VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

As noted before, our Rhode Island veterans need to be recognized for their sacrifices regardless of how one perceives warfare. These folks have been assigned a duty and they have performed it. If people have a problem with those duties, it should be addressed politically and not individually.

That said, we need to seriously consider what we are doing as a state to aid veterans and their families. The most glaring area is the way we provide health care to those who have served.

As a state we operate veterans’ homes, a system by which those who have served have the ability to receive health care in a retirement setting. While we are making an effort, we are not operating up to par.

The problems of funding and care are often raised. This demonstrates the fact that the state cannot really operate a health care system for veterans. If this is true for this small group, how can the state even possibly consider a full blown universal health care program?

The needs of returning veterans are often taken care of on the federal level through veterans’ hospitals operated by the federal government. The state is largely left to supplement this care, largely through a nursing care facility.

The state has an obligation here, especially where there is a need created by service to the state and country.

But with tightened budgets and the need to minimize staffing, the care of this group may be falling into a state of disrepair.

While the goals of these programs are most noble, the state has failed in its end of the bargain. By not recognizing the obligation it was undertaking, the state’s politicians wanted to woo the veteran vote by making promises to them. Such promises were little more than political pandering, but they are still state obligations that must be met.

The fact that budgetary constraints are pressing makes this even harder. Either the state must take the position of triage funding or it must make cuts that expose it to the reality that political actions are not good faith promises.

Of course, there is always the possibility of tax increases to cover these costs. It is a strong tug at the heart. No one wants to make cuts in programs designed to help the young or infirm. The problem is indicative of the nature of politics. The guy who gives away the money is remembered fondly, but the guy who is saddled with the reality of making tough cuts is damned.

Still, I am of the position that promises are to be kept to the extent that they are realistically capable of being kept. People have relied on these promises, although likely in a very unwise way.

This said, we need to continue to fund our veterans’ programs, making cuts where appropriate with a spirit of keeping the unrealistic promises made by politicians. We own these veterans that much and more.

HIGHER EDUCATION

Given the current budgetary problems facing Rhode Island it is time to consider whether or not there are any savings that could be had as a result of consolidation of our higher education system.

Granted, as it currently exists, our higher education system functions, but the issue is whether or not it functions at its optimum efficiency. The real issue is not the delivery of education but whether we are doing it is the most cost effective manner.

The consolidation of the system of higher education has had its fits and starts in the past. Each school or univeristy in the state system has a different mission and therefore, it is not as easy to consolidate the system without forethought.

We have a community college system. That system functions to get students into a college mode. It provides education services at a more local level to those in need of education but are either not fully prepared for college or for those who have other obligations that prohibit them from taking a full college load.

Similarly, Rhode Island College has emerged as a commuter school, having its roots in a normal or teaching school. From its beginning, Rhode Island College has been a school that prepared many of the state’s, and nation’s, educators. While it’s role has expanded, it is still in that mode of providing a solid four year program that caters to the needs of a commuter student base.

The University of Rhode Island is more of the traditional institution of higher education. The mission of URI is more aligned with those of other state universities.

Acknowledging the differences in the populations served makes this discussion a bit easier to understand in terms of consolidation. It does not preclude any benefits from consolidation however it makes the task far more different and difficult.

The savings could be found in examining duplicate efforts and programs that are not carrying their weight. The reality is that savings are usually found in consolidation of administrative staffing. This should be examined first.

Duplicated efforts in course offerings, program sharing between the institutions, the interchangeability of programs within the system, and a serious need to prove the worth of each offering should be examined.

Of course, the latter requires contractual flexibility. This perhaps would be the thorniest problem in that there would likely be some staunch opposition from the labor unions, but it is not insurmountable.

If we can maintain the missions of each of the state’s institutions, we have an opportunity. Will the savings end the budget crisis? Hardly. It is unlikely that these changes will produce enough savings to salvage a sinking budgetary ship, but it is just one area where minor changes can make a difference.

The old saying is that if you watch your dimes, dollars will take care of themselves. This logic needs to be the dominate logic in all state programs.

Further, by initiating consolidation on a state level much can be learned that can then be applied to the public education system that direly needs direction and consolidation on a statewide basis.

The system is not broken. The system merely needs tweaking. While this is perhaps the harder task, it is time to do it. A leaner more effective system of higher education in Rhode Island would not only better service its constituents, it would better serve the taxpayers of the state.

THE JUDICIARY

The trend of legislative interference with the judiciary is still troubling in Rhode Island. The idea of having magistrates instead of judges appears on its face to be a method of the legislature taking control from the judicial branch.

Magistrates, while they do have a function, are appointed through a legislative process and not through the traditional appointment from the executive branch.

Now this does not absolve the Governor’s office from its foot dragging in the appointment to fill judicial vacancies. The slow as we go approach has put great strain on the judicial system.

But, even with that said, the underlying argument still exists. Rhode Island is over burdened by the fact that it is over regulated. The need for the court system exists as a direct result of the legislature criminalizing all sorts of behaviors. The underlying reason for the judicial burden is the fact that every legislator wants to politically demonstrate he or she is “tough on crime”.

The judiciary must deal with the fallout of those legislative actions. The fact that the judiciary is little more than a processing factory for the most part is a clear tribute to the legislature’s over-extension.

The naming of magistrates is a solution to the problem, but it is not getting at the root. The addition of several more judges does little more than the same.

There is a place for the third branch, but the problems plaguing it are not necessarily of their own devise.

This is not a defense of the judiciary. They have stood silent as the cottage industry of crime has expanded. They have shirked responsibility to call the public’s attention to the fact that the legislature is being too active. This silence, while self-serving to the judicial branch, is a disservice to the people it was designed to serve.

The needs of the judiciary need to be met, but the judiciary cannot see itself as a tool of either the legislature or the executive branch. This sadly has been the history of the Rhode Island judicial branch.

Still, by letting the legislature name magistrates with sweeping powers, the legislature is knowingly crossing over into another branch of government. Separation of powers, a long standing Rhode Island concern, oddly doesn’t really speak to this issue.

The judiciary is also to blame. The allowance of administrative law to grow is at the door of a lazy judiciary. Instead of hearing legal matters, it has become customary to allow for administrative hearings, and those results are then limited on appeal. Is that real justice?

The fact that the judiciary has deferred to the executive in administrative hearings is equally as dangerous as the legislative interference into the appointments to the courts.

It is time to untangle this Gordian knot. Until this occurs, there is little chance of having a free and independent judiciary.

While it is hard to argue that the judiciary is not doing its job, it is easy to see that the problems in the system is a direct result of the judiciary’s failure to maintain its integrity in light of the executive and legislative branches.

The judiciary can claim its independence all it wishes, but until it is truly free from the executive and legislative influences, it is only free in its own words and not in reality.