Projo Politics Blog

In the deliberative fashion fitting for a Supreme Court justice, Frank J. Williams, chief justice of Rhode Island’s highest court, waited a week before responding to incendiary comments Providence lawyer Keven A. McKenna made about him during a June 14 hearing before the House Finance Committee.

On Thursday, Williams responded through a court spokeswoman, in a frostily polite letter dripping with sarcasm, with a copy e-mailed to the media.

McKenna had gone to the committee to testify against a General Assembly plan to remove the state Traffic Tribunal from the jurisdiction of the District Court, and give Williams the authority to appoint a chief magistrate to oversee the traffic court. McKenna, who has tussled with Williams in the past over constitutional issues, called the plan a “power grab” by Williams and accused the chief justice of acting as though he thought he was King George III.

Erika Kruse, general counsel to the Supreme Court, rebutted McKenna’s insinuation that Williams had a hand in creating the traffic-court plan. “The chief justice neither drafted nor submitted Article 3 for introduction and consideration, and never presented the bill to the Rhode Island Bar Association as you incorrectly represented to the House Finance Committee,” Kruse wrote. “In accordance with Article 10, § 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the legislature has the inherent power to establish such lower courts as it deems appropriate, and has done so through this legislation.”

“Furthermore,” Kruse continued, “with respect to your claim that the chief justice has administrative and judicial power akin to King George III, you seem to have overlooked the position of the state court administrator, which is held by Joseph Baxter, a non-lawyer, non-judicial officer who is responsible for the administration of the court system. You also fail to recognize that other jurisdictions, including the federal system, allow for the appointment of magistrates by sitting judges.”

Kruse saved her choicest words for the final paragraph, referring to the “invariable incoherence” of McKenna’s “communications” and writing that “productive discussion” with McKenna is “impossible” based on McKenna’s “gross misrepresentation of the law and facts” before concluding with, “many thanks again for your letter.”

Kruse wrote that the Supreme Court was conducting a “review” of the new traffic-court plan — which became law as part of the state budget last week — and “respectfully” suggested McKenna wait for the results of that review.

--By Elizabeth Gudrais, Steve Peoples and Scott MacKay

Journal Staff Writers

---