Projo 7 to 7 News Blog

Journal photo/Mary Murphy
Former Senate President William V. Irons leaves the courthouse this morning with family members and Vicki Almeida, right, one of his lawyers, after hearing arguments before the State Supreme Court.

By Katie Mulvaney
Journal staff writer

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- An Ethics Commission lawyer told the state Supreme Court Wednesday that Rhode Islanders were seeking to rid the state of rampant corruption when they passed a Constitutional amendment creating the commission more than two decades ago.

That 1986 amendment granted the commission clear authority to investigate and prosecute legislators and required that all elected officials, including the General Assembly, be subject to the ethics code, said Jason Gramitt, lawyer for the commission.

But Justices Francis X. Flaherty and William P. Robinson III noted that in passing that amendment, Rhode Islanders reaffirmed existing provisions of the Constitution, including the speech-in-debate clause at the heart of yesterday's arguments. The clause is written in "pretty clear English," Robinson said.

With origins in the late 1600s and included in the state Constitution at its passage, the speech-in-debate clause reads "For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other place."

It shields lawmakers from being questioned or investigated by the commission based on their votes or other legislative acts, said John A. Tarantino, lawyer for the former Senate president William V. Irons.

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

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Ethics Commission's appeal of Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan Jr.'s dismissal of ethics charges against Irons. Darigan ruled last October that speech-in-debate clause shielded lawmakers from being questioned or investigated by the commission based on their legislative acts.

The Ethics Commission says that if the ruling stands, it will cripple its authority to police unethical behavior in the General Assembly.

Civil libertarians, government watchdogs and other observers packed the courtroom to hear arguments in the emotionally-charged issue. About 25 people watched the proceedings on a big-screen TV in an overflow room. Irons sat in the front row with his wife and two daughters.

Irons, who resigned from the Senate in 2003, appealed to the Superior Court after the Ethics Commission found probable cause that he had broken the ethics code by using his office for financial gain and voting on legislation in which he had a substantial conflict of interest.

As chairman of a committee that considers health-care issues, Irons had opposed controversial legislation CVS wanted killed that would have allowed patients covered by Blue Cross & Blue Shield to get prescriptions filled at a pharmacy of their choice. It was later disclosed that Irons collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions on a Blue Cross policy covering CVS workers.

Irons also asked Wednesday for the high court to find that Irons is entitled to a trial, should the Ethics Commission prevail.

(This entry was first posted at 11:32 a.m.)

 Tags  ethics Rhode Island Supreme Court

Leave a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.

Name:

Email:

URL:  

Remember personal info?

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.