I recognize that many of those opposed to a convention are not insiders.  I know a lot of the people doing the grunt work on the anti-constitutional-convention campaign, and I can vouch for the fact that they’re not insiders.

Rhode Islanders are split on the issue, though polling suggests more of us are in favor of having one, including many good-government people such as former Common Cause director Phil West, and many progressives such as those who founded Just Reform Rhode Island, a group I belong to.  So it’s true, if you’re looking for non-insiders, you can find them on both sides of the issue. But it’s significant where the biggest insiders stand, and they’re not as split as we are — they’re backing the opposition to the convention.

Let’s start with the top politicians.  We are told by anti-convention people that we should vote against a convention because it could be controlled by top politicians, like the Speaker of the House.  Well, if that was true, you would expect politicians to be favoring it. They’re not.  Speaker Mattiello opposes a convention.  Not a single top politician in the state is in favor of it, and they try to get voters to turn it down (example1, example2).

In fact, conventions shift power away from top politicians and toward the voters.  If there’s no convention, politicians can continue passing bad laws and rejecting good ones, and the voters never have a say.  But a convention is different.  While in ordinary times most State House politicians get re-elected easily without even having any opponents, a constitutional convention attracts more candidates.  If you were a political insider wanting to keep your friends in power, you’d prefer leaving things to the General Assembly, where year after year it’s pretty much the same career politicians elected and doing each other favors, and you’d fear the reforms that could be passed in a constitutional convention where it’s easier for decent people who aren’t career politicians to be elected.

We, as regular people, have goals that are the opposite of political insiders’ aims.  After the 38 Studios scandal and the police raid on the State House, we want to see more democratic accountability, and insiders naturally don’t like the good things that are likely to be pushed forward in a convention by a public which is eager for positive change.  What comes out of a convention will not make the insiders stronger, it makes them weaker and makes the people stronger.  Another advantage of a convention is that a convention doesn’t have the General Assembly’s ability to pass laws on its own.  Every change that the convention proposes must go to the voters, and will not take effect unless voters say so.  So, compared to the General Assembly, a convention offers more safeguards against bad laws.  That’s especially true in 2014 Rhode Island, where the voters not only want reform but also support progressive values, much more so than our politicians.

In case anyone thinks insiders like Mattiello secretly want a convention, their actions speak even louder than their words.  Mattiello and other top State House politicians appointed a “preparatory commission” this summer to produce a report on the possibility of a convention, and Mattiello chose a convention opponent to help run the commission.  The commission held only a few hearings in the State House in Providence, without visiting the rest of Rhode Island.  Its final report only briefly discussed what a convention could do, and estimated the cost of a convention as $2.5 million: a surprisingly high estimate, considerably more than the costs for the 1973 and 1986 conventions even after accounting for inflation.  Next, this report was edited down, in the version sent to voters in the Voter Information Handbook, so that it said nothing at all about what topics a convention could address and only told voters about the convention’s cost, again using the unusually high estimate of $2.5 million (which is still only $2.40 per person).  When our political elite dwells on the minor cost as an argument against change and accountability, it’s a telling sign.

A couple of people involved with the anti-convention campaign have posted articles on RI Future, highlighting a press conference where 3 former delegates to the 1986 convention tried to convince us not to have another convention (article1, article2).  It’s worth noticing that these 3 former delegates at that press conference trying to stop a new convention are all people who have developed strong insider connections.

Two are former RI state senators (one became the Senate Minority Leader), and the third was appointed by notoriously corrupt mayor Buddy Cianci to a judgeship (and later promoted by Cianci to chief judge).  Now, I don’t know what was going through these 3 people’s minds, and I don’t want to trash their motives.  The fact that a person has insider connections doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she isn’t an honorable person. But on the other side, I think it’s reasonable for Rhode Islanders who are concerned about the future to not accept things just because an insider-y group says so.  And the fact is that these 3 well-connected people don’t speak for all former delegates.  It’s significant that so few of the former delegates were willing to join in that message — I’ve talked to other former 1986 delegates who have learned from the 1986 convention and now want a new convention to do things better.

It’s true that the 1986 convention had flaws: there wasn’t enough public organizing in advance of the 1986 convention to keep things out of the insiders’ hands.  (My group, Just Reform Rhode Island, is already working on that.)  And it’s also true that the last convention was held in 1986, when Rhode Island was in a much different place politically than it is now — for instance, Rhode Island voters are now pro-choice by huge margins.  We’re now faced with a choice: we can either vote down Question 3 and stay closer to the constitution written in 1986, when Rhode Island was very different, or else vote for a convention as an opportunity to move the constitution to something that better fits the values that Rhode Islanders now have 30 years later.  What does it say when 3 of the people who had the privilege of being involved in writing the 1986 constitution, and then later developed insider ties, are telling us not to try changing their work now?   I can’t speak for why they’re saying that, but to me, their anti-convention message doesn’t cut it.

The insider effort against the convention isn’t limited to politicians.  Take RIPEC, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, a group whose board is largely made up of big businesses (some of them based out-of-state) and those with political clout.  They’re always given a very respectful hearing at the State House, more so than people who are trying to voice the concerns of the rest of Rhode Island.  RIPEC issued a report on Question 3 that didn’t directly say “Vote No on a convention”, but does repeatedly hint that a convention may not be a good idea.  The fact that these economic super-insiders are leaning against a convention is worth noting.

In fact, it’s seriously misleading when the anti-convention campaign says that a convention would mean “wealthy special interests” would take over.  In reality, the anti-convention forces are the side with the most money.  They’ve spent over $140,000 trying to stop a convention from happening, about twice as much as was spent on the pro-convention side, according to Board of Elections filings.  Not all of the groups contributing to that $140,000 are bad.  But one of their biggest donors, for instance, is an organization administered by the Senate Majority Leader, Dominick Ruggerio: it’s called the New England Laborers’ Labor-Management Cooperation Trust.  Despite the word “Laborers” in its name, it’s not strictly a union group, but is a kind of combo labor-business-political insider lobbying hybrid, with half its trustees coming from business and half from labor people. This group runs mostly on business contributions, but it’s administered by the Senate Majority Leader, and it has already spent $10,000 trying to stop a convention.

If you look at the expensive ads paid for by the anti-convention campaign, they never mention that Senate Majority Leader Ruggerio’s group is backing them.  Rhode Island law requires political campaign ads to include information about who is behind the campaign, so that voters can learn who is backing or organizing a campaign without having to go look up little-known filings.  Until a few days ago, the anti-convention campaign simply left out all of these required disclosures from all their ads.  After the Board of Elections found they violated the law, they started adding more information, but they still don’t mention that Majority Leader Ruggerio’s group is one of their top donors.  Their list of top donors includes several more innocent-sounding groups instead.  On the whole, I think this persistent lack of disclosure shows a terrible attitude towards voters’ right to know.

It’s ironic that the anti-convention people act like they’re in favor of good government, and stir up fears of big money trying to buy the system, without doing what real good-government people do and showing an open attitude towards disclosing the issues related to their own finances.  In reality, screaming that “wealthy special interests” will buy a convention misses the point: the real problem is that the system we have is already dominated by these wealthy interests.  Big money can do very well if there’s no convention.  What a convention does bring is a chance for the people to have more of a say.

If big money at the national level wanted a Rhode Island convention, or if big money at the state level did, why wouldn’t they spend their cash here and make a difference?  The fact is that the insiders and the fat cats are fairly satisfied with how things are.  Most of them are aware that they face more risk of losing than gaining if a convention did give voters the opportunity to have a say in how the system works.  Don’t just take my word for it: the money speaks for itself.  The idea that a convention could be a tool for wealthy special interests is backed up only by a little talk, not by serious money.  No investor out for mere gain has decided to treat financing a pro-convention campaign as a reliable investment, because voters are quite likely to use a convention to rein in the abuses of the well-connected.

So it’s clear where the insiders stand, the politicians as well as the financial backers.  As for the rest of us, we’re unfortunately split on a convention, and it would be better if more of us start taking this opportunity to promote the positive changes that the insiders are resisting. I know there are some who are honestly against a convention, and it certainly isn’t true that those against a convention are all bad people.  But to suggest that a convention is a tool for insiders and the wealthy is a misleading, expensive falsehood.  It’s a tool for us, if we prepare for it right, and those with too much clout are right to fear it.

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

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.

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?

Bishop Tobin, despite a lengthy career of advocating against abortion and marriage equality, has said that in the event of a constitutional convention being held in Rhode Island, he didn’t “think it would or should deal with cultural/moral/religious issues. These particular, discrete issues are better dealt with in the normal legislative process.”

The Bishop’s statement stands in stark contrast to his earlier statements regarding marriage equality, which he said should be placed on the ballot for a popular vote, “We will continue to oppose efforts to redefine the institution of marriage in Rhode Island… The citizens of Rhode Island have a right to vote on this crucial issue.’’

One wonders if Bishop Tobin’s backing off on the issue of abortion, as pertains to a ConCon, represents “an inexcusable lack of moral courage” and an abandonment of “teaching of the Church on the dignity of human life for the sake of self-serving political gain” as he recently said of Gina Raimondo when she announced her position on abortion.

Why would Tobin, so dedicated to changing the laws regarding abortion (and marriage equality) give up a potentially powerful tool that might help him accomplish his task? Does Tobin intend to go so far as to oppose any potential resolutions passed by a ConCon that sought to deal with “cultural/moral/religious” issues in a way the church favors? Can you imagine the Bishop taking a stand against an amendment limiting reproductive of LGBTQ rights if one were to make it through the ConCon?

I can’t.

Meanwhile, Mike Stenhouse, of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a group devoted to crank economics, has pledged to not “support any amendment in a convention that would infringe on individual rights,” despite a line in the Center’s own report that said a ConCon could, “Resolve some thorny cultural issues – one way or another – through the mechanism that most clearly represents the will of the people.” (page six)

Stenhouse’s attack on Jim Vincent of the NAACP and Steve Brown of the ACLU for pointing out the actual words found in the Center’s report rings false. Stenhouse maintains that, “Any honest reading of this section clearly shows that the Center was not taking a position on those topics. Nor is the Center aware that any pro convention organization has publicly suggested that social or cultural issues should be a convention topic.”

So what does “resolve thorny cultural issues” mean to Stenhouse? It’s hard to know, but Stenhouse defender Justin Katz, in a piece entitled, If not on the Ballot, Where? attacks Vincent and defends the Center’s statement by saying, “Look, cultural issues have to be resolved.” In other words, thorny cultural issues are up for discussion in a ConCon, no matter what Stenhouse says.

Maybe the Center should get its messaging straight.

Whereas Tobin serves the Catholic God, Stenhouse serves the God of the Free Market, whose invisible hand makes the rich richer by picking the pockets of the poor. Stenhouse pledges not to support any amendments that might infringe on individual rights, but the term “individual rights” does not equate to civil rights or human rights. The term “individual rights” is much narrower than that.

Individual rights are not group rights. Individual rights are not environmental rights. Under this narrow conception of rights, corporations are individuals, unions are not. The concept of individual rights is often advanced as a way of avoiding the obligations our rights impose on us. Under this view, everybody is responsible for their own rights, not the rights of others.

Human rights, on the other hand, are understood to be “interrelated, interdependent and indivisible” and to apply to “individuals or groups.”  Stenhouse and the center are cautious to avoid terms like human rights and civil rights because these terms carry a moral, ethical and historical weight that is bigger and more expansive than the narrow limits the narcissistic, Objectivist term “individual rights” allow for.

Human rights are both rights and obligations. When we talk in terms of human rights, we call on the power of states to enforce and enhance those rights. Stenhouse and the Center prefer a world of limited government that is unconcerned with human rights and is concerned only with the narrow limits of individual rights. Civil rights legislation that forces bigoted shopkeepers to serve hated minorities are not allowed under this formulation.

Finally, it’s easy for Bishop Tobin, Mike Stenhouse and the members of Renew RI to pinky swear that they will not go after what they call “thorny cultural issues” because they don’t control all the forces in and out of Rhode Island that may involve themselves in the process. Further, their promise to not involve themselves in such issues are limited and conditional.

So it all comes down to this: Do you trust them?

Lila Sapinsley, former delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention and former Senate Republican Minority Leader, said:

“In 1986 when a Constitutional Convention was approved I eagerly ran for delegate. I naively thought that if delegates ran without party labels the convention would be free of politics. However, my hopes were dashed when I saw that since candidates ran from House districts, the convention was a mirror image of the House of Representatives. Delegates, if not directly connected to party leaders, were family or friends. The Speaker of the House controlled the convention. If delegates to the 2015 convention are elected by existing electoral districts we will again have a duplicate of the legislature. Let’s concentrate on electing better representatives and forget about an expensive duplicate of the General Assembly.”

East Providence resident Roberto Gonzalez, also a former delegate, stated:

“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 House Speaker, who was in turn controlled by the same special interests that have controlled House leaders in recent history. 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 or dilute the civil rights gains that have been so difficult to obtain.”

Tom Izzo, another former delegate, said:

“The process of electing delegates alone impacts the potential for a ‘purer, freer and more open deliberation’ – a process where, while non-partisan, does not allow for a real vetting of the candidates’ qualifications. In most instances–though not running–sitting representatives hold inordinate sway, and special interests can leverage their greatest influence. These special elections, as in most primaries, have a very low voter turnout, and candidates must depend on these special interests to get elected. While there were a few positive outcomes from the last convention, I do not believe the time, the financial cost, the potential negative impact on civil rights, and most importantly the virtually unlimited impact of special interests, especially in light of recent rulings regarding campaign spending, warrants or justifies the calling of another convention.”

There is no reason to think that a Constitutional Convention held today will be any different from the 1986 experience, and a number of reasons to think that the results of a new convention will be worse. Since 1986, the influence of money on politics has exploded. The present Speaker of the House is no less powerful than his 1986 predecessor, and is potentially more powerful. No changes have been made to the selection process of delegates that might prevent a convention from being hijacked again.

Promises from proponents that this Constitutional Convention will be different are meaningless. They have no more control over the proceedings and outcomes of a ConCon than I do. Across the country, no state has held a ConCon since the one held in Rhode Island in 1986, for all the reasons the former delegates outlined above.

Why should Rhode Island be the only state not to learn from its mistake?

How is this news?

These results are hardly surprising given the state of the economy and government. Based on these poll results, Center CEO Mike Stenhouse urges voters to approve a Con-Con to address these issues, but the poll does not demonstrate that voters favor a con-con as a remedy. In fact, it seems that the results of the poll that might deal with a con-con, Q.8-Q.18, have been withheld from the public. You can view the poll here, and see plainly that the questions jump from Q.7 to Q.19.

In other words, the information released is only what the Center wants you to see, not a real picture of likely voter attitudes.

Some results from Q.16 were released by the Center. These are statements from participants on why they favor holding a Con-Con, but question 15, which perhaps asks participants if they favor a Con-Con, is not included. There are 96 statements in support of a Con-Con listed, out of 516 participants interviewed and weighted for this poll. If this is everyone in favor of a Con-Con, that’s less than 20% support. Even if this is only half of the support the poll found, we’re still left with less than 40% favoring a Con-Con.

Had the poll indicated a majority of likely Rhode Island voters were in favor of a Con-Con, the Center would certainly have included this in the poll results they released. In the absence of the full poll results, we can only assume that the Center did not get the results they were looking for, and that GoLocal made a huge mistake in mischaracterizing the results.

Based on the information released by the Center so far, it’s obvious that Rhode Island voters see the Con-Con for what it is, a chance for special interests like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to alter the Rhode Island State Constitution in favor of the corporate interests they front for.

Grover Norquist’s visit to Rhode Island makes it obvious that outside forces are sharpening their knives in preparation for a chance to carve up Rhode Island’s Constitution into bite-sized chunks. Perhaps even small enough to drown in a bathtub?

The progressive coalition against such a fate, the Citizens for a Responsible Government, held a press conference outside the Squantum Association minutes before Grover Norquist gave his short pep talk to those in support of a Constitutional Convention at a fundraising luncheon. Coalition spokesperson Pablo Rodriguez was joined by Kate Brewster, head of the Economic Progress Institute and Michael Araujo, business agent for the International Association of Theatrical and Stage Employees, Local 23.

Together the three speakers made a compelling case for why the very presence of Norquist, an out-of-state conservative lobbyist representing anonymous, big monied interests makes a compelling case against holding a constitutional convention.

“The poster child of wealthy out-of-state special interests is Grover Norquist,” said Pablo Rodriguez, who is also President of Latino Public Radio, “whose could use a Constitutional Convention as a vehicle to buy any issue he wants. If we allow a Constitutional Convention, we will essentially be handing the keys of our government over to people like Norquist and his billionaire friends.”

“The average Rhode Islander who is struggling to pay the mortgage, afford child care so they can get to work, or put their kids through college doesn’t have the time or the resources to fight wealthy, out-of-state special interests like Grover Norquist and his billionaire backers, the Koch brothers,” said Kate Brewster.

“Grover Norquist is a guy who once said, ‘My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit,’” stated Michael Araujo. “Is this really who hard-working Rhode Islanders should be taking voting advice from?”

There is a reason that no state has held a constitutional convention since the last time we had one in Rhode Island, three decades ago. Big money wants to write the rules of our democracy, and corporate interests are served by weak governments that can’t afford to protect their citizens from being exploited.

“When I served on ’85-’86 convention, it was run by the speaker,” Chafee said in a phone interview today. His first elected office was as a delegate to the last concon 30 years ago.

“The trouble is that the delegates’ districts mirror House (district) boundaries,” he explained. “They just have a whole apparatus behind them. They have people to call in every district, that they call every two years. Sure you can beat the machine, but it’s hard.”

During the ’85-86 concon, Chafee said he saw firsthand how House leadership exerted power during the convention. Rep. Matt Smith, of Providence, was speaker at the time.

“It left me wide-eyed,” Chafee said. “We would have a long discussion, looking at what other states did, and after all that input one of the speaker’s loyal votes say Madame Chair, I move the question, and it would get voted down.”

He also said a concon in today’s political atmosphere could be too easily influenced by outside spending. “A new phenomenon since I served is all the money that comes on these issues.”

Chafee said during the ’85-86 convention, he was pushing for the same issues during the ’85-86 concon that he thinks still needs to be reformed about Rhode Island’s governmental structure: executive powers. That year, he helped implement 4 year terms for governor, though the legislature also won four year terms through the convention, he said. But they didn’t manage to pass a line item veto, something that he feels is still a critical reform for Rhode Island.

“The spotlight and the heat are on the executive, meanwhile the executive branch doesn’t have any power,” he said. “The speaker and the Senate president can fly under the radar. If all the focus is on the executive, give them some power.”

Chafee said such unbalanced powers between the executive and legislative branches surely plays into the state’s frequent turbulence. “If you want to know why Rhode Island lags the country in so many ways, look at our structure of government,” he said.

When he fought for more executive powers at the ’85-86 concon, he said his motives were more political. “It was mainly because Republicans could get elected governor,” he said, noting that he was a GOP member at the time. He said Gov. Ed DiPrete gave him a $100 donation, and he spent about $1,000 campaigning as a delegate. “The minimum is you need something with your name on it to leave with people. It costs $300 to print a palm card.”

The governor acknowledged previously supporting the idea of another constitutional convention. “I might have said I was in favor of it but not until we change the way we elect delegates.”

If there were to be one, he said he would push for a line item veto, as well as a unicameral legislature, which he said could work efficiently in a state of Rhode Island’s size. He said he wouldn’t likely campaign to be a delegate. “Been there, done that,” he told me.