The House speaker, however, denies that any of his recommendations are aimed at stifling debate or diluting the power of his legislative opponents.

01:00 AM EST on Friday, February 4, 2005

BY KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- Not even House Speaker William J. Murphy tried yesterday to defend some of the proposed changes in House-operating rules that sparked a rash of public criticism yesterday.

H. Philp West, the executive director of Common Cause, accused the House Rules Committee of trying to "restrict public access to information about public officials doing public business."

Others who turned out for last night's State House hearing on the proposed rule changes used words like "drastic," "burdensome" and "unncessary" to describe the efforts by House leaders to:

Shorten the time that lawmakers -- and the public -- have to scrutinize bills, including the multibillion state budget, before final votes.

Ban anyone, other than a "recognized employee of a news organization," from videotaping or taking photographs of House sessions and House committee meetings "without the express permissions of the speaker."

Spare lawmakers from having to disclose on whose behalf they have introduced a bill, such as a special-retirement bill.

Free committee clerks from having to keep minutes, including records of who testified pro and con.

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the House Rules Committee the attempt to ban tapes and photographs would put the legislature at odds with both state law and a 20-year-old federal court ruling.

"The House has long claimed to abide by the spirit of the open meeting law in its activities, but this rule runs directly counter to that," he said.

He also argued that "giving the speaker the authority to essentially decide who may or may not exercise this right -- based perhaps on the person's political philosophy or the context of the legislation being discussed -- runs counter to basic First Amendment principles."

Rep. Timothy Williamson, D-West Warwick, suggested the House could be brought to a standstill, by distraction, if the galleries were packed with videotaping and picture-snapping spectators.

"That has never happened," said Common Cause's West.

"I don't know why anybody would be intimidated," added Rep. Joseph Trillo, R-Warwick, who to make his point aimed a broadcast-quality, digital video-recorder at the Rules Committeee throughout last night's hearing.

Moving on to another big issue of concern, Brown painted a scenario where the House, on a Wednesday, could be asked to vote on a previously unseen version of a bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee the night before, after most lawmakers had gone home.

While one-day turnarounds are common in the final days of the session each year, both Brown and West warned against making these kinds of end-of-session shortcuts the rule for the entire session.

"That gives virtually no opportunity whatsoever for the public to have any input," Brown said.

Until last year, when the rules got fuzzy, the House had a minimum two-day posting requirement for hearings and votes.

There would still be some breathing space between committee approval and final votes on the big money bill of the year, the state budget -- but only five calendar days instead of seven, and that worried Rep. John Savage, R-East Providence.

In theory, Savage noted, the House Finance Committee could pop the budget out on a Thursday night, and the House could be asked to vote on it the following Tuesday with no intervening House sessions, staff briefings, or days at the State House to draft amendments.

"To cram it into five calendar days is not in the interests of the people of Rhode Island," or rank-of-file legislators, Savage said.

Rep. David Caprio, one of the Democratic dissidents who sided with Murphy's opponent in the recent speaker's contest, took issue with a proposal to give the majority leader, the minority leader and the speaker "voting rights" on every committee.

To allow three such "busy, busy" people "to come in on the day of a vote . . . to swing a vote that may be close does not serve the people," said Caprio, D-Narragansett, "or the intent of the committee process."

Added Brown, of a companion proposal: "I can't think of a good reason why a clerk or anybody else would need a written request if somebody just wants to take a look at a particular vote." "It can be burdensome. It is unnecessary. It can be a stalling tactic."

Other lawmakers were most concerned about how many signatures should be required to wrest a bill out of a committee to the House floor for a vote. A proposed rule change would raise the threshold from 30 signatures -- which comes close to matching the number that voted against Murphy's reelection as speaker -- to 42 of the 75 House members.

No votes were taken last night by the rules committee chaired by Rep. Eileen Naughton, D-Warwick.

Facing a bank of TV cameras as he emerged from a lunch meeting with the governor and Senate President Joseph Montalbano yesterday, Murphy denied that any of the proposals was aimed at punishing, stifling debate or diluting the power of his opponents in the speaker's race.

"No, we are just trying to run the House of Representatives more efficiently," he said, in response to "complaints from some of the dissident members . . . about the decorum in the House during the last session."

When asked what he sees as the upside of reducing the public-scrutiny time before final votes, he said: "That's something the rules committee is looking at. Again, I expect there may be some changes by the time the legislation comes to the floor."

He had the same answer when asked the justification for eliminating the rule that requires lawmakers to disclose, in writing, any company, lobby group or individual for whom they have introduced a bill. "That's something that we're going to look at and by the time it hits the Hosue floor, maybe that rule will be changed," he said.