IRONS

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a lower judge’s decision, which, in dismissing ethics charges against former Senate President William V. Irons, has left the commission’s authority in question.

“A ruling by this court is necessary to resolve the question of the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction which will continue to arise in every newly issued advisory opinion and newly filed complaint that relates to members of the General Assembly,” the commission wrote this week in asking for the high court’s review.

In October, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan dismissed ethics charges against Irons, accepting Irons’ defense that the state Constitution protected legislators from prosecution based on their votes or other legislative activities.

The constitutional provision, called the “speech in debate” clause, gives legislative activities broad protection from outside interference.

In making his decision, Darigan was mindful of the “tremendous” public interest it would generate and suggested himself that the Supreme Court review the case “because of the far-reaching ramifications it has not only in the operation of the Ethics Commission….[but] to all of the citizens and all of the office holders in Rhode Island.”

An insurance salesman from East Providence, Irons abruptly resigned on Dec. 31, 2003, after two decades in the state Senate. He had opposed pharmacy-choice legislation that CVS, the pharmacy giant and a company that he had sold insurance to, wanted killed.

The Journal disclosed that Irons, then chair of the Senate committee that handled health care, had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions since 1997 on a Blue Cross policy covering CVS workers in Rhode Island.

The Ethics Commission found probable cause to believe that Irons broke the code of ethics by using his public office to financially benefit his business associate, CVS. The next step would ordinarily have been a trial-like hearing before the commission. Irons, however, went to court in an attempt to block the commission prosecution.

If Darigan’s decision is allowed to stand, Katherine D’Arezzo, an Ethics Commission lawyer, said yesterday it would defy the intent of voters at the 1986 Constitutional Convention who passed the amendment creating the commission.

“Given the context that, in 1986, the public adopted the Ethics Commission to be the independent, nonpartisan body that would enforce code of ethics and conflict of interest laws, we think it’s a very significant issue that cries out for Supreme Court review,” D’Arezzo said.

Darigan, in his October decision, noted that he had checked the records of the 1986 Constitutional Convention and found no sign that the delegates wanted to take away the centuries-old principle of legislative immunity. If so, he said, they should have said so explicitly.

But a day after the judge’s decision, the president of the convention, Keven McKenna, criticized Darigan’s ruling, saying, “I don’t see how it could be more clear” that convention voters wanted the commission to police the legislature.

“There was no intention,” said McKenna, “to create a safe harbor for corruption by members of the General Assembly.”

For his part, Irons, who is no longer a target of a federal corruption probe, acknowledged yesterday that “this is a very serious issue” that perhaps needs some clarification.

He said Darigan’s decision, however, was “extremely well reasoned” and “I and my attorney feel very optimistic…and very hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold it.”

D’Arezzo said the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider reviewing Darigan’s decision on Jan. 15.

tmooney@projo.com