Alice Gibney, Presiding Justice at Rhode Island Superior Court, could have been before the House Finance Committee advocating for added funding to increase courtroom security. But that wasn’t the case Thursday. Rather, she was in Superior Court in Providence and addressing the Warwick Rotary Club.

In the front row, where defendants and their lawyers would be seated, was Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice Francis X. Flaherty. He had just finished a sandwich and was nibbling a cookie. Twenty minutes later, Flaherty, the former Warwick mayor, would usher the group into the Supreme Courtroom and then on a tour of chambers behind the curtain.

The tour was arranged by Rotary Club member Tony Bucci with Superior Court Justice Brian Stern and provided a glimpse of operations that many Rotarians confessed were just as glad not to be a part of.

Gibney didn’t sugarcoat her concern over court security.

“We deal with troubled souls every day,” said Gibney. By her own rules, judges hearing criminal cases must have a minimum of two sheriffs in the courtroom to proceed. For civil cases they can get by with a single sheriff. That’s not always possible, as there just aren’t enough sheriffs. Thursday was one of those days where it appeared judges would have to reschedule hearings due to a lack of sheriffs.

“If you don’t have a sheriff, you don’t get on the bench,” said Gibney.

On Thursday after a scramble, Gibney’s office was able to find the personnel for court to proceed.

Gibney explained in 2008 and 2009 there was a mass exodus of court personnel when the state, in response to the recession, offered state employee buyouts. The number of court employees dropped from 740 to 666. Since then the count has climbed to 680. And while Gibney said new technology has made the courts more efficient, the system is lacking in security.

She said on a daily basis 150 to 200 people “march through this building like penguins.” She believes there is “the potential for danger” as they don’t have sufficient personnel to monitor activities. People entering the court are screened and must pass through a metal detector, but that has not stopped fights and potentially violent outbursts.

In criminal cases Gibney noted it is common to have family of the victim and the accused in the courtroom. Today, she said, frequently gang members of both the victim and the accused are also in court, making for a potentially volatile situation.

She put court security as her primary concern and one that she has voiced to the governor and legislators.

“We don’t have enough of them [sheriffs],” she said. “I don’t know why the lack of security is not a sexier issue.”

Flaherty said security is not such a dire issue in Supreme Court, as the court does not conduct trials and essentially serves as the state’s appeals court. He said the Superior Court will handle more than 14,500 cases in a year; the District Court 30,000 and the Traffic Tribunal 60,000 to 70,000 – whereas the Supreme Court will handle just 220 cases. The court holds five hearings a month.

Judges spend most of their time reading the cases appealed to them from the Family, District and Superior Courts and then, after hearings, meeting at the table in chambers. The chambers is as elegant as the courtroom with its mahogany columns, blindfolded Lady of Justice statue holding the scale of justice and woodwork of carved state symbols. Only the chambers have a homier feel with a giant fireplace, which shows no sign of being used, hall of portraits of former justices and a utilitarian kitchen where soup, sandwiches and light fare can be prepared as judges deliberate a case.

Flaherty described the closed process of rotating around the table, each justice offering their opinion and, after discussion, voting. In some instances, should the court have only four justices because of a pending appointment or a justice has recused themselves, the vote can result in a tie. In that case, the decision reached in the lower court stands, Flaherty explained.

Asked whether on reflection he felt he had made the wrong decision, Flaherty paused. He didn’t get into specifics, saying, “You have to make a decision and move on.” In his personal case he said his career in public service and the political arena was “good training.”

And as for making laws, another question, Flaherty explained the state Supreme Court is not like the U.S. Supreme Court. It does not have the ability to select what cases it hears; it serves as the appeals court.

“That’s where they make the law,” Flaherty said pointing in the direction of the State House that, until the growth of the Rhode Island School of Design, was visible from chamber windows.