Projo Politics Blog

State Rep. Robert E. Flaherty, a thorn in the side of House Speaker William J. Murphy since Murphy removed him as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2005, penned one of his trademark snarky letters to Murphy last week. The issue this time: the House’s failure to take further action on a request for a Supreme Court opinion on whether the Coastal Resources Management Council is subject to the separation-of-powers constitutional amendment voters approved in 2004.

In the session’s final days, House members approved a resolution to ask for the opinion. To accompany it, they passed a bill to reincorporate coastal council in its current format, with lawmakers and their appointees allowed to sit on the board. Even though the separation-of-powers amendment required the removal of lawmakers from state boards and agencies with executive power, some claim the state Constitution gives General Assembly special jurisdiction on environmental issues and therefore the council should be exempt.

The watchdog group Common Cause of Rhode Island opposed the bill, which ended up passing by a hair’s breadth on a vote of 33 to 31.

Flaherty noted that as of last week, the bill was still “held on the desk” in the House and had not seen Senate action.

Flaherty — who, by the way, did not vote on the bill, according to the official journal of the House from that day — took this to mean that the Senate refused to go along with it.

“The leadership made its members vote affirmatively on an issue that 80 percent of the electorate disagreed with,” Flaherty, D-Warwick, wrote. “Every member who supported the leadership on this issue will be hurt in the next election.”

Flaherty accused Murphy of failing in his duty to “handle controversial legislation in a fashion that protects the body as a whole and that insulates the members from undue criticism.”

“Why are you in this position?” he wrote in closing. “I invite your comments and input. Enjoy your summer!”

But House staff said yesterday that Flaherty misunderstood what had happened with the bill. William R. Guglietta, chief legal counsel to House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, said there was a simple reason the House did not transmit the bill to the Senate.

“The Constitution requires us to submit questions to the Supreme Court on matters that are pending,” Guglietta said. “Once the House votes on it, the matter is pending.”

If lawmakers had simply submitted a quotation from existing law, along with the request for an opinion, the Supreme Court could have rejected it on the grounds that it did not address a pending matter, Guglietta said.

As of Friday, the court had not yet received a letter requesting that opinion. Guglietta said he did not know why it had not been sent yet, but that the reason could be as simple as many staff being on vacation and lawmakers being away, too, or busy catching up with the day jobs they neglected during the hectic last weeks of the session. (Case in point: Flaherty could not be reached Friday to comment on his own letter.)

---