Over at Anchor, Don gets the broad strokes right in this post:

As someone who has led corporate turnarounds for nearly 20 years and has read extensively on what it takes to lead successful change initiatives, it is appalling how little progress has been made to effect real change in the face of the current crisis here in RI. It's not like these structural problems are a new development!

One of my favorite authors on leadership and change is Harvard Business School professor John Kotter. He has been writing for years about the topic of leading change and is a world authority on the subject. More on his books can be found here.

For the last decade, Kotter has been writing extensively on what he calls the "Eight Step Process of Successful Change." Here is an excerpt from his "Iceberg" book, a book which uses a fable to describe what it takes to realize successful change. Easily accessible to the layperson, I recommend reading it.

Set the Stage

1. Create a sense of urgency: Help others see the need for change and the importance of acting immediately.

2. Pull together the guiding team: Make sure there is a powerful group guiding the change - one with leadership skills, credibility, communications ability, authority, analytical skills, and a sense of urgency.

Decide What to Do

3. Develop the change vision and strategy: Clarify how the future will be different from the past, and how you can make that future a reality.

Make it Happen

4. Communicate for understanding: Make sure as many others as possible understand and accept the vision and strategy.

5. Empower others to act: Remove as many barriers as possible so that those who want to make the vision a reality can do so.

6. Produce short-term wins: Create some visible, unambiguous successes as soon as possible.

7. Don't let up: Press harder and faster after the first successes. Be relentless with initiating change after change until the vision is a reality.

Make It Stick

8. Create a new culture: Hold on to the new ways of behaving, and make sure they succeed, until they become strong enough to replace old traditions.

As we all reflect on the severe crisis here in RI, one of the most disconcerting conclusions is how RI is currently 0-for-8 in moving in the right direction.

UPDATE: The gov's office says the appearance is being rescheduled by the program, with no further immediate details.

From the gov's office:

Governor Donald L. Carcieri will be taping a brief interview tomorrow with Bill O’Reilly of Fox network’s O’Reilly Factor, for broadcast later that evening. The topic of the conversation will be the Governor’s Executive Order on illegal immigration, which was issued on March 27, 2008.  The interview is expected to air at 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Thursday night.

This from a release touting URI economist Leonard Lardaro's latest tracking data:

The year 2008 continues to be a nightmare for Rhode Island’s economy. The Index remains at 8 for March, pointing to a second and deeper recession phase. Fifty is a neutral value—anything below that represents contraction, while anything above it represents expansion.

It's not surprising that the latest state revenue estimates have come in lower than previously expected, but this hardly makes it easier to contend with the situation. Here's the heart of Steve Peoples's report today:

Until yesterday, Governor Carcieri had officially anticipated a budget deficit of $384 million for the fiscal year that begins in July. He had already submitted a plan to close the massive gap, which accounts for 11 percent of state spending.

A group of budget analysts, however, determined yesterday that weak tax collections — led by declining sales-tax revenues — caused the state’s financial hole to grow by between $50 million and $55 million. ....

The election-year debate over the midyear spending plan raged for much of the last month. But it might pale in comparison to the debate over how to close a budget hole nearly three times larger for the coming fiscal year. That question will consume Smith Hill for the next seven weeks.

We're at a point where Governor Carcieri, legislative leaders, and A.T. Wall, director of the state Department of Corrections, basically agree on the need to expand treatment options for non-violent criminal offenders. Doing so is smart policy and more cost-effective than keeping such criminals warehoused at the ACI. Yet making progress on this front remains difficult, as Te-Ping Chen writes in this week's Phoenix:

It was after midnight, and Dawn Jacques lay sleepless in her cell at the Adult Correctional Institutions, shuddering. Bathed in sweat, she stared at the ceiling for hours until it blurred. When the occasional wave of nausea ran through her, she lurched toward the toilet, vomiting.

It could have been the first time she was incarcerated or the tenth. Jacques, a 31-year-old from Cranston, has been addicted to heroin and in and out of jail for 10 years, and the long nights of withdrawal were the same every time.

“It felt like I was going to die,” Jacques says. Jail made her feel “miserable,” she says, “like [she] had no choice but to keep using.” And upon leaving prison, that’s exactly what she would do: return to the streets and start shooting up again.

Across the state, Jacques’s story is a familiar one. America’s drug war has devolved into a domestic quagmire, costing $500 billion without discernible success. Yet while a wealth of studies indicate that treating addicts is more cost-effective than incarcerating them, access to treatment remains limited in many states, including Rhode Island. In fact, according to data from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rhode Island has the second-highest rate of addicts that need treatment but don’t receive it.

Not surprisingly, the state prison system is feeling the crush. Since 1976, the ACI’s population has exploded by 457 percent, with what Department of Corrections Director A.T. Wall calls an “ever-increasing number of offenders with substance abuse problems being swept [in]” — and with similar cost increases for the state. Today, 70 percent of ACI inmates report substance abuse problems (mostly heroin, alcohol, and cocaine). And without treatment, the majority of these offenders who are released will end up imprisoned again.

From Rhode Island College:

The survey was conducted between April 17-28, 2008 and sampled 400 randomly selected registered voters for a 4.5 percent margin of error. The sample was drawn reflecting voter contribution by geographic region in recent statewide elections.

 

Gov. Donald Carcieri submitted several cost cutting proposals, which the House of Representatives responded to last week. Designed to begin to address Rhode Island’s fiscal crisis, RIC’s latest survey tapped into public sentiment on proposals under consideration at the State House. In the face of the most serious fiscal predicament since the banking crisis of the early 1990s, Rhode Islanders favor welfare cuts and a merger of Rhode Island College and CCRI, but are lukewarm to other actions to close the budget gap.   

      

The survey showed Rhode Islanders support only three of the 10 budget cutting proposals tested in the survey. The study found:

 

• Overwhelming agreement to the governor’s proposal to reduce the maximum amount of time a family can remain on welfare.

• Major support for the elimination of the office of Lieutenant Governor, a proposal that has not been previously floated by government officials.

• Considerable agreement that Rhode Island College and CCRI should be merge to reduce expenses.

 

Respondents were divided nearly equally on two items:

 

• About one in two supported round-the-clock gambling in Newport and Lincoln, while an almost identical number opposed it.

• Nearly half opposed massive state employee layoffs, while a similar number favored them.

 

The sample was closely divided on three items:  

 

• Slightly more than half disagree with the proposal to release early well behaved, non sex-offender prisoners from the ACI, while four in 10 favor the proposal

• Just over half oppose privatization as a method for cutting the state workforce; about forty percent are in favor.

• About half are against RIte Care cuts, while one-third support them. 

 

Cuts in state aid to CCRI, RIC,and URI, or to cities and did not find favor with the electoral:

• More than eight out of 10 surveyed disagree with the proposal to cut $17.1 million from the budget of CCRI, RIC, and URI; only about one in 10 favored the idea

• Two in three opposed cuts in state aid to cities and towns for non education purposes 

 

“In this time of fiscal crisis for our state, it is critical that decision makers have information available from their bosses, the Rhode Island public,” said Victor Profughi, political scientist and director of the survey.

Labor activist Patrick Crowley, who's been on the warpath lately against Governor Carcieri (Pat, we suspect, would say it's the other way around), sends word of this rally:

Community Activists, Organized Labor and Religious Leaders Will Join In Calling On State Leaders To Promote Economic Justice For All Rhode Islanders

                       

What:Thousands of people – including community activists, organized labor, religious leaders and hard-working Rhode Islanders – will march through Providence to the State House to attend a rally promoting economic justice for all Rhode Islanders.

 

When:  Friday, May 2nd 4

4:00 pm: Photo Opportunity: Westin Ballroom, March to State House

5:00 pm Rally

 

Where: RI State House Lawn

 82 Smith Street, Providence, RI 02903

 

Who: Master of Ceremony:

George Nee

Secretary/Treasurer, Rhode Island AFL-CIO

           

Speaking Program:

Paul Booth

AFSCME National Organizing Director

           

Sarita Gupta

Executive Director, National Jobs with Justice

 

Bob Walsh

Executive Director, NEA RI

Secretary-Treasurer, Working RI

           

Roxana Rivera

SEIU Local 615 Commercial Division Director

           

Why: The country is on the brink of recession and Rhode Island is in the midst of an economic crisis. How we move forward together out of this crisis will impact every Rhode Islander and will impact how communities across the country move forward.

 

On May 2nd, we will unite around a vision of Rhode Island that will protect and promote the dignity of every Rhode Islander. We will unite around a vision of a state that honors and respects hard work. We will fight for economic justice for all Rhode Islanders.

Darrell West, who came to Rhode Island in 1982 and is departing in June for a job at the Brookings Institution, also stopped by the Newsmakers' set today. Like journalists, West has had a rich vein of fodder here, and he says the Ocean State will stay with him after he moves to DC.

Among the highlights of his exit interview:

-- Rhode Island remains handicapped by a lack of long-term economic planning. The General Assembly habitually responds to the governor's budget at the last-minute and in a frenzied fashion. It will not be surprising if the state experiences another fiscal crisis another 10 or so years down the road.

-- Rhode Island remains a place with a high quality of life and where the economic base has grown more multi-faceted since the sharp decline of the old industrial base in the '80s.

-- Bruce Sundlin's airport expansion was controversial in the early '90s, but now looks like a genius idea.

-- The jury is out on Buddy Cianci's impact as a radio talk-show host. West says that although Cianci has a platform with which to criticize David Cicilline, the mayor's office is generally a stronger position from which to operate.

-- The jury is out on Governor Carcieri's record. While Carcieri exhibited an early strong suit in communication skills, he has gotten bogged down by taking on too many different fights and by not having more of a single-minded focus on budget issues, West says. The governor has had some success, the professor adds, in changing the discussion on budget-related topics.

-- It remains a challenge for some Rhode Islanders, including those elected as reformers, to overcome the "insider" mentality once in office, but the state has strong ethics laws for use in responding to the situation. "You can not reform human nature," West says, who also referred to Elmer Cornwell's observation that the Ocean State is marked by "the politics of intimacy."

-- Asked what he would leave as a gift to Rhode Island, West says it would be a greater emphasis on regionalization.

The show will be broadcast Sunday, at 5:30 am on Channel 12, and at 10 am on Fox 64. 

Last week, when I took part in a taping of A Lively Experiment, Ron St. Pierre asked whether it was wrong for state lawmakers to take a spring break with the state facing such dire fiscal problems. Lou Pulner offered the best response, describing how the traditional last-minute passage of a cascade of legislation poses a greater concern.

Now, House Finance, on the second day after the legislative break, says it is expected to vote today on the supplemental budget. While a small number of individuals controlling the process is status quo on Smith Hill, it hardly seems to offer the chance for thorough consideration of the budget. 

STATE HOUSE – The House Finance Committee is expected to vote on the supplemental budget (2008-H 7204) for the 2008 fiscal year this evening. The committee is scheduled to meet today, April 22, at the rise of the House session (likely sometime after 5 p.m.) in Room 35 in the basement of the State House. The committee has canceled all other business it had planned for today.

 

The committee is also scheduled to take up numerous bills this week at hearings at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday at the rise of the House session, the committee will hold a hearing on the status, outlook and prospects for Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium. All hearings will be held in Room 35.

Steve Peoples elaborates today on the pension and tax proposal discussed by state Senator Stephen Alves during his appearance last weekend on 10 News Conference, while also describing the sharp reaction. And while it's understandable that George Nee, for example, wants to be a part of this conversation sooner rather than later, the pushback (which was keenly anticipated by Jim Taricani during Sunday's show) underlies the difficulty of delivering change in Rhode Island.

First, the concepts:

While Alves would not release a draft of the [pension] bill yesterday, he provided a written summary of proposed changes for municipal employees with less than 10 years in the system:

• Police and firefighters must be 55 years old with at least 25 years of service to qualify for a full pension.

• Non-public safety employees must be at least 59 years old with 29 years of service or 65 with 10 years of service to qualify for a full pension.

• Annual pension increases would be capped at a simple 3 percent each year.

• Retiree health-care benefits would begin only at age 55, while coverage would expire when the retiree becomes eligible for Medicare.

And this:

At the same time, he plans to introduce a separate bill that would raise the minimum corporate tax from $500 to $5,000 on a tiered basis. Only companies that gross more than $10 million annually would have to pay $5,000.

“These are some large companies,” Alves said. “I don’t think $5,000 is that onerous.”

An analysis by the Senate fiscal office suggests that the tax increase would apply to less than a quarter of corporate filers who pay the minimum and could generate $10.1 million, which would be distributed to cities and towns.

Now the reaction:

“On the business tax competitiveness front, Rhode Island ranks 50 out of 50 states — dead last for two years in a row,” said Laurie White, president of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, citing data from the Tax Foundation’s 2007 Business Tax Climate Index. “This proposal does not move the needle in the right direction.”

And AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer George Nee blasted the pension proposal as “offensive” and “an unnecessary reach.”

“I think that it would have been much more helpful and respectful if there had been a dialogue and a discussion with the parties that are affected by this before a proposal was just thrown out,” he said. “These are obvious serious issues; they affect the taxpayers, but they also affect peoples’ retirements and economic future.”

As we know, Jack Reed's mantra is that he is running for reelection and not about to take a Cabinet post in a Democratic administration.

On a related note, two General Assembly Democrats have filed legislation that would change the process for filling a US Senate vacancy.

STATE HOUSE – Rep. David Segal and Sen. Paul V. Jabour have submitted legislation that would require that U.S. Senate vacancies be filled by special elections. 

 

At present, the governor is empowered to appoint people to fill such vacancies. But the bill (2008-H 7586 and 2008-S 2324) would require that a special election be held to fill U.S. Senate vacancies, unless such a vacancy occurred after July 1 of an election year, in which case the vacancy would be filled per the regular general electoral cycle.

 

The sponsors say the current law is a vestige of an outdated system of electing senators, prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment in 1913, which called for the direct election of senators. Until that point, senators were chosen by state legislators. While the amendment called for the popular election of senators, it allowed for vacancies to be filled via other mechanisms.

 

“In the last 100 years, 151 U.S. senators have take office without being elected.  Incumbency affords great electoral advantages, and it is exceedingly likely that once appointed to office, a senator would readily achieve reelection,” said Representative Segal (D-Dist. 2, Providence, East Providence). “The only legitimate vehicle for ascension to a body as powerful as the Senate is popular support – only the passage of this legislation would ensure that the electorate determines its representative.”

 

Said Senator Jabour (D-Dist. 5, Providence), “Here in Rhode Island, we have legitimate cause for concern about this issue, since Sen. Jack Reed is a strong candidate for a cabinet appointment. If that were to occur, allowing voters to choose a replacement would be a much more democratic avenue than having one chosen solely by the governor. Regardless of whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican, he or she shouldn’t have the only vote in choosing who will represent our state in the U.S. Senate.”

 

The bills have both had hearings before their respective chambers’ judiciary committees and are currently being held for further study.

It's not a big surprise that the Providence FOP, as Buddy Cianci reports, is backing Governor Carcieri's executive order on immigration -- in direct contrast to the stance taken by Dean Esserman.

For his part, Cianci agrees with those who describe the focus on illegal immigration as misplaced. "People want an excuse," he said this morning. "They blame the illegal immigration," which, as Cianci noted, is a relatively small influence in Rhode Island's $450 million budget deficit.

UPDATE: This just in from the gov's office:

Patricia Martinez, Director of the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), today issued the following statement regarding Governor Carcieri’s Executive Order on illegal immigration.

 

“This afternoon, I met with Governor Carcieri to discuss my recent public comments about his Executive Order on illegal immigration,” DCYF Director Patricia Martinez said.  “I explained to him that I was relaying what I was hearing in Rhode Island's immigrant community, and that those comments are separate from my personal position on the issue.”

     

“I apologize for any misperceptions my comments might have caused,” Martinez continued.  “In particular, I did not mean to imply that the Governor’s actions were spreading hatred.  Instead, I was trying to explain that immigration is a very sensitive and polarizing issue.”

 

“I support the Governor's Executive Order addressing illegal immigration,” Martinez concluded.  “I respect Governor Carcieri’s willingness to lead on this and many other important issues.  I believe it is an important step toward immigration reform.  In the coming weeks, I will work with the Governor to dispel public misconceptions about the Executive Order and to communicate its true intent.”

----

Things were getting unusually quiet yesterday on the immigration front. Fortunately, Patricia Martinez weighed in, keeping the story on its rightful place on the front page of the ProJo, and front and center on the airwaves.

Martinez, the director of the Department of Children, Youth and Families and a member of the governor’s Cabinet for the last three years, said Carcieri’s proposal, like a handful of bills proposed by the General Assembly, “is really slamming immigrants” by promoting racial profiling.

In related news,

-- The House Republican caucus has sent a letter to Governor Carcieri, expressing support for his executive order.

-- Justin finds evidence that the governor's executive order is working:

Governor Carcieri's executive order is already proving to be a success:

Rhode Island's decision to order State Police and other state agencies to help enforce federal immigration law is jarring border cities in Massachusetts, where illegal immigrants say they are now afraid to enter the Ocean State.

If they're that reluctant to cross a state border (with habitual experience of the ease of travel from state to state), imagine how much less likely they'd be to make a beeline to our state across a national border. Those who've opposed attempts to control illegal immigration on the grounds that it is impossible ought to take note.

Personally, I find the part about verifying the status of state workers and contract employees to be reasonable, at least on the surface. It's interesting, though, that the folks who seem to think that the government can't get anything right are willing to put their faith in eVerify. It also strikes me as unsurprising that the executive order would foster fears of racial profiling. More to the point, the issue is worsening polarization, and taking attention away from more serious issues in the state.

The immigration issue has developed over decades, with the tacit support of the federal government and big business. It should be addressed at the federal level.

In terms of the vox populi, two letters recently published in the ProJo stood out in expressing different sides of the issue.

Here's one:

In his March 30 column, M. Charles Bakst questions Governor Carcieri for his efforts to bring order to the illegal-alien problem here in Rhode Island. Why do apologists purposely gloss over the word “illegal” before the word immigrant?

Rhode Islanders understand fully the difference but Bakst appears to be challenged by the word. The governor, who is required to uphold the rule of law, is roundly criticized by Bakst for doing exactly that. Is there a vendetta in the works? Congress and the president have been disgustingly AWOL on achieving a just solution to this problem but the politics of special-interest groups and Congress’s own chicanery have caused them to not only throw the taxpayers under the bus but the illegal immigrants as well. Bakst has his own liberal philosophy, including ignoring the law, but most Rhode Islanders do not share it.

Rhode Island may be a “blue state” but the people are not fooled by that sort of clumsy commentary by confused writers.

SAM PARENTE

Cranston

And another:

I am the grandson of immigrants who came to Rhode Island in the early 1900s to work in textile mills. All that was required to enter the country then was a birth certificate showing country of origin. Even those who lacked the proper documentation were admitted, although their entry visa was stamped WOP, meaning without papers. Since so many Italians lacked papers and were so noted, the slur “wop” adhered to “illegal” Italian immigrants. It would be interesting to know if Governor Carcieri’s grandparents were legal immigrants, or if they were labeled WOP.

PAUL LeBON

Highland Village, Texas

Returning today to the ProJo's op-ep page, Justin makes the case that economic flight is one of the most dire problems facing Rhode Island, and that a fix is needed, pronto.

First, the problem:

• Almost 30,000 fewer Rhode Islanders lived in households earning over three times the poverty level (around $60,000 for a family of four) in 2006 than 2005 (U.S. Census American Community Survey).

• Over that same period, married-with-children households earning more than $100,000 or more a year decreased by 1,033.

• According to tax returns filed in 2005 and 2006 (based on income from 2004 and 2005), Rhode Island lost, on a net basis, 8,296 taxpayers, with an aggregate adjusted gross income totaling $485 million, over those two years (IRS Migration Data). ...

If the trends portrayed in the latest available data have continued, Rhode Island has been losing around 1 percent of its tax-paying population every year since 2004, and those who’ve fled have taken a quarter billion dollars of income with them annually. Stopping this flight must become state and local governments’ Number 1 objective.

One simple solution is to make Rhode Island a more attractive place to live by decreasing the cost of living here (i.e., lowering taxes) and increasing the incentive for businesses to open up shop. Therefore, seeking to drain more tax revenue from commerce and layering taxes on corporations, both of which are “on the table” at the General Assembly, borders on dementia.

A clear consequence of lowering taxes, at least near-term, is that revenue will slip even further below spending. Compensating by taxing the rich more would simply tip the capsizing boat the other way. In 2003, the $75,000-$200,000 and $200,000-plus categories each paid around 35 percent of the total income-tax liability for the state. As the former’s percentage has dropped, the latter’s has increased to over 40 percent. As reluctant as we all may be to take taxpayer-funded services and other public-sector benefits away from those who’ve come to rely on them, our budget must be balanced entirely from the spending column.

More woes concerning the Carcieri administration's problem-plagued Rhode Island Department of Transportation, as revealed by today's Boston Globe:

 

Michael P. Lewis didn't retire from his longtime post as the head of the Big Dig project as the state previously said, but was actually fired last year by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

But for Lewis, the news wasn't bad.

The move allowed him to more than triple his state pension, from $23,000 to $72,578 a year, according to state records. Last month, Lewis, 46, received the first of the Massachusetts pension checks that he will receive until he dies. As with other turnpike retirees, the state will also pay 80 percent of his health insurance for life.

Lewis also landed on his feet with a new job. He began working last month in his new position as Rhode Island's transportation secretary, earning $130,000 a year.

Contacted yesterday through his office in Rhode Island, he declined to be interviewed, but continued to characterize his departure as a retirement.

The pension increase for Lewis was the result of a state law intended to protect state employees from politically motivated dismissals. Employees with more than 20 years of service are eligible for enhanced pensions if they can prove they were not fired because of poor performance or malfeasance. In his case, the reason was that his job was eliminated.

"These types of benefits are way too rich in a time of dire fiscal straits," said Mary Z. Connaughton, a Turnpike Authority board member, who learned of Lewis's enhanced pension from the Globe. "The average working person doesn't get benefits nearly as generous and yet is paying for these public employee benefits."

Employees dismissed in this fashion can be denied the increased pension if there is any evidence of collusion with a superior to make what is in fact a resignation appear to be a termination, according to state regulations. There is no indication of investigation in this case, and two state boards have already approved it.

Like I said, get ready for all-immigration, all-the-time.

From the gov's office:

Governor Donald L. Carcieri will be a live guest on Lou Dobbs’ program on CNN tonight to discuss the Executive Order dealing with illegal immigration in Rhode Island. The measure signed last week requires state agencies and vendors to verify the legal status of all employees, allows the state to inform people whose identity was stolen, and directs the Rhode Island State Police and the Department of Corrections to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure federal immigration law is enforced.

 

Governor Carcieri’s brief appearance is slated for about 7:40 p.m. according to CNN producers.

According to audio, via WPRO, from the Providence Police Department's news conference today, Police Chief Dean Esserman says the Providence department won't participate in Governor Carcieri's order calling on local police to work with federal authorities on illegal immigration.

Esserman expressed concern that the order could make Providence residents less likely to report crime. He said he doesn't want to risk the trust that the police have developed in the community.

Dan Yorke, a sharp critic of Esserman, talked about the issue a short time ago with Superintendent Brendan Doherty of the state police. "Reasonable minds may differ," said Doherty, who indicated that the state police will follow the details of Carcieri's immigration order. To not address it, Doherty said, "would be hiding from the issue."

Btw, here's part of the official PPD release about today's newser:

PROVIDENCE- Mayor David N. Cicilline and Providence Police Chief Dean M. Esserman today announced the findings of the United States Justice Department’s five-year investigation into patterns and practices at the Providence Police Department.  The federal probe by the Civil Rights Division began in 2002 under the previous administration following allegations that Providence Police were using excessive force and providing police services in “a discriminatory fashion.”  In issuing its findings, the Justice Department concluded that the Providence Police Department “has made significant improvements” under Chief Esserman’s leadership.

 

“The Department of Justice has completed its review into the Providence Police Department (PPD),” stated the head of the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division, Shanetta Y. Cultlar, in a letter to Chief Esserman, “We want to thank you for your leadership and cooperation throughout the duration of this matter and we are pleased to report that the matter is now closed.”

 

“This is a police department that used to exist under a cloud of corruption, low morale and was at war with the community,” said Mayor Cicilline.  “The Justice Department’s findings validate the hard work of the men and women of the Police Department to transform this agency into a national model in law enforcement.”

 

“Credit goes to the rank and file of this great police department for all the success and recognition here today,” said Colonel Esserman.

While Governor Carcieri and his critics continue to square off on immigration, Amy Littlefield has a profile in this week's Phoenix of Stella Carrera, coordinator of immigration and advocacy services for the Diocese of Providence, a piece that tells us something about the stories behind the debate.

Carrera knows better than most how complicated the US immigration system can be. She came here, from Colombia, with a visitor’s visa in 1973 and overstayed her visit.
 
She moved to New York to be with her older brother and sister, and worked in a cosmetics factory, filling nail polish and mascara bottles, for minimum wage with no benefits. Carrera says someone from a local union heard about the mistreatment of the workers and he came around with some fliers. The owner caught wind of it and called immigration authorities.
 
When Carrera went outside for a cigarette and a coffee that day, she saw the cars and the officers. Immigration authorities shut the doors, herded everyone into a room, and asked them, one by one, for their paperwork.
 
Carrera remembers helping a woman who was several months pregnant, and who began to hyperventilate. Another woman curled up inside a cardboard box for two hours, praying to God she wouldn’t sneeze, while authorities combed through the factory. There were probably 10 cars, Carrera says. They probably took away 100 people that day.
 
At least 300 workers were detained after a similar raid last march in New Bedford, Massachusetts. History repeats itself, Carrera says. “Nothing changes.”

Littlefield also reports from Mexico on some of the factors that influence immigration to the US:

Miguel Pickard, who works for a social-research organization in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, says that the mainstream US media often overlooks how neo-liberal policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have contributed dramatically to the rise in Mexican immigration. Following NAFTA’s implementation in 1994, subsidized US agricultural products flooded the Mexican markets, and Mexican farmers couldn’t compete with the cheap imports.
 
Immigration to the US became a “survival strategy,” Pickard says, for campesinos that could no longer make money selling corn and other agricultural products, as they had for many years. As a result, immigration to the US from Mexico tripled after 1994, leading “millions” of people to make the trip, he says.
 
NAFTA’s impact illuminates how the source of the Latino immigration “problem” is sometimes closer to home than we are willing to admit.

In a further sign that the cause of renewable energy is moving forward in RI, Governor Caricier's office says that tomorrow, at 1 pm, "[he] will announce that the State of Rhode Island is seeking bids from private companies to construct and operate an off-shore wind farm designed to generate 1.3 million megawatt-hours per year of renewable energy."

In "Ready to rumba," my comprehensive 2003 story on increasing political activity by Latinos in Rhode Island, I looked at how the national GOP was trying to make inroads among Hispanics, and what it meant locally:

A popular East Providence politician once told Dan Garza that being a Republican in Rhode Island is like trying to pee up a rope. And as Garza knows, trying to cultivate Latino Republicans is even more difficult. Even with the chairman’s steady work and articulate manner, the Rhode Island chapter of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly has only about five members. But Garza, a pithy Ohio native and former Democrat who traces his heritage to Texas and Mexico, believes the GOP message of family, church, and self-reliance still has a lot of resonance for Latinos in the US.

Now, however, while Governor Carcieri's recent executive order on immigration has ginned up his support among critics of illegal immigration, Matt has the story of how it could erode backing for the GOP in Rhode Island:

Former Republican candidate for the RI House in District 73 and current chairman of the RI Hispanic Republican Assembly, David A. Quiroa has penned a scathing letter announcing his resignation from the RI Republican Party:

Adios RI GOP 

It is with great pain and sadness that I write this public announcement to state that I officially resign from my affiliation to the RI GOP and any other RI Republican committee, subcommittee, and appointments that I hold.

Effective on April 2, 2008 I become an unaffiliated voter thus seeking “Political Asylum” in the independent column. As an American citizen of Hispanic heritage I cannot remain as a member of a party where the leadership lacks vision for an integral inclusion of points of view – the tent is small and empty.

The Immigration Issue is an important issue for me, my family, my church, my friends and my brothers and sisters of the immigrant community. Not because I want open borders or want the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to become a sanctuary State, but rather because I want the American spirit to be free of political correctness and opportunism – We need solutions.

These are times that need leadership. We need leadership with a foundation of solid political valor not political demagogy or speeches full with hypocrisy or cries of change that hide behind political correctness.

The current actions of the RI GOP have set the party back 50 years in the eyes of minorities. I make this statement as a proud American who has lived firsthand the unfortunate effects of discrimination. As such, I can tell you that racial profiling is REAL and it does take place everyday. Making our local and state police departments ICE venues does, at the subconscious level, put duress on our good and brave officers to engage in racial profiling. This added burden on our officers does not bring any solutions but rather complicates matters for the worse – Public safety will suffer.

I will remain active in civic public service, as I believe it is my duty as an American to better my country. However, I say Adios to the RI Republican Party and enter the independent field riding my brown elephant into the fields of independence.

Immigration is fast becoming the latest incarnation of the casino story -- the kind of thing that's going to wind up on the front of the ProJo more days than not.

Speaking today while taping Newsmakers, Joe Trillo said Governor Carcieri's immigration crackdown could save the state a lot of money. Guest panelist Jen Lawless disagreed, contending that the state shouldn't tackle a complicated situation that has, thus far, eluded a new federal approach. 

RI Democrats have put out a release ripping the governor:

Sadly, the governor has been in office for five years and he has yet to grasp how to solve complicated problems. No matter the issue, you begin by bringing people together from diverse backgrounds to discuss the issues and how they can be solved. Instead, once again we witnessed another meaningless media orchestration by the Carcieri administration that was closer to a hate rally than a press conference,” said Tim Grilo, a first-generation American, whose parents emigrated from Portugal. Grilo serves as executive director of the Rhode Island Democratic Party.

 “Doesn’t the governor understand that hundreds of thousand of immigrants have legally come to Rhode Island’s borders for the past two centuries and have greatly contributed to our society? The tone Governor Carcieri set yesterday was deplorable. Instead of hosting a meeting and inviting respected leaders of the minority community to the table, he chose the low road and took another cheap political shot,” Grilo said. “Given his plummeting public approval numbers, this looks like little more than a desperate attempt to throw a little red meat to his withering right-wing base.”

 

“There are ramifications to Governor Carcieri’s actions that he clearly does not understand. His spiteful tone not only encourages racial profiling but it encourages outright discrimination against legal citizens of our state. I think it might be time to remind Governor Carcieri that he represents all Rhode Islanders, not just those that share his narrow points of view,” said State Representative Grace Diaz (D-Dist. 11), vice chair of the Rhode Island Democratic Party.

Besides Frank J. Williams, Representatives Art Handy (D-Cranston) and Joe Trillo (R-Warwick) also appear on Newsmakers this weekend (Sunday, 5:30 am on Channel 12, 10 am on Fox 64), for a discussion of the state budget and Handy's much-discussed proposal.

You can expect where this comes down: Handy says his plan would benefit most Rhode Islanders and slightly diminish the bite of property taxes, while Trillo says Rhode Islanders are already overtaxed and that any further tax hikes should be avoided.

Governor Carcieri entered a long-running debate about the value of the early-education program Head Start this week. Here's what he said in a story yesterday by the ProJo's Steve Peoples:

“Show me empirical evidence that Head Start has done anything,” he said. “I think it’s been the biggest waste of money, frankly.”

I took a quick look via Google to seek indications of Head Start's impact. There are a lot of positive reviews, but also some more critical ones. At minimum, considering the research, the governor engaged in a rhetorical over-reach. (The US Department of Health and Human Services has a detailed look at the research here.)

Here's one of the positive reviews that I found:

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a longitudinal study, meaning the same group of children (cohort) is folowed over several years. FACES provides key findings related to children’s outcomes and program quality. FACES proves Head Start’s ability to help narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and other children in the areas of education and social behavior. According to the survey, most children entering Head Start had early academic skills that were below national norms. However, by the end of the program, Head Start children showed gains in vocabulary, early math, writing skills, and other literacy-related areas. Head Start children also showed growth in their social skills which better prepares them for cooperative classroom learning.

Not only has Head Start proven to help children early in their schooling, it also has an effect on their later schooling as well. According to an issue brief (pdf) drafted by the National Head Start Association, “Reliable studies have found that Head Start children have increased achievement test scores and that they experience favorable long-term effects on grade repetition, special education, and graduation rates.”

Here's another:

A recent rigorous national evaluation of the impact of Head Start on three- and four-year-olds, the Head Start Impact Study, found gains for Head Start children in pre-reading, pre-writing, vocabulary and literacy skills.¹ Children assigned to participate in Head Start also had fewer behavior problems, better overall physical health, less hyperactivity, and more access to dental care. More positive effects were found for children who entered the program as three-year olds than as four-year olds.² Another study found that four-year olds participating in Head Start did better in receptive language and phonemic awareness than four-year olds of similar backgrounds who were wait-listed for the Head Start program.³ Other studies find that children who attended Head Start are more likely to stay in school, and have lower rates of grade retention in early elementary school.⁴ Head Start participants were also more likely to have been fully immunized⁵ and to have better access to health care.⁶

Head Start programs may also have benefits for the parents of the children attending. In comparison to a group of families with similar backgrounds, parents of children attending such programs are more likely to report good health and safety practices than are parents of children not attending.⁷ First-year findings from the National Head Start Impact study also found that parents of children attending Head Start were more likely to read to their children frequently, less likely to use physical punishment, and more likely to engage in educational activities with their children. However, in this study, parents were not significantly more likely to use better safety practices.⁸

The Heritage Foundation says this:

Since its inception, there has been controversy over Head Start's effectiveness. Early research from the Westinghouse Learning Corporation in 1969 showed cognitive gains of the program's participants faded away within a few grades, at which point the cognitive abilities of Head Start participants are indistinguishable from their nonparticipating peers.

In 1985, the Head Start Synthesis Project, a meta-analysis of over 210 studies and reports, found:

Children enrolled in Head Start enjoy significant, immediate gains in cognitive test scores, socioemotional test scores, and health status. In the long run, cognitive and socio-emotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start.

A few studies indicated that Head Start participants were less likely to be enrolled in special education or to be held back a grade. Head Start students also received more dental and health screenings.

The Goldwater Institute says:

[T]he Head Start Impact Study—in which children who attended the program are being compared with those who did not—began in 2002 and is continuing. Its control group is made up of children who could not get into the program because all the slots were filled after a lottery, explained Nicholas Zill, the director of the Child and Family Study Area at Westat, a Rockville, Md.-based research organization.

Initial results released in 2005 showed “modest” gains for the Head Start children in pre-reading, pre-writing, and vocabulary skills. But improvements were not found in oral-comprehension or math skills. Results after the children’s kindergarten year are being analyzed and will be released later this year.

Officials with the Bush administration noted that the preliminary findings showed that children in the program still lag behind their peers, while Head Start advocates used the results to boast that the children are making progress.

Matt takes a look at the front of today's ProJo's State House tax-issue coverage and sees a not-so-subtle division:

Anyone notice the stark contrast on the front page of today's BeloJo? 

In one corner we have MEN IN SUITS who are longtime advocates for lowering taxes on the richest millionaires and corporate tycoons at the expense of health care and child care!

In the other corner we have WOMEN & CHILDREN who desperately want to save a program that helps poor kids have equal opportunities for early childhood development.

Who will win this historic battle? 

Analysts say that even though the WOMEN & CHILDREN turned out many more supporters, the MEN IN SUITS have connections where it counts: at the top (and they're not afraid of paying off the refs!).

Stay tuned!

As demonstrated by National Grid's opposition to a key part of the plan for Allco Renewable's proposed solar farm in Cranston, moving forward with renewable energy in Rhode Island won't be without some fits and starts. Yet change is at hand, and in this week's Phoenix, I write about the push fior renewables:

Until now, the renewable approach in Rhode Island has been restricted to a few isolated efforts, like a wind turbine that was added a few years ago to reduce energy costs at the Portsmouth Abbey School. Similarly, it’s not particularly surprising that an environmentally attuned outfit, like the Southside Community Land Trust, a nonprofit in Providence, is partnering with People’s Power & Light to power its urban farm operation through renewable sources.
 
Now, however, in terms of other large-scale projects, Allco Renewable has proposed a wind farm that would involve hundreds of wind turbines off the coast of Block Island and Little Compton. An Australian firm, with state backing, has plans to create two wave-energy facilities. And state and labor officials are hopeful that a manufacturing facility for wind turbines, like those to be used at the Cape Wind project, could be established at Quonset Point.
 
Elsewhere around the state, Portsmouth, Barrington, Bristol, Warren, and Jamestown are among the growing number of communities, Auten says, that are pursuing plans for a municipal wind turbine. The 1.5 megawatt project in Portsmouth, on the grounds of the high school, will be enough to power the school while also producing considerable excess energy. 
 
Meanwhile, one of the bills under consideration at the State House would, through the concept known as net-metering, lower the utility costs of individuals who produce more energy than they consume, thereby offering an incentive for them to invest in solar panels or other renewable devices whose costs could otherwise prove prohibitive.
 
These days, with New Englanders reeling from their winter heating bills, and gas again selling for more than $3 a gallon, you don’t need to be an ardent environmentalist to appreciate the need for different approaches. There’s even some appealing poetry in how Rhode Island, which was left environmentally blighted by the bygone industrial revolution, is poised to reap economic benefits by going green.
 
A more muscular renewable sector won’t be a panacea for the state’s ongoing budget problems. Yet it could have a variety of beneficial effects, including the creation of thousands of good-paying jobs, diminished dependence on foreign oil, a stable and safe energy sources, and a positive impact on the environment.