Laurie White – RI Future

June 8, 2016June 8, 2016

Burrillville Town Council opposes Keable/Fogarty power plant 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 Burrillville Town Council opposes legislation moving through the State House that would give local residents greater say on the tax agreement between the town and the proposed fracked gas power plant.

“The ill-conceived legislation before the General Assembly that purports to give residents a voice in the matter – in fact does the opposite,” said a letter released to RIPR’s Ian Donnis last night. “It weakens the Town Council’s ability to protect its residents and obtain financial compensation for hosting the proposed power plant.

The documents were released to Donnis by Dyana Koelsch, retained by the Town Council to handle public relations on their behalf. Koelsch, a former journalist-turned-public relations consultant, told me in a phone conversation last week she was retained by the Town Council to facilitate better communication between the Town Council and local residents.

The release of these documents seems to have come some time after the House passed Representative Cale Keable‘s bill, H8420 Sub A, which, if it becomes law, will allow the voters of Burrillville the opportunity to approve or reject any proposed tax treaty the Town Council makes with an power plant by popular vote. In recent days opposition to this bill has been ramping up, with Invenergy purchasing a full page ad in the Providence Journal on Saturday, an op-ed co-signed by Laurie White of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and Michael Sabitoni of the Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council on Sunday, and a bellicose tirade on the Journal’s editorial page yesterday.

Despite the opposition of business leaders and unions the Keable bill passed the floor 64 to 7 as Burrillville residents applauded. You can watch the vote below and see the reaction of Burrillville residents below. The difference between the votes reported above and the votes pictured is due to some legislators entering their votes late.

The release of the Burrillville Town Council letter opposing the Keable bill provoked a flurry of responses on social media. At about 10:30pm Burrillville City Councillor David Place confirmed that the letter was indeed accurate when he commented on Burrillville resident and power plant opponent Jeremy Bailey’s Facebook page.

The reaction from Burrillville residents has been negative and angry:

“I have NEVER seen such political BS in my life!!!“
“Has to be a back room deal going on ! Obviously representing Invenergy’s interest over the citizens!!!!“
“This is very disappointing and kicks us in the gut ! These council people are traitors and sneaky too, it’s not fair to the towns people!“

It’s unclear when the Town Council decided to write the letter, or if that decision was made at a public meeting.

The timing of the release is strange, since tomorrow evening there is a Town Council meeting scheduled, with public comment. Past Burrillville Town Council meetings have been contentious. Tomorrow night’s promises to be explosive. Why the Town Council would choose to invite the approbation of their constituents is a mystery. There is talk of a recall election for the four Town Councillors not up for re-election this fall.

The most startling thing about the documents released is that they contain details of the town’s negotiated tax deal with Invenergy, details that the Town Council has previously stated must remain secret while being negotiated. Though the tax deal is not yet done, the Town Council says there is “an agreement in principle on the following:”

$2.9 million upfront payment – $1.2 million in guaranteed payments even if the EFSB denies the application
$92 million – $180 million guaranteed payments over the next 20 years
Protection for property owners near the proposed power plant site through a property value agreement
Fully binds future owners if the plant is sold or otherwise transferred
Protection for Town residents into the future by locking in place a decommissioning plan

The Town Council claims that the legislation weakens the Council’s ability to protect its residents and obtain financial compensation for hosting the proposed power plant, strips the Town Council’s negotiating leverage that can force Invenergy to compensate the town, and jeopardizes efforts to put financial safeguards in place for residents near the power plant and compromises an agreement for the decommissioning of the plant.

I reached out to Jerry Elmer, a Senior Attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, overnight and he was kind enough to send me some notes on the various documents, which I will quote in full beneath the page he references.

Elmer said, in summary, “The bottom line is this: The members of the Town Council of Burrillville know, with absolute certainty, that the sweetheart deal they are negotiating with Invenergy would be overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of Burrillville if the voters of Burrillville got the right to vote on it. The members of the Town Council are correct in their assessment. That is why they are urging that the Keable-Fogarty Bill be rejected.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 1, bullets at the bottom: Town Council claims it has remained “neutral” on whether the plant should be built in order not to taint its comments to the EFSB. Two things must be said about this. First (and maybe more important), these documents show that the Town Council has not remained neutral, and that the Town Council very much wants to enter into a Tax Treaty with Invenergy. The Town Council is urging defeat of the Keable-Fogarty bill which would give the people of Burrillville the right to vote on such a (possible, future) tax treaty. That is not “remaining neutral.” Second, the Town Council has (very seriously) misunderstood what kind of “neutrality” is required of it by Rhode Island law. The Town Council has consistently refused to discuss the proposed Invenergy plant, even at public meetings, called pursuant to the state’s Open Meetings Act, even with a stenographer present. The Town Council pretends that this is being “neutral,” but this is merely ignoring constituents. And, crucially, this refusal to discuss the Invenergy proposal in open meetings is not required by any Rhode Island statute, law, rule, or regulation, including the state’s Open Records Act.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 1, bullets at the bottom: Town Council says that the purpose of the tax treaty is “to properly compensate Burrillville” if the Invenergy plant is built. However, what constitutes a “proper” level of compensation is a judgment call, about which reasonable people may disagree. The main effect of the Keable-Fogarty Bill would be to return that judgment call to the people of Burrillville.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 3, bullet half way down page [above], Town Council says: Having a tax treaty is a “guarantee of full taxability” of Invenergy. This is factually incorrect, and it is inconceivable to me that the Town Council is not fully aware of that fact. There is today, in the Town of Burrillville, a background, already-existing tax law that would cover this power plant (just as every municipality in Rhode Island, and indeed the United States, has an existing, background law on how to tax the real estate of individuals and businesses). The only reason that Invenergy wants a tax treaty with the Town of Burrillville is in order to get a different, lower tax rate. This makes sense: Invenergy will not negotiate with the Town for a higher tax rate; no business would do that, because it makes zero business sense. The reason that Invenergy would not negotiate for a higher tax rate is that Invenergy, without any negotiations at all, could get the currently existing tax rate. The only purpose of a tax treaty is to give the applicant (here, Invenergy) a lower tax rate than the existing one. This is true of this tax treaty, just as it has been true of every tax treaty since tax treaties were invented. In other words, when the Town Council says that a tax treaty is meant to be a “guarantee of full taxability” that statement is just factually incorrect.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 2, Town Council says that having a tax treaty in place “eliminates costly appraisals” and “eliminates volatility in future appraisals.” On these two points, the Town Council is speaking the literal truth, but in a deeply misleading way. These statements of the Town Council are factually accurate, but what is left unsaid is that, if the Keable-Fogarty Bill is defeated, that defeat will eliminate the right and ability of the people of Burrillville to vote on a Tax Treaty that may be reached between the Town Council and Invenergy. Let me use an analogy: I am threatening to murder you in cold blood. Before I do it, I tell you to think about the many “advantages” of being dead: you’ll save money on food, you’ll save money on rent, and you’ll never again go to a movie that you end up not liking. What I am saying is literally true, but what I am saying is misleading (in the extreme). So, too, with the Town Council statement. A tax treaty would eliminate costly appraisals — and would eliminate the right of the people of Burrillville to vote on a sweetheart deal reached between the Town Council and the people of Burrillville.”

Tomorrow the Senate takes up their version of the bill, S3037 in Senate Judiciary at 2:30pm in room 313 in the State House. The Burrillville Town Council meets tomorrow evening at 7:00pm in the Town Council Chambers, Town Building, 105 Harrisville Main St., Harrisville.

June 6, 2016June 6, 2016

Burrillville boondoggle supporters still loyal to failed business model

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

The June 5, 2016 op ed by Laurie White and Michael Sabitoni “Poison pill aimed at power plant” is a commentary by two people who have lost sight of where the Rhode Island economy is going. The Chamber of Commerce and the construction unions have chased after every boondoggle they have ever seen, offering us projects like the Quonset container port that was offered by con artists and would have opened just as the economy crashed in 2008. They have not shown good judgment.

They offer a program of let the rich do anything they want even if everyone else knows it is a very bad idea that will hurt the community and needlessly damage the planet and the climate. The power plant is a very short term fix and a very bad investment for Rhode Island. By the time the plant reaches the end of its useful life, much more of Rhode Island will be under water and the people will have demanded that the damn thing be shut down.

The politicians, the Chamber, and labor unions have to understand the economy has changed and the way forward for our communities is ecological healing and economic justice.

Right now the only difference between authoritarian states and democracies is that in democracies the people can stop the corporate raiders with their votes and demand rules that keep the planet and their kids healthy.

That you call out against democracy and for special interests shows what this struggle is really about.

Ed. note: This piece was originally published on ProsperityForRI.com, the author’s blog. He shared it with both RI Future and the Providence Journal.

June 5, 2016June 7, 2016

Business versus democracy in Rhode Island

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

When describing what she sees as the problem of convincing millennials that they need financial literacy, Abigail Johnson, the CEO who runs the company that runs Fidelity Investments, said that not only do millennials not understand that they need to save money for retirement, but they “don’t have the money to save anyway, so what’s the point?” (See video below, starting at the 23m mark)

Johnson was making a joke, one that Governor Gina Raimondo laughed at along with most of the attendees of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce 2016 “Economic Outlook Luncheon.” She was answering Chamber president Laurie White’s question about the difficulties of channeling millennials into the workforce of the future.

Johnson hoped that millennials, even those who don’t go to college, might one day learn the “concepts” and “basics” of financial planning. She estimated that perhaps 14 percent of Rhode Islanders have their retirement funds invested in her company, the not-so-subtle subtext being that she sees millennials, the “workforce of the future,” as essential to her company’s future profits.

White, Johnson and Raimondo were talking about people as commodities, defined purely by their economic value.

This is the promise of “neoliberalism,” ostensibly a view that markets, when left alone, will govern themselves fairly and equitably. But Wendy Brown, a political scientist at UC Berkeley, wanted to explore what neoliberalism has done “to political life, to social life and to the human being.”

Neoliberalism seeks to expand markets to every part of life, including democracy, human social life, education, social services and more. “The idea,” says Brown, “is not to just let free markets have their way, but to produce everything in the image of the free market.”

Brown calls this the “stealth revolution,” the transformation of the human being into nothing more than their economic value and the devaluation of democracy in the face of market forces and the will of the billionaire class.

What we lose by turning our government into a business determined by markets instead of democracy is the idea of equality as a fundamental principle, the unraveling of shared power, and the undermining of the people’s ability to determine a societies values and policies, says Brown.

Under this view, says Brown, there is “no space for democracy anymore… everything should be understood as markets…”

This brings me to Lenette Boiselle, representing the Northern RI Chamber of Commerce at a RI House Environmental committee meeting last week. Boiselle was at the hearing to oppose “one specific part” of a bill that, if passed, would give the voters of Burrillville the power to approve or reject any tax deals made by their town council with power plant companies.

“The Chamber of Commerce has a history of opposing any type of referendum,” said Boiselle, “whether it be a voter initiative or a referendum on a mall, a casino… as a fundamental principle, the Chamber of Commerce believes that these types of issues are extremely complicated…” When issues like this are decided by referendum, said Boiselle, “those who spend the most money usually win.”

Representative Aaron Regunberg then asked, “Money plays a big role in every election. Do you think we shouldn’t have any elections?” [4m55s]

Boiselle seemed to understand that saying democracy doesn’t work might be a bad move, so instead she told a story that sought to undermine democracy’s legitimacy. She gave an example of what she saw as the problems of voter referendums she worked on in Massachusetts.

Earlier that day Boiselle was at the Northern RI Chamber of Commerce breakfast that featured Invenerg’s director of development, John Niland, as the the speaker. Questions at this breakfast were written down by attendees on idea cards and submitted in writing to Boiselle, who carefully went through them to make sure that Niland was not hit with any questions that he was unprepared to answer.

This is the kind of protection from scrutiny private business concerns routinely employ. When we run our government like a business, we shouldn’t be surprised when our elected officials try to employ the same methods to protect themselves from scrutiny. This is why Governor Raimondo doesn’t want to go to Burrillville and talk directly to the people. This is why she goes denies APRA requests. This is why she makes trips to New York, or plans trips to Switzerland, but won’t say who she is talking to or why.

I’ll leave this with one final thought.

“Modernity brought us the idea that human beings, rather than nature, rather than Gods, and rather than tradition… could be in charge of their own lives, their own future, and could exercise freedom in coming together with others and deciding individually, how to live,” said Wendy Brown, “That was the promise of modernity.”

Let’s work together to forge a democracy that does not forget this.

February 10, 2016February 10, 2016

Fast tracking RhodeWorks: Passing unpopular legislation in an election year

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

Ahead of yesterday’s finance committee votes in both houses of the General Assembly approving RhodeWorks, the truck toll plan, a press conference was held at the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) featuring some of Rhode Island’s most powerful political, business and labor leaders. They were there to present a unified message in support of the tolls, despite vocal opposition.

One prominent Rhode Island business owner, whose business has “been a member of the Chamber for almost as long as there’s been a Chamber” told me that contrary to GPCC President Laurie White‘s claims that this issue has been discussed with membership, he was never consulted about the plan, despite his business’s dependence on trucks for shipping. In fact, he said, “I didn’t even hear about this meeting until I heard about it on the radio this morning!”

As I said before, RhodeWorks is inevitable. The legislation has been fast tracked not because there is a sudden, urgent need to fix our roads and bridges; the need for this repair is decades old. The legislation is being fast tracked because the necessary arrangements between the various parties involved have been carefully worked out, but in an election year, meaning that the sooner elected officials put this issue in their rear view mirror the better. Several legislators are going to be challenged for their seats because of their votes on this.

Not that Republican challengers are offering anything better. As Sam Bell pointed out yesterday, the Republican plan seems to be privatization, which means private businesses will take over our roads and bridges and charge whatever tolls they want to for profit, or their plan is cutting the budget, denying important social services to families in need. (Not to worry, though: Senate President Paiva-Weed promises that she and Speaker Mattiello will continue to cut the budget, cut taxes and cut services. More on this in a future article.)

The cost of RhodeWorks will be passed onto consumers. Ocean State Job Lot raised a stink over the weekend when they put their expansion plans on hold, threatening as yet unrealized jobs, but after this all pans out, Job Lot will not lose out on any profits: They will simply raise the price of their goods. This means that we are not imposing a user fee on businesses as much as we are coming up with yet another regressive tax that will affect the poor and middle class more than the rich, which is just the way our political leaders like it.

The General Assembly is expected to pass RhodeWorks today, and Governor Raimondo will sign the legislation asap. In the meantime, you can watch the full press conference below.

Laurie White, Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) President

RI Governor Gina Raimondo

Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza

Peter Andruszkiewicz, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island CEO and President

Scott Wolf, Grow Smart Rhode Island Executive Director

Lloyd Albert, AAA of Southern New England Senior Vice President

Michael F. Sabitoni, Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council President

House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello

Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed

Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt,
Central Falls Mayor James Diossa and
Lt. Governor Dan McKee were in attendance but did not speak.

February 8, 2016February 10, 2016

RI business community launches pre-emptive attack on fair scheduling

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

Aside from raising the minimum wage, fair scheduling legislation is one of the most important ways in which workers can get their lives under some semblance of control when working for companies that try to maximize profits and reduce labor costs by scheduling as close to last minute as possible. A little over a year ago San Francisco became the first city to pass the Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights, a series of labor reforms centered around the idea of fair scheduling.

Workers at many retail and food service companies are required to always be available for work as management waits until they have up to the minute sales data and weather reports before deciding on whether or not to bring the worker in and pay them. This wreaks havoc on a worker’s ability to arrange for child care, organize a school schedule, make travel arrangements to and from work or secure a second job to make ends meet.

Elizabeth_Warren_Nov_2_2012 — Senator Elizabeth Warren (Photo (c)Tim Pierce)

A report, Set Up to Fail, demonstrates the difficulty many low-wage workers with unfair schedules face. “For many low-wage working parents, the conditions of their jobs effectively set them up to fail: meeting both their work and family obligations becomes an impossible juggling act. And too often, despite their best efforts, parents’ low wages and work conditions undermine their children’s chances for success as well.”

After the success of fair scheduling legislation in San Francisco, activists in Minneapolis were cautiously optimistic about passing similar legislation in their city, until Mayor Betsy Hodges withdrew her support after getting pressure from the local Chamber of Commerce. According to writer Justin Miller, “In late September, opponents formed the Workforce Fairness Coalition by the Chamber of Commerce, and included prominent members like the Minnesota Business Partnership (which represents about 80 businesses, including Target, U.S. Bancorp and Xcel Energy) and the Minnesota Restaurant Association. They took specific issue with the scheduling law, saying that it would impede operations and could force businesses to flee the city.”

Here in Rhode Island, the fight over fair scheduling began when the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) brought the subject up at last week’s luncheon. GPCC President Laurie White asked RI House Minority Leader Brian Newberry (R, District 48 North Smithfield and Burrillville) about fair scheduling, what she referred to as, “long term work scheduling requirements, otherwise known as predictive scheduling.”

“How do we set the right balance between employers and workers in order to keep our small and mid-sized businesses competitive,” asked White, “and also keep Rhode Island businesses competitive vis-à-vis other places?”

“You folks know better than anybody what kind of mandates help or hurt your businesses,” replied Newberry, “so when it comes to [mandates such as fair scheduling] we need to hear from [business leaders], because there are always… well meaning advocates out there for all kinds of groups who are less interested in the fundamental cost of what they want… You need to talk to us. The business community in this state, not just the big business community but small businesses need to be more active [in lobbying government representatives]… if you don’t do it, we don’t hear from the right groups of people and we will make mistakes.”

The language and contours of the coming fight are already taking shape, and advocates for fair scheduling here in Rhode Island have yet to raise their voices. Note that advocates for fair scheduling are condescendingly pronounced “well-meaning” by Newberry, as if their concerns simply emotional and compassionate, lacking any sense of business reality. Note that Chamber President White can’t bring herself to call the scheduling “fair,” that implies present scheduling is unfair, so she calls uses the words “long term” or “predictive” scheduling instead.

Note how Newberry recommends that the Chamber and other small business groups show up when these kinds of bills are being discussed in General Assembly committee meetings because presumably if the “right” groups of people don’t advocate for profits over people, then the wrong groups of people will secure additional legal protections for people, something Newberry refers to as “mistakes.”

Fair scheduling legislation has many different parts, but taken together, it empowers workers so that they are protected from abusive scheduling practices. Included in typical fair scheduling legislation are the following ideas:

Advanced notice of work schedules- Requires employers to give 3 weeks notice of schedules and 3 weeks to notify workers of changes to their schedules. It also allows workers to decline work hours not included on the original schedule.
Compensation for changed shifts- Provides one hour of predictability pay for employer-initiated changes to the schedule and provides minimum reporting pay when a shift is cancelled or significantly reduced with less than a day’s notice.
Right to request flexible working arrangement- Allows workers to request scheduling accommodations without fear of retaliation.
Right to rest- guarantees a day of rest every week (workers do not have to work more than six days in a row) and guarantees adequate rest between shifts (no more “clopens” where a worker closes the store at midnight and opens the store at 6am.)
Equal treatment regardless of hours worked- prohibits discrimination in pay, promotion and benefits based on the number of scheduled hours
Retention pay- Requires employers to compensate workers for their availability by making a minimum biweekly payment of $150, which can be met through wages or benefit payments. No worker can be paid less than this amount for two weeks work.
Offer of work to existing workers- requires employers to offer work to existing qualified part-time workers before hiring new staff or temporary workers.
Also included in any legislation will be language on protection of these rights with penalties for employers who violate them, prohibitions of retaliation against workers who claim these rights, the posting of notices explaining these rights to workers, and enforcement requirements.

A decent list of fair scheduling resources can be accessed here at the National Women’s Law Center. As with minimum wage and tipped minimum wage, women are disproportionately impacted by unfair scheduling.

Jobs with Justice has a terrific overview of fair scheduling legislation with links to additional resources here.

Also, CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy) has a national repository of fair scheduling news articles, briefs, analyses, etc.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been out front on this issue, and has introduced the Schedules That Work Act, though the likelihood of such a bill passing on the national level in a Republican controlled Congress is low.

This is why the battle for fair scheduling is being done on a state by state or city by city basis, and why the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce is already making moves to oppose such legislation.

We cannot live our lives serving the whims of work. Work exists to serve people, and when we forget this, families suffer. Fair scheduling is a small step in addressing this injustice.