SCOTUS abortion ruling has RI impact


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
hellerstedt_03 (1)
Washington DC

Local reactions to the Supreme Court decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which is being hailed as the most important reproductive rights decision in decades, have started to come in. Arguing that “…it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan in the 5-3 decision that struck down a controversial law that closed 75 percent of abortion clinics in Texas.

Breyer wrote the opinion, saying, “Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

The full statement from Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island:

Today, June 27, 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right to abortion. In its 5-3 ruling on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck dangerous restrictions on abortion providers in Texas.

While the Court’s decision ultimately does not affect Rhode Island women and families today, Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island warns that existing Rhode Island laws and an anti-abortion rights majority in the General Assembly threaten reproductive freedom for Rhode Island residents.

“The Supreme Court made it clear that politicians cannot pass laws to block access to safe, legal abortion. Yet today’s victory does not undo the past five years of damage and restrictions already written into law across the country and what is at stake this fall in Rhode Island,” said Craig O’Connor, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, Rhode Island with Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island. “We will continue to fight restrictions on safe, legal abortion on behalf of all people in Rhode Island. This year, Rhode Islanders will make it known at the polls that anti-abortion politicians have no place in the Rhode Island State House.”

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling protected access to safe, legal abortion by blocking two unconstitutional Texas restrictions. As the Court recognized, “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

In Rhode Island, several anti-abortion laws exist that have real world effects on abortion access, for example, the prohibition on state employee’s health insurance from covering abortion. In fact, language in Article 1, Section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution explicitly states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” Therefore, if ultimately the Supreme Court reverses its position on Roe v. Wade, there could be very real and very devastating repercussions throughout Rhode Island.

“Physicians and patients must be free to make informed and medically-appropriate decisions without interference from ill-informed legislation,” said Jennifer Villavicencio, MD, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “Abortion is a fundamental aspect of women’s health care and must be protected. Rhodes Islanders need to ask their State Senators and State Representatives where they stand on abortion rights and reproductive freedom.”

Steven Brown, Executive Director with the ACLU of Rhode Island, said that the ACLU of Rhode Island has sued the state more than six times over restrictive abortion laws since Roe v. Wade. Brown said that although each suit has been successful, “much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America – in its annual “Who Decides” scorecard – labeled the RI House and Senate anti-abortion. NARAL also downgraded Rhode Island to an F rating on reproductive rights – from a previous D+ rating. NARAL awarded the same score to Texas.

According to The Guttmacher Institute, politicians have passed 316 restrictions on safe, legal abortion at the state level since 2011.

Rev. David A. Ames, Priest-in-Charge at All Saints’ Memorial Church in Providence and Member of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Clergy Advocacy Board said that all people have “an inherent right to reproductive health care.” Ames explained, “We must continue working to expand reproductive freedom in Rhode Island.”

The RI ACLU’s Steve Brown offered an additional statement, saying, “We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down these cruel and insincere efforts to interfere with a woman’s basic constitutional right. But this is hardly the end of the matter. Since Roe v. Wade was handed down, the ACLU of Rhode Island has been forced to sue the state at least half a dozen times over restrictive abortion laws. Although every one of those suits has been successful, Rhode Island continues to impose significant barriers to a woman’s right to choose, allowable under other U.S. Supreme Court rulings.  As a result, much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

Patreon

ACLU commends Raimondo’s ‘revenge porn’ veto


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

aclu logoBelow are brief statements from five media and free speech organizations, including the Rhode Island Press Association, expressing thanks to Governor Gina Raimondo for vetoing a so-called “revenge porn” bill that would have had a chilling effect on free speech rights.

The groups had requested the Governor to veto the legislation, stating that the bill was so broadly worded that it could make criminals of people involved in neither revenge nor porn, and would have a direct impact on the First Amendment rights of the media. The bill could have limited the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, constitutionally protected material, including items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest. For example, use of images of Holocaust victims or prisoners at Abu Ghraib or, to take a more recent example, some of the infamous Anthony Weiner photos, would have likely been prohibited under the terms of this legislation.

Linda Lotridge Levin, Rhode Island Press Association: “The Rhode Island Press Association applauds Governor Raimondo for her veto of this bill which would have had some serious implications for the news media in the state. The legislation, as written, would have meant the news media could face criminal penalties if they were unable to prove to a jury that photos they published were in the public interest. This would have a chilling effect in a society where a free press is essential to our democracy.”

Chris Finan, Director of the American Booksellers for Free Expression: “Booksellers are very grateful to Governor Raimondo for recognizing that the bill passed by the legislature does not provide sufficient safeguards for the sale of books and other First Amendment-protected material. Without such safeguards, there would be a chilling effect, leaving booksellers uncertain about whether a book on the shelf is illegal and must be removed. Future legislation on this subject should require evidence of malicious intent in the distribution of these images.”

David Horowitz, Executive Director of the Media Coalition: “We applaud the Governor’s decision to veto this bill and protect the First Amendment rights of publishers, booksellers, librarians, photographers, and others First Amendment rights. The legislature can address malicious invasions of privacy without treading on free speech, with a law that is carefully tailored to address real harms. This legislation is not.”

Justin Silverman, Executive Director of the New England First Amendment Coalition: “We are pleased that Governor Raimondo vetoed this well-intended though unconstitutionally broad legislation. By doing so, she helped protect the First Amendment rights of Rhode Island residents and prevented a chilling effect on public interest journalism. We welcome the opportunity to work with legislators and privacy advocates to make sure any future legislation adequately addresses the harm of revenge porn while also preserving our First Amendment freedoms.”

Steven Brown, Executive Director of the ACLU of Rhode Island: “We commend the Governor for recognizing the serious First Amendment concerns raised by this legislation, and for the need to enact a more carefully-crafted law that will pass constitutional muster. We also wish to thank Rep. Edith Ajello for her efforts in trying to get the bill amended to meet First Amendment standards as it made its way through the General Assembly.”

While the bill does include an exemption for items that are “in the public interest,” the groups pointed out in requesting the Governor to veto the legislation that this does not offer news publishers any meaningful protection, as the final determination of whether the material constitutes a matter “in the public interest” would be left to a jury. Editors and producers would have no way of knowing in advance whether an image would be deemed to fall into this category or not, which would create a substantial and unconstitutional chilling effect on speech. Other states in New England that have enacted this type of legislation have passed much narrower versions to mitigate these constitutional concerns.

Federal judge orders end to “Prison Gerrymandering” in Cranston school and city council districts


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

aclu logoIn a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux issued a decision today holding that the City of Cranston violated the one person, one vote requirements of the U.S. Constitution when it allocated the entire incarcerated population of the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) as “residents” of one ward of the City when it drew district lines for the City Council and School Committee following the 2010 Census.  The ruling allows the City 30 days to present the Court with a new redistricting plan meeting constitutional requirements.

Today’s ruling, just the second of its kind in the nation, concluded that the City artificially inflated the population count of Ward 6, where the ACI is located, by treating all incarcerated persons as “residents” of the prison for redistricting purposes. Doing so, said the court, violates the rights of persons residing in other wards to equal representation as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“I’m thrilled that our fight for equal representation has been successful,” said Karen Davidson, lead plaintiff.  “Fairness in redistricting is a fundamental right and I’m glad that the court has vindicated our claims.”

At issue in the case was the City of Cranston’s choice to count the more than three thousand inmates at the ACI in a single city ward for the purposes of drawing City Council and School Committee districts.  Plaintiffs argued this “prison gerrymandering” was improper because those incarcerated at the ACI are not true constituents of local elected officials, but instead remain residents of their pre-incarceration communities for virtually all legal purposes, including voting.

Judge Lagueux agreed with the plaintiffs’ claims, stating that “the ACI’s inmates lack a ‘representational nexus’ with the Cranston City Council and School Committee.” He noted that “Cranston’s elected officials do not campaign or endeavor to represent their ACI constituents,” and pointed out that that the majority of incarcerated persons cannot vote, and those who can are required by law to vote by absentee ballot from their pre-incarceration address.

Due to the questionable counting, persons at the only state-run correctional facility in Rhode Island account for 25% of Ward 6’s total “population.” According to Census Bureau data, without the incarcerated population, Ward 6 has only 10,209 true constituents. Yet those constituents now wield the same political power as the roughly 13,500 constituents in each of the other wards.

Cranston residents Karen Davidson, Debbie Flitman, Eugene Perry, and Sylvia Weber joined the ACLU of Rhode Island as plaintiffs in the case. They were represented in federal court by Demos, the Prison Policy Initiative, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Rhode Island.

“This is a big win for democracy,” said Adam Lioz of Demos, counsel for the plaintiffs.  “Prison gerrymandering distorts representation and should no longer be tolerated.  This decision should pave the way for other courts to address this long-standing problem.”

“We applaud the court’s decision requiring the City to correct its prison gerrymandering problem without delay,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.  “It is time for Cranston to stop holding elections under a one-person, three-quarters of a vote regime.”

“Counting people at the ACI as constituents of Ward 6 officials made no sense,” said Aleks Kajstura of the Prison Policy Initiative.  “They can’t use the park or library, attend a City Council meeting, or send their kids to public schools.  And, even those who can vote must do so from their actual legal residence, not the prison location.”

“This ruling means that Cranston can no longer play games with our democracy by artificially inflating the political power of one district over another. People who are incarcerated should be counted as residents of the districts where they lived, not as so-called ‘residents’ of where they are involuntarily confined,” said Sean Young, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger added: “The ACLU first urged the City to redraw its district lines four years ago in order to protect the rights of voters in the City’s five other wards. I am gratified that they should soon have their voices heard in equal measure with those in Ward 6.”

The case is Davidson et. al. v. City of Cranston.  Plaintiffs’ complaint can be found here and their response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss is here.  Judge Lagueux’s ruling is here.

[From a press release]

North Kingstown agrees to settle suit and allow public comment at council meetings


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

aclu logoOne week after the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the North Kingstown Town Council for violating a Town Charter provision that gives members of the public “a reasonable opportunity to be heard” at Council meetings, the Town has agreed to entry of a court order reversing its position. The successful lawsuit, filed in Washington County Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish, was on behalf of North Kingstown resident and past Town Council candidate Richard Welch.

Welch attended a Town Council meeting on December 10, 2015 and attempted to speak at the meeting. However, Town Council President Kerry McKay refused to let him do so. Although the Town Charter gives the public an explicit right to be heard at Council meetings, Town officials took the position that it applies only to regularly scheduled meetings, not “special” Town Council meetings. The December “special” meeting included 13 varied items on the agenda that covered such matters as license renewals, appointments to a job search panel, adoption of budget policies, and a New Year’s Eve policy for liquor establishments.

Under the consent order filed in court today, the Town has acknowledged that Welch was “not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard” at the December meeting, and that the Town “will hereinafter permit ‘Public Comment’ at all future public meetings.”

ACLU attorney Melish said today: “I would like to thank the Town Council for its quick response to this lawsuit to ensure that the Town Charter is followed and the public has the continuing right to participate.” ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown added: “It is unfortunate that a suit like this had to be filed in the first place, but it demonstrates both the need for vigilance by residents to protect their rights and the ability that one person can have to vindicate the civil liberties interests of all.”

Court rules school districts cannot charge students for summer school


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

acluThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and R.I. Legal Services today applauded a Superior Court decision holding that the Cumberland school district could not charge a student a $700 fee in order to attend summer school to avoid repeating ninth grade. The ruling overturned a 2014 decision issued by former state Department of Education Commissioner Deborah Gist that, at the time, was denounced by educational advocacy groups as undermining decades of precedent guaranteeing a free and equal public education to all children in the state.

Then-Commissioner Gist had agreed with the school district’s argument that it could charge the fees because summer school did not constitute a core element of education as defined by the state’s Basic Education Plan. However, in a 25-page ruling issued yesterday, Superior Court Judge William Carnes, Jr. rejected that argument. The judge stated that “not only is there no statutory authority for the collection of fees for summer school, but also the charging of such a fee is contrary to the spirit of the school system itself—which is to provide a free public education to all students.”

The judge pointed out:

In the instant matter, [the student] was given a choice: recover his required credits through additional instruction during the summer, or recover them by repeating the ninth grade. Assuming that instead of attending summer school, he had opted to repeat the ninth grade, it is beyond dispute that the school could not have charged him tuition for that additional year of schooling. Instead, however, [the student] opted to recover his required credits by attending summer school and, in doing so, he was charged a fee for his attendance. The fact that one option would have been free and the other option incurred a fee necessarily leads to an absurd result.”

The ACLU, RI Legal Services and other groups were deeply concerned about the precedent the Gist decision would have set had it been upheld. Prior to her decision, the Department of Education, citing the importance of a free public education, had for decades routinely invalidated attempts to levy any fees on student programming as varied as night classes, after-school activities, interscholastic sports and Advanced Placement classes.

Susan Giannini, the mother who brought the lawsuit on behalf of her son, said today: “It was a real financial hardship for me to send my son to summer school, but we had no real choice because he probably would have dropped out otherwise. I feel for other families in a similar situation whose children are at risk of dropping out. This decision will help families that can’t afford to pay fees have equal access to an education.”

R.I. Legal Services attorney Veronika Kot, who represented Ms. Giannini in the lawsuit resulting in yesterday’s decision, said today: “This ruling is in keeping with Rhode Island’s longstanding commitment to equity in education. For over a century our state has prohibited fees for student programming and services due to their discriminatory impact on educational opportunities for lower income families. The Court’s decision reaffirms this commitment to a free and equal system of public education for all students.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, added: “If former Commissioner Gist’s decision had been upheld, it would have institutionalized a two-tiered educational system, offering enhanced educational opportunities for those who could pay for them and inferior ones for those who could not. Nothing could have been more damaging to the fundamental notion that our children deserve a free public education.”

The court ruling can be found on the ACLU of RI’s website here.

ACLU offers legal representation to Warwick Beacon and Warwick Post against potential lawsuit


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

acluAddressing a brazen attempt to chill freedom of speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced it has agreed to provide legal representation to the Warwick Post and the Warwick Beacon, both of which have been threatened with a defamation suit if they write stories about the contents of a public document.

The threat, by the Warwick School Department’s outgoing director of human resources Rosemary Healey, was made in response to the imminent release of a report prepared for the school committee, examining how Healey and other school administrators handled accusations of sexual misconduct made against a junior high school science teacher. The Attorney General recently ruled that the report, with certain information redacted, was a public record.

Even though Healey’s attorney, Jeffrey Sowa, acknowledged that Healey had not “been given the opportunity to substantively review the report,” he called the report “neither fair nor impartial” and “defamatory and malicious” in his letters to the publishers of the Post, a news website, and the Beacon. While further acknowledging that the Attorney General had ruled the document a public record, Sowa wrote that the publishers would “not be insulated from liability” for releasing information about the report, and that they should “cease and desist from publishing any matters relating to” Healey.

ACLU volunteer attorneys Neal McNamara and William Wynne from the law firm of Nixon Peabody have agreed to defend the newspapers if Healey follows through on her threat of legal action. Both papers are prepared to publicize the report, which is expected to be released sometime later today.

Warwick Post publisher and editor Robert Borkowski said today: “I’ve often been threatened with frivolous lawsuits aimed at scaring me away from reporting on public matters and records in 20 years of community journalism. This was the first time it directly threatened a business I owned, though, and it rattled me. But Attorney Sowa, who must surely be aware of First Amendment protections regarding reporting on public officials and documents, sought to bully Mr. Howell and me into walking away from our responsibility to give the parents of Warwick the information they need to assess the deeds of the people they entrust their children to each day. So when I thought about that, I was only rattled a little while.  Fortunately for Warwick parents, Mr. Howell, and me, the ACLU of Rhode Island has agreed to offer us legal representation if Sowa and his client make good on their threat.”

John Howell, publisher of the Warwick Beacon, added: “Ever since the School Committee completed an investigation of how its administrators handled complaints about a teacher drawing phallic symbols on the arm of a junior high school female student last spring, the Warwick Beacon has sought to get a copy of that report. That request was denied by the committee and later by the city after it used its subpoena powers to get the school report. Fortunately, the Attorney General agrees the report is public. Given that ruling and our belief that the citizens of Warwick have the right to know how their school administrators acted, I intend to publish those findings.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown stated: “A public employee’s threat to sue newspapers for doing their job – informing the public about the contents of a public document on a matter of enormous public interest – attacks the very heart of the freedom of the press.  Over twenty years ago, the General Assembly passed a law to protect people from lawsuits that have a chilling effect on speech. As that statute, known as the anti-SLAPP law, points out, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern … are essential to the democratic process.’ The public document at issue here deserves a full airing, and the First Amendment was designed to allow that airing. We are prepared to vigorously defend the Post and the Beacon from this threatened abuse of the legal process.”

During Sunshine Week, ACLU seeks court order for the release of documents a local journalist has sought for years


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

acluThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has asked a federal court to order the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release thousands of pages of documents in support of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of local journalist Philip Eil, who has been stymied for years in his effort to obtain from the DEA evidence disclosed at a major prescription drug-dealing trial. In its motion for summary judgment filed yesterday, the ACLU called for the release of  “the wrongfully withheld documents post haste.”

In a 15-page memo, ACLU volunteer attorneys Neal McNamara and Jessica Jewell, from the law firm of Nixon Peabody, argue that the DEA has wrongfully withheld thousands of pages of evidence shown during the 2011 trial of Dr. Paul Volkman, whom the Department of Justice calls “the largest dispenser of oxycodone in the country from 2003 to 2005” and who is currently serving four consecutive life terms in prison.

Requesting the prompt release of this trial evidence, McNamara and Jewell write, “The government cannot on the one hand hold this case up as an example of how it investigates and prosecutes diversion cases and on the other state that the majority of the evidence used to convict such a defendant is not actually available to the public.  FOIA is meant to prevent such ‘secret law.’ The general public clearly has an interest in knowing how Volkman was investigated and prosecuted.”

In support of the motion, the memo further notes that the federal government itself has uploaded to a publicly accessible judicial records website some of the documents it continues to withhold from Eil.

The ACLU’s legal memo was accompanied by an eight-page affidavit from Eil, in which he describes an array of obstacles he faced while covering the Volkman trial. Before the trial began, Eil says a DEA agent told him he could be charged with witness tampering for conducting interviews with potential witnesses. In 2011, while attending the trial, in Cincinnati, he was subpoenaed for testimony by the lead prosecutor and barred from re-entering the courtroom, though he was never actually called to testify. When he filed his FOIA request with the Department of Justice in February 2012, the agency took more than three years to fully respond, and withheld more than 85 percent of the pages it processed. Many of the pages released were significantly redacted.

“In 2009, when I learned of Volkman’s indictment, I set out to tell the story of a highly-educated man – my father’s former classmate – who became one of the most notorious prescription drug dealers in U.S. history,” Eil states in the affidavit. “As we approach the five-year anniversary of the verdict in that case . . . I am astonished that the vast majority of evidence from his trial remains sealed off to that case’s plaintiff: the American public.”

ACLU of Rhode Island executive director Steven Brown stated: “I am hopeful that the court will put a stop to the DEA’s flippant attitude towards the Freedom of Information Act.  The agency’s siege mentality in trying to wear out Mr. Eil through years of delays amounts to an appalling attack on the public’s right to know.”

The DEA (represented by the office of Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha), has until May 4th to respond to the ACLU’s motion, with rebuttal memos due in June and July. Oral argument will likely be heard before U.S. District Judge John McConnell, Jr. sometime later this year.

These filings take place during Sunshine Week, a week designated to educate the public about the importance of open government, and at a time of heightened criticism of President Barack Obama’s transparency record.  In 2015, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration had “set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them” in 2014. And, last week the Freedom of the Press Foundation reported that “the Obama administration – the self described ‘most transparent administration ever’ – aggressively lobbied behind the scenes in 2014 to kill modest Freedom of Information Act reform that had virtually unanimous support in Congress.”

Eil is an award-winning freelance journalist who served as the news editor and staff writer at the Providence Phoenix until the paper’s closing in 2014. He has since contributed to VICESalon, the AtlanticRhode Island Monthly, and elsewhere. He has conducted more than 100 interviews, across 19 states, for his book about the Volkman case.

Education advocacy coalition seeks records on premature use of PARCC


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

acluCiting widespread confusion about the potential use of PARCC exam results in a punitive manner against students in the near future, a coalition of organizations has filed an open records request with every school district in the state to obtain information about any plans they have to use the test for grading or graduation purposes before 2021.

In various public comments, state Commissioner of Education Ken Wagner has indicated that, in order to provide time for schools to give students necessary support services, he does not believe schools should use PARCC as a high stakes test determining a student’s graduation eligibility until 2021. However, he has refused to revise current R.I. Department of Education policies that give school districts the power to incorporate PARCC scores into students’ grades and to use the test as a high stakes graduation requirement as early as next year. This month, for example, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s comments, Cranston parents were advised that PARCC scores would be a graduation requirement for the Class of 2020.

The confusion and mixed messages are generating anxiety among some parents and students similar to what occurred with PARCC’s predecessor, the NECAP. Today’s open records requests to school districts – filed by the ACLU of Rhode Island with the support of more than a half-dozen other organizations – are designed to determine which school districts have discussed using PARCC before 2021 as a graduation requirement or a grading tool, and to publicize the information to parents who may be perplexed by the conflicting messages being sent by RIDE and who wish to object to the premature use of the test results in such a manner.

Cranston parent and Parents Across RI  (PARI) Advisory Committee member Debbie Flitman said today: “RIDE officials are misleading parents and students about the use of the PARCC assessments as a graduation requirement. I recently attended a meeting where RIDE officials told participants that PARCC testing is not a graduation requirement for the classes of 2016-2020. Based on this information, I was under the impression that this was a statewide directive. Confusion set in when I attended a Class of 2020 Orientation at Cranston High School West, where students and parents were told PARCC testing is a graduation requirement. When I pushed officials further, I learned that RIDE regulations allow school districts to use PARCC testing as a graduation requirement if they so choose. Why isn’t RIDE being upfront with this information at their meetings?”

Rick Richards, a former employee in the Department of Education’s office of testing, stated: “With school districts free to use or not use PARCC results to punish students, it will matter more than ever where you live. This approach has the potential of deepening disadvantages already embedded in the state’s educational system.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown said: “It is unfortunate that RIDE is giving school districts open-ended authority to use PARCC results so soon without any need to demonstrate that they have provided necessary support services to the students who will be adversely affected. This is very poor public policy and an abdication of responsibility on RIDE’s part. It is particularly unfortunate that we, rather than RIDE, must find out exactly what is going on across the state.”

Tracy Ramos from Parents Across RI, said: “Parents and students deserve clear information about the use of PARCC tests. The Commissioner’s recent comments indicate that schools shouldn’t be focused on test scores. This request will help clarify for parents what’s really happening in our districts.”

Under the Access to Public Records Act, school districts have 10 business days to respond to the request. The organizations joining the ACLU in support of the request for the documents included RITELL, Young Voices, Providence Student Union, RI Disability Law Center, Coalition to Defend Public Education, Parents Across RI, Youth Pride Inc, Tides Family Services.

A copy of the open records request is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/PARCC_Open_Records_Request_022416.pdf

ACLU challenges ordinance restricting student housing rights


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

acluThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has filed suit against the City of Providence to challenge a recently enacted city ordinance that prohibits more than three “college students” from living together in certain areas of the city. The ACLU of RI argues that the ordinance is discriminatory and ineffective at its stated purpose of improving neighborhoods, and will likely have the most impact on lower-income students.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island Superior Court by ACLU of RI cooperating attorneys Jeffrey L. Levy and Charles D. Blackman, is on behalf of the owner and tenants – four Johnson & Wales undergraduate students – of a house in the Elmhurst section of Providence. The City ordinance, enacted in September, makes this arrangement illegal by prohibiting more than three “college students” from living together in a non-owner-occupied single family home in certain residential areas. The suit argues that the ordinance violates the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

The lawsuit claims that “there is absolutely no reason to believe that restricting the number of student tenants in a small subset of available rental housing (i.e., single-family homes) will make the affected neighborhoods any quieter, safer or cleaner. On the contrary, the ordinance is an unconstitutional intrusion into the rights of college and graduate students to choose with whom they wish to live, and the rights of property owners to rent their homes to tenants of their choice.”

The suit notes that there are already multiple ordinances in place to address noise, parties, traffic, and other possible nuisances. In challenging the ordinance’s discrimination against students “based solely on their occupation and/or educational status,” the suit further points out that “college student” is so broadly defined that it includes anyone enrolled in a college or university, whether they are a full-time undergraduate student, a PhD candidate, or a professional taking classes part-time.

The ACLU of RI raised these concerns before the Providence City Council approved, and Mayor Jorge Elorza signed, the ordinance into law in September.

Attorney Levy said today: “The City and State already have laws in place that regulate overcrowding, loud parties and underage drinking. This ordinance goes too far by attempting to legislate who can live together in the same house. Ultimately, it will have its most significant impact on students from low-income and middle-income families who can’t afford to cover a larger share of the rent in a single-family home.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown added: “The ordinance’s unfair stigmatization of Providence’s students is contrary to the City’s reputation as a welcome host to the local colleges and universities. More vigorous enforcement of laws already on the books, along with increased collaboration with the educational institutions, would be a more productive method to deal with the legitimate concerns that some residents have raised.”

The lawsuit seeks to halt all enforcement of the ordinance and have it declared unconstitutional.

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/FHC_v._Providence_Complaint.pdf

Patients poised to lose everything under Raimondo’s medical marijuana tax


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

2016-02-11 ACLU Medical Marijuana TaxRhode Islanders who use medical marijuana to help manage chronic and debilitating medical conditions spoke out today against a proposal in Governor Gina Raimondo’s 2017 budget that would levy heavy taxes on medical marijuana plants grown by patients and caregivers.

At a news conference held by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island (ACLU) and the RI Patient Advocacy Coalition, patients said this “sick tax” on medical marijuana would be devastating to them and many other patients and caregivers, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to access the medicine they need to manage their pain and other medical symptoms. The proposed tax, the groups said, has generated a palpable fear in the patient community and should be struck from the proposed budget.

“If these changes become law, I will be effectively forced out of the medical marijuana program,” said Peter Benson, an East Greenwich resident and medical marijuana patient who is paraplegic and uses medical marijuana to control painful and persistent muscle spasms. Benson broke his neck in a bicycle accident when he was 17. He is confined to a wheelchair. Benson called the governor’s tax “an absolutely cruel proposal.”

“Medical marijuana gave me my life back and my relationship with my wife and daughter,” said Benson. Marijuana controls the painful spasms and allows him to hold his daughter in his lap.

According to a fact sheet prepared by the Governor’s office, the new tax would impose a $150 per plant charge on patients lawfully growing marijuana for medical purposes, and a $350 per plant charge for caregivers volunteering their time and energy to grow plants for sick patients. The proposal also reduces the number of plants that patients can grow.

Ellen Smith, from Scituate, is both a medical marijuana patient and a caregiver for five other patients. She said of the proposed tax: “It would add more than $8,000 a year to the cost of growing medicine for my patients. They can’t afford it and neither can I. It is breaking our hearts.”

Smith remembers meeting candidate Raimondo who promised that she supported the medical marijuana law. Voting for Raimondo is a vote she regrets. Under the Governor’s proposal “gifting” the donation of excess marijuana to those who cannot afford to purchase it, will be taken away. Smith does all she can to care for the patients she provides for, and gifts all excess marijuana to the needy. Now she literally fears for her life and the lives of her patients.

“I will not only lose my patients, I will lose my purpose in life,” said Smith, who says the anxiety over this proposal has contributed to her suffering. One night, during a particularly bad breathing episode, she comforted herself that perhaps her death might be used to convince the Governor to change her mind.

The Governor’s fact sheet claims that each marijuana plant is “estimated to generate an average of $17,280 of annual revenue for a caregiver,” and that therefore the tax “amounts to just 2 percent of the value of marijuana produced.” But JoAnne Leppanen, executive director of the RI Patient Advocacy Coalition, noted that patients and caregivers are growing the plants for medical purposes only and make no money from the plants. “These plants produce medicine, not money,” said Leppanen.

Leppanen pointed to the difficulties and costs patients already face in growing marijuana, and said: “This is a draconian proposal based on fictional numbers that undermines the purpose of the medical marijuana program. It will wreak havoc on the lives and health of thousands of Rhode Islanders.”

“If one marijuana plant was worth $17,000 we’d be having this meeting in Hawaii,” said Benson.

A plant big enough to be worth $17,000 would be the size of the State House Holiday Tree, said Leppanen.

Bobby Brady-Cataldo was the second patient in Rhode Island to be legally able to used medical marijuana. All the marijuana she gets to treat her symptoms of MS is gifted. 80 percent of my money goes to my mortgage, she said, and she would not be able to afford medical marijuana otherwise.

The Governor’s proposal means, “people can’t give me medicine that literally saved my life. Is this ignorance or cruelty?” asked Brady-Cataldo. “They’ll give me Vicodin or Oxy, they’ll give me a drug habit, but they won’t help me.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, added: “Having a medical marijuana program means little if the state makes it impossible for all but the wealthy to actually participate in it. The patients and caregivers affected by this proposal grow medical marijuana to ease their symptoms and to help others; they are not running a lucrative drug trade. The state should treat them just as they would any other patient using legal medication. Imagine charging sick patients prescribed codeine a special tax based on the street value of the medication if they illegally sold it. We fervently hope the Governor will take this troubling tax proposal off the table.”

The ACLU has long supported the availability of medical marijuana for patients who could benefit from its use.

Patreon

Providence to halt enforcement of anti-panhandling ordinance


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

acluIn a major step towards reducing the criminalization of the poor in Rhode Island, the City of Providence has advised the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island that it would halt enforcement of an anti-panhandling ordinance that has led to the harassment and arrest of homeless individuals. The ACLU had called for this action in a letter delivered to Mayor Jorge Elorza two weeks ago, in which it pointed out the ordinance’s dubious constitutionality and its impact on the rights of the poor and the homeless.

Advocates for the homeless have been critical of a seemingly aggressive enforcement by the City of laws that target innocuous activity of the homeless in public. In its letter, the ACLU had noted that the City’s ban on so-called “aggressive solicitation” directly targets the homeless, and that a number of similar ordinances have been recently struck down by the courts for infringing on First Amendment rights. The ACLU therefore requested that the City immediately halt its enforcement. In response, the City agreed to that request and also to terminate any pending prosecutions.

“The Mayor remains committed to making Providence a place that supports its residents, especially those who are most in need, and we look forward to our continued work together in this regard,” Providence City Solicitor Jeffrey Dana stated in a letter to the ACLU of RI.

ACLU of Rhode Island executive director Steven Brown said today: “This is a very positive development, and we applaud the City for recognizing that this ordinance cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. We are confident that officials will make sure that any harassment of the homeless by police for peacefully soliciting donations, even if it doesn’t lead to an arrest for panhandling, will cease.”

Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless executive director Jim Ryczek added: “The Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless welcomes this development on the part of the city.  We hope this is the first step in better understanding homeless people and working with them to appropriately identify their needs and acquire safe and affordable housing.  We look forward to continued progress on other problems facing the city in relation to its homeless citizens. As always, we stand ready to help the City of Providence better serve its homeless constituents.”

Megan Smith, an outreach worker at House of Hope CDC, said: “We are hopeful that Providence’s decision to halt enforcement of the aggressive solicitation ordinance demonstrates that the City recognizes panhandling for what it is: a means of survival for our poor and homeless neighbors, not a criminal activity. While there is much more work that must be done to shift policy from criminalizing poverty to finding collaborative solutions, this represents an important step forward.”

The ACLU letter had also called on the City to repeal an ordinance that bans “loitering on bus line property,” but the City claimed that no arrests had been made under that law.

The ACLU’s action is part of the organization’s ongoing efforts to challenge and repeal laws that disproportionately affect the rights of the homeless. In December, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Cranston ordinance that bars the solicitation of donations from motorists. The ACLU argues that the ordinance violates free speech rights and is selectively enforced by the City. That suit is pending.

A copy of the ACLU’s letter is available here.

A copy of the City’s letter is available here.

Reps Regunberg and Metts seek to curb solitary confinement


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

ACI PatchRep. Aaron Regunberg and Sen. Harold M. Metts have introduced legislation to reform the controversial use of solitary or “segregated” confinement in the Rhode Island prison system, saying the practice causes psychological damage and often exacerbates the very problems it is intended to address.

“The United Nations has condemned the use of solitary confinement, saying it can amount to torture,” said Representative Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence). “And the research is very clear that prolonged solitary confinement causes psychological problems that can damage inmates’ chances of rehabilitation. It’s a vicious cycle that is destructive rather than corrective, and it particularly impacts already vulnerable populations, including the very high proportion of our prison population affected by mental illness. Add this to the fact that segregation units are by far the most expensive facilities to operate, and it should be clear that we need to put responsible limits on, and devise humane alternatives to, the use of solitary confinement in the prison system.”

Said Senator Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence), “We cannot in good conscience call our prison a ‘corrections’ institute when the system relies on a punishment that is essentially designed to cause mental breakdown, particularly when so many of those subjected to it are already mentally ill. We have a moral imperative, as well as a constitutional mandate, to ensure we are not employing cruel or unusual punishment, and it is time we recognized that solitary confinement, in many cases, is cruel. Its use must be limited, and our prison system must stop using it on people who are particularly susceptible to the lasting effects it can have. We have to strive to find a better balance between rehabilitation and punishment.”

Many studies have found that long-term solitary confinement can produce psychological damage with symptoms such as hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise or touch, paranoia, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased suicide risk and uncontrollable rage or fear. The risks are higher for juveniles, whose brains are still developing, and for those with mental illness.

Those effects can result in inmates having more difficulty complying with prison rules, defeating the purpose of solitary confinement. Even those who aren’t mentally ill when they enter solitary confinement can be left with lasting psychological effects that they take with them when they are released from prison into the community.

“Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment,” said S, a current inmate at the ACI who has asked to remain unidentified for fear of retribution. “I have seen people get years in segregation, and get locked in solitary for non-problematic reasons, like identifying as LGBTQ, filing lawsuits, or sharing political views. I have witnessed people in solitary confinement break down, start talking to themselves, become paranoid, play with their own feces, and worse. When you go to High Security [the solitary confinement facility] for causing a problem, they don’t help you, they don’t give you any mental health services, they just lock you in a cell for 23 hours a day. So when you go back to the normal facilities, you’re worse off.”

The legislation would prohibit the use of solitary confinement — also called “segregated confinement” — for specific vulnerable populations, ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period.

The bill (2016-H 7481) has support from a wide array of inmates’ rights activists, mental health advocates, civil rights groups and families of incarcerated individuals.

“Solitary is a very dehumanizing experience that leaves a person broken and unable to function,” said John Prince, a member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality with first-hand experience of solitary confinement in the ACI. “You hear nothing, see nothing, have nothing to think about almost 24 hours a day. You lose all perspective of time. Human beings are not meant to live like that for weeks or months on end. My experiences in solitary were extremely painful, and I have many friends who were left unable to relate to people, even their families, after prolonged segregation. There have to be limits that keep this from being used for long periods or on people who are likely to suffer lasting damage from it.”

“Even mentally healthy people lose their faculties in solitary confinement, but for people with mental illness, it is a particularly unhealthy situation that impairs an individual’s ability to maintain healthy relationships,” said Michael Cerullo, a psychotherapist with extensive clinical experience in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system. “Without positive relationships in the community and with oneself, meaningful rehabilitation is significantly compromised. People with mental illness suffer serious trauma that cannot be undone when they are released either back into the prison population or back into the community, and that damage has ill effects on them and the people around them. We have to stop using this counterproductive approach with human beings challenged by mental illness for their sake and for the sake of the whole community.”

“Across the country, states are reducing their reliance on solitary confinement,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU. “Long-term isolation costs too much, does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners, and exacerbates mental illness — even in those who were healthy when they entered solitary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court noted not only the extreme toll solitary confinement takes on those subjected to it, but that those who are affected may never recover well enough to reintegrate well into the community. Yet, the use of solitary confinement persists. States that once relied heavily on solitary confinement are now instead focusing on policies that promote safe communities and fair treatment — at the same time saving their states millions and reducing violence in the prisons. It’s time for us to do the same here in Rhode Island.”

The House bill has 38 cosponsors, including Representatives Scott A. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), Jean Philippe Barros (D-Dist. 59, Pawtucket), Raymond A. Hull (D-Dist. 6, Providence, North Providence) and David A. Bennett (D-Dist. 20, Warwick, Cranston).

[From the press release]

Senate passes Good Samaritan Act, House takes it up on Tuesday


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

Good Samaritan 173“We applaud, and are deeply grateful to, the Senate for its quick action today in making the reinstatement of the [Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act of 2016] the legislative priority of the first week,” said Steve DeToy of the Rhode Island Medical Society, Rebecca McGoldrick of Protect Families First and Steven Brown of the ACLU of Rhode Island in a joint statement.

“Reinstating this law will save lives, and is an essential step in addressing the dire overdose epidemic Rhode Island is grappling with. Furthermore, it is a step in the right direction of how we should address drug use and addiction. For too long we have made it the task of the criminal justice system to address these issues, and this approach has been costly, ineffective, and destructive. It’s time that we handle drug use and addiction as a public health and medical issue and put saving lives above making arrests. The Good Samaritan bill makes major strides towards that goal by giving people in the community greater confidence that they will not be arrested if they seek medical care.

“In that regard, we are hopeful that in considering this legislation next week, the House will not only pass it speedily but will also consider expanding it to cover other drug-related offenses as well.”

The bill was introduced by Sen. Michael J. McCaffrey (D-Dist. 29, Warwick).”Identical legislation (2016-H 7003) submitted by Rep. Robert E. Craven (D-Dist. 32, North Kingstown) will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at the rise of the House in Room 101 says a General Assembly press release. The bill exempts “from liability any person who administers an opioid antagonist to another person to prevent a drug overdose. It would further provide immunity from certain drug charges and for related violations of probation and/or parole for those persons who in good faith, seek medical assistance for a person experiencing a drug overdose.”

Governor Gina Raimondo is expected to sign the bill and also issued a statement. “The Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act of 2016 is an important tool to combat this public health crisis. Rhode Island’s response to the overdose crisis must first and foremost be focused on saving lives. I applaud the General Assembly for their action to encourage Rhode Islanders to call 911 in an overdose emergency.”

When Speaker Nicholas Mattiello abruptly ended the legislative session last year the Good Samaritan law was one of the most important and vital pieces of legislation not to pass. The original bill had a sunset clause, but has been so successful in saving lives its reinstatement was considered a given. Activists were shocked, lives were put at risk.

Mattiello considered having a special Fall legislative session to discuss the PawSox deal, truck tolls and the Good Samaritan Act, but that Fall session never came to pass.

Patreon

Groups request release of state police report on Tolman High School incident


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

acluThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the NAACP Providence Branch, the George Wiley Center, the American Friends Service Committee – South East New England, and Providence Student Union today filed an open records request with the Rhode Island State Police requesting the full report of its investigation, conducted in conjunction with the Pawtucket Police Department, into the actions of a school resource officer who was recorded body-slamming a 14-year-old student at Pawtucket’s Tolman High School on October 14. The groups are also seeking the evidence gathered in the investigation, as well as documents related to any review of the pepper-spraying by Pawtucket Police of students protesting on the day following the incident.

The request, filed pursuant to the state’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA), was made after the State Police announced it had completed its review of the incident and found that the officer in question behaved appropriately. In their APRA request, the groups noted that they are not calling the report’s conclusion into question, but consider it important that the public be able to understand the report’s finding and see all the evidence used to reach this conclusion.

2015-10-16 Tolman 002The public interest in both the incident and subsequent investigation is clear, the groups stated, pointing to the extensive media coverage of the incident, the subsequent student protests, and the important policy issues the incident raised. In requesting the release of the documents, the groups noted that in August the State Police voluntarily released a detailed report into the Cranston Police Department and its “Ticketgate” scandal.

“Like that report, release of this information would shed light on important government issues, and particularly the role, responsibilities and powers of school resource officers in the schools,” the groups stated. By releasing this information, the groups noted, the State Police would be acting in line with an October 20 memo released by Governor Gina Raimondo’s office that emphasized the importance of state agencies disclosing information under APRA whenever possible.

“In balancing the public’s right to know versus any general privacy interests, we clearly believe the public interest is paramount in this instance,” the groups stated. Recognizing the need to protect the privacy of some individuals whose statements contributed to the report, the groups reminded the State Police that APRA provides for the redaction of those names and other personally identifying information rather than withholding the records.

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown said: “Release of the State Police report and materials is critical to promoting transparency and the public’s right to know in understanding this controversial incident that brought to light the many serious concerns raised by the routine presence of police officers in schools”

Martha Yager, program coordinator for the AFSC – SENE, said today: “I find it disturbing that it is deemed acceptable for a police officer to slam a child to the floor in school and arrest him. When a young person is loud and angry, should not the response be to patiently defuse the situation? Are not schools among the places we should teach children how to deal with their anger and distress? Why are children arrested when no law is broken? We need these documents to get a better handle on how to change a system that criminalizes children at school.”

NAACP Providence Branch President Jim Vincent added: “Although the police officer in question was cleared, the NAACP Providence Branch finds the use of force on a 14-year-old child very disturbing and calls into question whether police officers should be in schools in the first place.”

After the October incident at Tolman High School, the ACLU called on all school districts that currently have school resource officers to re-evaluate their use in the schools and to revise the agreements they have with police departments that set out their job responsibilities.

A copy of the APRA letter is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Tolman_High_School_State_Police_APRA.pdf

From an ACLU press release

More reading:

How nonviolence street workers kept the peace in Pawtucket

Tolman students report disturbing police behavior

Violence, protest at Tolman leads to dialogue, opportunity for students

After the violence at Tolman: ‘What Now?’

ACLU calls on schools to revise policies on SROs

ACLU launches first of a series of lawsuits against criminalizing poverty


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
2015-12-16 RIACLU Press Criminalized Poverty 005
Michael Monteiro

The Rhode island ACLU today launched the “first of a series” of lawsuits aimed at the current trend of municipalities to criminalize poverty and homelessness. At issue is Michael Monteiro, a 57 year old disabled man who until recently supplemented his disability payments by asking for money on a median strip in Cranston, holding a sign that says, “disabled, need help, God bless.”

On June 30 a Cranston police officer wrote Monteiro a court summons for soliciting money. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but the judge ordered Monteiro to stay away from the area or face arrest. This was Monteiro’s second run in with this law in Cranston, after having been arrested twice for the offense in Providence, where he lives.

2015-12-16 RIACLU Press Criminalized Poverty 002
Marc Gursky

Attorney Marc Gursky, representing Monteiro, says the ordinance prohibits individuals from soliciting for money, but is selectively enforced against people like Monteiro, and not against fire fighters, cheerleaders or little league teams. Monteiro said that when he sees the cheerleaders on the median where he usually solicits donations, he leaves for the day.

Gursky also alleges that the ordinance violates the free speech clause of the Constitution. It cannot be against the law to ask for help, or to request money. If the issue is truly one of traffic and safety, says Gursky, the city should address the problem of traffic and safety, not free speech.

2015-12-16 RIACLU Press Criminalized Poverty 003
Megan Smith

Megan Smith, an outreach worker and case manager with House of Hope‘s PATH program, said that cities and municipalities across the nation are dealing with the problem of homelessness and poverty by criminalizing those who are homeless and poor. Arrest places the burden of a criminal record on those affected, making it more difficult to get people the help they need.

“Poverty should make us uncomfortable,” said Smith, but these ordinances are attempts to hide the problem from sight, not to help people.

Steve Brown, executive director of the RI ACLU, said that there is no timeline on when future lawsuits will be undertaken on this issue, but that Providence and Pawtucket both have similar ordinances, and both cities could face such lawsuits. Finding plaintiffs is difficult, because people in Monteiro’s position face a lot of discrimination and it takes real courage to commit to such a suit.

As for Monteiro, he used to make $20-30 standing on the corner for about an hour, which is as long as his legs could endure. He hasn’t returned to his spot since the judge’s order, and as a result, “I have to do without…

“I have about $11 to get through the rest of the month,” he said.

Edit: Shortly after the post went up, I was asked how someone might get some money to Michael to help him while he’s waiting for this case to resolve. Steve Brown said that the ACLU can accept donations to him as long as the donations are clearly marked as being for him at this address:

American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island
128 Dorrance Street
Suite 220
Providence, RI 02903

If the donation is not marked, they’ll probably assume the donation is for the ACLU, which is not a bad investment.

2015-12-16 RIACLU Press Criminalized Poverty 001

Patreon

ACLU and religious groups denounce xenophobia, welcome Syrian refugees


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

The Rhode Island State Council of Churches, the RI Council for Muslim Advancement, the Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island and the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today issued this open letter to Governor Gina Raimondo, following her comments yesterday that the controversy surrounding the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Rhode Island was “much ado about nothing”:

Dear Governor Raimondo:

As the rhetoric and vitriol surrounding the issue of resettling Syrian refugees in Rhode Island increase, we urge you to demonstrate leadership on this critical humanitarian issue by firmly and publicly denouncing the rising xenophobia we are witnessing.

Yesterday you were quoted as calling it “much ado about nothing,” and saying that you would “take a look at it” if asked by the federal government to help with resettlement. Respectfully, when other public officials in the state are protesting efforts to welcome any Syrian refugees in Rhode Island by holding public rallies and calling for the internment of any refugees that do arrive here, this is anything but a non-issue. Nor is it something to be blithely ignored for now, and only looked at sometime in the indefinite future.

We believe that it is time for you, as Governor of a state that has welcomed immigrants and refugees from its founding, to forcefully affirm the view – in the same manner as some of your Gubernatorial colleagues elsewhere around the country have done – that Rhode Island is prepared to welcome immigrants and refugees fleeing violence from Syria, and that you reject fear-mongering that undermines our state’s strong commitment to non-discrimination against people because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. To ignore these troubling strains of prejudice is to only give them force.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Don Anderson, Executive Minister
Rhode Island State Council of Churches
100 Niantic Avenue, Suite 101
Providence, RI  02907

Imam Farid Ansari
President
Rhode Island Council for Muslim Advancement
P.O. Box 40535
Providence, RI 02940

Rabbi Sarah Mack
President
Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island
70 Orchard Ave.
Providence, RI 02906

Steven Brown, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island
128 Dorrance Street, Suite 220
Providence, RI  02903

ACLU charges Harmony Fire District with sex discrimination


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

Harmony Fire DistrictThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has filed a charge of sex discrimination against the Harmony Fire District on behalf of a female EMT/firefighter who was terminated from her job after she and several others raised concerns that male and female firefighters were being treated differently. The charge, filed with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is on behalf of Kimberly Perreault, who served as a firefighter for the Harmony Fire District for 12 years before being terminated in January 2015 for purportedly being “unhappy” with the fire department.

Perreault’s firing, the charge alleges, was in retaliation for concerns raised at a Harmony Fire District Board meeting in October of last year. At the meeting, Perreault, another female EMT/firefighter, and several male firefighters expressed concerns about women not getting fair treatment in the fire department. Three months later, she was summoned to a meeting with Fire District Chief Stuart Pearson where she was terminated. The only explanation that Pearson gave was that he believed she was unhappy working there.

Perreault stated in the complaint: “I had not expressed unhappiness with the Department. I had expressed concern that the Department was not treating women on a level field with men…I believed that I was discriminated against because of my gender and retaliated against because of my opposition to discrimination and the perception that I was supporting a complaint of opposition to the existence of gender discrimination in the Harmony Fire Department.”

After Perreault was fired, the other female EMT/firefighter who raised concerns about gender discrimination was later terminated for similar reasons. None of the male firefighters who raised concerns have been disciplined or terminated.

ACLU volunteer attorney Sonja Deyoe, who is handling the complaint, said today: “No one should be penalized for asking their employer for equal treatment. Our laws are set up to protect individuals who do so, because absent those protections, no one would ever ask for equal treatment from their employer.”

Ms. Perreault added: “I have always been available at a moment’s notice to help the people of the Harmony Fire District and the surrounding communities in their time of need. A job I have done for the past 12 years with pride.  Needless to say, I was shocked when I met with Chief Pearson in January to find out the meeting was my termination for supposedly being ‘unhappy.’ I am pursuing this with the hope of stopping this type of discrimination and retaliation from repeating itself.  The actions taken by the Chief have impacted my standing within my professional community, which is something I have worked very hard for.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown noted: “The troubles with fire districts, which seem to operate like little fiefdoms, appear to go deep and wide. It is disturbing to now see discrimination added to their list of transgressions. We hope to see this injustice rectified.”

The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights will now investigate the complaint.

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Perreault_Statement_Discrimination.pdf

[From a press release]

ACLU calls on schools to revise policies on SROs


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

RI ACLU Union LogoThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has called on all school districts that currently have school resource officers (SROs) to re-evaluate their use in the schools and to revise the agreements they have with police departments that set out their job responsibilities. The call was prompted by incidents at Pawtucket’s Tolman High School last week, which reinforced many of the serious concerns the ACLU has long held regarding the routine presence of police officers in schools.

Patti DiCenso
Patti DiCenso

In a letter sent to Pawtucket school district superintendent Patti DiCenso on Tuesday and shared with school superintendents across the state, ACLU of RI Executive Director Steven Brown noted that school districts cede an “enormous amount of control” when they sign Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with police departments, and that this “unnecessarily set the stage for last week’s series of ill-fated events” in which an SRO’s attempt to handle a single student’s behavioral issue led to the injury and arrest of the student and his brother, the arrest of eight other individuals, and the pepper spraying of numerous youth.

Reviewing the MOU in effect in 2011 between the Pawtucket school district and the police department, the ACLU noted that it designates the SRO as the school’s “law enforcement unit” who reports to the police department, not the school principal. In fact, the MOU authorizes the SRO to remove a student from school without notifying school officials, and, if the SRO charges a student with a crime, requires the principal to support the officer’s decision in any legal proceedings.

Steve Brown
Steve Brown

The Pawtucket MOU further specifies that all SRO assignment and retention decisions are made at the complete discretion of the Chief of Police, not school officials. In addition, while the MOU recognizes the importance of selecting officers with demonstrated abilities and skills in working with students, officers are not required to receive any training on addressing behavioral issues or understanding the needs of students. The ACLU questioned how seriously those interests and skills are considered in light of the fact that the SRO at the center of last week’s incident had been investigated for a videotaped incident in which he pepper-sprayed and repeatedly hit a man with his baton just months before he was assigned to the high school.

In the letter to Supt. DiCenso, the ACLU’s Brown stated: “Despite the tremendous power that SROs wield in an educational environment, your school district’s MOU allows police officers to walk the halls of schools with little responsibility to school officials themselves. That is because, at bottom, they serve the police, not the school.”

TolmanThe letter acknowledged that Pawtucket should not be singled out for such problems. A 2011 review by the ACLU of SRO use across the state found that many school departments had similar “one-sided” MOUs and that there were many incidents in which the presence of a police officer escalated a student’s minor infraction, such as wearing a hat in school, into an arrest for disorderly conduct.

“When a student’s immature behavior is addressed by a law enforcement official trained in criminality and arrest, not in getting to the root of a behavioral issue, neither the child nor the school is well served. In short, the presence of SROs redefines as criminal justice problems behavior issues that may be rooted in social, psychological or academic problems, for which involvement in the juvenile justice system is hardly the solution,” Brown stated in the letter.

The letter called on school districts to take responsibility for the police officers in their schools in order to prevent incidents similar to last week’s from happening again. In a series of recommendations, the ACLU urged Pawtucket and any other school departments that continue to use SROs to revise their MOUs to ensure school officials have a meaningful role in the selection of SROs and that, absent a real and immediate threat, school officials, not police, handle all disciplinary matters. The MOUs, the ACLU said, should also require SROs to receive annual training on issues such as restorative justice and adolescent development and psychology; establish clear limits on the use of force; and put in place simple procedures for students to raise concerns about the SRO.

Following delivery of the ACLU’s letter, a news article in the Valley Breeze indicated that Pawtucket school officials plan to review their agreement with the police department. The ACLU welcomes Pawtucket officials and officials from any other district re-evaluating their policies to contact its office for guidance.

[From an RI ACLU press release]

Groups call on Gov. Raimondo to open public records


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

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

acluCiting a recent “pattern of disturbingly inadequate” responses to open records requests “on truly critical matters of public import,” five open government organizations have called on Governor Gina Raimondo to issue an executive order that calls on state agencies to “adopt a strong presumption in favor of disclosure in addressing requests for public information.”

In a letter sent Tuesday to Gov. Raimondo, the five organizations — ACCESS/RI, American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Press Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, and League of Women Voters of Rhode Island — cite three recent incidents in which state agencies addressed Access to Public Records (APRA) requests. The groups called the handling of each of these requests “questionable” and indicative of a “disinterest in promoting the public’s right to know.”

In the first incident, according to the Providence Journal, the state Department of Transportation provided an incomplete response to a reporter’s request for records related to the administration’s hotly debated truck toll proposal, failed to properly request an extension of time to respond, and then denied records without specifying what was withheld or whether there was any information in the withheld documents that could be released, as required by law.

In another instance, the administration denied the release of any records related to the hiring of former state Representative Donald Lally, citing “attorney-client privilege” and an APRA exemption for “working papers.” While the groups said it was reasonable that some documents might not be disclosable, they called the blanket denial of all records “untenable on its face.”

The third incident involves the Executive Office of Health and Human Services’ refusal to release an application filed with the federal government for additional funding for the state’s Unified Health Infrastructure Project. The department claimed the application and related documents were “still in development” despite the fact that the application had already been submitted for approval.

“From our perspective, none of [these responses] occupies a ‘shade of gray’ in interpreting APRA. Rather, precisely because they are so clear-cut, they warrant decisive action on your part in order to address the lackadaisical interest in a strong APRA that the responses embody,” the groups argued in the letter.

Representatives from the organizations said today that by issuing an executive order emphasizing the Administration’s commitment to open government, Gov. Raimondo would better ensure transparency and accountability from state executive agencies.

Linda Lotridge Levin, president of ACCESS/RI, said: “It is incumbent on public officials to make access to public records a priority if they expect to maintain the public’s trust.  The instances cited in the letter to the governor show that some public officials choose to remain oblivious to the state’s Access to Public Records Act that mandates that the workings of government remain transparent, accessible and accountable to its citizens. We in ACCESS/RI urge Governor Raimondo to ensure that members of her administration adhere to the law and to respond in a timely manner to all public records requests.”

Steven Brown, ACLU of RI executive director, said: “Governor Raimondo’s first executive order upon taking office addressed compliance with state ethics laws. In passing, it also urged state officers and employees to ‘be mindful of their responsibilities’ under the open records law. Because they have not been mindful, we believe an executive order specifically establishing a presumption of openness in responding to APRA requests will better promote that key responsibility.”

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition added: “This is an opportunity for Gov. Raimondo to remind those working under her leadership that government transparency is a top priority and that the public’s right to know must be protected. These recent APRA responses are concerning and the governor should make clear that the statute needs to be taken more seriously. Timely responses need to be made and records should be disclosed whenever possible. An executive order to this effect would help build trust between the people of Rhode Island and their elected leaders.”

Jane W. Koster, president of the League of Women Voters of RI, stated: “It is of the utmost importance that the citizens of Rhode Island’s ‘right to know’ be protected and broad citizen participation in government be encouraged. The League of Women Voters of the United States and LWVRI believe that democratic government depends upon informed and active participation at all levels of government. It further believes that governmental bodies protect this ‘right to know’ by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible. The LWVRI believes that Governor Raimondo will act accordingly and alert all in her administration to comply with APRA going forward.”

A copy of the letter is attached and can be found here.

[This report comes from a press release.]

RI ACLU calls behavior detection testing at T.F. Green ‘junk science’


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

The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has come out in opposition to the behavioral testing conducted at T.F. Green Airport by the Department of Homeland Security. The field test is for a “behavior detection” program that is meant to determine whether or not passengers have “mal-intent.”

Photo courtesy of http://www.warwickri.gov/index.php?option=com_content&id=954:tf-green-airport&Itemid=261
Photo courtesy of http://www.warwickri.gov/index.php?option=com_content&id=954:tf-green-airport&Itemid=261

Steven Brown, the executive director of the RI ACLU, issued a letter to Kelly J. Fredericks, the President of the RI Airport Corporation, asking that they cease their involvement in the program, and not support any such programs in the future.

“I am writing to express the ACLU of Rhode Island’s deep concerns about the Rhode Island Airport Corporation’s apparent decision last month, with no public input, to work with the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in field testing the expansion of a largely discredited program that attempts to identify travelers who might pose a potential security risk through questionable “behavior detection” techniques,” Brown wrote.

The field test, which is called “Centralized Hostile Intent,” will use actors to mimic behaviors that the TSA should be able to screen and identify. They will be asked to identify these behaviors through a video feed, rather than in person. Because actors will be used during the field test, the ACLU recognized that the effect on travelers’ privacy will be minimal, but they still opposed the overall intent of the study.

“But one cannot ignore what the ultimate goal of this project is- to make it easier and more routine to target innocent travelers for intrusive incursions on their privacy, all based on what have thus far been largely discredited “behavior detection” activities,” Brown wrote.

Brown also wrote that the current “behavior detection” patterns that officers look for are arbitrary and random at best, such as being late for a flight, excessive clock watching, strong body odor, sweaty palms, among other signs. These monitoring activities have been criticized since a 2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended that the TSA limit their funding for behavior detection, since there was no scientific evidence to prove whether or not these activities actually work. According to the report, “the human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same or slightly better than chance.”

The program being tested at T.F. Green also seeks to develop a tracking algorithm so officers can follow on-camera anyone they believe to be suspicious, and identify those with them as well.

“The anticipated future applications of this project are disturbing, as they promise to be just as ineffective as TSA’s existing efforts. At bottom, this effort is junk science, but one with serious civil liberties and privacy implications,” Brown said. “We all want to ensure proper security measures are in place at our airports, but it is time to end, not expand, ineffective programs like this that use up limited resources, and that open the door to more intrusive privacy invasions and increased racial profiling, while doing little to keep us safe.”


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