Terrence Hassett cancels meeting on LNG facility resolution


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

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

14264907_10153933030393364_5765016217329190190_n (1)The Providence City Council Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for 5pm on Monday was cancelled at 4:30pm, what one City Hall worker called, “at the last minute,” by Committee Chair Terrence Hassett. The cancellation effectively stalls the discussion of Councillor Seth Yurdin’s resolution opposing the construction of National Grid’s proposed liquefaction facility for Fields Point in the Port of Providence.

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.

Seth Yurdin Sherrie AndradeCouncillor 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.

RI NOW endorses 9 for Senate, 26 for House


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

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

RI NOWby Amanda Clarke and Melanie Carrazzo

The RI NOW Political Action Committee (RI NOW PAC) announced their endorsements in anticipation of the state primary elections on September, 13 2016.

The RI NOW PAC is excited to have so many candidates committed to improving the lives of women within the state of Rhode Island. Endorsed candidates have pledged their support on the issues of reproductive freedom, economic equality, ending violence against women, constitutional equality, civil rights for all, affirmative action and moving women out of poverty through empowering, non-punitive welfare policies.

“Currently women hold only 31 out of 113 seats in the RI General Assembly. The RI NOW PAC has endorsed 18 women so far in this election and we are thrilled to throw our support behind these candidates to increase gender parity in the General Assembly,” said Amanda Clarke, Chair of the RI NOW PAC. “We are also pleased so many men are willing to stand with women and fight for policy change to improve social and economic conditions for women in Rhode Island.”

The complete list of RI NOW PAC endorsements is as follows:

Rhode Island State Senate

  • Gayle Goldin, Senate District 3
  • Jonathan Hernandez, Senate District 6
  • Doris De Los Santos, Senate District 7
  • Matthew Fecteau, Senate District 8
  • James Seveny, Senate District 11
  • Dennis Lavallee, Senate District 17
  • Margaux Morisseau, Senate District 21
  • Stephen Archambault, Senate District 22
  • Jeanine Calkin, Senate District 30

Rhode Island House of Representatives

  • Edith Ajello, House District 1
  • Christopher Blazejewski, House District 2
  • Moira Walsh, House District 3
  • Aaron Regunberg, House District 4
  • Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, House District 5
  • Anastasia Williams, House District 9
  • Joseph Almeida, House District 12
  • Lisa Scorpio, House District 13
  • Art Handy, House District 18
  • Joseph McNamara, House District 19
  • David Bennett, House District 20
  • Eileen Naughton, House District 21
  • Jennifer Siciliano, House District 22
  • Julie Casimiro, House District 31
  • Carol Hagan McEntee, House District 33
  • Teresa Tanzi, House District 34
  • Kathleen Fogarty, House District 35
  • Larry Valencia, House District 39
  • William Deware, House District 54
  • David Norton, House District 60
  • Katherine Kazarian, House District 63
  • Jason Knight, House District 67
  • Susan Donovan, House District 69
  • Linda Finn, House District 72
  • Deborah Ruggiero, House District 74
  • Lauren Carson, House District 75

Local Races

  • Sandra Cano, Pawtucket City Council, At-Large
  • Meghan Kallman, Pawtucket City Council, Ward 5
  • Suzy Alba, Smithfield Town Council
  • Jeremy Rix, Warwick City Council, Ward 2
  • Elena Vasquez, Pawtucket School Committee

*Amanda Clarke is the RI NOW PAC Chair, Melanie Carrazzo is a member of the RI NOW PAC Board

Senior/disabled bus pass re-qualification leads to long lines


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

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

2016-09-07 RIPTA 002Rosa was waiting near the end of a line of about 30 people when I found her at 8:30am in the Kennedy Plaza terminal building Wednesday morning. In her hand she held a senior/disabled bus pass that was due to expire in September 2020, but a driver told her that the pass was no good anymore and that she had to get a new bus pass if she wanted to continue to ride at the reduced fare.

“I paid for this pass, and now it’s no good and I have to pay again,” said Rosa.

Barbara Polichetti, Director of Public Affairs at RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transit Authority)  said that, “Individuals who obtained their passes before January 1, 2013 will be required to pay $10 for their new passes. Anyone who obtained their pass after January 1, 2013 will still need to re-qualify but will not have to pay the $10 processing fee.”

2016-09-07 RIPTA 001Further up the line Frederick, a disabled man in his late thirties, told me that he had waited in line for over two hours the day before. “They cut off the line at ten people, and told the rest of us to come back tomorrow,” he said. He added that it is difficult for him to get around without a bus pass.

RIPTA announced back in April that they were “re-qualifying all passengers eligible to participate in RIPTA’s Reduced Fare Bus Pass Program for lower income senior citizens and persons with disabilities.” All participants were then required to obtain new passes by July 1. That deadline was later extended to September 1.

I asked Polichetti why re-qualification became necessary. “We looked at all aspects of this program as part of the Comprehensive Fare Study that was conducted last year. In addition to looking at fares, or in this case our no-fare customers, we also looked at the administration of the program. It became very clear that having passes that were valid for five years at a time was not practical or prudent – it was simply too long to go without having people check back in to see if they still qualify for the program.

2016-09-07 RIPTA 005“There was no way to determine if a pass holder had died or moved away; their passes remained active and in use in our system until they expired. So we knew we needed to lessen the time the passes are valid. They will now be valid for two years, not five. The passes being issued now will expire on a customer’s birthday after the two-year mark, so everyone will not have to re-qualify at the same time again – it will be staggered.”

Originally senior and disabled bus riders were facing a $.50 price hike, but that increase was put off until January, when the General Assembly might reconsider the fare increase.

“We are sensitive to the fact that this program serves a population that is facing financial, health and other stressors in their lives,” said Raymond Studley, RIPTA’s CEO in June when the extension was announced.

That population includes Alan, who first got in line for a new pass on August 31. He was told that he lacked the proper paperwork. It took him a while to get what he needed from the IRS. I wasn’t sure that the one paper he had in his hand would be enough, but Alan seemed confident.

RIPTA’s outreach to the public about the program changes has been extensive, said Polichetti, and has included distributing information at charitable organizations and senior centers across the state, running radio ads for five months, and posting reminders on its website, social media and the digital boards on buses and at the Kennedy Plaza transit hub.

Still, many senior and disabled people didn’t get the message until a bus driver informed them that their pass was no good. Jose, who was waiting in line with Rosa, doesn’t speak much English and his pass didn’t expire until May 2019. He was visibly annoyed that his pass was invalid, despite the date printed on it.

“A lot of riders thought that at the last minute the governor would have a change of heart and decide to honor the passes until they expired,” said Don Rhodes, president of the RIPTA Riders Alliance. So why didn’t RIPTA grandfather in people like Jose and Rosa, who have passes that won’t expire for a few years?

“Since one of the goals was to end the five-year tenure of the passes for better administration of the program,” said Polichetti, “this would not have worked. It would have meant that some people were still going to have five years without checking in with RIPTA, five years without us verifying that they still qualify for the program, and that they are the rightful pass holder.

“We tried to minimize the financial impact of the re-qualification process by not charging anyone who received a pass after Jan. 1, 2013 for their new passes.  The fee – which is the administrative fee for getting a photo ID pass – remains the same at $5 per year.  The new two-year passes are $10.”

Mary waited in line on Tuesday from 1pm to 3:30pm, only to be told to go home and come back tomorrow. She had spent Tuesday morning at the DMV, getting her state issued ID, and then spent hours in vain at RIPTA. It was a long day of waiting in line, with tons of other people, and she didn’t get the bus pass she needed.

“It was crazy in here yesterday,” said Mary, “It was nuts. The line was over twice as long, and stretched around the room and outside into the rain.”

Hopefully Mary will have better luck today, since she arrived an hour before the office opened.

2016-09-07 RIPTA 003

Patreon

GoLocalProv misses the point, but good try


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

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

Ultimately, the fault is with me, for not being more clear in my writing.

John DeSimone is a lawyer in private practice and he’s House Majority Leader in the RI General Assembly. When he crafts, shapes and votes on legislation, we trust that he will separate his two jobs in his mind. For instance, we trust that he will not allow the fact that he represents restaurant owners who engage in wage theft to shape the way he approaches restaurant and employment law. But in order for voters to be able to judge for themselves whether or not this is happening, they need to understand the kind of cases DeSimone is working on and what side he takes in these cases.

This is partly what I was trying to get at when I wrote about Leader DeSimone’s legal work for Chung Cho, owner of Gourmet Heaven, but there are other distictions to be drawn.

John DeSimone
John DeSimone

When GoLocalProv reporter and editor Kate Nagle read my piece, she was inspired. She attempted on Jason Knight, who is running in the Democratic primary against conservative Democrat Jan Malik in House District 57. (DeSimone, a conservative Democrat, is facing a challenge to his House seat from progressive Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, so the shape of the politics here becomes obvious.) Nagle wrote that Knight, “has represented DUIs, child pornographers, and sex offender clients since starting his own practice.”

Then she wrote, “The relevance of Knight’s practice and other attorneys running for office derives from a new focus on who candidates are representing in their practices. Last week, incumbent House Majority Leader John DeSimone came under fire for his representation of an accused wage-theft client. The criticism  came in part from RI Future‘s Steve Ahlquist, who wrote that voters ‘should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us.’” [spelling corrected]

It’s nice to learn that GoLocal is learning about journalism from closely reading RI Future, but I think they might need a few more lessons. Nagle quotes me in the piece twice, without linking to my writing as I did for her above. (Here’s a handy guide to linking.)

“Voters should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us,” I wrote, “Anybody being sued deserves legal representation, but using slick legal moves to avoid paying workers their earned wages is simply gross.”

Nagle also quoted my tweet about my story, in which I said, ”What attorneys do for their clients should be relevant to how voters perceive their ethical orientation.”

The tweet above was in answer to a criticism from Brandon Bell, director of the RI GOP. Bell tweeted, “As an attorney I am an advocate for client which does not equate with accepting or endorsing client’s alleged wrongdoing.”

In my retort to Bell I was making a subtle distinction. It’s not WHO you represent, it’s WHAT you do for them.

Jason Knight defined the role of a defense attorney very well when he was quoted by Nagle: “…in a criminal case, there’s a judge, a prosecutor and defender, and all three roles need to be done well for a just result. I need a fair judge, and a zealous prosecutor — and a defense attorney who basically keeps the prosecutor honest.”

In my piece about DeSimone, I wrote that DeSimone was not only defending Chung Cho on allegations of wage theft, he was actively helping Cho to sell his business in what the RI Center for Justice called “an attempt to evade liability.” I wrote:

“DeSimone filed Cho’s legal response to the Rhode Island lawsuit on May 11, 2015. About a week later, on May 20, 2015, Cho sold Gourmet Heaven to GSP Corp for half a million dollars. At least some of the transactional paperwork for this sale was prepared by DeSimone.”

This kind of slick legal maneuvering isn’t about keeping the prosecutors honest or achieving a fair trial, it’s about helping a boss to plead poverty and avoid paying workers who, absent wages, were essentially reduced to slavery conditions.

Rather than creating a list of people who committed terrible crimes and attaching them to DeSimone’s name, as Nagle did in her piece about Knight, I wrote a piece outlining the kind of legal maneuvers DeSimone engaged in to protect a wage thief from having to pay his employees.

Perhaps such legal maneuvering is perfectly legal. Perhaps it’s all in line with the professional ethics of being a lawyer. But is it right? And does it call into question DeSimone’s suitability for the elected position he holds?

I’ll let the voters decide.

More pertinent to the discussion at hand, is this what Nagle was attempting in her piece about Knight?

I’ll let the readers decide.

Patreon

SCOTUS abortion ruling has RI impact


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
hellerstedt_03 (1)
Washington DC

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

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

The full statement from Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patreon

Marcia Ranglin-Vassell to challenge DeSimone in House District 5


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

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

Marcia Ranglin-Vassell announced her candidacy for State Representative in House District 5 – Charles, Wanskuck and Elmhurst neighborhoods of Providence.

“Our community needs someone who will fight for us,” Ranglin-Vassell said upon filing her declaration of candidacy at the Board of Canvassers. “For too long, we’ve had politicians who are only helping themselves and their well-connected friends. I have spent my entire life working, teaching, and fighting for families like mine. Families who’ve worked hard for everything they’ve got and just want a fair shot. Our neighborhood needs an advocate who won’t give up. As a mother, a Providence public school teacher, and a community activist, I have done everything I can to give my children, my students, and my neighbors a chance at success. I’m running to bring that same passion and determination to the State House, for all of us.”

Currently a special education teacher at Providence Career and Technical Academy, Ranglin-Vassell cited her passion for education as one reason for jumping in the race. “I grew up very poor in Jamaica, in a neighborhood similar to some of our struggling neighborhoods here in Providence. I remember having only one pair of shoes and no backpack – when it rained, I would put my school books under my clothes to keep them dry. My father never learned to read or write, but he started a church and a preschool right in our front yard and taught me the power of education. That is why I became a teacher, and why I have dedicated my life to empowering young people and community members to be the best they can be. My children all went through Providence public schools, so I know public education can be successful. But I also know our schools continue to struggle, and our state continues to underfund our young people. As state representative, I will not rest until we have a fair school funding formula that ensures our youth have the resources they need to succeed,”

Saying she has always felt the need to serve her community, Ranglin-Vassell said she did not feel at all intimidated taking on the high-ranking House Majority Leader. “I know that entering this race is a challenge to the status quo, but sometimes the establishment needs a challenge. I always try to do what I think is right, whether it is easy or not,” she continued. “And titles aside, the truth is our current representative is not fighting for his constituents. I have lived here in our district, on Waite Street, for over 20 years, and I have never met our representative. I do not have a single friend or neighbor who can say he has ever returned their phone calls or emails. I’m sure he is great for the well-connected, for the people who know-a-guy. But he has never been there for families like mine that are working hard and just trying to get by. We need a legislator who is committed to representing all of our community, and that’s why I am in this race.”

Marcia Ranglin-Vassell has a Bachelor of Science degree in Community Health Education from Rhode Island College and a Master’s in Special Education from Providence College. She is a “Woman of Achievement” award-winner from the YWCA for her work in education, a congregant at Ebenezer Baptist Church, and a member of the Rhode Island Black Business Association.

[From a press release]

Patreon

Community renewable energy for all Rhode Islanders


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

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

community-solar_410_282_c1On June 18, the General Assembly passed a renewable energy legislative package that continues to move Rhode Island towards a clean energy economy of the future.

One section of this package, reflecting legislative language I introduced this session, expands Rhode Island’s net metering law to provide residential accounts and low-income and affordable housing residents the capacity to remotely net meter. By creating new opportunities for community renewable energy projects that are open to all Rhode Islanders (not just folks who own a roof that’s perfect for solar), our legislation will spur local renewable production, boost our state’s economic development, and bring the benefits of renewable energy to thousands more Rhode Island families.

This program expansion comes not a moment too soon. Most of us understand that there is a climate catastrophe hurtling towards us that requires urgent action. We also know that the move to renewable energy offers incredible economic potential – in fact, Rhode Island’s 2016 Clean Energy Industry Report found that clean energy employment grew a stunning 40% last year, to 14,000 jobs. So as a state, we have both a moral obligation and an economic imperative to go full steam ahead with a transition to clean energy.

To achieve this, we need to take renewable energy to scale and make sure its benefits are accessible to all Rhode Islanders. Community remote net metering is a critical piece of that puzzle; here’s how it works.

Net metering is a policy that allows Rhode Islanders who install renewable energy systems such as solar panels to connect to the electric grid and receive credit on their bill for the energy they generate. It makes sense (folks should be credited for the energy they’re producing) and creates a major economic incentive to develop these projects.

The problem is that right now, net metering can only apply to installations that are physically on a customer’s property. Yet only 25% of rooftops in Rhode Island are currently optimal for solar systems. Many homes are affected by shading from nearby trees or angling issues. And lots of Rhode Islanders are renters, or live in affordable housing, meaning they’re not able to install projects right on their residency. The way the current program is set up, we’re excluding three quarters of Rhode Islanders from participating in this market right off the bat!

By expanding net metering to include off-site generation and community solar projects, we can ensure that every family has an opportunity to access the benefits of cheap and stable renewable energy, whether or not their direct premises are suitable for a solar or wind system.

That means a lot more demand for these projects, which means more businesses stepping up to fill that demand, which means more jobs, more clean energy, and lower costs for thousands of Rhode Islanders.

It also means more equity. Off-site net metered systems can be designed to serve multiple customers, providing a way for renters and low-income families to join together on community renewable projects that they could never site or afford on their own. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we can’t leave anyone behind, so it is critical that we open net metering to all Rhode Islanders – not just those who can afford to build a full system individually.

We have a responsibility to the next generation of Rhode Islanders to act on climate change by bringing renewable energy to scale. But we shouldn’t fear this clean energy transition. Rather, this should be a revolution to celebrate, for it entails more jobs for working families, enhanced energy security for our state, and – ultimately – reduced energy costs for all Rhode Islanders.

By expanding access to the democratic, open-source energy generation that comes from community remote net metering, we are moving our state forward toward a more prosperous, equitable, and environmentally friendly economy for everyone. And that’s something we can all get behind.

Significant protections against wage theft passed


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

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

jobswjusticeAfter years of struggle the Rhode Island General Assembly under the leadership of Senator Donna Nesslebush, and Representative Joe Shekarchi have passed a bill that finally makes the scourge of wage theft a crime. Stealing workers’ wages has always been civil offense with serious hurdles from the bureaucracies that were supposed to help. With close consultation with the DLT and Director Scott Jensen and legislative stakeholder meetings, House Bill 7628 and Senate Bill 2475 passed in the small morning hours on Saturday June 18.

These bills will provide for serious penalties including fines and imprisonment for taking from working Rhode Islanders. Perhaps the most significant penalty is the loss of a business license, the bills also empower the director of the Department of Labor and Training to determine compliance. Encouraging responsible reporting and discouraging false claims, the process of private suit has meaningful safeguards in place.

“Too often we see workers awarded a judgment by DLT only to have the employer refuse to pay what is owed,” said Robert McCreanor executive director of the worker advocacy law firm The Rhode Island Center for Justice. With the power to revoke business licenses from offending employers who refuse to comply with its rulings, DLT will be able to compel prompt payment and get more money, more efficiently, into the hands of the worker who earned it. While more work needs to be done to address the growing problem of wage theft, this bill provides an important tool for Rhode Island workers.”

Said Lidia Jimenez a member of Fuerza Laboral, “As a worker that has had their wages stolen, I feel proud that my testimony and that of Flor Salazar helped elected officials understand the atrocities that are committed daily by bad employers who feel that justice will not reach them and take our daily bread. This will help put an end to some of the abuse.” It is estimated by Economic Progress Institute that over $50,000,000,000 per year are stolen from workers’ wages. The process of enforcement historically has been spotty and difficult to apply.

Jeremy Rix who is running for 2nd ward of the Warwick City Council said, “I’m thrilled that the wage theft reforms introduced by Rep. Shekarchi become law. This law will deter many unethical employers from stealing wages, and provide a meaningful path for vulnerable employees to recover their stolen earnings.”

The organizations that have participated in the effort to pass these two vital bills are: Rhode Island Jobs with Justice, The RIAFL-CIO, Fuerza Laboral, and the Rhode Island Center for Justice. Each of these organizations is committed to improving the conditions of Rhode Island’s working people.

RI legislators not returning illegal campaign donations


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

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

Despite the NRA paying a record fine for making illegal campaign donations to Rhode Island politicians, to date, not one current office holder in the state has seen fit to return the money.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was fined by the RI Board of Elections for funneling illegal donations to RI politicians, including House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello and Senate President M Teresa Paiva-Weed. One estimate puts the total amount of contributions at over $160,000, over a 10 year period from 2004 to 2014. Due to the detective work of Sam Bell, executive director of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America, the NRA was fined $63,000 and the NRA’s Rhode Island PAC was formally dissolved.

Technically, any money received by any candidate in Rhode Island that comes from the NRA Political Victory Fund PAC before January 2014 was illegal. That doesn’t mean that it’s a crime to keep the money after the fact, and it’s likely that the politicians did not know that the campaign donations were illegal before Bell made his case.

That said, the bottom line is that the money these politicians accepted from the NRA is tainted, and the influence this money has on our General Assembly can be felt acutely when observing the legislature in action.

Paiva-Weed
M Teresa Paiva Weed

Are you still wondering why our General Assembly can’t seem to pass common sense gun control legislation?

Between 2004 and 2014, House Speaker Nick Mattiello received $2,975 from the NRA. All these donations appear to be illegal, tainted contributions. The Speaker has kept every penny. Seventeen other representatives have also taken thousands of dollars.

Joseph McNamara is the head of the RI Democratic Party, the same party whose national platform calls for banning assault weapons and strengthening gun laws to prevent violence. McNamara accepted $700 in illegal NRA contributions over the years.

During the same 10 year period, Senate President M Teresa Paiva-Weed has accepted, and kept, what appears to be $6,075 in illegal contributions from the NRA. Seventeen other senators took illegal NRA cash, including Senate Majority Leader Domenic Ruggerio, who raked in $3350 and Senate Judiciary Chair Michael McCaffrey, whose committee handles every bill about guns that comes to the Senate, to the tune of$3500.

Rep Jan Malik, who was recently challenged by his primary opponent Jason Knight to return his illegal donations, took $1075. On the last day of the most recent legislative session, Rep Malik voted for a House bill that would have made it easier to get concealed carry permits in RI before changing his vote after the fact.

I went through the campaign finance reports available here, and carefully made a list of all incumbents who have accepted NRA money between 2004 and 2014.

Here’s the list:

In addition to Representatives and Senators, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin has accepted $1150 in illegal donations.

Attorney General KILMARTIN, PETER F    03/30/2004    $200.00
Attorney General KILMARTIN, PETER F    03/07/2006    $250.00
Attorney General KILMARTIN, PETER F    04/27/2007    $200.00
Attorney General KILMARTIN, PETER F    12/31/2009    $200.00
Attorney General KILMARTIN, PETER F    03/04/2009    $300.00

Former Speaker of the House, William Murphy, now a lobbyist, raked in a series of illegal NRA contributions. He now rakes in even more as a lobbyist for gun interests.

Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    02/05/2004    $500.00
Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    02/05/2004    $500.00
Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    04/14/2006    $350.00
Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    04/27/2007    $1,000.00
Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    03/31/2005    $875.00
Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    02/22/2009    $1,000.00
Lobbyist MURPHY, WILLIAM J    01/31/2008    $1,000.00

Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    11/05/2006    $250.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    04/27/2007    $150.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    04/01/2008    $150.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    07/06/2010    $450.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    04/04/2011    $450.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    06/06/2012    $450.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    02/13/2013    $800.00
Representative    MATTIELLO, NICHOLAS    05/28/2009    $225.00

Representative    CARNEVALE, JOHN M    06/05/2010    $200.00
Representative    CARNEVALE, JOHN M    04/12/2011    $200.00
Representative    CHIPPENDALE, MICHAEL W    10/15/2012    $500.00
Representative    CORVESE, ARTHUR J    05/08/2004    $300.00
Representative    CORVESE, ARTHUR J    05/16/2005    $300.00
Representative    CORVESE, ARTHUR J    07/11/2006    $300.00
Representative    COSTA, DOREEN MARIE    10/15/2012    $500.00
Representative    DESIMONE, JOHN J    07/08/2004    $150.00
Representative    FELLELA, DEBORAH A    08/20/2006    $250.00
Representative    FELLELA, DEBORAH A    04/27/2007    $100.00
Representative    FELLELA, DEBORAH A    01/12/2010    $150.00
Representative    FELLELA, DEBORAH A    04/12/2011    $200.00
Representative    JACQUARD, ROBERT B    07/19/2004    $300.00
Representative    JACQUARD, ROBERT B    10/20/2004    $500.00
Representative    JACQUARD, ROBERT B    10/12/2006    $350.00
Representative    JACQUARD, ROBERT B    04/12/2011    $200.00
Representative    KENNEDY, BRIAN PATRICK    07/19/2004    $400.00
Representative    KENNEDY, BRIAN PATRICK    08/02/2006    $400.00
Representative    KENNEDY, BRIAN PATRICK    06/11/2009    $400.00
Representative    KENNEDY, BRIAN PATRICK    06/05/2010    $375.00
Representative    KENNEDY, BRIAN PATRICK    04/12/2011    $375.00
Representative    LIMA, CHARLENE        04/06/2004    $300.00
Representative    MACBETH, KAREN        11/01/2009    $100.00
Representative    MACBETH, KAREN        05/27/2010    $200.00
Representative    MACBETH, KAREN        12/08/2011    $200.00
Representative    MALIK, JAN        08/18/2004    $200.00
Representative    MALIK, JAN        11/19/2004    $250.00
Representative    MALIK, JAN        06/29/2005    $225.00
Representative    MALIK, JAN        09/06/2006    $300.00
Representative    MALIK, JAN        06/05/2010    $300.00
Representative    MCNAMARA, JOSEPH    05/26/2004    $200.00
Representative    MCNAMARA, JOSEPH    05/25/2005    $300.00
Representative    MCNAMARA, JOSEPH    06/16/2011    $200.00
Representative    MELO, HELIO        03/10/2010    $225.00
Representative    MELO, HELIO        04/12/2011    $200.00
Representative    NEWBERRY, BRIAN C    11/03/2006    $300.00
Representative    NEWBERRY, BRIAN C    05/29/2009    $150.00
Representative    NEWBERRY, BRIAN C    02/24/2010    $150.00
Representative    NEWBERRY, BRIAN C    06/29/2011    $200.00
Representative    NEWBERRY, BRIAN C    04/15/2013    $250.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    04/02/2004    $100.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    04/05/2004    $500.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    04/06/2004    $200.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    04/07/2004    $100.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    04/22/2004    $150.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    06/29/2005    $200.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    06/15/2006    $300.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    07/24/2007    $300.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    05/17/2008    $300.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    05/29/2009    $300.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    06/05/2010    $300.00
Representative    TRILLO, JOSEPH A    04/12/2011    $200.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        11/19/2004    $500.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        08/21/2006    $250.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        11/02/2006    $200.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        07/27/2007    $300.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        06/29/2009    $200.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        06/29/2009    $200.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        06/25/2011    $200.00
Representative    UCCI, STEPHEN R        06/15/2010    $200.00
Representative    WINFIELD, THOMAS J    08/22/2004    $200.00
Representative    WINFIELD, THOMAS J    06/15/2006    $200.00
Representative    WINFIELD, THOMAS J    11/06/2006    $90.00
Representative    WINFIELD, THOMAS J    08/10/2007    $225.00

Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    02/24/2011    $1,000.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    02/02/2012    $1,000.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    08/12/2013    $800.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    04/22/2004    $375.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    05/14/2007    $500.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    05/17/2008    $400.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    02/11/2009    $1,000.00
Senator    PAIVA WEED, M TERESA    02/24/2010    $1,000.00

Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    07/10/2004    $150.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    05/25/2005    $225.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    06/21/2006    $300.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    11/03/2006    $300.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    05/07/2007    $300.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    04/15/2008    $300.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    06/03/2009    $300.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    06/12/2010    $300.00
Senator    CICCONE III, FRANK A    06/21/2013    $400.00
Senator    COTE, MARC A        03/23/2004    $200.00
Senator    COTE, MARC A        05/16/2005    $200.00
Senator    COTE, MARC A        06/15/2006    $200.00
Senator    COTE, MARC A        04/16/2008    $200.00
Senator    COTE, MARC A        04/06/2010    $200.00
Senator    DAPONTE, DANIEL        02/24/2010    $200.00
Senator    DAPONTE, DANIEL        04/12/2011    $200.00
Senator    DOYLE II, JAMES E    06/17/2006    $150.00
Senator    DOYLE II, JAMES E    03/31/2008    $300.00
Senator    FELAG JR, WALTER S    07/04/2004    $200.00
Senator    FELAG JR, WALTER S    09/01/2006    $300.00
Senator    FELAG JR, WALTER S    06/15/2008    $300.00
Senator    FELAG JR, WALTER S    03/03/2010    $300.00
Senator    FELAG JR, WALTER S    04/12/2011    $300.00
Senator    FOGARTY, PAUL W        05/13/2004    $100.00
Senator    FOGARTY, PAUL W        07/01/2005    $150.00
Senator    FOGARTY, PAUL W        09/21/2007    $150.00
Senator    FOGARTY, PAUL W        01/10/2008    $150.00
Senator    FOGARTY, PAUL W        06/11/2009    $200.00
Senator    GALLO, HANNA M        06/01/2004    $150.00
Senator    GALLO, HANNA M        05/24/2005    $150.00
Senator    GALLO, HANNA M        05/17/2008    $150.00
Senator    GALLO, HANNA M        08/05/2009    $200.00
Senator    GALLO, HANNA M        04/28/2011    $200.00
Senator    GALLO, HANNA M        04/12/2011    $200.00
Senator    GOODWIN, MARYELLEN    08/16/2004    $150.00
Senator    GOODWIN, MARYELLEN    07/09/2010    $200.00
Senator    GOODWIN, MARYELLEN    05/13/2011    $200.00
Senator    LYNCH PRATA, ERIN P    06/08/2009    $200.00
Senator    LYNCH PRATA, ERIN P    06/10/2010    $200.00
Senator    LYNCH PRATA, ERIN P    04/12/2011    $200.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    07/21/2004    $500.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    07/21/2005    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    08/06/2006    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    08/07/2007    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    06/24/2008    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    06/05/2009    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    06/15/2010    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    05/20/2011    $750.00
Senator    MCCAFFREY, MICHAEL J    06/28/2013    $400.00
Senator    PICARD, ROGER A        07/19/2004    $200.00
Senator    PICARD, ROGER A        08/03/2005    $200.00
Senator    PICARD, ROGER A        05/15/2006    $250.00
Senator    PICARD, ROGER A        06/20/2009    $300.00
Senator    PICARD, ROGER A        06/12/2010    $150.00
Senator    RAPTAKIS, LEONIDAS P    05/10/2006    $300.00
Senator    RAPTAKIS, LEONIDAS P    07/24/2007    $300.00
Senator    RAPTAKIS, LEONIDAS P    06/30/2008    $300.00
Senator    RAPTAKIS, LEONIDAS P    02/26/2013    $250.00
Senator    RAPTAKIS, LEONIDAS P    07/19/2004    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    05/19/2004    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    05/25/2005    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    05/10/2006    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    04/27/2007    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    05/17/2008    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    02/21/2013    $500.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    05/29/2009    $300.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    02/24/2011    $450.00
Senator    RUGGERIO, DOMINICK J    02/08/2012    $500.00
Senator    SERPA, PATRICIA A    07/01/2009    $150.00
Senator    SERPA, PATRICIA A    06/05/2010    $150.00
Senator    SERPA, PATRICIA A    07/18/2011    $200.00
Senator    SERPA, PATRICIA A    03/30/2013    $250.00
Senator    SHEEHAN, JAMES C    05/04/2004    $150.00
Senator    SHEEHAN, JAMES C    07/08/2005    $150.00
Senator    SHEEHAN, JAMES C    07/24/2007    $100.00
Senator    SOSNOWSKI, V SUSAN    07/28/2004    $200.00
Senator    SOSNOWSKI, V SUSAN    10/18/2004    $100.00
Senator    SOSNOWSKI, V SUSAN    04/08/2008    $200.00
Senator    SOSNOWSKI, V SUSAN    03/02/2010    $200.00
Senator    SOSNOWSKI, V SUSAN    06/16/2011    $200.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    04/26/2004    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    04/05/2005    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    09/01/2006    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    05/02/2007    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    05/17/2008    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    06/07/2009    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    06/05/2010    $300.00
Senator    WALASKA, WILLIAM A    04/12/2011    $300.00

RI HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE    04/29/2004    $300.00
RI HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE    09/15/2005    $300.00
RI HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE    04/06/2006    $200.00

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE      04/21/2004    $625.00
SENATE DEMOCRATS 2004 PAC             08/16/2004    $600.00

Patreon

Passage of ethics reform is great news for Rhode Island


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

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

This past week the General Assembly finally passed legislation to give the Ethics Commission jurisdiction over the General Assembly.

That means, come Nov. 8, when you go to vote, there will be a question on your ballot asking you if you want to amend the state constitution to hold your legislators fully accountable to the state Code of Ethics.

Ethics reform was not just a bill, but a journey. While it has taken us six long and arduous years to get ethics reform written into law, I am very pleased that the day has finally arrived.

In a 2009 Supreme Court decision, members of the General Assembly were effectively rendered immune to Ethics Commission jurisdiction and the state Code of Ethics for conduct within their core legislative duties. At that time, the court decided that the Ethics Commission passage was in contradiction to a clause in the constitution guaranteeing legislators free “speech in debate.”

So, the constitution had to be changed.

The six-year work to return the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over the General Assembly was initiated by my dear friend, the late Sen. Michael Lenihan. Mike knew that integrity matters both personally and publicly. Our government needs to possess integrity in the eyes of the public. People need to have confidence that their government works for them, not just the well-connected.

Humans are imperfect beings. As James Madison famously wrote in the Federalist Papers, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

We all need rules to check our behavior as well as a mechanism to hold persons accountable for unethical behavior. Re-instituting the state Code of Ethics over members of the General Assembly will encourage members to listen to the better angels of their nature, whose voices remind us all that the nobility of public service resides in placing the common good above self-interest. When lawmakers do this, we are at our best in making a real difference in the lives of others.

This ethics amendment is a good and sound measure. I firmly believe that it will help us restore a modicum of the peoples’ trust in their elected assemblymen and women. In light of recent events, this amendment could not come at a better time.

There will always be the bad actor — the lawmaker with a reckless disregard for the law who perverts the system he or she is sworn to uphold. And no question — when that lawmaker is rooted out, he or she should be shown the same amount of regard that they showed the people of Rhode Island. But since we’re judged by the company we keep, every time it happens, it casts a pall over those who are doing the job honestly and forthrightly.

And that’s why this amendment is so important. It will ensure that someone else — an independent Ethics Commission — will be keeping a close watch on lawmakers, helping to make sure that lawmakers act in the best interest of the public. With that assurance in place, the public can have increased confidence that the members of the General Assembly will address the challenges that lie ahead with a renewed focus on the common good.

Once again, I’d like to thank the people who made this possible, the Senate and House leadership and all my legislative colleagues. And I, of course, urge everyone to vote yes on the ethics amendment on November 8.

General Assembly restores Ethics Commission oversite… finally!


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
2016-06-16 Ethics Bill passes John Marion
John Marion, at the moment of passage in the Senate

The General Assembly unanimously approved legislation to restore the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction over lawmakers. The joint resolution puts a constitutional amendment before voters at the November general election that, if approved, would close the legislative immunity loophole. Since it is a joint resolution, it does not require a signature by the governor to become effective.

In 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the state constitution’s “speech in debate clause” conferred legislative immunity upon General Assembly members. As a result, legislators stood outside the purview of the Ethics Commission. A constitutional amendment is necessary to restore the Ethics Commission’s oversight of the legislature.

“Since the Irons decision, Common Cause has dedicated itself to closing the ‘legislative immunity’ loophole,” said Common Cause Executive Director John Marion. “This is a historic moment for those who care about ethical government in Rhode Island. We have no doubt that this measure will increase transparency and accountability in our legislature. The work is not done, however, because voters still need to pass this constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.”

Phil West, seconds after passage
Phil West, seconds after passage

“Today’s vote is a dramatic, historic step forward,” said Phil West, who is the former executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “The Speaker and Senate President’s ballot question will allow voters to establish the same ethics accountability for all public officials in Rhode Island. It will again allow legislators to think through potential conflicts of interest and to seek advisory opinions from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. No other state has anything better than this.”

The resolution adopted by the House and Senate did not include a campaign blackout period for filing complaints.

“We met with several groups and decided that the Constitution was an inappropriate place for a moratorium on filing complaints,” said Speaker Nicholas Mattiello. “I have confidence that the Ethics Commission will consider and determine the proper approach for dealing with frivolous, politically charged complaints.”

Personal note: It was an honor to sit in the House and Senate galleys with John Marion and Phil West as the resolutions passed.

Patreon

Keable/Fogarty power plant bill: An autopsy


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

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

Perhaps the most honest statement to come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Paul Fogarty’s bill S3037A came in the hallway outside the hearing room after the vote, courtesy of Senator Leo Raptakis.

“What happened in there?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” replied Raptakis, “I don’t know why they brought it up for a vote at all.”

The confusion Raptakis felt was understandable. Normally, if you want to kill a bill in the General Assembly, you just never let it come to a vote. Eventually the session ends and the bill is dead.

So why bring the bill up for a vote? What was really going on?

Frank Lombardi
Frank Lombardi

Senator Paul Fogarty’s bill would have allowed the voters of Burrillville the opportunity to vote on any tax agreements made by their town council with any power plant located in the town. The immediate effect of the bill would be to allow voters to decide on a tax treaty being negotiated with Invenergy, which wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The Burrillville Town Council has been repeatedly dishonest with the residents of the town, and has been actively working to bring the power plant into the town against the wishes of most residents. Residents of Burrillville want a say in the process and they want to prevent the power plant from being built.

The House version of the bill, sponsored by Representative Cale Keable, passed out of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on an 11-2 vote and passed the full House on June 8. The Senate version, after a long, contentious hearing that pitted Burrillville residents and environmentalists against labor and business, was tabled without a vote.

Stephen Archambault
Stephen Archambault

The forces in favor of the power plant did not want this bill to pass. It is believed by many that this bill will make it impossible for the power plant to be built, because it will interfere with Invenergy’s ability to secure financing for the project. A stable tax treaty is important to Invenergy because without it, the company faces the prospect of paying full taxes on the power plant. No tax treaty, no funding, some say.

In an effort to kill the bill, Invenergy paid for a full page ad in the Providence Journal. An editorial and an op-ed were published in the paper as well. Pressure was brought to bear on the Senate from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce whose lobbyists testified against the bills. And labor, which wants the plant built because of the much needed jobs it will provide, lobbied the Senate hard.

Donna Nesselbush
Donna Nesselbush

Meanwhile, there was pressure being placed on Governor Gina Raimondo by environmentalists to not veto the bill, were it to be passed. Raimondo did not want to be put in the position of having to veto this bill. She wants the public appearance of being strong on environmental issues, even if she supports fracking and fossil fuels. For Raimondo’s purposes, the less known on the national scene about her true environmental  positions, the better. Vetoing this bill would create the wrong kind of headlines, the kind of headlines that might hamper her national political ambitions.

Satisfying these powerful players is easy. All that needed to happen was for the bill to never get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the bill would die, never to be voted on. There’s only one problem: If that were to happen, Senator Paul Fogarty would have failed the community he serves, and though Fogarty, for political reasons, is opposed to the power plant and in favor of his bill, he’s a strong union member and supporter. Under normal circumstances he would be a reliable pro-union vote and a valuable ally.

William Conley
William Conley

A way to both kill the bill and save Paul Fogarty’s political career was therefore devised.

Four Senators, Frank Lombardi, William Conley, Donna Nesselbush and Stephen Archambault, presented legal-sounding arguments against the bill, all the while telling Burrillville residents watching the proceedings live or at home how wonderful their Senator Paul Fogarty is. They laid it on pretty thick at times.

“Kudos to Senator Fogarty for the concerns that he showed his constituency in the town of Burrillville,” said Senator Lombardi, “and [for] having the intestinal fortitude to bring forth the bill on the behalf of his constituents.

“And I mean this, Senator,” continued Lombardi, looking at Fogarty who was seated in the center of the room, “I think that the people of the town of Burrillville are very fortunate to have you as their Senator and the work that you do for them. Quite frankly you listened to them and you put forth what you thought was a very favorable bill for your citizenry.”

Not to be out done, Senator Conley said, “Senator Fogarty’s advocacy on behalf of the people of Burrillville on this issue was extraordinary. I’m just about at the close of my fourth year in the General Assembly and I can say without reservation that I’ve never seen one of my colleagues advocate in such a meaningful and, I don’t want to say aggressive but certainly in a strong way, on behalf of legislation. His heart and soul is behind this bill and whether you agree with one of your colleagues or not, it’s always that kind of advocacy in this building that often goes unsung. So it’s important to note that.”

Senator Nesselbush was more circumspect in her praise, saying, “Senator Fogarty has been a passionate supporter of this bill that he even convinced me to be a co-sponsor of the bill.”

Senator Archambault, who might run for Attorney General in 2018, also chimed in with praise for Fogarty, “I want to echo the sentiments of my brothers and sister with respect to Senator Fogarty. He’s been here for you all along, he’s put in a tough piece of legislation, it certainly hasn’t made him any friends on one side but he did it because he cares. I think his actions speak for themselves.” After this performance, I don’t think any environmentalists will be voting for him.

With Senator Fogarty properly lionized and hopefully protected, all the Senators needed was an excuse, any excuse, to vote against the bill. As it is, they produced three excuses. They also needed someone to blame. They couldn’t blame the business community, they couldn’t blame the Governor and they couldn’t blame labor.

Enter the Republican Burrillville Town Council with their press release turned resolution. At the original Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to discuss the bill, Senator Lombardi foolishly tried to pass off a press release against the bill from the town council as a resolution, but in fact the Burrillville Town Council didn’t get around to issuing an actual resolution until the committee meeting was almost over. But now, with a “proper” resolution in hand, Lombardi was able to produce a villain: the Burrillville Town Council.

Harold Metts
Harold Metts

In his statement after the vote, Fogarty expressed his disappointment at the bills defeat, but did not blame the vote on his fellow senators. Instead, he referred to the resolution, writing that the “last-minute opposition of the Town Council… [was] the equivalent of getting two torpedoes to the bow.”

“It’s a shame that the Burrillville Town Council does not have enough faith and confidence in the local citizenry to make an informed decision on a matter that will impact the future of their community,” wrote Fogarty, forgetting that it was the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the Burrillville Town Council that killed the bill.

Lombardi’s second excuse was that he was concerned about the precedent that passing the bill would set. He said that when the residents of a city or town disagree with their elected officials, they shouldn’t be looking to the state to pass new laws. Lombardi feared that the General Assembly might be flooded with every local issue that is “controversial” if they passed this bill. Of course, it’s fairly easy to find dozens of examples where the state has stepped in to override local laws and ordinances. The very creation of the Energy Facilities Siting Board, the body that will ultimately decide whether or not the power plant will be built, is an example of the state overriding local concerns and laws, for instance.

Paul Fogarty
Paul Fogarty

Lastly, Lombardi noted that one of his colleagues “was gracious enough to provide us with a Rhode Island Supreme Court case entitled Warwick Mall Trust v State of Rhode Island.” Sources told me that the court case was provided to Lombardi and the other senators by Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio, a strong supporter of labor who sat in on the original Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that heard testimony on this bill.

Lombardi said that the decision in this case could be applied to Fogarty’s bill, and claimed that the bill, as written, would be unconstitutional.

In the end, of course, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Fogarty’s bill down. It was such an unusual occurrence that Chairman Michael McCaffrey couldn’t quite get his head around how it was supposed to work. As the chairman struggled to find the right way to phrase a no vote, two Capitol Police Officers entered the room, to make sure the crowd did not react aggressively to the decision everyone seemed to know was coming. The vote was 7 -2 against. Only Nesselbush and Erin Lynch Prada voted in favor of the bill.

20160615_153706
Debbie Krieg

The disappointment of the Burrillville residents could be felt physically. There were tears. Nick Katkevich, of the FANG Collective, shouted “Shame!” as he was leaving the room. The Capitol Police responded by telling Katkevich to leave, but he was already gone. Out in the hallway, there were more hugs and tears among the Burrillville residents.

They say they will continue the fight.

Looking over every single Senate Judiciary Committee vote this session, you will find that every bill brought up for a vote passed. In fact, every bill before this committee, but two, passed with no votes against them. The two exceptions were S2333 on May 5 and S2505 on March 3, and both times it was Senator Harold Metts casting the lone vote against. Until this day, six of the senators present had not cast a no vote in committee this year.

The truth is that no one is ever really supposed to vote no. These committee votes are pro forma. It’s theater. Every vote serves a purpose and no bill is voted on in committee without a predetermined outcome known well in advance.

And the vote on Paul Fogarty’s bill was no different.

2016-06-15 Senate Judiciary 02

Patreon

Jason Knight challenges Jan Malik in District 67


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

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

Jason Knight announced his candidacy for State Representative today in HD-67. The district encompasses parts of Barrington and Warren.

“We need new voices at the State House,” said Mr. Knight. “Our current government is not working fast enough to address our problems; especially in the areas of infrastructure and jobs.”  Mr. Knight went on to say, “We need creative and inventive solutions to our issues. Every year, our General Assembly gets together and can’t seem to get the job done. If recent events prove anything, it’s that it’s time for new blood.” Mr. Knight is challenging the current representative, Jan Malik, for the seat.

Knight also spoke out in favor of progressive values and responsible government. “This district deserves a representative with real Democratic values and is willing to stand up for change that matters. Jan Malik voted against gay marriage, votes in lockstep with the NRA, and didn’t even show up for the recent vote on truck tolls. We can do better.”

Knight concluded with, “Over the next few months, I will show the voters in Warren and Barrington that we can change the way things are done in Rhode Island. It starts by electing representatives who are ready, willing, and able to challenge the status quo and work to create new opportunities for economic prosperity.”

Mr. Knight, 46, is an attorney in private practice in Providence. He lives in Barrington with his wife, Nicole Jellinek, and their two children. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1988 to 1996 as an enlisted nuclear power technician. After his time in the service, Mr. Knight attended Emerson College and was the class valedictorian. Mr. Knight attended Suffolk Law School and graduated magna cum laude. Mr. Knight then served as a prosecutor in the Rhode Island Department of Attorney General under Attorney General Patrick Lynch and went on to start his own defense practice in Providence. In Barrington, Mr. Knight and Ms. Jellinek are active members at Temple Habonim, a Reform synagogue.

[From a press release]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fast tracking RhodeWorks: Passing unpopular legislation in an election year


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

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

DSC_0914Ahead of yesterday’s finance committee votes in both houses of the General Assembly approving RhodeWorks, the truck toll plan, a press conference was held at the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) featuring some of Rhode Island’s most powerful political, business and labor leaders. They were there to present a unified message in support of the tolls, despite vocal opposition.

One prominent Rhode Island business owner, whose business has “been a member of the Chamber for almost as long as there’s been a Chamber” told me that contrary to GPCC President Laurie White‘s claims that this issue has been discussed with membership, he was never consulted about the plan, despite his business’s dependence on trucks for shipping. In fact, he said, “I didn’t even hear about this meeting until I heard about it on the radio this morning!”

Gina RaimondoAs I said before, RhodeWorks is inevitable. The legislation has been fast tracked not because there is a sudden, urgent need to fix our roads and bridges; the need for this repair is decades old. The legislation is being fast tracked because the necessary arrangements between the various parties involved have been carefully worked out, but in an election year, meaning that the sooner elected officials put this issue in their rear view mirror the better. Several legislators are going to be challenged for their seats because of their votes on this.

Not that Republican challengers are offering anything better. As Sam Bell pointed out yesterday, the Republican plan seems to be privatization, which means private businesses will take over our roads and bridges and charge whatever tolls they want to for profit, or their plan is cutting the budget, denying important social services to families in need. (Not to worry, though: Senate President Paiva-Weed promises that she and Speaker Mattiello will continue to cut the budget, cut taxes and cut services. More on this in a future article.)

The cost of RhodeWorks will be passed onto consumers. Ocean State Job Lot raised a stink over the weekend when they put their expansion plans on hold, threatening as yet unrealized jobs, but after this all pans out, Job Lot will not lose out on any profits: They will simply raise the price of their goods. This means that we are not imposing a user fee on businesses as much as we are coming up with yet another regressive tax that will affect the poor and middle class more than the rich, which is just the way our political leaders like it.

The General Assembly is expected to pass RhodeWorks today, and Governor Raimondo will sign the legislation asap. In the meantime, you can watch the full press conference below.

Laurie White, Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) President

RI Governor Gina Raimondo

Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza

Peter Andruszkiewicz, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island CEO and President

Scott Wolf, Grow Smart Rhode Island Executive Director

Lloyd Albert, AAA of Southern New England Senior Vice President

Michael F. Sabitoni, Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council President

House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello

Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed

Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt,
Central Falls Mayor James Diossa and
Lt. Governor Dan McKee were in attendance but did not speak.

Patreon

RIPTA fare increase is cruel, whether it happens or not


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

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

2015-12-14 RIPTA Board Meeting 005The worst part must be the stress of not knowing when and if their lives are going change. You can see it on the faces of many of those who come to speak.

Those on fixed incomes and dependent on the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) for  their transportation needs gained a brief reprieve yesterday when the RIPTA board voted on a modified fare increase package due to Governor Gina Raimondo’s last minute intervention.

The governor promised to direct state agencies to “develop programs that will ensure the continued mobility of the low-income elderly and persons with disabilities.”

As a result, a fare increase from free to $1 for the disabled, elderly and homeless has been delayed until July 2016, and the new proposed fare increase is only 50 cents, tentatively starting in July. At the board meeting RIPTA Director Peter Alviti said that, “our target is zero” meaning that he hopes the governor will find the money to avoid charging even that 50 cents and keep the free bus fare system in place.

More than a dozen elderly, disabled, homeless and transportation advocacy groups have been fighting this fare increase since it was announced. Hundreds of people have attended meetings and spoken out against the fare hike. Randall Rose, of the RIPTA Riders Alliance said that the fare increase is “a badly thought out plan” that, “is not going to stand.”

There is a good chance Rose is right, and ultimately this will all be about nothing.

2015-12-14 RIPTA Board Meeting 001But if you are one of those dependent on RIPTA for your transportation needs, you don’t know this; not with any certainty. Some estimate that those on a fixed income will have to spend $30 a week or more on transportation. Not on doctor’s visits, they will be covered by Logisticare, a private contractor. But pharmacy visits, shopping, friend and family visits, trips to twelve-step programs, church, political meetings, or any other kind of travel, will be money taken out of the budget for food, medication, utilities, toiletries or rent.

Some will start trying to make their medication last longer, because maybe half a pill is just as good as the one pill prescribed by a doctor. Maybe take one pill every other day, or skip certain medications entirely. That might work.

Less food will become a certainty. Life without electricity or heat will be endured. Little joys will be sacrificed. Life will become grayer. Life will be less.

Many will not travel any more. They will become home bound, economically imprisoned in their homes. Their health will suffer. Some will die.

Did the General Assembly, when they voted to force the RIPTA board to increase the fares on the most vulnerable, think about the people whose lives will be ruined? Even if this entire issue goes away over the next weeks and months, did the Senators and Representatives who voted for this think about the stress they inflicted on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the homeless?

Lives already clouded by poverty shouldn’t have their stress compounded for no reason. It’s cruel.

The actions and inactions of our General Assembly have consequences. People suffer when the General Assembly behaves so cavalierly. The Speaker of the House cares mightily for the concerns of his “well-to-do” neighbors yet seems to think nothing of inflicting senseless cruelty on the poor.

If we are to be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable among us, we are failing.

We must do better.

2015-12-14 RIPTA Board Meeting 003

Patreon

Four moves to make on probation reform, courtesy of DARE

0701-drug-jailIt is difficult, if not impossible, to pursue the goals of punishment at the same time as rehabilitation and reentry.

Probation is a punishment, and Rhode Island is a national leader in this form of punishment. As noted recently in the Providence Journal, the Governor’s workgroup is looking at ways to amend the state’s practices. Hopefully, any suggestions that pass the legislature or Department of Corrections are substantial and impactful. The crux of this, however, will depend on whether the state has an appetite to reduce punishments and thereby increase rehabilitation and reentry. Keep in mind that some people get sentenced directly to probation while others serve that sentence following a stint in prison.

As a former member and organizer with Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) who has been serving a punishment for 22 years, I can tell you that many Rhode Islanders have been thinking long and hard about this topic, long before anyone could imagine a reduction in punishments for any offense. People are hampered in their attempts to live a productive life because of the crimes we have committed in the past, as there is a natural tendency to exclude us; however, this is reinforced by a probation status that serves to deny jobs, deny homes, deny education, and deny opportunities to help others.

DARE is the only membership-based grassroots organization in Rhode Island with a focus on criminal justice policies. Since forming our Behind the Walls committee in 1998, we are the only policy organization with formerly incarcerated people in leadership, and played a critical role in re-enfranchising people on probation and parole, reducing prison phone rates, ending mandatory minimum sentences, unshackling pregnant women, reducing employment discrimination with Ban the Box, ending probation violations based on dismissed new charges, and (soon) ending blanket discrimination in public housing.

As community members who are overwhelmingly impacted by criminal justice policies, we want to generate stability, support individuals and strengthen our community. Our membership is reflective of the low income communities of color that have the fewest resources to deal with unemployment, homelessness, mental illness, physical health, and substance abuse; i.e. the primary drivers of mass incarceration. Our community members are often both victims and perpetrators of crime, generally excluded from victims’ services once we are convicted. We live this issue, multi-generationally, in a state that has issued over 150,000 prison ID numbers in recent decades.

Ten years ago, DARE took an analytical approach to probation reform in Rhode Island. We knew the stories and lived the lives of people on probation. We recognized patterns of structural discrimination, financial hardship, and mental anguish that make it hard for any normal person to succeed. We recognize that probation is punishment, and the lengthy punishment of our family members, people living in our homes and raising our children, has been a disaster.

DARE articulated a four-point interlocking probation reform platform:

  1. Limit sentencing on violations to the time remaining on probation (Rule 32(f)). Thus, if one has a single day remaining on a 10-year probation term, they can only be sentenced to a single day. Whereas the status quo is that a judge may instead impose an entire 10-year suspended sentence, we believe this is not only morally flawed but also exceeds (in some cases) the statutory limits on certain crimes.
  2. Eliminate the 120-day limitation on filing a motion for a sentence reduction (Rule 35). Circumstances rarely change to justify a reduction within four months of the original sentence, yet when someone is serving a ten or fifty year sentence- they will often change over the years. Although the DOC can put some people on low supervision or banked status, their sentence has not ended for any of the structural discrimination purposes such as housing, employment, or volunteering. Nor are they free of the punishment’s mental and spiritual impacts.
  3. Extend Good Time to people on probation and parole (R.I.G.L. §42-56-24). This adjustment would have several effects, by (a) incentivizing good behavior, (b) naturally shortening sentences, and (c) allow probation officers and/or judges to take away earned Good Time for lower level infractions, similar to ACI discipline boards.
  4. Allow for violations to be dismissed where the new underlying charge is also dismissed (Rule 32(f)). This proposal passed the legislature after several years of advocacy. It was particularly frustrating when few people believed it was happening, and momentum shifted after Rep. Patrick O’Neill (a criminal defense attorney) interjected during a committee hearing that it is true: sometimes a new allegation comes along and within a few weeks the prosecutor offers a “deal” to plead guilty. If they don’t take the deal, then a maximum sentence on the probation violation is guaranteed. Defendants believe that guarantee, knowing the extremely low standard of guilt, eroded rules of evidence, and notorious cases such as Richard Beverly and Meko Lincoln. Both involved the dubious testimony of police officers ultimately revealed as criminals themselves. Most are “smarter” than Richard and Meko, accepting a few years in prison rather than risk lengthy violations.

These four reforms would reduce the number of people on probation, reduce the number of violations, incentivize good behavior, and allow people a better chance at a second chance.

There is no such thing as a second chance, a fresh start, or anything of the like while on probation. There has long been massive investment in low-income communities, however it has come in the form of police and prisons. Millions of dollars are spent in each neighborhood, although none of that money is an actual local investment. We are not widgets for processing, nor animals for study, nor wetlands to be saved. We are parents, children, brothers, sisters, workers, voters, and even policy experts.

We want a criminal justice system that can protect us without hurting us, where cages are a last resort, where punishments can end, and people can overcome their mistakes. We are the number one stakeholder in reducing overall crime and punishment, and reinvesting resources into affordable housing, jobs, education, along with a health care approach to addiction and mental illness.

I’ve long acknowledged that my sentence will never end, and do not take issue with that. I left Rhode Island to get an education, as my applications were rejected by Brown, URI, RISD, Salve Regina, Providence College, and Roger Williams Law School. Furthermore, several arts organizations, mentorships, and the Training School would not let me volunteer. Regardless of my own saga, Rhode Island needs to look at the systemic issues, and not isolate a few cases. To that end, the Governor would be well served to pick the brains of people who have lived these issues, from cradle to grave.

Public opposition to downtown stadium builds


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
20150727_191203
Rochambeau Library

It was by far the biggest meeting I had ever seen at Rochambeau Library, and bigger than any crowd I have seen at any of the PawSox listening tours. The crowd filled the room and overflowed into the halls. About 125 people attended the Providence Campaign Against the Stadium organizational meeting in Providence Monday night. Organizers Sam Bell, Sharon Steele, Tim Empke and Suzanne Mark conducted a meeting to recruit help in defeating the building of a new PawSox stadium in Providence.

Those in attendance were unhappy with elected officials who have decided to reserve judgement and not come out against giving the PawSox owners taxpayer monies and/or tax breaks. They also came out because they are strongly in favor of keeping the land in question true to its original intention as a public park open to all. The consensus seems to be that the vast majority of Rhode Islanders are opposed to any kind of stadium deal, and that elected officials such as Governor Gina Raimondo, Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello and Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed are not listening to their constituents even as they negotiate in secret with PawSox management.

Part of the campaign’s strategy has been collecting signatures to pressure the Providence City Council into rejecting any kind of tax deal for the Stadium. Enough signatures have been collected to force the City Council to take up the issue and the campaign is actively collecting the signatures needed to put the stadium initiative on the ballot. If Providence rejects the stadium, then the stadium cannot be built.

However, Mayor Jorge Elorza has joined state elected officials in not taking any kind of stand against the stadium, adopting the same wait-and-see attitude. This annoyed many of those who were at the Rochambeau meeting, who feel that the East Side helped to elect the Mayor, and that he should be more receptive to the opinions of voters than to the interests of out of state millionaires.

If eight members of the Providence City Council come out strongly against the deal, the stadium is a dead issue, but there is a catch. The General Assembly has the power to rewrite local laws and over ride the Providence City Council or the voters of Providence. They have done so in the past when referendums threaten corporate interests. Last year the General Assembly passed legislation (as a budget amendment to avoid public commentary) taking away the rights of cities and towns to set their own minimum wages as a gift to The Procaccianti Group, which runs several hotels downtown and around the world.

The Campaign organizers thought this scenario unlikely.

After the main meeting the group separated into several working groups, concentrating on different aspects of the campaign.

DSC01592
Jeff White, Sydney McKenna and Dan Rea

By way of contrast, two hours earlier the PawSox sales team was in the Barrington Town Hall as part of their ongoing “listening tour” to be held in every city and town in Rhode island. Charles Steinberg, who usually conducts these meetings since the death of Jim Skeffington, was not on hand because he was helping with the celebrations around the induction of Pedro Martinez into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

This left the sales duties to organizer Sydney McKenna, special assistant to Larry Lucchino Dan Rea III and Red Sox accountant Jeff White.

Things did not go great.

The crowd of about 40 people were forced to submit all questions in writing before hand under the watchful eyes of two hired police officers. No one spoke up in favor of the stadium, many people spoke out against it. Former Attorney General Arlene Violet was in attendance, and she pounded the speakers with tough questions, often speaking up out of turn to make her points. It was the only way to express an opinion to the room given the format of the meeting.

Violet pushed back hard against the contention that nearly 50 percent of those attending PawSox games come from out of state. She asked where the numbers Jeff White was putting out were coming from. White said that the PawSox have been polling those coming to the game for the past five weeks.

When Violet countered that the poll lacked any kind of validity, White scowled. Sydney McKenna, former campaign manager for talk show host Buddy Cianci’s bid for Mayor of Providence commented that she missed having Violet on the radio.

After the meeting a Barrington native told me he felt insulted by the sales team. He was disgusted by their disregard of the public’s opinion and by what he considered to be the combative nature of Jeff White.

Patreon

How bad legislation gets passed- a House debate in 5 minutes


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Not a Good Bill
Representative Joseph Shekarchi

How does bad legislation pass the General Assembly?

With laughter.

“I’m not going to say it’s a good bill, but I move passage,” said Representative Joseph Shekarchi about the Plumber’s Continuing Education Bill. The bill, which mandates continuing education for plumbers unless the plumber’s age and experience add up to 80 or more, went on to pass the House 59-10. On July 15 the bill became law without Governor Gina Raimondo‘s signature. She didn’t veto the legislation, but she wasn’t about to add her name to it.

Representative Jared Nunes rose to oppose the bill, calling it, “really poor public policy,” before adding, “you almost have to be a mathematician to figure out if you can be a plumber or not.”

Featuring Representatives Nicholas Mattiello, Joseph Shekarchi, Jared Nunes, Joseph Trillo and Stephen Ucci.

Here it is, no editing required:

Patreon

RI General Assembly still voting on marriage equality


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

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

DSC_3469Marriage equality has been the law in Rhode Island for two years now, and its gone nationwide due to the recent SCOTUS decision, but in the General Assembly, some legislators are continuing to vote against same-sex couples seeking to get married.

When the General Assembly abruptly ended its legislative season this year, it did so having passed 117 “Solemnization of Marriage” bills. These bills are perfunctory legislative favors done by Representatives and Senators for their constituents. Essentially, if a couple wishes to be married, but the officiant of their dreams is not permitted to marry the couple by law, a “Solemnization of Marriage” bill allows a one time exception.

With this bill passed, a beloved relative or family friend will now be able to conduct the wedding ceremony. Because these bills are so common, they are usually bundled together as part of a “consent calendar” which is passed with little discussion and no fanfare.

Many who voted against same-sex marriage two years ago continue that battle today and some new legislators have joined the fight by voting against solemnization of marriage bills for same-sex couples. This means that anyone seeking these perfunctory legislative favors are now putting themselves in a position to have their marriage judged by religious conservatives. These votes served to remind 25 couples that their marriage is not worthy of the same level of respect as others.

Out of the 117 solemnization bills passed last year, six were for couples with names that are traditionally associated with the same sex. Misty and Dawn, Elizabeth and Nancy, Alicia and Laura, William and Michael, Kristin and Rebecca, and Emilie and Michelle all sought and received solemnization of marriage bills. Two other couples, Sarah and Chris and Rebeccah and Alex may or not be same-sex couples, judging from the names. Of course, perusing the names like this is by no means a perfect system, so I apologize if I have missed or mischaracterized anyone based solely on a heteronormative reading of their name.

Consistently voting against same-sex marriages are Representatives Samuel Azzinaro, Arthur Corvese and Robert Phillips. Reps Justin Price, Joseph Trillo, Robert Lancia and Sherry Roberts frequently vote against same-sex solemnization bills.

Because solemnization bills are frequently bundled and passed together on a consent calendar, oftentimes these legislators find themselves voting against opposite sex marriages that happen to be part of a bundle that contains just one same-sex marriage. On May 19 Azzinaro, Corvese, Lancia, Phillips, Price, Roberts and Trillo voted against 5 marriages in total because William wanted to marry Michael. And On May 12 Azzinaro, Corvese, Phillips, Price and Trillo voted against 6 marriages because Alicia wanted to marry Rose.

I spoke by phone with Rep. Azzinaro, a Democrat serving District 37 in Westerly, about his no votes, which he says are based on his religious beliefs. Azzinaro introduced 7 solemnization bills last season, all of which passed without a single no vote.

“It’s not in my belief,” said Azzinaro about same sex marriage, “I didn’t vote for it when it was brought to the House for a vote and I don’t feel I can vote for any of these same-sex marriages.”

I asked how legislators determine which bills are for same-sex marriages and which are for opposite sex marriages. “We usually try to find out also from the sponsor of the bill if it’s a male and a female or a same-sex couple marriage, if we’re not sure,” Azzinaro said.

He went on to say that if a same sex couple in his district came to him and asked him to submit a solemnization of marriage bill before the House, he would tell them no. I asked him how he thinks his constituents would feel about that, given that he discriminates against his same-sex constituents in what kind of services he offers, based on their sexual orientation.

“They have to know who I am, how I feel,” he said.

The first video is of a passage of a Solemnization of Marriage bill, with Azzinaro, Corvese, Lancia, Phillips, Price and Roberts voting against. The second video is of the passage of a consent calendar containing one same-sex marriage and four opposite sex marriages. Azzinaro, Corvese and Phillips voted against.

Patreon


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