Feed on
Posts
Comments
Sing Out Against Hunger
Sing Out Against Hunger

We at TCC encourage all of Tiverton’s Citizens to come out to Evelyn’s and Coastal Roasters September 10-12 to feed hungry.

We find it deeply disturbing that , with no discussion, and minutes after Monday night’s meeting began, Donald Bollin, Louise Durfee, and Joanne Arruda would vote against Sing out for Hunger’s request to reconsider its July 12 decision. We also find it troubling that Councilman Hannibal Costa suddenly decided not to attend, after indicating that he would vote for furthering discussion about Singing Out Against Hunger

Come Elections in November please remember who is responsible for this awful decision

 

NEWS RELEASE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2010
 ACLU DEFENDS TIVERTON RESIDENT AGAINST POLITICAL SLAPP SUIT
 

 Citing the important free speech issues involved in the case, the ACLU of Rhode Island today announced it has agreed to represent Tiverton resident David Nelson, the president of a local tax reform group, who has been sued for defamation by two Town Council members. Nelson, head of Tiverton Citizens for Change, was sued for making public comments alleging that Council members submitted “false” documentation to the State Department of Revenue relating to an unapproved proposal for a tax increase. The ACLU called the complaint against Nelson “a classic SLAPP suit designed to intimidate town residents from speaking out on political matters.”

Nelson made the comment after the Town Council filed what it called an informal “checklist for eligibility” with the state to see if the Town could get permission to impose a tax increase beyond the 4.5% cap authorized by state law. The Town Council made this request without the knowledge of the town’s Budget Committee, the entity officially authorized to recommend a budget to the Financial Town Meeting, and which had formally proposed a budget below the cap. Arguing that the request was never publicly authorized by the Town Council and was prepared on the state documents necessary to formally apply for a state waiver from the tax cap, Nelson publicly charged town officials with submitting “false documentation to the State to facilitate a tax increase.”

Last month, two Town Council members, Louise Durfee and Joanne Arruda, sued Nelson for punitive damages, calling his comments “false, defamatory and harmful to plaintiffs’ reputation.” Their lawsuit is also against unknown individuals the council members say participated in preparing and sending the letter. Interestingly, in a letter to state finance officials after the Town Council’s actions came to light, the chair of the town budget committee also called the submission a “falsified document,” but he has not been sued.

Nelson has filed a counter-claim for damages under the state’s SLAPP suit law, and the ACLU has agreed to represent Nelson in getting the lawsuit against him dismissed. SLAPP suits (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) refer to lawsuits brought to chill people from exercising their freedom of speech on matters of public concern.

Concerned about the use of SLAPP suits to try to stifle public debate on a variety of issues, the Rhode Island ACLU has succeeded in getting a number of similar suits dismissed

Since an anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 1995. In the first such case handled by the ACLU, the R.I. Supreme Court ordered dismissal of a defamation suit brought against North Kingstown resident Nancy Hsu Fleming for critical statements she made about a private landfill. Shortly thereafter, the ACLU also helped the South Kingstown Neighborhood Congress in a suit filed against it for public comments its members made against a local developer’s activities.

RI ACLU volunteer attorney Karen Davidson, who is representing Nelson, said today that the councilors’ suit was “a classic SLAPP suit designed to intimidate town residents from speaking out on political matters. The SLAPP suit statute was enacted in order to prevent just this type of litigation, and we are hopeful for a quick dismissal of the suit.” Nelson added: “Our bedrock constitutional rights allow us to express disagreement with elected officials and report on matters of public concern. l will not cower from this attempt to intimidate my public participation in local budget and taxation issues.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:Karen Davidson: 453-6200; David Nelson: 288-0998; Steven Brown: 831-7171
 

TCC Press Release

PRESS RELEASE
Monday August 2, 2010
A principle of democracy is public participation in local government. The right of such participation is found in the First Amendment, which includes the right of free speech. These fundamental rights are at the core of our political system and permeate our society. It seems that not everyone likes this-please read on.
About two months ago, and only 3 days before Tiverton’s second FTM, I received a letter threatening legal action from Councilors Louise Durfee and Joanne Arruda’s private attorney. This letter included a demand that I hand over names of people who received a letter to the editor from Tiverton Citizens for Change which highlighted tactics used by Tiverton’s Town Council to request a 9% tax increase in the weeks before Tiverton’s 2010 FTM. TCC views this as an attempt to intimidate, to silence the voice of dissent, stifle public debate and transform Tiverton’s public debate into a lawsuit.
Durfee and Arruda filed this politically motivated civil suit, also known as a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit, against me and Tiverton Citizens for Change in apparent retaliation to the April letter to the Editor which described ‘false’ documents filed with the State Department of Municipal Finance. The suit seems to be part of a larger strategy to intimidate and silence critics of Durfee and Arruda, and chill public debate.
The issue originates from Tiverton’s Town Council’s efforts to obtain an ‘advisory’ opinion from Rhode Island’s Division of Municipal Finance by filing a Notice of Proposed Tax Rate Change which was not approved by the Town Council or Budget Committee. I, along with other TCC members spoke against this effort during an April 26 town Council Meeting. See our website TivertonCC.com for the video of this meeting. The request was subsequently denied by Susanne Greschner, Chief of Division of Municipal Finance.
Our bedrock constitutional rights allow us to express disagreement with elected officials and report on matters of public concern. l will not cower from this attempt to intimidate my public participation in local budget and taxation issues. I am vigorously fighting this blatant attempt to intimidate TCC and have filed a countersuit under the State’s anti-SLAPP law protections.
Dave Nelson
President of Tiverton Citizens for Change
Tiverton, Rhode Island

In the expected narrative of town politics, one would think it would be the selfish anti-tax Tiverton Citizens for Change–type newcomers to town who would squash an annual charity event that allows amplified music well into the hours of prime time television. Of course, that popular narrative has always been incorrect.

The “community-minded” long-time residents aren’t selfless souls pleading with their fellow townsfolk to put Tiverton ahead of themselves when times require it. Some of them are protecting the substantial pay and benefits of their public-sector jobs (or those of friends and family). Some of them are protecting favored programs from which they individually benefit. And some of them simply want the town to be run according to their vision for it, with contrary views humored but not incorporated.

And so, as Tom Killin Dalglish reports:

By a vote of 4-2, the Town Council Monday night imposed new time and sound limits on the musical fund raiser “Singing Out Against Hunger” scheduled for early September at Evelyn’s Drive-In and Coastal Roasters.

The event must now end at 7 p.m., said the council, not 9 p.m. (or 9:30 p.m. as the sponsors were hoping for this year). And there may now be “no amplification.”

Councilors Jay Lambert and Cecil Leonard voted against the restrictions, and Hannibal Costa was absent, which leaves Louise Durfee, Joanne Arruda, Don Bollin, and Ed Roderick imposing the rules. Durfee made the motion and spearheaded the opposition, and it isn’t surprising at all that a Town Council that permits its appointed Town Administrator to send false documents to the state en route to a massive tax increase and that Town Council members who would then sue the president of the local tax-payer group, David Nelson of Tiverton Citizens for Change, for complaining about that action, would squash a good cause that fills the community’s late-summer air with music.

From the Sakonnet Times:

At the hearing, Councilor Louise Durfee said she had gotten complaints that the music went on after it was supposed to, and that other noise went on after the official ending time. The neighbors nearby, and across Nanaquacket Pond could hear the music and Ms. Durfee later said she could hear the music from her home on Highland Road. …

“You’re on a postage stamp piece of property. Your neighbor goes to work at 4 a.m.,” she said.

From the Newport Daily News:

Council members hear complaints about the noise every year, Councilwoman Louise Durfee said. She made the motion at the council’s meeting last week to prohibit amplification and to cut back the hours. Money should not be raised “at somebody else’s expense, and that is what is happening,” she said.

No businesses. No charity. No public events. And high taxes. Sometimes sleepy little towns aren’t bucolic; they’re dying.

Government reform is, ought to be, and may have to be a coherent movement from the municipality to the federal government. Here in Rhode Island, it’s easy to see how a broad set of principles and tactics applied across government tiers have corrupted (and expanded) government and hobbled our society, and mutual support and encouragement across town and state borders will be critical to building a lasting reform movement.

It’s wonderful that national tea party activities have been putting pressure on elected officials at the federal level. It’s also important that, in Rhode Island, the Ocean State Policy Research Institute has formed as a think tank following issues of statewide concern, that the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition is taking an increasingly active role in highlighting bad legislation and reviewing candidates for office, and that the Rhode Island Tea Party has directed its activities toward statewide issues as well as national. I’ve maintained, however, that individual activism should begin at the city and town level, where government office is most accessible and where basic political principles have an immediate and local effect on voters’ lives.

We’re certainly finding, in my hometown of Tiverton, RI, that members of the political establishment who operate locally are willing to act as the vanguard in intimidating active residents (of the undesirable sort) to get out of politics.

The same week Tiverton Citizens for Change President David Nelson officially put his name down as a potential candidate for Town Council, two current members of that body, Louise Durfee and Joanne Arruda, filed a defamation lawsuit against him (and an unnamed group of John and Jane Does that may turn out to include me). Their lawyer, Jeffrey Schreck, sent the initial threat of litigation to Mr. Nelson shortly before this year’s contentious financial town meeting, and I’ll have more to say about the suspicious timing of these events, as well as the lack of merits to their claim, in the future, but on first review, I have to express my disappointment at the level of thinking that the resources of our public judiciary must be expended to address.

The substance of the complaint made by Arruda and Durfee — the latter a former director of the state Department of Environmental Management and one-time candidate for governor — hardly has grammatical grounds, let alone legal ones — from a PDF of the summons:

6. The Letter accuses plaintiffs and their allies of submitting false documentation to the State of Rhode Island to support a tax increase. The Letter further states that this accusation of official misconduct by plaintiffs is “not an idle charge” and is “well-documented.” The Letter accuses plaintiffs and others who constitute a majority of the members of the Town Council of making “a practice of sending secret, falsified documents to the state government.”

7. Mr. Nelson’s statements in the Letter accuse plaintiffs of wrongful, criminal conduct, and assert that TCC has written evidence to support his charges.

Here’s the relevant section of the offending letter from Mr. Nelson:

Still worse are the efforts of Ms Durfee, Joanne Arruda and their allies, in deliberate cooperation with the Town Administrator to avoid a Town Council vote exceeding the State Tax cap. They have submitted false documentation to the State to facilitate a tax increase of at least 9%. This is not an idle charge, and it is well documented. Town Administrator Goncalo has stressed that the documents are secret except for him, the Town Treasurer, Budget Committee, and the State. In fact, he promised “to find out who put that form on the Internet”, as if posting public documents is now a matter for witch hunts and suppression of transparency. We have this on tape.

It is astounding that a town official would make a practice of sending secret, falsified documents to the state government based on information that distorts the current status of the town’s budget process. More astonishing is that a majority of the Town Council supports it.

Either Durfee and Arruda have skin so thin that it pains them even to be in proximity of accusations, or they’re twisting the facts in order to present themselves as victims. Their names appear in the letter specifically with reference to efforts to “avoid a Town Council vote exceeding the State Tax cap,” which is irrefutably accurate, given the months of public debate in which they took precisely that position. The “they” who submitted false documents to the state is the whole group of “allies,” including Mr. Goncalo, and it is simply a fact that he did so. Whether Durfee and Arruda’s cooperation with the larger effort extended to direct prior knowledge of Goncalo’s act is immaterial, although it’s reasonable to have suspicions.

Furthermore, as evident in video of the Town Council meeting at which TCC brought this matter to a public head, the town administrator clearly did stress that his act was meant to be secret. And Nelson’s letter explicitly faults “a town official” — that is, Town Administrator James Goncalo — for this particular action within the larger campaign to avoid the letter of the tax cap law.

Lastly, as is also evident in the video, the lack of outrage from the majority of the Town Council implicitly lends their support. If, as their lawsuit implies, Durfee and Arruda believe that Mr. Goncalo’s actions were “criminal conduct” — an accusation that Nelson’s letter does not make — then they are guilty of shirking their responsibility by not censuring their employee when the matter came to their attention.

That local elected officials — who deserve partial blame for the town’s thinning tax base and demand for massive tax increases in the midst of an historic recession — would twist language for political purposes is to be expected. That they would seek to leverage the overburdened court system in an effort to cost a candidate for local office time and money during campaign season is one more example of the methodology by which political insiders have fostered public disengagement from the political process.

Louise Durfee Lawsuit 07122010+

 

 

This is a lawsuit which Louise Durfee filed against me and TCC on June 29.

I believe the comments l made are accurate and this frivolous lawsuit is an attempt to intimidate me from speaking out on important political issues. l have a constitutional right to express my disagreement with elected officials.

This is a blatant attempt to silence the voice of dissent and stifle debate.

Here is the letter to which the lawsuit refers. http://tivertoncc.com/2010/04/tcc-and-tivertons-oligarchy/

Here is the video where the Town Council is discussing the issue.

http://tivertoncc.com/2010/05/town-council-april-26-town-administrators-false-waiver-documents/

Friday’s Newport Daily News article on possible changes to the financial town meeting (FTM) system in Tiverton contained these worrying paragraphs:

But the council and the School Committee, it was noted, are prohibited from using public funds to influence a vote, per a charter amendment that was crafted by Caron and approved several years ago. How then, council members wondered, would they get the word out to voters about a budget they recommended?

[Town Councilor Louise] Durfee suggested doing away with that charter amendment, which is number 1218.

Section 1218 of the Town Charter (PDF) reads as follows:

No officer or employee of the Town, including the school Department, shall use, or cause to be used, Town property, goods, money, grants, or labor to influence the outcome of an election, ballot question, Financial Town Meeting, or referendum; the foregoing shall not prohibit the distribution or publication of election, ballot question, Financial Town Meeting, or referendum information by the Town Clerk, the Board of Canvassers, or a Charter Review Commission.

There is simply nothing in that language that would make a public hearing prior to an all-day financial referendum or special election different from the open forum of the financial town meeting. Town Council and School Committee members could still use their meetings (all televised on cable and available online) for political theater and manipulation. They could still speak in public and private forums. They could still use their own time and resources to advertise and promote their views in person, in print, on the Internet, on the radio, and on television. Just like anybody who does not share their privileged positions would have to do.

The real impetus behind the otherwise inexplicable introduction of 1218 to the discussion of changing the town’s budgetary process is that certain folks in Tiverton government do not like the restriction that the people of Tiverton voted into the charter just a couple of years ago, and they’ll seize any opportunity to eliminate it. Taxpayers provide various resources — including personnel — to elected and appointed officials in order to conduct the business of running the town, and some of them (Ms. Durfee leading the pack) would like to use those resources to influence outcomes.

Their reasoning isn’t entirely implausible. After all, they see absorbing an ever greater percentage of Tiverton residents’ wealth to be part of the business of running the town. From their perspective, they come up with budgets that they believe to be crucial to the town, and those who disagree are acting in contravention of Tiverton’s best interests.

The point lost in that thinking — and it’s a point that the people of Tiverton desperately need to relearn — is that budgetary control is an invaluable tool by which residents have input into municipal and school operation. It’s a check and balance beyond our regular elections — typically putting into office people with whom few voters are actually very familiar. A budget debate that gives those outside of government a fighting chance against those within is crucial because it requires groups that stand to gain financially from town expenditures to go that extra step beyond promoting preferred candidates and promote the actual dollar amounts that they’d like to extract from residents.

A recent story in the Providence Journal noted that the city’s property values plummeted with the latest revaluation, which raises this interesting question:

What the revaluation means for city finances, the tax rate and residential tax bills remains unclear. A potential 30-percent drop in the city’s $21.7 billion in total assessed property value (as of 2008) could mean a significant loss of revenue. …

Cicilline has pledged not to raise the property-tax levy — the total amount the city raises in property taxes — over this year’s $274 million. But he has not ruled out an increase in the tax rate, which is already one of the highest in the state, at $24.21 per $1,000 of assessed value for residential properties and $28.60 for commercial properties.

Owners of property in Tiverton needn’t worry about such ambiguity. It’s thoroughly accepted, in our local government, that the tax rate is little more than a midway calculation between the levy and the homeowner’s bill. The financial town meeting (FTM) sets the levy, and the town divides it up across all real estate owned, and your percentage of that real estate determines your percentage of the levy. No matter how worthless your house may become — as long as it doesn’t differ from the overall trends for the town — you’ll still receive the same tax bill.

The Sakonnet Times seems to have adjusted its strategy vis-à-vis publishing letters in the paper rather than online, so you’ll have to buy or borrow a copy of this week’s edition to read John Minior’s plea for a business-friendly Tiverton:

The trees on Souza Road do provide oxygen, but the site provides very few tax dollars to benefit taxpayers. There is nothing appealing to the eye from Souza Road to Route 24. …

The rezoning of Souza Road from a commercial to residential zone was a weapon Tiverton used to prevent a multimillion-dollar development from being realized because the simple denial stamp was having difficulty stopping it. Was there some kind of vendetta unleashed on the developers’ plan for the site?

Minior goes on to address the local industrial park and the power plant thereon in a similar way. Do we dare hope that the likes of he will begin to take the reins of town government?

The Newport Daily News reports:

Not wanting to go through another financial town meeting this year — two in May was plenty — the Town Council will not change the way it plans to levy taxes in fiscal 2011 to compensate for a change in the motor vehicle excise tax exemption.

Property tax bills are expected to be printed this week and mailed early next week to more than 6,000 property owners. Their tax rate actually will be 5 cents less than was announced after the second session of the financial town meeting that ended on May 15.

The new tax rate for fiscal 2011 will be $15.35 per $1,000 valuation, instead of the $15.40 that initially was calculated, Town Administrator James Goncalo told the council Monday night. The rate for fiscal 2010 was $14.35.

Taxing ourselves so heavily at a contentious FTM seems to have averted an attempt to increase motor vehicle taxes. That’s for this year, of course. Now the Town Council et al. have two taxes to ratchet upwards.

I read, the other day, of a Washington, D.C., cliche called the “Washington Monument Syndrome.” The phrase comes from the U.S. Dept. of Interior’s practice of threatening to close the tourist attraction when its budget request is rebuffed. In general, it denotes the tendency of government bureaucracies to place their most popular and/or critical programs first on the chopping block to pressure the public into funding their fluff.

I raise this bit of political trivia in tandem with an important correction to something that Deborah Pallasch wrote in a letter published in the Sakonnet Times, last week: Tiverton voters at the financial town meeting, she states, supported the School Committee’s requested budget because “they… understood that the state withholding $1.4 million dollars from us would mean hard choices and sacrifices by all.” Residents — especially parents of public school students — should know that at no point did the school department predict a loss of state funds anywhere near that amount.

Budgetary practices are unnecessarily complicated, in public education, but I’ll give you a few key numbers. In their initial budget request, the School Committee planned for a loss in general state aid of $172,217. Adding in “restricted” state funds — which the committee leaves out of its public budget presentation — the expected loss was still only $200,331. Even if we throw in the federal stimulus money that the state used to supplement its aid — which the committee inexplicably predicted to be $0 for the upcoming year — the predicted loss is still just $493,398, about one-third of Pallasch’s number.

A full accounting of its aid expectations that the School Committee provided to members of the Budget Committee shortly before the FTM shows an expected loss in aid of $836,384, but only if we include ostensibly one-time federal stimulus that counted as “restricted” funds. And that’s where Pallasch’s rhetorical slip becomes important.

The school department, led by Superintendent Bill Rearick, minimized its aid predictions and then asserted that it was $1.2+ million short on the budget that it claimed to need. The goal was to spend its federal windfall and build it into the regular budget, making the federal government’s short-term gift into a permanent local expense. To counter suggestions that the department should end “restricted” programs funded with disappearing dollars or pull back on free-running salary and benefit promises, the school administration and committee strove to keep the focus on an unrealistic threat to close a brand new (and bonded) elementary school and cancel every cherished program that the system offers.

Deborah Pallasch and her School Committee ally Carol Herrmann were key players in this strategy, and it continued even after the state Department of Education told Tiverton to budget for only a $211,467 decrease in state and general federal aid (3.8%). Well, the strategy worked. Thanks to the massive mid-recession increase in property taxes that the FTM imposed, the school department’s revenue is set to decrease by just $32,703, in the upcoming year, and that assumes not another penny in aid from above, restricted or otherwise.

Now, they expect their fellow Tivertonians to believe that they’re surprised that the teachers’ union would want its share of the pie that their scheme produced. Union members already had incentive to wait out the recession and then seek the retroactive raises that the School Committee has offered in the past. Why would a huge tax-increasing victory inspire a change in that strategy?

Political games from the national level down to the local ensured that the recession under which so many of us are suffering would hardly touch the public sector. At least we can now sit back and enjoy the show as an asserted need for union concessions turns into no concessions at all, or even a better deal for teachers.

I’ll tell you truly: I’m still largely a believer in the financial town meeting. It forces interested residents into a place where they at least have a chance to hear competing arguments. Whether or not they change their votes, they certainly cannot claim not to have heard warnings and considered alternatives. So, I’m watching this development, as reported in the Newport Daily News, with a degree of disconnect:

Town Councilman Cecil Leonard, Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Caron and former councilman Brian Medeiros have made independent requests to the council to consider some town charter amendments relating to the financial town meeting.

A workshop has been scheduled for Monday at 7 p.m. at Town Hall, 343 Highland Road. “Tiverton clearly has outgrown the FTM,” Medeiros wrote in a letter proposing to “keep the good aspects of our current system, while replacing the many difficult, unworkable aspects of the current FTM.”

A couple of years ago, a similar effort arose from the observation that nobody was interested in the FTM, and the town had trouble securing a quorum to pass the budget. Now it’s a topic of interest because too many fully committed activist types are making a battlefield of the meeting. To me, that looks like the process of Tiverton relearning how to sustain a democratic governing system in which opposing parties actually exist.

Problems exist, to be sure. I most definitely empathize with parents who fear to vote publicly in contravention of their children’s teachers. A week ago, in order to retrieve one of my children at the end of the school day, I had to sign a form handed to me by a woman in an NEA Tiverton t-shirt. One doesn’t have to inflate such experiences into a sinister plot in order to think the symbolism significant and likely to have an effect on parents. It’s also easier to motivate people to attend an all-morning budget meeting when the votes that they’ll cast, there, will determine salaries or services that they receive far in excess of the cost to them. In other words, those who would increase the budget and provide the services have a natural advantage with the current system.

Still, I foresee problems with the proposed alternatives:

The voters of Tiverton should remain the governing body, or those who make the final decision on the budget, but instead of attending an hours-long meeting or two, voters could approve or reject a budget during an all-day referendum, Medeiros said. …

Caron is advocating that an annual financial town election replace the financial town meeting. “The concept is to replace the meeting with a secret ballot election; altering the Charter only as necessary so that electors vote the annual appropriations/levies in a secret ballot election rather than at a physical meeting,” he wrote.

In a reversed reflection of the difficulty that residents may have standing in opposition to their neighbors, people only mildly interested in the politics may find it all too easy to vote according to partisan interests and vague impressions when there’s nobody in the voting booth to stand up and make his or her case.

None of this should suggest that I’m advocating one plan over another, or over no change at all. I said I’m a believer in the FTM, but I’m not a believer in our town’s system of governance (or our state’s, for that matter). We’re locked in to a long, slow, self-perpetuating downward spiral, and it’s reasonable to expect that Jeff Caron’s plan for an “FTM election,” of sorts, would create an opening for those whose motivation is only the gradually expanding open wound of annual tax increases.

Two points jump out from a recent Sakonnet Times article on an economic development presentation in Tiverton (no longer online). First:

[Rhode Island Economic Development Commission Executive Director Keith] Stokes said Tiverton land values, cost structures, and businesses needed to be consistent and competitive with the adjoining states of Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The unstated connection — at least as reported — is that our town and state must be competitive for the benefit of home buyers (those who influence land values) and business operators (those who make the state economically competitive), and a check of the tax assessor’s page in neighboring Westport, Massachusetts, shows that Tiverton’s currently expected $15.40 tax rate compares with $5.25, there. That’s the 2007 number, the latest that a quick Google search revealed, but it’s unlikely that Westport’s rate has tripled in the past three years.

Yes, Massachusetts handles taxes according to different policies, with more aid coming from the state, as I understand, but few home buyers will develop a fully subtle understanding of such matters before comparing the amount that one town will add to the mortgage payment, compared with another town’s take.

Second:

[According to Stokes,] poor education leads to ignoring the local workforce in favor of importing better-educated workers from out-of-state. Fidelity investments, for example, in Smithfield imports a large percentage of its 3,000 employees from elsewhere.

One hears this line of reasoning frequently, and it always has a fatal flaw. An investment in an educated workforce is certainly necessary, but unless that workforce can find local employers, we’ll wind up exporting the fruits of our investment. That is what’s happening in Rhode Island, as our best and brightest find they must look to other states to provide the job opportunities that have motivated their hard work.

In short, if our investment in education — and let’s put aside Rhode Island’s and Tiverton’s questionable results — leads to policies that drive up the cost of living in the state and the difficulty of doing business, here, it can only be self-defeating. In the first stages of pulling Rhode Island out of the dry well into which it’s fallen, our attitude about businesses’ importing workers has to be, “so what,” followed by, “let’s do better from here forward. An active economy will provide the revenue to invest in education without making a disincentive of our town and state cost structures. Moreover, an influx of success-oriented (non-public-sector) residents, many of whom will bring families with them, can only improve voter input to better shape our school system.

Most importantly, an active business environment does not include a static workforce of initial employees. It grows. Diverges. Expands. As our children graduate from high school and college, they’ll find Rhode Island to be a first choice not just for familial, geographical, and social reasons, but for economic reasons, as well.

Those who’ve been following statewide news will know that the General Assembly has permitted cities and towns to increase their revenue from motor vehicle taxes by exempting only the first $500 of value. (Previously, the first $6,000 was exempt.) In Tiverton, that means another $105 per car valued over $6,000. Those who’ve been following this blog will know that Tiverton Tax Assessor David Robert believes that any additional tax revenue taken in by this method should automatically decrease the property tax rate for homeowners.

According to the Newport Daily news, however, the Town Council has thus far not made a decision:

That forces the town to decide if it will just continue to provide the $6,000 exemption to residents this year only, said Goncalo, or levy a motor vehicle excise tax above the $500. That action might require a spe­cial financial town meeting, Goncalo said.

The options currently on the table appear to fall into three categories:

  • The town could ignore the new authority and keep taxation the same as it would have been if the General Assembly had not granted the power.
  • The town could impose the tax and automatically adjust the property tax levy. Officially, the motor vehicle tax is a state tax that the towns are allowed to collect and keep, so an FTM might not be necessary.
  • The town could host another FTM that could, presumably, determine that the municipality needs both the car tax and the property tax. (What limits the town could place on the third FTM before the fact, I don’t know.)

Well, today’s breaking news is that Town Administrator Jim Goncalo has received word that the state Division of Municipal Finance has approved Tiverton’s waiver of the tax cap, which should have held our tax increase at 4.5%.

I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised, though. Rhode Island is a state in which the governor and General Assembly finally manage to work together only when they’re trying to subvert a decision by a regulatory body tasked with defending electricity consumers by passing a law that forces regulators to reconsider a specific (extremely expensive) project allocated to a preferred corporate entity. In that environment, why would a division of a department of a bureaucracy follow its own guidelines?

Older Posts »