The Ethics Amendment Controversy

In 2009, the state Supreme Court stripped the Ethics Commission of its power to regulate legislators’ conflicts of interest. Four years later, reformers thought they’d scored a crucial victory on the road back to a baseline level of oversight. Rep. Ajello had other ideas. The timeline below traces the arc of a shocking abuse of power.

    • November 1986: Rhode Island voters approve a constitutional amendment creating an independent Ethics Commission with enforcement power.

      • The Ethics Commission is given authority over all public employees and officials, elected and appointed.

    • 2009: The Irons ruling strips the Ethics Commission of the power to regulate the General Assembly.

      • The state Supreme Court rules in Irons v. Ethics Commission that the Commission cannot discipline legislators for introducing or voting on bills related to matters on which they have conflicts of interest. As its justification, the Court cites the “speech in debate clause” of the state Constitution, which is intended to protect lawmakers from politically motivated lawsuits designed to chill free and open debate in the legislative process, not to create a shield for corruption.

    • February 14, 2013: Five Representatives introduce H5948 to restore the Ethics Commission’s authority over legislators.

      • H5498 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would override the Irons ruling and clarify that legislators’ “speech in debate” immunity does not exempt them from ethics regulation. Five Democratic Representatives introduce it on February 14, 2013, and it is referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired at this time by Rep. Ajello.

  • The timestamps below correspond to those for the Capitol TV video of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on March 12, 2013.

    • 0:12.30: Rep. DeSimone moves to hold all the bills remaining on the day’s agenda for further study. The motion carries unanimously.

      • This is standard practice in the General Assembly. Bills are almost always held for further study after they are heard in committee for the first time. The committee can call up a held bill and recommend it out to the full House at any time; if it does not, the bill dies at the end of the year’s session.

    • 1:21.15: The amendment is called up on the agenda, and testimony begins.

      • Rep. Michael Marcello, the lead sponsor, makes his introductory remarks, and a wave of citizens testifying in support of ethics reform follows him.

    • 1:51.30: As soon as testimony concludes, Rep. O’Neill moves to reconsider the motion to hold H5948 for further study. The only vote against is Rep. Ajello’s.

      • This vote is to “un-hold” H5948 and put it back in front of the committee to debate and act upon again. It is not a vote on the merits of the amendment, just about bringing this crucial piece of ethics reform legislation back up for consideration.

    • 1:52.20: Having won the motion to reconsider, Rep. O’Neill moves to pass the amendment and advance it to the full House. It passes unanimously.

      • This is the vote on advancing the amendment to the House floor. It passes, and the rest of the committee hearing proceeds as usual.

  • The timestamps below correspond to those for the Capitol TV video of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on March 13, 2013.

    • 0:00.45: Rep. Blazejewski asks Rep. Ajello to overturn the vote.

      • As his justification, Rep. Blazejewski cites Rule 12(f), which he alleges prohibits the reconsideration of a bill held for further study.

      • Rule 12(f) reads as follows (emphasis added):

        • "Committee Chairs shall bring reports of committee actions to the floor no later than two (2) weeks following the committee votes thereon, provided that this shall not apply to the Committee on Finance, nor shall it apply to bills being held for further study under subdivision (e)(v). A committee member may move reconsideration of any vote taken so long as the bill or resolution which was the subject of the vote remains in the possession of the committee and that the motion is made by a member voting in the majority. A motion to reconsider in committee shall not be debated.”

      • The “carve-out” Rep. Blazejewski cites in his remarks means that committee chairs do not have to list every bill their committee held for further study as part of their routine announcements on the House floor. It has nothing to do with the ability to reconsider a motion to hold. Nowhere in the 2013 rules does it state that a held bill cannot be reconsidered on the same day. Nonetheless, Rep. Blazejewski can only make suggestions, and he knows that. At 0:01.40, he asks Rep. Ajello to make the decision, using her authority as chair.

    • 0:01.55: Rep. Ajello agrees and declares the votes to advance H5948 “null and void.”

      • “We need to abide by our rules in order to be governing effectively, and fairly, and in a way that the public can monitor,” she says, citing a nonexistent rule to overturn a unanimous vote and block ethics reform.

    • July 3, 2013: The House concludes its business for the year, and H5948 dies in Rep. Ajello’s Judiciary Committee.

    • March 26, 2014: After Speaker Fox’s resignation, Rep. Ajello is removed as chair of the Judiciary Committee.

    • June 14, 2016: The ethics amendment finally passes the Judiciary Committee.

      • It wins approval of the full House and Senate two days later and is ratified by the voters in November.

Back to the main Issues page