Raymond Gallison – RI Future

June 7, 2016

Ethics complaint filed against Rep Bill O’Brien

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

Sam Bell, state coordinator of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America (RIPDA), filed an ethics complaint against Representative William O’Brien (District 54) last week. Bell alleges that when O’Brien ran for office in 2009 and 2011, he failed to file his first two required financial disclosure statements. Candidates are required to file financial disclosure statement for the preceding year.

A conservative Democrat from North Providence, Bill O’Brien was found to have plagiarized large portions of his website. Currently, O’Brien is facing a primary challenge from Democrat Bill Deware, a progressive and labor activist.

“Financial disclosure forms are vitally important,” said Bell in a statement, “Without them, we have no idea where politicians receive their income. Given that the [Raymond] Gallison scandal seems to be related to lawmakers’ income, tracking where politicians make their money is especially important.”

June 18, 2015June 18, 2015

Senate Finance approves budget while advocacy groups respond

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

Much like its House counterpart, the Senate Finance Committee passed the FY16 budget bill unanimously with almost no discussion other than to speak on its merits.

“I would certainly characterize this budget as one that is not only ambitious, but one that makes a significant investment in areas that should have been invested in in the past,” Chairman Daniel DaPonte (D- District 14) said to begin the meeting. He added in a press release that the budget helps to put Rhode Island back on the right track economically.

“This is a budget that Rhode Island’s economy needs and through its passage will continue the economic stability and reform that delivers the message that Rhode Island’s economy is back and open for business.”

One of the short discussion points brought up during the meeting was whether or not the budget provided opportunities for youth.

“There have been some pockets that have been filled here, but I suggest that next year we consider providing more job opportunities for youth,” Senator Juan Pichardo (D- District 2) said.

DaPonte agreed with Pichardo, but also reminded the committee that there is no one specific way to keep youth working in the state.

“I think initiatives to focus on keeping young people here and getting them up and running are incorporated in the budget in a variety of different places and a variety of different ways,” he said. “I think the sum of all these parts is a statement to us not only wanting to keep these folks here, but increase the number of opportunities available.”

The night before, the House of Representatives was very kind to the bill as well, passing it through to the Senate after a swift three-hour session. Before its passage, many took the time to thank not only House Finance Committee Chairman Raymond Gallison (D- District 69), and Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, but the House Fiscal Advisory staff as well.

Other groups outside of the State House are also pleased with the budget. Planned Parenthood, which fought against the restrictive abortion insurance coverage in Article 18, said in a press release that they are pleased with the outcome of the bill.

“While we were disappointed the governor unnecessarily chose to widely expand the number of plans that do not cover abortion beyond federal minimum standards, the action by the General Assembly today ensures employers cannot unilaterally limit reproductive health care service coverage for their employers. This amendment will require employers and insurance carriers to clearly indicate when an employer is opting out of covering certain reproductive healthcare services, so that no one will be surprised by a lack of coverage for routine procedures.”

But, while many have championed the budget as a success story, there are still those that are dissatisfied. Common Cause Rhode Island, an advocacy and lobbyist group for transparent government, has expressed discontent with the budget’s provision for Governor Raimondo’s pension settlement.

“This extraordinary legislation, that will affect every Rhode Islander – and every Rhode Island state and municipal budget – for decades, should not be rolled into the annual budget as if it were just another article,” said executive director John Marion. “The budget debate that typically occurs in a single evening and includes debates on amendments concerning dozens of issues is not the place for this important legislation. It deserves special consideration so legislators, as much as they did in the special session in 2011, can take this up on the merits alone.”

June 17, 2015

No winners in state budget abortion compromise

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

Language added to the Rhode Island 2016 budget by Representative Raymond Gallison before passage somewhat balanced the last minute addition of extreme anti-abortion language submitted by Governor Gina Raimondo.

The new language added to article 18 reads:

(e) Health plans that offer a plan variation that excludes coverage for abortion services as 31 defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(i) for a religious exemption variation in the small group market 32 shall treat such a plan as a separate plan offering with a corresponding rate.

Except for religious Employers (as defined in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code), employers selecting a plan under this religious exemption subsection may not designate it as the single plan for employees, but shall offer their employees full-choice of small employer plans on the exchange, using the employer-selected plan as the base plan for coverage. The employer is not responsible for payment that exceeds that designated for the employer-selected plan.

An employer who elects a religious exemption variation shall provide written notice to prospective enrollees prior to enrollment that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(1). The carrier must include notice that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as part of the Summary of benefits and Coverage required by 42 U.S.C. 300g-15.

Signs of a behind the scenes compromise were apparent based on the odd assortment of representatives who rose to second the amendment, including Rep Edie Ajello, well known for her advocacy of reproductive rights, and Rep Arthur Corvese, well known for publicly and repeatedly referring to legalized abortion as a “culture of death.”

What does the new language mean? At bottom, any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their employee health plan, must allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and select any other plan, paying any additional costs out of pocket.

Rhode Island is now the first state to build language into the law that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion coverage.

Under Federal law, employees must be notified when their plan covers abortion. It does not require, as Rhode Island will under this new language, that employees be notified when they do not have abortion coverage. The language passed last night mandates that employees be told that the chosen plan does not cover abortion before they enroll, and that the lack of abortion coverage is confirmed after enrollment.

Ultimately, the notification requirement is similar to language concerning religious employers who choose not to cover contraception coverage as part of their health plans otherwise mandated by state or federal law.

There is a problem for employees inherent in this language. If my employer doesn’t want to cover abortion due to religious objections, and I decide to opt out of the plan chosen by my company, my employer will know of my objection, and may act in a discriminatory way against me because of my beliefs. I shouldn’t have to worry about job security or job advancement because of my decisions regarding reproductive health care for my family and me. Medical coverage, including reproductive services, are a private matter. How can that privacy be maintained under this provision?

Before the passage of the budget, Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life told me that he and Bernard Healey, State House lobbyist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, were present to track the progress of the anti-abortion language the Governor inserted. Bracy told me that the language was the result of an agreement made in the wake of Doe v. Burwell, in which an anonymous man sued the state because there were no plans on the exchange that did not cover abortion.

ProJo reporter Richard Salit confirmed this when he wrote that “The lawsuit brought against Rhode Island was withdrawn in May when a Christian legal group said it had been assured that Rhode Island would begin offering multiple plans for abortion foes in 2016. According to HealthSource RI, the state Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner has required that in 2016 insurers offer a choice for abortion foes in every “metal” level (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) that they offer traditional health plans.”

This does not answer the question as to why Rhode Island did not simply require the addition of one plan to not cover abortion, as is required by federal law by 2017. It also does not answer why the amendment came from Governor Raimondo’s office, instead of being introduced as a bill that could be debated and publicly commented on. Had this democratic and open process been followed, the end result may have been more satisfying to all parties.

Despite this large concession to abortion foes, they were still unhappy with the newly added language. A source confided to me that Bracy, Healey and Representative John DeSimone were railing against the compromise language during last minute negotiations.

This makes me wonder if the RI Right to Life and the Providence Roman Catholic Diocese will begin looking for a non-religious employer to bring a Hobby Lobby like lawsuit against HealthSource RI under the state level RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) There is little difference between Rhode Island’s RFRA and the federal version the Supreme Court based their Hobby Lobby decision on.

As I pointed out before, this new language may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom in Rhode Island.

June 17, 2015June 17, 2015

Budget bill passes House floor with almost no debate

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

In what everyone thought would be a firestorm of debate, the RI House of Representatives unanimously passed the $8.7 billion FY 2016 budget with little to no discussion about many of the articles, including the much contested Medicaid cuts and pension settlement, as well as Governor Raimondo’s so called “job tools.” According to a House spokesperson, this is the fastest that the budget has gone through in nearly three decades.

The only budget articles that were seriously debated on the floor were numbers 11, which concerned taxes and revenues; and 18, which provided the funding to HealthSource RI, Rhode Island’s Affordable Care Act state exchange. There were two article introductions during the debate, one concerning the funding for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), and one simply to renumber the articles in the bill after its introduction. Representative Patricia Morgan (R-District 26), was going to introduce an article to fund bridge repairs, but recognized that she did not have the support to pass it.

Although discussion was sparse on the floor, Rep. Morgan was one of the few members who continually sparked debate, particularly over article 11, which had the longest discussion out of all of the sections voted upon. Amendments had already been proposed to the article, but had been struck down. Morgan proposed two amendments herself, the first of which would promote lean government standards for the state, and according to her, dramatically decrease costs for running state government.

“Many states at this point, have already started lean government initiatives, and it has given them a lot of fruit,” she said. “There are incredible efficiencies that have resulted from lean government.

Morgan planned to pay for the new service by taking $500,000 from the Newport Grand Casino and putting it towards creating a lean government initiative, which Governor Raimondo has already stated she supports. Her reasoning? That the casino was not in dire need of the funds.

“Last year, the new owner proposed $40 million for remodeling,” Morgan said. “If he has $40 million for that, I guess he can give up $500,000.”

The amendment saw staunch opposition, especially because, according to several representatives, 60 percent of the casino’s money goes directly back into the state.

“Just because Newport Grand may be part of corporate America, we are here to help businesses thrive in our economy,” Representative Dennis Canario (D-District 71) said.

“To take $500,000 out of Newport Grand would jeopardize the integrity of that business,” House Majority Leader John DeSimone (D-District 5), argued.

Although Morgan’s first amendment failed 71-4, she brought up another amendment immediately after that tried to use the same funds from Newport Grand to pay for a 38 Studios investigation.

“The people of this state deserve to know how it happened, why it happened, who did it, and try to keep it from ever happening again,” Morgan said.

Her second amendment did not even get the chance to go up for debate, as it was ruled not germane to the discussion. The ruling was met with cheers from other representatives.

Article 18 funded HealthSource RI, which has been hotly contested over the past few days due to restrictive abortion coverage language. However, Finance Committee Chairman Representative Raymond Gallison (D- District 69) introduced an amendment that would curb such restrictions, and allow access for those who require abortions even if their insurance plan has cited religious exemptions from covering them.

Surprisingly, the amendment passed with no discussion, but the article itself saw debate due to King V. Burwell, the current Supreme Court case determining whether or not states should receive tax subsidies from having their own healthcare exchanges. While some representatives thought that keeping the exchange would make Rhode Island less business friendly, it was upheld in the vote.

What is more striking than what was debated, though, is what was not. Cornerstone legislation in the bill went by without so much as a peep from representatives. Medicaid cuts, the pension settlement, Raimondo’s jobs initiative, professional licensing, all day kindergarten, school construction, and even appropriations of funds from FY 15 are just some of the examples of what saw next to no discussion. Even Gallison’s surprise article that raised RIPTA fares for the elderly and low income to $1, up from no cost at all, saw little debate.

After only three short hours, the budget was unanimously passed, with daylight still shining down on the State House.

“The House of Representatives is very committed to working together on behalf of the citizens of the state of Rhode Island,” Speaker Mattiello said of the speedy voting process. “That the House has worked very collaboratively with the Governor and the Senate President, and that there’s a focus on jobs and the economy. When we put out a pro-jobs budget, pro-economy budget, the members rallied around it and responded appropriately.”

Mattiello also did not rule out the option of a special fall session to handle Governor Raimondo’s proposed toll tax. It is actually very likely, he said.

As for Rep. Morgan, she believes that she was one of the only members of the House who actively stood up for what they believe in on the floor tonight.

“I’ll fight for the people of Rhode Island all day long. I’ll fight for better government in our state,” she said after the meeting. “But, I can’t do it alone. The people need to send me more support.”

“I don’t know why they didn’t speak up,” Morgan added. “There were things that should have been said. There was debate that should have gone on. There are things that are objectionable. I have no idea why people didn’t stand up and fight for the things that they believe in.”

But, even without the support for her amendments, Morgan still voted in favor of the budget because it was, for the most part, in line with her beliefs.

“I voted for the budget because there were a lot of really good Republican proposals in it, that I think will help Rhode Island, and I didn’t want to see them not get support.”

The bill will go to the Senate floor for hearing on Wednesday, where if approved, will become the official FY 16 budget for Rhode Island.

June 12, 2015June 12, 2015

Tanzi stumps for South County as budget cuts its tourism funding

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

Just because House Finance passed the FY 2016 budget onto the House floor for next Tuesday, doesn’t mean the entire House of Representatives has to like it. In fact, much of the bill is contested – such as the tourism cuts that Representative Teresa Tanzi, Narragansett/South Kingstown, has voiced her opposition to.

“When I moved here from Utah, everyone said “Oh, Newport, Providence!” People already know about Newport and Providence and I would say “No, Narragansett,” and nobody would know what Narragansett was. I have a really difficult time turning a portion of our money over from South County to help promote more Providence and more Newport.” she said, citing that the South County tourism board works very hard to market their area of the state.”

In response House Speaker Nick Mattiello said, “Despite that wonderful job, everyone still talks about Providence and Newport. It’s the integrity of the entire system that we’re looking at, and you need a Rhode Island brand. It’s not about localities. The current system doesn’t work, and we cannot go back to a system that doesn’t work.”

Their disagreement stems from Governor Gina Raimondo’s idea to centralize state tourism spending. Currently, Rhode Island has no unified state marketing efforts and instead dives proceeds from hotel tax receipts between 8 regional tourism agencies. The money will now go more towards the state Commerce Corporation, rather than the tourism bureaus themselves. In the House version of the budget, $4.7 million goes straight to the Commerce Corporation, while less than a million goes to the actual tourism district. In Gov. Raimondo’s version, $6.4 million would go to the corporation, leaving the districts with $1.7 million.

Rep. Tanzi (D- District 34). Photo courtesy of http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/ — Rep. Tanzi (D- District 34)

After the hearing, Tanzi continued to express her concerns about the funding cuts, and how they will harm her district as a whole.

“I think that the way that the South County tourism board is run is actually very effective. We have been compliant, we turn in our reports when we’re supposed to, our production cost of our marketing materials, everything is done in house. We’re very conscientious about how the money is spent,” she said, especially in comparison to other tourism boards across the state. Tanzi believes that this will only disserve the southern portion of Rhode Island, especially because Newport and Providence, in her opinion, do not need more marketing.

“The beaches are their own unique part of it,” she said. “We need to have our own budget to market that appropriately. We’re competing with the Cape, we’re not competing with Massachusetts.”

As the budget is currently written, Tanzi stated that to “cannibalize” the smaller parts of the state in order to market Rhode Island as a whole is not the best use of money, and it will only show poorly within the coming years.

“My guess is that my businesses in South County, who have five months out of the year at most, to make their living to make it through the entire summer, are going to suffer as a result of this,” she said. Tanzi has spoken to many of the businesses in her district since the budget first came out in March, adding that such funds are always a concern for business owners in the area.

But, the prospect of Tanzi submitting a successful amendment to support her district is slim to none, in her view, calling South County the “small fish,” in comparison to Newport and Providence.

“Just the basic numbers of looking at it, you’re talking about a couple of South County people, versus the city folk and the Newport people, who outnumber us on the floor. So, my chances of an amendment passing are ridiculously infantile. They’re infinitesimal, they’re so small, so, no, I won’t,” she said.

Even without the hope of amending the budget, this year, though, Tanzi still holds out hope for next year, planning to bring forth data showing the exact effects of these cuts on South County tourism, and maybe even get to create a separate brand for her district in the process.

June 10, 2015

House Finance approves budget bill, full chamber to vote Tuesday

The House Finance Committee considers the FY 2016 budget.

After much deliberation, the House Finance Committee gave a unanimous 19-0 vote on the FY 2016 budget late on Tuesday night, which included $37.7 million more than the proposed budget given by Governor Gina Raimondo back in March. The legislative budget proposal is for $8.67 billion dollars, with $3.55 billion from general revenue contributing to that.

“We concur with many of the governor’s initiatives for economic development,” House Finance Chairman Raymond Gallison (D-District 69) said in a press briefing tonight.

According to Gallison, the committee, in large part, accepted Raimondo’s budget, but there were some key provisions that saw change, including Social Security, Medicaid, and sales taxes to businesses.

Those who made between $80,000 and $100,000 will be exempt from paying social security income tax. These tax cuts will give retired Rhode Islanders $9.3 million in tax relief. Businesses are also now exempt from paying the sales tax on corporate utilities. Governor Raimondo had originally proposed phasing it out over five years, but will instead be taken out all at once this year. The earned income tax credit for middle to low income households has also increased from 10 percent to 12.5 percent.

The budget outlines a 2.5 percent Medicaid cut for hospitals, and a 2 percent cut for nursing homes. Gallison said this provides more protection for nursing homes. The House budget cuts Medicaid roughly $67 million, a far cry from the $90 million that the governor had proposed, but the hospital license fee has been increased to 5.862 percent, which would bring in $13 million in additional revenue.

“Funding to maintain HealthSource RI is included in the budget,” Gallison said, outlining the distribution changes to its funding. Now, individuals will pay a surcharge of 2.86 percent on their monthly premiums, and businesses will pay a .59 percent surcharge. The budget allocates $2.6 million for HealthSource RI going into FY 2016. There is also no more additional surcharge for outpatient and imaging services.

Full-day kindergarten is another key provision, with the governor allocating $1.4 million from general revenue to fund programs in the seven communities that don’t offer full-day kindergarten yet. Educational aid was increased by $35.8 million in order to pour money into the educational funding formula. There was also $20 million added for school construction purposes.

Higher education saw an increase of $7 million. The Rhode Island Higher Education Assistance Authority is being downsized, with its responsibilities now being transferred to the Council of Post Secondary Education and the Office of the General Treasurer.

Other major provisions within the bill include cuts to all eight local tourism bureaus, a $2 million increase for RIPTA, and a $0.25 increase in the state sales tax on cigarettes, bringing it up to $3.75 per pack. The tax increase is estimated to bring in $1.7 million in revenue.

What is absent from the budget is just as significant as what is present.

“This budget does not contain anything whatsoever to do with a proposal for a stadium, or any tolls on trucks as proposed by the governor,” Gallison said during the hearing. Also notably absent is the “Taylor Swift tax” on million dollar homes in the state.

Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello has gone on the record saying that the proposed budget is business friendly, and will allow for economic development in the state.

“The budget that’s going to be voted on tonight is very pro-business, pro-economy. It’s going to serve as a catalyst for existing businesses as well as working to attract new businesses to the state of Rhode Island,” he told members of the media on Tuesday.

Gallison agreed with that sentiment, giving his own statement at the beginning of the hearing.

“We continue to move Rhode Island onto an economic path to enable businesses to continue to grow,” he said.

The bill is scheduled to go to the House of Representatives floor next Tuesday.

March 11, 2015

Rep. Morgan targets HealthSourceRI with weak sauce

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

The Rhode Island House Finance Committee met to discuss Representative Patricia Morgan’s bill to eliminate HealthSourceRI, and turn the operations of our health care exchange over to the federal government. All the sponsors of House Bill 5329 are Republicans, including Morgan, Dan Reilly, Antonio Giarusso, Justin Price, and Michael Chippendale.

Normally a bill like this wouldn’t attract much attention. It would be dismissed as a cynical statement against a successful social welfare program by right-wing ideologues. But Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, a nominal Democrat, has several times suggested that HealthSourceRI is too expensive and that turning the exchange over to the federal government, something that no state has ever done, might be an option.

As Rep. Morgan explained her bill and her reasoning for it, she alluded to the Speaker’s interest, suggesting that the elimination of HealthSource RI might free up money for Mattiello’s pet project of eliminating the state’s social security income tax. Morgan also mentioned that her bill might find the money required to pay for all day kindergarten, a pet project of Senate President Paiva-Weed, perhaps foreshadowing the compromise that will will see both pet projects come to fruition.

As I mentioned, no state with a functioning, successful state-run health care exchange has shut theirs down. So Rhode Island, in choosing such a path, would be charting unknown and uncertain waters. When Rep Deborah Ruggiero asked Morgan, “What is the cost to the state to return [the health exchange] back to the government?” Rep Morgan seemed uncertain, then replied, “Nothing.”

Ruggiero countered that in her discussion with HealthSourceRI director Anya Rader Wallack, the cost to the state to turn over the exchange is actually “somewhere around $10 million.” In addition, said Ruggiero, “we lose control, obviously, because we no longer have the healthcare exchange in our own state,” a point to which Morgan later replied, “Control is overrated.”

Morgan was also unsure of just how many Rhode Islanders benefit from the exchange, claiming that, “on the website it says that 25,000 are actually paying for their insurance through HealthSourceRI,” but when I looked, the number is actually over 30,000.

Right now, the United States Supreme Court is in the middle of deciding King v. Burwell. If the court decides for King, federal subsidies to those states that don’t have their own health insurance exchanges will vanish. According to US News and World Reports, “The likely scenario is a partial or total market “death spiral” like those, respectively, in New York and Kentucky in the 1990s.” Jumping to the federal exchange now seems pretty stupid in light of the uncertainty regarding the Supreme Court decision, but Morgan isn’t concerned.

“In addressing that, I can tell you that the Obama administration is very confident that they will prevail,” said Morgan, “They have four justices already, they only need one more, to win.” That’s pretty weak sauce, since the other side could say exactly the same thing.

Morgan then went the full Scalia when she said, “On the other hand, if King prevails, and the subsidies are only available to the states, I know from reading, and hearing, that the Republicans in Congress are already working on a fix so that people can continue to get health insurance.”

I have to say, when Morgan made this comment, I looked around the room, wondering if anyone else thought her statement was as darkly comic as I thought it was. No one seemed to.

Compare Morgan’s statement with this exchange in the Supreme Court when oral arguments were heard in :

Justice Scalia: What about – – what about Congress? You really think Congress is just going to sit there while – – while all of these disastrous consequences ensue. I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the – – you know, the bankruptcy court decision? Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that – – that takes care of the problem. It happens all the time. Why is that not going to happen here?

General Verrilli: Well, this Congress, Your Honor, I – – I – –

(Laughter.)

At least people had the decency to laugh out loud at Scalia’s naiveté. Morgan was actually taken seriously.

Meanwhile, House Finance Chair, Raymond Gallison, promises that there will be full hearings along with full fact finding inquiries conducted before any decision is made on the future of HealthSourceRI.