State Bond Referenda Questions -- Or the Rhode Island State "Lucy Budget" (Providence: appointed, section 8)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the election coming up, I was looking at bond issues to try to discern valid, wise investments vs. palm-greasing. After all, at total (over 20 years @ 5% interest) of $364,685,627 will be allocated for a wide range of items, most of which I have no idea the reasoning behind and the assumed/asserted benefit to RI taxpayers.
For example, Question #5:
PORT INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS $70,000,000
(a) Port of Davisville Infrastructure at Quonset
$50,000,000
(b) Port of Providence Infrastructure $20,000,000
Okay, great. What do we get for $70m? According to Gorbea's shop,, "this investment will, among other things, modernize Pier 2, which was built in 1956 with
a design life of 50 years.... [and] the pier is essential to the Port’s automobile import business, which is consistently one of the top ten in North America."
Huh. Is that a good thing? Is "being in the top ten" of the automobile import business a money-maker? How much money? What ROI will we enjoy and over what period of time? Is it a better investment than, say, building a computer game, by example? And what are the consequences of not investing in this? Who profits by this, the state, or corporations? Which corporations? Who is sponsoring this referendum? Who is advocating for it? Don't know -- have no information.
This is typical of how Rhody does just about everything when it comes to planning - just spend, just spend, just spent with no supporting documentation or business case. Where is the analysis? Where is the case for spending a lot of damned money!
Rhode Island state planning! Got to love it! It reminds me of the great episode from "The Lucy Show" when Ricky demands that Lucy produce a budget to track where their money was going,
The budget went something like this:
o toothpaste $.38
o shoe laces (black) $.11
o newspapers $.40
o roasting chicken $.38 o misc. $575.43
Maybe it's not so bleak. Anyone know where the supporting financial data can be found? Does anyone read the fine print or do we all nod out heads and then whine about the state of our government after the fact -- after we've done nothing, after we've demanded no further information? Someone get Gina involved!
What concerns me more is the amendment to the state constitution which "reinstates the ethics commission" after our prize lawmakers got rid of it- heh heh heh
but buried in this is that none of the legislators can be arrested or criminally prosecuted while the legislature is in session. Isn't that special?
What concerns me more is the amendment to the state constitution which "reinstates the ethics commission" after our prize lawmakers got rid of it- heh heh heh
but buried in this is that none of the legislators can be arrested or criminally prosecuted while the legislature is in session. Isn't that special?
Saddam Hussein has similar provision in his constitution -- not something you need worry about, Comrade Hollytree. If you see something, say something.
But now do I vote against the ethics commission because of the clever rider- see below??????? Then they'll be able to say "Rhode Islanders don't think we need an ethics commission".
And here is the question:
2. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE
Restoration of ethics commission jurisdiction over General Assembly members Section 8 of Article III and Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution
Section 8 of Article III of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 8. Ethics commission – Code of ethics. – The general assembly shall establish an independent non-partisan ethics commission which shall adopt a code of ethics including, but not limited to, provisions on con icts of interest, con dential information, use of position, contracts with government agencies and nancial disclosure. The assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the members appointed shall be required for the adoption for every rule or regulation. All elected and appointed of cials and employees of state and local government, of boards, commissions and agencies shall be subject to the code of ethics. The ethics commission shall have the authority to investigate alleged violations of the code of ethics, including acts otherwise protected by Article VI, Section 5, and to impose penalties, as provided by law;. and the Any sanction issued against any party by the ethics commission shall be appealable to the judicial branch as provided by law. The commission shall have the power to remove from of ce of cials who are not otherwise subject to impeachment, or expulsion as provided by Article VI, Section 7.
Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 5. Immunities of general assembly members. – The persons of all members of the general assembly shall be exempt from arrest and their estates from attachment in any civil action, during the session of the general assembly, and two days before the commencement and two days after the termination thereof, and all process served contrary hereto shall be void. For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other
place, except by the ethics commission as set forth in Article III, Section 8.
But now do I vote against the ethics commission because of the clever rider- see below??????? Then they'll be able to say "Rhode Islanders don't think we need an ethics commission".
Very cagey. I need to print out these page and read them as I'm not familiar with the history and modifications of the legislation.
Re: Restoration of ethics commission jurisdiction over General Assembly members Section 8 of Article III and Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution
Quote:
Section 8 of Article III of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 8. Ethics commission – Code of ethics. – The general assembly shall establish an independent non-partisan ethics commission which shall adopt a code of ethics including, but not limited to, provisions on con icts of interest, con dential information, use of position, contracts with government agencies and nancial disclosure. The assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the members appointed shall be required for the adoption for every rule or regulation.
Is a two-thirds super-majority typical in these matters, as opposed to a simply majority? I can see where poor attendance at meetings would cripple the infrastructural legal work on this. I mean, when a law is passed stating that a person is considered legally drunk with a BAC of "x," does that require a two-thirds vote? If that's typical for the "Moral Marys" then fine, but if this exceptional and is targeted for ethics, it seems potentially shady. Is there a "good government" group in RI that writes this legislative language? I have a feeling the information is out there, but not easily accessible.
Quote:
Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 5. Immunities of general assembly members. – The persons of all members of the general assembly shall be exempt from arrest and their estates from attachment in any civil action, during the session of the general assembly, and two days before the commencement and two days after the termination thereof, and all process served contrary hereto shall be void. For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other
place, except by the ethics commission as set forth in Article III, Section 8.
I find this very puzzling. Is there a history of the State confiscating legislators' homes and possessions at a moment's notice? I mean, this stands out like a sore thumb so I have to wonder, what prompted it? Was Gordon Fox's gorgeous house on Prospect St. seized unfairly or something? IOW, what is the genesis of this special provision?
I don't mean to be so mistrustful but this crew of freaks, misfits, malcontents, grifters -- to say nothing of weasels, wombats and prairie dogs -- in State government simply does not inspire confidence, or evoke a sense of purity of intent, if you get my drift.
Are the ports not able to borrow their own money? If they are such a cash cow then why should the taxpayers be asked to subsidize them? The activity they generate with the improvements, and the revenue from; (you would think) would cover the cost of the bonds over their 20 year lifespan. If not, then they are maybe not worth the investment.
Are the ports not able to borrow their own money? If they are such a cash cow then why should the taxpayers be asked to subsidize them? The activity they generate with the improvements, and the revenue from; (you would think) would cover the cost of the bonds over their 20 year lifespan. If not, then they are maybe not worth the investment.
There are all sorts of creative ways of financing expansion that leads to return on investment. Some are smart and some are perhaps criminal. Gina, when Treasurer, was big on using hedge funds as a way of getting mega returns way, way beyond what one could get in the stock market or via bonds AND slapping down the state workers and their Unions, to boot. Everyone enjoyed that! Funny, despite having lots and lots of friends and sponsors in hedge, this hasn't worked out so well for RI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProJo
The fact that hedge funds tend to come with high fees and less transparency made this move somewhat controversial. But five years down the road, the bigger problem is that these investments have not met expectations. As reported last week (“RI stake in hedge funds cut in half,” news, Sept. 29), the state’s hedge fund portfolio had, through August, returned 4.85 percent after fees since 2011, while the S&P 500 had returned 14.49 percent.
Not only have hedge funds failed to meet Gina's expectations and investment strategy, they have underperformed traditional, reliable return on simple, transparent S&P investments by nearly 3:1! Not only did Gina expose state pensioners' assets, she did so in a manner that reflects appalling lack of transparency, and the only ones who seem to have really made moolah are the very hedge funds that pay for Gina's campaigns or are directly owned by Gina or members of her family or immediate circle of cohorts in corruption. Gina came in as a star on the socio-economic neoliberal right, a "new breed" of Democrat who would stand up to state workers. And while many in this state cheered her folly on, Who Is Laughing Now? At every turn, Raimundo, when presented with the opportunity to protect States assets has done the opposite, and that is a pandora's box that needs opening and inspection.
But back to the use of the Port Authority funding its own expansion, I don't know if its charter permits that. And even if it did, lots of questions would need answering, for example: what will be the financial return over time? Would private investment or private ownership of the dock yield even greater gains? is this even a priority, wise use of private capital? I have no idea, you see, because Gina et al doesn't believe in opening the data kimono, preferring a "Just Trust Us" strategy that worked so well, so brilliantly for that Shilling guy. Damned larcenous leeches!
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,793 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
But now do I vote against the ethics commission because of the clever rider- see below??????? Then they'll be able to say "Rhode Islanders don't think we need an ethics commission".
I think you've answered your own question.
Common Cause Rhode Island advocates for a yes vote on Question 2 - the Constitutional Amendment for Ethics Commision Oversight of the General Assembly.
We need strong ethical oversight of the General Assembly. I agree that it looks like the language in the amendment does not have enough teeth. But given the choice of no progress on policing of our state legislators vs. some progress policing our state legislators, I'll take some progress. I am voting Yes on 2.
Voters can continue to advocate for more progress once we get this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
