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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked Hassett a follow up.

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

I received no answer.

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

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

The 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

“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.”

Further 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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.”

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.