A Mandate for Change and a Change of Mandates?

There’s a hearing at the State House today on an excellent bill (PDF) from newcomer Representative Roberto DaSilva (D, East Providence, Pawtucket):

(a) No educational mandate shall be enacted or promulgated after the effective date of this chapter, unless the body enacting or promulgating the same shall first, after public hearing, determine the cost of the proposed mandate to each of the school districts of the state. No rule, regulation or policy adopted by state departments, agencies or quasi-state departments or agencies which requires any new expenditure of money or increased expenditure of money by a city or town shall take effect unless full and adequate funding, as determined by public hearing, is included as a portion of the language of the mandate document.
(b) The lack of full and adequate funding as a provision of an educational mandate shall be an absolute defense against any legal action filed by any party for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the mandate.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 years ago

Holding General Assembly members to an accountability standard is not allowed! How dare he.
It’ll never get out of committee.
Thank you Representative DaSilva for doing the right thing. It’s a shame you are doing it as a member of the most dysfunctional family in the state.

15 years ago

Wow. Can we pass that law immediately and retroactively back to 1979?
Kudos, Rep DaSilva.

15 years ago

I didn’t know that Bob had it in him. Guess he learned something at that legislative breakfast a few weeks back.
Yeah, I’d like some retroactivity, too, but it’s a start in the right direction. At minimum, it shows that he recognizes there is a real problem.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.