IN A JUNE 26 EDITORIAL (“Correcting the code”), The Journal chastises the Rhode Island Senate for failing to rubber- stamp a 22-page House bill making extensive changes in the state fire code passed by the House and delivered to the Senate in the final minutes of the 2007 session.

It is ironic, at best, that this newspaper, which has consistently criticized the General Assembly for what it perceives as pushing through complex legislation without consideration in the last hours of the session, would criticize the Senate for declining to do so.

There were extremely good, indeed compelling, reasons for the Senate’s hesitation:

Although your editorial stated that the legislation passed the House “with the support of top fire-safety officials,” there was and is substantial opposition to the House bill within the top ranks of fire-safety officials. Your own paper reported as much.

On the morning of the last legislative day (June 22), The Journal ran a story by Mark Arsenault citing the concerns of the firefighting community about legislation revising the code (“Bill to ease fire-code restrictions stalls in Assembly”). In that article, Providence Fire Chief George Farrell, who until April 27 was the state’s fire marshal and remains one of the most well-regarded fire-safety authorities in the state, observed that the legislation seemed to have been rushed. “We haven’t clearly looked at all the issues in this bill,” he is quoted as saying. “There has not been enough time to address the drastic changes. . . . I’m just not in favor of this piece of legislation.”

The bill was amended that very same night in the House and sent to the Senate in the early morning of the 23rd. The Senate did not have an opportunity to responsibly review the language changes made to the fire code on the last day of session. Furthermore, there was not time to conduct the legislative hearings, complete with testimony from all sides of the debate, that would be appropriate with such a complex piece of legislation in order to ensure public safety.

The legislature does not serve the public’s interest when we pass legislation quickly that we have been advised just hours earlier could endanger the public’s safety.

The present fire code was instituted following months of hearings after the Station nightclub fire. It was signed into law with much fanfare by Governor Carcieri. The code is, in large part, a reflection of national fire-safety standards. It adopts the framework set forth by the National Fire Protection Association.

The code also includes a fair amount of flexibility, reinforced through legislation championed by the Senate in 2005, and noted in this paper’s editorial: The Fire Safety Code Board of Appeals is granted powers under the fire code to make reforms to the code. Proponents of the bill are seeking regulatory action precisely because the code that is in place allows for such action; and it is clear that the code allows for regulatory reform because of legislation championed in the Senate.

Following enactment of the new code in 2003, the Senate has responded when necessary with legislation to address concerns that were expressed to us about the code by the business community. Clarifying the code’s flexibility in 2005 is one example. Additionally, Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski championed the effort to create more flexible options for fire safety in churches and houses of worship. Using the flexibility of the existing code, I worked to ensure that consideration was given for bed-and-breakfast establishments. The Senate provided substantial staff support to the Council of Churches and the Bed and Breakfast Association in these successful efforts to find workable and practical interpretations of the code.

Further, since enactment of the code in 2003, the Senate has met on a regular basis with the fire marshal and the Fire Safety Code Board to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the new provisions. We have been assured that the majority of issues raised before the House study commission could be handled under existing law through regulation. This is precisely how the system is supposed to work.

The Senate would have preferred that these regulatory actions had taken place months ago, and it is possible that the prospect of statutory-code changes delayed the process of regulatory changes.

The Senate has consistently worked quietly and responsibly on this issue with the business community and the state fire marshal’s office. We remain concerned and committed to continuing to work toward relieving undue economic hardship caused by code changes. However, any prospective changes to the law will address these issues in a thoughtful manner.

M. Teresa Paiva Weed is Rhode Island Senate majority leader. A Democrat, she represents District 13 (Newport and Jamestown).