In response to Mark Arsenault’s report on the money spent by the Rhode Island Republican party on consultants, commenter Sean Gately responds that Giovanni Cicione was paid from so-called “soft money” that could not, by law, have been given to state candidates. Campaign finance records confirm this fact, reporting that Mr. Cicione was paid nothing from the state central committee account.
However, because of the arcane structure of campaign finance laws, there is more to the soft money story that needs some discussion and maybe some explanation as we head into the GOP leadership election. Over the course of 2006, the substantial sum (by RI Republican state-level fundraising standards) of $40,471.65 was transferred from the state party committee to the federal party committee. That’s $40,471.65 that could have been made available to local candidates, but was directed elsewhere.
Most of that $40,471.65 was spent on what would be classified as “overhead”, i.e. salaries for party staff, office overhead, etc. On the surface, these were reasonable expenditures. For instance, the Federal account cut the RI GOP communications director (Chuck Newton) his paycheck, even though he had both federal-level and state-level responsibilities (all duly noted on the campaign finance reports). To allow Mr. Newton to work on state issues, by law, part of his salary must come from state funds. Even if the $40,471.65 had not been transferred from the state to the Federal party, a good chunk of it would have been paid out to party staff directly through the state party committee anyway.
However — and I want to be absolutely clear that I am not alleging corruption here; I am alleging poor spending choices which the incoming Republican party leadership must improve upon if it wants to start winning elections — in this same year that the Federal party committee sucked $40,471.65 out of the state party account, it also spent $17,602.90 on “catering” and “meals” over just four occasions and another $24,256.96 on Comfort Inn hotel rooms. Again, technically these were soft-money Federal expenditures, not available to state candidates, but if the Federal committee could afford to blow $41,859.86 on catering and hotel rooms, did it really need to take all of $40,471.65 away from local candidates who could have used additional funding for communicating directly with voters?
It seems that if the party had spent a little less lavishly on the Senate race (or found a few more deep-pocketed national donors to make-up the difference), the Rhode Island GOP could have approximately quadrupled the money it contributed to state-level candidates, and still had enough to pay a fair portion of the joint Federal/state overhead from state funds. The lack of support for local candidates was more than a simple matter of lack of funding, but a conscious decision that local races were not important.
Douglas Gablinske, a Bristol Democrat, wrote a spot-on piece this weekend:
As a private person, Rhode Island resident, taxpayer and small-business owner, I have wondered about something for years: How can state legislators who are full-time business agents of unions write, promote, and move legislation through the General Assembly, yet not be in violation of the ethics law?
Now, as a recently elected legislator myself, I wish to shine a bright light on this issue and seek a logical answer to this obvious question. It is incredible to me that this flagrant conflict of interest has been allowed to go on for as long as it has, right under our noses.
These union business-agent legislators may do a good job of representing their constituents. However, their livelihood is derived from representing their membership. Faced with a choice of voting for what is in the best interest of their constituents or in the best interest of union members and their legislative agents’ paychecks, these union representatives find their integrity challenged.
Wouldn’t it stand to reason that their compensation is increased to the degree that they are successful in promoting the unions’ interests? After all, that’s their job! So, while the union members benefit, as do their business agents also working as legislators, taxpayers take it on the chin.
Gablinske further explains that such behavior is considered unethical when applied to a private (ie; non-union) individual who accepts money from business (John Celona), and asks:
If it is wrong for him [Celona] to do so, as is obvious to everyone, why isn’t it wrong for the union business agents, who are paid hefty salaries to basically promote their memberships’ interests through legislation? The conflict is as obvious as the nose on your face.
He also pleads with his fellow Rhode Islanders to realize that this practice is neither normal nor acceptable in other states and that we shouldn’t tolerate it either. Finally, he explained that “my obligation is to the taxpayer first.” Unfortunately, the same can’t be assumed about the union business agents. Today, the ProJo echoes his call for a change and provides some enlightening numbers:
Several legislators get big salaries from public-employee unions who have a huge and direct financial interest in the actions they undertake in the State House — unlike mere members of unions, who are not as directly dependent on unions for money. Sen. John Tassoni (D.-Smithfield) is the $88,549-a-year business agent of Rhode Island Council 94, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Senate Majority Whip Dominick Ruggerio (D.-North Providence) receives $176,070 in “salary/benefits” per year from the New England Laborers’ Labor-Management Corporation Trust. Branches of the Laborers’ union also employ Senators Paul Moura (D.-East Providence) and Frank Ciccone (D.-Providence). (Those branches declined to report their hired legislators’ salaries.)
It is extraordinary that the Ethics Commission has ignored this glaring conflict for so long. “Sometimes unnatural things become natural because they go on for so long,” Mr. Gablinske noted. “The conflict is as obvious as the nose on your face.”
Indeed. In some other posts I’ve made the point that “Big Labor” and “Big Business” are more similar than not, especially “at the top.” Additionally, the total membership of Council 94–the largest public employee union in the state–easily rivals the total amount of employees working for many of Rhode Island’s largest businesses. How comfortable would voters be if the the CEO, CFO and a couple Vice Presidents of CVS were elected to the General Assembly? Not very. And what if they happened to sit on various committees in which their votes (and presence–and cash?) could influence bills that could impact their business? Would that pass the smell test? Didn’t think so. The negatives sure seem obvious, huh? So isn’t it time for Rhode Islander’s to insist that the same ethics rules apply to the unions–especially tax dollar supported, public employee unions–as they do to “regular” big business?
[Open full post]Following the Governor’s lead, the RI GOPs nominating committee has also endorsed Giovanni Cicione for GOP Chairman. More:
Cicione has been active in statewide Republican politics for more than a decade, first in city and town GOP committees in Providence, Cranston and Barrington, and in 2002 as a candidate for Congress from Rhode Island’s First District. In 2006, he was the Republican National Committee’s paid state legal counsel, handling legal matters related to the 2006 primary and general elections, including the organization of the Party’s poll watch and voter identification efforts.
At its Saturday meeting, the Committee also endorsed John Robitaille of Portsmouth as First Vice Chair; Matt Wocjik of Cumberland as Second Vice Chair; Robert Coupe of Cranston as Secretary; and current state Treasurer Marc Tondreu for a second term in the Treasurer’s post.
Among the candidates considered by the GOP Nominating Committee were David Cote of Wakefield, Robert “Gunner” Kenny of Providence, and Tammy A. Turcotte-Raposa of Warwick, all nominees for state chairman; Mia Caetano-Johnson of Warwick and Joseph B. White of North Kingstown for First Vice Chair; Karen Salvatore of Saunderstown and William R. Jasparro of No. Scituate for Second Vice Chair.
The party’s state central committee will meet on Thursday, Mar. 15 at the Radisson Airport Hotel in Warwick to elect a new slate of officers. The meeting, scheduled for 7:00 pm., will involve Republican town chairs and central committee delegates from all 39 Rhode Island cities and towns.
Looks to me like the committee essentially went for “Governor’s men” in all of the positions. I’m not a party-wise guy by any means, but it seems to be an indication that the party is going to be governor-centric. Whether that’s good or bad? Don’t know, though it certainly has seemed as if there had been some reluctance amongst the long-time insiders to embrace Mr. Carcieri.
[Open full post]Via N4N comes news that Govenor Carcieri has issued a press release endorsing Gio Cicione as RI GOP Chair:
“Giovanni Cicione has played an active role in the Rhode Island Republican Party, and I am confident that he has the experience and the energy to continue building the party in the state,” Governor Carcieri said. “He is a well-respected attorney who is known for his sharp intellect and a keen understanding of politics and policy.
“Gio and I share a vision of a Republican Party that is a vital, active and inclusive organization that reaches out to diverse communities throughout Rhode Island,” Carcieri continued. “We also both strongly believe that a two-party system would be healthy for our state’s future. Like me, Gio is dedicated to uniting the party, to raising money, to growing the ranks of Republicans in our state, and to fielding candidates who offer our citizens a real choice in whom they elect to represent them.”
“I very much respect the experience and enthusiasm demonstrated by other candidates for this position,” Carcieri said. “And I appreciate their willingness to take on this important role.”
“That said, I strongly support Giovanni Cicione to lead the Rhode Island Republican Party,” Carcieri concluded.
Talk about it HERE. (Well, OK, you can comment here if you want.)
UPDATE: Saturday’s ProJo story about the Governor’s endorsement also gives details about the other candidates:
[Open full post]Four Republicans expressed interest by the close of business yesterday and will be interviewed by the party’s nominating committee this morning. The committee will pass along its recommendations to the full convention, which is set to vote March 15.
Aside from [Gio] Cicione, the chairman candidates include Dave Cote, chairman of the South Kingstown Republican Town Committee; Robert “Gunner” Kenny, a Providence man active with the state party in recent years; and Tammy Turcotte-Raposo, a member of the Warwick Republican Town Committee.
Warwick Mayor Scott Avedesian has made the seemingly counter-intuitive proposal of cutting beach fees to increase city revenue. To be more succinct, the proposal is meant to save about $12,000. Now, why would cutting fees save money?
The mayor said he recommended the action after department directors reviewed ways to cut expenditures and it was found that revenues don’t come close to covering the cost of running the seasonal program.
The action means the city will hire five less summer employees, college students chosen for city jobs through a lottery. The fees implemented in 1995 are $2 per car for residents and $3 for nonresidents. There are also seasonal passes of $10 for residents and $20 for non-residents.
“When we looked at the figures, it just no longer logically made sense to keep this in place,” Avedisian said, noting that last year’s revenues were approximately $12,000 and personnel and other costs totaled around $24,000.
I wonder how many other revenue “generating” programs actually take in less revenue than that required to pay the salaries and benefits of those who collect said fees?
[Open full post]OK, here you go. I know that the conversation has started around here already, so this Forum is an attempt to centralize the discussion about the upcoming RI GOP leadership races. State your case, keep it clean and try to stay away from innuendo. Have at it.
[Open full post]This week is the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. (Andrew went last year). It appears that these active conservatives, disgruntled with the current crop of Presidential candidates, are turning their eyes towards Congress:
Conservative leaders, who are gathering in Washington today for the first Conservative Political Action Conference meeting since the Republican Party’s electoral defeat last year, acknowledged in interviews that it will be difficult to reclaim control of Congress. But faced with a pack of GOP presidential contenders with spotty conservative credentials, the party’s fiscal and social conservatives say they are making a special effort to reclaim power on Capitol Hill to hold the next White House in line.
“For years, the party was completely president-centric, and put all their efforts into keeping the presidency,” said Grover Norquist , president of Americans for Tax Reform. “But going into 2008, it’s going to be equally important to pick up the House and Senate. Now, people recognize you can govern from either body,” not just the White House, Norquist said.
Paul Weyrich , president of the Free Congress Foundation, said the party’s top-tier presidential candidates — including Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani , and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — are too liberal for many conservatives.
“If we can’t play a role in the presidential [election] , then at least let’s elect some senators and congressmen. Maybe we can play a role in Congress,” Weyrich said.
Bill Lauderback , executive vice president of the American Conservative Union, agreed: “2008 is not just about the White House. It’s about maintaining conservative principles within the public policy debate,” he said.
Norquist’s point about national Republicans being president-centric is also applicable here in Rhode Island. The RIGOP, if nothing else, has been a governor-centric party. Perhaps, with new leadership, this will change.
[Open full post]So far, I’ve posted on how the Democrats in the House have attempted to remove the ability of workers to vote via a secret ballot if they want to unionize and how most workers dislike union card checks, which is the “approved alternative” of the House Democrats and their Labor Boss buddies. One area of contention seems to be over just who, exactly, intimidates workers more: unions or companies. As my last post indicated, it seems that most of the company-sponsored intimidation is anecdotal. Additionally, according to the poll I cited, “[o]ver 92 percent of union objections to employer misconduct during organizing elections in 2005 were either withdrawn or, upon investigation by the NLRB, dismissed.”
Now, an Anchor Rising reader has emailed me some documents that provide an example of the types of intimidation tactics in which one particular union engaged during an organizing campaign. According to this source:
[T]he attached is quite “interesting” regarding the lengths to which union organizers will go.
It is an employee bulletin board notice that the National Labor Relations Board ordered posted at the trucking company Overnite Transportation facilities. The Teamsters agreed to this as part of a stipulated agreement (also attached) settling charges against the Teamsters, which at the time were attempting to organize Overnite.
By no means is this Teamster activity representative of union pressure during organizing drives, but “less extreme” union pressure certainly is: from fraud (telling employees that signing the card is only so that the union can mail information to the employee’s house) to nagging (many employees sign the cards simply to get the pro-union employees to stop bothering them) to subtle intimidation (groups showing up at employee’s houses seeking signed cards) to more shall we say “unsubtle” intimidation.
Here is a PDF detailing the settlement and here is a PDF containing the actual posting. Here’s a sample of some of that “unsubtle” intimidation, which was subsequently prohibited in the postings:
[Open full post]Here’s what you might think is a simple question. Should a non-town employee be eligible to receive a town pension? If the town involved is West Warwick, the answer is not comprehensible.
Tracy Proulx of the Kent County Times has the whole story…
On April 17, 2006, [West Warwick Resident Alan Palazzo] submitted an APRA (Access to Public Records Act) request to the town seeking information regarding a pension authorization and contribution for a person who he said he believed was not a town employee.But contrary to what Mr. Pezza may believe, Section I of R.I. General Laws 38-2-2(4)(i)(A) is clear that certain information about public employees is to be made available to the public…
Palazzo received a letter from Joseph Pezza, the pension board’s attorney, stating that his request was denied based on Rhode Island General Laws 38-2-2(4)(i)(A)(I). That law exempts items such as information regarding personal finances, welfare, employment security, and similar matters from being considered public records.
Palazzo said he filed a complaint with the attorney general’s office, stating that the documents he requested properly fall within R.I. General Law 38-2-2(4)(i)(A)(II). That law states that “pension records of all persons who are either current or retired members of the retirement systems … shall be open for public inspection.”
For the purposes of this chapter, the following records shall not be deemed public:At the very least, West Warwick has to release the dates that Beneficiary X was a town employee (or state that he or she never was), his or her salary range at the time of employment, and the amount spent on fringe benefits for this person. And that’s before we get to the exception in section II mentioned by Mr. Palazzo…
(A)(I) All records which are identifiable to an individual applicant for benefits, client, patient, student, or employee, including, but not limited to, personnel, medical treatment, welfare, employment security, pupil records, all records relating to a client/attorney relationship and to a doctor/patient relationship, and all personal or medical information relating to an individual in any files, including information relating to medical or psychological facts, personal finances, welfare, employment security, student performance, or information in personnel files maintained to hire, evaluate, promote, or discipline any employee of a public body; provided, however, with respect to employees, the name, gross salary, salary range, total cost of paid fringe benefits, gross amount received in overtime, and other remuneration in addition to salary, job title, job description, dates of employment and positions held with the state or municipality, work location, business telephone number, the city or town of residence, and date of termination shall be public.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, or any other provision of the general laws to the contrary, the pension records of all persons who are either current or retired members of the retirement systems established by the general laws as well as all persons who become members of those retirement systems after June 17, 1991 shall be open for public inspection. “Pension records” as used in this section shall include all records containing information concerning pension and retirement benefits of current and retired members of the retirement systems established in title 8, title 36, title 42, and title 45 and future members of said systems, including all records concerning retirement credits purchased and the ability of any member of the retirement system to purchase retirement credits…On top of the compliance problems, there appears to be some confusion within West Warwick municipal government about Beneficiary X’s exact employment status. Mr. Pezza says Beneficiary X currently is a town employee…
Pezza confirmed that the person Palazzo was inquiring about was currently a town employee and gave information regarding how the pension plan was formed. Since the person was considered a town employee, the attorney general’s department determined that the records were public and “must be disclosed.”However, according to West Warwick Town Solicitor Tim Williamson, the situation is more complex…
The department found that the town “violated the APRA by not disclosing the reasonably segregable portions of the June 11, 2001 letter,” which was the document Palazzo was requesting. The attorney general’s office allowed the town 10 business days from the date of the finding (Feb. 15) to respond to Palazzo
Williamson said, even though Pezza stated that the person was a town employee, he is not. Williamson said the person was not paid by the town and did not receive town benefits, but he is taking part in the town pension plan. He said the person has been enrolled in the pension system since 1987, and was an employee of the town in 1991 and 1992, but is not a current employee of the town.Is it common practice to let non-town employees participate in town pension plans? If so, I may head down to city hall and see if I can find a good deal for myself.
Mr. Williamson and Mr. Pezza obviously aren’t on the same page, but their common position seems to be that it is possible for someone to be considered a town employee for purposes of participating in a pension plan, but not considered a town employee with respect to public scrutiny laws. That’s nuts, even by West Warwick standards.
Anyway, where we are now, apparently, is with the West Warwick Town Clerk saying he doesn’t have to go along with the law or with what the Attorney General has said (i.e. release the records)…
Yesterday, Palazzo received a letter from Town Clerk David D. Clayton. It read, “Please be advised that the Town of West Warwick will, at this time, be holding in abeyance the above referenced opinion from the Rhode Island Attorney General.”The Kent County Times editorializes on the subject here. [Open full post]
In the comments section of my recent post on the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act”, MRH contends:
This isn’t as black and white an issue as you’re making it seem. I’m sympathetic to the argument that, in general, secret ballots are a good thing. However, in practice the kind of secret balloting used to certify a union takes months or years to complete, during which time management has significant time and opportunity to intimidate workers against joining the unions.
Under a card check system, a union can be certified much, much quicker.
From everything I understand, management intimidation is far, far more prevalent than union intimidation, so that’s why most labor advocates are in favor of this.
Commenter Tom W. offers a fine riposte (so read it!), but perhaps this poll (thanks Andrew) will also help MRH make up his mind. Here’s the conclusion (follow the link for more detail):
Labor activists argue that card check is needed to protect workers’ free choice as to whether to join a union. But workers themselves disagree. Overwhelming majorities of both union and non-union workers oppose the card-check system. Contrary to anecdotal stories of employer abuses, most union members believe the current election system is fair. Workers do not want the government to force them to reveal their choices to anyone and want the right to keep their votes private. Unrepresentative anecdotes from labor activists are not enough to counter the fact that workers choose private-ballot organizing elections, not card check.
There’s more, and none of it indicates that the majority of union workers want to have the “Free Choice” of publicly proclaiming their personal decisions on union-related issues.
[Open full post]