PROVIDENCE — The Judicial Nominating Commission believes it should be allowed to keep the public from seeing letters advocating for or against candidates for state judgeships, Chairman Stephen J. Carlotti said in a letter this week.

And now the commission is asking Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch “to confirm that its interpretation of the Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act is correct.”

The commission — which screens all state judge candidates and recommends finalists to the governor — has in the past provided the public with access to letters regarding judicial candidates, including letters submitted eight years ago on behalf of Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams.

But Carlotti, who was appointed by Governor Carcieri in February 2007, said he would not release such letters when The Journal made an inquiry last month. When told that the commission had released letters in the past, he said he would take up the matter with the rest of the commission. And during a meeting Tuesday, the commission agreed to send a letter requesting the attorney general’s opinion on the matter.

In a letter released yesterday, Carlotti said, “The Commission believes that the application and the accompanying letters are documents of a nature exempted under the provisions of [the Access to Public Records Act] in that they are part of files maintained as part of the process for ‘hiring’ judges.”

“Accordingly,” the letter said, “the commission requests that you confirm that its interpretation of the Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act is correct in this regard and that the commission is under no obligation to release letters of recommendation submitted on behalf of applicants to the public.”

Carlotti told Lynch that the Access to Public Records Act “makes available to the public all documents, papers, letters, etc. [in] connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.” But, he said, the law “provides that certain information shall not be deemed public records, including information in personnel files maintained to hire, evaluate, promote or discipline any employee of a public body.”

Carlotti described the commission as “an integral part of the appointment of judges to the courts over which the commission has recommendatory power.” He noted applicants submit detailed applications, which include tax returns, and he noted that while it’s not a requirement, many applicants ask people to write to the commission on their behalf.

“The letters are made a part of the application submitted by the applicant and are not kept separate and apart from the application itself,” Carlotti wrote. And the commission does not release the application or “the required supporting documents,” he said.

“Although not during my tenure, I am informed that in the past the commission has on occasion released letters of recommendation,” Carlotti wrote.

Scott Pickering — president of the Rhode Island Press Association and managing editor of East Bay Newspapers, which publishes eight weekly newspapers from East Providence to Newport — said that based on Carlotti’s letter, it’s difficult to figure out why the commission would want to keep the letters secret.

“The closest I can come to an explanation is that the letters are part of the application,” he said. But if that’s the case, he said, “It’s just a matter of removing some staples from a piece of paper, and you have 10 business days to accomplish that feat.”

Whatever the rationale, Pickering said, “no public good comes of this.” By definition, letters of recommendation are positive, he said, and the public should be aware of any negative information before judges receive lifetime appointments.

“We should find out the good and the bad. That’s the whole point of this public review process,” Pickering said. “So all this does is create the perception that they are hiding something. It hurts their cause.”

The Access to Public Records Act is a good law, Pickering said. But, he said, “There are numerous sections where exclusions to the law are open to interpretation, and they are taking this particular one too far — beyond what the spirit of the law intended.” He said, “The spirit of the law is to protect personal, private information about applicants, such as tax returns and Social Security numbers — not a Rhode Island citizen’s recommendation about whether the person is a good candidate or not.”

Ross E. Cheit — a Brown University associate professor of political science and public policy, and a board member of the freedom-of-information coalition ACCESS/RI — said he is not sure that the Access to Public Records Act applies to the Judicial Nominating Commission, but he said there are strong arguments for making such letters public.

“Judges have such strong tenure and protection once they are in the job, this is the strongest opportunity for some public accountability,” Cheit said. “The fact is, if you write to a government agency, I don’t think you have an expectation of privacy. If their input matters, why isn’t it part of the record?”

If the argument is that letter writers don’t want their names or addresses disclosed, then the commission could release copies with the names or addressed blacked out, Cheit said.

In an interview yesterday, Carlotti said, “I’m not trying to hide anything at all.” He said he is concerned about maintaining “the integrity of the application process” and encouraging people to apply for judgeships and to write to the commission about candidates.

“The purpose of keeping [letters] confidential is to encourage people from communicating with the commission without being afraid that their names and what they said are going to be in the press,” Carlotti said. “I know there is a tradeoff, and a right of the public to know, but that’s what the public hearing is about.”

He noted members of the public can testify for or against candidates at public hearings, and they can listen to the commission interview candidates. “I think the commission process is open and above board,” he said. “This is a matter of degree.”

efitzpat@projo.com