In Support of Pride

How's this for a study in contrasts:

OF ALL THE COMMUNITIES EXAMINED BY CHANNEL 12, THE STATE POLICE HAD THE LOWEST RATE OF ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY PENSIONS. MOST CITIES AND TOWNS WERE UP AROUND 40, 30 PERCENT, SOME IN THE 20S. YOU GUYS WERE AT EIGHT PERCENT. I THINK IT WAS OF 230 RETIREES, ONLY 19 HAVE AN ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY PENSION. WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THIS LOW RATE TO? Unfortunately, we've had some troopers hurt to a degree where they have to retire. We closely scrutinize any request for a disability pension. I have refused two myself in the last two years, and those people have gone on to retire. I think the troopers take a lot of pride in their conditioning, and take a lot of pride in their job. We do not have a problem with sick leave. About four years ago, I surveyed the troopers of the state police and found, I believe, they use 1.5 sick days a year on the average. That's incredible. Now many, many do not use any time. I once went 10 years without a sick day, and there are many troopers that have gone longer than that.

One hears tales of public employees at the local level working the sick-time benefit to pump up each other's overtime. Perhaps the keepers of Rhode Island's ethical standards should spend some time examining the factors that make state troopers healthier and less — ahem — accident prone.

Not an Honorary Pension

Participating in several generations of dishonorable conduct strikes me as a pretty substantial harm to the public good when done by a police officer. If only to send a signal, "retired" Captain John Ryan, formerly of the Providence PD, ought to lose his pension:

City officials have resumed their effort to take away the pension of retired police Capt. John J. Ryan, one of three former high-ranking police officers implicated in the Police Department's cheating-for-promotions scandal.

But Ryan has gone to Superior Court in an effort to stave off the threat, which arises from a scandal that dates to the mid- to late-1990s. ...

New charges have now been added to the city’s bill of particulars against Ryan: That he accepted favors from Richard “Uncle Dickie” Autiello while Autiello’s Four A’s auto sales and repair business had contracts with the Police Department that Ryan supervised. Ryan, the city alleges, received free or underpriced vehicles and vehicle repairs from Autiello as well as other gifts. ...

The cheating, which has been admitted in various forums, consisted of the surreptitious distribution to favored officers of so-called source sheets that drastically limited what they had to study for their written promotional examinations. By knowing where to focus their study, according to city officials, those officers enjoyed a significant advantage over their competitors. ...

At issue is a municipal ordinance that requires honorary service as a prerequisite for an employee to receive a pension. A lack of such service calls for the reduction or revocation of a pension, according to the interpretation of Mayor David N. Cicilline, city lawyers and members of the Retirement Board, who instigated the pension-divestiture cases.

Ryan contends in his lawsuit that his pension cannot be touched, under the ordinance, unless he is convicted of a job-related crime. He has never been charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

It seems to me that a deal promising a 47-year-old man, able to work as "a law enforcement consultant and lawyer," $28,056 every year for the rest of his life justifies a pretty high ethical bar. Furthermore, losing that million-dollar benefit should be a very strong incentive against future corruption.

Hatching a Plan

The Hatch Act has been a topic of conversation in these parts over the past few months, and the Lincoln Republicans think they have a candidate in Democrat State Representative Mary Ann Shallcross Smith. Furthermore:

The Lincoln Republican Town Committee also issued statements around Shallcross-Smith's campaign with specifics regarding the use of her 501 (c) (3) organizations to obtain a win in the election on November 4th. Michael Napolitano, Chairman of the Lincoln Republican Town Committee offered up several key points supported by IRS tax law that gave the Shallcross- Smith campaign an unfair and unallowable advantage in the race. Said Napolitano, "She utilized her Kids Klub location as campaign headquarters and executed a phone bank to call local voters from inside Kids Klub. Individuals have come forward informing us that they received a telephone call with the child care number on their caller ID asking for a vote for their candidate. In addition, she had campaign signs on the property of the 501 (c) 3 non-profit facility. ...

Nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations are forbidden from engaging in any political activity in support or opposition of a candidate for public office. The Internal Revenue Code states that 501(c)(3) organizations must "not participate in, or intervene in (including publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office." A 501(c)(3) organization that violates this rule may lose its tax-exempt status and face other financial penalties. The IRS has noted a large amount of 501 (c) 3 violations over the past few years. "The law does not allow charities to participate in political campaigns," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. "While the vast majority of charities, including churches, did not engage in politicking, our examinations substantiated a disturbing amount of political intervention in the 2004 electoral cycle.

Of course, pretending that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing (when in reality the two are washing each other) is a habitual practice in Rhode Island.

Full press release in the extended entry.

The Lincoln Republican Town Committee this week, reinforced the complaint filed by the State Republican party last month that had filed a formal request for an immediate investigation into the likely Hatch Act violations of six Democrat candidates for the Rhode Island General Assembly, which included Mary Ann Shallcross-Smith. Mary Ann Shallcross-Smith is the President of Kids Klub, a 501 (c) (3) that takes in both state and federal money.

The Committee further stated that Shallcross-Smith may be ineligible to serve in State or Local office because of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., which prohibits "State or local officer[s] or employee[s from] ... be[ing] a candidate for elective office." § 1502(a). "State or local officer or employee" is defined by the act as "an individual employed by a State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency...." § 1501(4). The Hatch Act, by its own terms, applies to officers and employees of a "State or local agency," Shallcross-Smith works for a day care provider. Therefore, under 42 U.S.C. § 9851(a) private entities taking federal money are considered state or local agencies for purposes of the Hatch Act's limitations on political activity. § 9851(a) states: "Any agency which assumes responsibility for planning, developing, and coordinating federal programs and receives assistance under this sub chapter shall be deemed to be a State or local agency." This sweeps a private day care provider into the Hatch Act and § 9851(a) effectively modifies § 1501(4).

The Lincoln Republican Town Committee also issued statements around Shallcross-Smith's campaign with specifics regarding the use of her 501 (c) (3) organizations to obtain a win in the election on November 4th. Michael Napolitano, Chairman of the Lincoln Republican Town Committee offered up several key points supported by IRS tax law that gave the Shallcross- Smith campaign an unfair and unallowable advantage in the race. Said Napolitano, "She utilized her Kids Klub location as campaign headquarters and executed a phone bank to call local voters from inside Kids Klub. Individuals have come forward informing us that they received a telephone call with the child care number on their caller ID asking for a vote for their candidate. In addition, she had campaign signs on the property of the 501 (c) 3 non-profit facility. The property is located at 462 Smithfield Avenue in Pawtucket. A Toyota Rav 4 registered to Kids Klub, with a DACARE license plate was observed being utilized by Shallcross-Smith while canvassing the neighborhoods."

Nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations are forbidden from engaging in any political activity in support or opposition of a candidate for public office. The Internal Revenue Code states that 501(c)(3) organizations must "not participate in, or intervene in (including publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office." A 501(c)(3) organization that violates this rule may lose its tax-exempt status and face other financial penalties. The IRS has noted a large amount of 501 (c) 3 violations over the past few years. "The law does not allow charities to participate in political campaigns," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. "While the vast majority of charities, including churches, did not engage in politicking, our examinations substantiated a disturbing amount of political intervention in the 2004 electoral cycle.

The Lincoln Republican Town Committee also believes that several employees of the Kids Klub may have worked on the Shallcross-Smith campaign. Said Napolitano, "Although employees of a 501 (c) 3 may choose to do campaign work during their non-employment time, I believe in this instance that was not always the case. Ms. Shallcross-Smith appears to have utilized employees during business hours to perform campaign related tasks including the issuance of press releases with dates and times on them."

Said Napolitano, "There are also many other issues with respect to IRS tax code that can clearly be questioned. These include but are not limited to the make-up of the board of Kids Klub, and the appearance of a private benefit or inurement. There is also the issue of an Ethics Complaint filed in 1995 regarding Shallcross-Smith's business involvement with the Town of Lincoln School system while she served on the School Committee. This complaint was later mysteriously withdrawn by the individual who filed it; however the allegations listed within it follow a clear pattern."

Said Napolitano, "It is clear that this candidate may not have done her homework before she entered the race for State Representative. In addition, many of our campaign volunteers observed her well within the 50 foot range of the entrance to the Lonsdale School polling place on Election Day. At one point the Lincoln Police department came and asked her to move. When they left she moved back well within the 50 feet. We also have reports of other polling location violations including her staff going into a location to solicit votes. She also violated campaign finance laws as she took a $5000 loan from her husband, which is on her campaign finance reports. The maximum allowed under Rhode Island law is $1000." Further information can be viewed on the Lincoln Republican Town Committee's web site at www.lincolnrepublicans.com

Buying Disaster

URI economics professor Leonard Lardaro can't believe the inaction in the statehouse:

To my utter amazement, in spite of all these economic difficulties and the lessons to be learned from our past mistakes, our leaders apparently have yet to see any need to meet or do anything to deal with this crisis. I have even heard several of them say that when the recession is over, they will see what they can do at that time.

It's been obvious for years that, among legislators, there is no plan. They're just trying to get by, siphon off what they can, and allow Rhode Island to keep being Rhode Island, even when that means being on the wrong side of every list.

I suspect that William Colleran is not surprised:

The Web page of the state Board of Elections is www.ricampaignfinance.com/ripublic/contribution.spx. It is the source of my research on contributions during the 2007-08 General Assembly session. I focused in on the period from Jan. 1, 2007, through Sept. 15, 2008.

Over this period, the incumbents (75 representatives and 38 senators) received some $2 million. A whopping $850,000 — or 43 percent of that sum — flowed to the top leadership. That would include the House speaker, the Senate president, the two majority leaders and the two Finance Committee chairmen. Fully half of this swag found its way into the coffers of Speaker William Murphy and Senate President Joseph Montalbano. This money, coincidentally, was just about evenly shared, with Murphy receiving $250,000 and Montalbano pulling in $215,000.

One might think that the majority leaders (Senate Leader M. Teresa Paiva-Weed and House Leader Gordon Fox) would take in the next highest amounts; but one would be wrong. The two Finance Committee chairmen came in second; and they were pretty evenly matched, with House Finance Chairman Steven M. Costantino and Senate Finance Chairman Stephen Alves each raking in $110,500. That great political scientist, Willie Sutton, really put his fingers on the pulse when he remarked that he robbed banks "because that's where the money is!"

Rounding out the top 10 recipients of this largess were those labor legislators, Sen. Domenic Ruggerio and Sen. Frank Ciccone III, followed by Rep. Arthur Corvese, chairman of the House Labor Committee, and Rep. Brian P. Kennedy, chairman of the powerful Corporations Committee.

Powerful people are invested in Rhode Island's current predicament, and they don't know how to get out of the predicament while continuing to benefit from their power. So they wait. They hope for money from nowhere. They promise to fix things when times are already improving.

Rhode Islanders are — I think and pray — beginning to wake up to the possibility that things are just going to turn around on their own. Lardaro alludes cryptically to "what's going to happen when a national recovery takes place," and I've suggested before that, if Rhode Island fails to lead the recovery, its the rate at which its talent and taxpayers flee will increase.

How Will You Express Your Displeasure With the Decision by the Rhode Island Superior Court to Legalize Bribery in the Legislature?

Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Francis Darrigan ruled yesterday that it is legal for state legislators to try personally to enrich themselves through their votes, or even to cast votes based on bribes that they accept. Bruce Landis has the details in today's Projo.

So now if a sitting Senator – even the Senate President, perhaps – were to decide to support a casino to be built in town X (or in town W; or even in town WW) for no other reason than officials from town WW promising some extra fee-paying legal work to that Senator, that decision to cast a vote based on personal gain is now perfectly legal.

It's one more thing for voters to consider when they cast their votes for state senators and representatives next week: can RI afford to send the current crew of incumbents back into office, now that bribed voting has been given legal sanction by our state's courts?

How Will You Express Your Displeasure With the Decision by the Rhode Island Superior Court to Legalize Bribery in the Legislature?

Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Francis Darrigan ruled yesterday that it is legal for state legislators to try personally to enrich themselves through their votes, or even to cast votes based on bribes that they accept. Bruce Landis has the details in today's Projo.

So now if a sitting Senator – even the Senate President, perhaps – were to decide to support a casino to be built in town X (or in town W; or even in town WW) for no other reason than officials from town WW promising some extra fee-paying legal work to that Senator, that decision to cast a vote based on personal gain is now perfectly legal.

It's one more thing for voters to consider when they cast their votes for state senators and representatives next week: can RI afford to send the current crew of incumbents back into office, now that bribed voting has been given legal sanction by our state's courts?

Another Alves Discrepancy

(h/t, Commenter Aldo).

From Talia Buford of the Projo on October 3…

The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the state Board of Elections to recount all ballots cast in the disputed West Warwick Democratic primary race in which political newcomer Michael Pinga defeated state Sen. Stephen D. Alves.

The amended court order mirrors one issued Wednesday in the case of a candidate for state Senate in Warwick, David Bennett, who lost his bid for a place on the November ballot to Erin Lynch in the Sept. 9 primary...

Meanwhile, state Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch Wednesday [October 1] asked the Rhode Island State Police to investigate the registered Republicans who were allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries in both races.

And again from Talia Buford, this time on October 11…

Yesterday, the court gave some insight into its decision. According to Craig Berke, spokesman for the state judiciary, the court withheld its decision on the Alves case because of the call from the state Democratic Party for a state police investigation into the primary. There is no inquiry into the Warwick race.

What is the basis of the Rhode Island State Police investigating one case, but not the other?

A Consequence of Pulled Strings

If, after all of the technicalities are applied, Stephen Alves returns to his seat in the Rhode Island Senate, Rhode Islanders ought to take it as a final straw:

Yesterday, the court gave some insight into its decision. According to Craig Berke, spokesman for the state judiciary, the court withheld its decision on the Alves case because of the call from the state Democratic Party for a state police investigation into the primary. There is no inquiry into the Warwick race.

"The Supreme Court cannot act on the District 9 race at this stage of review by law enforcement, a review that has become public knowledge," Berke said.

The state police said earlier that they were inquiring into the primary, but had not launched a full investigation. On Thursday evening, troopers did speak to selected residents of Msgr. Deangelis Manor in West Warwick to ask them whether they voted in the primary, residents said.

In fewer words, at Democrat leaders' request, the state police are knocking on doors, feeling out the situation (and, I imagine, intimidating voters), so the Supreme Court postponed its decision until after the deadline that would avoid the entire electoral system's being disrupted. Citizens should not take this lightly, and our rulers should know that they're playing with fire.

ADDENDUM:

For clarification: My parenthetical about intimidated voters wasn't meant to suggest any particular behavior on the part of police. I imagine, however, that having state police show up at one's door for some form of inquiry is an intimidating experience of itself.

Always Be Prepared

Touching story in yesterday's Providence Journal: Apparently, the friends of John Cicilline, brother of the Providence mayor, had a little going-to-jail party for him, in order to keep his family from suffering financially from his conviction as a justice-system-manipulating shake-down lawyer. This line added some comic relief:

"It was a nice event to help a guy going through a tough time," said [Lawyer Peter] Rizzo. "Nobody can plan for a federal indictment."

Why not? Families plan for and insure against all sorts of contingencies. Developing some sort of backup would seem to be particularly advisable for somebody knowingly engaged in illegal activities.

Royal Dispensations

One often hears that the speaker of the Rhode Island House is the most powerful politician (along with the Senate president) in the state, but it takes a while to develop an appreciation of what the means. Here, for one indication, is evidence of their royal ability to dispense paid time off without having to face public scrutiny:

As a matter of stated policy, General Assembly employees are "capped at 140 hours of comp time per year." Working the standard 35-hour state workweek, that would be tantamount to a month off.

But, "exceptions can be granted by the speaker or president to exceed the cap," and this year, legislative spokesman Larry Berman acknowledges, the leaders granted an undisclosed number of additional hours, days and possibly weeks to 51 unidentified legislative staffers.

Had they been paid overtime, Berman acknowledges, those payments would be public information.

Senator Irons' Flawed Defense

Former Rhode Island Senate President William Irons' initial line of defense against charges brought against him by the Rhode Island Ethics Commission rests, first, on a claim of immunity that has never before been recognized in the law and, second, on a claim that a judge can use an interpretation of the law without precedent to nullify the plain language of the state constitution.

1. According to (most recently) Bruce Landis of the Projo, the Rhode Island Ethics Commission has proceeded against Senator Irons for his casting of votes on legislation that directly affected a company he was taking commissions from, in their view, a violation of state ethics rules...

The Journal reported that Irons received $70,000 in commissions on a Blue Cross health-insurance policy for CVS employees in 2000 and 2001, and another $25,000 in 1999. Irons chaired the Senate Corporations Committee that handles health-care legislation, and opposed a controversial pharmacy-choice bill that Blue Cross and CVS also opposed.

2. The Ethics Commission derives it power to bring such cases from a 1986 amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution (Article III, section 8)...

Ethics commission -- Code of ethics. -- The general assembly shall establish an independent non-partisan ethics commission which shall adopt a code of ethics including, but not limited to, provisions on conflicts of interest, confidential information, use of position, contracts with government agencies and financial disclosure. All elected and appointed officials and employees of state and local government, of boards, commissions and agencies shall be subject to the code of ethics. The ethics commission shall have the authority to investigate violations of the code of ethics and to impose penalties, as provided by law; and the commission shall have the power to remove from office officials who are not subject to impeachment.

3. In defense, the lawyers for Senator Irons claim that the Ethics Commission can have no jurisdiction over official acts of legislators, due to the speech-in-debate immunity for legislators that is an original part of the Rhode Island Constitution (Article VI, section 5)...

Immunities of general assembly members. -- The persons of all members of the general assembly shall be exempt from arrest and their estates from attachment in any civil action, during the session of the general assembly, and two days before the commencement and two days after the termination thereof, and all process served contrary hereto shall be void. For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other place.

In today's Projo article, Senator Irons' lawyer John Tarantino explains his client's basic position on speech-in-debate immunity vs. the Ethics Commission…

Tarantino said that because the Constitutional Convention delegates didn’t explicitly set aside the legislators’ immunity under the “speech in debate” doctrine, that immunity continues and legislators can’t be prosecuted for the way they vote.

4. The principle of speech in debate immunity is well-established in American jurisprudence. Courts have long held that the immunity extends beyond words spoken in floor and committee session, out to any official act associated with lawmaking. The key affirmation of this principle cited in the Irons case comes from the United States Supreme Court 1972 ruling in United States v. Brewster, where the Court made clear that speech in debate immunity prevented legislators from having their motivations for the votes probed by any branch of government seeking to enforce general statutes...

It is beyond doubt that the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process, and into the motivation for those acts.

In other words, as offensive as it may be to the sensibilities of honest citizens, it is established precedent in American law that a legislator cannot be sued or prosecuted under general statute for voting a certain way based on the influence of cold hard cash, instead of concern for the common good.

The Brewster decision was brought into Rhode Island law in 1984 by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in its decision in Holmes v. Farmer.

5. However, in its Brewster ruling, the Supreme Court also made clear that speech in debate immunity did not place the official acts of legislators above every law imaginable. The Brewster decision reaffirmed a principle established six years earlier, in the case of United States v. Johnson, that speech-in-debate immunity did not automatically extend to laws whose specific purpose is regulating the conduct of legislators...

Without intimating any view thereon, we expressly leave open for consideration when the case arises a prosecution which, though possibly entailing inquiry into legislative acts or motivations, is founded upon a narrowly drawn statute passed by Congress in the exercise of its legislative power to regulate the conduct of its members.

6. It's a dubious proposition, at best, to ever allow judges to circumvent the plain language of the Constitution, but in this case, the proper decision is especially a no-brainer:

The 1986 amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution charged the legislature with creating an ethics commission, specifically and narrowly empowered to create rules for the conduct of legislators. At that time the constitution was amended, the applicability of speech-in-debate immunity to laws specifically regulating legislator conduct had not been decided. The inclusion of direct language into the constitution subjecting legislators to Ethics Commission jurisdiction, therefore, resolved an ambiguity in the law -- using the most decisive means our system of government allows, a Constitutional amendment -- without creating any conflict with the existing body of speech-in-debate immunity law.

The only way for a court to rule that speech-in-debate immunity trumps the Constitutionally established powers of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission would be for that court to strike down the plain language of the constitution while ignoring established precedent at the same time. For the sake of the rule of law, let's hope that this attempted double-bank shot by Senator Irons and his lawyers doesn't hit its target.

Scott Prevails at Board of Elections. However, Status of Due Process in Rhode Island Still Unclear.

Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch has withdrawn his challenge to Jon Scott’s ballot certification as a candidate for Congress in Rhode Island’s First District. On Friday, candidate Scott was informed by the Board of Elections of the challenge to the Secretary of State's certification, but was not informed of any specific signatures under challenge, nor of any basis for the challenge at all. According to Scott, he was simply informed that an initial hearing would be held on Monday at 10 am.

The lesson here is that if you decide to run against a powerful figure in Rhode Island, you are subject to being summoned before a state board, without being informed of the specific charge against you. Due process rights, apparently in Rhode Island, don’t extend to those who dare challenge the local political aristocracy -- yet ironically enough, protecting people from the aristocracy was one of the reasons that the idea of due process was developed in the first place!

The vagueness of the charge, followed by its immediate withdrawal, makes it pretty clear that Lynch was engaging in an electoral-board version of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (a SLAPP), where the goal is not to win a claim on its merits, but to force a party being sued to expend resources and effort trying to defend themselves. Unfortunately, activities associated with running for office are not covered by the letter of Rhode Island’s anti-SLAPP law, which specifically names the rights of petition and free speech as the activities protected. With political corruption in Rhode Island being what it is, Rhode Island’s good-government forces should seriously consider a campaign to extend SLAPP protections to the right to run for office.

Finally, the fact that the state Board of Elections was ready to follow through on a vague, unspecific charge suggests that things haven’t improved much since March of 2006, when Judge Stephen Fortunato made public note of the BOE's failure to protect the rights of individuals under its jurisdiction…

Fortunato had criticized the Board of Elections at length for failing to address the First Amendment and due-process rights of targets of an investigation or enforcement action.

Corruption and a Criminal's Rights

Regardless of the identity of the alleged harasser, I agree with Will that the timing of Bobby Oliveira's arrest is suspicious. I'd even go so far as to suggest that it's reason for concern, given its Rhode Island political context:

The police yesterday picked up School Committee candidate Robert. T. Oliveira on a year-old arrest warrant, charging him with making harassing phone calls to a Tiverton woman who described herself as an ex-girlfriend. ...

Tiverton police obtained the most recent arrest warrant on June 26 of last year after the woman complained to them about more than one call Oliveira allegedly made to her on her cell phone. ...

A Newport patrolman saw Oliveira jogging on Bellevue Avenue in front of The Elms mansion shortly before 8 a.m. yesterday, said Lt. William Fitzgerald. He said the officer believed an arrest for Oliveira was outstanding and, after confirming his belief, stopped Oliveira and took him into custody. Newport turned him over to Tiverton police around 10:30 a.m. ...

Neither Maltais nor Fitzgerald could specify why it took a year for the police to arrest him on a year-old warrant.

"It's not unusual that some period of time will lapse when someone is wanted on a warrant," said Maltais, who wasn't sure exactly how Newport police knew to pick up Oliveira.

Fitzgerald couldn't speak to the Oliveira case, but said that departments communicate with each other, sometimes by phone and sometimes by teletype. The information is related to patrol officers at roll call, but they may learn about warrants from other sources, he said.

Inasmuch as he'd continued to walk the streets unharassed, Bobby presumably did not know that he was a wanted man. Now, in response to some unknown stimulus, a Newport police officer happened to believe that an arrest was pending for a particular jogger, who happened to be notable on the local political stage.

Speaking from personal experience, I'm sure that the woman who filed the complaint did so with sufficiently credible evidence to justify a warrant, but the story still gives the impression that somebody out there in the state could file a report that could sit dormant until such time as an arrest would be particularly inconvenient, no matter the merits of the charge. Shouldn't even criminals have a right to a timely arrest and fair resolution?

Something Pervasive

I took the call last night to Matt Allen to talk about the RI governance philosophy on display at the Tiverton School Committee meeting this week (segment streamable by clicking here, or download). I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or reason for concern, but I think I'm starting to get the feel of Rhode Island politics.

And Just So's You Don't Miss This Nugget

Be sure to note the closing paragraph of today's Projo article on the last bit of legislation for this year:

The Senate plans to return Thursday to confirm new traffic court magistrate David Cruise, Montalbano's chief of staff, and a new District Court judge, Mary Elizabeth McCaffrey, sister of the Senate Judiciary chairman.

As I stated during my most recent appearance on Matt Allen's Violent Roundtable, I'm much more concerned about this cross-branch nepotism than the governor's hiring of people whom he trusts. Ours may be a part-time legislature, but it's got a full-time spoils system.

Stacking the Healthcare Deck

The state of Rhode Island likes monopolists, it would seem:

The other condition that Tufts needs to change is a state law that says only health plans that did business in Rhode Island in 2001 can take the health status of members into account in setting rates for small groups. As a result, only Blue Cross and United can increase premiums for groups whose members are less healthy.

Changing that rule ought to be an obvious step.

Readers should note that such regulations — questions of bias in their application aside — are one of the reasons that healthcare costs so much.

No Comment Necessary

Not to start the day with cynicism, but I just can't help myself:

On the evening of Wednesday, June 4, The American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) will travel to Providence with the first Indonesian ACYPL delegation to visit the United States since 2002.

The delegation will visit as part of an 11-day political study tour that began in Washington, D.C., and will be hosted in Rhode Island by State Rep. Peter L. Lewiss (D-Dist. 37, Westerly), a 2007 ACYPL delegate to China.

The delegates' program is designed to promote mutual understanding and introduce them to the American political system at the national, state and local levels. It will also provide them with opportunities to gain perspective on American culture, engage in dialogue on international issues, and forge friendships and professional relationships with American counterparts.

Stealing Lunch Money

Well, the first mistake was treating the government like a free-food delivery service:

The director of the city’s summer lunch program[, Jane Shugrue,] has been fired and the entire administrative staff will not be brought back after a state audit found that the program falsely claimed it had served far more lunches than it actually had over the past two years, and improperly received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of federal reimbursement over that span.

A criminal investigation conducted by Providence police is under way, though city officials would not divulge the details or the targets of the investigation. ...

The program serves lunches to school-age city children at roughly 100 parks and community centers during the summer months. Shugrue has run the program since 1991 and been on staff since 1984. ...

The program is paid for with federal dollars, but administered at the local level.

Small-government conservatives should feel free to take a moment to shake their heads over the obviousness of the risk inherent in pooling money from anonymous taxpayers and creating heart-string ditties to which it may be funneled.

Gosh, It's Not Really Here

Not surprisingly the Prostitution State is also the Corruption State. AG Patrick Lynch has proposed legislation to make the latter illegal:

Amid the drumbeat of alleged public corruption scandals in Rhode Island, state legislators are considering a bill that would for the first time make it a felony to violate the public trust.

Currently — in what may be a surprise to the average Rhode Islander — the state well versed in public corruption has no law that makes such behavior illegal. State and local officials can be charged with bribery or embezzlement and a variety of related charges, but not with outright corruption. ...

The proposed law is modeled on the federal statute that was enacted in 1988, and would apply to public servants at all levels — from elected officials to state, municipal and contract employees. ...

The proposed law is modeled on the federal statute that was enacted in 1988, and would apply to public servants at all levels — from elected officials to state, municipal and contract employees.

Possible Reduction Versus Mandatory Revocation

Commenter Pragmatist notes, in response to my post suggesting the withholding of pensions to the politically corrupt, that such a law already exists. But the Public Employee Pension Revocation and Reduction Act merely makes it possible for the state to take away a pension (or reduce it):

(c) In any civil action under this chapter for the revocation or reduction of retirement or other benefits or payments, the superior court shall determine:

(i) Whether the public employee has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any crime related to his or her public office or public employment and, if so;

(ii) Whether the retirement or other benefits or payments to which the public official or public employee is otherwise entitled should be revoked or diminished and, if so;

(iii) In what amount or by what proportion such revocation or reduction should be ordered.

(2) In rendering its decision hereunder, the superior court shall consider and address each of the following factors:

(i) The fact that the allowance of retirement or other benefits or payments for service under this title, under title 16, under title 45, under title 8, under chapter 30 of title 28, under chapter 43 of title 31, and under chapter 28 of title 42 presumes and requires that the service shall have been honorably rendered;

(ii) The severity of the crime related to public office or public employment of which the public official or public employee has been convicted or to which the public official or public employee has pled guilty or nolo contendere;

(iii) The amount of monetary loss suffered by the public official's or public employee's employer or by any other person as a result of the subject crime related to public office or public employment;

(iv) The degree of public trust reposed in the subject public official or public employee by virtue of his or her public office or public employment; and

(v) Any such other factors as, in the judgment of the superior court, justice may require.

One can imagine an understandable tendency, when faced with an aging employee whose crime might have been one of casually slipping into negligence over the years, toward mitigation under this law. What I'm talking about is a mandatory revocation of pensions whenever the corruption extends beyond a certain dollar and effect limit. (Using a public vehicle to move furniture once in a career wouldn't count, but spending a year's worth of afternoons at the local bar would.)

Incentive Against Corruption

The latest instance of corruption and abuse of position in RI government gave me an idea for legislation:

The Rhode Island State Police have charged a Department of Administration employee with felony embezzlement for allegedly stealing cash from the agency.

The police said an investigation revealed that longtime state employee Patricia Pirolli, 59, of 15 Hill St., North Providence, on several occasions over the past year took unspecified amounts of money that had been collected as registration fees and fines by the department’s Contractors' Registration and Licensing Board.

In her role as chief implementation aide in the Division of Capital Projects and Property Management, Pirolli was responsible for processing the checks, cash and accompanying vouchers after they were collected by clerks.

The state police said once the money and paperwork were turned over to Pirolli she would remove the cash and alter the vouchers to reflect only check payments received for deposit. ...

She has served in her position at the DOA for about four years.

Neal could not provide further details about her prior employment with the state, saying a computer system needed to access that information was unavailable.

So how about a law that would strip government officials and public employees of all claims to pensions if they're convicted of corruption (which would have to be defined in the law)? It might sound draconian for "slipping up" after many years of honest service, but it takes consequences to counterbalance temptation.

Burn Down the Mission Courthouse

Well, this is a no-brainer:

Rep. Raymond C. Church has filed legislation rescinding legislative approval granted last year for a new courthouse in the Blackstone Valley, saying the state shouldn't be borrowing money for large projects when grappling with huge deficits.

"At a time when the state is trying to identify money to close a budget deficit of $171.9 million in the current fiscal year and a structural deficit of $412.3 million next year, it doesn't make sense to take on more debt," said Representative Church, a Democrat who represents District 48 in North Smithfield and Burrillville. "Now is just not the time to start a new project like this. Instead we should be looking for ways we can save money, and not building this courthouse will save about $7 million a year for the next 20 years.

The courthouse, which was approved as part of the state budget for the current fiscal year with funding to begin in Fiscal Year 2009, is estimated to cost about $70 million. If the state were to sell 20-year bonds to finance the project, it would likely double the total cost to $140 million.

Another no-brainer is the ouster of any legislator who actually votes against canceling the courthouse.

Being the Homework

Judging from the Providence Journal's letters section, social work students at Rhode Island College have been given the assignment of denouncing Bill Felkner's January 13 op-ed. Amanda Eyes is the latest "candidate for a master's degree in social work" to make the opinion page, and she contributes the following interesting statistic:

The problem with dialogue about public policy is that few are willing to share the full story. Finding a job in Rhode Island that pays enough to support a family without more than a high-school diploma or its equivalent is impossible. Without some form of post-secondary education or training, minimum-wage jobs are the only option (thanks to many of the manufacturing jobs that are now overseas). According to the Poverty Institute’s published document, the 2006 Rhode Island Standard of Need, the cost of basic necessities, food, clothing, health care, transportation, housing and child care for a family of four requires an annual income of $60,000, or $28.85 an hour.

I'll testify, as the breadwinner for a family of five who makes quite a bit less than $60,000 per year, that this standard of need is probably pretty accurate. Does that make me a candidate for welfare and special programs? I certainly hope not; if such families line up for public handouts, who would be left to finance them?

As I keep endeavoring to explain, that income line is the entry level of the group that is fleeing Rhode Island. They do not want handouts (they couldn't live on them anyway); they want opportunity, and the only way to provide that is to get the public sector out of the way.

Lucre for Legislators

Yesterday's Political Scene shouldn't fly under the MLK Day radar:

Sen. John J. Tassoni Jr., D-Smithfield, was paid $92,606 last year as senior business agent for the largest state employees union: Council 94 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Senate Majority Whip Dominick Ruggerio, D-Providence, was paid $181,041 in salary and benefits as the administrator of an arm of the Laborers International Union known as the New England Laborers Employers Cooperation and Education Trust. ...

On Friday, [Laborers lawyer Darren] Corrente said [Paul E.] Moura [D-East Providence] received $107,323 in pay and benefits from his employer, and [Frank] Ciccone [D-Providence], $151,558 in compensation from the District Council, and $22,944 from Local 808.

Sen. Beatrice Lanzi, D-Cranston, was paid $61,485 as the director of "labor community services" for the United Way of Rhode Island.

MetLife Auto & Home paid close to $50,000 in commissions to insurance agencies where two lawmakers work: $12,566 to Sen. David Bates, R-Barrington, and $35,751 to Rep. William San Bento, D-Pawtucket.

The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company has paid out more than $100,000 in commissions and legal fees for "representing injured workers" to a half-dozen lawmakers, including: $75,435 in legal fees and a $2,398 dividend to Warwick Sen. John C. Revens Jr.’s law office; $2,250 in legal fees to Pawtucket Sen. John F. McBurney III’s law office; a $14,244 agency commission to Bates; $9,220 in legal fees to the law office of Sen. Paul V. Jabour, D-Providence; a $255.82 dividend to San Bento's insurance agency and a $260 "dividend" to Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva-Weed's law firm, Moore, Virgadamo & Lynch.

The Lifespan Hospital network paid $62,686 in salary to former Rep. Peter Ginaitt, and $17,148 under a "yearly pharmaceutical contract" with the Pawtuxet Valley Prescription & Surgical Center owned by Sen. Leo Blais, R-Coventry, who in September sought U.S. Bankruptcy Court protection for the company.

Rep. Elizabeth Dennigan, D-East Providence, who is both a lawyer and emergency-room nurse, was paid $15,602 by the Care New England hospital network.

The New England Cable and Telecommunications Association disclosed spending $1,060 on a dinner held last July at LaForge Casino, the Newport restaurant owned by the late Rep. Paul Crowley. Rhode Island Housing disclosed two dinners totaling $235.59 at Local 121, the popular downtown Providence eatery owned by Sen. Josh Miller.

It's curious how Crowley managed to cull that information away from something that he wanted to highlight. It's almost as if he'd rather keep his audience in the dark.

A Question of Process

Kenny Cicerone, whom I mentioned last week, has some specific allegations against local politicians in North Providence (with details likely to be found on his Web sites) and a question that Anchor Rising readers might be able to answer:

How does an individual or group go about filing ethics complaints against elected officials?

Putting Out Fire Code Flare-Ups on a Discretionary Basis

Any softening of Rhode Island's new wish-list fire code are welcome, but this seems a little too typical of the state's operating practices to inspire comfort:

Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano testified at an open hearing on the code regulation changes that was held last September, to re-emphasize the Senate's position that the code changes do not require General Assembly action.

"The Senate has maintained that this Board has the power and obligation to address implementation issues that arise relative to Rhode Island's updated fire safety code," said President Montalbano at that September hearing. "You (the board) have the ability to analyze technical public testimony, and the guidelines of the Administrative Procedures Act, to formulate a fair and consistent resolution to many of the issues at hand. Any further legislative changes should be viewed solely as a last resort, and only after all regulatory powers are exhausted."

So, after the Station Nightclub fire (for which not a single public official was pegged with any culpability), the legislature enacted a criminally arduous fire code, and now it is giving the unelected RI Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review the power to ease the severity for specific parties or groups at its own discretion. Here's a question: Will the board be held liable if it grants an exception or other form of "relief" and the recipient of that leniency has the tragic misfortune of hosting a fatal conflagration?

Blue Cross: Who Is Holding the Bag?

In mid-November, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island applied for a 12% rate increase of its direct pay (i.e., non-group) products. Public hearings have been under way.

On December 13, 2007, US Attorney Robert Clark Corrente announced that as a part of Operation Dollar Bill, his office had reached an agreement with Blue Cross "under which the insurer will pay $20 million to resolve matters related to the government’s ongoing public corruption investigation" but that Blue Cross will not "seek any rate increases specifically to recoup the $20 million."

In a Providence Business News article posted December 13, 2007, however, the President of Blue Cross, James E. Purcell states that:

"The actual negotiations have been over the past several months and we concluded them just the other day.”

So Blue Cross was fully cognizent when it applied for this rate hike that it was facing a hefty monetary penalty.

Blue Cross is a non-profit organization. Its prime source of revenue is subscribers. If expenses rise, rates rise. Expenses rose in 2007 by $20million.

Is the substantial fine a part of the reason for the present rate hike request? Is a similarly motivated rate hike request for Blue Cross' other products in the works?

Blue Cross filings in support of the rate hike request lay out an elaborate case that the hike is or will be needed to maintain its reserves. Really? Affidavits by officers, directors and managers of Blue Cross that proceedings from this rate increase will not go towards the $20million fine or to replace existing monies that went to the $20million are not to be found among the filings. On that basis alone, the Health Insurance Commissioner must deny this rate increase request. In fact, unless and until the US Attorney's office reconsiders the $20million fine or correctly redirects it to the guilty parties, the Commissioner has no choice but to deny all future rate increase requests by Blue Cross.

Otherwise, Blue Cross subscribers will be left holding the wrong bag for the brown bag activity of Blue Cross.

The Hole We're In

And the people who keep digging. That's what my latest Providence Journal piece is about. As I said the other day: We're in a race to move the state toward change before the four groups I describe in the op-ed manage to force too many others beyond its borders.

We Might Have to Start Another Evidence Box

Maybe we can plug the state deficit with Ethics Commission fines:

The Ethics Commission voted yesterday to prosecute state senator and union official Frank Ciccone on two charges, but dropped five other charges that his votes in the General Assembly amounted to ethics violations because they benefited unions he works for.

The decision means that in at least some circumstances, union officials who are members of the General Assembly can support legislation that benefits their unions. But commission Chairman James Lynch Sr. said that "this is not a blanket endorsement" for similar actions, and that the commission will deal with future cases one at a time.

The two charges the commission voted to prosecute relate to Ciccone's failure to publicly disclose his income from the Rhode Island Laborers' District Council of the Laborers International Union of North America — where he is president and a field representative and the union's Local Union 808, where he is business manager — for 2005 and 2006.

The Senator claims that it was a "mistake." You know, sort of like just happening to wind up with a half-billion dollar (and climbing) budget shortfall.

Consistency of the Mess We're In

A sure indication that Rhode Islanders are in for a beating? The folks who are in a position to ease the pain of our collapse and recovery have to "talk" about stuff like this:

William R. Guglietta, chief legal counsel for the House Democratic majority leader, is tentatively scheduled to be sworn in as chief magistrate of the Traffic Tribunal next month, but he might not end up with the power to appoint other traffic court magistrates, at least not for long.

State officials are now talking about giving that power to Governor Carcieri or Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams.

The General Assembly created the chief magistrate’s job earlier this year after removing the Traffic Tribunal from under Chief District Judge Albert E. DeRobbio. In doing so, the Assembly gave the chief magistrate a base salary of $132,062, a 10-year term and the power to appoint other Traffic Tribunal magistrates.

Our government officials are clearly in need of a workshop on the concept of "separation of powers" when even the good-government side would allow the executive branch to be left out of the appointment process. As Keven McKenna puts it, "If anybody doesn’t deserve more unconstitutional power, it’s Frank Williams." The chief justice is the poster child for affronts to separation (emphasis added):

Williams, who selected Guglietta for the chief magistrate's job, wrote back to Watson and Gorham on Monday, saying, "I fully understand your concern about these appointments. Allowing the Chief Justice to make such appointments would remedy this concern and provide for uniformity of the magistrate appointment process within the courts. We are presently in the process of working on legislation to address this and other issues relating to magistrates." ...

On Nov. 21, Williams issued an executive order stating that "all magistrates shall be required to take an oath of office and file a written engagement prior to undertaking their duties." The order said, "The oath shall be administered by the appointing authority upon written notice to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

Rhode Islanders ought to be getting pretty tired of hearing the phrase "uniformity and consistency" coming from within the halls of our government. More often than not, it seems to mean uniformity of oligarchical power and consistency of policy with their personal preferences and interests.

Guess We're Stuck with It, Then

Could there be a better expression of Rhode Island's erroneous mentality than EMT's comment to Marc's post on the triple-dipper union fireman?

So why is this only OK for union presidents who don't rock the boat?

All you conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that Cicilline didn't feed this straight to the Journal, who are trying to anoint him Governor?

He broke no laws, and he can't even be brought up on department charges because it's been past practice- a key labor law term.

The State Police laughed this out of their office. It's only an issue because the mayor is desperate for leverage against a union that his yes-man Farrell can't dictate to.

I suspect I'm not alone among Anchor Rising types in not caring how this information came to light and in not believing that the same behavior used to be OK.

It's a travesty that it's taking the utter collapse of the state's finances to spur this sort of intra-insider contention. That it appears unique against the historical backdrop indicates how out of kilter Rhode Islnd's public sector has been. Such political wrangling is built into our system precisely to make it in everybody's interest to watch for excesses from everybody else.

It's disheartening that even relatively reasonable pro-union folks can't bring themselves to see the fault in Doughty's behavior.

From the Department of Things You Can't Make Up

A gentleman by the name of John B. Webster has identified a line of business he thinks will be successful in Rhode Island: providing "incarceration assistance" to white collar criminals. From the Chicago Sun Times…

When John B. Webster was convicted in 2001 for lying to the FBI, he lost his law license and his freedom -- but gained a new career.

Webster is part of a small, specialized industry that advises white-collar criminals heading to the pen….

Webster, 48, who served 13 months for reporting a bogus death threat, has provided "incarceration assistance" to more than 40 people though his company, National Prison & Sentencing Consultants, based in Rhode Island.

I wonder what he thinks the advantages of setting up shop in the Ocean State are.

UPDATED - RE: Same as the old Boss?

Ian Donnis weighs in with a bit more on the RI Foundation and how it funnels money--donated anonymously--to help fund Providence Mayor Cicilline's administration:

Cianci had departing Rhode Island Foundation chieftain Ron Gallo on his show yesterday. Just a few moments ago, Cianci pointed to how conflicts could arise from the foundation's funding arrangement for Simmon's salary.

In particular, Cianci asserted that GTECH may be contributing to the related fund at the foundation, and he noted how Donald R. Sweitzer, a senior VP at GTECH, is a Democratic fundraiser. (Btw, as I first reported, Mike Mello, Cicilline's former chief of staff, took a job overseen by Sweitzer.)

I need to declare a mea culpa here. Steve Aveson asked me about the Simmons-RI Foundation issue during the roundtable portion of today's taping of Newsmakers. In noting the tension between Cicilline and Yorke, and how Simmons is professionally well-regarded, I concluded that this isn't a huge deal. After thinking about it a bit more, I've changed my mind.

The element of anonymity in funding Simmons's salary is at odds with the good government/transparency philsophy espoused by Cicilline, and it does create at least the potential for conflicts.

UPDATE: Dan Yorke has obtained a few documents related to this issue. First, here are the first two pages (pg.1, pg.2) of the contract between the Providence Fund and Providence city hall Director of Administration John Simmons, which outlines a $3,500/month stipend from the Providence Fund to Simmons. Here are the first two pages (pg.1, pg.2) of the employment agreement between John Simmons and the City of Providence, which stipulates that Simmons will be paid $120,000 for the first year (2003) with $5K raises in year 2 and 3. Currently, Simmons makes around $150,000.

Please note: the salary/compensation numbers in the above documents don't square with the numbers outlined in my previous post, which were based on my own research and those given by other sources. For my part, I used the Director of Administration salary as a base when Simmons is actually the Chief of Administration. I don't know the intricacies of Providence City Government and it appears as if these may be different positions.

UPDATE II: In fact, Simmons was originally hired as a consultant with the title Chief of Administration. Additionally, Dan Yorke cited a 2005 ProJo story by Cathleen Crowley that I found via ProQuest (See extended entry). And now Ian Donnis is reporting that Simmons' salary is now paid for entirely by the City of Providence, though Karen Southern, spokeswoman for Mayor Cicilline, "was unable to identify specifically when the foundation stopped contributing to Simmons' compensation." The question still remains (as the story below shows): who was the single contributor that supported Simmons' salary boost? Here's the relevant excerpt:

When Cicilline was elected, he hired Simmons as a consultant. Cicilline enlisted the Rhode Island Foundation to help pay for Simmons' work and to finance other projects. The foundation created the Providence Government Restructuring Fund, now called the Fund for Providence.

"David Cicilline said, "What I need is some really significant outside assistance, some great advice, some independent review of the structure of city government before I take office,' " said Rick Schwartz, spokesman for the Rhode Island Foundation. "And lots of folks contributed."

About 37 institutions and individuals donated to the fund, including Fleet Bank, Citizens Bank, the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, Narragansett Electric, Verizon, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Elizabeth and Malcolm Chace, Alan Hassenfeld and Frederick Lippitt.

The foundation reviews requests from the city and approves payments, Schwartz said.

"The structure [Cicilline] set up shielded any of the contributors from looking like the old days, which was 'Well, of course we are going to contribute to this because it will do us some good,' " he said.

After six months as a consultant, Cicilline asked Simmons to join the staff as chief of administration.

"Personally, for me to come here, I needed a level of compensation and the mayor was able to get it partially through the city and partially through the Fund for Providence," Simmons said last week.

Cicilline asked the Rhode Island Foundation to help augment Simmons' salary by $42,000 a year and the foundation agreed. In order to avoid any conflict of interest, Schwartz said the foundation found a contributor that didn't have any business before the city and earmarked that donation for Simmons' salary.

"I don't even know who it is," Simmons said.

The foundation refused to identify the source of the donation, saying the contributor wanted to remain anonymous. Schwartz said the donor is a family foundation.

"It's a well-known family. We can't think of any connections to the city that they would benefit from in any way," he said.

Simmons said he answers to the mayor, and nobody else.

Here is the entire story from 2005:

PROVIDENCE - City workers received 1.5-percent raises late last year, but Mayor David N. Cicilline increased the salaries of some of his own staff by 5 percent to 37 percent earlier this month.

The raises are aimed at holding onto talented people, the mayor's office said.

Cicilline increased the salary of John C. Simmons, chief of administration 6 percent, from $126,900 to $135,000, and the salary for Carol J. Grant, chief of operations, rose 9 percent, from $111,650 to $121,800, which brought her to the same pay as Michael Mello, chief of staff .

Simmon's salary is augmented by $42,000 a year, from a local, nonprofit foundation; Simmon's total annual pay is $177,000, which is $52,000 higher than the mayor's salary.

Unlike the salaries of other city workers -- which are designated by ordinance -- the mayor is allotted a pool of money for salaries that he can divvy up as he sees fit.

The city's internal auditor, James J. Lombardi III, was critical of the raises, although he acknowledged that the mayor remained within his budget. At a time when the city is trying to control costs, the mayor's raises are inappropriate, said Lombardi, who was particularly bothered by the increases given to the mayor's top deputies who already earn more than $100,000.

"These raises send the wrong message to the rank and file employees, and the taxpayer, who do not receive these exorbitant increases," Lombardi said.

The mayor gave several lower-paid employees raises, but Lombardi did not question those.

Nine of Cicilline's 31 staffers received raises above the city- wide 1.5 percent. Two switchboard operators received 5-percent raises, increasing their salaries from $30,450 to $32,000; and two administrative aides received 23-percent raises, increasing from $30,450 to $38,500. The salary for the director of special events increased from $47,500 to $50,000.

The deputy chief of staff, Christopher J. Bizzacco, received a 37- percent raise, jumping from $47,500 to $65,000.

"Chris works 18-hour days, he works day and night, seven days a week for the city," said Karen Southern, spokeswoman for the mayor's office.

The raises were retroactive to September.

Southern said the salaries for the high-level staff members help the city attract and keep talented people.

"It was important for the mayor to hire the best and the brightest for his administration," Southern said. "These are people would be receiving a much higher salary in the private sector."

The mayor was on vacation for several days and was not available for comment.

Grant is a former vice president of human resources for Textron. She was a vice president at Nynex, now Verizon, where she was responsible for 900 employees serving 650,000 customers.

Simmons is no stranger to Providence. He served as director of administration under former Mayor Joseph R. Paolino Jr. and has served as the state's deputy general treasurer for finance. He was chief financial officer for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino before he started a consulting company. He has 25 years experience in government administration.

When Cicilline was elected, he hired Simmons as a consultant. Cicilline enlisted the Rhode Island Foundation to help pay for Simmons' work and to finance other projects. The foundation created the Providence Government Restructuring Fund, now called the Fund for Providence.

"David Cicilline said, "What I need is some really significant outside assistance, some great advice, some independent review of the structure of city government before I take office,' " said Rick Schwartz, spokesman for the Rhode Island Foundation. "And lots of folks contributed."

About 37 institutions and individuals donated to the fund, including Fleet Bank, Citizens Bank, the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, Narragansett Electric, Verizon, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Elizabeth and Malcolm Chace, Alan Hassenfeld and Frederick Lippitt.

The foundation reviews requests from the city and approves payments, Schwartz said.

"The structure [Cicilline] set up shielded any of the contributors from looking like the old days, which was 'Well, of course we are going to contribute to this because it will do us some good,' " he said.

After six months as a consultant, Cicilline asked Simmons to join the staff as chief of administration.

"Personally, for me to come here, I needed a level of compensation and the mayor was able to get it parti