Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Com'n
| Decision Date | 29 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009-1-M.P.,No. 2008-335-M.P..,2008-335-M.P..,2009-1-M.P. |
| Citation | 973 A.2d 1124 |
| Parties | William V. IRONS v. The RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
John Tarantino, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.
Jason M. Gramitt, Esq., Katherine D'Arezzo, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, ROBINSON, JJ., and WILLIAMS, C.J. (ret.).
Holmes v. Farmer, 475 A.2d 976, 982 (R.I.1984).
The case before us presents this Court with an unusual constitutional conundrum: at the heart of the controversy are two conflicting constitutional provisions, the purpose of each of which is to serve the proper functioning of our representative democracy. One of the long-acknowledged purposes of the Rhode Island Constitution's speech in debate clause, article 6, section 5, is the protection of individual legislators from encroachment by the coordinate branches of government and from legal challenges by disgruntled citizens; but, the legislators are garbed with such protection only while engaged in carrying out their core legislative duties. To the framers of the various constitutions, the public is the ultimate beneficiary of this narrow protection because the speech in debate clause assures an unfettered legislative process. The limited but important immunity conferred by this constitutional provision exists, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "in order to give to the will of the people the influence it ought to have * * *."1
At the same time, our Constitution contains another provision that is pertinent to the case before us—namely, section 8 of article 3. That provision mandates the establishment of an ethics commission and the adoption of a code of ethics by the General Assembly and then states that "[a]ll elected and appointed officials * * * shall be subject to the code of ethics."
It is now our solemn duty to determine the applicability of these two constitutional provisions to the case at bar.
On January 20, 2004, Robert P. Arruda and Beverly M. Clay filed a written complaint with the Rhode Island Ethics Commission (Ethics Commission) against the then-president of the Rhode Island Senate, William V. Irons (Senator Irons).2 The complainants, the chair and vice chair, respectively, of Operation Clean Government (an organization that describes itself as "dedicated to promoting honest, responsible, and responsive state government") alleged that, despite being faced with conflicts of interest, Senator Irons had participated wrongfully in debate and had voted on certain legislation affecting companies with which he had a business relationship. Although the record is sparse with respect to the precise nature of Senator Irons's alleged conflicts of interest, it is evident that Senator Irons participated in legislative acts concerning pharmacies while at the same time maintaining as his private clients companies with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
In its essence, the complaint filed by Mr. Arruda and Ms. Clay alleged that, because Senator Irons, who at all relevant times was an insurance broker, had a pecuniary relationship with CVS, Inc. (a major pharmacy retailer) and with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island (a health insurer), he acted improperly when he voted against the Pharmacy Freedom of Choice legislation in 1999 and 2000.3 Specifically, the complainants alleged that Senator Irons acted wrongfully by "deliberat[ing], consider[ing], and otherwise participat[ing] in a governmental decision to affect pharmacy issues, while he was paid significant commissions by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, the provider of the CVS health-insurance plan covering more than 5,000 employees in Rhode Island." The complainants also asserted that Senator Irons had failed to file the requisite statement of conflict of interest forms,4 had failed to file with the Ethics Commission the requisite financial statement,5 and had failed to disclose income received from either CVS, Inc. or Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island.6
The Ethics Commission determined that the complaint alleged "facts sufficient to constitute a knowing and willful violation" of the Code of Ethics; and on March 3, 2004, the Commission officially informed Senator Irons that it would investigate the allegations in the complaint. See G.L. 1956 § 36-14-12(c)(1). After making the initial determination that the facts alleged in the verified complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action, the Ethics Commission conducted a preliminary investigation to determine whether probable cause existed to support the allegations set forth in the complaint. (According to § 36-14-12(c)(3), if probable cause does not exist, the charges must be dismissed.)
A probable cause hearing was held on November 9, 2004. After conducting an investigation in accordance with the above-referenced statutory mandate, the Ethics Commission issued an order and finding of probable cause for two counts of the complaint, and it dismissed the remaining three counts.7 The Ethics Commission found that probable cause did exist with respect to: (1) the allegation that Senator Irons had a substantial conflict of interest when he participated in the Senate Corporations Committee's consideration of pharmacy choice legislation in the 1999 and 2000 legislative sessions; and (2) the allegation that Senator Irons used his public office to obtain financial gain for CVS, his client, during the same legislative sessions.8
The record before this Court reflects that it was not until April 13, 2007, that there was another filing with the Ethics Commission; on that date, Senator Irons demanded a jury trial pursuant to article 1, sections 10 and 15, of the Rhode Island Constitution.9 On November 6, 2007, Senator Irons filed a motion seeking dismissal of the remaining two counts in the complaint; those counts alleged violations of §§ 36-14-5(a) and (d).10 The motion to dismiss was predicated on Senator Irons's contention that prosecution pursuant to those counts would violate the speech in debate clause, article 6, section 5, of the Rhode Island Constitution. Later that month, the Ethics Commission held a hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the demand for a jury trial. On November 28, 2007, the Ethics Commission denied both Senator Irons's motion to have the outstanding allegations in the complaint dismissed as well as his demand for a jury trial.
On December 13, 2007, Senator Irons filed a complaint in the Superior Court, in which he contended that the Ethics Commission improperly had denied his motion to dismiss as well as his demand for a jury trial.11 His arguments to the Superior Court were similar to those that he had made before the Ethics Commission: viz., (1) that the protection afforded to him by the speech in debate clause rendered him immune from prosecution with respect to the above-referenced counts; and (2) that, if he was not immune, he had a constitutional right to a jury trial. After a hearing with respect to these two issues in the Superior Court, the hearing justice granted Senator Irons's motion to dismiss the remaining two counts. In so ruling, he held:
The hearing justice also addressed Senator Irons's claim of a right to a jury trial, and he concluded that the senator was not so entitled because the Ethics Commission proceedings involved the adjudication of public rights, which type of adjudication he held falls within a recognized exception to the right to be tried by jury.
The Ethics Commission thereafter petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari in order to obtain review of the Superior Court's ruling relative to the speech-in-debate issue, and Senator Irons cross-petitioned for a writ of certiorari with respect to his right to a jury trial. We granted both petitions and issued writs of certiorari.
When reviewing the issues raised in a writ of certiorari, this Court conducts a de novo review with respect to all applicable questions of law. Henderson v. Newport County Regional Young Men's Christian Association, 966 A.2d 1242, 1245-46 (R.I.2009); see also Crowe Countryside Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I.2006); Matter of Falstaff Brewing Corp. re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047, 1049 (R.I.1994). When conducting such review, "[w]e do not weigh the evidence * * *, but only conduct our review to examine questions of law raised in the petition." Henderson, 966 A.2d at 1246 (quoting Crowe, 891 A.2d at 840).
The speech in debate clause, found in article 6, section 5, of the Rhode Island Constitution, provides: "For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other place." The plain and unequivocal language of the clause "confers a privilege on legislators from inquiry into their legislative acts or into the motivation for actual performance of legislative acts that are clearly part of the legislative process." Holmes v. Farmer, 475 A.2d 976, 983 (R.I.1984).12 It is on the basis of this constitutional provision that Senator Irons claims immunity from an enforcement action by the Ethics Commission.
The Ethics Commission, however, argues that sections 7 and 8 of article 3 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeFontes v. Dell, Inc.
....... No. 2004-114-Appeal. . Supreme Court of Rhode Island. . December 14, 2009. . [984 A.2d 1062] . ... See Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Commission, 973 A.2d 1124, 1135 ......
-
WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Sullivan, 2009-17-M.P.
...... of the Division of Taxation of the State of Rhode Island. 1 No. 2009-17-M.P. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. ... Management, 994 A.2d 64, 70 (R.I.2010) (citing Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Commission, 973 A.2d 1124, 1129 ......
-
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Labor & Training
... FRITO-LAY, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, LABOR STANDARDS ... See Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n , 973 A.2d 1124 (R.I. 2009) ......
-
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training
...than the generic reference to "delivery drivers" found in the amendment to § 28-12-4.1(a). See Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 973 A.2d 1124 (R.I. (declining to "abridge . . . a long-standing and widely accepted" provision in absence of express and manifest intent). a Purpose and Effec......