Senate Judiciary considers legislation to legalize cannabis


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
From Left: Jared Moffat, Rebecca McGoldrick, and Diego Arene-Morley testify in support of S510.
From Left: Jared Moffat, Rebecca McGoldrick, and Diego Arene-Morley testify in support of S510.

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday showed overwhelming support for legislation that would legalize marijuana in Rhode Island after its economic successes in both Colorado and Washington.

Jordan Wellington, a lawyer with Vicente Sederberg LLC in Colorado, came to speak in support of the legislation, S 510. Wellington has worked closely with Colorado’s state government to implement the retail and regulation of marijuana, and now works in their Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division as the single policy analyst.

“Instead of should or shouldn’t we, we discussed how to move forward with this responsibly,” he said.

Wellington said Colorado gained more than 20,000 jobs and saw $900 million in sales that brought in $125 million in tax revenue. The cost of enforcement, he said, was less than $10 million.

Money from the extra revenue was invested in educational programs about cannabis to teach youth about its effects and consequences.

“We have found that some of the messaging to youth has been very effective,” Wellington said. “A very cautious message has been given to Colorado’s youth.”

According to Wellington, Colorado has not been without its challenges by taking this step forward. Regulation and education has been key in making the policy work. “One of the biggest things we did was we put a lot of different restrictions on potency in edibles,” he said.

The question of youth cannabis use was touched upon several times throughout the hearing. Andrew Horwitz, an assistant dean at Roger Williams Law School, who also testified in support of 510, said the prohibition approach aken towards marijuana is completely ineffective, and disingenuous to children.

“We are fundamentally dishonest in the way we talk to our children about marijuana,” Horwitz said. “We talk to them like it’s crack, like its heroin. They know now to believe us, that marijuana does what we claim.”

Horwitz also stated that reforming juvenile use starts from the top, with how the state looks at marijuana as a whole. “We are doing terrible damage by the use of our criminal justice system to deal with a public health issue,” he said.

One of these damages includes a racial disparity in the number of African Americans who are arrested for marijuana related crimes, due to police saturation in communities of color, as well as racial profiling.

“We’re doing a number of things wrong,” he said. “We’re arresting people for distributing marijuana. If you legalize the distribution of marijuana, you eliminate the whole line item of law enforcement.”

Jared Moffat, director of Regulate Rhode Island, also came in support of 510, with an entire binder of studies regarding the legalization in Colorado. The most accurate study of youth use, called Healthy Kids Colorado, looked at 40,000 middle and high school children, and is re-done every two years.

“The best available data on youth marijuana in Colorado shows that the use has remained flat,” he said, especially when in comparison to alcohol and tobacco, which has continually fallen in recent years. Moffat, like Horwitz and Wellington, pointed to education as the key to reducing youth cannabis use. Looking at the context of use is important as well.

“If we are acknowledging that marijuana is available in our schools, we need to acknowledge that is readily available from drug dealers,” Moffat said.

Moffat said many of the studies that opponents brought up against the legalization of marijuana have cherry picked their data in order to make it look like youth use has risen. One such study compared the city of Denver to the United States as a whole.

“If you take any metropolitan area, you’re going to find higher use,” he said.

Youth use was definitely the biggest worry of both legislators and the few opponents who did come out to speak against the bill, such as Debbie Paragini, who came as a Rhode Island parent.

“I feel really upset living in a state that is thinking about legalizing yet another recreational drug. For an economic basis? I don’t understand that,” she said. “As a parent, I think this is a really bad idea.”

Committee considers driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Representative Anastasia Williams testifying for H6174
Representative Anastasia Williams testifying for H6174

“We are not just nomads looking for benefits.”

That’s what Jose Chacon, an undocumented immigrant living in Rhode Island, said to the  House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, in support of H6174, which proposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

“It’s just a human thing to do,” he said.

In its current state, the bill allows undocumented immigrants a valid Rhode Island driver’s license if they can provide documents that reliably establish their name, date of birth, place of birth, and Rhode Island residency, among other pieces of information. Those who are under 18 are still required to undergo driving education.

Representative Anastasia Williams (D-District 9), the primary sponsor of the bill, in her testimony, said the bill has been a long time coming.

“I do believe we are going to come to a crossroad where we address the issues before us,” she said. One of those issues, according to Williams, is safety. If illegal immigrants are granted driver’s licenses, then they will have further access to auto registration and insurance, should they get into a car accident.

“It’s about responsibility, accountability, and a duty,” Williams said, citing that it is state legislature’s duty to ensure that everyone is as safe as possible on the road. “It is time for us to do our due diligence to make sure that these individuals on the road have the proper documentation,” she said.

When asked who would pay for these licenses, Williams responded that the process would operate much like the processes for giving a license to a US citizen.

“Time and resources is something that this General Assembly puts forth for many other things,” she said. “We are not giving out free licenses. These individuals will have to pay for them just like you and I.”

Even with supporters like Chacon, many of which attended the hearing, H6174 still has its fair share of opposition. Terry Gorman, the president of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, came to testify against the legislation. Gorman found many parts of the bill to be unclear, and even called H6174 an “illegal aliens benefit act.”

“Passing this bill would in effect hold all of you in violation of 8 USC 1324, which prohibits aiding and abetting illegal aliens,” he said. “People said they’re doing it anyway, they’re going to continue doing it. There are child molesters, wife beaters, and bank robbers, doing crimes. Should we just ‘Oh they’re doing it anyway, they’re going to continue doing it?’”

Gorman’s main objection to the bill was that many of the documents that undocumented immigrants would be asked to provide are not valid forms of government identification.

“That needs some sort of clarification as to who is going to verify that information, and what the cost will be to verify it,” he said.

Steven Brown from the RI chapter of the ACLU testifying in support of H6174
Steven Brown from the RI chapter of the ACLU testifying in support of H6174

Currently, H6174 is subject to amendment, but one that has caused some controversy is whether or not undocumented immigrants applying for a driver’s license would be required to submit to a national criminal background check. A major concern is whether or not such information would make its way to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“If you do have a national criminal record check, innocent people will be fearful, and understandably so,” said Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU. Brown mentioned that the state Senate version of this bill has an explicit confidentiality provision that prevents the sharing of illegal immigrant’s information without issuing a subpoena.

“I don’t believe that particular provision is in this bill, and we would encourage that it be added,” he said. “We would encourage the committee, in considering this bill, to reject that option, because of its consequences.”

Tip high and tip often, someone’s economic security depends on it


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

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

tipsThere are two minimum wages in this state, as in many states. There’s the one you always hear about that applies to almost everyone and every job, which is around $9.00/hr. right now. Then there is the other one, for the people who didn’t have a strong-enough lobby when the minimum wage bill was first written and subsequently modified. They are mainly restaurant servers – waitresses and waiters. Their minimum wage is currently $2.89/hr. in RI. Hence, it is referred to as the sub-minimum wage, or as I like to call it the substandard minimum wage.

Legislation heard last night would raise the sub-minimum wage to be equal the minimum wage over four years, so that in 2020 the sub-minimum wage would effectively be eliminated for servers.

Some of the Big Issues

How does one live on $2.89/hr.? They don’t. The idea is that tips make up the difference between $2.89 and $9.00, and current law in fact states that owners must add to servers’ income whatever is necessary to bring $2.89+tips up to $9.00. For that matter, how does anyone live on $9.00/hr.? Again, they don’t. That’s way below the poverty line. But that’s another story.

Note that tips are supposed to reward good work, above and beyond what is required of the server. At least, that was the original intent, but now they are formally part of ‘regular’ wages. I’ll bet most patrons do not know that. I didn’t.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? Like, what about all of the slow nights when there are hardly any tips? Even including the good nights the typical server’s income is nothing to write home about.

Many numbers for the actual average server wage, including tips, were tossed around last night. About $8.50/hr. seems to be the most believable. But wait: weren’t servers guaranteed to get $9.00/hr.? Unfortunately some wage theft and other unscrupulous practices occur in some restaurants. But, again, I digress.

Another problem: in order to get decent tips, a server has to suck up to her patrons. The servers that look the best, smiles the most, and doesn’t complain, make the most. If you don’t want to fit this picture, tough. Like it or get another job. Several restaurant owners at the hearing actually said things like this.

There is a LOT more to this, which others have or will addressed.

Observations on Dubious Observations

1) One of the senators on the committee hearing the bill asked: If there are thousand(s) of servers in RI, and they support the bill, why aren’t they all here testifying tonight?

  • Comment: (We ignore the ludicrousness of this question in the first place.) As a testifier pointed out, most servers have to be at work by 4 PM (that was about when the hearing started). But OK, putting that to one side, by the same reasoning, there are hundreds of restaurant owners in RI, why weren’t all of them there last night? After all, they don’t have to start at 4 PM, the servers (and others) are handling the work at their restaurants.

2) Many of the owners took personal offense at the testimony of the supporters of the bill. Many talked of their staff and themselves as “family.” I have no doubt that the vast majority of the owners in that room are sincere, good people with good intentions. I told a couple of them that. They are also small-business owners, and they do have a tough life. My father was self-employed, I know.

  • Comment: But there are many owners out there who are not good people, and the state needs to protect all workers.

3) Many of the owners testified that their servers like the status quo. The owners know this because they asked their servers about it directly.

  • Comment: Anyone NOT see a problem with this? If your boss thinks that A is better than B, and (his) money is involved, and asks you, his worker, if you think the same, and you don’t want to risk losing your job or making less, and you do want to feed your family, and you don’t have a contract or tenure and are not married to the owner’s sister, what are you going to tell him?

4) One of the owners told me that he didn’t think that sexual harassment had anything to do with the bill and, implicitly, should not have been brought up by the bill’s supporters.

  • Comment: Sexual harassment by the patrons is one of the things servers have to put up with to get decent tips. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, but many servers also have to put up with it from their bosses or managers. If a server resists or complains, the offending party can assign her to the low-tipping work in the restaurant, like assigning her to a small section (fewer tables, etc.).

That’s It

Remember: tip high, tip often.

Addresses of convenience


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
One of several public records listing Gablinske as living at an address other than where he is registered to vote.
One of several public records listing Gablinske as living at an address other than where he is registered to vote.

One of the nice things about owning several properties is that when it comes to politics, you have lots of choices about where you can say you live. I’m not talking about the formal definition of legal residence, but “addresses of convenience.”

Having an address of convenience gives you the choice of where to vote or where to run for office. You can shop around to find the most advantageous choice. Not necessarily a legal choice, but one that is rarely ever challenged.

We have lots of examples, such as Republican Kernan “Kerry” King who ran against Gina Raimondo for general treasurer in 2010 even though he was actually a legal resident of Florida and was even collecting a $50,000 a year homestead property tax exemption on his Sarasota County home. He was claiming his Saunderstown house as his legal residence on his campaign declaration.

In my state Representative District (36), we now have a carpetbagger state Representative, a Tea Party Libertarian named Blake Filippi. Filippi claims he lives in his mother’s house on Block Island even though he has listed his mother’s house in Lincoln as his legal address on dozens of legal documents including his Massachusetts lawyer’s license. He told Bob Plain he is currently living in a Providence apartment.

Addresses of convenience. It’s nice to be able to pick and choose. It’s not just Republicans and Libertarians that do it; Democrats also do it.

Take Doug Gablinske, for example. He made a big splash in Rhode Island politics during his two terms in the RI House representing District 68 in Bristol as one of the most vociferous DINOs (Democrat in name only), leading the attack against public workers.

As a result of the 2010 US Census, Gablinske’s district boundaries were changed. In an e-mail to me he said, “I was carefully gerrymandered out of District 68, with the input of Rep. Morrison into the redistricting process, who was afraid I was going to run against him in 2012.  The gerrymandering is obvious, as the line moved over one street, to redistrict me out.”

His home at 45 Kickemuit Avenue in Bristol is no longer in District 68, but moved instead to District 69. Gablinske and his wife Patricia moved with the times and changed their voter registration to 44 Greylock Road which is Gablinske’s mother’s house, solidly within District 68 where they have cast their ballots in 2014.

In his e-mail to me, Gablinske asserted that his change in registration had “nothing at all to do with that and everything to do with helping to care for my 86 year old mother, which is where she resides and I own the house with my siblings.”

Despite the change in voter registration, Doug Gablinske kept using his address as 45 Kickemuit Avenue on many campaign contributions he made since re-registering at Greylock Road (example).

There are a dozen major political donations by Gablinske listed in the Board of Elections database for 2014. Gablinske’s residence shows up as Kickemuit on five of those major contributions; his business address on Metacom Avenue is listed on the other seven.

Greylock Road is not listed on any of these donor files.

I asked Gablinske about the checks written from his business address (it is illegal for businesses to make direct donations to Rhode Island political candidates). Gablinske said that he keeps three checkbooks, one for each of these three properties and acknowledged that it would be illegal if he made a donation through his appraisal business.

He added: “For the record, at your request, I reside at both 44 Greylock Road and 45 Kickemuit Avenue and my voter address was changed to 44 Greylock Road, on may May 8th, 2014.  My brother Wayne Gablinske, sold his house on Sandra Court, Bristol on February 27, 2015.  He has now moved into 44 Greylock Road to care for my mother, so I have returned to 45 Kickemuit Avenue and am changing my voter address back to that address, all of which is perfectly legal.”

Even though he checked his voter registration to Greylock Road in his old district, Gablinske did not make a run to regain his lost House seat in 2012 or 2014, apparently content to run his appraisal business and engage in lobbying. Gablinske said in his e-mail to me, “I have no plans to run for public office…in any district!”

Gablinske lobbyist registrationAfter losing the 2010 Democratic primary, Gablinske started to work with Terrance Martiesian’s lobbying firm, filing reports with the Secretary of State since 2011 that he lobbied the General Assembly on behalf of the RI Mortgage Bankers at no charge.

Although, on paper, Gablinske is lobbying for the bankers for free, Martiesian’s lobbying firm is billing the RI Mortgage Bankers Association $50,000. What Gablinske gets out of the arrangement does not appear to be covered in the reports to the Secretary of State.

Gablinske asserts that he gets nothing from Martiesian and lobbies for free for the Mortgage Bankers Association because he sits on their board and co-chairs their legislative committee. As an appraiser, Gablinske obviously does a lot of work with mortgage bankers but, he says, “you are trying to connect dots, that do not connect.”

If Gablinske decides the time is right to try to return to the General Assembly since he’s apparently not getting rich from his peculiar lobbying practice, it would be interesting to see which address he uses.

Either address – Kickemuit or Greylock – could be challenged by some sharp-eyed voter based on all the conflicting public records and even Gablinske’s own statement that he lives in both places. But any such challenge would have to be filed very quickly.

After Rep. Donna Walsh learned about Blake Filippi’s declaration of residence and filed a complaint, she was told by BOE Director Bob Kando that under the Board of Election’s rules, there is only a 24-hour window to file a challenge to a candidate’s declaration of candidacy.

While the bizarre way the Board of Elections rules are written gives candidates the edge to get away with running for a seat in a District but not living there, there is the matter of state law and voting.

Under the Rhode Island General Laws, it is a felony to vote or attempt to vote anywhere “other than in the…representative district, or voting district in which the person has his or her ‘residence’”…. Gablinske will have to make up his mind where he really lives before the next time he votes.

One added irony about Gablinske’s flexible residency is that during his time in the State House, he was an outspoken supporter of Rhode Island’s voter ID law.

Saturday: ACLU advocate training day


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

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

Advocate Training Day FB

The ACLU of Rhode Island has been a constant presence at the State House this legislative session as we testify, monitor, and weigh in on hundreds of bills that could impact your civil liberties. Now, we need your help.

Whether you want to repeal voter ID, end the school-to-prison pipeline, or strengthen privacy rights, your legislators need to hear from you. Join us this Saturday, March 14, at 2 p.m. at the Rochambeau Library for the ACLU Advocate Training Day to learn how you can become an effective advocate for civil liberties and play an active role at the State House. Our policy associate and other local advocates will offer advice on tracking legislation, crafting arguments, meeting with your legislators, writing and delivering testimony, and working with fellow advocates. Afterwards, you’ll be ready to make your voice heard at the State House and to protect the civil liberties of all Rhode Islanders.

The ACLU Advocate Training Day is free and open to all, and no experience is needed to attend. Join us in making Rhode Island a better place for all.

Group seeks to close loophole leaving guns in the hands of domestic abusers


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

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

gun-controlUnder Federal law, a person “convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse” is banned from owning a gun for life. Yet in Rhode Island, this law is not often prosecuted, leaving weapons in the hands of domestic abusers. Worse, even when this statue is prosecuted by the state, it falls short in several ways.

Under Rhode Island law, domestic abuse includes dating partners as well as married and co-habitating couples. Federal law does not include dating partners. Also, under Federal law, there is no mechanism defined for actually removing guns from the homes of domestic abusers, but there is under Rhode Island law.

Under Rhode Island law § 11-47-5 (b) “…no person convicted of an offense punishable as a felony offense…shall purchase, own, carry, transport or having in his or her possession any firearm, for a period of two years following the conviction.” Often a domestic abuser will plead down their offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, which has the effect of leaving guns in the possession of abusers.

The upshot of this legal maze of federal and state law is that guns too often remain in the hands of domestic abusers, and the statistics on the intersection of guns and domestic abuse are stark. According the the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, (RICAGV) between 2001 and 2012 more than 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun and abused women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun.

According to the Center for American Progress and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “of the 67 female homicide victims in Rhode Island from 2003 to 2012, 27 were the result of a domestic violence incident.”

A study from the Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, “Batterers’ Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners,” domestic abusers use their guns in many ways as a form of threat. Abusers may threaten to shoot their victim or a person or pet the victim cares about. Abusers may clean, hold, load or even fire a gun during an argument with the victim, driving home their threat without the use of words.

Most gun advocates will agree that guns need to be in the hands of responsible gun owners, not criminals. To that end, the RICAGV is backing legislation that will close the maze of legal loopholes surrounding gun ownership and domestic abuse. The changes in RI § 11-47-5(b) being suggested would:

  1. Reduce the sentence from felony to misdemeanor, thereby forcing domestic abusers to lose the right to their guns,
  2. Increase the ban on possessing firearms from 2 years to lifetime, since domestic abusers are typically repeat offenders and can easily “wait out” a two year restriction, and
  3. Include a clause that would allow persons who have expunged their records, thereby demonstrating that they have reformed themselves, to have their right to firearms reinstated.

A form of this legislation passed the Rhode Island Senate last year unanimously, but died in committee in the House. This year it is hoped that the House has the leadership to pass this common sense legislation out of committee and bring it to the floor for a full vote. Like the legislation that seeks to close the loophole allowing guns in schools, this should be an easy win for gun safety advocates in Rhode Island.

Patreon

Group seeks to close loophole allowing guns in schools


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

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

gun-controlThe law seems quite clear when RIGL 11-47-60 (a) states that, “No person shall have in his or her possession any kind of firearm or other weapons on school grounds.” But there is a curious exception. Under RIGL 11-47-11 it is stated that a person with a concealed carry permit (CCP) may carry their weapon “everywhere.” Presumably, this means schools.

Which law takes precedence?

Attorney Julia Wyman with the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV) asked the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office and the Rhode Island Department of Education for clarification, but neither party could “figure out which law prevails,” she said.

The Department of Education has no regulatory authority, and therefore does not have the power to decide on this issue. As a result, legislation is going to be introduced to the General Assembly this year that seeks to clear up any ambiguity in the law, banning weapons from schools, even for those with a CCP.

As it stands now, anyone with a concealed carry permit may bring weapons into schools.

Rhode Island is one of only 18 states that allow guns to be brought in schools, according to a report by NBC News last year. Most of the 18 states on the list require that school officials give permission to bring the weapons into the schools, leaving Rhode Island one of only 5 states in which people may bring guns into schools without the knowledge of police or school officials.

The danger is obvious. In September of last year a teacher in Utah shot herself in the leg when her weapon discharged in class. In Idaho a “state university instructor was wounded in the foot after a concealed handgun in the person’s pocket discharged during a chemistry lab session with students in the room.” In each case, say news reports, the teachers had concealed carry permits.

Though some may argue that since Newtown, some teachers should be armed in the event that children need to be protected from intruders, depending on randomly armed, untrained teachers with CCPs is not a policy. Good policy needs to be vetted and debated so that the full implications might be considered. Policies such as this need to be done right and can’t simply be instituted by taking advantage of defects in a law written decades ago.

The General Assembly has an opportunity to correct this oversight, and should do so this year.

Patreon

Speaker Mattiello upfront about his economic vision


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

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

It’s not often you hear a high ranking Democrat from a solidly blue state say, “the focus has to be on eradicating the safety net and not bolstering the safety net.” It’s not often a conservative Republican goes that far. But that’s exactly what Rhode Island’s Speaker of the House, Rep. Nicholas Mattiello, said to an Interfaith Coalition focused on poverty this week.

Mattiello preceded his comment with his usual rhetoric of building a strong economy with good jobs as being the best route out of poverty, and that the safety net should be funded at “appropriate” levels. House spokesperson Larry Berman offered this clarification: Speaker Mattiello, “means that if we alleviate poverty, there will be not need for a safety net. He wants to improve the economy and get people working to eradicate poverty.”

However, other public comments by Mattiello leave little doubt that the Speaker’s call for the eradication of the safety net should worry progressives enormously.

The RI Interfaith Coalition to Reduce Poverty has held this event on the second day of the General Assembly being in session for the last seven years and traditionally the Governor, Senate President and Speaker of the House are invited to speak. Usually the assembled politicians say a few nice words about keeping the plight of the poorest Rhode Islanders in mind as they maneuver bills through the system, whatever their actual intentions towards the poor might be. But Mattiello, beginning his first full term as speaker, seems eager to chart a new course: He’s being upfront about his intentions slash social service programs to “appropriate” levels.

A staunch conservative, Mattiello has the solid backing of both the NRA and Right to Life. He has the strong backing of conservative Republicans. House GOP leader Brian Newberry says, “Philosophically, he’s just closer to us than his predecessor.” Meanwhile, Mattiello has targeted progressives within his own party. He endorsed progressive legislator Maria Cimini’s Democratic primary challenger “because she didn’t back him for speaker, didn’t apologize for that and because she doesn’t agree with him on policy.” Cimini lost her primary.

When the Providence Journal asked Mattiello where the cuts would be made this session, the Speaker answered, “Eligibility for human-service benefits and so forth. Let’s see where we are versus our neighbors …. Prioritize which ones are more important and look to cut expenses out of them.”

In his first term as speaker, Mattiello cut the corporate tax rate from 9 to 7%, now the lowest in New England, and raised the exemption on the estate tax to the first $1.5 million of wealth. He’s eager to cut funding for Healthsource RI, one of the most successful state run Obamacare programs and has even suggested closing the system down and “giving it back to the federal government.”

RI Monthly quotes Mattiello as wanting to steer the state away from being, “on the leading edge of the social agenda” but can economic policy be so readily separated from issues of social justice? Rhode Island has the highest poverty rate in New England, yet when workers organize to help themselves out of poverty, Mattiello has led the charge to slap them down.

Mattiello likes to talk about jobs and the economy, but people are more than their jobs. People have value beyond the economy. Like it or not, the government has a role in securing that there is a system, a social safety net, to prevent the most vulnerable from facing the worst life has to offer. And maybe, along the way, we can even help lift people up.

Patreon

‘Die-In’ at State House highlights opium overdose epidemic


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

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

DSC_9245In 2014, there were at least 216 known deaths from accidental opiates overdose. Rhode Island is in the midst of an epidemic that has been somewhat mitigated by the availability of Narcan, an emergency medication that can keep someone overdosing on opiates alive long enough for them to get to a hospital. Those who have overdosed range in age from 15 to 65 and deaths have occurred in 30 different cities or towns in the state.

Opiate overdoses don’t discriminate.

RICARES, (Rhode Island Communities for Addiction Recovery Efforts) in an effort to push the General Assembly towards renewing the program that makes Narcan available, staged a “Die-In” outside the State House on the first day of the legislative session yesterday. The activists are also seeking to expand the “Good Samaritan” law so that a person on parole or probation who calls for medical assistance in the event of a friends overdose will not be at risk of going back to prison. Activists are also looking for more funding for addiction recovery programs.

I was fortunate to be able to talk to Janina LeVasseur, a board member at RICARES, about overdoses, Narcan and addiction recovery. All the research and reading I did ahead of this event did not come close to providing me with the insight and understanding I got in this short conversation.

More than 100 people who committed to this action by laying on the ground in the freezing cold and snow demonstrated determination and fortitude. Many were there in memory of a loved one lost to an overdose.

As LeVasseur said in our interview, this is a social justice issue, and one that should be easy for us all to get behind.

DSC_9403
Colonel Steven G. O’Donnell has been a vocal promoter of Narcan.

DSC_9246

DSC_9254

DSC_9255

DSC_9258

DSC_9275

DSC_9277

DSC_9279

DSC_9282

DSC_9284

DSC_9286

DSC_9288

DSC_9293

DSC_9295

DSC_9298

DSC_9305

DSC_9310

DSC_9323

DSC_9329

DSC_9341

DSC_9343

DSC_9344

DSC_9359

DSC_9364

DSC_9370

DSC_9375

DSC_9378

DSC_9380

DSC_9382

DSC_9406

Patreon

Former ConCon delegates agree: It doesn’t work


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

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

Delegates from the 1986 Constitutional Convention recalled their experiences and urged against convening another convention in 2016 from the steps of Garrahy Judicial Complex where several ConCon meetings were held in the 1980s. The three speakers were united in their opinion that the ConCon is not the tool for tackling issues of governmental reform, and in fact does pose a threat to civil liberties. Further, a new ConCon will almost certainly be captured by special interests, in much the same way the last one was.

Lila SapinsleyLila Sapinsley, former delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention and former Senate Republican Minority Leader, said:

“In 1986 when a Constitutional Convention was approved I eagerly ran for delegate. I naively thought that if delegates ran without party labels the convention would be free of politics. However, my hopes were dashed when I saw that since candidates ran from House districts, the convention was a mirror image of the House of Representatives. Delegates, if not directly connected to party leaders, were family or friends. The Speaker of the House controlled the convention. If delegates to the 2015 convention are elected by existing electoral districts we will again have a duplicate of the legislature. Let’s concentrate on electing better representatives and forget about an expensive duplicate of the General Assembly.

Roberto GonzalezEast Providence resident Roberto Gonzalez, also a former delegate, stated:

“The 1986 convention was hijacked from the citizens of Rhode Island. While some delegates deliberated in good faith, the outcome of the convention had been predetermined by the then-powerful House Speaker, who was in turn controlled by the same special interests that have controlled House leaders in recent history. Many, if not most of the delegates, were family or friends of those in power. It was never a convention of the people to improve government, but rather a convention of special interests. I am sure that if the good citizens of this state choose to have another convention, the exact thing will happen. Instead of debating good government amendments, the convention will become bogged down with a plethora of polarizing social issues such as gun control, abortion, voter ID, and immigration. There is nothing to stop the delegates from putting measures on the ballot that will reverse or dilute the civil rights gains that have been so difficult to obtain.”

Tom IzzoTom Izzo, another former delegate, said:

“The process of electing delegates alone impacts the potential for a ‘purer, freer and more open deliberation’ – a process where, while non-partisan, does not allow for a real vetting of the candidates’ qualifications. In most instances–though not running–sitting representatives hold inordinate sway, and special interests can leverage their greatest influence. These special elections, as in most primaries, have a very low voter turnout, and candidates must depend on these special interests to get elected. While there were a few positive outcomes from the last convention, I do not believe the time, the financial cost, the potential negative impact on civil rights, and most importantly the virtually unlimited impact of special interests, especially in light of recent rulings regarding campaign spending, warrants or justifies the calling of another convention.

There is no reason to think that a Constitutional Convention held today will be any different from the 1986 experience, and a number of reasons to think that the results of a new convention will be worse. Since 1986, the influence of money on politics has exploded. The present Speaker of the House is no less powerful than his 1986 predecessor, and is potentially more powerful. No changes have been made to the selection process of delegates that might prevent a convention from being hijacked again.

Promises from proponents that this Constitutional Convention will be different are meaningless. They have no more control over the proceedings and outcomes of a ConCon than I do. Across the country, no state has held a ConCon since the one held in Rhode Island in 1986, for all the reasons the former delegates outlined above.

Why should Rhode Island be the only state not to learn from its mistake?

Just Cause: Six years to do the right thing


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
DSC_2443
This house, behind DARE, has been foreclosed on by Wells Fargo.

Governor Chafee signed the Just Cause bill, which requires banks and credit unions to allow tenants in foreclosed building to continue to pay rent and live there under the terms of the lease they had with their landlord. Further, the bill requires lenders who foreclose to maintain the building, effecting repairs and keeping the property from becoming a boarded up eyesore. This bill is good for tenants, good for communities throughout Rhode Island, and even good for the banks themselves, because maintaining the properties and the neighborhoods increases the chance that the property will retain its value and be purchased sometime.

Getting it passed was no easy task. DARE activists and other groups in the Just Cause coalition have worked for six years to get this bill to a place where the Governor could sign it. The battle is not done yet either, because after the bill is passed comes the difficulty of enforcing it: making sure the banks follow the law and bringing enough legal pressure to bear to make sure following this law becomes the standard, not the exception.

The press conference, held at DARE HQ in South Providence, was emceed by DARE activist Malcus Mills, who joyously announced, “We have finally made it with the Governor’s signature.”

Sergio Perez spoke next of the difficulties of dealing with a bank foreclosing on the house in which you are paying rent. Perez wants to stay in the house he’s living in, not pull his kids out of school, and keep getting to work on time. The Just Cause bill will allow him to do just that.

Senator Harold Metts sees the bills passage as an example of advocacy and persistence, adding, that bridges were built to create justice and meet the needs of the people.

“My landlord just up and left,” said Rawlene Burgess, “He came and got his rent and then he left us.” Burgess and her grandson were evicted, and she had trouble finding a two bedroom home in her price range. Had this law been in effect, she would have been able to pay her rent to the bank, and avoided this ridiculous and unexpected tumult in her life.

This issue is not just a problem for inner city communities. Representative Jay Edwards, who lives in Tiverton, had this happen to a family living two houses away from him. The family was thrown out of their home. As a result, Edwards became the chief advocate for this bill in the Rhode Island House. The bankers told Edwards that the Just cause law “flies in the face of six hundred years of common law.” If that’s the case, says Edwards, then “common law is wrong.”

“It shouldn’t take six years to do the right thing!” said the Reverend Don Anderson, “Every single person should have a safe, affordable place to call home.”

Steve Fischbach, the lawyer for DARE who has worked for years on this issue, was obviously very happy with the outcome. “Victory is sweet,” said Fischbach.

In a legislative season that seemed to favor the monied interests over the lives of working people, this bill stood out as one of the few positive highlights. More concentration of the lives of those who exist at the margins of society and less worry about what happens to a millionaire’s money after death would reap enormous dividends for our state, both socially and economically.

You can watch the entire Press Conference uninterrupted here:

DSC_2450DSC_2455

DSC_2458

Providence Sen. Harold Metts and Rev. Don Anderson.
Rep. Jay Edwards, D- Tiverton, Portsmouth, and DARE activist Chris Rotondo.
Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick and LeeAnne Byrne.
Malcus Mills, DARE
Malcus Mills
Sergio Perez
Harold Metts
Rawlene Burgess

DSC_2513

DSC_2519

DSC_2524

DSC_2531

DSC_2533

DSC_2535

DSC_2539

DSC_2553

Jorge Elorza
Rep Grace Diaz
All photos and video (cc) 2014 Steve Ahlquist, please distribute far and wide

Conservatives and progressives both wrong on ideology of RI General Assembly


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

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

state house francis st lawnI take a pretty dim view of the way most of RI’s political commentators describe the situation at the General Assembly. On the left, you tend to hear the argument that conservatives within the Democrats have at least veto power over the Democratic agenda (and often it’s claimed conservatives control the GA) and these conservatives need to be overthrown. On the right, you’ll hear the argument that X number of years of ultra-liberal rule have doomed this state. Both of these narratives are simplistic and wrong.

The problem is both of these arguments rely on nothing more than feelings. That’s mainly because we lack any sort of data at all when it comes to the political positioning of state legislatures.

Luckily for us, political science professors Boris Shor and Nolan McCarty have not only addressed this lack of data, but they’ve made it free for anyone with a spreadsheet program (which is literally anyone with a computer) to use. The caveat is that it only runs from 1993 to 2011, and not all of it is complete. It also measures the median legislator.

So where does the RI General Assembly fall in this data? Well, first draw a vertical number line where -2 is far left and 2 is far right. Keep that in mind when you examine the graph below:

Graph of RI Polarization
(via Samuel G. Howard)

The Republicans turned right from 2008 to 2011. This seems to be because the 2008 elections knocked out some Republicans, and the 2010 elections brought more right wing candidates into the fold. But the interesting part about this graph is that while the Senate Democrats went more left following 2008, the House Democrats turned right.

The other thing this graph points out is that among state legislatures, the Republican Party in the RI General Assembly is essentially dead center. Meanwhile the Democrats are center-left. Among other things, this points out the Moderate Party was always going to be a waste of time. RI’s general assembly isn’t being pulled between two poles of left and right, but between center and center-left.

Now, before everyone leaps to the comments to proclaim how stupid liberals are, let’s pause a moment and compare the caucuses to their counterparts in other states. We have two options here. We can use the most recent data that Shor and McCarty provide – which ranges from 2006 to 2011 depending on the state OR we can use 2006 across the board, which is where we have complete data for all legislatures. I’ll use both, and you can decide which you prefer. Note that Nebraska has no House of Representatives, and Pennsylvania’s most recent data is missing its Senate.

For the most recent data:

  • RI House Dems are 31/49 most liberal (NV, GA, NC, PA, UT, TN, IN, SD, AK, WV, ND, MS, AL, LA, OK, KY, AR to right)
  • RI House GOP are 46/49 most conservative (CT, MA, HI, NY to left)
  • 3rd least polarized House (LA, KY less polarized)
  • RI Senate Dems are 34/49 most liberal (MO, SC, TN, AL, TX, DE, KY, IN, SD, NE, MS, ND, WV, AR, LA, OK to right) PA: missing data
  • RI Senate GOP are 45/49 most liberal (VT, CT, NJ, MA, NY to left) PA: missing data
  • 4th least polarized Senate (LA, DE, WV less polarized)

For the 2006 data:

  • RI House Dems 30/49 most liberal (KS, NV, NC, PA, GA, IN, WY, UT, TN, SC, AK, WV, SD, ND, AL, OK, LA, KY, MS, AR to right)
  • RI House GOP 48/49 most conservative (NY to left)
  • 3rd least polarized House (LA, KY less polarized)
  • RI Senate Dems are 35/50 most liberal (SC, TN, KY, DE, SD, IN, MS, TX, ND, WV, AL, AR, LA, NE, OK to right)
  • RI Senate GOP are 49/50 most conservative (NY to left)
  • Least Polarized Senate

So what does that tell us? Well, that among Democratic state caucuses, RI Democrats sit in the right wing. Certainly, among Northeastern Democrats, RI Democrats are noticeably right wing. However, they’re still left of center. It’s because of the GA’s Republican caucuses that RI’s legislature (among all members) is one of the most centrist and least polarized legislatures in the country. I know I’m out on a limb here, but this is what the data’s demonstrating.

This is a state of affairs that disappoints both left and right and wins no accolades from anyone. Activists on both sides will call for their leaders to move towards the wings, and they’re likely to be successful in doing so.

Let’s jump track and look at the findings of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level, which found that while Vermont and New Hampshire pursued two very different agendas (one on the left and the other on the right), they’ve arrived at roughly the same outcomes for their people. That’s ultimately what the General Assembly is judged on: the outcomes of the state. And I know people will dislike this, but some of it is simply beyond our control. Republicans in RI were lucky enough to preside over a period of industrialization, cheap labor, and prosperity from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s. Democrats in RI were lucky enough to preside over the broadening of that prosperity and the deepening of that industrialization, and unfortunate enough to preside over its collapse as well.

A lot of that wasn’t because of government policy, but because of events and technological advances no one would’ve foreseen. How a government creates or fosters broad prosperity is less important than that it does so. And it could very well be its own centrism that’s hamstringing the General Assembly from taking any action of importance for the economy.

Are you there, General Assembly? It’s me, Woonsocket…


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

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

Is this Thing OnHey there, guys and gals.

I was just having a coffee cabinet and some dynamites, thinking about yesterday’s SCORI decision in the Woonsocket and Pawtucket School Committee’s case to alter and accelerate school funding for these two cities, when it occurred to me that I should reach out to you all because, who knows better what’s good for a city than the city itself? Am I right?

So, my  good friend, Dave Fisher has allowed my the use of his mind and body to pen this missive, as it were. (For the record, this guy drinks way too much coffee, and is absolutely the worst typist in the world.) So here goes. I know you don’t get a constituent request from an actual community every day, so take a minute. Have  a seat. Drink some water. Continue when you’ve regained your senses.

Scratch that. That might take forever for some of you.

I think I should get a bonus for exceeding state affordable housing guidelines. Frankly, so should my brothers Providence, Central Falls, Newport, New Shoreham – or Block Island to the natives, and…oh, right, that’s it. That’s right. Only 5 communities in Rhode Island meet and exceed state minimum housing requirements.

Notice that last word.

Requirements.

As in required.

You see, my four stalwart brothers and I have, in good faith, not only met – but exceeded – your requirements, leaving my remaining 31 brothers seemingly remiss in their dedication to a diversified Rhode Island; a place where people of all colors, creeds, orientations, and tax brackets can live peacefully. I would suggest the carrot and the stick. Those communities who fail to make efforts and progress toward the just goal of a mere 10 percent of their housing stock qualifying as affordable, shall have a proportional reduction in any state education and human services assistance. The withheld assistance shall be proportionally distributed to towns that exceed the state’s requirements.  There’s that pesky word again!

While we’re on housing, can you do something about all the old mills around. I’ve lost count of how many mill fires have happened on my soil. How about a tax incentive for developers who refurbish existing commercial structures and land into mixed use developments, provided that the development meets LEED standards.  Those old structures aren’t typically very good when it comes to energy efficiency. I think the building trades would love this!

Dave has assured me, that I could use his corporeal form as a vessel whenever I choose, so until next time.

Love,

Woonsocket

RIF Radio: The first day of the rest of the session


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

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

Tuesday Jan 7, 2014
North Kingstown, RI – Good morning, Ocean State. This is Bob Plain, editor and publisher of the RI Future blog podcasting to you from The Hideaway on the banks of the Mattatuxet River behind the Shady Lea Mill in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

It’s Tuesday, January 7th … And, no, that’s not the opening bell for the first day of work for the General Assembly, that’s Pink Floyd with the world’s greatest ode to education deform. But today is, in fact, the first day of the 2014 legislative session and tonight lawmakers will begin the long slow process of waiting until the very end of the session to decide on how to address the biggest issues facing the state: our struggling economy and our thriving inequality and injustice.

Here’s what ProJo columnist Ed Fitzpatrick writes on Opening Day for the General Assembly: “The White House and the Vatican have placed renewed emphasis on inequality and poverty.”

Will Rhode Island lawmakers join with the president and the pope to place a renewed emphasis on inequality and poverty? Or will we spend another year whistling into the trickle down winds?

Scott MacKay wrote an excellent legislative session preview that shows how as the Ocean State tacked right, our economy got weaker, and while Connecticut and Massachusetts invested in education and and employees, theirs grew stronger. So, you do the math…

McKay said believing tax cuts for the wealthy will spur growth is to believe in baseless mythology, and last week Fitzpatrick, in a separate column, actually mentioned rolling back the Carcieri-era income tax cuts as a viable policy proposal … so maybe this is the year for a more progressive tax code.

Podcast fan Dan McGowan of WPRI reports the Providence City Council is looking into more than 100 personalized tax breaks to local businesses. I guess the Providence Place Mall threatened to move to North Carolina if we didn’t give it a sweetheart deal? Or because Olneyville nightclubs are such a positive force in our community?

James Kennedy of the Transport Providence blog writes a really cool in-depth post about how building more roads to make commuting easier is a bit too much like relying on unlimited growth to drive our economy. I’m a big fan of anything that can tie together  Rhode Island, Keynesian economics and Jack Kerouac.

And Sam Howard pens a typically awesome look at how Rhode Island keeps trying to attract more businesses without doing much to create potential customers for said enterprises.

waterfall 1_7_14

No more silence: Moms Demand Action remembers Newtown


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

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

1458421_541967862563877_716115389_nToday at 9:15am, at at least 15 churches throughout Rhode Island, as well as states scattered across America, church bells were rung in remembrance of the 20 children and 6 adults who senselessly lost their lives to gun violence at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown CT one year ago. Though at the time it was believed by many that here was finally an event the state and federal legislatures could not ignore and that finally some meaningful legislation might be passed to start curbing excessive gun violence in the United States, to date no meaningful legislation has been passed.

Hence the event No More Silence, put together by Moms Demand Action Rhode Island and the RI Coalition to prevent Gun Violence held at the First Unitarian Church of Providence on Benevolent St. US Representative David Cicciline, Central Falls Mayor James Diosa, Reverend Donald Anderson, Julia Wyman and Samantha Richards and Sydney Montstream-Quas of Moms Demand Action spoke passionately for common sense changes to our existing gun laws. Music was provided by the Gordon School Handbell Ensemble, which fit in nicely with the ringing of the church bells at 9:35am…

Not far from the minds of any of the over 120 people in attendance was the shooting death of 12 year old honor student Aynis Vargas in Providence, who died shortly after the Rhode Island General Assembly failed to pass any kind of gun law reform.

Could action by the General Assembly have prevented her death? Video from the event is below.

Interview: Gayle Goldin on election year lawmaking (Part 3)


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

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

Freshman Sen. Gayle Goldin (Democrat, District 3 – Providence) won national praise for Rhode Island this session when she helped shepherd through legislation that expanded the state’s Temporary Disability Insurance to cover workers who need to take time to care for a new addition to the family or a seriously ill relative. Recently, she was kind enough to sit down with RI Future for a wide-ranging interview. The following transcript has been lightly edited for written media.

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.

TDI-gayle goldinRI Future: Given that that would actually be a pretty controversial move in 2014, I’ve heard observers cynically remark that nothing big happens in an election year in the General Assembly, what’s your opinion on that kind of sentiment?

Gayle Goldin: I think big pieces of legislation pass when there’s the will to get them done. The value of an election year is that it’s an opportunity for constituents to be even more engaged with their elected officials and share with them their ideas about what is really important to them.

RIF: Given that 2014 will be an election year, if it yields a governor elected as a Democrat, do you think that relationship between the governor and the General Assembly will change much?

GG: I feel like as a new member of the Senate I can’t really talk too authoritatively about that, certainly I have worked with Chafee’s staff on my legislation this year, I have worked with different parts of the administration on that legislation, and I would assume that would continue, but I don’t really know all the levels of relationship. I only know my personal experience.

RIF: 2014 is also likely to see a vote on whether we have a constitutional convention, what are your thoughts on that?

GG: Our last constitutional convention was 1986, which is before I moved here. I have spoken to a lot of advocates about their opposition to having a constitutional convention. One of the things I really understand from those conversations is the level of risk to important issues that can come up through the process. I went back and looked at the ballot questions from 1986 and you can see how important issues, like reproductive rights, can be at risk during a constitutional convention. I think we can really see how many issues that are important to the progressive community come up to play and can be manipulated inappropriately through this process, given the amount of money that could now come into the state to sway the outcome of the convention.

Interview: Gayle Goldin on voter ID, economic sustainability


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Freshman Sen. Gayle Goldin (Democrat, District 3 – Providence) won national praise for Rhode Island this session when she helped shepherd through legislation that expanded the state’s Temporary Disability Insurance to cover workers who need to take time to care for a new addition to the family or a seriously ill relative. Recently, she was kind enough to sit down with RI Future for a wide-ranging interview. The following transcript has been lightly edited for written media.

Gayle.Resized2RI Future: When you ran for office, your letter says you have a “commitment to the economic sustainability of families.” What does “economic sustainability” look like for you?

Gayle Goldin: For me it’s that everybody earns a living wage, that we recognize that working families are critical to keeping our economy going, and so those are things that are important to me, like paid family leave, like raising the minimum wage, insuring that we have full access to healthcare. All those thing that we have that I think help families be able to meet their own family needs and live in a society where our economy can flourish because of it.

RIF: Given your background with immigration, what do you think of the state’s current immigration policy, and are you happy with this?

GG: Immigration policy is primarily federal law, so I don’t know that there’s anything really going on on the state level at this moment. Is there something in particular that you were thinking about?

RIF: Well, allowing undocumented immigrants to get in-state rates in schools, and some people believe that if you’ve arrived here without documents you shouldn’t be allowed to access any kind of services.

GG: As I tell people, my parents moved to the United States when I was 7-and-a-half; they did so legally and I was in the country legally; but certainly as a 7-and-a-half-year old, I had absolutely no control over where I was moving or whether or not that was legal. I think it is really short-sighted if we do not ensure that people who moved here as children don’t have access to things like higher education merely because of a decision their parents made that they have no control over.

RIF: So you’re coming up on your second year of office, what do you think your biggest priority is going to be?

GG: I introduced legislation to repeal Voter ID, which while I had a very successful year my first term I was not successful in moving Voter ID. So I’ll be focusing on that again, and certainly I feel the 2014 deadline both because the law will roll into full effect in the election, and the election cycle itself will hopefully put the emphasis in getting that piece of legislation addressed, in some way. So that’s a real priority for me. There’s a variety of other things I’ve been researching and exploring about different functions within the state government that I would like to improve. I serve on the Health committee, and one of the things we oversee is DCYF [the Department of Children, Youth & Families]. I have been involved in child welfare policy and adoption rights for many years, so just trying to see if there are any gaps in DCYF that can be addressed through legislation or statutory change are some of the things that I’m looking at. And there are other pieces that are still in the research point,  but I absolutely do want to go back to repealing Voter ID. Also, I think the health exchange will probably be something that the General Assembly will continue to have conversations about as it gets rolled out.

RIF: If you could make one piece of legislation happen on Day 1 of 2014, what would it be?

GG: That’s a good question… I really do think it would be addressing our Voter ID law. I feel that is critically important to the way we view people’s rights on voting and our access to voting, so I’d really like to make sure that gets done… Nothing really gets done in a day in the General Assembly. [Laughs]

Read Part 1 of this interview here. Part 3 will be published tomorrow.

Interview: Gayle Goldin on the General Assembly


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

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

Freshman Sen. Gayle Goldin (Democrat, District 3 – Providence) won national praise for Rhode Island this session when she helped shepherd through legislation that expanded the state’s Temporary Disability Insurance to cover workers who need to take time to care for a new addition to the family or a seriously ill relative. Recently, she was kind enough to sit down with RI Future for a wide-ranging interview. The following transcript has been lightly edited for written media.

RI Future: So Rhode Island’s seen a lot of female leaders stepped up and come to the fore in public life, but recently RI Public Radio’s Ian Donnis pointed out that less than a third of GA membership in the Democratic Party is women and less than a fifth in the Republican Party are women. Given that the most recent census estimate for Rhode Island is that over half our population are women, how do we rectify that imbalance and what policies can the General Assembly take?

Sen. Gayle Goldin
Sen. Gayle Goldin

Sen. Gayle Goldin:  We rank 18th in the country in terms of the number of women in our General Assembly. Colorado is number one, and 42% of its General Assembly is female, so we have a ways to go to reach that first slot that Colorado has. I think that it’s not necessarily a role of the General Assembly itself, although I think having a woman as Senate President, and she is one of only a handful of women in the country serving that role, makes a difference. There many organizations that work on trying to increase the number of women in office. In my day job, I work at Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, and one of my tasks is overseeing the Women’s Policy Institute, which is designed to get more women engaged in public policy, generally and to really increase the voice of women in the policy arena. But there are many other organizations that work directly to recruit women into running for office and to support them in doing so. There’s been a whole host of research that identifies what various barriers are, and why women choose to run or don’t choose to run. I think certainly policy changes that are systemic changes to the way we work and live in general will increase the number of women who will also run for office.

RIF: So what would those policy changes be?

GG: Paid family leave was a big initiative of mine and a driving force behind that is because I believe having policies like that will create a more equitable society where both men and women can be engaged in the roles that they want to be engaged in. When we have universal childcare, when we invest in pre-kindergarten, when we make sure that we have eliminated the gender wage gap, women will more easily access all the roles they want to take, and that’s where we’ll hit a point where more women are holding office.

RIF: What was the most difficult part in transitioning to being a state senator from when you were a regular citizen?

GG: Well, I think that, and the literature certainly bears this out in terms of other women running for office, that fundraising is a very difficult task. I have been in the nonprofit sector almost my whole entire career and I have no problem fundraising for a nonprofit organization, but it’s a much different thing to shift and say “if you invest in me, then I’m working towards goals to change our society” and while I know people are really invested in those goals and really want to make them happen, it’s a dynamic shift go from fundraising for an organization to fundraising for your own campaign and I think that was one of the biggest challenges for me.

RIF: So was it harder to sell yourself than a cause… but you’re still selling a cause, right?

GG: [Laughs] Right. You’re still selling- yes! But there is a moment where you have to recognize that it’s okay to ask for money for yourself to help that cause and move that cause forward.

RIF: To me, it seems that the General Assembly has a set of traditions and unofficial rules that aren’t really written down that it’s just picked up over the years of operating. How do you go about learning all those? What’s the process for that?

GG: I’ve done public policy research and advocacy for many years through work and volunteering, so I’ve been up in the General Assembly in different capacities before and certainly that helps. I think that helps anybody who runs for office if you’ve already testified in hearings and seen what the system is, then you can understand it better. The staff in the Senate are absolutely incredible, and have been a wonderful resource in just understanding the plenty of written rules that you know you need to follow as well! I’ve really relied on the staff helping me figure out how to maneuver through my first year, and certainly many of the other senators have been very welcoming to the freshman class and have helped us understand how to do our jobs better.

RIF: What ways does the staff help?

GG: It can be from as simple things as in the first week of session… so sometimes the General Assembly will recognize the death of somebody or some significant event by reading a bill on the floor, and so in the first week of session, there was a condolence for somebody who had passed away and just not even realizing that it’s our job to stand up as basically seconding that as a way of showing our condolences. So just having staff behind me saying “okay, you need to stand up now” [laughs]. It’s as simple as learning those kinds of rules to really understanding what are the roles we can take within hearings, what kind of questions we- well not what kind of questions we can ask, but if my angle is to change public policy in a certain way, how can I best use my role as a state senator to do so.

Read the second part of Sam Howard’s interview with Sen. Gayle Goldin tomorrow.

Trends from last 6 RI elections (Part 2, MMP RI)


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

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

Senate_ChmbrIn 2002, the General Assembly was re-shaped as a result of constitutional amendments approved by voters in 1994. Ostensibly the amendments were passed to increase competition for seats in both chambers; yet over the past six general elections 32.02% of Senate seats have gone uncontested on average, along with 37.33% of seats in the House.

While common wisdom might be that this type of apathy has benefited Democrats, that’s only half true. In the House of Representatives, both parties have benefited proportionally from this apathy; an average of 37.34% of House Democrats have not faced a general election challenger since 2002. House Republicans have an average of 36.04% over the same period. The difference is negligible.

The Senate is where there is disproportion. Since 2002, an average of 35.74% of Senate Democrats have had uncontested general elections. Senate Republicans have only averaged 18.06%. Why this might be is unclear to me; with a larger district, Senate candidates should require more resources to reach their constituents, meaning House races should be cheaper and thus more accessible.

Alternatively, the large Senate districts mean a larger pool of potential candidates, and the prospect of well-gerrymandered districts combined with a Democratic advantage in voter registration could assist Democrats in generating opponents for Republican candidates while keeping Republicans from contesting Senate elections.

The data gets more revealing of our current state of affairs when one calculates statewide votes cast for each party in each chamber of the General Assembly.

Democratic control over the General Assembly chambers has been extremely disproportional to the actual votes they’ve received. While Democrats typically win about 65% of the vote across Rhode Island when the results of all districts are added together, their control of the chambers is about 20 points higher, hovering around 85% of all the seats in each chamber.

At the same time, Rhode Island has seen a number of third parties compete for seats in the General Assembly; the Greens, the Socialists, the Libertarians, and the Moderates. Only the Moderates have captured above a percentage point of the statewide vote when calculated across all districts.

One final trend has emerged over the past six elections since the General Assembly was reduced. There’s been a growth in votes cast for independents since 2008, with all independent candidates capturing above 4.5% of the vote each of the last three elections. In the three elections prior, independents never managed to eke out above 3.7% of the vote, and were often well under 1%.

It’s possible that there’s a growing discontent with the Democratic Party, which combined with a dislike of the Republican Party, is boosting independents. It’s also possible that as the Millennial Generation began voting in the late 2000s, it’s turned more towards independents than its predecessors. Remember, Millennials were becoming aware of politics in the era between the Clinton Impeachment and the Iraq War; both of which were extreme blows to the credibility of the political establishment. Alternatively, I could be dead wrong.

You can take a look at the spreadsheets I created for yourself:

Post continues on next page (or click below)

Why the budget process was different this year


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

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

state house francis st lawnLast week’s budget debate in the House was inspiring, although the horse-trading and the outcome were disappointing. Normally the budget sails through the House; no one wants to risk the wrath of the House leadership by opposing it. It really takes guts to go against the grain; those doing so risk the loss of significant committee memberships, sponsored legislation, etc.

This year was different.

In total, 20 representatives voted against the budget, almost enough to defeat it (the vote was 52Y-20N-3NotVoting; 2/3 are needed for passage). Reps. Chippendale, MacBeth, O’Grady, Tanzi, Tomasso, Valencia and many others voted ‘nay’; look here for the complete voting record. [Disclosure: I ran against Rep. MacBeth in 2012.]  Possible backlash from the leadership includes the sinking of Valencia’s voter ID bill.

Also on the less-than-inspiring side there was still significant back-room horse-trading going on. It looked like there were enough votes to kill the budget two days before debate began. However, things then started to change. Leadership started to throw goodies to representatives in exchange for their votes.

In particular, note that tolling on the new Sakonnet bridge is now supposed to be postponed for months, mainly at the behest of East Bay and Northern Aquidneck representatives. The toll for a typical commuter was to be $0.75 one-way; this is much less than a $2.00 RIPTA bus ticket on any route. And for this alleged-deal a bad budget for the whole state passed the House. (There are other arguments both for and against the tolling.)

There were good speeches on both sides of the most-discussed issue, 38 Studios bonds repayment; most of the well-known pros and cons were discussed, and then some. There were other good reasons given for ‘nay’ votes, including built in structural deficits in succeeding budgets and inadequate contributions to the state pension fund in the case of lower than projected investment returns.

Other problems with this and other recent budgets: cuts are made on the backs of those voters least able to absorb them; RIPTA is inadequately funded; and little is provided to fix and maintain the state’s decrepit infrastructure. Rhode Island needs more revenue, spelled: “t-a-x-e-s.” There were two bills this year which would have partially-reversed the tax reductions for the wealthy that were granted over the last 15 years; the reductions hurt our economy, they didn’t help it.

While this year’s budget got some serious attention at the very end of the session, the public and most of the House still had little to say about it; it was business as usual. The House budget proposal should really be presented weeks if not months before the session’s end.

Probably the worst characteristic of the budget this year has little to do with 38 Studios or tolling: Rhode Island still does not have a credible policy to fix its economy.


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