Rep. Lancia Bill Aims to Bolster House Committee Subpoena Powers

An occasional debate about whether committees in the Rhode Island House of Representatives should have subpoena powers will likely resume when legislators return for General Assembly’s fall session.

Rep. Robert Lancia of Cranston announced Monday that he will pre-file a resolution to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide committees with subpoena power — a change he said “will improve upon our governing framework.”

“I believe it is critical that folks understand that a set of rules exist and that they impact the scope and authority of each of the standing committees in the House of Representatives,” Lancia said. “In order to appreciate why this matters we must consider that legislators who are members of various committees hear testimony on issues of statewide interest – issues that impact the people of Rhode Island from tax and spending, infrastructure, economic development programs and education.”

The legislation will propose each committee have the ability to use the subpoena power after a motion and vote of each of the committee members.

Some legislators have argued that subpoena powers would have been helpful during investigations into the 38 Studios debacle by the House Committee on Oversight.

As it stands, committees can issue subpoenas with a majority vote and the approval of the Speaker of the House, according to both the House rules and state statute.

Here’s the rub: if Lancia’s legislation focuses just on the House rules, state statute would still bring the speaker’s hand to paper for committees to get subpoenas out.

“The statute makes clear they also require the written approval of the Speaker (in the case of the House) or President (in the case of the Senate),” said Common Cause’s John Marion in an e-mail message. “So I would think that Representative Lancia’s proposal to change the rules doesn’t hit the right mark. He needs to aim for the statute” to make an effective change.

In 2011, a bill surfaced that would have given the Speaker of the House and the Senate President unilateral subpoena powers far beyond the scope of existing law.

Though that bill would have only given them the power for auditing state agencies, it raised concerns about the potential for abuse since the power would be in the hands of a lone individual with no checks and balances.

That bill was held for further study and referred to committee.