Compromises are few on the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee. The full House is expected to vote next week on the changes.

01:59 AM EST on Friday, February 11, 2005

BY KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- The end-of-session maneuvering that has enabled state lawmakers to vote on major pieces of legislation -- without advance public notice or hearings -- could become the norm at the Rhode Island State House, rather than an exception, under new rules approved by a committee last night.

Early in the session, House committees would still have to give the public 48-hour notice of their hearings on proposed legislation.

But even that rule could be waived by "the consent of the majority."

It would not apply, after a certain point, "to House bills returned from the Senate with amendment."

And a committee could, by majority vote, consider bills "not previously distributed in print or electronically to its members."

And from April 14 on, the 48-hour minimum-notice requirement that the legislature has imposed on all other government bodies, across the state, would go out the window.

A one-day notice requirement would take its place and what that could mean is this: A bill approved by a House committee on a Tuesday afternoon could potentially be put to a vote by the full House the following day.

The two Republicans on the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee tried repeatedly last night to hold on to the minimum public-notice requirements or, at the very least, to make it harder to waive them.

Republicans John A. Savage, of East Providence, and Nicholas Gorham, of Coventry, also battled a rule change that would allow the speaker or House majority leader to swoop into any committee, without having sat through any of the hearings on an issue, and sway a close vote.

Journal photo / Connie Grosch

Rep. Eileen S. Naughton, D-Warwick, chairs debate last night during an argumentative meeting of the House Rules Committee.

First one, then the other argued: "It just adds more power to the majority. The majority already has too much . . . that's one of the problems." They won a few.

For instance, they argued against a proposed ban on the use of "video or photographic equipment" by anyone except "credentialed representatives of the news media," and won a partial victory.

"What's the big deal?" Gorham demanded.

Rep. Timothy A. Williamson, D-West Warwick, said a political enemy could use a video camera to eavesdrop on a private conversation, or take "a very bad picture of one of us and use it for political gain."

But Savage said, without any evidence that picture-taking had been a problem: "I don't want to shoot the dog before I know it has rabies."

In the end, they agreed on a compromise: the new ban would only apply to the use, by House members themselves, of video and still-cameras in the House chamber and committee rooms.

In response to concerns raised at a hearing last week, the Rules Committee also backed off on another proposed rule change that would have reduced the amount of time between House Finance Committee approval and a full House vote that the $6-billion state budget has to be available for public scrutiny.

But the Republicans lost more battles than they won last night to a juggernaut of Democrats that included Representatives Fausto C. Anguilla, D-Bristol; Peter F. Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket; Jan Malik, D-Warren; the chairwoman, Eileen S. Naughton, D-Warwick; J. Patrick O'Neill, D-Pawtucket; Gregory J. Schadone, D-North Providence; Raymond J. Sullivan Jr., D-Coventry, and Williamson, D-West Warwick.

For instance, the two Republicans pounced on this sentence: "A committee shall not consider any public bill or resolution not previously distributed in print or electronically to its members except by a majority vote of the members present."

Last year's House rules had a similar provision, but it required "the unanimous consent" of those present -- not a simple majority -- for a committee to take up a previously unseen bill.

Like many of the rule changes being debated last night, it harked back to what Kilmartin described as a "personal dispute" between lawmakers that led one to block the immediate consideration of another's local-spending bill.

Asked later what the public itself gained from giving up the need for a unanimous vote before rules get waived, House lawyer William Guglietta said it prevents one person from stopping the action on "a matter of importance to the public."

But the Republicans were unconvinced. "Without it being posted, without the sponsor being notified . . ." Gorham began. "The potential is there for abuse," chimed Savage.

Seizing on Savage's use of the word "potential," Williamson said: "But you don't want to shoot the dog before it has rabies?"

"It could happen," insisted Savage, who was nonetheless outvoted.

The Republicans also questioned the need to make anyone who wanted to know how a committee voted to put that request in writing.

In response to questions about the need for the new requirement, Kilmartin, the new House majority whip, said it would avoid "a he-said, she-said" if ever there was a dispute.

"There's enough paper in the building already. We don't need more," Gorham said. "Why don't we [just] put in here: you have to say 'please'."

On that 7-to-3 vote, Anguilla joined the Republicans in their failed effort to head off the new written-request requirement.

Barely mentioned last night was the removal from the House rules of a long-standing requirement that legislators identify, in writing, "any lobby group, individual or other entity," on whose behalf they have introduced a bill.

In its place, the House Rules Committee is proposing this language: "Upon presentation of testimony before a committee, the prime sponsor of a bill or a resolution shall provide to the committee the name of any individual, group or organization responsible for the substantive basis or text of the bill."

The full House is likely to vote on the rules package next week.