Funding Formula Follies in South County

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Anderson for State Representative: Concrete Priorities for Education Reform

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

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

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

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

Dan Reilly versus Amy Rice versus Free Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meet Dave Cote, Candidate for State Representative in District 36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meet Dave Cote, Candidate for State Representative in District 36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on Legistlative Grant "Sunshine" Bill

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

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

Alas, a look at the current legislative calendar reveals:

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

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

Meet Jonathan Wheeler, Candidate For State Representative, District 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

JW: It's $450 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Murphy Supports Loughlin's State Pension Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: DCYF's Problems

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

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

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

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

DCYF - Year to Year Salary Increases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legislature Increases - 2001 ->2008

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

The numbers speak for themselves.

RE: House Budget Vote...Upon Further Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was seconded by "Will":

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

And "Greg":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Stealth" Tax Increase?

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

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

For "clarification", the explanation is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Cares What the RI Legislature Thinks About Iraq?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Williams observed:

Today, the message that we`re prepared to report tonight on "NBC Nightly News" is this kind of tale of two wars.

I`m fresh from, you know, weeks of putting together "NBC Nightly News" and televising this debate in Washington, a lot of members of Congress saying we should be out now.

And today, we literally airlift into a place like Ramadi, where they are so proud of the latest city block they say they have been able to "peacify." They have been able to forge an agreement with the local religious leaders and knock al Qaeda one city block further away from the center of town.

They are so involved in the battle. Many, many soldiers told me today the local people are so worried they`re going to leave cities like Ramadi and Hit. That`s the war they know.

And they say very politely, they can talk all they want in D.C.; we`ve got to enforce the policy, the job we`re here to do.

And, according to Williams, the effect is already being felt:

Well, I`ll tell you. It`s in its early stages and with - if you mention the so-called surge, you have to talk about it in tandem with this new policy of these small outposts, these - what they are really is glorified police stations.

We saw it today in Ramadi. There is patently no way a few weeks ago we could have stood outside an armored vehicle and had a conversation as we did today in Ramadi.

They have changed policy there. The war has changed.

Is it better? That`ll be for other people to judge. But it is already being felt here, that is, the increase in troops. The first ones are already here.

There`s a huge field behind us they are clearing for the 3rd Infantry, for their next tour of duty here. And so, we`ll have to wait and see. It`s on a continuum.

But, again, the combination, with this change in policy - getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we`re here, start talking to the locals - that is having an obvious and palpable effect.

Williams, who was touring Iraq with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, also offered this report (link is to MSNBC video, transcript from here. All via A Second Hand Conjecture):

“This is what the General heard today about how warmly the locals now view the Americans.”

U.S. Army Colonel John Charlton: "They do not want us to leave. They want to see the police come through.”

U. S. Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry: “The people here are very glad to see us. They are very hesitant still because they're not sure if we're going to stay. They want us to stay.”

Voice of Odierno?: “That's the issue.”

Ferry: “That's the whole deal. If we stay down here and to keep beating down the insurgents."

Brian Williams, to one or more of the officers: “You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place.'”

Odierno: "They can talk about policy, okay, and that's what they have to do back there. My mission right now is to provide protection for the Iraqi people so this government can grow."

NBC correspondent Richard Engel also added:

Some say they [insurgents] are just waiting to see how long the U.S. will stay and how long this surge will continue. It was obvious, the U.S. announced the surge, they said where the U.S. troops were going and the militia decided they fought the U.S. two-and-a-half years ago, didn't have a lot of success. They decided this time they're going to wait it out, see if political pressure in the U.S. can help them win this time.

Williams wrapped up the report:

Brian Williams: “And General, you and I heard sentiments we don't often hear today, the U.S. commanders quoting the Iraqis: 'please don't leave us.' And a lot of the U.S. fighters there today said they didn't want to leave this fight, they are dedicated to it.”

Retired General Wayne Downing: “Brian, every single one of them, I ran into a lot of officers and NCOs that I served with -- every soldier that I ran across today I asked him: 'How do you feel about what's going on, what do you know about what is going on back in the states?' And without exception -- this was spontaneous, especially when you start talking to PFCs and Spec 4s, they're going to tell you the truth, no party line. Very proud of what they're doing. Very, very dedicated. Many of these guys, Brian, are back here on their second and third tours. These are one-year tours. Extremely well trained and very professional.”

It's amazing how the story changes when the media actually makes an effort, isn't it? Does it sound to you like the President's plan isn't working? As I said, reality is eclipsing the November 2006 template, but the Democrats in the RI House are too fixated on making rhetorical political hay to realize it. And their meaningless and ideologically self-indulgent resolution runs contra to what the troops on the ground believe. Finally, as they get their jones by "taking a stand," they lose valuable time that should be spent addressing the very real fiscal crisis that is facing our state.

Watching the Senate: Recapturing Charitable Giving

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

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

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

Watching the House: Statewide Teacher's Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching the House: Dogging the Privatization of State Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching the House: "Fair Share Health Care Report"

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

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

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

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

Watching the House: Adjusting the Political System

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds fair to me.

Watching the House: Different Perspectives on Illegal Immigration

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

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

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

Watching the House: Civil Unions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching the House: Stop State Employee Insurance Buyouts

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

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

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

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