H. Philip West Jr. of Common Cause says a late addition to the state budget prevents the governor from changing the judiciary's annual budget request.

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 15, 2004

BY EDWARD FITZPATRICK
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- A government watchdog group is accusing state Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams and his staff of executing "a brilliant power grab" in the waning days of this year's legislative session.

The House Finance Committee on Friday approved a surprise addition to the state budget that would prevent the governor from changing the judiciary's annual budget request before it goes to the General Assembly.

Budget Article 47 also would shift the power to buy office space, supplies and equipment from the Department of Administration to the state court administrator, while empowering the court administrator to adopt rules and regulations to accomplish those purposes.

It would exempt judicial employees from the control of the state personnel administrator, and it would remove the pay of judges from the control of the state's Unclassified Pay Plan Board.

"What the chief justice is really trying to do here is eliminate any external control," H. Philip West Jr., executive director of Common Cause of Rhode Island, said yesterday. "He is saying the chief justice and the court administrator will write the rules and enforce the rules, and I think Rhode Island has learned a lesson about having too much power in too few hands."

For example, West noted that former Chief Justice Thomas F. Fay and former State Court Administrator Matthew J. Smith resigned amid a scandal involving a secret court fund that paid for meals, liquor and tuxedo rentals.

The current state court administrator, J. Joseph Baxter Jr., defended Article 47 yesterday, saying the chief justice is trying to ensure that the judiciary is treated as a separate, co-equal branch of government -- rather than another state department.

Baxter sent West a letter, saying: "I applaud your efforts to safeguard separation of powers for the executive and legislative branches as evidenced by the upcoming ballot question which will be before Rhode Island voters.

"However," Baxter wrote, "it is disappointing that you fail to recognize the crucial need for judicial independence and instead choose to characterize our initiative as a 'power grab.' This characterization is inflammatory and indicates a misunderstanding of our initiative and its purpose."

Baxter said Article 47 is meant to clarify that it is the role of the General Assembly -- and not the governor -- to determine how much money is budgeted for the state courts. As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary should not have its budget slashed by the governor as if it were just another executive branch department, he said.

Baxter took issue with the mention of Fay and Smith, saying he can't see what that scandal has to do with separation of powers. "It's not fair to throw that out at any opportunity when a proposal is not to their liking," he said. "I expect more out of Phil West. This chief justice would certainly stand on his record and his accountability, and the same could be said for former Chief Justice [Joseph R.] Weisberger.

In a statement, Williams said, "It is the judiciary, not the executive branch, which can and must determine what is needed for efficient, independent justice -- subject only to the General Assembly's power of appropriation. That is good government."

West sent out an "urgent legislative alert," urging citizens to contact legislators to "block this judicial power grab." He noted this is not the first time court officials have pushed for these proposals. But he said that this year court officials took a new approach, which he branded as a "parliamentary gimmick."

"Their Trojan horse is Article 47, a five-page insertion into the proposed state budget," West wrote. "Article 47 appeared for the first time in a budget hearing last Friday afternoon. It was approved within minutes. There was virtually no debate."

Members of the public heard the vote called before they could read the article, much less analyze it, West said, and now it's part of the overall budget package, making it difficult to change.

"It may be impossible to identify the strategist behind Article 47, but [associate court administrator] Robert Sieczkiewicz -- the former House fiscal staffer who now lobbies for the chief justice -- appeared in the hearing room, grinning broadly, only moments after the vote," West wrote. "As a former fiscal staff member of the House, Sieczkiewicz knows how difficult it is to remove a budget article."

West said the article will be difficult to remove in part because 21 of the 75 House members are attorneys, and most practice law in state courts.

"Each lawyer in the House will face a terrible dilemma if there is a motion on the floor to delete Article 47," West wrote. "The chief justice and his staff have expended great effort to gain what they have argued is 'judicial independence.' They will be watching on television and counting votes."

Baxter said, "I don't think legislators who happen to be attorneys are afraid to challenge anything they don't deem as worthy if requested by the judiciary. They are independent and will make decisions based on what's best for the state of Rhode Island. I give them a lot more credit."

Baxter said the proposals in Article 47 should come as no surprise since Williams has been pushing for them since he became chief justice 3 1/2 years ago. "He's been very public and open as it relates to this issue," he said.

So why are the proposals in a budget article rather than bills? Baxter said, "It can get somewhat cumbersome if you have 15 pieces of legislation. It's a tighter package."

West objected to the basic idea of prohibiting the governor from changing the judiciary's budget. In preparing his annual budget proposal, the governor must factor in all aspects of state government, including the courts, he said.

"Somebody has to look at the thing as a whole," West said. "The Constitution empowers the governor to do that, and short of changing the Constitution, we ought to stick with that."

West emphasized that the Constitution requires that the governor "prepare and present to the General Assembly an annual, consolidated operating and capital improvement state budget." And he said it is ironic that court officials would claim separation of powers "as their justification for gutting the governor's constitutional duty."

Baxter maintained that Article 47 would not run afoul of that section of the Constitution, saying the judiciary would still provide its budget requests to the governor for his review -- for administrative purposes -- as he prepares his annual budget proposal.

In the past, Governor Carcieri's office has questioned the idea of removing the governor's ability to change the judiciary's budget. But Carcieri withheld fire yesterday. Spokesman Jeff Neal said, "The governor wants to discuss the budget with the House speaker and the Senate president before offering public reaction."