Question 6
One of the more difficult bond issues to understand is Question 6, calling for a Constitutional Convention to establish co-equal branches of government, specifically to exclude legislators from serving on the boards and commissions they create and oversee. It’s not the issue that’s difficult to understand, but rather the failure of the various groups that support it, to lobby sufficiently for it. Only in late September did Common Cause and other groups begin an effort to gain support for this advisory, non-binding referendum. We agree that a Constitutional Convention is important to explore how our boards and commissions are appointed, and whether the legislature should have the right to create and appoint members to boards and commissions that control hundreds, maybe thousands of state jobs and millions of dollars.
Common Cause and others suggest that having legislators both appoint and serve on these boards and commissions leads to considerable abuse and potential corruption. However, legislators don’t have a corner on abuse and corruption. The credit union crisis was a combined effort, from weak oversight laws, to the failure of the Department of Business Regulation, its banking division and the executive branch’s failure to act well in advance of what was becoming to them a potential disaster.
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
We’ve had a governor spend time in jail, judges and legislators and other officials all wielding considerable power, some without proper authority. But in the end, Rhode Island is probably no more corrupt than other states.
That’s probably why it’s a good idea to follow the lead of others and assure there is the separation of powers that gives us the best chance at avoiding abuse and corruption.
There are still many questions over this issue, and we are disappointed that Common Cause, Operation Clean Government, the Governor’s office and others who advocate the Constitutional Convention have not done a better job educating the public of the necessity for the Constitutional change.
Influence costly
We are pleased to hear that, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the small business owner appears to have garnered more political clout than ever.
But we are also disheartened that such clout came only after small business owners dug deeper into their collective pockets, literally investing in the now outrageously expensive political process.
This year’s contributions – through the NFIB — by small businesses represent a $3 million increase from 1998, and a $5 million increase over the last Presidential election in 1996. And those numbers are obviously a drop in the bucket – as they do not take into account money donated personally by small business owners or through organizations other than the NFIB.
“Small business owners have come a long way in a short time,” said Dennis Whitfield, NFIB senior vice president. “In just four yearsour number of contributors has doubled, campaign contributions have tripled, and NFIB’s voter contacts have soared 12 times overthis is the year that small business owners became a political power.”
We only hope the small business owners can afford the price tag. Perhaps this is simply how the process works – or doesn’t work.
We are reminded of comments made by U.S. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, during a Sept. 7 visit to the nation’s capitol by about 100 Rhode Island business leaders. Kerry told the group that as unfortunate as it may sound — money talks on Capitol Hill.
“The agenda of this city can not be helped but be impacted by the $100 million per month that is spent here,” he said.
The NFIB also reports that more than 40,000 contributions have been made by small business owners in this general election season – a 90 percent increase since 1996.
“With the very survival of small business at risk, with well-funded special interests on the other side working tirelessly against them, small business owners have met the challenge of this election year,” Whitfield said.
We are glad the small business community has recognized and met the challenge. But we also wonder how this horribly expensive process got so out of hand. And whether it can ever be brought under control.
Time for business to step up
In a couple of days one of the most dreadful local elections in recent memory will come to an end. It has been marked by negative campaigning, uncontested races for Congressional and General Assembly seats, and by a Senate campaign that failed to ignite very much enthusiasm. There have been bond referenda, in which some failed to campaign until the last week or so (Heritage Harbor bond) and still others failed to campaign at all (Constitutional Convention).
When it all ends, little will have changed. And that also means the plight of the business community. Business issues were virtually ignored in this campaign, mainly because the business community has failed to impress the candidates or political parties that taking a stand on important business issues will translate into support at the polls.
The end of the election also marks the beginning of a new General Assembly season. It is in these several weeks before the session that legislative proposals begin to develop, strategies are determined, and support for issues or constituencies courted.
The business community is at a distinct disadvantage because it is underrepresented in the General Assembly, and has among the weakest lobbying efforts of any special interest group. That’s not to say the Chambers of Commerce and related bodies don’t do their job, but the rank and file business owners are absent during the General Assembly debates. It is understandable. Small business owners need to tend to the business at hand, making sure that first their company is operating successfully. That too often means being the cook, the waiter, and the dishwasher.
But leaving the legislative debate to others usually results in disappointment over the results. Lobbying efforts are often not sufficient enough to win key issues, or not enough information is disseminated to help legislators understand the importance of certain business issues.
Legislators who are not business people themselves need to have an understanding of what it’s like to operate a small business.
The business community should look upon this period, and this General Assembly as an opportunity to gain greater recognition of business issues, and a more significant presence at the State House.
We have said many times before that it would serve the business community well if business owners would invite their legislators to regularly tour their businesses and begin to understand the relationship between your economic success and the financial security of their constituents who work in your business. Let the legislator see first hand how government’s actions can help or hinder a business.
This is not to be critical of legislators. They come from their own perspectives – very few with a business perspective – and are subject to lobbying efforts from various constituencies. It is difficult for them to respond to a community whose lobbying efforts usually pale in comparison to others.
So while this may have been a lackluster election, it doesn’t mean that the upcoming General Assembly session cannot be a vibrant one, paying close attention to the business issues that will improve the business climate in our state.
It is up to you to assure that this legislative session is one in which business issues get a fair hearing.
RIEDC’s latest plan for Quonset denounced
The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (EDC) is embarking on another, foolhardy and expensive venture for taxpayers at Quonset Point/Davisville. Under the thinly veiled title of a “visioning process,” plans for yet another container port at Quonset Point-Davisville are being considered.
Before spending more taxpayer dollars on studies, reports, and consultants, the question must be asked: What has changed since last year when a container port – that time to be funded by private money – was deemed not economically viable?
The truth is nothing has changed. The economics and environmental consequences of port development remain unacceptable. The infrastructure needed to support a port is absent and the planning and funding for it is a pipe dream. The market for another port on the Eastern seaboard doesn’t exist. In fact, current port business is shrinking as evidenced by the port of Boston’s bleak financial condition. The concept of a container port at QPD becomes more absurd with each passing day as the potential for good development at QPD is demonstrated by a continued influx of quality industries at the Park.
The EDC and the governor think that yet another ill-advised foray to develop a container port will find the circumstances changed. What we, and most Rhode Islanders, know is that nothing has changed to warrant another expenditure of time, money, and effort. Consider: (Yet again!)
There is no NEED for a port and the ECONOMICS ARE POOR. Rhode Island and all of New England already have well-established port service through Boston and New York. All the commerce of New England could not support another east-coast port, either for import or export. Moreover, all shipping ports in the United States require government subsidies to survive financially. Both Boston and New York are prime examples. In 1999, New York and New Jersey poured $55,000,000 into their port authority to keep Maersk and Sealand from moving out. QPP and the EDC couldn’t find private investors to build and operate a port at Quonset because it was unprofitable and the-taxpayers of Rhode Island shouldn’t be asked to build and subsidize one either.
The principle reason cited for port development is increased JOBS; however, the Governor’s latest plan emphasizes a modern automated port. There is NO DEEP WATER. Large container ships require a 52-ft deep channel and turning basin and the water surrounding the industrial park is as shallow as 7 feet. To create a channel of at least 3 miles long needed for these huge vessels would require extensive dredging. Dredging is extremely expensive, environmentally problematic and will impact an established, major Rhode Island industry – fishing.
NO available SPACE. The proposed dock space and container storage area is already in use by the airport and other existing industries. The airport is important to the industrial park and must maintain certain FAA height standards within the area around the runways. The National Air Guard, is also a prime user of this air space. Handling and storage space close to the water is not available without filling the bay or displacing other established companies.
There is NO effective RAIL SERVICE out of Rhode Island. Large container ships carry five or six thousand boxes. Even with double stacked rail cars this means 1,200 to 1,500 rail cars –or 12 to 15 one hundred car trains — to move the containers from one ship. A completely new rail system inside the park would have to be built to accommodate the mile-long trains. ‘ A new third rail freight line to move the trains from the docks would require a huge capital expenditure. The new high-speed electric trains soon to use the mainline tracks also are not compatible with heavy slow moving freight trains. There are too many rail hurdles to overcome and no money to fix them to provide the transportation needed by a port at QPD.
There is NO COMPAT-ABILITY with other important ongoing activities in the Bay. The increased WATER AND AIR POLLUTION would adversely affect fishing and recreational interests. Introduction of invasive species by foreign ships poses a real, serious threat. Rhode Island has a thriving tourist, boat building, recreational and fishing industries. Large container ships would not be compatible with fishing, boating, and recreational interests.
TIME IS BEING WASTED chasing a container port. To obtain the necessary permits, pass all the environmental hurdles (which is dubious, at best), build the roads, build the railroads, dredge the bay, build the docks, establish the necessary brokerage and infrastructure required to run a port could take as many as twenty years. The governor and EDC could create many more quality jobs, much sooner by intensifying the type of development that is presently occurring at the park.
Richard L. Pastore, president
The Concerned Communities Coalition
Italo-American Society endorses Heritage Museum To the editor:
The Italian American Historical Society, Inc. (IAHS) of Rhode Island represents one of the largest ethnic groups in the state. We aim to tell the story of the nearly 200,000 people who comprise Rhode Island’s Italian-American community.
IAHS is one of 17 museum and historical associations that make up Heritage Harbor Museum, which will be housed in the decommissioned South Street Power Plant on the riverfront in Providence. The museum will tell the story of not just Italian Americans, but of all Rhode Islanders.
Heritage Harbor Museum is a dream come true for us since our goal is to have a permanent site to tell our story. At the present time, our functions are limited to one-time events such as art displays and festivals. IAHS has sponsored Italy’s Neapolitan Creche Exhibition at the Rhode Island School of Design and brought delegations from various regions of Italy who introduced elements of their culture such as music, dance, arts and crafts, and foods. IAHS has also sponsored lectures, children’s programs, and Italian language classes.
The Museum will give Italian-Americans a permanent place to tell our story and to house our collections of memorabilia, which document the stories of our ancestors. Our exhibit is one of many multicultural stories which will be told through interactive exhibits, festivals, theater and art. The museum, through all of the partners’ exhibitions, will serve as the state’s first statewide history museum and living textbook.
On November 7, Heritage Harbor will appear on Rhode Island’s statewide ballot as question number five. It asks Rhode Islanders to approve $25 million in state General Obligation Bonds to fund the creation, design, construction, furnishing and equipping of Heritage Harbor. Already, $27.5 million has been raised from private and foundation grants and will soon reach a projected total of $34 million. The public is being asked to approve less than half the cost of the project. Hence, approval of question five will not take money from our pockets. Since the Rhode Island General Assembly has approved an increase in the state’s hotel tax to pay for the revenue bonds, they will primarily be paid for by visitors to our state.
I am proud to say that the Italian American Historical Society, Inc. of Rhode Island supports Heritage Harbor Museum and its bond referendum. Please join me in voting yes on number five when you go to the polls on November 7.
Joyce Fratantuono, president Italian American Historical Society.
