shall be  obligated  to  pay  the  principal  of  the  Bonds, the  premium,  if  any,  the  Redemption  Price  or  the  interest thereon.  ….”

(Emphasis is mine.)

This seems pretty clear. In general, a moral obligation might influence the state to cover the bonds. However, no where in the document is the word “moral” much less the term “moral obligation.”

The law referred to above creates the “Job Creation Guaranty Program” for the EDC. This is the program that created the basis for the 38 Studios bonds and EDC guarantees. About halfway into the law is the text:

“During each January session of the general assembly, the governor shall submit to the general assembly, as part of the governor’s budget, the total of such sums, if any, required to pay any and all obligations of the corporation under such guarantees or bond obligations pursuant to the terms of this authorization. All sums appropriated by the general assembly for that purpose, and paid to the corporation, if any, shall be utilized by the corporation to make payments due on such guarantees or bond obligations.”
(The emphasis is mine.)

“Moral” does not appear anywhere in the law, and recall it’s not in the Loan and Trust Agreement. Nor could I find it in any of the other subsidiary documents on the EDC’s 38 Studios page.

The sum total of what all this means is that if the EDC doesn’t have the money to pay off the 38 Studios defaulted bonds, all that has to be done on the part of the state is:

1. The Governor must ask for the EDC-desired funds in his/her budget presented in January of every year.
2. The General Assembly is not required to honor that request; it can be removed from the final General Assembly-approved budget.

So, the law effectively states that RI doesn’t need to back up the EDC (for this program). Note that the state has NOT defaulted on any obligation; there is nothing to default on. Thus, the state does NOT need to repay the bonds.

There are, of course, other concerns, such as retaliation by the bond market against Rhode Island via lower bond ratings, etc. However, from other cases in the US, if there is an effect it will probably not be large nor last long.

My apologies for not knowing enough when I wrote my last post; “moral obligation bonds” are a cypher and intentionally vague and misleading. The more one learns the more one may need to modify his/her views. I still believe Rhode Island needs to stand behind its word; in this case it hadn’t given it.

What are your thoughts on the above? Please add any information in the comments you feel will help the discussion. Thank you.

Interestingly of the five bills heard, only three of the legislative sponsors came out to support their own legislation.  Rep. Fellela who sponsored the sex selection ban and Rep. Palumbo who sponsored the wait period “women’s right to know act” were noticeably absent. Over all, little time was spent explaining how any of the bills heard would reduce unintended pregnancy or abortion rates in Rhode Island, both of which are some of the highest in the New England region.

As the legislature enters its final five weeks of what has already been an active session with passage of marriage equality, we hope the General Assembly will remember that Rhode Island already has a range of restrictive regulations and laws on the books, many of which are unconstitutional and unenforceable.  Rhode Island already requires “informed consent” prior to abortion, prohibits public funding for abortion services and is subject to all the federal laws including the late term abortion ban upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2009. There is no need to replicate these policies in state law.

However, Rhode Island persists as an outlier in New England for its high unintended pregnancy and teen pregnancy rates.  Although those rates have been on a decline over the last ten years thanks to advances in long acting reversible contraception methods and greater public awareness of family planning services, none of the five bills proposed here today address unintended pregnancy and will do NOTHING to reduce the abortion rate in Rhode Island.

The  General Assembly does however have the opportunity this session to expand the Medicaid family planning benefit to include more low income women, and Rhode Island will receive $9 from the federal government for every $1 we spend on this program through the state’s Global Medicaid Waiver. We can and should do better in Rhode Island.  It’s time to move beyond the divisive political attacks on reproductive health and work together toward real solutions to real problems in public health.  Rhode Island is not North Dakota.  Rhode Island is not Texas.  Rhode Island is not Arkansas.  Rhode Island can do better.

In case you missed the hearing you may watch it online (the hearing on the abortion bills begins at minute 85).

Organizations & Individuals who testified in Opposition to Abortion Restrictions in RI

Paula Hodges – Planned Parenthood Southern New England

Steve Brown – RI American Civil Liberties Union

Carolyn Mark, RI NOW

Rev. David Ames, Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board

Rick Harris – RI National Association of Social Workers

Kristina Fox, Ocean State Action

Mary Chace, RI League of Women Voters

Steve Alquist, Humanists of RI

Dr. Emily White

RI Medical Society

Sarah Kramer – Brown Medical Student

Marie Deluca – Brown Medical Student

Micala Venta, Brown Medical Student

Caitlin Naureckas – Brown Medical Student

Rachel Orsinger, RI Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Barbara Colt – Rhode Islanders for Abortion Rights

Rev. Elizabeth Barnum

Margret (Penny) Guyer

Rachel Bloom

Lauren Niedel

Jessan Dunn Otis

Gus Uht

The bills proposed would work to mandate a woman undergo an ultrasound prior to having an abortion, create 24 hour wait periods prior to an abortion, create additional laws around late term abortions and establish “fetal personhood.” The reality of these bills would establish invasive, unnecessary barriers to service and turn healthcare in a political tool. Make no mistake about it, these bills have one target: to prevent women from accessing their right to choose what to do with their own bodies in the state of Rhode Island.

Real Problems Deserve Real Solutions

Reducing the number of unintended pregnancies deserves real and thoughtful solutions. If the politicians proposing and supporting these kinds of bills were really working to help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies each year in Rhode Island, they would turn their attention to the expansion of Family Planning under the Medicaid program. Currently, Rhode Island covers family planning services for Medicaid recipients who deliver babies, for only two years post-partum. That means that after that time, women are dropped from the program and lose access to basic reproductive health services, including annual well woman exams, Pap tests, breast exams, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and yes – contraception, which would help space their families and work to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Rhode Island already gets a D+ grade from NARAL and has some of the most stringent abortion laws on the books in New England. We need to turn out focus toward investing in family planning programs that not only work to reduce unintended pregnancy but save the state $4 for every $1 invested.  Today, we have a chance to raise our voices against five dangerous bills that actively seek to stand between a woman, her physician and her personal medical decisions. We NEED your help to fill the hearing room, to testify as a Rhode Island voter – and your presence as a supporter of reproductive justice. If you can’t join us for the hearing, contact your state legislators and let them know that is enough is enough. Egregious bills like these don’t belong in Rhode Island and together we can stand up and say Not in Our State! Help us tell lawmakers that Rhode Island cares about reproductive justice and we won’t stand for radical abortion restrictions in the Ocean State.

Innovation at work: Ragnar’s ship (via History Channel)

The History Channel’s “Vikings” dramatizes the various sagas, chronicles, and skaldic poems about the Viking raider Ragnar Lodbrok into a weekly television show. It’s also the History Channel’s first scripted drama. In one way it’s a dramatic departure from the conspiracy theory “documentaries” and reality television that currently dominate the History Channel’s lineup. But “Vikings” is also a return to the the roots of the History Channel, essentially a full length version of the dramatizations that take place between the informational programming about actual historical fact.

Like all good works of fiction, “Vikings” reveals some truths about our own conditions. Here’s how those truths apply to Rhode Island politics. Note: TONS OF SPOILERS AHEAD

1. A vision is necessary to win success, even if that vision defies convention. Innovation will occur to reach that vision. The first episode deals with Ragnar (Travis Fimmel) taking the initiative and sailing west. His liege, Earl Haraldson (Gabriel Byrne) has the Vikings raiding east, winning very little from the impoverished Baltic tribes. Ragnar secretly organizes an expedition west, picking up a few inventions along the way; a rudimentary compass to remain at the right latitude, a sunstone to figure out where the sun is during overcast days, and a longboat that can not only travel over the ocean but also upriver. The expedition lands at Lindisfarne in England and nets itself a tidy profit.

Rhode Island lacks that vision. Like Earl Haraldson, we’re content to work with what we know and in a conventional manner, even though its failure is pretty plain to see. Without that vision, don’t expect innovation to crop up any time soon.

Lagertha (Katheryn Winnick) raiding England. (via History Channel)

2. Just because it’s a man’s world doesn’t mean women aren’t going to kick ass. Ragnar’s wife Lagertha (Katheryn Winnick) isn’t your typical mom with two kids. In the first episode she drives off two would-be rapists with an red-hot piece of iron and a meathook. Later on, she joins Ragnar in another raid on England, joining in the shieldwall that defeats a few Anglo-Saxon forces. There’s a couple other women who appear as extras in the background of most battle scenes as well. Later on, Lagertha does a great job mediating disputes while Ragnar is away in England.

Women in Rhode Island politics are kicking ass everyday. We’ve got Gina Raimondo, Elizabeth Roberts and Teresa Paiva Weed in positions of power, while clearly Donna Nesselbush just did a bang up job of getting marriage equality through the Senate. On the House side you’ve got Maria Cimini and Teresa Tanzi on the progressive wing, and no one can say the Tea Party’s Doreen Costa is a wilting lily. Yes, no woman has ever been Governor or represented Rhode Island in the U.S. Senate. Just proves there’s more asses left to kick. Sadly, a woman’s work is never done. Lagertha might well agree.

3. Religion plays a major role, and woe to those who forget that. There’s almost never an episode that goes by in “Vikings” without at least a minute or two devoted to talking about the Norse pantheon in some manner, including a weird reenactment of Ragnarok. Viking characters routinely wonder if Odin has forsaken them. Similarly, the court of Northumbria is divided about whether the vikings are a scourge sent by God to punish the Saxons for not being pious enough or a plague sent by the devil. They won’t agree to a peace until one of the vikings converts.

Whether it’s a prayer banner, Christmas tree, or it’s marriage equality, Rhode Island’s wars of religion are just as passionate as about any that appear on television (though less bloody). Death threats, mockery of God, and proselytizing about our “values” are all part of Rhode Island’s political debates. Religious figures consistently weigh in on the gamut issues. Religion plays a major part in our lives, whether we want it to or not.

Ragnar Lodbrok (Travis Fimmel) in combat. (via History Channel)

4. If you take on leadership, you better win. About midway through the episodes so far, Ragnar challenges Earl Haraldson directly for power. It’s not an unexpected turn of events, since they’ve been more or less on a collision course from the opening moments. Haraldson moves quickly to knock out Ragnar, raiding Ragnar’s homestead, capturing his brother, and wounds Ragnar as well. Desperate and in hiding, Ragnar takes a gamble and challenges Haraldson to single combat. And in about the time of the average General Assembly session, Ragnar is Earl and Haraldson is off to dine in Valhalla.

Though Rhode Island politics has recently been devoid of the sudden overthrows that used to characterize succession from one leadership team to the other, we’ve seen plenty of people fail to succeed with such attempts. State legislators who too openly criticize leadership find themselves as isolated as Ragnar finds himself, but unfortunately they don’t get single combat as an option to solve their problems.

5. Just because you’re opposed to someone, doesn’t mean you can’t share a meal. Following his victory over Haraldson, Ragnar returns to Northumbria to get some more gold. As he goes raiding, he runs into King Aelle (Ivan Kaye) who’s determined to stop the vikings from taking his people’s stuff. After a disastrous defeat at the hands of Ragnar, Aelle eventually arranges a dinner to discuss terms of a truce and despite the deplorable manners of the vikings during the saying of grace and the meal itself, Ragnar and Aelle are able to share some lighthearted moments.

Rhode Island politics are often too small to carry on vitriolic grudges, and it’s the rare politician who won’t attend drinks, even if it’s with the other side. That’s the thing, even though there are strong stances and vehement positions, it’s the worst of us who aren’t willing to see the other side as human beings. The best of us accept our differences as the cost of living together.

King Horik (Donal Logue), left, takes part in the services at Uppsala. (via History Channel)

6. There’s always another position to get to. Ragnar is just a lowly fisherman who does part-time raiding at the beginning of the series. By the most recent episode, he’s an Earl, and now he’s working with King Horik of Denmark (played by Donal Logue). Whether his ambitions will make him vie for the kingship is unknown, but Danish history of the time often shows there were multiple kings in Denmark, and viking adventurers weren’t adverse to carving out kingships for themselves (a number of Danes ruled over England).

In Rhode Island politics, no matter how high you rise, you’re still in Rhode Island, which means there’s always another place to go for. Some of the most extreme examples of Raimondomania are discussions of her inhabiting the White House. But that kind of overblown expectation isn’t confined to Raimondo; some observers talked of Lincoln Chafee, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Jack Reed taking three of President Obama’s cabinet positions. All of them remain in place. It’s a reminder that even though the battles in Rhode Island are fierce, they fit into a larger environment. Just like Ragnar’s ambitions.

In all honesty, I don’t think there are any lessons about Rhode Island politics that aren’t self-evident. This is more me geeking out over Vikings, which recently wrapped its series on Sunday. Its last five episodes can be watched online.

Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)

In the brouhaha about MetLife leaving, I did see and hear people try to blame this on the too-high RI taxes. Of course; it’s always about the taxes, isn’t it? I would like to make one point about that.

For 2012, MetLife reported $1.4 Bn of operating earnings. In comparison, the $80-90 Mn of tax relief that the will receive would just register as a rounding error in any single year. But those tax savings will be spread out over a number of years. As such, they don’t even constitute a rounding error.

Any company, of any size, that makes long-term decisions based on a few years worth of tax savings is not a company that will be around long enough to realize those savings. Only a company in dire straits would make so drastic a move for so little return. Because let’s face it, the up-front investment that is required will more than eat up those tax savings. In such cases, breaking even is a good result in the real world.

No: the savings will come from other areas: lower rent vs what is being paid in the Northeast, in greater Chicago, in the SF Bay area; it will come from lower wages paid to younger workers who do not incur the disability and medical expenses an older workforce will incur; it will come from pension benefits that do not continue to accrue to said older workers, and that will not be paid at all to younger ones. That’s where the money is.

No, RI’s problem is not the tax structure. It’s the size that matters.

The sad fact of the matter is that RI does not have its own economy. RI is a pale reflection of what is happening in Boston. Nor is this a recent development: it was already true in the early 1980s. Look back at the numbers; that was the period when Dukakis was creating (or taking credit for) the “Massachusetts Miracle.” The 128 Loop was America’s Technology Highway, where high tech lived before being superseded by Silicon Valley. Massachusetts recovered sooner than most of the country from the recession of the late 1970s; RI was a couple of years behind.

Then, in the mid-eighties came the phenomenon of Woonsocket turning into a bedroom community for Boston. Same with Nashua NH. Around then the ProJo carried a story of people taking classes to lose their RI accent because they felt that companies in Boston believed that people with an RI accent were less intelligent.

So, no, this is not a new phenomenon. What I have cited is anecdotal; but the numbers in the BLS and Census, etc. will support these contentions.

Also according to the US Census, in 2000, 79% of the population of the US lived in urban areas. In states like Nevada, it’s upwards of 90%. More, 45% of the population of the US now lives in the top 20 urban areas. In the meantime, the Census Bureau also says that one-third of all counties in the country are being drained of population. What does this mean?

It means that the urban concentration that began at the end of the 19th century is continuing. More and more people are living in and around cities while other areas languish. Telecommunication, and telecommuting were supposed to make cities obsolete; the opposite is happening. Telecommuting was all the fad in the late 90s and into the new millennium; now, companies are eliminating it.

It means that, in order to compete, size is a huge factor. Charlotte NC is now the #2 financial center in the country, after NYC. It has surpassed Chicago, with its Mercantile Exchange. It is the #2 center largely because the #1 bank, Bank of America, has its HQ there, and Wells Fargo has its East Coast operations HQ there. The Charlotte Combined Statistical Area has 2.4 million people. This is not rural America anymore.

With a million people, Rhode Island cannot compete with such a center, any more that it can compete with Boston. The advantages of a large educated, concentrated workforce with good infrastructure and a compact geographical footprint are too great to overcome. This is why NYC not only continues to exist, but to thrive, in the face of all the reasons conservatives say it shouldn’t: high taxes, big government, and whatever else they complain about. Half of the wealthiest zip codes in the country are in NY and NJ, both of which are high-tax states.

RI is not losing jobs to lower tax states; RI is losing jobs because the vast majority of jobs are in these concentrated urban areas. If jobs aren’t there already, they’re relocating there. I heard a story on NPR that a growing company in Kansas could not find workers. That’s because no one is willing to relocate to a small town that depends on a single employer; what happens when that employer decides to off-shore the jobs? People are stuck in a small town without prospects. In a larger metro area, there are other jobs, or at least a greater possibility of other jobs.

Size matters. The country is not de-urbanizing. Exactly the opposite.

Addendum: The point is, MetLife made its decision to relocate to NC for its own reasons. Only then did it approach the NC government and see how much it could extort from the state’s taxpayers. In other words, MetLife got money from the state to do exactly what it would have done without the tax breaks. In fact, there have stories to this effect in the North Carolina media, complaints that the state of NC got played for chumps by a large company.

And, btw, NC in general, and Charlotte in particular, have unemployment rates that are only a couple of tenths of a percent lower than what RI and Providence has. It’s not exactly boom-town down there, either.

So, yes, NC is getting the jobs. But they would have gotten the jobs without the subsidies.  So no, it’s not about the tax rates, no matter how often or how loudly conservatives will say it is.

Almost 15% of Rhode Islanders live in poverty, close to 155,000 of our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers, our daughters and sons.  According to the 2013 RI Kids Count Factbook, “[t]here are 39,900 poor children in Rhode Island, 17.9% of all children.”  One out of ten RI seniors lives in poverty.  In a civilized society that is supposed to take care of the less fortunate among us, this should be totally unacceptable.  In today’s America, this is just another day in paradise…

There is a lot of discussion about the “middle class,” and about how to “strengthen” it.  But there is generally little discussion about poverty, its causes, consequences, and solutions (yes… solutions).  When there is discussion about the plight of the poor, it is generally to blame them, either indirectly or directly, for their circumstances.  This is not only offensive to the many, many folks who live their lives every day struggling to make ends meet, it completely ignores the economic realities facing the country and the social bases that perpetuate inequality and inter-generational poverty.

A Google News search for “poverty” yields 149,000 results.  The same search for “deficit” brings back over 1.2 million results.  I’m not sure why this is the case, but I feel the lack of discussion about poverty in the public realm perpetuates the problem, making poverty less visible and therefore “ignorable.”  The closest thing to a full public debate on poverty in recent years was John Edward’s campaign theme of “Two Americas” leading up to the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.  And while that was particularly striking to me given the state of electoral politics, it was no Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” ad.

To this point, I am glad that Dem Whip Steny Hoyer recently announced the Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, if for no other reason than to bring additional attention to a persistent and growing problem.  Equally, I am glad that Rep. David Cicilline has been appointed to it as he is one of the most vocal in Congress about poverty and has been working on his plan for two years to further boost American manufacturing.

These manufacturing jobs would be in sharp contrast to the low-wage work, particularly part-time work, that has been the norm during America’s economic malaise that many people call a “recovery.”  When almost 60% of the total number of jobs created after the recession officially ended is low wage occupations, should we even call it a recovery?  Moreover, the recession’s effects on employment highlight the need for non-employment based programs to reduce poverty.  Focusing only on programs to enhance the income of those who are working, while important, does nothing to help those who are unemployed.  And the longer folks lack a job, the harder it is for them to find another.

Empirical research shows that the loss of a good job during a severe downturn—the job-loss pattern of this downturn—leads to a 20 percent earnings loss lasting 15 to 20 years.  Earnings losses are more severe for long-term unemployed workers who run a greater risk of dropping out of the labor force and falling into poverty.

It’s important to understand that the policies and programs focused on reducing poverty actually work…, you know, when they’re allowed to work.  There are things that can (and should) be done to alleviate poverty in this country, especially in times like these.  When the economy was destroyed by those who have everything but wanted more, forcing misery and destitution on millions of Americans through no fault of their own, the most important thing to do is help ensure people can improve their lives.

I hope this task force will help find more creative solutions to reducing poverty, showing the same sense of seriousness and urgency that prompted Lyndon Johnson to push the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 through Congress.  They could start by raising the minimum wage, increasing the EITC benefit, prosecuting wage theft, making it easier to join a union, and truly helping the unemployed with job training, entrepreneurship assistance, long-term unemployment benefits, stimulus spending, and even subsidized work.  Maybe then we’ll see another significant decline in poverty as was seen throughout the 1960s.

What these stories depict – in human terms – is that there is a huge chunk of our state that isn’t making it on their own. Whether you believe this is because our government and our economy favor the rich over the poor or the poor over the rich is really inconsequential. I think we can all agree this is really bad. And not just for our economy.

Yesterday afternoon I went to a press event at the State House calling attention to the rising rate of homelessness in Rhode Island, another critical issue for Rhode Island’s economic and social well being and George Nee made a point that I don’t think gets nearly enough attention here in Rhode Island.

With the exciting news that Kate Brock is moving on from Ocean State Action to take a policy position in Governor Chafee’s administration, I was thinking about who could be the next Director of Ocean State Action.  I say this because Ocean State Action is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, progressive organizations in the state.  Over the years, they have been able to shape the debate in Rhode Island, elect progressive candidates to the General Assembly, and push for more progressive policies that benefit all Rhode Islanders.  Admittedly, they have not been 100% successful, but more often than not their success lies in advocacy, movement building, and adding the progressive perspective to policy debates.

Here are some of my thoughts about who (in alphabetical order).

• Sam Bell – Currently the State Coordinator for the Rhode Island chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America (taking over after I went to grad school), Sam is young and smart and has really jumped into his role at the RIPDA.  He’s also a student at Brown University.
• Kristina Fox – Currently the Organizing Director at Ocean State Action, Kristina is super energetic and has been a workhorse of progressive organizing.  Kristina was an organizer for UNITE HERE! Local 217 and helped win contracts at the Westin Hotel and the Dunkin Donuts Center.  She just recently took over as one of the organizers for Drinking Liberally as well.
• Mark Gray – Currently the “Where’s the Work?” Project Organizer at Ocean State Action, Mark looks into why there is such a dire lack of jobs in the state.  Previously, Mark was with Clean Water Action, handling recruitment and training of community organizers.
• Libby Kimzey – Currently Director of Programs at Capital Good Fund, Libby runs their tax assistance site and develops financial coaching curriculum for low-income Rhode Islanders.  Libby is a tireless advocate and her energy was instrumental in getting Teresa Tanzi elected in 2010.  She also worked with Ocean State Action and Common Cause.
• Zack Mezera – Currently an Organizer at Providence Student Union with Aaron Regunberg, Zach is also a Student at Brown University studying education policy.
• Aaron Regunberg – Currently the Director at Providence Student Union and Organizer for IDEA, Aaron is a great strategist and thinker about education policy.  A case in point, Aaron helped organize the fantastic student-led NECAP testing that brought out about 50 people, and most of them failed it.  This is reshaping the entire conversation about testing in the state.
• Marti Rosenberg – Marti is one of the most revered progressive activists in the state, working on numerous campaigns in the state for as long as I can remember.  She was Executive Director of Ocean State action until she stepped down in 2006 to work for U.S. Action in DC.  Back in RI, she became Director at New Roots.
• Ray Sullivan – Currently the Campaign Director at Marriage Equality RI and RI United for Marriage, and with any hope he’ll be unemployed when the session ends (because we’ll have marriage equality).  Ray has a wealth of experience, having worked as Communications Director for the RI Democrats, RI State Director for Obama for America, and representative of Coventry from 2005 to 2010.

This is not at all a full list, and I’m certain that potential candidates will come out of the woodwork for this important position.  What’s top of mind for me is that I hope the next Director does NOT come at the expense of the good work being done at another organization.  Whoever the next director is, we need to keep building the Progressive movement in the state.

Before I look into the actual legislation, I wanted to make a general comment about the obsession that people have regarding national business rankings.  Rhode Island all too often gets hung up on its self-defeating cynicism and inferiority complex.  Rather than looking at the assets that exist in the state and developing a plan to use those assets to grow the economy and support the businesses that currently exist, policymakers seem obsessed with how we rank nationally.  People generally forget that before the global economy went down the toilet, Rhode Island had an unemployment rate that matched the national average.  A lot has happened in the past 6 year, but in March 2007 the state’s unemployment rate was 4.8%.  Aside from the global recession, I’m not sure the structure of every state’s economy has changed all the dramatically.

One word of advice would be to just stop looking at national ranking.  Rhode Island is not Texas.  Rhode Island will never be Texas.  The only way Texas will ever be relevant to Rhode Island is if there is something very specific that Texas does that Rhode Island may want to replicate.

I humbly offer my comments about specific pieces of legislation while acknowledging that overall much of it makes sense, but will likely only be marginally beneficial.

• Division of Economic Data and Information: This, to me, seems like it should exist within the Economic Development Corp.  But aside from where the function sits, gathering detailed economic data, analyzing that data, and using it to inform strategy is critical to growing the economy.  Equally important, though, is that this needs to be something much more than a person who merely aggregates information from the Division of Labor and Training.
• Long-Term Strategic Visioning Document: Planning is good and every successful business and government does it.  Rhode Island should do it too.  Something that has always frustrated me about Rhode Island is its lack of implementation.  If one were to do a scan of the past few years, they could find a whole assortment of studies, economic development plans, guidance documents, etc.  But what the state has not yet done, what it seems the state is incapable of doing, is developing an implementation plan, a governance structure to facilitate the execution of the implementation plan, and granting it the authority and autonomy to do it.  Again, I think much of this should be housed in the RIEDC.
• Commerce & Workforce Coordination Cabinet: I’m all for cross-departmental coordination, but I fear this may just be another meeting that people have to attend.  I think it comes down to how much autonomy it will have to offer recommendations for the long-term strategic vision, how willing this or any Governor is at listening to and incorporating that advice, and how serious public officials will be with the task at hand.
• Business Presence on Statewide Planning: Planning for the state’s transportation, water system, affordable housing, growth centers, economic development, etc. is a skillset that business may not have.  I’m fairly indifferent about including some business presence on the State Planning Council to incorporate some additional information that they may not be getting, so long as they let the professionals do their jobs.
• Preserving the Renewable Energy Fund: Yes please.  Additionally, I would boost the fund to at least $10 million and provide low interest loans and limited grants to those who would like to invest in renewable energy for residential properties.
• Back to Work Rhode Island: I have very mixed feelings about this.  On the one hand, unemployed Rhode Islanders can quickly become irrelevant in a rapidly changing labor market.  Ted Nesi recently highlighted this when he asked if Rhode Island is suffering from hysteresis.  The longer an unemployed worker is out of a job, the less appealing they become to potential employers.  If for nothing else, getting some skill training and having a recent job listed on a resume makes me want to support this.  On the other hand, I wonder what the oversight mechanism will be.  I can picture unscrupulous employers abusing this system and churning though workers on an ever-repeating 6 week basis (think restaurants, retail, hospitality, etc.) without staff time dedicated to oversight.
• Childcare for Participants in Workforce Training and Childcare Assistance Pilot: YES.  This is critically important for single parents who want get job training but cannot afford child care.  I would also add transportation vouchers for them to get to and from training.
• Enhanced Jobs Match:The state should be thinking more creatively about linking the unemployed to employment opportunities, especially considering the dwindling funds for job training. The state needs a system that better links the supply of skills that the unemployed has with the demand for skills that employers need.  If there is a huge unmet need for a prolonged period of time, then training funds should be used to meet that need.  The problem is, and it is no small problem, it will take more time to screen candidates at the local One Stops, which means if the state doesn’t put more resources to this important task, fewer people get served.  If DLT needs help with this system, they merely have to tap the vast network of tech folks in Providence who could probably design and build a better system than what we have over the weekend… while they sleep.But more to the point, Rhode Island needs more than just this.  To put it bluntly, the public workforce system is broken.  In particular, it is underfunded and operates in silos.  And in Rhode Island, the folks at Workforce Solutions of Providence / Cranston don’t have the same level of authority as the folks who work at Workforce Partnership of Greater RI.  The former are city employees, the latter are DLT employees with much greater access.  Also, there are not enough people in the public system who can speak Spanish.  I wrote a report for the City of Providence last year called Rethinking Workforce Development for Providence’s Labor Force that details a lot of the issues that make the system inefficient and ineffective.  The system needs more than a new website.
• Help Former Students Finish Their Degree: It’s a good idea to help people get their degrees, but there are a lot of reasons why people leave college prior to completion: transportation, shift change, child care, used up Pell grant, etc.  Communicating with students to get them to finish is a good thing, but someone needs to actually do it.
• Reverse Transfer: This would allow for credits earned for a Bachelor’s degree to be transferable toward an Associate’s degree at CCRI.  Might as well, but it will likely be underutilized.
• Economic Development Tax Credit Accountability Act and Tax Credit Statement of Purpose: Yes, but EVERY SINGLE tax credit and expenditure offered by the state should be reviewed for their cost and effectiveness at generating economic growth.  Any tax credit or expenditure that is shown to not generate an appropriate level of growth to justify its cost should be eliminated.
• Restore Historic Tax Credits: Rhode Island, I want you to understand that if you do this, it will cost a LOT of money.

Much of what came out yesterday is non-controversial and fairly common sense.  To quote a colleague: “Congratulations to the Rhode Island Senate for formulating a plan to get us out of the recession, 4 years after it officially ended. I knew you could do it.”  The unfortunate reality is that it will take a while for the state to grow out of the recession.  This is just the first step.