Indeed two of Rhode Island’s most trusted State House special interests are at odds on Question 2: Common Cause Rhode Island is for the ballot measure and the RI ACLU is against it. So RI Future brought in John Marion and Steven Brown, the executive director of each organization, to discuss their difference of opinion.

“Common Cause and the ACLU disagree on the limits of what free speech is,” said Marion, of Common Cause.

“We believe there is free speech that is involved when a legislator representing their constituents gets up and talks about an issue,” said Brown, of the ACLU.

At issue is the speech in debate clause of Rhode Island’s constitution that, according to Marion, “provides a general immunity – to legislators, and only legislators – from prosecution or suit for their legislative duties.” Similar speech in debate clauses exist in 43 other state constitutions, he said.

Marion and Brown agree that a 2009 US Supreme Court case found, in Marion’s words, that “there is no First Amendment protection for people with a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest as defined by law you aren’t supposed to participate.”

Brown thinks the court got it wrong. He said legislators need to be able to do their jobs “freely without fear there are going to be consequences,” he said. “We are concerned that the possibility exists that this could be undermined as a result of the amendment.”

“I certainly understnad the arguments on the other side and I don’t dismiss them because certainly the problem with ethics in our government is one that can’t be ignored but I think it’s just a legitimate differing of opinions in balancing these issues and deciding where the greatest harm lies.”

“Good afternoon,” said a male voice on his voicemail. “I’m a representative of Senator Walaska. We’re looking for some support this election if you go out and vote in the primary we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.”

After hearing the call, and believing the use of state phones for partisan campaign calls to be against the law, the Warwick resident, who asked not to be identified, contacted the Attorney General‘s office. They told him that the AG’s office is only interested in issues of campaign fraud. He was referred to the Secretary of State‘s office. The Secretary of State’s office was similarly disinterested, and referred him to the Board of Elections. According to the resident who sent me the call, the person from the Board of Elections searched through the relevant statutes in vain before giving up and telling the resident that he should call back when he learned exactly what law is being broken.

For future reference, that law seems to be:

§ 36-4-52. Restrictions on political activities of classified employees

No classified employee shall during working hours engage to any extent in any form of partisan politics except that he or she may attend and vote at any party caucus, primary, or election held during working hours. Outside of working hours a classified employee may attend any partisan political rally, club, or gathering and privately express his or her partisan political views but any further partisan political activity on his or her part shall be engaged in only in accordance with the personnel rules. A classified employee violating the provisions of § § 36-4-50–36-4-54, or of the personnel rules shall for a first offense be either demoted or dismissed and for a second offense dismissed. All charges of these violations shall be publicly heard by the personnel appeal board.

Robert Kando executive director of the Board of Elections could not be reached for comment.

John Marion of Common Cause said that the issue appears reminiscent of an ethics complaint against Susan Cicilline Buonanno when she ran for the House District 33 seat that Narragansett Democrat Donald Lally resigned. Buonanno, principal of Gladstone Elementary School in Cranston was accused of using school email and phones to advance her political campaign.

This case is different because it’s not the candidate, but someone claiming to represent the candidate who appears to be using state resources for partisan political purposes.

“As you might expect, using state work telephones for campaigning is forbidden, and so we would want to know if this sort of thing was taking place so that the charges could be investigated and suitable disciplinary action taken if warranted,” said Fred Sneesby, an administrator at Children’s & Family Services. The Warwick resident who sent me the call has been put in contact with Sneesby.

Contacted by phone, Senator Walaska, after I identified myself but before I could fully explain what I was calling about, said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Jeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat who is running against the 22-year incumbent, said that her husband, Daniel Calkin, received a similar call. A photo of her husband’s phone is on the left. Daniel Calkin, listening to the audio above, said he was “pretty sure it’s the same guy.”

“This looks like a very clear-cut violation,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the RI Progressive Democrats.”Campaign calls should not be made from state numbers. Being able to direct state workers to campaign for a candidate gives an enormously unfair advantage to powerful incumbents.”

Requests for comment from Representative Joseph McNamara and Brandon Bell, respective chairs for the Democratic and Republican parties in Rhode Island have gone unanswered.

As for the Warwick resident and doctor who sent me the call, he says that he is “disinclined to vote for Walaska.”

The General Assembly unanimously approved legislation to restore the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction over lawmakers. The joint resolution puts a constitutional amendment before voters at the November general election that, if approved, would close the legislative immunity loophole. Since it is a joint resolution, it does not require a signature by the governor to become effective.

In 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the state constitution’s “speech in debate clause” conferred legislative immunity upon General Assembly members. As a result, legislators stood outside the purview of the Ethics Commission. A constitutional amendment is necessary to restore the Ethics Commission’s oversight of the legislature.

“Since the Irons decision, Common Cause has dedicated itself to closing the ‘legislative immunity’ loophole,” said Common Cause Executive Director John Marion. “This is a historic moment for those who care about ethical government in Rhode Island. We have no doubt that this measure will increase transparency and accountability in our legislature. The work is not done, however, because voters still need to pass this constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.”

“Today’s vote is a dramatic, historic step forward,” said Phil West, who is the former executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “The Speaker and Senate President’s ballot question will allow voters to establish the same ethics accountability for all public officials in Rhode Island. It will again allow legislators to think through potential conflicts of interest and to seek advisory opinions from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. No other state has anything better than this.”

The resolution adopted by the House and Senate did not include a campaign blackout period for filing complaints.

“We met with several groups and decided that the Constitution was an inappropriate place for a moratorium on filing complaints,” said Speaker Nicholas Mattiello. “I have confidence that the Ethics Commission will consider and determine the proper approach for dealing with frivolous, politically charged complaints.”

Personal note: It was an honor to sit in the House and Senate galleys with John Marion and Phil West as the resolutions passed.

“The public and the business community need to have trust in their government,” Speaker Mattiello said in a news release. “I believe giving the Ethics Commission jurisdiction over the General Assembly is a strong step forward for Rhode Island.”

Mattiello’s bill is a weaker version of the rules concerning Ethics Commission review of legislator conflicts of interest and other issues that the state Supreme Court effectively suspended seven years ago. It would suspend the oversight for five months before an election.

The state Supreme Court ruled seven years ago that legislators should not be held liable for actions that don’t violate the law, including conflicts of interest. The court used the “speech-in-debate” clause that had traditionally been used to shield lawmakers from civil suit.

North Kingstown state Senator Jim Sheehan, a Bernie Sanders supporter, has been leading a one-man crusade for ethics reform over the General Assembly this year. He took the somewhat unprecedented action of buying advertising on local media (including this site) to call attention to the matter.

“While far from perfect, the House amendment represents a reasonable compromise on the ethics reform issue,” Sheehan said. “Most critically, it finally closes the ‘legislators loophole,’ after a seven year hiatus, by restoring the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over the General Assembly. If approved and ratified by voters, I hope this measure will help rebuild the people’s trust in their elected state representatives and senators. In light of recent revelations of scandal at the State House, albeit overdue, this reform could not have come any sooner. After six year of working diligently on ethics reform, I am gratified to see a successful outcome to this issue.”

Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who joined Mattiello at a news conference yesterday, said, “I hope this is the final piece of the puzzle in terms of restoring confidence and trust in an institution which seeks to serve the people of the state of Rhode Island.”

Other state leaders called it one step in restoring Rhode Islanders’ faith in their government. “This legislation, along with my proposed lobby reform legislation, are historic steps toward restoring Rhode Islanders confidence in their government,” said Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea.

Said Governor Gina Raimondo, “Rhode Islanders deserve better – we need to embrace broad and deep reforms. By restoring Ethics Commission oversight, adopting a line-item veto, and re-examining grant programs, we can send a strong signal that we are committed to making Rhode Island a good place to do business.”

John Marion, executive director of Common Cause RI, who has long championed returning Ethics Commission oversight of the General Assembly said he supports the bill with some qualifications.

“Common Cause is supportive of the Speaker’s proposal to restore the full jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over members of the General Assembly,” he said. “Our support is qualified on our need to examine the proposal further given that it was only made public today. Additionally, we believe that the moratorium on ethics complaints before an election belongs in law, not in the constitution. It has been seven years since a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision created this loophole in ethics oversight. It’s high time the voters be given a chance to close it by amending our constitution this November.”

Legislative leaders changed their minds on addressing legislators’ immunity from oversight by the Ethics Commission after former House Finance Committee Chairman Ray Gallison resigned amid a law enforcement probe last week. It’s unclear why the FBI and state police are investigating Gallison, but media reports since his resignation have shined a light on a non-profit that he works for. It received significant state funding and board members had little idea of the organization’s work and even their roles, which surprised some listed as board members.

“It is unfortunate, but true, that scandals help advance necessary reforms,” Marion told the Providence Journal.

In the wake of corruption charges against former House Speaker Gordon Fox, Common Cause Rhode Island is calling on the General Assembly to allow the ethics commission to oversee legislators, which currently it does not, and to impose audits on campaign accounts.

“We know there are several simple, immediate actions that can be taken to help hold our public officials more accountable,” Marion said.

Marion noted that in 2003 Fox was fined $10,000 by the state ethics commission for taking on GTech as a lawyer as he was working on a bill to move the business to Providence as a legislator. A 2009 state Supreme Court decision famously exempted legislators from being investigated by the ethics commission, and Common Cause has been advocating to restore their power over legislators ever since.

“When legislators feel there are no repercussions for the smaller stuff, the bigger stuff will eventually take over,” Marion said.

There could be political reasons the House won’t take up the ethics bill this session. Its sponsor is Rep. Mike Marcello, of Smithfield, who challenged Rep. Nick Mattiello as speaker. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Ed O’Neill, and independent from North Smithfield, Lincoln. The bill would put the question to the voters of Rhode Island.

Marion also said Fox’s plea today should inspire legislators to require some sort of campaign finance auditing. “Whether random or a percentage, we’ll look at other states and see what they do,” Marion said. “I do know other states routinely look at them.”

On the November ballot, referendum Question 3 will ask voters; “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?” While most people following Ocean State politics are focused on who will be the next governor of our state, or the next mayor of our capital city, question three bears watching too. The process for putting the referendum on the ballot every ten years was the result of a 1973 constitutional convention ballot initiative.

The first time the voters were presented with the new question (in 1984) they authorized a convention. The result was a two-year process that placed 14 questions on the 1986 ballot, eight of which were ratified by the voters. In 1994 and 2004 the voters rejected the referendum and no conventions were held as a result. Our organization, Common Cause Rhode Island, opposed the last two referenda but in 2014 we are not taking a position. Quite frankly, there are too many compelling arguments for and against a convention this time. Just a cursory review shows both sides to have compelling arguments.

Supporters of a convention point to important constitutional changes that they assert are needed in our state as the impetus for their efforts. They also rightfully point out that many of these reforms that limit legislative power could be much more difficult to achieve through the typical process whereby the General Assembly puts proposed constitutional amendments it would like on the statewide ballot.

Opponents of a convention point to the many important changes that have been put on the ballot by the legislature; including Separation of Powers, downsizing the legislature, elimination of the much abused legislative pensions, merit selection of judges, etc. They argue that a convention will be a creature of the legislature given that the election of delegates is based on state legislative districts, and that in 1986 many of them had deep ties to members of the General Assembly.

Opponents of a convention express legitimate concerns about the possibility that such a gathering might put restrictions on important civil rights and liberties up to a popular referendum. They point to amendments from 1986 that would have put restrictions on abortion rights (which didn’t pass) and imposed restrictions on bail for certain drug offenses (which did pass).

Supporters point to the fact that the people must approve any changes to the Rhode Island constitution that are placed on the ballot by a convention, and that the voters overwhelmingly rejected new restrictions on abortions in 1986. They argue that the U.S. Constitution contains sufficient protections for civil rights and liberties, and that those cannot be abrogated by the a state constitution.

We encourage the voters of Rhode Island to look closely at the arguments made against a convention by Citizens for Responsible Government, and for having a convention by Renew RI. Both coalitions have already been spending considerable resources to make their respective point of view heard. No doubt the coming weeks will see even more arguments by both sides of this question.

Common Cause is engaging a different type of education, one that is not focused on persuading anyone about the merits or dangers of a convention. Rather we are trying to explore what a convention might look like by digging into the archives from the 1980s and other sources. Here are a few quick facts:

There were an extraordinary 558 candidates for the November 5, 1985 election of 100 delegates to the constitutional convention. That election resulted in only 96,538 eligible voters casting a ballot. The convention held 11 statewide public forums and received over 1000 comments. After that they held 111 substantive committee meetings and took testimony at 34 public committee hearings. The result was 322 resolutions introduced by the delegates and vetted through six substantive committees. Fifty-six of the resolutions were debated in 10 plenary sessions. The result was 26 resolutions that passed and were consolidated into the 14 ballot questions proposed in 1986.

There is much more to learn about the 1986 convention. The Common Cause website contains five hours of video from a March conference we hosted with Roger Williams University School of Law, the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant University, and the League of Women Voters or Rhode Island. Included are talks by Professors Alan Tarr and Robert Williams from the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, perhaps the two leading authorities on state constitutions. Other materials we have added include information about the campaign finance from the election of delegates.

While the candidates you vote for on November 4th may be in office for four or eight years, changes to our state’s constitution may last for generations. In the coming weeks we hope you take the time to become educated about Question 3 and make sure on Election Day to go down the ballot and make your voice heard on this issue, no matter where you stand.

The ad in question was an attack on Taveras, paid for by the Providence Fraternal Order of Police. Marion included it in this letter.

“It is my opinion that the advertising does indeed violate the terms of the Pledge,” said Marion, in an email. “I am not yet able to determine the cost of the advertising buy, and subsequently determine how much must be donated to charity.”

The Taveras campaign has asked the other two campaigns to donate to the Federal Hill House. “Federal Hill House is dedicated to enabling people from throughout the Greater Providence area achieve their potential by removing obstacles that hinder them,” according to its website.

Marion said this has been the only violation of the People’s Pledge in a letter to the candidates. “If this is the only violation of the Pledge we see in this primary election it will be a great success and something I think you should all be proud of having taken part in.”

“This represents a watershed moment in Rhode Island politics,” Marion said in a press release, “and we are proud to have facilitated this historic agreement and want to thank the campaigns of the three major Democratic candidates for working together to get this agreement done.”

The agreement signed by Clay Pell, Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras applies only to the Democratic primary and says a candidate will pay the cost of a third-party negative advertising about an opponent, or third-party positive advertising about themselves. It does not cover direct mail or canvassing, as Raimondo’s team had suggested.

You can rad the full agreement here: Rhode Island People’s Pledge. And learn more on Common Cause RI’s website. Also, check out our full coverage of this issue, going back to September 2013, when contributor Sam Howard suggested it in a post titled “Blood primary or People’s Pledge.”

Marion said he initially invited Republican candidates for governor to sign the pledge too, but he did not hear back from them. He hopes a similar agreement can be made for the general election between both parties.

Marion went on to explain that provisional ballots, which may be cast by those without proper ID, are a different kind of ballot, and there is no guarantee  that such votes will be counted or any recourse for voters to take to ensure that they are counted.

Are we setting up a two-tiered voter system? One for those who have money and “proper” ID and a second one for the poor? It certainly smells like class warfare to me.

• Jim Vincent, NAACP, “strongly supports” voter ID repeal

One of the untold stories about the Voter ID fight in Rhode Island is that it has distracted us from making actual improvements to our election system that could have a direct and measurable improvement for voters. Just this week the Pew Center came out with a 50 state ranking of election administration.  While the average state improved 4.4 percent from 2008 to 2012 Rhode Island stagnated. So Rhode Island, which was once hailed by the Brennan Center as a leader in voter registration, is now losing ground.

Two of the other bills being heard last night would help us catch up:

S 2676 by Senator Gayle Goldin creates a system for online voter registration.  In 2008 there were only two states that allow voters to register to vote, or alter their registration, using an online tool.  As of last week, there are 22 states that have authorized such systems.  In states where online voter registration has been adopted tens of thousands of citizens have taken advantage.  Since we know that the more likely threat to election integrity are poor voter rolls, a system of online registration is the real way to reduce our dirty rolls and prevent registration fraud.  Here’s the kicker; online voter registration not only makes it easier for people to register and change registration, but it saves cities and towns a ton of money.

S 2237 by Senator Erin Lynch creates a system of in-person early voting.  Currently 32 states have some sort of in-person early voting.  Rhode Island clings to a system from the 19th Century designed to accommodate an agricultural society where in-person voting only happens on Election Day.  Senator Lynch’s bill would provide for evening and weekend hours accommodating citizens who lead 21st Century lives.  In recent years Rhode Island has shortened Election Day by an hour and increased the number of voters per precinct.  As the rest of the country makes advances, we retreat.  In-person early voting has even been cited such as Hurricane Sandy.

While it’s right to be concerned about Rhode Island’s Voter ID law, let’s not forget there are a lot of areas where we need to make improvements.