Whenever I talk about Rhode Island and corruption, invariably, someone always argues against the facts (which are that Rhode Island isn’t particularly corrupt, in comparison with other states). I’ve already covered the fact that in every ranking of state corruption, Rhode Island never places particularly high. So let’s address the counter argument, which is always anecdotal.
“What about the ‘I know a guy…’ mentality?” is the usual retort. There’s always an example, and indeed, it’s not hard to find examples. The problem is that the arguer isn’t pointing to corruption, it’s that they’re pointing to cronyism. And cronyism isn’t illegal. Sad but true. So while it may be “corruption,” it’s not corruption that leads to prosecutions.
When we argue against cronyism, what we’re attempting to do is argue for meritocracy. Cronyism, nepotism, patronage, etc., etc., these are all direct threats to meritocracy. But there’s the problem: meritocracy is an incredibly difficult system to put in place.
We don’t always “earn” our jobs via merit. In fact, we rarely do. We get our foot in the door because we knew a guy. Or because we smiled the right way, or someone had a good feeling the right way. Maybe we were first to be interviewed. Maybe we were last. Maybe we arranged our resume in manner that pleased the person who looked them over.
When you start discussing meritocracy, you start asking yourself all sort of hard questions about ability. Do you hire someone who’s nice but not particularly good because you think that they’d get along well with the rest of the office, boosting happiness and productivity? Do you hire the arrogant jerk who’s arrogant precisely because they’re excellent at what they do? Should a person’s messy personal life be included for evaluation when their professional work is spotless?
And that’s just the beginning. Is it any wonder that many employers, and folks in government, rather than evaluate people based on merit choose to go with the people they know? Not at all. Youknow Pete. Pete’s a good guy. Pete was at your wedding. You get along with Pete. You know his work history, you know his abilities. It’s a hell of a lot easier to hire Pete than wade through resumes and interviews (just as an aside, interviews have about the same success as drawing names from a hat of finding the right person for the job).
The great irony in the argument against government cronyism is that those who would espouse that government should be more businesslike would find that cronyism would increase. Most corporations remain a stark feudal construct, completely undemocratic, and at higher levels, often anti-meritocratic. Also ironically, to ensure meritocracy in government, faceless bureaucracy would have to increase, so that candidates could be selected without regard to personal feelings. It’d be a cruel world.
All this isn’t to say that cronyism or corruption shouldn’t be addressed. I hate cronyism. It ruins the idea that you’ve made your own place in the world, it makes you doubt your own victories. But every time we here the phrase “well, you have to network,” what we need to realize is that that’s just code for saying “you have to participate in cronyism.” It’s the way the country has been functioning.
Finally, all Rhode Island governments need to be seen as addressing corruption. That’s something that should be done, regardless of where Rhode Island stands in rankings. The problem is that Rhode Islanders perceive their government as corrupt. And that perception is deadly to trust and faith in government.
Anecdotal retort aside, many people interchange crony capitalism and cronyism, so when the bulk of people talk about cronyism in government, I think they really mean crony capitalism. Much of what you’re talking about in this post would be considered networking more than crony capitalism, which I personally don’t have too much of an issue with, though I understand why there are calls for greater meritocracy when it comes to gov’t employment — our tax money is being used, and we want to make sure a capable person is filling the position in question, not just “some guy who knew a guy”.
My problem, and I think you and I are in agreement here, is when government bureaucrats use their power and influence to funnel things like grants and subsidies to their buddies — aka corporate welfare. Such welfare takes many forms, such as subsidies for things like farmers and fishermen to market locally. Those are things that government has no business doing, and it is giving certain companies with most-favored-business status an unnatural leg up over their competitors, which ultimately hurts consumers.
Most people include cronyism in what they consider corruption and rightfully so. In the most commonly understood sense, corruption is anything that subverts the legitimate functioning and purpose of government, whether it is legal or illegal. So if a job is handed to a family friend, then that’s a form of corruption because the hire was made to advance a private interest instead of the public interest. As you point out, this is extremely difficult or impossible to rank or quantify in practice, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in Rhode Island. Most residents are well aware that it does, and disproportionately so compared with other states. I’ve lived in four different states in my life, and Rhode Island was by far the most corrupt. In fact, I was informally offered a position in state government in RI because of a family connection (I didn’t accept it).
The reason most people “pick on” government and not corporations for corruption and cronyism is because of the fundamental nature of government. It is directly funded by the public and is supposed to serve the public, not private interests. Businesses are privately funded (or at least should be in a true market economy) and overtly advance private interests, so there is no corruption of their intended functionality in that sense. Most accept that businesses should be able make their own decisions, bad or good, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone, precisely because they will be the ones to bear the cost of their mistakes and reap the rewards of their successes. Comparing the two situations is not an excuse for corruption of government because the cases are directly distinguishable and business cronyism isn’t really corruption at all.
As a State Employee, I will openly admit that my father’s thirty-four years of loyal, dedicated and highly admired State Service opened the door for my entry level position. His work earned his son a shot at proving that, perhaps, the apple did not fall far from the tree.
Since then, I have shunned any opportunity to ride his coat-tails into any futher promotion. I have, subsequently, not received any further promotion. In fact, I am soon to be one of the 67 DLT employees out of work. I have applied for over 100 state positions in my 28 months with the DLT. I have been granted five interviews that have resulted in many people, less meritiorious than myself, being promoted due often to who they know.
I have spoken with my father about this and he is disappointed, but not surprised.
I wish the ideals of meritocracy played a bigger part in success. Alas, in rhode Island they do not. I see well over 50 Union positions being eliminated in favor of several, extremely high paying non union positions. While I cannot prove that these are promises kept to friends in high places … if it walks like a duck …
I am sorry to hear about the loss of your job. Unfortunately, when it comes to Rhode Island government, you are playing the game of thrones, and either you win or you die. Play or be played, if you prefer. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when a campaign contribution was solicited from me in a job interview for a prosecutor position in the Attorney General’s Office. Little wonder there are so few state-level corruption convictions coming from that office. I notice in the Projo that a former Miss Rhode Island was in May placed into an $88k secretarial position at the state house that was posted to the public a month after she began work. Transparency at work.
Treat it as an opportunity to start fresh. The unemployment rate is 5.6% in Virginia. 5.2% in New Hampshire. Taxes are lower in each of these states and average incomes are higher, so you’ll have more disposable income when you do find another job. And whatever you find and earn, it will be legitimate and you can be proud of it.
If you think unions are the solution to corruption, you will be quickly disappointed in Rhode Island. They aren’t the source of the very pervasive problem, but they are some of the dirtiest players on the field. The Iannazzi-Ruggerio incest hiring fiasco is just the tip of that iceberg.
That’s a shame, seeing as I think the first time we met was at a Union Mobilization event.
I don’t know if we’re more corrupt than other states, but a lot of it is inherent in our size of our state and a proximity to each other. The guy passing the collection basket at church? Reputed organized crime figure. Your kid’s Little League coach? State rep whose vote is for sale. Your cousin’s best friend? Can get your parking tickets quashed. I’ve grown up here seeing these circumstances (or variations of them). We just have much more access to all this than someone living in a larger state would.
I now live in a town which has had plenty of public officials indicted, but the townies (I’ve lived here 21 years, so I’m still a newbie) are more likely to make excuses for these people. We have built such a tolerance for corruption and cronyism; we all hear, “Oh, they’re all corrupt, but not MY guy,” even if that guy is Ground Zero for corruption.