American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island

May 10, 2016May 10, 2016

North Kingstown agrees to settle suit and allow public comment at council meetings

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

One week after the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the North Kingstown Town Council for violating a Town Charter provision that gives members of the public “a reasonable opportunity to be heard” at Council meetings, the Town has agreed to entry of a court order reversing its position. The successful lawsuit, filed in Washington County Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish, was on behalf of North Kingstown resident and past Town Council candidate Richard Welch.

Welch attended a Town Council meeting on December 10, 2015 and attempted to speak at the meeting. However, Town Council President Kerry McKay refused to let him do so. Although the Town Charter gives the public an explicit right to be heard at Council meetings, Town officials took the position that it applies only to regularly scheduled meetings, not “special” Town Council meetings. The December “special” meeting included 13 varied items on the agenda that covered such matters as license renewals, appointments to a job search panel, adoption of budget policies, and a New Year’s Eve policy for liquor establishments.

Under the consent order filed in court today, the Town has acknowledged that Welch was “not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard” at the December meeting, and that the Town “will hereinafter permit ‘Public Comment’ at all future public meetings.”

ACLU attorney Melish said today: “I would like to thank the Town Council for its quick response to this lawsuit to ensure that the Town Charter is followed and the public has the continuing right to participate.” ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown added: “It is unfortunate that a suit like this had to be filed in the first place, but it demonstrates both the need for vigilance by residents to protect their rights and the ability that one person can have to vindicate the civil liberties interests of all.”

May 2, 2016

ACLU sues North Kingstown Town Council over lack of public comment period

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today filed a lawsuit against the North Kingstown Town Council for violating a Town Charter provision that gives members of the public “a reasonable opportunity to be heard” at Council meetings. The lawsuit, filed in Washington County Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish, is on behalf of North Kingstown resident and past Town Council candidate Richard Welch.

The lawsuit notes that there “is no distinction made in the Town Charter between regular and special Town meetings to justify the denial of the public’s right to be heard.” The suit asks the court to find that Welch’s right to speak was violated at the December meeting, and to issue an order requiring the Council “to honor the public’s right to attend and have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at all Town Council meetings.”

Plaintiff Welch said today: “The right of the public to be heard by our government is very basic to our form of government and it should not be allowed to be abridged by anyone. This is not the first time that this has happened in North Kingstown, but it must be the last.”

ACLU attorney Melish added: “Public participation and involvement are vital to our democracy. This lawsuit is an attempt to vindicate those crucial public interests.”

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

April 28, 2016

Woonsocket police sued for unlawful arrest and detention of deaf person

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the R.I. Disability Law Center have today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a profoundly deaf person who was arrested and detained overnight in jail by Woonsocket police for allegedly making an obscene gesture, and who was never provided an interpreter to allow him to communicate with the police during his detention. The case raises important issues regarding municipal agency obligations to accommodate residents who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The lawsuit argues that city officials violated plaintiff David Alves’s “statutory and constitutional rights by unlawfully arresting and detaining him, charging him with violating an unconstitutional City criminal ordinance, subjecting him to discrimination on account of his disability, and failing to accommodate his disability.”

The arrest took place late one night last July, when Alves and some friends were at the City Side Club in Woonsocket to celebrate a friend’s birthday. After a verbal altercation between the bouncer and members of the group, police were called. On his way out of the bar, Alves gestured toward the bouncer with the American Sign Language sign for “b*llsh*t,” which police who had arrived at the scene interpreted as giving them the middle finger. Immediately after making the gesture, Alves was arrested by the police for violating a city ordinance banning “obscene language or mak[ing] an obscene gesture.”

While being booked and held at the station overnight, Alves’s requests for a sign language interpreter were ignored. When a deaf friend came to the station to check up on him, a police officer handed the friend a note saying that Alves would “be out in the morning no problem . . . These things happen, he just needs to take it as a learning experience.” In the morning, he was released from custody and issued a summons to appear at court on the ordinance violation. A few months later, a Municipal Court judge dismissed the criminal charge.

Today’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorneys V. Edward Formisano, Michael Pushee and Alyse Galoski, and RI Disability Law Center attorney Katherine Bowden, raises a host of constitutional and statutory claims, including that:

The City’s “obscene gesture” ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague in violation of the First Amendment
The arrest and overnight detention of Alves without cause violated his rights to due process of law and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and
The police officers’ failure to procure an interpreter or provide other means to effectively communicate with Alves violated a number of federal and state laws barring discrimination by municipal agencies on the basis of disability.

Among other remedies sought, the lawsuit asks the court to rule the “obscene gesture” ordinance unconstitutional, declare Alves’ arrest and detention unlawful, order the City to implement policies to prohibit future discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing individuals, and award Alves unspecified monetary damages for violating his rights.

Below are quotes from the participants in today’s lawsuit:

Plaintiff David Alves: “I need to fight this case so that other people don’t have to go through the same thing I went through. Deaf and hard of hearing people deserve the same dignity anyone else deserves. If they violate my civil rights, then they might feel they can violate other people’s civil rights. I want to do what I can to prevent that.”

ACLU of RI attorney V. Edward Formisano: “Mr. Alves was unlawfully arrested and detained under an unconstitutional law. To add insult to injury, he was not provided with the accommodations he needed for his obvious disability. We are confident that a court will vindicate the rights that were so unfairly denied Mr. Alves.”

RIDLC attorney Katherine Bowden: “Municipal compliance with federal and state laws prohibiting disability discrimination is mandatory, not optional. People who are deaf and hard of hearing have a right to equal access to city services, including the right to effective communication with the police and other city officials.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown: “In this country, people cannot be locked up simply in order to give them a ‘learning experience.’ We are hopeful this lawsuit will send a clear message to all law enforcement agencies that there are basic constitutional limits on the use of their formidable police powers, and that they cannot ignore their obligations under anti-discrimination laws to treat people with disabilities fairly.”

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

March 31, 2016

Court rules school districts cannot charge students for summer school

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and R.I. Legal Services today applauded a Superior Court decision holding that the Cumberland school district could not charge a student a $700 fee in order to attend summer school to avoid repeating ninth grade. The ruling overturned a 2014 decision issued by former state Department of Education Commissioner Deborah Gist that, at the time, was denounced by educational advocacy groups as undermining decades of precedent guaranteeing a free and equal public education to all children in the state.

Then-Commissioner Gist had agreed with the school district’s argument that it could charge the fees because summer school did not constitute a core element of education as defined by the state’s Basic Education Plan. However, in a 25-page ruling issued yesterday, Superior Court Judge William Carnes, Jr. rejected that argument. The judge stated that “not only is there no statutory authority for the collection of fees for summer school, but also the charging of such a fee is contrary to the spirit of the school system itself—which is to provide a free public education to all students.”

The judge pointed out:

In the instant matter, [the student] was given a choice: recover his required credits through additional instruction during the summer, or recover them by repeating the ninth grade. Assuming that instead of attending summer school, he had opted to repeat the ninth grade, it is beyond dispute that the school could not have charged him tuition for that additional year of schooling. Instead, however, [the student] opted to recover his required credits by attending summer school and, in doing so, he was charged a fee for his attendance. The fact that one option would have been free and the other option incurred a fee necessarily leads to an absurd result.”

The ACLU, RI Legal Services and other groups were deeply concerned about the precedent the Gist decision would have set had it been upheld. Prior to her decision, the Department of Education, citing the importance of a free public education, had for decades routinely invalidated attempts to levy any fees on student programming as varied as night classes, after-school activities, interscholastic sports and Advanced Placement classes.

Susan Giannini, the mother who brought the lawsuit on behalf of her son, said today: “It was a real financial hardship for me to send my son to summer school, but we had no real choice because he probably would have dropped out otherwise. I feel for other families in a similar situation whose children are at risk of dropping out. This decision will help families that can’t afford to pay fees have equal access to an education.”

R.I. Legal Services attorney Veronika Kot, who represented Ms. Giannini in the lawsuit resulting in yesterday’s decision, said today: “This ruling is in keeping with Rhode Island’s longstanding commitment to equity in education. For over a century our state has prohibited fees for student programming and services due to their discriminatory impact on educational opportunities for lower income families. The Court’s decision reaffirms this commitment to a free and equal system of public education for all students.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, added: “If former Commissioner Gist’s decision had been upheld, it would have institutionalized a two-tiered educational system, offering enhanced educational opportunities for those who could pay for them and inferior ones for those who could not. Nothing could have been more damaging to the fundamental notion that our children deserve a free public education.”

The court ruling can be found on the ACLU of RI’s website here.

March 30, 2016March 30, 2016

ACLU offers legal representation to Warwick Beacon and Warwick Post against potential lawsuit

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

Addressing a brazen attempt to chill freedom of speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced it has agreed to provide legal representation to the Warwick Post and the Warwick Beacon, both of which have been threatened with a defamation suit if they write stories about the contents of a public document.

The threat, by the Warwick School Department’s outgoing director of human resources Rosemary Healey, was made in response to the imminent release of a report prepared for the school committee, examining how Healey and other school administrators handled accusations of sexual misconduct made against a junior high school science teacher. The Attorney General recently ruled that the report, with certain information redacted, was a public record.

Even though Healey’s attorney, Jeffrey Sowa, acknowledged that Healey had not “been given the opportunity to substantively review the report,” he called the report “neither fair nor impartial” and “defamatory and malicious” in his letters to the publishers of the Post, a news website, and the Beacon. While further acknowledging that the Attorney General had ruled the document a public record, Sowa wrote that the publishers would “not be insulated from liability” for releasing information about the report, and that they should “cease and desist from publishing any matters relating to” Healey.

ACLU volunteer attorneys Neal McNamara and William Wynne from the law firm of Nixon Peabody have agreed to defend the newspapers if Healey follows through on her threat of legal action. Both papers are prepared to publicize the report, which is expected to be released sometime later today.

Warwick Post publisher and editor Robert Borkowski said today: “I’ve often been threatened with frivolous lawsuits aimed at scaring me away from reporting on public matters and records in 20 years of community journalism. This was the first time it directly threatened a business I owned, though, and it rattled me. But Attorney Sowa, who must surely be aware of First Amendment protections regarding reporting on public officials and documents, sought to bully Mr. Howell and me into walking away from our responsibility to give the parents of Warwick the information they need to assess the deeds of the people they entrust their children to each day. So when I thought about that, I was only rattled a little while. Fortunately for Warwick parents, Mr. Howell, and me, the ACLU of Rhode Island has agreed to offer us legal representation if Sowa and his client make good on their threat.”

John Howell, publisher of the Warwick Beacon, added: “Ever since the School Committee completed an investigation of how its administrators handled complaints about a teacher drawing phallic symbols on the arm of a junior high school female student last spring, the Warwick Beacon has sought to get a copy of that report. That request was denied by the committee and later by the city after it used its subpoena powers to get the school report. Fortunately, the Attorney General agrees the report is public. Given that ruling and our belief that the citizens of Warwick have the right to know how their school administrators acted, I intend to publish those findings.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown stated: “A public employee’s threat to sue newspapers for doing their job – informing the public about the contents of a public document on a matter of enormous public interest – attacks the very heart of the freedom of the press. Over twenty years ago, the General Assembly passed a law to protect people from lawsuits that have a chilling effect on speech. As that statute, known as the anti-SLAPP law, points out, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern … are essential to the democratic process.’ The public document at issue here deserves a full airing, and the First Amendment was designed to allow that airing. We are prepared to vigorously defend the Post and the Beacon from this threatened abuse of the legal process.”

March 15, 2016

During Sunshine Week, ACLU seeks court order for the release of documents a local journalist has sought for years

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has asked a federal court to order the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release thousands of pages of documents in support of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of local journalist Philip Eil, who has been stymied for years in his effort to obtain from the DEA evidence disclosed at a major prescription drug-dealing trial. In its motion for summary judgment filed yesterday, the ACLU called for the release of “the wrongfully withheld documents post haste.”

In a 15-page memo, ACLU volunteer attorneys Neal McNamara and Jessica Jewell, from the law firm of Nixon Peabody, argue that the DEA has wrongfully withheld thousands of pages of evidence shown during the 2011 trial of Dr. Paul Volkman, whom the Department of Justice calls “the largest dispenser of oxycodone in the country from 2003 to 2005” and who is currently serving four consecutive life terms in prison.

Requesting the prompt release of this trial evidence, McNamara and Jewell write, “The government cannot on the one hand hold this case up as an example of how it investigates and prosecutes diversion cases and on the other state that the majority of the evidence used to convict such a defendant is not actually available to the public. FOIA is meant to prevent such ‘secret law.’ The general public clearly has an interest in knowing how Volkman was investigated and prosecuted.”

In support of the motion, the memo further notes that the federal government itself has uploaded to a publicly accessible judicial records website some of the documents it continues to withhold from Eil.

The ACLU’s legal memo was accompanied by an eight-page affidavit from Eil, in which he describes an array of obstacles he faced while covering the Volkman trial. Before the trial began, Eil says a DEA agent told him he could be charged with witness tampering for conducting interviews with potential witnesses. In 2011, while attending the trial, in Cincinnati, he was subpoenaed for testimony by the lead prosecutor and barred from re-entering the courtroom, though he was never actually called to testify. When he filed his FOIA request with the Department of Justice in February 2012, the agency took more than three years to fully respond, and withheld more than 85 percent of the pages it processed. Many of the pages released were significantly redacted.

“In 2009, when I learned of Volkman’s indictment, I set out to tell the story of a highly-educated man – my father’s former classmate – who became one of the most notorious prescription drug dealers in U.S. history,” Eil states in the affidavit. “As we approach the five-year anniversary of the verdict in that case . . . I am astonished that the vast majority of evidence from his trial remains sealed off to that case’s plaintiff: the American public.”

ACLU of Rhode Island executive director Steven Brown stated: “I am hopeful that the court will put a stop to the DEA’s flippant attitude towards the Freedom of Information Act. The agency’s siege mentality in trying to wear out Mr. Eil through years of delays amounts to an appalling attack on the public’s right to know.”

The DEA (represented by the office of Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha), has until May 4th to respond to the ACLU’s motion, with rebuttal memos due in June and July. Oral argument will likely be heard before U.S. District Judge John McConnell, Jr. sometime later this year.

These filings take place during Sunshine Week, a week designated to educate the public about the importance of open government, and at a time of heightened criticism of President Barack Obama’s transparency record. In 2015, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration had “set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them” in 2014. And, last week the Freedom of the Press Foundation reported that “the Obama administration – the self described ‘most transparent administration ever’ – aggressively lobbied behind the scenes in 2014 to kill modest Freedom of Information Act reform that had virtually unanimous support in Congress.”

Eil is an award-winning freelance journalist who served as the news editor and staff writer at the Providence Phoenix until the paper’s closing in 2014. He has since contributed to VICE, Salon, the Atlantic, Rhode Island Monthly, and elsewhere. He has conducted more than 100 interviews, across 19 states, for his book about the Volkman case.

March 4, 2016March 4, 2016

Hearing scheduled in ACLU of RI lawsuit over unlawful detention by immigration officials

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

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project will argue in support of its motion for summary judgment in its federal lawsuit on behalf of Ada Morales, a North Providence resident who has twice been detained as a deportable “alien” even though she is a U.S. citizen. The hearing is before U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

The ACLU’s lawsuit alleges that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and Rhode Island officials often bypass Constitutional requirements and safeguards when they detain individuals on immigration grounds.

In February 2014, Judge McConnell held that there are critical constitutional limits on the power of immigration and corrections officials to detain people while investigating their immigration status and that Ms. Morales “has set forth plausible allegations that she was unconstitutionally detained solely based on her national origin and Hispanic last name.” In July of 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld that ruling.

A decision on the motion for summary judgment is expected at a later date.

More information and documents regarding this case are available here: http://riaclu.org/court-cases/case-details/morales-v.-chadbourne

[From a press release]

February 11, 2016

Patients poised to lose everything under Raimondo’s medical marijuana tax

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

Rhode Islanders who use medical marijuana to help manage chronic and debilitating medical conditions spoke out today against a proposal in Governor Gina Raimondo’s 2017 budget that would levy heavy taxes on medical marijuana plants grown by patients and caregivers.

At a news conference held by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island (ACLU) and the RI Patient Advocacy Coalition, patients said this “sick tax” on medical marijuana would be devastating to them and many other patients and caregivers, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to access the medicine they need to manage their pain and other medical symptoms. The proposed tax, the groups said, has generated a palpable fear in the patient community and should be struck from the proposed budget.

“If these changes become law, I will be effectively forced out of the medical marijuana program,” said Peter Benson, an East Greenwich resident and medical marijuana patient who is paraplegic and uses medical marijuana to control painful and persistent muscle spasms. Benson broke his neck in a bicycle accident when he was 17. He is confined to a wheelchair. Benson called the governor’s tax “an absolutely cruel proposal.”

“Medical marijuana gave me my life back and my relationship with my wife and daughter,” said Benson. Marijuana controls the painful spasms and allows him to hold his daughter in his lap.

According to a fact sheet prepared by the Governor’s office, the new tax would impose a $150 per plant charge on patients lawfully growing marijuana for medical purposes, and a $350 per plant charge for caregivers volunteering their time and energy to grow plants for sick patients. The proposal also reduces the number of plants that patients can grow.

Ellen Smith, from Scituate, is both a medical marijuana patient and a caregiver for five other patients. She said of the proposed tax: “It would add more than $8,000 a year to the cost of growing medicine for my patients. They can’t afford it and neither can I. It is breaking our hearts.”

Smith remembers meeting candidate Raimondo who promised that she supported the medical marijuana law. Voting for Raimondo is a vote she regrets. Under the Governor’s proposal “gifting” the donation of excess marijuana to those who cannot afford to purchase it, will be taken away. Smith does all she can to care for the patients she provides for, and gifts all excess marijuana to the needy. Now she literally fears for her life and the lives of her patients.

“I will not only lose my patients, I will lose my purpose in life,” said Smith, who says the anxiety over this proposal has contributed to her suffering. One night, during a particularly bad breathing episode, she comforted herself that perhaps her death might be used to convince the Governor to change her mind.

The Governor’s fact sheet claims that each marijuana plant is “estimated to generate an average of $17,280 of annual revenue for a caregiver,” and that therefore the tax “amounts to just 2 percent of the value of marijuana produced.” But JoAnne Leppanen, executive director of the RI Patient Advocacy Coalition, noted that patients and caregivers are growing the plants for medical purposes only and make no money from the plants. “These plants produce medicine, not money,” said Leppanen.

Leppanen pointed to the difficulties and costs patients already face in growing marijuana, and said: “This is a draconian proposal based on fictional numbers that undermines the purpose of the medical marijuana program. It will wreak havoc on the lives and health of thousands of Rhode Islanders.”

“If one marijuana plant was worth $17,000 we’d be having this meeting in Hawaii,” said Benson.

A plant big enough to be worth $17,000 would be the size of the State House Holiday Tree, said Leppanen.

Bobby Brady-Cataldo was the second patient in Rhode Island to be legally able to used medical marijuana. All the marijuana she gets to treat her symptoms of MS is gifted. 80 percent of my money goes to my mortgage, she said, and she would not be able to afford medical marijuana otherwise.

The Governor’s proposal means, “people can’t give me medicine that literally saved my life. Is this ignorance or cruelty?” asked Brady-Cataldo. “They’ll give me Vicodin or Oxy, they’ll give me a drug habit, but they won’t help me.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, added: “Having a medical marijuana program means little if the state makes it impossible for all but the wealthy to actually participate in it. The patients and caregivers affected by this proposal grow medical marijuana to ease their symptoms and to help others; they are not running a lucrative drug trade. The state should treat them just as they would any other patient using legal medication. Imagine charging sick patients prescribed codeine a special tax based on the street value of the medication if they illegally sold it. We fervently hope the Governor will take this troubling tax proposal off the table.”

The ACLU has long supported the availability of medical marijuana for patients who could benefit from its use.

February 10, 2016

ACLU calls for privacy safeguards to be included in Truck Toll Proposal

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

Following review of testimony last week before the House Finance Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today raised privacy concerns regarding the lack of information surrounding the technology that will be used to implement the proposed legislation establishing tolls on tractor-trailers traveling through the state. The ACLU urged Rhode Island lawmakers to ensure drivers’ privacy is protected in the law.

According to testimony by DOT Director Peter Alviti, adoption of the current toll proposal will bring “sensing devices” installed along the roads to allow law enforcement to track vehicle movements, ostensibly to charge tolls on certain trucks and penalize toll evaders. However, the details regarding this technology have not been widely discussed or explained in any detail. It appears these devices will record information from not just trucks subject to tolls, but every vehicle passing through. The technology, the ACLU says, seems similar to automated license plate readers, which capture and record the license plate information, date, time and GPS location of every vehicle on the road. Such technology thus paints a complete picture of the movements of all vehicles traveling through the gantries. Neither current state law nor the proposed legislation limit the use, access to, or storage of this data, allowing severe intrusions onto individual privacy.

“In light of the serious impact on privacy this technology may have, it is critical that privacy safeguards be adopted long before a single gantry is erected,” Hillary Davis, policy associate of the ACLU of Rhode Island said today.

The ACLU is encouraging legislators to adopt language explicitly restricting use and access to the data solely for the purpose of addressing toll scofflaws, and that any data collected belonging to vehicles not subject to tolls be deleted instantaneously. Similar amendments are expected to be proposed during today’s House floor debate.

“While some opponents of this legislation have expressed concern that it could in the future be applied to cars, the privacy impact of this bill on all automobile drivers could be felt immediately. We urge the adoption of safeguards to ensure that the final version of this legislation does not compromise all Rhode Islanders’ privacy for the sake of collecting tolls on trucks,” said Davis.

February 1, 2016February 1, 2016

ACLU report finds numerous violations of Open Meetings Act

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

Public meeting agendas in Rhode Island are “often vague, lacking critical information, and at times entirely unhelpful” to residents attempting to participate in their government, a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has found. In reviewing just one week of public meeting agendas, the ACLU of RI discovered numerous violations of a critical portion of the state’s Open Meetings Act (OMA), and recommended that the law be strengthened in order to adequately protect the public’s right to know.

Today’s report, “Hidden Agendas,” focuses on the Open Meetings Act’s requirement that state and local agencies clearly specify in their agendas what is to be discussed at meetings, and that they post the agendas at least 48 hours before the meeting date. The ACLU review of the agendas for every public meeting held during the week of October 5, 2015, found that many of them failed to offer meaningful explanations about the items to be discussed. In addition, the statute’s 48-hour notice requirement was undermined by public bodies’ use of weekends to comply with that timeframe, and served to discourage individuals, and particularly individuals in need of accommodations, from attending meetings.

“The net result of these practices is to make it much harder for members of the public to know exactly what public bodies plan to discuss at their meetings and, therefore, for the public to fully participate in the meetings or to contact members of the public body in advance to express views about items that may be discussed or voted upon,” the report stated.

The ACLU found that many agendas improperly listed only generic categories such as “Old Business” or “Reports” with no further explanation. The agenda for a Burrillville Planning Board Meeting, for example, included the item “Planning Board Discussion,” while a review of the meeting’s minutes shows the discussion included questions about the controversial proposed power plant in the town. In another instance, the Northern Rhode Island Conservation District posted an agenda consisting largely of acronyms such as “SCC,” “NRCS,” and “RIFCO” that hold little meaning to the general public. Meanwhile, an agenda for the Pawtucket Board of Appeals consisted only of one sentence and did not include the place or time of the meeting.

The state’s fire districts, many of which have histories of open government violations, also violated OMA’s agenda notice requirement in blatant ways. In just one of the examples highlighted in the report, the Hopkins Hill Fire District Executive Board posted an agenda that stated “New Business: None,” but meeting minutes show a number of votes were taken during “New Business,” including one authorizing the expenditure of $25,000.

The ACLU also found that public bodies frequently undermined the intent behind the 48- hour posting requirement by using the weekend to meet the timeframe, giving the public very little time to learn the contents of upcoming meetings. Of the 74 agendas posted for Monday, October 5th meetings, 25 of them – including those for nine Town Council meetings – were not posted until the Friday before. For example, the Monday agenda for a Jamestown Town Council meeting was formally posted at 4:54 PM on the Friday before.

The report further noted that by posting agendas insufficiently in advance, public bodies prevent or discourage attendance from individuals who, because of hearing impairments or other disabilities, are in need of reasonable accommodations at public meetings. In several instances, agendas posted just two days before a meeting required an individual needing communications assistance to contact the agency three days in advance.

“The importance of providing adequate advance notice to the public about a meeting, and the topics that will be covered, is too obvious to need to explain. In many instances, however, public bodies did what they could to minimize the impact of advance notice,” the report stated.

The ACLU of Rhode Island called for extensive amendments to the Open Meetings Act, which has not been comprehensively reviewed in nearly 20 years, in order to address these serious problems. Among the ACLU’s recommendations:

The public should be given more than 48 hours notice about public meetings, and weekends and holidays should be excluded from the calculation. The timeframe for posting of agendas must also provide sufficient time for members of the public needing accommodations to request them.

All public bodies should be required to post meeting minutes and audio-recordings of their meetings on the Secretary of State’s website. These steps will serve as an important check on violations of the agenda notification requirement and will promote greater transparency.

The inclusion of common open-ended agenda items such as “Old Business,” “New Business,” and “Reports” without further explication should be prohibited.

Every public body should be required to designate a person with responsibility for complying with the agenda notice provisions of OMA, and for certifying their knowledge of OMA’s requirements.

A copy of the report is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/OMA_report_Feb_2016_Final.pdf

January 11, 2016January 11, 2016

ACLU files second sex discrimination charge against Harmony Fire District

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

For the second time in three months, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has filed a complaint of sex discrimination against the Harmony Fire District for terminating a female employee who had raised concerns that male and female firefighters were being treated differently. The ACLU filed this latest charge with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Linda Ferragamo, an EMT/firefighter at the department for more than a decade.

At an October 2014 Harmony Fire District Board meeting, Ferragamo, fellow female EMT/firefighter Kimberly Perreault and several of their male colleagues expressed concerns about women not receiving fair treatment in the department. At the meeting, according to the ACLU’s complaint, Ferragamo expressed the view that the fire department “was a boys club and that the women had no input.”

Perreault was soon fired for allegedly being “unhappy” with the department. Shortly after that, Ferragamo sent a letter to the Harmony Fire District Board of Directors complaining about Perreault’s termination and expressing concern about the way men, but not women, were being promoted in the department. A month later, Ferragamo was suspended for allegedly missing, without notice, three shifts over a two-month period. She was then terminated in August 2015. Ferragamo’s complaint alleges that male members of the department were not terminated or suspended for similar absences and that her suspension was an act of retaliation for the concerns she had raised about the department’s treatment of women at the October 2014 meeting and in her letter.

Ferragamo said today: “I have spoken up at several district board meetings in which I voiced my concern about the treatment of women in the department. My termination was in retaliation for my concerns. I have been a very active member of the fire department for 12 years. I also always found time to help and promote the department with outside activities. I hope to one day return to help the citizens of Harmony.”

In November, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a charge of sex discrimination on behalf of Perreault, a 12-year veteran of the department. None of the male firefighters who raised concerns about equal treatment of male and female employees have been disciplined or terminated.

ACLU volunteer attorney Sonja Deyoe, who is handling both complaints, said today: “Mrs. Ferragamo was brave enough to ask for equal treatment within the Harmony Fire Department and its response was to freeze her out of the complaint process, suspend her, then terminate her. It is my sincerest hope that we will be able to get her restored to her rightful position and begin a process of change within the department that will allow the women within it to be treated equally with their male counterparts.”

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Ferragamo_affidavit.pdf

January 6, 2016

Saxophonist Manny Pombo settles suit, may play without interference

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

The City of Providence can no longer stop musician Manuel Pombo from performing or soliciting donations on city streets as part of a settlement reached today in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.

See: ACLU sues Providence for violating street musician’s free speech rights

The ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit in July on behalf of Pombo, a 62-year-old saxophonist, who had been arrested once, and threatened with arrest on numerous other occasions, while playing his saxophone on sidewalks and street corners in Providence. His “permission to perform” license issued by the city also prohibited Pombo from soliciting donations for his performances, and it allowed him to perform solely at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The ACLU argued this violated Pombo’s free speech and due process rights.

As a result of today’s settlement, filed in U.S. District Court, the City of Providence can no longer order Pombo to stop performing on public property or require him to obtain a permit to perform on public property absent violation of any other valid ordinances. The settlement agreement further stipulates that “because soliciting donations is protected speech under the First Amendment,” the City cannot stop Pombo from soliciting or accepting donations for his performances. The City also agreed to pay compensatory damages.

The lawsuit was filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorneys Shannah Kurland and John W. Dineen.

Kurland said today: “We appreciate that the City was able to work with us to acknowledge Mr. Pombo’s right to make music in public spaces. Let’s hope that going forward municipal government will respect the Constitution without people having to sue our own city.”

Attorney Dineen added: “Ben Franklin, who was a busker in his early days, will be glad to see that the First Amendment still has some life in it, although it takes a street saxophonist and the ACLU to keep it going.”

This is the third lawsuit in five years that the ACLU of Rhode Island has filed against the City of Providence for interfering with the exercise of free speech rights on City public property. Two years ago, a federal judge agreed with the ACLU that Providence police violated the free speech rights of a local resident when she was barred from peacefully leafleting on a public sidewalk in front of a building where then-Mayor David Cicilline was speaking. In 2014, the ACLU sued the Providence Police Department for violating the free speech rights of protesters at a fundraiser in Roger Williams Park for then-Gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo. That case is ongoing.

A copy of the settlement is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Pombo_Settlement.pdf

Other documents related to the case are available here: http://riaclu.org/court-cases/case-details/pombo-v.-city-of-providence

[From a press release]

December 23, 2015December 27, 2015

Groups request release of state police report on Tolman High School incident

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the NAACP Providence Branch, the George Wiley Center, the American Friends Service Committee – South East New England, and Providence Student Union today filed an open records request with the Rhode Island State Police requesting the full report of its investigation, conducted in conjunction with the Pawtucket Police Department, into the actions of a school resource officer who was recorded body-slamming a 14-year-old student at Pawtucket’s Tolman High School on October 14. The groups are also seeking the evidence gathered in the investigation, as well as documents related to any review of the pepper-spraying by Pawtucket Police of students protesting on the day following the incident.

The request, filed pursuant to the state’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA), was made after the State Police announced it had completed its review of the incident and found that the officer in question behaved appropriately. In their APRA request, the groups noted that they are not calling the report’s conclusion into question, but consider it important that the public be able to understand the report’s finding and see all the evidence used to reach this conclusion.

The public interest in both the incident and subsequent investigation is clear, the groups stated, pointing to the extensive media coverage of the incident, the subsequent student protests, and the important policy issues the incident raised. In requesting the release of the documents, the groups noted that in August the State Police voluntarily released a detailed report into the Cranston Police Department and its “Ticketgate” scandal.

“Like that report, release of this information would shed light on important government issues, and particularly the role, responsibilities and powers of school resource officers in the schools,” the groups stated. By releasing this information, the groups noted, the State Police would be acting in line with an October 20 memo released by Governor Gina Raimondo’s office that emphasized the importance of state agencies disclosing information under APRA whenever possible.

“In balancing the public’s right to know versus any general privacy interests, we clearly believe the public interest is paramount in this instance,” the groups stated. Recognizing the need to protect the privacy of some individuals whose statements contributed to the report, the groups reminded the State Police that APRA provides for the redaction of those names and other personally identifying information rather than withholding the records.

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown said: “Release of the State Police report and materials is critical to promoting transparency and the public’s right to know in understanding this controversial incident that brought to light the many serious concerns raised by the routine presence of police officers in schools”

Martha Yager, program coordinator for the AFSC – SENE, said today: “I find it disturbing that it is deemed acceptable for a police officer to slam a child to the floor in school and arrest him. When a young person is loud and angry, should not the response be to patiently defuse the situation? Are not schools among the places we should teach children how to deal with their anger and distress? Why are children arrested when no law is broken? We need these documents to get a better handle on how to change a system that criminalizes children at school.”

NAACP Providence Branch President Jim Vincent added: “Although the police officer in question was cleared, the NAACP Providence Branch finds the use of force on a 14-year-old child very disturbing and calls into question whether police officers should be in schools in the first place.”

After the October incident at Tolman High School, the ACLU called on all school districts that currently have school resource officers to re-evaluate their use in the schools and to revise the agreements they have with police departments that set out their job responsibilities.

A copy of the APRA letter is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Tolman_High_School_State_Police_APRA.pdf

From an ACLU press release

How nonviolence street workers kept the peace in Pawtucket

Tolman students report disturbing police behavior

Violence, protest at Tolman leads to dialogue, opportunity for students

After the violence at Tolman: ‘What Now?’

ACLU calls on schools to revise policies on SROs

November 19, 2015

ACLU and religious groups denounce xenophobia, welcome Syrian refugees

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

The Rhode Island State Council of Churches, the RI Council for Muslim Advancement, the Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island and the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today issued this open letter to Governor Gina Raimondo, following her comments yesterday that the controversy surrounding the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Rhode Island was “much ado about nothing”:

Dear Governor Raimondo:

As the rhetoric and vitriol surrounding the issue of resettling Syrian refugees in Rhode Island increase, we urge you to demonstrate leadership on this critical humanitarian issue by firmly and publicly denouncing the rising xenophobia we are witnessing.

Yesterday you were quoted as calling it “much ado about nothing,” and saying that you would “take a look at it” if asked by the federal government to help with resettlement. Respectfully, when other public officials in the state are protesting efforts to welcome any Syrian refugees in Rhode Island by holding public rallies and calling for the internment of any refugees that do arrive here, this is anything but a non-issue. Nor is it something to be blithely ignored for now, and only looked at sometime in the indefinite future.

We believe that it is time for you, as Governor of a state that has welcomed immigrants and refugees from its founding, to forcefully affirm the view – in the same manner as some of your Gubernatorial colleagues elsewhere around the country have done – that Rhode Island is prepared to welcome immigrants and refugees fleeing violence from Syria, and that you reject fear-mongering that undermines our state’s strong commitment to non-discrimination against people because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. To ignore these troubling strains of prejudice is to only give them force.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Don Anderson, Executive Minister
Rhode Island State Council of Churches
100 Niantic Avenue, Suite 101
Providence, RI 02907

Imam Farid Ansari
President
Rhode Island Council for Muslim Advancement
P.O. Box 40535
Providence, RI 02940

Rabbi Sarah Mack
President
Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island
70 Orchard Ave.
Providence, RI 02906

Steven Brown, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island
128 Dorrance Street, Suite 220
Providence, RI 02903

November 14, 2015

ACLU reports continued over-suspension of students of color

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

Despite growing consensus that out-of-school suspensions should only be used as a discipline of last resort, Rhode Island school districts continued to overuse suspensions during the 2014-2015 school year, a report by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has found. The report, Oversuspended and Underserved, a follow-up to previous ACLU reports on the use of suspensions in Rhode Island public schools, found that schools doled out 12,682 suspensions in the last school year, often for minor misconduct. As in previous years, students with disabilities and students of color served a disproportionate amount of these suspensions.

While some school districts, education officials, and policymakers have acknowledged the need to address Rhode Island’s suspension problem, today’s report finds that much still needs to be done to address the persistent over-suspensions of even the youngest students. Among the report’s findings for the 2014-2015 school year:

The suspensions meted out last year resulted in more than 25,000 lost school days.

Over 1,000 elementary school students were suspended from school. Seventy-five of them were in kindergarten alone.

More than 60% of all suspensions were meted out for low-risk behavioral offenses such as “Disorderly Conduct” or “Insubordination/Disrespect.”

Black elementary school children were nearly six times more likely than their white classmates to be suspended from school. Hispanic children were three and a half times more likely than their white elementary school counterparts to be suspended.

Students with disabilities who have Individualized Education Plans were over two-and-a-half times more likely than a student without disabilities to be suspended from school.

More than two-thirds of the suspensions levied against high school students with IEPs were for low-risk offenses – exactly the punishment that IEPs should help these students avoid.

The report comes on the heels of the Rhode Island General Assembly’s near-approval this year of legislation to limit the use of suspensions to only those situations in which a child poses a serious physical risk, or when the student is disruptive and other methods to address his or her conduct have failed. The ACLU recommended that the General Assembly enact this legislation as soon as it convenes for its 2016 session.

Among its other recommendations, the report called on the Rhode Island Department of Education to work with districts to determine appropriate solutions for high suspension rates, and for school districts to work with the community to investigate alternative disciplinary methods. The ACLU also reminded parents of their right to appeal suspensions that they feel have been unfairly imposed.

Hillary Davis, ACLU of RI policy associate and the report’s author, said today: “Rhode Island’s children with disabilities and children of color have for too long borne the brunt of a system over-reliant on removing children from the classroom rather than correcting their behavior. The last school year was no exception. Our children deserve the opportunity to learn from their mistakes rather than potentially face a lifetime of severe consequences. Earlier this year, the General Assembly stood poised to make Rhode Island a leader in protecting children from the over-reliance on suspensions. We hope that swift action when the General Assembly reconvenes in January ensures that Rhode Island’s children will no longer find themselves cast out of school because of a bad day.”

A copy of the report is available here.

Previous ACLU of RI reports on school suspensions are available here.

[From an American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island press release]

November 12, 2015

ACLU charges Harmony Fire District with sex discrimination

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has filed a charge of sex discrimination against the Harmony Fire District on behalf of a female EMT/firefighter who was terminated from her job after she and several others raised concerns that male and female firefighters were being treated differently. The charge, filed with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is on behalf of Kimberly Perreault, who served as a firefighter for the Harmony Fire District for 12 years before being terminated in January 2015 for purportedly being “unhappy” with the fire department.

Perreault’s firing, the charge alleges, was in retaliation for concerns raised at a Harmony Fire District Board meeting in October of last year. At the meeting, Perreault, another female EMT/firefighter, and several male firefighters expressed concerns about women not getting fair treatment in the fire department. Three months later, she was summoned to a meeting with Fire District Chief Stuart Pearson where she was terminated. The only explanation that Pearson gave was that he believed she was unhappy working there.

Perreault stated in the complaint: “I had not expressed unhappiness with the Department. I had expressed concern that the Department was not treating women on a level field with men…I believed that I was discriminated against because of my gender and retaliated against because of my opposition to discrimination and the perception that I was supporting a complaint of opposition to the existence of gender discrimination in the Harmony Fire Department.”

After Perreault was fired, the other female EMT/firefighter who raised concerns about gender discrimination was later terminated for similar reasons. None of the male firefighters who raised concerns have been disciplined or terminated.

ACLU volunteer attorney Sonja Deyoe, who is handling the complaint, said today: “No one should be penalized for asking their employer for equal treatment. Our laws are set up to protect individuals who do so, because absent those protections, no one would ever ask for equal treatment from their employer.”

Ms. Perreault added: “I have always been available at a moment’s notice to help the people of the Harmony Fire District and the surrounding communities in their time of need. A job I have done for the past 12 years with pride. Needless to say, I was shocked when I met with Chief Pearson in January to find out the meeting was my termination for supposedly being ‘unhappy.’ I am pursuing this with the hope of stopping this type of discrimination and retaliation from repeating itself. The actions taken by the Chief have impacted my standing within my professional community, which is something I have worked very hard for.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown noted: “The troubles with fire districts, which seem to operate like little fiefdoms, appear to go deep and wide. It is disturbing to now see discrimination added to their list of transgressions. We hope to see this injustice rectified.”

The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights will now investigate the complaint.

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Perreault_Statement_Discrimination.pdf

[From a press release]

November 5, 2015

ACLU settles suit on behalf of ACI inmate retaliated against for criticizing prison policies

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced the settlement of a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jason Cook, an ACI inmate who, the suit alleged, was the victim of retaliation by prison officials for publicly criticizing RI Department of Corrections’ (DOC) mail policies and seeking legal assistance from the ACLU. Under the settlement, the DOC, while denying any liability, has agreed to pay a total of $7,500 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

The ACLU of RI filed the suit in 2009 after Cook experienced a pattern of harassment by prison officials after being quoted in the Providence Journal criticizing a new DOC policy limiting the written materials available to inmates. He was fired from his job in the kitchen, and after the ACLU of RI questioned the mail policy, the suit alleged that correctional officers conducted a search of Cook’s cell that damaged some of his personal property, and then subjected him to various investigations, bookings, discipline, and unwarranted strip searches.

The ACLU argued that this pattern of harassment by corrections officials against Cook violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech “and displayed both deliberate indifference and a reckless disregard of Cook’s constitutional rights.” Prison officials’ alleged misconduct continued even after Cook filed suit. The day after the complaint was served on a number of the defendants, the suit claimed that all of the previously active phone numbers on Cook’s call list, except for his attorneys, were suddenly deactivated.

The suit further claimed that the various disciplinary actions taken against him violated Cook’s due process rights. In 2013, U.S. District Judge William Smith rejected the DOC’s efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed.

ACLU volunteer attorney Shad Miller, from the law firm DeLuca & Weizenbaum, Ltd., said today: “I give Jason a lot of credit for pursuing his claims against individuals and an institution which had tremendous power and control over every activity of his daily life. It took courage to challenge these authorities and to hold them responsible for their allegedly unwarranted and retaliatory acts against him. It also took persistence to see the legal process through to reach a satisfactory resolution because at every step of the way the defendants vigorously denied and disputed the allegations against them.”

Plaintiff Cook stated: “The federal court has righted the wrongs committed against me. I hope that this settlement will send a clear message to the employees of the state prison that just because a person is incarcerated, we are still human beings and have rights.”

The mail policy at issue that Cook initially protested, and that was ultimately withdrawn after the ACLU intervened, barred family members from ordering books or magazine subscriptions for inmates. Instead, inmates could only obtain publications directly from a publisher with their own funds.

More information about the case is available here: http://riaclu.org/court-cases/case-details/cook-v.-wall

[From an ACLU press release]

October 29, 2015October 29, 2015

ACLU sues state over level 3 sex offender residency law

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island (ACLU) today filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of a recently enacted law that makes it a crime for certain sex offenders to reside within 1,000 feet of a school. As part of the suit, the ACLU has requested a restraining order to halt the law’s “inconsistent” and “arbitrary” implementation before any more individuals are uprooted or made homeless.

The new statute, passed overwhelmingly in the Rhode Island House of Representatives under the leadership of Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, is unconstitutional on three grounds, says Attorney John MacDonald, who filed the suit with Attorney Lynette Labringer today.

The statute is unconstitutionally vague, says MacDonald, with no definition of what constitutes a school in the law. Further, there are no guidelines offered as to how to measure the 1000 feet required under the mandate. Different law enforcement agencies use different systems operating under different parameters. A resident might be told he is safe by one agency, only to be ordered to move by another.

The law is unconstitutional because it violates due process. Level 3 sex offenders are banished from their property and their liberty under this statute, says MacDonald, and they have no recourse to a hearing unless they want to be arrested and charged in violation of the law.

The third constitutional violation occurs because under this statute, people who have already paid for their crimes are being further punished in having to move under threat of arrest.

The statute does not increase public safety, says MacDonald, and the homeless advocates in attendance at the press conference all agreed with this assessment. It is better to know where level 3 sex offenders are living, “but we have uprooted them and sent them to Harrington Hall, the only place that can house them.”

Jim Ryczek, who heads up the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless (RICH), is in full support of the lawsuit. “We are proud to have helped keep communities safe,” said Ryczek, adding that the three factors that keep people from re-offending are stable housing, employment and treatment. The law, if it is allowed to stand, threatens all three of these factors.

Not only is there no evidence that this law might help Rhode Islanders, this law “may have an opposite effect” says Ryczek.

Sol Rodriguez, executive director of OpenDoors, read her statement, saying, “People affected are being forced out of their apartments; some are homeowners, have families, are sick, disabled, and some live in nursing homes. Some are family caretakers. They have served the sentence imposed for their crimes and are known to law enforcement due to sex offender registry laws. This law will further destabilize this population.”

Jean M. Johnson is executive director of House of Hope CDC which manages Harrington Hall. Presently, this is the only facility that can house homeless, level 3 sex offenders in the state. During Wednesday night’s rain storm, “160 gentlemen inhabited Harrington Hall,” she said, “we are a 120 bed facility. We have always had level 1, 2 and 3 offenders stay with us. We are the shelter of last resort, we don’t turn anyone away.”

On Monday night, when the law is to be in full effect, 30 level 3 sex offenders could show up at Harrington Hall, in Speaker Mattiello’s district.

The new law, says Johnson, is “unjust and unfair.”

Beyond the issues of constitutionality and public safety, says Steve Brown, executive director of the RI ACLU, the law makes no sense. Many level 3 sex offenders were convicted for crimes against adults, and against adults they knew personally. These men are presently allowed to travel near and be around schools, but under the law are not allowed to keep in an apartment near a school, when the schools are empty.

As far as simply finding an apartment elsewhere, this is not really an option, said Jim Ryczek. Many landlords will not rent to a level 3 sex offender. Finding an affordable location that satisfies the 1000 feet limit in the amount of time available is all but impossible.

In Providence, 30 men have been told that they will have to move. A reporter at the press conference said that Speaker Mattiello was “getting pressure” to address the situation at Harrington Hall, but Jean Johnson said that no one from the Speaker’s office has reached out to her.

More information is available here.

October 7, 2015

Groups call on Gov. Raimondo to open public records

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

Citing a recent “pattern of disturbingly inadequate” responses to open records requests “on truly critical matters of public import,” five open government organizations have called on Governor Gina Raimondo to issue an executive order that calls on state agencies to “adopt a strong presumption in favor of disclosure in addressing requests for public information.”

In a letter sent Tuesday to Gov. Raimondo, the five organizations — ACCESS/RI, American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Press Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, and League of Women Voters of Rhode Island — cite three recent incidents in which state agencies addressed Access to Public Records (APRA) requests. The groups called the handling of each of these requests “questionable” and indicative of a “disinterest in promoting the public’s right to know.”

In the first incident, according to the Providence Journal, the state Department of Transportation provided an incomplete response to a reporter’s request for records related to the administration’s hotly debated truck toll proposal, failed to properly request an extension of time to respond, and then denied records without specifying what was withheld or whether there was any information in the withheld documents that could be released, as required by law.

In another instance, the administration denied the release of any records related to the hiring of former state Representative Donald Lally, citing “attorney-client privilege” and an APRA exemption for “working papers.” While the groups said it was reasonable that some documents might not be disclosable, they called the blanket denial of all records “untenable on its face.”

The third incident involves the Executive Office of Health and Human Services’ refusal to release an application filed with the federal government for additional funding for the state’s Unified Health Infrastructure Project. The department claimed the application and related documents were “still in development” despite the fact that the application had already been submitted for approval.

“From our perspective, none of [these responses] occupies a ‘shade of gray’ in interpreting APRA. Rather, precisely because they are so clear-cut, they warrant decisive action on your part in order to address the lackadaisical interest in a strong APRA that the responses embody,” the groups argued in the letter.

Representatives from the organizations said today that by issuing an executive order emphasizing the Administration’s commitment to open government, Gov. Raimondo would better ensure transparency and accountability from state executive agencies.

Linda Lotridge Levin, president of ACCESS/RI, said: “It is incumbent on public officials to make access to public records a priority if they expect to maintain the public’s trust. The instances cited in the letter to the governor show that some public officials choose to remain oblivious to the state’s Access to Public Records Act that mandates that the workings of government remain transparent, accessible and accountable to its citizens. We in ACCESS/RI urge Governor Raimondo to ensure that members of her administration adhere to the law and to respond in a timely manner to all public records requests.”

Steven Brown, ACLU of RI executive director, said: “Governor Raimondo’s first executive order upon taking office addressed compliance with state ethics laws. In passing, it also urged state officers and employees to ‘be mindful of their responsibilities’ under the open records law. Because they have not been mindful, we believe an executive order specifically establishing a presumption of openness in responding to APRA requests will better promote that key responsibility.”

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition added: “This is an opportunity for Gov. Raimondo to remind those working under her leadership that government transparency is a top priority and that the public’s right to know must be protected. These recent APRA responses are concerning and the governor should make clear that the statute needs to be taken more seriously. Timely responses need to be made and records should be disclosed whenever possible. An executive order to this effect would help build trust between the people of Rhode Island and their elected leaders.”

Jane W. Koster, president of the League of Women Voters of RI, stated: “It is of the utmost importance that the citizens of Rhode Island’s ‘right to know’ be protected and broad citizen participation in government be encouraged. The League of Women Voters of the United States and LWVRI believe that democratic government depends upon informed and active participation at all levels of government. It further believes that governmental bodies protect this ‘right to know’ by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible. The LWVRI believes that Governor Raimondo will act accordingly and alert all in her administration to comply with APRA going forward.”

A copy of the letter is attached and can be found here.

[This report comes from a press release.]