Latest news with #SenateCommitteeonJudiciary
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fifteen pages of public records reform. McKee's administration doesn't like any of it.
The perennial push to reform Rhode Island's public records law faces opposition from Gov. Dan McKee's administration. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) Lawsuits, federal funding cuts, organizational chaos and a workload that could 'grind government to a halt' are among the dire predictions given by state agencies, including the governor's office, in response to proposed reform to Rhode Island's public records law. Advocates expected the administration to come out in force against the Access to Public Records Act reform bill this year, which is nearly identical to the iteration that died in committee in 2024. They were not wrong. A dozen state agencies, including Gov. Dan McKee's office, flooded the Senate Committee on Judiciary with letters of opposition ahead of a May 22 hearing on legislation by Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat. McKee isn't budging on changes to public records law. Neither are reform advocates. To Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union and part of the ACCESS/RI coalition championing records reform, the administration's protest exposes not-so-pure intentions. 'I don't think we can give them any longer the benefit of the doubt that these objections are in good faith,' Brown said in an interview Tuesday. 'So many of them are bogus. It's a misreading of the bill that's incredibly disingenuous.' The legislation at its core aims to clarify and update the 1978 law, which was last revised in 2012. The 15-page omnibus bill encompasses 48 changes, from minor language tweaks to major updates meant to protect and expand access to affordable public information. The legislation also integrates new data sources like traffic accidents, police body-worn camera footage and text messages between officials, into what's subject to public scrutiny. Among the chief concerns by McKee's administration is a proposed requirement that public bodies 'shall' waive fees to retrieve and hand over public records when a requester can prove the records are in the public interest. The existing law says the records 'may' be provided for free if they benefit the public. State agencies defended fees as a way to recoup a portion of the substantial time and effort it takes state workers to find and collect data. The prospect of waiving fees, while simultaneously requiring state officials to document the specific legal explanation for redacted portions of documents in a 'privilege log,' threatens to 'grind government to a halt,' Jonathan Womer, Rhode Island Department of Administration director, wrote in a May 22 letter to lawmakers. Claire Richards, executive counsel for McKee's office, also took issue with this provision. 'Since every request made by a member of the public could be considered 'in the public interest' the provision could result in a fee waiver for every request,' Richards wrote in her May 22 letter. 'The ability to impose fees for the search, retrieval and redaction of documents searches is an important function in the APRA process.' Brown countered that the bill, as well as federal law under the Freedom of Information Act, offers a specific definition for what meets the public interest standard. He also debunked state agencies claims that expanding public records could violate attorney-client privilege, and expose confidential personal information for residents served through state health and human service programs. Similar privacy concerns accompanied proposed reforms meant to hold law enforcement accountable, specifying that internal investigations be subject to public disclosure, though identifying information can be redacted. Public safety officials remained vehemently opposed. 'Often, these are minor infractions for violations of policy,' Sid Wordell, executive director of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, told lawmakers during the May 22 hearing. 'If we make every single one of those available, that's going to be the next big thing on social media.' Wordell continued, 'discipline is meant to correct the behavior of the individuals we still feel are an asset to the agency.' But opponents have not offered an alternative way to incorporate internal police investigations into the state's public records law. 'All we heard when we met with them last year was 'no no no,'' said DiPalma, sponsor of the Senate bill. The House companion is led by Rep. Patricia Serpa, a West Warwick Democrat. Only two of the 16 groups representing state agencies, educational institutions, and cities and towns pitched solutions to their concerns. Jennifer Harrington, general counsel and legislative liaison for the Narragansett Bay Commission, the quasi-public agency that oversees wastewater collection and treatment for 350,000 state residents, suggested striking two pieces of contention related to posting meeting documents online ahead of time and requiring a requestor agree to extending a records fulfilment beyond the standard 20-days. Randy Rossi, executive director of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, offered amendments for each of the 10 sections of concern to local municipal officials in his May 22 letter. While John Marion, executive director for Common Cause Rhode Island, acknowledged concessions might need to be made for some type of reform to advance, he was not willing to concede all of the provisions under scrutiny. 'We're not going to disembowel the bill,' Marion said in an interview Tuesday. 'We're not going to water the bill down so much that it's meaningless just to find compromise.' Womer's letter identifies opposition to 15 individual clauses of concern, while Richards' six-page letter attacks seven provisions, some of which constitute entire sections of the 15-page piece of legislation. DiPalma said he was disappointed by the continued opposition from McKee's office, which he blamed for leading the administration-wide criticism. 'I have no facts and data to support this, but it seems like it was completely orchestrated by the governor's office,' DiPalma said in an interview Tuesday. Brown shared DiPalma's suspicions. 'I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption,' he said. Laura Hart, a spokesperson for McKee's office, acknowledged requests for comment but did not immediately provide a response Tuesday. DiPalma was also disheartened that a new section meant to assuage municipal government concerns about 'vexatious requests' — those submitted by bad actors solely to disrupt government operations — was seemingly dismissed by the governor's office, acknowledged only in a footnote of Richards' letter. The newly added section of the bill, the only change made to this year's version compared with last year, lays out a court process for chief executives of public bodies to challenge and, potentially not fulfill or be reimbursed for the cost of fulfilling, disruptive requests as determined by a Superior Court judge. But Richards wrote that forcing public bodies to initiate legal action to get out of fulfilling vexatious requests was an 'unworkable solution' requiring more time and resources than available. 'I was a little taken aback by that,' DiPalma said. 'It almost seemed like it was dismissive.' DiPalma's usual optimism and ever-insistent promise of getting his legislative priorities 'over the goal line' was noticeably absent when asked about public records reform. 'We have to be realistic about what's possible and what's probable,' DiPalma said. 'It's a tough hill to climb.' DiPalma held a kernel of hope that forthcoming meetings with Senate President Valarie Lawson and Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone, both of whom are cosponsors on the legislation, might yield progress. However, a hearing on Serpa's companion bill in the House State Elections and Government Committee has not yet been scheduled and House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi has remained noncommittal. These groups and state agencies wrote to lawmakers to express concerns with proposed updates to state public records law. Peter Alviti Jr., Rhode Island Department of Transportation directer Terrence Gray, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management director Megan Jackson, legislative liaison for the Rhode Island Office of the Public Defender Dr. Jerry Larkin, Rhode Island Department of Health director Richard Leclerc, Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals director Kimberly Merolla-Brito, Rhode Island Department of Human Services director Claire Richards, executive counsel for Gov. Dan McKee's office, Wayne Salisbury Jr., Rhode Island Department of Corrections director Liz Tanner, Rhode Island Commerce secretary Thomas Verdi, Rhode Island Department of Revenue director Col. Darnell Weaver, Rhode Island Department of Public Safety director and Rhode Island State Police superintendent Jonathan Womer, Rhode Island Department of Administration director The committee also received written opposition from The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay Commission, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, and the town of Lincoln. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gun bills draw a crowd to R.I. State House for seven and a half hours of testimony
Advocates from opposite sides of the gun debate sign up to testify on the proposed assault weapons ban during a May 14, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at the Rhode Island State House. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) Dozens of Second Amendment and gun control advocates alike filled the Rhode Island State House rotunda, floors and halls Wednesday, many waiting hours to testify on a bill that would ban a wide array of semiautomatic weapons statewide. It was also a long day for the Senate Committee on Judiciary, which heard seven and a half hours of testimony on 15 gun bills. But nearly every speaker addressed bill S0359 — also known as the Rhode Island Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025 — sponsored by Middletown Democratic Sen. Lou DiPalma. Unlike most hearings, Senate staff allowed only a small number of people into Room 313 at a time, and only one row of chairs for people testifying. A Capitol police officer, senate staff, and a stanchion were stationed outside the door to control the flow of people entering the room. As the hearing rolled into its seventh hour, Sen. Mark McKenney, a Warwick Democrat, subbed in for Committee Chair Sen. Matthew LaMountain, who had stepped out of the room momentarily. LaMountain and McKenney are listed as co-sponsors on the bill text. Yellow is color of the day as gun rights advocates turn out to oppose assault weapons ban bill 'It sure would make life easier for us if we could simply make policy based on the T-shirt colors,' McKenney joked after one yellow-shirted Second Amendment supporter pointed out yellow shirts outnumbered the red and orange shirts of gun control advocates as they did in years past. DiPalma's bill, plus companion House submission by Barrington Democratic Rep. Jason Knight, is one of two avenues Gov. Dan McKee is testing this year in an attempt to ban the sale and manufacture of firearms with military-style features. The bills' interpretation includes semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns equipped with accessories such as pistol grips, folding stocks, or threaded barrels. The bills would build on prior reforms passed during McKee's tenure, like a magazine cap, an age 21-and-over carrying limit, and a ban on open carry of shotguns and large rifles — successful efforts DiPalma mentioned in his testimony to fellow senators. 'Some will say this is not going to do everything. You're absolutely correct. This is not going to do everything,' DiPalma said. 'It's yet another building block in the framework of gun safety and gun violence. The push to forbid select semiautomatic weapons is old hat at the State House, but this year things have changed following the April 21 death of former Senate President Dominick Ruggerio — a longtime skeptic of firearm bans who had expressed a possible change of heart in his final months. Now, with Senate leadership refreshed, the fate of the bill depends upon the Senate Committee on Judiciary. DiPalma said 24 senators have signed on to support his bill, or 64% of the 38-member body, now down one vote to 37 with Ruggerio's District 4 seat vacant. Another bill co-sponsor is Senate President Valarie Lawson, attended the hearing at various points. 'President Lawson personally supports an assault weapons ban,' spokesperson Greg Paré said over email Wednesday. 'She believes strongly in the committee review process and will let it play out.' Judiciary has 10 members. Committee members Sen. Andrew Dimitri, a freshman Democrat from Johnston, newly elected Sen. Todd Patalano, a Cranston Democrat, and Sen. Leonidas Raptakis, a Coventry Democrat, voiced their opposition to the bill. Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino was mostly quiet during the hearing but has voted against similar legislation in the past. 'I think it's drawn confusion because we're referring to them all as assault weapons, when, in reality, this bill does not really distinguish actual, quote/unquote, assault weapons from handguns and certain kinds of shotguns,' Dimitri, a recreational bird hunter, said during the hearing. Raptakis wondered if a study commission should be formed instead. 'I don't know what you would study beyond what's already been studied. It's either we agree or we don't it's the right time to do it,' DiPalma replied, gesturing with his hands. Raptakis returned to the proposal of a study commission around 9:25 pm, right before the last five testimonies took the stand. 'Thank you,' a weary-sounding LaMountain replied after Raptakis shared the idea. Other senators who sat in on the hearing were Majority Leader Frank Ciccone, who is a licensed gun dealer; Majority Whip David Tikoian, a former North Providence police chief who also served 23 years on the Rhode Island State Police; and the Republican leadership, Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz of North Providence and Minority Whip Gordon Rogers of Foster. Senate Republicans and a handful of Democrats took to the State Library an hour before the hearing to denounce the bill. The Democrats in attendance included Ciccone and Tikoian, who stood in the audience, as did Rep. Arthur Corvese of North Providence. Reps. Stephen Casey of Woonsocket, and Deborah Fellela of Johnston stood in the lineup alongside de la Cruz, Rogers, Patalano and gun rights advocates. 'If enacted, this ban would ban most weapons in common use here in Rhode Island, it would be a blatant violation of the United States Constitution as well as the Rhode Island constitution,' de le Cruz said. Rogers blasted the bill's reliance on 'military-style' features to define an assault weapon, and held up a forward folding grip for the crowd. 'Same gun, same round, same ammunition,' Rogers said. 'but when you put a grip on it forward as an accessory, it becomes an assault weapon. Does that make it any more dangerous? No. Do we go around banning cars that have chrome rims and spoilers on because they look dangerous? No, we don't.' De la Cruz and Rogers continued those lines of argument during the hearing, with both critiquing the bill's language as vague and unreflective of mechanical reality — as well as DiPalma's understanding of kinetic energy. 'The gun has a firing pin that triggers the bullet — the ammunition — that is where the kinetic energy comes from, not the firearm,' Rogers told DiPalma. 'So we bring up the kinetic energy and what it does. And I think you were very theatrical last year, or the year before, when that was brought forward.' Rogers framed Rhode Island's proposed ban as a political outlier rather than a national standard. Only nine states have such bans, he said. 'That tells me 41 states haven't,' he added. An hour-long expert panel brought sharply divided testimony from both sides, from constitutional precedent for bans to historical efforts to forbid sawed off shotguns and bowie knives. If enacted, this ban would ban most weapons in common use here in Rhode Island, it would be a blatant violation of the United States Constitution as well as the Rhode Island constitution. – Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz, a North Smithfield Republican Jake McGuigan, senior director of government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and a former adviser to Gov. Donald Carcieri, cited homicide data as a reason the bill would be narrowly focused and not accomplish much. 'If we look over the past 13 years, 0.6% — that's 0.6%, not even one percent — of all homicides in Rhode Island are attributed to rifles that will be banned by this bill,' McGuigan said. 'Why do we need a common-sense approach to address 0.6%?…That's not a problem, that's a rounding error.' Greg Lickenbrock, a former gun magazine editor and firearms analyst with Everytown for Gun Safety, pushed back. 'Those are lives, not rounding errors,' Lickenbrock said. After experts departed, a wider range of views emerged. Andrew Wright of Pawtucket criticized the measure as racially and socially exclusionary. Gun control 'always just enforces a white supremacist status quo,' he said. 'Black and brown people, Asian people, queer and trans people are buying guns more now than they were before. They're the people who are going to be most affected by their inability to buy guns that match the weapons already in the hands of the people who want to do them harm.' As the hearing stretched into the evening, more gun control advocates came forward, including Emily Howe a mother of three who described the fear she feels daily for her two kids still in school. 'I've never allowed my kids to wear light-up shoes because I'm really afraid that one day that will be the end of them,' she said. 'If there's a gunman, my kids will be quiet — but the light-up shoes would be one to set them off and let them know where they're hiding.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How old is too old for a judge to stay on the bench?
Members of the Rhode Island judiciary are shown at Gov. Dan McKee's State of the State address on Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Michael Salerno/Rhode Island Current) All Rhode Island judges currently serve for life, but the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Tuesday heard a bill that would impose a mandatory retirement age for most judges. The bill sponsored by Sen. Sam Zurier, a Providence Democrat, would require all lower court judges and magistrates to retire by the age of 75. The committee held the legislation for further study — as is standard for most initial bill hearings. 'Rhode Island's system is inadequate,' Zurier told the committee. 'Lifetime appointments are not the best system.' If passed, the legislation would take effect July 1, 2025, and only apply to new judicial appointments after that date. The justices on the Rhode Island Supreme Court would be exempt because any change to their status requires an amendment to the state's constitution. 'All of our lower court judges are creatures of statute,' Zurier told the committee. Zurier wants to get Rhode Island's courts in line with most other states. A total of 33 states have a mandatory retirement age, according to data compiled by the National Center for State Courts. Most set the retirement age between 70 and 75. 'We're really a huge outlier,' Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Michael Yelnosky said in an interview. That statement rings especially true for how Rhode Island ranks among its neighbors. Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire all require their judges to retire at 70. Connecticut judges serve eight-year terms while judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire are lifetime appointees. New Hampshire had the chance to raise the judicial retirement age to 75 during the November 2024 election, but the ballot measure was shy one percentage point of being approved. In Vermont, where judges serve six-year terms, the retirement age is set at 90. Maine has no retirement limit for its judges, who serve eight-year terms following their appointments. 'It could be that we're better than everyone else, but I think there's some good reasons why states do it the way they do,' Zurier told Rhode Island Current ahead of Tuesday's committee meeting. One of those reasons, Yelnosky said, is that mandatory retirements invite less scrutiny over the performance of older judges — and whether they're overstaying their welcome. He pointed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was still active on the bench at the time of her death at age 83 in 2020, despite calls from some Democrats to step down before the end of President Barack Obama's second term. 'If it's 75, everybody knows you walk away regardless of your ability to continue to do the job,' Yelnosky said. Setting a mandatory retirement age allows state officials to better plan for the future, Yelnosky added. 'If you're a governor naming someone, you know how long they're going to be on the bench,' he said. 'If you're a judge named, you know what your career is going to look like on the bench.' Zurier said an official retirement policy could also lead to a more diverse bench moving forward. 'It's easier to do that if you have more turnover in the Judiciary,' he said. As of Feb. 25, Rhode Island's lower courts had four vacancies. There are 82 active magistrates and judges across the state's District, Family, Superior, Traffic Tribunal, and Workers' Compensation courts. 'I think we have a good judiciary — but I think this could be an improvement,' Zurier said in an interview. 'You want to have rotation in your judges so that they can be up on the changes that have occurred in society over time.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
