The full Rhode Island House of Representatives will vote on the rules for their chamber this afternoon. The proposed rules, amended since their introduction last week, contain at least one significant improvement over the originals. The first draft of the new rule 12(a) would have allowed a bill to be denied a hearing, without appeal, if “it appears from the subject matter that the issues presented would be substantially similar to those matters already heard”.  In the rule 12(a) to be voted on today, a bill can only be denied a hearing, without appeal, if “it appears from the subject matter that the issues presented would be substantially similar to those matters already heard” ONLY IF the bill was filed after the 40th legislative day.

Beyond this, the rules of the RI House still are lacking in three substantial areas that need improvement, if the House is to operate in democratic fashion.

1. An amendment to rule 12(f) in this year’s rule makes clear that committee members cannot move to reconsider bills that are “held for further study”, i.e. once a bill is “held for further study”, it can only be brought back with the informal consent of the Speaker and a committee chair which, in practice, gives a one-man veto to the Speaker over every bill proposed. A clear procedure should be established in the rules by which a committee member can ask for a bill that’s been held for further study be considered, which the committee would decide on by majority vote.

I defy anyone to explain why establishing such a procedure would be a bad idea, without turning it into a defense of the idea that a group of people will run wild, unless they are held in check by the power of one strong leader.

2. Related to the challenge above, the Rhode Island House should adopt the rule already in place in the RI Senate, where the committee assignment of a member cannot be changed without the member’s consent (rule 5.2). This would eliminate the possibility of future repeats of Representative Patrick O’Neill being stripped of his Judiciary Committee seat, simply for exercising his basic rights as a legislator and calling for a bill to be voted on.

3. The language regarding discharge petitions in rule 20 should be streamlined, clarifying the meaning of potentially ambiguous statements like “but only one petition may be presented for a public bill or resolution during the course of a session” and thereby establishing that any bill bottled up in committee is eligible for a discharge petition. Also, the only-valid-after-50-legislative-days rule for discharge petitions should be eliminated.

The good news is that, because of the amended 12(a), House members can submit changes to the rules at any time before the 40th day of the session, and the leadership cannot instantly kill them on the basis that the rules bills for this session have already been heard.  What happens after that, of course, is up to the members themselves.