Summertime finds Robert and Maureen McKenna Goldberg relaxing on their power boat like any other married couple, cruising off the Rhode Island shore or out to Block Island.

But onshore, when he wears a suit and she dons a black robe, they become Rhode Island’s ultimate power couple, the influential State House lobbyist and the acting chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Extra

Journal file photos

Maureen McKenna Goldberg
Age: 58
Education: Providence College, Suffolk University Law School
Background: Former state prosecutor, third woman to serve on Rhode Island Supreme Court

Robert D. Goldberg
Age: 57
Education: George Washington University, University of Tulsa Law School
Background: Former state  Republican state senator for South Kingstown, 1983-90, former Senate minority leader, and current State House lobbyist

Robert Goldberg as lobbyist

Chart: Goldberg's clients

Justice Goldberg, a finalist for chief justice, bristled when a member of the Judicial Nominating Commission asked her in a public interview if her husband’s position as a powerful lobbyist could compromise her effectiveness as the state’s top judge. She called it a sexist question and said that most of her recusals have nothing to do with her husband.

“The job is hard enough without having to look out in the courtroom and see someone you know,” she said. “Then you need to step out.”

For instance, when the Supreme Court heard a case involving the Coastal Resources Management Council, Justice Goldberg recused herself because her husband has been in a years-long legal fight with the council on behalf of a Block Island marina seeking to expand.

But last winter, when the Supreme Court was asked to rule, in an unrelated case, on an issue that had a direct bearing on the marina’s lawsuit, Justice Goldberg participated. Two months later, a lower-court judge cited that case in ruling in favor of Bob Goldberg’s client.

The Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct state that judges should recuse themselves if they know that a family member has an economic interest in a controversy or an interest “that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”

But that line is fraught with uncertainty in little Rhode Island.

H. Philip West, former executive director of Rhode Island Common Cause and a longtime follower of the judicial selection process, wonders how much the Goldbergs share with one another about their work, and how that might affect their attitudes and actions.

“Bob has his hands in scores of policy and legal issues across state government,” says West. “I’m troubled that Maureen will have to recuse herself or by the anxiety that people might have if she doesn’t recuse herself.” Given her husband’s broad portfolio, from gambling to health care to energy to the environment, potential conflicts might not always be so obvious or apparent, he noted.

Echoes Arthur C. Barton, president of Operation Clean Government: “Legislation that her husband is paid to promote, she is paid to review. We don’t want a chief justice who is compromised, or has to recuse herself. It’s one of those things that taints government in Rhode Island, if the chief justice is married to the highest-paid lobbyist in the state.”

Barton says that Justice Goldberg’s presence on the bench could also be perceived as helping her husband’s law practice as well as his lobbying at the State House, where many legislative leaders are lawyers who earn their livelihood in court.

Justice Goldberg has won wide praise for her toughness and fairness, her independence and her intellect. And many feel it’s time for Rhode Island to have its first woman chief justice. Even West doesn’t question her competence; it’s the coziness of the system and her husband’s legal and lobbying practice that concerns him.

Bob Goldberg earned just over $800,000 last year in lobbying fees, from such clients as GTECH, Twin River, UnitedHealth Group and Deepwater Wind. He is close to House Speaker William J. Murphy, who will have a prominent say in the selection of the next chief justice and who recognized Bob Goldberg at the speaker’s St. Patrick’s Day luncheon as one of Rhode Island’s pre-eminent lobbyists.

“Is [Bob Goldberg] lobbying for her appointment?” asks Barton. “He knows everyone at the State House and he’s one of the biggest, if not the biggest, lobbyists up there.”

Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, says that she’s heard State House talk of a deal in which Governor Carcieri would nominate Goldberg as chief justice in return for the governor’s chief of staff Brian Stern’s confirmation to a lower-court judgeship.

Carcieri’s legal counsel, Kernan King, says there is no deal, though he views Murphy as favoring Justice Goldberg. And while King says Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed has not taken a position in his talks with her, Perry said that Paiva Weed recently told her it would be great for Rhode Island to have its first female chief justice.

The Goldbergs declined to be interviewed for this story. Bob Goldberg said it “wouldn’t be appropriate.” Justice Goldberg scheduled and then canceled an interview, without explanation. Instead, she issued a statement through a court spokesman that she follows the rules all judges do. She has stepped aside from cases involving separation of powers, casino gambling and lead-paint poisoning because of her husband’s involvement.

“She feels strongly that her qualifications for office should not be measured by or against her husband’s successes,” said the statement.

THE SAGA OF A Block Island marina where the Goldbergs enjoy leisure time in the summer illustrates the dilemma of whether to recuse or not to recuse.

In 2003, Bob Goldberg represented Champlin’s Marina in its application for a permit to expand its dock space in the Great Salt Pond, only to run into fierce opposition from many islanders and environmentalists. In 2006, after a series of contentious hearings that helped run the marina’s legal and professional bill to more than $500,000, the Coastal Resources Management Council blocked the expansion.

Goldberg cried foul, accusing key council members of being biased and basing their votes against the marina on private communications with CRMC staffers and direction from Governor Carcieri, who opposed the expansion. Goldberg appealed to Superior Court.

Meanwhile, the composition of the CRMC was the subject of another fight, at the State House. Following Rhode Island voters’ approval of the separation of powers law in 2004, which barred legislators from executive boards and commissions, lawmakers were forced to give up their seats on the CRMC.

But House leaders weren’t eager to cede their powers. Speaker Murphy argued that the state Constitution still gave the legislature authority over regulating the coastline.

In 2005, with the Champlin’s decision still pending before the CRMC, the House killed a Senate-passed bill giving the governor more appointments to the council. That June, the Rhode Island Supreme Court weighed in. In a case involving a swimmer who had been cited for swimming illegally in the Winnapaug Pond breachway in Westerly, the court ruled that the legislature, not the executive branch, was responsible for regulating Rhode Island’s tidal waters.

Justice Goldberg participated in that decision, Westerly v. Bradley.

The following year, during a Senate hearing on who should control the CRMC, Bob Goldberg cited Westerly v. Bradley to support his argument that it was the legislature’s prerogative.

“This is as clear as it gets in the law,” said Goldberg, who spoke of Champlin’s fight but appeared before the committee as a “citizen.” “This is a legislative function . . . This is a clear definition from the Supreme Court . . . It’s not my job to tell you people what to do; all I can tell you is what I think.”

ON JAN. 2, 2008, with the Champlin’s appeal pending before her, Superior Court Judge Nettie Vogel asked the lawyers to address an urgent question raised by a Supreme Court decision that had come down on Dec. 24, 2007.

In that case, Arnold v. Lebel, the high court criticized hearing officers from the Rhode Island Department of Human Services for having ex-parte, or off-the-record, communications with staff members that factored into their denial of medical-assistance claims. The plaintiffs, two individuals who had been denied assistance, argued that state law requires such decisions to be based solely on the public record.

That was the same argument Bob Goldberg was making in the Champlin’s case, regarding improper CRMC communications.

Justice Goldberg joined in that unanimous decision, which was written by Chief Justice Frank Williams.

In a court brief to Vogel, Bob Goldberg praised “the wisdom of the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Arnold in prohibiting ex-parte communications.”

Another lawyer on the other side of the Champlin’s case called the Arnold decision “a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on how to handle ex-parte communications.”

In February, Vogel ruled in favor of Champlin’s, allowing the marina’s expansion to proceed because two council members had been “biased and prejudiced” and because of improper communications between council members and staff.

Vogel wrote that the Supreme Court’s Arnold decision “clarified illicit ex parte communications” in Rhode Island. Private discussions that council members had regarding Champlin’s “clearly falls within the purview of prohibited ex parte communications addressed by the Supreme Court in Arnold v. Lebel.”

“It is most unfortunate that some members engaged in ex parte communications in violation of (the law) as interpreted in Arnold,” wrote Vogel.

Vogel also ruled against the Town of New Shoreham’s argument that its harbor plan gave it control over the marina’s proposed expansion. Among the cases she cited: Westerly v. Bradley, the 2005 case that Justice Goldberg had participated in.

Last December, the Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion to the House regarding who controlled the CRMC. A brief from Speaker Murphy arguing in favor of the legislature cited Westerly v. Bradley. But the court, in a unanimous decision, sided with the governor.

Justice Goldberg recused herself from that case. She told the Judicial Nominating Commission in March that she did so “because I could not be fair and impartial.” Because her husband was “embroiled in litigation” involving the CRMC, she said, “I did not think it appropriate that I sit on it.”

ROBERT GOLDBERG CALLS his 52-foot powerboat the Temperance, his mother’s name.

On at least two occasions, he and his wife have invited other Supreme Court justices and their spouses on the boat.

In an interview, Justice William Robinson recalled an outing in the summer of 2005 from Point Judith to Newport for lunch, and a 2006 cruise to Montauk, on Long Island. He said that there may have been a third trip, to Block Island, but he cannot specifically recall because he has been to Block Island so many times on his own.

Robinson, also a finalist for chief justice, says that he takes decisions whether to recuse seriously, having his clerks review incoming cases for potential conflicts. His wife sells real-estate in East Greenwich, but that would not necessarily preclude him from sitting on cases involving real-estate, unless she or someone he was close to was personally involved.

“I suspect it’s harder for us in Rhode Island than it is for judges in California or Pennsylvania,” says Robinson.

Robinson said that the few times he has socialized with Bob Goldberg will not necessarily prevent him from judging the Champlin’s case, which is headed to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t have a close and continuous social relationship with Bob Goldberg,” said Robinson.

Meanwhile, Governor Carcieri continues to vet the five finalists for chief justice: Goldberg, Robinson, Supreme Court justices Francis X. Flaherty and Paul A. Suttell, and Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan Jr. His legal counsel, Kernan King, says the governor will personally interview the candidates. A decision should come by June, before the General Assembly adjourns.

With seven judicial vacancies to fill on various courts, King acknowledged that the governor could agree to package multiple nominations, including Justice Goldberg’s, as part of a deal with legislators. Or Carcieri could decide “he might prefer someone else.”

With staff reports from Tracy Breton and Peter B. Lord.

mstanton@projo.com