CRIME

When I last touched on this issue I discussed the need to restructure the criminal system to prioritize and to review sentencing. I indicated that there is a great need to reform the system so that it is more effective and efficient.

Once we have made the steps in that direction, we must then look to the court system as to whether or not it serves its function or is merely an impediment to the process.

The court system in Rhode Island is plagued, in my opinion, not by the judiciary, but by the system that has been mandated upon it by the legislature. There is some blame that lies at the feet of the court system, but the larger culprit is the over-regulation of society that then puts an inordinate strain on the court system.

The Rhode Island court system is straining under the burden and is beginning to show signs that it will take the path of least resistance and become a mere foot soldier in the war. The court system is beginning to take to the idea that crime can be a cottage industry, providing employment opportunities and featherbedding of this branch of government.

The criminal justice system is a maze that doesn’t really service the public that well. The constant “processing” of crime and the information that relates to it make the system of swift justice near impossible.

The fact that court rooms are packed, the current lack of justices to fill the ranks, and the constant imposition of sentences that are less than “justice” make for a system that is merely a ‘take a number’ approach.

The more people processed, the more the system grows. The lack of justices has put a strain on the system, but it may also have a positive effect of forcing a downsizing in the processing of caseloads. This, however, is yet to be seen.

The daily cattle call of the arraignment calendar and the expanding need for violation hearings concerning past criminals that have re-offended makes any observer ask whether this is really working.

As I indicated in an earlier statement, real time and real crime should be the focus of the system. There is a need to fully sentence. There is a need to realistically state criminal offenses. There is a need to streamline the system from within.

Are low level drug possession cases really worth the approximately four court days it takes to fully adjudicate a matter? What about all the charged cases that are eventually dropped for failure to appear on the part of a complaining witness? How about all the civil matters that could be resolved by mini-arbitration hearings?

While crime is always a topic for potential office seekers, being tough on crime by statute does little if the circuit is not completed fully by an effective judiciary and corrections system.

The public needs to see through the “tough on crime” talk. This is not to say that criminals should be given a free hand; in fact, it stands to the contrary. When society wants to get tough on a certain “crime de jour” then it should be prepared to make the appropriate allocations throughout the entire system. Filling prisons for the sake of filling them is as ridiculous and letting real criminals out early.

PROPERTY TAXATION

As was noted earlier, one of the major problems related to local property taxation in Rhode Island is that it is used inefficiently to fund education.

By using local property taxes to fund a major portion of the education budget there are several concerns. If the local communities were given a free hand at implementation of labor contracts by the state, then there possibly could be a sensible approach to this issue, but the fact is that the state law actually hamstrings locals in labor matters, yet it expects so much of them under state law and regulation – expectations that are not paid for by the state.

In essence the state level of government has created a set of rules for locals and has not paid for them.

In order to meet these state mandates, the locals must tax, and their logical alternative is to utilize the property tax.

In the last session of the General Assembly I had legislation introduced at my request to change the funding away from local property taxes and shift the burden to the state via a 90% payment through income taxation.

This concept was soundly rejected in that it would require too much effort on the part of the State. It would require that the state actually work to have a functional economic development plan, that the state would have to better implement its mandates, and that the special interests in the legislature would not be satisfied.

An income tax based education formula seems most logical in that it allows for uniformity. In essence, a state education labor contract coupled with the funding responsibility in the state’s hands seems the most logical and fair, but then again, this is Rhode Island.

Instead, there is no real move to shift this burden. Instead, it will only increase as the state continues to impose regulations and other unfunded mandates.

With a tight budget there is an unlikely possibility that locals will get increased state aid to education. If so, then where is this funding coming from other than the local property taxes?

The fact is that the legislature needs to either relinquish control over education to give locals a free hand to negotiate its labor contracts or take the entire matter into the state’s responsibility. This bi-level government approach is little more than a recipe for failure, finger pointing and constant consternation.

Truth be told, the State needs to seriously revamp and restructure its entire taxation system. The piecemeal approaches and stop gap funding schemes of the last twenty years or so have done little to help. It functioned, albeit poorly, during good times, but it is ready to cease during this harder economic climate.

Education and taxation are clearly related to economic development. They serve as a triad. They must be perfectly balanced and continually adjusted to meet the current circumstances presented to government. The problem is that we have left these responsibilities in the hands of buffoons who really have little, if any, clue as to how these matters inter-relate.

We can put all the study groups in the state together to come up with an answer, but the fact remains, a camel is merely a horse made by a committee. We need a solid, well reasoned plan that restores prosperity. Instead, we look to the people who brought the state to this level to resolve the problems. Who’s stupider than we are?

Barring some heroics in the Assembly this session, I am sure this topic will return to a later discussion.

TRANSPORTATION

I have long been an advocate for mass transit in Rhode Island, the problem is that the money that could have been used for such an endeavor has been wasted.

Transportation funds are largely related to federal funds. The federal government, in its attempt to by-pass state sovereignty granted state’s under the United States Constitution, provides transportation funds, usually with strings attached. In doing so, the federal government can exert its power over the states that receive funding.

It is a trap that Rhode Island, and all states for that matter, has fallen into. That said, there is very little that can be done in terms of major transportation projects without the involvement of the federal government.

Still, state governments are not absolved of responsibility. The states propose various uses of the transportation funds. Unfortunately, Rhode Island has used these funds to target auto-centered projects and not mass transit.

As a result, Rhode Island’s ability to fully utilize its capability for mass transit is sorely limited. Yes, we have a bus system that runs statewide, but that is far short of what could be done with mass transit.

Given Rhode Island’s size, its urban population centers, and its use of urban cores to locate businesses, Rhode Island is ripe for a good mass transit system. The reality, however, is that this may never come to fruition.

The past squandering of funds, coupled with the budgetary crisis related to mismanagement of funds in other budget areas, has made it next to impossible to implement a mass transit system of the type that would actually work. Sure, there could be a piecemeal plan, but the reality is that unless a high grade system is constructed, there will be limited use. Limited use makes this an unrealistic option.

Mass transit must be safe, reliable, easy to access, and operational at times when it is needed. People all over the world use mass transit systems, but the ones that are the best get the most use. People are moved by price and ease. If a system is constantly running, it can fulfill the needs of the users. Once any of the major components breaks down, the system is doomed.

Rhode Island needs mass transit. It has the compact service area and it surely has the transportation problems that would be alleviated by such a system. The only problem is that the operation of such a system would require an education effort and money, neither of which is among Rhode Island state government fortes.

EDUCATION

Much has actually happened since the last time I addressed this issue. There has been a severe budget crisis that has just about forced the local governments to re-evaluate the funding mechanism for education.

Also, since the last writing, the Board of Regents, under the direction of Robert Flanders, has been making some interesting in-roads. While I am not sure that Flanders fully understands the socio-demographics of education, I am quite encouraged by his efforts to bring the matters to the public’s attention.

Flanders recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Providence Journal (February 1, 2008) in which he outlined what he has as the vision for the Board of Regents over which he presides. While much of it was the same old tripe that is as predictable as the sunrise, there was at least a tone of sincerity. I got the feeling that he was naïve but truly thought that he could better the education system. For that I give him some credit, that is, credit on top of the credit for publicizing the problem.

Unlike most before him, he actually attempted to outline a course of action. Whether or not this proves sound is left to the future, but it should be noted that he has made a solid attempt to understand the problem. My only criticism of this is that it fails to take the reality of education into the equation.

Children from homes that respect the value of education will attempt to perform to a higher level. Those from homes that put lesser value on education will suffer. It is the real dirty little secret of the education world. We can train people, but we do a miserable job of educating them.

The outline by Flanders included a frank discussion of the need to consider pension reforms, education work rules that reflect the modern school room instead of the outdated entrenched system, and the attempt to bring economic development components in line with education objectives.

The reality is that there will probably be little success. The fact of the matter is that the over-reliance on property taxation to fund schools needs to be abolished and a statewide wage rate established. There needs to be a greater flexibility in the operation of the schools by the local school boards, but only after they are freed from the responsibility of contract negotiations.

The need for reform is glaring, but the system did not get to where it is overnight nor will it be able to right itself in such a short period. The need to look at longer term solutions in education is often thwarted by the silly regulatory nature of government. Until we can curb our governmental regulation appetite, we are no more likely to solve our education problems as we are to solve our budgetary woes.

By the next time education comes up for discussion, we will have a sense of the proposals argued by Flanders. I hope for success, but I think that I will be returning to the subject with the same commentary that we are continually spinning our wheels speaking of education reform and not achieving it.