Angered by feelings that the Economic Development Corporation has been less than forthcoming after a Mercury spill at Quonset Point, and less than responsible about its credit card use in the past, legislators are considering whether the agency would be more accountable if it were no longer designated quasi-public.
EDC officials argue that by being quasi-public they enjoy a certain level of confidentiality in negotiations with companies, and that they are accountable, but to a board of directors rather than to the public.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
To the first suggestion, we believe the law protects confidentiality in certain negotiations, whether or not the agency is quasi-public. And to the second, being responsible to a board of individuals is far different from being responsible to the general public. Even corporate boards of directors are responsible to shareholders.
The real question, however, is whether EDC has performed any better, more efficiently, as a quasi-public or public agency. Have we attracted more companies, retained more companies, and improved the business climate any more with EDC as a quasi-public agency?
On the surface it would appear that the agency, since turning quasi-public, has accomplished no more than when it was designated a public agency. However, we would urge state Rep. Suzanne Henseler, D-North Kingstown, a strong proponent of getting the quasi out of EDC, to research the accomplishments of EDC as a quasi-public agency, and the accomplishments of its non-quasi predecessor, the Department of Economic Development.
If in fact that research shows no difference in results, then we believe Representative Henseler and the legislature will have a very strong argument in their quest to strip EDC of its designation as a quasi public agency.
