PROVIDENCE — Centuries after the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was founded, lawmakers say it may be time for a name change.

The word “plantation” that sits precariously on the end of the state’s lengthy title is offensive to many in the African-American community because it conjures up images of slavery, they say.

For more than an hour yesterday, black leaders and state legislators encouraged the House Finance Committee to place a question on November’s election ballot asking whether voters want to change the state’s official name to simply Rhode Island.

“What we see, what we know, what we experience is the hardship of that word,” said Rep. Anastasia Williams, D-Providence.

Providence resident Barry O’Connor Jr. said it saddens him to have to explain to his 10-year-old son that he lives in a state with a name so closely associated with such historical pain and suffering.

But House Finance Committee member Carol Mumford, R-Scituate, questioned the need for change given the arc of history.

Yes, the word “plantation” today is most closely associated with Southern slavery, but in Colonial days when the title first emerged, plantation referred to a farm or a settlement, much like the Christmas tree plantation in Scituate where she now lives.

Other committee members said the bill raises certain moral questions.

“By taking the word [plantation] out do you not actually increase the blindness to history?” House Finance Chairman Steven M. Costantino asked. “…I’m wondering if we’re putting the state into a state of denial by taking [that part of the name] away.”

Progresso Latino President Ramon Martinez and it’s one thing to remember the past; it’s another to have to look at it every time you look at your driver’s license or your college diploma.

“It’s morally reprehensible, politically offensive and economically exploitive,” Martinez said.

Testifying in opposition to the bill Johnston resident Kathleen Gudaitis said she believes a name change won’t change the past.

This is not the first time the Assembly has wrestled with the question of Rhode Island’s awkwardly worded name. In 2000, then-Rep. David N. Cicilline led a hard charge to see “plantation” dropped from the official name. That proposal died in committee.

Yesterday’s committee voted to hold the legislation for further study, but Costantino said the debate will likely continue. “I’m open to further discussion on the bill,” he said.

Williams and the primary sponsor, Joseph S. Almeida, D-Providence, emphasized that they’re not pushing for mandatory change –– and they aren’t proposing tearing down buildings already emblazoned with the current name –– they just want to put the matter before the voters to let them decide what to call their state going forward.

Later yesterday afternoon, after hours of testimony on a string of unrelated bills, the House Finance Committee moved on to one final bill that proposed doing something that supporters say is already required under a 1997 consent agreement between the state’s Department of Human Services and the federal government: offer interpreter services to DHS clients who need them.

The bill follows Governor Carcieri’s decision late last year to cut several state interpreter jobs at the DHS. Sponsor Elizabeth Dennigan, D-East Providence, said the purpose of the legislation was to raise awareness of the law and prod the state into complying with it.

One after another, members of the Southeast Asian community testified about the importance of interpreters in immigrant communities like theirs. Yut Yang, 25, broke down as she recalled having to translate for her non-English speaking parents as a child.

In a last-minute rush before the afternoon session was to begin, the Finance Committee voted to hold the measure.

Meanwhile with little discussion, the full Senate yesterday voted 33 to 3 to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, restoring judicial discretion in the sentencing for some drug-related crimes.

Supporters including the sponsor, Sen. Harold Metts, D-Providence, said the proposal does not make Rhode Island soft on crime, but rather allows for more flexibility when it’s time to penalize a person.

Identical legislation in the House is set for a floor vote sometime next week.

The Assembly first passed the mandatory minimum proposal last session, but the measure was vetoed by the governor.

cneedham@projo.com