01:00 AM EDT on Monday, October 25, 2004

On the Nov. 2 ballot, Rhode Islanders will be asked to decide on Question 2: whether the state should hold a constitutional convention. If they vote yes, citizens around the state will run next year for 75 positions (one for each House district) and, if elected, will meet to consider changing the state constitution. Any changes that they propose will then go before the voters for final approval.

Even with such checks built into the process, some people are nervous about any rewriting of the constitution outside the State House.

They fear that a constitutional convention would be packed with the State House leaders' minions -- as in the last convention, in 1986 -- so that the process would serve the special interests controlling the General Assembly, rather than the public good.

They worry about a runaway train discarding worthy parts of the constitution and going off the tracks by bickering over such social issues as same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

They fear that the public would be unable to keep a close watch on both the General Assembly and the convention, which would be meeting at the same time. As citizens should know well by now, when no one watches politicians bad things can happen.

Those skilled at lobbying legislators -- from Philip West, of Common Cause, to public-employee unions, who oppose this measure -- believe that they can better accomplish their agendas by "working the system," rather than opening the Pandora's box of a constitutional convention.

Some have argued that a convention, at an estimated $2 million, would cost too much -- that reforms could be achieved by cheaper means.

We say to all: Let the citizens convene, discuss, and create a better Rhode Island. It would be well worth the effort and the money.

It would also be much harder than in 1987 for legislative leaders to pack a convention. Today, an aroused citizenry clamors for change in Rhode Island, and such citizen groups as Operation Clean Government are aggressively working to see that the public gets a fair shake. OCG, indeed, might run a statewide slate of reform candidates for a constitutional convention.

The argument that constitutional changes are better made through the legislature holds little water. Intelligent citizens who wish to serve at a convention but then get out of politics could probably do a better job of reforming Rhode Island than politicians who feel they must kow-tow to campaign contributors and public-employee unions.

A convention of intelligent citizens could do much to limit political corruption and build faith in government. It could:

Institute a line-item veto for the governor.

Create an inspector general.

Rework the judicial-nomination process to give greater weight to merit.

Impose greater checks and balances, so that information would be made public and the power of insiders would be reduced.

Set term limits on the speaker of the House. The merits of legislation, rather than the muscle of the leader, would thus be more likely to influence the members' voting.

We should not let fears conquer the hope of creating a government that better serves the public. We urge Rhode Islanders to vote yes on Question 2.