SASSE’S EDUCATION BILL OF RIGHTS – POSED BY GOLOCALPROV.COM

 

1. If elected, would you consider supporting this bill of rights? 

2.  If not, which portions do you disagree with, and why?  

Education Bill of Rights Proposal:

  1. The right to be taught by effective teachers. Effective teachers are trained and certified in the subject matter being taught. They are knowledgeable about their discipline, use state the art teaching strategies, and respect and respond to student inputs.

The teacher me says “yes”, but the attorney me says this statement is too vague. Training and certification in subject matter is a long standing requirement, and so I question as to whether this is a concern. Of course, I would agree that teachers should be knowledgeable about their discipline, but I am unsure as to agreement with the idea of “state of the art” teaching strategies. Who determines them? What are they? Does this negate teaching by the Socratic method? Should teachers, who are certified in their fields, not be free to employ teaching methods that they deem proper? Should student input about not wanting to do homework encourage teachers to not assign any because they are respecting student input? I think I am in agreement as to having effective teachers, but I am not at all sure as to what is being considered in this statement.

  1. The right not to be taught by teachers who, after due process evaluation, fail to meet standards established by state and local education officials.

Again, the statement is vague. I agree that children should not be taught by ineffective teachers, but the statement suggests some due process evaluation which is unexplained. Further, I am lost as to what “standards established” could be used and whether they would be adopted without educator input. I could support this if it were clarified.

  1. The right to appropriate academic materials and resources. This would include materials necessary to support all instructional programs, access to computers and the internet, and modern facilities to support rigorous science, technology and mathematics instruction.

Yes, I fully agree with this statement.

  1. The right to safe, clean and environmental-friendly school facilities.

This is an obvious yes.

  1. The right to emotionally supportive schools that do not tolerate harassment, discrimination or abuse.

Harassment, discrimination or abuse should not be tolerated anywhere at anytime. As to “emotionally supportive schools” I am once again left wondering what exactly does this mean.

  1. The right to attend a school where funding is based on student need with the goal of providing access to adequate educational opportunities.

I believe that education and its funding is the responsibility of the General Assembly. Further, I believe that providing access to education is a fundamental right of the Rhode Island Constitution. With that in mind, I believe that students have a right to excellent educational opportunities and not just “adequate” ones.

As to the issue of funding based on student need, this does not fully flesh out the issue. Student need could be infinite in scope, and as such, I cannot agree with the statement.

  1. The right to a pathway out of a failing school. This requires the availability of options to attend schools that best enhance a student’s opportunity for academic achievement.

Yes, I believe that there are various methods of achieving this and I am supportive of such ideas in concept. I could support them in practice, where fully described.

  1. The right to a fair, accurate and transparent assessment system that measures student performance and need. The assessment system should include multiple measures for students to demonstrate their competencies and clearly state what students are expected to know and accomplish.

Yes, I agree with this statement.

  1. The right of parents to current and reliable information about their child’s progress and performance.

Yes, I agree with this statement.

 

Robert J. Healey, Jr.

October 10, 2014

Advertisements

A Question from the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island

As a leader, how will you use your leadership skills to improve our state and country?

A true leader inspires others to greatness instead of seeking greatness. That being so, I would lead in a manner that is respectful of the people. I prefer to lead by suggestion rather than by imposition.

A good leader seeks consensus, logically assesses all point of view, adopts a strong, yet tentative course of action, presents it to those being governed for their approval, and then acts in a strong manner to implement the determined course.

A leader must inspire and lead by example. Words alone do not create results. A leader must be willing to work, silently, unassumingly, in a manner of setting a course that those being governed recognize as good. Bad leaders are imprisoned by their own ideas and as such cannot govern in the best interests of all.

By tolerance of independent freedom of thought and action, a leader understands that the people are the owners of their government and that the role of leader is temporary.

A good leader will always listen to the people seeking redress, not always agreeing, but attempting to put all views into a perspective.

Good leaders are loved when they are least intrusive and yet productive. Results are more important that receiving credit for obtaining them.

The best leadership is in a way that allows people to act for themselves so that they determine that they have accomplished their goals without leadership.

Governing in an open transparent manner is governing by example. To be too attached to one’s ideas is counterproductive to success as a leader.

Taking this approach, I feel that I can represent the interest of the people in a manner that gives them peace, liberty, access to justice, and the safety and well being everyone deserves.

It is with this philosophy that I can use my leadership skills to improve our state and country.

Robert J. Healey, Jr.

October 11, 2014

Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce Questions

QUESTIONS POSED BY THE GREATER PROVIDENCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The questions had background statements which were not included. For the complete questionnaire, contact the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce.

All questions asked for a YES or NO answer with Comments. No yes or no answers were provided except as seen within the context of these answers.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you oppose any effort to undo the state’s 2010 personal income tax reform effort which eliminated credits and deductions in exchange for lowering the marginal rate from 9.9 percent to 5.99 percent?

I am generally opposed to using credits to mask the real tax rate. This is not an absolute, however, I do not generally endorse such methods of hiding the real tax rate from all. I believe we must all share in the benefits of law and share equally in the burdens. That said, there are reasons for some credits and deductions, but they should be given strict scrutiny. In short, I am more likely than not to oppose undoing the reforms, but this is not firm.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you support efforts to bring the state’s unemployment benefit structure in line with the other New England states’ which would specifically entail narrowing benefits and eligibility?

I will listen to all the arguments as to the unemployment benefit structure and see a need for reform. I do believe in the need to reform it, but I am not overly moved until I see more specific plans than have been set forth in this questionnaire.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you support efforts to narrow eligibility and exempt employers who offer their own temporary disability insurance programs?

If someone other than the state wishes to offer their own programs, I would welcome that discussion. I am not opposed to the narrowing and exempting possibilities.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you support ongoing efforts by the State to honor its obligation on the moral obligation bond?

No. Until the public has complete access to all the documents in this matter, I am reluctant to authorize such payment. I understand that it will possibly impact the obligations of the State, along with a probable increase in the cost of borrowing. I do not see this as a negative in that the State should limit its appetite for living on credit.

As to the moral obligation, I find it hypocritical to say that there is a ‘moral obligation’ to Wall Street players while finding no such moral obligation to honor the State’s commitment to Rhode Island pensioners who have worked for the state in reliance of promises by the Legislature and have dedicated themselves to Rhode Island in terms of their labor. If we want to talk about morality, let’s focus our attention to our own people instead of our friends on Wall Street.

I am more inclined to be against the Chamber’s position on this issue.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you support the planned implementation of the Common Core State Standards in Rhode Island?

Until there is a clearer education plan for Rhode Island, I am reserving my support for such an idea. Rhode Island is at a cross-road. Should education policy be for socialization or for academic achievement? It cannot do both with any modicum of success.

The common core principles make sense in a system where the focus is strictly on academic achievement. To implement this into a system that is used for socialization is almost as ridiculous as giving a fish a bicycle.

Although the thought is a good one, the system in place limits the success that such a program can achieve.

The state wishes to use pedagogy to advance social issues and at the same time test for intellectual advancement. The two are distinct functions. Using the classroom for socialization runs counter-intuitive to the idea that there is a need for academic achievement. Confusing the two is the basis for an unobtainable objective.

Until the state makes a clear choice of its education objectives, I cannot have a reasonable position on this issue.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you make it a budget priority to increase funding for URI, CCRI, and RIC specifically for base operations (that is, not counting debt service or lease payments) to move Rhode Island’s national ranking to at least the level of Massachusetts (42)?

Higher education is a budgetary priority to be certain, however, unless this is coupled with economic development policy, the idea of spending more on higher education to provide competing states with easily accessible talent is short sighted.

Unless there is a coordinated effort to link our economic development with our higher education system, we are just preparing people to relocate and compete against us. To pay for this competition is absurd.

The needs of higher education must be met and or expanded, however, to do so without a reasonable expectation of a return on the investment is just plain bad policy. To throw money at programs with no clear objective for what the program is intended to produce, is just more of a waste of tax dollars.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you support the argument that HealthSourceRI should be strictly limited in scope and financially self-supporting?

I do not find a Constitutional mandate for health care insurance coverage. As such, I am more than likely in agreement that HealthSourceRI should be as limited in application as possible. I am more in alignment with the Chamber’s position in this matter.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you support increased funding for Commerce RI to market Rhode Island at a level commensurate with other New England states’ marketing programs?

Until we have some real success, to advertise mediocrity is not in the State’s interest. I do not feel that the results to date merit national acclaim. To spend money to advertise minimal economic development is not a wise move. In the real world, if you have a success story, you market it, or, in the alternative, if it is as great as the creators proclaim, you will have little trouble in getting people to come to you.

As such, I am not in favor of the Chamber’s plan to trumpet mediocre achievement.

  1. Question: As an elected official, will you favor restoring state support to previous spending levels for each of these knowledge advancement initiatives?

I would be open to it, but it would have to have a demonstrable level of success, objectives and measurements.

I am open to discussion on this matter based on the criteria set forth in this answer.

  1. Question: Do you agree with the Chamber’s position that minimum wage legislation should be subject to a General Assembly vote and that there should be only one minimum wages for the entire state?

There seems to be a strong argument in favor of state preemption in this area. Since most labor policy is set at the state level, it would take a much stronger argument to convince me that this is a local policy matter. I agree with the Chamber’s position on this issue.

October 4, 2014 Robert J. Healey, Jr.

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM WPRI – WHERE THEY STAND

Do you support or oppose the following measures:

PAYING BACK THE 38 STUDIO BOND

Given the fact that there are several documents that remain outside the public’s view, it would be foolishly impossible to attempt to answer this question with any semblance of reason. That said, my view would be to get a full accounting of the background, open the documents to the public, and take what then appears to be reasonable action in light of the facts uncovered.

LOWERING THE STATE SALES TAX

Rhode Island’s sales tax is quite high, but it has quite a few exemptions. That being the case, I would clearly oppose further expansion of the items to be taxed. Similarly, I would work to decrease this tax. I recall the promises related to the temporary nature of the rise from 6 to 7. In Rhode Island, temporary is forever. I think this action by government is downright despicable.

As to the idea to completely eliminate the sales tax, I believe that it would be worthy of a test to check its validity. I am not entirely convinced that the income taxes would off-set this move, but I am interested enough to further explore it.

I will not disagree with a reduction in the sales tax in I have long argued that sales taxes, while they tax all equally, have a far greater regressive impact. Under the sales tax scheme there is a flat tax. If a rich person buys the same item as a poor person, they pay taxes equally, but the percentage of the cost to earning is clearly different.

I do not object to regressive taxation, but I would clearly consider the regressive/progressive arguments in setting tax policy.

DECREASING THE CORPORATE TAX FROM 9% TO 7%

In considering this, I lean toward the argument that a reduction in the corporate tax would encourage larger businesses to consider relocation in Rhode Island and would help in the retention of those presently in the state.

I am always reluctant to use tax policy as such, but I am aware of the realities of today’s economy and the direction the legislature has taken in relation to this. As such, I would say that I agree, but I am not a true convert.

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE

I believe in personal freedom. I believe that we are all individuals capable of making decisions for ourselves. I believe that legalization is merely reclamation of the right we should not have abridged years ago.

The only exception to this is based on the idea that the government has an obligation to protect youth. Whereas medical evidence seems to clearly indicate that use in youth can have an impact on brain development, and given the implicit role of government to protect those who have not reached the age of majority, I would limit use to those over the age of majority where they are legally capable of being responsible for their own determinations.

THE RHODE ISLAND RETIREMENT SECURITY ACT (PENSION REFORM LAW)

The more I review this matter, the more I am convinced that the pension folks may have a valid point.

If the Assembly can find a moral obligation to pay 38 Studios, where is there any less moral obligation to the pension recipients.

I am still studying the legal issues that relate to the lawsuit and will be issuing my analysis of the situation upon completion of this research. I expect that to be issued in the near future. It will be posted to our web outlets – votehealey.com and on Facebook and on Bob Healey’s Campaign Journal.

TYING STANDARDIZED TESTING TO GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR R.I. HIGH SCHOOLERS

I have long argued that education must make a determination as to whether it is to be used for socialization of society or for academic achievement. To date, education policy makers have failed to address this question, as it should before we proceed with this analysis.

If society is desirous of using its education structure for socialization related issues, the answer is clearly “no”. Conversely, if we are to base our education system on educational achievement, the answer is “yes”. Our problem is that we have no clue as a state as to where we envision our education policy.

INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE IN RHODE ISLAND

I find this issue to be confused by most. I see the increasing of the minimum wage to be similar to pushing into one side of a balloon. The air inside the balloon neither decreases nor increases.

The raise in minimum wage will cause a ripple effect in that everyone will enjoy a similar increase throughout the workforce. If minimum wage increases by a dollar, everyone in the workforce would expect their wages to increase by a dollar. As such, the cost of production increases to cover the increase in labor costs. Goods cost more. Inflation makes goods more expensive. In short, it is like kissing your sister. It may be fun but it gets nowhere.

I believe we need to have jobs to create a competitive environment whereby cheap labor is in short supply and this will create a competition for labor, thereby increasing the wages.

INCREASING THE RI INCOME TAX FOR HIGH EARNERS

I rely on the Rhode Island Constitution for guidance. There, in Article I Section 2 whereby it states that laws are to be for the good of the whole and the burdens to be equally distributed. As such, I would not engage in special tax policies to benefit or penalize any group, rich or poor.

As such, I would only require that the tax policy be implemented in a manner that treats all equally.

BINDING ARBITRATION FOR TEACHERS

I oppose binding arbitration for teachers. Instead, I favor a statewide teacher contract, negotiated every two years prior to the adjournment of the Assembly in election years, thus giving the voter a check over the action of their legislator.

Binding arbitration in the current method of negotiation would not be in the interest of fair bargaining. The parties need to proceed from a point of equality. Under the current system, given the manner by which contracts are negotiated with local school boards, the interposing of obstacles by the State, and the general nature of such negotiations, to grant binding arbitration would not be in the best interest of the taxpayers specifically, and the general public as a whole.

DRIVER’S LICENSES FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

I clearly oppose issuance of Rhode Island driving licenses to undocumented individuals.

That said, I believe that there should be issued driving papers. These papers, much like an international drivers license, cannot be used for identification purposes, but are used for the purpose of compliance with the driving regulations of the state, including the need to have insurance.

I have written extensively on this matter in terms of immigration status, and that writing can be found on Bob Healey’s Campaign Journal at the top of the page.

REPEALING VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS

This issue requires a bit of legal analysis. First, citizens have a constitutional right to vote. That right can be predicated on state law related to voter registration. One must present evidence of citizenship to a licensing authority for registration as a voter. This ensures an orderly election.

Once registered, in order to vote, the person appears at the poll. The requirement to present a valid ID to vote directly on that day is not one that prohibits the exercise of the right to vote. Under law the person without a valid ID has the ability to vote by provisional ballot. This provisional vote, based on the voter’s signature, is counted later by the canvassing authority, after a comparison and verification of the signature.

There is no loss of the right to vote. The presentment of a valid ID merely is the predicate step to the vote at the booth. By enabling a provisional ballot, I feel this issue can be overcome and is not a duly burdensome requirement when balanced against the integrity of the vote.

Robert J. Healey, Jr.

September 26, 2014

Healey on the Economic Development Plan

Bob Healey’s answer to Kathy Gregg of the Providence Journal –

Do you have a jobs plan?
What is it?

From: kgregg@providencejournal.com
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:25:39 -0400
Subject: Jobs plan

Do yo have a jobs plan?
What is it?
Kathy Gregg
Providence Journal
State House Bureau Chief
401 277 7078

Healey on the Economic Development Plan

October 1, 2014

In response to your inquiry I can only indicate the following:
These are ten points for my economic development plan (not a “jobs plan”)
1. That I do not believe that it is the government’s role to create jobs;
2. That I believe the government’s function is to make the environment for job creation.
3. That to spend tax dollars to create jobs is enabling an artificial market, skewing real and actual supply and demand on labor.
4. That less regulation will encourage business to locate in Rhode Island.
5. That business acts like business and will take advantage of state giveaways in the form of tax reductions, give-mes, and other artificial plans.
6. That economic development can only be had if there is a business-friendly mindset in government (no corruption, roads are passable, labor is educated to meet the needs, government is fair and not swayed by pet companies, that the state pays its debts, that management of the state has plans for vision without committing to any one company).
7. That taxes must be fairly apportioned on business interests.
8. That business is not a target as a piggy bank to be raided.
9. That laborers are treated fairly and with respect in a mutual endeavor with business to act in the common interests of the state.
10. That government, if it is to regulate business, cannot be engaged in the business itself through investment. lest it lose its ability to regulate properly.
Job creation plans, for the most part, are little more than election gimmicks. They require the taxpayer to infuse money on a hope of direly needed employment. The proposition is so wrong headed on many fronts. The business world, as any venture capitalist will tell you, merely looks to these state programs as the state being unable to function. They smell blood and use the state money provided by such programs to take advantage of the situation and move on to another suffering state when the well runs dry, often taking the most productive people the state has provided through training, with them. The idea is not to have a “jobs program” but a fundamental overhaul whereby jobs will flourish.
I cannot sugar coat what I see is the need for extensive, fundamental reform in Rhode Island.
It will require recognition of our dire predicament and work to responsibly and cooperatively to get ourselves on the proper footing.
Politicians promise people what they need today, taking advantage of their sense of finding a painless way out of an ugly situation and the public’s desire for instant gratification.
I cannot, in all good conscience, attempt to put such a hoax over on the public. I will not tempt a starving person with visions of a banquet.
I can only state that my jobs plan is incumbent upon the state working together to revise how we do business.
I will, if elected, be a cheerleader for job relocation, but I will also be able to offer these industries more than just old wine in new bottles. Armed with a fundamental overhaul, sparked by a cerebral revolution, our frontiers are bright. Offering tax money to bring us jobs is a fancy form of crying uncle and paying for unemployment in a different manner and it is a waste of much needed tax dollars.
I have written extensively on Economic Development (it is contained in the 2006 Lt. Governor document in which I had asked members of the media to read if they read no other document). I stand by the principles articulated there as though they were written here in their entirety.
Solid business development does not change or grow old. Fly by night plans come and go. I will have no part in creating such a delusion for the people.
There is no magic jobs creation. To offer such, in light of Rhode Island’s poor performance record in this regard, is, in my opinion, preying on the people.
They deserve more.
They deserve to change the system fundamentally.
That’s all I can promise.
Bob

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS – ACLU QUESTIONNAIRE

  1. This year, the Senate passed a bill that states, in part: “No juvenile shall be requested to consent to a search by a law enforcement officer unless there exists reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity.” Do you agree with this requirement?

ANSWER:   YES. I AGREE WITH THIS CONCEPT. MY ONLY CONCERNS WOULD BE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PARENT OF THE MINOR HAD GRANTED CONSENT.

  1. Do you support requiring the State’s health exchanges that will serve Rhode Islanders to include abortion coverage availability in their plans?

ANSWER: I LEAVE THAT TO THE OPERATIONS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS IN THE MARKETPLACE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EXTENDING COVERAGE, BUT REQUIRING ANYTHING IS AGAINST MY CONCEPT OF FREEDOM AND AS SUCH MUST JUMP A HIGH BAR.

  1. The state’s photo-only “voter ID” law has taken effect this year. Do you support this law?

ANSWER: YES. I SUPPORT THE VOTER ID LAW IN THAT MY SOLE CONCERN IS DISENFRANCHISEMENT AS OPPOSED TO IDENTIFICATION. YOU CANNOT BUY CIGARETTES WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION, YET WE HAVE DIFFICULTY IN CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING THOSE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS. IF THERE WERE NO PROVISIONAL BALLOTS, WHEREBY THE SIGNATURES ARE COMPARED BY THE CANVASSING AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE REGISTRATION CARDS, THEN I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM. SINCE NO ONE IS BEING DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE OR HAVE THAT VOTE COUNTED, I AM NOT OVERLY CONCERNED.

  1. Do you support legalizing and taxing marijuana?

ANSWER: LEGALIZING IT YES, TAXING IT NO. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM INCLUDES ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION AS TO THEIR USE OR NON-USE OF ANY PRODUCT. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION SHOULD ONLY BE AS TO WHETHER THE PRODUCT IS UP TO A STANDARD AND ANY SAFETY CONCERNS FROM ABUSE OR OVERUSE.   SIMILARLY, IF PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SMOKE KNOWING THE PANOPLY OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WHY SHOULD GOVERNMENT RESTRICT THIS FREEDOM OF A PERSON TO LIVE AS ONE CHOOSES?

TAXATION ON AN ITEM THAT SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED TO BEGIN WITH IS AN EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS SITUATION IN THAT THE GOVERNMENT THEN CLEARLY HAS NO REAL CONCERN WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND ONLY THE PUBLIC PURSE. IF MARIJUANA WERE LEGALIZED ONLY BECAUSE IT IS A TAXABLE EVENT, THEN IT IS NO MORE SOLID A POLICY THAN PROHIBITING SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE TO SAVE THE WORKERS, YET IT IS OKAY TO WORK IN THE SMOKE FILLED CASINO.

  1. Rhode Island suspends thousands of students annually for minor behavioral offenses. Do you support legislation that would generally limit the use of out-of-school suspensions to students whose behavior poses a risk of physical harm or persistent disruption in school that cannot be controlled by other means?

ANSWER: YES. I WOULD GENERALLY LIMIT OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS. IF THE INTEREST OF THE SCHOOL IS THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILD, THEN SUCH LIMITATION ON THE ABILITY OF THE CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS ARE A MORE REASONABLE SOLUTION. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A NEED FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS BASED ON A DANGEROUS STUDENT WHO POSES GRAVE PHYSICAL HARM TO OTHERS IN THE CLASSROOM.

  1. Do you support requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before requesting an individual’s location from a cell phone provider except in cases of emergency?

ANSWER: YES.

  1. Do you support requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using “drone” technology to engage in criminal surveillance except in cases of emergency?

ANSWER: YES. GIVEN THE EVOLVING NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY, MY ANSWER IS NOT COMPLETELY CERTAIN. MY VIEW BASED ON MY PRESENT UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ACLU POSITION. I BELIEVE THAT RHODE ISLAND NEEDS TO PROVIDE ITS CITIZENS WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF PRIVACY, AS WAS GRANTED UNDER THE RI CONSTITUTION.

  1. Board of Education regulations allow students to receive in-state tuition at Rhode Island’s public colleges and universities, regardless of their immigration status, if they complete three years of education at, and graduate from, a Rhode Island high school, and enroll in a Rhode Island college. Do you support codifying this policy into law?

ANSWER: NO. I BELIEVE THAT IMMIGRATION POLICY IS A FEDERAL ISSUE AND NOT THE PLACE FOR STATES TO DABBLE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR STATE INTEREST. I CANNOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, SEE THE STATE INTEREST HERE.

  1. Do you support providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants?

ANSWER: NO. THAT SAID, I HAVE WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON MY ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT PLAN WHICH WOULD ENABLE DRIVING UNDER SPECIFIED TERMS. RATHER THAN ATTACHING IT, IT CAN BE FOUND ON “BOB HEALEY’S CAMPAIGN JOURNAL.WORDPRESS”.

  1. Do you support Rhode Island holding a constitutional convention?

ANSWER: YES. AS ONE HAS WRITTEN IN EARLIER CONSIDERATION OF SUCH CONVENTIONS, THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO CHANGE GOVERNMENT, 1. BY RECONSTITUTING IT UNDER LEGAL MEANS, 2. BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH AMENDMENT, OR 3. BY REVOLUTION. THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR SUCH REVIEW AND REAFFIRMATION BY THE PEOPLE. I HAVE FULL FAITH IN THE PEOPLE.

  1. “Prison gerrymandering” is a term given to the practice of counting inmates, for purposes of drawing voting districts, as residents of their place of incarceration, rather than their home address from which they otherwise must vote. Do you support legislation that would eliminate prison gerrymandering in Rhode Island?

ANSWER: YES.

_________________________________

Robert J. Healey, Jr. – Candidate for Governor