House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello and Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed pledged last week to end the legislative member-induced grants to favored organizations. Well, sort of. There will be a couple dozen organizations, unknown at this writing, who will get some dough. It is an important step if they follow through by allocating the monies to state agencies where proposals can be vetted and protocols established for accountability. What’s not so good is their holding onto the $2 million legislative slush funds grants which they will still control. The senate president will dole out at least $49,000 to her favorite charities in her district and she will be trumped by the largesse of Mr. Mattiello’s use of taxpayer’s funds for his favorite groups in his district, which helps him get reelected. In effect, the charitable donations are really indirect campaign funds that the incumbent doesn’t have to spend.

One can see the allure of being on the "favored" list. In fact, some very outstanding heads of charitable endeavors just blinked at the process as long as they got theirs. It’s hard to convey the reality that the doling out of funds is not about the causes but about the process. Controlling the till gives wings to the reelection bid of the politician.

While the debate on these grants has raged for months, on the very day that the legislators made some changes I was in attendance at the Barrington Town Council meeting where the normally sane members aped the very abuses being challenged at the state level. Only one town council member, Ann Strong, got it! She even brought to her colleagues' attention that granting the request of a charity that was looking for a donation that evening was exactly the conduct being vilified at the state level. The rest of the council would hear nothing of it. Ms. Strong took a bit of abuse for her principled stand as she voted against the donation.

One council member, Michael Carroll, asked if there was any precedent to giving or not giving funds to a charity by a direct allocation from the council. Council member Kate Weymouth (who later abstained) brought up her prior failed attempt at the time of Hurricane Katrina to make the council contribute taxpayer funds to New Orleans in the aftermath of the storm. So, in effect, the precedent was negative but that didn’t stop Mr. Carroll from voting to give the donation.

Council member Steve Primiano danced around the donation by stating that the charity was late in asking so an exception should be made to the budgeting process. He and Council President June Speakman were so aching to make the contribution that they ignored the response of the town manager. Ms. Speakman asked him about using the contingency fund. He clearly explained that its purpose is for unexpected town costs like a cold winter necessitating an increase in heating costs or snow plowing. Since this ran counter to using contingency funds as a slush account, Ms. Speakman, with Mr. Primiano’s acquiescence, touted that people elected her to use her judgement so they both voted to make the donation en route to gutting the very concept of a contingency fund.

Without question the next attack by charities locked out of the legislative process will now focus on the lower level of government, i.e. the town councils where these elected officials can puff up their reelection prospects by donating property taxes to their favored organizations. Be forewarned.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.