Mr. Speaker: Joe Shekarchi named Speaker of the House

Rep. Joe Shekarchi is officially the new Speaker of the House in Rhode Island. The state’s House of Representatives met today for the first meeting of the new legislative session. Shekarchi became speaker-presumptive last fall, shortly after then-Speaker Nicholas Mattiello lost his race to Barbara Fenton-Fung in District 16.

“The COVID crisis has dealt a crippling blow to our communities and our state,” said Shekarchi in his first speech to the assembly as Speaker, also promising that his approach in office would be different in a clear nod to his predecessor’s prickly personality. Shekrachi was a prime mover in getting the budget passed for the current fiscal year in the lame duck session.

In the days leading up to the new session, he also came under fire for his background as an evictions lawyer and comments concerning the minimum wage and progressive members of the house.

Shekrachi was nominated by Rep. Mary Messier and seconded by Rep. Katherine Kazarian. Both spoke highly of Shekarchi’s willingness to listen to the representatives, stressing that he does not impose his viewpoints on others. “A vote for Joe Shekrachi today is an affirmation to our constituents that we are ready to get to work on their behalf.”

Mike Chippendale (District 40) on the Republican side nominated Minority Leader Blake Fillipi for Speaker, speaking favorably of Fillipi’s willingness to work across the aisle, as well as his passion for the U.S. Constitution and libertarian causes. Fillipi’s nomination was seconded by Brian Newberry, who promised if given the votes for House leadership and budget, the budget would look radically different under Fillipi leadership.

Final vote tally was 59 votes for Shekarchi, 9 for Fillipi, and four abstentions. Reps. Cassar, Morales, McGaw and Henries abstained from the House leadership vote. Cassar announced a run for Speaker originally when Mattiello held the position. The other three reps made a point of abstaining from the leadership vote. The Rhode Island Political Cooperative, rapidly becoming the state’s preeminent progressive politic organization, called last week for House representatives to abstain from today’s leadership vote. The Co-op in a statement said, “Joe Shekarchi represents nothing more than a continuation of the corruption we have seen under past Speakers.” The statement goes on to claim that Shekarchi has taken more than 300 donations from lobbyists.

Notably absent was Barbara Fenton-Fung, not attending for reasons related to COVID-19. While her vote did not count in absentia, in a prepared statement from her read by the clerk, Fenton-Fung stated that had she been there, she would have voted for Shekarchi, officially breaking with her party. Also absent with messages read by the clerk were Grace Diaz (out with a serious bout of COVID-19) and Art Handy. Both stated they would have voted for Shekarchi.

Shekarchi appointed Rep. Arthur Corvese to chair the rules committee, with Reps. Michael O’Brien and Camille Vella-Wilkinson serving as vice chairs. Other reps on the committee include Samuel Azzinaro, Julie Casimiro, Grace Diaz, Katherine Kazarian, Brian Kennedy, Alex Marszalkowski, Joe McNamara, Brian Newberry, Robert Phillips, David Place, Pat Serpa, Evan Shanley, Scott Slater and Anastasia Williams.

The next meeting of the Rhode Island House of Representatives will be on January 19.

The Wanderer: Rediscovering home through urban wandering A few weeks ago I went to a virtual screening of PechaKucha (look it up, you won’t regret it) and stumbled across a wonderful initiative in Rhode Island, an Instagram account called the_hidden_worlds_of_pvd, which chronicles the adventures of Justin Foster, who has dubbed himself an “urban wanderer.”

Foster defines it simply: “Urban wandering is the deliberate act of taking the time to explore an urban setting. I mean for me, now it’s a little more intense because I am looking for places and things I haven’t seen before. Trying to catch a moment in the city where things just bloom. It’s not hard. It’s just a mindset, but certainly the challenge of finding something wicked cool, some place or view that no one has really seen before, is there. There doesn’t have to be a plan or a pre-established amount of time (although that can certainly help since it is very easy to lose track of time in the city), but it should be a deliberate and active choice to take yourself on an adventure, to look at the city and accept what you will find.” For Foster, it started at a young age when he could bike to Rocky Point Park during the wintertime. Its abandoned façade, that had once been so busy and bustling, had him in awe, and he was hooked. He’s come back to his urban wandering many times throughout his life, but said that it’s become incredibly therapeutic during the pandemic. Not only is urban wandering socially distanced, but it allows us to see the city we love in a new light, and it allows those of us mourning for the adventures we lost this year to find solace in an element of magic in the day-to-day.

Foster appears to fall in love with many things he finds on his adventures, and it’s one of the reasons I love seeing Providence through his eyes. A few of my favorites on his Instagram include a broken fire hydrant, placed so simply you wouldn’t have noticed it. Or if you did, maybe it made you consider calling Mayor Elorza to complain, but through his eyes you see how the city appears behind it, and there’s something there you hadn’t seen. Or, a door to what appears to be nowhere, that I assure you I plan on finding as soon as I don’t need a jacket to go outside. Files encourages people to get outside, find themselves amongst the noise, and slow down. See the world around them. Appreciate where they are and see if there’s something they haven’t seen before.

Of course, Foster has found weird stuff. Lots of graffiti, some of which led him through a visual maze leading to a series of pornographic images. “You find weird stuff in Providence, I mean, you find weird stuff in any city if you are willing to look,” he says. “I found a pile of 12 pairs of shoes laying outside a 7-11 once. That was pretty strange because they were all different kinds of shoes, old and new, vintage converse, dusty work boots, shiny black patent leather ones all just sitting there.”

Foster is not the only one who wanders. There is an online community that posts pictures of their adventures. The great thing about urban wandering and searching for abandoned places is that it’s typically guerilla and doesn’t suit linking to websites, but search for urban wandering, urban exploration, and yes, the phrase ‘abandoned porn,’ and you’ll find some results, but maybe don’t search that on your work computer. the_hidden_worlds_of_pvd was initially meant to be just like these guerilla sites for wandering, but Foster fully admits that it’s gotten more traction since his Pecha Kucha and was kind enough to allow me to talk to him while gushing about his work.

The Instagram account is poetic, and breathtaking, but Foster finds that the world is different now, too. “This habit of mine has caused me to look at things differently, obviously. I now see trash and decay as beautiful and interesting, but I also find myself really looking at the light of the day. The fresh light of early morning or the soft glow in a late afternoon are spectacular in Providence; it has the ability to give everything a golden tone that has a magical quality about it. When you see the houses lit up on the East Side just as the sun is going down over the city it is no wonder Poe, Lovecraft, Chris Van Alsberg and even Shepard Fairey found inspiration here.”

And while it may have started as a hobby and spread to a social media account, Foster encourages us all to do something that I think we’re out of touch with: fall in love with where we are, as we are. Find the beauty in the dirty parts of life, and above all, find a connection with where you are – no matter who you are – and never stop exploring.

On the Dotted Line: RI likely unaffected by delay in federal pandemic relief

President Donald Trump signed the combined $900 billion pandemic relief bill and $1.4 trillion omnibus funding bill around 8pm on Sunday, December 27, after almost a week of issuing implied threats that he might not do so. The delay already allowed critical unemployment insurance (UI) provisions to lapse the prior day, although the bill provides that the programs would be restored retroactively should such a gap occur, so that recipients will receive the same amount of payments. The two main UI programs at issue extend the time of eligibility beyond that provided by state programs and make gig workers and freelancers eligible when they otherwise would not be.

While some states warned that delay in approving the bill might interrupt the weekly flow of payments to beneficiaries, RI expects to accommodate the extension of benefits with no trouble within a few days margin of safety. In response to our inquiry, Department of Labor and Training press liaison Margaux Fontaine on Wednesday, December 23, told Motif, “Since payments will still go out next week [for the prior week] regardless, we have some time. Extending the date of the programs is a relatively quick fix, so as long as it’s signed by mid to late next week, we wouldn’t expect most claimants to see an interruption.” UPDATE: Fontaine clarified on Tuesday, December 29, “Under the law, and per US [Department of Labor], the first payable week for the extra $300 is week ending 1/2/21. Payments for that week go out [the] next week.”

The combined bill on pandemic relief and omnibus funding was agreed after seven months of on-again- off-again negotiations by Congress late on the night of Sunday, December 20, as we reported. In addition to extension of UI eligibility periods and supplementing UI payments by $300 weekly above state benefit amounts through March 14, the bill provides for $600 stimulus payments to nearly every American earning less than $75,000 annually, initiates a new round of aid to small business, extends the federal eviction moratorium until January 31, expands the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly still called “food stamps”), and provides funds to state and local governments for support of schools and health care, including the cost of administering the new COVID-19 vaccines. As we reported earlier, the bill includes the “Save Our Stages” provisions advocated by IATSE (the theatrical worker trade labor union) and the National Independent Venue Association, authorizing $15 billion in dedicated funding for live venues, independent movie theaters, and cultural institutions.

Trump’s approval of the bill ends nearly a week of chaos caused by his surprise four-minute video statement released late on the night of Tuesday, December 22, that we reported at the time – facebook.com/motifri/posts/3585321644880532 – contained numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods, criticizing the inclusion of items unrelated to pandemic relief. “Trump conflates two separate bills, one $900 billion for COVID-19 relief and the other $1.4 trillion ‘omnibus’ funding bill that keeps most aspects of the federal government running, which is why everything from foreign aid to fisheries is included,” we explained.

Trump’s video statement also picked up untrue right-wing media talking points. We wrote, “Some of the claims Trump asserts in this video are false, especially that undocumented immigrants are eligible for stimulus payments, when in fact only persons legally present in the US, either as citizens or permanent residents (Green Card holders), are eligible for the stimulus payments. What is different in this latest bill is that mixed-status households, such as a US citizen married to an undocumented immigrant with a US citizen child, were completely not eligible for the stimulus round months ago, but would be eligible for the stimulus round now, provided that only those in the household with legal status, such as the US citizen spouse and child, are eligible for the payments.”

The main objection Trump raised in the video, that the $600 stimulus payments were too low and should be raised to $2,000, was seen as especially bizarre because Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, representing the White House in negotiations with Congress, had repeatedly fought Democrats trying to increase the amount, and the $600 number was a compromise between $2,000 wanted by the Democratically-controlled House and zero wanted by the Republican-controlled Senate. In a rare session on Thursday, December 24 – Christmas Eve – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a vote on increasing the payments to $2,000, but the short notice required unanimous consent under the rules and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy objected on behalf of the Republican caucus. US Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) (Photo: US Senate)

Democrats have said they will hold the vote on increasing the stimulus payments to $2,000 on Monday, December 28, when Congress will reconvene after the holiday break in order to consider overriding Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual appropriation of funds for the Department of Defense. Trump objected that the NDAA would allow changing the names of military bases currently bearing the names of Confederate soldiers, as well as Congress refusing his demand to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that provides “safe harbor” immunity for online forums, such as Facebook and Twitter, so they are not subject to paying damages from libel and slander claims arising from unmoderated posts by their users. Trump also claimed the NDAA was not tough enough on China.

RI Sen. Jack Reed, who served with the 82nd Airborne Division as an alumnus of West Point where he later served as a professor, and who is now the ranking minority member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “President Trump clearly hasn’t read the [NDAA] bill, nor does he understand what’s in it. There are several bipartisan provisions in here that get tougher on China than the Trump Administration has ever been.”

Even if the increase to $2,000 passes the House, it is widely considered dead-on-arrival in the Senate, unlikely even to be called up for a vote.

Don’t Panic: Explaining coronavirus mutations Coronavirus — Don’t Panic

In the last few days, there has been a near-panic reaction to the discovery of a mutation of the SARS- CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. The mutated lineage – in virology, a “lineage” suggests a variant somewhat closer to its immediate ancestors than a “strain” – is now named “Variant of Concern 202012/01,” having been referenced as “Variant Under Investigation 202012/01” and “B.1.1.7” earlier. (The VOC nomenclature is simply “year 2020, month 12, variant 01.)

Worries about the new variant focus on four main issues:

Does it spread more easily? Does it cause more severe sickness or greater likelihood of death? Does it have resistance to vaccines just approved for use? Does it have the ability to escape detection by widely deployed PCR tests?

Mutations occur fairly often in the course of virus replication, essentially just inevitable errors making copies of copies of copies, but the vast majority have no meaningful effect. By random chance, very rarely a mutation gives an evolutionary reproductive advantage to the virus, which is how SARS-CoV-2 arose in the first place, probably many years ago in an animal reservoir, such as bats, until a spillover occurred to humans. Like every virus, this virus continues to mutate, and some random variations could boost the mutated lineage in epidemic risk. Thousands of such mutations have been observed and recorded in SARS-CoV-2; by one estimate about 12,000 distinct variants so far, but most do not seem to do anything different.

As the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) explained in a statement, “Mutations are naturally expected for viruses and are most often simply neutral regional markers useful for contact tracing. The changes seen have rarely affected viral fitness and almost never affected clinical outcome… Changes in the spike protein have relevance for potential effects on both host receptor as well as antibody binding with possible consequences for infectivity, transmission potential and antibody and vaccine escape. Actual effects need to be measured and verified experimentally.”

According to an advisory from the World Health Organization (WHO), by December 13 there were 1,108 known infections with this new variant in the UK. Ordinary COVID-19 testing is not intended to distinguish between variants, but in the UK between 5% and 10% of samples are routinely sent for genomic analysis that can distinguish between variants, and 4% of samples in southeastern England are sent for genomic analysis. The new variant accounts for over half of COVID-19 infections in southeastern England, after having been first seen in September in Kent, and is disproportionately more likely to be seen in young rather than old patients.

It is not clear why the variant is significantly more prevalent in the affected area, but one possible explanation is that the mutation makes the virus more transmissible from person to person, and if so this would be a major concern. The WHO warns, “Preliminary reports by the United Kingdom are that this variant is more transmissible than previous circulating viruses, with an estimated increase of between 40% and 70% in transmissibility (adding 0.4 to the basic reproduction number R0, bringing it to a range of 1.5 to 1.7).” On the other hand, according to a news article in Science, generally considered the most prestigious scientific journal in the US, “Scientists, meanwhile, are hard at work trying to figure out whether B.1.1.7 is really more adept at human-to-human transmission – not everyone is convinced yet – and if so, why.”

Sometimes increased prevalence is a result of a biological property of the virus, but this is not always so. It is widely known that the lineages of infections in the US toward the West Coast tend to be genetically closer to those found in Asia while the lineages of infections in the US toward the East Coast tend to be genetically closer to those found in Europe, but that almost certainly reflects patterns in airline travel rather than any intrinsic property of the mutations in the lineages. Likewise, the higher prevalence of the new variant in the UK could reflect human behavior, such as young people being more likely than old people to transmit infections in bars or restaurants, rather than any biological underpinning. SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) (Source: Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID))

The new variant is characterized primarily by three distinct mutations, labeled “N501Y,” “P681H,” and “69-70del.” The detection of the new variant in the UK is a coincidence because a common commercial PCR test, known as TaqPath, consists of a three-part panel of subtests, one of which looks for the component of the virus that goes missing in the 69-70del mutation; as a result, a positive indication on the other two subtests and a negative indication on that subtest allowed the UK to go back over their existing test data and estimate the prevalence of the new variant.

While the 69-70del mutation can cause anomalous results in some PCR tests, it is the other two mutations that are of real concern, modifying the receptor-binding domain (RBD) that controls how the virus infects hosts cells. This could give the variant an advantage invading host cells, increasing ease of transmission from person to person, as the WHO fears. One indication of this possibility is that the N501Y mutation has been seen elsewhere in the world, with a few dozen cases known in Australia and Africa. In fact, it was the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa that first identified the N501Y mutation in a separate lineage and made the UK aware of its potential importance. The independent evolution of this same mutation in different parts of the world strongly suggests that the mutation gives the virus some reproductive advantage and is therefore favored by natural selection. Whether this is true and if so to what extent is unknown pending further study.

So far, there is no evidence that the new variant causes more severe sickness or increased likelihood of death, even if it does have an advantage in being able to infect the host and therefore spread more easily. There is no known biological reason to expect a change in the RBD of the virus to result in worse sickness.

It’s too early to know whether the new variant is more resistant to immunity, whether acquired through recovered infection or vaccine, but theoretical models strongly suggest that the mechanisms of action by immune antibodies will be just as effective and are not affected by the particular mutations that characterize the new variant. Eventually, although SARS-CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly, it may be necessary to formulate a slightly modified vaccine periodically, similar to seasonal influenza vaccines that must be given annually.

Is the new variant in the US, or even in RI? Experts believe it almost certainly is, but there has been no testing for it until extremely recently, so it is impossible to know for certain. We asked that question, and Joseph Wendelken, spokesman for the RI Department of Health, told Motif, “Rhode Island participates in a CDC initiative to sequence SARS-CoV-2 from throughout the USA by regularly submitting positive specimens collected from Rhode Island residents. We are not aware of any such specimens being confirmed as the UK mutant strain. The State Health Laboratories (SHL) is also currently working with Rhode Island scientists on sequencing SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens at time points throughout the pandemic and in a sampling of isolates collected in March through August none were the UK mutant strain. These efforts are continuing.” However, as Wendelken made clear, at this point data more recent than August is not yet available, a month before the new variant was first detected in the UK. Motif asked the CDC directly, but so far they have not replied.

Wendelken was confident, however, that PCR testing accuracy in RI should not be affected if encountering the new variant. “Rhode Island clinical laboratories utilize a diversity of molecular amplification detection methods and many have multiple tests online – the SHL alone currently has five different ‘PCR’ tests. Each test uses different virus gene targets for detection and many use a multi- target approach. For this reason, if virus mutations in one area affect detection of a certain gene, the built-in redundancy would detect the other virus gene targets, thus lessening the potential for a ‘false negative’ result for the UK mutant strain.”

No Holiday for Death at the ACI

A second inmate has died from COVID-19 at the Adult Correctional Institution (ACI), according to a statement from the RI Department of Corrections (DoC) on the afternoon of Friday, December 25. Motif previously reported the first inmate death on Saturday, December 19, and the first staff death on Monday, December 14.

“The inmate requested ‘Comfort Measures Only’ and that no extraordinary measures be taken to keep him alive. He was 79 years old,” the DoC said. “The inmate had other serious complicating health conditions that contributed to his death. He was being treated at Rhode Island Hospital for complications of COVID-19. The inmate was housed in the Medium Security facility of the ACI, where he was serving a life sentence for murder, and a concurrent expired sentence for manslaughter. The inmate’s family has been notified.” As is customary for DoC, the name of the deceased was withheld, citing “medical privacy laws.” RI Department of Corrections COVID-19 counts as of Dec 17, 2020. (Source: RI DoC)

Although DoC usually releases an update every Friday via their official Facebook page of the number of cases and deaths as of the prior day, it appears to be delayed this week due to the holiday. The most recent weekly report published by DoC as of December 17 listed 1,098 total COVID-19 cases, of which 808 are among incarcerated persons and 290 among staff.

The RI Decarcerate NOW Coalition – https://www.facebook.com/RI-COVID-Response-Decarcerate-NOW-102918301434589 – an umbrella organization that includes Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), Black and Pink Providence, Formerly Incarcerated Union of Rhode Island, AMOR RI – Alianza para Movilizar Nuestra Resistencia, and other community members has been vocally critical for months about conditions at the ACI. The group recently held a protest rally outside the weekly press conference by Gov. Gina Raimondo on Tuesday, December 22, without incident.

Code Black RI, “a coalition of medical professionals, healthcare workers and trainees taking a stand against racism and racist systems,” held a protest rally in front of the governor’s residence on Wednesday, December 23, resulting in at least five arrests, that was broadcast via Facebook Live by UpriseRI. The group published a statement that evening on UpriseRI, saying “Mass incarceration is a threat to health equity and a public health crisis. As of December 17, greater than 90% of the inmates in Maximum Security tested positive for COVID. Cases are rising at the surrounding facilities. None of these outcomes are due to happenstance. Since March, the Decarcerate NOW Coalition and many others have called for the state to halt arrests; release as many incarcerated people as possible on parole and into community confinement – centering elderly and medically vulnerable people; and provide adequate PPE and universal testing to incarcerated people. These measures were not taken, or taken in half-measure.”

DoC Director Patricia A. Coyne-Fague said in today’s announcement of the second inmate death, “Any loss of life is very painful for friends and families, especially around the holidays, and we are keeping all who have lost relatives and loved ones in our thoughts during this difficult time. We are doing everything we can to keep people as safe as possible – no one wants to see more people die as a result of this virus that has claimed already too many lives in our state, and the rest of the world.”

We’ve Turned a Corner: A summary of the governor’s December 22 press conference

Governor Gina Raimondo, DOH director Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, DOA director Brett Smiley and Commerce Secretary Stefan Pryor gave the weekly COVID press briefing today at 1pm.

DOH reports 880 new cases of the novel coronavirus since yesterday, from around 12,000 tests taken yesterday. The positive test rate is 7.1%. There are 440 people hospitalized with the virus; 54 of those people are in the intensive care unit and 38 people are on ventilators. DOH reports eight additional deaths. State officials noted while data was still high and the state still in the throes of dangerous community spread, all the weekly metrics are still on a decline. “We’ve turned a corner,” said the governor expressing some relief. She acknowledged that the test positive rate was still higher than they want to be, above 5%, but the rate is declining with each passing day.

Governor Raimondo reminded viewers to still be careful post-pause as the holidays approach. “Don’t gather indoors with people you don’t live with,” she said. She stressed the need for mask wearing around people you do not live with. Raimondo asked Rhode Islanders to make a plan to get tested twice before the end of year, once before Christmas and once after Christmas. Long wait times for a test and test results were a thing of the past, she assured, the system has plenty of capacity.

As announced last week, the state of Rhode Island has officially allocated all of the monies it received from the CARES Act in the spring. The governor spent some time today breaking down how state officials spent the stimulus funds. The state spent the biggest amount on business and economic supports, totalling $488.7 million. $424.6 million went toward state and municipal governments on personnel for COVID response. $129.3 million went toward the state’s COVID response infrastructure: testing, PPE, National Guard costs and any other costs. $116.8 million went toward K-12 and public higher education. $90.7 went toward individual supports like rental and housing assistance, food supports and cash assistance.

State leaders are relieved that a new relief package has passed through Congress. Gov. Raimondo stated she was most thrilled about the amount of money targeted for rental assistance for Rhode Islanders. President Trump has yet to sign the bill; Smiley said today it could be many weeks before his office figures out how much in dollars the state will receive as part of it. Smiley also noted that there was no aid specifically for state government and towns to plug holes in budgets.

In vaccine news, 4,200 Rhode Islanders have received the first dose of the COVID vaccines. The state was hesitant to announce how many doses and when it would receive them, but Raimondo did mention today that production would be cranked way up starting in the new year. Dr. Alexander-Scott estimated by the end of this week RI will have received at least 35,000 doses from both companies producing a vaccine. At least 5,000 of those doses are being set aside to specifically target workers and residents in nursing homes, who have been ravaged by the pandemic. Dr. Alexander-Scott said much of the vaccination plans were in broad strokes, but DOH was making strides in making distribution equitable. She repeated what Dr. Chan announced last week, that the plan was formulated based on assessed risk, and Central Falls would be considered a priority for vaccine distribution.

No press conference next week, the governor is giving people time off to enjoy the holidays. DOH will also not be updating the COVID data dashboard on Christmas/New Year’s Eves or Days. The next press conference is scheduled for January 7, the first Thursday in 2021.

Court TV: Senate confirms Lynch Prata, Long for high court

Erin Lynch Prata

The most recent meeting of the state Senate, with pols sitting in auditorium chairs using iPads to cast their votes, looked more like a university debate club than a session in the storied Smith Hill chamber. After a five-month pause, legislators met offsite to allow adequate separation. The Senate convened in Rhode Island College’s Sapinsley Hall on December 18 — socially distanced, masked-up and required to make the long stroll to sideline podiums to speak their minds.

One result of the session is that Rhode Island is now set to join 11 other states that have women majorities on their Supreme Courts, after the Senate overwhelmingly approved Governor Gina Raimondo’s pair of nominations to fill the top judicial vacancies during the special session, broadcast live on Capitol TV.

Now, the former Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Erin Lynch Prata and Superior Court judge Melissa Long will secure lifetime appointments to the five-member court of last resort (Rhody is the only state in the union where justices are not “retired” by term or age limits).

Normally for observers, the (rightful) top story during the senate debate over the vacancies would be the appointment of Long, who will take her place as the first person of color to don the supreme judicial robe since the court’s founding in 1747.

But this is Rhode Island. And nothing worth doing happens without a bit of controversy.

For those who weren’t following, Justice Gilbert Indelgia retired from the bench last June, followed by Justice Francis Flaherty announcing in October that he too would be stepping down. Lynch Prata, the Warwick Democrat, announced in the spring she would not seek reelection and expressed public desire to fill Indelgia’s seat on the state’s highest bench (Prata also served on the Senate Committee on Rules, Government Ethics and Oversight).

Lynch Prata and Long received the nod from Raimondo on December 8, who said the judicial cohort will be “high-caliber judges who reflect the diversity of the Rhode Islanders they serve.”

As for Lynch Prata, concerns had been raised over the propriety, or legality, of a state legislator moving directly from the State House chamber to a Benefit Street judgeship.

Some history: Looking to shake off a well-deserved appearance of Rhode Island as a mecca of corrupt political favoritism and inside dealing, the General Assembly enacted new laws in the early ’90s that, among them, prohibited elected officials from working in state government for one year after leaving office, colloquially called a “cooling off” period. (Apparently, 12 months eliminate one’s juicy political connections, and best friends become strangers.)

Seeking an exemption from the rule, Lynch Prata asked for an opinion from the state’s Ethics Commision, who, defying their in-house counsel position, announced in June that everything was ethically and legally copacetic. Groups like Common Cause disagreed, with director John Marion saying he was “sickened” by the ethics panel vote.

Unsurprisingly, the opinion also drew a rebuke from the state Republican Party.

A draft advisory opinion released by RIEC dated June 2 stated, “a sitting member of the , a state elected position, is prohibited by the statutory and regulatory ‘revolving door’ provisions of the Code of Ethics from seeking or accepting a potential appointment to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.” If Lynch Prata had waited a year to seek the appointment, then the issue would have been moot. Either way, the commission ignored the staff advice and allowed the nomination to move forward. The vote was 5-2.

Having received the go-ahead from the House of Representatives on December 16, the last hurdle in Lynch Prata’s journey to the court was acquiring a two-thirds majority vote by the Senate. During a two- hour debate — interrupted briefly by another historic first, Senate President Dominick Ruggerio reminding colleagues to keep their iPads charged up, lest they be relegated to masked-up voice votes — senators made their case for or against her ascendency.

It should be noted that no one questioned her qualifications for the job. By all accounts Lynch Prata is a stellar lawyer, legislator, colleague, friend, mentor and public servant. She has decades of litigation experience and the support of Raimondo and democratic leadership.

Prata was a prime mover or sponsor of a host of successful legislation, such as the Uniform Parentage Act and the minimum wage increase. She was also credited by colleagues for her work to get The Protect Rhode Island Families Act passed, which requires convicted domestic batterers (or those with final protective orders against them) to surrender their firearms.

What emerged during the debate were two seemingly irreconcilable legal views that hinged on the interpretation of “constitutional office.” Supporters of the appointment contend that a Supreme Court seat is like an elected position spelled out in the constitution; opponents see it as a “state agency” job, the kind the ethics law was meant to prohibit.

And while the end tally was overwhelmingly in support (30-5), the unconvinced used their time to warn against what they see as a dangerous precedent, the term “precedent” appearing to refer to a permanent change to norms only put in place less than 30 years ago (Rhode Island is known for its unique political vocabulary). Sen. James Sheenan (District 26, North Kingstown) reiterated his opposition to Lynch Prata’s appointment during the December 18 session, praising her experience while worrying about the future of ethics in state government. He suggested legislators consider tightening the statute for better clarity.

“I would beseech you to consider one way to provide a fix to the revolving door ethics code,” he said. “In the future, we may not be so lucky.”

Outgoing Sen. William Conley (District 18, East Providence) gave a passionate defense of Prata, calling the notion that Supreme Court seats are not a constructional office “ridiculous” and a “rhetorical sleight of hand.” To deny the appointment could lead to “chaos and tyranny,” he added.

On the Republican side, Senator (District 23, Burrillville, North Smithfield) worried about the near-term ramifications. Certain recent and controversial legislation Lynch Prata was involved with, such as the “Red Flag” gun law, is likely to be challenged before the court. What then?

“When you have a Republican senator and a left leaning group [in opposition] then maybe there is some merit to the argument,” she said.

Senator (District 5, Providence), who has been publicly outspoken against the approval, called it “a move away from our ethical principles.”

“I think that the precedent that we set here today is a precedent that we [should] limit,” he said.

With so much on Smith Hill’s plate in the upcoming session, chances are there will be legislation introduced to prevent not only the “revolving door,” but a political Slip ‘N Slide from the legislature to the judiciary. Or maybe not.

“I’d like to see this revolving door jammed,” said Sheehan. “[This could be] a recipe for scandal or corruption.”

Smithfield Senator dismissed these arguments with a rhetorical flourish. He thinks the controversy may lead to a stigma against public service.

“There are so many red herrings going around,” he said. “I feel like I’m in a fish market.”

Mind the Gap: Inching toward judicial equality Melissa Long

While expected by political observers, the announcement that the General Assembly had finally confirmed the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s first non-white associate justice – and the first Asian American Superior Court judge, and the first Latina to the Family Court – might have come as a surprise to many, given the state’s overall racial diversity and 250-plus year history.

Though we’ve been short on good news this holiday season, there was statewide praise for the Senate confirmations of Melissa Long to the Supreme Court bench, attorney Linda Rekas Sloan to Superior Court, and former Central Falls municipal judge Elizabeth Ortiz to Family Court.

Speculation over Raimondo’s possible appointment choices ignited a conversation about the lack of a diverse judiciary and jumpstarted mainstream acknowledgement of wide, longstanding systemic obstacles. Progressive activists had been shining a light on the poor state of judicial diversity for years; however, suddenly, the average citizen was forced to reckon with the fact that all too often minorities accused of crimes find themselves in front of judges (and juries for that matter) whose racial identity (read: white) does not represent their own community.

An overview of the Smith Hill response showed a desire to push this movement further. In a December 11 press release issued before the General Assembly took up the nominations, Rep. Grace Diaz (District 11, Providence) called the appointments “long overdue.”

Other state pols agreed there is work to be done. Said Rep. Karen Alzate in a Dec. 10 statement, “taking no credit away from these three impressive women and their accomplishments, these nominations do not end the need to continue to diversify our judicial system. There is still a way to go before our judicial system accurately reflects the demographics of our state, and we will continue to call for fair representation during future court openings.”

Rhode Island political activists have been pressuring Raimondo for years to further diversify the state’s judiciary as vacancies opened. Like many state and federal bureaucracies, Rhode Island’s judicial apparatus historically skewed very white and very male. What in legal circles is often referred to as the “gavel gap” can lead to unjust treatment of minority defendants, whether through implicit bias or outright prejudice.

Jim Vincent, president of the Providence NAACP wrote in a December 5 op-ed that Raimondo’s picks would solidify “her legacy as a Judiciary civil rights champion,” imploring her to “make history, and continue to diversify the courts.”

The data on the racial breakdown of the country’s judges is stark indeed. A study released by the Brennan Center for Justice, titled “Improving Judicial Diversity,” found not just a gap in the makeup of Rhody’s court system, but an ocean. While the gender breakdown of judges in Rhode Island has improved over the decades (now around 50/50), racial disparity has been egregious.

Nationwide, they found that white male judges in state appellate courts outnumber other demographics by a 2-1 margin and that “almost every other demographic group is underrepresented when compared to their share of the nation’s population. “

They also found evidence that “the number of black male judges is actually decreasing.”

“The United States is more diverse than ever, but its state judges are not… Rhode Island’s population is 21% non-white,” wrote the authors of the 2010 study. “And its minority bar membership is only 2%.”

Things have been (very slowly) improving. According to an updated tally by the American Constitution Society, now 7% of Rhode Island’s judiciary are Black.

That said, Melissa Long was at the time the only person of color serving on the state’s Superior Court bench at the time of her 2017 appointment. Until her nomination, Rhode Island was one of 23 states with an all-white Supreme Court.

And state leaders were well aware. In 2017, Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell hired Dorca Paulino as the first-ever diversity coordinator to “enhance minority hiring in the courts and promote minority interest in the legal profession,” according to a 2019 press release announcing the office’s reception of the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Exemplary Practice Award presented by the American Society for Public Administration.

Among the various systemic issues, a major one is increasing the number of qualified minority candidates through public outreach and programming to open a pipeline to the judiciary, which many observers agree is paramount to fixing the problem. In an interview with Roger Williams University, where she is an alumna, Paulino said that 23% of new staff hires in fiscal year 2019 identified as minorities.

The progressive victories in November’s assembly race showed a voter thirst for action. It seems Rhody is now playing catch-up. Long’s father, an Army veteran, attended segregated schools in Virginia before the practice was outlawed. And Virginia placed their first Black justice, John Charles Thomas, on the bench in 1983.

In a statement released after her Senate confirmation, Long said, “I pledge to the people of Rhode Island always to work hard and with humility, to strive to emulate the qualities of our most admired jurists, and to honor the legacy of those who blazed the trail before me.” Double Shot: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine second to be approved in RI

Resolution approved by Vaccine Sub-Committee of RI Department of Health, Dec 21, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine against COVID-19 was unanimously approved for use in RI this morning at an emergency meeting of the RI Department of Health (DoH) Vaccine Sub-Committee, following the issuance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on Friday, December 18. Doses are expected to begin arriving in RI later today, a planned total of 19,000 over the next week, according to Alysia Mihalakos of DoH.

The Pfizer vaccine was previously approved for use in RI on Monday, December 14, and 9,750 doses were received last week, but in the second week of distribution beginning today the state was warned by the federal government to expect only 6,825 instead of the scheduled 10,725 doses.

Moderna COVID-19 clinical considerations. (Source: RI DoH)

The two vaccines are very similar and both are based on mRNA technology, but there are some important differences. The Pfizer vaccine is approved for patients age 16 and older, while the Moderna vaccine is approved for patients age 18 and older. Both require two doses for full immunity, but the Pfizer vaccine recommends 21 days between doses and the Moderna vaccine recommends 28 days between doses. (Although it is recommended that the second dose be given as soon as allowed, neither vaccine has a maximum interval between doses, so giving the second dose late is better than not giving it all.) While the Moderna vaccine requires cold storage and transportation, it is less demanding than the Pfizer vaccine that requires extremely cold temperatures below -80°C. The vaccines cannot be combined or interchanged, such as by giving a first dose of one and a second dose of the other. Neither vaccine should be given to anyone with a known allergy to any of its ingredients.

In response to a question from Motif, sub-committee member Pablo Rodriguez confirmed that patients who are pregnant or lactating should follow the same procedures for both vaccines, which is to consult with their PCP for an independent evaluation of risk factors.

In response to questions from Motif, Mihalakos said that despite the unexpected shortfall in doses of Pfizer vaccine, the Moderna supply is as expected. “We are on track to receive our 19,000 this week, so there have been no changes overall in the planning estimates that you may have heard about previously. The vaccine will be distributed to all hospitals because we have not received nearly enough vaccine yet to cover all of the employees of all hospitals.” All of the first week supply of Pfizer vaccine, which was received last week, was allocated to hospitals to vaccinate their front-line staff, but the vast majority of the second week supply of Pfizer vaccine, nearly half of which is delayed, was allocated for federally contracted pharmacy partners, CVS and Walgreens, to vaccinate nursing home residents and staff, especially because the contractors are equipped to provide the extremely cold storage and handling needed. The plan was therefore to use the Moderna vaccine when possible primarily for hospital staff beginning this coming week. “We’re vaccinating the vaccinators, so our two mass-vaccinator partners received an initial supply of vaccine last week they will continue this week. We will be working with community health centers to ensure that their staff can start to be vaccinated. Again, we are moving on some plans for rolling vaccine because everybody can’t be vaccinated at once. There will be some additional vaccine that goes to the ACI to follow up on the initial doses they got this week,” Mihalakos said. “The Pfizer vaccine that we are allocated in this [coming] week, the majority of that will go to the pharmacy partnership for the beginning of the nursing home vaccinations. So you’ve heard us speak previously about that we needed to have 50% of the vaccine for staff and residents up-front.”

Much of the work of the sub-committee is highly dependent upon data and guidance supplied by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), particularly its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which published clinical recommendations for the Moderna vaccine only yesterday in a special edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the principal journal of the CDC. RI sub-committee meeting facilitator Mckenzie Morgan, noting how well things were going, joked, “It’s really nice once in the past month to not get surprises this weekend, which was, I don’t know about you guys, but a welcome relief for me. And I’m sure the rest of the RI DoH team got a huge sigh of relief. When I read the MMWR, I was like, ‘Okay, nothing crazy. All right. Awesome.’” “Guiding Principles” for COVID-19 vaccine sub-committee of the RI Department of Health

The next regular meeting of the Vaccine Sub-Committee is scheduled for Friday, January 8, skipping the holiday week when the usual meeting day, Friday, would fall on New Year’s Day, but members were warned that emergency meetings may be called if needed.

Ready for Reform: An interview with Senator- elect “I don’t have career goals in politics – I’m just doing this because I want better for people.” says State Senator-elect Kendra Anderson summing up her reasons for running for office. She has a background as an educator, a lifelong activist, and most recently the President of Climate Action RI.

Anderson was elected last month in Senate District 31, a district that includes the Cowesett, Greenwood, Norwood, Lakewood, and Pawtuxet Village neighborhoods of Warwick. She defeated Reublican Scott Zambarano for the seat formerly occupied by (soon-to-be RI Supreme Court Judge) Erin Lynn Prata. The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Alex Kithes (Motif): You’ve been a lifelong activist for a lot of different causes. Tell me a little about that.

Kendra Anderson: I’ve been an activist on and off throughout my lifetime, having grown up in a family that really prioritized community service and civic involvement. I started off very young, protesting the Vietnam War, and progressed onto environmental issues in the late 1970s. I brought up my son and worked, and wasn’t doing as much activism during that time period. When it became obvious that the climate crisis was indeed becoming a catastrophe, I knew it was time to get back involved. I started getting more actively involved back in 2010, protesting the LNG facility near the East Bay. We were successful in that protest, and I moved into more climate change-intensive issues — and on to this election!

AK: You and I met almost three years ago when I joined Climate Action RI, an organization that you became president of shortly thereafter. How does the climate crisis factor into your run, your support for new senate leadership, and how you’re going to legislate going forward?

KA: It figures in prominently. I did run for and become president of Climate Action Rhode Island, after working for a year on issues around climate change that were important to Rhode Island. I knew that I had to step up my involvement and really put my whole self into fighting for a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. I felt it was my responsibility to do everything I could to fix this problem. When it became obvious that our General Assembly in Rhode Island was not interested in diving deep into the causes of climate change and what we needed to do to change that, I just decided: OK, this is my next step. I’ve been going to the State House, I’ve been advocating for bills, I’ve been doing the hard work as a resident of Rhode Island – and nothing seems to be happening.

So I am going to try to be a legislator, and see if I can affect change that way. Actually, my entry into the campaign was motivated by my own State Senator not doing anything about climate change. I felt that, no matter what, knowing that she had an opponent would help to move the conversation along — and if nothing else, that would be an accomplishment. Indeed, that happened. Early on in the 2020 legislative session, she became a cosponsor of the Act on Climate bill.

AK: What other issues inspired you to run as a first-time candidate this cycle?

KA: The climate crisis motivated my run, but when I started looking at all the issues that are so closely entwined with climate change – climate injustice, social injustice, racial injustice – there was far more motivation to stay in the race. Education is an important one. Though I am not a public school teacher, I am a teacher in financially underserved communities.We know that the heart of a community, of a healthy community, is a strong school system. We know that economic prosperity is based on a strong educational system. That is so important to me as well.

AK: You ran with the Rhode Island Political Cooperative. The organization achieved quite a few big wins this year, both in the primary and general elections. What was it like, running as part of such a big team of GA candidates, and now getting ready to govern together? Do you see the organization growing and continuing to flip seats in 2022 and beyond? How do you see this factoring into the leadership discussion?

KA: Running with the Rhode Island Political Cooperative felt monumental in many ways; and on the flip side, so comfortable. There was something about modeling to our state, to our districts, for the people, how it is to work in cooperation, to support each other, and create policies that are formed by consensus in a group. As an educator, I loved that I was part of an organization that was trying to change not only how we look at things, but how we do things and how we treat one another. We work as a team with differing ideas on how to get something done. We came from all different cultures, and we learned how to negotiate and navigate through that so we could present one strong front. That was really exciting, to work in a cooperative setting that had the goal of bringing the best to Rhode Island. It wasn’t about each of us scoring a win for our careers. We all wanted the same thing: what’s best for Rhode Island and the people of Rhode Island.

To have so many people win our first time out shows that people were hungry for that. That our communities – our neighborhoods – wanted to have that feeling of being part of this system, and feel they were actually being listened to (we very much encouraged people to come on in and get involved).

That’s what motivated me, and honestly thrilled me to talk to people every day. Even my campaign changed with what my neighbors were saying. They told me what they needed to see changed. I think it’s highly likely that the success that the Political Cooperative enjoyed in 2020 will be reproduced in 2022. I don’t think people are done wanting to be part of the process, and wanting to see meaningful change.

AK: Your opponent in the general, Scott Zambarano, has been making some waves on social media. What was your experience, as a Progressive Democratic woman, running with him as an opponent?

KA: Our political process – our democracy – is created to give everyone a chance to participate and bring their ideas to the table. Unfortunately, in the last four years – it’s probably been going on longer, but it’s been popularized in the last four years – is a style of campaigning, legislating and leading, which deals with inflammatory personal attacks that have nothing to do with getting the best for the people of your district or state. My opponent ran his campaign that way.

I chose to ignore it most of the time, and told my campaigners that, out there, we’re talking about our campaign and about the positive we’re going to bring this district. But what he did was spin his wheels, and he continues to do so, because he wasn’t going to bring positive change to the district. And I think that talking about positive change is the only way you win an election! What “positive change” is may be different for different people, but in our district, people understand what’s going on. I think it’s unfortunate that any negative energy is still being expended – and I pretty much ignore it.

AK: How did you make the decision to vote for Senator Goldin for Senate President and Senator Calkin for Senate Majority Leader? Where do you see existing leadership has failed, and where would new leadership do better?

KA: In 2018, I participated in the process of trying to reform the rules at the State House, and bring some change to how decisions were made by legislators. I started to understand how much power just one or two people have in making decisions for everyone in Rhode Island, and how it is no longer democratic when something like that happens. I had mostly followed the House on those rules changes – and not as many happened as we wanted to see. Focusing on the Senate, and even just trying to get environmental legislation out of committee, I saw that the rules were not designed to do that. It was designed for one or two people to decide what made it to the floor.

That did not make me happy – I don’t see it as democracy. So when I decided to run for office, part of it was to break up the decision-making that is only at the top, and bring some leadership to the rest of the Senate. I made that a campaign promise, that I would not vote for the current Senate President or Majority Leader; that I thought the system needed drastic reforming, and that we needed someone new – who believed in democracy the way I did – to bring that forward.

Gayle Goldin bravely stood up to be that person in a sea of people who were not going to support her, and the newly elected progressives decided that they were going to support her. I was very proud – I remember waking up the day of the Democratic Caucus, and excitedly realizing it was the day I got to fulfill my first campaign promise and vote for a new leader. I was really nervous, because I knew I was doing a nominating speech, but I was excited to take that stand, and take it from conversations at my constituents’ doors and do what I promised I was going to do! It felt right, and I was never unsure of that vote.

I was also disappointed that, in both the House and Senate, the majority leaders were both men, and status quo Democrats. I felt it was important to represent progressives as well. Jeanine is an experienced, progressive leader who I supported to bring some balance to the Senate and help move progressive legislation to the floor for debate.

AK: Senate Leadership seemed to change their tone after the caucus, between talking about a $15 minimum wage and Senate Majority Leader McCaffrey tweeting about the “existential threat” of climate change. Are you optimistic about these changes?

KA: What’s great is the words have been uttered. So at least we can use that, if nothing else, to leverage.

AK: What are you planning on working on this term in the State Senate?

KA: Environmental legislation, of course, and any kind of jobs plan that ties into what we’ve known as a Green New Deal. I like to think of it as a jobs program that is changing the systems and structures to bring more prosperity to everyone, with the health and safety of people and our planet. Anything that accomplishes that, I’m signing on!

I’m also really hoping that the rules will change within the General Assembly, so that more people can be a part of the decision-making process. Also, a $15 minimum wage, fairly taxing the highest 1% of earners in Rhode Island, and concentrating on education – including bringing an environmental and climate change curriculum to all schools.

AK: Is there anything that you want to say that we haven’t covered?

KA: One thing that I feel good about is the amount of women that are stepping up, and are in leadership in the State of Rhode Island. I’m not going to say that just “women leaders” are the end-all-be-all because there are some that have destructive policies and behavior. But what’s great is that we are starting to be in places of power, for good or for bad, and it’s starting to reflect the communities, the neighborhoods and the state of Rhode Island.

We’re 50% or more of the population, so that is a good sign. It means that people who have been disenfranchised in the past – people of color, mostly women of color – are starting to get into seats of power. That is another thrilling thing for me. I honestly believe that those who haven’t really had a say in any of what happens to their communities, should be the ones that are creating the laws that are impacting people. And at the end of the day, I don’t have career goals in politics – I’m just doing this because I want better for people.

Alex Kithes is a member of the RI Political Cooperative and Climate Action RI.