A LIVELY EXPERIMENT MAR 04 16


This week on a lively experiment — is this the year Rhode Island lawmakers reinstate the ethics bill. Join us with the insights is chairman of the Republican party, BRANDON BELL, Arlene Violet , William Lynch and executive director of Rhode Island John Marion. This is lively experiment and I am training. There will be a passage of a method that will hold legislators accountable. There are two potential measures being suited this year on the Hill. John I would like to start with you talking about the two measures and distinguishing between — for our audience what they would each do. >>Thank you. This is going to be difficult with three other lawyers and I am not an attorney but this is been seven years since the Rhode Island Supreme Court said the ethics committee will have oversight over parts of what the General. assembly does . We put forward a proposal starting in 2010 that would simply provide a limited repeal into allowing the ethics commission to have the oversight back. Second proposal emerged a couple of years ago and it has changed a few times from the state Senate. It was also provided with limited repeal but it would not go all the way. It would be a forward appeal. That portion us Internet and it would also add two things. One is fairly noncontroversial. We take the law — who is on the ethics committee and we put in the Constitution and the other would create a new right for jury trial for people accused of certain violations of the code of ethics. We supported our proposal all along and oppose the other simply because we think the court has a pretty discreet problem answering credibility about the ballot, not a more set of issues and the other bill lays out a number of the changes that we don’t think can be solved at this point. >>It is very detailed and I am not sure how much our audience is going to want to distinguish between the pieces but I think a lot of this says, why isn’t the General. assembly being held a council — accountable under the ethics anyway? >>Question is legally how do you — John makes a good point. His organization has a position on this and there is no reason he shouldn’t. How do we frame appropriate legislation. Do we tamper with the Constitution? Most people I think really don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it. But the framework of the Constitution is put in place and they were a lot smarter than me and probably all of us. People could stand up cognitive woman on the floor of the state house and say whatever they want to say without feeling repercussions from the government. That is a very serious protection that is important to our governmental process. I think what the legislation is doing is it is trying to come up with a way to address the issues John raises +2 in a way that does not throw out. >>Certainly other states are following the way to have the oversight about adding in fact any type of constitutional problem or speaking and to be problem.I would say the General. assembly is really serious about the so-called legal issue as opposed to the ethical issue. At a minimum they should have established in in-house legislative ethics panel that really looks at the behavior in terms of what you can vote on, financial interest etc. To me the fact that since that decision was rendered about the ethics commission, they should have set up such a commission on both sides of the aisle and then begin to say, see you can have this is not because we are monitoring. They haven’t done that. >>Our GOP has been advocating for this. We need to restore full oversight over the General. assembly. We want to relocate businesses to allow. That was clear regarding Arlene’s comment about the initial legislation. I think we need to send a message. This is not a feel-good measure. We have a speaker of the house focused [ indiscernible ] that the realistic. >>Well by the way this has happened occasionally. The system work. He got prosecuted and he is spending time I should and his put it is meant was severe as it should have been. The system does work unfortunately Rhode Island is in a system where we have had other officials that have abused their office and committed crimes and have served crimes and prison. Both Democrats and Republican. It is a terrible thing. I think the legislation is doing the right thing and how it is proceeding on this issue and making sure they don’t make it worse than it is now. >>Actually the FBI had clean up act. This is the federal system. I certainly think that John is advocating and it is the way to go. At least there is a fallback measure. Is about ethics. Go ahead and establish an internal organism. >>Is is probably the year that we get something? >>I think there is a good chance that the is going to come out. My prediction is there might be a third alternative. That is some of the chatter I have heard. What that will look like, I don’t know. But this seems to be some sense of urgency that there has not been in the last couple years. >>A plan to build another casino. It should be likely coming before boaters in November. Mistake arsenic in the house hasn’t approved and now the governor would have to sign it but given the casino could generate careers. It looks like we will have a chance to vote on it both that Tiverton Casino folks and statewide. What is going on in Massachusetts is it striving a lot of urgency. >>There seems to be a lot of strategic things going on. To have an expansion in Massachusetts. The thing is people — 15 years ago — this happened with almost no dissent early in the session. Very little scrutiny about the program. We have become addicted as a state to the casinos and the revenue they produce that it is a shame because there hasn’t been a real public hearing of the pros and cons of gambling. Now it is just the mechanics of who is going to help with the casino business. >>I think that the pros and cons of gambling has been debated publicly for years and years and I think at this point it is more of a business decision and people in Rhode Island I think are coming to accept that. The casinos are here to say. That issue has long been decided. I think for our purposes, it is a major source of income for Rhode Island and I think people are recognizing that. Many people like to gamble. I am not particularly one of them, but people say that is something that is not only here to stay but it will generate income for the state. I it as competing now. Massachusetts is moving ahead and I think Rhode Island is trying to get out of the scenario where we are always in the back are coming from behind and we are trying to get out from. >>The one issue relative to this gambling casino — to me it is an environmental issue. The soccer. — I hope the name Succer — it is a water supply. For all the people in that area. On the one hand, we are talking about the fact that all the money this is going to generate, as Zach gets through, think of the multi-billions of dollars, to rectify the water drinking system. Now early later on I was hoping for environmental study to go before they even did the bow. But then they were waiting to see if the casino act really passes in the middle do the environmental study. That is like putting the cart before the horse. To me this is another rush rush, rush and they are circumventing the environmental issue. >>Since we are releasing this type of activity, early March, having said that with respect to the general observations of the environment I would be shocked if they were not environmental studies done. This is so 10 years ago. I think what they said about saturation — definitely I have to say I am excited we are trying to be Massachusetts. >>It is kind of a smaller side. It is not going to be like a big box type of big. >>Part of it is people don’t like to say and achieve. You have a certain discrete number of machines and they can’t win so they leave. >>There is a scale issue that is very important when you are planning this. >>And then there is some debate on whether the casino will match enough to meet the $3 million a year to cover it. >>There is a question about — do we have the saturation? Student were not very good — seem one thing to note is if we said something about campaigns of both side. >>Moving on illegal and undocumented immigrants. Modeled after similar legislation in Connecticut? The Rhode Island proposal adds additional safeguard such as color coding the likes and stopping illegal residents from getting a license until they can prove that they have been in the country for two years. >>A real ID act has certain elements. This has a homeland security safety issue. Yes as the economy, to prevent counterfeiting 1, to be displayed until the license has been approved by TFA. That person has legal US citizenship etc. We also have to share the database. So this is a license for people who can document that they are in this country legally or else you cannot even get this license. Nor can use it to board a plane or anything like that. They stay within the parameters of the ID act, that is good from my perspective. I also think that legally, we are getting such a license. I think it is certainly a step in the right direction. If they keep all the elements of the real ID act requires. >>Is there a book your or justification for. I don’t know why we are focusing on increasing alliance not reducing alliance. Representing that a little — papers and privileges. I think at this point in time I am not sure if it is for our national security issue. There is legislation out there [ indiscernible ] >>This one has verification in terms of homeland security money is coming in here and we can get the an extension on it. Federally we would not have anybody illegally. The licenses with subset when the papers were up through the legal medicine see here. It is a good mechanism as long as it is 100% compliant within the federal act. >>IT IS NICE TO SEE THAT SHE IS BETTER. BRANDON HAS DONALD TRUMP COMING SOON SO HE HAS TO BE CAREFUL WHAT HE SAYS. CERTAINLY HE COULD SEE THAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES UP. AS ARLENE SAYS UNDER THE PRESENT CONDITIONS IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO WORK IN OTHER PLACES. IT IS NOT ONLY THE THING THAT HELPS NATIONAL SECURITY. IT HELPS PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, IT HELPS CHILDREN WHO ARE UP TO STUFF THAT THEY SHOULDN’T BE. SO I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. >>I’M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THE REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN GOES. >>I HAVE WORKED OUT A LOT OF REPUBLICANS HERE. >>[ LAUGHTER ] >>HAVING SAID THAT I JUST DON’T KNOW HOW [ INDISCERNIBLE ] I THINK THERE ARE SOME GREAT POINTS BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE PAPERS. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT — THIS IS FOR ILLEGAL. THESE ARE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDOCUMENTED. >>IF THEY LISTEN TO WHAT THE LEGISLATION SAYS, IT SAYS YOU MUST SHOW PAPERS THAT YOU ARE LEGALLY IN THE COUNTRY TO GET A LICENSE. THAT IS GOING FORWARD AS FAR AS I KNOW. BEFORE THAT ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO SHOW UP AT THE DOOR COULD GET A LICENSE AND WAS PROMISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN. AT LEAST NOW IT SAYS A LOT COMPLIANCES IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. >>MY HOPE IS THAT THE LEGISLATION GET THE HEARING AND ABOUT THE BOW. THIS SEEMS TO BE ATTENTION. THE GOVERNOR MAY NEED SOMETHING BY EXECUTIVE ACTORS. LEADERSHIP WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DAYS THEY AREN’T PLEASE WITHOUT WELCOME WAY TO PREEMPT THAT IS TO GET THE VOTE. EVEN IF YOU DON’T THINK IT IS GOING TO PASS. ALLOW AND AIRING OF THESE ISSUES THROUGH THE LEGISLATION WHICH WE DON’T SEE OFTEN ENOUGH IS TO DETERMINE OUTCOMES. >>LET’S MOVE ONTO THE PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN GROWING AND DEVELOPING AND THERE’S A LOT TO TALK ABOUT REGARDING SUPER TUESDAY BEING OVER. >>NOW THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DOWN TO FOUR PEOPLE. ON THE PRODUCT SIDE WE ARE TAKING ON FRIDAY AND THURSDAY NIGHT. WE WATCHED THE DEBATE WHICH WAS JUST A FISTFIGHT. WHAT IS GOING ON OVER THERE? >>IT IS ROBUST. [ LAUGHTER ] I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PUTTING ASIDE THE PARTY FOR A MOMENT AND LOOK AT WHAT IS NOT GOING ON. THERE HOLDING THE DEBATES ON SATURDAY NIGHT. PEOPLE ARE NOT EMPTY OUT WHAT HER FAULTS ARE AND WHAT CANDIDATE. AS FAR AS MY PARTY IS CONCERNED, THIS HAS BEEN A ROBUST CAMPAIGN. WITH CEO — THERE ARE A LOT OF PREDICTORS.>>I FOLLOWED A LOT OF ELECTIONS AND I DON’T REMEMBER SEEING A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GO TO THE EXTENT OF NAME-CALLING IN THE DEBATES. >>I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR TYPE –>>I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF NAMES OUT THERE. DONALD TRUMP IS THE ANTITHESIS OF BARACK OBAMA. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DRAWN TO HIM. AT THIS POINT IN TIME A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO TO OUR PARTY? EVEN THE MAJORITY –>>HILLARY CLINTON IS THE NOMINEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY — THERE NOT TO SAY THAT BUT IT IS PRETTY MUCH ASSUMED. WE HAVE RICHIE RICH STANDING ON THE STAGE TALKING ABOUT LITTLE MARCO AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT REPUBLICAN PARTY WANTS TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT IS EMBARRASSING — I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. I’M NOT SURE THAT WE EVER WILL AGAIN. I DON’T KNOW. WE’RE GETTING TO THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND REALITY TV AND THERE IS A SORT OF ATTRACTION OBVIOUSLY THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS TAPPED INTO. I DON’T THINK HIS NUMBERS ARE AS WIDESPREAD AS PEOPLE WANT TO DATE BUT WE WILL SEE COME NOVEMBER. AND IN TERMS OF THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE YES WE HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEBATE. WE HAD DEBATES ON SUBSTANCE AND PARTY ISSUES. PRETTY PRESENT — BERNIE SANDERS IS BRINGING HIS ARGUMENTS PICK HILLARY CLINTON HAS MADE HER AND IS IN MANY CASES RESPONDING TO WHAT BERNIE IS SAYING. BUT THEN NAME-CALLING AND INSULTS, IT IS EMBARRASSING. IT IS EMBARRASSING FOR ME AS AN AMERICAN BUT THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IS A DISGRACE. THAT’S WHAT IT IS. >>THEN YOU HAVE A NON—>>[ INDISCERNIBLE – MULTIPLE SPEAKERS ] >>IT IS A DISGRACE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY. REPUBLICAN AND I LIVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A WOMAN BEING PRESENT IN MY LIFETIME BUT I CRINGE WHEN IT COMES TO HILLARY. THE CONTRIBUTIONS SHE IS NOT BEEN SUPPOSED TO BE ACCEPTING. THIS IS ALL IN HISTORY. IS THIS THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO HAVE THESE KINDS OF CANDIDATES IN OUR RUNNING? ANYBODY ELSE — TALK ABOUT A STAIN ON SOMEBODY’S JACKET. THEY ARE ALL LOSERS, SUPER TUESDAY WAS NOT SUPER AT ALL. >>I WOULD NOT LET MY KIDS WATCH THE DEBATE. I AM EMBARRASSED AS A PARENT WITH ONE OF THE LOT OF THE RHETORIC THAT WE HAVE SEEN. I THINK IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE FRUSTRATION THAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT. IT IS A FRUSTRATION ABOUT THE WAY THAT OUR CAMPAIGNS WORK. AND THE MONEY PUT INTO THE POLITICS IN THIS COUNTRY. DONALD TRUMP IS SAYING, NOBODY OWNS ME. YOU HAVE BERNIE SANDERS BEATING THE DRUM REALLY HARD ABOUT THE MONEY OF ISSUES IN POLITICS AND I THINK THAT IS THE POLITICS. MANY PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED WITH THE WAY THAT CAMPAIGNS HAVE OPERATED PRIMARILY. THERE FRUSTRATED THAT IT COST $1 BILLION TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY USED TO BE A FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND IT HAS BASICALLY BLOWN UP IN THE CONGRESS AND THEY HAVE DECIDED TO DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. >>GO TO OUR FACEBOOK TO EXPRESS ANY COMMENTS. AS MANY OF YOU ARE NEWER, THE FIRST QUESTION IS THE ESTABLISHMENT MAKING? MORE SYMPATHETIC — MY FIRST QUESTION IS THE ESTABLISHMENT MAKING TRUMP MORE SYMPATHETIC? >>PRESIDENT. OBAMA GOING BACK — I THINK IT HURTS WHEN THEY ATTACK EACH OTHER. I DO BELIEVE THAT EVEN IF IT TAKES THREE OR FOUR WEEKS — THAT THE PARTY WILL COALESCE.>> PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT TRUMP IS ANTIESTABLISHMENT SOME WILL EVEN APPROVE THE MORE. ON THE OTHER HAND JOHN McCAIN AND MITT ROMNEY ALSO SPEAK TO PEOPLE WHO MAY BE UNDECIDED AND I THINK THEY DO INFLUENCE THEM TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT THE POINTS. I THINK THERE IS A PLUS AND MINUS THE PROBABLY GETTING SET THE AWASH. >>MY AVERAGE TODAY IS A RHODE ISLAND LEADERSHIP SPENDING TIME ON THE BILL FOR SHRUBS. WHENEVER THE ATTENTION OF THAT BILL, IT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON BRINGING JOBS AND HELPING THE ECONOMY NOT THE SHRUBS. >>FOLLOWING UP — A REALLY WANT TO GIVE YOU CREDIT TO MITT ROMNEY AND JOHN McCAIN. IN POLITICS YOU DON’T SPEAK ILL OF ANYONE IN IT TAKES REAL GUTS AND COURAGE TO SPEAK OUT LIKE THAT. BECAUSE YOU KNOW WITH SOMEBODY LIKE DONALD TRUMP, YOU KNOW HE WILL BE RIGHT BACK AT YOU AND STILL THEY STEPPED OUT THERE. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN PRESTIGE BUT THEY TOOK THE RISK. FOR THEIR POLITICAL PARTY IN MY PERCEPTION THEY DID THIS.>>I THINK PROBABLY IT WOULD BE THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT FAIRLY GETTING AND TREATING DONALD TRUMP AS THEIR NOMINEE. WE HAVE PARTY LEADERS, MITT ROMNEY AND OTHERS ORGANIZING TRYING TO SOME PART THAT SAME — DECEMBER — SUBVERT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE EXECUTING THESE STRATEGIES IN BACK ROOMS TO DERAIL DONALD TRUMP THEM ARE THEY DOING THAT? >>A LOT OF THE CANDIDATES WILL SUPPORT THEM ONCE HE IS THE NOMINEE –>>YOU ARE OUTRAGED? BUSINESS WHICH UP TO THE STATE LEVEL. THIS STATE SENATE PASSED THE BILL THIS WEEK REGARDING ONLINE REGISTRATION. IS GOING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE IN RHODE ISLAND TO GET INVOLVED THIS NOVEMBER WHEN THEY WANT TO GET INVOLVED. IS GOING TO SAVE MONEY. IT IS A WIN WIN SITUATION. >>THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR THOUGHTS AND THAT WILL BE IT. THANK YOU FOR WATCHING LIVELY EXPERIMENT INTO THE NEXT WEEK WHEN LIVELY EXPERIMENT CONTINUES.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *