Woonsocket – RI Future

October 29, 2016

Burrillville residents refuse to drink tax treaty Kool-Aid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 26, 2016

Proposed Burrillville power plant proves a windfall for Woonsocket Mayor Baldelli-Hunt

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

If you want to buy municipal water from Woonsocket, the first meeting with the mayor is free. The second meeting might cost a campaign donation. That is the appearance given when Adler, Pollack and Sheehan, the law firm representing the proposed power plant in Burrillville, had two meetings in September with Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, separated by an expensive fundraiser in a high end Italian eatery.

The revelation prompted one Burrillville resident to quip,”Maybe we should be giving the mayor some money.”

On September 7, according to information gleaned via an Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request, representatives from Mayor Baldelli-Hunt’s office met with representatives from Invenergy. City councilors, who were briefed after the fact, confirmed the meeting pertained to selling water to the power plant to cool its turbines.

This meeting lasted 30 minutes. City Solicitor Michael Marcello, who is also a state representative from District 41 representing Scituate and Cranston, would release no further information about this meeting, saying that the details are secret at this time. Marcello served with Baldelli-Hunt when she was a state rep from 2006-2013.

On September 15, at a fundraising event held at Trattoria Romana, three lawyers from the company Adler, Pollock and Sheehan (APS), the law firm representing Invenergy before the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, donated a total of $1,000 to Baldelli-Hunt’s campaign, according to the Mayor’s campaign finance reports – including a $250 donation from a lobbyist for Invenergy.

Robert Brooks, Managing Partner and Chairman of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Group, donated $250. This is the first time Brooks, a prolific political donor, has given Baldelli-Hunt any money.

Stephen Ucci, who is also a state representative for District 42, representing Cranston and Johnston, and who sits on the House’s Labor and Rules committees, donated $500. Ucci, who served with Baldelli-Hunt and Woonsocket City Solicitor Marcello while they both served in the House, has given a total of $750 to the mayor in the past.

Richard Beretta Jr, is not only listed on the APS website as “currently engaged in the permitting process for a 1000 MW power plant” (the one Invenergy plans for Burrillville) but is also listed by the Rhode Island Secretary of State as a registered lobbyist for Invenergy. Beretta gave $250 on September 15. He previously gave Baldelli-Hunt $200 in February of 2015.

Four days after this fundraiser, in which employees of APS gave Baldelli-Hunt at least $1000, Invenergy had a second meeting with Baldelli-Hunt’s office. This meeting was also about procuring water and lasted an hour.

Mayor Baldelli-Hunt, who is running on a “pro-business” platform, has another fundraiser planned for November 3 at River Falls Restaurant, from 6-9pm.

Invenergy was recently granted a 90-day extension on their application because the company has failed to come up a with a water source to cool the plant. The Woonsocket Call reported yesterday that City Councillor Daniel Gendron knew nothing about the two meetings, saying, “Really? That’s more than I knew. And that in itself is concerning.”

According to The Call, Gendron and Council Vice President Albert Brien Jr “sent Baldelli-Hunt an e-mail Monday advising her that the City Charter requires the administration to keep members of the council in the loop about the status of business negotiations.” They have requested that the mayor, “expeditiously communicate with the council and provide ALL pertinent emails and other relevant communications between the city and representatives of Invenergy together with any other information that may enlighten all of us as to what exactly is being negotiated at this time.”

Baldelli-Hunt has refused frequent calls for comment from RI Future for weeks now. At a candidate forum in Chan’s Restaurant in Woonsocket last night, Woonsocket Public’s Safety Director Eugene Jalette refused to let residents of Burrillville, Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective or this reporter approach the mayor to ask questions.

October 24, 2016October 25, 2016

Burrillville Town Council about to have its Gaspee moment

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

On Wednesday the Burrillville Town Council will be discussing the proposed tax treaty with Invenergy, the company that wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The timing of this discussion could not be worse. Invenergy just successfully petitioned the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the governmental body tasked with with approving or rejecting the plant, for a 90 day extension on their application. Because Invenergy can’t find the water it needs to cool the plant, for the first time the company is on the ropes. Approving a tax treaty at this time will give the company a much needed win, and might turn the tide in their favor.

Invenergy is searching for the water they need. An Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request from RI Future has revealed that Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Badelli-Hunt’s office has had two meetings with Invenergy officials. On September 7 there was a 30 minute meeting and on September 20 there was a 60 minute meeting. Other meetings may have occurred since then. We know from statements made at the October 3 Woonsocket Town Council meeting that these discussions were not about siting the plant in Woonsocket. These discussions, assumed to be ongoing, are about water. Whatever bargaining position Invenergy has in their discussions with Woonsocket, or any other entity contemplating providing the water Invenergy needs, will be enhanced by the existence of an approved tax treaty.

Passing a tax treaty will send mixed signals to the rest of the state. On September 22 the Burrillville Town Council issued a strong statement in opposition to the proposed power plant. They sent out missives to cities and towns through Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts asking for other town and city councils to pass resolutions in solidarity with Burrillville. So far at least four municipalities have done so, Lincoln, Glocester, North Smithfield and Middletown. How foolish will these councils feel if Burrillville proceeds to negotiate with the company they’ve asked for support in opposing? How eager will other municipalities be to pass their own resolutions going forward?

Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) believes that the Town of Burrillville “is under zero obligation to enter into a tax treaty,” adding, “By ‘zero obligation,’ I mean: zero legal obligation, zero ethical obligation, zero political obligation. The Town has tax laws on the books, and those existing tax laws will determine Invenergy’s tax obligation if there is no tax treaty.

“Invenergy can (and likely will) make all kinds of threats about what will or will not happen in the absence of a tax treaty, but the threats are empty,” continues Elmer, “The bottom line is that: (a) The Town can simply choose not to enter into a tax treaty. (b) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty there is nothing that Invenergy can do. (c) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty, it is virtually certain that Invenergy will go away.

“But can’t Invenergy sue the Town of Burrillville to try to force the Town to enter a tax treaty?” asks Elmer, before answering, “Technically, the answer is “yes,” Invenergy can sue the town – and, yes, the town would have to spend some money to defend such a lawsuit. But Invenergy could not win such a lawsuit. Remember what law school professors like to say: ‘You can always sue.’ I can sue you for wearing a blue suit (or for your taste in movies). But just because one can bring such a stupid, frivolous lawsuit does not mean that one can win such a stupid lawsuit.

“So, too, with Invenergy and a tax treaty. The Town of Burrillville can decline to enter into a tax treaty with Invenergy, and there is nothing Invenergy can do to force the issue.

“The message to each and every member of the Town Council is simple, so simple it can be put into a single sentence: ‘Vote down any tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t even vote on a tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t vote on a tax treaty, and don’t approve a tax treaty.’ None of those sentences is complicated; none of those involves weird, technical legal mumbo-jumbo. Everyone can understand the point.”

Attorney Alan Shoer, of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, has been representing Invenergy during their application process in front of the EFSB. A look at Shoer’s bio page on his law firm’s website runs down his skills and accomplishments. Shoer is presented as an expert in “all aspects of energy, environmental, and public utility law.” He has “experience in wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy matters,” and “has represented developers, investors, contractors, utilities, and municipalities in several successful and innovative sustainable energy projects.”

Note what Shoer does not include in his online resumé: Anything at all to do with his strong advocacy for companies that want to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fracked gas.

Like Governor Gina Raimondo, who never misses an opportunity to publicly champion wind and solar power but downplays her support of fracked gas, and like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who humbly accepts the laurels heaped upon him for his environmental activism in the Senate but can’t find the time to publicly oppose fracked gas infrastructure in his own state, Alan Shoer seems to want his paid advocacy for fossil fuels companies like Invenergy to go unnoticed.

And this is for a good reason: Twenty years from now, no one will want their name to be attached to the moldering LNG monstrosities, brown fields and contaminated properties left in the wake of the coming fossil fuel collapse. Who wants to tell their children and their grandchildren that they helped destroy the environment when they knew the world was under threat and they knew that they were championing a dying and deadly industry? Carefully shaping their public image today is a way, hopes Raimondo, Whitehouse and Shoer, of shaping the way history will judge them.

But we won’t let the world forget their part in this, will we?

This is why Invenergy would be foolish in suing Burrillville. Not only can they not win, as Jerry Elmer points out above, but in doing so they will be exposing themselves as the villains they are. Burrillville may have to spend money defending themselves against such a lawsuit, but I will bet that most or all of the money Burrillville needs to defend themselves could come from something like an online GoFundMe effort. Fracked gas is enormously unpopular in New England, and becoming more unpopular by the day. Only those who continue to believe the lies of the fossil fuel companies, (and they’ve been lying for decades about climate change, as it turns out) that is, the most gullible or ideologically pathological, believe that fossil fuels are the future.

About 244 years ago, a group of Rhode Islanders in Warwick stood up against British tyranny and torched the Gaspee, starting a series of events that led to the American Revolution. Today, in Burrillville, a group of Rhode Islanders is standing up to the fossil fuel oligarchy and when they win, it will mark a turning point in the climate change battle, and the effects could be as significant as those at Gaspee Point in 1772. Rhode will become, in the words of Timmons Roberts, writing for the Brookings Institute, “a leader of a new energy age for the U.S.,” instead of “a middling actor locked into fossil fuel infrastructure for decades.”

The Burrillville Town Council has an opportunity Wednesday night to save the town, the state, and the world.

Be there.

October 13, 2016October 14, 2016

EFSB sentences Burrillville to 90 days of existential uncertainty

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

20161013_114807 — Pre-hearing lawyer chat

Amid audience shouts of “Shame on you!” and “Merry Christmas, Invenergy!” the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) voted unanimously to grant Invenergy a 90 day suspension on their application to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville, effectively quadrupling Invenergy’s previous 30 day extension.

Once Pascoag voted to terminate their letter of intent with Invenergy to provide water to cool Invenergy’s proposed power plant, and Harrisville also declined to provide water, the company asked for 30 days to find an alternative source. They were granted a 30 day extension 30 days ago and despite negotiating with Woonsocket for the water needed to oil the power plant, nothing concrete was presented at today’s hearing.

Instead we heard Invenergy lawyer Alan Shoer claim that Pascog’s termination of their letter of intent came “very late in the process, after almost a year of working with Invenergy.” This made it impossible for Invenergy to come up with an alternative plan, complained Shoer. Attorney Jerry Elmer with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) later countered that “Invenergy made a careful, conscious, deliberate decision to file an application with the EFSB that had very tight, strict, statutory deadlines for things happening, before they had a secure water source… That was Invenergy’s sole election.”

In other words, continued Elmer, Invenergy knew that their non-binding letter of intent “may not result in a water source.”

The 90 day suspension comes with the minor caveat that Invenergy provide a status update in 60 days. The update must show concrete progress in securing a water source, though it is unclear what penalty Invenergy may face if they do not deliver an update that is satisfactory to the board. Criteria for the update seemed sketchy.

In 90 days, Invenergy must be able to present a water source to the board, along with a plan to transport the water to the location of the power plant. Burrillville recently provided a list of criteria that board member Janet Coit suggested would need to be satisfied for the suspension to be lifted. The criteria includes the source of the water, the means of transmission of the water, and the disposal of waste water, among other concerns.

In the event that Invenergy is unable to come up with a water supply, Coit suggested that the EFSB might be open to further suspensions at that time, effectively suggesting unlimited time for Invenergy to get their application in order, unless the board decides to dismiss the application per the motions from the Conservation Law Foundation and the Town of Burrillville.

Lawyer Michael McElroy gave a stellar speech to the board in support of dismissing Invenergy’s application, even going so far as to quote Marvel Comics’ Stan Lee. McElroy also directly confronted Chair Margaret Curran and board members Parag Agrawal and Janet Coit about concerns that the EFSB’s process “may be dictated by” Governor Gina Raimondo.

“The Town of Burrillville does not want this plant,” said McElroy, “I think that’s been made clear to this board. This plant would be a polluting monster that violates the town’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances and would negatively impact impact the quality of life for all Burrillville residents.

The EFSB, continued McElroy, “has been given extraordinary legal powers to grant permits that would otherwise be granted by my client, the Town of Burrillville. You have in essence become, among other things, the town’s planning board, its zoning board and its building inspector. But with such great power comes great responsibility. Your most important power and responsibility is to fully, fairly and impartially evaluate all of the issues that come before you after hearing from all of the parties on those issues.”

“The residents of the town and my clients have become concerned that throughout this process that the board’s votes on this process may be dictated by the governor, who has repeatedly and publicly expressed her support for this project despite the town’s overwhelming opposition. This board’s ill-advised and illegal previous attempts to silence the town and prevent it from being heard today only reinforces that concern.

McElroy urged the board to dismiss the docket, not suspend it. “Suspending the docket instead of dismissing it would give Invenergy what amounts to a gift of an indefinite suspension,” said McElroy. “The town has been fighting this battle now for almost a year at great monetary and emotional expense.”

McElroy’s fiery comments stand in sharp contrast to those of Jerry Elmer, who added that though the lack of water was a major issue that precipitated the motion to suspend, there was also the issue of a lack of information from Invenergy that caused six of the twelve advisory opinions to the board to be submitted incomplete.

After the board rendered its decision those watching the proceedings left the room singing “We shall overcome.”

Those from Burrillville I talked to were angry and disappointed by the ruling. They feel the process is corrupt and stacked against them. They feel that they are being forced to attend yet more town and city council meetings throughout the state in an effort to garner support and prevent the sale of water to Invenergy. Their holidays will now be filled with research, activism, environmental reports and endless meetings in towns and cities throughout the state and beyond to garner support for their cause and to prevent Invenergy from securing a source of water.

Yet though the process seems corrupt and Invenergy seems intent on grinding away their resolve, the people I talked to were adamant that they would not give up or stop fighting.

October 4, 2016October 4, 2016

Burrillville residents speak at Woonsocket City Council meeting to prevent water sale to Invenergy

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

During a Woonsocket City Council meeting Monday evening it was revealed that the City of Woonsocket is in some kind of negotiations with Invenergy regarding its proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. When the question was brought up, City Solicitor Michael Marcello answered only that the city council had been briefed in closed session and would not directly answer the question. As to the question of a power plant being built in the city, Marcello gave a direct answer: No.

City Councillor Daniel Gendron put an item on the city council’s agenda because of the number of calls he had received based on the rumors that such a deal was in the works. He also said that he prepared his question carefully, “so that I could read the question and give the administration [of Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt] the opportunity to answer that question definitively. So what I would like to ask, and I’m asking this of the administration and of my fellow councilors, but specifically the administration. I was hoping the Mayor would be here to respond but, in her absence, somebody in the administration could answer.”

Gendron asked two questions. The first concerned rumors that Invenergy was in negotiations to locate the power plant in Woonsocket, as an alternative to locating the plant in Burrillville, where there has been fierce local and statewide opposition. The second concerned the possible sale of water to Invenergy, for the plant planned for Burrillville.

“My question is a simple question,” said Gendron, “Has the administration had any discussion or communication with Invenergy or anyone else with respect to either siting a power plant in the city or about acquiring water from the city to be used in connection with a power plant?”

Council President Robert Moreau suggested City Solicitor Michael Marcello answer the question. Gendron repeated once more that he was going to address it to the mayor, but would be satisfied with an answer from Marcello.

“Councilor,” answered Marcello, “as you know you are a member of the council and you were briefed by the administration in closed session.” The closed session Marcello refered to took place at 5:30pm, shortly before the 7pm city council meeting. “The reason that we have a closed session,” said Marcello, “is to keep communication closed until such time as the law requires us to disclose it. I will say that emphatically, that there have been no discussions with the administration, that we’re aware of, that I’m aware of, to relocate the power plant within the City of Woonsocket.

“But with regard to your second question,” said Marcello, “you received a briefing in closed session, and that’s where that information must lay right now. In closed session.”

To the residents of Burrillville who had filled the city council chambers, this was confirmation of weeks of rumors.

“At the direction of our council I will not taint the sanctity, if you will, of the executive session meeting and I will not pursue this any further at your direction Mr. Marcello,” said Gendron.

“In summary,” said Council President Moreau, “that was pretty much what you’re going to hear about it tonight from this council because we had an executive session and the City Solicitor explained that we need to abide by that forum.”

“I put this item on the agenda tonight,” said Gendron, “for discussion purposes… that is what precipitated the executive session that took place prior to this meeting.” The item was “an effort to bring out the truth,” said Gendron. “I think that we needed to start this talk, we needed to squelch some of the rumors.” The solicitor denied completely that there was a power plant coming to Woonsocket, said Gendron. Before today, “none of [the city council] knew what was going on, and that was the benefit of the executive session.”

To the dozens of Burrillville residents and anti-fossil fuel activists from around the state, the city council meeting confirmed the existence of the “third option” ominously hinted at by Attorney Richard Sinapi at a meeting of the Harrisville Fire District and Water Board back in August. At that time Harrisville voted not to sell water to Invenergy, and it was known at that time that Pascoag was also going to vote against selling the power plant water.

Rumors had been swirling for weeks that Woonsocket was in negotiations with Invenergy regarding water. RI Future had put in an Access to Public Records Act request with the city on September 23rd regarding this issue. BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion), took to Facebook to ask people to call the office of Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt “and urge her to stop negotiating a water deal with Invenergy.”

The time frame on any potential deal between Invenergy and Woonsocket is difficult to determine. Yesterday Invenergy was given ten days to prepare for a “show cause” hearing with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). EFSB board member Janet Coit, who noted that Invenergy lacks a water plan said that, “from the perspective of the board, we have a big gap.” As part of the show cause hearing, Invenergy will have to submit their new water plan. Though Councillor Roger Jalette, (who is running for Mayor of Woonsocket) said that Invenergy might be making their case before a new city council after the elections in four weeks, Invenergy might not have that much time to wait until after an election.

There was also the hint that this issue may have implications for Woonsocket’s mayoral race between Jalette and Baldelli-Hunt, as Jalette said he is sympathetic to Burrillville’s cause.

During the public commentary period, the Woonsocket City Council was given a taste of what the Burrillville Town Council has been experiencing for nearly a year, that is, speaker after speaker objecting to new fossil fuel infrastructure being built in our state at a time when climate change threatens us all. “We don’t want it in our backyard,” said Ray Trinque of Burrillville, “and we don’t want it in your backyard and we don’t want it in anyone’s backyard…”

Burrillville resident Denise Potvin was born in Woonsocket and has family there still. Potvin said that Alan Shoer of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, one of Invenergy’s attorneys, “conveniently happens to be an attorney for the City of Woonsocket’s water department.” She mentioned that attorney Richard Sinapi is an attorney for Harrisville and large labor union with an interest in seeing the power plant built. “A lot happens behind the curtain,” said Potvin. She ended by suggesting the council educate itself by reading articles like this one on RI Future.

City Council Vice President Albert Brien interrupted public testimony and explained that right now, there was no proposal before the council.

Councillor Roger Jalette is leaving the city council as he runs against Lisa Baldelli-Hunt for Mayor of Woonsocket. “I want you to know that I am very very sensitive to your plight,” said Jalette. Jalette warned that there will be a new city council in four weeks, after the election, as neither he nor Council President Moreau will be on the council.

Burillville resident Jeremy Bailey pointed out that City Solicitor Michael Marcello is also a Ste Representative. Rep Marcello voted against a bill in May that would have allowed Burrillville residents to vote on any proposed tax treaty the town made with Invenergy. Rep Marcello was one of two representatives to attend the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce’s Eggs & Issues Breakfast Thursday morning where Invenergy‘s director of development John Niland was the guest speaker.

April 28, 2016

Woonsocket police sued for unlawful arrest and detention of deaf person

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

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the R.I. Disability Law Center have today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a profoundly deaf person who was arrested and detained overnight in jail by Woonsocket police for allegedly making an obscene gesture, and who was never provided an interpreter to allow him to communicate with the police during his detention. The case raises important issues regarding municipal agency obligations to accommodate residents who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The lawsuit argues that city officials violated plaintiff David Alves’s “statutory and constitutional rights by unlawfully arresting and detaining him, charging him with violating an unconstitutional City criminal ordinance, subjecting him to discrimination on account of his disability, and failing to accommodate his disability.”

The arrest took place late one night last July, when Alves and some friends were at the City Side Club in Woonsocket to celebrate a friend’s birthday. After a verbal altercation between the bouncer and members of the group, police were called. On his way out of the bar, Alves gestured toward the bouncer with the American Sign Language sign for “b*llsh*t,” which police who had arrived at the scene interpreted as giving them the middle finger. Immediately after making the gesture, Alves was arrested by the police for violating a city ordinance banning “obscene language or mak[ing] an obscene gesture.”

While being booked and held at the station overnight, Alves’s requests for a sign language interpreter were ignored. When a deaf friend came to the station to check up on him, a police officer handed the friend a note saying that Alves would “be out in the morning no problem . . . These things happen, he just needs to take it as a learning experience.” In the morning, he was released from custody and issued a summons to appear at court on the ordinance violation. A few months later, a Municipal Court judge dismissed the criminal charge.

Today’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorneys V. Edward Formisano, Michael Pushee and Alyse Galoski, and RI Disability Law Center attorney Katherine Bowden, raises a host of constitutional and statutory claims, including that:

The City’s “obscene gesture” ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague in violation of the First Amendment
The arrest and overnight detention of Alves without cause violated his rights to due process of law and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and
The police officers’ failure to procure an interpreter or provide other means to effectively communicate with Alves violated a number of federal and state laws barring discrimination by municipal agencies on the basis of disability.

Among other remedies sought, the lawsuit asks the court to rule the “obscene gesture” ordinance unconstitutional, declare Alves’ arrest and detention unlawful, order the City to implement policies to prohibit future discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing individuals, and award Alves unspecified monetary damages for violating his rights.

Below are quotes from the participants in today’s lawsuit:

Plaintiff David Alves: “I need to fight this case so that other people don’t have to go through the same thing I went through. Deaf and hard of hearing people deserve the same dignity anyone else deserves. If they violate my civil rights, then they might feel they can violate other people’s civil rights. I want to do what I can to prevent that.”

ACLU of RI attorney V. Edward Formisano: “Mr. Alves was unlawfully arrested and detained under an unconstitutional law. To add insult to injury, he was not provided with the accommodations he needed for his obvious disability. We are confident that a court will vindicate the rights that were so unfairly denied Mr. Alves.”

RIDLC attorney Katherine Bowden: “Municipal compliance with federal and state laws prohibiting disability discrimination is mandatory, not optional. People who are deaf and hard of hearing have a right to equal access to city services, including the right to effective communication with the police and other city officials.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown: “In this country, people cannot be locked up simply in order to give them a ‘learning experience.’ We are hopeful this lawsuit will send a clear message to all law enforcement agencies that there are basic constitutional limits on the use of their formidable police powers, and that they cannot ignore their obligations under anti-discrimination laws to treat people with disabilities fairly.”

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

December 8, 2015December 8, 2015

Dispelling ‘model minority myth’ of Southeast Asians in Woonsocket

baldelli hunt laos — Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli Hunt speaks at “Lao Heritage and Freedom Day.”

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, the Woonsocket Call published an article titled “Freedom still rings for city’s Laotian refugees.” The article highlights an event held at Woonsocket city hall celebrating “Lao Heritage and Freedom Day” on the anniversary of the end of the Lao civil war. Usually, I don’t care much for articles that highlight dog and pony shows orchestrated by politicians—but this time, it was different.

In the article, it states “the inspiration for the event came from Vanmala Phongsavan, a prominent member of the city’s Laotian community and father of Vimala Phongsavanh, a former member of the School Committee and the assistant director of Common Cause.” The problem is that “Vanmala Phongsavan,” who up until last year was known as “Thongsavan Phongsavan,” is not my father. Besides being really bizarre, it was extremely offensive to my family and I for many, many, different reasons.

As I continued to read, it just became very clear to me that it was bigger than an ignorant error by a newspaper, I realized that Woonsocket doesn’t get it.

Dispelling the “model minority myth”

The article mentions the city’s “sizable Laotian community.” To be exact, according to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, there are 36,763 Asians living in Rhode Island, approximately 16,787 of them are Southeast Asians (Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese), 3,380 Laotians live in Rhode Island, and 1,430 live in Woonsocket.

It continues to write, “Southeast Asians who resettled in America after the war have been able to rebuild prosperous new lives and raise children who are now adults working in all kinds of high-skilled jobs.”

Where are they getting their facts?

According to the Southeast Asian Resource Action Center (SEARAC) “Southeast Asian American Education Needs in Rhode Island” report, Southeast Asian Americans have lower rates of education attainment when compared to the Asian population and the total population in Rhode Island. For instance, 4.6% of Cambodian and 10.4% of Laotian Americans over the ages of 25 had a bachelor’s degree compared to 18.5% of the total population and 23.2% of Asian respondents.

The majority of Southeast Asian Americans in Rhode Island live in poverty. 21.1% of Cambodian and 19.4% of Hmong American families lived in poverty in Rhode Island compared to 8.4% of total families in Rhode Island.

Asian Americans as a whole have statistically been seen as overachievers, and the “model minority.” But when data are disaggregated, it tells a different story for Southeast Asians. This is why we need better data; we need to know our smaller communities better—to truly meet their needs and help them prosper.

Of course the Laotian community has had our opportunities and successes, and some have been able to seize their own version of the American dream—but not enough.

“Culture day” does not make you culturally competent

From the article, it seems like the city of Woonsocket tried really hard to celebrate its own version of “culture day,” but failed. It interjected itself into the middle of something that it didn’t understand. It made a global political statement by celebrating the country’s old flag, but not its current flag. There are some of us, who would actually like to see our Laotian community in Rhode Island united, these types of events only add to the tension.

“From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. dropped more than two million tons of ordnance on Laos during 580,000 bombing missions—equal to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24-hours a day, for 9 years – making Laos the most heavily bombed country per capita in history,” according to one account. “The bombings were part of the U.S. Secret War in Laos to support the Royal Lao Government against the Pathet Lao and to interdict traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The bombings destroyed many villages and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lao civilians during the nine-year period. Up to a third of the bombs dropped did not explode, leaving Laos contaminated with vast quantities of unexploded ordnance (UXO). Over 20,000 people have been killed or injured by UXO in Laos since the bombing ceased. The wounds of war are not only felt in Laos. When the Americans withdrew from Laos in 1973, hundreds of thousands of refugees fled the country, and many of them ultimately resettled in the United States.”

Did the city of Woonsocket know that by celebrating “Lao Heritage and Freedom Day” that they might have offended some people who still suffer the trauma of what the U.S. did to their country and their entire refugee experience? Our community is still at war and there will never be any winners. We are all still healing from the results of war, death, and loss. There are also those who still communicate with their families in Laos, who want to travel to Laos, and others who are trying to work on solving global issues together with the country of Laos with ambassadors and other global leaders. Celebrating “Lao Peace” day would have been at least a little less offensive.

How can we expect any type of world peace if we make global political statements without understanding the bigger implications? I think we all agree that our democracy is great, the best in the world. But in order to accomplish anything, we must be tolerant of other values, beliefs, and political ideologies—as different as they may be from ours.

There’s Hope

I am one of Woonsocket’s biggest fans, and I believe that one day it can get out of its own way so that progress can happen. It’s not just about the Laotian community; it’s about all communities of color. If the city of Woonsocket wants to really change outcomes for people of color, it needs to stop celebrating “culture day” and begin to take apart its systematic racism; it ultimately needs a democracy that is truly representative of the people it serves.

There’s a lot to do in Woonsocket, but here are just some initial thoughts for engaging more people of color:

Hiring people of color: Woonsocket’s administration is very white, it can start by hiring people of color to its administration, and being more transparent about hiring and appointing processes;
Civic engagement: Woonsocket needs civic engagement initiatives to get more people of color engaged in our American democracy;
People of color in local leadership: Woonsocket needs to elect people of color, and more people of color need to run; currently, all elected officials representing Woonsocket are white;
Task force on Diversity: Woonsocket needs a task force on diversity with the single mission of hiring and engaging more people of color in Woonsocket;
Disaggregate data: let data drive decision and policy making;
Cultural competency training for the city’s administration: this should be obvious.

February 9, 2015February 10, 2015

NBC10 Wingmen: Jon Brien defends Deborah Gist

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

State education Commissioner Deborah Gist is leaving Rhode Island for Tulsa, Oklahoma and former Woonsocket state Rep. Jon Brien, my latest NBC 10 Wingmen adversary, says her departure is the fault of the teachers’ unions.

Blaming organized labor for getting rid of Gist is like blaming vaccines for getting rid of the measles. There’s always a few that think the solution to a problem is a bigger problem than the problem.

As Brien, a Woonsocket native, a lawyer and a parent, blames teachers and their unions, his hometown school district sued Gist and the state for not ensuring an adequate education. Meanwhile, during Gist’s tenure in Rhode Island, the graduation rate in Woonsocket dropped 6 percent – from 64 percent of high school seniors in 2009 to 58 percent of high school seniors in 2013.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

December 19, 2014December 19, 2014

RI Foundation helps expand innovation in urban classrooms

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

Nearly 160 teachers in five urban school districts are getting more resources for classroom innovation thanks to $148,000 in grants from the Rhode Island Foundation.

Full-time third-grade teachers in any public or charter school in Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence and Woonsocket were eligible to for Spark Grants of up to $1,000 to fund programs that will engage students through unique experiences and creative learning methods in order to stimulate their interest in academics.

At Francis Varieur School in Pawtucket , third-grade teachers Mary Bergeron and Donna Sawyer will pool their $1,000 grants to purchase 25 cameras to support learning activities related to a social studies unit on urban, suburban and rural communities. The cameras will enable teachers to weave art into their lesson plans and foster the development of 21st-century skills through the use of digital technology.

In Providence, the proposals range from recruiting an artist to help Pleasant View Elementary students write a narrative version of Cinderella to a year-long character education program at William D’Abate Elementary, including field trips to the Providence Police and Fire Departments.

Conceived by philanthropists Letitia and John Carter, the Spark Grants program was launched last year with $75,000 in awards to Providence third-grade teachers. Based on the results, the initiative was expanded this year to include the four new communities.

“We were impressed by the creativity and impact of last year’s proposals. Third grade is a crucial period in the academic development of children. Widening the reach of the program will put more youngsters on the road to a lifetime of academic achievement,” says Letitia Carter.

May 6, 2014

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

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

Hey there, guys and gals.

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

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

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

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

Notice that last word.

Requirements.

As in required.

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

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

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

Love,

Woonsocket

May 5, 2014May 6, 2014

State Supreme Court: no guarantee to adequate education in RI

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

Friday was a sad day for the children of Pawtucket and Woonsocket, and for disadvantaged children across the State, when the Supreme Court decided that Rhode Island’s Constitution does not protect them from receiving an inadequate education. These children, whose only failure is to live in the wrong ZIP code, are being denied a quality public education without any realistic chance of relief, even though Rhode Island’s current Constitution contains an education clause.

While the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to interpret that clause to help these innocent children and our state as a whole, the Court’s decision squarely places upon our shoulders the opportunity and the responsibility to amend our Constitution to redress our state’s denial of this fundamental civil right.

This case began in 2010, at a time when the General Assembly debated and approved an education aid funding formula. The formula was enacted amid great fanfare, but the school committees of Pawtucket and Woonsocket knew the hype far exceeded the new formula’s actual merit. Four years into the new formula, the children in Pawtucket and Woonsocket still suffer from inadequate facilities and textbooks, insufficient staffing and personnel, and other deprivations which, as the Supreme Court found, results from a “funding system that prevents municipalities from attaining the resources necessary to meet the requirements” of the State’s educational mandates. In fact, these children’s harm will rise (or sink) to a new level this year, as the state is poised to deprive them of diplomas on the basis of NECAP testing, even as the state deprived their schools of the resources needed to prepare them adequately for the tests.

The Supreme Court was candid about the state’s failures, noting that these children “make a strong case to suggest that the current funding system is not beneficial to students in Pawtucket and Woonsocket, especially when compared to other municipalities.” Despite these deprivations and inequities, however, the Court decided it was powerless to intervene, ruling that “the General Assembly has exclusive authority to regulate the allocation of resources for public education.”

Unfortunately, these children cannot realistically pin their hopes on the General Assembly, which already has been told by the Commissioner of Education that the 2010 funding formula made Rhode Island “the state with the best funding formula in the country.” While accepting the value of positive thinking, the simple fact is that if the Massachusetts border moved a few miles south, the children of Woonsocket would benefit from a funding formula and State support that put Rhode Island’s to shame. That is why the great majority of states (including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont) have constitutional protections that empower courts to break through political stalemate, to provide our children with what many call the key civil right of the 21st

By hewing to a “strict construction” of the Rhode Island Constitution reminiscent of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision is a valid exercise of a particular school of legal reasoning, but also a massive missed opportunity to move our State forward in the fields of civil rights and economic development.

With that said, the Supreme Court’s decision speaks with admirable candor concerning the specific ways in which the State’s public education program fails the children of Pawtucket and Woonsocket. In this way, the Court’s decision, even as it denies relief for these children under the terms of the State’s current Constitution, helps make an overwhelming case for amending and improving the Constitution to redress this wrong. Currently, there is pending legislation in the House (H7896) and Senate (S2397) to place a question on the ballot permitting voters to approve a Constitutional amendment to establish a right to education that can be enforced in court. In the four years that it has taken for this case to be decided, both the General Assembly and the courts have made it indisputable that such a Constitutional amendment is the only way to protect this vital civil right.

Over the past month, writers on this blog and representatives of the civil rights community have expressed concerns about how a constitutional convention may compromise civil rights that the current Constitution protects. Friday’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that the current Constitution fails to protect a vital civil right that is harming tens of thousands of Rhode Island’s children every day. With this in mind, I wish to offer an invitation to civil rights leaders and progressives statewide. Please join Rhode Island’s children and urban communities in their effort to convince the General Assembly to place a stronger Constitutional right to education on November’s ballot. If the General Assembly allows voters this chance, you can help advance the civil right of education in Rhode Island without the risks you see in a broader Constitutional convention.

Four years ago, Pawtucket and Woonsocket brought their case to the Rhode Island courts. Last Friday, the Supreme Court passed the baton to the General Assembly, the civil rights community, the progressive community and the people of Rhode Island. Please do not miss this opportunity. Rhode Island’s children (and, by extension, Rhode Island’s future) are depending on you.

April 12, 2014

Mattiello visits Woonsocket, but his tax-cutting agenda won’t help city

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

As was reported by Jim Baron in The Woonsocket Call, newly elected House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello visited Woonsocket recently. While I only became aware of his visit after the fact, and was disappointingly not invited to the Rotary Club luncheon that he addressed, I should like to address the Speaker through this most public of forums, the interwebs.

Mattiello, with House Majority Leader John DeSimone in tow, was given a tour of the city by Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, and our delegation to the House of Representatives Reps. Stephen Casey, Bob Phillips, and Mike Morin. Stops on the tour included WWII Memorial Park – the only state park in the city – our barely breathing Diamond Hill retail district, Landmark Medical Center, The Plastics Group, and a visit to an Advanced Placement Government class at Woonsocket High School. After the tour, Baron reports that the Speaker said, “I got a good view of Woonsocket today. You’ve got some great things going on, but there is also blight in certain areas.”

That comment makes me wonder if the tour wasn’t a bit sugar-coated by the Mayor and our Representatives because, frankly, the entire city is suffering from blight.

Even the city’s swankiest neighborhoods – the North End and East Woonsocket – are rife with homes that have been abandoned due to the foreclosure crisis and skyrocketing property taxes. The two largest commercial plots in the Fairmount neighborhood -which happen to be directly opposite one another on the banks of the Blackstone – look like a warzone. The spectre of non-resident tenement and corporate development owners looms large on streets like 3rd Ave., Pond St., Chester St., and many others. The decline of the city is no more evident than on Main St., where one of the most historic buildings in the city, the Commercial Block, is slated for condemnation.

While addressing the Rotary Club, Mattiello stressed the importance of infrastructure and education saying, “We have to stop having an infrastructure that our citizens complain about,” and that, “A well trained, well-educated workforce produces more and makes us better citizens.” I agree with Mattiello on these points, but have to ask, isn’t the lack of state funding in both of these areas a major driver of the decline of Woonsocket’s roads, bridges, and education system?

Baron admits in the story that the crowd at the luncheon was, “heavy with businessmen and women,” and toward the end of the article writes that when Mattiello was questioned on taxes, he responded, “I’m looking at the corporate tax. I want to get rid of the inheritance tax cliff.”

This ranks among the top three most tone-deaf things I’ve heard fall from the lips of any politician. The top two are Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment, and George W. Bush’s, “Mission accomplished.”

First, most folks in Woonsocket, even businessmen and women, don’t give a damn about the corporate income tax. What Woonsocket businesses need – and I’d argue most businesses in any of Rhode Island’s four core cities – is property tax relief. Besides, if you look at the corporate tax returns in Rhode Island, the majority of businesses in Rhode Island aren’t paying anywhere near the 9 percent that is written into our tax structure.

Second, does anyone out there think that the inheritance tax “cliff” of $921,655 matters at all to people in a city where the median income is $39,000/year?

Mattiello also said that Woonsocket is, “…a city that needs our attention right now.” Let’s file this one under, “No shit, Sherlock.”

Woonsocket has needed attention, not only from the state, but from our own elected officials for the last 30 years. We needed attention way back in 1991, when a young Dave Fisher had to protest outside of Woonsocket High School to keep our sports, music, and arts programs funded. We needed attention when – then city councilor, now council President – Albert Brien, sold a tract of land on the Woonsocket/N. Smithfield border to developer who then poached Wal-Mart and Lowe’s from our Diamond Hill retail district. We needed attention when we crossed the threshold of state mandated affordable housing, putting an onerous strain on our city’s education and human services budgets. We needed attention when our only state park was falling into disrepair, yet the budget for DEM continued to be slashed. Where was the state support in these instances?

What makes Woonsocket’s situation even more maddening is the fact that, for 150 years, Woonsocket was a key economic and social driver in Rhode Island. It was a place where blue-collar folks could go to make a decent living, and maybe afford that little beach house in Matunuck. Unfortunately, since the decline of the manufacturing economy in the state, it seems that our state government has written Woonsocket off as not salvageable; talk about adding insult to injury.

Please forgive my cynicism and compound metaphor, but the state has all too often pulled the rug out from under Woonsocket while simultaneously shoving us under the bus. For as little faith as I have in our newly elected mayor, I have even less faith that our state government will – or even can – help to save the once vibrant city of Woonsocket.

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling further erodes US democracy

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

Not since Roe v. Wade has a U.S. Supreme Court decision permeated the public consciousness quite like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In 2010, the nation’s highest court opened the campaign finance floodgates when – in a 5-4 decision – they sided with lawyers for the anti- Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC) Citizens United who argued that PACs not be required to disclose their donors identities or the amounts of money they had contributed.

Bold and continuing campaign finance reform in our nations capitol began in Washington, D.C., in 1971 and continued until 2002. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act required the disclosure of donors’ identities and the amounts they contributed to federal election campaigns.

A little known Supreme Court decision that, at its heart, concluded that the spending of money equals free speech was handed down in 1976. A Supreme Court majority held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, which limited expenditure on election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment.

The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted due to the First Amendment. The only interest was in preventing “corruption or its appearance”, and only personal contributions should be targeted because of the danger of “quid pro quo” exchanges.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – better known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – strengthened restrictions, but did nothing to challenge or reverse the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Essentially, the Citizens United case boiled down to this.

According to the U.S. Constitution, corporations are afforded the same rights as people, and therefore should be given the same protections as individuals when it comes to political donations. This decision, by correlation, asserted that the spending of money equates to the exercise of our First Amendment rights to free speech. While the Supreme Court’s decision may be true to the letter of U.S. law, it raised a widespread concern amongst Americans as to whether corporations should, in fact and practice, be afforded the same rights as people, and whether the spending of money constituted free speech.

[vsw id=”xQqzhjstb7E” source=”youtube” width=”550″ height=”400″ autoplay=”no”]

Just this week, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to campaign finance reform advocates in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. In essence, the decision did not affect federal campaign finance laws, save for one small factor. Prior to the decision, individuals and PACs were forced to abide by a hard-and-fast limit on aggregated donations to political candidates or PACs in support or opposition to particular legislation or candidates.

Let’s look at it this way.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, there was a limit as to what I could donate to any and all political campaigns within an election cycle. That cap was $123,200. I could spend that total in any way I saw fit, as long as I abided by current FEC guidelines of $2,600 per federal candidate in each primary and general election or $32,400 per PAC in each cycle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the $2,600 or $32,400 guidelines, it did declare the cap of $123,200 unconstitutional. This means I can donate $2,600 to any candidate in any state, and $32,400 to any PAC in any state, without restrictions, up to infinity dollars.

If I had the money to do this, I would, but therein lies the rub.

I don’t.

You don’t.

98 percent of the people in the U.S. don’t.

The McCutcheon decision has basically told big time donors that they can start buying candidates and PACs throughout the country, and in turn buy legislative influence.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled in both of these cases. As they stand, the only way to rescind these decisions is to amend the U.S. Constitution to say plainly that corporations are not people, and spending money is not free speech. This is where the nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is no small task. 38 of the 50 states must ratify an amendment. Our first step in Rhode Island is to amend our own constitution. As it stands, the Rhode Island chapter of the Move(ment) to Amend has bills before both the R.I. Senate and House. On their face, these bills do nothing, but when combined with bills in other states, we send a loud and clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and our legislators in Washington.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FREE SPEECH.

Please, for the sake of our country, and our children and grandchildren, sign the petition to amend our Constitution today.

March 21, 2014March 21, 2014

Woonsocket, 100 days into the Baldelli Hunt era

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

Now that Mayor Lisa Baldelli- Hunt has given her 100-day update on the city’s finances, I thought I’d write a post on it. While I don’t think that even 100 days are enough to actually get a handle on the minutiae of running the city of Woonsocket, I give her credit and this goes in the “Campaign Promises Kept” column.

The financial picture painted at the meeting was not a pretty one. According to the mayor, the city still carries over $220 million in bonded debt, and another $54 million in unfunded pension liabilities. For a city that is suffering from a mass exodus of businesses and homeowners, fueled by the second highest property tax rates in the state, this is a kick in the collective teeth. How on Earth are we going to begin to pay down those debts and liabilities when the tax base is shrinking so rapidly?

My thoughts while listening to the mayor were not, “Goodness! What a groundbreaking approach to city government” or, “I’m surprised that nobody thought of that sooner.” That said, Woonsocket has ingrained and systemic problems that no one in their right mind could think we’re going to see a turnaround in one fell swoop.

Several things jumped out at me during the presentation.

First, she is looking at “small-ball” options. This was indicated in the renegotiations of landline and cellular contracts for city offices and cellular phone service. Sure, it’s not a lot of money saved, but given the state of the city, every dollar counts. A few thousand here and there could add up to big savings for the city in the long haul. Forgive the baseball analogy, but games aren’t won by homeruns. They are won by base hits. Renegotiating these contracts put a man on base. Another hit will put him in scoring position.

Secondly, the mayor spent a good amount of time clarifying her position on the re-implementation of Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) in Woonsocket.

We need to see education spending as an investment, not an expense, because that’s what it is. A study conducted at the University of Connecticut showed that, for every standard deviation in standardized testing scores, property values increase and decrease accordingly. My vote is for increased property values!

To me, this is not an issue of, “Can we afford it,” but rather, “Can we afford not to?” Woonsocket is only one of thirteen communities in Rhode Island that does not have FDK, and the General Assembly is moving quickly on a bill that would fully fund the program beginning in the 2015 school year. Wouldn’t it be nice if Woonsocket was actually AHEAD OF THE CURVE on an issue, rather than begrudgingly dragging our feet (AND KNUCKLES!) on an issue?

Lastly, the lack of communication and attention to detail in the last administrations became apparent to me when the mayor showed in one powerpoint slide that the city department administrative priorities in the last 100 days have been:

– Department heads became more familiar with their budgets and operations

–Department heads created and established priorities in terms of functions and the provision of municipal services

–Built a budget planning document and developed related tracking systems

–Department heads defined the department’s mission statement in terms of legal requirements and other objectives

My astonished reaction to these statements was, “We don’t do that already?”

This is a great example of how the previous administrations have failed this city. It seems that even the simplest aspects of organization and inter-office communication have gone un-tended for the last twenty years. It is the inevitable result of the, “Cut staff to save money,” approach seemingly favored by Mayors Fontaine and Menard.

On a side note, I have been looking into two funding programs for upgrades to energy efficiency and introducing renewable energy projects to the city.

One is the state’s Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which would supply a $1 million dollar fund to the city to help homeowners improve the energy efficiency of their homes and install solar panels where applicable. Rules and regs should be finalized by July 2014.

The other is a regional program, funded by the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that would allow our K-12 schools enact energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy projects at no cost, provided that the projects meet certain standards, including an educational component in the city’s schools.

Here’s to a better Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and USA.

To see our mayor’s Powerpoint presentation, click here.

March 12, 2014March 13, 2014

Is equal equitable on state education funding?

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

Is equal equitable with regard to state education funding? As it happens, even a progressive state funding formula isn’t equitable when it comes to helping Rhode Island’s economically diverse cities and towns provide an adequate education to all.

That’s what Pawtucket and Woonsocket are arguing before the state Supreme Court in a case that claims the state is unconstitutionally depriving these two school districts of its ability to properly educate its children.

The Department of Education says that the state constitution doesn’t obligate it to provide an adequate, equal or equitable education – only that it “promote” public education. Furthermore, many suburban school committee members, policy analysts and small government activists have pointed out that Rhode Island already imposes a progressive (i.e. not regressive) formula for funding local school districts based on need.

Comparing per-pupil spending between some of Rhode Island’s richest suburbs and poorest cities, it seems they are correct. Barrington and East Greenwich get about 10 percent of their per-pupil education budget from the state and Woonsocket and Pawtucket get more than 60 percent per pupil from the state. In 2014, the state will pay $8,562 per pupil in Woonsocket and $8,270 in Pawtucket. Conversely, the state will pay $1,056 per pupil in Barrington and $987 in East Greenwich. (Ed. note: RIDE does not keep per pupil state aid data, according to RIDE spokesman Elliot Krieger, but you can do the math by dividing column H of this spreadsheet by column A of this spreadsheet, according to RIDE’s Office of Statewide Efficiencies Director Cynthia Brown.)

“At an order of magnitude difference Rhode Island’s funding formula sure does a lot of work to equalize spending,” said Jason Becker, who helped author the 2010 funding formula that Woonsocket and Pawtucket are challenging in court. “I don’t see how the state could do more without dramatically increasing the amount of state funding for education. With our budget and revenue issues I don’t see that happening anytime soon.”

But even with a progressive funding formula (the previous formula was not dramatically different for the richest and poorest communities) the results have been unequivocally regressive.

Take NECAP test results, for example. Barrington and East Greenwich 11th graders both scored 70 percent proficient on their math NECAP while Woonsocket 11th graders were 21 percent proficient and in Pawtucket 20 percent were proficient.

Perhaps the answer lies not within how much the aid the state gives each district, but how much aid each district needs. As Becker notes, the state funding formula equalizes spending. Even though Woonsocket and Pawtucket students have vastly different educational needs than East Greenwich and Barrington students, all four educations cost roughly the same.

In 2011, the most recent year I was able to find data on RIDE’s website, (Ed. note: still waiting to hear from RIDE Statewide Effeciencies Office if there is more recent data elsewhere), the average Woonsocket student cost $13,485 to educate and the average Pawtucket student cost $13,007. Meanwhile, the average East Greenwich student cost $13,973 and the average Barrington student cost $12,708. UPDATE: 2012 comparison here, courtesy of Elliot Krieger.

That may be equal. But considering the affluent suburbs seem to be able to do much more with a similar amount of money, it doesn’t seem equitable. Not even close.

East Greenwich recently built a brand new, “state-of-the-art” middle school building and also completed three major construction projects at the high school including an astroturf football stadium, a new entrance facade and new science labs. And next year, the EG School Committee plans to give every high school student their own laptop computer and add a staff member to facilitate the new program.

Meanwhile, this is what Providence City Councilor Sam Zurier, who is litigating the equitable funding lawsuit on behalf of Pawtucket and Woonsocket, said about the situation in Pawtucket:

“Pawtucket cannot afford to issue a separate text book for every child in some of its schools. You have laboratories with mold in them, the plumbing doesn’t work. You have classes in the elementary school that has two grades being taught by the same teacher. It’s often the case that schools run out of paper this time of year.”

March 4, 2014March 5, 2014

Jason Becker on Rhode Island’s education funding formula

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

Jason Becker worked as a consultant, with Brown professor Kenneth Wong and Mary-Stuart Kilner, to develop the state education funding formula that was presented to and then approved by the General Assembly in 2010 and is being contested by Pawtucket and Woonsocket at the state Supreme Court today.

In a deep-dive conversation into how the funding formula functions, Becker said he doesn’t think an adequate education for all public school students is a constitutional right in Rhode Island. Adequate funding is the basis of Woonsocket and Pawtucket’s lawsuit.

“That’s sort of the right philosophical frame and it’s sometimes the direct language used,” he said, “but that’s just not the language in the Rhode Island Constitution . There’s actually no right to an adequate education or an effective education. The only lines we have about education in the state Constitution is that the General Assembly should promote education.”

He also said “that local support for the system has not been there” in Woonsocket and Pawtucket and both districts could sue their city councils for more funding.

But he also suggested some improvements to the current system of state funding for local school districts. He said RIDE pays 40 percent of teacher pension costs for every school district regardless of need.

“And obviously,” Becker said, “communities don’t have equal ability to pay. And I don’t that’s very fair. And in fact I’m pretty sure Woonsocket and Pawtucket would be making more money through than almost any change that has been suggested in the lawsuit other than massively increasing the amount of school funding that exists at the state level.”

He also cited the state facilities subsidy as ripe for review. Currently, local school districts can receive upwards of 40 percent of state funding for local projects. But as a practical matter is mostly used by the towns that can afford to pay 60 percent of the costs of improvements.

“If we want to wonder why the buildings in Pawtucket and Woonsocket and Providence are in terrible condition even though the state will pick up roughly 80 percent of the tab for any construction work that they do it’s because a lot of that money gets eaten up by East Greenwich, which can get 40 percent and can easily pay that other 60 percent,” he said.

We also spoke about why English language learners weren’t factored into the 2010 funding formula and he tries to explain the “quadratic mean” and how it helped Newport at the expense of Woonsocket and Pawtucket (my words not his!).

Listen to our entire conversation here:

March 3, 2014March 4, 2014

Sam Zurier explains Woonsocket, Pawtucket lawsuit against RIDE

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

The school districts of Pawtucket and Woonsocket take their lawsuit against the Department of Education to the state Supreme Court Tuesday. They feel the 2010 school funding formula unfairly deprives their districts of the resources needed for an adequate education, said Providence City Councilor Sam Zurier, one of the lawyers representing the two districts.

He detailed some of the ways these districts are failing to provide an adequate education experience:

“Pawtucket cannot afford to issue a separate text book for every child in some of its schools,” he said. “You have laboratories with mold in them, the plumbing doesn’t work. You have classes in the elementary school that has two grades being taught by the same teacher. It’s often the case that schools run out of paper this time of year.”

The lawsuit was dismissed by a lower court. And Zurier’s co-counsel, Steve Robinson, has been fighting in court for more funding for Pawtucket since 1991. This may be the second such suit, but the first since the state tried to address the issue with a new funding formula in 2010. Zurier said the new funding formula caused more problems for Pawtucket and Woonsocket.

“The 2010 funding formula is actually less adequate than another funding formula the state developed in 2007,” he said. “If the state had implemented the 2007 formula then the school districts of Pawtucket and Woonsocket would be getting several thousands dollars more per child and and that would be adequate funding to allow them to meet the standards.”

Zurier said the 2010 funding formula sends money to every school district in the state, rather than only the most needy districts – “that means there is less money in the pot to go to the poorer communities,” he said. He also said the 2010 funding formula doesn’t account for English language learners, an anomaly among state education funding formulas “and that’s obviously an issue for Pawtucket and Woonsocket,” he said.

‘They watered down the distribution,” Zurier said. “And what you are left with is the poor communities don’t get what they need.”

You can listen to my entire conversation with Zurier here:

January 27, 2014January 27, 2014

RIF Radio: NAACP’s Jim Vincent doesn’t feel the urgency; Woonsocket’s Mike Morin ready to work with Baldelli Hunt

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

Monday Jan 27, 2013
North Kingstown, RI – Happy Monday morning, Ocean State Futurists. This is Bob Plain, editor and publisher of the RI Future blog podcasting to you from The Hideaway on the banks of the Mattatuxet River behind the Shady Lea Mill in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

Our show today is brought to you by Largess Forestry. Seriously folks … winter is the best time of year to care for trees – so if you’ve got some projects you’ve been putting off, give Matt Largess a call at 849-9191, or friend them on Facebook.

This morning we speak with Jim Vincent executive director of the Providence branch of the NAACP about a press conference his group is hosting today to call attention to the growing sense of fear and frustration in the inner cities. The NAACP and some 12 other community groups will be meeting outside the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence today at 4:30 to announce an effort at working together to call attention to these issues….

We’ll also catch up with probably-soon-to-be Woonsocket state Rep. Mike Morin. Morin just won the Democratic primary to fill Lisa Baldelli-Hunt’s old seat in the State House. Assuming he wins the general election Feb 25 – and I think this is a safe assumption given he’s the only name on the ballot – that will mean the Woonsocket House delegation will be 2/3 fire fighters!

It is Thursday, January 24 and before we hear from Jim Vincent and Mike Morin, let’s see what else is going on in the Ocean State…

“Providence, Rhode Island, is the coolest city in New England. I would even put it on the shortlist of coolest small cities in the United States,” writes Pamela Petro in Travel Magazine.

Elizabeth Harrison of RIPR wrote this about cheating on high stakes tests in Rhode Island public schools: “I have heard whispers about changed answers on tests in Rhode Island, but my efforts to get the booklets in question ran into a roadblock. Education officials cited the state’s open records law, saying it does not require test booklets to be made available to the public.”

The New York Times editorial board wrote this about school evaluation systems: “Historically, the rankings compared a school’s test scores with those of the district as a whole. But under that system, demographics ruled the day; wealthy schools invariably were ranked at the top and poor schools at the bottom.”

This was on the front page of the ProJo this morning but Sam Howard also tweeted about it last night: 1 out of 7 Americans use food stamps, the majority of them are of working age and the cost of the program has doubled in the last five years. How’s rampant income inequality working out for you again, America? Because for at least 14 percent of the country it sucks, and everyone else is paying for it.

A former Hasbro employee is suing the company saying she was discriminated against because she is a lesbian. According to the Providence Journal, she was fired for making “a sexually inappropriate comment.” The Department of Labor and Training awarded her full unemployment benefits … and they don’t usually do that if you’ve been fired….

And this just in: Speaker Gordon Fox could buy my house in East Greenwich and probably still have enough money left in his campaign account to run for and win reelection. Large amounts of money in politics, I am coming to believe, is the biggest danger to our democracy. RI Future would like to see the ProJo op/ed page and Ken Block devote the same veracity to this issue that they teamed up for on the master lever. Common Cause RI and Demand Progress are both working on this issue this year too….

December 9, 2013December 9, 2013

RIF Radio: DePetro in exile, Brien out of exile, Exeter recall, Jim Langvin, EJ Dionne celebrates working class heroes

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

Monday Dec 9, 2013
North Kingstown, RI – Good morning, Ocean State. This is Bob Plain, editor and publisher of the RI Future blog podcasting to you from The Hideaway on the banks of the Mattatuxet River behind the Shady Lea Mill in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

It’s Monday, December 9th, and there is snow on the ground for the first time this winter but it’s quickly turning into freezing rain … but in even worse news for commuters, WPRO’s hate-radio shock jock John DePetro will probably be back on the air today after a mysterious week in exile off that culminated with him calling into his own show to apologize for calling female activists whores.

The week before DePetro went into exile, the Providence Journal had reported – incorrectly I should note – that labor’s attempt to get Alex And Ani to stop advertising with WPRO because of DePeptro’s misogynistic comments had failed. Since then, the campaign has gone viral with several national labor leaders pushing the boycott on social networks.

In a press release on Friday, For Our Daughters, said, “This is now a national campaign and will touch Cumulus advertisers in multiple media markets.” Make no mistake, Cumulus and WPRO management take that threat very seriously….

And here’s the other pressure point: union strategists say they are asking every single elected official in Rhode Island to boycott WPRO until DePetro is gone.

For years, Rhode Islanders of all political stripes, including this blog, have made a moral arguments about getting rid of DePetro … credit the labor movement for speaking a language a corporate-owned radio station will listen to: their wallets. …As my weekly podcast colleague Mark Gray pointed out on Thursday, remember this next time someone tells you unions aren’t doing good for everyone in the Ocean State!

Click here to sign the petition.

The other big story this week will be the Exeter recall: both the ProJo and the AP had in-depth weekend stories on the issue and RIPR plans a series on the recall for later this week.

At issue, in a nutshell, is a bunch of right-wingers and gun nuts have formed an alliance to recall the Democrats on the Town Council because they outsourced issuing gun permits to the state. But the real reason they are being recalled certainly has more to do with a provision in the town charter that calls for the next highest vote getter to replace recalled councilors. Ah, the Rhode Island Republican Party … if you can’t win, find a loophole.

…Ok, I’m wondering if I read this right in today’s Providence Journal: Woonsocket candidates to fill Lisa Baldelli Hunt’s seat in the legislature have less than 48 hours to declare? Dave Fisher, if you’re listening, get your paper work in order, because progressives all over the state would love to see you make a run for a seat in the House of Representatives.

And speaking of Woonsocket … and being in exile, for that matter, the ProJo also reports this morning that old RI Future frenemy Jon Brien is back and serving as Woonoskcet’s city prosecutor … The former ALEC Democrat has been laying very low since he lost his bid for reelection … and I welcome my old pal back to the fray.

EcoRI reports that bike sharing is coming to Providence … a Portland, Oregon company applied for and received permission to start the program and is now looking for funding … might I suggest asking uber, the company that had a harder time setting up a similar business with cars…

Tonight at the Peace Dale congregational church, Rhode Islander who moved to Israel 8 years ago, will be showing a documentary on the Palestinian village of Susya, which is scheduled for demolition…

Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that the Obama Administration didn’t tell the whole truth when it came to Syria’s chemical weapons programs … but what might be most interesting about this is the New Yorker, where Hersh usually drops his bombshells passed on this one. So did the Washington Post. It was published by the London Review of Books, and proofed by a former New Yorker fact checker. Someone is loosing some cache over this one: it could be Obama, it could be the New Yorker or it could be the Hersh. Stay tuned…

Hey, yesterday I found a dead otter on the side of Rte. 4, and several people were surprised we have these fury semi-aquatic mammals in the Ocean State, so I’m going to be doing some reporting on them later this week.

Also … I’d like to thank Congressman Jim Langevin and the thousands of other Rhode Islanders who came by the Shady Lea Mill this weekend for our annual open studios party. As I told the congressman, with more than 40 artists and artisans here at the mill, we’re probably the densest cluster of commerce in the West Bay. And thanks to the general assembly, the artists here – or anywhere in the Ocean State – don’t have to pay sales tax anymore. This is real live economic development for Rhode Island that maybe didn’t get a ton of attention because it doesn’t adhere to the normal political dichotomies … tax haters and artists rarely have cause to celebrate the same social causes but they do in this case … and rumor has it the New York Times is working on a story about it…

Today in 1921, GM engineers discovered that putting lead into gasoline was good for car engines. Two years later, when leaded gasoline was first sold to consumers, the guy who invented it couldn’t make the ceremony because was bed-ridden because of lead poisoning. Lead poisoning would kill two of his colleagues and several Standard Oil employees who manufactured it. The worst part is GM could have achieved the same result by adding alcohol to gasoline, but there was no way to patent that. Not until 1995, did we finally outlaw leaded gas.

EJ Dionne, a Washington Post op-ed writer originally from Fall River, says it’s cool to be a blue collar again.

August 13, 2013August 13, 2013

Poor cities appeal for more education money

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

Pawtucket and Woonsocket school districts are appealing a joint lawsuit to the state supreme court which argues that “the State’s 2010 funding formula leaves a severe funding gap.”

The suit contends that because Rhode Island for years operated with a state education funding formula, that it is now implementing the recently-enacted formula too slowly and to the detriment of students and education in these two poor urban school districts.

“There is not enough money for children to take their own textbook home, and the textbooks in question are decades old,” according to the brief. “Children come to school with issues they are dealing with at home, but the schools cannot afford to have enough school psychologists, guidance counselors or other support resources to help children be ready to learn.”

Jason Becker, a former RIDE analyst who helped craft the new formula, says Pawtucket and Woonsocket have themselves, not the state, to blame if students are not receiving an adequate education. On Twitter this morning, he said a Carulo Action, a proceedure in which a school committee can appeal to the state for more education funding from its corresponding town/city council.

The filing lays out in very stark terms the achievement gap so prevalent in Rhode Island public education. You can read the entire filing here. But the introduction gives a great sense of the social implications that the lawsuit is trying address:

Imagine it is a Spring morning in 1996. Two mothers with healthy newborn baby girls rest in adjacent rooms at Womens and Infants Hospital. Mother A and Baby A are part of a middle-class family in Narragansett. Mother B and Baby B are from a Pawtucket family that lives in poverty and does not speak English. In the hospital, Baby A and Baby B receive the same, high quality medical care, and each has the same prospect of a healthy life.

Once the babies leave the hospital, however, their future prospects will diverge sharply. Baby A will receive the best public education money can buy, in a program that spends more $15,000 per child of State and local funds each year, $2,000 above the State average. contrast, Baby B, who has greater needs due to her poverty and lack of spoken English at home, will attend overextended programs in decaying and demoralizing facilities, in a learning environment continually compromised by inadequate resources of less than $11,000 of combined State and local funds ($2,000 below the State average) even while Pawtucket’s tax rate for public schools is higher than Narragansett’s.

Today (in the summer of 2013) Girl A is 17 years old and probably looking forward to her senior year at Narragansett High School, where she will earn a diploma and go on to college. In contrast, if Girl B has not yet dropped out of school, the odds are she will not receive a diploma, even if she passes all of her high school courses. Girl B will face these added risks because of the introduction of “high stakes testing,” which the great majority of Pawtucket 11 grade students failed this year. In many ways, each girl’s future was determined at the time she left the hospital in 1996. To add to the tragedy, the two girls’ diverging futures would have been exactly reversed had the hospital mistakenly sent Baby A home with Mother B, and vice versa.

This imagined story reflects an underlying reality in Rhode Island today. Every day, the children with the greatest needs in Pawtucket and Woonsocket strive to get the best education they can under desperate conditions. The privations that ravage the Pawtucket and Woonsocket public schools are far from inevitable; in fact, many Rhode Island public schools offer a vastly superior learning environment. Wealthier communities offer superior public education because education is a basic right, and because they have sufficient local resources to guarantee that right.

In contrast, Woonsocket and Pawtucket are two of the State’s four poorest communities, and the State’s funding, even under the much-celebrated 2010 school aid funding formula, does not come close to providing what their children need.

In this way, Rhode Island’s public education today fails to meet our most deeply held values, both as Americans and as Rhode Islanders.

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