Newberry: ‘Elect better people in government’

RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS: House Minority Leader Brian C. Newberry is his Statehouse office. He wants Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin to release documents from the state's 38 Studios investigation. / PBN PHOTO/ MICHAEL SALERNO
RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS: House Minority Leader Brian C. Newberry is his Statehouse office. He wants Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin to release documents from the state's 38 Studios investigation. / PBN PHOTO/ MICHAEL SALERNO

Rep. Brian C. Newberry, R-North Smithfield, will run for re-election this year unopposed for the first time. Initially elected in November 2008, he was named House minority leader in May 2011. He will not seek to continue as House minority leader, saying in a recent interview that it is healthy for turnover in leadership positions.

He and House Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello, D-Cranston, recently discussed a range of issues with Providence Business News, including ethics and accountability in elected officials. Last week’s cover story focused on Mattiello.

This week is Newberry’s turn, and he explains why he will be voting against the proposed constitutional amendment allowing the Rhode Island Ethics Commission full authority over the General Assembly.

Has public confidence in the General Assembly fallen back?

- Advertisement -

I suspect the public confidence level in the General Assembly, whatever it was before the session started in 2016, has declined. I don’t know how it couldn’t.

What evidence do you have of that? Was it things people were saying to you or what you were reading?

I think it’s just general disgust. When you see what went on, particularly with [Democratic Reps. Raymond E. Gallison Jr., who resigned amid reports he is the subject of an FBI investigation] and John Carnevale [not seeking-re-election after it was determined he was not living in Providence, which he represented], just to name two obvious examples, coupled with things that have gone on over the past few years, it’s hard not to. I’ve served with … close to 120 people in the General Assembly. The vast majority of those people, whether I agree or disagree with their views, are honest and hardworking and trying to the best of their abilities to do what they think is right. But there are always going to be some, I don’t like the expression “bad apples,” but there are always going to be bad people – one of the things that troubles me about the General Assembly, and I think it’s human nature. I don’t think it’s unique to Rhode Island. I don’t think it’s unique to Democrats or Republicans.

Groups of people in all walks of life tend to close ranks sometimes. There are people in the General Assembly that everyone who serves in the General Assembly knows are, for lack of a better term, bad apples. Ray Gallison’s ethical issues didn’t just start now. John Carnevale fought a long history of issues. … As a group, collectively, the elected members of the General Assembly generally know who … we wouldn’t want to associate with too much in private life, versus someone who is a solid, upstanding citizen. You would hope people who get elected to office are all solid, upstanding citizens. But I think we all know that’s never been true anywhere in the world.

When the ethics reform bill moved through this year, did you feel it was related to these issues?

The only reason the ethics bill passed this year was because of Ray Gallison. Otherwise, the ethics bill never would have passed. And, for the record, when it first came to a vote in 2010, I voted against it. I don’t think the ethics bill is a particularly good piece of legislation. It’s just a feel-good measure. It is not going to have any impact on anything. It’s going to lead to a proliferation of bogus ethics complaints against elected officials. At the end of the day, if you want more ethical people in government, you have to elect better people in government and you have to keep a close eye on what they do.

Isn’t one of the ways you root out ethically challenged people is by investigating complaints made against them?

My big complaint about the ethics bill, going back to 2010, is that it’s so broadly drawn it’s going to lead to harassment. There was an example, going back to 2003, a Republican member from Lincoln, and he worked at CVS [Health Corp.] He did not vote on the pharmacy-choice legislation, the same legislation that got [former Senate President William V.] Irons into trouble in the Senate. He didn’t vote on it. He recused himself, because it would have directly affected his employer. But he spoke about the issue because he knew about it. We’re a part-time legislature. You can’t separate out people’s personal experience from their knowledge. I think people have a right under the First Amendment to speak their minds. I don’t think people should be restricted in what they say by an ethics bill. The complaint cost him … thousands of dollars in legal fees. And by the way, the complaint was ultimately dismissed. In May 2010, the amendment I tried to get passed … at the time was on First Amendment rights. Obviously people should not be voting on things that directly impact them. But the idea, what if I’m speaking to you about something I happen to know about, am I going to get dinged for an ethics violation because it impacts my legal practice in some fashion?

Did the issues surrounding Gallison and Carnevale reflect poorly on the House speaker, because they occupied leadership positions in the House?

It’s inevitable that things like that will reflect badly on him. I don’t think that’s necessarily fair in these instances, but I also understand why people would look askance at that. … I don’t think it’s necessarily fair. But when you’re the speaker you have to take responsibility for what happens on your team. When I first became a minority leader, I had a guy in my own caucus, we had to expel him. He was an embarrassment. He was causing issues and problems. And I wasn’t going to be seen as supporting this. I booted him out of our caucus.

Mattiello has said in the future he’ll be looking at ways to vet his leadership team, including making sure ethics disclosures have been filed. Would a vetting process of some sort help shore up confidence?

At the end of the day, I work with 74 other elected members of the House. Some of them I know very well. Some of them I don’t know at all. I couldn’t tell you much about their private lives. To some degree, you have to trust voters to make good decisions. People need to pay attention to who they vote for. You have to vote for people who you have confidence in. You shouldn’t vote for people who you know are challenged ethically. … What does it mean to vet somebody? At some point, there’s only so much you can do, too. Obviously, you can say, look, if somebody was charged with a crime, I’m not going to be putting them on my leadership team. Well, one would hope they never would have gotten elected in the first place.

Do you get any sense that private investment in Rhode Island is being stunted as a result of coverage in the last several years of corruption or ethical issues? Are companies avoiding the state altogether because they don’t want to deal with this?

I don’t know. I’ve never met someone who’s saying, “I’m not going to invest in Rhode Island because I’ve read stories about corruption or ethical issues.” The only thing that always troubled me about Rhode Island, and the issues we have with corruption or ethics, is this perception among people here, Rhode Islanders, that we’re somehow worse than everywhere else. I don’t believe that’s the case. Unfortunately, unethical behavior and corruption are endemic to political society. It happens all across the United States at all levels. … Look at Massachusetts, the last three speakers of the House were corrupt. That hasn’t affected the economy in Boston.

What would work to help shore up ethics in Rhode Island? Are term limits helpful, or a solution?

Term limits are not a solution. What would help is a much more robust two-party system.

Why would a two-party system exact more discipline?

It’s both a two-party system as well as more competition within the dominant party itself. The reality is a lot of my colleagues never get an opponent. John Carnevale is a case in point. He’s literally had one person run against him, including in his first year. … When people have opposition, be it in the primary or the general election, they tend to be a lot more connected to communities, they have to be a lot more careful in what they do … . They tend to be better elected officials, regardless of their political party, affiliation or views.

Is the GOP going to gain or lose seats this year? What does the landscape look like?

We have 13 seats in the House. Four of them are not running for re-election. Of the nine who are, I think they’ll be fine, be re-elected. Of the four seats that people retired from, we’ve got good candidates running in all four. It depends on how well the candidates run. I wouldn’t be surprised if we gain seats. Are we going to make big gains? It depends on how angry the public is at certain people.

You are seeking re-election this year but are not seeking reappointment as House minority leader. What went into the thinking on that?

Basically, I became minority leader early on in my third year. So, at the time, I knew a couple of things. To the extent it was up to me, I knew then as long as my constituents would re-elect me to the House, I would probably want to stay as a member of the General Assembly longer than I would want to stay as a leader of the Republicans. I think turnover in leadership is a healthy thing. I don’t believe in term limits but I do believe turnover in a leadership position can be a healthy thing. It’s healthy for the dynamic of the group. When you have a group of 10 to 15 people and the same person is the head of that group for too long, it can breed resentment, rivalries. I don’t think that’s good. When you’re a small minority group you have to be able to work effectively as a team. That means you sort of have to allow everybody to shine. I don’t need the title for any reason. … In general, it’s healthy. I think moving around on committees is healthy. That was the first reason. The second reason is there is actually a lot of work and responsibility in being a minority leader; that is not always obvious to the public and is not really serving your constituents. I’ve done it for six years. I knew I didn’t want to do it for eight years. A year ago, when I was in year five, I thought, do I want to do this beyond year six or not, and I decided I did not.

On 38 Studios, with the decision by the state attorney general to not release the documents compiled in the state police investigation, do you feel the General Assembly has a role to play in investigating what happened? Periodically there have been calls for that.

First of all, whatever the attorney general was doing by calling a late Friday afternoon press conference to say he wasn’t going to be filing any charges, but he wasn’t going to give any information to the public, is beyond me. I’m a lawyer, I understand some of the nuances of not wanting to release information. But this isn’t your typical case. I think the attorney general owes it to the public of Rhode Island to release the investigative reports, findings, whatever. I was interviewed as part of that, as were all the members of the House. You can redact information about private stuff that’s not relevant. Put it this way: I was interviewed. I have no problem releasing the transcript of that to the public, and I would think no member of the House would have a problem with it either. He should release it.

Why is a release in the public’s interest?

I was there at the time, and I don’t know what happened. However, I suspect the actual circle of people that put this deal together and were looking to profit from it was much smaller than the public believes it is. I also suspect there may not have been criminal activity that could be prosecuted. There’s a lot of people who were members of the General Assembly then who have come under clouds. Understandably, the public doesn’t trust what happened and so on, who would benefit from seeing this stuff released. I believe what actually happened was much less nefarious and smaller than many people believe it was. For the benefit of the whole state, we should have everything aired in public. … There was a small group of people in the government who knew what this was all about, and they were lying to everyone else. The public wants to know what exactly happened. While everyone has a right to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and there are very good legal protections for that, from a political point of view, people are allowed to draw whatever conclusions they want to draw, from a political point of view, in finding out that Rep. X took the Fifth Amendment when questioned by the state police. If they truly talked to all 113 members of the General Assembly who were in office back then … I’d like to know if someone other than [Former House Speaker] Gordon Fox refused to talk to the state police or the grand jury.

Part of what could be released is who they spoke with and the transcripts?

Who did they speak with and what were the transcripts? I don’t think any of my colleagues have anything to hide from. I think the vast majority have nothing to hide from here, including the speaker, by the way. I think most people should all want their transcripts released of those interviews. •

No posts to display