Veteran legislator Paul W. Crowley, D-Newport, says the new rules reflect the political realities in the House in the aftermath of the bitter leadership fight.

01:56 AM EST on Friday, February 18, 2005

BY KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- Veteran Republican lawmakers tried last night to school newer members in the House on what it was like in the days when special pension bills were rammed through the legislature -- unseen -- on voice votes, and lawmakers were unable to pry loose bills that might have averted the state's devastating banking crisis.

But the majority in the House voted again and again last night to roll back the clock to the way it used to work at the Rhode Island State House.

They voted down a Republican-backed effort to prevent House committees from considering -- and even voting -- on bills without any prior public notice, as long as a majority gave their consent.

They rejected a suggestion that the House adopt for itself the same minimum two-day public-notice requirement the legislature has applied to all other state and local agencies, from town councils, zoning boards and school committees on up.

They rejected a proposal that would have required House Speaker William J. Murphy's leadership team to let them see, in writing, every piece of legislation on which they are being asked to vote.

On a 39-to-28 vote, they also adopted new rules that will make it easier for the Democratic majority to make decisions that previously required "unanimous consent," and harder for anyone on the outs with the leadership to pry a bill from a committee to the House floor for a vote.

Longtime Rep. Bruce J. Long, R-Middletown, said the new rules were not only "unfair to us individually," but also to the 14,000 to 15,000 voters that "each of us represents." Rep. Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry, proposed one failed amendment after another.

Journal photo / Connie Grosch

Before the start of yesterday's legislative session, Rep. Paul W. Crowley, D-Newport, reviews the proposed rules of the House of Representatives before they would be later debated on the House floor.

Veteran Democratic lawmaker Paul W. Crowley, D-Newport, called the new rules a reflection of the political realities in the House in the aftermath of the bitter leadership fight.

Murphy won a second term as speaker on a 45-to-30 vote on the first day of this year's legislative session. But Crowley said the "unholy alliance" of Republicans and dissident Democrats who challenged him are still clearly waiting to pounce.

"For us to get things done, in my opinion, these rules are reasonable," Crowley said.

"We are a divided House where there are a group of Democrats and Republicans who are going to vote together more often than not this year. These rules address that political reality . . . They go to the rule that the majority will win at the end of the day."

Deputy House Whip Paul E. Moura, D-Providence, told the Republicans to "stop acting like the Philadelphia Eagles. You lost the game. Stop crying."

But one freshman, Cranston Republican James F. Davey, said he went into last night's four-hour rules debate with this question: "Do these rules make the [House] more open and accountable?"

Midway through, Davey said they "seem to go in the opposite direction."

He rose again when the House was poised to vote down a suggested requirement that all bills delineate what has been added or deleted from current law. "Why are we even arguing about this? It makes so much sense . . . It would help discussion. It would help us understand what in the heck is going on."

Rep. Long said a rule barring House votes on any bill for at least 48 hours after it leaves a committee gives the public "a chance to come up here, send an e-mail," and the lawmakers themselves a chance to do some research on an issue before they vote.

But one after another, Murphy's legislative lieutenants rose to try to disabuse the freshmen of the notion that the public-notice requirements and other reforms ushered in by former Rep. John B. Harwood during his first year as House speaker were anything more than "a scam."

And House Majority Whip Peter F. Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket, tried to convince colleagues that the notice requirement was one of the most misunderstood in the packet. He said the earliest the House could vote on a bill that had emerged from a committee on a Tuesday, for example, was the following Thursday.

But Eileen S. Naughton, the Warwick Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee, acknowledged a bill approved by a committee on a Tuesday, before the House met, could potentially be put to a House vote the following day.

Her reasoning: "It's two legislative days. Our legislative day is 4-to-10 p.m.," so a bill approved before the House convened would count as a separate day. "People should know that," she said.

But Naughton said a word inadvertently dropped in drafting the new rules may have contributed to the confusion. "We don't know how that happened," she said, just before yesterday's debate got under way.

She referred to a long-standing rule that said: "No matter of business on the calendar shall be considered upon its merits prior to the second legislative day after it shall have been placed on the calendar except by unanimous consent of the House."

The word "second" was still missing from the version the House was asked to vote last night. Before the session began, Naughton said the intention was to reinstate it. But the Democratic majority rejected a GOP attempt to do so.

As a result, the new and all-important House rule reads: "No matter of business on the calendar shall be considered upon its merits prior to the legislative day after it shall have been placed on the calendar except by a majority of the members present and voting."

House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson, R-East Greenwich, offered Murphy a wry "congratulations" and said: "The lemmings are following you."

At one point, Watson demanded a public explanation from the speaker, who presides but rarely enters the debate, for eliminating the unanimous consent requirement for waiving basic operating rules that allow the public -- and the lawmakers themselves -- to keep track.

"I would invite you since you do have a microphone and you are not a potted plant of a traffic cop, explain to me why it was necessary to put this rule in place?" said Watson.

"Leader Watson, I will answer your question," Murphy said from the podium. "I don't think the will of one should rule . . . I think 74 other people should decide."

With reports from Liz Anderson of the State House bureau