TELL US: Should Lawmakers Answer to the Ethics Commission?

It's the norm for elected and appointed officials in Rhode Island to answer to the state Ethics Commission, but up on Smith Hill, legislators are exempt from its authority.

The state's ethics laws prohibit officials from participating in decisions where a conflict of interest exists and can impose fines and even prosecute officials who engage in ethically corrupt activities.

Four years ago, a June 2009 decision by the Rhode Island Supreme Court stripped the commission of its power to enforce the state's ethics code against the "core acts'' of legislators during a case against former senate President William V. Irons.

The decision held that the “speech in debate” clause of the state Constitution provides immunity from prosecution for members of the General Assembly. The court reasoned that this immunity trumps the ethics amendment that was passed in 1986 and created a commission with jurisdiction over “all elected and appointed officials.”

Bills on both sides of the General Assembly, however, could change that. Rep. Michael Marcello (D-Dist 4), and Sen. Edward O'Neill (I-Dist. 17) would clarify the section in Rhode Island's Constitution that grants immunity to legislators. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Christopher Ottiano (R-Dist. 11) and Rep. John G. Edwards (D-Dist 70).

"I think ethics is something that we all need to have and need to make sure that we are all included in the ethics and that the General Assembly is not just excluded," said Edwards in an interview recently.

"I think we are all very transparent, but i think this will increase transparency," Edwards added.

Tell Us: Do you all think state elected and appointed officials should fall under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission? Share your thoughts in the comments below.