01:00 AM EST on Friday, March 18, 2005

It's so hard not to get too disgusted with Rhode Island politics, but Edward Achorn's March 15 Commentary column ("Consent of the governed: Rhode Islanders could fight back") gets my ire up a little.

I think Rhode Islanders are at a distinct disadvantage with our General Assembly, which has still not implemented separation of powers. There are too many people in government, too many unions, too many special interests: How do you change that landscape?

Let's start with the premise that "a government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed." Okay, now the facts: The General Assembly is in control. The ultimate power is the speaker of the House. The average Rhode Islander does not have a chance against these odds.

How many people knew that a portrait of John Harwood cost taxpayers $15,000? Who's consenting? Should I have been there on that day when the vote came in? Who's in charge, really? Me, the citizen, working 10 hours a day, voting the way I believe, and entrusting, theoretically, the government with our money?

We can call and write our representatives. I do, I really do. Should I quit my job and babysit the Assembly, watching every bill that comes to the floor? Then, I ask, why should I vote?

Stopping a self-serving, destructive bill needs to be done before it becomes law. After it's law, how long will it take to reverse it? Separation of powers has taken decades to get to this point, and we're still not there yet.

If half of our elected officials can't be there to vote on critical bills, what logic on earth makes one think that a working Rhode Islander could control that power?

Under the current structure of government, I am not consenting.

JAYNE PLATT

Cranston