Opinion ID: 2062246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the language contained in article 3, section 8, should be interpreted as conferring substantive legislative power regarding ethics on the commission?

Text: As a threshold matter, we adhere to the proposition set forth by the commission's proponents and hereby construe the phrase which shall adopt as it is set forth in the first sentence of article 3, section 8, of the Rhode Island Constitution as requiring that the commission, not the General Assembly, adopt a code of ethics. Indeed, if the framers had intended that the General Assembly be charged with the task of adopting a code of ethics, they could have easily substituted and for which. With the foregoing construction in mind, we turn to the fundamental question of whether the term adopt as it is used in article 3, section 8, is to be construed as divesting the General Assembly of the legislative power to enact substantive ethics laws and rather confers such power upon the commission. We are cognizant that definitionally adopt does not literally mean enact, develop, or create. However, we do not find the term to be the great source of ambiguity and confusion that the parties have envisioned. On the contrary, in adhering to the foregoing principles of constitutional construction, we are of the opinion that in applying a plain and ordinary meaning to the term, it is clear that adopt as it is used in article 3, section 8, was intended to bestow the power to enact substantive ethics laws upon the commission. In support we need only look to this state's historical treatment and understanding of the term. Most notably, the term adopt is included in the constitution itself. As previously indicated, article 15, section 4, directed that on or before June 1, 1988, the general assembly shall adopt implementing legislation for Article III, Sections 7 and 8, and for Article IV, Section 10. (Emphasis added.) The General Assembly, pursuant to this constitutional directive, terminated the pre-existing Conflicts of Interest Commission and established the Ethics Commission. Thereafter, the General Assembly enacted the code of ethics as contained in chapter 14 of title 36, which the commission subsequently adopted. Obviously, by taking the foregoing actions pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the General Assembly itself understood and construed the term adopt as requiring it to develop, establish, or enact legislation to create an ethics commission and, albeit erroneously, a code of ethics. Furthermore, this court has consistently understood adopt to mean create, develop, and enact. As previously noted in expounding on the methodology to be employed regarding constitutional construction, we have held that it is indeed proper to consult what extrinsic sources are available: not only the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention itself but also legislation relating to the constitutional provision in question adopted at the same time as the constitutional amendment or subsequently. (Emphasis added.) Cianci, 591 A.2d at 1201 (citing In re Opinion to the Governor, 35 R.I. 166, 85 A. 1056 (1913)); see also Gorham v. Robinson, 57 R.I. 1, 186 A. 832 (1936). Moreover, we have adhered to the Supreme Court rules governing constitutional construction, which themselves apply the term adopted. Specifically, in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 723, 9 L.Ed. 1233 (1838), the Court stated that `[i]n the construction of the constitution, we must look to the history of the times, and examine the state of things existing when it was framed and adopted   .' (Emphasis added.) In re Advisory Opinion (Chief Justice), 507 A.2d at 1320; Bailey, 120 R.I. at 391-92, 394 A.2d at 1339. See also Parcell v. State, 228 Kan. 794, 796, 620 P.2d 834, 836 (1980) (in upholding the validity of government ethics commission, the court noted that the commission is empowered to adopt rules and regulations for the administration of the Campaign Finance Act). (Emphasis added.) Last, the term adopt has been used extensively in this jurisdiction throughout the provisions of the General Laws and perhaps most frequently within the APA. In it the General Assembly provided specific procedures to which each agency must adhere in adopting rules and regulations. [9] Specifically, § 42-35-2(a) provides in pertinent part that each agency shall    (2) Adopt rules of practice    (3) Make available to public inspection all rules    adopted    by the agency. (Emphasis added.) Section 42-35-3(c) states, No rule hereafter adopted is valid unless adopted in substantial compliance with this section. (Emphasis added.) Section 42-35-4(a) provides, Upon adoption of a rule each agency shall file forthwith in the office of the secretary of state a certified copy of each such rule. (Emphasis added.) In construing the foregoing provisions of the APA, this jurisdiction has consistently recognized that adopt is synonymous with enact. [10] Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the General Assembly has frequently interchanged alternative terms for adopt in conferring legislative power upon administrative agencies. [11]