WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? Where’s the protest over Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan’s decision in a case involving former Senate President William Irons?

Judge Darigan has decided that Irons cannot be prosecuted by the state’s Ethics Commission for his actions (votes) in the General Assembly. The dispute between Irons and the Ethics Commission arose from a conflict of interest complaint filed by Operation Clean Government against Irons as a result of actions he took in the Senate at the same time he was receiving thousands of dollars in commissions on a Blue Cross insurance policy covering CVS workers (“Charges against Irons dismissed,” news, Oct. 30).

Irons, who chaired the Senate Corporations Committee, worked to derail pharmacy-choice legislation that CVS, a major source of Irons’s income, wanted killed. The same article quotes Ethics Commission lawyer Jason M. Gramitt as saying he expected the Ethics Commission will appeal this decision to the state’s Supreme Court.

This decision by the Superior Court prevents the commission from holding legislators accountable when they misuse their office and violate the public’s trust. It lets legislators use their vote to favor themselves, their friends, their businesses, and their employers with impunity. Irons’ behavior is an obvious conflict of interest, but Judge Darigan’s decision validates this kind of behavior by members of the General Assembly.

This is not just some arcane legal conundrum of little interest to most Rhode Islanders. Darigan’s decision essentially guts the state’s Code of Ethics and leaves the Ethics Commission powerless when legislators violate this code. His decision is based on a 200-year-old “speech in debate” clause in the Rhode Island Constitution that protects members of the General Assembly from reprisals for their legislative actions. Article VI, Section 5 of the state’s constitution says, “For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other place.” Judge Darigan believes this sentence trumps a 1986 amendment to the state Constitution that created the Rhode Island Ethics Commission precisely to deal with abuses of office by public officials.

Article III, Section 8 of the Rhode Island Constitution states, “all elected and appointed officials and employees of the state and local government, of boards, commissions and agencies shall be subject to the code of ethics.” The key word is all — it means members of the state General Assembly House and Senate as well as all other elected officials. This amendment further states, “The ethics commission shall have the authority to investigate violations of the code of ethics and to impose penalties, as provided by law.”

So what is the court to do when confronted with two provisions in the constitution that seem to contradict each other?

Must the courts decide in favor of one provision and eviscerate the other? Why not keep the speech in debate provisions in place except when the legislator is accused of a serious crime or a violation of the state’s code of ethics? A substantial conflict of interest is a serious crime, like bribery. The code of ethics is contained in Rhode Island General Laws 36-14-1 through 36-14-21. If the speech in debate clause allows lawmakers to violate the ethics code, then it allows lawmakers to break the law.

The state has a long history of prominent political leaders who left office after various ethical lapses, including former House Speakers Joseph A. Bevilacqua, Matthew J. Smith, and John B. Harwood and former Senate Majority Leader John P. Hawkins. Former House Majority Leader Gerard Martineau and former state Sen. John Celona were recently sentenced to multi-year prison terms for using their positions for personal gain, essentially selling the public’s trust. The Rhode Island Ethics Commission fined Celona a total of $130,000 for 10 ethics violations. The list of other state legislators, fined for ethics violations, includes: Senate President Joseph Montalbano ($12,000), House Majority Leader Gordon Fox ($10,000), Rep. Raymond Gallison ($6,000) and Sen. Frank Ciccone III ($1,500).

The state’s code of ethics and the Ethics Commission are the first line of defense against political corruption. Without some agency to monitor and enforce honesty, integrity and impartiality in government, corruption will flourish. If our state legislators are allowed to ignore the code of ethics, it will be possible for them to enact all kinds of self-serving legislation. It will be a mortal wound to decency, democracy and the constitutional commitment to high ethical standards embodied in the 1986 amendment to the constitution.

How can we have a code of ethics that applies to two branches of our government and not to the legislative branch? What message is the court sending to our citizens about the standards of conduct they can expect from our legislators? What message does it send to government workers about the motivation to serve in the General Assembly? What message does this interpretation of the law send to our children?

Where is the outrage and protest? Why are our spiritual, industrial, political and academic leaders silent on this explosive issue?

Now, more than ever, Rhode Island needs a strong code of ethics that applies to all state officials, including members of the General Assembly.

Robert A. Benson Jr. is first vice president of Operation Clean Government (ocgri.org).