There are practical steps to make the legislature reform itself (with or without rules changes), but Rhode Islanders and their direct representatives will have to prove their interest.
People inside and outside of Rhode Island government really do live in alternate universes, and it’s up to the people to make their representatives admit it.
I like Speaker Mattiello’s talk about being pro-business and wanting to improve the economy but I think he may already be contradicting himself when he says he wants to give power back to the members of the House while also saying he may not have time to consider certain issues.
An ethical government is critical for a healthy society, and the burden of enforcing it ultimately falls on the voters. If unethical officials can get reelected without fail, then imposing small fines on their behavior is simply a cost of doing business. In that context, as I’ve said before, advisory opinions from an official Ethics Commission can become a mechanism for approving all corruption up to a line.
But what about that line?
Writing about the new Speaker of the House’s professed emphasis on jobs and the economy, Providence Journal columnist Ed Fitzpatrick argues that strong ethics laws have an effect on such matters, too:
“You can’t convince me that being in The New York Times two days in a row for an FBI raid on the State House sends the right message about the way we do business in Rhode Island,” John M. Marion, Common Cause Rhode Island executive director, said. …
I’d argue that restoring Ethics Commission power is not about progressive or conservative government; it’s about good government. I’d argue that ethics and openness are directly tied to the main priorities — jobs and the economy.
Whatever the effect of New York Times coverage, would a restored Ethics Commission have prevented the FBI raid? I don’t think so. After all, the commission did recently manage to fine the FBI’s target.
I’m not saying that legislators should be immune to the Ethics Commission; they shouldn’t. But we have to be careful about seeing the Bureaucracy of Ethics as a magic pill.
For context, I’ll admit that I’m currently down on the Ethics Commission as an agency. I’ll soon be elaborating on the reasons, but for now, I’ll summarize that it has to do with the complete lack of protection it offers residents of Rhode Island when the conflicts of interest they’re fighting are entirely within government. Conflicts of interest one step into the shadows are entirely invisible to the commission’s government lawyers.
In a separate op-ed, Marion suggests that the Ethics Commission’s advice “protects” citizens and legislators both. I think that’s incorrect, at least if the citizenry isn’t willing to protect itself, and if the commission’s understanding of ethics is as skewed as the legislators’.
Rhode Islanders who want their state to turn around from the back of the national pack and forge a more hopeful future should give the new Speaker of the House space to prove their expectations wrong.
Past: It was difficult to look at the (unsuccessful) Marcello coalition and believe they were offering reform, as much as they were offering a refashioned oligarchy to replace the old one.
Present: Here are three specific proposals for rules reform, consistent with Speaker Mattiello’s call for a House of Representatives that is truly run by its members:
Future: Trying to downplay the serious differences and avoid explaining the errors of progressivism and the excesses of unionism in order to ease the process of political coalition building isn’t likely to stop the progressives from immediately coming after Speaker Mattiello, or the unions from shifting their support elsewhere, if they don’t get their top agenda items. With the help of some standard-issue Rhode Island political inertia, the new Speaker may be able to maintain the coalition he has assembled for a time, but to prevent it from being whittled away, he will need to resolutely work at convincing a broad swath of Rhode Islanders about why his version of “jobs and the economy” is superior to competing versions which have strong constituencies amongst activists in the Democratic party.
Michael Barone reports the findings of Canadian economist Livio De Matteo, who says that the optimal size of government — in terms of economic growth — is 26% of GDP. Having not investigated how De Matteo gets to that number, I can’t say whether it’s unreasonably high or even too low, but out of curiosity: How do we stack up in Rhode Island?
Given available data, 2011 is a good year to check, and it looks like the following:
That list misses some stuff, such as fire district taxes and municipal revenue not included in the levy. (I went with levy rather than budget because much of the additional spending would double-count federal dollars.)
Duly noting the minor tweaks, that list totals to $18.12 billion, or 37% of the state’s $49.42 billion GDP that year. Government is 41% to big in Rhode Island. Put differently, optimal economic growth would require the three tiers of government to cut their Rhode Island–related budgets by $5.27 billion.
That’s a big number that nobody would expect to realize, but it kind of puts in context the few hundred million dollars that the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity projects to be the cost of eliminating the sales tax, doesn’t it?
As Justin earlier noted, Senator Joshua Miller was recorded on camera and audio (possibly also to the dismay of Rep. Dickinson) saying an expletive to a person commenting about the Second Amendment. I don’t have anything to add there, but my question now is whether the Senate will look into it themselves. I wonder this […]
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, listed in the Bill of Rights, reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What say you, Rhode Island Senator Joshua Miller (D, Cranston, Providence) (language warning)?
The primary problem with this sort of talk from an elected official is that it erodes Rhode Islanders’ confidence that their government works for them, even when the people currently in power happen to disagree on particular issues. If we don’t insist on some minimum standard of conduct, then Rhode Island deserves the government it gets.
Credit to Dan Bidondi for posting the video and being one of Rhode Island’s willing targets.
(Updated with Miller’s apology at the link.)
The legislative grants that the Rhode Island General Assembly gives to its leadership teams in both chambers for leverage and public relations perks are a favorite complaint of Rhode Island reformers. It looks a lot like leadership uses them to buy support from our reps and senators, who in turn use them to buy support and good will in their communities.
So with the question being knocked back and forth of who is the “reform” candidate to replace Gordon Fox as Speaker of the House — Nicholas Mattiello (D, Cranston) or Michael Marcello (D, Cranston, Scituate) — I thought it might be interesting to follow my quick review of campaign finance reports with an even quicker review of their legislative grant requests, as they currently stand.
As of January 1st, Mattiello had requested (and received) $11,250 for CLCF Baseball, Day One, and Oaklawn Grange #42. Marcello had requested (but not received) $18,000 across 21 different organizations, mainly in his district.
That Mattiello has received more only tells us where he stood with Gordon Fox. That Marcello requested 60% more only tells us that he’s comfortable with the practice. It might tell us that he’s more comfortable with it than Mattiello, or maybe being majority leader meant that Mattiello didn’t feel a need to get all of his in right away.
And so it goes; you could make as much of the specific grants as you want, or not. You could infer one thing from the fact that Marcello wanted $5,000 for fire departments, but you could infer quite another from the fact that they’re all volunteer departments. The most important fact, however, is probably simply that they happen to be in his district.
The most important metric that I’ve found remains gauging Rhode Island progressives’ dislike of Mattiello, as expressed on Twitter. If you’ve got a finger in the air, that’s a strong, cold blast.
1. Several bills intended to delay or prevent the use of standardized testing as a graduation requirement in Rhode Island public schools (S Education; Wed, Mar 26)…
2. H7540: Salary controls for certain hospital personnel, excluding licensed doctors and nurses (leaving administrators, I presume), limiting them “to a rate of compensation greater than one hundred and ten percent (110%) of the amount determined annually by the director to constitute the northeast regional average compensation level for comparable personnel serving in comparable hospitals”. (H Corporations; Tue, Mar 25)
3. H7623 requires at least 15% of the work done on public works contracts of a million dollars or more to be done by apprentices. H7697 changes a current requirement that contractors working on public works contracts of a million dollars or more employ apprentices to a much milder requirement that “all specifications in any invitations to bid in any public works contract awarded by the state valued at ten million dollars or more shall include a notice that all bidders responding to an invitation to bid on a public works project may employ apprentices for apprenticeable crafts”. H7964 makes clear the Federal rules override state rules regarding apprenticeship requirements on state contracts of a million dollars or more. (H Labor; Tue, Mar 25)
4. S2594: Creates a new section of the law relating to “crimes against the public trust”. (S Judiciary; Tue, Mar 25) With the recent Federal Court decision making bribery-on-retainer legal in Rhode Island, the Judiciary Committee should go over this bill with a fine tooth comb, to make sure it covers the type of “gratuities” that transpired in the Central Falls Mayor’s case.
5. S2653: Defines four elements that must be satisfied in order to establish “criminal intent” with respect to laws that do not have their own specific criminal intent requirements (S Judiciary; Tue, Mar 25) The fourth of the four requirements is that a person act “with either specific intent to violate the law or with knowledge that the person’s conduct is unlawful”. Doesn’t this run counter to centuries of legal tradition, where ignorance of the law is not an excuse?
6. A set of bills on various types of computer-related crimes: H7456 modifies the basic definitions of cyberstalking and cyberharrasment; H7509 makes it a felony to access protected information on a computer without the proper authorization; H7845 creates a felony crime of online impersonation. (H Judiciary; Tue, Mar 25)
Real reformers in the General Assembly would advocate for a more deliberative and public process of electing a new Speaker of the House.
What if the RI House of Representatives worked as hard to put Rhode Islanders back to work as they are to fill the recently vacated Speaker position? Why don’t they work this much to get everyone working? It’s a real shame on them.
Yesterday, the U.S. Attorney, the R.I. State Police, the FBI and the IRS executed search warrants on the State House office and home of Speaker Gordon Fox. From a picture tweeted out yesterday by the Providence Journal, it appears that part of the door to his professional office on Custom House was boarded up. It’s […]
1A. H7444: Requires that the town/city council and school committee of every municipality to be served by a propsed mayoral academy charter school give explicit approval, before the mayoral academy can open. (H Health, Education and Welfare; Tue, Mar 18)
1B. H7495: Requires that students be randomly assigned to mayoral academies, i.e. instead of a lottery being held to award slots to students who have first applied for mayoral academy admission, admissions lotteries will include all students who are geographically eligible to attend a mayoral academy. (H Health, Education and Welfare; Tue, Mar 18) The sponsors of this bill are unintentionally providing some keen insight into progressive education ideology — once something like a system of Mayoral academies calls into question progressive notions of education-focused structural education reform being impossible, people must be prevented from being allowed to actively choose to participate in successful reforms, or else they will start to entertain silly ideas that they can help themselves in ways other than supporting ever-increasing funding for traditional government bureaucracies.
2. On Tuesday, March 18 the House Judiciary Committee will hear this year’s raft of firearms related bills. They are all listed in the separate post below.
3. On Wednesday, March 19, the House Finance Committee will hold its hearing on the “Health Benefits Exchange” (see p. 65 here).
4A. H7569: Extends the ten-cent cap on the Sakonnet River Bridge toll for a whopping three months, from April 1, 2014 to July 1, 2014. (H Finance; Tue, Mar 18 & S Finance; Tue, Mar 18) Simultaneous hearings suggest that the GA is in a hurry to get this one through.
4B. H7432: Eliminates tolls on the Sakonnet River Bridge, replacing the anticipated revenue with a multi-part formula requiring that fixed percentages of the total state budget be annually appropriated to a “transportation infrastructure fund”. Also, adds a temporary (still HAHAHAHAHAHAHAing over this) 5% surcharge to motor vehicle fees to help initially seed the infrastructure fund. Also, if a Federal internet sales tax is adopted, instead of the RI sales tax dropping from 7% to 6.5%, as is specified in current law, the sales tax would only drop to 6.625%, with the 0.125% difference going to the infrastructure fund. Also, creates a study commission to look at eliminating the gas tax. (H Finance; Tue, Mar 18) Gary Sasse of the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership has tweeted positively about at least the concept of this bill, which is a point in its favor. However, I’m still skeptical of a bill that calls for new borrowing right away, promising to pay it back with a new multi-part process in future years.
2. On Tuesday, March 18 the House Judiciary Committee will hear this year’s raft of firearms related bills. Here’s the whole list (plus one bill that’s not there)…
Allowing a rare moment of agreement, Bob Plain’s got a great catch on RI Future:
Governor Chafee’s proposed budget would give $341,488 [in library aid] to Barrington and $17,569 to Central Falls. That’s because state library aid is appropriated based on a library’s budget rather than its need.
Put differently, because a community is able and willing to use more local money for its library, the state gives it more assistance. I join Bob in thinking that’s not really the way tax dollars should be apportioned.
Of course, if we take the next step and ask what ought to be done about it, we’d probably be back to disagreement. I suspect the position of Bob and the Progressives would be that the state ought to bring poorer communities’ total library budgets up to the amount that wealthier communities are able to support. If Barrington’s library operates with $1.5 million and Central Falls’ library operates with $165,000, one can almost hear them thinking that the state should give Central Falls another $1.3 million.
I’d go the other way. Clearly, a town that can come up with over $1 million for its library (and it really is a nice library) doesn’t need help from state-level taxpayers. The total amount of state library aid, in other words, ought to be cut.
I’ve mentioned before that national experts who’ve testified before Rhode Island legislative committees have been astonished at the lack of decorum. Attend committee hearings on a regular basis, track legislation for a couple of sessions, and it’s difficult not to conclude that the entire process is designed mainly to make people feel as if there is a process — as if public input really could affect the laws under which we live.
But if nothing ever comes of the testimony, then the task of legislators is mainly to look attentive while lobbyists go through the motions and Rhode Islanders offer sincere, nervous, and useless testimony about things that matter to them. Sometimes the lack of weight shows through.
On Tuesday, having waited an hour and a half to give the House Committee on Labor the perspective of some research from the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, which he runs and for which I work, Mike Stenhouse was offering a quick summary of his written testimony. (Listening to the March 11 audio available here, it’s clear the committee didn’t have much patience for him to put his full testimony on the recording.)
The image of the typical minimum wage worker as a struggling single parent is false, he explained. Most are “young kids” looking for supplemental income, living with their parents in households that have family incomes over $61,000.
This was too much for chairwoman Anastasia Williams (D, Providence), who interrupted: “Are you joking? Are you standing in front of my committee joking me, right?”
Stenhouse was courteous enough not to point out that it’s not “her” committee, but the people’s. Instead he informed her that the Providence Journal’s PolitiFact team had recently investigated his statement and found it True.
When Stenhouse finished, Williams proceeded to mock his organization and then appeared to have forgotten what legislation they were discussing:
Well, first and foremost, seeing that you are here representing this Freedom and whomever these folks are… Freedom and Prosperity for a certain class of people, my question to you would be, what does a retiree now… would have if unilaterally… umm… the… the… the… I’m trying to cool down here, this is like… pass.
You’ll know the state is ready to pull itself out of the gutter when voters start demanding that their “leaders” are at least better at pretending that they really do represent all of us.
H7837: Defines additional criminal penalties and civil remedies for assaults intended to interfere with “obtaining or providing reproductive health services” or with “exercising or seeking to exercise…[the] right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship”. (H Judiciary; Tue, Mar 11)
This bill does not go as far as the Massachusetts law currently being challenged at the US Supreme Court, which prohibits let’s-call-them “unauthorized” individuals from standing within 35 feet of the entrance of an abortion clinic; the first section of this bill applies only to actions which involve “force”, “the threat of force” or “physical obstruction” intended to interfere with “obtaining or providing reproductive health services”.
Supposedly the second section of the bill treats “force”, “the threat of force” or “physical obstruction” intended to interfere with the “right of religious freedom” on equal footing — but it doesn’t.
The protection while “obtaining or providing reproductive health services” does not mention any specific location, yet the protection for freedom of religion does. Protection for “religious freedom” is applied only at “a place of religious worship”, meaning that, for example, if someone wants to say a prayer before, during or after a rally at the statehouse, this particular law provides no barrier to someone else deciding to use the threat of force to intimidate them into not doing so.
The narrowing of the basic definition of religious freedom into something that only happens at places that the government decides are “places of religious worship” is an unacceptable and cynical component of this bill. Don’t fall for this bill being some sort of compromise.
1. On Tuesday, March 11 the House Judiciary Committee will hear a series of bills related to the issue of abortion:
2. Non-expiring contracts for municipal employees. H7464 says local contracts with police officers and firefighters would not expire “until such time as a successor agreement has been reached between the parties or an interest arbitration award has been rendered”; H7465 says municipal contracts with teachers and other municipal employees would not expire “until such time as a successor agreement has been reached between the parties”. (H Labor; Tue, Mar 11)
3. H7467: Allows retired police officers and firefighters to go to arbitration, to seek enforcement of the contract that was in place at the time they retired. (H Labor; Tue, Mar 11)
4. H7345: Allows cities and towns to issue bonds for an amounts up to 5% of their budgets to obtain loans from the “municipal road and bridge revolving fund administered by the Rhode Island clean water finance agency” without obtaining the approval of their electors, amended to allow this in calendar year 2014 only. (S2399 is the unamended version, which presumably will be amended during the committee hearing). (S Finance; Tue, Mar 11)
5. On Tuesday, March 11 the Senate Finance Committee will hear the HealthSource RI budget, i.e. the budget for Rhode Island’s state-funded Obamacare exchange (see p. 65 here). Also, on Wednesday, March 12 the House Finance Committee will hold its hearing on the departmental budget of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, which is the single largest major category in the state budget (about $2 billion, including state and Federal funds).
The proposed “settlement” of Rhode Island’s 2011 pension reform law (has anyone explained yet how a law can be mediated?) is currently in the hands of rank and file union members. If they give the green light (has anyone explained yet how a non-ballot can equal a “yes” vote?), it goes to the General Assembly for consideration.
But let’s go back to the 2011 pension reform itself. First, look at this three page PDF, compiled by the state of Rhode Island, which lists “Locally Administered Pension Plans in Critical Status”; i.e., municipal pension systems. See the note in the box on the bottom left of each page?
Maybe it’s just that the NBC 10 Wingmen segment is sitting me face to face with one on a weekly basis, but it has seemed like a certain refrain has become more common in the responses of Rhode Island progressives to conservative ideas: “The people of Rhode Island disagree with you.”
By way of evidence, they cite the makeup of the state’s legislative and executive branches, 90% and 100% Democrat, respectively. Throw in the federal delegation for another 100% blue block (not to be confused with Blu Blockers).
There are two obvious problems with this bit of non-argument. First, it confuses ideology and principle with partisanship. The majority in Rhode Island disagrees with conservatives on some things and agrees with us on others, yet somehow, that mixture doesn’t translate into a mixed-party State House. Rather, there are progressive Democrats, and there are conservative Democrats.
Second, it treats popularity as an argument. Even if every Rhode Islander disagreed with a person’s policy suggestions, that doesn’t mean that those suggestions are wrong or are not the wisest thing that the state could do, in a particular instance.
A third problem emerges with a poll that Bryant University’s Hassenfeld Institute released, this week, finding that 82% of Rhode Islanders would grade their legislators negatively for effectiveness. It should be noted, of course, that “effectiveness” doesn’t necessarily mean a difference of opinions. After all, RI progressives still manage to keep a straight face when calling the legislators “conservative.”
Still, the results suggest it’s mistaken to equate the output of the legislature, or even the elections, with the views of the population. In that respect, the poll results only reinforce what could be inferred from the low turnout for elections.
The emerging question — which is beginning to cross the threshold from private conversations to public speculation — is whether we’re living under a legitimate representative democracy. It sure does seem as if the public is tuned out and hopeless, sensing that nothing can be changed through civic processes.
That’s a dangerous place to be, if so, and reaffirming the rule of law and promise of democracy should be the very highest priority.
The poll results put out by the Hassenfeld Institute at Bryant University are unsurprising and really don’t tell us anything new.
On March 29th, from 9 am to 1 pm, the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant University, Roger Williams School of Law, League of Women Voters of Rhode Island and Common Cause Rhode Island will be hosting a symposium about Constitutional Conventions.
1. H7314: Requires a photo ID when using a food stamp benefits card. (H Health, Education and Welfare; Wed, Mar 5)
2. H7100 raises the amount of time served to be eligible for parole from 20 to 30 years in cases of 1st or 2nd degree murder life sentences, and from 10 to 20 years in cases of life sentences for other crimes. It also requires convicts serving consecutive sentences to serve their minimums consecutively. H7101 requires that 50% of any non-life sentence for 1st or 2nd degree murder to be served, before eligibility for parole. (H Judiciary; Wed, Mar 5)
3. S2335: Eliminates tolls on the Sakonnet River Bridge, replacing the anticipated revenue with a multi-part Rube Goldberg formula requiring that fixed percentages of the total state budget be annually appropriated to a “transportation infrastructure fund”. Also, adds a temporary HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 5% surcharge to motor vehicle fees to help initially seed the infrastructure fund. Also, if a Federal internet sales tax is adopted, instead of the RI sales tax dropping from 7% to 6.5%, as is specified in current law (but which the governor would like to change as part of his budget, see #14), the sales tax would only drop to 6.625%, with the 0.125% difference going to the infrastructure fund. Also, creates a study commission to look at eliminating the gas tax. (S Finance; Thu, Mar 6)
4. H7463: “Except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds, neither the state nor any municipality shall require an employer to use an electronic employment verification system…as a condition of receiving a government contract or applying for or maintaining a business license”. (H Labor; Tue, Mar 4)
5A. H7189: “The information contained in a portable electronic device shall not be subject to search by a law enforcement officer incident to a lawful custodial arrest except pursuant to a warrant”. (H Judiciary; Tue, Mar 4) The same bill was vetoed by Governor Chafee two years ago, which was a little surprising, since it seems like a reasonable extension of privacy law and something you’d expect a reflexive liberal like our current Governor to immediately support. This year, I’ve come across a similar bill from New Hampshire that’s been described as part of an anti-NSA surveillance movement. Is the Rhode Island version also consciously associated with NSA-related issues?
5B. H7190: Prohibits the state (or any political subdivisions thereof) from obtaining location information transmitted by a cellphone without a warrant. The bill includes procedures for obtaining the necessary warrant and a list of “emergency situation exceptions”. (H Judiciary; Tue, Mar 4)
Right. A bill is being submitted in the General Assembly to force Cox Communications to keep an RI call center open, and force cable companies to provide service to one RI town.
Representative Raymond Hull’s legislation to make business decisions for Cox Communications is a fine example of why Rhode Islanders are suffering.
The Brett Smiley 10%-tax-on-firearms bill has been introduced at the Rhode Island Senate, with Providence State Senator Gayle Goldin as the lead sponsor. Money collected from the tax will be used as follows:
(b) All sums received by the division of taxation under this section as taxes, penalties or forfeitures, interest, costs of suit and fines shall be distributed at least quarterly, credited and paid by the state treasurer into a special fund designated for allocation to the various police departments throughout the state. If a city or town does not have a municipal police department, disbursements pursuant to this section shall be made to the highest ranking municipal official.
(c) Allocation of the funds to the various police departments or city or town officials pursuant to subsection (b) shall be made yearly and based proportionally on the number of “total offenses” occurring in said city or town as set forth in the prior year’s uniform crime report published by the Rhode Island state police.
(d) Any money distributed to the various police departments or city or town officials shall be used only for grants to nonprofit organizations whose mission includes a commitment to the reduction of crime and violence in the community. The local police chief and/or highest ranking municipal official of each city or town shall have discretion as to the amount of money allocated and the groups who shall receive said funds.
Since funds collected through this tax will be used exclusively to make local appropriations to private organizations, in accordance with Article VI section 11 of the Rhode Island Constitution, this bill cannot become law without the approval of a 2/3 majority of both houses of the Rhode Island General Assembly…
Vote required to pass local or private appropriations. — The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the general assembly shall be required to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes.
1. At the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee, on Wednesday, February 26, bills on the following education-related subjects will be heard…