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.”

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.

More than a dozen people showed up for the event, only to learn from the hastily printed signs that the meeting was cancelled. People told me that they had made great efforts to be at this meeting. One man brought his six year old daughter with him, others arranged to leave work early. A nurse handed off a patient to her co-worker, and lost out a couple of hours of pay.

Several people, expecting a long meeting, paid for two hours of parking, as the on street parking, which used to be free at 6pm, is now free after 9pm. In all I talked to six people who paid for parking, including Sister Mary Pendergast, who said she’s “on a very limited budget.”

Representative Aaron Regunberg showed up. But even he, when asking various City Hall workers, including the Council President Chief of Staff Cyd McKenna, couldn’t get an adequate answer as to why the meeting suffered a last minute cancellation.

Councillor Seth Yurdin arrived ten minutes before the meeting was due to start. He had received a text ten minutes before arriving telling him the meeting was cancelled. He said he didn’t know why the meeting was cancelled. He had no more insight, it seems, than anyone else.

The people who arrived for the meeting were all prepared to give testimony on the resolution concerning the project at Fields Point, a center of toxic industry located in one of the poorest neighborhoods of color in New England. This was Councillor Seth Yurdin’s second resolution in opposition to the facility, and it was a much stronger statement.

Though Yurdin’s resolution was co-sponsored by half the City Council, passage of the resolution was prevented when Councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett flipped their votes.

The resolution was sent to the Ordinance Committee which Hassett chairs. Hassett said at the time that, “I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

When I asked about why he cancelled the Monday evening meeting that would have allowed for “proper vetting and discussion,” Hassett said, in a written statement:

“The LNG ban, as proposed by Councilman Yurdin, has merit. I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council Session.

“However, we have not heard sufficient testimony from the energy developers on the plan itself – the productive results, the environmental impact – what is good versus bad. I’m an environmentally sensitive citizen and public servant, as most of us are. A new and productive proposal, as promised, is certainly worthy of discussion.”

Note that the “energy developers” Hassett is referring to is National Grid, a company that had just as much time and notice to make it to this meeting as the environmental advocates who made the effort to show up for the meeting did. In fact, National Grid has more time, if you take into account the fact that the company employs a full time legal staff.

“My difficulty,” continued Hassett, “is simply approving a resolution banning it until proper testimony is presented. Its akin to a court case. We cannot indict until and unless proper and verified evidence is presented and the jury agrees. Legislative language presents an argument.

“In this case I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council. My concern or our general concern is this….we need discussions in an open forum from those proposing the LNG and receive any counter testimony on the plan or proposal.

“Many have advocated transparency in government. I believe in it. It’s how the best decisions are made. So we will carefully review this proposal, a $40 million effort  should it meet our needs, our environmental protections and city economy.

“That’s my assessment based on your inquiry. It will be heard. Just better prepared for our decision makers and the public.”

Many who arrived at the City Hall to find the meeting cancelled are convinced that there were some backroom shenanigans involved. But no proof of these speculations will ever materialize. Instead, the blame for cancelling this meeting rests solely on Hassett and his decision, as he explains above.

I asked Hassett a follow up.

“The meeting was cancelled at 4:30. When meetings are scheduled on Friday afternoon and cancelled moments before they are to start on Monday, many people feel that there are shenanigans going on behind the scenes. At the very least, it shows a lack of concern for those who make the effort to attend. Do you have a comment on this?”

I received no answer.

I’ve experienced something like this before. Back in May 2014 a Providence City Council Ordinance Committee meeting that was to discuss the proposed $15 minimum wage for hotel workers was cancelled at the last minute, leaving dozens of working women in the lurch. At the time I wrote, “Working women secured childcare or brought their kids with them. They skipped meals, skipped overtime and traveled to the City Hall on foot, on buses or in carpools, only to find out that the Ordinance Committee meeting had been abruptly cancelled.”

The cancellation of this meeting allowed the General Assembly the time it needed to include an amendment in the State Budget to prevent municipalities like Providence from setting their own minimum wages, frustrating months of activism on the part of the hotel workers. The chair of the Ordinance Committee then was Seth Yurdin.

The EJLRI statement comes in response to Elorza’s announcement that he opposes National Grid‘s proposed LNG liquefaction facility to be located at Fields Point in the Port of Providence.

State Representative Aaron Regunberg, who represents the 4th district in Providence, also hailed the mayor’s announcement. “I am so glad the mayor has joined our opposition to this terrible proposal. It shows the LNG facility is not a done deal. This is a fight we can win, and so it is a fight we must win. Now it’s time for our federal delegation, who I know are all committed to fighting climate change, to put that commitment into practice here in Providence and join our push for #NoLNGinPVD!”

EJLRI echoed Regunberg’s call for more state elected officials to join them in the fight against expanding LNG infrastructure in Rhode Island. “We are very thankful for the support and climate leadership from our mayor and state legislators, and we now call on our federal congressional delegation and Governor Gina Raimondo to join us and stop National Grid’s plans to liquefy and export fracked gas from Providence.”

Monica Huertas, a leader in the #NoLNGinPVD campaign, responded to the news from the mayor’s office by saying “As a resident of the Washington Park neighborhood, I am so thankful for Mayor Elorza to have so willingly come out against ‘LNG.’ We can make a difference in the smallest state and as residents of the capital city we can take the lead on dismantling the old ways of doing things.  This shows that he is on the right side of history. After we have won the battle for clean energy, we can look back at this key moment in Providence and be proud that we fought together.”

Meghan Kallman, Chair of the RI Sierra Club said, “The Sierra Club is pleased with Mayor Elorza’s statement of opposition to the proposed LNG facility in Providence. Climate change is one of the gravest threats that our community faces. Infrastructure such as this liquefaction plant, that locks us into further consumption of fossil fuels, is a bad choice for our future. Further, its proposed location would imperil some of the most vulnerable residents of Providence. We are pleased that Mayor Elorza has listened to the concerns of the community and is opposing this wrongheaded proposal.”

“We have to move to renewable energy,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA). “Certain machine politicians may not believe we need to act to stop climate change, but our state cannot afford not to act. Elorza giving in to the people of Providence and supporting the NO LNG in PVD movement is a big win.”

The EJLRI statement concludes, “The decision to approve or reject National Grid’s proposal is still under fast-track review and likely approval in the Washington DC offices of FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Governor Raimondo, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressman David Cicilline, and other elected officials need to join their colleagues in Providence and make it clear that there can be no more dangerous fracked gas expansion projects in Providence, or anywhere in the state.  We stand by no fracked gas LNG in Providence, no fracked gas power plant in Burrillville, and no fracked gas Access Northeast expansion of the pipeline, compressor station, and additional LNG production.

“Rhode Island is making international news as a climate change leader, and we need to be clear that real climate leaders reject fracking and support a rapid and Just Transition to a sustainable future that centers the needs of workers and frontline communities.”

Last week, Providence State Representatives Aaron Regunberg, Joe Almeida, Grace Diaz, John Lombardi, Chris Blazejewski and Edie Ajello, along with Providence State Senators Juan Pichardo, Gayle Goldin and Harold Metts submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) describing their deep concerns with National Grid’s proposal. We wholeheartedly agree with their statement that this project represents a boondoggle for ratepayers, an unjustifiable safety risk for the local community, and the kind of unacceptable doubling down on fossil fuel infrastructure that will guarantee we blow past our legally mandated emission reduction goals. And we are proud to see so many legislative leaders refusing to condemn our beautiful state to a future of climate catastrophe.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza. Rather than making any effort to live up to his rhetoric on climate change, Mayor Elorza has chosen to partner with National Grid and help them advance their proposal with tacit support and active negotiations for a Tax Stabilization Agreement to smooth out the utility’s tax payments over time.

Stopping climate change is the moral crisis of our time – and it will only be possible if we end these vast investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that guarantee our addiction to fossil fuels continues past our planet’s point of no return. We all need to join in this fight. Rhode Island Sierra Club pledges our support for elected officials who take this moral imperative seriously, like the nine Providence legislators who came out in opposition to the LNG proposal last week. And we condemn in the strongest possible terms the cowardice of self-proclaimed climate leaders who choose to give in to the fossil fuel industry. Mayor Elorza, your actions speak much louder than your words – please, do the right thing and join your legislative delegation in standing up for Providence’s current and future citizens.

Last summer, National Grid submitted a proposal to FERC to develop a $180 million facility to produce Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) directly from a Spectra Energy pipeline that delivers fracked gas from Marcellus Shale to Providence. LNG is produced by cooling natural gas to -260°F, which reduces its volume by 600 times and puts it into liquid form. As described in its application, National Grid would then utilize tanker trucks to export the LNG produced in Providence, primarily to locations in Massachusetts.

“No matter how you look at it, this project is a money-maker for the utility at the expense of our community and our state,” said Representative Almeida. “National Grid is asking us, the ratepayers, to foot the $180 million bill for this project, for what? So they can increase their own profits by exporting LNG out of the state! This does nothing to benefit our constituents, and it does nothing to benefit my neighbors on the South Side. All this proposal will do is transfer money from ratepayers’ pockets to National Grid’s coffers, and we’re not going to accept it.”

Legislators also expressed concerns about the safety risks of the proposed project.

“LNG is a dangerous substance,” said Representative Diaz. “Just two years ago, an LNG facility in Washington state exploded, causing an evacuation of everyone within a two-mile area. If that were to happen at this site, all of my constituents would be in danger. Why is it always our community that must shoulder the collateral damage and safety risks from these toxic projects?”

LNG is stable in liquid form, and without air it is not flammable. However, at any temperature over -260°F it converts to methane gas and expands by 600 times, rapidly pressurizing any sealed container. If LNG spills and mixes with airs, it becomes highly flammable and potentially explosive.

“I remember when Keyspan, which has since been bought by National Grid, applied to FERC with a similar proposal to build an LNG import facility at Fields Point in 2005,” said Senator Pichardo. “That application was denied due to the very real safety concerns of this kind of development. In fact, FERC Commissioner Nora Brownell cited the risks of accidents and explosions when turning down the proposal, stating that the project would not meet current federal safety standards. If doubling down on this dangerous fuel was unsafe ten years ago, it is unsafe for our neighborhood today, and I urge FERC to once again listen to the community’s opposition to this harmful development.”

Finally, the elected officials demanded that the climate consequences of the expanded fossil fuel infrastructure be taken into account.

“The science on climate change is clear. If my generation is to have any chance of inheriting an Ocean State with any state left in it, we need to transition to a clean energy economy as quickly as possible. This proposal would sink millions of ratepayer dollars into unnecessary new fossil fuel infrastructure that would be used for decades past our climate’s point of no return, and that is a betrayal of our children,” said Representative Regunberg. “Mayor Jorge Elorza and the Providence City Council have taken credit for being leaders on climate and environmental issues. But if the city awards a tax stabilization agreement to National Grid to support this project, then it is our belief that the mayor and council can no longer claim this kind of climate leadership. We hope they will do the right thing and tell National Grid that Providence will not facilitate this wasteful, ratepayer-funded, environmentally catastrophic scheme.”

The Providence legislators reported that they are submitting letters detailing their concerns to FERC, joining a growing list of community members and neighborhood organizations opposing National Grid’s application.

[From a press release]

With Sanders organizers fanning out to all the convention hotels to collect delegate signatures supporting a roll-call vote, there was reaction from both the Clinton camp and among local delegates at their daily breakfast meeting this morning.

“We anticipate there will be a roll call vote tomorrow night and that every vote will be counted,” said Brian Fallon, Hilary For America’s national press secretary, at a media briefing this morning. “We’re happy to have it. It is exactly in keeping with our philosophy that every vote should count and that means every delegate being counted on the floor of the convention.”

At the Rhode Island delegation breakfast this morning, a volunteer from Pennsylvania was circulating among the tables collecting some of the required 600 delegate names. “It’s so that there can be a roll call vote, so people can actually say if they’re for Bernie Sanders” said Lauren Niedel, a Sanders delegate and one of the leaders of the Sanders movement in Rhode Island.

“No one would ever ask them not to,” said RI Democratic Party chair Joe McNamara. “But I think the important takeaway is the inclusion of those Democratic ideas and ideals that Sen. Sanders promoted in his campaign into the platform. We can see and hear the party uniting behind Secretary Clinton.”

John Hamilton, Sanders delegate and committee co-chair, acknowledged the direction that the floor vote seemed likely to head. “I don’t think there is going to be a second ballot. I don’t see it happening.”

Also at the breakfast, McNamara reported on their walk-through of the hall. “We checked out the Wells Fargo Center yesterday, and Rhode Island is positioned exactly where we should be, in the middle of the convention hall, slightly elevated above the rest on the floor, approximately 220 feet from the podium.”

Speaking to an RI Future reporter, McNamara praised the efforts of Aaron Regunberg in representing Rhode Island on the Rules Committee and helping to work out the Unity Commission compromise on superdelegates.

“To have a young, talented state representative like Rep. Regunberg on board gives a great deal of credibility to that,” he said. “I think everyone agrees that there has to be some adjustment in that process.”

McNamara called Regunberg “A great asset and a great role model for millennials.”

In a not-so-subtle dig at Brandon Bell’s remarks at last week’s Republican Convention, McNamara reported that “Speaker Mattielo will have a positive message tomorrow when he reports the votes, and we’re looking forward to a great convention.”

It was, at times, a tense afternoon on the opening day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia as the party publicly questioned its superdelegate process.

Rhode Island Rep. Aaron Regunberg had the honor of introducing the first amendment to the Rules Committee meeting that would have eliminated superdelegates outright. It won 58 votes, not enough to pass but enough to keep the conversation alive.

Neither side ended up with everything they wanted, but by nightfall a compromise that seemed acceptable to the vast majority had been hammered out.

Sanders and Clinton delegates eventually agreed to create a “Unity Reform Commission” – it passed 158 to 6, with 2 abstentions. The commission is tasked with returning recommendations on reforming both the caucus and superdelegate process, specifically calling for a 2/3 reduction in the number of superdelegates. It would be a commission with teeth, charged with finding the best way to keep the elected superdelegates but explore mechanisms for keeping them from weighing in on the primary process too early.

Given lopsided vote totals earlier in the day, this marked a clear coming together of the two factions in the room. There was significant applause, cheering, and a sense in the room that progress had been made.

Regunberg was optimistic, calling it “a compromise made significantly better by the pressure exerted at the grassroots.” He admitted that the language of a “commission” could sound off putting, but he stressed that the amendment specified end products as well as process. “What we passed instructs the commission on what it will be recommending.”

There were moments of drama even before the DNC Rules Committee got fully underway this afternoon at the Democratic National Convention as more than 100 would-be spectators chanted “open the doors” in the hallway outside room 120 of the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

The space, which had room for approximately 200 delegates and about another 160 or so press and other attendees behind crowd control barriers running down the back third of the room (which were tastefully draped in black vinyl) had run out of seats, and Philadelphia police swept the space outside the room, moving reporters to the end of the hall.

After about 20 minutes, DNC staff began letting the press in by ones and twos. Some of the would-be attendees had been admitted, but there was still a line stretching back toward the front atrium of the convention center, and the folks in that line were not happy with the situation. While the Rules Committee took care of some housekeeping items — adopting the rules for the meeting, voting for the officers of the Convention (which included RI Gov. Gina Raimondo as a co-chair) — chair Barney Frank had to fight at times to be heard over the chants of “open the doors” from outside.

Once the preliminaries were out of the way, the Committee took up a series of amendments to modify the superdelegate system – which, as we’ve all become aware in this cycle, creates a class of party leaders and elected officials who are automatically delegates and who are not bound to vote for a particular candidate.

“I’m a Democrat because I believe in democracy,” said Regunberg, when he introduced the motion. “I believe in the promise of one person, one vote, that so many of our fellow Democrats have struggled and bled for. There is currently absolutely no rule keeping superdelegates in future cycles from overturning the will of the people. Creating a perception for many of our voters that the system can be rigged.”

The motion was debated for 16 minutes, and failed, 108 to 58. The good news for Regunberg’s amendment is that he had 54 delegates who signed on, enough for a “minority report” that will bring it up for discussion on the convention floor.

A second motion that would have reduced the power of superdelegates failed 107-57. A third motion to reduce the number of superdelegates failed 111-61. A fourth, which would have kept superdelegates but given them no voice in the first ballot failed 106-60 A final motion, which would have created a new class of superdelegates bound to the popular vote failed 110-60.

As each vote was taking place, activists in the back of the room shouted encouragement – and the occasional warning like “Don’t split the party!” A succession of speakers in support of each motion implored their fellow delegates, with one noting that the American people were watching – “On TV and even out in the hall.” The numbers on each side of the issue stayed remarkably stable.

After about two hours of discussion and voting on the sequence of the amendments, the committee recessed. And it was a long recess — long enough that the DNC relented and opened the bar in the lobby for the thirsty press corps — with several of the delegates involved in the superdelegate fight seen disappearing into a smaller conference room across the hall. More than an hour later, the committee — while still in recess — asked all the Sanders delegates to huddle in another room. The buzz in the room was that there were some high-level negotiations going on, and when they returned it was with a substitute amendment.

In a genuine show of unity, no one spoke against the amendment, and the chair even dispensed with the rules to allow Clinton supporters another 8 minutes of supporting speeches. Typical was that of Newton, MA mayor Setti Warren, who said, “What we’ve done this evening will make our Party proud and our country proud.”

The Democratic National Committee got underway at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia this afternoon. In one of the first — and potentially most contentious — meetings, the Rules Committee was scheduled to consider, among other items, a proposal to eliminate superdelegates.

In advance of the 1pm meeting — which staff members said was already running 45 minutes late because of a pre-briefing — there were at least 100 would-be audience lined up in the hallway of the convention center outside room 120, waiting for seats. The press was held behind a barrier at the end of the hallway, waiting

One of the folks waiting for a seat was Rhode Islander David Segal, the executive director of Demand Progress, who said he was there to support the superdelegates proposal.

“The main thing I’m here for and have been organizing around is the superdelegates issue. It wouldn’t affect who’s credentialed at this convention,” said Segal, “But going foreward, the only delegates would be pledged delegates based on the caucus and primary processes that map to popular support.”

Asked how important it was to have a Rhode Island delegate on the Rules Committee, Segal replied, “Very important because of who that delegate is — we have a principled organizer in Aaron Regunberg.” Regunberg’s efforts had helped to “his presence has done a lot” to facilitate support for the proposal, Segal said.

At about 1:30, members of the press were admitted, with the meeting already in progress.

RI state Representative Aaron Regunberg is going to the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee on Saturday with a mission: eliminate “superdelegates” in future elections.

“As I have spoken with fellow members of the Rules Committee about ending superdelegates,” said Regunberg, who is a DNC Rules Committee member, “I have been blown away by the passionate response. It is clear that this is an issue that committee members, delegates, and rank-and-file Democratic Party voters across the country care deeply about. I look forward to the debate beginning in earnest in Philadelphia this Saturday, and to voting on this important issue.”

According to Wikipedia, a superdelegate “is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with convention “pledged” delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party’s presidential nomination. Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate who did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.”

The Rules Committee will meet on Saturday, July 23rd at the Philadelphia Convention Center. If the amendment secures the vote of a majority of the committee it will be sent to the full convention with a recommendation for adoption. If it secures support of just 25 percent of the committee, then a minority report in support of the measure can be offered to the full convention. The amendment already has over 25 percent of the committee signed on as cosponsors.

Fourteen national organizations are supporting the effort, including Center for Popular Democracy, Courage Campaign, Credo, Daily Kos, Demand Progress/Rootstrikers, Democracy for America, MoveOn, National Nurses United, New Democrat Network, The Other 98%, Presente, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, and Social Security Works.

“If we want a Democratic Party that leaves Philadelphia next week as fired up as possible,” said Regunberg, “I can think of no better move than to get rid of superdelegates and prove that we are, in fact, committed to democracy and diversity and that we value the will of the people over the interests of the well-connected few.

“These values are not reflected in our current superdelegate structure. Right now, unpledged delegates – party insiders who can vote however they please, regardless of the will of their state’s voters – have as much weight in our nominating process as the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined!

“That means that in future contests, they could very well overturn the most important political decision our party’s voters get to make. And even when they don’t end up tipping the balance, the mere existence of superdelegates adds to the perception among many voters that the political system is rigged. Why force any nominee to carry that albatross in the future, when the problem can be so easily resolved?”

<a href=”http://www.patreon.com/steveahlquist” data-moz-open-newtab-ready=”true”><img class=”aligncenter wp-image-44387″ src=”http://www.rifuture.org/wp-content/uploads/Patreon-600×265.png” alt=”Patreon” width=”281″ height=”124″ /></a>