It’s been somewhat surprising to see people who clearly consider themselves to be supporters of civil rights and fairness respond as they have to the lawsuits against the town that three of us Town Council members are in the process of dropping or withdrawing from.

All of the details are available, here, so I won’t repeat them, but the upshot is that the Town Solicitor (at the suggestion of one or more members of the Town Council, we believe) led the Board of Canvassers to block ballot questions (or “resolutions”) from the 2018 financial town referendum (FTR) based not on the process of submitting them, but on the content of the questions themselves.  I’ll be generous in this summary (ignoring, for example, that the solicitor actually misstated what some of the questions would have done if they passed) and simply note that Solicitor Anthony DeSisto’s legal analysis was arguable.  Indeed, at the time that the board took its vote, the solicitor hadn’t even provided or (apparently) written his analysis, so he hadn’t made an argument so much as an assertion.

That means that, with no advanced notice of a hearing, no written analysis, and no effort to seek confirming opinions, the Board of Canvassers nullified the electors’ right to put questions on the ballot.  How can anybody, on any side of any political issue, believe that should be the way this works?

Of course, FTR resolutions and ballot questions are kind of abstract, and most electors might not have a practical sense of how they work.  But recent debate about the ethics of council members’ hiring a new solicitor puts a new light on the issue.

It’s become clear that at least some folks in town think it was unethical for us even to run for the council and that we shouldn’t have been permitted to take the seats.  Whether you agree with that or not, think of the Board of Canvassers’ FTR action in that light.

Imagine a town solicitor showing up at the Board of Canvassers meeting at which candidates for local office would be certified.  He tells the board that he thinks it might lead to charter complaints or other legal action against them if they certify three candidates who have lawsuits against the town.  In other words, he says, the candidates are “illegal.”

Obviously, this analysis would be wrong.  Otherwise, we’d be facing those official complaints right now.  But this is exactly what happened with the FTR resolutions.  With little more than an assertion, DeSisto pressured the board to make a decision within the space of their short meeting, even bending the rules of recusal to allow them to vote as he wanted.  There is no reason a solicitor couldn’t do the same thing to a candidate rather than a resolution.

And there is every reason to oppose the Board of Canvassers’ doing either.  It might even be worth a lawsuit.

Here and there around social media and other communication channels in Tiverton, folks have been speculating that Twin River Tiverton has taken a hit and isn’t going to be the revenue generator that people expected.  This talk seems to trace back to an article on GoLocalProv headlined, “Revenue Numbers at Twin River’s New Tiverton Casino Down 19 Percent.”

GoLocal’s information is typically reliable, but it tends to be sensationalist.  If you’re looking for the leading edge of tomorrow’s potential controversies, it’s a good place to look, but thorough assessment of news isn’t its forte.  In this case, the missing information is something that Tiverton residents have an advantage in knowing:  what the casino’s owners had projected for the first year of operation.

As we know from our local budget debate in April and May, the big questions were when the casino would open, what its hours would be, and what Tiverton could expect in revenue.  As projected by the state and reflected in Budget #2, the casino opened 24/7 on September 1st, with projected revenue for the 10 months of the fiscal year of $948,583, or an average of $94,858 per month.  Ultimately, supporters of higher taxes managed to convince voters at the financial town referendum (FTR) that this was too high.

In its first month of operation, Twin River Tiverton generated $163,807 for the town, which was 73% more than the monthly projection.  The question of concern to Tiverton taxpayers is whether the drop in October was more than that, and it wasn’t.  According to GoLocal, the casino took in $7,573,687 from video terminals, of which Tiverton gets 1.45%, and $1,696,431 from table games, of which Tiverton gets 1%.

There may be small differences due to the timing of payments or other adjustments, but this implies that Tiverton’s casino gambling revenue for October will be $126,783, which is still 34% more than projected.  Even if the first month benefited from enthusiasm over something brand new, if October’s revenue continues through June, Tiverton will end the fiscal year with $1.3 million (plus $100,000 from sports betting).

Starting next year, state law guarantees Tiverton $3 million minimum from the casino each year.  We’ll have to wait and see whether lawmakers will take that guarantee away in a few years if revenue doesn’t increase, but for the time being, everything continues to be on track.

For a quick post just before the election, let’s take up the suggestion from some folks that the Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) is some sort of “special interest.”  A basic question must come first:  What is a special interest?

For those of us who study political philosophy, “special interest” is a completely neutral term.  It refers to an organization or group whose motivation for political activity is not general, but specific, or special.  If your group advocates for things that affect everybody equally (or, at least, that don’t benefit your group in particular), you are a “general interest.”  If your group is trying to get taxpayer dollars for something that uniquely benefits your group, then you’re a “special interest.”

There’s nothing wrong with that.  To some extent, it’s how our government is supposed to work.  But that’s what the words mean.

TTA advocates for increased value for the taxpayer dollar and, where appropriate, lower taxes.  That applies to everybody.  Even if one were to insist that TTA members have more-expensive houses (and therefore pay higher taxes), the reality is that the benefits of TTA advocacy are broadly distributed.  That’s true not only because every homeowner pays taxes, but also because a high tax rate in Tiverton appears to reduce the value of high-end houses, which shifts the tax burden toward the owners of lower-end houses.  In short, TTA is a general interest group.

So what would be a special interest group?  One obvious example would be a labor union representing a category of town employees.  The entire mission of the unions is to increase the compensation and leverage of their members.  That will often involve promoting the work that union members do (which is theoretically of general benefit), but the unions’ role in our system is to advocate for the employees as a special group.  The term, “special interest,” could also apply (but less strongly) to residents who rely on a particular service that other residents don’t use.

By any of these measures, TTA cannot reasonably be called a “special interest.”