PROVIDENCE –– Rhode Island taxpayers will spend thousands of dollars to fuel a legal battle between Republican and Democratic lawmakers that could affect Little Leagues, Boy Scout troops and volunteer fire departments across the state.

The Superior Court case may also change forever a controversial practice that allows the General Assembly’s Democratic leadership to dole out hundreds of small “legislative grants” every year — usually no more than $5,000 — to community organizations on behalf of local legislators.

The Assembly’s tiny Republican minority has long argued that the system is cloaked in secrecy and allows, at the very least, for the perception of impropriety.

Earlier in the summer, the Republican caucus stopped talking. It sued the leaders of the House and Senate, arguing that legislative grant system — expected to cost taxpayers $2.3 million this year — violates the state Constitution.

House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph Montalbano in turn hired the Providence law firm of Wistow & Barylick at $250 per hour — a reduced rate, they note — to defend themselves in a court battle that has already spanned nearly three months. Taxpayers will pick up the tab for the legal fees.

When asked yesterday, spokesmen for the House and Senate could not provide an estimate for how much the legal proceeding may cost. Nor could they detail how much had already been spent, because the law firm had yet to submit its first invoice.

Oral arguments are scheduled for later in the month, although it’s unclear when the case may be decided. Murphy yesterday did not indicate he’d be willing to negotiate a settlement any time soon, given the looming election and the state’s financial problems.

“The bottom line is I got sued, and when you get sued you have to hire an attorney,” Murphy said. “Apparently, for the 2008 campaign, the Republican Caucus is using this as their battle cry. It’s pure politics.”

The Republicans deny that the lawsuit is politically motivated. And they note they are representing themselves in the court case, avoiding the need to hire an outside law firm at taxpayer expense.

House Minority Whip Nicholas Gorham and Newport Rep. Steven Coaty are “volunteer lawyers” for the Republican caucus, according to Gorham.

“We’re not being paid. We’re doing it the way we do a lot of things, because we believe it’s the right thing to do. And if we win it’ll be a lot more valuable than any legal fee we could earn,” Gorham said. “What I hear from my constituents is that the state has got to learn to stop spending money; $2.3 million may not seem like a lot of money, but you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Gorham said the lawsuit was filed only as a last resort after Murphy refused to amend the system by disclosing legislative grants in the state budget, which simply details the legislature’s annual appropriation: $35.6 million.

The legislative grant process goes like this:

Lawmakers must go to the leaders of each chamber to request money on behalf of a local organization. The House speaker and Senate president have complete discretion to approve or deny the money without giving an explanation. If initially approved, a formal application is sent to the organization. A check is typically sent out about a month after the forms are returned.

This process can happen at any time over the course of a legislative session.

So far, in the budget year that began July 1, just over $50,000 has been distributed on the House side as of Oct. 1; grants went to groups such as the Feinstein High School afterschool program, the Friends of Mount Pleasant Library and the Elmwood Little League.

The Senate has yet to release updated figures.

Responding to allegations that the process lacks transparency, the Democrats’ legal filing argues that “there is a rigorous application process.” It further states, “[T]here is simply no requirement that the [state budget] itself include every departmental item of expenditure. To do so would be unduly burdensome — if not impossible.”

The Republicans, however, write that Section 11 of Article 6 of the state Constitution requires complete disclosure, arguing it “is not only a limitation of legislative power to appropriate money to local and private causes, it is a mandate that any such appropriation be clearly stated so that the nature and extent of the appropriation can be understood and deliberated upon by members of the General Assembly and the public.”

The Democrats, in a motion to dismiss the suit, also argue that the Republican Caucus, acting as taxpayers, lacks the standing to bring the suit, because they fail to show they “have suffered an actual injury as a result of the alleged wrongs.”

speoples@projo.com