Ten years and three different speakers of the House have taught me that fundamental change will never occur in state government until we curtail the speaker’s power. That power resides not in the state Constitution but in House rules. Research by Rhode Island political historian Steve Frias shows this was not always the case.

The issue is not one man but a biannual ritual whereby the Democrats, post-election, cede most of their power to one person by adopting rules that kneecap their ability to dissent.

It’s absurd. Their constituents don’t elect them to grovel before one person, and surely they don’t enjoy the experience.

The speaker’s power derives from two prerogatives working in concert: He makes all committee appointments and also controls what comes to the floor for a vote. Together, they ensure that nearly everything he wants will occur and nothing he doesn’t will happen.

Abolishing these powers, returning them to the membership, will “democratize” the legislature. The speaker will still retain considerable power through the ability to control the timing and flow of legislation, negotiate with the Senate and, through staff control, influence the budget process, but the “dictatorship” will end.

Some proposals based on past practice from decades ago:

— Let the body elect committee members.

— Let the committees elect their chairs.

— Keep the ability to “hold for further study” — it's a useful tool to prevent terrible legislation that is politically difficult to oppose from being weaponized as a cheap political cudgel — but permit discharge petitions that are signed by 31 members to bring bills to the floor.

— Leave the power in the speaker’s hands to otherwise refer held bills back to committee, but allow each committee chair plus the minority leader to force substantive committee votes on a limited number of bills.

The details of how to make this all work are complex, but it can be done.

Under the current system, the speaker decides which bills live and which die. Each spring brings a parade of Democrats begging for crumbs and Republicans watching, bemused, from the sidelines. It’s debasing. All 75 members are equal and should be treated as such.

If you can’t persuade your colleagues to support your legislation, that is democracy in action. But if your idea dies because one person doesn’t like it, or as punishment for an “infraction,” the result is not only counter to the spirit of our governing philosophy but a recipe for abuse.

Some will argue against these proposals by pointing to situations where the speaker’s power was used to block some politically popular but otherwise terrible ideas. I have seen and welcomed this result several times, but to succumb to this line of thinking is to justify the means by the ends. Short-term, one can live that way, but long-term, this attitude corrodes our system and feeds public cynicism, causing good people to refrain from running for office, leading people to tune out, and permitting those who know best how to work the inside game to use it for their own purposes.

Process matters. The great insight of the Founding Fathers of this country, embodied in our federal Constitution, is that power corrupts and needs to be checked and diffused.

Rhode Island state government has evolved into the very opposite of such a system, and the results speak for themselves.

Changing this system is essential, but ultimately it is in the hands of the 75 members of the House.

We have a chance for reform in a few months. Let’s not blow it.

-- Brian C. Newberry, R-North Smithfield, is a state representative and a former House minority leader.