Published on Monday, November 3, 2008

Con-Con too risky of a move

By LETTER WRITER

As a retired political scientist, I read your editorial supporting the Con-Con with concern. The editorial ignores the process by which delegates are to be selected and it also ignores which of many proposals are likely to survive the conference and a public vote.

If the Con-Con is approved, there will be two delegates elected from each state senatorial district, this is a large territory and most reform-minded candidates will not have the voter base or financial backing to compete with already organized and well-funded interests in these districts. Financial disclosure laws do not apply, nor conflict of interest legislation. Whoever is elected is unlikely to know anything about constitutions or constitution writing. No advance study has been prepared for them to use. The process is by law designed and controlled by the legislature. We do not know what access interest groups will have to the convention itself or how the freedom of information laws may apply. The whole process might operate in the dark.

Only those proposals recommended by the convention and approved by the public will become part of the constitution. Proposals likely to gain support include those weakening the public sector and limiting its finances - making the state’s fiscal problems worse. If public schools gain support, it is likely to be at the cost of Higher Education.

There are other, much less risky ways to reform the state. In the interests of the students and the university as well of good government, the Star should recommend a “no” vote on the Con-Con.

Irene Rubin,
retired faculty member