Projo Politics Blog

Lest you think you are missing something, this was the question the Ethics Commission’s staff lawyer Jason Gramitt faced from a freshman lawmaker when he came to the State House last week to give House members an ethics refresher course:

“A number of elected legislators here are full-time employees of labor unions. They’re not masons. They’re not skilled workers. Their jobs are to promote the union on a full-time basis. They are elected to the legislature. They write legislation. … They vote on that legislation.

“How the hell is that possible?” asked Rep. Douglas W. Gablinske, the Democrat with his own real-estate appraisal company who replaced former Rep. Fausto C. Anguilla, D-Bristol.

Gramitt’s response: “I don’t believe that that’s a stupid or crazy freshman question.

“If they are just an employee or there’s a class exception that applies, the code as it is currently written in most cases will allow that kind of action,” Gramitt said.

An unbelieving Gablinske persisted: “A full-time employee of one of these unions — and their job is strictly to promote the union and its goals and they can write legislation — they can introduce legislation and they can support legislation …?”

Gramitt said he wouldn’t make that sweeping a statement.

“To answer your question, I want to look at the legislation and see exactly what the impact is. Who is it going to impact? Is the class exception going to apply?”

Translated: all lawmakers are presumed taxpayers, but they can vote on tax bills, according to the Ethics Commission, as long as they are not going to be helped or hurt any more than anyone else in the same class. The logic has, on occasion, been extended to teachers, insurance brokers and others, including members of public-employee unions.

“I guess the most I can say is that in the very few circumstances that I have looked at, I believe the class exception has applied,” Gramitt said. “Will it apply in every case? Maybe not, so I don’t want to say that under any circumstances it’s absolutely fine. I don’t believe it is … but it’s going to be a case by case basis.”

“I wish I could be less lawyerly to you in my answer to you,” Gramitt said apologetically. “But really, that’s the truth.”

---