R.I. officials launch counterattack on watchdog group
By The Associated Press
07.03.02
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Calling the watchdog group's complaints a "frivolous" personal attack, two high-ranking state officials are striking back by asking the Ethics Commission to fine Operation Clean Government.
The commission dismissed the group's ethics complaint earlier last week against Director of Administration Robert L. Carl Jr. and State Court Administrator John H. Barrette.
The two state officials retaliated by invoking an unused, 4-year-old law under which ethics complaints that are found to be "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless" are punishable by fines of up to $5,000.
"This is nothing less than harassment and intimidation on the part of government officials," said Operation Clean Government Chairman Robert Arruda. "Their intent is to stymie the citizens' right to hold their government accountable."
Carl, a member of Gov. Lincoln Almond's cabinet, and Barrette, who runs the state's court system, are members of the Unclassified Pay Plan Board.
The panel raised eyebrows in January by approving 4.5% pay increases for high-salaried state employees — including Carl and Barrette — in the midst of a budget crisis.
Carl is chairman of the board but only votes to break ties. Barrette voted in favor of the pay raises, which took effect on July 1.
Operation Clean Government filed three complaints — two against Carl and one against Barrette — claiming their involvement violated state ethics laws.
"It was a complaint that we thought was totally frivolous," said Carl. "I didn't vote. I'm obliged by statute to serve on the Unclassified Pay Plan Board, and that's what I did. But I got no special consideration."
The Ethics Commission has scheduled an Aug. 2 hearing on the matter. Carl said he wants Operation Clean Government to reimburse him for the cost of defending himself against the complaint.
"It's a personal attack against my integrity," said Barrette, who likened his vote in favor of the raises to a teacher who serves in the Legislature approving funding for education.
"Even though I was a recipient of a pay raise that I was voting upon, there were something like 2,000 other members of that group," he said. "If I was just voting on a pay raise for myself, then I should be brought up on ethics charges. But that wasn't the case."
The action by Carl and Barrette is the first-ever use of a 1998 law that expedites the method by which public officials can retaliate for ethics complaints that are found to be unfounded or politically motivated.
"There was a sense that the Ethics Commission was being used to grab headlines," said commission prosecutor Jason M. Grammit. "Even if the complaint is later dismissed, the damage is already done."
Carl and Barrette are both political appointees, but the law affords them the same protections as elected officials, said the bill's sponsor, state Sen. John M. Roney, D-Providence.
"People should think twice about filing an ethics complaint," he said. "And there was a substantial reduction in the number of complaints after this bill became law."
In determining what constitutes an unreasonable complaint, the commission will apply the same standards long used by the judicial system to punish those who file frivolous lawsuits, Roney said.
"In 30 years of practicing law, I could count on one hand the complaints that I can think of that have been found to be frivolous," he said. "It's simply an allegation at this point."
Still, critics say the law violates First Amendment rights to protest government actions.
"Ironically, it ends up giving politicians more protection than anybody else," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's precisely the opposite of the way it should be."
Without the law, however, public officials are easy targets for political attacks, Carl contends.
"The General Assembly decided there should be some consequences for people who make frivolous or baseless complaints," he said. "Otherwise public officials are just sitting ducks."
Arruda said Operation Clean Government's lawyers have already met to consider mounting a challenge to the law.
"We've believed from this law's inception that it is unconstitutional, and we certainly are not going to sit still on this," Arruda said.