Poli-ticks

Vote approve on Question 2: Ethics

By Arlene Violet
Posted 10/20/16

Rhode Island citizens have something which they rarely get: a second chance. Back in 1986 the State’s Constitutional Convention created an ethics committee which would be nonpartisan in nature …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Poli-ticks

Vote approve on Question 2: Ethics

Posted

Rhode Island citizens have something which they rarely get: a second chance.

Back in 1986 the State’s Constitutional Convention created an ethics committee which would be nonpartisan in nature and which would consider a code of ethics to oversee effective measures for governmental reform. The state’s electorate approved the Convention’s recommendation and the demand for ethical conduct and oversight by an ethics commission was codified in Article 3 of the Rhode Island Constitution. Voters thought that they had established a mechanism of oversight in order to staunch the corruption particularly emanating out of the then General Assembly. Several legislators like House Majority leader Gerard Martineau of Woonsocket, and Gordon Fox and Senator John Celona had turned their opportunities to vote into an income stream. They were punished.

Then Senate President, William Irons, however, decided to mount a legal challenge. His votes apparently benefitted CVS by torpedoing pharmacy choice so CVS could become a dominant player while he wrote insurance for the company through his personal agency. His attorneys raised the issue of the “Speech and Debate Clause” which would immunize him from any ethics complaint action. Then Attorney General Patrick Lynch sided with Senator Irons. The Supreme Court, in a 3-1 decision (Justice Goldberg recusing), stated that the Senator was immune regardless of any self-dealing by the Speech and Debate Clause.

Chief Judge Paul Suttell dissented from the majority decision and stated that the newly minted amendment to the Constitution which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and borne in a time of great corruption trumped the speech and debate clause and was a narrow exception to immunity when an action was one in furtherance of corruption.

So, for the past 30 years legislative immunity perdured. Now, with renewed bouts of corruption coming out of the legislature and with good government groups pushing for ethics oversight of the legislature, Question 2 is back on the ballot. Question 2 clearly states that the legislature is subject to ethics demanded of other public officials. It should be passed overwhelmingly by the voters. That means you.

Given the most recent checkered past of misbehavior by the Gallisons, Carnevales et al, legislators won’t publicly speak out against Question 2. You can be sure, however, that their minions will mount all sorts of attacks. Just like everything else in the state, the assault will be couched in great-sounding rhetoric like not impeding the independence of the legislature. Actually, Question 2 only impedes legislators from marrying special interests and voting in a way that makes them the recipient of that cash cow for their private business interests. In other words legislators need only fear voting in a way that makes them a recipient of a contract with the company for whose interest they voted.

Another attack tactic will be to say that Question 2 is ineffective since the legislators can get around it by accepting business after a year or 2 from the beneficiary of the legislation. While that says a lot about the character of such a public servant who does so, the fact is that ethics regulation already allows a waiting period in other public officials employments, so the same principle applies to all.
Voting approve for Question 2 is a no-brainer.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
Jim McGaw

A lifelong Portsmouth resident, Jim graduated from Portsmouth High School in 1982 and earned a journalism degree from the University of Rhode Island in 1986. He's worked two different stints at East Bay Newspapers, for a total of 18 years with the company so far. When not running all over town bringing you the news from Portsmouth, Jim listens to lots and lots and lots of music, watches obscure silent films from the '20s and usually has three books going at once. He also loves to cook crazy New Orleans dishes for his wife of 25 years, Michelle, and their two sons, Jake and Max.