Ethics reform is a job starter

When it comes to being an advocate of good government here in Rhode Island, patience is not only a virtue, it’s a pragmatic necessity. That’s because the pace of reform is a slow grind from one major issue to the next. Every reform issue that has become law in R.I. in recent decades has taken years of patience and persistence by good-government groups and active citizens to accomplish, even as their benefits to our state’s reputation and economy have been obvious.

What makes all these issues so difficult to accomplish, despite their strong backing from voters and the economic benefits that flow from open and accountable government, is because the reforms in question involve a relinquishment of a power previously held and jealously guarded by the ruling powers at the Statehouse – namely, the House and Senate leadership. From separation of powers, the master lever, to a line-item veto for the governor, the leadership can be relied on to resist giving up any part of its power.

A case in point is the nearly eight-year struggle to bring back the original powers of the state’s Ethics Commission.

All was well with the Ethics Commission’s work until a court challenge in 2009 led to a ruling by the R.I. Supreme Court that legislators in the General Assembly were in fact protected in their “core legislative acts” – that is debating and voting on legislation – by an earlier “speech in debate” protection clause, also in the state constitution. Providing a means to restore the Ethics Commission’s original powers, the Supreme Court advised that the state constitution could be changed again by a “sufficiently explicit constitutional amendment” embodied in an act of the legislature that voters would then decide on at the ballot box.

- Advertisement -

That’s where the rub came in, of course, as legislators circled the wagons in not advancing regular resubmissions of legislation to restore the oversight powers of the Ethics Commission, despite repeated calls by good-government groups, especially Common Cause R.I., to do so.

Fast forward to the present, however, and things have changed dramatically. In light of ethical malfeasance by some House members, and the fact that (former House Speaker) Gordon Fox now resides in federal prison, the General Assembly leadership threw their support behind ethics legislation, which brings us to Question 2 on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The language of Question 2 does not expand the powers of the Ethics Commission over sitting state legislators: It simply restores the jurisdiction of the commission to what it was from 1987-2008. Almost 80 percent of polled voters statewide have expressed approval to pass Question 2. In doing so they understand, as business leaders certainly do, that reforms that promote more open and accountable government are demonstrably good for our economy.

Government corruption does real damage to a city or state’s reputation, and studies demonstrate that corruption reduces economic development and the willingness of business executives to move their operations to a place where corruption is prevalent and unchecked.

Restoring the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission can only be good for Rhode Island: Vote Yes on Question 2. •

John Hazen White Jr., of Barrington, is executive chairman of Taco Comfort Solutions of Cranston.

No posts to display