Sleepiness in Rhode Island

The state is heading into a calmer, less corrupt era -- and everyone seems bored as hell. Is this what we really want?

by Jody Ericson

Life is boring at the State House. Everyone says so. There are no Ed "Gerber Baby" DiPretes diving into Dumpsters for cash, no daughters born out of wedlock showing up to reclaim their daddy. No, for the last four years Rhode Island has had what we might consider a stable but somewhat fun-crushing parent for governor -- Lincoln Almond. During his term, not only has he squeezed most of the naughtiness out of his office but he has put a lid on many of the shenanigans in the General Assembly. In fact, one of the primary bad boys in the House, George Caruolo, stepped down as majority leader earlier this year.

So is Rhode Island heading for calmer seas -- and will we really be content without the waves of scandals that have knocked us about for the last 20 years? Then again, is the era of corruption really behind us? Who knows -- this could be the calm before the story that breaks everything wide open again. As a former US Attorney, Lincoln Almond talks with the Phoenix about the origins of our tarnished reputation -- the mob and the state's willingness to tackle white-collar crime. And he reaffirms his conviction that Rhode Island is indeed entering a new, more stable time of cooperation and economic stability.

Q: Do you remember what you were doing 20 years ago?
A: I was running for governor in 1978. I had just left the US Attorney's Office in June of '78 . . . and announced my candidacy for governor. It was a very short race against Joe Garrahy, and then I went into private practice right after the election . . . for three years. I never thought I'd go back as US Attorney.

Of course, the big thing of '78 was the wonderful blizzard, which I was fortunate enough to spend at home. It was just a week off with nothing to do. Everything was in the office. There was no way of getting into Providence. That was a very relaxing week, just walking around, talking to our neighbors.

Q: So you've wanted to be governor for 20 years? Has it been a consistent thing?
A: No, actually. I never intended to go back as US Attorney. When Reagan won in '80, I got a call before he was inaugurated saying, "Would you be interested?" And I said, "Let me think about it." I actually was going back and forth, and my wife kept saying, "I know you want to do that. You liked that job, and you want to go back." Finally, I decided sometime in early '81 that I would go back.

Q: Was there a perception even then that Rhode Island was corrupt? When do you think that whole thing got started?
A: From a US Attorney's perspective, you have to keep in mind that in the '70s, the big issues were building up the

Department of Justice and changing the direction of the FBI. There was the Hoover mentality of hit and run, and one of the reasons I served . . . in the '70s was to change some of those things. I actually headed up a five-member team that worked with all of the federal investigative agencies to work on policy -- where they should be going, a change in direction, a change in recruiting.

So we were getting back into the white-collar financial investigations. And then in the '80s, when I went back, that's when we had turned away from the investigative techniques to long-term, not worrying about statistics. That's when we did the job on organized crime. But the corruption was still there. And the issue was [that] we had a huge narcotics problem in the United States, a huge organized-crime problem in Rhode Island especially.

This was giving our state a terribly negative image nationally, and we only had certain resources. So we did the best we could. When you look at white-collar crime, if you're really aggressive, you probably hit 10 percent of it or less. Organized-crime prosecutions, on the other hand, are a piece of cake. It is easier to turn a Mafia member than a corrupt politician as a witness. And also, judges have a resistance to political corruption, because they're part of the system. Nobody wants to be tainted by this. What I used to say all the time was, "Don't worry about the states that are hitting political corruption; worry about those that don't have any prosecutions." Unfortunately, states that hit political corruption get the taint.

Q: Do you think we've gotten past this corrupt image at all?
A: I would hope so. You're never going to eliminate it. There will always be people who go off on their own. But I think if you can start at the top and work down, you'll set an example. It's a question of doing the right thing. You know, it's this whole patronage -- when you're sticking people in who are unqualified for jobs. Then everyone starts looking at the whole system cynically. I think that you've got to set the example from the top and you've got to work down and hope that it continually keeps filtering down.

Q: It seems that one of the things people say about your administration is that it's not corrupt -- as if this is some kind of miracle in Rhode Island. What have you done to get beyond that?
A: You stay away as much as you can from just doing things for special interests. You've got to treat people equally. An election is an election.

The four-year term has helped in this respect. I mean, you're going to have a tough political battle pretty much for six months, depending on the length of the campaign. But now you have three and a half years in between to do the right thing. I think that before, when we had an election every two years, everybody was worried about taking care of everyone, because it's elections next year. And if you do that, you'll see the cynicism, not only with the public but within the government. For instance, if I were a US Attorney fixing cases, what do you think my assistants would say?

Q: Do you think that because yours has been such a quiet administration in some ways that people miss the Ed DiPretes?
A: One of my key goals as governor was to calm the state down. But I think we have calmed the state down. And I think that if you run the state in a business-like manner and just make those decisions, people ultimately will appreciate it. But it takes time to change a culture. To some extent, we're still in a "I got ya" mentality with the media, because they're used to the old days of sitting and waiting until you make a mistake.

Q: Does your calming things down have something to do with the [House Speaker John] Harwoods and [George] Caruolos of the world not staying on their game?
A: I think to some extent. I think a lot of this is about influence, like [Almond's failed Supreme Court nominee] Meg Curran. You see, that's all about, "We want a say in who the judges are going to be." In the Meg Curran thing, they were trying to send this shot across my bow, saying, "You're wrong, and we're going to get you out of influence." And it backfired on them. You see, they never dreamed that the Meg Curran thing would explode the way it did.

I get along pretty well with John Harwood. Do you remember what he said when the Meg Curran thing went down? He said something to the press like, "You have to remember that I used to make those decisions." You see, it's giving it up, it's letting it go. It was a real difficult time in the legislature's letting it go. Rhode Island does not like change, but you need to just pull the line on those things. I do not tell anyone who an appointee is going to be until I decide and call that person and tell them. And then it goes to the media. People don't like that. They want to be able to say, "I spoke with the governor and put a good word in for you."

Q: Do you really think we're heading into a calmer era, or could the next scandal tip the scales again?
A: I think we are, because I think what you're seeing now, for the first time, is a more unified business community. And I mean that in a positive way. I think we're also seeing labor now, having gone through what was close to a depression in Rhode Island with the banking crisis, saying, "Look, the governor is right. We can fight and scream and kick and argue, but the whole issue here is job creation. If we don't have jobs, we don't have membership." You see, I don't care whether a business is unionized or not. That's not my job. What I say to them is, "If there's no business, you don't get a shot at it. So labor is now much more cooperative on some of these issues."

The one thing I said when I ran in '94 was that I would make the economy the number-one issue, and I think we've worked very very hard on that and have been very successful.

Q: Do you see Rhode Island as on the verge of something big? Are we headed for an economic crash or success story?
A: I think we can be very successful in Rhode Island if we start to believe in ourselves. The biggest problem that we had with all of the issues you mentioned before -- corruption, the banking crisis, the deep recession -- was the fact that Rhode Islanders, as individuals, were basically down on their government. That's why I won in '94. There's no question about that.

And they were not only down on Rhode Island but they were down on themselves. You know the old saying, "Success breeds success?" Well, depression breeds depression. Remember that story about a year and a half ago in the Boston Globe, the story that said Rhode Island has an inferiority complex? You've got to turn that around. That's why I think the renaissance in downtown Providence is so good. Also, when you look at Quonset Point moving, whether you agree or disagree with it, at least people feel there's movement.