Days after the Rhode Island Supreme Court found that former Senate President William Irons' votes on legislation could not be used against him, Governor Don Carcieri is calling on the General Assembly to put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot which would prevent the same thing from happening in the future.  In 2004, the Ethics Commission found probable cause that Irons voted on legislation which would benefit both CVS and Blue Cross, after gaining financially from both companies.  The State Supreme Court ruled that Iron's vote in the legislature could not be used against him due to the speech-in-debate clause in the Rhode Island Constitution.

     Citizens should be concerned about this ruling, since it makes it much more difficult to go after dishonest legislators who might be selling their votes.  Governor Carcieri had this to say: “I believe the intention of the voters was to hold all elected officials, including members of the House and Senate, to the same high level of ethical standards.”   Senate President Theresa Paiva Weed also agreed, saying, “I think we certainly have to address the issue(s) raised by the decision.”  

     It shouldn't be surprising that public officials would want to see government cleaned-up, so that those who betray the public trust can be punished.  What is surprising is when officials like House Speaker William Murphy show a public disdain for high ethical standards:


“I don’t care what state you are talking about, you are always going to have one or two people who are going to do the wrong thing. That’s human life. But the bottom line is: I can tell you that my members who are in the House of Representatives are here for the right reason, and I am just a little cautious to make a regulation for one person.”


     The Speaker's argument is essentially this: Most of us aren't crooks, so why should we make a law for just one person?  Let's look at it this way: Most people aren't burglars, rapists, murderers, or shoplifters, yet we have laws against those acts.  Why should the General Assembly be held to a different standard?  Why wouldn't you want to be held to a higher standard in order to be above repute?

     It's encouraging to see the Governor and Senate President come out in support of a Constitutional Amendment which would rewrite the speech-in-debate clause.  Unfortunately, it won't mean much if the Speaker of the House prevents an amendment to hold himself and his colleagues to a higher ethical standard.