Smithfield (RI) Republican Party

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/ri-lawmakers-wa.html

At least according to the dynamic duds representing half of Smithfield in the General Assembly. Sen Tassoni (D – Wonderland) and Rep “Pistol Pete” Petrarca are wasting paper, ink and their follow legislators time on a law to “call on state education officials to create a statewide restriction on student texting”.

Neverrmind most districts have this policy already. Forget that the Association of School Committees does not want it. Someone said there ought to be a law.

In my experience, most of the time when someone says there ought to be a law, there already is or no, it really should not be a law.

On a list of what should be priorties in this session, I’d place this one around 15,000,000,000th

http://politicsblog.projo.com/2011/09/former-ri-ag-ca.html

“Archambault spokesman Rob Horowitz said the lawyer and former Jamestown police officer’s first priority is job creation.”

The Assembly can’t create jobs. They need to create the climate for busineses small and large to do so. Sadly their trend for the last 70 years has been in the opposite direction.

Ever increasing taxes and fees (corporate, personal, unemployment, workers’ compensation), $120 charges to inspect 5 gallon water heaters, restrictions on who can sell health insureance and increasing lists of what those policies must cover, agreements to nearly triple already high electricity costs for “green” wind power.  This is the legacy of the democrat dominated GA.

It’s time to send people to Smith Hill that either have created jobs despite the RI governement hurdles or who understand why those hurdles need to go.

In the 7/21/2011 Observer (http://breezepapers.com/2011/07/20/observer/tassoni-says-gop-boss-hirons-should-get-his-facts-straight) the senator takes some liberties with the truth concerning statements made earlier by John Dionne and myself. Below is my response to the Observer.

Sen.Tassoni says Mr Dionne and I need to get our facts straight. I am up for that challenge.

Mr Dionne said the senator’s sponsorship and support of Binding Arbitration was based on his past relationship with labor unions. The senator’s  answer was that he’s no longer employed by a union. Correct. But that does not change the fact that he was in the past as Mr Dionne stated. Not to mention his newspaper’s (http://www.commongroundnews.net) advertisements are at least half for unions, affiliated organizations or businesses owned by fellow democrat politicians. While the senator is no longer a public union employee, he  is clearly in good standing with the public sector union political action committees. In the 2nd quarter of this non-election year he received over $2500 in public sector PAC donations. (http://www.ricampaignfinance.com/RIPublic/Filings.aspx)

Moving on to the Binding Arbitration Bill (S0794   http://www.rilin.state.ri.us//BillText11/SenateText11/S0794A.pdf )and the Senate votes on it on June 29th. (The Senate Journal http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/journals11/senatejournals11/SJournal6-28.pdf). Sen.Tassoni sponsored the bill. If it is a conflict to vote for a bill, how can it not be to sponsor it?

There were 7 votes related to the bill. 5 amendments,  a motion to move the final vote to June 30th and the actual vote on the bill. Sen.Tassoni recorded no vote on the first 6 votes and finally abstained on the 7th. Final total 6 walks, 1 abstention.

Is binding arbitration bad for Smithfield and North Smithfield? I am not an expert so I’ll defer to the elected municipal officials. Of the 21 elected municipal officials (Smithfield 5 council, 5 school committee; N. Smithfield 5 council, 5 school committee, 1 administrator), 15 are listed in opposition at the RI Coalition Against Binding Arbitration website (www.ricaba.org). The rest have not answered, yet. The opposed includes the 3 members of the democratic majority on the Smithfield School Committee.

Clearly the municipal officials in the 22nd senate district  think this idea is a bad one. From the national media it appears states are not enacting this idea right now. Most are running away from it. 

Yes, sometimes our General Assembly members should recuse themselves. Sen.Tassoni has sponsored hundreds of bills in his time in the RI Senate. He generally makes the top 5 in the number of senate bill filled every year. Researching how many time he has recused himself since his election is not an easy task. However, I would bet the number can be counted on 2 hands.

Recusing oneself from an issue should include not submitting bills on the subject, not voting on the subject and not advocating for the subject. About a third of the senator’s letter was singing the praises of the binding arbitration bill he submitted. Score 1 out of 3 on recusing.

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Chair

The Monday (7/4/2011) ProJo had a write up  ”explaining” Sen Tassoni’s non-vote on Binding Arbitration. He claims he was given legal advice not to vote on the bill because he is a mediator.

I guess this was not an issue back in March when HE SPONSORED IT.

ProJo Article http://politicsblog.projo.com/2011/07/ri-senator-pass.html

The bill http://www.rilin.state.ri.us//BillText11/SenateText11/S0794A.pdf

Bill History http://dirac.rilin.state.ri.us/BillStatus/WebClass1.ASP?WCI=BillStatus&WCE=ifrmBillStatus&WCU

Binding arbitration for teachers is perhaps the most debated issue at the General Assembly this session behind the budget and civil unions.

Having watched Senator Tassoni’s votes on union related issues of the last few years, I would have gone over to Twin River to bet on a yea vote from our senator. Even though Smithfield and North Smithfield’s municipal governments have vociferously opposed it. This could cost tax payers millions in a few short years.

Our senator could have voted yea. He could have surprised me and voted nay. He could have recused himself as a lot of unions public and private buy advertising in his newspaper. Instead he pulled that time honored General Assembly trick on a tough issue. He “took a walk”. Assured there were enough votes for passage; the senator left the chamber and recorded no vote.

Senate District 22 had no representation on this crucial issue. It passed 20 – 17. 37 of 38 senators did their job and voted on this controversial issue.  Sen. Tassoni took a break.