Category Archives for Rhode Island General Assembly

Sen. Nesselbush’s Big Legislative Adventure

Published in the Pawtucket Times, April 26, 2013 

            As a young student at BrownUniversity in the early 80s, Donna Nesselbush discovered she was a lesbian.  However, it never occurred to this College coed that 30 years later, she would be a Rhode Island Senator fighting “tooth and nail” for marriage equality, and issue she calls “the greatest civil rights issue of our time.”  Nesselbush has advocated for marriage equality alongside many local businesses and some of the state’s top political officials, in addition to Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, as well as some Catholics, too, hoping to change Rhode Island’s marriage law to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.  

             Throughout the legislative session Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, issued statements calling on Rhode Island lawmakers to stand firm against changing the traditional definition of the word, “marriage.”  Before the Senate Judiciary vote, he urged them to “stand strong in resisting this immoral and unnecessary proposition” and to “defend marriage and family as traditionally defined.”   Throughout the legislative debate the National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island, would also stand by the side of the Catholic Church calling for the rejection of the same-sex marriage legislative proposals being considered by the Rhode Island General Assembly.  

 A Long-time Waiting

              For almost 20 years, state lawmakers had grappled with the religiously charged issue of same-sex marriage.  Nesselbush attended many of the legislative hearings to testify in support of allowing same-sex marriage, and other times just to watch, only to see bills “held for further study.”  As a Senator, Nesselbush now clearly understands that legislative code phrase to mean the bill is being “put out to legislative pasture,” or killed, she says.

             During last year’s legislative session, Nesselbush watched as the House, eyed the conservatively-leaning Senate. House pragmatists pushed Speaker Gordon Fox to endorse civil union legislation rather than push for full-marriage equality. Much to the dismay of Fox, the first openly gay Speaker of the House, his members exhorted “Why ask House members to make a difficult vote if the Senate was all but certain to take no action?”

              “The House chamber came to a very pragmatic, political and painful conclusion that passing the civil union bill was better than nothing,” said the Pawtucket senator.

             In 2010, being a new Senator, Nesselbush learned the legislative procedural ropes, and more importantly the fine art of vote counting in order to walk a political tight rope.  She scrambled to count votes to ensure that the civil unions legislation would pass in order to extend much needed rights to gay people, but she wanted to “take the high road,” voting against this less than desirable vehicle, “and standing for the proposition that separate is never equal; gay and lesbian couples deserve full marriage equality,” said Nesselbush.

 Taking the Torch

             Although the marriage equity bill was ultimately shot down in 2010, in 2013 Nesselbush was asked to carry the torch from former Senator Rhoda Perry to champion Senate passage of a marriage equality bill.  For over 15 years the former Providence Senator, advocating many liberal causes, had pushed for passage without success. Senator Sue Sosnowski of South Kingston, a long time civil rights advocate, the second co-sponsor on the marriage equality legislation, stepped aside and asked Nesselbush, the only openly gay Senator, to take the lead.  Senate Majority Whip, Maryellen Goodwin, of Providence, helped massage the customary seniority system to give Nesselbush the thumbs up to become the lead sponsor. “I’m forever grateful to Senators Goodwin and Sosnowski for entrusting me with this important civil rights legislation.

 Legislative History in the Making   

             Last Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 7-4 vote passed Nesselbush’s same sex marriage bill along with the House companion measure (H 5015B).  The legislative proposal, which would take effect Aug.1, removes gender-specific language from the section of the general laws that governs eligibility for marriage.  It inserts language that allows any person to marry any other person.

 

            Furthermore, it contains a provision that allows couples who have entered into civil unions in Rhode Island since they were established in July 2011, to convert those unions into marriages by applying to the clerk in the municipality where it was recorded to have it recorded as a marriage, without having to apply for anything else or pay a fee.  If they would prefer, they would be eligible to apply for a marriage license and have the marriage solemnized.

             Bowing to the powerful Catholic lobby, the bill contains language reiterating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom for religious institutions to set their own guidelines for marriage eligibility within their faith, and stipulates that under no circumstances will clergy or others authorized to perform marriages be obligated by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage.

             One day after the vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the full Senate passed the marriage equality bills on Wednesday, April 24, 2013.  Both bills, because they were amended by the Senate, still have to clear an additional House vote before they can be sent to the governor. The full House vote is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, May 2, following a likely Judiciary Committee vote on Tuesday. 

             When Governor Lincoln D. Chafee signs the same-sex marriage bills into law, Rhode Island joins its New England neighbors and becomes the 10th state in the nation to enact marriage equality.  Nesselbush says, “I have never been prouder to be a Senator, and I have never been prouder of the full Senate Chamber.”

             The intensely public debate on the marriage equity issue has put real faces to this religiously-charged issue, notes Nesselbush. Now, it seems that “everyone knows someone who is gay, and the conversation now almost always begins or ends with, “yes, I know, so and so, who is gay and has a great partner.” 

 

Personal Journey

             Looking back, Nesselbush remembers her devote Catholic parents giving her a strong religious upbringing, as well as this religious tradition being reinforced at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, the school she attended for eight years.

             But her strong religious faith would be tested during her undergraduate years at Brown when she came out and accepted that she was gay.  “To thine own self be true; you cannot change innately who you are.”

             “My sexuality was the single biggest reason I did not return to my family in Buffalo, New York after graduating from BrownUniversity,” says Nesselbush.  Like many others, Nesselbush would choose not to share this realization upon first meeting people, but only when a friendship “reached a depth” of  honesty and respect.

                   Accepting her sexual orientation but afraid back then of her family’s reaction, Nesselbush decided not to return to her very Catholic family in New YorkState.  She quietly left her the Catholic Church of her childhood because of its position on the gay issue.  “I love my church too much to cause it or my family any shame or pain,” she said.

             While not regularly attending Catholic Church services, her religious upbringing and Catholic education “set the foundation of my life and the standard for service to others,” admits Nesselbush, noting that “Catholicism simply imbues my bones and runs in my blood.” I am still a very religious person who believes strongly in the love of God and the power of prayer; Christ is still central to my life.”

             According to Nesselbush, her parents and 3 siblings, her extended family and classmates, friends, and “even my Portuguese friends who immigrated to the OceanState from the old country,” have all found  ways to love and accept her, even though the “gay” concept was initially very foreign to them. “Today, says Nesselbush, it’s not even an issue.”

 Finding the One…

              Nesselbush also serves as the Chief Judge of the City of Pawtucket and is a partner at the law firm of Marasco & Nesselbush.  Her life partner, Kelly Carse, 53, is a coach at CrossFit Providence. They have been a couple since 2011 when various mutual friends  became matchmakers knowing that Nesselbush and Carse were single.. With their first meeting, the attraction was both mutual and instantaneous,” quipped the Pawtucket Senator.  “She was cute, funny, philanthropic, high minded, and well travelled. I loved that she had served in the Peace Corps, and she corrected my African geography on the first date!,” noted Nesselbush.

             Nesselbush has always viewed Smith Hill’s denial of same sex marriage as discrimination, enforced by legal statute  As a Municipal Court judge, she always found it oddly ironic that she was somehow qualified to officiate wedding ceremonies (which she loves to do) but she was somehow not herself qualified to marry. “Yesterday, all that changed.”

             “The love between two people is often palpable and never stronger than the moment the two are committing their lives to one another [through marriage].  With the passage of the Senate’s same-sex marriage legislation, both Nesselbush and Carse will now be able to experience this, too, like many heterosexual couples. 

             Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based freelance writer covering, aging, health care and medical issues.  He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.

Complete Streets Legislation Stalled in House Committee

Published May 19. 2012, Pawtucket Times

            A properly designed road system helpsolder Rhode Islanders to successfully “age in place” and stay safely and comfortably in their homes for as long as they choose. But the benefits of so-called Complete Streets design benefits people regardless of age, abilities or mode of transportation.  AARP Rhode Island has joined a broad-based coalition of 17 aging, health and transportation groups and smart growth advocates to push state policy makers into making the Ocean State’s streets, highways and byways more accessible and safer for all users. Out of 2,111 legislative proposals submitted this year for consideration by the Rhode Island General Assembly, H 7352 and S 2131, its companion measure in the Senate, would accomplish this lofty goal.

          Coalition members fear that their efforts to make sure that the state’s transportation infrastructure becomes more user friendly for all ages and abilities is in jeopardy with the House Committee on Municipal Government which has held H 7352 for further study.  While the Senate passed the companion measure (for the second year in a row) last month, this House Committee might just kill the legislation unless it can be resuscitated. 

The Details of H 7352

            The legislationwould require that whenever the state is building or modifying a road, planners and designers must consider Complete Streets design concepts – that is, considering safe travel by all users, current and projected, particularly pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and mobility capabilities.  Features of Complete Streetsdesign include sidewalks, paved shoulders suitable for use by bicyclists, lane striping, bicycle lanes, “share the road” signage, “road diets” (narrower lanes to discourage speeding and leave room  for pedestrians and bicyclists), roundabouts, crosswalks, pedestrian control signalization, bus pull-outs, curb cuts, raised crosswalks and ramps and traffic-calming measures.

            Meanwhile, this legislation allows common-sense exceptions, such as on interstate highways, where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited, and on projects where the space is too limited or costs would be disproportionate to the use such features would likely get.

            Furthermore, this legislation also requires the State’s Department of Transportation to issue a report within two years detailing what it has done to comply with the law, how it has changed its guidelines on such features as lane width, design speed and more, and what best practices the agency has employed.  It would also be required to include information on exceptions made, and why they were made.

            In a press release touting the passage of S 2131, bill sponsor, Senator Louis P. DiPalma, noted that the legislation’s goal is to plan streets that encourage people to use healthy, greener, transportation modes whenever possible, contributing in their own health as well as the wellbeing of the environment.

            “Cars shouldn’t be the only consideration when public roads are being built.  The health and environmental benefits of walking, bicycling and other active modes of transportation are well know, and we should be building our roads in ways that are safe for those activities and encourage people to choose them,” said Senator DiPalma.

Pushing for Safer Roads, Highways and Byways

            In her testimony before the House Committee on Municipal Government, AARP State Director Kathleen Connellsaid the goal of H 7352 is to direct the Department of Transportation  to plan with all users in mind.  “Making it easier for older people to get around is an obvious reason we’re involved, but Complete Streets design promotes public safety, helps revive our towns and cities and increases property value,” she said.

            Molly Clark, Manager, Health Promotion and Public Advocacy for the American Lung Association, also testifying to support H 7352, predicted that Complete Streets design that would promote walking and bicycling and this would ultimately improve the health of Rhode Islanders.

             Also attending the Committee Hearing, Co-Chair John Flaherty, of the Coalition for Transportation Choices, advocated for 21st century transportation system “that’s good for the economy, good for the environment and that provides clean, healthy and affordable transportation choices for all Rhode Islanders.”

            There is no fiscal note estimating the true costs of H 7352 due to the multitude of factors that must be considered.  However, bill supporters believe that this legislative proposal does not necessarily add costs to the road construction project.

            Addressing concerns about the legislative proposals “possible” fiscal impact on the State’s budget, Senator DiPalma notes that H 7352 has been crafted in such a way to reduce the fears of fellow lawmakers that there could be initial and future costs if the legislation is enacted.  Provisions would protect the state’s coffers by requiring common sense exceptions to take effect if a road construction design project incurs a cost that is disproportional to its benefits, he says.

It’s All About the Economy

            Doing it right the first time makes economic sense,” says AARP Associate Director for Advocacy Deanna Casey.

             Enacting H 7352 is just good economic policy, adds Scott Wolf, Executive Director of Grow Smart Rhode Island.  According to Wolf, “forRhode Islandto thrive economically it needs to attract and retain talented young people. These people, research shows, are looking for places that are vibrant, user friendly and possess an abundant natural and architectural beauty.” 

            Wolf stated “Rhode Island has many of these ingredients but we need to be much more user friendly with regard to transit, walk ability and bike ability to maximize our appeal to this new segment of workers. He added, “Adopting an aggressive complete street strategy that requires all roads built to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and mass transit as well as autos could do a lot to increase our appeal to this critical cadre of mobile young talented workers.”   

             In these tough economic times usually a price tag on a legislative proposal is just enough for General Assembly leadership to doom a legislative proposal’s passage by not taking action on it.  Just refer it for further study.  Complete Street supporters are puzzled by the inaction in the House panel because of the protections built into the measure to rein in initial or future costs of a project.  At press time, the City of Pawtucket along with eight other cities and towns, have already passed resolutions supporting the Complete Street legislation being considered by the Rhode Island General Assembly and another eight communities are also considering supporting this legislation by enacting  resolutions.  Most important, the State’s Department of Transportation is not even blocking passage but endorsing it.

           According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, in 2011 alone “over 140 jurisdictions adopted a policy, up from 80 that committed to Complete Streets in 2010. In total, 352 regional and local jurisdictions, 26 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have adopted policies or have made written commitment to do so.”

           Elections are looming and House and Senate leadership are looking to adjourn in early June.  The Rhode Island General Assembly must move quickly in the waning days of the 2012 legislative session to join 26 states that get it.  House leadership must do the right thing to make streets, highways and byways more accessible and safer for all Rhode Islanders, regardless of age, abilities or modes of transportation.   That is to pass H 7352.    

             Herb Weiss is a Pawtucket-based writer covering aging and health care issues.  His Commentaries are published in two Rhode Island Daily’s The Pawtucket Times and Woonsocket Call.

Fogarty, Senior Advocates to Rally for Increased Funds for State’s Co-Pay Program

Published in Pawtucket Times on March 22, 2004

Research is just beginning to show what Rhode Island aging advocates already know – that more assistance is required for helping the disabled and seniors to reside independently in their homes in the community.

According to researchers at the Disability Statistics Center at the University of California at San Francisco, about 3.3 million community-residing adults who require assistance with two or more activities of daily living (ADLs) need help from another person.

Of these, almost one million people need increased care, more than they are receiving – particularly those who live alone.

ADLs include bathing, dressing, getting into or out of bed or a chair, toileting, eating and other activities that are required to maintain their homes, such as shopping and preparing meals.

This study, published in the March issue of The Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, is considered to be the first to estimate the level of care required to help people.

“Individuals who need personal assistance with two or more of the five basic ADLs [mentioned above] and whose needs are unmet, have a shortfall of 16.6 hours of help per week,” said lead author Dr. Mitchell P. LaPlante.  Joining him on the project were Drs. H. Stephen Kaye, Taewoon Kang, and Charlene Harrington, in a written statement.

Among adults whose assistance needs are not fully met, people living alone fare worse than those who live with others, the researchers said. The study found those living by themselves receive only 56 percent of the help they need, while those living with family members or friends receive 80 percent of the hours of help, they need.

The research findings indicate that having unmet needs is linked with numerous adverse consequences, including discomfort, weight loss, dehydration, falls, burns and dissatisfaction with the help they do receive.  This puts these people at risk of being forced to leave their homes and move into costly nursing facilities.

Additionally, the University of California at San Francisco study also reported that unmet needs among people living alone are more an issue for the elderly, since two-thirds of those living alone and needing more help are age 65 or older.

This research study, probably the first of may to come that estimates the assistance required by the nation’s disabled and elderly, should be delivered to the doorstep of Gov. Donald Carcieri and every state lawmaker.

Even with the graying of the Ocean State’s population, the governor and the Rhode Island General Assembly are moving too slow to adequately fund less costly community-based care programs.

Carcieri has given an additional $ 200,000 in funding to the Department of Elderly Affairs (DEA) co-pay program in his recently released proposed 2005 budget.

While appreciative for this increase in funding in the showdown of the state’s huge budget deficit, senior advocates say this is not enough to keep people off the waiting list for this worthy program.

DEA’s co-pay program keeps 1,500-plus low-income frail seniors who do not qualify for the state’s Medicaid program but who require ongoing services to remain in the community in their homes by providing a little bit of funding for certified nursing assistants (for assisting with bathing, meals, shopping, laundry, and light housekeeping). And DEA’s co-pay program also provides subsidies for adult day care.

Last October, a DEA freeze on new admissions to the co-pay program left 200 frail seniors on a waiting list for home and community-based care, said senior advocates.

According to the state’s Long-Term Care coordinating Council (LTCCC), the typical person in DEA’s co-pay program is between ages 65 and 104, with the average age being 84. Most are women and more than half live alone. Without the state’s co-pay, these seniors will have to pay the entire fee for their care –    which they cannot afford – or enter a nursing home, or go without the help they need to do simple things such as bathing, shampooing and dressing.

Susan Sweet, a consumer advocate  who sits on the LTCCC, expressed concern that a DEA freeze – putting the copayment program on hold – for those on the waiting lists still exists this fiscal year.

“These people have been waiting a long time to get the home care or adult day care services that they need. I am afraid that waiting longer will result in many of them entering nursing facilities prematurely,” said Sweet.

Sweet noted Carcieri’s proposed 2005 allocates an additional $ 200,000 in funding for next year’s DEA’s co-pay program.

“It will take more funding than that to take care of the frail seniors still left on a waiting list,” Sweet charged, noting that DEA Director Adelita S. Orefice, did say another $ 250,000 would be needed in FY 2005 to meet DEA’s co-pay program demand.

Lt. Gov. Charles J. Fogarty, who is chairman of the LTCCC, will join senior advocates today at 11:00 a.m. at the Statehouse, calling for the state to reopen admission to a state-funded co-pay program that helps limited-income seniors pay for home and community-based care.

The press conference is expected to draw several family caregivers and representatives of AARP-RI, Choices Coalition, Respite Services, R.I. Adult Day Care Services Association, Alzheimer’s Association of R.I., R.I meals on Wheels, R.I Partnership for Home Care, R.I. Senior Center Directors Association, Senior Agenda Consortium and the Silver-Haired Legislature.

“Freezing the DEA co-pay program is a fiscal folly,” Fogerty said in a written statement obtained by All About Seniors that will be released at today’s rally.

“It is shortsighted from both a financial and a human perspective. It is not as if this freeze will result in overall cost savings,” said the Lt. governor.

Fogarty said this freeze was ordered to avoid having the DEA spend more than what was budgeted for the program in the current fiscal year – an amount that was less than what was spent on the program in FY 2003.

At this rally Fogarty will call for the state to provide adequate funding in the FY 2005 budget for DEA’s co-payment program to address the unmet need.

“To the contrary,” Fogarty said, “it may wind up costing taxpayers much more, because these seniors are still going to need care and they’re going to get by being forced into nursing homes where the taxpayers will pay tens of thousands more than we would have paid for the co-pay program.”

According to Fogarty, in FY 2003, the state supported 1,457 seniors in the program, spending $ 3,650,117, or $ 2,505 per senior. That’s less than 1 percent of all long-term care spending. Contrast this, he said, in is written statement, with the annual cost per nursing home resident – between $ 32,000 and $ 53,700 (this figure excludes the average 20 percent patient contribution to care and includes state and federal dollars).

Fogarty said, “It boggles the mind that in tight budget times, we would opt for the more expensive solution – especially in light of the fact that the less costly option of keeping seniors in their homes is the most humane option.”

As mentioned in a previous column, there is also a freeze and waiting list for the state’s respite program, which provides assistance to family caregivers. This freeze continues and no additional funding has been allocated for this program in Carcieri’s proposed 2005 budget.

Carcieri and state  lawmakers must not continue to put patches on the state’s old dilapidated long-term care deliver system. As I previously mentioned, now is the time to tackle the thorny issues of long-term care and its rising costs.

Rhode Island must move to create a long-term care delivery system that will adequately provide funding for keeping seniors independent in the comfort of their homes while adequately providing reimbursement to nursing facilities that take care of sicker patients.

Seniors can support Fogarty’s call for adequate state funding for DEA’s co-pay program by attending the rally scheduled today at 11:00 p.m.at the Statehouse.

Meanwhile a DEA budget hearing will be held before the House Finance Committee later in the afternoon, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 35 of the Statehouse.

Seniors can attend this hearing to give their support for increased state funding for community-based care long-term programs. Testimony taken from the public will be televised on the state’s access cable channel.