There’s something disconcerting about the cynical use of the democratic process to make political statements, rather than advance a sincerely supported cause:
An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
Perhaps what’s disconcerting is the treatment of social and civic institutions as stages for performance. Or perhaps what bothers me is that these artistes of the ballot haven’t even the depth of understanding to put forward a bit of performance art that more truly captures the position of their opposition. If the “concept” is to present traditionalists’ vision of marriage for public scrutiny, then the initiative ought to include a clause stating that any man and woman who parented a child would be instantly married — whether or not they were in a marriage on parole.
Not that traditionalists think that such an approach would be the ideal marriage law, but having given up on gay lobbyists’ ability and/or desire to comprehend the subtleties of our position, perhaps the best we can do is insist on a balanced caricature — one that at least raises usable questions.
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.
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?
[Open full post]As a general rule, I think it best that legislators resist penning bills if they find themselves writing around the thing or quality that motivated them to put pen to statehouse stationary in the first place. Consider the proposed legislation (PDF) to which Marc linked earlier.
It defines “marriage” as “the legally recognized union of one man and one woman,” but it offers no similar definition for civil unions (e.g., “one man and one man, or one woman and one woman”). Stumbling along with the unspoken left unsaid, the bill goes so far as to forbid women from civil uniting with female relatives and men from doing so with male relatives (just as current RI law forbids men from marrying female relatives and women male), but if opposite-sex couples can enter into civil unions — which is nowhere forbidden in the proposed legislation — then people could civil unite with relatives of the opposite sex.
This oversight (as I’m reasonably confident it is) relates to the reason that I’ve long stressed that my potential support for civil unions applies only if they are drawn out in the law without reference to marriage. Both those who support and those who oppose civil unions ought to be in favor of requiring that the public debate address what, exactly, is being sought and what qualities suggest particular rights and privileges.
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?
[Open full post]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.
[Open full post]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.
[Open full post]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.
[Open full post]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.
[Open full post]Here’s another one:
“The Rhode Island High School Dropout Prevention Act of 2007” (2007 – H5351) makes it the responsibility of the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary education to work in collaboration with local school districts and the Department of Higher Education to implement strategies to lower the state’s dropout rate.
“Rhode Island has plenty of work to do to keep our kids in school,” said Representative McNamara [(D-Dist. 19, Warwick, Cranston)]. “This problem is not specific to Rhode Island, but the facts and figures on dropouts from our schools are not a proud moment in Rhode Island education. Even as we see an upswing in performance test scores around the state, we are still losing the battle with a lot of our children, who at too young an age are being allowed to walk away from an education that could make their lives so much better in the future.”
I’d suggest that, in a state in which even the brightest, most ambitious students are compelled to seek their opportunities across the border, the solution to this particular problem is more fundamental than tracking truants and formulating programs to push students to even higher levels of (what appears to be) useless education. Motivating the hard cases — and the not-so-hard cases — requires that they see examples of success throughout their everyday lives, and the common theme of that success must be personal initiative, not personal connections and collective advantage-taking.
The more targeted programs the establishment creates, the more money it will funnel into an inefficient, failing system at the expense of the dynamism that would better resolve our state’s difficulties in the first place.