R.I. Supreme Court hears case on state ethics law

PROVIDENCE—Rhode Island lawmakers are subject to the state’s code of ethics but are allowed under the Constitution to debate and vote on bills however they choose, a lawyer told the state’s highest court on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether state lawmakers can be prosecuted or displined for their votes at the State House, in a closely watched case that some fear could limit the ability of the
Rhode Island Ethics Commission to police legislators for abusing their office.

The issue arose after a Superior Court judge last fall dismissed an ethics complaint accusing former Senate President William Irons of a conflict-of-interest. He had worked to defeat legislation opposed by the CVS pharmacy chain, one of his business clients.

The decision by Superior Court Judge Francis Darigan cited a clause in the state Constitution known as “speech-in-debate,“ which says: “For any speech in debate in either House, no member shall be questioned in any other place.“

The Ethics Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.

Irons’ attorney, John Tarantino, said the “speech-in-debate” clause means legislators are completely immune from prosecution for their votes.

He said the judge’s ruling, if affirmed, wouldn’t leave the commission powerless because it could still punish lawmakers for various abuses performed outside the State House, like filing of false financial returns and improper favors for constituents.

Outright corruption such bribery and extortion would also remain illegal.

“A legislator can be convicted of bribery but the proof can’t be the vote,“ Tarantino said. “The vote is protected.“

The Ethics Commission is a quasi-judicial panel that enforces the state ethics code and has the authority to fine public officials for civil violations or refer cases for criminal prosecution.

Jason Gramitt, an Ethics Commission prosecutor, argued that the speech-in-debate clause was essentially overridden by a 1986 constitutional amendment that made all legislators subject to the ethics code.

“The two are irreconcilably repugnant,“ Gramitt said. “They can’t coexist.“

Irons, an East Providence Democrat, resigned his Senate president post on the eve of the 2004 legislation session amid scrutiny of his business dealings as an insurance broker.

Operation Clean Government, a government watchdog group, filed an ethics complaint accusing Irons of a conflict-of-interest when he worked to defeat legislation that would have essentially given consumers more choice in where they could get their pharmacy prescriptions filled.

The Ethics Commission found probable cause that Irons had violated the ethics code, but his lawyer invoked the “speech-in-debate” clause to argue that he was immune from the complaint.

“They’re elected to serve the people, not themselves or those connected,“ said Sandra Thompson, a board member of Operation Clean Government who stood outside the courthouse with a sign that said, “Don’t Kill Ethics in R.I.“

The justices did not immediately rule.