apra – RI Future

October 26, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 24, 2016October 25, 2016

Burrillville Town Council about to have its Gaspee moment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be there.

March 21, 2016March 22, 2016

Pilot program for PPD body cams underway

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

The Providence Police Department is in the process of finalizing their implementation of a Body Worn Camera (BWC) Pilot Program and working to establish procedures and regulations pertaining to it.

A draft of the proposal has been obtained by RI Future. Because it is a draft and not covered by the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), Evan England, Mayor Elorza’s communications director, was unable to verify its authenticity. RI Future has independently confirmed that the draft proposal is the one currently under review.

The pilot program was presented at a meeting held Friday afternoon. Public Safety Commissioner Stephen Paré and Chief Hugh Clements were in attendance, as well as representatives from the City solicitor’s office and several community groups, including the ACLU and the NAACP. Those who attended the meeting were given a week to submit potential revisions to the draft regulations.

Two companies are providing free trials of their body cameras, Taser and Vievu. The timeline is vague, and has not been confirmed by the mayor’s office, but the PPD will have 5 weeks to test each company’s equipment. Once the equipment has been tested, the city will apply for a Federal grant to help pay for the cameras. England was able to say that he knows there are no planned announcements on body cameras over the next few weeks but at the meeting it was suggested that the program could potentially be unveiled as soon as early May.

It is unknown how much public input will be allowed into this process.

This story is developing and there will be more on this as we get it.

Some specifics in the BWC proposal

According to the draft proposal, which may be amended at any time, “It is the policy of the Providence Police Department to utilize body-worn camera equipment to record and document specific categories of law enforcement interactions with the public, and to institute parameters governing the viewing, storage and dissemination of the associated audiovisual recordings,” according to the draft policy.

Under the BWC Pilot Program the department is issuing BWCs to selected uniformed and investigative officers. “The BWC Pilot Program will be examined to determine whether or not BWCs contribute to officer safety, provide evidence for criminal prosecutions, help to resolve complaints made against personnel, and foster positive relationships with the community. BWCs are only intended to record that which an officer could potentially observe or hear using his/here own senses of sight and sound.”

The pilot program is considered a “work in progress” and it is possible the procedures outlined may be amended when the procedures run up against the “real world.”

Officers will be issued a particular BWC. Officers must continue to write their reports as before. They cannot write “refer to video” but must complete a thorough and detailed report.

Officers are required to activate their BWCs under the following circumstances:

All enforcement encounters where there is at least reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing or may be involved in criminal activity. This includes, but is not limited to, self-initiated stops and dispatched calls for service.
All enforcement encounters where there is reason to believe that the individual is committing a violation for which a summons may be issued.
When initiating and conducting all vehicle pursuits.
When conducting all vehicle stops.
Taking or attempting to take an individual into custody (i.e. arrests, mentally ill persons/protective custody situations, etc.)
All incidents involving a reportable use of force, as soon as and whenever practicable.
Any public interaction, regardless of context, that escalates and becomes adversarial.
All building searches/entries made pursuant to criminal or investigatory purposes.
Whenever an officer judges that it would be beneficial to record an incident, but only when recording does not contradict Section “C”, below.

If the officer does not activate the BWC under the above regulations, the officer must report the reason why to an immediate supervisor both verbally and in a written letter.

The BWCs should not be activated under the following circumstances:

During encounters not directly related to official activities in the proper performance of police duties.
During the performance of non-departmental functions or administrative duties within a Department facility.
In places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, such as, but not limited to, the interior portions of domiciles, hospital emergency rooms, locker rooms and restrooms.
Whenever a potential witness requests to speak to an officer confidentially or desires anonymity.
Whenever a victim or witness requests that he or she not be recorded and the situation is not confidential.
Whenever dealing with victims of sex crimes or child abuse.
Whenever a victim requests that he or she not be recorded as a condition of cooperation and the interests of justice require such cooperation.
To record any personal conversation of or between another Department member or employee without the recorded member’s /employee’s knowledge and permission
Whenever the identities and/or investigative techniques of undercover officers would be compromised.
Whenever performing or present during a strip search of a detainee.

Officers who make a prohibited recording must make a request for deletion to their immediate superior as soon as practicable.

Officers must inform, as soon as practicable, that they are recording by using the phrase, “I am advising you that our interaction is being recorded.” That said, permission from the subject is not required to record.

The BWC can not be stopped until the interaction is complete. Interruptions or premature terminations of recordings need to be reported and justified.

The recordings collected will be considered the property of the PPD. Members of the PPD may not copy, publish, share or disseminate any BWC audio or video without the permission of the Chief of Police or the Commissioner of Public Safety. Also, the recordings may not be edited, deleted or altered. They may not be stored on a cloud server or other media storage devices.

Video will be stored for 90 days, at which time it will be automatically deleted unless it is ordered to be archived.

It is a violation of the policy for recordings to be reviewed solely for the purposes of searching for instances of Department members committing violations of law or Department policy, unless reviews are related to a specific complaint, allegation or incident.

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.]

November 12, 2013November 12, 2013

Board of Education faces secrecy scrunity today in court

board of education executive session — A RIDE employee told me I wasn’t allowed to take this picture of the Board of Education meeting in executive session.

The new state Board of Education is well-known for trying to tamp down public discussion of the NECAP high stakes graduation requirement and today it will be in Superior Court defending itself against allegations from high school students, civil libertarians and other various equality activists who say it went too far in trying to silence the debate.

The ACLU, the Providence Student Union and others are seeking $5,000 from the Board of Education for “engaging in a knowing and/or willful violation of the Open Meetings Act,” according to the law suit, when the Board dealt with a petition to redress the high stakes testing issue earlier this year. The plaintiffs are also asking that whatever conversations happened behind closed doors be makde public.

Both parties are expected before Judge Luis Matos at 2 p.m. today in Providence.

“As a result of the high stakes testing requirement, scheduled to take effect in 2014, approximately 4,000 students face the risk of not graduating next year because of their scores on the current test, known as the NECAP,” according to the RI ACLU’s blog. “Yet to this day, despite repeated pleas from parents, students and community groups, the Board has refused to publicly discuss the requirement.”

The lawsuit contends the Board illegally addressed the petition in closed session. It is the second time the ACLU has accused the Board of Education of circumventing public scrutiny on the issue of high stakes testing. Only weeks before this suit, a judge forced the Board of Education to hold a planned private “retreat” publicly instead.

Earlier this year, a wide range of community groups that advocate for racial equality, social justice, disabled children and/or civil liberties asked the Board of Education to revisit its decision to make a passing or improving on a standardized test a condition of graduation. Despite widespread concern that a high stakes graduation requirement would unfairly punish students from lackluster school districts and place a greater burden on non-traditional learners, like students on the autism spectrum or English language learners, the Board declined the request.

February 22, 2013February 22, 2013

New Open Records Law Needs Enforcement

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

mike field — Mike Field, of the Attorney General’s office, testifies at a hearing on a proposal to update Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act in 2012. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Between 1999 and June 2012, the Attorney General’s office filed lawsuits against public bodies for violating the state’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) on only six occasions, less than 4% of the time after finding that violations of the law had been committed. That is one of the findings of a report issued today by the ACLU of Rhode Island, which examines past enforcement of the open records law by the AG’s office and urges stronger enforcement in the future.

In June 2012, the General Assembly enacted comprehensive amendments to APRA, and expanded the circumstances for imposing penalties against public bodies that violate the Act. This prompted the ACLU to examine how APRA had been enforced by the Attorney General’s office, the state agency explicitly given enforcement powers under APRA, prior to those amendments.

In addition to the lack of litigation by that office to address violations, we found other discouraging patterns. Among them:

Violations of uncomplicated aspects of the law — such as responding to an open records request within the required time period, notifying requesters of their appeal rights, and not charging unreasonable fees for the inspection and copying of records — occurred repeatedly.

Even the most blatant violations of the statute rarely led to legal action by the Attorney General. In one recent instance, the same public body – the Town of North Providence – was found to have violated APRA six separate times within a two-year period, yet even after the sixth violation, the Attorney General refused to find that the Town had engaged in a “knowing and willful” violation that warranted seeking penalties under the law.

It should be noted that the AG’s failure to pursue vigorous APRA enforcement occurred regardless of who had been in office during the time period studied. And it must be acknowledged that until the 2012 amendments were adopted, the Attorney General faced a high standard – a finding of a “knowing and willful” violation of the law – in order to obtain financial penalties against a public body. But since so many of the violations have been so clear, even this standard should have led to a much stronger track record in pursuing legal action and thereby helping to deter future violations by public bodies.

Under last year’s amendments to the law, a public body can now be subject to financial penalties for “reckless” violations of the law as well as “knowing and willful” ones, which means the complainant need no longer prove that the violation was done with deliberate knowledge of its illegality. In order to promote respect for, and compliance with, the law, it is essential that the AG make use of the statute’s strengthened penalty provisions to seek fines against public bodies that engage in clear violations of APRA’s requirements. It is insufficient to issue findings of APRA violations with no further repercussions when the violations should never have occurred in the first place. A more vigorous response is necessary in order to help reverse a culture of secrecy that seems to pervade too many government agencies.

If little changes, however, the General Assembly should further strengthen the penalty sections of the law by significantly increasing the fines that can be imposed to encourage enforcement by private parties. The General Assembly should also consider whether another state agency should be tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the statute if the AG’s office does not increase its pursuit of violations against recalcitrant agencies. The public’s right to know demands nothing less.

June 27, 2012June 27, 2012

Progress Report: Celebrate Homeless Rights, NK Janitors Fired, Govt by Fear in Woonsocket, 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

Come celebrate today at the State House an area of public policy in which Rhode Island is leading the nation: protecting the rights of homeless people. That’s right, as the rest of the nation moves toward outlawing homelessness and sleeping in public places, the Ocean State is the first in the country to pass a homeless bill of rights.

“On the one hand it is a shame that we need a law like this to stop bigotry and discrimination,” said the law’s author, John Joyce, co-founder of the Homeless Advocacy Project who once lived on the streets himself. “But on the other hand it is wonderful that Rhode Island passed this law and took a stand against such discrimination.”

The celebration is at 1:30, and Gov. Chafee will be there.

Speaking of being homeless, a new luxury condo development proposed for a rural area of Barrington could leave the endangered diamondback terrapins that leave nearby without a place to live … it’s high time we decide as a culture that human profit cannot trump the rights of other living things to simply exist.

In North Kingstown, its the school janitors who may end being on the streets, as the School Committee has fired 26 custodial workers and plans to replace them by outsourcing the work to a private company, which says it will hire back the laid-off employees at “the company’s ‘enhanced wage,'” according to North Kingstown Patch. By the way, “enhanced wage” = less health benefits and no collective bargaining rights. This is nothing more union-busting, and the NK School Committee should be ashamed to employ such a tactic.

The MaddowBlog reacts to conservative Woonsocket Rep Jon Brien’s assertion that he didn’t support the supplemental tax bill because it would be easier to win concessions if the situation was more dire. “What the ALEC lawmaker is describing is government by fear. The policy choice is between trying to fix a city by starving it or reinvesting in it.”

Congrats to Rhode Island for finally updating its public records law, and thanks to Common Cause RI for working so hard on its passage … that said, it is patently ridiculous that elected officials emails and other written communications are exempt from the law. This is the exact stuff that should be covered, and we trust that John Marion of Common Cause will be back in the halls of the State House next year fighting for further reform.