Rhode Island Senate Committee Hears Convention of States | COS LIVE 📱

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]under Article 5 of the United States Constitution. Please enlighten us, Senator.

[00:00:05]>> Thank you, Chairman. I'll do the best I can. Uh Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on S 2724.

[00:00:14]>> [snorts] >> Um I will do my best to provide the details of the resolution. However, as this comes from a constituent with greater knowledge than me on the subject, I'll reserve the final points to him who will be testifying later.

[00:00:28]Um however, in any event, the purpose of this resolution is to invoke the authority granted to the states under Article 5 of the United States Constitution to request a convention of states for a limited and defined purpose.

[00:00:42]>> [snorts] >> Specifically, this resolution seeks consideration of constitutional amendments aimed at imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the scope and jurisdiction of federal authority, and establishing term limits for federal officials and members of Congress.

[00:01:01]Importantly, this legislation also creates a framework governing Rhode Island's participation in any future convention. It establishes qualifications for commissioners, limits the scope of their authority, requires formal oaths, and creates oversight and removal mechanisms to ensure Rhode Island delegates cannot exceed the authority granted by the General Assembly.

[00:01:24]Uh I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have at this point in time, but as I indicated, I do believe that there are uh more qualified individuals that have expertise in this area that are signed up to testify. Thank you, Senator. Any questions for the sponsor? Hearing none, do we have a motion to hold for further study?

[00:01:41]>> Second. All those in favor, I.

[00:01:43]>> I. Thank you, Chairman.

[00:01:44]>> Opposed. Thank you.

[00:01:46]Next up, uh I don't know where Chairman Basilico is, but on 2140, an act relating to state affairs and government, quasi-public corporations accountability and transparency act.

[00:01:55]It provides that compensation comparability studies of senior management documents discussed at an open meeting, annual contracting reports, a list of current salary salaries and positions, and all policies and procedure of public corporations be made public. Any questions? Hearing none, a motion to hold. Second. Further study.

[00:02:16]All of the favor, I. I. Any opposed? The eyes have it. Getting back to testimony on 3202, Michelle Arias from the Department of State.

[00:02:25]Michelle, welcome back. It's always a pleasure to have you testify. Please proceed.

[00:02:32]Good evening, Chair, members of the committee. Uh my name is Michelle Arias.

[00:02:35]I'm the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs with the Secretary of State. I would like to thank uh Senator Demechi Demitri for introducing this legislation on behalf of our office. And to really echo what the Senator said, this legislation really is about government efficiency. And just to give you uh some context about what the rule refiling process is, all it does is that it first the agencies, every 5 years, they have to uh re- certify their rules that are active. And this doesn't mean that it goes through the rule-making process, which specifically uh makes any amendments or creates new rules or any changes. All this does is ensure that the rules that a agency currently has remain active.

[00:03:20]And so, this certainly creates a lot of confusion to the public who tend to conflate the rule refiling with the uh rule-making process. So, uh for a little bit of scope of how this looks like, every agency has to go uh through uh our online Rhode Island Code of Regulations, uh which our office oversees, and they have to copy essentially what's already online into a document, send it to our office, um and essentially sign off that the rule is active. And they have to do that for each and every single rule and there are about 1,153 rules that we would have to do this through and again, this process happens every 5 years. So, what we are proposing with this legislation is to really streamline the process by replacing it with a letter that an agency has to send to our office that outlines every single rule and instead of sending each and every individual one, which will certainly reduce staff time on our end and also for the agencies, which would also allow state employees to better serve the public. Um, and I would just like to mention that our office worked with the governor's office and we worked with several agencies, which there are some letters of support from them.

[00:04:37]I believe OMB, DOH, DEM and also the office of the treasurer. And with that, uh, chairman and members of the committee, I'm happy to take any questions.

[00:04:46]Thank you very much for your testimony.

[00:04:48]Any questions? Hearing none. We also do have John Marion from Common Cause in support, not speaking.

[00:04:55]Uh, anybody else here would like to testify in 3202? Thank you, Michelle.

[00:05:00]Numerous letters as well to consider.

[00:05:03]Next up on 2987, we have Robert Craven on behalf of the office of the general treasurer here in support and Bob Marshall from the Rhode Island uh, Council on Disabilities.

[00:05:16]Mr. Marshall, welcome back. Mr. Craven, please proceed.

[00:05:19]Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Robert Craven. I'm the policy director for the general treasurer here to testify in support of Senate Bill 2987, which repeals a state payback provision for funds saved through what's called a Rhode Island ABLE account.

[00:05:36]The legislature created ABLE accounts in 2016 to help individuals with disabilities save for disability-related expenses without jeopardizing their eligibility for means tested public assistance programs.

[00:05:50]That means money saved in the accounts can help them pay for medical bills, for assistive devices, and even food.

[00:05:58]The payback provision that this legislation seeks to repeal allows the state to seek reimbursement for Medicaid expenses made on behalf of a disabled individual after they die.

[00:06:10]The family can use ABLE funds to bury a disabled family member first, but before the family receives another cent, the state gets to repay itself for all Medicaid benefits this individual received.

[00:06:24]Benefits to which this person was entitled to during life.

[00:06:28]The result is that families simply aren't saving through an ABLE account because of the fear that the state will exercise this clawback provision. But in the decade this program has existed, the state has never exercised its authority to clawback these accounts.

[00:06:45]Not once. That means the state has never reaped a financial reward, and logically it follows that this bill will not have a financial impact.

[00:06:55]EOHHS has expressed concerns with this legislation because it would reduce funds the state is able to recover in favor of passing savings on to decedent's beneficiaries.

[00:07:07]It's true the state would no longer have the option to seek repayment from ABLE accounts.

[00:07:13]But as a state, need we pad Medicaid budget with these type of funds?

[00:07:19]The salary of a cashier with Down syndrome at a local grocery store. A few thousand dollars left behind by a grandmother that wants to take care of her grandson or granddaughter with muscular dystrophy.

[00:07:32]Veteran's benefits of an Afghani war veteran with PTSD. These are what ABLE accounts are.

[00:07:38]Are these the type of funds we want to clawback so the state can repay itself.

[00:07:43]These are small dollar accounts. We have less than 1,000 and the average account balance is under $11,000.

[00:07:51]There is no windfall to be had and there's no rainy day to prepare for.

[00:07:55]19 states have already taken the same route and passed similar legislation.

[00:08:00]Rhode Island should become the 20th.

[00:08:01]Thank you.

[00:08:04]Thank you very much. It's a great bill.

[00:08:07]Um I will definitely will help a lot of people, so I want to thank the Treasurer and his office and you for the advocacy on it. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, please proceed.

[00:08:17]Good morning, members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Thanks the opportunity to come before you on behalf of the Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities Council to speak about the Chairman's Bill 2987, which was just described by the Treasurer. I'm going to skip over some of my stuff here cuz he just said it to you.

[00:08:33]Um we have um submitted some written testimony as well, which I direct you to. And you're also have some testimony from some individuals that have, you know, either not done an ABLE account or are um losing benefits because of it because they are trying to. And I ask you especially look at some uh testimony that was submitted by David Vito, who is someone that has a disability and is trying to help someone more disabled than him and wants to leave the money to him. So he is foregoing some of his benefits in order to be able to do that.

[00:09:11]These are the kinds of things that we're saying we want to go scoop back to the fund the Medicaid.

[00:09:16]Um the other thing that's happening is that some of the families that do have some money they want to put aside, instead of doing the ABLE account, which is controlled by the person with the disability, they get to decide what to spend it on within the limits that are set on an ABLE account.

[00:09:34]They instead are putting it into a trust account that then is managed after the parent's death by the beneficiary probably that would have gotten the able account. So, now the person has to go and ask the beneficiary, which is sets up a real conflict situation where the person that has to give them permission to spend their own money is the person that's going to inherit their money. It's just, you know, setting up a lot of situations that just don't make sense and there's not a lot of money to be had and there's no budget impact. We really need to get this passed so that people can use these accounts the way they were intended.

[00:10:11]I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[00:10:13]>> Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Any questions?

[00:10:15]Senator Kennedy, please. I I just like to make a comment. Uh I had read David Veto's letter and Zack Gauthier's letter as well as what was submitted by you and I agree with Chairman LaMountain. This bill makes eminent sense and it's one that I hope we can move because clearly uh just as indicated by Mr. Veto in his efforts to help out a friend who's more disabled than he is and unfortunately is stymied to some degree by the nature of the present law.

[00:10:53]I I would like to think that we could get this done and we ought to get it done. So, thank you both for bringing it forward and let's see if we can make this work.

[00:11:02]Thank you.

[00:11:03]All right, thank you very much.

[00:11:06]I believe that concludes the testimony in 2987. Next, we're going to move back to 2480, Senator Coleman's bill.

[00:11:13]We have Dylan Giles. Dylan, welcome to Senate Judiciary.

[00:11:19]Um we have Archana I have Archana here.

[00:11:28]>> Yeah. I apologize. I was going to butcher that last name. I apologize. And Jamie and Stephen Brown as well.

[00:11:36]We lose uh Madeline. How are you guys?

[00:11:38]Even better.

[00:11:40]>> [laughter] >> All right.

[00:11:45]Good afternoon and thank you uh Chairman Lombardi and to members of the committee. My name is Dylan Chiles. I represent the Providence Streets Coalition. We are a non-profit organization that advocates for safer streets, better transportation choices, and policies that advance mobility justice.

[00:11:59]Um the public records reforms in this bill would bring Rhode Island in line with a vast majority of other states. Um as Senator Conley said, 42 other states make crash data available to the public.

[00:12:11]Many of those state DOTs uh maintain their own data portals, so people can see where crashes are occurring and demand safety improvements there.

[00:12:19]What we What we are asking for is not radical. It's not malicious. It is a common sense practice around the country um and a common sense strategy in our shared fight for safer streets.

[00:12:29]So, why is crash data important? If you want to advocate for safer streets, you need to know where crashes are occurring. Um a few years ago, a project led by some of our amazing volunteers, two of whom are here, um um released a crash map uh in the city of Providence using data from the Providence police who have been supportive and of this uh form of transparency. Today, you can go on our website and view an interactive map of more than 4,000 individual crashes involving people walking, biking, um being hit by drivers of the last 15 years.

[00:13:00]Along with information about the road conditions and injuries severity. When we released it, it was one of the most engaged with projects um that we have ever produced. Um people were zooming in on certain streets, confirming their fears that it is indeed unsafe, finding their own crash and saying, "I found my dot."

[00:13:16]Traffic violence affects so many people directly and indirectly. When roads seem unsafe, they probably are, and we can turn to the data to prove it.

[00:13:24]So, So we went to RIDOT to request the data outside of Providence.

[00:13:29]RIDOT refused our APRA request and cited a long-standing policy of complying with federal law by withholding crash data.

[00:13:36]However, no such federal law exists.

[00:13:38]When we appealed, the AG's office agreed that RIDOT did have the discretion to withhold the data, but noted that it was not required to do so and said, "We strongly encourage DOT to to consider whether it may be in the public interest to dis- to disclose this information."

[00:13:55]Undeterred, we tried going to individual police departments who told us that they did not have the ability to produce the data we were requesting. Department after department told us that while they can pull up an individual crash report, they cannot produce a comprehensive data report that we were asking for.

[00:14:10]So all of this makes RIDOT the de facto gatekeeper of crash data in Rhode Island. And outside of Providence, residents are in the dark and left to trust RIDOT when they say, "We alone are responsible for street safety improvements."

[00:14:25]This assertion of privilege presupposes that the public has no role to play in utilizing crash data to help advocate to make our roads safer. This is simply untrue. As an example, advocacy by public and elected leaders in places like North Main Street is the reason that we are seeing incremental changes in safety there.

[00:14:45]When government hides information like crash data from the public, it is not just advocates and journalists who suffer. It's every Rhode Islander who who walks, bikes, drives, or relies on public transportation. So I respectfully urge you to support this legislation.

[00:14:58]Thank you, Dylan. Any questions for the witness?

[00:15:01]You may please proceed.

[00:15:02]Did you ask Did you say you asked other states for this information?

[00:15:06]We have not gone to other states. We went to other cities and towns outside of Providence, and we were unable to get that the data from them.

[00:15:13]The The information about 42 other states comes from a Rutgers University study of of states. it Are they giving out in other states, do you know?

[00:15:23]I don't understand the question. Are other states providing that information if you ask it?

[00:15:27]>> other states are providing crash data.

[00:15:30]What What do you do with that data? What are you going to do with it? Could you sell it at some point? Could you sell that data?

[00:15:37]Um we we as advocates would use that data to >> Could you sell it?

[00:15:42]I I I don't know.

[00:15:45]Okay. Thank you.

[00:15:47]All right. We're going to move over to your left. Please state your name.

[00:15:50]Welcome to the Senate Judiciary.

[00:15:52]Thank you. My name is Archana Ramanujam.

[00:15:54]I live in Providence and I am testifying in support of Bill S2480, Senator Conley's Access to Public Records Act.

[00:16:01]This act would make traffic crash data publicly available in Rhode Island like in 42 other states. So, there would be no incentive as far as I know for us to sell this data because everyone would have access to it, right?

[00:16:14]So, as Dylan mentioned, I'm a member of Providence Streets Coalition and have used the crash data that we collected for the city of Providence as well as the crash map that volunteers have put together.

[00:16:26]The data and its visualization gave us valuable insights into where and when pedestrians and cyclists are getting hit by cars in the city and how we can prevent this.

[00:16:36]For example, we learned that the census block containing three of Sorry, the census block um with containing three of Providence's high schools has one of the highest numbers number of crashes in the city between 2010 and 2025.

[00:16:51]We can also potentially identify stretches of road that have particularly high pedestrian and cyclist crashes. For example, downtown.

[00:17:00]This allows us to evaluate particular intersections or stretches for danger and work effectively to reduce crashes, injuries, and deaths. It allows us to make crash Sorry, it allows us to make streets safer.

[00:17:13]All Rhode Islanders deserve public access to crash data on their streets.

[00:17:16]We deserve to know which streets are unsafe and to be able to advocate to our municipal and state officials to do something about it.

[00:17:24]RIDOT is currently failing to provide us with this data and there's no other way for Rhode Islanders to access it.

[00:17:31]Um as Dylan mentioned, members of Providence Streets Coalition including myself tried to contact various police departments across the state to gather this this data bit by bit, but we were met with red tape, bureaucracy, and a lot of data and different data formats.

[00:17:46]This data was sort of made publicly available at the at that level of jurisdiction, but as Jamie will explain not at the state level, um RIDOT's level, right?

[00:17:56]Bill Bill S 2480 would allow this data to be publicly accessible so that Rhode Islanders can work on making their streets safer together with you. Thank you.

[00:18:09]Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Yeah, quick question. Yep.

[00:18:12]The the data on the other 42 states when you try to access it, is it through a um database like online database or interactive dashboards or you trying to get this like going into the police station say, "Could you give me the crash data for last week what occurred in Providence?"

[00:18:31]Physically. It it varies. Um I think most of those states have their own portals. Um just to basically get ahead of all of the data requests that that they would would anticipate. Um they just put it up there because otherwise they're they're going to continue to get asked. Um and so if you you can go on MassDOT's website right now and see all of the crashes across the state, filter by injury type, filter by conditions and time of day, filter by week, month, whatever. Um but I think the reason that state DOTs do those portals, and I believe that RIDOT has its own portal currently. It's just only for RIDOT.

[00:19:16]So, you know, I I I think that's why they put the the portals up is because they're anticipating requests and But I I I think the issue here is that if you can access online instead of trying to go to the police station say, I want the data in paper form. Maybe that's one of the reasons cuz I'm just trying to figure out if the 42 other states access it through online databases, which makes a big difference than going there in person and trying to access it. Okay, we'll look into that. Thank you. That's a good point. We'll look into that.

[00:19:46]We'll move over to testimony and keep it moving. Everybody's been waiting a while to give testimony tonight, so let's try to be efficient as possible. So, please Hi, my name is Jamie Beguin and I'm with the Providence Streets Coalition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to talk about this. Um I want to talk a little bit just about the mechanics of what this bill is trying to do and um cuz I realize the text can be a little confusing if you're not as familiar with this issue as some of us are.

[00:20:10]So, currently under the APRA text, uh exemption E states that any records that would not be available to opposing parties in litigation are exempt from disclosure.

[00:20:21]The federal statute referenced here in the bill, 23 USC 47 says that any records compiled or collected for the purpose of safety enhancement or hazard elimination on roadways is not discoverable or admissible in civil litigation. So, those two pieces of law conspire together to give RIDOT um cover to say that they don't have to release these records, basically. These records are public in the hands of your local police department. The problem we're running into is that a lot a lot of police departments don't have the expertise or the technological resources to basically export the records we need from their database. RIDOT compiles those records using a third-party LexisNexis uh database that we pay a a for as a state. Uh I want to address um Senator Metellino's question about selling data. So, LexisNexis is the company we pay that RIDOT pays uh, to compile the data from the different towns. LexisNexis will sell you a crash record. They have you can go on their website. Um, it's their buy crash service. You can look that up on the internet and you can pay a fee and download a crash report. So, this isn't making anything public that isn't already public either from your local police department theoretically except for limitations of technology um, or that RIDOT's vendor is already selling. Now, if we make this public through RIDOT, if RIDOT has to make their compiled database public, they will most likely create a portal uh, an online portal like most other states do just as the easiest and cheapest way to make these records available. That means your local police department won't be fielding a bunch of requests for crash records because the online portal will exist. So, it should reduce the administrative burden for local municipalities.

[00:22:08]Um, and yeah, I I my just final thought I just want to make really clear this is not making anything public that isn't already public under APRA. Um, it's just the mechanics of how we make this actually available um, to the public as it's supposed to be um, in APRA by allowing the one compiled database to be public. All right. Thank you.

[00:22:32]Happy to take any questions.

[00:22:33]>> Mr. Chairman, if I may. Please, please, please, Mr. Chairman.

[00:22:36]>> I'm looking at the a website. It's called Safer Streets Priority Finder and that's where you can go and you're telling me these 42 states. But when I open up this portal, a lot of these states are limited. They're not they're not open-ended. And a lot of states Alabama no, Alaska no, others are limited.

[00:22:53]Uh, I'm not sure if you're telling us that all 42 states allow a unlimited or open uh, request or able to get this data. So, I'm looking at this portal and a lot of states limit the type of data that can be given to the public. So, we want to make sure that we're talking apples and oranges and not just telling us that 42 states allow an unlimited because I don't see it. I'm counting all these states as no, no, no, limited, no, yes, maybe a few yes here, but most of them are limited and no. What limited will typically mean is that, um, if there's a state portal, it won't include every data field, for instance. But the you know, the basic information that is really relevant here is where did the crash happen, when did the crash happen, was it between a car and a bicyclist, was it between two cars, was it a pedestrian hit by a car? That's That's the really critical, um, data that we need to make safety improvements that's not available in Rhode Island. But And And those basic details are pretty much available in 42 states.

[00:23:56]Thank you. All right.

[00:23:59]Thank you. Madeleine, welcome back to Senate Judiciary. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Madeleine Maggonigal on behalf of the ACLU of Rhode Island. Um, if you'll permit me to speak on Steve's bills for the rest of the evening that he signed up on because he had to step out. Um, there's really not much more I can add in support, um, beyond what the prior witnesses have said. I just want to emphasize, um, that 23 USC 407 statute that the prior witness spoke about. That's the statute that Senator Goldin was alluding to in her introduction of this bill. And that is the, um, federal citation of the law that, uh, DOT is using to say that they cannot They don't have the authority to release this information. And I just really want to emphasize that that's restricted to this information not being subject to discovery or admissible as evidence. Um, and that doesn't really, um, equate to the the Those limitations don't really equate to the authority to release this information. And for these reasons, we do support this bill and I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right.

[00:24:52]So, has, uh, has the ACLU decided maybe to sue the DOT? Have you gone to court maybe using that process? I mean, you guys usually are famous for going to court on a lot of other issues, but have you decided to maybe take the DOT to court and let the judiciary make that decision? To my knowledge, no, Senator. Thank you.

[00:25:13]I'm waiting for you to join the ranks, Lou.

[00:25:17]All right. Thank you very much, all. I appreciate it. Maybe we just have a follow-up conversation on some of the points raised, but we appreciate your advocacy.

[00:25:26]All right. Um We have Chairman DePalma's bill we're going to introduce and hold 2400, an act relating to state affairs and government administrative procedures requires that all agencies final rules promulgated pursuant to the APA be approved by the General Assembly's action, but in no case later than 12/31 of the year as promulgated before we can become effective. Any questions?

[00:25:49]Hearing none, do we have a motion to hold for further study? Seconded. All those in favor, I. Any opposed? The eyes have it.

[00:25:55]And last is 2389 by Chairman DePalma, an act relating to public records access to public records and makes numerous changes to the access to the Public Records Act, including clarifying various provisions, increasing the sanctions for knowing and willful violations of the law, and making certain traffic accident data and preferred license plate information public. We're going to have a lot of testimony on that, but do we have a motion to hold for further study?

[00:26:22]Motion. Seconded. All those in favor, I.

[00:26:24]Any opposed? The eyes have it.

[00:26:28]Now, all bills that have been held and one bill passed, we are going to move back to the order which we were in.

[00:26:42]See some individuals here on 27 27.

[00:26:47]They have rejoined us.

[00:26:50]Come on up.

[00:26:52]Please state your name and Please Please proceed.

[00:27:01]Good evening, Chairman. Um my name is Emily Coo. I am a policy advocate and Rhode Island program director for Acadia Center.

[00:27:08]Thank you uh for returning to our item uh while we were elsewhere in the building. Um Acadia Center is a research and advocacy nonprofit that is committed to advancing a clean energy future. Uh we are in strong support of Senate Bill 2727, which aims to establish an intervener compensation or intervener support program. Um I don't often get to come before you all, so I am am glad to um uh to be here and to talk about uh energy uh and utility regulation. Uh what this uh proposes to do is to encourage and fund the equitable equitable participation in both public utility regulation before the Public Utilities Commission and in energy facility siting, which comes before the Energy Facility Siting Board, particularly for vulnerable communities.

[00:27:59]Specifically, an intervener support program as proposed as a grant program would fund the compensation of lawyers, expert witnesses, and other reasonable costs uh for parties that have an interest in a proceeding before those bodies, but are not financially able to participate.

[00:28:16]Um there's a clear process outlined for uh grants to cover this program.

[00:28:22]Um and uh really what's at stake here is um pretty important energy decisions going before the the PUC and the EFSB, uh determining the balance between sufficient infrastructure and what the utility Rhode Island Energy can spend and what just and reasonable rates are.

[00:28:37]This is These are significant sums of money, and we feel uh very very well worth the investment to allow adequate representation for those who um by the standard of participation, which is determined by the PUC or the EFSB.

[00:28:52]Um so, they have to prove that they have uh a case that is not otherwise represented to intervene, um but they can uh pursue financial compensation for that participation. What we're talking about here is really in a resource imbalance um in the case uh particularly of the PUC, utilities have the resources, attorneys, and technical knowledge, um because they were required to participate in proceedings, uh and they often do use customer revenue to finance that participation.

[00:29:21]Other interests that are not represented by the ratepayer advocate or otherwise, um they don't have the resources, um and because of that resource asymmetry, um they uh other parties are not pushing back on excessive utility spending, um offering robust alternatives, um it is these bodies function like courts, and so the PUC is only able to act on the evidence before them. So, if a party does not come to the PUC and say, "Actually, I have reviewed the documentation that the utility has provided about why they need to charge us more, and I have uh the evidence, and I can present my evidence uh in the legal format required um to make another case." And so, these are important decisions about um our energy um that uh uh that is worth representation. Um I'm happy to um expand more about uh intervener compensation programs, and I I'm sure Timmons will expand as well.

[00:30:20]Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

[00:30:23]Next witness.

[00:30:25]Um good evening. Thanks for having me up. My name is Timmons Roberts. I'm a professor at Brown University.

[00:30:31]I run the climate and development lab there, um and I've been working on clean energy issues for about 30 years. I'm speaking as an individual, however, I'm not speaking for Brown.

[00:30:41]Um I'm here as a volunteer. Somebody um be who has been researching this issue a lot. In fact, we did um workshops in my lab uh with in in all six uh New England states. We went to each of the state capitals. We held in-person workshops through the end of COVID, and then we held six of them online.

[00:31:04]And in each of them, there was discussion about this imbalance that happens on these really important issues where the utility basically uh is able to bring the tech and the technical expertise and the lawyers, and then community groups uh just don't have the resources. It's incredibly unbalanced field for making decisions. Our policies don't represent um the needs of the people.

[00:31:32]Um this came up again and again in the six states.

[00:31:35]So, you know, who's got those resources?

[00:31:38]The utilities do. Who don't have them?

[00:31:40]And it's citizens' group, especially in a in affected communities. Imagine, you know, somebody's wants to a big company wants to put a natural gas plant in your neighborhood, uh as happened in Burrillville, for example, and that was very difficult for the people in that neighborhood to get representation at the uh energy facility siting board and at the public utility commission.

[00:32:02]Um these are just $50,000 grants. This is affordable for the state. It limits it to just six groups at a time. This is not going to bust our budget.

[00:32:11]Um in fact, state 15 other states have these um intervener support um uh programs, including our neighbors Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and even New Hampshire, which of course uh when we went to New Hampshire in those, they were really happy to see us. They were like, "Everybody's given up on us uh when it comes to this kind of uh effort."

[00:32:33]Um but they have some uh some good programs.

[00:32:37]Um California's found that for every dollar invested in these intervener compensation programs, this is a kind of a surprising finding.

[00:32:46]That it led to about $10 in return on investment in lowered rates for rate rate payers.

[00:32:54]Because these allow people to say, "Wait a minute, why are we building this facility in our neighborhood? We don't want this thing here." And then the utility finds a different way to provide the outcome that we need. Often times as we push for them to increase energy efficiency and other ways of not building more infrastructure that involves burning fossil fuels, for example. So, thank you very much.

[00:33:21]Happy to take questions. Any questions?

[00:33:25]Senator Oya?

[00:33:27]Thanks, Chairman. I I don't have any questions. I just want to thank both of you for your steadfast work on this.

[00:33:32]I think it is incredibly important that we kind of you know, levelize the playing field here so that we can actually get better outcomes for Rhode Island rate payers and I know that that's what you all are fighting for every day. So, thank you.

[00:33:45]Thank you for all your work.

[00:33:48]Thank you for your testimony.

[00:33:53]The next bill that we're going to go to is bill number 2140 by Senator Chairman Pichardo.

[00:34:00]We have John Marion Common Cause support not speaking.

[00:34:04]Steven Brown ACLU written only support and Randall Rose Providence supports but not speaking.

[00:34:12]The next bill we have is Senate bill 2724 by uh Senator Famiglietti.

[00:34:20]We have John Marion opposed. If you can come up, John. Are you speaking or Okay, you can come up.

[00:34:28]Haley Shore, Convention of States.

[00:34:32]Ross Mar Convention of states and Barbara Landry Convention of states if you guys Come up.

[00:34:43]Stephen Brown ACLU sorry he's not >> [snorts] >> John you can start.

[00:34:52]Um Thank you Senator Burke and members of the committee. I'm John Marion on behalf of Common Cause Rhode Island opposing this 2724 the resolution requesting an Article 5 convention.

[00:35:06]We've opposed Article 5 conventions since the 1980s at Common Cause because we think that an Article 5 convention puts all our fundamental rights that exist in our federal constitution at risk. We think um that Article 5 doesn't put any constraints on what a convention can do. And if you look at the language of Article 5 there are no limits on what that convention can do once called. It doesn't Article 5 doesn't put any restraints on how the delegates to the convention could be selected and as um Senator McCaffrey was talking about earlier you know in a period of our history where we're seeing an increasing use of dark money in our politics we think that would likely creep into any convention.

[00:36:03]So I submitted substantial written comments as well that I won't read from some of the leading legal thinkers in the United States on both the left and the right who have long opposed the idea of an Article 5 convention. So I'll finish there and be happy to answer any questions.

[00:36:24]Thank you any question.

[00:36:26]Saying none.

[00:36:26]>> Thank you. We can move on. Haley?

[00:36:31]Okay, I think I got it. All right.

[00:36:33]Thank you very much members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Haley Shaw. I serve as the regional director for Convention of States Action.

[00:36:42]Many Americans today feel something deeply in their gut. The federal government is no longer working for the people it was created to serve.

[00:36:52]Washington has grown too large, too powerful, too disconnected, and too unaccountable.

[00:36:59]Our national debt now surpasses 39 trillion dollars.

[00:37:03]And Congress continues spending money we simply do not have.

[00:37:07]Rising inflation continues to most Americans. At the same time, Americans are watching politicians and unelected bureaucrats remain in power for decades while trust in our institutions to continues to decline. But our founders anticipated this moment. That's why they included Article 5 in the Constitution.

[00:37:28]Article 5 provides two ways to propose constitutional amendments. The first is through Congress. The second, and the one we are discussing here today, allows the states to call a convention when the federal government refuses to correct itself.

[00:37:44]Once [clears throat] 34 states pass the same resolution, a convention to propose amendments is called for the limited purpose outlined in those applications.

[00:37:55]Any amendments proposed at the convention requires ratification by 38 states before becoming a law. That extremely high threshold ensures no amendment could ever be forced on the American people without overwhelming national support.

[00:38:11]This is not rewriting the Constitution.

[00:38:13]This is using the Constitution exactly as our founders intended.

[00:38:18]>> [gasps] >> So far 20 states have already passed this exact resolution calling for fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials and members of Congress.

[00:38:33]Importantly, this legislation also addresses the selection and control of delegates, ensuring Rhode Island retains authority over its commissioners and their conduct at a convention. This legislation explicitly establishes a delegate selection process. Under this resolution, Rhode Island continue or chooses its own commissioners, writes their explicit instructions, and maintains the immediate power to recall any delegate who veers outside the strictly defined scope of fiscal restraints, term limits, and the federal overreach. This is about restoring balance between the states and the federal government. The states created the federal government. It's not the other way around.

[00:39:17]Washington becomes unwilling or unable to restrain itself, the states have a right and a duty to act. Thank you very much for your consideration, and please pass this and move it for full debate at the Senate floor.

[00:39:30]Thank you. Any questions?

[00:39:32]Seeing none, Russ.

[00:39:35]>> [clears throat] >> Good evening. I'm Russ Maher, a lifelong Rhode Islander, a resident of North Providence, and I volunteer as legislative liaison for Convention of States Action here in Rhode Island.

[00:39:45]To better highlight the broader issue of the uh rather behind this resolution is House Joint Resolution 139, which about 8 to 10 weeks ago in Congress was a resolution to initiate the amendment process.

[00:39:59]Uh it made it to a floor vote, uh and the topic was fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. And though it passed on simple majority, it failed to meet the 2/3 requirement. And for the record, both of Rhode Island's congressmen voted against this resolution to require the federal government to operate within a balanced budget. So now, what do we do?

[00:40:19]What choices do we have? A convention of states is the answer. With that, I wish to challenge the veracity and the context of some of our opponents' testimony, which in my opinion largely consists of misstatements of facts, conjecture, and hearsay, which, since many of you are police officers and lawyers, know that that would not survive the most basic level of litigation. Seemingly, they also ignore basic chronological chronological events. A plain reading of historical documentation and precedents, and simultaneously seek to instill such a level of fear as to cause legislative paralysis. Article 5 itself limits state authority to convening for the purposes of proposing amendments. So, show me where in Article 5 is the provision for rewriting the very structure, yes, the very operative document of our federal government. And the answer is, it does not.

[00:41:11]Such a result would be absolutely politically unacceptable. It would not survive the ratification process, and it makes a Grand Canyon-sized assumption that we the people will simply comply with such tyranny and watch our civil liberties expire. I contend that our civil liberties will remain intact, and as opponents suggest, a wholesale rewrite of our Constitution. Though they are passionate in their beliefs, I also believe that they are misinformed.

[00:41:38]Since limiting the scope of a convention seems to be the major concern by all people interested in this topic, I will remind the Senate and and its entirety that a resolution is a legal binding instrument of the legislature, and as such, it is in fact enforceable.

[00:41:54][clears throat] A state can in fact limit the actions of their commission as done through a written commission, and some states have gone so far as to implement laws using both civil and criminal penalties to enforce uh the actions of their commissioners while they act at a convention, as well as possibly recalling them and nullify nullifying whatever voting actions they may have taken.

[00:42:20]The topics of this resolution do in fact limit the scope.

[00:42:26]If you can finish your thoughts. Uh closing thoughts? Yes, please.

[00:42:30]>> Uh yes, sir. So, I just wanted to highlight that there is a website for you all to look at called the Article 5 Library. There are 400 examples of states trying to initiate this process. Every single one of them has a topic. So, anyone who says that this is going to run away or it's going to go in some crazy direction, explain to me why after 400 resolutions we have not had a convention of the states. We have met the bar, 2/3, 34 states, we've met that bar more than tenfold. The answer is is that those topics do matter.

[00:43:04]Those are the guardrails and anyone who tries to undermine a convention by going beyond those guardrails will face penalties. And beyond that, will not satisfy ratification. Thank you.

[00:43:15]>> Any questions?

[00:43:19]Next, Barbara.

[00:43:22]Good evening, senators.

[00:43:25]I am here to support Senate Resolution 2724.

[00:43:30]What do Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Congressman Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island have in common?

[00:43:39]Both on multiple occasions have introduced amendments to the US Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress.

[00:43:49]But unfortunately, I believe it is all for show. I don't believe that Congress will limit its own power. That is why we need an Article 5 Convention of the States to propose amendments, which is not the same thing as a constitutional convention.

[00:44:08]We now have a government that is run by a small group of special interests, dependent, lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians that govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people.

[00:44:24]We need an Article 5 convention of the states to bring count- accountability back to government.

[00:44:30]We now have congressmen and senators who have been in cong- who have been in office for over 50, 48, and 48 44 years.

[00:44:42]George Washington served 8 years. Thomas Jefferson served 10 years.

[00:44:47]And John Adams served 12 years, which proves you don't need 44 years in the District of Columbia to make a positive impact on this country.

[00:44:59]Which makes a person wonder, what is the goal for these people being up there in Washington D.C. for all these years?

[00:45:09]Elected officials should represent Sorry, elected office should represent a short-term privilege of public service, not a career choice.

[00:45:19]One family in Michigan has held a congressional seat for over 90 years.

[00:45:25]John Dingell served 11 terms. John Dingell Jr. served 30 terms. And now Debbie Dingell is in her sixth term.

[00:45:33]That is one family ruling over one congressional district for over 90 years.

[00:45:39]They have ruled longer than King Louis XIV, Pharaoh Ramses II, and Emperor Hirohito of Japan.

[00:45:48]I understand that multiple family members can run for office, but term limits would prevent another 90-year reign of power, nullifying the ability of one family to consolidate immense unilateral power and the loss of checks and balances in government. Polls constantly show bipartisan support for term limits.

[00:46:13]And I am hoping that Rhode Island the Rhode Island Senate sees a value in a term limit constitutional amendment and a convention of states to propose amendments. We need to curb career politicians and support and restore citizen legislators. Please support Senate Resolution 2724.

[00:46:34]Thank you for your testimony. Any questions?

[00:46:38]Seeing none. Thank you.

[00:46:41]Next up, Steven Brown.

[00:46:45]Is opposed, Stacy Capizzano.

[00:46:49]She support but not speaking, Nicole Laughline.

[00:46:53]Is opposed not speaking and Randall Rose.

[00:46:57]Is opposed and speaking.

[00:47:03]Steven, you can go. Adam.

[00:47:05]Thank you Senator Burke and members of the committee. Madeline Magonegal on behalf of the ACLU of Rhode Island. Um and we also oppose this bill for the same reasons that John Marion spoke about. Um what I just add is that our fear is that a national convention would open up the Constitution to tinkering by a wide array of special interests. Um and nationally we only have one example of such a scenario um when the Constitutional Convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead we ended up with an entirely new Constitution. Um more locally in 2024 voters overwhelmingly rejected a state Constitutional Convention probably for a lot of the same reasons that would um weigh against a federal uh Constitutional Convention. Uh we do oppose this legislation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[00:47:50]Thank you. Any questions?

[00:47:55]Seeing none. Randall.

[00:47:58]Thank you Senator Burck and members uh of the committee.

[00:48:01]I'm coming to this issue with an open mind. I do think the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time. I think it is possible to make changes. So, I have some sympathy with the people who want a convention, but I also have a lot of sympathy with the people who say that there's a lot of potential danger in having a convention. So, I I do try to stay open-minded about it and I would be willing to consider a convention um if it was done in the right way and with the right guidelines and standards.

[00:48:33]The I do think that when the 1787 convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, they actually made a better constitution. So, I think it it can be done. But, my main point today is the approach taken by the Convention of the States people is completely unacceptable.

[00:48:51]They are calling for a constitutional convention in which the voters will have absolutely no say in choosing the delegates.

[00:48:59]The delegates to these conventions will not be chosen by the people. They will be chosen only by other politicians.

[00:49:07]I don't see how you get any improvement under those circumstances. I think that's much more likely to make things worse. The Constitution is supposed to be We the People. If the people or voters are cut out of the process and only have a little indirect influence by electing the politicians who then get to choose the delegates, I can't see how that's going to going to come to any good. So, I urge you to reject this effort.

[00:49:31]It is not what we need at this time. It doesn't show any sign of converging on the changes that we need and the way the it's the the way the resolution is phrased, it doesn't leave room for amendments that will fix the dysfunction in Congress as well as some other problems. So, for those reasons, I'm opposed to this proposal.

[00:49:52]Thank you. Thank you, Randall.

[00:49:56]Proceed.

[00:49:58]Sure, how do you how do you What do you recommend then? How do we change make some changes?

[00:50:02]Or do you not want any changes? No, I I definitely do want changes. Um and I think the um the way our Constitution is written is you need a very broad consensus in order to make changes. Um so it has to be it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Um so I think it it should be changes that people across the political spectrum board broadly agree on. Um but I think it has to be a more deliberative process with voters in consulted from the beginning um and have some kind of I would suggest having some kind of deliberative assemblies um so um proposing amendments. Some people who want to have a constitutional convention say, "Let's first do a dry run with no official powers to see what they they come up with and if that comes up with a good set of amendments, we'll then do it with real legal powers." Um I have some I I kind of like that approach, but I think it has to be much more deliberative and keep the voters involved from the beginning. Um that that's why I do not like this process. I see how this um this convention of states idea appeals to legislators in red states. I don't think it appeals to a lot of other people. So.

[00:51:11]Well, you have to let the people You can't put 20,000 people's names on it.

[00:51:15]Let the people vote for 20,000 people.

[00:51:18]You have to break it down. That's what you elect your elected officials for, to pick those delegates because you can't put the whole world on a on a ballot and ask everybody to pick it.

[00:51:27]Yeah, I I'm not saying that um we we should put the whole world on the ballot, but I think the method that's proposed in this resolution where um it's only legislators who are um chosen by the voters separately for a different purpose, those legislators in turn choose the um delegates. That's much too indirect.

[00:51:46]I think you need a more direct um people's voice. The voters should vote directly for delegates among other things. So, yes.

[00:51:55]All right.

[00:51:57]Thank you.

[00:51:59]What what you bring up is a good point. I think what you're saying is what happened in 1987 is for example, Rhode Island has right now 113 districts Senate and House.

[00:52:09]You would have people declare to run as a delegate. It'd be not pull you can't be an elected official to run.

[00:52:17]It would be something similar in that type of process and it'd be election process then if you win in that district, you're the delegate. Very simple. Yeah, I think I think that was the process that Rhode Island used for its state convention in the 1980s.

[00:52:30]It may be not perfect, but it's a lot better than the process proposed here.

[00:52:33]So, yeah.

[00:52:35]Thank you. Maybe we can do rank choice voting for that.

[00:52:41]Okay, that concludes the testimony on that. Randal, stay right where you are.

[00:52:44]We're going to do 2484 by Senator Morgan. You're the only one signed up, so you have the floor.

[00:52:53]Okay, so thank you. Senator Morgan proposed changing the access to public records act.

[00:53:00]>> [music]