frank lombardi – RI Future

October 29, 2016

Burrillville residents refuse to drink tax treaty Kool-Aid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 16, 2016June 16, 2016

Keable/Fogarty power plant bill: An autopsy

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

Perhaps the most honest statement to come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Paul Fogarty’s bill S3037A came in the hallway outside the hearing room after the vote, courtesy of Senator Leo Raptakis.

“What happened in there?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” replied Raptakis, “I don’t know why they brought it up for a vote at all.”

The confusion Raptakis felt was understandable. Normally, if you want to kill a bill in the General Assembly, you just never let it come to a vote. Eventually the session ends and the bill is dead.

So why bring the bill up for a vote? What was really going on?

Senator Paul Fogarty’s bill would have allowed the voters of Burrillville the opportunity to vote on any tax agreements made by their town council with any power plant located in the town. The immediate effect of the bill would be to allow voters to decide on a tax treaty being negotiated with Invenergy, which wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The Burrillville Town Council has been repeatedly dishonest with the residents of the town, and has been actively working to bring the power plant into the town against the wishes of most residents. Residents of Burrillville want a say in the process and they want to prevent the power plant from being built.

The House version of the bill, sponsored by Representative Cale Keable, passed out of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on an 11-2 vote and passed the full House on June 8. The Senate version, after a long, contentious hearing that pitted Burrillville residents and environmentalists against labor and business, was tabled without a vote.

The forces in favor of the power plant did not want this bill to pass. It is believed by many that this bill will make it impossible for the power plant to be built, because it will interfere with Invenergy’s ability to secure financing for the project. A stable tax treaty is important to Invenergy because without it, the company faces the prospect of paying full taxes on the power plant. No tax treaty, no funding, some say.

In an effort to kill the bill, Invenergy paid for a full page ad in the Providence Journal. An editorial and an op-ed were published in the paper as well. Pressure was brought to bear on the Senate from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce whose lobbyists testified against the bills. And labor, which wants the plant built because of the much needed jobs it will provide, lobbied the Senate hard.

Meanwhile, there was pressure being placed on Governor Gina Raimondo by environmentalists to not veto the bill, were it to be passed. Raimondo did not want to be put in the position of having to veto this bill. She wants the public appearance of being strong on environmental issues, even if she supports fracking and fossil fuels. For Raimondo’s purposes, the less known on the national scene about her true environmental positions, the better. Vetoing this bill would create the wrong kind of headlines, the kind of headlines that might hamper her national political ambitions.

Satisfying these powerful players is easy. All that needed to happen was for the bill to never get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the bill would die, never to be voted on. There’s only one problem: If that were to happen, Senator Paul Fogarty would have failed the community he serves, and though Fogarty, for political reasons, is opposed to the power plant and in favor of his bill, he’s a strong union member and supporter. Under normal circumstances he would be a reliable pro-union vote and a valuable ally.

A way to both kill the bill and save Paul Fogarty’s political career was therefore devised.

Four Senators, Frank Lombardi, William Conley, Donna Nesselbush and Stephen Archambault, presented legal-sounding arguments against the bill, all the while telling Burrillville residents watching the proceedings live or at home how wonderful their Senator Paul Fogarty is. They laid it on pretty thick at times.

“Kudos to Senator Fogarty for the concerns that he showed his constituency in the town of Burrillville,” said Senator Lombardi, “and [for] having the intestinal fortitude to bring forth the bill on the behalf of his constituents.

“And I mean this, Senator,” continued Lombardi, looking at Fogarty who was seated in the center of the room, “I think that the people of the town of Burrillville are very fortunate to have you as their Senator and the work that you do for them. Quite frankly you listened to them and you put forth what you thought was a very favorable bill for your citizenry.”

Not to be out done, Senator Conley said, “Senator Fogarty’s advocacy on behalf of the people of Burrillville on this issue was extraordinary. I’m just about at the close of my fourth year in the General Assembly and I can say without reservation that I’ve never seen one of my colleagues advocate in such a meaningful and, I don’t want to say aggressive but certainly in a strong way, on behalf of legislation. His heart and soul is behind this bill and whether you agree with one of your colleagues or not, it’s always that kind of advocacy in this building that often goes unsung. So it’s important to note that.”

Senator Nesselbush was more circumspect in her praise, saying, “Senator Fogarty has been a passionate supporter of this bill that he even convinced me to be a co-sponsor of the bill.”

Senator Archambault, who might run for Attorney General in 2018, also chimed in with praise for Fogarty, “I want to echo the sentiments of my brothers and sister with respect to Senator Fogarty. He’s been here for you all along, he’s put in a tough piece of legislation, it certainly hasn’t made him any friends on one side but he did it because he cares. I think his actions speak for themselves.” After this performance, I don’t think any environmentalists will be voting for him.

With Senator Fogarty properly lionized and hopefully protected, all the Senators needed was an excuse, any excuse, to vote against the bill. As it is, they produced three excuses. They also needed someone to blame. They couldn’t blame the business community, they couldn’t blame the Governor and they couldn’t blame labor.

Enter the Republican Burrillville Town Council with their press release turned resolution. At the original Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to discuss the bill, Senator Lombardi foolishly tried to pass off a press release against the bill from the town council as a resolution, but in fact the Burrillville Town Council didn’t get around to issuing an actual resolution until the committee meeting was almost over. But now, with a “proper” resolution in hand, Lombardi was able to produce a villain: the Burrillville Town Council.

In his statement after the vote, Fogarty expressed his disappointment at the bills defeat, but did not blame the vote on his fellow senators. Instead, he referred to the resolution, writing that the “last-minute opposition of the Town Council… [was] the equivalent of getting two torpedoes to the bow.”

“It’s a shame that the Burrillville Town Council does not have enough faith and confidence in the local citizenry to make an informed decision on a matter that will impact the future of their community,” wrote Fogarty, forgetting that it was the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the Burrillville Town Council that killed the bill.

Lombardi’s second excuse was that he was concerned about the precedent that passing the bill would set. He said that when the residents of a city or town disagree with their elected officials, they shouldn’t be looking to the state to pass new laws. Lombardi feared that the General Assembly might be flooded with every local issue that is “controversial” if they passed this bill. Of course, it’s fairly easy to find dozens of examples where the state has stepped in to override local laws and ordinances. The very creation of the Energy Facilities Siting Board, the body that will ultimately decide whether or not the power plant will be built, is an example of the state overriding local concerns and laws, for instance.

Lastly, Lombardi noted that one of his colleagues “was gracious enough to provide us with a Rhode Island Supreme Court case entitled Warwick Mall Trust v State of Rhode Island.” Sources told me that the court case was provided to Lombardi and the other senators by Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio, a strong supporter of labor who sat in on the original Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that heard testimony on this bill.

Lombardi said that the decision in this case could be applied to Fogarty’s bill, and claimed that the bill, as written, would be unconstitutional.

In the end, of course, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Fogarty’s bill down. It was such an unusual occurrence that Chairman Michael McCaffrey couldn’t quite get his head around how it was supposed to work. As the chairman struggled to find the right way to phrase a no vote, two Capitol Police Officers entered the room, to make sure the crowd did not react aggressively to the decision everyone seemed to know was coming. The vote was 7 -2 against. Only Nesselbush and Erin Lynch Prada voted in favor of the bill.

The disappointment of the Burrillville residents could be felt physically. There were tears. Nick Katkevich, of the FANG Collective, shouted “Shame!” as he was leaving the room. The Capitol Police responded by telling Katkevich to leave, but he was already gone. Out in the hallway, there were more hugs and tears among the Burrillville residents.

They say they will continue the fight.

Looking over every single Senate Judiciary Committee vote this session, you will find that every bill brought up for a vote passed. In fact, every bill before this committee, but two, passed with no votes against them. The two exceptions were S2333 on May 5 and S2505 on March 3, and both times it was Senator Harold Metts casting the lone vote against. Until this day, six of the senators present had not cast a no vote in committee this year.

The truth is that no one is ever really supposed to vote no. These committee votes are pro forma. It’s theater. Every vote serves a purpose and no bill is voted on in committee without a predetermined outcome known well in advance.

And the vote on Paul Fogarty’s bill was no different.

June 9, 2016June 9, 2016

Senate committee tables Burrillville bill

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

The Senate Judiciary Committee held for further study a bill that would give Burrillville residents a role in determining the tax rate a proposed power plant would pay to the town. The committee took six hours of testimony, before and after the full Senate session. About 50 people spoke, about two-thirds of who oppose the power plant and support the legislation that would give town residents veto power over a tax treaty.

Senator Harold Metts motioned to hold the bill for further study and Chairman Michael McCaffrey seconded. No senator voted against holding the bill for further study. It passed the House the day before 64 to 7.

Earlier in the week, Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed declined to comment on the bill to a gaggle of reporters. Senate Majority Leader Dominic Ruggerio sat in on the session as an ex oficio member. Last week he told RI Future he did not support the bill and does support the power plant.

“I’m afraid this bill could have very bad repercussions and effects,” Ruggerio said. “I’m concerned about our energy needs in the Northeast.”

At yesterday’s hearing, senators Stephen Archambault, Donna Nesselbush and Frank Lomardi spoke out adamantly against the bill.

“From our side as state legislators, to them thwart every local government process where hopefully you would have good people elected who would listen to you,” Nesselbush told a Burrillville resident who had just finished explaining that the town council has not been listening to the residents. “I am loath to change a statewide approach because perhaps one town councilor is not doing his or her job. Your local government is supposed to represent you.”

Archambault said residents should not have a say over the tax treaty between the town and the corporation. “The town council, at large, has been elected and is in a position to best negotiate tax treaties.”

Burrillville residents say the bill is necessary because they can’t trust their town council to negotiate in good faith. The legislation would add a town vote on any tax treaty the council negotiates with a power plant corporation. It would increase membership on the state Energy Facilities Siting Board from 3 to 7, one of whom would be a representative of the state Water Resources Board. This is important to Burrillville residents because the proposed power plant would be cooled with polluted water that the corporation says it can filter.

April 28, 2016April 28, 2016

RI Coalition Against Gun Violence holds 2nd annual State House rally

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

The RICAGV (Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence) held their second annual rally outside the State House, reaffirming their support for three critical pieces of legislation that would ban guns on school grounds, take guns away from domestic abusers and limit magazine capacity to ten rounds. The General Assembly has shown little appetite for these bills in past years, though there are some signs that some sort of compromise bill on keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers might pass this year.

This rally comes after a punishing Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday night that lasted until after midnight. (I’ll have a piece on that over the weekend.) Speaking about Tuesday night’s hearing, Jerry Belair, president of the RICAGV, said that though he doesn’t like to speak ill of any elected officials, Senators Stephen R. Archambault (Democrat District 22, Smithfield, North Providence, Johnston) and Frank S. Lombardi (Democrat – Distict 26, Cranston), “did more testifying than almost anybody else. They seemed to be unwilling to listen.”

Between the first three witnesses, all representing the gun lobby, and the Senators own “testimony” it took three hours before a single member of the public representing the other side of the argument could testify, said Belair. When his side finally got to speak, said Belair, the Senators did everything they could to interrupt and disagree, “doing everything they could to not make us as effective” in delivering our message.

Belair teased a poll that the RICAGV will be releasing soon that indicates that Rhode Islanders, 3 to 1, want a ten round magazine limit. The same poll says 4 to 1 Rhode Islanders don’t want guns in schools (contrary to Senator Lombardi’s fantasy scenario spelled out here), and 92 percent of Rhode Islanders don’t want domestic violence offenders to possess guns.

The bills to disarm domestic abusers are House Bill 7283 and Senate Bill 2730.

The bills to keep guns out of schools is House Bill 7243 and Senate Bill 2761.

The bills to ban high capacity magazines are House Bill 7199 and Senate Bill 2835.

The RICAGV is encouraging Rhode Islanders to contact their elected officials and demand their support.

Below is all the music and speakers from the rally, plus plenty of pictures.

April 9, 2016April 11, 2016

Mattiello at the Grange

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

I got to the event a good half hour early. As I crossed the small parking lot outside the Oak Lawn Grange I was intercepted and asked about my business.

“I’m just here to take notes and a few pictures,” I said, “for RI Future.”

Pause. “We’re not set up yet,” said the man, “you’ll have to wait.”

“Okay,” I said, “I’ll sit over at the picnic tables.”

“Sure,” said the man, “Why not? It’s a beautiful day out.”

It was. I sat for a few minutes, reading my phone, when another man holding a clipboard approached me. We introduced ourselves. He was Leo Skenyon, Nicholas Mattiello’s chief of staff.

“I don’t know if we can get you in,” said Skenyon, “We’ve got over 130 people coming, and priority will be given to Cranston residents.”

“Okay, “ I said, “I get that. I can stand. I just need to take some notes and a few pictures.”

“We might get you into the basement with a TV,” said Skenyon, “You’ll be able to hear the answers, but you might not hear the questions.”

“We’ll see what happens then,” I said.

Mattiello at the Grange 003 — Tom Wojick

I waited outside near the entrance, watching people arrive. I saw two people from the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV) handing flyers to passers by. One of them was Tom Wojick.

“Do you support common sense gun legislation?” asked Tom, holding out a flyer to a man and his wife.

“No,” said the man, “I’m a NRA member.”

I had taken a bus on a Saturday morning to the middle of Cranston to see Representative Nicholas Mattiello, the Speaker of the House and arguably the most powerful politician in Rhode Island, engage with his constituents.

This isn’t an every day occurrence. Some reps have regular events with their constituents, some have none, but as Mattiello told the crowd, his duties as Speaker take up a lot of time, and he doesn’t often get the chance to hold events like this. Today was a rare chance to see Mattiello engage with his constituents and hear what voters in Mattiello’s district care the most about. [Spoiler: It’s RhodeWorks]

Mattiello wasn’t alone either on stage or behind the scenes. Organizing the event were about a dozen men delivering coffee and donuts, escorting people to their seats and acting as what seemed like de facto security. There were two Cranston police officers stationed at the event. In addition to Leo Skenyon, who was organizing, I saw Larry Berman, communications director for the RI House of Reps, helping out.

On “stage” with Mattiello were RI State Senators Frank Lombardi and Hanna Gallo, Rep Robert Jacquard and RI Department of Transportation director Peter Alviti, there to answer technical questions about truck tolls and RhodeWorks.

When I entered the Grange Larry Berman saw me and said, “He can come in,” but behind me Leo Skenyon said, “He’s taking a couple of pictures and heading downstairs.”

That’s what I did. Here’s one:

Downstairs in front of the TV was a man who was interested in RhodeWorks but happened to live in Providence, so he was sent to the basement with me. A minute later we were joined by Lorraine Savard, wearing a small version of her “Save Burrillvile: No New Power Plant” sign pinned to her lapel.

At least I was in good company.

We ended up watching everything on closed circuit TV, downstairs from the main event. We laughed when the camera upstairs went to a wide shot, showing at least seven empty seats in the main room. We laughed again when we noticed that the two police officers were in the downstairs room with us, leaving no police presence in the room above, where over one hundred people were in attendance.

Most of Mattiello’s talk was a defense of RhodeWorks. One idea the Speaker was keen to dispel was that RhodeWorks was broadly unpopular. He said that he has in his district 14 thousand constituents and 10 thousand registered voters. When he counted the number of emails he received opposed to RhodeWorks, it was thirty.

“I don’t believe that,” said the man from Providence sitting next to me.

But I don’t think Mattiello lied. People in Mattiello’s district aren’t that upset about RhodeWorks, or at least not upset enough to threaten him politically. Mattiello maintains that the reason people don’t like RhodeWorks is because they are misinformed about it.

“We have a talk radio community,” said Mattiello, “misinformation gets out through that medium” either through callers saying things that aren’t true or talk show hosts repeating false information.

“Misinformation takes your vote away from you,” said the Speaker.

Lombardi and Jacquard also defended their RhodeWorks votes. Lombardi said, “We live in a post 38 Studios world. RhodeWorks opposition is based on a distrust of [any] legislation, not on the plan itself.”

Gallo went a different direction, touting the work she does on education, including full day kindergarten.

Eventually the question and answer phase of the discussion, nearly three hours into the event, got around to a subject other than RhodeWorks. A woman (it was very hard to hear the specifics of her question on the TV) asked about the three bills the RICAGV has brought forward, including the bill to prohibit people with concealed carry permits from bringing guns into schools.

“There are two sides to this issue,” said Mattiello (who incidently has an A+ rating from the NRA), “There are those who want no change [to our guns laws] and there are those who want to abolish guns.”

This opening surprised me. The RICAGV has worked hard to strike a nuanced position on guns, and here Mattiello was claiming that the group was simply seeking to abolish all guns.

As for guns in schools, said the Speaker, “Please tell me where this has been a problem. And if its never been a problem, you’re affecting the rights of law abiding citizens.”

Mattiello gave the hypothetical situation oaf a man with a concealed carry permit picking his kid up at school. Is he supposed “to leave his gun on the sidewalk? Leave it in his car where it might be stolen, or drive home and drop it off first?”

“In trying to solve a problem you’re creating a bigger problem,” said the Speaker.

Guns are not allowed in courthouses or airports, countered the woman (and I might add, not allowed in the State House where Mattiello works either.)

Senator Lombardi cut in at this point, saying that the problem isn’t gun owners, it’s the mentally ill accessing guns. Columbine and Sandy Hook were the results of mental illness, said Lombardi, not lack of gun control.

“If,” said Lombardi, “God forbid, a [gunman] goes into a Cranston school, I hope the first person he sees is a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit.”

“We have to address the mental health aspect of this equation,” added Mattiello, “People with concealed carry permits are not the problem. I don’t think they’ve ever been the problem.”

Mattiello’s last words on the issue of guns were, “You can affect the behavior of people who respect the law, but not the behavior of those who don’t respect the law.”

That kind of makes me wonder why we pass any laws.

The next question was about the ethics commission.

“Senator Sheehan’s bill is the worst bill I’ve ever seen,” said Mattiello, “I can’t imagine supporting that bill because it make’s no sense to me.”

“Conflict of interest rules are ‘gotcha’ politics,” said the Speaker, “lawyers in the General Assembly serve clients across the country. Technically they are always in conflict of interest. They would never vote!”

Mattiello feels that Sheehan’s bill will encourage “frivolous complaints”. “What’s going to happen is good people are not going to want to run [for office],” said the Speaker.

“Most people in government are extremely ethical,” continued Mattiello, “Everybody up there, I believe, is entirely ethical and good.”

Mattiello seems to believe that the job of identifying conflicts of interest falls to the fourth estate, saying, “Kathy Gregg is a great reporter. She points out every conflict of interest.”

Somewhat echoing his last word on gun control laws, Mattiello said about ethics, “Ethics commissions don’t make better people. That’s [the electorate]’s job.”

Other random things of interest Mattiello said during the meeting:

“I disagree that the Speaker is the most powerful person in the state. Sometimes it’s the governor.”

Ex-Speaker Gordon Fox, now in prison, “had his problems but he did good things policy wise.”

“I don’t believe in trickle-down economics. I just want to be competitive with our neighboring states.”

“Rhode Island right now is in excellent shape.”

March 19, 2015

Highway protest bill represses free speech, discourages activism

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

A bill being considered by the state Senate would make interfering with traffic on a street, sidewalk, or highway, a felony. A felony, we should remember, carries minimum prison sentences, and directly or indirectly disenfranchises people for life. The bill, introduced in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests that swept the nation this winter, is sponsored by state Senators Lou Raptakis, Frank Lombardo, Frank Lombardi, Mike McCaffrey and Paul Jabour, who purport to want to protect public safety. There has been a great deal of outcry about the possibility of blocking ambulances during protests. This sort of objection and these sorts of laws, however, are manifestations of the systematic repressions that protests like Black Lives Matter seek to change.

For one, both the United States and Rhode Island prisons are full to overflowing (I know—I teach community college classes in the RI Adult Correctional Institution). As a nation, we also know that we have a problem with mass incarceration. In fact, it is one of the few bipartisan issues that currently has any traction. Filling more prison beds with nonviolent activists does not help.

Designating people felons disenfranchises them—in some ways formally and directly, and in other ways informally and indirectly. Convicted felons can vote in Rhode Island, but that is not the case everywhere, and there are almost universal employment and housing consequences for those with felony convictions. If every Rhode Islander who participated in blocking highways during the Black Lives Matter protests was convicted of felonies, a substantial portion of the activists in our state would not only be locked away for some time, but permanently relegated to second-class citizenship. To suggest that the bill has another purpose is to engage in delusion.

The threat of felony convictions would, of course, discourage activism, which is a grave mistake. Activists—indeed, civil disobedience—is responsible for some of the greatest social transformations in history, including the suffrage and civil rights movements, to name just two. Activism and civil disobedience have an important place in American democracy.

Third, ambulances are routinely deterred from highways for reasons unrelated to protest. Several months ago President Obama visited Providence, and the highway was shut for several miles during his stay, necessitating a full detour around the city for many of us to get home. There was no outcry about closing highways for such an occasion.

Fourth and finally, because of the bill’s language and the great degree of police discretion it implies, the legislation could scoop up the homeless, further criminalizing poverty. The bill targets anyone that “stands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters on any federal or state highway” and that “could reasonably be construed as interfering with the lawful movement of traffic”—meaning, of course, that those who live on the streets would be prosecutable for simply being there.

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech. To turn over the decision of determining when a protest has become “interference” effectively passes off that right to free speech to the discretion of the officers patrolling the event. The bill is on the table in Rhode Island, but it has tremendous implications for freedom of speech elsewhere, and could powerfully affect the climate of activism in the entire country.

Senator Raptakis, for example, thinks that highway blockades are “not the best way to protest.”

Hearing this, I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous remarks from the Birmingham Jail about the “moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who,” King concludes, “paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.”

Let’s let this bill die.

March 22, 2013March 22, 2013

Sen. Lombardi Interviewed On Anti-LGBT Website

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

State Senator Frank Lombardi (D-Cranston), is expected to be a strong “no” vote on S0038, the Marriage Equality bill to be heard during tonight’s Senate Judiciary committee hearing. In the past he has related his vote to his strong Catholicism, but last week he was interviewed by MassResistance, an anti-LGBT hate group as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[Editor’s Note: Sen. Lombardi denies speaking with MassResistance about last night’s hearing. He said he spoke with someone from the Faith Alliance of Rhode Island. MassResistance, on its website, said he spoke with them. MassResistance is a member of the Faith Alliance of RI, as is the Catholic Church. ]

“Last week MassResistance spoke with Sen. Frank Lombardi (D-Cranston), one of the committee members. Sen. Lombardi, who supports traditional marriage, predicted the vote of the 10-member committee would be a tie — meaning the bill dies. But he acknowledged that it’s is only his best speculation.”

Lombardi also expressed concern that a second bill, S0708, which would put equality on the ballot and up for popular vote but also contains broadly worded and unconstitutional “protections” to preserve the rights of religious folks to discriminate against LGBT persons in their places of business is a “back door” attempt to slip Marriage Equality into law. Needless to say Lombardi opposes any bill that might conceivably acknowledge LGBT rights.

For his part, Brian Camenker, the Voldemort of MassResistance, is once more going to darken Rhode Island with his presence and plans to testify at tonight’s hearings. He promises that FAPSMEG, aka the Faith Alliance, http://www.psmarriagebygodri.com/index.html is planning an even bigger presence than last time.
Tonight should be quite a party.

August 8, 2012August 8, 2012

Vote For Gene Dyszlewski, Not Frank Lombardi

Those of you familiar with the case of Ahlquist v. Cranston might well recognize both the candidates running for state senate in Cranston’s District 26.

First there is Frank Lombardi, a member of the School Committee who voted in favor of keeping a prayer on the wall of Cranston West High School three times, citing his Catholic Faith as one of his main reasons for doing so.

When questioned recently about marriage equality, an important issue in the upcoming legislative session of which Lombardi hopes to take part, Lombardi replied that he couldn’t switch off being a Catholic. In other words, he would vote against marriage equality, vote against reproductive rights and vote against church/state separation. It should be noted that Lombardi has the endorsement of outgoing State Senator Bea Lanzi, a solid yes vote for marriage equality. Why she should endorse a candidate so opposed to her values is a mystery.

Listen to Lombardi at a school board meeting in March of last year where he talks about the “three hats” he wears as an elected official. He speaks of being a lawyer, an elected official and a “practicing Catholic,” saying that all three roles come into play when he makes decisions as an elected official. Lombardi is simply unable to separate his religion from his politics, and this is bad for Rhode Island.

Later, Lombardi discusses a DVD he watched about the history of the United States. The video was a documentary by pseudo historian David Barton, and Lombardi’s take away is chilling. He learned that “religion is inevitably intertwined with our government and has been for… over two hundred years…” adding, “I learned about all the religious references in that DVD, and I paid attention.” That’s right, Lombardi has learned his history from a fringe right-wing Christian crackpot.

If this were all there was to Lombardi, that would be bad enough. After losing the case and exposing the taxpayers of Cranston to a potential $173,000 loss in defending the prayer banner, Lombardi used his three minutes of opening comments at the next school committee hearing to go after an anonymous social media poster who called the school board “dumb.” Lombardi’s public tantrum was an embarrassing display of defensive pettiness, and unbecoming of a public official.

It’s clear that Frank Lombardi is not suited to any elected position, and especially not the important role of state Senator where he will be voting on and introducing legislation of real importance and consequence to the lives of thousands of Rhode Islanders.

Fortunately, there is an alternative running for the Democratic Party nomination on September 11th, Gene Dyszlewski, he of the difficult to pronounce last name and the campaign website justcallmegene.com.

Gene supported the removal of the prayer banner at Cranston West, and after the judge ruled against the banner and in favor of Jessica Ahlquist, and the ugly death and rape threats against the sixteen year old student began, Gene was one of the many members of clergy who publicly stepped up and defended her. He was also a very visible and vocal presence at the school committee meetings where he challenged the expectations of the pro-banner crowd as a minister in support of church/state separation.

Gene’s take on issues of church/state separation fly in the face of his opponents. Rather than rely on the revisionist history of Tea Party zealots like David Barton, Gene reflected on the real accomplishments of Rhode Island’s visionary founder, Roger Williams, declaring, “The separation of church and state is one of those interesting paradoxes: In order to have freedom of religion, Roger Williams developed a secular society.”

Gene served on the board of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, and is a full supporter of equal rights for LGBTQ people. He recognizes the importance of reproductive freedom, and has earned the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, Marriage Equality Rhode Island, the Rhode Island National Organization of Women and the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats.

Unlike his opponent, a petty bureaucrat plugged into the political machine here in Rhode Island, Gene is a believer in higher ideals. He wants to make Rhode Island a better place for all its citizens, tackling real issues of real importance.

For anyone interested in challenging business as usual politics here in Rhode Island, the choice could not be more clear.