PROVIDENCE — It’s a good thing the phone went dead.

On Tuesday night, the Judicial Nominating Commission tried to have a member vote via speakerphone as it began picking five finalists for a Superior Court vacancy. The phone connection kept getting lost, so Chairman Stephen J. Carlotti abandoned the effort. After the meeting, Carlotti told a Journal reporter that voting by phone is allowed because the law had been amended a couple of years ago.

As it turns out, the state Open Meetings Law was amended in 2005 — to explicitly prohibit public bodies from using telephones and conference calls to do anything other than schedule meetings. An exception was made for members of the armed services on active duty.

“You can’t hold a public meeting over the phone — certainly not when a decision is made,” said Linda Lotridge Levin, a board member of the nonprofit freedom-of-information coalition ACCESS/RI and chairwoman of the University of Rhode Island journalism department.

Levin said the outcome of Tuesday night’s meeting might have faced a legal challenge had phone votes made the difference. “If I’d have been one of the other candidates, I’d have thought about finding myself a good lawyer,” she said.

When the commission sat down to vote, Carlotti announced that commission member Dennis M. Coleman was out of town on business. “But,” he said, “we have a number so we can call him and he can participate by phone.”

Coleman — a partner in a Boston law firm who represents 30 basketball and football coaches, including Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts — was at a symposium at Nike headquarters near Portland, Ore., making a presentation to a group of athletic directors.

With Coleman on a speakerphone, the commission began voting on candidate Bennett R. Gallo. Coleman was the only member who did not vote for Gallo.

As the commission started voting on candidate Alan R. Goulart, the phone connection was lost. “Dennis, did I lose you?” Carlotti said. “Let’s make the call again.”

When they reached Coleman again, it sounded as if he was confused about whether the prior vote had been for Gallo or Goulart. Coleman later said that in his mind’s eye he was picturing Goulart when he decided not to vote for Gallo. He said he wanted to vote for Gallo.

The line went dead again, and Carlotti said, “This is very tough because this phone leaves something to be desired.” Soon afterward, Carlotti said, “I’m going to treat Mr. Coleman as not being here for this purpose.”

The voting proceeded, resulting in a list of five finalists: Gallo, Sandra A. Lanni, Luis M. Matos, Kristin E. Rodgers and Carol A. Zangari. Governor Carcieri must choose his nominee from that list.

In 2005, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issued a legal opinion saying the Public Utilities Commission could legally hold meetings by phone as long as the public could listen in. The opinion, which asserted that telephones don’t involve electronic communications, drew sharp criticism from the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and Common Cause of Rhode Island.

The opinion also prompted a bill that became law in June 2005, stating explicitly that discussions of a public body via electronic communication — “including telephonic communication and telephone conferencing” — are permitted only to schedule meetings. Last year, a senator introduced a bill to allow votes by speakerphone, but it died in committee.

Yesterday, Carlotti — a partner in a Providence law firm who was appointed by Carcieri in February to chair the commission — said some commission members had told him that members had voted by phone in the past. He said that practice might have been allowed at that time. But after checking the law, he said it’s clear voting by phone is not allowed now.

“I should have looked into it, but I didn’t,” Carlotti said yesterday. Since the phone connection was lost, he said, “I guess it goes to prove the old adage: It’s better to be lucky than smart.”

Carlotti said Coleman, who took part in interviewing all eight candidates, had thought he’d be able to attend Tuesday’s meeting but looked at the wrong date on his calendar.

Carlotti said he considers the phone-voting ban overly restrictive. “While I can understand philosophically that to have an entire commission meeting electronically creates problems, I must say that when most members are present, to have one on the phone doesn’t seem to me to be the end of the world,” he said.

Carlotti noted that under the commission’s voting process, it’s important to have as many members present as possible. And with tight deadlines for the commission to act, it can be “very, very tough” to get nine busy people together on all the necessary dates, he said.

“To me, what the legislature did was an overreaction,” Carlotti said. “I think the attorney general was right — as long as the entire body is not meeting by phone.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the local ACLU affiliate, disagreed. Voting by phone “really undermines the purpose of open meetings,” he said. “The give and take of a meeting is significantly lost when people are on the phone as opposed to being there, engaged in a colloquy. It can minimize the meaning of serving on a public body if you can just phone in your vote. And being present at a meeting is important in terms of the public’s ability to see a public body operating.”

Brown said Tuesday’s meeting shows voting by phone can cause confusion. And he said if Coleman’s votes had been decisive, “it could very well have cast the vote into legal limbo.”

efitzpat@projo.com