THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

The Rhode Island Constitution is a moderately interesting document, but it really doesn’t fully deliver what it offers. As former RI Supreme Court Justice Robert Flanders has pointed out on various occasions before the Legislature, in judicial opinions, and at various public meetings related to the understanding and interpretation of the Rhode Island Constitution, the document is not regarded as self-executing in that it may not allow an ordinary citizen to seek enforcement of various parts of the document.

The gist of Flanders’ argument is that the RI Constitution, based on Supreme Court opinions, often falls short when attempting application. The Court has held that many rights granted to the people in the Rhode Island Constitution are, in essence, subject to the Legislative approval.

The enforcement of various protections by individuals under the RI Constitution is limited to what enforcement has been granted by the Legislature. In short, the document is not self-executing and quite often a member of the citizenry is found lacking proper standing to seek redress. Therefore, the expressed rights of the people are at times limited unless the legislature expressly grants the enforcement.

This may seem to be inconsequential, as well as highly technical, to most readers, but the fact is that this is probably one of the most important issues of constitutional interpretation facing Rhode Island. The fact that the people are granted rights that cannot be easily enforced is a farce, and yet people pay little time or attention to the matter.

It is important that we learn more about the argument that Flanders proffers. This is really in the interest of all Rhode Islanders and is just plain old good government being responsive, not to mention responsible, to the people it serves. There is no reason that people should be denied rights because it is left to the legislature to enable enforcement. This is a warped sense of freedom.

And there are far more Rhode Island Constitution issues. As most everyone knows, I have a grave concern over the provision for a utterly impotent Lieutenant Governor's office that has less powers than any other full time Lieutenant Governor in the entire United States. The price of this inefficiency is paid by taxes.

There is a problem in that the people have not fully secured separation of powers. There is a concern that the people do not have voter initiative as is found in more than half of our sister states. It is a problem that we are not allowed to petition our government for redress as is guaranteed. It is a problem that we are not allowed to petition for constitutional change, except at the behest of the Legislature or by a vote every ten years.

I will readily admit that much of my view of this topic is tinged by a taste of sour grapes. The system doesn’t run the way I would like and so I would like to tinker with the system. Granted. But this does not mean that it is wrong to seek changes in a system that has not properly served the society.

Why should we perpetuate rules that keep entrenched power entrenched? There is little reason we should tolerate bad governance, corruption, and poor or inadequate protections simply because the "rules are the rules". Rules are made to be changed. Rules should always provide guidance drawn from experience, but should not be made so inflexible that they complicate rather than effectuate. I am a proponent of such change. I would prefer an effective, efficient, more tolerant, honest, equal, and constituent oriented government. Sorry if that offends you.

The changes that we make are usually hard-fought and are reluctantly granted by the powers that be. Even good government forces have learned to play the game and have often traded on their good name to effectuate policy that leans in a particular direction. They have learned to swim in the cesspool that is the legislature. This is disheartening at best, but often required if they are to get any policy changes. This should not be.

Next time I discuss this topic, I will most likely return to the issues raised in the paragraphs above, but give them a deeper examination, along with the current status of the fight to get them implemented. Until these changes occur, most Rhode Islanders will continue in their life of uninformed bliss and not make any effort to improve their government or their situation beyond what the government provides for them. That is the epitome of a sorry state.

LABOR

Recent labor actions by school teachers have focused much of the public on the issues of labor and the state. Rhode Island has long had a love affair with its public labor unions. As a result, the private labor unions are given some deference but not the strong level of attention that has been lavished on the public sector.

In short, Rhode Island’s labor union control is largely concentrated in the public sector labor. In the years of labor’s decline, the general labor movement has been crippled, but the public sector has remained vibrant.

The public labor movement in Rhode Island has a long history of very good planning on the part of the unions. They worked hard to organize the public sector and then urged members to take part in governance. Once entrenched in government, the unions, mostly through lobbyists, have taken strong control of many facets of governance.

Rules and regulations that would seem inane in any private industry are allowed in the public sector. For example, a teacher living in one community and teaching in another can serve on a school board in the community in which he or she lives. Sure, it is good to bring the expertise to the board, but when they are discussing salaries of teachers, and those salaries will be used when negotiating with the community in which the teacher is employed, is there a conflict? One would think yes.

But such rules are minor. The public sector has long been seen as the place where there was less pay but security. Today, in Rhode Island, the pay is equivalent or better than pay and benefits in the private sector and there is still the security of public employment. This has created a budget crisis in Rhode Island.

This is not a diatribe against state workers. The State has determined that it has a function intruding into just about every facet of a person’s life, and, in order to do this, needs to employ thousands. A clear majority of state employees work long and hard, have a level of expertise in their fields, and try to serve the public’s interest. But a majority is not all.

Still, instead of picking on the work force, the real culprit is the created need for such employment. The passage of laws and regulation, the creation of bureaus and the make-work jobs for friends of Assembly members are the true villains. We have allowed our political system to grow obese. We have allowed our political system to waste. We have allowed our political system to be used for political rewards. This is where the real problem exists.

In order to curtail this abuse, there is a need to deregulate Rhode Island. No, not anarchy, just a clear understanding of the need for government intrusion into a person’s life. The need to reduce staff will be an inevitable consequence, but this should be a stated goal and there needs to be economic development which can be used to transition these people back into the private sector.

Surely in a state as small as Rhode Island there is an expected higher than average concentration of those in state employ, but Rhode Island is far more than the weighted average would allow. This is a symptom of bad government policy by our leaders. The fact that government sponsored employment is preferred to private sector employment speaks volumes on its face.

The pawn in this mess is the public service worker. To keep their employment they are maintained. The politicians in Rhode Island play to them and capitalize on their fears. Without amply available private employment, each job becomes precious. In turn, each attempt to create a more efficient government can be perceived as a threat to the very existence of a public employee.

Work is created to fill the job. It has been this way since someone hired another to decorate a cave. The idea is to make an adequate effort to encourage private sector employment opportunity. Without it, there is little chance of moving away from a public labor based work force.

Once private sector is allowed to efficiently enter into the Rhode Island marketplace, then, and probably only then, can we seriously look to limit our public sector employment. Deregulation again is the answer. By making it easier for private employment to exist, the competition for public labor will increase.

Of course, this is not real good news for politicians who rely on the dependency of the public workers. But, it is good for the workers and the state in the long run. The problem in Rhode Island is that the people are far too concerned with themselves and the politicians are far to concerned with themselves. No one can sacrifice for the benefit of the state as a whole. Therein lay our demise.

In future blogs I will attempt to further outline and flesh out the concept of how a deregulation and private sector employment could serve the state. I will also attempt to point the finger more directly at the Legislative and the Executive branches for their less than stellar efforts at improving this situation.

ENVIRONMENT

Rhode Island has been doing fairly well in relation to the environment, but there is much that is left undone. We are committed to open space. We are doing more in terms of our recycling efforts. We have been consistently working to save our bay. We have been expanding our greenways.

Now, what is it that we haven’t done. We haven’t fully committed. We need to work to reduce our reliance on petroleum, thereby using more and more available local power sources such as those related to wind and ocean. To say that there is a problem here is to make an issue where one doesn’t exist.

What needs to be said is that we as a state are going to stand for a future that will continue to seek to maintain a quality of life that makes the state special. We need to proceed with vision and insight while not stagnating our growth potential.

Every time a municipality limits building, there is a trade off. There is an open space being created at the expense of a property owner. As a libertarian, this quite honestly offends my sensibilities. I am personally committed to the outcome, but I am somewhat offended by the method used to attain it.

Unlike most libertarians, I am not overly offended by the government holding large parcels of land in the public’s interest. But, as a libertarian, I am offended when a public body uses law to enforce a taking of a property by restriction instead of paying for the right to regulate the private property of the citizenry.

This does not mean that I favor a complete disregard for the environment, but it does indicate a particular balance that is needed between land use regulation and private property rights.

I do believe that people vote with their feet. If there is an over-regulation there is a shortage of available land, which results in higher taxation, which results in less opportunity for those without means. With all the government subsidizing of property there is little long term investment. This hurts Rhode Island.

In any artificially defined marketplace, there is a skewing of the real value of property and, as a result, of wages and other factors that make long term business investment attractive.

This is not to say that there should be a box store on every corner. In fact, it argues to the contrary. To have a reasoned plan that locates development rather than limits it is the optimum of any community to establish growth.

Environmentally friendly development, in addition to reasoned growth, makes a perfect compliment to any environment. The idea is to look to the future and encourage development of innovative concepts that are environmentally friendly. If it is inconvenient to utilize alternative transportation, people will continue to use fossil fueled autos.

The current trend of wind and solar power are a good start, but we must look to this with extreme scrutiny. To enter into the development of this type of technology without a sense of where it will eventually go and with factors that really pertain to the current marketplace will leave us with an expensive but somewhat obsolete effort.

Encouraging recycling is great. Having a market for the recycled products is better. The basics of supply and demand are often ignored when we consider our environment. This needs to be explained and understood by the population if we are ever to educate the people as to the value of environmentally friendly government.

Environmental concerns do not exist in a vacuum. They are holistically connected to the entire economic fabric of the state. To miss this fact is to miss the value of the reason to protect the environment.

Education in environmental matters is relatively inexpensive and effective. In thirty years there has been a major decrease in litter. People have been made to understand, through education and not through punishment, that a clean highway is an important part of the general well being of the state.

We cannot ignore the concerns of the environmentalists, but we must approach them with reason rather than emotion. Policies that are based on junk science are far more detrimental to the environment in that they create expenditures for unneeded protections while creating skepticism in the public when the science gets debunked.

In the future I will further discuss the relationship between economic development and planned growth. I will also better link the transportation issues to the environmental concerns. And I will attempt to define a policy that can bring us into a future that can be profitable, safe and logical.

Suffice it to say that the basis of any environmental plan is to make it part of a symbiotic approach to governance.

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

Given the broad nature of this topic, I must first outline the area of discussion. I have much to say about various parts of governance, but suffice it to say that for this blog I will only look to areas of open government and the need for transparency.


While we are made to feel good by Open Meetings laws and similar regulations, we do not enjoy a visible government. The system of legislative grants, the lack of a coherent budget that can be easily deciphered by an average citizen, a system that fails to list outstanding warrants, a short circuiting of the legislative process through last minute, late night bills, and much more, all would lead one to a contrary position.


If a government is to truly operate for the benefit of the public, then when there is a public expenditure, the people should be aware of all the specifics. Too often this is not the case.


The budget for the state is formidable, both in size and readability. How hard is it to clearly define employees and their salary and benefits? How hard is it to put filled positions where they are assigned in the budget? How hard is it to clearly define what is being spent where?


While I understand that the General Treasurer’s office is attempting to make the budget more accessible to the public, I need to ask, why hasn’t this been done already?


The obvious answer is that in secrecy the government can do its dirty work. If you knew where the money was going, you, the taxpayer, would probably be more concerned about government. Instead, if you are given a nebulous account without any realistic means of assessing the data, how could you begin to argue intelligently against anything?


It is not the job of the newspapers to bring us data about how much certain employees make, it is the governments. If you work for any employer, that employer knows how much you are getting paid. Here, if you as a Rhode Islander are the employer (lip service to this position aside), then you should have the same type of information.


I am not advocating that all employee records be made public, but I do think that anyone employed by or receiving benefits from the state should be readily identifiable as to their name and address, the amount of the wage or benefit, and the position or purpose for such a payment. Why not, it is public money that is being spent.


I don’t need to know their social security number or their health problems, but I should know what I am footing in terms of social security payments on their behalf or how much I am funding for their health care. We, as a society, have kept public business private in the name of privacy rights, but we have moved far from reasonable access to public record to some insane position that we cannot disclose what we pay to whom.


Then there is the hidden world of the legislative grant system. Various organizations, through their Senators and Representatives, seek additional money for programs they deem worthy or that are located in their local districts. These grants are largely at the discretion of the leadership. In turn, given that power, they are used to horse trade legislation.


A member who is not of the governing party is often shorted. A member of the ruling party that has been non-compliant with the expressed desires of the leadership is also a likely candidate for retribution in that grant money requested will fall short. Those who follow the leader invariably get rewarded, some with bonuses, for their votes.


Now, I do understand that this is the role of the legislature to horse trade, and I understand that in attempting to form any type of coalition behind any piece of legislation there needs to be a carrot and stick approach, but such a need for this cannot justify the way this system is operated.


That is, if legislative grants were voted on individually, then the people would have the ability to look at the vote of each legislator. Instead, it is voted as a whole pie and then sliced by the leadership. A grant by the legislature should require a roll count vote. It is that simple and in doing this, it would make the process more visible. It would not change the horse trading aspect of the legislative process, but it would remove its secret nature.


The other branches of government are not immune from this public scrutiny. For years I have advocated the need to have a printed version of the outstanding warrants list published much in the same way the Treasurer publishes the money being held in trust by the state. Anyone with an outstanding warrant would be identified. Notice prior to the original publication would allow for people to “check-in” with the authorities in an attempt to straighten out the situation prior to publication.


Along with the outstanding warrants listing, there should be a publication of the amounts owed from court imposed sentences. Unpaid fines and assessments represent money belonging to the people of Rhode Island, why should they not be accessible in a simple public document?


The Governor could also be helpful in this matter. What would stop the Governor’s office from putting out a weekly hired list that would name each new job filling by name, pay grade, and other compensation and benefits?


This is also an indictment of the Governor for failing to adequately utilize the bully pulpit of that office. I recognize that the office of Governor of Rhode Island is below the Speaker of the House in terms of power, but it is not in terms of prestige and leadership. The office can be better utilized if it were to make extended, and personal, efforts to educate the people. To think a press release or a few radio appearances will convince a largely tuned out society is just plain stupid.


And, let us not forget that the Assembly has a habit of introducing pet bills at or near the end of the session and voting on bills that few have even read. Why would we need a full time legislature when all the legislation is currently done in one or two days anyway?


By creating the Open Meetings regulations our law makers have done little more than make it appear they are committed to this issue. The reality is that they are not. The Lima amendment to the budget (07 Assembly Session) demonstrates the fact that legislation gets passed without full notice and consideration of the public -- or legislators for that matter. While such an amendment may not technically violate the open meetings notice requirement if you buy the argument that it was germane to the budget consideration, it clearly violated the underpinnings and reasoning for having a visible government as supposed under an open meetings law.


In the future, this topic will consider other timely government matters of interest, but will also look at matters of inter-related matters that result from a three branch government and such topics as separation of power and voter initiative.