PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WJAR) — Former Rhode Island House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi loses an attempt to stop an ethics complaint against his bid for a seat on the state Supreme Court.

The state Ethics Commission voted Tuesday to deny Shekarchi’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed in May.

The Ethics Commission voted June 2 to further investigate the complaint.

The question is whether Shekarchi’s attempt for a lifetime spot on the bench violates Rhode Island’s anti-corruption revolving door law.

The law prevents sitting lawmakers from taking most other state jobs for at least a year after leaving office.

Shekarchi resigned as House Speaker on May 8 to seek nomination to the Supreme Court.

He kept his House seat.

That same day, Roger Williams University law professor Michael Yelnosky filed an ethics complaint.

Shekarchi argues a Supreme Court seat is an exemption from the revolving door law, like other constitutional offices including governor.

The Ethics Commission’s prosecutor argues the high court seat is not exempt.

Not someday in some distant future. Now.

We are aging, shrinking, and pricing out our own children, workers, and entrepreneurs. Schools face consolidation, taxes are climbing, and employers struggle to fill jobs. We’re too dependent on federal funding to support state spending. A housing shortage is driving up prices, slowing economic growth, and leaves young people feeling forced out.

Staying the course is not a viable option. It only gets worse from here if nothing changes.

The cost of scarcity

For decades, Vermont has treated growth as a threat to mitigate. We are living through the consequences of that mindset, and it hits marginalized communities hardest. True equity requires expanding supply rather than fighting over the crumbs of a shrinking economy. Otherwise, people lose hope and leave. This is already happening: Vermont experienced the nation’s largest percent decrease in population last year, becoming the only state losing population to both natural change and net migration.

The data are clear: Over the next decade, Vermont must add roughly 13,500 workers annually just to maintain economic stability. We need 7,500 new homes each year, yet we only permit about 2,500. When we fail to build, we aren’t “preserving” Vermont. We are pricing out multi-generational families, working-class neighbors, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Vermonters who represent our state’s fastest-growing demographic. Saying no to growth denies depopulated rural areas the chance to revitalize their communities. A shrinking tax base concentrates economic pressure on fewer people, creating a vicious cycle that erodes even the most resilient communities.

Most Vermonters support more housing and population growth, and policymakers keep saying they intend to follow the will of the people. However, intentions do not house families, fill classrooms, staff hospitals, or make life more affordable. Outcomes do. Right now, tangible outcomes are coming far too slowly or not at all.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can choose a different path forward.

From roadmap to results

The planning is done. Between the Vermont Futures Project’s Economic Action Plan and the Vermont Business Roundtable’s Systems Innovation Framework, we have the data-informed roadmaps. We know where the hurdles are: a regulatory system that prizes “no” over “how,” and a fiscal trajectory where spending outpaces tax base growth, both exacerbated by unfunded mandates adding layers to an already inefficient system.

Process continues to overshadow results. It is time for outcomes. Future policymakers should focus on these four immediate shifts:

Regulatory Modernization: Move from a culture of “permission” to a culture of “production.” If a project meets established goals, it should be approved in months, not years. Start with “yes” as the default.

Fiscal Stewardship: Align our budget with economic reality. Vermont cannot tax its way out of a shrinking population and a constrained economy. Families and businesses need a predictable environment that allows them to plan, invest, stay, and grow.

Intentional Growth: Actively recruit and retain a diverse, working-age population. Growth funds our schools, supports our healthcare system and sustains our communities, benefiting the people already here.

Accountability: Ensure enacted policies achieve their goals. If the goal is housing, did we build the homes? If it is affordability, did we bring costs down sustainably? Revisit system design and policies if they fail to produce tangible results.

What comes next

Data is not destiny. Vermont’s future is a choice. Let’s choose abundance because Vermonters can no longer afford to choose scarcity. Here’s how you can help.

To the business community: Step forward to share your experiences with the downstream impacts of public policy. Your insights are crucial to modernizing our rules, regulations, and system design, and restoring Vermont’s competitiveness to build an economy where everyone can thrive.

To policymakers: We stand ready to be your partners. The data is clear, our organizations are aligned, and the roadmap is ready. We don’t need endless studies; we need your help to produce results. As the election cycle approaches, remember that accountability is measured by tangible outcomes for Vermonters, not intentions.

To our fellow Vermonters: Say “yes” to the possibilities in your own communities. Welcome new housing, support the local businesses, and champion a growing tax base over rising tax rates. But wanting change is not enough; you must participate to make it happen. Engage with your elected officials, serve on a local board, and turn out to vote for the future you want to see.

Finally, we must all reshape the narrative about Vermont. Share stories about why you love living and working here and why others should consider Vermont too. Your voice can help break the vicious cycle of scarcity. Speak openly about how growth can improve well-being and why you support it.

Growth is not a threat to Vermont; growth is what will save it.

The World Cup economic windfall boosting Boston gives rise to a question: Could the Hub host the Olympics?

Certainly Bostonians have more than risen to the occasion in terms of welcoming international visitors to our city and showing them a good time (and vice versa, Tartan Army). But it takes more than great hosts and a convivial atmosphere to pull off an epic sporting event.

It takes money, lots of it, political transparency, and a process open to public scrutiny and feedback. In other words, no, we couldn’t.

Public reception to the 2014 Olympics bid was tepid at best, as it would entail multiple construction projects. And when big construction projects are presented in Boston, taxpayers get suspicious. Big Dig, anyone?

Boston 24 announced it estimated the Games would produce at least $4.8 billion in revenues from television broadcast rights, ticket sales, corporate sponsorships and other revenues, the Associated Press reported. They assumed nearly $4.6 billion in costs, including $176 million for a temporary Olympic Stadium, $90 million for the athletes’ village, about $754 million to build other Olympic venues and another $132 million to rent other locations.

They reportedly announced all this to answer critics who said the privately funded Boston 2024 withheld details of the bid to prevent the public from assessing whether the Games could be staged, as promised, without the need for taxpayer money.

We learned the answer to that soon enough.

In this case, as the Herald reported that year, details from Boston 2024’s so-called bid book indicated that plans sent to the U.S. Olympic Committee called for the Hub to fund “land acquisition and infrastructure costs” at Widett Circle, where a temporary Olympic stadium was being proposed. It came after months of promises that the group planned to run a privately funded Olympics.

“They’ve been saying for months, ‘No taxpayer (money),’ ” said Evan Falchuk, a vocal bid critic who pushed for a statewide ballot question on hosting the games. “Then you read what they told the USOC. … It’s a devastating blow to their credibility. There’s a reason why voters don’t trust what they’ve heard and (Boston 2024 has) got a lot of work to do to earn that trust.”

And all this talk of money came before any cost overruns made an appearance. London’s budget for the 2012 Summer Games escalated by about 300%, ending somewhere in the $14 billion range. What were the chances we’d fare any better?

No wonder Bostonians gave the Olympics idea the cold shoulder.

But what of the city’s World Cup success story? For starters, Gillette Stadium is already built, and the only large element requiring a cash infusion was the MBTA, which shelled out $35 million to upgrade Foxboro Station in advance of the Cup. They’ll make a nice chunk of that back, as the T spiked round-trip Commuter Rail ticket prices between South Station and Gillette Stadium for fútbol fans to $80.

In this case, Bostonians are on the winning side, reaping benefits from free-spending (and thirsty) visitors, and reveling in the good vibes.

It would be great for the city if megaprojects, or even minor ones, came with the guarantee of financial transparency before shovels hit the dirt. Optimists should look at White Stadium before calling it a day.