State House – RI Future

October 28, 2016October 29, 2016

Pat Morgan is RI’s representative to ALEC

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

ALEC is back in Rhode Island. Republican legislator Pat Morgan confirmed she’s a member of the American Legislative Exchange Committee, a business-backed bill mill that pairs corporate donors with state legislators.

“I found it to be a really good group,” she told RI Future.

ALEC’s website lists Morgan as the state director in Rhode Island. Her 2016 financial disclosure form shows two trips to ALEC conferences – to San Diego, for $1,400 and to Phoenix for $1,100. ALEC membership in Rhode Island was a hot button issue in 2012, when the group’s model Stand Your Ground bill became controversial after it helped exonerate George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin. That year 24 local legislators, half of whom were Democrats, were members. By 2013, there were only six ALEC members in the General Assembly (though on p. 39 ALEC lists 12 members in 2013). In February 2015, RI Future reported that the last legislative membership in ALEC had expired on the last day of 2014. Morgan said she has been an ALEC member since January of 2015, but she was unsure of the exact month.

Morgan said she does not know anything about ALEC’s involvement with Stand Your Ground laws, and did not know the group had been controversial in Rhode Island.

She also said she does not where ALEC’s funding comes from. When informed it comes from corporations, she said, “I’m just as much against corporate welfare as you are. My idea is to do what’s right for Rhode Islanders, not for corporations.”

Her campaign opponent, independent Vincent Marzulo, is raising Morgan’s involvement in ALEC as a reason to vote against her. (Democrat Anthony Paolino is also running against Morgan).

“Her advocacy for private profit at the public’s expense raises serious questions concerning her commitment to the public good,” said Marzulo. “The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a secretive, right-wing, Koch Brothers-funded corporate advocacy group that seeks private profit at the expense of public interest.”

Sam Bell, state director of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, added, “A far-right group that takes uses a money hose of corporate money to influence state politics, ALEC has wreaked great damage all across our country. From stand your ground laws and voter ID to an ocean of bills to help corporate special interests, ALEC has been uniquely effective at pushing awful public policy on the American people. It is hardly surprising that ALEC would align itself with Pat Morgan, a Wall Street politician known for supporting nutty right wing policies. For instance, Pat Morgan actually signed onto a bill to privatize roads and put tolls on cars.”

Morgan said doesn’t think of ALEC as being “conservative or liberal”. She said her relationship with ALEC has already paid dividends for Rhode Island. She said at a conference she learned about the drug Vivitrol, used to help people ween off drug addiction. She said the product is now used at the Adult Correctional Institute, in part because of her.

She said she doesn’t agree with everything ALEC pushes – citing a “session on international relationships.” She said she did not remember the specifics of the session. She also said there was an ALEC session on legalizing marijuana, an issue she said she does not agree with.

When asked if she thinks ALEC cares more about its corporate sponsors or her constituents, Morgan said, “I believe they care more about good policy that helps average people lead good lives.”

17 minutes into our interview, Morgan asked if she was on or off the record. I told her I identified myself as the editor of RI Future when I first called. Morgan feels I should have also informed her that I was writing a story. She hung up on me, and called back a few minutes later yelling. She said she does not think I have integrity.

House spokesman Larry Berman said the legislature does not pay dues of any ALEC legislators, as was the practice in 2012.

For more on ALEC.

October 28, 2016October 28, 2016

Voter says campaign surrogate changed her ballot

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

A voter filed a complaint with the Providence Board of Canvassers alleging her mail ballot was tampered with by supporters of Rep. John DeSimone, an incumbent legislator who lost in the Democratic primary for the District 5 House seat and is subsequently staging a write-in campaign.

Joanne St. Lawrence, who is 55 years old, disabled and does not drive, said three people came to her home on Phoebe Street to collect her mail ballot. She was expecting someone from the campaign of her preferred candidate, Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, who upset DeSimone in the primary. Instead, St. Lawrence says she was greeted by DeSimone supporters.

“They asked me if I had filled in for John DeSimone,” St. Lawrence told RI Future. “I said no. They said, ‘did you vote for Marcia?’ I said yes.”

That’s when one of them asked St. Lawrence for an eraser, she said. When erasing her ballot failed – St. Lawrence filled it out in pen – one of the people, “took it and wrote his name in. They had me sign it and they both signed it,” St. Lawrence said.

She said she knew something wasn’t right, but didn’t know how to stop the people from changing her ballot. “I wasn’t thinking clearly,” St. Lawrence said. “I just woke up.”

“I’m really concerned about this,” she told RI Future. “My vote is supposed to count.”

The Providence Board of Canvassers confirmed St. Lawrence filed a complaint with their office Wednesday. Kathy Placencia, the administrator of elections for the board, said she sent the complaint to the state Board of Elections. The state Board of Elections declined to comment. Bob Rapoza, the acting director, did not return several phone calls over several days.

St. Lawrence said she was told the Board of Elections would consider her complaint today. While the Board does meet today, no agenda lists her complaint specifically. An agenda says the Board will meet today at 2pm and “may” certify mail ballots. The agenda says, “Any individual seeking to represent a candidate or party during the mail certification process must submit written authorization from the represented party or candidate prior to appearing before the board, pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws Section l7-22-2″

UPDATE: Rapoza returned RI Future’s call shortly after this post was published. He said the complaint process will start at the Providence Board of Canvassers. He said his office did receive a copy of the complaint from the Board of Canvassers. “I have no comment on how this would work at this time,” Rapoza said.

On the advice of the Ranglin Vassell campaign, St. Lawrence said she plans to request a provisional ballot on election day. “If my [mail] ballot doesn’t show up, they have to take that,” St. Lawrence said. “So hopefully it doesn’t show up or hopefully they will see that it was changed.”

She said she is also considering filing criminal charges. The people who took her ballot signed it as witnesses, St. Lawrence said, but she does not know if they signed their actual names.

St. Lawrence said she is supporting Ranglin-Vassell because “she’s on the same level as a lot of people in the neighborhood. I don’t know who this John DeSimone is.”

October 27, 2016

Don’t like the car tax? Blame the RI Vehicle Value Commission

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

Like the weather, it appears that everybody in Rhode Island loves to talk about the state’s car tax but nobody ends up actually doing anything about it. The Vehicle Value Commission has the power to do something about it, and bears responsibility for the frustration and, sometimes, anger that taxpayers in the state have about it. For years, the ACLU of Rhode Island has submitted testimony to the Commission to encourage revisions to these regulations in order to address that frustration and bring some semblance of fairness to the valuation process. No revisions have ensued, unfortunately. Despite our lack of optimism that this year will be any different, we offer our views once again.”

So begins the ACLU of Rhode Island’s detailed seven-page testimony to the Rhode Island Vehicle Value Commission submitted this week in advance of a public hearing on the Commission regulations on November 10th. The testimony includes a thorough review of the car tax statute and regulation’s history.

According to the Commission, the ACLU’s testimony notes, almost all of the approximately 900,000 cars registered within the state are free of mechanical defects, have only “minor surface scratching with a high gloss finish and shine,” an interior that “reflects minimal soiling and wear,” and “all equipment in complete working order.” That is because the regulations establish the value of used cars up to 17 years old by relying solely on the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) designated “clean retail value” of the car based on its make and model. Such a presumption, claims the ACLU testimony, “defies reality.”

The ACLU of Rhode Island has long called on the R.I. Vehicle Value Commission to stop using this unrealistic vehicle valuation to determine car taxes and to also adopt a meaningful appeals process for Rhode Island car owners, and this year’s testimony does the same.

Not only do Rhode Island drivers face heavy taxes that do not match the true value of their vehicles, they are also denied any meaningful appeal process to have their vehicles recognized fairly. The Commission’s consideration of appeals of its “presumptive value” consists solely of checking for clerical errors, allowing adjustments to be made only when an incorrect NADA car value was inadvertently imposed, not when the taxpayer challenges the NADA figure itself based on, for example, local selling conditions.

In its written testimony, the ACLU said: “Such cold efficiency, which essentially rewrites the word ‘presumptive’ out of the statute, is a disservice to the taxpayers and to basic principles of due process.” The testimony continued: “[W]e leave it to the Commission members and others to suggest alternative methods of establishing a ‘presumptive value’ for motor vehicles; all that we can say is that something more meaningful than the current procedure is essential in order to add some fairness to the methodology.” The ACLU noted that the Commission could consider using local retail sales prices to set vehicle values, break down car models into categories by years, or consider other factors. As it has done at past hearings, the ACLU also called on the Commission to establish a meaningful appeals process.

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

October 26, 2016

There are no legal protections against workplace bullying

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

On October 23 RI state co-coordinators Emilia DaSilva-Tavarez and I organized a rally in support of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill S2377, which was introduced last March 2015 by Senator Frank Ciccone.

The rally was held in Roger Williams National Memorial Park on North Main street in glorious weather. There were people standing on North Main holding “STOP WORKPLACE BULLYING” signs and handing flyers thru car windows and to pedestrians while engaging them in conversation to either hear their stories of being bullied in the workplace or educating them on what we and others in every state are trying to accomplish.

One of the people most instrumental in inspiring and showing the ropes to us, Debra Falzoi, a Massachusetts co-coordinator for the Healthy Workplace Bill, came down to join the protest with us.

The younger people in the group made colorful “STOP BULLYING” T-shirts and wore them as they handed out flyers to passersby.

Andrew Winters and his husband Don Smith traveled to be with us to lend us their most important support. Andrew has had his story published in RIFuture. I highly recommend that people read it to see what depths people will go to in the showing of abject unwarranted cruelty of unimaginable levels.

Often people are isolated to be better attacked and threatened by the bully – one cannot simply argue with their boss without fear they’ll be labeled insubordinate and people cannot do their work and, without proper training OR involving HR, confront a hostile coworker. People are forced to go out on medical leave for ulcers, migraines, heart ailments and more to get time to figure out the most feasible action to take. They and their negatively impacted families must do what’s best financially, in terms of a search for the next job, in terms of what will best protect the fragile health they have sunk to and more. It is a tightrope not easily walked. None of them knows how or if they’ll get a next job when they come to realize they may have PTSD from their experience.

Also, once isolated, the target of bullying is often forced to withdraw from a society that is slow to understand what has happened in our work and money driven culture to come to grips with what has happened, sometimes feeling unreasonable shame that this happened to them along with intense fear that they will be further harmed and retaliated against if they say or do anything.

In a lot of ways, workplace bullying mirrors child abuse and domestic violence – they are all forms of bullying. “If you tell anyone, I’ll kill you.”

Humanity needs to evolve past this barbarity. What can happen to one can eventually and has been proven to happen to all. We must learn to care for one another, not go after each other with bared teeth.

Workplace bullying can take many forms but primarily it is a harsh unwarranted attack on any employee with the intent of inflicting harm thru cruel acts, words, exclusion, gas-lighting (encouraging the employee to believe that they are incompetent), work sabotage, lies, false accusations and more to cause the targeted employee to want to leave their job. Usually the brightest, most talented, high performing employees are targeted because a manager or coworker is threatened by their capabilities and they want to force that employee to quit.

People have actually been physically threatened, accosted and had death threats made against them.

It is never the fault of the targeted employee that they are so treated.

The targeted employee suffers health and emotional harm which can be irreversible depending on the length and type of attack. The work of the employee and therefore of the company suffers. Companies allowing and encouraging this behavior lose their most talented employees and will not be able to get talent to join them as word gets out using such agencies as Glassdoor and even Monster. People are becoming more and more aware of the existence of this problem, but more are needed to be made aware.

Currently there are no protections against this kind of unwarranted, malicious attack.

There are laws against sexual harassment and harassment of employees having protected status but workplace bullying can happen to anyone of any age, either gender, sexual orientation, race and or religious preference. There is currently no protection, workplace policy or legal recourse for anyone suffering this type of abuse.

People do commit suicide after being horrifically bullied and, we believe, engage in workplace violence that is never investigated as to what the violent employee had to endure before they “went postal.” They are only portrayed on the news as either a criminal or mentally ill. We have FOIA requests to help us make that link between workplace bullying and suicide (“bullycide”) and/or workplace violence which often ends in the suicide of the perpetrator.

At the rally, there were many cars honking in support and giving many thumbs up. A couple from Connecticut stopped when they saw our signs, wanting information on how they could help there.

For information on Workplace Bullying and how you can get involved, please go to WorkplaceBullying.org.

Go to the Rhode Island Anti-Bullying Healthy Workplace Advocates Facebook page to get action alerts and much more information and a place to post your own story or get people you know to write their story – anonymously, if needed, take a survey, sign a petition and much more.

For information on the Healthy Workplace Bill, please go to HealthyWorkplaceBill.org.

Get involved! Call your state senator, representative and congressman and urge them to support the Workplace Bullying Bill.

October 24, 2016

Frias versus Mattiello in the shadow of prison gerrymandering

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

The electoral race between Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello and his Republican challenger Steven Frias has, for obvious reasons, drawn an incredible amount of attention. Both candidates are working very hard to capture every vote they can in their district. But one exceptional aspect of their race has gone unmentioned: they have fewer people to convince to vote for them than in all but one other House district.

The reason for this anomaly is the very undemocratic (small d) practice of prison gerrymandering. Prison gerrymandering refers to counting all of the people incarcerated at a prison in the district where the prison is located for purposes of creating district lines, even if they don’t legally reside there, are barred from voting there, and must vote (absentee) from their actual home addresses. District 15 has approximately 1,230 of these incarcerated persons being counted as constituents there.

This skewing has a number of consequences. Specifically, as noted above, it means that Speaker Mattiello and challenger Frias actually have 1,230 fewer constituents they have to reach out to and represent. Although they are treated as residents of District 15 for purposes of carving up that district, these incarcerated persons are not considered residents there for any other meaningful purpose, including for purposes of voting. In fact, the many ACI inmates who remain eligible to vote despite being incarcerated are essentially barred by state law from voting in this House race. Instead, they must vote (by absentee ballot, of course) in the election that is taking place where they previously resided.

There is another impact that flows from this practice: the voting strength of the communities from which the inmates come is diluted, while the political influence of the city residents in which the prison is located is inflated. By inappropriately counting the 1,230 ACI inmates as District 15 residents, every resident of the state not living there has his or her representation diluted by about 8% compared to residents in district 15. Put another way, by virtue of his location, the House Speaker is more powerful than other legislators not just because of his title, but because 92 constituents of his House District have the same influence as 100 residents in almost every other district. (Only neighboring District 20, which also includes portions of the ACI, wields a bigger disproportionate influence.)

In 2013, the ACLU sued to challenge this practice. In a major decision, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux agreed that prison gerrymandering violated the one person, one vote requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston reversed that decision.

As a result, it is now up to elected officials to address the issue. For the past three years, the state Senate has passed a bill that would ban prison gerrymandering, something that four other states and a few hundred municipalities across the country have done in recognition of this problem. Unfortunately, the bill has died in the House in past years. And at the local level, Cranston officials decided it was worth spending taxpayer money (to the tune of $250,000 even before the appeal) rather than make their municipal districts more equitable as so many other localities have voluntarily done.

Once all the votes are counted in the District 15 race on November 8th, we will only be able to speculate what the outcome might have been if the two candidates had to increase their door-knocking to persuade hundreds of additional people (more closely matching the number of constituents that candidates in other districts generally must represent) to vote for them.

We should stop speculating by eliminating its cause. There is no question that Speaker Mattiello cares deeply about his community, just as we are sure Mr. Frias does. Let’s halt the practice of prison gerrymandering so that 1,000 more people can benefit from that care and stewardship, and so that District 15 (and District 20) more fairly represents the same number of residents as other districts.

October 23, 2016October 25, 2016

Vote like your life depends on it

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

2016-06-02 Orange for Gun Violence 009 — Jennifer Boylan

This coming December will mark four years since the shooting of 20 first graders and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Since that shooting, our federal government has not passed a single law to protect Americans from senseless gun violence.

Fortunately, Congress isn’t the only avenue for change. Efforts at passing meaningful legislation at the state level, especially in the northeast, have been a totally different story. Picking up where the federal government has failed us, the state first out of the gate was New York in January 2013. The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act expanded the definition of assault weapons banned in New York, created a state database for pistol permits, reduced the maximum number of rounds legally allowed in magazines from ten to seven, and required universal background checks on all gun sales.

In April 2013, Connecticut passed new restrictions to the state’s existing assault weapons ban and required universal background checks for all firearm purchases. Governor Malloy signed them into law later the same day.

Also in April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, banning the purchase of 45 types of assault weapons and limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds. It requires handgun licensing and fingerprinting for new gun owners, and bans those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility from buying a gun.

Then in August, 2014, our neighbors in Massachusetts passed a bill reforming the state’s gun laws, with provisions focused on school safety, mental health, background checks and enhanced criminal penalties for gun crimes.

So what has Rhode Island’s General Assembly been doing about gun violence? So far, virtually nothing. Other than one small measure to require that courts report those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions, our lawmakers have yet to enact any significant gun laws since Sandy Hook.

Rhode Island can and should be doing more to protect citizens from senseless gun violence. This past session, the Rhode Island chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America supported a bill sponsored by Representative Teresa Tanzi (D – Naragansett, South Kingstown) that would have effectively kept guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. This bill represents a modest and reasonable improvement to our state gun laws, generally bringing Rhode Island law in line with federal law. The bill is straightforward: if you are a domestic abuser, you should not have access to firearms. Polling results that show that four out of five Rhode Islanders agree that domestic abusers should be prohibited from having guns[i]. And we know that domestic violence affects Rhode Island’s most vulnerable citizens: children, women, and families.

Why have our neighbors in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts passed meaningful gun laws in recent years, while Rhode Island can’t so much as advance a relatively modest, commonsense bill out of committee? The disconnect lies with our elected officials and includes leadership in both chambers of the legislature. Increasingly, it appears that elected officials are more inclined to listen to the gun lobby than their constituents.

But this November, every registered voter can make an informed decision about who gets their vote. I urge all Rhode Island voters to pledge to support candidates who will fight for common-sense laws to reduce gun violence. Take a few minutes to contact candidates if you do not know where they stand on gun issues and vote accordingly. Vote like your life depends on it. Because with over 33,000 deaths from gun violence every single year in our country, your life and the lives of your loved ones very well may.

October 21, 2016October 21, 2016

Question 2 pits ethics oversight of legislators vs. free speech for legislators

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

Question 2 on Rhode Island’s ballot this election asks voters if the state Ethics Commission should have restored authority over state legislators that a 2009 lawsuit stripped away. While on its face it may seem like any increased oversight of the often ethically-challenged General Assembly would be a step in the right direction, there are free speech arguments against passing the amendment to the state constitution.

Indeed two of Rhode Island’s most trusted State House special interests are at odds on Question 2: Common Cause Rhode Island is for the ballot measure and the RI ACLU is against it. So RI Future brought in John Marion and Steven Brown, the executive director of each organization, to discuss their difference of opinion.

“Common Cause and the ACLU disagree on the limits of what free speech is,” said Marion, of Common Cause.

“We believe there is free speech that is involved when a legislator representing their constituents gets up and talks about an issue,” said Brown, of the ACLU.

At issue is the speech in debate clause of Rhode Island’s constitution that, according to Marion, “provides a general immunity – to legislators, and only legislators – from prosecution or suit for their legislative duties.” Similar speech in debate clauses exist in 43 other state constitutions, he said.

Marion and Brown agree that a 2009 US Supreme Court case found, in Marion’s words, that “there is no First Amendment protection for people with a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest as defined by law you aren’t supposed to participate.”

Brown thinks the court got it wrong. He said legislators need to be able to do their jobs “freely without fear there are going to be consequences,” he said. “We are concerned that the possibility exists that this could be undermined as a result of the amendment.”

“I certainly understnad the arguments on the other side and I don’t dismiss them because certainly the problem with ethics in our government is one that can’t be ignored but I think it’s just a legitimate differing of opinions in balancing these issues and deciding where the greatest harm lies.”

October 15, 2016

Millions in tax credits earn Pawtucket’s Hope Artiste Village a protest

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

David Norton one of the leaders of the coalition that fought to keep the PawSox in Pawtucket and recently lost a Democratic primary election to unseat Pawtucket Representative David Coughlin, lead a protest outside Hope Artiste Village against Lance Robbins, controversial founder of Urban Smart Growth. As the ProJo reported, “Last month, the [R.I. Commerce Corporation] board authorized $3.6 million in Rebuild RI tax credits and $800,000 in sales-tax exemptions on construction material for developer Urban Smart Growth’s $38.9-million residential project at 200 Esten Ave., Pawtucket, just south of Hope Artiste Village.”

The downside, as reported extensively in GoLocal.com, is that Robbins has a reputation as “the worst slumlord in L.A. history, ” and his local reputation, with some business owners, is no better. Three of those business owners, Rosinha Benros, Phyllis Arffa and John Arcaro, spoke at the protest, and their stories are troubling. Each claim that their businesses were destroyed by the actions of their landlord, Lance Robbins.

Also speaking at the protest were Independent candidate for Mayor of Pawtucket John Arcaro and Independent candidate for State Rep Lori Barden.

October 6, 2016October 6, 2016

While championing renewables, Raimondo dog whistles fossil fuels

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

“At breakfast this morning my nine year old, out of the blue, said, ‘Mom, what are you doing about climate change?’” said Governor Gina Raimondo at a press event in the offices of Newport Solar on Monday, “What a perfect day to ask the question! So I told him all about this and he was proud of me that we were on that.”

Newport Solar in North Kingstown is where Raimondo chose to kick off National Energy Awareness Month with her new Office of Energy Resources (OER) commissioner Carol Grant. Newport Solar is a Rhode Island leader in solar installation, and its successful efforts should be lauded.

“Our clean energy sector in Rhode Island has created a slew of new opportunities for education and jobs, and that will continue as we move forward in building the clean energy industry,” said Raimondo at the event.

Commissioner Grant spoke about Rhode Island’s high ranking in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. The American Council on Energy‐Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently ranked Rhode Island fourth in the country for best energy efficiency programs and policies. “We want to educate Rhode Islanders on the many benefits of the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs,” said Grant, “and we look forward to further developing a future of clean, affordable, reliable and diversified energy.” [italics mine]

Also at the event was Michael Ryan, Vice President of Government Affairs at National Grid, encouraging Rhode Islanders to save energy.

Energy in Rhode Island needs to be “affordable, reliable, and clean” said Raimondo, “It’s got to be all three, and it can be all three.”

Later, Raimondo’s three criteria had mysteriously become four, or more. “So I’m going to continue to lead and push, as your governor, towards more clean, affordable, and reliable and diversified energy sources… to lead the nation in more and more sources of clean, renewable, affordable, sustainable energy.”

Towards the end of the presser, National Grid’s Michael Ryan, ironically standing in front of a large Newport Solar banner emblazoned with the tagline, “Think outside the grid,” mis-repeated Raimondo, saying that the energy must be “efficient, affordable and reliable.

“Those are key with National Grid.”

In the video below you can watch the complete press event. Solar, wind and efficiency were lauded but fracked gas, the third leg of Raimondo’s energy policy, and a key driver of National Grid’s business, was never mentioned except via subtle dog whistles.

These dog whistles are words like reliable, diversified and efficient. These are the words anti-environmentalists use when they want to scare us into accepting fracked gas as a bridge fuel, like when Rush Limbaugh said, “Solar panels are not sustainable, Millennials. May sound good, yes. ‘Clean, renewable energy.’ But what do you do when the sun’s down at night? What do you do when the clouds obscure the sun? We’re not there yet.”

Limbaugh admits that solar panels are clean and renewable. But he’s doubting their reliability and sustainability.

This is how a politician like Raimondo can appease companies like National Grid, which are actively working to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fossil fuels, while publicly talking only about the work she’s doing on energy that’s actually clean and renewable.

On April 13 Raimondo appeared at a solar farm in East Providence to announce the results of the 2016 Rhode Island Clean Energy Jobs Report released by the Rhode Island OER and the Executive Office of Commerce. At this event Marion Gold, who publicly supported the power plant planned for Burrillville, was still the OER commissioner.

“The clean energy economy is supporting nearly 14,000 jobs,” said Raimondo, “a forty percent increase from last year. That is amazing.”

The press release for this event noted that this job growth was likely the result of the “maturation of the solar industry, start up activity in smart grid technologies, and the progress made on the construction of the Block Island Wind Farm.”

There was no mention at this event of fracked gas, Burrillville, Invenergy, Spectra pipelines, or National Grid’s expansion of LNG at Fields Point, until reporters asked the governor about it directly, at which point Raimondo somewhat reluctantly admitted that she does in fact support Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant planned for Burrillville.

In Raimondo’s capacity as vice chair of the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition she was proud to “support the foresight of my colleagues to broaden the Coalition’s focus and include solar energy development as a policy priority. Wind and solar provide complementary benefits to the U.S. electric grid and will help diversify the country’s energy mix. The need for states to take a broader view of renewable power is clear.”

Again, no mention of her support for fracked gas.

Raimondo has consistently touted her support for renewables like wind and solar, only occasionally voicing her support for fracking. Raimondo never holds a press release in front of a fracked gas pipeline or compressor station. She holds them at wind turbines and solar farms, giving the appearance of a strong leader on the environment.

But National Grid and Invenergy need to know she’s on board with their plans, so she signals her support during the press conference with careful phrasing.

And if the governor’s phrasing is off message, National Grid’s Michael Ryan will misquote her. “Clean” energy is out, “reliable” energy is in. In other words, “Let them eat fracked gas.”

Raimondo’s choice of location for her press conferences demonstrates that if she is not embarrassed by her support of fracked gas, she at least is beginning to recognize how history will ultimately judge her support.

As Bill McKibben said in a recent message to Rhode Island, “Five to ten years ago we thought the transition was going to be from coal, to natural gas as some sort of bridge fuel, onto renewables and now, sadly, we realize we can’t do that in good faith, because natural gas… turns out to be a dead end, not a bridge to the future but a kind of rickety pier built out into the lake of hydrocarbons.”

Fracked gas was well known to be a bad idea when Raimondo stood with Invenergy’s CEO Michael Polsky and tried to sell the idea to Rhode Island. Raimondo’s support for Invenergy’s power plant was a massive political blunder with consequences not only for her political career, but for the future of Rhode Island and the world.

A future, and a world, her children will be living in.

September 30, 2016

New group begins study of solitary confinement at ACI

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

How many Rhode Island inmates are put in solitary confinement? Why are they there? How long do they stay? “And what do they actually look like,” asked Providence Rep. Aaron Regunberg, chair of a new state commission that will answer these and other important questions about the use of solitary confinement at the ACI.

The new commission met for the first time Thursday, and hopes to answer some of those questions at its next meeting on October 20. From there, the commission plans to take a hard look at psychological effects on inmates, public safety effects on society and fiscal impacts on the state budget.

“Is there room for improvement in how we do things, and if so where” asked Regunberg, “Again I want to stress that as a body we’re not starting out with assumptions. We might find out that everything is as reasonably good as it can be … we might find out there are particular rooms for improvement. We’re going to figure that out as we move forward.”

There seemed to be broad agreement on the commission – comprised of prison and prison guard officials, mental health experts and criminal justice advocates and three legislators – that so-called solitary confinement was something worth studying.

“It goes by a number of different names,” said ACI Director AT Wall, a member of the new commission. “We tend to call it restrictive housing. Restrictive housing has emerged as an issue across the country, an issue in inmate management and it’s one that we think we have to take a look at and we are here in a spirit of collaboration to do just that.”

Even Richard Ferruccio, president of the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Corrections Officers, which expressed strong reservations about reforming solitary confinement practices at legislative hearings last year, was hopeful the commission would prove productive.

“I’m looking forward to seeing what we can do to improve our system,” he said. “I think we already have one the better run systems in the country but if we have an opportunity for improvement or ideas, that’s something we’re always looking forward to.”

Mental health advocates said there are “necessary changes” needed in how the ACI uses solitary confinement.

“I’m very happy that all of these people have convened to make these necessary changes,” said Meg Clingham, director of state Office of Mental Health Advocate. “Many of my clients that are criminally involved and at the ACI find themselves in segregation because they are unable to comport their behavior due to their mental illness so I think it’s really great that we are looking for solutions to this problem.”

This was the first of at least six meetings before the commission offers possible recommendations.

The commission’s mandate from the legislature (H8206) includes a preference for administrative rather than legislative reforms. “There are important stakeholders who have expressed a strong preference for administrative over legislative reform,” according to a power point presentation shown at the commission’s first meeting. “As such, if the commission determines there is room for improvement, our first goal is to identify a set of recommendations that can be implemented administratively.”

September 29, 2016September 29, 2016

Spencer Grassie- Let’s reconnect Olneyville to the city’s urban fabric

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

Spencer Grassie is a senior at Providence College, majoring in Management and minoring in Finance. He has written the following op-ed:

As a current Providence College Friar and a native Rhode Islander, I am passionate about our state and capital city. As a millennial, I want to ensure that future generations have the building blocks necessary to thrive and make a living right here in the Ocean State. That is why the ProJo Editorial board’s piece, “Smart decision on bridges” is short sighted. The idea of turning the decrepit 6/10 Connector into a surface boulevard is about much more than safety.

College students and millennials rely heavily on alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking, ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft), and public transportation. This is not to say that I, or my millennial counterparts, want to get rid of the automobile entirely, but we are drawn to places that offer a unique sense of community. We thrive in cities that have an array of transportation options, ample amounts of interconnected green space, retailers, and restaurants for social interaction and the exchange of ideas. These places provide people with a genuine emotional connection to the community, one that the car simply cannot replicate.

I attended three public forums on the future of the 6/10, and the general consensus does not want to reconstruct the 1950s style limited-access highway. At the last forum my group envisioned the 6/10 as a tree-lined boulevard, equipped with bike lanes, walking trails, and bus rapid transit running through Providence’s newest mixed-use neighborhood. If Rhode Island is serious about making the state more conducive to millennials and attracting talented individuals and companies, our state leaders should reconsider their position on the 6/10 Connector and recognize the immense value and countless upsides the boulevard concept has for the city and state as a whole.

San Francisco, New York, and Milwaukee deconstructed their highways in favor of boulevards. These cities have proved that replacing a highway with a boulevard has the potential to create a focal point for civic pride while increasing nearby property values and promoting a higher quality of life.

At another forum, Peter Park, a city planning expert, stated that, “The 6/10 boulevard idea is not a technical issue, but a political one.” There are urban planners and transportation engineers who have successfully rolled out projects of similar complexity. The public should not worry about the technical details because these professionals possess the knowledge and skills to get jobs like this done all the time.

We, as Rhode Islanders, have two options: 1) we can continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results or 2) we can facilitate strategic action among private, civic, and public sectors to reverse the dismal public policy decisions of the 1950s by replacing the limited-access highway with an intermodal boulevard.

Let’s choose to reconnect the strangulated neighborhood of Olneyville to the city’s urban fabric, provide opportunities for disenfranchised residents, lower our infrastructure’s annual maintenance costs, and add properties to the city’s tax rolls. But most importantly, let’s choose to build a civic point of pride, one that makes us proud to be from Rhode Island because we are no longer bound by antiquated thinking.

Let’s build on Providence’s commitment to being the Creative Capital and showcase that the smallest state in the Union is looking for innovative ways to grow its economy and sense of community. Let’s build a boulevard.

September 28, 2016September 28, 2016

Back to basics: RI will switch from costly, risky hedge funds

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

When Seth Magaziner ran for General Treasurer in 2014, he promised that his top priority would be putting Rhode Island’s ailing pension funds in a better position by securing higher returns on investment at the lowest practical risk.

I spoke to Seth this afternoon about his new plan for the pension funds which was unanimously approved today by the State Investment Commission.

The state’s public pension funds currently hold around $7.6 billion of which about $1.1 billion has been invested in so-called “hedge funds” that were originally intended to provide investors with good returns and security.

However, as numerous reports have shown, hedge fund performance hasn’t matched hedge fund promises, except perhaps for their managers who have become billionaires while handling other people’s money.

Searching for alternatives, the Treasurer’s office conducted months of research and consultation with financial experts. They also ran “thousands of models and projections” to come up with a better way to get better returns on investment without undue risk.

The result was announced by Seth today – a “Back to Basics” plan to move about half of the money the state has invested in hedge funds – around half a billion dollars – into safer, better investments such as low-fee index funds.

This will take place over the next two years.

I asked Seth to talk about the challenges of coming up with such a plan, such as public impatience with the pace of change.

“When you’re moving this much money,” he said, “You have to do it in an orderly fashion.” He said making such changes was “like steering an aircraft carrier – you can’t turn on a dime.”

Then there is the matter of exit fees involved when leaving investment vehicles such as hedge funds. “We wanted to make sure we avoided early redemption fees” which in some cases could be significant.

The other factor requiring a careful, deliberate approach is the need to find solid investment alternatives.

I told Seth that the dream of many people, me included, is to see pension fund money used to create local jobs and businesses. But I acknowledged the fact that pension law doesn’t really allow that to be a major pension fund priority.

Seth pointed out that the first duty of any pension trustee is to secure the best rate of return for beneficiaries with the least risk.

That said, among the alternatives they’ve explored are funds that invest in infrastructure. He noted the infrastructure investment market is very “hot” at the moment so the cost of buying in is high. Of course, the basic rule of investing is “buy low, sell high” not vice versa, so timing is a key issue.

Rhode Island has used its pension funds’ proxy voting rights to join with other public pension funds around the country to support shareholder resolutions against excessive executive pay and other abusive corporate practices. These pension funds control millions of shares so they carry some weight at corporate annual shareholder meetings.

The state pension fund is no longer in crisis as it was six years ago. Since Seth took office two years ago, the fund has run in the black for the two years, earning more than $390 million and beating the fund’s goal.
Rather than give back so much to hedge funds, the “Back to Basics” plan should reduce costs while boosting earnings while taking a cautious, prudent approach to risk.

September 26, 2016September 27, 2016

March for licenses for undocumented workers covers three cities

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

A march of over 50 people from Jenks Park in Central Falls to the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church near the Rhode Island Mall was held Sunday to demand driver’s licenses for all, regardless of immigration status. Marchers carried signs, sang and chanted as the wound their way through Central Falls, along East Ave in Pawtucket and Hope St in Providence, pausing briefly near the fountain in Lippitt Park and at the State House.

The march briefly detoured through the East Side, to pass by the home of Governor Gina Raimondo, who broke a campaign promise to grant licenses through executive action. Instead, the governor threw the issue to the General Assembly, where House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello declined to advance the legislation.

The march was organized by the Safer Rhodes Coalition and Comité en Acción. Organizer Claire Pimental, writing for RI Future, said that passing this legislation will improve the quality of life and overall safety of our communities, from higher rates of insured and licensed drivers, to greater cooperation between police and the immigrant communities they serve.

Before the march Mayor James Diossa of Central Falls was joined by state Senators Donna Nesselbush and Frank Ciccone, Senator elect Ana Quezada, and Representatives Aaron Regunberg and Shelby Maldonado.

Below find pictures and video from the event.

2016-09-25 Safer Rhodes 025 Yaruska Ordinola — photo (c)2016 **Yaruska Ordinola**

2016-09-25 Safer Rhodes 024 Yaruska Ordinola — photo (c)2016 Yaruska Ordinola

September 16, 2016

Latest poverty figures show too many Rhode Islanders still struggle to make ends meet

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

Over one hundred forty thousand (141,035) Rhode Islanders lived in poverty in 2015, according to new data released today from the Census Bureau. The drop in the rate to 13.9% in 2015 from 14.1% in 2014 is not statistically significant. The poverty level for a family of four is approximately $24,000.

The one in seven Rhode Islanders with income below the poverty level do not have enough to meet basic needs. Child Care Assistance, SNAP and health insurance coverage help working families make ends meet when earnings are not enough. Rhode Islanders unable to work on a temporary or permanent basis turn to cash assistance and other programs to protect themselves and their children. The new on-line integrated eligibility system can facilitate enrollment in these vital programs. But the new technology cannot replace the need for staff. “In the two years that the HealthSource RI on-line system has been operative, most new applicants have required help either over the phone or in-person to complete their application. Access to computers and knowing how to navigate an on-line application have also been issues.” said Rachel Flum, Executive Director of the Institute. “With more programs accessible through the system, the need for one-on-one assistance is even greater. The state must ensure that there are sufficient staff to help people access these critical benefits.”

The Ocean State had the highest rate of its residents living in poverty among the New England state and ranked 26th among all states.

Today’s data also show that Rhode Island’s communities of color were much more likely to struggle to meet basic needs with nearly one in three Latinos, close to one in four African Americans and more than one in six Asians living in poverty. While the one-year census data does not permit sub-group analysis, multi-year analysis shows that South East Asians are not as economically secure as the Asian population as a whole (See analysis of five-year median wage data in “State of Working Rhode Island, 2015: Workers of Color”).

“It is unacceptable that so many Rhode Islanders are living in poverty and shocking that Black, Latino, and Asian households face such deeper economic distress compared to the white majority. To truly achieve economic equity now and into the future, our state must be intentional about targeted policies to address racial disparities in wages, income, and total wealth,” said Jenn Steinfeld, facilitator for the Racial Justice Coalition, a new collaborative effort to address shared barriers faced by all non-white Rhode Islanders.

The Census Bureau released extensive information on the economic and health insurance status of Americans. The Economic Progress Institute website provides additional analysis of the new data for Rhode Island, including the more positive news that median income increased in 2015 to $58,073 from $54,959 in 2014.

September 12, 2016September 12, 2016

Jan Malik, Colin Kaepernick and Ted Nugent

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

RI State Representative Jan Malik (District 67, Barrington/Warren) said that when he re-posted a picture of 25 flag-draped coffins of American soldiers killed in battle, he didn’t notice that the picture and text came from right-wing political activist, musician and racist Ted Nugent.

“I couldn’t care less about that ass,” Malik said about Nugent.

When friends on Facebook noted the Ted Nugent connection, Malik took the photo down, even though he still stands by the meme, saying that the picture and the words make an important point.

The picture is accompanied by the words, “Would the suppressed millionaire, NFL quarterback, who would not stand for the National Anthem please point out which of these guys are black so we can remove the offensive flag.”

Malik says he did not see this meme as racist. To Malik the point was that, “you can’t tell who’s black or white beneath the flag. The [soldiers] should all be respected.”

The meme Malik re-posted was made in response to NFL player Colin Kaepernick.

When Kaepernick announced back in August that he was “not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he started an important, spiraling conversation about race, police violence, the National Anthem and free speech.

Kaepernick was striving to make point about police killing people of color. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way,” Kaepernick said. “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Malik maintains that not standing for the National Anthem disrespects our veterans and is a “disgrace.” Taking a knee, he said, “is a little bit better, but not good enough for me.”

The backlash against Kaepernick seems to have emboldened other NFL players to express solidarity, but so far no other players have chosen to remain seated. Instead, over the weekend four Miami Dolphins took a knee during the anthem, and two New England Patriots raised a fist.

“The way they are protesting the flag is a disgrace,” said Malik. “There are other ways to protest the killings of blacks – and whites – by police. Standing arm in arm is better, white and black together.”

Malik was referring to the Kansas City Chiefs and the Seattle Seahawks who locked arms in solidarity during the anthem. The Seahawks said they wanted to “bring people together” while the Chiefs vowed to “work with local law enforcement officials and leaders to make an impact on the Kansas City Community.”

Football players like Kaepernick need to set the right example, says Malik. “They’re looked up to” by kids.

Malik says he understands the importance of free speech, but he takes not standing for the anthem personally, because he lost a friend last August in the war. “I really do think it’s wrong to not stand for the National Anthem. I believe that Black Lives Matter.”

Kaepernick “made his point,” said Malik, “We Americans don’t need anything else to divide us. We’re all Americans. We have to work together to make this world a better place.”

Malik, who serves as the chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee is facing a challenge from Jason Knight in tomorrow’s primary. Knight served in the U.S. Navy from 1988 to 1996 as an enlisted nuclear power technician.

September 9, 2016

Political forces align against progressives ahead of primary

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

Two races of special importance to Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello are being influenced through mailers sent out by a not-so-mysterious group calling themselves “Progress RI” which is funded by the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers (RIBCO).

As can be seen in the screenshot below, Nicholas Mattiello has made contributions to both Jan Malik and David Coughlin. This is in itself not unusual. Both are loyal members of Mattiello’s base and both received contributions of $1000, the legal limit. Coughlin received contributions in excess of the legal limit, but the extra $500 was refunded, essentially a $500, interest free, three month loan.

Mattiello awarded Coughlin a second over-the-limit and later-refunded $500 campaign contribution/interest-free loan through his PAC, Fund for a Democratic Leadership, as seen below:

As Ted Nesi tweeted last evening, the Progress RI PAC, (a name that invokes the Rhode Island Progressives Democrats of America (RIPDA) though they have no affiliation), has reported spending $9,348 on mailers against five candidates, including Jason Knight who is challenging Jan Malik and David Norton who is challenging David Coughlin. All the money for Progress RI comes from RIBCO, to the tune of $9,500.

Richard Ferruccio is the president of RIBCO, and lobbies extensively at the State House on that union’s behalf, often arguing for tougher sentences and longer periods of incarceration for offenders and against legislation that might reduce sentences.

RIBCO is a strong supporter of Speaker Mattiello, as seen from this list of campaign contributions:

There seems an alignment of interests between Ferruccio and Mattiello. Both are working against Knight and Norton and for Malik and Coughlin. The ACI, where most of Ferruccio’s prison guard membership works, is in Mattiello’s district in Cranston.

Ferruccio generally opposes changes in the law that lead to early release of prisoners. Mattiello was singularly uninterested in passing Governor Gina Raimondo’s criminal justice reform package of bills, saying “The justice reform package was never a priority for the House. I was never convinced Rhode Island should be a test case for a national model on criminal justice.” Sam Bell suggested that the alignment of interests might be a “thank you” for “killing prison reform” though

Ferruccio did not respond to a phone message left at his office. Following Matt Jerzyk‘s advice on Twitter, I also reached out to Nick Horton at Open Doors, but was unable to connect.

September 8, 2016

Stenhouse attacks Tanzi, Fogarty with mailers

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

Conservative activist Mike Stenhouse is getting involved in Democratic politics. One of the two non-profits he started to advocate for trickle-down economics paid for mailers targeting representatives Teresa Tanzi and Kathy Fogarty, both of whom face tough primary challenges and no Republicans after that.

“Those lawmakers that defied the business community and defied the will of the voters must be held accountable,” Stenhouse said.

The Gaspee Project spent $1335 on mailers to campaign against Tanzi and Fogarty. “The Tanzi one is out the door,” said Stenhouse. “There will be a Fogarty piece hitting a mailbox near you very soon.”

Stenhouse was quick to draw a distinction between the Gaspee Project, a 501c4 that can legally engage in electioneering, and the other advocacy group he started, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a 501c3 that cannot engage in election activities. “The Center is nonpartisan,” he said. “Gaspee in multi-partisan.”

He said the two organizations are legally separate, though they have two board members and some staff in common. “The Center (for Freedom and Prosperity) alone couldn’t move the policy ball, so I started a second organization,” Stenhouse said. “What we are doing here is trying to win. We are following the law and trying to get more policy that favors the free market.”

He wouldn’t say why Tanzi and Fogarty were singled out and other legislators with similar voting records were not. “Why would we broadcast our strategy,” he said.

Tanzi, a progressive legislator who forged a close relationship with House leadership, represents District 34. Fogarty represents District 35. Both districts encompass parts of Narragansett and South Kingstown.

The anti-Tanzi mailer encourages voters to “vote instead for Ewa Dwierzynski.”

“Let’s just say she’s clearly a superior alternative,” said Stenhouse.

In addition to the Gaspee Project mailer, Tanzi says Dwierzynski’s campaign has received ample support from right-wing conservatives. Dwierzynski’s campaign finance disclosure contains donations from Steve Tetzner and his family members. Tetzner is a Republican who ran against and lost to Tanzi in the last election.

“I guess the million dollar question is: are Republican-leaning views going to come out and vote in this primary,” said Tanzi. “Are they motivated enough to try to steal this election from Democratic voters?”

September 2, 2016September 2, 2016

PVD City Council fails to pass 2nd resolution opposing LNG

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

Providence City Councillor Seth Yurdin introduced a resolution Thursday evening that would strengthen the City Council’s opposition to National Grid’s proposed Fields Point liquefaction facility. Immediately after introducing his resolution Councillor Sam Zurier rose to co-sponsor, as did councilors David Salvatore, Carmen Castillo, Wilbur Jennings, Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett.

Noting that it seemed as if a majority of the council was co-sponsoring the resolution, Yurdin moved that the resolution be voted on immediately. This caused councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett to suddenly flip their support. Yurdin’s move for passage failed, and the resolution was passed onto the Ordinances committee.

Reached for comment, Hassett wrote, “I voted no to have an immediate passage on the floor without a Council committee review. I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

Ryan wrote, “I requested to be a sponsor of the resolution last night. It was sent to ordinance committee by a majority vote. I voted to send it to committee to provide an opportunity for community input at an open public meeting of the council. You can and should attend and voice your concerns. And encourage others to attend and participate in the process.”

There are no ordinance committee hearings on the current schedule. Hassett is the chair of ordinance and Ryan is a member of the committee.

National Grid wants to expand its LNG footprint in the Port of Providence with the new liquefaction plant. Environmental groups such as the RI Sierra Club and the Environmental Justice League of RI oppose the plan. Curiously, Save the Bay, whose offices are not too far from the proposed site, have not come out against it.

Mayor Jorge Elorza and a large group of state level Providence legislators have recently publicly come out in opposition to the project.

The City Council unanimously approved Yurdin’s previous resolution opposing the site in March. That resolution called for public meetings to be scheduled to address environmental and health concerns of the project. “Unfortunately,” said Yurdin, here we are in the Summer and no such meetings have been held… This resolution is stronger than the previous resolution.”

The previous resolution called for studies and review. The new resolution is a call to strong action.

The new resolution says, in part, “That the City shall take all necessary actions to oppose the proposed Fields Point liquefaction facility, including ceasing to act as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and shall not grant any tax stabilizations, subsidies, or any other forms of support to the project.”

September 1, 2016

DHS cuts hit the blind and visually impaired hard

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

Social services for the blind and visually impaired are among the hardest hit as a result of the new computer system at the state Department of Human Services, said Rui Cabral, board member of the National Federation of the Blind of Rhode Island.

“The recent layoffs at the Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) as a result of the costly UHIP system have affected employees and clients alike across many departments, but none more so than those in the previously five-person Independent Living unit at Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired (SBVI),” he said. “Several days ago four of those five Social Case Workers were laid off, cutting the workforce down to only one. One person to serve every blind child under the age of 14, every senior living with vision loss, and every visually impaired person in Rhode Island who is unable to work.”

At the press conference held last Thursday announcing staff cuts because of the new UHIP computer system, Melba Depeña Affigne, director of the RI Department of Human Services (DHS) said, “There will be no impact on clients.”

But in a statement, Cabral said, “There is no computer system that can accurately gauge what a blind person needs most—acuities and field loss can mean drastically different things for different people. Much of what clients of SBVI really need is a trusted and knowledgeable case worker who can provide not only the concrete resources, but support, reassurance, and advice based upon experience. In a society that so often tells blind people that we cannot, should not, are not allowed to, we need the assurance that we can live happy, successful, independent lives. For many of us, a Social Case Worker is the first person to tell us that. They have been working with the blind of Rhode Island for several decades between them; they know their clients, their needs and abilities, and they use that knowledge to serve a population that other, less specialized agencies, rarely know how to assist.”

These layoff will have an acute effect on visually impaired clients, he explained. “Say, hypothetically, that you, a sighted person, wake up tomorrow with significant vision loss. Where will you find out about the resources you need—the transportation opportunities, the library for the blind, the technology that will allow you to continue to use your iPhone and your computer, the nonvisual skills and devices that will help you to cook for your family and clean your house? How will you pay for–or even find out about–the glasses and the contact lenses and the magnifiers that will allow you to read your mail and pay your bills? A month ago, you would have called Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and someone would have told you that all of these things were possible, that they were there to help.

“Now? The future of the more than four hundred active clients, not to mention the hundreds of people who experience vision loss each year, is unclear. Now, it isn’t just society’s misconceptions that will keep blind and visually impaired people from living the lives we want—it’s the fact that we will not even have access to the resources we need in order to do so.”

The Members of the National Federation of the Blind of Rhode Island, “urge those in power to reconsider the termination of these workers’ positions. The needs of our unique population cannot be met by one worker alone, or by workers who have no knowledge of the true issues related to blindness.”

August 30, 2016August 30, 2016

EFSB established as ‘one-stop shopping’ for power companies

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

On the day the Rhode Island Senate Finance committee passed the legislation that would establish the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), Robert L Bendick Jr, the director of the RI Department of Environmental Management (DEM) asked, “I just wonder what’s going on here. What’s the driving force behind this?” [Providence Journal, April 11, 1986; pg A-15]

The question Bendick asked on April 9, 1986 strongly resonates today. Jerry Elmer, of the Conservation Law Foundation, said the EFSB “was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people… and put it into the hands of the EFSB.”

Governor Gina Raimondo refers to EFSB decision making as “the process” and asks us all to trust in it, but how are we to trust if we can’t tell if the intent of the process is to serve Rhode Islanders or to serve the energy industry?

What is going on here? Here’s some historical context.

Back in 1986, Ward Pimley, writing for the ProJo, wrote, “Sen. Victoria Lederberg, D-Providence, the sponsor, said the [EFSB] bill streamlines the approval process required for obtaining licenses to build major energy facilities for generation of electricity, treatment of liquefied natural gas, oil refineries and the like…”

Victoria Lederberg was an impressive woman and public servant. A judge, she “served as state representative from 1975-1983 ,representing the East Side of Providence, and state senator from 1985-1991… Lederberg was a trailblazer, becoming the first woman of Italian heritage to serve in the Rhode Island legislature.”

Pimley continues, “In previous testimony, Lederberg called the siting board concept ‘one-stop shopping,’ where interested developers could learn what they must do to obtain licenses and fulfill obligations to build. She said it removes jurisdictional overlapping among regulatory agencies.

“She said the bill recognizes the state’s need for ‘reasonably priced, reliable sources of energy’ and balances that with issues affecting public health and environmental impact.”

Nine years earlier, in his January 1977 inaugural address, Governor J Joseph Garahy outlined his ideas for the state’s energy objectives. Siting of energy projects heretofore had been haphazard, and based solely on the whims of industry. Garahy had a vision “to site energy facilities in light of state plans, rather than private industry decisions.” He was governor of a Rhode Island that was suffering from environmental mismanagement, and the new governor was hoping for a different approach. The EFSB, at its best, would be a realization of Garahy’s vision, but in an effort to please industry rather than regulate it, Garahy’s vision may have been compromised.

Public Utilities Commission] Chairman Edward F Burke, Pimley wrote, “testified earlier that the legislation is important because there are eight or nine potential applications for energy-generating facilities that could be built in some other state unless the licensing procedure were streamlined.

“He cited a $300-million facility proposed for Burrillville that should provide electricity by 1989 on property owned by Narragansett Electric as an example of the type of facility that can be built.”

This $300-million facility is the Ocean State Power plant, which currently uses 4 million gallons of water a day to cool its turbines.

Recognizing that the EFSB would allow industry to override the environmental concerns of the state, Sen. William C. O’Neill, today more famous as a South County bike path than a Democratic senator from Narragansett, objected. Here’s Pimley’s play-by-play of what he called a ‘hot debate’:

“You feel DEM is an obstacle,” O’Neill said. “You removed that obstacle, and you know it.”

“You’re absolutely incorrect,” Lederberg shot back.

“I’m concerned that you’re allowing other agencies to override DEM,” O’Neill said.

“I totally disagree,” Lederberg said. “This shares decision-making. DEM has an important role. That’s why we’ve made them one of the board members. It does not weaken the permit-granting power by DEM.”

Lederberg said DEM does not have veto authority to stop any project it wants, but it still is involved in the planning process.

Then Sen. David R. Carlin Jr, D-Newport, said the siting board can overrule decisions of other agencies.

“It seems it’s clearly overriding DEM,” he said.

O’Neill, seeing DEM Director Robert L Bendick Jr watching the proceedings, said he would vote for the bill if Bendick agreed that DEM’s interests would not be jeopardized by it, but committee chairman Donald R. Hickey, D-Providence, called for a vote.

“The bill was approved, 8 to 4.”

This is what prompted Bendick to ask, “What’s going on here?” adding, “If what they’re doing is overriding the department’s authority, I’m opposed to it.”

Months earlier, in an editorial, the ProJo had endorsed Lederberg’s proposal writing, “As a House member in 1979, Mrs. Lederberg sponsored a similar bill that died in the Senate. Former Gov. J. Joseph Garrahy, who supported the bill, issued an executive order embodying many of its details, but that wasn’t an adequate substitute for statutory enactment…

“Mrs. Lederberg says energy installations must be reviewed in terms of regional need and cost-effectiveness, not on the basis that Rhode Island must be totally self-sufficient in energy.” [Providence Journal February 17, 1986; page A-10] Note that Lederberg is not quoted as mentioning, and that the ProJo editorial seems uninterested in, environmental issues.

Pimley noted that the bill, as originally introduced by Lederberg, allowed the General Assembly to override an EFSB decision, but that provision was removed before passage because “it was no longer needed.”

Pimley also noted that “support for the legislation came from the Governor’s Office of Energy Assistance, the PUC and Narragansett Electric Co.”

Narragansett Electric is today a wholly owned sub-entity of National Grid.

Of special concern to all involved with the establishment of the EFSB was a proposal “to build twin natural-gas-fired plants in Burrillville. According to a plan disclosed Tuesday, the plants would be supplied by a new, 25-mile gas pipeline that would run from Sutton, Mass., to the Burrillville site and on to Cranston.” [Providence Journal, February 13, 1986; page A-14]

The very first application the EFSB took up was the Ocean State Power Plant in Burrillville.

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