Man Bites Dog: A House Committee Passes Ethics Bill instead of Holding for Further Study

UPDATE @ 4:30 PM: Kathy Gregg at the ProJo tweeted out:

Hear that right? Did Speaker [F]ox just publicly remove J Patrick O'Neill from house judiciary after last nights ethics bill coup. Yes.

Thus does O'Neill become the object lesson for what happens when you move to vote a bill out of committee without Speakah Fox's permission. I'm sure Rep. Marcello hopes the "cloud of suspicion" doesn't cover him....

ORIGINAL POST
===============================================================
Maybe what Andrew said spurred something? Ted Nesi reports:

Rep. J. Patrick O’Neill got a taste of revenge on Tuesday night.

During what was looking to be an uneventful hearing, the Pawtucket Democrat apparently surprised House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Edie Ajello and managed to get the 13-member panel to pass a proposed constitutional amendment [pdf] that would restore the R.I. Ethics Commission’s power to police state lawmakers. Rep. Doreen Costa, R-North Kingstown, seconded O’Neill’s motion.

A spokesman for House Speaker Gordon Fox wasn’t immediately available for comment, and the vote hasn’t been posted online yet. John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island and a longtime proponent of the ethics amendment, was shocked and elated by the sudden turn of events.

“They were intending to hold this bill for further study before Rep. O’Neill made a motion to reconsider,” Marion told WPRI.com. “We were caught off-guard, but we’re delighted because now the whole House of Representatives is going to have to vote on the resolution.”

The bill’s sponsor – Rep. Mike Marcello, D-Scituate – was as surprised as anyone; he was actually out of the room when the committee voted.

“I’m happy the bill passed, but I’m somewhat concerned about the manner in which it did,” Marcello told WPRI.com. “But a pass is a pass. I just hope the manner in which it passed doesn’t leave a cloud of suspicion as to whether or not it has the true support of the House.”

"Cloud of suspicion"? Generated by whom? Sheesh, even the freakin' sponsor of the bill doesn't know how to deal with the passage of his own bill without the prior receipt of the proper marching orders from leadership. I'm sure everything will settle down and we'll be back to "further study" in no time.

Allegations of "Pay to Play"

It's very interesting to see what happens when very powerful politicians finally face a challenger who is willing to call them out for various things. House Speaker Gordon Fox has an opponent, Mark Binder, who is calling him out on a few different things.

First was the allegation that the General Assembly's Public Communications Director was being asked to answer questions about Fox's campaign, which is a no-no.

Additionally, Fox has been forced to answer questions about the 38 Studios mess, including his "everybody knew" comment. Incidentally, his comment seems to have thrown other legislators under the bus who have denied any knowledge of the direct negotiations or terms with 38 Studios prior to their vote.

Binder still has yet another tack, he's alleging "pay to play" during Fox's time as Speaker. First, that's not an allegation that I'm going to make at Fox as when you say things like that, you need to have solid evidence to back up your claims. I don't have anything like that. What it seems that Binder is using is circumstantial evidence. In his Newsmakers debate with Fox, Binder claims to have seen evidence in Fox's campaign finance reports and how he votes. Binder said that Fox has taken campaign donations from sources before, during and after voting on legislation that was beneficial to the donors. However, there is no direct "smoking gun" here. So maybe we should give the Speaker the benefit of the doubt? After all, he claims that he would never do such a thing.

Well, except for that fine he accepted back in 2004. Eight years ago, Fox agreed to the largest fine ever issued by the state's Ethics Commission and paid $10,000.

The Rhode Island state Ethics Commission was to vote Tuesday on a proposed settlement that would have House Majority Leader Gordon Fox pay a $10,000 fine for voting on a $770 million, no-bid deal for the lottery company GTECH in which his law firm was involved.

I guess that might qualify as "pay to play."

Fox denies in the proposed deal that he did any work for GTECH in the week before he voted on the legislation. However, billings his law firm sent to GTECH indicated that he did.

We're seeing another pattern with Speaker Fox. He seems to do one thing and then when it doesn't go right he simply apologizes. First there was the reduced funding for RI's higher education where he offered a "shame on us", seems to be doing something similar with 38 Studios and then did the same with this fine situation.

"I did not know of the law firm's business relationship with GTECH but I should have known. This is a mistake for which I accept full responsibility," Fox said in a statement released on Monday.

Apologies are great but we are seeing a pattern. Speaker Fox has at least one if not two big elections coming up. First will be his challenge from Binder but even if he's successful, he could have a challenge for his Speaker position. I guess we'll see with those two votes whether people want to continue down the path we've been following.

The Insanity Will Never End, Until We At Least Begin to Think About It

RI Public Radio reporter Ian Donnis' recap of the last night's Gordon Fox/Mark Binder debate includes this gem of Rhode Island fiscal insanity...

6. [House Speaker Gordon Fox], in the first time that I heard him mention it, raised the possibility of using the state income tax to reduce the high burden of property taxes. He didn’t offer further specifics. The comment came in response to a question from a resident troubled by high property taxes on the East Side.

Think through how this would work. Speaker Fox is suggesting that a statewide tax increase (or perhaps a service cut HAHAHAHAHAHA) can be used to subsidize the property taxes of East Side residents. There's is no fiscal way that this works out unless 1) the General Assembly rigs some kind of "property tax funding formula", so that politically favored constituencies like East Siders receive money taken from less politically favored ones or 2) more money is taken from East Siders in state taxes than they get back in property tax subsidies (with the legislature hoping that nobody on the East Side notices).

Do Rhode Island legislators really believe that everyone can come out ahead, in a plan to shift money from Group A to Group B? More importantly, does the legislator you are planning to vote for this November believe it?

Not So Fast Mr. Speaker

Today, RI House Speaker Gordon Fox put out a letter to members of his district. Andrew has already asked one question about it. If there is no political hay to be made about the 38 Studios debacle, then what is fair to talk about? Specifically, Speaker Fox wrote:

It is disappointing that there are people who want to use the 38 Studios issue as a political weapon as opposed to learning from our mistakes and focusing on how to move our state's economy forward. Partisan politics doesn't create jobs.

Very interesting. I'm certain that he feels the same way about his friends using this "political weapon" against former Governor Don Carcieri too, no? Or it's merely he who should be shielded? This just sounds too eerily familiar where a crisis was just beginning to bubble up right before an election and got tamped down until after the votes were counted?

However, the Speaker makes some other interesting points in his letter.

But I always remembered what [my father] preached to me about the importance of education. I saw an advertisement for Rhode Island College in the newspaper and I decided I could afford to take classes while still working. I rode the RIPTA bus to RIC and got absorbed in my studies, earning a degree in 1985 while majoring in both political science and history. I am tremendously grateful to the RIC professors who inspired me to work hard because that led to a full scholarship to Northeaster University School of Law and my career as an attorney. As I said to the students when I was RIC's commencement speaker a few years ago, Rhode Island College truly saved my life. A quality and affordable public education was my life preserver and I will never, ever forget that.

Apparently, he did forget that. While he was a member of the RI House and even while he was the House Majority Leader, the Providence Journal noted:

State support for Rhode Island’s only public research institution has fallen so dramatically in the past decade that the mission and future of the University of Rhode Island are threatened, according to a national report that echoes the concerns URI’s leaders have voiced for years.
A recent study by the National Science Board found that Rhode Island’s per-student financing of its flagship research university has declined by an inflation-adjusted 47 percent since 2002 — the second-largest cut in the country. And the amount the state spent per student in 2009-10 ranked Rhode Island 48 out of 50 states.

Additionally, he's well aware of the fact that he was a part of this when he told Newsmakers:

“Shame on us,” he said. “I was part of that, and shame on me for doing it"

Here we have the Speaker telling us that he'll "never, ever forget that", but in his history, he shows us the exact opposite. Should we believe what he says he's going to do or should we believe what he has already done?

But wait, there's more to this letter. On a different topic, we also hear about how the State House is a democracy, everyone's equal and if someone has a bill they want considered, his door is open to listen. Then at the same time, we hear of people like Rep. Spencer Dickinson telling us how it really works behind closed doors and how no bills ever see the light of day without Speaker Fox being on board. Anything he doesn't like simply gets "Held for further study." All of which, of course, gets denied by House Leadership. Except when he lets little things slip like:

"Moving forward, I will continue my decades-long fight to support and defend a woman's right to choose. I will do everything in my power to make sure that any legislation that doesn't respect women's reproductive choices is never brought before the House."

I'm not saying anything about the issue he brings up. My point is he is admitting to using his powerful position in the House ("everything in my power") to not let legislation be brought before the House. It's his will. His way or the highway. At least now we have the admission from the Speaker himself. He cherrypicks bills that he likes and allows them to pass and gives the judgmental thumbs down to bills he doesn't like and those die off somewhere. Is that really how the RI Constitution was written up? Is that the kind of power that we want just one person to have? Why does he have that power?

Lastly, in his closing, Speaker Fox wrote

"Negative ads don't cut red tape for small business owners. Anonymous attacks don't increase investments in college affordability and adult education."

With all due respect Mr. Speaker, nor do you or your General Assembly. However, he goes on.

"But I promise you that I will. I will work every day for you and your neighbors to grow this economy, to create jobs and to do whatever it takes to put Rhode Island back on top again."

To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." Telling us what he's going to do, yet he has a clear record of doing the opposite. In fact, he's even contradicting himself right in this very message. He has said that he's looking to get a vote on same-sex marriage in January. What in the world does that have to do with growing the economy and creating jobs? If the highest priority is fixing the state's economy, then why isn't that the stated primary focus for January?

Why do we let these politicians constantly tell us what they're going to do and we just go along believing them, even when we have evidence to the contrary? Gordon Fox has been in the RI State House since 1992 and has been a member of the House Leadership since 2002. We've seen the damage that Gordon Fox has done to this state, we have a concrete history of his actions. We have absolutely no reason to believe him that he'll be any different going forward and he'll do anything differently. Clearly, it's time for a change at the State House, starting with the man in charge. Gordon Fox has failed us and he gives us no reason to believe things will get better.

Gordon Fox is Disappointed in the Discussion About 38 Studios

Rhode Island Speaker of the House Gordon Fox (D-Providence) has sent a letter to his constituents, available from the Providence Journal, that includes this amusing concept...

It is disappointing that there are people who want to use the 38 Studios issue as a political weapon as opposed to learning from our mistakes and focusing on how to move our state's economy forward. Partisan politics doesn't create jobs.

Let's keep this at a very high-level for starters: If bad spending decisions by politicians aren't a legitimate issue during a political campaign, then what issues are?

Coming up in Committee: One Bill Scheduled to Be Heard Tomorrow (Relating to Car Tax Valuations)

The Rhode Island House of Representatives Municipal Government Committee is scheduled to hear a bill tomorrow that would, according to the official description, change the car-tax valuation "so that the assessment of used motor vehicles would be based on the average trade-in price, rather than retail price" (H7098).

All five of the bill's sponsors (Joseph McNamara, Robert Flaherty, Eileen Naughton, David Bennett, and Frank Ferri) represent the City of Warwick where -- probably not coincidentally -- community members have been very active in seeking to have the valuation rules changed.

Folks who have been active on this issue are invited to comment on whether this bill makes the change to car tax valuation rules that they have been seeking.

Binding Arbitration Bill Made Public

The arbitration bill has been made public (PDF) along with a press release explaining the rationale. A "Last Best Offer - Final Package" model has been added:

The legislation changes the arbitration process to one in which the complete “Last Best Offer” from both teachers’ unions and management is considered in its entirety, as opposed to the current approach in which various elements of proposals are considered individually. It extends matters eligible for arbitration to wages, and changes the manner in which arbitrators are selected. Under the current system, one arbitrator is chosen by each side in negotiations, and the third arbitrator is selected from the American Arbitration Association. The new legislation proposes that the third arbitrator would be selected instead by the Presiding Justice of the Superior Court from a list of retired judges and justices.

The legislation also outlines what the arbitration panel is supposed to consider before making a decision:

28-9.3-9.2.1 Factors to be considered by the arbitration board. – The arbitrators shall conduct the hearing and render their decision upon the basis of a prompt, peaceful and just settlement of wage or hour disputes or working conditions and terms and conditions of professional employment between the teachers and the school committee by which they are employed. The factors to be considered by the arbitration board shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The interest and welfare of the students, teachers, and taxpayers;
(2) The city or town’s ability to pay;
(3) Comparison of compensation, benefits and conditions of employment of the school
district in question with compensation, benefits and conditions of employment maintained for other Rhode Island public school teachers;
(4) Comparison of compensation, benefits and conditions of employment of the school
district in question with compensation, benefits and conditions of employment maintained for the same or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions in the local operating area involved; and
(5) Comparison of education qualification and professional development requirements in regard to other professions.

According to various reports, mayors, the Rhode Island Association of School Committees, Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, RISC, the Moderate Party, the RI Tea Party and others are against the legislation. For example:

The bill’s opponents say they are concerned that the expansion of binding arbitration would instead place job protections for teachers ahead of sound educational policy.

“The temptation for an arbitrator to look at financial issues — to the detriment of the contract overall — is overwhelming,” said Tim Duffy, executive director of the Rhode Island Association of School Committees.

“If the union says they are willing to freeze pay and give an additional 5 percent to health care, but insist on no changes to existing language that protects, for example, 30 paid days of teacher sick leave each year, will an arbitrator say, ‘Well it’s a good financial deal?’ ” Duffy said.

“Our concern is, the unions understand the difficult environment for wages right now, so what they will use binding arbitration for is to dig in on the contract language they want to protect....We know teacher unions are worried about teacher seniority and teacher evaluations,” Duffy said. “Binding arbitration is a way of handcuffing the entire education-reform movement.”

The only apparent supporters of this legislation are teacher unions. Why?

Are pensioned and retired judges the best people to assess whether the contract proposals offered by municipalities are a result of fiscal reality? Will communities be more generous than otherwise in hopes of possibly "winning" the "last best offer" showdown? What will inevitably happen is that both union and community proposals will mean more dollars for the unions. Like I said before: binding arbitration = tax hike.

Finally, the whole concept of binding arbitration provides an "out" for our elected officials, making it easier for them to avoid really negotiating when that is a major part of the job that we elect them to do. "It wasn't us, the arbitrator made the decision."

Split in the RI GOP House

Regardless of which side you fall on, all the maneuvering going on in the RI House GOP caucus has basically split it in two. As tweeted by NBC 10's Bill Rappleye:

Watson, Earhardt, Savage and Gordon upset at Newberry/Trillo maneuvering. Bad blood

Great. Anyway, I think what has become clear throughout this little tete-a-tete is that there are careerists on the GOP side (well, both GOP sides) just as much on the Democratic. Guess we need two phone booths now.

Typical Legislative Budget "Cuts" on Display

Governor Chafee is weighing in on the raises being paid to the Legislative staff.

“On the surface, in the toughest budget in decades, it’s hard to justify such big raises.”

That was Governor Chafee’s reaction on Monday to a series of recent Journal reports about the magnitude of the raises that have gone to legislative staffers in recent months.

Since March 2010, more than 100 General Assembly employees have gotten raises over and above the 3 percent that went to the vast majority of state employees in January. Several General Assembly employees got double-digit raises...

Yet, somehow, according to Speaker Gordon Fox, he saved money. How? Read closely:

In a statement issued by his office, Fox said his ongoing reorganization of the General Assembly’s day-to-day operation has already “resulted in savings of more than $500,000” in the legislature’s $39-million budget for this year. “I am proud of our efforts to make the legislature run more efficiently and transparently, and we will continue to try to save money going forward,” he said.

But the legislature’s overall salary costs are still going up, not down.

The lawmakers spent a total of $32.1 million, including $17.877 million on salaries alone in the year that ended June 30.

They budgeted $19.528 million for salaries this year, and then alerted the budget office they may not need that much, but will still need $19.067 million to meet this year’s payroll. For the new year that begins on July 1, they have requested $19.574 million for salaries, another $14.1 million for employee benefits, and an overall budget of $40.3 million budget, according to the state budget office.

Got that? They planned on spending $19.5 million in 2010. They only spent $19 million. They saved half a million! Well, except that's still at least $1 million more than they spent in 2009. Same old tricks. In government, a cut is a reduction in the amount of the expected increase.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House by Committee, February 15-16

Corporations Committee
Environment and Natural Resources Committee
Finance Committee
Health, Education, and Welfare
Municipal Government Committee
Labor

Continue reading "Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House by Committee, February 15-16"

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Judiciary Committee), February 15-16

A large number of bills were submitted into the Rhode Island House and referred to the Judiciary Committee, the week before the spring recess. A few of the highlights are above the fold, the complete set is below.

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5347	Constitutional amendment for voter initiative and referendum.
H5405	The sentence for a second DWI offense will include being ordered to abstain from alcohol and wearing an alcohol-monitoring device.
H5407	From the official description: "authorize[s] and empower[s] state and local law enforcement to work together with Federal authorities to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully in the United States".
H5410	Constitutional Amendment bringing legislators under Ethics Commission jurisdiction

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5336	Extends open meeting laws to "non-profit corporation or other non-profit entity that funded at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its operational budget in the prior budget year"
H5340	Requires committee votes to be published on the General Assembly website.
H5341	Prohibits state officials in positions that require Senate confirmation from lobbying (Let's call this one "The Caruolo Act, 2.0")
H5368	Repeals the estate tax exemption, but replaces it with an estate-tax credit of $25,200 on all estates.
H5456	Requires that all roll call votes, including committee votes, be posted on the GA website within 24 hours of the vote being taken.

Continue reading "Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Judiciary Committee), February 15-16"

When the the Rules Don't Work to the Teachers' Union Advantage, Obviously the Rules Must Immediately Be Changed

In yesterday's Projo, Linda Borg reported that Providence Teachers Union President Steve Smith wants Mayor Angel Tavares to reconsider his decision to formally dismiss all of the teachers in the Providence School System...

The Providence Teachers Union president offered the School Board another option Monday night: send out letters that include the possibility of layoffs and terminations....

Smith, who met with Taveras on Sunday, said the mayor offered to recall approximately 1,400 teachers, but Smith proposed another solution: including the option of layoffs in a new letter.

However, as noted later in the story, the conventional reading of Rhode Island law says that it's too late to initiate a change...

After the public comments, School Board President Kathleen Crain stressed that that board’s hands were tied by a state law that says teachers must be notified of their employment status by March 1.

Hold on though -- a group of Democrats at the State House have suddenly decided that March 1 is obviously too early a date for making decisions for the next school year, and have already proposed changing the notification date for layoffs and dismissals (House Bill 5540)...

This act would extend the notification date for the dismissal, suspension or lay-off of teachers from March 1 to May 15.

So as long as Rhode Island legislators have had the epiphany that the March 1 date isn't sacred and can be changed, shouldn't we also be considering moving the notification date past the end of the school year, and at least pretend that this change is not being proposed solely for the of benefit particular union in a particular situation?

Changing the law to create a personnel process less disruptive to education process is deserving of discussion. Changing the law to benefit a single organization in its particular maneuvers is not.

ADDENDUMS:

Last month, a bill was introduced to the RI House that would move the notification date to June 1 (H5297). It was scheduled for a hearing that was postponed at the sponsor's request (J. Russell Jackson of Newport). Does this mean that today's bill indicative of some kind of negotiation going on in the legislature about a new date, or is this a routine case of multiple bills being submitted to the RI legislature on the same subject with rank-and-file legislators letting leadership decide which one, if any, will get a vote?

Also last month, Julia Steiny discussed the early notification date and its ramifications in her Projo column, available here (h/t Marc).

Comment via Facebook

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Municipal Government Committee), February 8-10

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5300	Repeals the requirement that municipalities and other state agencies report disability parking enforcement to the "the governor's commission on disabilities".
H5301	Municipalities and water districts can use non-licensed plumbers to replace water meters. (There is a heavy Newport presence in the sponsorship.)
H5302	Changes regulations on notification of property tax rate changes.
H5313	Repeals the requirement in state law that an "an update of real property" be conducted every 3 years after a revaluation, and changes the full revaluation cycle to 10 years.
H5314	Repeals the requirement in state law that an "an update of real property" be conducted every 3 years after a revaluation, and changes the full revaluation cycle to 5 years.
H5315	Authorizes a waste-to-energy plant in Woonsocket.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Health, Education and Welfare Committee), February 8-10

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5284	From the official description: This act would authorize and direct the state building code standards committee to update the state building code so as to be consistent with the revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
H5285	Raises the limits on how much health-care providers and hospitals can spend on equipment or expanding services without state permission (But the problems with our health-care system are because it's an example of unbridled capitalism, right!)
H5286	Extends the “Joint Resolution Creating a Special Joint Commission to Study the Education of Children with Autism in the State of Rhode Island” into 2012.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Labor Committee), February 8-10

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5295

From the official description: "This act would authorize the department of corrections to enter into agreements with other state and federal agencies in order to allow inmates to provide labor on conservation projects and would establish a correctional facility garden for inmates to develop gardening skills and provide fresh vegetables to inmates and state hospitals".

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5296	Adds the following to disability law: "Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, an individual working for more than one employer is eligible for benefits if disabled from one employer, provided the individual has held that employment for a period of not less than ten (10) years, even though the individual is not disabled with respect to the individual's other employment".
H5297	From the official description: "This act would extend the notification requirements regarding the dismissal, suspension or lay-off of teachers from March 1 to June 1". (And see Marc's post on Julia Steiny's article on the subject here).
H5298	Arbitrators in cases involving police officers and firefighters can bring a "bargaining agreement up to date, regardless of the amount of years in question", contingent on agreement by both parties. (I know this may seem like a silly question, but if the parties can agree to let an arbitrator bring the agreement up to date, how come they can't directly agree on new terms? What's the catch here?). Companion to S0073.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Judiciary Committee), February 8-10

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5287	Changes various exemptions to the "Hazardous Waste Cleanup" law.
H5289	Would require sellers of electronic equipment and/or power tools to be licensed by the Attorney General.
H5308	Privileges communications between public-safety personnel and their "critical incident stress management team or peer-support members".
H5311	From the official description: "This act would repeal all Class N nightclub licenses which allow persons under the age of twenty-one (21) on the premises of an establishment where alcoholic beverages are served".
H5312	Requires use of e-verify for RI employers with 3 or more employees

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5288	Individuals who volunteer in schools can run a preemptive police background check run on themselves.
H5290	A renter who intends to grow medical marijuana on rental property must inform the landlord of that fact, and the landlord may refuse to rent to that person on this grounds, if he or she so chooses.
H5294	"The various local police departments of the state may offer to perform, free of charge, a state criminal records background check for any person seeking to work with children in a civic, religious or youth organization; provided said person submits a records release authorization."
H5309	The official description says: "This act would clarify that conservation easements are not terminated if a property is merged or sold at a tax sale". The bill does this by adding a "such as but not limited to" clause to some very technical legal language.
H5310	Leases cannot include clauses limiting a tenant from inviting contractors onto the premises to provide repairs or services.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Corporations Committee), February 8-10

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5275	Requires that health insurance cover autism spectrum disorders.
H5276	Charges the RI Health Commissioner with using his powers to promote "patient centered medical homes".
H5279	Authorizes a corporate entity called a "low-profit limited liability company".
H5305	Establishes various administrative procedures regarding health-care provider contracts and rate negotiations.

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5274	Aggregate rate increases by any utility over a 24-month period cannot exceed 2.5%. (California-style energy crises, here we come!)
H5278	Adds shared living programs to the list of programs covered by the "Long-Term Care Ombudsperson Act of 1995".
H5304	Authorizes the state insurance commissioner to act as an ombudsman for ERISA claims. (What's an ERISA claim you ask? A bit of introductory background is available, here).
H5306	"Pharmacies are prohibited from charging uninsured customers of prescription drugs a price of more than twenty percent (20%) beyond the average price for that prescription drug which has been negotiated with all medical insurance companies".

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Finance Committee), February 8-10

Starting with this set of posts, I will post the bills introduced to the legislature each week in separate postings, according to the initial committees that a bill gets referred to. This will help make the the posts more readable (with the exception of one committee, which I will mention in the near future...)

The "significant rewrite" versus "targeted change" distinction remains within each post, with "targeted changes" referring to cases where the intent of a bill is pretty clear, while "significant rewrites" refers to cases where the scope of the change needs to be fully understood, before a discussion can begin.

---

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5280	Creates an annual sales-tax holiday on the 3rd Saturday in August (With lots of exemptions to the usual sales tax exemptions).
H5281	Removes from the law the specific amounts that electric and gas companies are to charge their customers for "demand side management programs".

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5282	Increases the estate tax exemption to $5,000,000 starting in 2011, to be increased annually according to the consumer price index.
H5283	Increases the estate tax exemption to $850,000 starting in 2011, to be increased annually according to the consumer price index. (And sponsored by the same folks who sponsored the previous bill?)

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Criminal and Civil Offense Focus), January 25 - February 3

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5125	Defines crimes of assault, battery and manslaughter against an unborn child. (Same as H5029?)
H5129	Changes registration and notification requirements for sexual offenders.
H5132	From the official description: "This act would require the collection of DNA samples for any person arrested for a crime of violence [and] expand the list of crimes for which a DNA sample is required".
H5257	Sets rules for using restraints on pregnant prisoners.
H5263	From the official description: "This act would amend the law banning racial profiling in traffic stops by state and municipal law enforcement agencies by imposing additional requirements upon law enforcement agencies to collect data and complete regular reports of findings and statistics regarding traffic stops".

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5122	Requires drivers ticketed for a third traffic violation within a 12-month period to appear in court. (Comment: I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply to parking tickets, but only to offenses where a vehicle is being operated.).
H5124	Adds libraries to the list of locations that trigger double-penalties for producing or selling drugs within 300 yards of them.
H5130	Police can conduct an alcohol or a drug test during a traffic-stop, but not both (right now, they are allowed to do both).
H5131	Reduces from 6 to 4 the number of state district court divisions (The municipalities of Bristol County [currently the 1st division], of northern Providence County [the current 5th division] and Providence and East Providence [the current 6th division] get pulled into a single division).
H5181	From the official description: "This act would permit parents of a deceased child who are divorced, separated, living apart or never married to file a motion requesting the judge to apportion fairly any amount awarded in a wrongful death action".
H5182	Reduces the amount of unpaid child support classified as a felony from $10,000 to $5,000. Companion to S0023.
H5212	Adds "little cigars, flavored cigars known as “blunts” unflavored “blunts”, flavored and unflavored blunt wraps, cigarette rolling papers of any size or composition, cigarillos, and tiparillos" to the list of tobacco products that cannot be purchased by individuals younger than 18 years of age.
H5213	Second offense for possession of marijuana would be a misdemeanor.
H5214	Specifies that penalties for violating the terms of parole or a deferred sentence cannot lead to a term of imprisonment that exceeds the original sentence.
H5216	From the official description: "This act would allow that if child support has been terminated, suspended or expired the court can re-establish child support if the child has severe mental impairment or a severe impairment if the situation fits the criteria and factors in this statute".
H5222	Applicants for DCYF jobs would be required to undergo a BCI check.
H5259	Makes clear that any party to a civil action who is over 65 years age can request an acceleration of the action.
H5261	"Petty misdemeanors" involving domestic violence can trigger enhanced penalties. Companion to S0070
H5262	Being deployed out-of-state as part of military service cannot by itself be the cause of modifying a child-custody order. Companion to S0024
H5264	Adds "cyberstalking and cyberharassment" to the list of crimes that can be defined as domestic violence.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Taxation Focus), January 25 - February 3)

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5115

I think this is the repeal of the "Amazon" tax. (Comment: Even though this bill contains a relatively small amount of verbiage, I'm putting it in the "significant rewrites" section, since it's meaning needs some decrypting)

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5114	From the official description: "This act would clarify that a little cigar is not a cigarette for purposes of taxation..."
H5116	Authorizes an instant lottery game called "Scratch-a-Tick" (Comment: Stay classy, Rhode Island.)
H5117	Raises the estate tax threshold to $1.5 million from $850 thousand beginning in 2013, and then indexes it to inflation. Companion to S0058.
H5139	Removes the ability of city and town councils to exempt or stabilize "real and tangible property taxes in enterprise zones for qualified businesses"
H5153	Reduces the minimum corporate income tax from $500 to $50.
H5155	Limits state spending to the increase in the Consumer Price Index or 3%, whichever is lower.
H5157	Lowers the gas tax from 32 to 27 cents per gallon (Comment: And the bidding war with S0053 is on!)
H5158	Reduces the cigarette tax by 5 cents per cigarette (that's 50 mills, for readers who are into arcane units of measure) which must mean there are 20 cigarettes per pack, since the official description says "this act would reduce the cigarette tax by one dollar ($1.00) per pack".
H5167	Reduces the minimum corporate income tax from $500 to $250.
H5170	I think this raises the marginal tax rate on incomes over $500,000 from 4.99% to 9.99%, but I'm not sure it's written-up properly in the legislation.
H5171	I think this raises the marginal tax rate on incomes over $500,000 from 4.99% to 7.99%. It's written more clearly than the previous bill, but I'm not sure how the alternative minimum tax figures in.
H5185	Employers with 3 or fewer employees and employees "engaged in domestic service" would be exempt from workers' compensation laws. (Comment: Who's trying to get out of paying workers comp to their nanny?).
H5207	Would place an optional check-off on the Rhode Island income tax form, for donating money to the Rhode Island Agricultural Lands Preservation Commission.
H5208	Creates "a state income tax credit of ten percent (10%) of the cost of installing the cistern not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000)".
H5209	Would cap the assessed value of a farmland estate at $2.5 million, for purposes of the estate tax. Companion to S0097
H5210	Would exempt "horses used in commercial farming operations" and "feed for animals used in commercial farming" from the state sales tax.
H5234	Authorizes cities and towns to issue bonds "to pay the uninsured portion of any [non-pension related] court judgment or settlement" in an amount up to 10% of the current town budget, without voter approval (currently, the ceiling is 5%).
H5237	"Real property held by small businesses, as defined by the United States Small Business Administration, at least five (5) years prior to an exchange, shall be appraised at its use value rather than its full and fair cash value".
H5249	From the official description: "This act would require the state to pay interest on tax refunds not issued within sixty (60) days".
H5250	Extends the sales-tax exemptions applied to automobiles to pickup trucks under 10,000 lbs.

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Criminal and Civil Offense Focus), January 18-20

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5029	Defines crimes of assault, battery and manslaughter against an unborn child.
H5095	Authorizes a "24/7" sobriety program as an alternative to imprisonment for drunk driving offenses.

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5027	Creates a civil action for forcing or coercing a woman to have an abortion without her free consent.
H5028	Defines a specific crime of assault or battery on a pregnant woman resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth.
H5031	Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a civil offense only.
H5033	Adds elected officials to the list of first-degree murder victims that can trigger a sentence of life without parole.
H5034	Adds elected officials to list of victims of assault and battery that can trigger increased sentences.
H5065	Increase penalties for desecrating graves an other public monuments. (Also changes the word "inclosure" to "enclosure" everywhere in the affected chapters of RI law). Companion to S0033.
H5066	Adds salvia divinorum, datura stramonium and synthetic cannabinoids to the list of controlled substances in RI.
H5087	Choking someone is a felony, even if it does not result in serious bodily injury.
H5089	Extends the definition of hate crime to cover crimes motivated by "gender identity or expression".
H5090	Extends the life of a task force working on the improvement of lineup procedures in RI.
H5094	Prohibits "sexting" by minors.
H5096	Requires a motorist overtaking a bicyclist to leave at least three feet of clearance.
H5099	From the official description: "This act would amend the larceny and unlawful conversion provisions of the general laws pertaining to when a crime is to be treated as a felony, by increasing the threshold amount from five hundred dollars ($500) to one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500)".

Comment via Facebook

Bills Introduced to the Rhode Island House (Business Regulatory Focus), January 18-20

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5100	Repeals the state's franchise tax.
H5101	Sets conditions under which Bureau of Criminal Identification reports may be used in employment decisions.

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5026	No charging fees or asking for fingerprints, when a bank customer presents "a valid instrument" to withdraw funds.
H5032	"Any landlord who rents or leases premises to a tenant who is engaged in the cultivation of medical marijuana shall be indemnified against any claims arising out of the tenant’s cultivation of medical marijuana". (Comment: I had to look up "indemnify" in an online dictionary. It means "Secure (someone) against legal responsibility for their actions.", which I think is the sense in which it is being used here.)
H5040	Landlords don't have to rent to someone who wants to grow medical marijuana. Also, the landlord can ask a potential tenants in advance if they intend to grow medical marijuana.
H5060	Sets a minimum corporate-tax in RI, based on percentage of gross-receipts (Comment:Anyone with experience want to tell us if this is a good deal or bad deal, for the different income brackets that are defined?)
H5062	"No person or business entity who sells real property shall charge, collect, receive, or be entitled to a fee based solely on the subsequent resale or transfer of said property..." (Comment: Can someone put into real world terms what activities are being prohibited here?)
H5077	Automobile insurance rates cannot take into account credit score. (Comment: Should I be listing this as a local bill, since the first three Reps listed as sponsors all represent Johnston?)
H5082	Fees and fines collected from enforcement of the food establishment sanitation code are to be treated as restricted receipts, for the purpose of hiring up to 12 new food inspectors.
H5084	Increases fines for violation of the food establishment sanitation code, from a maximum of $500 to a possible maximum of $5000
H5086	"Food establishments which prepare potentially hazardous foods" must have a "certified food safety manager" present at all times during the preparation of foods.

Bills Introduced in the Rhode Island House, January 18-20

This is the first of five posts today on the bills introduced to the RI General Assembly last week. There will be two other posts on House Bills, with criminal/civil offense and business regulatory bills grouped together, and two posts on Senate Bills, one of which focuses on taxation bills. As a reminder, the difference between "significant rewrites" and "targeted changes" isn't in the impact or importance of the law, but in the sheer amount of verbiage that gets changed. In general in the case of targeted changes, the intent of a bill is pretty clear and discussion can move immediately to whether it is a good idea or not. In the case of significant rewrites, the full scope of the change should be at least double-checked and maybe fully analyzed, before the discussion can begin.

---

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

H5063

For elections of RI General Officers and General Assembly members, a two-person runoff election is held, if no candidate gets a majority in the "first-round" of the general election. (Comment: No details about the timing of the runoff are mentioned in the amendment.)

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5041	Creates a "Return to Work" program through the Dept. of Labor and Training "to provide a structured, supervised training opportunity to Rhode Island residents receiving unemployment benefits, allowing such residents to obtain job training while continuing to collect unemployment compensation".
H5043	Writes the former Illegal Immigration Control Executive Order (i.e. Governor Carcieri's Illegal Immigration Executive Order) into state law.
H5055	Establishes reporting requirements for recipients of historic tax credits.
H5058	The state will pay 100% of costs for students attending vocational schools operated by "a state municipality". (Comment: Nobody let Donna Walsh know she is starting down the road to school choice with this bill).
H5071	Authorizes the Rhode Island National Guard to create an academy "for the purpose of providing at-risk youth with a program to help them obtain a GED, and/or high school diploma, increase their employment potential, and enhance their education and life skills. Companion to S0013.
H5093	From the official description: "This act would allow law enforcement and the attorney general administrative subpoena power to obtain information relative to the distribution or storage of child pornography as well as the exploitation of children or online child enticement from Internet service providers"...
H5103	Sets rules for meeting and monitoring National Fire Protection Association Standards for RI fire departments.

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5035	Makes individual employment contracts with public bodies accessible to the public, in their entirety
H5042	The awarding authority of public works contracts must make sure a provision is written into contracts awarded, specifying that the contractor will provide a monthly report on the payroll records of employees, but the awarding authority is not responsible for enforcing this provision.
H5048	City and town councils can freeze the property tax rates of foreclosed properties that are rehabilitated, for up to 5 years. (OK, but how about giving regular homeowners, who haven't been foreclosed on, the same break?)
H5049	The kindergarten school day must include at least 5.5 hours of instruction.
H5050	The $1.9 million for the DLT unemployment call center (See Rep. Mike Chippendale's blog for an interesting analysis of the bill)
H5053	Prohibits tolls from being used to pay for the maintenance/upgrade of the Sakonnet River Bridge. (Comment: In reality, this means no tolls without the approval the legislature for paying for the Sakonnet River bridge, since one of those "notwithstanding any other law" clauses could be written into a future law.) Companion to S0016.
H5054	Allows any city or town to exempt disabled veterans from property taxes. Companion to S0015.
H5056	No tolls for crossing the Mt. Hope Bridge (Comment: Unless, of course, the legislature approves them in the future by repealing this change.)
H5057	If the state does not reimburse cities and towns for the cost of state mandates, cities and towns can choose not to implement mandates that would save up to 50% of the missing money. (This is an interesting one. If I am reading the existing law properly, the state is supposed to be tracking the cost of unfunded mandates, which the General Assembly can then choose to reimburse. This bill would create a consequence of the GA chooses not to.)
H5059	Adds campus police officers (who have been appointed by the BoGfHE) to the list of officers who continue to receive full pay if injured while responding to an incident while off-duty.
H5061	Raises age of mandatory public school attendance from 16 to 18 (with provisions for students on alternative learning plans).
H5064	School committees no longer have to publish notice of their meetings in a dead-tree newspaper. Electronic notice on a school committee or municipal website would suffice.
H5070	Allows the head of the Rhode Island National Guard to "administer monetary contributions from donors to charitable organizations for and on behalf of the Rhode Island National Guard that benefit state military programs". Companion to S0012.
H5074	Changes who can be a lawyer for the Rhode Island National Guard; it's not just for RI Bar members anymore. Companion to S0032.
H5072	Authorizes vanity license plates for disabled veterans
H5073	Allows the Rhode Island National Guard to participate in asset forfeitures that occur as a result of enforcement of drug laws. Companion to S011.
H5079	Any vessel transporting LNG through Narragansett Bay has to have a peace officer on board (private security guards don't count).
H5083	State government can only purchase flags made in the USA, with made in the USA meaning that "a substantial majority of the principal components are assembled into the final product in an assembly plant in the United States."
H5085	Changes the seismic monitoring rules for the use of explosives. (Comment: This has got be tied to something that recently happened or something that is planned, right? I can't believe that even the idlest of state Reps would make this one up in his or her spare time.)
H5088	Changes poll closing time in RI elections from 9:00 to 8:00 (also ends Pawtucket's option to close their polls an hour early).
H5091	Administrators and magistrates, currently appointed by judges, would be appointed by the Governor from a list of candidates selected by a judicial nominating commission.
H5092	"The division of sheriffs within the department of administration shall verify the immigration status of each incarcerated person being presented to the court for any hearing related to a criminal matter before the court, unless otherwise ordered".
H5098	Good Samaritan law regarding CPR or automated defibrillation applies even if the Good Samaritan has no formal training.
H5102	Authorizes Red Sox Foundation license plates
H5104	From the official description: "This act would provide a refund deduction check off box for contributions to the veterans returning from overseas account made on a state personal income tax return."
H5105	Same as H5074?
H5106	Same as H5070?

Changes with Local Impact

H5030	(Chariho) Chariho district schools can stay open on primary election days (currently, the law says only Block Island schools can stay open) (Comment: An exception is being made for one community, why exactly?)
H5045	(West Glocester Fire District) The West Glocester Fire District will have its annual meeting on the 3rd Saturday of June rather than the 1st Saturday in August. (Who, at any point in New England history, thought it was a good idea to hold an annual meeting on the 1st Saturday in August?)
H5046	(Cranston/Warwick) State law would no longer require that the Pawtuxet dam be maintained. (Not to be too parochial here, but if this is a good idea, how come it's a Western Cranston Rep that's proposing it?)
H5069	(East Providence) Exempts the lighthouse out in the Bay that's part of EP from property taxes
H5080	(Tiverton) Some extra money for Tiverton, in the form of school housing aid. (Comment: Not strictly local impact, since the whole state would pay for it.)

Comment via Facebook

Rep. Brian Newberry on the First Bill to Come to the RI House Floor

The Republicans in the Rhode Island House or Senate don't have the numbers to block anything on the floor or in committee on a straight party line vote, so when I read the Thursday Projo headline which read "R.I. House Republicans Hold Up Money for Jobless Call Center", I wasn't quite sure what it meant.

Via his Facebook page, Representative Brian Newberry (R-Burrillville/North Smithfield) has registered his objection to the headline, and explained what happened with the legislation in question...

The headline was factually inaccurate. If nothing happened, no one would lose any benefits and no one would see a jump in their waiting times. The real issue was how and when the state would pay, if it chose, to keep on extra staff at the DLT to handle unemployment claims. That's it. Fairly simple really.

The subtext, which was far more important and completely missed in the ProJo blog entry, is that the Administration - and while technically it was the new Chafee group the same kinds of thing happened under Carcieri - suddenly realized that if they didn't DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW, the sky would fall. And thus in order to prevent the CATASTROPHE OF THE DAY, they needed the General Assembly to ACT NOW. The only problem was that they didn't quite explain why we needed to act "right now". Instead they surprised the leadership with this issue at the end of last week, which in turn required the leadership to run around like a flock of chickens with their heads cut off, which in turn forced every member of the House to vote on something few of us had the time to read and properly understand....

This is not the way to build good relations between the executive and legislative branches. And this was not a partisan Democrat/Republican issue. It was instead a struggle of power between different branches of government and a message needed to be sent. And in this instance we in the minority were in the best position to send that message by using our ability to delay proceedings by a whopping 24 hours so people had time to read the bill....

(Note: Typo fixed from an earlier version, where the 1st sentence mentioned only the Senate, where it was supposed to mention the "House or Senate").

Bills Introduced in the Rhode Island House, January 11-13

This is the first in what is intended to be a regular series of posts on legislation submitted to the Rhode Island House of Representatives in the prior week.

Initially, bills will be broken down into three categories...

1. Bills that have a statewide impact that involve a significant rewriting of sections of the law ("significant" being measured in terms the volume of verbiage that's changed),
2. Bills that have a statewide impact that involve very targeted changes to the law, and
3. Bills that have an impact in one Rhode Island community (community including a particular school district, fire district, etc.)

As a general rule of thumb, when a bill is classified as "targeted", it should be very easy to determine what the proposed change to the law is and discussion can move immediately to the question of whether it's a good idea or not. For bills classified as "significant rewrites", multiple sections of the law are potentially being changed and the scope and meaning of the complete set of changes needs to be understood, before the discussion of whether they are a good idea or not can begin. The line between categories is fuzzy, with final placement being at the sole discretion of the author of the post. Commenters should of course feel free to point out when there may be more to a change in a "targeted" bill than there appears to be.

Several types of bills will be excluded from the lists to keep things focused on public policy changes; 1) the "solemnization of marriage" bills common in the Rhode Island legislature, 2) bills pertaining to charters of private organizations, 3) ceremonial resolutions and bills pertaining to the naming of public property.

This series will be a straight-up report of everything officially introduced in a given week, with no attempt to determine which bills are favored by leadership, which are going to get committee hearings, etc. made at this stage.

My hope is that this can become not just a one-way or even a two-way street for discussions on pending legislation, but one of those five-way Rhode Island intersections, navigable without major damage on regular basis with a little bit of practice, even when the rest of the drivers are other Rhode Islanders. Think of this as the opportunity to help crowdsource the equivalent of a staff position or two that could be an aid to your legislator (though I can't offer you a state pension for contributing to the crowdsourcing effort). Citizens can make their cases for why the rest of Rhode Island should be concerned about certain bills, either why they should not be relegated to the black hole of "being held for further study" or, alternatively, why some of the bills introduced are terrible ideas that should not passed into law.

The floor will also always be open for advocates of bills, inside and outside of the legislature, to explain the meaning and rationale of particular legislation, to explain which matters are active in the backroom legislative processes that often determine which bills actually make it to the floor and possibly to suggest when citizen voices, at legislative hearings or through other means, could have a significant impact.

This series of posts will be regularly pushed out to the Anchor Rising Facebook site, so individuals who want to comment on the legislation in a less-anonymous forum will have the opportunity to do so.

The first raft of House bills is immediately below...

---

Significant Rewrites with Statewide Impact

H5008	Changes regulations for "Burglar and Hold-up Alarm businesses".
H5012	Same sex marriage bill. (Comment: The official explanation of the bill includes this sentence: "This act would also provide that members of the clergy would not be required to officiate at any particular marriage". I'm not sure how that would change current practice. )
H5017	From the official explanation: This act would establish a "Blue Alert" system to assist in the apprehension of criminal suspects who are involved in the murder or serious injury of law enforcement personnel.

Targeted Changes with Statewide Impact

H5010	Increases fee for a weapons permit from $40 to $100.
H5011	"Notwithstanding any law or regulation to the contrary, no sales or use tax shall be imposed on the excise tax paid to the cities and towns by purchasers or lessees of motor vehicles."
H5013	Requires six hours of drivers' school, to get an RI drivers' license.
H5016	3-year imprisonment for trespassing on a utility (Comment: Wouldn't trespassing on a utility be covered by the usual trespass laws?)
H5019	1-year imprisonment for trespassing at a public school (Comment: Trespassing at a school isn't considered as bad as trespassing at a utility?)

Changes with Local Impact

H5020	(Charlestown) Gives the Charlestown Town Council greater control over the jurisdiction of the Charlestown traffic and parking court.
H5021	(Richmond) Allows Richmond to license door to door salesmen, with a maximum price of $500 per license. (Comment: Why is Peter Petrarca from Smithfield/Lincoln/Johnston a sponsor of a local-impact bill for Richmond?)

Comment via Facebook

Power to the Leadership

In contrast to the promise of more open government in the Republican-controlled U.S. House that I noted earlier, this head-turner came via GoLocalProv today:

[Newly appointed Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Peter] Palumbo [D, Cranston] said he has just started poring through all the rules, but he already has some ideas about what he would like to see changed. For one, he’d like to tweak a rule that allows a state rep to yank a bill that is blocked in committee as long as he or she gets enough of their fellow reps to sign a petition. Palumbo, who at first liked the rule as a freshman lawmaker, said it is better for bills to go through the thorough vetting process of committees before making it to the House floor.

Killing legislation in committees is one of the key ways in which the political establishment keeps a firm grip on power in Rhode Island. It certainly is not a good sign that this is a rule high on Palumbo's list for this legislative session.

An Unopposed Therefore Re-Elected State Rep, on the Chafee Promise that the General Assembly Will Pass His Tax Increase

Joseph Trillo, State Representative from District 24 (Warwick), who is running unopposed in the general election and will therefore be a member of the 2011 legislature, has this to say about Lincoln Chafee's assurance that the General Assembly will pass his 1% sales tax expansion, if Mr. Chafee is elected as the next Governor of Rhode Island...

I think this is a very big mistake. It’s treading on thin ice. Anybody who believes you make a proposal for 1% and it doesn't come back from the General Assembly at 2% or 3% is mistaken. If it doesn’t this year, it will another year. I will certainly not support it.

Another Potential State Rep, on the Chafee Promise that the General Assembly Will Pass His Sales Tax Increase

House District 43 candidate Karin Gorman (Johnston), in addition to going on the record against independent Gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee's proposal to expand the Rhode Island sales tax to goods currently not taxed...

I vote no for Chafee's taxes...

...also reminds us that another mechanism is available, to prevent the tax increase from happening...

...and no for Chafee.

More Assembly Candidates on the Chafee Promise that the Legislature Will Approve His Sales Tax

Here are three more responses to independent candidate Lincoln Chafee's public assurance that the state legislature will go along with his proposal to extend the Rhode Island sales tax to items currently not taxed, made during Friday's night WJAR-TV (NBC 10) Gubernatorial debate...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

Damien Baldino, candidate for State Representative in District 13 (Johnston/Providence), says that...

Lincoln Chafee shouldn't rely on my support. If I'm elected on Tuesday, I will definitely vote against his plan to increase taxes.

...Phil Duquette, candidate for State Representative in District 33 (Narragansett/North Kingstown/South Kingstown), says that...

I will definitely vote against his plan to increase taxes.

...and Dan Gordon, candidate for State Representative in District 71 (Little Compton/Portsmouth/Tiverton, the district that John Loughlin is vacating, by the way) says that...

If elected, I will not only oppose Chafee’s tax increases if he is elected, but will also oppose ANY tax increase!

Another Potential State Representative, on the Chafee Promise on Behalf of the General Assembly that They Will Pass His Sales Tax Increase

In response to the public assurance that was put forth by independent candidate Lincoln Chafee during Friday night's WJAR-TV (NBC 10) Gubernatorial debate, that the state legislature will go along with his proposal to extend the Rhode Island sales tax to items currently not taxed...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

...District 31 candidate for State Representative Doreen Costa (North Kingstown/Exeter) offers this reply...

This is crazy! What is he thinking? I would never support this in a million years. The hardworking people of this state need a break not a tax hike.

How would Mr. Chafee know the General Assembly would be going along with this? It's easy. He doesn't.

A Potential State Representative, on the Chafee Promise on Behalf of the General Assembly that They Will Pass His Sales Tax Increase

Responding via the comments section to the public assurance that was put forth by independent candidate Lincoln Chafee during Friday night's WJAR-TV (NBC 10) Gubernatioral debate, that the state legislature will go along with his proposal to extend the Rhode Island sales tax to items currently not taxed...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

...District 15 candidate for State Representative Jim Quinlan (Cranston) offers this statement...

Mr. Chafee has another thing coming to him if he believes that we, the reformers of RI, would ever support his tax increase on exempt items. When elected to the House I will fight this with my entire being.

What Mr. Chafee is counting on is that passive RIers rule the polls on Tuesday and fail to make the changes that we need in the GA. Let's not let that happen.

An Incumbent State Representative, on the Chafee Promise that the General Assembly Will Pass His Tax Increase

In response to the public assurance that was put forth by independent candidate Lincoln Chafee during Friday night's WJAR-TV (NBC 10) Gubernatorial debate, that the state legislature will go along with his proposal to extend the Rhode Island sales tax to items currently not taxed...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

...District 48 State Representative Brian Newberry (Burillville/North Smithfield), who is running for reelection on Tuesday, offers that...

I will not be supporting any sales tax increase.

An Unopposed and Therefore Re-Elected State Representative, on the Chafee Promise that the General Assembly Will Pass His Tax Increase

Despite independent Gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee's assurance, made during the WJAR-TV (NBC 10) Friday night debate, that the state legislature will go along with his proposal to expand the Rhode Island sales tax to items that are presently not taxed...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

...Representative Karen MacBeth of Cumberland (District 52), because she is running unopposed in the Tuesday's election, can already be counted as one sitting legislator who will not go along with the expansion...

I made a promise to my community that I would not vote for any tax increases and I will keep that promise. It appears from the quotes that Chafee's idea of the governor's leadership includes our current ineffective house leadership. Voters of RI take notice! If we want to see positive change then change the leadership in the house. We don't need a go along to get along general assembly that will cost all of us more money and hurt our economy and state even more.

Lincoln Chafee Promises that the General Assembly Will Pass His Tax Increase. Another Candidate for State Rep Dissents.

Responding via the comments to independent candidate Lincoln Chafee's statement, made during Friday's night's Gubernatorial debate on WJAR-TV (NBC 10), that it can be assumed that the General Assembly will "go along" with his proposal to expand the Rhode Island sales tax to items currently untaxed...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

...District 44 State Representative candidate Jennifer Hirons (Johnston/Lincoln/Smithfield) says that...

I would not support this increase.

Lincoln Chafee Promises that the General Assembly Will Pass His Tax Increase. An Incumbent State Representative Objects.

In response to independent Gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee's statement that, if elected governor, he would be able to get a sales tax expansion through the legislature because...

If the governor is leading the way on a tax increase...the General Assembly is going to go along. That's the governor's leadership. That's his plan and they can go along with it. That's going to happen.

...incumbent Democratic State Representative Jon Brien, who is running for reelection in District 50 (Woonsocket), has offered this response...

There is simply no way I would support the sales tax expansion and would fight tooth and nail against it.

Lincoln Chafee Promises that the General Assembly Will Pass His Tax Increase. Another Potential State Representative Disagrees.

Responding via the comments section of Anchor Rising, Don Botts, candidate for the Rhode Island House of Representatives in District 16 (Cranston) responds to independent Gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee's plan to expand the RI sales tax, and Mr. Chafee's belief that the General Assembly will "go along" with that expansion, by saying...

If I am elected on Tuesday, I would not support Lincoln Chafee's plan to raise taxes.

Quick Takes on RI Reps: Where in Rhode Island is Robert Flaherty?

Rep. Robert Flaherty of Warwick achieved his rating of zero in the Anchor Rising legislative ratings via a different route than most of the other zeroes on the list, by missing a large number of significant votes. He was present for the vote on the Teachers’ Health Insurance Board (where he voted in favor of the override and against the principle of separation of powers).

However, Rep. Flaherty had no recorded votes in the four remaining areas that were considered. Rep. Flaherty missed both votes on watering down Mayoral academies in 2008 as well as the vote for their start-up funding in 2009. In this budget session, he missed both votes on unfunded mandate relief, he missed the votes on the car-tax Article and its different components, and he missed the votes on pension reform.

Quick Takes on RI Reps: How Conservative was David Caprio?

Rep. David Caprio of Narragansett and South Kingstown is frequently labeled a DINO -- a Democrat in Name Only -- by Rhode Island’s progressives. However, his score of 2 according to the Anchor Rising legislative ratings places him on the end of scale inhabited by many progressives. The only vote he received positive credit for was his vote for pension reform, a measure that won support from several legislators not generally considered be DINOs, like Michael Rice from South Kingstown (0), Edith Ajello of Providence and Edwin Pacheco from Burrillville/Glocester (both 1s).

Beyond the pension reform vote, Rep. Caprio voted against start-up funding for Mayoral academies, against both unfunded mandate relief amendments offered as part of this year’s budget, in favor of the budget article to implement this year’s car-tax changes, and in favor of the Teachers’ Health Insurance Board. Apparently, it doesn’t take much to get labeled as an irredeemable conservative against the background of RI politics.

Quick Takes on RI's Reps: Peter Palumbo, Beyond Immigration

Rep. Peter Palumbo of Cranston has been in the news most recently for supporting better enforcement of immigration laws, but his score related to taxes, cost-of-government and cost-of-mandates according to the Anchor Rising legislative rankings is 0 (out of 10), earned from his votes against pension reform, against all forms of unfunded mandate relief for cities and towns, in favor of creating a state board for teachers health insurance where unions directly appoint members, and in favor of increasing local car-taxing authority while lowering the state reimbursement to cities and towns. Could a Representative who is sensible on taxes, sensible on spending, and sensible on immigration issues perhaps be found by the people of District 16?

Quick Takes on RI's Reps: Flip-Floppin' in Smithfield, Featuring Thomas Winfield and Peter Petrarca

And speaking of Peter Petrarca (overall score 2), the House delegation from Smithfield seems to have cornered the market on flip-flopping. As noted in the item on relief from unfunded mandates, Rep. Petrarca is the legislator who sponsored a bill to repeal municipal-side unfunded mandates in February -- and then voted against nearly identical language as a budget amendment in June.

Rep. Thomas Winfield (overall score 1) did one better, managing two flip-flops, by not supporting educational unfunded mandate relief this year after having voted for it last year, and by voting in favor of the amendment lowering the car-tax exemption from $3,000 to $500 but then voting against the final bill. Unless Rep Winfield believed that the car-tax exemption should have been lowered beyond even $500, it is difficult to find a rationale for this combination of votes.

Quick Takes on RI's Reps: People of Johnston, Are You Aware of How Your Reps are Voting?

And speaking of Johnston, the contrast in the Anchor Rising legislative rankings between Johnston and its legislative neighbors is striking. Stephen Ucci and Deborah Fellela both received scores of -1, as did John Carnevale who's district includes both Providence and Johnson. The highest-rated legislator from Johnston was Peter Petrarca (who also represents Smithfield and Lincoln) who received a whopping score of 2 out of 10.

Travelling clockwise around Rhode Island's urban ring from Johnston brings you to North the Providence districts represented by Reps. Gregory Schadone (6) and Peter Wasylyk (2, but who by-the-way lost his primary). Travelling the other direction around the urban ring brings you to Cranston, where districts adjacent to Johnston are represented by Reps. Charlene Lima (5) and Michael Marcello (5, though his district also includes Scituate), and Nicholas Mattiello (3, the rating in a Cranston district bordering Johnston who is nearest the Johnston average, but still better than Petrarca's 2).

Are Johnstoners really that different from other Rhode Islanders? Or are they not aware of how the Democrats they are sending to the legislature are voting?

Quick Takes on RI's Reps: Stephen Ucci's Forfeit to Donna Walsh

Representative Donna Walsh (D - Charlestown/New Shoreham/South Kingstown/Westerly) was the sole RI Rep receiving the low score in Anchor Rising legislative rankings (-2). However, it should also be noted that Representative Stephen Ucci (D - Cranston/Johnston) missed the vote on Rep. Karen MacBeth's amendment to make the car tax reimbursement rate uniform across cities and towns. Had Rep. Ucci voted with the majority of the Democratic party on that amendment, he also would have achieved a score of -2.

Re: Another Indication of Rhode Island's Rut

Justin's question of...

Who's Winfield?

...referring to Representative Thomas Winfield (D - Glocester/Smithfield) and his rumored run for Speaker of the House against Gordon Fox, provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the Anchor Rising legislative scorecard in action.

Begin with this simple observation: Rep. Winfield scored a 1 out of 10, while current speaker of the House Gordon Fox scored a 3 out of 10. But as I said in the original post and on the Matt Allen Show, sticking a number next to a legislator's name is not the ultimate goal of this system; the goal is to provide a guide that can help voters learn about the major decisions their incumbent Representatives have made regarding taxes, cost-of-government and cost-of-mandates. And for a potential (or at least a self-declared) leadership candidate like Rep. Winfield, a closely related question is what did he do to earn a score 2 points worse than Speaker Fox.

Rep. Winfield did worse than Speaker Fox for two reasons...

1. He voted for the the amendments attempting to weaken the new Mayoral academies in 2008 (but then voted for their start-up funding in 2009, along with Fox), and
2. He changed his position on relieving cities and towns from educational unfunded mandates, voting for relief in 2009 but against in 2010, incurring a penalty for going wobbly.

The sources of Rep. Winfield's differential with Speaker Fox (coming late to structural ed. reform, changing his mind on unfunded mandates to not support lifting them when it could have helped municipalities adjust to changes in state aid), along with the reasons for his generally low score to begin with (including his being one of the reps who voted in favor of the amendment lowering the car-tax exemption from $3,000 to $500 but who then voted against the final bill) do not suggest someone who is poised to become an effective leader of a steady movement to restore Rhode Island to a semblance of governmental sanity.

Anchor Rising's Rhode Island House of Representatives Ratings for 2010

Here are Anchor Rising's legislative rankings of the members of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, based on the five sets of legislative votes that have been analyzed over the past two weeks. The idea is to try to capture each legislator's propensities towards taxes, cost-of-government and cost-of-mandates, attitudes that are to difficult assess based on a single vote. The scoring system is explained here, including links to the posts containing details on the bills that were considered and the vote tallies. Higher scores signal consistent votes against raising taxes, for lowering cost of government and more sensible regulation of municipal affairs.

As I said to Matt Allen last night I don't expect a ranking number placed next to a legislator's name to be the end of the discussion, but rather a starting point for people looking for more information about the positions and policies their legislator supports. Or maybe someone could convince me that the legislators who scored near zero (or below) are really the ones who are making the best decisions for Rhode Island (but I doubt it).

I will be happy to post responses from any legislator who'd like to comment on their ranking, explain why they voted for or against a certain bill, what else should be considered, why they think the system is flawed or why it's brilliant, etc. I will also post responses from any challengers who'd like to discuss why they believe they will do a better job representing their districts than the legislator listed here on the issues that were considered in assembling the ranking and on any issue a challenger thinks is important.

And now, to the numbers...

Score	Name	Dist.	Communities Represented
10	Rep. Brian Newberry	48	Burillville, North Smithfield
10	Rep. Jon Brien	50	Woonsocket
10	Rep. John Loughlin	71	Little Compton, Portsmouth, Tiverton
9	Rep. Joseph Trillo	24	Warwick
9	Rep. Robert Watson	30	East Greenwich, West Greenwich
9	Rep. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt	49	Woonsocket
8	Rep. Arthur Corvese	55	North Providence
7	Rep. Laurence Ehrhardt	32	North Kingstown
7	Rep. Rod Driver	39	Charlestown, Exeter, Richmond
6	Rep. Gregory Schadone	54	North Providence
6	Rep. Joy Hearn	66	Barrington, East Providence
5	Rep. Charlene Lima	14	Cranston
5	Rep. Robert Jacquard	17	Cranston
5	Rep. Al Gemma	20	Warwick
5	Rep. Patricia Serpa	27	Coventry, Warwick, West Warwick
5	Rep. Michael Marcello	41	Cranston, Scituate
5	Rep. Jan Malik	67	Barrington, Warren
5	Rep. Douglas Gablinske	68	Bristol, Warren
5	Rep. J. Russell Jackson	73	Middletown, Newport
5	Rep. Deborah Ruggiero	74	Jamestown, Middletown
4	Rep. Scott Pollard	40	Coventry, Foster, Glocester
4	Rep. Rene Menard	45	Cumberland, Lincoln
4	Rep. Karen MacBeth	52	Cumberland
4	Rep. John Edwards	70	Portsmouth, Tiverton
3	Rep. John McCauley	1	Providence
3	Rep. Gordon Fox	4	Providence
3	Rep. Steven Costantino	8	Providence
3	Rep. Joseph Almeida	12	Providence
3	Rep. Nicholas Mattiello	15	Cranston, Scituate
3	Rep. Tim Williamson	25	Coventry, West Warwick
3	Rep. William Murphy	26	Coventry, Warwick, West Warwick
3	Rep. Samuel Azzinaro	37	Westerly
3	Rep. Mary Ann Shallcross-Smith	46	Lincoln, Pawtucket
3	Rep. Christopher Fierro	51	Woonsocket
3	Rep. Agostinho Silva	56	Central Falls
3	Rep. Kenneth Vaudreuil	57	Central Falls/Cumberland
3	Rep. Elaine Coderre	60	Pawtucket
3	Rep. Helio Melo	64	East Providence
3	Rep. Raymond Gallison	69	Bristol, Portsmouth
3	Rep. Peter Martin	75	Newport
2	Rep. Peter Wasylyk	6	North Providence, Providence
2	Rep. Joanne Giannini	7	Providence
2	Rep. Anastasia Williams	9	Providence
2	Rep. Scott Slater	10	Providence
2	Rep. Joseph McNamara	19	Cranston, Warwick
2	Rep. Scott Guthrie	28	Coventry
2	Rep. Kenneth Carter	31	Exeter, North Kingstown
2	Rep. David Caprio	34	Narragansett, South Kingstown
2	Rep. Peter Petrarca	44	Johnston, Lincoln, Smithfield
2	Rep. Patrick O'Neill	59	Pawtucket
1	Rep. Edith Ajello	3	Providence
1	Rep. Eileen Naughton	21	Warwick
1	Rep. Frank Ferri	22	Warwick
1	Rep. Donald Lally	33	Narragansett, North Kingstown, South Kingstown
1	Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy	38	Hopkinton, Westerly
1	Rep. Edwin Pacheco	47	Burrillville, Glocester
1	Rep. Thomas Winfield	53	Glocester, Smithfield
1	Rep. Peter Kilmartin	61	Pawtucket
1	Rep. Roberto DaSilva	63	East Providence, Pawtucket
1	Rep. John Savage	65	East Providence
1	Rep. Amy Rice	72	Middletown, Newport, Portsmouth
0	Rep. Grace Diaz	11	Providence
0	Rep. Peter Palumbo	16	Cranston
0	Rep. Robert Flaherty	23	Warwick
0	Rep. Michael Rice	35	South Kingstown
0	Rep. Mary Duffy Messier	62	East Providence/Pawtucket
-1	Rep. David Segal	2	East Providence/Providence
-1	Rep. John DeSimone	5	Providence
-1	Rep. John Carnevale	13	Johnston/Providence
-1	Rep. Arthur Handy	18	Cranston
-1	Rep. Raymond Sullivan	29	Coventry, West Greenwich
-1	Rep. Stephen Ucci	42	Cranston, Johnston
-1	Rep. Deborah Fellela	43	Johnston
-1	Rep. William San Bento	58	North Providence, Pawtucket
-2	Rep. Donna Walsh	36	Charlestown, South Kingstown, Westerly, New Shoreham

The RI House Scoring System

Here’s the scoring system for Anchor Rising's legislative rankings that will appear in the following post. The heading-links will take you to the posts that explain the legislation involved and the complete vote tallies in detail.

Pension Reform:

• +2 for voting for the pension reform article or for the amendment affecting new hires.

Reducing State Car-Tax Reimbursement and
Increasing Local Car Tax Authority:

• +2 for voting against the amendment reducing the exemption from $3,000 (in the original bill) to $500 and voting against the final article.
• +1 for voting against the amendment reducing the exemption but voting for the final article.
• Zip for voting for the amendment reducing the exemption, even combined with a vote against the final article.
• -1 for voting against the amendment establishing a uniform reimbursement rate throughout the state.

Relief from Unfunded Mandates:

• +2 for voting for amendments relieving both municipal-side and educational-side unfunded mandates.
• +1 for voting for one amendment but not the other.
• -1 for voting for educational unfunded mandate relief in 2009 but not 2010 (when the legislature was increasing local taxing authority via the car tax).

Education Reform:

• (For legislators in office prior to 2009) +2 for voting against the amendments to water down Mayoral academies in 2008, and for mayoral academy and charter school start-up funding in 2009.
• (For legislators in office prior to 2009) +1 for voting for the start-up funding in 2009, after a vote to water-down mayoral academies in 2008.
• (For legislators in office prior to 2009) Zip for going wobbly and voting against start-up funding in 2009, regardless of 2008 votes.
• (For legislators who took office for the first time in 2009) +2 for voting for start-up funding in 2009.
• (For all legislators) -1 for voting against expanding the charter cap in 2010.

Teacher’s Health Insurance Board:

• +2 for voting against the override that implemented the board.

How Your Representative Voted on Violating Multiple Principles of Democratic Governance All at Once

The final vote taken by the RI House of Representatives considered in this series is the January vote to override the Governor’s veto of a bill which created a new state board to design health plan options for Rhode Island teachers (see pg. 396). The law which resulted from this bill is a simultaneous affront to principles of local control, separation-of-powers, and general democratic governance, granting labor unions and certain other private organizations the power to directly appoint members of a government panel with the power to impose binding constraints on elected local governments. Further detail about what is wrong with the law is available here, here, here, and here.

Positions on this bill are captured by a single vote, with no combinations of amendments that need to be worried about. 47 Reps voted in favor of overriding the Governor’s veto and to restrict the fiscal options of local government, to trample separation of powers, and to bypass democracy...

The Honorable Speaker Murphy, Ajello, Almeida, Azzinaro, Caprio, Carnevale, Coderre, Costantino, DaSilva, DeSimone, Diaz, Fellela, Ferri, Flaherty, Fox, Gallison, Giannini, Guthrie, Handy, Kilmartin, Lally, Lima, MacBeth, Martin, Mattiello, McNamara, Menard, Messier, Naughton, O'Neill, Pacheco, Palumbo, Rice M., San Bento, Savage, Schadone, Segal, Shallcross-Smith, Silva, Slater, Sullivan, Ucci, Vaudreuil, Walsh, Wasylyk, Williams, Winfield.

...while 22 reps voted against...

Baldelli-Hunt, Brien, Corvese, Driver, Edwards, Ehrhardt, Fierro, Gablinske, Gemma, Hearn, Jackson, Loughlin, Malik, Marcello, Melo, Newberry, Pollard, Rice A., Ruggiero, Serpa, Trillo, Watson.

It wouldn’t be outrageous to suggest that this bill is a bellwether for positions on binding arbitration.

BONUS COVERAGE:

• Moderate Party Gubernatorial candidate Ken Block’s thoughts on the Teachers’ Health Insurance Board are available here.
• Republican Party Gubernatorial candidate John Robitaille’s thoughts on the Teachers’ Health Insurance Board are available here.

The Rhode Island House of Representatives on Education Reform

There have been a series of related educational reform developments in Rhode Island over the past several years, including the Race to the Top application, the events in Central Falls, the passage of the "funding formula", the expansion of charter schools and the creation of a new public governance structure for public education, the mayoral academies spearheaded by Cumberland Mayor Daniel McKee. Charter school and mayoral academy advocates have been successful in advancing their program via the RI legislature, this year convincing them to raise statutory cap on the number of charter schools allowed in Rhode Island from 20 to 35, with the House voting in favor by a vote of 69 - 3 (see pg. 5). However, support for structural education reform in the legislature hasn’t always been so lopsided, as the vote tallies below will show.

Initial legislation authorizing Mayoral academies was passed in 2008. During the floor debate, two amendments intended to water down the new structure were proposed on the House floor; one sponsored by Rep. Amy Rice which would have required Mayoral Academies to comply with many district and/or state level personnel policies, e.g. prevailing wages, tenure, etc. (see pg. 175), and one sponsored by Rep. Jack Savage which would have denied public funding to Mayoral academies (see pg. 176). Both amendments failed.

In 2009, a vote was taken on using 1.5 million dollars in state education funds to get the first year of the Mayoral Academy in Cumberland (and another charter school in Central Falls) underway (see pg. 33). Had this appropriation not been passed, Rhode Island's eligibility for certain Federal education aid would have been seriously damaged. This amendment passed.

This first set of tallies on these votes refers to legislators present for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 sessions:

14 current legislators voted against structural education reform in all three instances, i.e. they voted to restrict Mayoral academy autonomy, to deny them public funding in general and to deny them the specific appropriation needed to get them started...

Ajello, DeSimone, Fellela, Ferri, Handy, Lima, Menard, Pacheco, Rice A, Savage, Segal, Ucci, Walsh, Wasylyk.

Another 4 reps voted with the reformers in 2008, but didn't follow-through to vote for the last 1.5 million dollars to get the program up and running in 2009...

Caprio, Jacquard, Melo, Naughton.

5 other reps changed their positions in the other direction, voting in favor of the failed attempts to water down Mayoral academies in 2008, but then voting for the 1.5 million to set them up in 2009...

Diaz, Palumbo, Sullivan, Williams, Winfield.

Finally, 28 reps voted for all three pro-reform measures associated with the Mayoral academies...

The Honorable Speaker Murphy, Almeida, Baldelli-Hunt, Brien, Carter, Coderre, Corvese, Costantino, Ehrhardt, Fox, Gablinske, Gallison, Gemma, Jackson, Kilmartin, Loughlin, Malik, Mattiello, McCauley, McNamara, O'Neill, Petrarca, Serpa, Silva, Trillo, Vaudreuil, Williamson.

There were a few other odds-and-ends positions taken. Robert Watson voted in favor of allowing Mayoral academies autonomy, but also in favor of denying them public funds, but also in favor of the 1.5 million dollars in 2009. Donald Lally voted to restrict their autonomy, but in favor of their receiving public funds in general, but against the 1.5 million in 2009. Joanne Giannini and William San Bento voted against autonomy, against the 1.5 million, and did not vote on the public funding question. Brian Kennedy voted against autonomy, and did note vote on the other matters.

In the case of representatives who took office for the first time in 2009 (and Rod Driver), we have only the vote on the 1.5 million dollar appropriation to look at; of this group, 11 voted in favor of the final money needed to implement the first Mayoral Academy (and the Central Falls charter school)...

Driver, Edwards, Fierro, Hearn, Marcello, Martin, Newberry, Pollard, Ruggiero, Shallcross-Smith, Slater.

...and six voted against...

Azzinaro, Carnavale, DaSilva, Guthrie, MacBeth, Rice M.

Also, Rep. Gregory Schadone did not vote on the 2008 amendments and voted for the 1.5 million in 2009.

9 members of the strongly pro-education reform group have already lost their legislative seats, either through retirement, or through the loss of a primary (and Elizabeth Dennigan, who voted with the reform side in all three votes, has been replaced by anti-reform dead-ender Mary Duffy Messier, one of the 3 in the 69-3 vote mentioned in the first paragraph). This means that the reforms that have been achieved so far -- depending heavily on the composition of the new legislature elected in November -- are vulnerable to the damage that an inattentive or unimaginative legislature could do, especially when the current chairman of the state's Democratic Party, Ed Pacheco, cast his votes with the strongly anti-reform group.

How Your Legislator Voted on Relieving Your City or Town From Unfunded Mandates

After the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed this year's set of individual budget articles, Representative John Loughlin of Tiverton/Little Compton/Portsmouth introduced an amendment to add an additional article to relieve cities and towns from certain unfunded education mandates (pg. 162)...

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, whether contained in the appropriations for the support of the state for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, or in any general or public law, rule or regulation, the general assembly hereby relieves the school committee and city or town council of any city or town, to the extent that expenditure for compliance would exceed the city or town's maximum spending level permitted by law, from compliance with any unfunded mandates with the exception of those mandates pertaining to transportation, transportation safety and fire safety.

The amendment failed.

Representative Karen MacBeth of Cumberland then proposed a similar amendment addressing non-educational mandates on municipalities (pg. 164)...

Notwithstanding any provision of the general or public laws, or any rule or regulation to the contrary, all unfunded state mandates, not attached to federal funds, required of the cities and towns in municipal areas of operation under their jurisdiction are hereby repealed.

This amendment also failed.

52 Representatives voted against relieving cities and towns from unfunded mandates on both the municipal and educational sides...

The Honorable Speaker Fox and Representatives Ajello, Almeida, Caprio, Carnevale, Coderre, Corvese, Costantino, DaSilva, DeSimone, Diaz, Edwards, Fellela, Ferri, Gablinske, Gallison, Gemma, Giannini, Guthrie, Handy, Jackson, Kilmartin, Lally, Marcello, Martin, Mattiello, Melo, Messier, Murphy, Naughton, O'Neill, Pacheco, Palumbo, Petrarca, Pollard, Rice A., Rice M., Ruggiero, San Bento, Segal, Serpa, Shallcross, Silva, Slater, Sullivan, Ucci, Vaudreuil, Walsh, Wasylyk, Williams, Williamson, Winfield.

2 other Representatives voted to lift the the municipal mandates, but not the educational ones...

Fierro, Jacquard.

...and another 3 voted to lift the educational mandates, but not the municipal ones...

Carter, Hearn, Kennedy.

Finally, 13 Representatives voted for both of the unfunded-mandate relief amendments...

Azzinaro, Baldelli-Hunt, Brien, Driver, Ehrhardt, Loughlin, MacBeth, Menard, Newberry, Savage, Schadone, Trillo, Watson.

Rep. Lima voted for lifting educational unfunded mandates and did not vote on the municipal amendment. Rep. McCauley did not vote on the educational amendment and voted against lifting municipal mandates.

It should also be noted that, between this year and last, a substantial number of Representatives changed positions on unfunded mandates. During the 2009 legislative session, Rep. Loughlin had introduced a slightly different version of his amendment addressing educational mandates (pg. 56)...

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, contained in the appropriations for the support of the state for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, any general or public law, rule or regulation, the general assembly hereby relieves the school committee of any city or town from any unfunded mandates with the exception of those mandates pertaining to transportation, transportation safety and fire safety.

Ten Representatives who voted for this amendment in 2009 voted against the similar amendment in 2010...

Edwards, Fierro, O'Neill, Petrarca, Pollard, Rice A, Rice M, Sullivan, Ucci, Winfield.

And on top of this flip-flop, all ten of these Reps voted in favor of reducing the car-tax exemption from its initially proposed new value of $3,000 to just $500, and eight of the ten voted for the final car-tax change Article. In other words, the ten Representatives listed above suddenly decided that they were against increasing municipal budgeting flexibility in the same session they decided to have municipalities assume a larger direct share of their spending. This is the Rhode Island let's just shift the costs to somebody else and let them worry about it mentality at its worst.

5 other representatives switched their votes the other direction, voting in favor of lifting unfunded educational mandates this year, whilst having voted against lifting them last year...

Carter, Hearn, Kennedy, Lima, Savage.

Finally, the award for the most brazen flip-flop on this issue has to go to Representatives William Murphy, Al Gemma, and Peter Petrarca. In February, these three reps were co-sponsors on a bill identical to the MacBeth amendment...

Notwithstanding any provisions of the general or public laws, or any rule or regulation to the contrary all unfunded state mandates required of the cities and towns in municipal areas of operation under their jurisdiction are hereby repealed.

In June, Reps Petrarca, Murphy and Gemma all voted against language they had sponsored just months earlier. I wonder who told them it was time to change their positions.

Share   Comment via Facebook

A Correction to the Car Tax Post

Rep. Jon Brien of Woonsocket has brought to my attention the section of the House Journal from June 8 (pg. 2), where his intention to vote against the amendment lowering the statewide car-tax exemption from $3,000 to $500 was entered into the official record.

With that change, Rep. Brien should be counted in the group of legislators who voted against the the final car-tax exemption budget article which reduced the $6,000 exemption (and the associated reimbursement), against the amendment that lowered the exemption from the initially proposed new value of $3,000 to $500, and in favor of a uniform reimbursement rate for all RI cities and towns.

What the Vote on the Car Tax Tells You About Your Legislator

As you may have heard, the Rhode Island legislature voted in this year's budget to reduce state reimbursement of the $6,000 local car-tax exemption to a reimbursement on only the first $500 of value. In the same budget article (Article 23), cities and towns were given the option of making up the lost reimbursement money by reducing the exemption itself to as little as $500, i.e. by raising a local tax.

To understand your state representative's position on this issue, votes on two amendments need to be considered in addition to the final vote (pg. 160) on the Article.

1. The original version of the bill submitted to the legislature would have had the state reimburse the cities and towns for an exemption on the first $3,000 of vehicle value. Representative Steve Costantino of Providence introduced an amendment (pg. 155) which reduced the reimbursement to taxes paid on the first $500 of value. The amendment passed.
2. Rep. Karen MacBeth of Cumberland introduced an amendment (pg. 157) to make the reimbursement rate uniform across all cities and towns in RI. This did not alter a city or town's power to set the level of the exemption, only the amount that the state would reimburse. The amendment failed.

A sizable majority of reps (46) voted both for the amendment lowering the exemption amount and for the final article. Of this group, only 4 voted to make the state reimbursement rate uniform; they are underlined in the list below...

The Honorable Speaker Fox, Ajello, Almeida, Azzinaro, Carnevale, Carter, Coderre, Costantino, Diaz, Driver, Edwards, Fellela, Ferri, Fierro, Gablinske, Gallison, Gemma, Handy, Hearn, Jackson, Kennedy, Lally, Malik, Marcello, Martin, Mattiello, McCauley, Melo, Murphy, Naughton, O'Neill, Pacheco, Palumbo, Petrarca, Pollard, Rice M, Ruggiero, San Bento, Serpa, Shallcross, Silva, Sullivan, Vaudreuil, Walsh, Williams, Williamson.

This is yet another example of the dysfunction in Rhode Island's governing class; proposals that take the form of shifting costs from one place to another can expect to receive overwhelming support from the current statehouse majority, while reforms that would nudge the system towards a more rational and equitable structure garner little support.

In addition to the 46 reps listed above, another 7 representatives voted to lower the vehicle tax exemption from $3,000 to $500 but voted against the final article. Of this group of 7, 3 voted in favor of a uniform state reimbursement rate (indicated below using the same underlining convention as above) and 4 voted against...

Ehrhardt, Kilmartin, MacBeth, Menard, Rice A, Savage, Winfield.

Don't let this group of 7 tell you that, because they voted against the final article, they were stalwarts in opposing the vehicle tax change -- they all supported lowering the exemption to next to nothing, when that specific issue was voted on. Reps MacBeth, Menard and Rice may have voted against the final article on principle because of the failure to make the reimbursement uniform, but I'm not sure what excuse Reps Ehrhardt, Kilmartin, Savage and Winfield have. (And shouldn't a guy who aspires to be the state's AG have a better sense about bringing some fairness to the entire state?)

Two other reps voted no on lowering the exemption from $3,000 to $500, but yes on the final article, with Rep. Trillo also voting in favor of making the reimbursement uniform...

Caprio, Trillo.

Finally, 13 reps voted against the entire article changing the car tax and its associated reimbursements, against the specific amendment that lowered the new statewide exemption from $3,000 to $500. Of these 13, 9 voted in favor of a uniform state reimbursement rate...

Baldelli-Hunt, Brien, Corvese, DaSilva, Giannini, Guthrie, Jacquard, Lima, Loughlin, Messier, Newberry, Schadone, Wasylyk.

There were also some amendments offered on the subject of fire-district taxes that may have impacted a few votes, but the anti-correlation between the "let's-make-the-reimbursement-fair" group and the "let's-shift-the-burden-to someone-else" group is sadly telling. Rhode Island's state representatives most eager to shift their fiscal problems to someone else are also the reps who seem to care the least about creating a system that is maximally fair to all of Rhode Island's taxpayers.

CORRECTION:

Rep. Jon Brien of Woonsocket has brought to my attention the section of the House Journal from June 8, where he had his intention to vote against the amendment lowering the statewide car-tax and associated reimbursement from $3,000 to $500 entered into the official record. I've updated the post above to reflect Rep. Brien's intent.

Share   Comment via Facebook

Continue reading "What the Vote on the Car Tax Tells You About Your Legislator"

Analyzing the Races Where Incumbents Lost on Tuesday

Scott MacKay of WRNI's On Politics blog summed up Rhode Island's Tuesday-night primary election results by saying "the only real throw-the-bums out anger came from the Democratic left, not the GOP right". MacKay also quoted Local AFL-CIO President George Nee's reaction, "I’d say it was a pretty good night for organized labor". Let's take a closer look at the nine House races where incumbent Democrats lost, to get a clearer idea of how large a role organized labor did or did not play in them

There's no doubt that Teresa Tanzi's victory over David Caprio in District 34 (Narragansett/South Kingstown) and Richard Morrison's victory over Doug Gablinske in District 68 (Bristol/Warren) were the result of long-term, announced campaigns over Democrats consistently described as DINOs -- Democrats in Name Only -- by the RI progressive/labor left.

David Bennett beat Al Gemma in District 20 (Warwick) by the largest margin of the night for anyone challenging an incumbent. Despite Gemma receiving August campaign contributions from House Speaker Gordon Fox, Majority leader Nicholas Mattiello and Democratic Party Chair Ed Pacheco, as well as having received support from a number of private-sector labor organizations earlier in the election season, Bennett was clearly the candidate of public sector organized labor, racking up big donations from NEARI-PACE, the RI AFL-CIO, the SEIU, and the United Nurses and Allied Health Professionals late in the cycle. It looks as if organized labor wanted to replace a sometime supporter (Gemma) with someone they expect will act more predictably (Bennett). However, especially given the size of Bennett's victory, it would be a mistake to chalk up the final result entirely to machine politics -- it is also likely that a portion of Gemma's constituency believed that the time had come to let someone new take on the task of representing the district. Still, it's safe to make David Bennett's victory the third victory for George Nee's "organized labor".

Mary Ann Shallcross-Smith lost to challenger Jeremiah O'Grady in District 46 (Lincoln/Pawtucket). In 2009, Shallcross-Smith received money from the big public labor PACs like NEARI-PACE and the RI AFL-CIO, but in 2010 O'Grady got their money while Shallcross-Smith didn't. It seems that the incumbent did something to displease her organized labor benefactors; a pre-election interview of both district 46 candidates done by Audra Clark of the Valley Breeze provides a list of possibly significant issue differences; Shallcross-Smith was yes on e-verify, favored pension reform, and non-committal on binding arbitration. O'Grady was no on e-verify, non-committal on pension reform, and yes on binding arbitration.

Spencer Dickinson defeated incumbent Michael Rice in District 35 (South Kingstown). Rice was very specific in an interview with Liz Boardman of the South County Independent as to why he believed he was primaried...

Rumor is that the AFL-CIO and teachers union is upset with me for voting for Article 16 of the budget, which removes part of the pensions for teachers. They courted Spencer Dickinson to run against me.

Rice also speculated that some constituents may have been upset with him for sponsoring a same-sex marriage bill. Dickinson replied in the article by saying that social issues aren't his thing, and by talking about how important pensions are. Rice received money from multiple teachers unions up until April of this year. After the state budget vote that included pension reform (early June), Rice got nothing else from the teacher's union, while Dickinson received a substantial contribution from NEARI-PACE in August. Rice had been generally regarded as a reliable progressive, evidenced by his no vote on e-verify when it was voted on last year and his sponsorship of a same-sex marriage bill this year. The combination of Shallcross-Smith's and Rice's races seem to show that Rhode Island legislators don't have to reach Al Gemma levels of non-linear behavior to find themselves subjected to union discipline; apparently taking the wrong side of pension reform is enough.

The dynamics in the other four races are a tad murkier.

James McLaughlin defeated incumbent Kenneth Vaudreuil in District 57 (Central Falls/Cumberland). McLaughlin was not the recipient of overt organized labor support. At the level of statewide intrigue, McLaughlin did receive a contribution from Rep. Karen MacBeth, an opponent of the current House leadership cadre, while Vaudreuil received money from House leaders Fox and Mattiello. The more notable name on Vaudreuil's contributor list, however, may be that of Central Falls' deposed mayor Charles Moreau. Vaudreuil won Central Falls, but lost Cumberland, and it is easy to imagine that association with Moreau would be a magnet for voter dissatisfaction, with voters from Cumberland being less than enthused about a friend of Charles Moreau representing them, and MacBeth taking the opportunity to ingratiate herself to a potential new ally against the House's leadership.

One other note of interest: Vaudrieuil was one of 10 legislators commended in a recent letter from a national group called "Democrats for Education Reform". Five of the ten legislators mentioned in that letter lost their primaries on Tuesday night (Vaudreuil, Gablinske, Gemma, Shallcross-Smith, plus Joseph Almeida who will be discussed below). It doesn't look like either Vaudreuil or Almeida were targeted specifically for their education reform positions, but whether it was intended or not, there is the potential for a major shift in the state legislature's balance on education policy brewing -- unless more explicitly pro-reform legislators are elected in the general election in November.

Peter Wasylyk's loss to Raymond Hull in District 6 (North Providence/Providence) and Christopher Fierro's loss to Robert Phillips in District 51 (Woonsocket) seem to have been powered by regular voters unhappy with their incumbents performance, as both incumbents were on organized labor's side of the Article 16 pension vote mentioned by Rice, and both were no's on the 2009 E-verify vote, suggesting they reliably voted with the progressive caucus.

Finally, there is Leo Medina's (pending recount) victory over Joseph Almeida in District 12 (Providence). Beyond the entanglement with the Providence Mayoral race, Almeida seems to have found his way to Rhode Island political no-man's land. Though he was an annual sponsor of some of Rhode Island's most progressive legislation, Almeida also voted in favor of the dreaded Article 16, and was praised by the Democrats for Education Reform. So while organized labor may not have targeted him in this cycle, neither were they inclined to come strongly to his support. On the other hand, based on the campaign finance reports, it doesn't look like Almeida was interested in anyone's support -- he has no reports of any individual campaign contributions since 2005. His minimal campaign efforts obviously opened the door to a challenger out-hustling him on the ground.

By my tally that makes 5 cases of organized labor knocking off their targets (Gablinske, Caprio, Gemma, Shallcross-Smith, Rice) and 4 incumbents who fell victim to broad-based dissatisfaction amongst their constituencies (Vaudreuil, Wasylyk, Fierro, Almeida). 5-4 is not quite the rout that was reported in the early analysis, though the organized labor wing of the Rhode Island Democratic party does look to be engaging in a systematic purge of any legislator whom they can, who even considers pension reform.

Share   Comment via Facebook

Fox Takes Over the House

Until the Kennedy announcement, the big political news was that Rep. Gordon Fox is now Speaker of the Rhode Island House.

In his first speech as House speaker, Fox said “Change is absolutely necessary. We cannot continue [to conduct] business as usual. We must think anew and act anew.”

With the state facing a massive deficit and one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, he promised his highest priorities would be to “get Rhode Islanders back to work,” by exploring tax credits for small businesses that create jobs. He pledged action on a “fair and equitable” education-funding formula this year.

“Bolstering our economy, creating jobs … and enacting a responsible and balanced budget will be our priorities for this session,” he said. But “we must be mindful that it is important to restore the public trust in this institution, and indeed, the public trust in their elected officials,” said Fox, urging quick action on legislation he introduced in recent days to “allow the voters to restore the authority and power of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission this November.”

So, Fox has gone from just being in the House to leading it. Of course, as majority leader, he's been pretty much doing that already. Which should put his call for "change" and other promises into perspective.

Pawtucket and East Providence Have a New Rep. With Old Ideas

The last paragraph of Alisha A. Pina's story in today's Projo on Democrat Mary Messier's victory in Tuesday's District 62 special election (former Rep. Elizabeth Dennigan's old seat, mostly Pawtucket with a little bit of East Providence) provides a perfect example of how the state Democratic Party's intellectual bankruptcy on fiscal issues continues to propel Rhode Island towards the more conventional form of fiscal bankruptcy…

During her campaign, [Ms. Messier] said the “need to control taxes” is a top priority and also supported the development of a new school district financing formula that would be fair to all cities and towns.

Alas, as has occurred all too-often in Rhode Island, we have a brand-new Democratic representative who believes that a "funding formula" can do the impossible: bring more money to her community, without requiring substantially higher new taxes to raise that money -- unless 1) soon-to-be Rep. Messier meant during the campaign that Pawtucket, already one of the largest recipients of state aid, should receive less money from the state, when she discussed making things "fair to all cities and towns" or 2) "controlling taxes" has become a new Democratic codephrase for "raising statewide taxes", i.e. "we controlled them by not raising them as high a we could have!"

Rhode Island won't be able to pull out of its fiscal and economic crisis if it keeps electing representatives who expect that state's problems to be solved by revenue-shifting programs funded by magic money that will fall from the sky.

Gordon Fox Has a Plan for Fixing Rhode Island's Economy…

…but he's not ready to tell us what it is yet, reports Ray Henry of the Associated Press…

[Gordon Fox], D-Providence, said he had proposals for reviving the economy but was not ready to discuss them.

"For me to sit here today and say we're going to do X, Y and Z, I think, is premature," said Fox, who is campaigning to succeed House Speaker William Murphy in early 2011. "I don't think it's fair to the members and it would be foolish of me to do that."

Rep. Fox, the current Democratic Majority Leader in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, is the frontrunner to replace current Speaker William Murphy, who has announced that he will not seek re-election for the 2011 legislative session.

Fiddling at the State House

The procrastinators in the RI House continue their torrid pace, today joined by the Senate. Governor Carcieri points out the obvious:

“They need to deal with the budget,” Carcieri said at an unrelated event. “They’re not doing that, and I think that’s really unfortunate because the problem is not going away; it’s getting worse.”

Though lip-service is being paid:

[House Finance Committee Chair, Rep. Steven] Costantino vowed to push Thursday for a joint resolution requiring Carcieri to submit a mid-year budget-balancing plan, known as a supplemental budget, by Nov. 16.

Yup, it's up ta the Guvnah!!!! Meanwhile, legislative Nero's proudly and indignantly fiddle:

House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox...erupted when notified of the governor’s comments.

“We’re addressing real societal needs in these two days, so I don’t want the word to go out that they’re here and they’re doing nothing,” Fox said.

The Assembly, he continued, is addressing issues for “people who need services, or the people who are concerned with indoor prostitution, [as well as] the scourge of text messaging. Those are real issues. They don’t go away.”

Ah yes, the "scourge" of text messaging (how are we gonna enforce that, btw?). Hm. Scourge: "A source of widespread dreadful affliction and devastation such as that caused by pestilence or war." Unemployment? Bad economy? Budge deficit? Apparently, not scourge-worthy...but that text messagin'......!

RI House Keeps Full Health Care Benefits

Entirely unsurprising, now, isn't it?

It is budget-cutting day at the State House, but not when it comes to the free health care packages costing up to $17,296 that are given the state's part-time lawmakers and their families.

The $7.76 billion state budget headed for a vote by the full House of Representatives Wednesday afternoon would give the state's part-time lawmakers who meet on average three days a week, six months a year, a budget totaling $37.4 million, up $1.8 million from the budget lawmakers gave themselves this year.

Free health insurance for the lawmakers is not a big ticket item, but it has in recent years become a sore point for full-time state workers - and others - being asked to pay larger and larger shares of their health insurance premiums each year.

Starting July 1, the average state employee will be required to pay between 13.5 percent and 25 percent of the premiums for their health, dental and vision care packages in amounts ranging from $37.13 to $172.95 biweekly, depending on how much they make and whether they choose individual or family coverage.

Rhode Island lawmakers currently get free health, dental and vision-care benefits. Some voluntarily pay a portion of the premiums; others do not. One of two bills considered by the House Finance Committee on March 3 would have required all of them to pay 10 percent, and the other, 20 percent

The reform bills were submitted by Brian Newberry (R) and Amy Rice (D), so credit them for not having a tin ear.

Question about Proxy Voting on the House Floor

... er, is it legal?

While I caught only the last twenty minutes of the House session tonight, I sat next to a friend had arrived before myself. She cheerfully pointed out three or four House members who had voted on behalf of other House members. Each had pushed their own "Yea" or "Nay" button and then hurriedly pushed the button at the desk of a neighbor. Or neighbors. My friend said a couple of reps looked like they were working several bingo cards.

This was presumably done with the permission of those absent House members. ("... wait, I don't remember voting to reinstate slavery.") That doesn't make it legal, though, does it?

ADDENDUM

Thanks to Will and Andrew for advising that proxy voting is, indeed, legal. Andrew kindly supplied the pertinent House rule.

No member shall speak or vote, unless within the bar of the House and at his or her seat, except as hereinafter provided. Every member (except as provided in Rule 3) who shall be in his or her seat in the House Chamber when the question is put, shall give his or her vote, unless prior thereto the Speaker shall have excused him or her in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Ethics statute (RIGL 36-14-6). No member may vote for another member, nor activate another member's voting machine except by the express direction of that member who is present in the House chamber. No one may occupy the vacant seat of a member

Andrew has a point when he remarks,

There's something weird about a rule that says you can vote in place of another person, but don't sit in their seat.

School Committee Bill "May" Infringe on Spirit of Open Gov't

Warwick School Committee member Patrick Maloney has called attention to a proposed amendment to the "Open Meetings" law. According to House bill H5497 (sponsored by Representatives Hearn, Shallcross Smith, Marcello, Carnevale, and DaSilva):

Written public notice shall include, but need not be limited to, posting a copy of the notice at the principal office of the public body holding the meeting, or if no principal office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held, and in at least one other prominent place within the governmental unit, and electronic filing of the notice with the secretary of state pursuant to subsection (f); provided, that in the case of school committees the required public notice shall may be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district under the committee's jurisdiction...

Maloney writes, "In a time when we are looking for more transparency in Government, this bill calls for making School Committee meeting announcements in the newspaper optional. This is a step in the wrong direction." No doubt. The bill is being heard by the House Finance Committee's sub-committee on Education on Wednesday, April 29 at 2 PM in (Room 35) and by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 28 (no time available) in Room 205.

Skit Suggestion for Next Year's Newspaper Guild Follies

Speaker Murphy places muzzles on the other seventy four House members.

Not very subtle. But neither are the half dozen proposed House rules designed to squelch debate, only one of which, Bob Watson pointed out on Friday's Dan Yorke Show, has been withdrawn.

[Marc has more here.]

RI House Leadership: "Shut Up and Sit Down!"

That's the line WPRO's Dan Yorke is using to characterize a new effort by the RI House Democratic leadership to stifle free speech (because, you know, they're barely holding on to control up there....). Yorke was tipped off about this from Rep. John Laughlin and got confirmation in a conversation with Rep. Bob Watson. The House leadership tried to do the same thing last year and Yorke successfully led the charge against the bill. The section of the bill in question, submitted by Rep. Eileen Naughton, states:

(20) Amendments, articles or sections of the State budget shall concern only appropriations, expenditures, revenue or matters related thereto. No matter which has been the subject of a bill, resolution or amendment heard or considered in a House committee shall be offered as an amendment to the budget bill either in the Finance Committee or before the House, without the prior written consent of the Chair of the Finance Committee.

So that means that Rep. Steve Constantino, House Finance Committee Chair, has speech veto power. If he didn't like your idea in "his" Committee, he's not going to let you bring it up on the floor of the House. I'm not sure if this is the height of insecurity or arrogance. Or both?

Funding Formula Follies in South County

Liz Abbott of the Westerly Sun has a summary of a local-forum debate between the three candidates for District 36 State Representative: incumbent Donna Walsh, Republican Dave Cote, and independent Matt McHugh. Here are their answers on the topic of education…

QUESTION: In these challenging economic times, should the Paiva-Weed Act, which was adopted to provide some relief to taxpayers from the cost of funding the schools, be amended to provide more school aid?

COTE: Citing Rhode Island’s poor educational performance compared to Massachusetts, and the fact that Massachusetts has provided greater property tax relief than Rhode Island, Cote said, “Money does not make for better education.” If elected, he would work to “reorganize” public education by reshaping curriculum to include more math and science. He would also seek to eliminate “bumping’’ and other union-sanctioned practices that do not always benefit students.

MCHUGH: McHugh said he still endorses the idea behind the Paiva-Weed legislation, and it should be left alone for the time being. He would handle the need for more state aid by finding savings in the existing system, exploring ideas such as regionalization, and by calling for a moratorium on state educational mandates that cost local school districts a lot of money.

WALSH: She supports the idea of providing relief for taxpayers and would not seek to amend the Paiva-Weed legislation at this point in time. “I think it has merit,” she said. But the General Assembly needs to follow through on what it has already said it would do, namely, review the state educational mandates and keep working to find a new formula to fund public education.

But all a "funding formula" does is shift money from one community to another; it does not and can not by itself create revenue. For a "funding formula" to be part of a coherent policy proposal, an explanation of the source of the funds to be shifted must also be provided.

I wonder if Representative Walsh is aware of how much money the most recent version of the "funding formula" would have shifted away from the four communities of District 36…

• State education aid to Chariho District (which includes Charlestown) would have been cut to $2 million, resulting in a loss to the school system of over $12 million.
• State education aid to New Shoreham (Block Island) would have been cut to $0, resulting in a loss to the school system of over $100,000.
• State education aid to South Kingstown would have been cut to $0, resulting in a loss to the school system of over $10 million.
• State education aid to Westerly would have been cut to $0, resulting in a loss to the school system of over $6 million.

As this example shows, telling the public you are in favor of a "funding formula" does not tell the public all it needs to know in order to gauge the impact of what's being proposed. When Representative Walsh states that she supports a "funding formula", she could be saying that she only will support a funding formula that reduces the percentage of state money going to the current big-recipients (but no one has made a concrete proposal in this direction as of late). Or she could be saying that she supports a statewide tax-increase that will give the government new monies to transfer between communities on top of what it is already transferring (but is raising your income and/or sales tax to reduce your property tax really "tax relief" in any meaningful sense?). Or she could be saying that she is ideologically committed to the idea of a funding formula, is happy to let someone else decide the transfer structure, and will hope for the best.

Voters in District 36 -- and in every House and Senate District in Rhode Island -- need to ask any candidate attempting to sell a "funding formula" as the solution to the state's education problems about where they are expecting the money they'd like to see transferred between communities to come from.

David Anderson for State Representative: Concrete Priorities for Education Reform

David Anderson, candidate for State Representative in Rhode Island's 4th District (Providence), and opponent of House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, has presented some concrete ideas for reforming public education in the state of Rhode Island…

Given the large number of failing schools in Rhode Island I would not try to overhaul all of them at once. I would begin with the "basket cases" where less than 10% of the children are estimated to be at or above grade level as judged by the Nation's Report Card. In terms of the NECAP examinations this threshold would approximately be 20% proficient for the primary levels and 10% for high school. Such schools would be closed at the conclusion of the academic year. All staff would be discharged. Such schools would be reopened as charter schools operated by a professional education management organization (EMO). The EMO's fee would be performance based. The possible rehiring of former staff would be at the discretion of the new managers…

Once all of the dysfunctional schools of the preceding category are under new management, I would raise the threshold for reform upward in phases until all schools with less than 50% of children at or above grade level had been converted to the charter
format…

Current and past practices that have been used to deceive parents and other stakeholders would be replaced by ones that provide an honest accounting of public school performance. This means rescoring the NECAP examinations to provide proficiency estimates comparable to the Nation's Report Card. It also means withholding regular academic diplomas from all who have not achieved NECAP proficiency on the high school tests. Students not seeking a regular academic diploma would receive a certificate of completion that would show their respective proficiency levels in the subjects tested by the NECAP. In such a system diplomas would mean something.

Dan Reilly versus Amy Rice versus Free Speech

According to an official campaign statement from Republican State Representative candidate Dan Reilly (District 72, Portsmouth/Middletown/Newport) his incumbent opponent, State Representative Amy Rice, called police in response to three Reilly supporters who were holding signs on public property, across the street from a Rice campaign event…

The three campaign supporters were holding signs on the public street across from the event, clearly within their constitutional rights. After a Portsmouth Police officer arrived, he informed Rep. Rice that they were doing nothing wrong and he could not do anything to have them removed.

If this is true, it's pretty hard to disagree with this response from Mr. Reilly…

[Rep. Rice] does not even understand the first amendment of our Constitution.

Dave Cote for State Representative: Ending Rhode Island's Giant Game of Monopoly

Dave Cote, Republican candidate for State Representative in District 36 (Charlestown/New Shoreham/South Kingstown/Westerly), believes that improving the quality of life of all Rhode Islanders depends upon voters taking a stand against Rhode Island government's predisposition towards monopolies…

I've seen all the monopolies we have in the state of Rhode Island. There's a workers compensation monopoly. There are public health care monopolies. In South Kingstown, they tried to create a trash hauler monopoly – and we fought it. They were going to put up to 10 local businesses out-of-business, because the town wanted its own monopoly. It cost us $10,000 to fight it, but we fought it because it was the right thing to do.

When South Kingstown changed from fully insured to self-insured -- where we saved a million dollars -- we showed that it could be done. We need to make sure that where this change proves positive, like in organizations with over 300 employees, that we do it automatically in the other towns.

We have competitive bidding. 98% of the towns have Blue Cross Blue Shield. Why is that? We can't have these monopolies. We need to bring in Tufts, and look at United Healthcare. We have to break the monopolies to help private enterprise in Rhode Island. Since when do we assume that government-created monopolies are better are doing things than private enterprise?

Everyone knows the quality of education in Rhode Island is dying. Too few of our students are proficient in math – we have to change that. We have environmental issues. The fishing industry in this area, in Galilee, is getting killed by over-regulation – there's a lot we can do to help the fishing industry.

Everything happens locally. We have pushed for changes locally in South Kingstown that can impact the state of Rhode Island. I'm running for State Representative in District 36 because South Kingstown is a microcosm of what we can do throughout the entire state and improve things for all of Rhode Island.

Dave Cote for State Representative: Ending Rhode Island's Giant Game of Monopoly

Dave Cote, Republican candidate for State Representative in District 36 (Charlestown/New Shoreham/South Kingstown/Westerly), believes that improving the quality of life of all Rhode Islanders depends upon voters taking a stand against Rhode Island government's predisposition towards monopolies…

I've seen all the monopolies we have in the state of Rhode Island. There's a workers compensation monopoly. There are public health care monopolies. In South Kingstown, they tried to create a trash hauler monopoly – and we fought it. They were going to put up to 10 local businesses out-of-business, because the town wanted its own monopoly. It cost us $10,000 to fight it, but we fought it because it was the right thing to do.

When South Kingstown changed from fully insured to self-insured -- where we saved a million dollars -- we showed that it could be done. We need to make sure that where this change proves positive, like in organizations with over 300 employees, that we do it automatically in the other towns.

We have competitive bidding. 98% of the towns have Blue Cross Blue Shield. Why is that? We can't have these monopolies. We need to bring in Tufts, and look at United Healthcare. We have to break the monopolies to help private enterprise in Rhode Island. Since when do we assume that government-created monopolies are better are doing things than private enterprise?

Everyone knows the quality of education in Rhode Island is dying. Too few of our students are proficient in math – we have to change that. We have environmental issues. The fishing industry in this area, in Galilee, is getting killed by over-regulation – there's a lot we can do to help the fishing industry.

Everything happens locally. We have pushed for changes locally in South Kingstown that can impact the state of Rhode Island. I'm running for State Representative in District 36 because South Kingstown is a microcosm of what we can do throughout the entire state and improve things for all of Rhode Island.

Meet Dave Cote, Candidate for State Representative in District 36

Dave Cote, chairman of the South Kingstown's GOP Town Committee, is running as a Republican for State Representative in District 36 (Charlestown/New Shoreham/South Kingstown/Westerly). Mr. Cote will be involved in a 3-way race this fall, between incumbent Democrat Donna Walsh and independent Matt McHugh, who held the seat as a Democrat, before being defeated by Walsh in 2006.

When recently asked by Anchor Rising about his reasons for running for office. Mr. Cote had lots of specific examples has was eager to discuss…

Rhode Island's tax base is putting people out of work and crushing the taxpayer. What we did recently in the town of South Kingstown, for instance, was to push for a referendum to change the health care contract, to change from fully-insured to self-insured. It's literally a name change. The town council and town manager refused to do it, but they recently agreed to one of our recommendations on health care changes. The town made the change and it's going to save the taxpayer up to one million dollars – they confirmed it.

So here's something that was obvious to save the taxpayer money, no changes to the employee, no changes to Blue Cross – and it was going to save one million dollars.

There are all these savings and restructurings we can do to help the taxpayer. Of course, then the town will probably say, "we need that for the rainy-day fund". Well, we've confirmed that the town of South Kingstown has over 25 million dollars in their rainy-day fund.

Guess what folks, it's raining here on us today.

Oil prices are going up. Gas prices are going up. Electricity is going up. We're in trouble. Property taxes are killing us. I'm running for the taxpayer. I'm running to improve the employment situation. I'm running for our children and our grandchildren, so they can be employed in the state of Rhode Island. Of course, everyone says they want people to be employed, but now we have to do something about it, and what that means is restructuring. In my company, we had to restructure, and we couldn't have the same health care plan as before. In order to keep me, Dave Cote, working, they restructured health care. As a result, lots of employees got to keep their jobs.

It is the same within the government. We need to restructure the pensions and change to 401(k)s, just like the private employers had to do, to keep us employed. The government needs to restructure pensions and health care to maintain an economy that encourages employment.

Coming in Part 2: No more playing Monopoly...

Meet Dave Cote, Candidate for State Representative in District 36

Dave Cote, chairman of the South Kingstown's GOP Town Committee, is running as a Republican for State Representative in District 36 (Charlestown/New Shoreham/South Kingstown/Westerly). Mr. Cote will be involved in a 3-way race this fall, between incumbent Democrat Donna Walsh and independent Matt McHugh, who held the seat as a Democrat, before being defeated by Walsh in 2006.

When recently asked by Anchor Rising about his reasons for running for office. Mr. Cote had lots of specific examples has was eager to discuss…

Rhode Island's tax base is putting people out of work and crushing the taxpayer. What we did recently in the town of South Kingstown, for instance, was to push for a referendum to change the health care contract, to change from fully-insured to self-insured. It's literally a name change. The town council and town manager refused to do it, but they recently agreed to one of our recommendations on health care changes. The town made the change and it's going to save the taxpayer up to one million dollars – they confirmed it.

So here's something that was obvious to save the taxpayer money, no changes to the employee, no changes to Blue Cross – and it was going to save one million dollars.

There are all these savings and restructurings we can do to help the taxpayer. Of course, then the town will probably say, "we need that for the rainy-day fund". Well, we've confirmed that the town of South Kingstown has over 25 million dollars in their rainy-day fund.

Guess what folks, it's raining here on us today.

Oil prices are going up. Gas prices are going up. Electricity is going up. We're in trouble. Property taxes are killing us. I'm running for the taxpayer. I'm running to improve the employment situation. I'm running for our children and our grandchildren, so they can be employed in the state of Rhode Island. Of course, everyone says they want people to be employed, but now we have to do something about it, and what that means is restructuring. In my company, we had to restructure, and we couldn't have the same health care plan as before. In order to keep me, Dave Cote, working, they restructured health care. As a result, lots of employees got to keep their jobs.

It is the same within the government. We need to restructure the pensions and change to 401(k)s, just like the private employers had to do, to keep us employed. The government needs to restructure pensions and health care to maintain an economy that encourages employment.

Coming in Part 2: No more playing Monopoly...

Update on Legistlative Grant "Sunshine" Bill

When both Anchor Rising and RI Future agree on the merits of a piece of legislation, one would think passage through the House would be a no-brainer, no? I haven't seen anyone who doesn't agree with Rep. Nick Gorham's Legislative Grant Sunshine Bill. It would require that all such grants:

...must be included in the annual state budget and must include the following information:
(1) Recipient's name and address;
(2) Name of contact person for the grant recipient;
(3) Name of the legislator who sponsored the grant;
(4) Statement of whether the finance committee of either or both houses of the general assembly have had a hearing on the proposed grant; and
(5) Brief description of the nature and purpose of the grant.

Alas, a look at the current legislative calendar reveals:

House Bill No.7627
BY Gorham, Coaty, Long, Mumford, Trillo
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC FINANCE -- STATE BUDGET
(provide that all legislative grants awarded by the general assembly must be included in the annual state budget)
{LC639/1}
02/26/2008 Introduced, referred to House Finance
05/06/2008 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
05/06/2008 Committee recommended measure be held for further study

Ah yes, the ol' "further study" canard. We all know what that means, huh? Never underestimate the ability of our legislators to stall on good government legislation (how's full implementation of Separation of Powers working out?). Perhaps it would be a good time to remind your legislator that you think this is a good idea.

Meet Jonathan Wheeler, Candidate For State Representative, District 22

This Tuesday, there will be a special election in House District 22 (Warwick) to fill the seat of former state Representative Peter Ginaitt, who resigned at the end of the 2007 session. Running as a Republican in the race is Jonathan Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler has juxtaposed at his campaign website a set of numbers he believes best summarize Rhode Island's problems and the need for fresh soultions...

• Rhode Island is 46th in HIGHER EDUCATION spending, but 3rd in WELFARE spending.
• Rhode Island is 49th in PARKS AND RECREATION spending, but 11th in GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION spending.
• Rhode Island is 41st in TRANSPORTATION spending, but 4th in VENDOR payments.
• Rhode Island has the 9th HIGHEST DEBT in the nation.

This past weekend, Anchor Rising had the opportunity to ask Mr. Wheeler about his run for office...

Anchor Rising: What's motivating you to get involved with the unique challenges presented by Rhode Island politics?

Jonathan Wheeler: Another Democrat in the General Assembly is not going to fix the problems that Democrats have created over the last five decades. Until we get better balance in the General Assembly, until there are enough Republicans and like-minded Democrats to sustain a veto, and to occasionally stop the Democrats from doing things that right now there are no impediments from them doing, things are not going to change or improve.

AR: Everyone, except the Democrats in the General Assembly, seems to know that the state is facing a multi-hundred million dollar deficit…

JW: It's $450 million.

AR: That's the conservative estimate. What can be done?

JW: We need to control spending. Clearly, the Democrats in the General Assembly have made no effort to control spending. In the Providence Journal a few weeks ago, when they were talking about the deficit, they were laughing about it. There's not a damn thing funny about it. We need to start over, with something close to zero-based budgeting. We need to make every government agency justify their existence and their budget. Until we do that, we cannot expect anything to change.

AR: You are in a three-way race. Any thoughts on the dynamics of that?

JW: There's me, the Republican. There's Frank Ferri, who won the Democratic primary but was unendorsed, and there's Carlo Pisaturo, who's running as an independent, and is a former Democratic councilman in Ward 5. So really, it's me against two Democrats, because Carlo, although he is running as an independent, is a Democrat. He's not refused to caucus with the Democrats; I asked him that during our debate – you're running as an independent, who are you going to caucus with -- and he wouldn't commit. So he's a Democrat.

AR: If you win, when you head up to the statehouse, would you take on a signature issue?

JW: At this point, we don't have the luxury of any signature issues other than controlling spending and controlling taxes. The business climate here we all know is 50th out of 50. Rhode Island has the worst business climate in the country. Until we control spending, reduce taxes, and root out corruption, we are never going to attract business to this state. And until we attract business to this state, we're never going to improve the economy. In my mind, to any responsible legislator, that can be their only signature issue right now.

We're in a crisis, and everyone in the General Assembly -- everyone in state government -- needs that to be their most important thing.

Speaker Murphy Supports Loughlin's State Pension Reform

In a press release, Republican State Rep. John Loughlin II touts House Speaker William Murphy's support for Loughlin's pension reform plan:

State Representative John J. Loughlin II ( R ) Tiverton, Portsmouth, Little Compton today applauded an announcement made Sunday on WJAR’s 10 News Conference that House Speaker William J. Murphy (D) West Warwick supports his idea to eliminate defined benefit pensions for newly hired state workers. Loughlin introduced House Bill 5447 {PDF}, February 27, 2007, an act that would require newly hired employees to belong to a 414(k) retirement plan, (the government’s version of the 401K plan) and not to the current retirement system under chapters 8-10 of title 36.

Loughlin says he introduced the bill because of the unsustainable current retirement system. He contends that only through moving to a defined contribution plan and away from a defined benefit plan would workers have more control over their retirement while providing taxpayers relief from ever-escalating pension costs.

“I am extremely pleased that Speaker Murphy has listened to the arguments made by me and the Republican co-sponsors of this bill and recognizes the need to be fair to current state employees and build a system for all newly hired state employees that is beneficial to them and fair to Rhode Island’s taxpayers,” Loughlin said.

As to whether he felt the Speaker had co-opted his initiative, Loughlin said, “I once had a Battalion Commander in the Army who told me ‘it’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who takes credit for it.’ I look forward to working with the Speaker to move my measure into law, regardless of who’s name appears on the bill.”

“With all the news about Republican’s becoming Democrats and Independents, its very gratifying to see one of our state’s most prominent Democrats becoming a Republican, at least in his approach to affordable government,” Loughlin said.

Not sure if I'd go that far! And I'd add that real "initiative" would've been exhibited if it was passed the first time around and wasn't still languishing in the House Finance Committee. Nonetheless, it is still promising.

Then again, like so many other good ideas proposed up there on the Hill, I'll believe it when I see it.

RE: DCYF's Problems

Pat Crowley--who throws ad hominem attacks around like a Fenway Park Vendor throws peanuts (though they're more accurate)--has peeked in to drop a couple bombs concerning my DCYF post. However, he did attempt a more substantive critique at Kmareka (a post which Justin already mentioned). Crowley thinks that my calculations don't take into account compounding of salaries--"each year the raises are on the raises from the prior year"--and that they "are skewed because they count certain things twice....Vacation, for example. If I get to take a week off, I get paid right? But I don’t get paid twice. AR...count[s] my regular salary AND my vacation pay… they count it twice, in other words."

To start with, there was no intention to shape the stats to fit my argument, as he implied. I kept hearing how the overall budget has increased so much since 1998, that I got the State Budge docs from as far back as I could (2001) and proceeded from there. My "technique" was simple: crunch some numbers in a straightforward way and post the results. The 29% increase in salary per position since 2001 was derived from the difference of the average DCYF salary then ($47,500) until now ($61,300). But the increase in the total amount devoted to salary from year to year is only part of it: the other part is the reduction in the number of positions and how, taken together, there has actually been an overall increase of salary per position.

I think most people would ask: has my salary increased 29% ($13,800) since 2001? But let me amend that: these increases are for positions, not people. A better question would be: has my salary increased 29% ($13,800) since 2001 even though I've never been promoted?

OK, you asked for it: more fun with tables. As they say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, right? Well, here is a year-to-year breakdown that may assuage Crowley's compounded concerns.

DCYF - Year to Year Salary Increases

Year	# FTE's	% Change # FTE's	Total Salary ($Mil)	% Change Ttl. Sal.	Avg. FTE Salary	% Change	Inflation Rate
2001	875.9	-	$41.7	-	$47,600	-	-
2002	875.9	0%	$45.8	9.8%	$52,300	9.9%	2.83%
2003	868.9	-<1%	$48	4.8%	$55,200	5.5%	1.59%
2004	853.8	-1.8%	$46.4	-3.4%	$54,400	-1.5%	2.27%
2005	851.8	-<1%	$47	1.1%	$55,200	1.5%	2.68%
2006	849.8	-<1%	$49.7	5.7%	$58,400	5.8%	3.39%
2007	821.8	-3.4%	$49.5	-2.9%	$60,200	3.1%	3.24%
2008	810.0	-1.5	$49.7	+<1%	$61,300	1.8%	2.51%

As the table shows, calculating things in a slightly different way reveals that changes in total salary for the entire DCYF aren't exactly the same as changes in the average salary per FTE position. If anyone wants to suggest alternate methods, feel free.

Crowley's example re:vacation might be applicable when calculating total payroll (salary and benefits). I used the budget numbers by the state to calculate total payroll per Full Time Equivalent position. Genuine question: Is he saying the State--including the Budget office and the Legislature--has been using faulty math for at least the past decade in calculating those numbers?

ADDENDUM: In the comments, "Bobby O" believes I'm excluding important comparative data. I've added Inflation rate to the above table. Bobby also believes that I'm not taking into the number of caseloads. Well, according to RI Kids Count:

Between 2000 and 2005, in Rhode Island, the total Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) caseload remained relatively constant at around 8,000 cases. In 2006, the number of children on the DCYF caseload increased to 9,414, a 19% increase from 2005.

That's the most up-to-date I can find. Bobby ties the high caseloads to the need for the State to make an attractive compensation package to lure workers. My first thought was, "where are all of the altruistic RIC grads?", but the question really goes back to the argument made before: slightly less compensation = a few more workers = lighter caseloads = better service.

Hey Bobby, here's a thought. If you want to cut jobs in one place to add more workers at DCYF, why not turn your eyes to the Legislature? (Hey, I can play this game all day).

Legislature Increases - 2001 ->2008

	2001	2008	Change (Value)	% Change
Total FTE's	260	298.2	+38.2	+11%
Total Salaries	$12,223,039	$18,952,525	+$6,729,486	+55%
Total Salary/FTE	$47,012	$63,556	+$16,544	+35%
Total Salary+Benefits	$18,952,525	$29,396,150	+$10,443,625	+55%
Total S+B / FTE	$64,463	$98,579	+$34,116	+53%

The numbers speak for themselves.

RE: House Budget Vote...Upon Further Review

In my previous post, I focused on the possible/probable drawbacks of Rep. Lima's midnight budget amendment that implemented an extensive review and appeal process before any privatization of State government services. Commenters to the post have looked at it from a different angle and may have been able to chicken soup out of chicken...

Commenter "brassband" was the first to see some positives for the Governor:

Here's my advice to Rep. Lima -- Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Rep. Lima and the House Leadership have given the Governor a tremendous opening here.

If I were in the Carcieri Adminstration, I would advise the Governor to embrace this proposal and issue the following statement:

"The House has provided us with an excellent first step toward a framework for large-scale privatization of state services. I am today instructing the Department of Administration to commence the sixty-day study period for ALL STATE SERVICES, so that we may begin to do what the Rep. Lima's bill suggests, and compare the cost of providing these services in-house with bloated union contracts, or go out to private industry which might produce considerable savings.

I thank Rep. Lima and the House Leadership for providing this road map toward efficient privatization."

This was seconded by "Will":

"She probably doesn't even realize some of what the language of the amendment actually allows the governor to do."

And "Greg":

Am I reading it wrong or does this bill give the Governor an excuse to get into the underwear drawer of every tiny department in the state and study their efficiency under the guise of 'studying the merits of privatization'? I mean, if the Gov is going to see if it's feasible for a private firm to do a job, he'll have to know exactly how well the PUBLIC employees are doing it, right?

Kudos, fellas. You may just be right. Whether the tradeoff is worth it or not, I suppose we'll find out.

House Budget Vote: While You Were Sleeping....

The ProJo covers most of the angles regarding last night's budget debate, but I couldn't find anything about the "amendment" (Article 42-RELATING TO PRIVATIZATION OF STATE SERVICES) that Rep. Charlene Lima proposed at midnight. In actuality, it was a full-fledged bill that Rep. Lima explained she had been trying to bring to the floor for 10-15 years. Last night, the House Democrat Leadership allowed her to attach it to the budget at the 11th hour. According to Lima, speaking on the House floor, this was a better method because this way her bill couldn't be vetoed on its own. The text of the original bill: H5315 states:

Prior to the closure, consolidation or privatization of any state facility, function or property, the director of administration or his or her designee, shall conduct a thorough cost comparison analysis and evaluate quality performance concerns before deciding to purchase services from private vendors rather than provide services directly.
(b) The director of administration shall, at least sixty (60) days prior to issuing requests for bids or proposals, complete the...process

Then it lays out the process to be followed. Given the recent stories about the State's recent troubles with privatization or private contracts, this sounds like a fair enough idea, but Rep. Bruce Long (R) rose up to oppose bringing the measure up in this fashion: at midnight with no opportunity for review.

Also, Rep. Robert Trillo (R) proposed (tongue firmly planted in cheek) an amendment applying the new law to both State and local municipal jobs, arguing that if it's so important and such a good idea that it needs to be passed right now--at midnight with no opportunity for closer scrutiny--then the House should pass along the same "benefits" to everybody. Trillo's move cause some debate regarding parliamentary machinations. Fun for all...

All of the debate gave Rep. Nick Gorham (R) the time to delve into the bill, where he found something he thought worthy of pointing out on the floor:

Before any final awards are granted, affected parties must have an opportunity to appeal the final decision. Affected parties include recipients, and their families of the affected public program, state employees and their representative organizations and bidders. Appeals shall not apply to questions concerning awards to one contractor in preference to another or the decision to keep the service in-house....Violation of any of the above contracting procedures shall be considered a grounds for appeal. Decisions on appeals shall be made by an independent arbitration process. (d) Parties shall have a minimum of three (3) weeks after the initial cost comparisons are available to initiate an appeal. No contracts shall be awarded or services converted to vendors if an appeal is pending. All detailed documentation supporting the cost and quality comparisons shall be made available to directly affected parties upon request, when the initial decision is announced. If the documentation is not available at that time, the initial appeal shall be extended by the number of days to equal the delay. (e) The appeals procedure must be independent and objective and provide for a decision within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the appeal.

As Rep. Gorham summarized, apparently the law would allow any state worker whose job was about to privatized the ability to appeal the decision in state courts. In short, this would further tie the Governor's hands if he tried to privatize state jobs, as he has proposed doing in the current fiscal crisis.

Rep. Long continued to return to the fact that the proposal may have merits, but he just thought that passing it at midnight with little scrutiny was a bad idea. Then House Speaker Gordon Fox got up and played the "emotion card," explaining that this was about the state workers and their families who are scared and that the House needs to do something "right now, tonight" to alleviate those fears. He also said that he had spoken to the Governor and that they could go back and fix some things after the fact. (Cough cough).

As expected, after about 45 minutes of debate, the amendment passed.

Another Rhode Block to government reform had been put in place.

"Stealth" Tax Increase?

Dan Yorke has called attention to this piece of legislation--Brought to you by Reps. Slater, Naughton, Diaz, Almeida, and Lima--which amends the current RI Sales tax code to read:

A tax is imposed upon sales at retail in this state including charges for rentals of living quarters in hotels, rooming houses, tourist camps, all services with the exception of medical and legal services, and all food and all clothing over one hundred fifty dollars ($150) at the rate of four and one half (4.5%) percent of the gross receipts of the retailer from the sales or rental charges; provided, that the tax imposed on charges for the rentals applies only to the first period of not exceeding thirty (30) consecutive calendar days of each rental.

For "clarification", the explanation is:

This act would reduce the state sales tax rate from the current 7% to 4.5%, and would include medical and legal services, as well as food and clothing items sold for more than $150, as taxable services and items.

So, the apparent idea is to broaden the scope of the sales tax while sweetening the proposal with a reduction in the actual rate. Talk about moving the deck chairs on the Titanic....

The language of the bill is a little confusing, but Yorke points out that legal and medical services are actually exempted. Rep. Joseph Trillo (R, Warwick) called Yorke and confirmed this and said the only reason medical services are exempted was to provide cover for the 26 lawyers in the House who've thoughtfully exempted themselves from the expanded taxation.

Yorke and Trillo said they will be looking into organizing people to protest the bill by showing up at the House Finance Committee hearing on Tuesday, May 22 at 1:00 PM. Stay tuned.

ADDENDUM: I do know that two Senators--Warwick Democrats McCaffrey and Walaska--have proposed reducing the sales tax to 6% and have also proposed that the EXEMPTIONS be expanded and NOT the tax, as their colleagues in the House would have. Here's another piece of Senate legislation seeking to do the same thing. I assume (hope?) they'll be reconciled in Committee. Wonder which tax philosophy--House or Senate--will prevail?

UPDATE: (5/21/2007) Dan Yorke has reported that the state sales tax "reform" discussed above is dead on arrival according to his sources.

Who Cares What the RI Legislature Thinks About Iraq?

Perhaps if House Democrats would refrain from debating utterly non-Rhode Island related "legislation" such as H 5340, a House Resolution "RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO OPPOSE PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN TO INCREASE US TROOPS IN IRAQ," then they wouldn't have to put the pedal to the metal in June. (Of course, that's assuming they don't like shoving all of the legislation down our throats with little chance for review). Besides, does it really matter what the Rhode Island Legislature has to say about Iraq? Well, for those who wake up every day and drink a tall glass of hubris (Reps. Crowley, McNamara, Naughton, Shanley, and Lewiss), I guess it does:

WHEREAS, The initial war plans for Iraq had a preliminary American invasion force of about 130,000 soldiers and Marines, which would drop to 30,000 to 50,000 by the end of 2003; and

WHEREAS, As of mid-November 2006, there were approximately 152,000 United States troops deployed to Iraq; and

WHEREAS, In his State of the Union Address, President Bush affirmed his commitment of more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq; and

WHEREAS, This policy of "escalation" is simply the wrong answer to the situation in Iraq at this time; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That this House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges the United States Congress to oppose President Bush's plan to increase United States troops in Iraq; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this House urges the Congress to support a plan to redeploy American Troops currently serving in Iraq and seek a political resolution to the internal Iraq conflict; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the Rhode Island Congressional delegation.

Setting aside the total lack of perspective with regards to the first "WHEREAS" concerning initial troop estimates vs. reality (apparently, they've read somewhere that pre-conflict troop estimates are always accurate and never change as the situation changes.) And temporarily setting aside the aforementioned fact that it is a total waste of time. (Newsflash: no one gives a darn what the freakin' RI Legislature thinks about foreign affairs. Get over yourselves). The reality in Iraq is quickly bypassing their "RESOLVE"s, but they don't realize it because, like so many politicians, they have already made up their minds on Iraq--facts be damned--and are still sticking to the November 2006 script. What a wonderfully static way to look at the world.

The Mainstream Media has also been following the same template, which is why NBCs Brian Williams should be given credit for going to Iraq to see things for himself. And he's beginning to realize that the Conventional Wisdom in the U.S. doesn't reflect the reality in Iraq.

Continue reading "Who Cares What the RI Legislature Thinks About Iraq?"

Watching the Senate: Recapturing Charitable Giving

On the face of it, the concurrent efforts of Senate Majority Leader Paiva-Weed (PDF) and House Speaker Gordon Fox (PDF) to promote charitable giving by ex-pat Rhode Islanders is a good bit of pragmatic lawmaking:

The legislation would prevent the state from considering a person’s charitable donations as evidence when determining for tax purposes whether that person’s primary residence is in Rhode Island. Many accountants and tax advisors discourage part-time Rhode Island residents from giving to charities out of fear that the donation could be used as evidence against them if the state ever challenges their residency.

This is probably good for the state's charities, but it still doesn't get to the root-cause of the problem, now, does it? Instead of dealing with the "truth" of why so many Rhode Islanders move away, they are attempting to mitigate the effects of the "consequences." Just more evidence that, as Thomas Sowell would say, they aren't Thinking Beyond Stage One.

Watching the House: Statewide Teacher's Contract

The Governor mentioned it in his State of the State and Rep. Paul Crowley (D) seemed to support looking into it and now a group of GOP legislators have introduced a bill that calls for a statewide teacher's contract. H 5397 (sponsored by Representatives Loughlin, Gorham, Mumford, Moffitt, and Singleton) states:

(a) Effective July 1, 2008, there shall be a uniform statewide teacher contract for purposes of the employment of newly hired teachers in any public school within this state. Said contract shall be prepared by the board of regents of elementary and secondary education, who shall conduct hearings throughout the state on the form and content of such contract prior to issuing a final form of such contract. The provisions of this contract shall include, but not be limited to:

(i) The remuneration of such teacher for their professional services, including the rate of pay, the use, amount, and step, if any, used, as well as any incentives and/or other basis for merit-based pay;
(ii) A requirement that said teachers who elect to participate in the teacher's retirement shall participate in a defined distribution plan as set forth in section 16-16-44 and shall not participate in a defined benefit plan system as provided for in Chapter 36-10.

(b) Effective on July 1, 2008, all teachers newly hired by a public school district or system shall be hired using the uniform statewide teacher contract established pursuant to the provisions of this section...

(c) No teacher employed by a school district prior to July 1, 2008 shall be subject to the uniform statewide teacher contract so long as that teacher remains continuously employed by the same school district...

(d) The uniform statewide teacher contract shall be distributed to the various hiring authorities among the school districts in the state and shall be used thereby. Provided, that the decision whether to hire or terminate any new teacher shall remain with the local school district, and the use of the uniform statewide teacher contract shall not render the teacher an employee of the state. Any teacher hired using said contract shall remain an employee of the hiring authority.

(e) Any school committee or regional school committee may, in its sole discretion, offer additional compensation or remuneration or other benefits in addition to what is provided for in the uniform statewide teacher contract, as an inducement to employment or continued employment of any certified teacher. Provided, such additional benefits, remuneration, or compensation shall not be subject to or a result of collective bargaining.

There's more, but I didn't want too many eyes to gloss over!

Once quick observation I had is about part (e). It gives communities the ability to pay more for teacher's if they so desire. In effect, this will open up a competitive market for teachers. On one hand, this seems to be a good thing insofar as it encourages competition for quality teachers, which, by extension, fosters the concept of merit pay. On the other hand, poorer communities will probably be unable to offer attractive incentives to lure teachers to their more challenging schools. Is suppose that the state could subsidize the teacher salaries of these poorer districts so that they could compete. Of course, then that could lead to salary escalation and the taxpayers would end up paying more. Maybe the free market wouldn't work? Not so fast.

I think the trick is to turn this around a bit and remember that the students are the ones who are supposed to be the consumers and thus the beneficiaries of an educational free market. Thus, teacher merit pay and bonuses is only a halfway measure. To be truly complete, a true educational free market would also give students freedom of opportunity via school choice and vouchers.

Watching the House: Dogging the Privatization of State Services

H 5307, sponsored by Representatives Dennigan, Crowley, Rose, Naughton, and Church seeks to create more oversight when it comes to state spending on non-state employee services.

(a) All state expenditures by any state department for non-state employee contracts, legal services, consultant fees, business services, fees paid to temporary workers or individuals who are not employees of the state of Rhode Island shall submit to the budget office and finance committees of the house and senate a report containing the following information:

(1) Efforts made to identify qualified individuals or services within state government;
(2) Outline the rationale for not using state employees or services;
(3) Factors used in choosing a non-state employee or firm; and
(4) Results of requests for proposals for services or bids for services.

(b) The reports shall be in writing and available electronically to the budget office and the house finance and senate finance committees within one month of the expenditure.

And H 5315, proposed by Representatives Lima, Coderre, Slater, San Bento, and Wasylyk seeks to do the same for private companies who are bidding to perform previously state-run services. In a nutshell:

Prior to the closure, consolidation or privatization of any state facility, function or property, the director of administration or his or her designee, shall conduct a thorough cost comparison analysis and evaluate quality performance concerns before deciding to purchase services from private vendors rather than provide services directly.

These look like responsible, good-government proposals...but, since it is Rhode Island, one can't help but think they really are Part (A) and (B) of an unofficial "State Employee Job Protection Act of 2007." Or am I just way too cynical?

Watching the House: "Fair Share Health Care Report"

I honestly don't know what to make of H 5331--proposed by Representatives Amy Rice, Eileen Naughton, Peter Lewiss, Donna Walsh, and Edith Ajello (Deputy Majority Leader)--which seeks to require that all businesses that employ more than 1,000 people create and submit a "Fair Share Health Care Report."

On March 30, 2007, and annually thereafter, an employer shall submit on a form and in a manner approved by the director:

(1) The total number of employees of the employer in the state as the last date of the third quarter in the previous calendar year as determined by the employer on an annual basis;
(2) The employer's definition of full and part-time employee;
(3) The number of employees that are full-time and the number of full-time employees eligible to receive health insurance benefits;
(4) The number of part-time employees and number of part-time employees eligible to receive health insurance benefits;
(5) The amount spent by the employer in the previous calendar year on health insurance costs in the state; and
(6) The percentage of payroll that was spent by the employer in the previous calendar year on health insurance costs in the state.
(b) The director shall adopt regulations that specify the information that an employer shall submit under subsection (a) of this section. The information required shall:
(1) Be designated in a report signed by the principal executive officer or an individual designated by the principal executive officer to perform this function; and
(2) Include an affidavit under penalty or perjury that the information required under paragraph (a) of this subsection was reviewed by the signing officer; and was based on the officer's knowledge and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit a material fact necessary to make the statement made not misleading and is true to the best of the signing officer's knowledge, information, and belief....

And it goes on and on. It also requires the Director of the Department of Labor and Training (who will administer the program) to report to the General Assembly, Governor and Health Commissioner on all of these facts. It sounds nice and fair....but it also seems rather onerous, too. On the face of it, it looks to me like more bureaucratic red tape for RI business to cut through. Doesn't look like yet another example of how our Democratic legislators innately distrust business? Instead of reaching for more oversight on a failing system, why don't these legislators spend some time trying to come up with new ideas?

Watching the House: Adjusting the Political System

As if the whole Rhode Island system of disaffiliating and re-affiliating doesn't allow for enough shenanigans, H 5320, proposed by Representatives John DeSimone (Chair of the House Separation of Powers Committee--sheesh) and Peter Wasylyk want to make it even easier. Howe? By reducing the time between disaffiliating and re-affiliating from 90 to 29 days: Here's the pertinent portion:

Any person who has designated his or her party affiliation pursuant to section 17-9.1-23 may change the designation on or before the twenty-ninth (29th) day preceding any primary election for which the person is eligible.

Why not just propose that we go to a completely open Primary system, fellas?

On the other hand, this sounds like common sense to me: H 5328 (proposed by Representative Donald Lally) seeks:

The removal of residence by an elected or appointment member of a ward committee from the ward from which he or she has been elected or appointed shall constitute his or her resignation from the city or ward committee.

Sounds fair to me.

Watching the House: Different Perspectives on Illegal Immigration

Then there is H 5367 (Proposed by Representatives Peter Palumbo--Deputy Majority Leader, Stephen Ucci, Joe Trillo, Raymond Church, and Arthur Corvese) which seeks to create "THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION RELIEF ACT". The purpose of which is:

This chapter seeks to secure to those lawfully present in the United States and this state, whether or not they are citizens of the United States, the right to live in peace free of the threat [of] crime, to enjoy the public services provided by this state without being burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to be free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens to the fullest extent that these goals can be achieved consistent with the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the state of Rhode Island.

Read it all. It holds both illegal immigrants and those who employe accountable. Meanwhile, H 5392 (Proposed by Representatives Jon Brien, Douglas Gablinske, Arthur Corvese, Palumbo, and Timothy Williamson--Senior Deputy Majority Leader) puts the onus completely upon the employer side of the equation. Technically, it is an attempt to get Rhode Island to get in line with the "Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003", which extended the Federal employment eligibility verification program. Note that both bills were sponsored by Palumbo and Corvese, which may indicated that they will eventually be consolidated. At least I hope so. The problem with the second bill is that it, in essence, appears to hammer employers but leave alone the illegal immigrants themselves. That is only a half-way measure.

Watching the House: Civil Unions

Representatives Paul Crowley, Elaine Coderre (Deputy Majority Whip), John Patrick Shanley, Donald Lally, and J. Russell Jackson have proposed H 5356, which seeks to establish legal Civil Unions in Rhode Island.

15-3.1-2. Requirements. – For a civil union to be established it shall be necessary that the parties to a civil union satisfy all of the following criteria:

(1) Neither party shall be a party to another civil union or marriage.
(2) Upon application to the town or city clerk for the town or city where at least one of the parties resides the clerk shall issue a civil union license. A copy shall be retained by the town or city clerk, and the department of health, division of vital statistics,. At least one party shall sign the application attesting to the accuracy and truth of the application.
(3) The civil union must be certified by a legally authorized person in accordance with this chapter within sixty (60) days from the date of issue. Within ten (10) days of the certification, the person performing the certification shall return the civil union certificate to the office of the town or city clerk where the license was issued. The department of health, division of vital statistics shall also maintain a copy of the certificate.
(4) If the civil union is not certified within sixty (60) days from the date of issue the license shall become null and void. 15-3.1-3. Person authorized to certify civil union. – Civil unions may be certified by an authorized person and in accordance with section 15-3-5.

15-3.1-4. Prohibited civil unions. –
(1) A woman shall not enter into a civil union with her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister.
(2) A man shall not enter a civil union with his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother.

15-3.1-5. Restrictions as to minors and incompetent persons. – A civil union license shall not be issued when either party to the intended civil union is:
(1) under eighteen (18) years of age;
(2) under a mental incapacity; and/or
(3) under a guardianship, unless express written consent is given by the legally appointed guardian.

15-3.1-6. Benefits protections and responsibilities of parties to a civil union. –

(1) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage.
(2) A party to a civil union shall be included in any definition or use of the terms "spouse", "family", "immediate family", "dependent", "next of kin", and other terms that denote the spousal relationship.
(3) Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
(4) Laws regarding domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody, support, property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.

It's marriage by another name. I get the sense that it's intended to be a preemptive, "moderate" solution to the looming Gay Marriage debate here in Rhode Island. It may stand a chance in the House, but I don't think it'll fly in the Senate.

Watching the House: Stop State Employee Insurance Buyouts

While some are privileged enough to get regular emailings from the General Assembly, the rest of us can still keep an eye on the Bills being proposed in either the Senate's or the House's daily proceedings. Now, even if most of the legislation proposed by the the Republican delegation stand about as much chance of getting through committee as I do throwing down a dunk, it's still nice to dream.......

By highlighting some of their proposals, I hope to show that they're generally pointing in the right direction--and hopefully encourage them to keep up the fight. For instance, there's H 5380 (Proposed by Representatives Richard Singleton, Victor Moffitt, Nicholas Gorham--Minority Whip, John Loughlin, and Bruce Long--Deputy Minority Whip), which wants to amend a certain portion of the current State law dealing with State employee insurance by inserting the following language:

No person in the service of this state whose spouse also is in the service of this state or its municipality shall be eligible for any health insurance benefits or any other payment in lieu thereof if they are receiving health insurance benefits from their spouse.

In other words, no more buyouts. After all, why should they be rewarded for not double-dipping into already generous state health benefits? The purpose of the benefits are to be insurance, not a salary-increasing device via a non-participation reward.