The revelations of the past few weeks have been potentially illuminating to the Ocean State’s premier political leader. Our once naïve Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, Nicholas Mattiello, has seemingly had an epiphany.

His previously held position that most if not all of his fellow legislators were earnest and true to their oaths of public service has been eclipsed by reality. His House Finance Committee Chairman Ray Gallison (D-Bristol) has resigned in disgrace. Also, a boisterous public outcry regarding the biased distribution of legislative grants has sparked an intense examination of that questionable practice. This renewed spotlight relates to Gallison’s abuse of the grant process and the utter frustration of Rhode Islanders regarding the arbitrary assignment of their tax dollars.

Additionally, a clarion call for a line-item-veto, used to curtail unnecessary pork in 44 states, has resurfaced louder and stronger than ever before due to the immensity of the almost $9-billion budget that will likely become law in early June.

Legislators who were duped during the 38 Studios debacle and then witnessed former speaker Gordon Fox be dragged off to jail due to his crimes and abuses of office have become yet again disheartened by the latest incident of their brethren. Despite the conviction of his close ally Fox, and despite the despicable circumstances of the 38 Studios betrayal of the taxpayers, Mattiello still held a Pollyanna view of the House and Rhode Island government.

Perhaps the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was Gallison’s downfall, or perhaps it was the eruption of the public’s disdain, or perhaps it was the erosion of morale among the members of the body. Whatever the reason, Mattiello seems to have experienced an epiphany and at least some corrective changes may be on the way.

Since inheriting the reigns of power two years ago, Mattiello has been entranced by the presumed majesty of his position. His unwavering faith in the institution of the General Assembly has blinded him to the reality that the majority of Rhode Islanders do not hold the same confidence.

For example, during the truck-tolling debate, an overwhelming number of businesspeople, non-union citizens, and beleaguered taxpayers warned the speaker that no one except the special interests truly wanted any type of tolling whatsoever. Mattiello surrealistically said that those in opposition were the “loud minority of no.”

In regard to inquiring hearings about the 38 Studios debacle, in which angry taxpayers are continuing to pay for a pig in a poke, the speaker emasculated former House Oversight Committee chair Karen MacBeth (R-Cumberland) and no essential information was gained. Furthermore, her appointed successor, Democrat Pat Serpa from West Warwick, Coventry, and Warwick, has already announced there will be no further pursuit of answers regarding 38 Studios through her committee.

Despite Serpa’s willingness to assent to the speaker’s wishes of disregarding the people’s umbrage, the citizens’ sense of injury has not lessened. Yet the speaker apparently does not believe we taxpayers are still outraged about the matter. He prefers to view both truck-tolling and 38 Studios through the rose-colored prism that exculpates the General Assembly from lackadaisicalness or outright wrongdoing.

Not surprisingly, the need for ethics reform is paramount in ensuring the due diligence and honest stewardship by our elected officials. Sadly, in a 2009 Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling, the General Assembly became constitutionally exempt from such scrutiny. The speaker said the following: “The Court ruled that the ‘speech in debate’ clause in our constitution prevented enforcement of the code of ethics against members of the legislature while performing their legislative duties.”

In the past the speaker had proudly bragged of how the General Assembly was full of good, earnest, sacrificing people. He has stated: “Our government works very well,” and, “It’s an honorable institution that has served our state for a long time.”

That optimistic opinion may be starting to change. With the recent revelations concerning Gallison, the speaker’s rose-colored glasses are slipping down his nose somewhat.

Consequently, Mattiello and his Senate counterpart, perfunctory rubber-stamp wielding Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed, have presented identical bills to restore the ethics oversight of legislators. This signifies a real change in paradigm for the speaker. He so stated: “It’s time for ethics reform” and “a bill to restore Ethics Commission oversight of the General Assembly, to give the public and the business community faith that our government is working for them.”

Constructively, this 180-degree change of attitude by the speaker is a good turn of mind. But in the bill resides a moratorium on any complaints being addressed during the time period in the election cycle from Declaration Day through Election Day. Would not any possible problems be better revealed and examined prior to the votes being cast for re-election?

Previously, Mattiello was so blinded by his erroneously optimistic vision that he publicly thanked Fox for his service after he was proven to be a scurrilous skunk. Further, he appointed Gallison to his chairmanship after knowing he had ethics violations back in 2007 and just a few months ago. These infractions resulted in civil penalties and fines, and yet Mattiello still had naïve faith. Unfortunately, in addition to other possible pending indictments, Gallison has received legislative grants for his “Alternative Education Program,” where the money has been questionably rerouted and erroneous names are on legal documents.

More specifically, the entire enterprise of legislative grants, have been called into question. Why should the General Assembly be able to administer taxpayer’s funds by dictum through application? Whether or not the cause is truly noble is irrelevant to this circumvention of the democratic process. Of course, the tendency is for a local official to curry favor with a certain set of constituents by offering them an oversized, photo-op check of our money.

In fact, Mattiello himself procured money for Cranston Gals Softball, Cranston lacrosse, Cranston Babe Ruth League, the Cranston Police Department K-9 Unit and Traffic Unit, Cranston West DECA, the Cranston West Falconette Flag Squad, Cranston Western Little League, CYGBA, the Edgewood Hockey Association, the Greater Cranston Chamber of Commerce, the Hope Highlands Elementary PTO, Justice Assistance, the Oaklawn Elementary School PTG, the Oaklawn Grange, Orchard Farms Elementary School, the Saint Mary’s Feast Society, and many more beneficiaries.

One cannot say that many of these causes are not worthwhile. Of course they are. However, that is not the cogent point here. Legislative grants are a unilateral distribution of our tax dollars. They inevitably become political pawns to corral votes from representatives in the House by leadership. Further, the grants are building blocks for future local campaigns at the behest of the representatives. Therefore, they further insure incumbency. Thus, begging the question, are they fair to aspiring political competitors?

Also, in our state of infrastructure decrepitude and financial distress, can we afford even one dollar as a subjective expenditure?

Many states have outlawed legislative grants because of their constitutional questionability and the predilection to be used as a political tool. Most notably, Illinois has been recognized in the national press as viewing the eradication of these grants as a significant step toward more honest government.

Equally enhancing to the betterment of our government would be the adoption of the line-item veto. A recent poll shows that 74 percent of Rhode Islanders want the line-item veto to become a viable tool among any future governor’s constitutional powers.

According to constitutional scholars, Rhode Island has the second weakest governor’s chair in the nation. So, if the line-item veto would become a reality, the executive branch would be somewhat strengthened but certainly not to the point where the branches of government would be coequal.

Gov. Gina Raimondo, in a letter to the House Finance Committee, stated that the line-item veto “provides an important layer of accountability in government, and it promotes fiscal responsibility.”

On the contrary, the speaker felt the distribution of power was just fine as it is: “It works. Our government actually works very well. We can get big things done. We’re moving in the right direction.” He also said: “The framers did not want the governor to have unchecked power.”

The idea that the line-item veto would give the governor “unchecked power” is laughable. Forty-four of our fellow states have realized that a chief executive should be able to surgically cut out the fat out of their state’s budgets. On this issue, no epiphany has been realized.

In conclusion, our speaker is a well-intentioned gentleman who is overly enamored with the perceived prestige of his position. Through his change of policy regarding ethics reform we can deduce that the rose-colored glasses that he once viewed the “august” body he presides over have become less glowingly shaded. He now sees more clearly that safeguards are needed to proctor behavior. If only those same glasses could slip further down his nose regarding the line-item veto and legislative grants, then he would have a totally clearer vision indeed.