Follow us on social media:
PROVIDENCE – Patricia Serpa, the longtime state lawmaker carrying the banner this year for the legion of retirees who want their annual pension increases back, tells of the advice her father gave her when she was just starting her teaching career.
In 1970, he advised her to turn down a teaching job offer that paid more and instead to take a job with a school district that might pay less in salary, but paid into Social Security on its employees’ behalf.
The 70-something Serpa calls it one of the best pieces of advice her father ever gave her because, unlike thousands of other retired teachers in Rhode Island who worked in school districts that did not pay into Social Security, she has a cushion.
She gets $3,182 a month from her state pension, roughly $2,000 a month from her late husband’s pension as a retired Providence firefighter, plus Social Security, which pays “more than my pension.”
While it is too late to secure Social Security for today’s out-of-luck retirees, Serpa, D-West Warwick, on Thursday appeared before the House Finance Committee to pitch her bill to require that all public school teachers hired starting July 1, 2024, participate in Social Security.
Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2% of wages up to the taxable maximum ($168,600 in 2024), while the self-employed pay 12.4%.
Enrolling new teachers in Social Security may not be easily done, quickly, for legal and political reasons, but as Serpa noted, many of today’s retirees worked in municipalities where neither they nor their employeers contributed to Social Security. The list includes:
Barrington (teachers); Bristol (teachers and police); Burrillville (teachers, Harrisville and Pascoag fire); Central Falls (teachers, police and fire); Coventry (teachers and fire); Cranston (teachers, police and fire); Cumberland (teachers and fire); East Greenwich (teachers and fire); East Providence (teachers); Foster-Glocester (teachers); Hopkinton (Hope Valley, Wyoming fire, Hopkinton police); and Johnston (teachers).
James Parisi, the lobbyist for the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals, said initial research indicates the legislature cannot mandate Social Security for new hires only, “but there are other ways to do it.
“Maybe the General Assembly can mandate all the non-Social Security districts to reconsider it. Maybe you can require everyone to be in, but allow people to opt out, which we think makes some sense … [for] a long-term teacher” who’d get little benefit.
The potential political obstacle? “We raised this issue when Gina Raimondo was talking about pensions in 2011, and no one wanted to touch it,” Parisi said.
Before the hours-long, multi-bill hearing was over, a spokesman for state General Treasurer James Diossa conveyed support – perhaps for the first time – for legislation that would provide Rhode Island’s retired teachers and state workers with a one-time “stipend” equal to 3% of their pension or $40,000, whichever is less.
Diossa spokesman Rob Craven said the treasurer supports this bill over others because the money for it would come from the state’s General Fund, not the pension fund.
Serpa laid the groundnwork for a hearing – on another day – on her newly filed – and very different – bill to provide retired state workers and teachers with a 3% “cost-of-living adjustment” aka COLA on their base pension in the budget year beginning July 1, and uncapped future increases in keeping with the Consumer Price Index.
While her bill came in too late to make Thursday’s House Finance meeting, the long agenda gave legislators and other advocates for retired and active public employees an hours-long opportunity to argue for various ways to reverse the cost-cutting moves that then-state Treas. Gina Raimondo urged – and state lawmakers, including Serpa – approved in 2011 to rein in the skyrocketing pension tab.
The cost cut that haunts today’s lawmakers most: the suspension of the annual COLAs that once paid up to 3% compounded annually to those who were once allowed to retire at any age after 28 years on the job.
Lawmakers placed some curbs on those offerings in the years leading up to the dramatic 2011 overhaul, but not enough to avert huge cost increases. The overhaul saved taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, but retirees say they took the hardest hit.
“This is the year to help the retirees. This is their turn,” Serpa said. “It’s not hyperbole, but I’ve heard of some retired teachers, some who’ve never paid into Social Security, some who don’t have the benefit of a husband’s pension or Social Security who are borderline homeless.”
“A couple of teachers I’ve heard from are eligible for food stamps. That’s sinful,” she said, making a case for taking an initial $30 million out of the $11-billion pension fund, and more later, as required, to give the retirees annual pension boosts.
The Rhode Island chapter of the AARP put its weight behind a bill seeking the total repeal of state income taxes on Social Security.
AARP Director Catherine Taylor made this pitch: “More than one in five Rhode Island residents – 230,018 people – receives Social Security benefits. Annual Social Security benefits to Rhode Islanders pump at least $4 billion into the state economy.”
In fall of 2023,” she said AARP RI surveyed 700 Rhode Islanders age 45. “When asked, the majority (89%) of residents say they agree that ‘Rhode Island lawmakers should repeal the state tax on Social Security.’ This sentiment is consistent regardless of age, gender or political party.”
“Over half (55%) of Rhode Island adults believe Social Security will be a major part of or their only source of their retirement income.”
Out of the 29% of Rhode Island residents age 45+ who have considered living in another state for retirement, or are still unsure about it, nearly three in five say they are more likely to stay in Rhode Island if the Social Security income tax is eliminated. In addition, the majority of Rhode Island adults age 45+ say it is extremely or very important to have adequate Social Security benefits available in the future (91%).
New East Bay Bike Path bridges are open and ready for bikes
What’s it like to ride over the new East Bay Bike Path bridges? We sent a reporter to try them out.
I’ve long thought bike paths are among Rhode Island’s premier attractions, up there with the beaches, the mansions and the bay.
We like to knock government, but credit where it’s due, the state has done an amazing job building out an incredible pedaling network.
It’s clearly a priority.
At least I thought it was.
But they’ve just dropped the ball on what should have been a beautiful new stretch.
The plan was to finish a mile-long connector from the East Providence end of the Henderson Bridge all the way to the East Bay Bike Path.
There was even $25 million set aside to get it done.
Except WPRI recently reported that it’s now been canceled.
The main fault lies with the Trump administration, which is no friend of bike paths, and moved to kill that $25 million.
But it gets complicated, as government funding always does.
To try to rescue that money, the state DOT reportedly worked with the administration to refunnel it into a road project. Specifically, the $25 million will now be spent helping upgrade the mile-long highway between the Henderson Bridge and North Broadway in East Providence, turning it into a more pleasant boulevard.
That totally sounds worthy.
But it’s insane to throw away the bike path plan.
Especially for a particular reason in this case.
They’d already put a ton of money into starting it.
When state planners designed the new Henderson Bridge between the East Side and East Providence, they included a bike path.
It’s a beauty – well protected from traffic by a barrier, a great asset for safely riding over the Seekonk River.
The plan was to continue it another mile or so along East Providence’s Waterfront Drive, ultimately connecting with the East Bay Bike Path, which runs all the way to Bristol. Which, by the way, is one of the nicest bike paths you’ll find anywhere.
But alas, that connector plan has been canceled.
So the expensive stretch over the Henderson Bridge to East Providence is now a bike path to nowhere. Once the bridge ends, the path on it continues a few hundred yards or so and then, just … ends.
Too bad.
We were so close.
Most of the stories on the issue have been about the complex negotiation to rescue the $25 million by rerouting it to that nearby highway-to-boulevard project. But I don’t want to get lost in the weeds of that bureaucratic process here because it loses sight of the heart of this story.
Which is that an amazing new addition to one of the nation’s best state bike path systems has just been scrapped.
You can knock the Rhode Island government for blowing a lot of things.
The PawSox.
The Washington Bridge.
But they’ve done great with bike paths.
And especially, linking many of them together.
Example: not too many years ago, Providence bikers had to risk dicey traffic on the East Side to get to the more pleasant paths in India Point Park and on the 195 bridge to the East Bay Path.
But the state fixed that by adding an amazing connector that starts behind the Salvation Army building and beautifully winds along the water of the Seekonk River for a mile or so.
That makes a huge difference – and no doubt has avoided some bike-car accidents.
We were close to a comparable stretch on the other side of the river – that’s what the $25 million would have done.
But it’s now apparently dead.
Online commenters aren’t happy about it.
On a Reddit string, “Toadscoper” accused the state of being “complicit” with the feds in rerouting the money from bikes to cars.
And there was this fascinating post from FineLobster 5322, who apparently is a disappointed planner who worked on the project: “Mind you money has already been spent on phase one so rejecting it at this point is wasting money and also against the public interest … but what do I know? I only worked on the project as an engineer … I didn’t get into this to build more highways. I do it … to give back to communities and give them more access to their environment.”
Wow. One can imagine the state planning team is devastated. That’s not a small consideration. Good people go into government to make life better in Rhode Island, and it’s a bad play to take the spirit out of the job by first assigning a great human-scale project and then, after a ton of work, trashing it.
A poster named Homosapiens simply said, “We just accept this?”
Hopefully not.
The first stretch of the path over the Henderson Bridge is done, money already sunk.
What a shame to leave that as a path to nowhere.
It doesn’t have to happen.
Between Governor McKee and our Washington delegation, there’s got to be a way to get this done.
There’s got to be.
mpatinki@providencejournal.com
WARWICK, R.I. (WPRI) — Two people are dead and another person seriously hurt after a crash involving two vehicles on the highway in Warwick Saturday.
Rhode Island State Police said the crash happened around 1:34 p.m. on the ramp from Route 113 West to I-95 South.
According to police, a Hyundai SUV that was driving in the middle lane of the highway started to drift to the right, crossed the first lane, and then crossed onto the on-ramp lane. The car struck the guardrail twice before driving through the grass median.
The Hyundai then struck the driver’s side of a Mercedes SUV that was on the ramp, causing the Mercedes to roll over and come to a rest. The impact sent the Hyundai over the guardrail and down an embankment.
The driver of the Hyundai, a 73-year-old man, and his passenger, a 69-year-old woman, were both pronounced dead at the hospital.
A woman who was in the Mercedes was rushed to Rhode Island Hospital in critical condition.
State police said all lanes of traffic were reopened by 4:30 p.m.
The investigation remains ongoing.
Download the WPRI 12 and Pinpoint Weather 12 apps to get breaking news and weather alerts.
Watch 12 News Now on WPRI.com or with the free WPRI 12+ TV app.
Follow us on social media:
A federal judge on Friday tossed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit aiming to force Rhode Island to hand over its voter information as part of the Trump administration’s push to acquire voter data from several states.
Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy wrote that federal law does not allow the DOJ “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here,” siding with Rhode Island election officials. She added that the DOJ did not provide evidence to suggest that Rhode Island violated election law.
McElroy, a Trump appointee, wrote that she sided with the similar decision in Oregon. That decision ruled that the DOJ was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists.
“Absent from the demand are any factual allegations suggesting that Rhode Island may be violating the list maintenance requirements,” she said in her ruling.
Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore (D) praised McElroy’s decision. He said in a statement that the Trump administration “seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states.”
“Today’s decision affirms our position: the United States Department of Justice has no legal right to – or need for – the personally-identifiable information in our voter file,” he said. “Voter list maintenance is a responsibility entrusted to the states, and I remain confident in the steps we take here in Rhode Island to keep our list as accurate as possible.”
The Hill reached out to the DOJ for comment.
The DOJ called for the voter lists as it investigated Rhode Island’s compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allowed Americans to register to vote when they apply for a driver’s license.
The DOJ sued at least 30 states, as well as Washington, D.C., in December demanding their respective voter data. This data includes birth dates, names and partial Social Security numbers.
At least 12 states have given or said they will give the DOJ their voter registration lists, according to a tracker operated by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The department stated after it lost a similar suit against Massachusetts earlier this month that it had “sweeping powers” to access the voter data and that, if states fail to comply, courts have a “limited, albeit vital, role” in directing election officers on behalf of the administration to produce the records. The DOJ cited the Civil Rights Act as being intended to unearth alleged election law violations.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
Photos: How overfishing in Southeast Asia is an ecological and human crisis
Blue Origin successfully reused its New Glenn rocket
Distress call captures tanker under fire, Iran shuts Hormuz trapping thousands of sailors
Trump ally diGenova tapped to lead DOJ probe into Brennan over Russia probe origins
Experts reveal why ‘nonnamaxxing’ trend may improve mental, physical health
‘Demon’ Finn Balor settles score with Dominik Mysterio at WrestleMania 42
iPhone and Samsung flashlight tricks you should know