Coming up in Committee: Ten Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, February 14 - February 16

10. Bud Art. 27: Creates a restricted-receipt account for historic preservation tax-credit processing fees, to be used for reimbursing historic tax-credit processing fees (H Finance; Tue, Feb 14). Ed. note: Rational government budgeting at its finest?

9. H7406, aka the strange regulatory bill of the week: Sets a minimum price of $35.00 for transportation provided by "public motor vehicles", which are privately owned non-taxicabs hired for individual trips (H Corporations; Tue, Feb 14). Ed. note: Does RI have a strong taxicab lobby?

8. Bud Art. 26/Bud Art. 28: Various municipal impact articles, including an extension of gambling appropriations to distressed communities, an extra-constitutional appropriation of local revenue in Central Falls, and a statutory exemption allowing a receiver to agree to longer contracts than democratically governed municipalities can (H Finance; Wed, Feb 15).

7. S2158: Moves layoff notice date for public school teachers from March 1 to June 1 (S Labor; Wed, Feb 15).

6. Bud Art. 4, Sec. 3: Creates an Office of Management and Budget within the Rhode Island Department of Administration, including a newly created director-level position to be appointed by the Director of Administration. The new OMB is given lots of responsibilities for seeking out and administering Federal grants and, as far as I can determine, there's no offsetting reduction or consolidation of other departments related to its creation (H Finance; Thu, Feb 16).

5. H7349: Card-check unions for public employees, with a definition of "public employee" that expressly includes quasi-public entities (H Labor; Tue, Feb 14).

4. H7390: Establishes a fairly lengthy list of "defects or omissions" that a mortgage agreement may contain and still be considered valid. Somebody with knowledge of real-estate transactions should review this list, and determine if they really are all the "minor defects" that the official description claims they are (H Judiciary; Tue, Feb 14).

3. The entire House Judiciary agenda for Wed, Feb 15:

• H7060: An extension of parts of campaign finance regulation to local financial town meetings & referendums.
• H7086: Moves the power to nominate judicial magistrates to the Governor, away from Supreme Court justices/Superior Court and other judges where it currently resides.
• H7089: Allowing voters to choose their political party on the day of the primary, instead of having to be registered 90-days beforehand.
• H7388: Requires the legislature to disregard the choice for President made by Rhode Island voters, and assign Presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote as determined by other states instead.

2B. H7201: Requires the faculty of Mayoral Academies to join the state teachers' retirement system (H Health Education and Welfare; Wed, Feb 15). Patrick's earlier take on the bill is available here.

2A. H7344: Requires that students be assigned to Mayoral academies based on randomized offers (H Health Education and Welfare; Wed, Feb 15). Ed. note: I notice that 3 of the sponsors on this bill are from Providence. Where is their companion bill, requiring that students be assigned to Classical High at random?

1. H7286/S2258: Teachers' right-to-work bill, prohibiting membership in a labor organization from being a condition of employment for teachers, teachers aids or specialists who work in an educational setting (H Health Education and Welfare; Wed, Feb 15 & S Labor; Wed, Feb 15).

Coming up in Committee: Nine Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, February 7 - February 9

9. H7343: Allows school districts to replace school bus monitors on K through 5 buses with a suitable technical monitoring system (H Health, Education and Welfare; Wed, Feb 8).

8. Bud Art. 28: In addition to involving some specific financial details relating to Central Falls, including an extra-constitutional appropriation of local revenue, this article also gives municipal receivers the power to negotiate contracts of 5 years in duration in any community where they have been installed. (Current Rhode Island law says that municipal contracts cannot extend beyond three years, though this law is routinely ignored in practice) (S Finance; Thu, Feb 9).

7. S2121: "With respect to police officers employed by the town of Johnston, only those police officers hired on or after July 1,2011 shall be eligible to be members of the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of the state of Rhode Island" (S Finance; Thu, Feb 9). (Still have the same question here: Isn't the MERS system the pension system in Rhode Island considered to be the one in the best shape?)

6. H7059: Makes the intent to defraud in a residential mortgage transaction into a crime, whether or not "any particular person was harmed financially in the transaction". The bill also extends the statute of limitations for various crimes, including residential mortgage fraud, making false statements to obtain a loan or credit and "bank fraud", to 10 years (H Judiciary; Wed, Feb 8).

5. Bud Art. 12/Bud Art. 26: Changes the state-aid allocation to municipalities, including how local capital education expenses are reimbursed, how Central Falls education expenses are funded by the state, and a one-year extension on a "temporary" appropriation of gambling revenue to distressed communities (S Finance; Thu, Feb 9).

4. H7317: "Legal fees pertaining to a labor contract entered into by a city or town, shall not exceed two tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the value of the contract". (H Labor; Tue, Feb 7) (Editorial Note: Justin's view on the problem with this bill is available here).

3. H7283/S2180: Replaces a 5-section/7-subsection part of the law prohibiting for-profit "corporations, subsidiaries, or affiliates" from applying to "convert" more than 1 hospital in a 3-year period, with 1 section (sans subsections) expressly stating that for-profits can apply to "convert" more than one hospital per year (H Corporations; Tue, Feb 7 & S Health and Human Services; Wed Feb 8).

2. H7316: Prohibits municipal governments (including school committees and fire districts) from modifying or negotiating collective bargaining agreements after a primary election, until after the officials chosen in the associated general election have taken office (H Labor; Tue, Feb 7).

1. H7112: Eliminates good-behavior reduction of prison sentences for individuals convicted under sections 11-23-1 (Murder), 11-26-1.4 (Kidnapping of a minor), 11-37-2 (First degree sexual assault), 11-37-8.1 (First degree child molestation sexual assault) or 11-37-8.3 (Second degree child molestation sexual assault) of Rhode Island law (H Judiciary; Wed, Feb 8).

Legislation to Beat Cities and Towns Senseless with Their Own Amputated Legs

Fresh on the heels of Governor Chafee's declaration of the Year of the Cities and Towns, Reps. Scott Guthrie (D, Coventry), Roberto DaSilva (D, East Prov., Pawtucket), and John Savage (R, East Prov.) have introduced legislation (H7317) that may win the sure-to-be-tough contest for union-loving lunacy:

28-7-7.1. Representation of towns and cities - maximum legal fees. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary contained in any general or public law, rule or regulation, legal fees pertaining to a labor contract entered into by a city or town, shall not exceed two tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the value of the contract.

Says Guthrie in the associated press release:

"My legislation is not intended to interfere with contract negotiations, or muddle the legal process associated with them... My legislation is intended to be a form of property tax relief, by setting a specific monetary cap on legal fees so they do not grow and grow like top seed."

One needn't be but so cynical to think that his legislation just might be intended to add a restraint on the employer in negotiations. They have to fight with the knowledge that a buzzer will eventually go off requiring them to lower their gloves and take whatever beating is coming their way.

Then again, given the lack of a "what then" in the legislation, a municipality surely would gain some immunity to accusations of unfair negotiation tactics if it unilaterally imposes contract terms the day that the law says its paid advocate has to go home.

Senate Education Committee First to Fully Comply with Rules On Publication of Committee Votes

Let's give immediate credit to the Rhode Island Senate Education Committee, led by Chairwoman Hanna Gallo (D-Cranston), for being the first RI General Assembly Committee, definitely in this session and maybe ever, to post its votes to hold bills for further study to the "Committee Votes" section of the General Assembly website, providing the public with a more complete record of what occurs during committee sessions than previously has been done.

In the other chamber, although 16 bills have already been "held for further study" by House committees as of the end of last week, no record of those votes appears on the General Assembly's website at the present time.

Coming up in Committee: Seven Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, January 31 - February 2

7. The House Corporations Committee will be considering a typically eclectic set of regulatory bills on Wed, Feb 1, on subjects such as allowing "hospitals and treatment centers located in Providence to calibrate scales within their facilities" (H7231) and requiring flashing lights on snow-removal equipment, in addition to snow plows (H7230). It's always both fun and informative to look in on the agenda of this committee, to get a sense of the things that RI government likes to regulate. However, I do wonder what problems are anticipated by H7229, which states that in civil lawsuits against the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, "any damages recovered therein shall not exceed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars".

6. S2052: A statutory "bill of rights" for homeless individuals, including "the right to fair, decent and affordable housing in the community of his or her choosing, and access to safe and proximate shelter until such housing can be attained". (S Housing and Municipal Gov; Tue, Jan 31) (Question: Could an unlimited number of people use this section of the proposed law to sue for their right to housing in New Shoreham?)

5. H7055: Changes election rules from requiring that "substantially not more than nineteen hundred voters shall be served by the same polling place", to requiring that "voting districts" shall be limited to 4,000 voters (in the absence of special approvals). (H Finance; Tue, Jan 31)

4. H7186/S2121: "With respect to police officers employed by the town of Johnston, only those police officers hired on or after July 1,2011 shall be eligible to be members of the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of the state of Rhode Island". (H Municipal Gov; Tue, Jan 31 & S Finance; Thu, Feb 2) (Question: Isn't the MERS system the pension system in Rhode Island that's considered to be in the best shape?)

3. H7225 provides for stays of foreclosure for active duty or deployed armed service members. H7274 creates a specific process for resolving child custody and visitation matters "when a parent receives temporary duty, deployment, or mobilization orders from the military". (H Veterans' Affairs; Thu, Feb 2)

2. H7272: Changes date of layoff notices for public school teachers from March 1 to June 1 (H Labor; Wed, Feb 1) (Editorial note: The date change is literally the only change in the law made by this bill).

1. H7250: Terms of teacher contracts would remain in force after they have expired, if no new contract has been ratified. (H Labor; Wed, Feb 1)

Assembly Can't Have It Both Ways

Monique's post today about her attempt to get in touch with State Rep Charlene Lima via email made me think that it's pretty interesting that Reps and Senators don't want to be bothered by non-constituents. Last June, Jim Hummel came to the same conclusion, with Rep. Lima again the poster child for this type of (lack of) response.

They'll claim to be too busy, too overwhelmed with email to have time to read it all from everyone. They get email from non-constituents from other districts in Rhode Island and they also claim they get email from people from out of state. They really only have time to respond to and interact with their own constituents. After all, that's who they're representing, right? Those are the people that the Assembly member spends their time up on Smith Hill to represent.

I have to say "hang on a moment" here. That's not exactly true. If you have a severe case of insomnia some time, or you're just a big time nerd like me, try randomly reading through State House bills. Pay special attention to those that affect either one town, a couple of towns or even just specific institutions. Shouldn't the Assembly member who is representing those issues be the one who submits bill for those specific areas?

Want an example? Remember back in 2008 when the Assembly passed a law allowing both Twin River and Newport Grand to stay open 24 hours a day? Who sponsored that bill in the Senate? Was it a Senator from Lincoln or Newport? No. It was Paul Moura, then a Senator for East Providence. East Providence?!? What does he have to do with Twin River or Newport Grand?

This isn't the only time this has happened. If you read through the bills, you'll see it happens quite frequently, actually. I have no definite reason as to why.

The Assembly members want to submit legislation that affects people in a certain part of the state that they don't represent, however based on Jim Hummel and Monique's experiences, these Assembly members don't want to respond or even read email from people that their legislation affects. It would seem to me that if you're going to submit a bill that affects certain people in this state, you should at least be willing to accept contact from them. It's just good government. Which is yet again, something Rhode Island needs a lot more of.

Welcome to the 2012 Edition of the Journal of Held For Further Study

I attended last night's hearing of the Rhode Island House of Representatives Municipal Government Committee on House Bill H7098, which would change the way that vehicles are valued for purposes of assessing the state’s car tax.

Municipal Government Committee Chairman Jon Brien (D-Woonsocket) gaveled the meeting to order, took the roll, and asked Rep. Joseph McNamara (D-Warwick), the primary sponsor of H7098, to begin the discussion of the bill, which was the only item on last night's committee agenda. Less than a minute into Rep. McNamara's testimony, Chairman Brien politely interrupted Rep. McNamara, to ask for a vote to hold the bill for further study. The committee voted to do so and the meeting went on.

Now, I am not suggesting that yesterday’s immediate vote to hold for "further study" means that something untoward is occurring with the car-tax bill. The earliness in the legislative session(especially by Rhode Island standards) with which Chairman Brien, the bill’s sponsors, and the Municipal Government Committee have taken up this matter, as well as the wide range of people who participated in the hearing, makes plain that the House is giving serious consideration to this bill, and the practice of automatically holding bills for "further study" is not a central roadblock to passing meaningful reforms on an issue like the car-tax, where there is a reasonably broad consensus about changes that need to be made.

However, politics and policy making will inevitably involve issues where consensus is harder to achieve. In such cases, respecting the principle that legislatures by their nature must be governed by majority rule, not by any one individual, is of the utmost importance to the functioning of representative democracy. Unfortunately, the Rhode Island practice of holding bills for “further study” concentrates legislative power in the hands of a few members, whether or not they represent the majority view of the legislature as a whole.

* * *

1. By voting to hold a bill for further study as its first order of business, members of a committee immediately surrender to leadership their right to determine if a bill will ever get a floor vote. The relevant rule in the House of Representatives is rule 12(f)...

Committee Chairs shall bring reports of committee actions to the floor no later than two (2) weeks following the committee votes thereon, provided that this shall not apply to the Committee on Finance, nor shall it apply to bills being held for further study under subdivision (e)(v).

A vote to hold a bill for further study counts as the one vote to which every bill is entitled, but also means that a bill does not have to be seen or heard from ever again. Before the decision to hold for further study, a committee has the discretion to send a bill to the full house for consideration, regardless of how the Speaker or a committee chair would like to see it disposed of. After the decision is made to hold for further study, a committee’s ability to send a bill to the floor depends on first getting the Speaker's and the committee chair's permission to put it back on the agenda for another vote.

2. At the risk of sounding redundant, holding a bill for further study requires a vote to be taken. However, if you look at the General Assembly website, you will see that no vote was reported from the House Municipal Government committee from yesterday. The House is in violation of its own rules here, specifically rule 13(c)...

The Speaker shall formulate a plan for the publication of committee votes and work to implement the plan so committee votes appear online in a prominent and conspicuous location on the General Assembly website prior to the floor votes of the bill occurring: Online committee votes shall be available publicly no later than May 1, 2011.

Votes in committee to hold for further study are committee votes. This means, according to the rules, they should be published on the GA website in a timely fashion. They should be published so that the citizens of Rhode Island can know which representatives reflexively surrender their right to decide the fate of bills in committee in every case, and which do not.

3. Opposing the current practice of automatically holding bills for further study as the first order of committee business does not imply that a final decision has to be made on a bill in the first committee session where it is heard. For a concrete example of this, we can turn to the Rhode Island Senate. When a bill is held for further study by a House or Senate committee, a specific note of that fact is made on the "Bill Status" section of the General Assembly website. Here's an example from last year's session...

Senate Bill No. 314 SUB A
Chapter 326
BY McCaffrey, Lynch
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- RHODE ISLAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (would require all board members of the Rhode Island airport corporation to be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate)
{LC511/A/1}
02/16/2011 Introduced, referred to Senate Judiciary
03/03/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
03/03/2011 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
04/26/2011 Scheduled for consideration
04/26/2011 Committee recommends passage of Sub A

However, examining the travail of some of the other legislation considered by the RI Senate last session shows that legislative committees already use options other than holding for further study to continue business from one meeting to the next. Here's how the I-195 redevelopment bill worked its way through the Senate Housing and Municipal Government Committee...

Senate Bill No. 114 SUB B as amended
Chapter 267
BY Ruggerio, Goodwin, Jabour, Perry, Ciccone
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC PROPERTY AND WORKS
{LC144/B/3}
01/27/2011 Introduced, referred to Senate Housing and Municipal Government
04/14/2011 Scheduled for hearing
04/14/2011 Committee continued
05/26/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
05/26/2011 Committee continued
05/31/2011 Scheduled for consideration
05/31/2011 Committee continued
06/02/2011 Scheduled for consideration
06/02/2011 Committee recommends passage of Sub A as amended...

At three separate meetings, the committee postponed making a final decision on the I-195 bill, without formally holding it for further study. This meant that the committee was able, by a majority decision, to resume consideration of the bill without having to get permission from the Senate President or the committee chair. For whatever reason, the committee members decided that they didn't want to go through a process of sending the I-195 bill to the Senate leadership and waiting for them to send it back, in order to be able to consider the bill at a future meeting.

No slight is intended to Speaker of the House Gordon Fox by pointing out the problems with the Rhode Island legislature's further study system, but the simple fact of the matter is that any legislative body is going to have to deal with issues where the majority wants to move in a different direction from the leadership. We recently saw an example of this, also from the Rhode Island Senate, where the Senate leadership used parliamentary trickery to deny a roll call floor vote on an E-Verify bill that was supported by a large number of Senators and that might have passed (we don’t know for sure, because the Senate President didn’t take a roll call vote).

Under the rules of the Rhode Island legislature that are already in place, Senators or Representatives are not constrained to follow only the agenda that leadership sets for them. They already have the formal authority they need to bring votes to the floor, with or without leadership sanction. All they need is a willingness to use the authority that the people have entrusted to them.

"It's Legal" Doesn't Make It Right

Two stories in the Providence Journal lately have me lamenting more of the same in Rhode Island. More of lack of strong leadership and more disregard for the people and the spirit of law.

Last Thursday, they reported that Senators Paiva-Weed, Ruggerio and Goodwin were invited to the Senate Presidents Forum in Key West. The RI Senate President was invited in order to speak about the RI pension reform bill that recently passed. Additionally, the conference paid for a portion of the costs. The other portion, thankfully, was not paid by taxpayers but instead by the campaign account of Senator Paiva-Weed.

Apparently, this is legal:

(b)(4) Travel expenses for an officeholder, provided that the travel is undertaken as an ordinary and necessary expense of seeking, holding, or maintaining public office, or seeking, holding, or maintaining a position within the legislature or other publicly elected body. If a candidate or officeholder uses campaign funds to pay expenses associated with travel that involves both personal activities and campaign or officeholder activities, the incremental expenses that result from the personal activities are personal use, unless the person(s) benefiting from this use reimburse(s) the campaign account within thirty (30) days for the amount of the incremental expenses;

Was this trip a part of their holding the office? Yes. However, I do wonder if the senators would have no problem with looking a donor in the eye and explaining to them that their $20 donation could go toward the Senator's trip to Key West. How many donors think of it that way? I'm guessing they more think their money is going toward yard signs or newspaper advertising or any of the other various expenses that come up in the course of a campaign. I doubt many think "Sure, I'll give this senator my money so they can go on a trip to Key West, Florida."

Also in the Journal was an article about various lobbyists who purchased advertising space in newspapers owned by State Senator John Tassoni. Apparently, most of the lobbyists who made this purchase did not report this expenditure by the required deadline. When Sen. Tassoni was asked about this, he said

“It’s not my responsibility. It’s the responsibility of the people that buy the ads to fill out the proper documents.”

Which is true, it's not his responsibility to fill out forms for the state or disclose that information, it's the lobbyists' job. However, a state senator should be interested in good government and transparent government. If something isn't right that is related to a business that he owns, he should be ready to step up and take a stronger stand against the lobbyists that aren't adhering to the state's expenditure laws, and not simply wave his hands and claim "Not my fault."

In both of these cases, while no senator has done anything illegal, they just don't really pass the smell test. Neither one really feels right, neither one feels like the senators are showing leadership and promoting good government and representation in Rhode Island. That is something that the state still needs a lot more of.

What's Old Is New Again

Just when I started to think that maybe Speaker Gordon Fox gets it. Maybe he is going to lead in the right direction. Some recent examples included his decision to put bills to a House floor vote when they're ready, not at the last minute. Or his decision to contact the US Justice Department and find out what steps the state needs to take to open legal medical marijuana dispensaries, even though Governor Chafee ran scared from the issue.

But then, Speaker Fox shows that he still doesn't get it. On the very first night of session, he described his legislative priorities to Ian Donnis over at the Rhode Island Public Radio (RIPR) On Politics blog.

Fox told me these are his top three goals for the session:
The first thing we have to do is get redistricting done. I think the next thing we have to do is deal with the municipal situation – figure out what’s going on with that – and I think we really have to put the foundation in with the casino vote that’s coming up in November.

Wait, what? Did I miss something? Did I miss where Rhode Island's unemployment rate was magically fixed? Did I misunderstand one of those goals to really mean "to help get Rhode Islanders back to work and create a better business atmosphere for every citizen of the state?"

Speaker Fox, where is the desire to fix this major problem? This is worse than the state pension situation was. You fix this unemployment and bad business climate then everything else falls into place.

Additionally, Donnis mentions:

It’s an election year, of course, in which some observers think the legislature will avoid controversy, steer clear of upsetting public safety unions, and make a relatively fast exit.

Very nice. No controversy, don't upset any unions and get out fast so they can go bang on doors and serve spaghetti in the late summer and early fall.

Speaker Fox, please add this as your fourth important issue for this session. Don't be afraid to make the hard decisions, regardless of who gets angry, because the people who will be happy are those who are still sitting home, out of a job. And I guess if you don't do anything about the unemployment rate, more people will be home to greet the door to door campaigning.

Welcome Back General Assembly

Today is the first Tuesday in January, which means by the state's constitution, the General Assembly is back in session. While I'm not sure why they need to meet every year in a state the size of Rhode Island (in Texas they meet every odd numbered year) it sure helps bloggers to come up with more material while they're in session.

A couple sources today talked about some of the things we can expect to see addressed in the next six months or so. First and foremost, we'll hear about municipal pension reform. The Assembly just finished up one round of pension reform on the state level, but this time, they'll be discussing how to help all the cities and towns of RI fix their problems. Some, like General Treasurer Gina Raimondo felt there were too many different plans and issues for the state bill to handle the plans held by all 39 municipalities. They all have their own challenges. One of the biggest issues we'll hear discussed with the local pension reform will be for the city of Cranston. Last year, I spoke with Mayor Fung about his unique situation.

Then, when reading the various articles talking about what the Assembly will be tackling, I get a bit disappointed, put it mildly. Dan McGowan puts numbers next to each of the issues that he brings out. I'm not sure if this was intended as having any meaning, but I see "Job Creation" with a number 9 next to it. In an AP story found in the Boston Globe (h/t Ted Nesi) (wouldn't that be great if we didn't have to find Providence news in the Boston Globe?), "Economy" is mentioned after "Budget Deficit", "Taxes", "Municipal Pensions", and ahead of "Education", "Nursing School" and "Civil Unions."

To me, this is proof that people just don't get it. Look at all of those things except for civil unions. Every single one of those is budgetary and financial. They all have to do with money in one direction or the other. The number one, biggest, most important thing this General Assembly can do for the next six months is to focus on one thing. Build an environment in Rhode Island that promotes job creation. All of those other issues mentioned get easier when you have people working and paying their income taxes.

The Assembly needs to create an environment that continues to build on the national buzz that Rhode Island is getting. Some can debate whether it is deserved, but Rhode Island is getting a lot of national attention from the media for the pension reform that just passed. What happens then is business owners will look at that and start to put a bug in their head about whether Rhode Island will be a good move for them. So they'll investigate further. What's the business climate like?

If this General Assembly can build on the buzz by creating more national attention through creating a better atmosphere for business, it will only accelerate the state's recovery. And this is a problem that the General Assembly can fix, if they choose to. How else can anyone explain why all of RI's neighboring states have a much lower unemployment rate? Look at this graph.

The Assembly members all have their own pet projects they want to work on and we do have some big issues that need to be addressed. However, if this downward spiral of people leaving and jobs leaving the state is not reversed and reversed now, then changes need to be made in leadership. When Assembly candidates come knocking on our doors in the fall, we should be asking them one question only, "What did you do to create an environment for jobs for Rhode Island?"

I'd ask them all today, on their first day back to work. What are you going to do, today, to create a climate for job growth in Rhode Island? I'm listening.

Passing Bills On Their Own Merit?

In Sunday's Nesi's Notes, Ted has a story about Speaker of the House, Gordon Fox trying to make what would actually be a major change in how the House operates. Fox is looking to change an old practice of holding the vast majority of the bills for a floor vote until the final days of the legislative session.

“I strongly believe that if bills, particularly non-budgetary items, are introduced earlier in the session it helps the House of Representatives to vet and consider the information in an orderly manner,” Fox wrote in a Dec. 1 letter to Governor Chafee obtained by WPRI.com. “It also prevents or lessens the chances of bills not being given the due consideration that they deserve before the General Assembly session ends.”

It often seemed in the past that all bills were being held for reasons of political power. Horse trading. When it comes down to some of the bigger bills that need to pass at the end of a session, such as the budget, a Speaker could hold other bills over legislators' heads. It's a way of keeping others in line.

Amazingly, it's looking like Fox is willing to hand over some of this power. What he's risking is letting some legislator's bill come up for a floor vote when it's ready, whether that's in February or May, and not having that carrot to dangle later when the Speaker needs help in getting a bill passed. I believe this is an example of better government that Fox should be given credit for.

Those of us who have watched some of those contentious final nights of the legislative session have seen tempers grow hotter than the inside of the building in late June. We hear calls for debate to be cut off because of things like having been at the State House for ten or more hours that day or it's 2 am and time to go home and everyone's tired. I never seem to have much sympathy for them, they create that problem by holding all the bills to the end. This move by the Speaker seems as though it will lessen that burden and let the legislators have the appropriate amount of time to review the proposals in front of them.

The article has one other point of interest to me that I've had a hard time understanding.

The General Assembly frequently suspended its own rules and violated the state’s open meetings law during the last two weeks of its half-year sessions over the past decade, according to a Common Cause Rhode Island study

I think logically, one could say that they really have no rules if they can simply vote to suspend the rules. That just seems wrong. If you're going to have a rule, keep it in effect at all times. The same with the open meetings rules and with the amount of time that a bill must be posted before it can be voted on.

These actions just seem to lead to mistakes and bad government. One thing they can do to make their rules "real" would be to pass a new law that says the only way to change the rules after they are approved for the current session is by a vote of the electorate. That sets things in stone. Then again, the Assembly could pass a new law that invalidates that one. When you make the rules, technically it's impossible to run afoul of them.

The Legislative Response Rate on Tuition

There are two major takeaways from the Providence Journal's poll of RI legislators on the matter of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants:

1. 55% of senators and 37% of representatives were willing to go on the record opposing it even though there is no vote currently before them.
2. 24% of senators and 41% of representatives didn't even respond to the question; add in "undecideds" and the percentages are 32% and 52%.

This issue comes up regularly, and it has been pretty heavily covered in the media, lately. How is it possible not to have an opinion?

The third takeaway, of course, is whether your own senator and representative responded in the way that you would like him or her to... whether he or she responded at all is also an important fact to keep in mind next time you're voting.

The General Assembly Line for Pensions

Have you spotted the line of argument that members of the General Assembly have devised for explaining why legislators who benefit from public-sector pensions are free to vote to changes to the system? Here's retired NEA member and recently elected representative from East Providence (whose pension comes in at $54,512, annually):

Echoed Duffy Messier: "Everyone I talk to understands that something's got to be done and ... if the COLA is reduced or frozen for a while, if that's the worst, then they are fine with it."

Duffy Messier said she would have qualms voting if it "was going to affect me positively," but that is not what she anticipates.

And here it's put a little differently:

Dawson Hodgson, R-North Kingstown, acknowledged that "nothing compels" a legislator to do [recuse], and that several legislators have publicly indicated their intention "to do the right thing and ... vote against their self-interest," which was how he described a vote to suspend or reduce, at least temporarily, the annual cost-of-living increases of up to 3 percent the state currently provides its retirees.

The problem is that a suspension or reduction in cost of living adjustments (COLAs) is nowhere near adequate, so self-interested legislators would, in effect, be voting in a way that affects them positively by voting for a measure that isn't as dramatic as it really has to be. The question isn't giving pensioners more versus giving them less; it's the amount of negative change.

Sadly, even Hodgson appears to be indicating that my predictions for the General Assembly's "reform" might be more accurate than I'd like:

... reamortization with some sort of tax increase (perhaps pushed through local governments and property taxes) and a mild reduction in benefit levels for future retirees — such as an additional year or two before they can retire or a couple more years of salary folded into the calculation for benefit amount.

I should have added some adjustment to COLAs, but doing so doesn't change the overall... bleak... picture.

How Much Time Will There Be To Read the Pension Bill, Before Voting on the Pension Bill?

At the John Loughlin fundraiser held in East Providence on Sunday evening, I was able to ask several of the sitting legislators in attendance about the highly anticipated special legislative session on pension reform. In particular, I asked House Minority Leader Brian Newberry and Senators Frank Maher and Nick Kettle about how much time they expected to have between being presented with a complete pension reform plan and being asked to vote on it.

Each of the legislators that I talked to had detailed and pointed thoughts on this issue...

 

Representative Brian Newberry: What I've been hearing is that's there are some tensions between the leadership on perhaps both the House and Senate sides and the Treasurer's office as to what's going to happen. As I understand it, the Democratic leadership wants the Treasurer to propose a solution that is actuarially sound, in a complete package. My understanding is the Treasurer's office -- and this goes back many months -- had wanted really to come forth with a slew of potential options and allow the legislature to choose from them. You can see the political advantages to both sides for that.	Audio: 1m 9 sec
To get something passed realistically, one of the things that will happen, no matter what gets proposed, is that there will be a series of floor amendments. There always is, on something of this magnitude. And if I were the Democratic leadership, I'd want something where I could come forward and say 'listen, this is the solution'. 'If you change it, and you don't have actuarial support for your changes, that's going to completely alter the equation and mess up the entire solution'. I suspect what we're going to ultimately see --and I don't have any knowledge if it's going to happen one way or the other -- but I think we're going to see the Treasurer's office put forward a solution, and whether it's a real solution or not we'll have to analyze, but they're going to put forward a package and ask the legislature to pass the package intact. I suspect that's what's going to happen.
Senator Frank Maher: That's a good question. That was one of the very concerns I had had a couple of weeks ago, when the House and the Senate got together for a pension briefing that was put on by leadership. I proposed the question of how exactly was this pension reform going to be given to us, and we were told it was going to be given to us in a legislative bill per se. When I asked who was going to be the sponsor of that bill, the reply that I received was "we don't know". And I said is it going to originate in the House or the Senate? And they said "we don't know". And I said, the Senate being the upper chamber, are we going to have the final say, depending on where the bill originates, of what the final proposal will be, taking into consideration the ideas that are given to us by the General Treasurer and the actuaries that are working with her? Once again, the response was "I don't know".	Audio: 2m 14 sec
So at this point, I am very concerned about not only how the pension reform is going to be put together in a legislative package and given to us, but I'm also very concerned, especially being part of the minority party, that we may not know until literally the last minute, and be told to vote on a bill that could literally be hundreds of pages long. And the example I give to reference that is not so much the budget but going back to when we had the Deepwater issue. That bill was a very, very extensive, complicated piece of legislation, and it came down to the last day of the vote. We were literally voting on floor amendments with no PA system working in the chamber, and being told we had to make a decision right then and there as to whether we were going to support it or not support it.
So I think that everybody agrees at this point that we have to have pension reform. I've been told that the Senate leadership is on board with pension reform one-hundred percent. But I hope that the political will is there to 1) do it comprehensively and 2) make sure that we're given enough time to digest and realize exactly what the ramifications are going to be once they decide the form that the legislation is going to take and how it's going to be passed.
Senator Nick Kettle: Echoing the same concerns as Senator Maher, I believe that we are not going to be given a proper amount of time to review the bill as it will be very extensive, and we won't know the full ramifications and implications for all the state workers and the taxpayers. And it's the taxpayers who we need to know how this is going to impact them. Unfortunately, the unions and the state workers are going to have to start paying their fair share. I don't know if the political will is in either chamber to actually do comprehensive pension reform, and I'm afraid that within two or three years, we're going to be back doing the same thing again. So I want to see pension reform happen this once, as Gina Raimondo has promised, and that's it, never come back to this issue again. It needs to be comprehensive, but unfortunately I don't see the will right now to do it.	Audio: 49 sec

And Now About the Military Record...

It looks like the next domino is falling for Rep. Dan Gordon (R, Portsmouth, Tiverton, Little Compton):

Military service records for a Rhode Island lawmaker who has said he sustained combat injuries in the 1991 Gulf War do not list a Purple Heart award or any Middle East deployments.

State Rep. Daniel Gordon's Marine Corps records, obtained by The Associated Press, list him as an aircraft technician who served from 1987 to 1991 in the U.S. and Japan. Gordon has said his leg was injured by shrapnel outside Baghdad.

This could be a paperwork mix-up, I suppose, but if so, the representative has really spectacularly bad luck.

Should Rep. Dan Gordon Be Forced Out?

Dan Gordon is the embattled RI State Representative from District 71, representing Portsmouth, Tiverton and Little Compton now facing calls for his resignation. According to the Providence Journal, he will "absolutely not" step down.

That would seem there are only a couple other options to forcibly remove him from office. There was previously some mention of a 2/3 vote (of whom?) that could remove him. I cannot find any mention of this in the RIGL or the RI House Rules that would allow the General Assembly or just the House to take a vote and remove Gordon from office. I do see that the Ethics Commission may remove someone by way of a 2/3 vote of the Commission. However, former Senator William Irons' court case basically gutted the Commission of its power and in response, the Commission hasn't been taking on big issues since. Plus, the Ethics Commission's focus has been on when politicians financially benefit from their position in power. That does not appear to be the case here.
The other option would be for the voters of his district to request a recall election. The rules for such are spelled out in the RI Constitution in Article IV, Section 1. One of the stated requirements for a recall is

Recall is authorized in the case of a general officer who has been indicted or informed against for a felony, convicted of a misdemeanor, or against whom a finding of probable cause of violation of the code of ethics has been made by the ethics commission.

Also, the time frame for recalling a State Rep is extremely small.

Recall shall not, however be instituted at any time during the first six (6) months or the last year of an individual's term of office.

So based on that timeframe, recall is out of the question from January to June of this year and from January to December of 2012. That leaves a timeframe of July 1 to December 31 of this year.

I am not advocating for the recall of Gordon, but I think if he is no longer in office, it should only be by one of two ways, voluntary resignation or the voters of his district make the choice.

It seems that the situation happening is conflating multiple charges. The most serious charges against him were lodged and some later dropped, and his time in prison was all before he was elected. Did the voters of District 71 know about that when they chose him? I can't answer for each one, but this is yet another example of misinformed voters and apathetic voters. It's a shame when voters go to the polls and vote with very little information, often not much more than looking at the party designation. If voters aren't going to do their homework on their candidates, that's on them.

Lastly, what are the charges that are causing such a stir now? What has risen to the point where both Gordon Fox and Brian Newberry have called for Dan Gordon's ouster? According to the Providence Journal

eluding the police and three other motor vehicle violations.

So let's be serious here. These are two separate issues. The voters elected him with the serious charges and jail time, in his past. The current charges are motor vehicle violations, and still, he hasn't even been convicted. That is what we want to remove an elected representative over?

Should Gordon be forced out of office? That's not for me to decide. That's for the people he represents, the people of RI House District 71.

Updated: Andrew and commenter John Marion informed me that the House can in fact remove a member by a 2/3 vote according to Article VI, Section 7

Rules of houses -- Contempt. -- Each house may determine its rules of proceeding, punish contempts, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member; but not a second time for the same cause.

However, my point stands, based on the current charges, I believe the only ones to remove Gordon from office should be either Gordon himself or the people who elected him.

Using the Legislature to Increase Union Leverage

Senator Frank Ciccone, who was a leading voice for legislation to generate some monopoly business for a particular media purchase agent and who makes $161,168 working for the Laborers' State Council, wants to provide micromanagement-level oversight of quasi-public entities:

In a letter that went out to the top administrators of these agencies on Aug. 25, Ciccone posed a series of questions, such as this: Does the agency give bonuses to any of its employees? Does it pay overtime?

Does it provide any form of compensation to its board members, including "travel, lodging, meals, training and, or education and if so, please provide a list of all compensation and/or reimbursement that board members received in FY 2011?"

Does the agency make "charitable and non-charitable contributions" and, if so, did its "employees or board members receive any benefits from [these] contributions, such as tickets, meals or golfing?"

Each letter also asks the administrator of each agency to "please list all gifts, benefits or other compensation that vendors or consultants gave to employees or board members in FY 2011."

That looks to me like an information-gathering effort for his union employer and its other allies in labor. Just another indication of why it doesn't have to be illegal to be corruption in Rhode Island.

It occurs to me, incidentally, that public-sector unions are essentially quasi-public entities, inasmuch as they collect their revenue directly from government revenue and conduct their activities with in and for the purpose of government operations. Surely, they should be receiving bullying letters and demands from legislative boards, especially considering the recent antics of executives in the National Education Association Rhode Island.

Car Tax Shame All Around

It's always appropriate to call for a greater sense of shame among Rhode Island's politicians, but Ed Achorn was a little too specific in his column, last week:

The politicians of Rhode Island would be ashamed of themselves, had they not lost the capacity for feeling shame long ago. Their determination to balance their enormous budgets, larded with stunning benefits for special interests, on the breaking backs of struggling working people is outrageous.

I write of the General Assembly's action in permitting cities and towns to hike property taxes on the most shabby motor vehicles. Now, some municipalities are hammering people who own anything valued at $500 or more (according to the municipalities' highly skewed definition).

The reality must be acknowledged that municipal governments didn't have to increase their revenue from the car tax. Other means exist for them to absorb losses in money that the state, in its mismanagement, is unable to provide. For one, lost revenue is among the exemptions that allow them to raise property taxes beyond the cap; going that route would have given residents a stronger sense and say in whether their hometowns raised taxes at all. More wisely, local governments could simply have cut back spending, even though it might mean reducing the scope of their activities. We can't forget that the General Assembly also gave cities and towns permission to reduce school budgets for a couple of years, temporarily disengaging the statutory ratchet that requires school spending to go in no direction but up.

Yes, state legislators ought to feel shame that the tools that they leave to municipalities to balance budgets are so limited. Taxing clunkers was the easiest and most visible means of compensating for losses in state aid, and the General Assembly should have taken the opportunity of hardship to tone down the demands that it makes on local governments, from minimum manning to basic education plan (BEP) requirements to the way in which labor contracts must be negotiated.

The real shame, however, belongs with the people of Rhode Island, who continue to accept government as it is. Apathetic or on the take, too many voters implicitly agree that this is the way things ought to be.

The Privilege of One-Party Rule

Throughout the legislative session just ended, the Providence Journal has been checking in with four freshman legislators, one of them being North Kingstown Republican Doreen Costa. This snippet, from the end-of-session iteration, points to one of Rhode Island's major political problems, and the consequence of indomitable one-party rule:

Lesson number two: Don't "question or argue" with the speaker, "privately, or on the floor."

"You just don't," she said. "You know you're not going to get anywhere if you argue with the speaker."

It just isn't right, nor indicative of a healthy political culture, for legislators to feel that way.

Gimme that Old-Tyme Constitutionalism!

The passage of the state budget, followed by a flurry of bills passed and not passed in the last week of the 2011 Rhode Island General Assembly session, were clear demonstrations of the value and the wisdom of two foundational principles of American constitutional governance.

1. The Division of Powers, more commonly referred to as the "Separation of Powers": In American-style constitutional systems, the Governor and the legislature both have a role in the making of laws, and it was this division of the lawmaking power that prevented an executive elected only by a plurality from imposing a tax policy that was unpopular with the majority. The legislature did their job of representing the 64% of the population who didn't vote for the current Governor or his program, accurately reflecting the fact that the Governor's high-profile taxation proposal was not popular or desired by the citizens of Rhode Island.

2. Bicameralism, Baby! The structure of two legislative chambers, neither of which owes its power to the other and both comprised of members who are electorally accountable to the people, was key in slowing down or stopping some of the legislation (the I-195 bill, binding arbitration) that otherwise would likely have been passed into law without appropriate time for public deliberation. Think how much different the outcome of the legislative session might have looked, if one individual like Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio could extend the power he holds over the Senate to the entire legislature. It is the bicameral structure of the legislature that prevents this from easily occurring.

There are often feelings that "old" structures of governance have only limited application in the modern world, but sometimes the structures of a venerable and tested system are exactly what is required to keep government responsive to the people.

Federalist 51 hits both the principles of the division of powers and bicameralism, for anyone interested in further thoughts on the subject.

A Legislature Shouldn't Be Speaker Plus Advisers

We're all rightly pleased that binding arbitration for teachers didn't make it into law, but there's something in the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition's post-victory press release that taps into a disconcerting aspect of the process:

"We commend Speaker Fox for giving this legislation the burial it deserves in the final hours of the session but we also recognize the 17 Senators who truly began the momentum to kill this bill with their courageous votes against it on the Senate floor Wednesday," states RISC Executive Director Harriet Lloyd.

As much as we may want a particular bill to go away, we'd do well to avoid acceptance of the the lopsided power of Rhode Island's Speaker of the House. The Providence Journal story on the bill's death calls it "his decision," and one wonders why legislators were shielded from a vote. Just as higher profile candidates spread political contributions around to lesser allies, the Speaker appears to have determined that he had some political capital to expend.

It's not, by the way, just a question of the Speaker putting aside a bill that he believes needs better vetting (and better timing for the outcome that he likely favors). The aspect appears again in this Providence Journal summary of the legislative session's final days (emphasis added):

"My staff and I worked extremely hard to reach a compromise on the health exchange legislation and I am hopeful that we can work things out for potential passage in the future," House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, said Friday. "However, I was unwilling to accept the Senate version of the bill, which included the pro-life language."

To make the process look even worse, the article describes a period during which the House's computers weren't able to access the bills and "lawmakers complained they were being asked to vote on bills they could not see." One wonders whether it's appropriate for legislators to read bills just before voting on them, anyway. Shouldn't they have at least a basic familiarity with them before the debate begins?

On the other hand, given the dynamics of the General Assembly's leadership team, it's a question whether legislators really need to read the bills, at all; they allow a small group so much power to control their activities. In that regard, another ally of the the center-right movement also offers disconcerting remarks:

"I can walk out that door and feel proud that we did what needed to be done for this state," [Warwick Republican Joe] Trillo said. "It is your leadership, Mr. Speaker. You have stepped up to the plate. You have proven that you understand what this state needed."

Bull. The legislature did was it always does and squeaked through with a budget that solves no real problems and ratchets the damaging regulator and taxation regimes just a bit more, in ways direct and indirect. Here's one of the latter, with a bit of guffaw-worthy rhetoric from the majority leader:

Republicans criticized the potential surcharge on electricity and natural gas bills to fund the [low-income utility aid] plan. "Let's be honest. We are voting on a $7-million tax increase," said House Minority Leader Brian C. Newberry, R-North Smithfield. "Let's call it what it is and vote it up or down."

Responded House Majority Leader Nicholas Mattiello, D-Cranston: "Twenty dollars per year per ratepayer. Do you consider that a tax increase? I don't. That is our obligation to take care of those amongst us that are meek."

Rhode Island so loves its meek that it has developed a civic structure and employment environment that makes it unduly difficult for them to cease being meek. Consequently, those who wish to improve their station in life must go elsewhere. Until legislators address that problem, we'll continue down this road of annual difficulties — annual attempts to slow our decline. Perhaps substantive, positive change can come at the behest of unreasonably powerful legislative leaders, but more likely than not, they'll have to be knocked down a few pegs before the system receives the hard shakes that it so desperately needs.

UPDATE: Providence Schools at the Center of the End of the Legislative Session

Earlier today, Providence Mayor Angel Tavares came out in favor of an amended version of the 195 Commission bill being considered in the RI House of Representatives.

This evening, the 195 bill passed, first the House Finance committee, then the full House. The Senate vote is still pending.

On the very next floor vote following the 195 commission vote, the House passed a bill granting mayors of cities with appointed school committees the power to directly negotiate teacher's contracts, relieving the school committee of power in this area entirely. The Senate vote on this bill is also pending.

The city of Providence has an appointed school committee.

Remember where you read it all first.

Providence Schools at the Center of the End of the Legislative Session?

At 10:22 this morning, notice was posted of a bill (S1062) to be heard by the House Finance Committee at noon today which would grant "the chief executive officer of any municipality having an appointed school committee" most of the same contract-negotiating powers that are held by elected school committees.

Some pure speculation on my part: In return or going along with the I-195 bill, could the powers-that-be in the Providence Mayor's office (and their allies in the RI House) be asking for much more direct power over the Providence school system?

And some speculation-squared: Would those same powers-that-be in the Providence Mayor's office be happy getting what they asked for, only to immediately lose it to a binding arbitrator?

Status of I-195 and Binding Arb Bills in the House

As indicated earlier in the evening, the House version of the binding arbitration bill has been held for further study...

House Bill No.5961
BY McCauley, Savage, Blazejewski, Lally, Carnevale
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ARBITRATION
{LC2213/1}
03/22/2011 Introduced, referred to House Labor
03/29/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
03/29/2011 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
06/29/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
06/29/2011 Committee recommended measure be held for further study

Interestingly, the I-195 bill was also held for further study earlier in the evening, but has already been scheduled for another hearing and vote tomorrow (notice of a Thursday 12:00 PM meeting posted Wednesday, at 8:54 PM)...

Senate Bill No. 0114 SUB A as amended
BY Ruggerio, Goodwin, Jabour, Perry, Ciccone
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC PROPERTY AND WORKS {LC144}
01/27/2011 Introduced, referred to Senate Housing and Municipal Government
04/14/2011 Scheduled for hearing
04/14/2011 Committee continued
05/26/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
05/26/2011 Committee continued
05/31/2011 Scheduled for consideration
05/31/2011 Committee continued
06/02/2011 Scheduled for consideration
06/02/2011 Committee recommends passage of Sub A as amended
06/07/2011 Placed on Senate Calendar
06/09/2011 Senate passed Sub A as amended
06/14/2011 Referred to House Finance
06/29/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
06/29/2011 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
06/30/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration

Re: Binding Arbitration Bill Made Public

This is the current language in Rhode Island law on the right of public school teachers to strike...

"Certified School Teachers' Arbitration", 28-9.3-1(b) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to accord to certified public school teachers the right to organize, to be represented, to negotiate professionally, and to bargain on a collective basis with school committees covering hours, salary, working conditions, and other terms of professional employment; provided, that nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to accord to certified public school teachers the right to strike.

This is the proposed language in the binding arbitration bill being heard in House and Senate committee hearings today...

28-9.3-9.2 Conduct of teachers during arbitration -- Proceedings -- (a) No certified public school teacher shall participate in a strike.

There is very little difference.

The deal being offered to RI taxpayers is that, in return for being stripped of their rights to have democratically accountable representatives determine how money is to be spent on public schools, they will receive absolutely nothing. This is, of course, what RI teachers' unions refer to as taking a "bargaining" position in good faith.

Standards for State Employment? Who'd Have Thought?

An op-ed from Common Cause Rhode Island Executive Director John Marion raises one of those issues that is apt to make the average Rhode Islander wonder why things don't work that way already:

The key to solving this [hiring] problem [in the General Assembly] is to put in place sound human-resources practices — in this case an employee-classification plan. This plan would contain a salary structure to be used to guide who is paid how much, and for what work. With this plan in place the public could hold the General Assembly responsible for any raises that deviated from the salary structure for any given job. ...

Determining what is necessary to do a job requires you to look at the job content, the job context, the intensity of the mental processes required and the effect of the work on results. The content of a job includes which knowledge and skills are necessary to complete the work, including any specialized knowledge. The job context includes the conditions the person works in, such as the seasonal nature of different tasks. Looking at those factors you can create a job description to then be used in recruitment or performance evaluation for that position. Those who do the hiring, in this case the leadership of the General Assembly, would have to justify hires, raises or promotions on the basis of objective qualifications for the position.

In areas dealing with union labor, the contracts do some of that work, but that only highlights additional ways in which such a system would benefit the public — by moving matters of employment further from the negotiating table.

In any event, the reform is so obvious and straightforward that it would surely require a concerted fight over at least a decade to even bring it into the realm of possibility. For the time being, we should just try to make names like that of Senate Majority Leader Dominique Ruggerio's special assistant, union-boss son Stephen Iannazzi infamous.

Everybody Wants Action

Everybody's telling us to call our legislators. An email from the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition (RISC):

THE WORST SCENARIO IS NOW UPON US, AS RISC HAS WARNED. IF THERE WERE EVER A TIME TO PICK UP YOUR PHONE OR EMAIL YOUR LEGISLATOR, IT IS NOW!

THE LABOR UNIONS HAVE STRUCK A DEAL WITH HOUSE AND SENATE LABOR COMMITTEES TO PASS BINDING ARBITRATION.

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE:

Binding Arbitration means even more crushing property taxes...RHODE ISLANDERS ARE ALREADY HURTING WITH HIGH TAXES, BUT THIS UNION POWER GRAB WILL FORCE THEM FROM THEIR HOMES AND CAUSE FISCAL CHAOS IN OUR LOCAL CITIES AND TOWNS.

CALL TODAY AND SHOW UP AT THE STATE HOUSE TOMORROW! IF THIS PASSES, RI TAXPAYERS ARE TOAST. IT COULDN'T BE MORE SERIOUS.

Later, from Ken Block and the Moderate Party:

Binding arbitration is back - and the stakes are huge.

There could not be a worse time for our legislature to consider tieing the hands of local elected leaders by removing from their toolbox the ability to negotiate local labor contracts.

Binding arbitration places the responsibility for negotiating local labor contracts with an unelected third party. We can ill afford to allow an outsider to determine local tax rates, which is in effect what will happen if the expansion of binding arbitration is allowed to proceed.

In a sane polity — and I offer this as a suggestion to those who remain sane around here — any legislator who plays any role in advancing binding arbitration would be considered forever unelectable no matter what he or she might subsequently say or do. But this isn't a sane polity; it's Rhode Island, and if (as rumors suggest) Democrats and labor leaders exchanged a mere wince at the end of state-employee longevity payments for binding arbitration, then they've merely found another variation of the one-time fix.

With binding arbitration, your elected officials cease to be the ones with the final say on expenditures of your money confiscated via taxation. If this is the deal that's been struck, then all Rhode Islanders for whom leaving is a realistic possibility should probably do so.

That conclusion comes, not the least, because only with the death of binding arbitration can there be considered to exist a glimmer of hope that the the state's civic culture could right itself. If binding arbitration comes to be, the wave of groups — from RISC to the Moderate Party to the Ocean State Policy Research Institute (OSPRI) to the RIGOP to Anchor Rising — are no longer "reform groups," but must be considered the voices of a subversive minority, fighting a rear-guard action mainly so that historians can report that some lone voices warned the state.

Bills Posted Yesterday (Yes, Saturday) For Hearings on Monday or Tuesday

On Saturday, a bunch of bills were posted for RI House committee hearings on Monday or Tuesday. Many of the bills, on the surface, look somewhere between innocuous and silly (e.g. H0623, which increases the weigh-in period for mixed martial arts matches from 24 to 36 hours), but folks knowledgeable in the ways of the RI legislature may be interested in going through the list, and letting us know if there's anything that would qualify as an attempt to slip a bill through the legislature, before the public has become fully aware of its content...

House Finance Bills
House Health, Education and Welfare Bills
House Corporations Bills
House Environment and Natural Resources Bills

B-Day Casino Article

Introduced by Helio Melo.

It would be Twin River only. The operator versus the state's take would be decided by the legislature next year.

Brian Newberry states support for a Casino in principle, but has concerns about this article. Because of Federal law, if RI opens itself up to "Class 3" gaming, than Indian tribes gain certain rights with regards to Class 3 gaming.

Newberry begins to discuss the 195 land. John Carnavale raises a point of order, saying it's not relevant. Fox upholds the point of order.

Peter Petrarca says anyone could have come to the Finance Committee meeting and heard the content of this bill.

Rene Menard says we have has to pass this to help our pahtnah make money and raise revenue for the state.

Joe Trillo says the place for a casino is Quonset.

Mike Chippendale says 50% of the language in this new -- it hasn't been seen by the Reps before. And why are we going to put on the ballot what been on the ballot 4 times before and never won?

Helio Melo: You didn't get the bill an hour-and-a-half ago, you got it a couple of hours ago. And the only reason we're voting on this late in the night is because you insisted on debating other bills.

William San Bento asks for no more debate tonight. Not passing this would be stupid.

Michael Marcello: My constituents oppose this.

Lisa Baldelli-Hunt: An incremenal approach won't work. We need to build a destination resort, with a coherent plan. We are puting something before the voters, without giving them the information that they need. Plus we need a plan that we are absolutely sure is constitutional.

Pat Morgan: She wants to vote for this, but expresses concern about the interaction of this law and Federal Indian gaming law and what it might enable the Narragansetts to do.

Peter Palumbo: Quotes B. Cianci as saying "Rhode Island will get into the casino business when it is no longer profitable", and doesn't want to see that happen.

Peter Martin: Why do we have to vote tonight on something that won't be voted on until 2012? And we need a better answer than predatory gambling to our fiscal problems.

Nicholas Mattiello: We need to protect our 3rd largest revenue source from competition from Massachusetts. And the referendum changes the Constitution.

Brian Newberry expresses concerns about unintended consequences with this bill.

Charlene Lima says the job of the legislature isn't to protect Twin River or the state's "partners"; it's to protect the taxpayers.

J. Russell Jackson supports the bill because it is equitable to Newport, despite his reservations about gambling in general.

The Article passes, 62-9.

It's B-Day, Part 2

[9:18] Ian Donnis tweets...

Reps are wondering what they'll be voting on with the Twin River amendment.

[9:22] Article 19 is up. This is the bulk of tax and fee changes, including some business taxes and the sales tax changes...

[9:24] Speaker Fox to William San Bento after he seconds a motion: "You don't get up very often, I didn't even know you could get up".

[9:26] Helio Melo offers an amendment clarifying that a) the tour tax only applies to tours in Rhode Island, not tours bought in Rhode Island of places outside RI b) the digital download tax applies mainly to pre-written software.

[9:29] Bob Watson: Out of a 7 billion dollar budget, we can't find 17 million more to cut, to avoid raising any taxes at all?

[9:31] Charlene Lima: What's the logic in taxing something like Norton, which is almost a necessity for computers, versus taxing iTune song downloads, which is a luxury? Melo reiterates the pre-written distinction, and that it matches Massachusetts tax policy.

[9:39] Pat Morgan asks if we could run the Convention Center more effectively (and not lose $25 million a year on it) could we avoid raising taxes? Helio Melo answers he had not considered this in the context of Article 19.

[9:42] Lisa Tomasso asks about the insurance proceeds tax. I can't say that I fully understand how it works, based on Melo's answer.

[9:49] Peter Petrarca is trying to convince Charlene Lima that the state will get its insurance proceeds tax, but the consumer won't feel any impact. I still don't get this.

[9:51] Mike Chippendale proposes eliminating the over-the-counter drug tax (8.6 million dollars), and making up the difference with a cut to departmental operating budgets and grants.

[9:55] Melo speaks against the amendment. Departments have already been cut enough (10%), plus it's really 12 million that would need to be cut, based on a full year worth of spending.

[9:57] Amendment fails 21 - 43. (And 43 reps go on record, specifically as being in favor of taxing over-the-counter drugs).

[9:59] Joe Trillo offers an amendment to eliminate the $17 million in tax increases, by cutting $17 million from uncompensated care to hospitals. And by the way, an exec from Lifespan got a $9+ million severance package. Also, he believes hospitals game the prices they charge for uncompensated care.

[10:06] Amendment fails 7-60.

[10:07] Karen MacBeth: Will the tour-tax apply to children going to see Santa Claus on the polar express? Helio Melo: Yes. MacBeth: Do we want to be known as the state that taxes Santa Claus?

[10:12] Article 19 passes. Now back to Article 13, some changes to vehicle registrations. It gets passed without debate.

[10:15] Article 20, changes to corrections policy, mostly relating to allowing medical paroles for prisoners who are severely ill.

[10:24] Doreen Costa says the AG oppposes Article 20.

[10:25] Article 20 passes, 43-26.

[10:26] Weird (to my mind) admonishment from Speaker Fox. If you are in your seat, it is your duty to vote. If you don't want to vote, get up and leave. No voting "present" says Speaker Fox!

[10:27] While I was writing the 10:26 entry, Article 24 was read and passed, 66 - 1.

[10:32] Article 22, which is supposed to begin to eliminate the state's dependence on bonded debt for paying for transportation projects, is on the floor. Jerimiah O'Grady mentions that 50% of gas tax revenue is now going to pay for debt service.

[10:39] Article 22 passes after a short debate.

[10:45] Article 12, amongst other things, allows cities and towns to require their retirees to enroll in Medicare, changes disability appeal procedures, places a 3 year moratorium on library construction, and requires municipalities to inform the state if they are likely to incur a debt.

[10:48] Jon Brien says the Medicare provision means that local taxpayers won't have to subsidize lieftime retiree healthcare benefits -- and that is real savings for cities and towns in the future.

[10:51] Rene Menard wants to know how this Article will impact the Blue Cross for life he receives as a retired, disabled firefighter. Helio Melo says he could be changed to Medicare by age 65.

[10:53] Menard takes exception to communities saying they cannot afford their disability costs anymore. Don't blame the people receiving disability benefits, blame the administrations awarding them.

[10:56] Brian Newberry discusses how healthcare for life was awarded by arbitrators in the 1980s, when its true cost was unforseen, and this article begins to undo a burden on the taxpayers that was never intended.

[11:06] House members are now debating the provision in the Article eliminating the requirement that school committees publish notice of their meetings in a newspaper.

[11:19] Dan Gordon just got applause for saying "I've been uncharacteristically silent this evening", beginning his statement on the subject of the library construction moratorium.

[11:22] Roberto DaSilva says the Medicare provision is an attack on collective bargaining. This is at least the third budget item he has described in that way. Scott Slater and Arthur Handy challenge DaSilva's perspective.

[11:25] Jon Brien: We need to provide what we can afford, and we cannot afford locally-funded healthcare for life.

[11:27] Article 12 passes in sections, on separate votes.

[11:28] Article 23, changes to various human services programs. Floor manager Eileen Naughton offers an immediate amendment related to prescription drugs for the elderly.

[11:30] Maria Cimini objects to a cut in supplemental security income payments to elderly recipients.

[11:31] Article 23 passes, 60-8.

It's B-Day!

Just got in front of a TV showing RI Captiol TV, showing the House Floor budget debate. We're in the middle of Article 8, the budget article on longevity payments.

[5:58] Article 8 passed -- blatantly stealing a description from Ian Donnis' Twitter Feed...

Article 8 cutting new longevity pay for RI state workers passes, 43-27

[6:07] Article 9 is being discussed now. It involves some structural reorganization of state government.

[6:11] Charlene Lima is questioning the wisdom of placing the state's sheriffs under the State Police, which this bill does. Helio Melo answers that they're all under the Commissioner of Public Safety anyway.

Greg Schadone wants to vote on the provision concerning the Sheriffs separately from the rest of the bill. Speaker Fox says "we'll get back to you"...

[6:17] Alert commenter Ken. Dan Reilly just stated that the only other state in the US with a statewide Sheriff's Dept. is Hawaii. Also, Reilly is opposed to putting the Sheriff''s under the State police. Speaker Fox is still trying to figure out if they can vote on that part separately. Apparently, the Sheriff's stuff is comingled with some Elderly Affairs reorganization stuff.

[6:22] Hey, RI legislators, if you actually conducted your business in the sunlight, you'd actually catch some of these problems in committee, before the floor vote.

[6:27] I think the whole article passed, including the Sheriff's dept. reorg, but on separate votes.

[6:28] Article 10: Changes in school bus regulations and funding for Davies technical academy...

[6:30] Edith Ajello wants an amendment to make sure potential bus drivers who fail a criminal background check can discuss and/or appeal the decision. Stephen Ucci thinks this is already covered in other areas of the law, and the amendment should be rejected.

[6:34] Frank Ferri thinks this amendment should go through the committee process. Perhaps a theme emerges...

[6:39] J. Patrick O'Neill says the issue is who is responsible for explaining the details of a criminal background check, the person doing the check, or the person being checked out?

[6:45] Ajello's amendment gets crushed, 7-63. You never would have guessed that was coming, from the preceding debate.

Article 10 passes unanimously. Article 11 is under discussion, which increases an annual assessment on insurers used to pay for children's health services, i.e. it is literally for the children.

[6:53] Article 11 passes. We jump ahead to Article 14, which changes nursing home reimbursement.

[6:55] 14 passed. On to Article 15, which fixes Medicaid payment rates. Speaker Fox blitzes through an amendment which only James McLaughlin votes against.

[6:59] Samuel Azzinaro introduces an amendment saying don't raise "certificate of need" requirements right now. Leo Medina says, I think, raising the CON requirement reduces the bureaucratic hurdles RI hospitals have to jump through, in order to grow.

[7:06] Teresa Tanzi thinks we may have too many hospitals in this state. Don't you just love progressive attitudes towards healthcare? Can you even understand them?

[7:07] Nicholas Mattiello makes the same argument as Medina, let hospitals purchase equipment without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Pat Morgan, who has been on the right side of most issues since being elected to the House, is arguing that we need more central planning for our medical system, to keep costs down. Helio Melo argures this is just an adjustment for inflation.

[7:14] OK, what am I missing? Mike Chippendale, who has also been very good on many issues, argues that we shouldn't raise the size of equipment purchases that require state permission. Leo Medina says the Massachusetts CON requirement is about $15 million. Pat Morgan says Massachusetts is not RI, because it has universal healthcare.

[7:23] Article 15 passes, with the raised limit.

[7:29] Article 16, "The department of humans services will make the necessary changes to raise the RIte Care monthly cost sharing requirement to five percent (5%) of family income"... passes 49-20.

[7:33] Article 17, relating to DCYF is up. This content of this article seems less like a budget article than some general changes in DCYF policy to me.

[7:40] Article 17 passes with two votes against.

[7:45] Article 18 paying for uncompensated care at RI hospitals is up. An amendment rejiggers the amounts specified in the initial bill. Helio Melo answers a question from Joe Trillo, as to why amounts for South County and Westerly hospitals are being adjusted -- the answer is that the bureaucratic formulas for Medicaid uncompensated care unjustly punish these two hospitals.

[7:52] Article 18, with the South County/Westerly amendment, passes.

[7:53] Dinner break.

Rhode Island Budgeting: Increases Mean Cuts

Ted Nesi's post, "What the heck is going on inside the new House budget?" prodded me to take a little bit of a closer look at the state's latest budget proposal, particularly when I read the following:

The House doesn't cut social services much more than Chafee. The Finance Committee budget would cut human-service programs like Medicaid by $78 million from this year's level; Chafee wanted to cut them by $71 million. So the House only made $7 million more in cuts than Chafee did in that area.

I just don't believe that the state government would do any such thing, so I asked Ted for his source, which he kindly forwarded: it's a hasty sheet that House Finance Chairman Helio Melo provided explaining his deficit solution as compared with the governor's. The $78 million, that is, doesn't appear to represent a cut from last year, but a reduction according to the department's initially requested budget for FY12. As Melo notes:

Deficit is difference between current law revenues and expected expenditures with no changes.

An excellent example of what this means is available with the first specific claim supporting that $78.1 million reduction: namely, that $19.1 million of it comes from the Department of Human Services. According to the supplemental midyear budget act (PDF), the state government appropriated for that department $2.285 billion in FY11, which it reduced to $2.223 midyear. Governor Chafee's FY12 budget act (PDF) brought the number back up to $2.240 billion, and the House Finance Committee (PDF) pushed it all the way to $2.368 billion — more, even, than last year's initial appropriation.

In other words, the House Finance Committee had to cut $19.1 million from the Dept. of Human Services in order to increase its budget by $83 million. Put more plainly, the department simply didn't get its full budget request, but will get 81% of the increase that it wanted, which amounts to 6.5% more than it received last year.

That method doesn't apply across the board, for every department (if I had the time I'd go through line by line), but as I noted to Ted, it is well worked into government processes to make budgets as confusing as possible so that nobody knows what's going on. There are multiple funds, multiple revenue sources, various forms of aid coming and going, everything's broken up differently in every list; one doesn't know if increases are compared to last year, the governor's proposal, or some requested budget proposed by department heads; and so on. Moreover, there isn't much transparency into the justifications for various estimates of revenue and requirements.

The following bullet list provides the bottom line for statewide totals:

• FY11 Enacted:
• General state revenue: $2,942 million
• Federal funds: $2,903 million
• Restricted receipts: $180 million
• Other funds: $1,838 million
• FY11 Revised:
• General revenue: $2,965
• Federal funds: $3,011 million
• Restricted receipts: $179 million
• Other funds: $1,956 million
• FY12 Governor's Budget:
• General revenue: $3,170 million
• Federal funds: $2,557 million
• Restricted receipts: $209 million
• Other funds: $1,725 million
• FY12 House Finance Budget:
• General revenue: $3,145 million
• Federal funds: $2,606 million
• Restricted receipts: $189 million
• Other funds: $1,763 million

When it comes to the amount that Rhode Islander's pay for their government (excluding the amount that we pay through the federal government), the House Labor Committee changed Governor Chafee's $4 million increase to a $3 million decrease. Removing the ambiguously named "other funds," it's increases from both: $235 million proposed by the governor, and $190 million by the legislators.

This is how our elected officials ought to look at their budgets, rather than the current scheme of requesting as much as politically feasible and calling smaller increases "cuts."

Looking for the Cuts

First above-the-fold headline in yesterday's Providence Journal: "Cuts trump expanded sales tax in House plan." The lead is: "Finance Committee's $7.7-billion budget trims spending by $160 million, curtails sales-tax growth." The only cut that the story provides as an example, however, is $1.6 million "in state spending from programs affecting low-income families, the disabled and the elderly."

The rest of the story describes tax increases and budget increases (as to education) that are still planned. Where's the other 99% of the supposed cut? Well, here's a clue:

It also takes advantage of improving revenue projections and makes cuts to close next year's projected budget gap. While details remained unclear Monday, the cuts include some $160 million in reductions relative to Chafee's proposal, including $31 million in transportation, higher education, corrections and human services, said House Finance Chairman Helio M. Melo.

The "cuts" are mostly to the governor's wild-spending proposal.

And even so, it appears that the largest part of the General Assembly's adjustment to Governor Chafee's budget came in not finding new expenditures to eat up improvements in revenue projections. Legislators cover another big chunk with $17 million from newly taxed sales items (e.g., over-the-counter drugs, digital downloads, insurance proceeds, and travel tours).

In other words, the Providence Journal is mainly passing along the spin of politicians who want to appear more responsible. Little wonder the general public is so ill informed.

House Minority Leader Brian Newberry's View of the Budget

Rhode Island House of Representatives Minority Leader Brian Newberry (who prior to the last election, by the way, scored 10 out of a possible 10 in the Anchor Rising legislative ratings, which were based on fiscal and governance issues) has posted a review of the state budget to his State-Rep Facebook site.

Rep. Newberry offers this official position on the budget in its current form...

As I write this I have not yet had the opportunity to consult with all the members of the Republican caucus. I think it would be improper as the Minority Leader to take a public position on the budget at this time. As noted, there are many things about this budget that are a net positive for the state. There are also things that are a net negative. The biggest negative lies not in what the budget does but in what it fails to do. The ultimate question is whether should this budget fail to achieve the necessary votes in the House for passage, the resulting alternative would be an improvement.

Here is a large-size excerpt on what the Minority Leader sees as the major substantive points. All of the details are relevant, so it is worth reading, as is the entire FB post...

I begin with the conclusion because this update will be lengthy. As detailed below, I believe this to be a flawed budget. That said, there are numerous provisions in this budget which represent sound public policy. There are indeed several items in this budget that Republicans have been pushing for, in some cases for years. There are also some not insignificant social services spending cuts in the budget. They are not as deep as I would advocate. Nonetheless, they are a step in the right direction. There are also certain structural reforms that will allow municipalities more flexibility in their budgeting. There is also an end to the "longevity increases" paid state employees that have been the subject of so much controversy this spring.

Most importantly, this budget completely rejects the philosophy of Governor Chafee. His $165 million proposed sales tax increase has been eliminated. Unfortunately, there are $17.3 million in proposed tax increases related to several relatively minor items. Considering that the projected deficit two months ago was $331 million, it is hardly a bad thing (if imperfect) for a budget proposal to close that gap while including only $17 million in tax increases.

Finally, unlike far too many budgets passed by the Assembly in recent years, this budget (for the most part) does not rely on one time revenue sources and gimmicks. All budgets seem to have some, shall we say, rose colored projections on the margins, but there is no tobacco money, no so-called “stimulus” funding, no sale of state properties, no sin taxes that will raise less money than projected because they kill the affected industry etc. etc. Instead, it is an attempt to begin to grapple with some long term issues.

Unfortunately, there are several items missing from the budget that I would have liked to see. To use a cliché, the proposed budget closes the deficit primarily by taking a scalpel to any number of different state programs and agencies where in my view a meat cleaver would have been more appropriate. For example, based upon information we obtained through the Department of Health and Human Services, changing RIte Care eligibility for adults from 175% of poverty level to 133% of poverty level would have saved $15 million in the coming fiscal year (originally incorrectly reported as $26 million) with larger savings in projected years. Likewise, cutting a variety of optional Medicaid services and providing Medicaid in accordance only with federal mandates, would have saved $75 million in the coming fiscal year with again increased savings in years to come. Other potential savings included nearly $11 million with widespread cuts to the legislative and departmental grant programs. These include not only the notorious "legislative grants" but cuts to a number of community service grants that are routinely provided through different state agencies on an annual basis. The actual budget trims these grant programs by 10% across-the-board from department to department but elimination of most of them would have led to far more significant savings. In addition, the budget also includes increased spending in a few areas suggested by Governor Chafee. In my view some of these actually make sense from a policy point of view but I am not certain that this is the economic and fiscal climate in which to enact them. In short, the tax increases in the budget are not necessary from a policy point of view – though they may be necessary from a political point of view to get the necessary votes for passage from enough Democrats.

Another Rabbit Hat Budget

The late-Friday release of the RI House's budget proposal is in keeping with the overall impression one gets at first glance. At least Gov. Chafee's budget tried to do something. The General Assembly looks most inclined not to ruffle the feathers of any significant (read: "powerful") constituencies, and thereby continues the ratcheting effect that has brought the Rhode Island to its current condition.

Most sharply, that observation arises from the high-profile matter of the sales tax: with no reductions in rates, but with nonprescription drugs, digitally downloads (including software and other downloadable goods, travel agency services, and medical marijuana added to the list of taxable items. One can discern that the budget is a fraud simply by the fact that no controversies are immediately sparked, as if there really is no systemic problem with the way in which Rhode Island does business.

That mirage comes at the cost of gradual dehydration of our lives, as it were. Yes, that means the incremental increases in taxes and fees. It also means the way our laws affect our lives. If you find yourself unemployed, for example, the amount of the unemployment payments that you can expect are set to decrease by about one fifth. Currently, the weekly payable benefit rate is 4.65% of your highest-paid calendar quarter. Thus, if you were earning $45,000 per year, you would receive $523 per week when unemployed. This budget decreases that percentage to 3.85% over a couple of years such that, if you lose that same job after July 1, 2014, you will receive $433 per week.

What if you decide to join with an acquaintance and start a new business? Well, the budget avoided implementing combined reporting for multistate companies (although it greased the skids for future imposition). But it also adds limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships to the list of entities subject to the state's $500 minimum corporate tax. Thus, the risk, expense, and complication of directly growing the state's economy from the bottom up is increased at a time when people not employed by others are being pinched by high unemployment and (potentially) decreasing unemployment benefits.

If the General Assembly had attempted to pull a rabbit from its magic budgetary hat, it might have sparked some outrage and effected change (or, less likely, actually changed the state for the better). Instead, the trick is to create the illusion that nothing significant has been done at all. The danger is that, when it comes time to get off the stage and go about the business of life, the people of Rhode Island may find the rabbit dead, and of a communicable disease.

The Budget Emerges...

Ted Nesi's Twitter Feed is one of the places to be for emerging details on the budget.

UPDATE:

And Philip Marcelo has the Projo's report already up.

What We Expect from Our Leaders

On last night's Matt Allen Show, Matt and I talked about expectations for the forthcoming budget, speeding tickets, and things on the blog. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Coming up in Committee: Thirteen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, June 14 - June 16

Here's your warm-act for the presentation of the budget. Note that at the time of this post, there are no committee meetings scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

---

13. H6104/H6222: Changes in regulations regarding distributed generation of electricity from renewable sources. (Senate Environment and Agriculture, June 15)

12. Traffic law changes, including making seat-belt violations a primary offense (S0022), license revocation for two years for "leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury" (S0027), and a ban on the use of non-hands free cell phones by minors while driving (S0346). (Senate Judiciary, June 14)

11. H6188: "Notwithstanding any state law, resolution, rule, regulation or code to the contrary, the city of Pawtucket may use money in its Fire Prevention Fund and its Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund for deficit reduction purposes in Fiscal Year 2011". (House Finance, June 14)

10. Three bills from the department of I wonder exactly who it is that they have in mind: "No individual or entity shall own or have an interest in an entity or entities that own more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the boat slips located in the State of Rhode Island" (H6203, House Corporations, June 14); a bill keeping some old rules for judicial nominations in place for another year (S0686, Senate Judiciary, June 14); and a bill requiring sellers of "tools or electronic equipment readily identifiable with a serial number" in Rhode Island to have a license from the Attorney General. (H5807, House Judiciary, June 15)

9. H5161: Several changes to campaign finance law, including making the qualifying rules for matching funds for independent candidates identical to those for party candidates, and the elimination of a section of the law entitling candidates who comply with the public financing of election campaigns "to accept a contribution or contributions that in the aggregate do not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) from any person or political action committee within a calendar year". The official description of the bill describes this last section as the removal of a limit. (House Finance, June 14)

8. S0289: Subjects the appointment of the state education commissioner to the advice and consent of the Senate. (Senate Education, June 14)

7. S0658: According to the official description, "this act would allow the family court judge who finds a minor delinquent for the commission of a gang-related offense to order the minor's parents or guardian to attend anti-gang violence parenting classes". (Senate Judiciary, June 14)

6. H5276: A pilot project for "Patient Centered Medical Homes". This bill appears to be founded on the assumption that system failures created by regulation can be fixed by piling new regulations on top of the broken ones. (Senate Health and Human Services, June 15)

5D. S0399: Moves-up vaarious deadlines in the process of qualifying for a Presidential primary. (House Judiciary, June 15)

5C. S0341/H5661: Polling hours in every place in RI not named "New Shoreham" would be between 7am and 8pm. (Currently, polls close at 9pm, with opening times that vary by community. New Shoreham polls would open at 9am under both the old and the new law). (House Judiciary, June 15)

5B. S0924: Establishes the electoral reapportionment commission for Rhode Island (House Finance, June 14)

5A. H6176: A study commission on a system for determining "the winner of [an] election by majority vote" including but not limited to "instant runoff voting, approval voting, range voting, and proportional voting". (Senate Judiciary, June 14)

4. S0867: Requires all Rhode Island hospitals to submit "evidence of participation in a high-quality comprehensive discharge planning and transitions improvement project operated by a nonprofit organization in this state" or "a plan for the provision of comprehensive discharge planning and information to be shared with patients transitioning from the hospitals care" to the director of the state department of health. (House Health, Education and Welfare, June 15)

3. H5644: Creates a new section of the law regarding "crimes against the public trust", including sections on "bribery in official and political matters", "selling political endorsements", "speculating or wagering on official action or information" and "theft of honest services", as well as the creation of a "public corruption and white collar crime unit". Introduced at the request of the Attorney General. (House Finance, June 14)

2. S0483: Changes the scope of the "Teachers' Health Insurance Board" -- half of whose membership is appointed by directly by labor organizations -- from being able to impose binding rules on elected school committees, to a purely advisory capacity. (House Health, Education and Welfare, June 15)

1. H6052: Would limit the powers of a municipal receiver to those powers "related specifically to the fiscal stability of the city or town", and would prohibit a receiver from "from preventing or prohibiting a city or town's elected officials or city or town manager, or administrator from conducting their ordinary and customary duties with respect to the daily operation of the city or town". (House Finance, June 14)

More Commentary on Stephen Iannazzi

My situation may be unique (although I doubt it), but one of the consequences of Rhode Island's political and economic structure is that it is so darn difficult just to get by and raise a family that little time remains to keep a consistently watchful eye on local political corruption. Such has been the case in my efforts to garner commentary on the union-rep nepotism that brought 25-year-old Stephen Iannazzi into a $90,000 State House job.

But the responses have come trickling in, nonetheless.

To recap, young Iannazzi's boss, Senate Majority Leader Dominique Ruggerio has defended the hiring in no uncertain terms. East Bay state Senator Louis DiPalma defended it, as well. Responding to an inquiry from me, several local elected officials took varying positions. Since then, Tiverton Town Council Member Rob Coulter sent the following:

Thank you for calling this to my attention. I agree that the qualification profile and the close relationships connected with such a highly paid public position are grounds for serious concern and further inquiry.

While obviously this involves a state – not Tiverton – position, we all share a common interest in transparent, efficient government. With Rhode Island suffering from the third worst unemployment rate in the nation, I’d say taxpayers, and other state employees for that matter, deserve a thorough confirmation of whether this $88,000 position was, and still is, appropriately filled. Perhaps a more thorough explanation will satisfy these questions which have been fairly raised, and I hope that our Senate delegation will take the appropriate steps to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the public hiring system and that taxpayer dollars are being spent fairly and wisely.

Coulter's fellow Tiverton Town Council member Joan Chabot looked into general salary levels:

I have reviewed the Providence Journal article that you indicated in this email and conducted some research into JCLS. I couldn't easily find hiring/compensation procedures for the JCLS, but found only that it should be similar to the procedures used by the executive branch.

I also researched salary information for a legislative assistant/legislative aide position to get an idea of the "going" rate. That research produced an average salary of $46,000 for a legislative assistant/aide at the state level.

Based on this research, I think it is very suspicious that a person with no experience and no college degree could qualify for a legislative aide position with a starting salary of $88,112. Common sense dictates that this issue deserves further explanation and scrutiny.

Many questions come to mind... What was the hiring process? Were there other applicants for this position? Were interviews conducted? What are the salaries of other legislative assistants/aides? Is this person’s salary in range of the other assistants/aides? If it is, why is the salary range so high?

This should certainly send up a red flag in government spending at a time when the state can least afford an $88K legislative aide. I’m certain we can find several college graduates that would take the job for half the salary. Our state legislators should be questioning this issue and pushing for answers from the JCLS now that they are aware of the situation. And if irregularities are found, then the situation must be addressed.

From the RI House, Representative Dan Gordon (R, Portsmouth, Tiverton, Little Compton) responded as follows:

I believe that at a bare minimum, the questions that have been posed by the media and the public regarding the hiring of Mr. Iannazzi must be answered. The lack of responses thus far are certainly lending to the cloud of suspicion.

As a State Representative and custodian of taxpayer dollars, it is troubling to me that there are obvious family and labor ties involved in hiring this young man. I’m certain the people would like to see his resume, what exactly are the job duties of a Senate Aide that justify an $88,112 salary with state benefits, how the position was advertised, and the resumes of the other applicants. I know for a fact that highly qualified degree holders have offered to do the job for half the salary. Let’s see some transparency from the Senate chamber.

And Rep. John Edwards (D, Tiverton, Portsmouth) mailed the following on House stationery:

Thank you for contacting me in reference to Senator DiPalma's remarks concerning a recent hire by the Senate Majority Leader. While I do not know this particular individual or of his qualifications, I was surprised to read that someone so young was so well compensated.

My experience has been that the level of income this young man receives is normally reserved for someone more experienced in their field. Again, I will re-iterate that I have no knowledge of his qualifications.

The hiring and personnel process in the General Assembly should be addressed to bring more transparency to it, to allow more people to apply for these positions. I have spoken to Speaker Fox, concerning the recent pay raises he has given to a number of House employees. I expressed my disagreement with his decision and shared the many outraged calls and emails I received from my constituents. The leadership of the General Assembly needs to be sensitive to the concerns of our constituents on this matter, especially in the midst of this deep and long recession.

So, I've not yet found another elected official willing to take DiPalma's astonishing step of defending Ruggerio's hire of his union pal's son at an absurdly high salary, but I've also not seen indication of any sparks for further action. I'll soon be posting a chart of people I've contacted and their responses (or lack thereof), as well as contacting more elected officials and other people involved in state and local politics.

The Fox Designing the Hen House

Redistricting must occur, I suppose, and a process must obviously be in place to handle it, but Rhode Island's proposed process doesn't even have much of a pretense of different voices and token opposition:

House Bill 6096, which now goes to the House floor, places the state's once-each-decade redistricting process in the hands of an 18-member commission, with two-thirds of the seats going to state lawmakers and six to “members of the general public."

The public members would be chosen by the same people who also would choose the most of the lawmakers — House Speaker Gordon D. Fox and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed.

If one were writing a fictional story about corrupt government, using Rhode Island as a model would make everything seem too overdrawn. When Common Cause Rhode Island Executive Director John Marion testified that "Rhode Island has arguably the most partisan process," House Finance Committee Chairman Heliio Melo "interrupted and suggested that Marion raise his concerns with the commission, once it is formed." In other words, Marion should bring his concerns to the biased, unaccountable group once it had been formed.

Such is corruption in Rhode Island: structural and rotten to its core.

Coming up in Committee: Twelve Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, June 7 - June 9

12. H5133: Repeals the prohibition against "classified" state employees from running for state office. (House Labor, June 7)

11. S0858: All agencies, authorities, commissions, boards, municipalities, political subdivisions, and other public units of the state would be able to contribute funds to a pool that the General Treasurer would invest for them. Introduced at the request of the General Treasurer. (Senate Finance, June 7)

10. S0699/H5944: Exempts members of the "International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers and its signatory contractors jointly participating in the IMPACT National Substance Abuse Program" from state job-site drug testing laws. (Senate Labor, June 8)

9. H6098: Tax credits for expenses incurred in the substantial rehabilitation of "a certified historic structure, provided the rehabilitation meets standards consistent with the standards of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior for rehabilitation". (House Finance, June 7)

8. S0770: A pilot project for "Patient Centered Medical Homes". This bill appears to be founded on the assumption that system failures created by regulation can be fixed by piling new regulations on top of the broken ones. (House Corporations, June 7)

7. H6176: A study commission on a system for determining "the winner of [an] election by majority vote" including but not limited to "instant runoff voting, approval voting, range voting, and proportional voting". (House Judiciary, June 7)

6. H5225: Prohibits the state and any RI municipality from requiring an "employer to use an electronic employment verification system...as a condition of receiving a government contract or applying for or maintaining a business license". (House Labor, June 7)

5. H6193/H6209: Reduces a municipal disability pension in a given year to an amount where the sum of the pension and the other income does not exceed "the base salary rate of compensation in effect for the classification that the disability recipient held prior to retirement", and allows a disability pension to be revoked if the pensioner works a job similar to the one he or she is disabled from. (House Finance, June 8)

4. H6116: Medical contracts that include a rate of payment for a service that exceed a percentage of what Medicaid pays for the same service, said percentage to determined by the State Health Insurance Commissioner, "shall be presumptively disapproved". (House Corporations, June 7)

3. S0492/S0927: Authorizes a statewide referendum and a local referendum in Lincoln to be held as part of the 2012 general election to approve or reject adding table games to "the facility known as 'Twin River'". (Senate Special Legislation and Veterans' Affairs, June 8)

2. H5659: Joins Rhode Island to an interstate compact where the RI legislature agrees to disregard the choice for President made by Rhode Island voters, and allocate RI's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead. (House Judiciary, June 7 and it's already passed in Senate Committee)

1. H6194/H6210: "Every state or municipal retiree shall, as a condition of receiving or continuing to receive retirement payments and benefits, enroll in Medicare as soon as he or she is eligible"... (House Finance, June 8)

Five Other Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, June 7 - June 9

...and here's a few more with impacts that are less-than-clear.

H5939/H6104/H6222: Lots of technical changes to regulations over "distributed generatation capacity and resources" of electric utilities. (House Environment and Natural Resources, June 7)

H6076/S0790: From the official description: "This act would transfer many of the powers, duties and responsibilities from the [and] change the state standards for apprenticeship programs to satisfy federal laws and regulations". (Senate Labor, June 8)

H6142: From the official descritption: "This act would allow credit unions to purchase, sell, and pledge loans or groups of loans under certain circumstances and would provide for conflicts of interest provisions with respect to the foregoing"... (House Corporations, June 7)

S0288: Changes in payday loan regulations. (Senate Corporations, June 7)

S0629: "Any single family owner-occupied property which is encumbered by a covenant recorded in the land evidence records in favor of a governmental unit, the State of Rhode Island housing resource commission or Rhode Island housing and mortgage finance corporation restricting the sale price during the effective period of covenant ("affordability period") shall be assessed by taking into account the effect of the covenant on the value of the property". (Senate Finance, June 9)

Re: The 195 Redevelopment Commission Bill and the Ethics Commission

A few people that I have talked to about the proposed I-195 redevelopment commission law tell me that evading Ethics Committee jurisdiction is not as easy as I had originally thought it was.

The question of whether appointed commissioners would be subject to Ethics Commission jurisdiction over "state or municipal appointed officials", despite the proposed saying that the commission is not part of any city or the state, brings the definitions section of the current Rhode Island Ethics law (36-14-2) into play...

(9) "State or municipal appointed official" means any officer or member of a state or municipal agency as defined herein who is appointed for a term of office specified by the constitution or a statute of this state or a charter or ordinance of any city or town or who is appointed by or through the governing body or highest official of state or municipal government;

So at the state level, anyone appointed by the Governor is subject to Ethics Committee jurisdiction, even if other parts of the law say that the board on which an appointee serves is separate from the state. That actually makes sense.

A second definition applies to the question of whether employees of the proposed commision would be covered by Ethics Commission jurisdiction over "employees of state and local government, of boards, Commissions, and agencies". A more detailed definition of to whom this applies is also contained in section 36-14-2...

(4) "Employees of state and local government, of boards, commissions and agencies" means any full time or part time employees in the classified, nonclassified and unclassified service of the state or of any city or town within the state, any individuals serving in any appointed state or municipal position, and any employees of any public or quasi-public state or municipal board, commission, or corporation;

The proposed redevelopment district is formally defined as "an independent public instrumentality and body corporate and politic" that includes a "commission" with "the powers to achieve the purposes" of the authorizing legislation. Can the individual words be pieced together to reach a conclusion, obvious enough for a Rhode Island court to accept, that the 195 redevelopment commission is a "public commission or corporation", which the Ethics Commission obviously has jurisdiction over? I would hope that that the answer is yes, with the mention of "public" "boards" in the state's ethics law recognized as meaning that the legislature doesn't have the power to set-up free floating units of government -- but even if this is indeed the case, there is still a lingering question of why our legislators feel the need to create so many layers of indirection, in order to develop the former highway land.

This Is Consolidation

The Providence Journal editorial board highlights a piece of legislation that, while unlikely to become law, illustrates the potential consequences of consolidation for the sake of efficiency and ease:

... Sen. John Tassoni (D.-Smithfield) — a member of the state's AFL-CIO executive board, former business agent for the state's largest public-employees union, AFSCME Council 94, and the publisher of a union newspaper — wants to use his public power to oust Ms. Gallo. He also wants to replace the Board of Trustees that voted to fire those teachers. ...

Clearly, [Tassoni's rhetoric] can be taken with a grain of salt, given that he had not bothered to discuss his concerns with Ms. Gallo, and he has an obvious huge conflict of interest as a union official, elected to public office with the strong financial backing of government unions to promote their economic interests.

Hey, if the state can insert a municipal dictator (popularly known as a "receiver") to oust the elected mayor and make the elected city council less than an advisory body, then why shouldn't it also pass judgment on superintendents and school boards? That's consolidation.

The lesson extends even to less brazen steps. The farther governance moves from voters, as from local development of school policies among neighbors to regional and statewide implementation of policies, the more incentive special interests (notably unions) will have to fill elected positions with the likes of Tassoni. As the Projo editors note, Governor Chafee has already "removed several of the student-focused reformers... from the state Board of Regents," even though large segments of the state did not vote for this governor's election.

Two Major Defects in the 195 Redevelopment Commission Bill

The very large bill on developing the land freed-up by the relocation of Interstate 195 in Providence will be heard by the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government today. Since the amended 59-page bill replacing a 26-page original was released on a pre-long weekend Friday and isn't linked at the GA website yet, let's help our Senators with a review of a couple of serious defects in the amended bill that should prevent it from being passed in its current form. All legislative excerpts below are taken from the amended bill, which I will link to as soon as it appears in its proper location on the GA website.

---

Defect #1. The bill specifically tries to place the "I-195 Redevelopment Commission" -- a body which will be making large dollar land-deals -- beyond the reach of the State Ethics Commission, as well as other portions of state law.

The beginning of the proposed section 42-64.14-5 of the law reads...

The I-195 redevelopment district is hereby constituted an independent public instrumentality and body corporate and politic for the purposes set forth in this chapter with a separate legal existence from the city and from the state...

Got that? The bill says that the Rhode Island state legislature will be creating a new government organ, but one that is not part of state or city government. This highly unusual proposition is intended to establish a claim that the Redevelopment Commission and its employees are exempt from important sections of state law. For the clearest and perhaps most important example of old law that the new law seeks to circumvent, consider how the new law would interact with the definition of jurisdiction contained in the Rhode Island Code of Ethics...

The following persons shall be subject to the provisions of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics in government:

(1) State and municipal elected officials;

(2) State and municipal appointed officials; and

(3) Employees of state and local government, of boards, Commissions, and agencies.

In other words, since the appointed Redevelopment Commissioners are not state or municipal officials -- the law says that in so many words -- the jurisdiciton of the Ethics Commission would not extend to them, nor is it clear that the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction over the employees of boards, commissions and agencies covers the employees of an "independent public instrumentality and body corporate and politic", especially when it is the Rhode Island Court system that would be making a final determination on this question. The proposed law also sets up its own set of very fuzzy ethics definitions to be applied to redevelopment commissioners (warning: this section is a little thick)...

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, it shall not be or constitute a conflict of interest for a director, officer, or employee of any financial institution, investment banking firm, brokerage firm, commercial bank, trust company, building-loan association, architecture firm, insurance company, or any other firm, person, or corporation to serve as a commissioner...

...nor shall any contract or transaction between the commission and a financial institution, investment banking firm, brokerage firm, commercial bank, trust company, building-loan association, architecture firm, insurance company, or other firm, person, or corporation be void or voidable by reason of that service as director of the commission.

If any commissioner, officer, or employee of the commission shall be interested either directly or indirectly, or shall be a director, officer, or employee of or have an ownership interest (other than as the owner of less than one percent (1%) of the shares of a publicly-held corporation) in any firm or corporation interested directly or indirectly in any contract with the commission, that interest shall be disclosed to the commission and set forth in the minutes of the commission, and the commissioner, officer, or employee having that ownership interest shall not participate on behalf of the commission in the authorization of that contract. Interested commissioners may be counted in determining the presence of a quorum at a meeting of the commission which authorizes the contract or transaction.

The question that supporters of the bill need to answer is why, in order to help effectively dispose of the former I-195 land, does ethics oversight need to be loosened over a group of individuals who are politically connected enough to get appointed to a redevelopment commission, and who will be given the power to create "indirect" benefits for themselves through their work on that commission?

---

Defect #2: The amended version of the redevelopment bill specifies an electorate within the redevelopment district that is different from the usual definition of electorate under state law...

(e) Electors and elections. The electors of the district shall include electors of the city and/or owners of real property of the city and/or district ratepayers. In the event that exercise of any powers of the district requires approval by vote within the district, the commission shall have the power to organize and conduct such election in a manner consistent with requirements of law and in conjunction with the city, as necessary or appropriate.

I can't find in the amended bill exactly what election the electorate defined above is supposed to take part in, nor have I actually traced the fourteen page description of the proposed redevelopment district on a map (at one point, the legislation describes a segment of the boundary line that is 5.4 inches long), so I am not sure what the exact population of the "redevelopment district" currently is, but assuming that the boundary has been drawn around actually former highway land, there shouldn't be many, if any, current residents there now. This implies that when an "election" is needed to approve something in the early phases of the project, the "electors" are likely to be mostly landowners and rate-payers who were allowed to get into the project early.

The Rhode Island Constitution does specify that elections are needed when the General Assembly wants to take direct action on certain local-impact issues...

The general assembly shall also have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs and government of a particular city or town provided that such legislative action shall become effective only upon approval by a majority of the qualified electors of the said city or town voting at a general or special election...

A question that needs to be asked to Senator Ruggerio and other supporters of this bill is exactly what activities they anticipate needing de jure electoral approval for under their unique definition of the electorate -- a definition which may restrict the "electorate" to just a few developer-type individuals.

First Responses to DiPalma Inquiry

The responses have begun to trickle in to my inquiry about the support that Sen. Louis DiPalma (D, Little Compton, Tiverton, Portsmouth, Middletown, Newport) has expressed for Senate Majority Leader Dominique Ruggerio's hiring of a union pal's son at a very high salary. So far, I've sent (or attempted to send) variations of the following note to members of Tiverton's State House delegation and to town council members from each of the municipalities that DiPalma represents:

As a resident of Tiverton, I've taken a particular interest in statements that Senator Louis DiPalma has made with regard to Senate Majority Leader Dominique Ruggerio's hiring of Stephen Iannazzi. Therefore, I am seeking comment from various organizations and elected officials from towns that Mr. DiPalma represents for publication on AnchorRising.com. (Absence of comment will also be noted.) When the content justifies, I will write a summary essay, which I will submit to every appropriate state and local publication.

If you haven't come across this story, the short version is that Mr. Iannazzi is 25 years old and holds no college degree (with credits in "labor studies" from Rhode Island College), yet he makes nearly $90,000 as a "special assistant" in Mr. Ruggerio's legislative office. Stephen is the son of Donald Iannazzi, a business manager for Local 1033 of the Laborers International Union affiliate, which employs Mr. Ruggerio's son, Charles. Sen. Ruggerio also works for another arm of the Laborers International Union.

In response to an inquiry from Providence Journal columnist Edward Achorn, Senator DiPalma replied as follows:

"Since joining the RI Senate some 2 years ago, I have seen the leadership, with the Senate President at the helm, attract, nurture and retain top talent with extensive capability and capacity," he wrote.

"With respect to Mr. Stephen Ianazzi [sic], I have interacted with him on a regular basis. Stephen has performed admirably on each of his assigned tasks. From the results he has produced . . . Stephen is qualified to serve in his current capacity. I look forward to his continued results-based performance providing real value to the R.I. Senate and all its members. He certainly has a bright future," wrote Senator DiPalma.

My question to you, as an elected public official in a municipality that Sen. DiPalma represents is: Do you believe that such a suspicious hiring requires a more detailed justification?

At the time of my sending the question, the City of Newport's Web site was completely down, and four of the email addresses that Little Compton provides for its council members bounced back.

The first response came from Middletown Town Councilor Antone Viveiros:

All I can do is wonder if Senator DiPalma , as a manager at Raytheon, would hire, then defend his hiring of someone with such qualification/experience, to his superiors, and pay him or her nearly $90,000, without having a job description or having advertized the position, or would refuse to explain the need for such a position, if it was corporate funds, instead of taxpayer funds?

Tiverton Town Councilor David Nelson, who is also president of the local good-government reform group, Tiverton Citizens for Change, was even more pointed:

The hiring was WRONG. No job description, fair posting, screening and interviewing of applicants, or any semblance of fairness. Since this is a publicly funded position, paid for by the taxpayers of RI, we deserve a fair and transparent approach. There are plenty of qualified persons who would do the job for less. Mr Stephen Iannazzi has not earned anywhere near the salary he's been paid, and he does not deserve this, nor has he earned it. The cost of the fringe benefits per RI Department of Revenue is 58%. So with pension contribution, Social Security, health insurance, etc., the cost to the taxpayer for this position becomes $132,000. This is a scam, which in a transparent society would be reversed.

Councilor Chris Semonelli, of Middletown, by contrast, appears to be ambivalent about the hiring:

I am not familiar with the individuals mentioned in the Providence Journal article, in your note below and the potential situation mentioned.

However, I am familiar with Senator Lou Di Palma and have the utmost admiration for his integrity, abilities and accomplishments to date.

Senator Di Palma has been instrumental in developing many efforts to help get our state out of a lot of its historical quagmires.

I have not only been personally impressed, I repeatedly hear from his constituents and colleagues that he has either helped them with his follow through efforts or developed laws to help those less fortunate in the State of Rhode Island as either a Senator or a Town Councilor .

You can see by his track record on record with the state that this is indeed the case.

I feel we are very luck to have the Senator representing the people of Rhode Island and hope that he continues to represent the Great State of Rhode Island for many years to come.

I also want to thank you for your research efforts we do need these ongoing efforts to keep all activities transparent in government and to protect its integrity .

Meanwhile, the president of Middletown's Council, Arthur Weber, was even more ambivalent:

This is a senate issue, no other comments.

Given reductions in state aid to Rhode Island's cities and towns, not to mention the effect that State House spending and policies have on every Rhode Islander, one would think that a council president could at least summon an expression of concern.

Next up will be a table of the responses and non-responses thus far, and I'll be broadening the field of those whom I ask for comment.

Nine Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, May 31 - June 2

Underneath the regular countdown of General Assembly bills coming up for committee hearings this week, I am going to post a second, unordered list of bills, also scheduled to be heard this week, whose practical impact is not immediately obvious but might involve some significant changes to the law. There seemed to be an unusually large number of this kind of bill on the committee calendars this week.

Input on anything listed, and indeed on anything expected to happen at the GA, is encouraged and appreciated.

---

9. S0595: Adds "urban collaboratives" to list of education-aid funding-formula recipients. (Senate Finance, May 31)

8. H5133: Repeals the prohibition against "classified" state employees from running for state office. (House Labor, June 2)

7. H5824: Bans foreclosures on the residences of deployed active duty armed-services personnel. (House Veterans Affairs, June 1)

6. H6177: Consolidates the "the powers, duties, functions, and personnel" of the Board of Governors for Higher Education and the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education. (House Finance, June 2); I wonder how many state legislators might claim they are master "consolidators" based on a vote in favor of this bill, at the same time they would vote in favor of S0720, creating a new 21-member Family Engagement Advisory Council "to serve as an advisory body to the governor, the department of education, the board of regents, and to school districts". (Senate Education, June 1)

5. Two commissions related to RI elections: the census-based redistricting commission required to produce an immediate plan (H6096, House Finance, June 1, but why is the bill under the jurisdiction of the Finance committee?) and a study commission on a system for determining "the winner of [an] election by majority vote" including but not limited to "instant runoff voting, approval voting, range voting, and proportional voting". (H6176, House Judiciary, May 31).

4. H5225: Prohibits the state and any RI municipality from requiring an "employer to use an electronic employment verification system...as a condition of receiving a government contract or applying for or maintaining a business license". (House Labor, June 2)

3. H6118: Creates a "care center" demonstration program under the auspices of the state's Medicaid Global Waiver, to provide "primary care benefits to uninsured adults without children whose income is equal to or less than one hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level". (House Judiciary, June 1)

2. S0114: The Ruggerio Route-195 land-use bill. (Senate Housing and Municipal Government, May 31)

1. S0164: Joins Rhode Island to an interstate compact where the RI legislature agrees to disregard the choice for President made by Rhode Island voters, and allocate RI's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead. (Senate Judiciary, May 31)

Six Other Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, May 31 - June 2

S0353: Creates a business-entity called a "low-profit limited liability company". The snarky angle on this bill would be to wonder why Rhode Island needs a separate category for low-profit ventures. (House Corporations, May 31)

S0855: Projects "to be financed with bonds issued by an issuer that does not have jurisdiction over the location of those facilities" would be require "prior host approval from the governor of the state". This bill is somewhat unusual, in that it assigns a new power to the Governor directly, and not to an executive branch department head. (Senate Finance, May 31)

H5161: Various changes to Rhode Island's campaign finance laws. The official description says "this act would eliminate the additional qualification requirements of independent candidates who wish to participate in the matching public funds program, clarify the time frame in which any candidate may apply for the matching public funds program, eliminate the two thousand dollar ($2,000) maximum annual contributions limit from any individual or political action committee and apply equally the minimum requirements for participation in matching funds for nominated and independent candidates. It would eliminate the requirement for an independent advocate to notify the candidate or political party committee on whose behalf the expenditure or contribution is made". (House Finance, May 31)

H5276: A pilot project for "Patient Centered Medical Homes". This bill appears to be founded on the assumption that system failures created by regulation can be fixed by piling new regulations on top of the broken ones. (House Coroporations, May 31)

H6143: Defines the car tax reimbursement in terms of "a rate that shall be determined by computing each municipalities percentage of the total assessed value of all motor vehicles and trailers in the state". I believe this is intended to smooth out the impact that different community tax-rates can have on how much an individual is reimbursed. (House Finance, May 31)

No Place Screws Up the Concept of Fiscal Responsibility Quite Like Rhode Island Does

The bill being heard today by the House Finance Committee that would give municipal bondholders a "first lien" on local government treasuries (H5376), introduced on behalf of the Rhode Island Department of Revenue and already passed by the Senate Finance committee (S0614), should not be passed into law. Peder Schaefer of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, which has taken a position against the bill, relays a key rationale being advanced by its supporters, as offered at the Senate Finance hearing: "A bond lawyer retained by the Department of Revenue testified that the real reason for the bill was in the event of a Federal Bankruptcy in Central Falls. She testified that if this were to occur, bond holders would not have a first lien on city revenues. She believes that the language of the act would improve the credit quality of all municipal bonds in the state".

In other words, the Chafee administration Department of Revenue believes that a community should not be allowed to drastically restructure its finances to deal with a financial meltdown until the bondholders are taken care of. The bondholders come first, and then everyone else can fight over what's left.

But even those who don't believe that full-blown bankruptcy for Central Falls or any other Rhode Island community is likely should be troubled by this bill.

1. Allowing "first liens" on general tax-revenue does damage to the underpinnings of democratic governance. Tax revenue is taken from the income and/or wealth of taxpayers; revenue doesn't magically fall out of the sky, despite what some government officials might believe. To create a bondholder lien on general tax revenue is to create a bondholder lien on taxpayers, i.e. to grant one group of people long-term, legally enforceable claims on the incomes and wealth of another. This is less compatible with modern than with medieval concepts of government and property rights, and I don't think there's any case to be made that we will do any better than our ancestors did under a system where regular citizens can find a portion of their incomes automatically claimed by a class of people who assert their superior position in the order of things.

2. Consider possibile outcomes, short of Federal bankruptcy, in the case of Central Falls. Section 45-9 of RI law (already in place) gives a receiver the power to issue bonds on behalf of his municipality including the power to use them to fund a deficit or to fund pension obligations. (Regular municipal governments are barred from issuing bonds to cover a deficit; the current bill reinforces that a receiver is immune from this limitation). The receiver cannot break collectively bargained contracts, so union benefits are locked in. And if this bill is passed, bond-holding financiers will be locked in too -- which means that it's the people in-between who will absorb the entire burden of government's inability to rationally finance itself, as everyone else will have to be paid first, before regular citizens get anything from government. Except the bill, of course.

3. I know there is a group of people who believe that financial efficiency is the primary issue that needs to be addressed by government, and who aren't much concerned with the undemocratic system being installed for dealing with Rhode Island's financial mess (I think there may be more than a few of these folks in the Chafee administration). But even those who believe in nothing but the brutal efficiency of markets should be troubled by the imbalance created by this bill. If government writes into law that bondholders have a direct legal claim to money in the public treasury, then there is little to no risk of them not receiving their scheduled payments, and every bond covered by the law should be given the highest possible rating with lowest possible interest. Financiers who want to assert a legal claim over a portion of the tax levy and a right to take money through legal compulsion are not assuming true market risks, and should be paid accordingly.

In a special report put out last November, the Fitch Ratings service concurred with the idea that "first lien" bonds involve very limited risk, because people are required to pay whatever amount government demands of them...

Question: Given the strained finances of most state and local governments, and the likelihood of continued difficult times to come, why do Fitch’s ratings suggest confidence in the ability of most to meet their debt?

Answer:...Other commonly issued municipal bonds are secured by a first lien on sales or income taxes, where there is little if any legal discretion for the taxpayer to choose not to remit the taxes owed to the government.

The attitude reflected above, by the way, is why you should never trust the "financial efficiency is everything" crowd to run the government.

Once upon time, in the Western tradition of democracy and self-government, it was understood that government's ability to compel people to surrender a portion of the fruits of their labor was a critical reason for limiting government claims on the property of the citizenry and to err on the side of the taxpayer. Rhode Island is sadly leading the way in eroding this tradition, asserting instead that government power to compel payment of taxes is a valid reason for allowing groups of people favored by the political class to make near-permanent claims on the livelihoods of average taxpayers.

Commentary on "Top Talent"

Noting that one of the North Providence councilmen who, in the words of U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi, ran the city as "nothing more than a criminal organization" was also among the state legislature's crew of crack employees, Ed Achorn tells readers that he's still waiting for substantive response regarding Senate Majority Leader Dominique Ruggerio's hiring of 25-year-old college dropout Stephen Iannazzi to a $90,000-per-year job in his legislative office.

As a resident of Tiverton, I particularly took note of some extremely supportive (of Iannazzi) feedback from Sen. Louis DiPalma (D, Little Compton, Tiverton, Newport, Middletown, Portsmouth) and asked the senator for more detailed comment. In response, he sent me the full text of his note to Achorn:

Since joining the RI Senate some 2 years ago, I have seen the leadership, with the Senate President at the helm, attract, nurture and retain top talent with extensive capability and capacity. This professional staff has been instrumental to the proper running of the legislative body. With the performance-based culture, people are held accountable, being measured and rewarded based on the results produced and not just effort expended.

With respect to Mr. Stephen Ianazzi, I have interacted with him on a regular basis. Stephen has performed admirably on each of his assigned tasks. From the results he has produced prior to leaving the Senate in 2010, and the last several months in his current role, Stephen is qualified to serve in his current capacity. I look forward to his continued results-based performance providing real value to the RI Senate and all its members. He certainly has a bright future.

The Senate President has my full support...

Look, this one ought to be easy. A young man with no clear credentials and apparently embodying the practice of quid pro quo nepotism is making a very high salary. Even legislators who don't want (or don't feel at liberty) to express suspicion ought to be able to muster some variation of: "I can see why this hiring might raise concerns, and I will seek a more full explanation from Senate leaders." That Ruggerio and, now, DiPalma are instead inclined to dig in, pretending that inquiries are in no way justified, is evidence that the ruling class of Rhode Island has no sense of what reasonable ethical boundaries might entail.

I'm in the process of contacting every relevant elected official and citizen group in the municipalities that Sen. DiPalma represents to see if perhaps that sense exists on the lower tiers of government, and I'll report back to you as responses come in.

Coming up in Committee: Eleven Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, May 24 - May 26

My impression is that the General Assembly is finally beginning to get a little more focused on addressing the fiscal and governance problems of Rhode Island...

---

11. H5608: Dedicates 10% of state gambling revenue to the payment of debt service on state bonds. (House Finance, May 24)

10. H5368: Replaces the exemption on the first $850,000 of property subject to the estate tax from the estate-tax for estates valued at less than $850,000 with a tax-credit of $25,200. Does anyone know what purpose is served, by changing from an exemption to a tax-credit? (A possible answer is discussed in the comments). (House Finance, May 24)

9. Two bills affecting armed-services personnel; a state income-tax exemption for military pensions for persons 65 and older (S0100, Senate Finance, May 24) and a ban on foreclosures on the residences of deployed active duty personnel (S0703, Senate Special Legislation and Veterans' Affairs, May 25).

8. S0619: A bill clarifying 1) that, once a municipal receiver takes over a Rhode Island municipality, any "powers of the city or town council exercisable by resolution or ordinance shall be exercised by order of the receiver" 2) that the former government of the city or town "shall not rescind or take any action contrary to such action by the receiver so long as the receivership continues to exist", and 3) that in towns where a budget commission, a fiscal overseer, or a receiver has been appointed, elected officials are personally liable for the amounts they overspend. The receiver and any other state appointed officials, of course, are above this last provision of the law -- if the receiver says it is necessary, then it is by definition not overspending! (Senate Finance, May 24)

7. H5736/S0614: Local governments must appropriate money to pay debt service on general obligation bonds and notes before any other item can be appropriated. Local officials who do not carry this out, apparently at either the appropriations or the expenditure stage, can be removed from office by the Superior court. (Note to the state Department of Revenue, who is listed as having requested this bill: if this is supposed to be some sort of best-practices technocratic fix, you shouldn't load up the House sponsorship with a list of crazy left-wingers, which could create an impression that one purpose of this bill is to open the door to local officials being sued, if they refuse to vote for tax-increases). (Senate Finance, May 24; House Finance, May 26)

6. H5245: In-state college tuition for illegal immigrants. (House Finance, May 26)

5. S0189: Freezes the bonus for regional districts in the new state education "funding formula" at a permanent value of 2%. (Senate Finance, May 24)

4. H6095: 4% additional income tax, creating a marginal rate of 10%, on individual incomes over $200,000, and on married-couple incomes over $250,000. (House Finance, May 26)

3. H5840: Eliminates cost-of-living pension increases for any newly hired judges, justices, teachers and state employees. (House Finance, May 24)

2. H6146: Contracts for municipal employees do not expire until a new contract is agreed upon. (House Labor, May 24)

1. H6085: Authorizes a statewide referendum and a local referendum in Lincoln to be held as part of the 2012 general election to approve or reject adding table games to "the facility known as 'Twin River'". (House Finance, May 25)

Legislative Alerts from the RI Tea Party, May 18 - 19

Because the RI General Assembly website was down all weekend and then again for at least some period of time of Monday night, I wasn't able to produce my summary of bills on the usual schedule, and a few other commitments this week are preventing me from catching up in a timely fashion, so in order to provide a brief update on what is happening on Smith Hill (beyond the passage of the civil unions bill in House committee last evening) I will pass along the Rhode Island Tea Party's alerts on what's happening in legislative committees this week...

S0896:
A Bill to lock down retired employee benefits as property rights...[and] end-run around the unsettled matter of law regarding property rights of retiree benefits. (Senate Labor Committee, May 18)

S0147:
A Bill to Exempt $2 Million from Estate Tax. (Senate Finance Committee, May 19)

S0058:
A Bill to increase estate tax exemption from $850,000 to $1,500,000 (Senate Finance Committee, May 19)

H5738:
A Bill to combine corporate tax reporting with other states (House Finance Committee, May 19)

An Endurance Contest in Futility

For the benefit of those who've never done so, Harry Staley, Chairman of the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition, describes the experience of testifying (or trying to) before a General Assembly committee:

Ask anyone, other than a union or welfare-industry lobbyist, who has testified on legislation of major statewide interest in the "people’s house," also known as the Rhode Island State House. It is an endurance contest prefaced by the chairman's notification that, with the exception of two people, the proponent of the bill and one opponent, everyone else will have from 1.5 to 2 minutes to speak. ...

It is common for a hearing that everyone knows will draw an outsized crowd to be convened in a room inadequate to accommodate those who attend. Most people must stand before and during the hearing, and the overflow must stand in the hall outside the room. Among them are the elderly, the physically challenged; everyone must literally "suffer" to be heard. Three hours of standing is an ordeal that drives some to give up and leave. Is it any wonder that there are those who suspect that this is a planned procedure?

Add an observation from former state representative Rod Driver regarding the held for further study mess:

After voting to "hold the bills for further study," many committee members go home. Why waste their time listening to testimony? There may be only four or five members of a 15-member committee still present when citizens who have waited hours to testify for or against a bill finally get their chance.

In the narrow scope, the system is designed to put decisions in the hands of a few legislative leaders, and in the broader scope, it's designed to make voters feel as if they're standing against the inevitable, making participation quaint, but futile. Even advances in transparency — such as videotaping hearings — can contribute to the sense that the public's role is just to watch, not to participate.

What would happen were public disapproval of that fact to swell, I don't know. It'd be nice to think that pressure would inspire change, but as experience with separation of powers suggests, we'd be looking at a decade of intricate political maneuvers just to get minor improvements in the system... that wouldn't be followed for another decade while uniquely interested citizens pursued measures to force compliance. And as the generally high level of apathy illustrates, it'd be surprising if there were a swell over hearings that most Rhode Islanders don't know occur in the first place.

Four New Faces... Same Old Media

An interesting feature in Monday's Providence Journal came as four short reports about new legislators in the General Assembly: Rep. Dan Reilly (R, Portsmouth), Rep. Doreen Costa (R, North Kingstown), Sen. Nick Kettle (R, Coventry), and Rep. Chris Blazejewski (D, Providence). The way they're framed from the beginning tells readers a great deal about the perspective from which the Projo is written:

• Reilly is learning how much work it is to be a legislator.
• Costa is "a bona fide right winger, a Tea Party member who wanted to restrict abortions, preserve traditional marriage and 'cut, cut, cut' the state budget," who is having fun in both the legislative and community-involvement aspects of her new job.
• Kettle sent a poorly considered email to "Tea Party supporters" concerning a hearing on homelessness.
• But Blazejewski, ah well, Blazejewski "may well be the House freshman who most bears watching," and he's not a "bona fide left winger," but rather "a self-described progressive Democrat" (which sounds so much more pleasant and less extreme."

Frankly, I'm tempted to agree that it's worth watching Blazejewski, albeit in a different sense than that intended by reporter Randal Edgar. One of the featured bills on which he's a lead sponsor (PDF) would unionize any group of public employees without secret ballots if 70% sign authorization cards. Query: Why would nearly three quarters of a workforce sign authorization cards even when 50% plus 1 won't vote in secret toward the same end? Perhaps unions prefer their odds when they can intimidate.

Be that as it may, based on these four articles, I find the other three more interesting. Consider Reilly's excellent response to Governor Chafee's "show me a better budget" challenge:

"I'm not a huge fan of them saying, 'Well, we've done our job, now you come up with the rest of it.' As if we have the resources to do these studies. I wasn't elected governor."

The real story of the Journal's series, although the reporters don't emphasize it, arises in a cross-article fashion from Costa to Kettle. Regarding a bill that Costa supported to eliminate "held for further study" from the GA leadership arsenal:

"This is not really going to change too much," she said as she summed up her argument. "It's just going to give us a chance to get the bills voted on quicker and get them to the House floor quicker."

The Kettle article illustrates what, precisely, would change were "held for further study" no longer a technicality by which every piece of legislation gets its legally required committee vote:

About four months into the session, Kettle says he regrets having voted for Democrat M. Teresa Paiva Weed for another term as Senate president, a move that he hoped would earn him at least a committee hearing on some of his proposed legislation this year.

To date, none of the eight bills Kettle has submitted — including one that would eliminate the state’s $500-minimum business corporation tax — have been subject to a public hearing. Those hearings are generally granted at the discretion of the Senate leadership. "Clearly, that did not pan out as I hoped," he says.

In stark contrast to the Providence Journal, Andrew Morse has done an excellent job following and explaining how it is that the "further study" trap door transfers power from individual legislators to House and Senate leaders. With the power to control legislation in hand, the Senate president and House speaker can extract votes and favors, as Kettle illustrated with his assumption that backing the right president would increase his odds of legislative success.

That concentration of power isn't going to go away unless the next wave of new legislators willing to challenge the status quo is much larger than the last one.

Open Thread #2: Coming Up In the Senate Labor Committee

The Rhode Island Tea Party provides a late-breaking update on several state Senate bills, posted on Monday, coming up for hearings in the Senate Labor Committee on Wednesday (h/t Lisa Blais)...

Senate Labor will entertain yet again bills to extend terms of unaffordable and unsustainable contracts, legislate an end-run around the unsettled matter of law regarding property rights of retiree benefits and consider card check that strips people of the right to cast private ballots when voting for or against union representation.

Please attend these hearings, Senate Labor Committee. Let them know what you think!

S0404: A Bill to allow perpetual contracts for firefighters.

S0423: A Bill to allow card check for public employees.

S0789: A Bill for evergreen (perpetual) police contracts with binding arbitration.

S0896: A Bill that locks down retired employee benefits as property rights.

Coming up in Committee: Sixteen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, May 10 - May 12

Here are a few of interesting bills scheduled, so far, to be heard by General Assembly committees this week. If any other interesting bills are posted for hearings during the day on Monday, I will run an updated post on Monday evening.

---

16. S0729: Vehicles with more than two axles may not cross the Pawtucket River or Sakonnet River Bridges, with the exception of a) truck tractors, b) any emergency vehicle, or c) any other state or municipal owned vehicle. Submitted at the request of the Department of Transportation. (Senate Housing and Municipal Government, May 10)

15. S0645: Requires tangible property taxes to be paid, immediately upon the sale of "a major part in value" of a business. (Senate Judiciary, May 10)

14. H5790: Requires that "75% of all classes taught at each public institution of higher education be taught by full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty" by the year 2017. (House Finance, May 12)

13. S0348: Statements of apology or sympathy by medical providers would be inadmissible as evidence in lawsuits. (Senate Judiciary, May 10)

12. H5804: Increases the (approximate) maximum size of voting districts in RI from 1,900 to 4,000 voters, maintaining the provision that no voting district can include more than one ward. (House Judiciary, May 10)

11. H5264: Adds "cyberstalking and cyberharassment" to the crimes defined as domestic violence. (House Judiciary, May 10)

10. S0644: Allows a law enforcement officer to require a breath analysis of any individual under 21 whom he or she believes to be under the influence of alcohol. (Senate Judiciary, May 10)

9. H5785: Subjects colleges, universities and hospitals to a local property taxes "for essential services on a pro rata basis according to assessed property value serviced" of up to one-quarter of their assessed property value. (House Finance, May 11)

8. H5644: Creates a new section of criminal law that defines crimes against the public trust. Introduced at the request of the Attorney General. (House Finance, May 11)

7. You thought the annual funding-formula follies had gone away, just because we passed the magic funding formula that would forever be used to distribute state education aid? H5246 would freeze the regionalization bonus in the new state education "funding formula" at a permanent value of 2%, H5399 would require "a separate specific appropriation to each regional school district", H5843 would add "urban collaboratives" to list of funding-formula money recipients, and H5491 and H5492 would make changes related to school housing aid. (House Finance, May 12)

6. H5837: Restores the Rhode Island car tax to its pre-1998 condition, which I think means there would be no state reimbursement and that cities and towns would all be free to set their own rates. (House Finance, May 11)

5. H5596: "Notwithstanding any provision in the general laws to the contrary, the general assembly shall not authorize, award or allow legislative grants. Legislative grants are hereby defined as monetary awards to nongovernmental, or nonquasi-governmental, entities". (House Finance, May 11)

4. H5614: Limits the amount of general public assistance to be paid to an aid-recipient to the amount determined at the initial application for assistance, regardless of the birth of additional children. (House Finance, May 12)

3. S0243: If the Mortgage Registration Electronic Systems appear "in the chain of the title of a mortgaged estate", then statutory power of sale laws do not apply, which means that the party holding the mortgage has to get judicial approval in order to foreclose. Some detail on what MERS is is available here, from the Wall Street Journal. This is a short but specific bill, with some potentially very important property rights ramifications. (Senate Judiciary, May 10)

2. H5849: If a school committee overspends its budget, "authority for expenditure of funds, including the entering into contracts for goods and services and collective bargaining agreements" is transferred to the city or town council for 5 years. (House Finance, May 12)

1. H6103: The civil unions bill. (House Judiciary, May 11)

The 25-Year-Old Keeping the Senate Together

To hear RI Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio (D, Providence) tell it, Rhode Island's legislature is practically run by 25-year-old Stephen Iannazzi (son of the highest-paid union boss in the state... in the same union for which Mr. Ruggerio makes a hefty salary, as well):

Mr. Iannazzi showed extreme competence and was an invaluable asset to the Senate and the people of Rhode Island, whom we serve. While not seeking to give an exhaustive list of Mr. Iannazzi's credentials in this space; it is these qualifications which have come under attack. I therefore find it important to note just how well-qualified Mr. Iannazzi is for the specialized role he has been asked to fill.

Well, if young Iannazzi's "competence" was "extreme," how can anybody argue against his receiving $90,000 of taxpayer dollars in salary? Of course, in the manner typical of hyperbolic letters of recommendation, Ruggerio lists a number of initiatives in which Iannazzi played a role, but doesn't go into detail about the actual tasks that he completed.

For example, Iannazzi helped staff the Senate's Small Business Task Force. Does that mean that he reviewed the experience of every potential candidate and made recommendations, or that he called the assistants of legislators on a list that he was given? He helped draft various bits of legislation (which, having read through many bills, I don't take to be inherently impressive), but does that mean that he did legal research concerning the law to be changed and comparable laws in other states, or that he typed in changes to laws that others had reviewed?

Even so, by what calculation did Ruggerio arrive at a salary? The quarter-century kid wouldn't work for a penny less? Sorry: It still looks like a corrupt transfer of public money to a union pal's son. In keeping with his specific avoidance of details, Ruggerio asserts that "numerous senators and other government officials have voluntarily approached [him] to praise Stephen's ability, work ethic, and knowledge of the issues facing the Senate." Well, let those legislators and officials come out from behind the vague reference and publicly stake their reputations on the capabilities of a young high-school graduate hired at a high-end salary in the midst of a continuing recession and with the state facing massive deficits year after year.

Then let the public watch Mr. Iannazzi and be wowed.

Coming up in Committee: Fourteen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, May 3 - May 5

14. S0319: Subjects the appointment of the RI Commissioner of Higher Education to the advice and consent of the Senate. (Senate Education, May 4)

13. S0867: Requires all Rhode Island hospitals to submit "evidence of participation in a high-quality comprehensive discharge planning and transitions improvement project operated by a nonprofit organization in this state" or "a plan for the provision of comprehensive discharge planning and information to be shared with patients transitioning from the hospitals care" to the director of the state department of health. (Senate Health & Human Services, May 4)

12. S0295: Imposes a tax of 1 cent per ounce on bottled soft drinks. (Senate Finance, May 3)

11. H5157: Reduces the state gas tax from 32 to 27 cents per gallon. (House Finance, May 5)

10. S0521/S0524: Increases in the number of hours of instruction required during a kindergarten day. (Senate Education, May 4)

9. S0833: Rewrites Rhode Island's law on sexual offender registration, in order to implement the Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Introduced at the request of the Attorney General. (Senate Judiciary, May 3)

8. Various traffic law changes, ranging from making use of a non-hands free cell phone illegal when driving (S0269) and not wearing your seat-belt into a primary traffic law violation (S0022), to increased penalties for refusing to submit to a chemical substance-use test (S0028, S0235) and increased penalties for causing an accident that results in bodily injury (S0118). (Senate Judiciary, May 5)

7. H5743: Requires state agencies (RIDE, DHS, DCYF, RI health agencies and hospitals involved with immunizations, and the state police and office of public safety) to "track ethnic communities". The bill then goes on to list certain ethnicities that should be tracked. Why some ethnicities should be singled out in the law is not clear. (House Finance, May 4)

6. S0432: Gives the Board of Regents for Secondary and Elementary education the power to grant waivers from state mandates, when petitioned by local school committees. (Senate Education, May 4)

5. S0827: Creates a new section of criminal law that defines crimes against the public trust. Introduced at the request of the Attorney General. (Senate Judiciary, May 3)

4. H5431: Establishes an Inspector General's office in the State of Rhode Island. (House Finance, May 4)

3. S0400: Requires either a photo ID or a document such as a birth certificate, social security card, etc. to be used as a voter-ID at a polling place. In the event that a voter does not have a required form of ID, he or she would cast a "provisional ballot", where a comparison to the signature in the voting record would be used to determine if the ballot would be counted. Introduced at the request of the Secretary of State. (Senate Judiciary, May 3)

2. H5848: Creates a tax-credit for service stations that install alternative fuel pumps. (This is much more important bill than H5847, the excise tax exemption for certain electric vehicles). (House Finance, May 5)

1C. S0415: Standalone bill (see the last two bills on the list, for the context of "standalone") making teachers' strikes illegal in Rhode Island. (Senate Labor, May 4)

1B. S0413: Terms of expired teachers' contract would continue, until a new contract agreement is reached. (Senate Labor, May 4)

1A. S0794: Binding arbitration for teachers contracts on all issues, including salary issues. Also says teachers' can't strike and the unaccountable arbitrator must consider a municipality's "ability to pay". Apparently, in the progressive thought-process, writing into the law fact that the government doesn't have an absolute right to all of the people's income is considered a compromise. (Senate Labor, May 4)

Robert Watson's Original Political Encounter With Medical Marijuana

Republican Minority Leader Robert Watson was one of the House sponsors of Rhode Island's medical marijuana law passed in 2005 (H6052). Rep. Watson's name is listed as second sponsor on both the original bill and the as-amended bill that passed the RI House with his vote on June 22 of the 2005 session.

However, he then voted against the veto override that eventually made the bill into law (it had been vetoed by Republican Governor Donald Carcieri). The switch is recognizable to Rhode Island political-watchers as part of the enduring mystery of the leadership of Bob Watson.

And now prepare watch progressives turn on a dime, away from the hypocrisy argument to "he was just sponsoring a law to benefit himself" argument...

UPDATE:

A second medical marijuana bill, this one with a Senate number (S0710), also made its way through the RI legislature in 2005. Again, Rep. Watson voted for the original bill (June 24, 2005) but against making it into law over the Governor's veto.

Coming up in Committee: Thirteen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by the RI General Assembly, April 26 - April 28

A little behind schedule due to Holy Week, here's the list of some of the interesting bills going before General Assembly committees this week...

---

13. S0699: Exempts members of the "International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers and its signatory contractors jointly participating in the IMPACT National Substance Abuse Program" from state job-site drug testing laws. One guess as to who the primary sponsor of this bill is. (Senate Labor, April 27)

12. S0182: Would allow the length of the public school year to be counted as 1080 hours instead of 180 days. (Senate Education, April 27)

11. H5254: A ban on under-21 nightclubs. (House Judiciary, April 27)

10. S0874: A bill from the Lieutenant Governor requiring that individuals who purchase medical insurance in Rhode Island specify a primary-care physician to their insurance company. (Senate Health and Human Services, April 27)

9. H5502: Bans food-service establishments from using "artificial trans-fats" in foods that they serve, with an exception for "food that is being served directly to patrons in a manufacturer's original sealed package". (House Health, Education and Welfare, April 27)

8. H5508: A resolution requesting that "the President and Congress of the United States to refrain from enacting or imposing any law or regulation that is beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers or that would diminish the rights of the people of Rhode Island to govern themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state". (House Judiciary, April 27)

7. S0876: Requires health insurance co-payments and deductibles to be paid to medical service providers directly by insurance companies, with the insurance company being responsible for collecting the funds from the patients. (Senate Health and Human Services, April 27)

6. S0046: Raises the age of required school attendance from age 16 to 18 (or until the completion of high-school or several alternatives). (Senate Education, April 27)

5. H5340/H5456: Requires roll-call votes from General Assembly committees to be posted online, and for committee and floor votes to be posted in a format organized by Senator/Representative. (House Judiciary, April 28)

4. S0400: Requires either a photo ID or a document such as a birth certificate, social security card, etc. to be used as a voter-ID at a polling place. In the event that a voter does not have a required form of ID, he or she would cast a "provisional ballot", where a comparison to the signature in the voting record would be used to determine if the ballot would be counted. (Senate Judiciary, April 26)

3. Senate Hearing on the Department of Human Services Budget. The proposed Human Services budget contains a 130 million dollar general-revenue increase from last year, going mostly to fund "grants and benefits assistance" under the "Medical Benefits" heading. (Senate Finance, April 28)

2. H5407: "No official or agency of this state, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law", and the establishment of immigration enforcement procedures for state and local authorities to follow. (House Judiciary, April 27)

1. A group of bills on the subject of abortion, including a bill to provide public funding for abortions (H5180), a ban on abortions for sex-selection (H5530), a bill requiring that ultrasound images be provided prior to an abortion (H5691), a bill banning state or local governments from interfering in decisions related to pregnancy prior to "fetal viability" (H5752), a definition of the crime of murder of an unborn child (H5125) and a few others. (House Judiciary, April 26)

Dumb Legislation at the Speed of Text

Now here's a wrong way to address the complexities of society in the Information Age:

Under the legislation students could still carry phones in school, but they couldn't use them during school hours, including study hall and lunch. A first offense results in a warning. A second violation would lead to administrators confiscating the phone for three days. The third time, the phone would be kept for five days. Exceptions would be made for emergencies.

Sen. John Tassoni Jr., D-Smithfield, introduced the bill after leading a legislative task force investigating cyberbullying. The work led Tassoni to conclude that cellular prohibition is the best way to ensure students are focusing on a textbook, not Facebook.

Why is this a legitimate activity for a state legislature that currently has government-shaking deficits and structural deficiencies to address? Of course, legislation that would prevent Tassoni from operating his voting button while the General Assembly is in session might be worth a look...

A Union Ratchet

Yes, a bill is a long way from a law, and this one, which Andrew caught the other day, has only one sponsor, Spenser Dickinson (D, South Kingstown), but it really is quite a suggestion:

When a contractor employing members of a recognized union and providing services for more than twenty (20) hours a week to another person, firm, or corporation is replaced, and a new contractor engaged, the employees of the succeeding contractor will be admitted to membership in the union representing the employees of the prior contractor unless already unionized, as set forth herein.

The bill goes on and on, encompassing every conceivable scenario: not only spanning the completion of one contract to the beginning of another, but also requiring that the full-time employees that a company might hire after having contracted for unionized services immediately become part of the union.

One suspects that Mr. Dickinson's contracting company is a union shop, and although I'd wager we won't see this particular bill become law, it's helpful to have a glimpse, every now and then, of the sorts of goals that shrewder and more subtle political minds have targeted.

Seventeen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by RI General Assembly Committees, April 12 - April 14, Numbers 1 through 5

5. S0760: "No person holding a position in state government which requires confirmation by or the advice and consent of the senate shall engage in lobbying or permitted to register as a lobbyist" aka "a Caruolo Act for the 21st-Century". (Senate Judiciary, April 12).

4B. S0823: Ethics Commission appointments would be subject to advice and consent of the Senate. (Senate Judiciary, April 12).

4A. H5410/S0634: Constitutional Amendment to bring state legislators under Ethics Commission jurisdiction. (House Judiciary, April 13; Senate Judiciary, April 12).

3. H6017: If I am reading this right, this bill says that if a business replaces a union contractor with a non-union contractor after the completion of a contract, the employees of the new contractor are forced to join the union that was there previously. (House Labor, April 13).

2B. H5873: Requires all cities and towns to participate in the "secure communities" program. (House Judiciary, April 13).

2A. H5312/H5225: H5312 requires participation in E-Verify by all Rhode Island employers with 3 or more employees. H5225 would prohibit use of an "electronic employment verification system" as a condition of receiving a government contract or maintaining a business license. They are not sponsored by the same group of Reps. (House Labor, April 12).

1. Bud Art 26: Governor Chafee's sales-tax expansion. (House Finance, April 13 @ 11:00 AM! -- an excellent time for professional activists and the unemployed to have unfettered access to the Finance Committee).

Seventeen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by RI General Assembly Committees, April 12 - April 14, Numbers 6 through 10

10. H5529: Directs the Department of Children, Youth and Families to disclose findings of abuse at a "family day care home, group family day care home or day care center", provided that no personal information is disclosed about anyone involved (House Judiciary, April 12).

9. H5498: Sets up the Obamacare "exchange" in Rhode Island (House Health, Education and Welfare, April 13).

8. S0438: Authorizes school districts to assess fees and accept donations for extracurricular activities (Senate Education, April 13).

7. S0547: Would restrict the applicability of the state fire code to structures that are "highly trafficked, populated or congested and present a clear public safety risk" (Senate Municipal Government, April 12).

6. H5712: Creates an "Interlocal Regional Services Commission" that can "operate and administer various municipal operations [that] may include, but shall not be limited to, tax collection or assessment activities, public works operations sewer and water treatment and distribution systems, police services, library services, and fire and rescue services" for combinations of 2 or more cities and towns whose city or town councils who authorize a "regional program or project" (House Municipal Government, April 14).

Seventeen Sets of Bills Scheduled to be Heard by RI General Assembly Committees, April 12 - April 14, Numbers 11 through 17

Lots of very interesting bills are being heard by General Assembly committees in the upcoming week. I'll put up the list in three separate posts; here's part 1 or part 3, depending on your personal preference for numbering conventions...

---

17. H5310: Prohibits rental agreements from containing clauses that prohibit tenants from inviting contractors onto a rental property to conduct repairs. A sentence that makes you wonder what the backstory is is included at the end: "This prohibition shall extend to rental agreements for docks, piers and marina slips" (House Corporations, April 12).

16. H6032: Creates a licensing board for orthotists or prosthetists, where the Rhode Island Society of Orthotists and Prosthetists gets to appoint 2 of the 3 members. A clear separation of powers violation (House Corporations, April 12).

15. H5664: Requires colleges and universities provide information about graduating students to the Secretary of State on an annual basis, to assist him in keeping voter rolls updated. No one is automatically removed from the voter registration list as the result of this bill (House Judicary, April 13).

14. H5458: From the official description: "This act would make any financial town meeting or referendum to set a city or town's budget or tax rate subject to state election laws" (House Judiciary, April 13).

13B. H5804/H5813: Would either increase (H5804) or entirely remove (H5813) the maximum number of voters that can be assigned to a single polling place, maintaining the restriction that no polling place can span more than a single ward (House Judiciary, April 13).

13A. H5511/H5661: Both bills would move the poll closing time in Rhode Island elections from 9pm to 8pm. H5661 would also make poll opening times uniform across RI communities, at 7 am (House Judiciary, April 13).

12. H5884: Various changes to the municipal pension system (House Municipal Government, April 14)

11. Bud Art 7,: The Senate's crack at the strange new tax on wireless equipment (Senate Finance, April 12).

Ten Bills Scheduled to be Heard by RI General Assembly Committees, April 5 - April 7

10. H5830: Requires real estate commissions to be paid at the closing. (House Corporations, April 5)

9. H5575: From the official description: "This act would affirm the use in state legal proceedings of unsworn declarations made by declarations who are physically outside the boundaries of the United States when making the declaration". (House Corporations, April 5)

8. H5384:/H5471: Two of several bills related to auto-body shops. I know this isn't the most pressing issue facing Rhode Island, but if anyone has any insights into whether the long running public relations battle between auto insurance companies and auto body shops in this state for hearts, minds and dollars is something that happens everywhere, or is a uniquely Rhode Island thing, here's an excuse to tell people about it. (House Corporations, April 6)

7. Bud Art. 7: If I am reading this right, this would change the law so that in addition to each "telephone access line" into a residence or business being assessed a surcharge, as is currently the case, any wireless device would also be assessed a separate surcharge. It's another aspect of Governor Chafee's lower and broaden method for increasing taxes. (House Finance, April 7)

6. H5905: "No police department within this state, including the state police, shall use any checkpoint, random or otherwise, as an investigative measure in the detection and apprehension of motorists who may be under the influence". (House Judiciary, April 6)

5. H5366: "Custodial interrogations" in cases where a potential criminal sentence is life imprisonment must be recorded to be admissible as evidence. (House Judiciary, April 6)

4. H5887: Establishes state limits on "greenhouse gas" emissions that are "equivalent to twenty percent (20%) below the 1990 level, to be achieved by 2020, and...eighty percent (80%) below the 1990 level, to be achieved by 2050". (House Environment, April 7)

3. H5904: Establishes civil unions for "any two unmarried persons who are excluded from entering into a valid marriage under the marriage laws of this state". (House Judiciary, April 5)

2. Bud Art. 25: Changes to Rhode Island's business taxation system, e.g. combined reporting, minimum franchise tax, etc. (House Finance, April 6)

1. H5092: Incarcerated individuals who go before Rhode Island courts on criminal matters would be required to have their immigration status verified. (House Judiciary, April 6)

Politics on Voter-ID

Two interesting points are buried within Randal Edgar and Philip Marcelo's article on voter-ID legislation currently under consideration in the Rhode Island House. The first is the degree to which Rhode Island ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown's inane argument implies ulterior, political motives:

"When we have no charges filed, when we have no convictions filed against anybody for this very serious felony, one just has to wonder how rampant can this really be," he said, questioning an assertion made by a representative from the secretary of state's office at the hearing that voter fraud in which a person impersonates another is "rampant."

Brown noted that the last conviction for voter fraud in the state dealt with persons voting from a place other than his or her permanent residence — not impersonating someone else.

If poll workers aren't required, or allowed, to check identification, how are they supposed to catch impersonators? Even if the criminal is so inept as to be impersonating somebody who is not dead or known not to be voting, when the impersonatee comes to vote, there would be no way to track the impersonator.

The second point has to do with the big deal that the journalists make about the broad support within the House for a voter-ID law:

It's not every day that House Speaker Gordon D. Fox adds his name to a bill with Republican Joseph A. Trillo or even fellow Democrat Jon D. Brien.

But Fox and House Majority Whip J. Patrick O'Neill, along with Brien, Trillo and Republican Tea Party member Doreen Costa, have joined together to support a bill that would require voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Of course, we learn farther along:

[Senator Harold] Metts' bill was held for further study last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So the Senate killed the issue, leaving House members free to posture and gain political talking points on it, even if they ultimately wouldn't wish for it to make it to the governor's desk.

Representatives Karen MacBeth and Dan Gordon Prove the Unthinkable -- Bills Don't Have to be Held for Further Study!

While the story of legislators looking for ways to advance a bill that apparently cannot get committee approval on its own merits was playing out at the RI Statehouse last week, in another part of the building, according to accounts that have been provided to me from several sources, a group of Representatives was working in the sunshine of an open-to-the-public committee process to bring a bill to a vote, in spite of the General Assembly's usual practices intended to obstruct legislators not aligned with leadership from having a say on the agenda.

Last Thursday, the agenda of the RI House of Representatives Veterans' Affairs Committee included bills that would establish an official memorial flag for members of the Armed Forces who lose their lives in the line of duty (H5890), and that would create a legislative commission to study locating a center to assist veterans at one or more of Rhode Island's public colleges (H5724). Representative Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) -- who is not a favorite of the House Democratic leadership (I don't think I'm giving away any secrets by writing that) -- had been working to have these bills given real consideration as soon as possible in the legislative session. She had agreed to withdraw a version of the memorial flag bill where she was the primary sponsor (H5892) and to support a version with Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Raymond Gallison (D-Bristol/Portsmouth) as primary sponsor, as long as the substance from her original bills would get a real vote in committee. At the Thursday meeting, the Veterans' Affairs Committee deliberated H5890 and sent it to the House Floor with a recommendation for passage.

But based on the flow of the committee meeting, Rep. MacBeth sensed that the veterans' center study-commission bill was not going to get the substantive consideration she had sought, so she quickly made a motion that it be considered for passage. Representative Dan Gordon (R-Portsmouth/Tiverton/Little Compton) seconded. A short debate ensued. Chairman Gallison tried to talk Rep. MacBeth out of pressing for a vote for passage at this hearing; there were issues around Federal dollars that would take some time to consider, etc. Rep. MacBeth responded that H5724 was only a resolution for a study commission and there was nothing about the bill that couldn't be decided by the committee right away.

Seeing Rep. MacBeth unwilling to relent, Chairman Gallison called for a vote on the bill -- to hold it for further study. Rep. Gordon raised a point-of-order: there was already a motion before the committee to send H5724 to the House floor with a recommendation for passage, and that motion had to be disposed of before a new main motion could be introduced. The Chair recognized that Rep. Gordon was correct, and then called for a vote of everyone opposed to passage of H5724. The committee was silent. Then the chairman called for votes in favor of passage, and the bill was passed by the Veterans' Affairs Committee by a majority vote.

And that, citizens of Rhode Island, is all it really takes to end the "held for further study" madness at the Statehouse -- not major rules reform or arcane parliamentary trickery, but legislators who ask for their bills to be considered and voted on by the appropriate committees, and committees who make decisions on the merits of a bill without waiting for leadership to grant them permission to vote in favor of the bills they support (even though, in the short term, it might mean an extra walk from a faraway parking space or other such inconveniences for legislators who choose to place a higher priority on representing their constituents than following partisan marching orders when considering bills).

According to this year's House rules, beginning on May 1, Rhode Island House committees are supposed to begin posting their roll call votes publicly. My suspicion is that, once committee-level information becomes part of an easily accessible public-record, explanations to constituents that "I voted for further study on every bill that came before me because the leadership told me I had to" are not going to win over many undecided voters during election campaigns. Add to this the fact that, over the last two or three election cycles, a group of legislators have been elected who are unwilling to accept the go-along-to-get-along top-down discipline model for running a legislature that has quiescently been accepted by older generations of RI legislators, and the result is that a new way of doing business at the Rhode Island Statehouse is going to be defined very soon -- and is maybe already starting in the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

The Sign of Leadership

Last week, the RI House Labor Committee reviewed two bills:

In both cases, the views were sharply divided, with labor supporting and cities and towns opposing a bill that would allow municipal employee collective-bargaining contract terms to continue after a contract expires and also allow monetary issues in those contracts to be decided in binding arbitration.

The positions were reversed on the prevailing wage bill, with cities and towns supporting and labor opposing a change that would raise the threshold at which the state and municipalities must pay prevailing wages from jobs costing more than $1,000 — a figure set decades ago — to those costing more than $500,000.

The latter bill would have allowed local governments to hire labor at the actual prevailing wage — that which the market had determined for a particular occupation and which most purchasers of the particular service (those not subject to union political pressure) typically pay. The former bill would have been a marker of the end of Rhode Island.

Of course, the article ends with that marker of Rhode Island leadership:

The committee held both bills for further study.

And so, we'll stagger along, neither improving our civic circumstances nor opting for a quick death. Perhaps the state should change its motto to "held for further study."

My Social Cause for Your Law and Order

Most people probably have an idealized image of the legislative process as one in which legislators draft bills that they desire, other legislators sign on as they're interested, and everybody votes according to their understanding of the consequences. It seems somehow foreign to everyday life to trade votes on unrelated issues and such, but in a vote-counting occupation like lawmaking, it's inevitable.

And so, state representative Doreen Costa (R, Exeter, North Kingstown) is surely doing no more than offering a look into the regular processes of the General Assembly by going public with one example:

The bill's main sponsor, state Rep Teresa Tanzi last week asked Doreen Costa if she wanted one of the five coveted spots as an official co-sponsor. The legislation is meant to prevent people like Michael Woodmansee---who killed a 5-year-old boy in the 1970s---from leaving prison early. Tanzi, a Democrat, represents South Kingstown, where the boy lived. ...

"I have to horse trade," Tanzi replied, according to Costa. "She said, 'You have to vote gay marriage out of committee.'"

In one sense, there's nothing surprising about this at all. Tanzi has a desirable legislative property, and she wishes to trade partial ownership of it to remove a roadblock on an issue about which she's interested, for whatever reason. In a practical sense, also, there's little to remark. As Costa makes clear, co-sponsorship is not a prerequisite for her vote, so the offer does not affect the likelihood of the bill's final passage.

Still, when we reapply the context, the matter takes on a distasteful aroma. Tanzi has under her control a sensitive issue concerning the gruesome murder of a young child and the ability of victims to be assured that dangerous killers will not roam the streets again while still relatively young. Using that ownership to buy votes for a long-discussed and still-controversial issue like same-sex marriage is cynical, to say the least.

Eleven Bills Scheduled to be Heard by RI General Assembly Committees, March 29 - March 31

New plan. Better plan. Instead of trying to post something on all of the bills that have been submitted during a week, the week after they have been submitted (which, to be honest, was an interesting experience but was starting to make my eyeballs bleed from too much staring at the computer), I will post a list of the most interesting and impactful bills, in the week before they are scheduled for their committee hearings. Consider these posts an open thread for trying out and/or pondering arguments that might be heard in committee for or against upcoming legislation.

All the usual disclaimers about the choice of which bills are important being solely at the discretion of the author of the post apply. I'm not going to try and strike any a-priori balance between the House and the Senate, so if there are more bills from one chamber than the other, it's because, in my opinion, one chamber is hearing more interesting stuff that week.

---

11. S0348: Statements of apology or sympathy by medical providers would be inadmissiable as evidence in lawsuits. (Senate Judiciary, March 29)

10. H5941: "Safe school act" that redefines bullying and defines cyberbullying in Rhode Island law. (House Health, Education and Welfare, March 30)

9. Bud Art. 39: Creates a "Municipal Accountability, Stability, and Transparency Fund" that provides state aid to cities and towns if they meet certain fiscal requirements. (House Finance, March 30)

8. H5646: Creates a legislative commission to study the public funding of elections. (House Judiciary, March 29)

7. H5091: Magistrates would be appointed by the Governor from a list of candidates drafted by a judicial nominating commission, instead of by high-ranking judges. (House Judiciary, March 30)

6. Bud Art. 13: Increases the employee contribution for teachers and state employees from 8.75% to 11.75%. (House Finance, March 31)

5. S0087/H5797: The Senate bill would begin to institute the Obamacare "exchange" in Rhode Island. (Senate Health and Human Services, March 30). The House bill "urges Governor Lincoln Chafee to refrain from implementing all aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the exception of provisions on health care exchanges until such time as the United States Supreme Court has rendered its opinion on the constitutionality of the provisions mandated by this statute. (House Health, Education and Welfare, March 30)

4. H5374: From the official description: "This act would provide that if during any fiscal year the state reimbursement to cities and towns and school districts is insufficient to cover the costs of state mandates as reported by the department of revenue, those affected cities, towns and school districts may cease implementation of state mandates at their discretion up to fifty percent (50%) of the value of the reimbursement shortfall". (House Municipal Government, March 31)

3. H5513/H5127: "No person holding a position in state government which requires confirmation by or the advice and consent of the senate shall engage in lobbying or permitted to register as a lobbyist" (House Judiciary, March 30) and no one "employed by the department of administration in a decision-making position or capacity or influence over legislation with the executive branch" can become a lobbyist "until such time as a new governor shall be elected". (House Judiciary, March 30)

2. H5410: Proposed Constitutional amendment extending Ethics Commission jurisdiction to legislators. (House Judiciary, March 30)

1. H5961: Binding arbitration for teachers. (House Labor, March 29)

At Least It's Being Considered

The legislation has so little chance of coming anywhere close to enactment that proposing it is mainly theatrics, but it's definitely a show worth performing, if only to remind people that the process exists to make it happen:

[The bill by Rep. Joe Trillo (R, Warwick)] would rewrite the rulebook on negotiations with public-employee unions, limiting contracts to one year, limiting talks to the issue of wages, making all contract provisions "null and void" when a contract expires and requiring city or town council approval of contracts negotiated by school committees.

The bill would also end payments for unused sick time, bar unions from deducting dues from members' wages, require an employee to work at least 30 hours a week to receive health care and retirement benefits and put all new hires into a 401(k)-style defined-contribution retirement system, like those common in the public sector.

Labor's choke-hold on Rhode Island has to be loosened, but for any catalyst to have a chance, it will have to be much more subtle. Of course, that means that, even if enacted, it would be much too slow.

Everybody's Representative?

It doesn't quite rise to the level of Whitehousian attack, but RI House Representative John Edwards (D, Portsmouth, Tiverton) does give a tax reformer reason to wonder how evenly his representation applies:

"There is a loophole in that law that some groups have been employing to avoid reporting campaign activities around a Financial Town Meeting," he said. "This legislation will close that loophole."

Edwards said Tiverton Citizens for Change spent campaign funds on "robocalls" and sent cards in the mail to residents, campaigning for particular positions at the Financial Town Meeting.

"Then, when we went to check their campaign finance report, they did not file it," Edwards said. "They did not file the work they did at the FTM. The campaign finance laws are pretty clear, and I was surprised a PAC was able to float the law."

To understand the nature of the wicked "loophole," one must consider the clear law; I've italicized the parts that the sneaky residents leveraged in order to work their evil machinations:

(1) "Election" means the filling of any public office or the determination of any public question by vote of the electorate, and includes without limitation any state, town, or city office or question, and any political party primary election for the nomination of any candidate for public office; except that it shall not include a financial town meeting or a meeting to elect officers of a fire, water, or sewer district; ...

(6) "Local election" means any election limited to the electorate of any city or town, or any part, at which any city, town, ward, or district officers are to be chosen, or any elective meeting at which a question is to be submitted to the voters of a city, town, or any subdivision of a city or town, but it shall not include a financial town meeting;

Look, if Edwards doesn't believe previous legislators acted appropriately in explicitly excepting financial town meetings from the definition of "elections," then he should by all means submit legislation to change the law. But he shouldn't pretend that one group alone has been so sneaky as to follow the law.

How can residents trust his leadership when his rhetoric as an elected official is indistinguishable from the rhetoric of local partisans? Note especially the statement that "we went to check their campaign finance report." By "we," does he mean the General Assembly? No, he means the local Democrat Town Committee, and it's not unreasonable to feel as if that's whom he ultimately represents.

Free Care and Process

Although his bill has entered the limbo of "held for further study," state Representative Brian Newberry (R, North Smithfield) deserves recognition for submitting it. An article about the bill's hearing raises two points that merit comment:

The committee ultimately held the bill for further study, a move that Committee Chairman Helio Melo said will allow members to do their homework and hear testimony on similar bills before making a decision.

That sounds reasonable enough, but one has to wonder: Shouldn't committee members, in general, do their homework before the public hearing? Presumably interested stakeholders and informed members of the public will appear before committees for hearings; how are legislators going to ask them intelligent, productive questions if they do not address their ignorance beforehand? And, more to the specific point, what homework could there possibly remain to be done on such a simple — and long-mentioned — change of policy?

The second point addresses the other side:

The other speaker, Deloris Issler, representing the Cranston Tea Party, said her local group opposes the bill, not because a 20-percent co-share "would be bad, but it stops way short of what it needs to do" at a time when many small-business owners can't afford health insurance, yet are expected to subsidize plans for part-time lawmakers.

"We would call on all of you to end the benefits," she said.

I've said it before: Representatives and Senators put in a fair bit of time, over the course of the year, much of it at inconvenient hours, and it's reasonable to compensate them. My fellow Tea Party types rightly make much of the fact that, for example, the unions were able to rally during the workday in Wisconsin, while the taxpayer groups had to wait until the weekend because they had to work. The same applies to government office.

If we rely purely on civic responsibility to draw citizens to public office, we'll wind up with leaders who have some method of profiting from their offices in some indirect way. That tends to be an insidious species of corruption.

Ending the Caruolo Act

This being Rhode Island, one expects it to be a long shot, but it's worth noting that Patricia Morgan (R, Coventry, Warwick, West Warwick) has filed legislation to repeal the Caruolo Act:

The Caruolo Act allows school committees to file suit against their taxpayers when they overspend their budgets. Rep. Morgan’s legislation would eliminate this costly and lengthy method of resolving funding disputes.

"Quite simply, the Caruolo Act has been a costly and detrimental policy," said Representative Morgan. "What this law has done is increase the cities' and towns' costs of education, reduce their councils' ability to control spending, and drive up property taxes. It has done nothing to promote accountability for the efficient and effective education of our children. I believe that continuing this failed policy is foolish and the time has come to repeal it."

Her preemptive reply to those who might criticize her lack of alternative is that school committees should learn to live within their budgets. I'm not sure that goes far enough. As former Majority Leader George Caruolo has argued that the law that his displaced put judicial authority on these matters in the hands of the Department of Education, which is likely where school districts would argue it should return upon repeal of Caruolo.

The current and perennial makeup of the General Assembly (not to mention the governor) likely puts Caruolo beyond reach, but raising the subject of its repeal is a start to a start of some fiscal sanity for municipalities. Another route, or perhaps a next step, would be to put the taxing and spending authority in the same hands — whether with school committees or town councils — thus allowing more direct control by local taxpayers of school budgets.

The First Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Gets Airbrushed

How powerful are the Rhode Island Speaker of the House and Senate President? Not only have they convinced their respective legislative bodies that every bill must have their approval when no such requirement exists in the rules, but they can even erase from the minds of other legislators -- and of newspaper reporters -- memories of votes that have already been taken!

Here is Katherine Gregg of the Projo describing the status of one of the same-sex marriage bills (H5012) being considered in the Rhode Island House of Representatives…

After chairing an 8 1/2-hour hearing the night before on a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, House Judiciary Chairwoman Edith Ajello was hoping on Thursday to have her committee vote on the bill next week.

“The next logical step would be a committee vote,” said Ajello on the day after the hearing that drew hundreds of people on both sides of the deep divide to the State House for a high-pitched rally and hearing. “I would hope that it would be next week,” she said.

In actuality, despite the fact that neither Rep. Ajello in her quotes or Katherine Gregg in her reporting acknowledges it, a committee vote on the bill has already been held according to the current status report available from the RI General Assembly website…

House Bill No.5012
BY Handy, Fox, Ajello, Ferri, Ruggiero
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS -- PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO MARRY
(would broaden the definition of persons eligible to marry to include persons of the same gender / members of the clergy would not be required to officiate at any particular marriage)
{LC162/1}
01/11/2011 Introduced, referred to House Judiciary
02/02/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
02/02/2011 Meeting postponed
02/09/2011 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
02/09/2011 Committee recommended measure be held for further study

The record shows that the Judiciary Committee did vote on the same-sex marriage bill on Thursday, choosing to “hold it for further study” (thereby giving the Speaker of the House sole discretion on whether the bill can be brought back to committee for a second consideration) and not to send it to the full house for consideration, though sending it to the full House was clearly in the committee’s power.

To be fair, there may be valid tactical reasons for same-sex marriage supporters to have delayed a vote at this time (at least, that is what Scott MacKay of WRNI’s On Politics blog is hearing) -- but that does not mean that Thursday night’s vote did not happen, or that the results of that vote should not be reported. Yet the strange idea that the leader of a legislative chamber should have absolute control over what bills are considered has such a powerful hold on the minds of Rhode Island’s political class -- statehouse reporters included, apparently – events where committee members give away their right to make decisions on bills are regularly ignored and airbrushed from public accounts of what transpires at the legislature.

It is bad enough that the elected representatives of the people regularly surrender their right to decide on which bills will be considered. It is even worse when the media quietly acquiesces to this practice.

(By the way, Karen Lee Ziner did something similar in her coverage of the illegal immigration executive order bill last week. Her report makes no mention of the fact that that the House Labor Committee voted on the bill and chose not to send it to the House floor for a full vote. That’s like writing a sports story and not including the final score).

Signs of Life in Committee: Four Reps Oppose Holding the Illegal Immigration Bill "For Further Study"

A source who was at Tuesday's night hearing of the Labor Committee of the Rhode Island House of Representatives informs me that the decision "to hold for further study" the bill that would write former Governor Donald Carcieri's illegal immigration executive order into law passed by a vote of only 8 - 4 (one committee member was absent). Representatives Deborah Fellela (D-Johnston), Brian Newberry (R-North Smithfield/Burrillville), Robert Phillips (D-Woonsocket) and Jack Savage (R-East Providence) were the votes against further study.

Let's review exactly what it was that 8 members of the Labor committee voted for, in voting for "further study": By voting "to hold for further study", the majority on the Labor Committee voted against giving the full House of Representatives a definitive opportunity to vote on the illegal immigration bill, and instead voted in favor of giving the Speaker of the House the power to decide whether this bill should receive any further attention during this legislative session.

Given the committee's disposition of the immigration bill, no one outside of the 4 Representatives who voted against "further study" can be considered amongst its supporters. Certainly some members of the House Labor Committee, such Chairwoman Anastasia Williams (D-Providence), have given unmistakable indications of opposing the bill on its merits. But it would definitely be of interest to constituents of the Labor Committee members who voted for "further study" to find out if their Rep opposed the bill because of its substance, or because they were told they were not allowed to send it to the House floor for a vote at this time, even if they did support it.

Remember, asking legislators to vote in committee for bills that they support isn't asking for an arcane parliamentary trick. It's simply asking legislators to do the job they were elected to do, and not give away their representation of their constituents to someone else.

How To End the Tyranny of "Held For Further Study" II

Three high-profile bills go before their Rhode Island House of Representatives committees this week, 1) the bill, referred to the Labor Committee to be heard today, that would make the provisions of former Governor Carcieri's executive order on illegal immigration into law, and 2 and 3) bills, referred to the Judiciary Committee to be heard on Wednesday, one establishing same-sex marriage at the statutory level, the other defining marriage as being between a man and a woman at the Constitutional level. (h/t Ian Donnis)

Given the recent history of legislature action in Rhode Island, the question is, once these bills go to committee, who will make the decision on whether they are eventually sent to the full House for a floor vote: the members of the committee together, or the Speaker of the House alone? Does a committee decide what happens to the bill referred to it, or does a committee immediately hand bills back to the Speaker of the House and say "you tell us what to do"?

I have no inside information on what the majority committee positions are in the case of the immigration and the same-sex marriage bills, but they are certainly not instances where straight party-line votes are expected. And if any RI Representative believes that that a majority of a committee on which they serve would decide the fate of a bill differently from what the House leadership would allow, there are the procedures she or he can follow (consistent with Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, referenced in the House Rules) to help a bill get its rightful consideration.

1. If the committee meeting begins, as is common practice in Rhode Island legislative committee meetings, with a motion to hold every bill on the current agenda for "further study", any representative can make a motion to "divide the question", and have the bill they are interested in (same-sex marriage, immigration, etc.) considered as a separate vote.
   
2. If the legislature follows its own customs and practice, the motion to divide the question should be granted by the committee chair automatically, without a vote being needed. If you check the Journals of proceedings on the House floor, motions to divide the question are routinely granted without a vote being taken, as long as the Speaker rules that a question is divisible. There is absolutely no question that a motion to vote on multiple bills at the same time is divisible into separate votes.
   
3. Then when the bill of interest comes up for its separate consideration, if a motion to "hold it for further study" is immediately made, that motion opens the question for debate (it the language of parliamentary law, any motion that would send the bill out of committee falls into the category of a "main motion" which opens general debate on the subject). Any representative who wants to speak on the substance of the question should be afforded the opportunity to do so, before any vote is taken, and the debate should follow the same rules that are followed when bills that have been blessed by the Speaker and the Committee chair are considered. However, just as importantly...
   
4. Motions to either postpone definitely, or to lay the bill on the table (two separate options) are now in order. The important difference between a vote to "hold for further study" and a vote for "to postpone definitely" is that further study sends a bill back to the full House, where its fate is placed into the hands of the Speaker, while "definite postponement" keeps the bill in committee, where its fate must still be decided at a later time by a majority vote of the committee, no matter what the Speaker or the committee chairperson thinks.

   A motion for definite postponement could take the form, for example, of a motion to postpone consideration of bill until after the people who have come to testify on that day have been heard, or until the next committee meeting, or until the first committee meeting after witnesses have been heard, etc. Also, according to Mason's Manual, the motion for definite postponement is debatable to the degree that the "propriety of the postponement" is discussed, meaning that it would be perfectly in order for the Rep who made the motion (or any other Rep on the committee) to explain to the other members of the committee (and the audience for the hearing) during their speaking time how this motion keeps the fate of the bill in the hands of the committee, instead of transferring it to the Speaker. (The first time this procedure is used, this might also make for some interesting blank and confused stares on the faces of certain legislators).
   

5. The motion to postpone definitely does have to be voted on -- which means the real question about invoking this process centers on whether the members of a committee charged with considering a bill believe that the Speaker of the House would make the same decision on the bill that they would. If they think the Speaker would not allow a bill to get a vote on the House floor, even though a majority of the committee would supports it, then they should follow the procedure described above.

Look, I know that the 19th century language used as the names for some of these motions can make parts of the process sound arcane, but this is not parliamentary trickery being sketched out. This is, in fact just the opposite, a review of some accepted and staid rules, adopted over the centuries of American democracy, to ensure that legislatures are run as the gatherings of equally-ranked representatives of the people that they are intended to be. In the specific context of the RI legislature, those particular principles that need protecting are...

1. That legislatures make decisions on substantive matters by majority vote.
2. That legislators cannot be forced to vote on substantive matters, before they have had an opportunity to deliberate them.
3. That legislators cannot be required to consider unrelated bills at the same time.

If you think those principles are unreasonable, then the form of government you believe in is something other than democratic.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments Introduced to the RI House, January 25 - February 3

Because of the snowstorms, the Rhode Island General Assembly has only been in session for three days over the past two weeks, just one legislative week in official "calendar time", but allowing plenty of time for bills to be introduced and processed.

In addition to regular legislation, three Constitutional Amendments on high-profile topics were introduced during this period in the Rhode Island House:

Proposed Contitutional Amendments

H5156	Would limit the annual increase in state spending to the increase in the Consumer Price Index or 3%, whichever is lower.
H5177	Governor and Lieutenant Governor would be elected as a ticket.
H5260	Would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Comment via Facebook

The Health of the Legislature

Katherine Gregg has checked in on the latest tally of RI legislators' voluntary healthcare contributions:

More and more of the state's 113 legislators have "volunteered" over the years to pay a portion of the premiums for the health, dental and vision benefits they receive, which currently cost the state $19,004 a year for a family plan and $6,800 for individual coverage. ...

As of Wednesday of this week, only 6 of the 38 senators, and 7 of the 75 House members had advised the legislative business office that they were willing to pay a 20-percent share of the premiums for their coverage. The majority of those paying a portion pay less.

As I've noted, before, I differ from many of my fellow right-reformers in believing that it's worth considering a change to the General Assembly such that it wouldn't be prohibitive to those whose careers aren't flexible or who don't stand to profit from the disruptive part-time job by much more than their nominal salaries and benefits.

Also in the print edition of the paper (although not online, that I could quickly find) was a table of some of the top Assembly campaign spenders, topping out at $1,021,018 for Steven Constantino (who ran for Providence mayor) and $131,003 for Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, as well as a story about Patrick Lynch's campaign spending even while he wasn't campaigning for anything. It's quite a commitment to hold public office, and a sense of civic responsibility will carry potential candidates so far. Public dollars for public jobs represent a much cleaner deal than a system that relies upon the sideline of special-interest campaign donations and the extra-official perks and income that derive from political connections.

Of course, paying legislators more won't prevent their continuing to peddle their authority for corrupt benefits, but it will increase the competition for their offices.

How a Bill Gets a Hearing

Matt gave Andrew some running room, on last night's Matt Allen Show, to explain his findings on how the General Assembly can be made to operate a bit more like a real legislature. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Imagine how much more of this sort of thing we could do if we didn't have to spend all day doing something else. Please email or call (401-835-7156) me to pledge financial support — as subscriptions, donations, or advertising — for 2011 to help us create a full-time job within Anchor Rising.

How To End the Tyranny of "Held For Further Study", Beginning Immediately

It is essential, not only for new but for all Rhode Island legislators, as well as for Rhode Island citizens, to understand that the ability of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President to exercise near-total control over which bills receive hearings and make it to the floor is not something expressly written into the legislative rules. Any bill must be given a hearing and a vote at the request of its sponsor (provided it is filed early enough in the session), according to the rules of both the House and Senate. Here is the House version of the rule...

13 (e) Upon receipt of a written request from the principal House sponsor of a bill or resolution, a copy of which is to be given to the recording clerk, the committee shall grant to said principal House sponsor a hearing on any said bill or resolution within thirty (30) calendar days of the request, and provided further, that said committee shall grant to the principal House sponsor consideration of his or her bill or resolution prior to the deadline for committee action on such bill or resolution. The principal sponsor, with the concurrence of the Chair, may cancel a scheduled hearing with twenty-four (24) hours’ notice to the Chair, which notice shall be posted electronically. A hearing postponed twice at the sponsor’s request need not be re-scheduled. For the purpose of the rule, consideration shall mean a majority vote on one (1) of the following:
(i) a motion to report the bill or resolution to the House with a recommendation of passage; (ii) a motion to report the bill or resolution as amended, or in substitute form, to the House with a recommendation of passage; or
(iii) a motion to report the bill or resolution to the House without recommendation; or
(iv) a motion to report the bill or resolution to the House with a recommendation of no passage; or
(v) a motion to report the bill or resolution to the House with a recommendation that it be held for further study.

According to the letter of this rule and its Senate analog, neither the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, nor any committee chair can singlehandedly block a bill from being considered while remaining in compliance with the rules of their respective bodies.

For at least for the past decade or so, the leadership in the Rhode Island legislature has kept its control over what actually gets to the floor through a parliamentary trick which was described by former State Representative Rod Driver in a Warwick Beacon op-ed last year...

When a committee meets to hear testimony on bills, the first thing it does – before any bill is discussed – is vote to “hold for further study” all bills on the agenda....

After voting to “hold the bills for further study,” many committee members go home. Why waste their time listening to testimony? There may be only four or five members of a 15-member committee still present when citizens who have waited hours to testify for or against a bill finally get their chance.

Even when a vote on a bill is taken immediately and without deliberation, that vote still satisfies the requirement of giving a bill its consideration.

After a bill is held for further study, there is very little specificity in the rules about what happens next. The practice has been to leave the House Speaker or Senate President to decide if it goes back to committee for an actual hearing and informed vote, meaning that just one person in each body gets to control the entire agenda. That is not the way the legislatures are supposed to work.

Fortunately, legislators who oppose this method of disposing of the Rhode Island legislature's business do have recourse, under the standard rules of parliamentary law (The RI House references Mason's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure as its source, the RI Senate mentions Roberts' Rules of Order).

1. First off, the idea of voting on multiple bills at the same time is poor practice for any decision-making body, and is recognized as such by Mason's Manual...

Sec. 56 An important principle is that only one proposition can be considered at a time. This should appear too logical and fundamental even to require statement, but confusion frequently results from members attempting to discuss different questions at the same time.

2. If a Rhode Island Senator or Representative doesn't want to see a particular bill thrown into a collective and generic "further study" pile, she or he can make a motion to have that bill considered separately, after the motion to hold everything before the committee for further study is made. The technical term is a motion to "divide the question"...

Sec. 352 Where there is no rule giving members the right to vote separately on each proposition, a member still has the right to submit a motion to divide a question when it contains two or more distinct propositions

After the question is divided, a separate vote must be held on the bill (or the set of bills) that was divided out. (And combining 56 and 352, there is nothing preventing further division of a question that contains multiple bills). Doing this in the case of major bills would be an improvement over the current procedure, because committee members would have their votes recorded on whether they supported throwing that bill down the memory hole or not.

3. After the question has been divided, the committee then needs to consider the separate parts in some order, taking up either the single bill first and then the rest of the group, or vice-versa.

4. When the single bill comes up for consideration (or the package of other bills, for that matter), an individual committee member can then make a motion to temporarily postpone its consideration, known in the language of parliamentary law as "a motion to lay on the table"...

Sec. 332 The motion to lay on the table is in order immediately after the stating of a question and before a member entitled to prior recognition has been recognized, or at any time thereafter, while the question is still before the body...

The 1989 version of Mason's Manual suggested this language for the motion...

"I move that consideration [of H5xxx] be postponed temporarily."

It's important to note -- especially in the anti-deliberative atmosphere created in the Rhode Island Senate by current Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed -- that Mason's Manual stresses that this motion is not debatable. In a rational world, this makes some sense, presuming that discussion of a bill is going to take place proximately before a votes on the matter is taken. However, that concept is likely to confuse some of the denizens of the Bizarro World of Rhode Island politics, where voting first and deciding what to debate later is considered the natural way of doing things.

5. At this point, you may ask what is achieved if a motion to "lay a bill on the table" rather than to "hold it for further study" succeeds (besides compiling a count of who voted to make some specific bills disappear). The answer is that while the vote "to hold for further study" counts as the one vote any bill is required to get according to House rule 13, the committee vote to lay a bill on the table does not. If you read the description of what holding for further study is closely, you see that it technically sends the bill back to the House floor...

(v) a motion to report the bill or resolution to the House with a recommendation that it be held for further study.

...which is the action that puts its fate in the hands of the Speaker, as Rep. Driver mentioned. The motion to lay on the table, on the other hand, keeps the bill in committee and, as long as a bill remains in committee, it can be recalled by a majority vote of the committee, without the approval of the Speaker of the House or of a committee chair being required. And according to rule 13 in the House, at some point during the session, a bill laid on the table in committee must be recalled, so it can get its required substantive vote.

5A. In the Senate, the situation is a little more ambiguous, as the rules specify that "indefinite postponement" counts as an option for consideration. However, nothing in Senate rules contradicts the premise that "indefinite postponement" keeps a bill within the jurisdiction of a committee, meaning it should be able to be recalled at a later time for consideration by a majority vote of the committee, without permission from the Senate President or a committee chair.

Knowing that well-established and respected processes like these exist will not be enough by itself to fix the problems of the Rhode Island legislature. I expect that the first few times this procedure is tried, if it is tried, the pathway could be a bit bumpy; it might be difficult to find a majority of current members on some committees who want to make decisions for themselves, rather than having the leadership make decisions for them.

But I believe that Rhode Island has come to a point where the necessary components for restoring small-d democratic practice within the Statehouse are ready to come together, i.e. a set of legislators who want to see the Rhode Island General Assembly run less hierarchically and more like the deliberative body that it is supposed to be, a group of citizens who believe the same and who will be willing to bring public attention to the situation, if leadership outright abuses the process in order to hold on to the old ways of doing things, and at least an issue or two in the public spotlight where the position of the leadership differs from that of a majority of members of a committee, or even from the majority of an entire chamber.

Anybody want to nominate a bill that the leadership opposes, but that a majority of the relevant committee might support, to go first?

Comment via Facebook

Happy New Year, Commissioner

We may look back at the fifth day of January as the first instance of Education Commissioner Deborah Gist's changed work environment, thanks to a press release by Sen. James Sheehan (D, Narragansett, North Kingstown):

"If good teachers are the most important element to education, the Department of Education shouldn't allow uncertified individuals to teach at Democracy Prep school in Cumberland, says Sen. James C. Sheehan.

"It's a contradiction to say that qualified teachers are critical to each child's education, but then allow exceptions at one school. The students at Democracy Prep are just as deserving of certified teachers as other students around the state. To allow a group of uncertified teachers to teach at that school is to put the education of the students there at risk," said Senator Sheehan, a Democrat who represents District 36 in North Kingstown and Narragansett.

"If we truly believe qualified teachers are important, the state is putting the students at Democracy Prep at an educational disadvantage by allowing them to be taught by uncertified teachers," he said, "and the Education Commissioner's actions are a contradiction of her own terms and stated educational goals."

Anybody who wonders why an elected official from Narragansett/North Kingstown would be especially concerned about a charter school in Cumberland needs only to check the Senator's bio page, which notes his occupation as a teacher in Warwick (specifically, high school history), which makes him a dues-paying member of the Warwick Teachers Union, a Rhode Island Federation of Teachers affiliate.

As we hear so frequently, the objective of charter schools is to act as "laboratories of excellence" (or any such catch phrase), operating under loosened rules compared with the public school system generally. Of course, that notion has been under constant assault, with labor restraints still existing, most of the time, and repeated questioning of whether offering the same education at a lower cost counts as a successful experiment. It would certainly be against Sheehan's professional and, presumably, union-mindset interests for an experiment of hiring teachers without regard to official certification to succeed. Rather, for it to succeed without permitting the obfuscations that typically meet such success among private schools.

Unfortunately for Gist, it appears unlikely that she'll have the same strong backing that she enjoyed from Governor Carcieri... and just wait until Governor Chafee turns his attention to the Board of Regents.

Letting the Scam's Legislative Architect Run the Budget

Here's a worrying tidbit about a frontrunner for the open House Finance Committee chairmanship in the General Assembly:

[Rep. Helio Melo (D, East Providence)] is the current deputy Finance Committee chairman, and House leaders signaled their confidence in him by letting him take the lead on last year's big end-of-session, income-tax overhaul.

I suppose that the experience ushering into law a reform that took Rhode Island's tax policy in the wrong direction while making it appear to do the opposite will be a valuable point of reference when making the state's budget appear to be balanced when there is no way it could be.

Update on the General Assembly's Staff Budget

In response to my post about Democrat RI House Speaker Gordon Fox's reshuffling of General Assembly staff, a legislator whom I'd count among the good guys emails a mitigating consideration:

I see the budget is projected to increase by $1.6 million over last year. However, I also understand that the re-districting process is slated to cost $1.5 million so most of that increase is for a once a decade thing.

He does, however, wonder why last year's actual expenditure was lower than was projected and why this years can't be the same. "Not to mention why we have 300 employees at the State House in the first place."

An Indication of the View from the Top

Anybody who wonders what lesson the General Assembly's Democrats took from the last election need only read this:

"In our effort to achieve savings, we have worked diligently to manage the legislative department within the enacted budget levels without seriously impacting day-to-day operations," wrote [House Speaker Gordon] Fox in a cover letter that also spelled out his bid to increase the part-time legislature's budget from $38.7 million this year, with 299 staffers, to $40.3 million in the new budget year that begins on July 1, 2011, with the same number of employees.

In dollars alone, this would mark a 20-percent increase — $6.8 million — over the $33.5 million the General Assembly actually spent in the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according the budget filing.

Most of the proposed increase over the three-year span is attributed to "salary/wages and benefits."

Those paragraphs come at the end of an article about Fox's sweeping of some political opposition out of the General Assembly's paid staff. Clearly, the Speaker took the election as evidence that his backers have a lock on the state. I suspect that the next two years will show us the repercussions when that's the case.

ADDENDUM:

See here for a mitigating consideration. Much of the increase in the budget might be attributable to a required redistricting expense.

UPDATED: RI House Summary

The RI House now has 9 Republicans (ten, if you include John Savage, from East Providence). 12% is better than nothing, I guess.

At least both chambers will have heckling sections, now that Rhode Islanders have given the Democrats the run of Rhode Island, with Linc Chafee as a governor alternately to cheer buffoonishly as he spearheads reckless policies and to blame as a "former Republican" when the state continues to deteriorate.

The outcome brings to mind the conclusion of my Providence Monthly essay from last year:

If former Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey was correct, when he withdrew from the state and from speculative candidacy, that Rhode Islanders simply do not want to bring the feast to an end, then his opponent in the last Republican U.S. Senate primaries will prove to have the perfect head for that three-belled cap. Lincoln Chafee is an "independent" still bearing the stain of his years as a nominal Republican. His pretentions toward fiscal conservatism will make a target of free-market and small-government principles, even as his actual liberalism clears the way for increasing burdens on taxpayers and businesses and facilitates a drunken lurch toward the libertine left in the dark hours of apocalyptic night.

In any case, conservatives might find new liberty in lacking an ally in the hall of power; we'll be free to venture out and rebuild the kingdom from the frontiers in.

All that's left to us, now, is to begin rebuilding the shires, as it were, while the state continues to limp along toward wounded delirium. Too many potential reformers have made the calculation that leaving is the wisest course, and as other states pull out of the recession, leaving Rhode Island behind, that skew will only worsen.

ADDENDUM:

Providence Journal reporter Gene Emery did me the honor of a personal PolitiFact check by email and corrected me on my total, above. The problem wasn't that I miscounted, though; it was that, in my haste to move on to other investigations, I forgot to add the parenthetical note about John Savage that now appears in my first paragraph.

Tiverton Helps Itself, but Not Rhode Island

With 100% of the precincts reported, Tiverton put nearly every candidate endorsed by Tiverton Citizens for Change on the Town Council. That should make for a very interesting dynamic. More interesting, although less encouraging, is that the group left the School Committee and the Budget Committee (but for one endorsement) to the opposition. At the very least, one can predict that harmony will not be the keyword of the town for the next two years.

It appears, however, that my fellow townsfolk haven't applied the local lessons to the state, yet. The typical RI two-thirds sent Walter Felag (D) back to the state senate, while Louis DiPalma (D) was unopposed for his senate seat. In the RI House, incumbent John Edwards (D) retained his seat.

Luckily, although Tiverton went for the Democrat, George Alzaibak, for John Loughlin's former seat, Republican Dan Gordon appears to have managed a victory by four votes.

The Best and the Worst of the Legislature

Last night, Andrew was in studio for the Matt Allen Show, talking about his review of General Assembly votes on several important bills. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Even Unto the Primaries

It's hard enough to get people motivated about learning about and voting for General Assembly candidates in the general election; the primaries require a whole 'nother level of commitment, but just as important, in some cases. I bring that up because Jim Hummel recently noted that a North Kingstown candidate running in the Republican primary has appeared in his investigative reporting before:

Three years ago North Kingstown's school superintendent was forced out by the school committee under a cloud of controversy. The state Department of Education determined his administration improperly spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars of restricted special education grant money. Now, James Halley is back, asking the voters of North Kingstown to send him to the General Assembly.

Apart from the risk of new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss legislators on an individual basis, such controversies can create weak links for broader initiatives, like the Clean Slate campaign for Republican and independent candidates. The corruptibility of public office is already too great a concern even without candidates with a record.

The Inconvenient Seat of Power

As one learns the "how it works" of Rhode Island, becomes increasingly convinced that it doesn't work, and considers taking steps to change things, one striking lesson is the rigged nature of the General Assembly. In aggregate, legislators are the core of power, in the state, yet individually, the rewards are so minimal and the schedule so inconvenient that mostly people with careers conspicuously conducive to special interests find it manageable. (In "special interests," we should include legislators, especially lawyers, who constitute a special interest of one.) It's entirely understandable that people who've had enough might wish to run for offices that offer full-time jobs.

Therefore, it's quite a thing to see so many people throwing their names into the hat for General Assembly seats, and last Friday's Providence Journal reported on two right next to each other. First:

Republican mayoral candidate Daniel S. Harrop withdrew from the race to succeed Mayor David N. Cicilline on Thursday and will instead challenge state Rep. Edith Ajello after being appointed to fill a vacant ballot slot by state Republican Chairman Giovanni Cicione. ...

"We have been talking about this for a while now. I am happy with the wide range of candidates that have entered the race, giving the people of Providence a clear choice in November," Harrop said of the mayor's race. "This allows me to help the GOP by challenging a long time incumbent in the State House who needs to answer to the voters for the financial damage that she and her colleagues have done to our state."

One could quip that Harrop didn't have a chance in the mayoral race, so he's switched to an office that he might be able to win, but that calculation arguably doesn't apply. Mayor is a career change; state representative career hindrance.

Second:

Jim Quinlan resigned Wednesday from his role as Republican City Committee chairman — a day after declaring his intention to run against Nicholas A. Mattiello, the majority leader for the Rhode Island House of Representatives, in District 15.

Quinlan, a retail consultant for True Value Co., had taken over the chairmanship in January 2009. ...

"It's going to be a heck of a race," Quinlan said. "I want to make sure that I can focus on that and not have [the race] affect the" work of the city committee.

In this case, the candidate is clearly increasing his investment in civic activity. Political committees, groups, and (yes) blogs are manageable in spare hours of the workday. The General Assembly's schedule appears designed to overlap with hours that are not typically spare.

Let Them Drink Pina Colatas

The article's about Governor Carcieri's failure to nominate a candidate to replace Child Advocate Jametta Alston, but this is the line that stands out:

"I don't expect we'll be back," [Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed (D., Newport) said. "I really want to enjoy the summer."

One wonders if that was the impetus for the mysterious feeling of House Speaker Gordon Fox (D., Providence) that the legislation had to come to an abrupt ending, this year.

The Much-Smarter-than-Unicameral Legislative Reform Plan II

I'm not sure if the idea put forth by potential Lieutenant Governor candidate Robert Tingle (h/t Steve Peoples) for reducing the size of the legislature involves eliminating an entire chamber as does Patrick Lynch's, but for fans of unicameralism for the State of Rhode Island, allow me to counter with the concise rationale for a bicameral legislature offered by either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 51...

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

As has been noted before here at Anchor Rising, the spirit of this check is not fully implemented in Rhode Island state government, as the modes of election and the principles of action of our House and Senate are nearly, if not exactly, identical.

This is, of course, a flaw that would be fixed with the alternative legislative plan outlined here, which re-differentiates the roles of the RI House and the RI Senate, while increasing accountability to the voters (with annual elections for Representatives) and weakening Federal dominance over state elections (with elections in odd-numbered years).

The Mysterious Activities of Our Betters

An exchange that Ed Fitzpatrick reports from the floor of the General Assembly speaks volumes about legislators' view of their role in this state:

When the funding-formula bill came up Thursday, [Rod Driver, D-Richmond] asked, "Why do we have to do this right away, the moment we see it?"

House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, replied, "Today's the last day. If you hold it over, you effectively kill it, and I don't think you want to do it."

Driver said, "I'm wondering why today is the last day. Is it in the Constitution?"

Fox said, "There comes a time, you just know it's time. It's time."

Mr. Fox, it would seem, views legislators less as a body of officials elected by residents of Rhode Island to represent their interests and conduct their business in the course of governing themselves than as an almost priestly class of aristocrats interpreting the will of some political deity. As history proves, a secular emphasis amplifies, rather than mitigates, such classes' tendency to insert their own will as the divine.

In other words, they wish to get on with their summer breaks, and furthermore, they find it politically expedient to rush important legislation into law (or direct it into the grave) in a massive push that prevents public involvement in the debate, gives legislators' an excuse to suspend all rules, and makes it more difficult for voters to determine who took what position when. If the voters weren't so complicit in electing their representatives out of corrupt self-interest and dogmatic habit, one might question whether democracy exists in Rhode Island.

As it is, the real question is whether democracy can be made to serve the general interests. As long as the likes of Fox run the show, the answer can only be negative.

The Much-Smarter-than-Unicameral Legislative Reform Plan

Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Patrick Lynch mentioned the idea of moving to a unicameral legislature in Rhode Island during last Thursday's gubernatorial debate. He's even tweeted about it...

RI government needs to change the way we do biz. It takes a total overhaul. Let's start with unicameral legislature

But if we are going to discuss a large-scale overhaul of the structure of state-government, I've got a much better reform plan, one that can garner support from those enamored by the idea of a full-time legislature as well as from those who believe that increasing the accountability of Rhode Island's elected representatives is sorely necessary. (Though, in the spirit of truth-in-advertising, I have to say that there's nothing in this for those who believe in the boneheaded idea that creating a unicameral legislature will be an improvement over what we have now).

For those who think a full-time legislature is the answer to Rhode Island's governance problems, we will invoke the spirit of Federalist 62, and make the Senate full time, with Senators serving three-year terms, with 1/3 up for election every year the same way 1/3 of the Federal Senate stands for election every two years. Now Rhode Island will have a body of professional legislators that in theory can devote more time and energy to deliberating and crafting legislation. (My mention of this theory does not mean that I necessarily believe that this is necessarily how things would really turn out, nor that it is my opinion that not having a full-time legislature is a significant problem for RI. I'm compromising with the full-time legislature advocates here).

However, to address the problems of a further diverging of interests between the people and the governing class that a full-time Senate would almost certainly exacerbate, we will compensate by providing more opportunities for the popular will to discipline the House of Representatives, by having all representatives stand for election on an annual basis, enhancing what is supposed to be a tradition of the House of Representatives being the province of true citizen-legislators, and avoiding the creation of a legislative system where the passage of laws may depend solely upon legislators whose entire livelihood depends on pleasing the special interests that help get them elected.

As an added bonus, there will be elections held in the odd-numbered years under this system, breaking the link between Federal and state elections and creating a series of electoral choices where state issues will be the issues of broadest scope on the Rhode Island ballot.

Finally, we can add another set of changes addressing Rhode Island's specific problems of legislation being passed in dark-of-night marathon sessions, without either adequate deliberation between members or information about what is about to become law being shared with the public. If the leadership wants to introduce a bill, hold its committee hearings, change the original bill through amendments and put the result to a floor vote all in the same week, a 2/3 majority will be required to pass the House. In fact, a 2/3 requirement will be applied to any bill introduced for the first time to the Senate and the House in the same session. However, if a bill first passes the Senate at least three-weeks prior to a general election, thereby providing the people with an opportunity to vote for or against their reps based on positions on pending Senate bills, a bill can then be passed in the next session by a simple majority of the House. And at the other end of the calendar, since we will be requiring the House to adjourn by June 30 each year, Senate floor action between the months of July and December sending a bill to the governor will only be possible on bills that have already passed the House earlier in the session, with no last-minute, vote on this 5-minutes after you've seen it amendments possible.

This is a straightforward and simple set of changes that restores meaning to having two separate legislative houses, and that strengthens the mechanism of accountability of representatives to their constituents, all while preserving the representative nature of democracy in state government. It wouldn't take a whole lot changes to the Rhode Island state Constitution to implement all of this. An example of how specific amendments could be written is below the fold...

Share

Continue reading "The Much-Smarter-than-Unicameral Legislative Reform Plan"

A Familiar Face Running for Office

Karin Gorman (daughter-in-law of Terry) has tended to be just outside the spotlight's range, in Rhode Island politics, but anybody who attends right-of-center public events related to government will recognize her. Her visibility will increase, no doubt, when she wins a seat in the General Assembly:

Karin Gorman, director and vice president of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement (RIILE), has announced she is running for state representative in District 43, Johnston, as an independent candidate. Gorman, a political newcomer, hopes to unseat two-term incumbent Deborah A. Fellela.

Gorman will officially launch her campaign during a coffee hour at 10 a.m. Sunday at Brewed Awakenings, 1395 Atwood Ave.. The public is invited.

A Formula, but It's Just Numbers

It looks like the General Assembly actually did get around to passing a state aid formula for Rhode Island's schools. As we've been pointing out all along, folks at the local level have seemed to assume that a "fair funding formula" would be one that gives them, specifically, more money, and this legislation does acknowledge some districts as "over funded," therefore reducing their aid.

From a taxpayer perspective, though, this is a critical component:

Besides correcting inequities in state aid distribution, the legislation would help local communities by providing predictability for school district and local budget planners. Without a predictable formula, school districts and municipalities have been forced to guess at the amount they will receive when they are preparing their budgets each spring. Their budgets must be created in time for the start of the fiscal year on July 1, but the amount of state aid they can expect to receive is in flux until the General Assembly passes the state budget, which usually happens in late June.

In Tiverton, for example, the School Committee predicted a low aid number and frightened parents into believing that schools were going to be closed and every program cut. As it turns out, our 8% tax increase could have been almost to the state cap of 4.5% without a change in the practical outcome. Now, ostensibly, school districts will have to find other ways of creating doomsday scenarios to shake down property owners for money to keep up with the promises of inadvisable contracts. In particular, it will be more difficult for districts to compensate for losses in "restricted" — about which they tend to be less vocal — without acknowledging that they are doing so.

There is a reason for concern, though. The current system hasn't been unpredictable because the General Assembly has heard pleas from individual districts and shifted money around on a whim. It's been unpredictable because the state is in perpetual deficit and long-term economic decline, leaving the state government ever in need of places to cut. Although the existence of a big scary formula might make legislators a little more timid about reducing aid to cities and towns, it will hardly prevent them from doing so, whether on a permanent or this-year-only basis.

An Establishment Rebel in the State House

Ed Fitzpatrick catches a telling rhetorical cliché in a column about state representative and congressional candidate David Segal (D., Providence) (emphasis added):

"I have a constituency in (his House district) that voted for me at a 70/30 rate over the years in primaries, and I think that I will be framed as a progressive as such," Segal said in fielding questions from journalists before Wednesday's event. "But I think the issues that I talk about, when people care to listen — banking reform, jobs, the environment, insurance reform and structural reform — are almost non-ideological issues at this point. They are things almost everybody agrees need to happen. I think people are fed up with the status quo and want somebody who has not been a political insider for his whole life."

Segal, 30, has been a politician most of his adult life, having served four years on the Providence City Council and four years in the General Assembly.

As somebody who comes from money, as I understand, Segal has gone through the Ivy League, served on a city council and in the General Assembly, started a blog, and is employed by a fellow State House Democrat. One doesn't get much more insider than that, at his age.

Segal argues that he's not "exactly accepted by the political establishment," but he's a political insider in a more essential sense than his connections clearly prove: almost nothing he has ever done — at least that would make the short-list biography of a columnist — involved action outside of government or (at broadest) a political movement with deep ties to powerful local forces. That's not entirely a slight — accomplishment is accomplishment — but it does speak to a perspective on what it means to "make it" that is antipathetic to the fading strain of American culture that so needs reinforcement at every political level, at this juncture in history.

UPDATED: Every Which Way They Can Stick It to You Slyly

So, yeah, the General Assembly has managed to keep its hands pretty clean when it comes to raising taxes, but Rhode Islanders shouldn't expect to have more money in their pockets — at least not unless they get involved in local government right now. As we've seen, in Tiverton, the state bureaucracy is willing to be complicit in complete flouting of the law and regulations when it comes to local officials' desire to tax residents more.

Now, as Marc mentioned, yesterday, the General Assembly has removed almost all of the exemption that prevents towns from taxing the first $6,000 of your car's value, enabling town governments to increase taxes almost passively. In Tiverton, that means another $105.27 per year on cars valued over that amount.

But here's an interesting edit of the legislation, on the General Assembly's part:

The excise tax rates and ratios of assessment shall be maintained at a level identical to the level in effect for fiscal year 1998 for each city, town, and fire district; provided, in the town of Johnston the excise tax rate and ratios of assessment shall be maintained at a level identical to the level in effect for fiscal year 1999 levels and in no event shall the final taxable value of a vehicle be higher than assessed in the prior fiscal year, and the levy of a city, town, or fire district shall be limited to the lesser of the maximum taxable value or net assessed value for purposes of collecting the tax in any given year.

Inasmuch as there's no language restricting increased assessments to classics, it would appear that a town now has the ability to decide that your car is worth more than it was last year. Presumably if the mileage goes down or you remodel its kitchen.

ADDENDUM:

In the comments, John offers the explanation:

The language was changed because the taxable value of most cars will necessarily increase due to the lowering of the exemption. My $15,000 car would have a $9,000 taxable value with a $6,000 exemption. When the exemption drops to $500, the taxable value is increased to $14,500. Therefore, if the locals are to tax the vehicle at the higher "taxable value", the law needed to be amended.

Another Wishful Rhode Island Thinking Budget

Every year, the General Assembly's budget is full of optimistic assumptions meant to make the budget seem balanced on paper, with hundreds of millions of dollars to be found or taken throughout the year. This time around, though, we've reached the level of parody:

As initially proposed by Carcieri, the Assembly's budget plugs deficits with more than $100 million in federal Medicaid funding currently contained in Congress' jobs bill. The Associated Press reported at 7 p.m. that leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives, facing opposition from within the Democratic Party on the cost of the legislation, had stripped Rhode Island's funding along with $24 billion slated to go to states across the country.

Confronted with the news reports during a break in committee action, Costantino phoned the office of U.S. Sen. Jack Reed. After a lengthy conversation, Costantino acknowledged that the increased Medicaid funding had been withdrawn from the jobs bill.

"It's an unresolved issue," Costantino said. "If in the next week we get more information, we will act responsibly. What that is, I don't know."

Those who run this state plan their budgets much like drug-addicted gamblers. They count on money they may not get; they cash in one-time sources of revenue even though it ends up costing them huge sums in the long run; they put off payments, at a cost; they take on debt, at a cost. One suspects that they know what the state needs to do — cut taxes, rein in regulations, erase mandates — but they lack the political will (or financial independence) to budget and legislate responsibly.

Yeah, Costantino promises to adjust as information filters down from the feds, but the one-time windfall shouldn't be part of Rhode Island's structural operations in the first place.

Re: The Biggest Faction in the General Assembly

The comments to Marc's post on the number of General Assembly members who benefit from public pensions are understandable, but most miss the point. Cutting the General Assembly's pay and authority isn't going to address the essential problem — namely, that an official position that doesn't pay much will attract those who have other motivations, including other ways to profit. It's nice to think that "community service" will suffice, but devoting so many hours to such a position over a limited number of months per year puts quite a cost on that service. Retired teachers and such whose unions have given them so much have motivation to put in time for "union service," but most Rhode Islanders simply cannot justify the time.

As to cutting the legislature's authority, while that may be a laudable goal, we'd have to begin by cutting the government's authority. Otherwise the power currently held by a large number of legislators would be given to a handful of administrators and bureaucrats. In other words, change in that direction would have to go in the other direction.

Frankly, I'd be willing to argue for paying the General Assembly members more given two reforms:

• Representation is aligned directly with cities and towns, making it clear whom members represent, and providing a clear path from local politics to state politics.
• The "part-time" of the legislature is spread out across the entire year, with fewer hours per week. In other words, make the schedule more in line with what working people can manage.

Unfortunately, the people who would have to enact such changes like their current advantage, so such reforms would be the project of decades, and I'm not sure Rhode Island has that long.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance with Charlene Lima

Justin, along with many of us avid watchers of the State House, was a little startled to learn that former Speaker Pro Tem Charlene Lima (D, Cranston) had not only dropped by the Tea Party Thursday but had offered expressions of camaraderie.

Converted politicians are certainly welcome to the good government cause. It is difficult, however, not to be a little non-plussed by the presence of Rep. Lima inasmuch as she has a multi-year record of voting for exactly the sort of things that the Tea Party and other good government organizations oppose.

Additionally, as Andrew references, what to make of her recent falling out with leadership? If it has caused her to permanently see the light, terrific. But will the Speaker, occupier of the most powerful political office in the state, offer her something that brings her in due course back into the fold? And who could blame him, by the way? This year, with a record number of rank and file members looking at a stark choice of political survival or adherence to a big government philosophy that is distinctly out of favor with voters, leaders on both Smith and Capitol Hill will need to count and curry their political allies more assiduously than they have in a very long time.

It would be wonderful if Rep. Lima's conversion is genuine. I hope that it is. I also hope that she will forgive us if we are a little wide-eyed in her presence until her voting record catches up with her new words.

Cognitive Dissonance with Charlene Lima

Have I been missing something, all these years, or does the appearance of Rep. Charlene Lima (D., Cranston) in this article about the Tax Day Tea Party seem a bit disorienting?

State Rep. Charlene M. Lima, D-Cranston, stopped by after the Assembly finished its business for the day. She said that lawmakers couldn't hear the protest from inside the building.

"I am here to pick up ideas. I like to read the signs," she said looking out at posters like, "Save the trees. Stop printing money," and "I blew my middle class tax cut on this sign."

"We have to take the state back," Lima continued. "We have to do what the people want."

Who is "we" to Charlene Lima, and from whom does she want to retrieve the state? Puzzling political questions, indeed.

Favor Factory Skullduggery

I'm of the opinion that Rhode Island doesn't need to spend any public dollars on economic expansion — unless you're one of those who calls it "spending" when the government doesn't take as much from other people's earnings. Cut taxes; eliminate mandates; lighten regulations. Even from that position, though, it seems as if there must be something more to this:

Over the strenuous objections from some Republicans, the House approved the creation of a $125-million state-backed loan-guarantee program within the state's Economic Development Corporation.

The legislation is aimed at projects that create permanent, full-time jobs that pay at least two-and-a-half times the minimum wage, with priority going to entities that "expand high-wage jobs in knowledge industry growth clusters."

While it was described by House Finance Chairman Costantino as a jobs-guarantee program, it was denounced by House Minority Leader Watson as a scandal waiting to happen.

"If you don't want it to be a favor factory, kill the article," Watson, R-East Greenwich, said. "This is like an attractive nuisance for all sorts of skullduggery."

Rep. Charlene Lima, D-Cranston, sought disclosure of the "name, and the office, held, by any elected official who contacts the RIEDC in support of a business seeking monies" under a facet of the new program, but the proposal went down 46 to 25.

Of course, "a favor factory" is precisely what the General Assembly wishes to be. What's the point of being a part-time legislator in New England's hub of political corruption unless one can transform political clout into economic reward by way of dispensing favors? I'd say that Rhode Islanders will have to keep a close watch on this program, but lawmakers have created such a plentiful field of dark corners that concerned residents are apt to go cross-eyed trying to keep track of questionable activities.

The Little Policy Details That Say So Much

Sometimes, in the noise and rancor of politics and budgeting, one's attention becomes monopolized by particular details. Consider the following:

[The state's public-employee unions'] chief target: a proposal to limit annual pension increases to the first $35,000 in retirement pay initially. The $35,000 would go up each year, in keeping with the Consumer Price Index, and legislative budget writers stripped from their final bill a provision that Carcieri sought — to reinforce a right they already have to adjust these cost of living adjustments of up to 3 percent annually.

By way of comparison, Massachusetts has, for more than a decade, limited its annual pension increases to the first $12,000 in retirement pay.

There's no excuse for so much of what goes on in Rhode Island. Oh, there are rationalizations and complaints, and they'll continue to float to the surface as bubbles long after the state has drifted to the bottom. But the poor leadership and self-serving lobbying have no justification but greed and corruption. One class rallies and demands the continuation of ill-advised and unsustainable handouts, and another class suffers until its members reach the threshold of whatever's keeping them in the state.

The cycle continues, and down we go.

Can You Hear the Sly Taxation?

Here they go again:

Bills have been introduced by Sen. William A. Walaska (D-Dist. 30, Warwick) to increase medical insurance coverage for hearing aids and to require insurance coverage for surgery and services associated with hearing aid implants.

Without a doubt, hearing loss increases the difficulty of one's life. So does poor eye sight and any number of other ailments and disabilities. There are two problems with this continuing trend of legislating mandatory insurance coverage for related aids, medication, and surgeries:

1. It essentially turns insurance premiums into a tax to fund redistributed wealth, without allowing voters a direct influence on those increasing the cost/tax. In other words, the government is making the insurance companies levy a tax and block the political heat.
2. Determining how much addressing each health difficulty is worth works best on a case-by-case basis, and when somebody else is forced to pay for the remedy, nobody in the chain from provider to patient has significant incentive to make actual, often difficult decisions, thus driving up costs all around.

But, as I said, there's a firewall against political heat built into this practice, so the politicians will keep doing it until we all decide to reassert basic principles of good governance.

RISC's Open Eye Catches More Economy-Killing Taxes

The Rhode Island Statewide Coalition has been making a concerted effort to peruse all of the legislation making its way through the General Assembly and recently unearthed this gem from Senator Charles Levesque (D., Bristol, Portsmouth), creating a Highway Maintenance and Public Transit Trust Fund, financed as follows:

... There is imposed a surcharge of forty dollars ($40.00) per passenger car and light truck to be paid by each car and light truck owner in order to register that owner’s vehicle and receive license plates. ...

... There is imposed on each company that is engaged in the refining or distribution, or both, of petroleum products and that distributes such products in this state a tax at the rate of three percent (3%) of its gross receipts derived from the first sale of petroleum products within this state ...

... There is an imposed on each company that imports or causes to be imported, other than by a company subject to and having paid the tax on those imported petroleum products that have generated gross receipts taxable under subdivision (b)(2) of this section, petroleum products for use or consumption by it within the state a tax at the rate of three percent (3%) of the consideration given or contracted to be given for such petroleum products if the consideration given or contracted to be given for such deliveries made during a quarterly period exceeds three thousand dollars ($3,000)

There really is no surprise in the fact that Rhode Island is wallowing at the bottom of the nation's economy. As I've said many times, public infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, and it ought to be the first thing funded by taxes that we already pay.

The Most Ethical Place in Rhode Island

Mark my words, this will go down as one of the all-time-great quotations to come out of the General Assembly:

"I've been here a year and a half now," said freshman Rep. Scott Pollard, D-Foster. "There aren't any corrupt people in the building ... you smile, but I know them and you don't, OK?"

Well, that settles it then. Clearly, far from seeking to make outright bribery illegal, at the State House, we should hand them even more stringless money and power!

On a mores serious note, I see reason for concern in this:

No vote was taken Tuesday on the fix-it legislation crafted by the citizens advocacy group Common Cause that Fox introduced on Feb. 4. Asked why he did not seek a vote, Fox said, through a spokesman: "I want to make sure that the language is correct before we ask voters to consider a Constitutional amendment. I want to review the testimony that will be offered tonight, both pro and con, and make sure we get it right."

Perhaps I need to tune my cynical ear, a bit, but what I hear in that statement is: "We want to wait and see if there's some way out of this that gives us credit for considering ethics legislation but makes the whole issue go away without its being anybody's fault."

Fox's Missing Adjective

A quick observation from another article about RI House Speaker Gordon Fox (D, Providence):

Thirty eight years later, the new speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives is a bit more reserved in his choice of words — but not much — when he talks about gambling, taxes, public employee pensions and the difficulty every incumbent will have in a year when he acknowledges: "People are angry. They are hurting. They are scared, and they want to lash out."

Notice the phrase "lash out." That's an indiscriminate verb, an unthinking response. What's missing from everything that I've seen from Fox is any admission that those angry people have a point, that some of their complaints are valid and worth adjusting policy to answer.

Itchin' for Some Taxin'

If you put your ear to the exterior walls of the State House, you might actually be able to hear the antiquated gears of the General Assembly's brains whirring a little harder to come up with a strategy for getting away with tax increases:

The plan was broadly outlined by Grafton H. Willey IV, co-chairman of the Rhode Island chapter of the Smaller Business Association of New England, an advocacy group for small businesses, and John C. Simmons, executive director of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, a business-backed group that monitors the state’s finances.

Asked about the plan during a break at Tuesday's conference, DaPonte said that General Assembly leaders are "absolutely" talking about the possibility of revising the personal income tax.

With a variety of tax credits and other provisions, "Rhode Island [has] a very complicated tax code," he said. DaPonte said he is concerned not only about the system's complexity, but also about the personal income tax's top tax rate of 9.9 percent.

I don't know that I've ever read an article so thoroughly built around hints and insinuations, without any real indication of what "the plan" might look like. Of course, one doesn't need more than hints and insinuations to be concerned:

If the regular system's top rate were reduced, a flat tax "may not be necessary," DaPonte said. Costantino made similar comments last month.

This year the flat tax is 6%. One needn't be a professional political cynic to suspect that the likes of DaPonte will think that number is "not necessary" if the regular rate were, say, 8.5%.

Which Is the Frying Pan, and Which Is the Fire?

Perhaps a more politically savvy operative than myself would see opportunity in it, but I find it discouraging to watch spats between factions of Rhode Island's ruling party, because neither side will run the state well. It's a bit like watching two ogres battle over who gets the larger portion of your flesh, with little chance that they'll accidentally free you from your cage in the process.

Take Rep. Arthur Corvese (D, North Providence), who has this to say about Speaker Gordon Fox (D, Providence):

Therein lay the substantive difference in the two candidates for speaker. I believe that Gordon Fox's stance on major issues is too far to the left for the good of Rhode Islanders. Speaking strictly for myself, I would say that a Fox speakership will inevitably include, but not be limited to, an increase in the state income tax; a lack of constitutionally sound state limitations on illegal immigration; an economic-development policy overly influenced by environmental extremists; and, of course, the left’s raison d'etre, gay marriage. I firmly believe that neither my constituents in House District 55 in North Providence, nor the taxpaying electorate at large, want this agenda for our state.

And should Speaker Fox decide that he may not want to pursue the aforementioned legislative agenda, he will have no choice, because he will be forced to do so by his liberal supporters inside and outside the House chamber.

And yet, Corvese introduced the current legislation (H7581) concerning binding arbitration for teacher contracts. Voters just can't win.

Spin on the Health Panel

Rep. Joseph McNamara (D, Pawtucket) — himself the Alternative Learning Program Director for the Pawtucket School Department — recently published an op-ed defending legislation that he submitted (and which passed) that created a healthcare panel to design insurance benefits for all of Rhode Island teachers. (The legislation, incidentally, inspired the introduction of our legislative stooge list.) The intention of his essay is to lull Rhode Islanders back to sleep, on this matter, but he shouldn't succeed.

Most centrally, his argument cites internally incompatible benefits to the legislation. First:

... the Department of Education studied the issue and found that combined purchasing of health benefits for education employees could save up to $15 million a year.

Yet, second:

... the legislation provides that "choice of benefit plan designs, medical insurance cost-sharing, payment for waiving medical insurance, eligibility for receiving benefits and providing benefits for retirees shall continue to be negotiated" by the districts.

If districts remain able to choose different programs from different insurers, then the maximum savings cited by McNamara cannot be achieved. In other words, the law can only function by limiting school districts' options. Indeed, that is its plain purpose. Note this sly admission that the law amounts to another unfunded mandate:

... it includes the requirement that the value of at least one of the plan designs "shall not be greater than the lowest" plan in effect today.

I don't have the time, just now, to sort through every district's actuarial report, but general familiarity with the issue is enough to suggest that the "lowest plan" is hardly a discount program. If there were such a plan currently in effect, McNamara would surely have cited it as evidence; that he doesn't offer any details for this claim suggests that vagueness suits his political purposes. Essentially, the legislation ensures that the now-mandated health insurance benefits will never decrease, except perhaps minimally with inflation. As for districts' ability negotiate cost-sharing and so forth, here's the actual language (PDF):

Choice of benefit plan designs from those approved in accordance with section medical insurance cost-sharing, payment for waiving medical insurance, eligibility for receiving benefits, and providing benefits for retirees shall continue to be negotiated pursuant to sections 28-9-3 and 28-9-4.

28-9-3 and 28-9-4 do not lay out rights to negotiate certain parts of a contract. Rather, they deal with arbitration. I'm open to correction from legal experts, on this, but defending how one takes the phrase "pursuant to," it would be plausible to argue that the only way to reduce healthcare costs within McNamara's legislation would be through arbitration.

It's a simple matter of reasoning: During a time of growing dissatisfaction with the imbalanced remuneration of public-sector employees, one such employee introduced legislation mandating health insurance benefits with heavy influence from the relevant unions. Keep your eye on that ball; the rest is just fancy footwork.

(Of course, since the legislation passed, attentiveness must be to having it repealed and removing all .)

Any Way to Tax the Productive

A letter by Middletown Republican Town Committee Chairman Antone Viveiros in the Newport Daily News directs attention to H7563, submitted by Rep. Amy Rice (D., Portsmouth). The legislation would add the following language to Rhode Island tax law:

Opting out of the domestic production deduction. — All corporations doing business in the State of Rhode Island shall add back into their taxable income any amount deducted under the federal "domestic production deduction" also known as section 199 of the federal Internal Revenue Code. State tax forms shall be changed if needed in order to comply with this statute.

For the likes of Rice, it appears, ideology trumps economic wisdom. Even were it a principled correction to remove national tax reductions from the Rhode Island calculation, sucking money out of the productive segment of the state is plain lunacy in the current economy and in our current condition of civic deterioration. As Viveiros asks in closing:

Is this the way to create jobs?

Why won't the General Assembly majority cut spending, as we have? Do they have to, to get reelected? I'll leave those answers to you.