“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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed two of Rhode Island’s most trusted State House special interests are at odds on Question 2: Common Cause Rhode Island is for the ballot measure and the RI ACLU is against it. So RI Future brought in John Marion and Steven Brown, the executive director of each organization, to discuss their difference of opinion.

“Common Cause and the ACLU disagree on the limits of what free speech is,” said Marion, of Common Cause.

“We believe there is free speech that is involved when a legislator representing their constituents gets up and talks about an issue,” said Brown, of the ACLU.

At issue is the speech in debate clause of Rhode Island’s constitution that, according to Marion, “provides a general immunity – to legislators, and only legislators – from prosecution or suit for their legislative duties.” Similar speech in debate clauses exist in 43 other state constitutions, he said.

Marion and Brown agree that a 2009 US Supreme Court case found, in Marion’s words, that “there is no First Amendment protection for people with a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest as defined by law you aren’t supposed to participate.”

Brown thinks the court got it wrong. He said legislators need to be able to do their jobs “freely without fear there are going to be consequences,” he said. “We are concerned that the possibility exists that this could be undermined as a result of the amendment.”

“I certainly understnad the arguments on the other side and I don’t dismiss them because certainly the problem with ethics in our government is one that can’t be ignored but I think it’s just a legitimate differing of opinions in balancing these issues and deciding where the greatest harm lies.”

David Norton

The downside, as reported extensively in GoLocal.com, is that Robbins has a reputation as “the worst slumlord in L.A. history, ” and his local reputation, with some business owners, is no better. Three of those business owners, Rosinha Benros, Phyllis Arffa and John Arcaro, spoke at the protest, and their stories are troubling. Each claim that their businesses were destroyed by the actions of their landlord, Lance Robbins.

Also speaking at the protest were Independent candidate for Mayor of Pawtucket John Arcaro and Independent candidate for State Rep Lori Barden.

“At breakfast this morning my nine year old, out of the blue, said, ‘Mom, what are you doing about climate change?’” said Governor Gina Raimondo at a press event in the offices of Newport Solar on Monday, “What a perfect day to ask the question! So I told him all about this and he was proud of me that we were on that.”

Newport Solar in North Kingstown is where Raimondo chose to kick off National Energy Awareness Month with her new Office of Energy Resources (OER) commissioner Carol Grant. Newport Solar is a Rhode Island leader in solar installation, and its successful efforts should be lauded.

“Our clean energy sector in Rhode Island has created a slew of new opportunities for education and jobs, and that will continue as we move forward in building the clean energy industry,” said Raimondo at the event.

Commissioner Grant spoke about Rhode Island’s high ranking in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. The American Council on Energy‐Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently ranked Rhode Island fourth in the country for best energy efficiency programs and policies. “We want to educate Rhode Islanders on the many benefits of the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs,” said Grant, “and we look forward to further developing a future of clean, affordable, reliable and diversified energy.” [italics mine]

Also at the event was Michael Ryan, Vice President of Government Affairs at National Grid, encouraging Rhode Islanders to save energy.

Energy in Rhode Island needs to be “affordable, reliable, and clean” said Raimondo, “It’s got to be all three, and it can be all three.”

Later, Raimondo’s three criteria had mysteriously become four, or more. “So I’m going to continue to lead and push, as your governor, towards more clean, affordable, and reliable and diversified energy sources… to lead the nation in more and more sources of clean, renewable, affordable, sustainable energy.”

Towards the end of the presser, National Grid’s Michael Ryan, ironically standing in front of a large Newport Solar banner emblazoned with the tagline, “Think outside the grid,” mis-repeated Raimondo, saying that the energy must be “efficient, affordable and reliable.

“Those are key with National Grid.”

In the video below you can watch the complete press event. Solar, wind and efficiency were lauded but fracked gas, the third leg of Raimondo’s energy policy, and a key driver of National Grid’s business, was never mentioned except via subtle dog whistles.

These dog whistles are words like reliable, diversified and efficient. These are the words anti-environmentalists use when they want to scare us into accepting fracked gas as a bridge fuel, like when Rush Limbaugh said, “Solar panels are not sustainable, Millennials. May sound good, yes. ‘Clean, renewable energy.’ But what do you do when the sun’s down at night? What do you do when the clouds obscure the sun? We’re not there yet.”

Limbaugh admits that solar panels are clean and renewable. But he’s doubting their reliability and sustainability.

This is how a politician like Raimondo can appease companies like National Grid, which are actively working to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fossil fuels, while publicly talking only about the work she’s doing on energy that’s actually clean and renewable.

On April 13 Raimondo appeared at a solar farm in East Providence to announce the results of the 2016 Rhode Island Clean Energy Jobs Report released by the Rhode Island OER and the Executive Office of Commerce. At this event Marion Gold, who publicly supported the power plant planned for Burrillville, was still the OER commissioner.

“The clean energy economy is supporting nearly 14,000 jobs,” said Raimondo, “a forty percent increase from last year. That is amazing.”

The press release for this event noted that this job growth was likely the result of the “maturation of the solar industry, start up activity in smart grid technologies, and the progress made on the construction of the Block Island Wind Farm.”

There was no mention at this event of fracked gas, Burrillville, Invenergy, Spectra pipelines, or National Grid’s expansion of LNG at Fields Point, until reporters asked the governor about it directly, at which point Raimondo somewhat reluctantly admitted that she does in fact support Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant planned for Burrillville.

In Raimondo’s capacity as vice chair of the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition she was proud to “support the foresight of my colleagues to broaden the Coalition’s focus and include solar energy development as a policy priority. Wind and solar provide complementary benefits to the U.S. electric grid and will help diversify the country’s energy mix. The need for states to take a broader view of renewable power is clear.”

Again, no mention of her support for fracked gas.

Raimondo has consistently touted her support for renewables like wind and solar, only occasionally voicing her support for fracking. Raimondo never holds a press release in front of a fracked gas pipeline or compressor station. She holds them at wind turbines and solar farms, giving the appearance of a strong leader on the environment.

But National Grid and Invenergy need to know she’s on board with their plans, so she signals her support during the press conference with careful phrasing.

And if the governor’s phrasing is off message, National Grid’s Michael Ryan will misquote her. “Clean” energy is out, “reliable” energy is in. In other words, “Let them eat fracked gas.”

Raimondo’s choice of location for her press conferences demonstrates that if she is not embarrassed by her support of fracked gas, she at least is beginning to recognize how history will ultimately judge her support.

As Bill McKibben said in a recent message to Rhode Island, “Five to ten years ago we thought the transition was going to be from coal, to natural gas as some sort of bridge fuel, onto renewables and now, sadly, we realize we can’t do that in good faith, because natural gas… turns out to be a dead end, not a bridge to the future but a kind of rickety pier built out into the lake of hydrocarbons.”

Fracked gas was well known to be a bad idea when Raimondo stood with Invenergy’s CEO Michael Polsky and tried to sell the idea to Rhode Island. Raimondo’s support for Invenergy’s power plant was a massive political blunder with consequences not only for her political career, but for the future of Rhode Island and the world.

A future, and a world, her children will be living in.

How many Rhode Island inmates are put in solitary confinement? Why are they there? How long do they stay? “And what do they actually look like,” asked Providence Rep. Aaron Regunberg, chair of a new state commission that will answer these and other important questions about the use of solitary confinement at the ACI.

The new commission met for the first time Thursday, and hopes to answer some of those questions at its next meeting on October 20. From there, the commission plans to take a hard look at psychological effects on inmates, public safety effects on society and fiscal impacts on the state budget.

“Is there room for improvement in how we do things, and if so where” asked Regunberg, “Again I want to stress that as a body we’re not starting out with assumptions. We might find out that everything is as reasonably good as it can be … we might find out there are particular rooms for improvement. We’re going to figure that out as we move forward.”

There seemed to be broad agreement on the commission – comprised of prison and prison guard officials, mental health experts and criminal justice advocates and three legislators – that so-called solitary confinement was something worth studying.

“It goes by a number of different names,” said ACI Director AT Wall, a member of the new commission. “We tend to call it restrictive housing. Restrictive housing has emerged as an issue across the country, an issue in inmate management and it’s one that we think we have to take a look at and we are here in a spirit of collaboration to do just that.”

Even Richard Ferruccio, president of the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Corrections Officers, which expressed strong reservations about reforming solitary confinement practices at legislative hearings last year, was hopeful the commission would prove productive.

“I’m looking forward to seeing what we can do to improve our system,” he said. “I think we already have one the better run systems in the country but if we have an opportunity for improvement or ideas, that’s something we’re always looking forward to.”

Mental health advocates said there are “necessary changes” needed in how the ACI uses solitary confinement.

“I’m very happy that all of these people have convened to make these necessary changes,” said Meg Clingham, director of state Office of Mental Health Advocate. “Many of my clients that are criminally involved and at the ACI find themselves in segregation because they are unable to comport their behavior due to their mental illness so I think it’s really great that we are looking for solutions to this problem.”

This was the first of at least six meetings before the commission offers possible recommendations.

The commission’s mandate from the legislature (H8206) includes a preference for administrative rather than legislative reforms. “There are important stakeholders who have expressed a strong preference for administrative over legislative reform,” according to a power point presentation shown at the commission’s first meeting. “As such, if the commission determines there is room for improvement, our first goal is to identify a set of recommendations that can be implemented administratively.”