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.