01:00 AM EST on Friday, March 24, 2006

I read with interest the recent commentary in your paper concerning Rhode Island legislators' arguments for and against the voter-initiative option. As a former Spokane county commissioner in Washington State, I would encourage Rhode Islanders to support Rep. John Patrick Shanley's position ("Voter initiative threatens Ocean State," Commentary, March 10) and steer clear of the voter-initiative process.

There are some Washington State initiatives I have personally promoted, such as I-901, which passed by 66 percent of the vote, and eliminated smoking in all public places, including restaurants and bars. But in general, the initiative process limits debate to those with money, runs government by emotion, and wreaks havoc on your local government's ability to provide necessary services. Show me a state with the initiative process, and I'll show you a state legislature that failed to do its job.

During my time as a county commissioner (1995-2004), I dealt with the local budgetary fallout of statewide voter initiatives. For instance, I-747 limited property-tax revenue-collections to a growth factor of 1 percent per year. As a home owner, I was pleased it passed. As a commissioner, in charge of the county's budget, I had to scramble to balance the budget, while providing the necessary services demanded by the same people who cut our purse strings.

So, before you let this feisty horse out of the barn in Rhode Island, I would encourage you to put legislators in office who will make the tough decisions they were elected to make, and to severely limit what can be legislated through the initiative process.

JOHN ROSKELLEY

Spokane, Wash.