October 31, 2014

Conley no stranger to Con-Con ‘sleight of hand’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There is no greater irony than Patrick Conley claiming that opposition to a Constitutional Convention is rooted in “political paranoia,” (“History shows there is no need to fear Constitutional Convention,” October 31, 2014) while extolling the purity of the Constitutional Convention process. By Mr. Conley’s own confession, it was only through “sleight of hand” – his own – that “the most significant substantive alteration ever made in the state constitution” occurred.

In his book, “Rhode Island in Rhetoric and Reflection,” Mr. Conley notes that the 1973 Constitutional Convention was to be limited to “the consideration of certain definite topics.” Feeling he knew better than the people who made the rules, Mr. Conley determined the convention should, in fact, force the electorate to decide every ten years whether or not a convention should be held. Because this was not on the list of approved topics, Mr. Conley stretched the rules of the convention in defining his amendment – claiming it was a revision of election law – placed a misleading title on his document, and bypassed the agreed-upon rules of the Convention. Yet, Mr. Conley promises us that this cannot happen again, with much more dire results for civil rights and civil liberties.

Conley’s history wrong on Con-Con, civil rights – Jaime Rhodes

In addition, we question Mr. Conley’s assertion that he “did not see any inordinate influence from” legislators and special interests during his participation in the 1986 convention. Again, in his own book, Mr. Conley writes of being chosen as general counsel for the 1986 convention by convention president Keven McKenna, but that “an irate Speaker [of the House] Smith called President McKenna with an ultimatum: either general counsel Conley goes or your convention funding goes. Thus ended, at least for now, my paid career as a constitutional reformer.” Mr. Conley promises a convention similar to that in 1986. As do we; the difference is that we have provided Rhode Islanders with the truth about the 1986 convention, and what a 2016 constitutional convention would be.

Mr. Conley’s tales of the “sleight of hand” and politics run amok of the Constitutional Convention are just one more reason voters should reject Question 3.

Hillary Davis – Policy Associate at American Civil Liberties Union, Rhode Island Affiliate

October 31, 2014November 1, 2014

Conley’s history wrong on Con-Con, civil rights

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Those advocating for a Constitutional Convention who are saying that there is no threat to human and civil rights ignore our history. The pledges of these reformers ring hollow to those involved in the fight to protect women’s reproductive health care decisions. By dismissing this concern, “So much for conventions as threats to civil rights” (Patrick Conley “History shows: Don’t fear Convention”, October 31), Conley forgets what dedicated advocates for women’s equity never can.

The 1986 Convention proposed two amendments to the electorate that treat women as though they are incompetent to make medical decisions without the interference of the state. The “fetal personhood” amendment was rejected by the public, a story told as a testament to the wisdom of RI voters. The second and more insidious amendment was packaged as expanding free speech rights, yet included this line now in our Constitution: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” This is why women’s health advocates are concerned. The 1986 convention took away rights recognized as protected by the US Constitution.

This is not “political paranoia or constitutional constipation” as Conley would lead you to believe. Organizations such as the ACLU, RI National Organization of Women, the RI Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and Planned Parenthood are hardly the political insiders concerned about losing influence in the General Assembly. If we want to reform our system of government, let’s do it in a way that does not pose a risk to people’s rights.

Jamie Rhodes of Warwick, is also the Rhode Island Policy Director for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.

October 31, 2014October 31, 2014

’86 Con Con delegate Roberto Gonzalez warns against Question 3

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the Constitution,” will ask Question 3 on Tuesday’s ballot. Citizens for Responsible Government (CFRG), a diverse coalition of organizations united to oppose Question 3, has been working diligently to spread the word why the answer should be no.

A Constitutional Convention, or a Con Con, would be dangerous for the citizens of Rhode Island, especially for minorities and women. Question 3 must be rejected!

On October 21, CFRG held a press conference featuring 3 former delegates from the 1986 Con Con. Former Senate Minority Leader, Lila Sapinsley, former Senator Thomas Izzo, and lawyer and former Housing Court judge, Roberto Gonzalez, Esq. warned against convening another Con Con. Mr. Gonzalez stated, “All the good government stuff went out the window. Just about all.”

Most people do not realize that this wasn’t the first time Mr. Gonzalez had spoken out against a Con Con.

This past August, the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Preparatory Commission held public hearings where testimony could be given for or against a Con Con. As campaign manager for CFRG, it was my duty to submit testimony for our coalition partners whenever they were unable to attend in person. A delegate to the 1986 Con Con and former Housing Judge, Roberto Gonzalez, Esq., provided me with a written statement which I read to the commission. His powerful experience as a delegate warns strongly against the convening of another Con Con. As we approach Tuesday’s election, I felt that it was necessary for me to share this testimony with the public.

August 19, 2014

Written Testimony of Roberto Gonzalez, Esq. to the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Commission

Greetings Honorable Members of the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Commission. My name is Roberto Gonzalez. I am a resident of the City of East Providence. I served as a delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention. I was just finishing law school at the time, and was full of idealism and had a burning desire to serve. I cannot begin to tell you how disillusioned I became with the 1986 Con-Con process and especially with the end result.

We elected a President to the Convention, Attorney Kevin McKenna, that had been hand-picked and strung out on puppet strings by the then Speaker of the House, Matt Smith. Nothing moved during the convention without Matt Smith’s authorization. He essentially controlled the entire process from beginning to end, including establishing the rules under which we operated.

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, and with no disrespect intended to the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Commission members who are now part of the GA leadership teams, and who I am sure are working hard on this issue, I have to tell you that the 1986 convention was hijacked from the citizens of Rhode Island. While some delegates deliberated in good faith the outcome of the convention had been predetermined by the then powerful Speaker Smith, who were in turn controlled by the same special interests that control the House Leaders today. Many, if not most of the delegates, were family or friends of those in power. It was never a convention of the People to improve government, but rather a convention of special interests. I am sure that if the good citizens of this State choose to have another convention the exact thing will happen.

Instead of debating good government amendments, the convention will become bogged down with a plethora of polarizing social issues, such as: gun control, abortion, voter ID and immigration. There is nothing to stop the delegates from putting measures on the ballot that will reverse the recent gains by progressives, and good government groups.

After all is said and done the voters will ultimately defeat most of the proposed amendments, but only after several million tax-payer dollars are misappropriated from programs for education, housing, and infrastructure development. Are we not better off putting these funds to work for the People of our State?

October 31, 2014November 1, 2014

The mortgage debt crisis murders the American Dream

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At the DARE Forum on Freddie and Fannie, Ronel Remy of Brockton, Mass. told the emotional story of being preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders and the death of his dreams. Remy hails from Haiti, and early on planned to escape the crushing poverty of his childhood to live in the United States.

Remy came here, found a good job and raised a family. Eventually he was lied to and told that for what he was paying in rent, he could buy a house.

That’s when Remy’s dream became a nightmare.

After being lied to, Remy was swindled and cheated by unscrupulous lenders and others who offered paths out of the trap he was in. Each time he tried to refinance the house, the lenders would raise the valuation, from $266,000 to $340,000. Meanwhile, if they foreclosed, the banks would sell the house for $90,000. Of course, that $90,000 price cannot be offered to Remy. He needs to be punished for his dreams.

The banks that stole from Remy didn’t just take money, they took his very sense of self. Remy found himself asking his daughter to lie for him on the phone, and every knock on the door was met with the fear that this was the day he would be evicted. A good and honorable man, he began to feel like he was failing as a father.

The banks crushed his dreams and aspirations for its own profit. Those who stole from him use his money to buy “houses, boats, yachts… you name it.”

Remy once thought of the United States as a place where he could live the kind of life he dreamed of as a child.

“I wish I had just stayed in Haiti,” says Remy now.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two government-controlled banks that together own over half the mortgages in the country. “These banks refuse to accept common sense policies like principal reduction, which would stop the foreclosure and eviction of our neighbors and friends, prevent blight and gentrification,” says DARE.

Watch the heartbreaking video here: