There is no clear-cut consensus as Republicans and Democrats, senators and representatives, come down on both sides.

09:22 AM EST on Thursday, January 5, 2006

BY KATHERINE GREGG, SCOTT MAYEROWITZ and ELIZABETH GUDRAIS
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- Does Rhode Island need a full-time legislature?

What would the job pay?

Would state taxpayers be willing to pay the kind of salary it would take to turn what is now a $12,646-a year, part-time job for 113 "citizen-legislators" into a full-time occupation?

By way of comparison, legislative salaries range from $69,647 to $110,880 a year in the four states with full-time legislatures: California, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania.

Another seven states border on full-time, including Massachusetts, which pays $55,569 a year plus expenses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Here in Rhode Island this week, Senate Judiciary chairman Michael J. McCaffrey, D-Warwick, wondered aloud: "Would the general public want to pay for that?"

These are the questions State House denizens have been debating among themselves in the days since House Speaker William J. Murphy announced his intent to study anew the notion of a full-time General Assembly.

Reactions have run the gamut.

At one extreme is Rep. Stephen R. Ucci, D-Johnston, who said: "I think we do enough damage being in here part-time. The last thing people need is to have us here full-time.

"We should be more efficient with the time we have. Things don't fail for lack of time. We're here from January to March and we're going through the motions," Ucci said.

But Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr., D-Bristol, looks at it this way: "If we went to a full-time legislature, we wouldn't have the rush at the end of the session that we always do, where things seem to break down and some of the more important bills get lost.

"If we were a full-time legislature, we could spread things out and have the proper hearings."

The idea was last debated in 1993 by a "Blue Ribbon Commission on the General Assembly." The panel recommended -- and state voters ultimately agreed -- to reduce by one-quarter the size of the legislature, and raise the lawmakers' infamous $5-a-day pay.

But it gave a thumbs-down to a full-time legislature. Among the reasons:

* More people are available to serve part-time, which increases the likelihood "the General Assembly will reflect the diversity of views and interests in the state."

* Legislators who "have to earn a living outside the legislature" are more likely to be "in touch" with constituent concerns.

Journal photo / Connie Grosch

Speaker William J. Murphy, right, shares a word with Rep. Joseph Trillo, R-Warwick, in the House lounge following yesterday's session. Murphy has announced his intent to study anew the notion of a full-time General Assembly.

* Full-time legislators would have an "occupational incentive" to build up large campaign chests which, in turn, would feed the perception that special interests rule.

And finally: "Little testimony or support for the idea that sessions should be longer."

But Murphy suggests a full-time legislature would reduce the potential for the conflicts among the lawyers, teachers, police officers, insurance brokers, pasta-makers, restaurateurs and full-time union employees who make up today's legislative roster.

"With the political climate out there, it seems that every time you do something, somebody's screaming 'conflict.' Maybe the best way to handle this would be to have a full-time General Assembly," Murphy said.

But others question the need to remake the Rhode Island legislature in the image of Congress.

"It is not clear to the governor why the smallest state in the nation needs a full-time legislature," said Governor Carcieri's spokesman Jeff Neal.

If 43-year-old Murphy himself was forced to choose between his careers as a busy defense lawyer and legislator, he said: "At the stage of my life that I am in, I would not be a House member."

Reactions have been split -- and not necessarily along party lines -- among the lawmakers who returned to Smith Hill this week for the first General Assembly session in six months.

Some think it's a lousy idea, including Rep. Robert E. Flaherty, D-Warwick, who said: "The reason for a part-time legislature is because we only have a state of 1,000 square miles and no one has to be burdened coming here to stay overnight, to get hotels, to move their houses.

"It would be a useless expenditure of lots of money to do that," Flaherty said.

"I think it's important that people draw on their day-to-day experiences when coming to this building and that includes having a job where you have to earn a living outside of government," said Rep. Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry.

Among the many concerns of Sen. Charles J. Levesque, D-Portsmouth: "I think it would be difficult for a number of people to put their other lives on hold and go out of whatever enterprise they are in and come here for two years . . . I think it would tend to make people want to be lifers . . . You also have the revolving-door problem -- people . . . making contacts within industries that they feel might be their umbrella coming out."

Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, said "there is no harm in looking at it . . . but, I think, it is a much more complicated issue than just simply full-time or part-time. The issue becomes conflicts and salaries and staff and physical buildings."

Also, "I am not sure what full-time means," she said. "Does it mean that [Rep.] Paul Crowley can't own his restaurant because he's a legislator? Would it mean that I can't write my novel that I've been working on?"

Others see pros and cons.

For example, Marti Rosenberg, executive director of the advocacy group Ocean State Action, questions the need for a full-time Assembly. But she also sees the downside of having a part-time legislature that "includes folks who work in industries that have voices up here that make it hard to fight them, like say the insurance industry, on health-care issues."

The idea gets a more enthusiastic endorsement from Sen. Juan Pichardo, D-Providence, who said his district requires so much of his time he gave up his day job, as a patient advocate at Rhode Island Hospital, more than a year ago.

Pichardo said he gave up the hospital job to make a more substantial "personal commitment to the Senate and public service."

But, "it's still kind of a situation where you've got lawyers, teachers, real-estate agents . . . people that can afford to be there, where John Q. Public really can't," observed charter school lobbyist Steve Nardelli.

Said Rep. Arthur Handy, D-Cranston: "I personally think it's a good idea because I think you would have more people willing to run and able to run."

kgregg@projo.com / (401) 277-7078

smayerow@projo.com / (401) 277-7513

egudrais@projo.com / (401) 277-7045

SURVEY: Should the General Assembly become a full-time legislature?

http://projo.com/gasurvey