WHEN RESPONDING TO A BLOG, PLEASE NOTE THE BLOG NUMBER SO THAT PROPER REFERENCE CAN BE MADE.
To the reader:
In an effort to fully explore all the issues that may be relevant to the 2010 gubernatorial election, I have decided to utilize this blog to write a weekly statement related to state issues. Since it is a blog, I will also personally respond to comments and questions related to the topic.
For the next 170 weeks or so, I will comment, on a rotating basis, on the following topics:
EDUCATION
TRANSPORATION
PROPERTY TAXATION
CRIME
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
ENVIRONMENT
LABOR
THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
HIGHER EDUCATION
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
WELFARE
ELECTIONS
STATE TAXATION
HEALTH CARE
GAMBLING
LOCAL GOVERNANCE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC PROPERTY AND SERVICES
IMMIGRATION – STATE ROLE
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
ENERGY
OPEN GOVERNMENT
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
THE BUDGET
THE FUTURE OF RHODE ISLAND
Your comments will always be welcomed and suggestions will be considered. If we are to make Rhode Island work for the people, the people must want Rhode Island to work.
I urge you to read this and seek out any inconsistencies in my positions. I have written extensively on these issues in both the 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns, as well as the 1986 effort. The 94 and 98 documents are found on this web site for reference. The 86 documents were not as extensive, but should also be consulted.
If nothing else, this site will allow for people to consider and respond to issues of state governance.
Robert J. Healey, Jr.
Candidate for Governor 2010
posted by Robert J. Healey Jr. @ 10:57 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I am curious to know where you stand in respect to the latest debacle concerning DCYF. What would you do about disclosure, which would help to ensure the safety of all children? Would you help to untie the hands of the child advocate, seeking to get them access to confidential information which would enable that office to oversee DCYFs inner workings.
I am not fully sure of your question, but I will attempt an answer.
As to the disclosure matter you posed, I believe that if we have appointed a person and assigned a task, we must give that person the needed tools to complete the job.
The fact that something may or may not reflect positively on the operations is never a reason for failure to provide information. Barring some regulation or law to the contrary, there is no real reason to not grant access.
If the real argument is over "confidentiality" to protect an individual, my inclination is to protect the individual's confidentiality.
All that said, if there is a showing that the information is vital to the advocate, I would support regulation or legal change to allow access to the information.
In short, if the purpose is to stymie an true investigation, denying access is wrong. If it is truly to protect individual rights, it is proper.
As I said earlier, this may or may not be what you asked, and if not, please try again. I would like to understand your concerns.
Post a Comment
<< Home