Minutes 3-24-26

MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION

OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION

March 24, 2026

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 4^th meeting of 2026 at 9:00 a.m. at the Rhode Island Ethics Commission conference room, located at 40 Fountain Street, 8th Floor, Providence, Rhode Island, on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, pursuant to the notice published at the Commission offices, the State House Library, and electronically with the Rhode Island Secretary of State.

The following Commissioners were present:

Lauren E. Jones, Chair Christopher P. Callahan

Holly J. Susi, Vice Chair Scott P. Rabideau

Emma L. Peterson, Secretary Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.

The following Commissioners were not present: Frank J. Cenerini and Matthew D. Strauss.

Also present were Herbert F. DeSimone, Jr., Commission Legal Counsel; Jason Gramitt, Commission Executive Director; Katherine D’Arezzo, Senior Staff Attorney; Lynne M. Radiches, Staff Attorney/Education Coordinator; Staff Attorneys Teresa Giusti and Teodora Popova Papa; and Commission Investigators Gary V. Petrarca and Kevin Santurri.

At 9:04 a.m., the Chair opened the meeting.

The first order of business was:

Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on March 3, 2026.

Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on March 3, 2026.

The next order of business was:

Director’s Report: Status report and updates.

Complaints and investigations pending

Executive Director Gramitt informed that there is one complaint, In re: James E. Thorsen, pending. He stated that the adjudication began on March 17, 2026, and closing arguments and Commission deliberation will take place on Wednesday, April 8, 2026. Executive Director Gramitt noted that post-trial memoranda are due by April 1, 2026. In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt informed that the transcript of the March 17, 2026, adjudication should arrive at the Commission’s office tomorrow.

Advisory opinions pending

There are 17 advisory opinions pending, seven of which have been noticed for today’s meeting. In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt explained that while most requests are handled expeditiously, the staff endeavors to accommodate time-sensitive requests.
Access to Public Records Act requests since last meeting

There were 11 APRA requests received since the last meeting, eight of which were granted within one business day. Three requests required redactions to protect privacy interests and, therefore, an extra day or two to process. Eight requests related to complaint matters, one request related to recusals, and two requests related to advisory opinions.

Financial disclosure

Financial statement forms were mailed on March 17, 2026, and the volume of incoming phone calls has increased, which is typical for this time of the year. Executive Director Gramitt informed that, as of today, 885 completed statements have been received resulting in a 22% compliance rate. He reminded that this is an election year and approximately 500 candidates also will be required to file financial statements within 30 days of filing their declaration of candidacy at the end of June.

General office administration

The Thorsen adjudication will resume on April 8, 2026, and the Commission’s next regular meeting is scheduled for April 14, 2026.

The next order of business was:

Advisory Opinions.

The advisory opinions were based on draft advisory opinions prepared by Commission Staff for review by the Commission and were scheduled as items on the Open Session Agenda for this date.

The first advisory opinion was that of:

Alexis Gorriarán, a member of the board of directors of the Providence Tourism Council, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he may accept an offer of employment by the board to become the council’s executive director, provided that he resigns from membership on the board upon accepting the position.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present along with Susan Leach DeBlasio, Esq., legal counsel for the Providence Tourism Council, and Richard Simone III, Providence Tourism Council Board member and Chair of the Personnel Committee. Commissioner Ricci informed that he and Attorney Leach DeBlasio are friends and, while he does not believe that he has a conflict, he inquired of Chair Jones as to whether he should recuse. Chair Jones responded that recusal is not required if no conflict is present.

Staff Attorney Radiches noted edits on pages two and seven of the draft opinion which should read “deemed qualified to be considered by the committee.” Chair Jones stated that Attorney Leach DeBlasio and Mr. Simone are not present to represent the Petitioner’s interests but only to support his application. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Mr. Simone informed that the Providence Tourism Council’s Board voted to form a personnel committee of which he was asked to serve as chair. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion, as amended and attached hereto, to Alexis Gorriarán, a member of the board of directors of the Providence Tourism Council.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

The Honorable Todd M. Patalano, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island Senate, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from introducing and voting on legislation that would amend the pension benefits for both current and former Rhode Island State Police members, given that one of his sons is currently a Rhode Island state trooper.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Staff Attorney Popova Papa informed that the Petitioner had received safe harbor status to allow him to introduce the legislation pending the outcome of his advisory opinion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Rabideau, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to The Honorable Todd M. Patalano, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island Senate.

Chair Jones noted that the class exception is a statutory provision passed by the General Assembly and not a regulatory provision adopted by the Ethics Commission. The Petitioner commented that similar legislation was introduced last year by another legislator but did not pass. He stated that he was asked to introduce this bill this year given his experience with the pension system.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Frank M. Brown Jr., a member of the Coventry Town Council, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether his daughter’s employment with the Coventry Tax Collector’s Office would present a conflict of interest for him under the Code of Ethics.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff. The Petitioner was present. In response to Commissioner Susi, the Petitioner stated that the Town Council votes on the budget as a whole, which includes the tax collector’s compensation. Upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Frank M. Brown Jr., a member of the Coventry Town Council.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Shannah Kurland, Esq., a new board member of the Providence External Review Authority (PERA), who in her private capacity is a licensed attorney who regularly represents clients in civil cases alleging misconduct against the Providence Police Department and its officers, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from serving on PERA, given her private employment.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff alternative recommendations. The Petitioner was present. Chair Jones noted that he worked with the Petitioner’s law firm in the past but has not had any business association with it or the Petitioner in the past four years. The Petitioner addressed the Commission and informed that she is the lead attorney on six open police misconduct cases in her office, four of which are against the Providence Police Department’s officers and/or the City of Providence. She stated that four of those cases are in active litigation, and two are in pre-litigation (one of which involves Providence and the other does not). The Petitioner further stated that no one in her firm, including her, has represented a client before PERA.

The Petitioner explained that as a PERA Board member she will not be privy to any information that will not be available to the public. She clarified that PERA only meets in executive session to address individual complaints, and those records are subject to APRA with few exceptions. In response to Commissioner Ricci, the Petitioner stated that there are nine members of the PERA Board. In further response to Commissioner Ricci, the Petitioner stated that she was asked to serve on the Board.

Commissioner Peterson raised concern over confidential information that the Petitioner might acquire in her private litigation to which she would be privy during a PERA proceeding. The Petitioner acknowledged those concerns and stated that she would confer with the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel. She further stated that PERA should seek the same information for any matters before it to which the Petitioner has access in her private civil cases. The Petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction and argued that PERA is purely advisory. In response to Commissioner Ricci, the Petitioner represented that PERA has no teeth and that the chief can choose to follow or ignore its recommendation of discipline in a given matter. In response to Commissioner Callahan, the Petitioner stated that, while it is theoretically possible that someone might seek her legal services by virtue of her role on the PERA Board, the Petitioner will not mention her private employment. Chair Jones reiterated item number two on page three of the draft that the Petitioner has represented that she would counsel new clients against duplicating their civil litigation efforts by filing a complaint with PERA. He informed the Petitioner that this issue implicates client advocacy and falls under the purview of the Disciplinary Counsel. In response to Chair Jones, Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that footnote seven on page seven addresses the question of jurisdiction. Commissioners Susi and Peterson expressed concern over how closely related these two roles are.

In response to Commissioner Peterson, the Petitioner stated that PERA’s mission is aimed at providing fair and impartial investigations akin to the Department of Internal Affairs. Commissioner Peterson commented that the overlap between her work on plaintiffs’ side and the complainants coming before her as a PERA Board member likely would create an appearance of impropriety. Commissioner Callahan stated that, while the Petitioner might be able to navigate the issues that have been raised, he agrees with the draft’s conclusion that her private work could impair her independence of judgment regarding her public duties. Staff Attorney Radiches commented that the Commission has been tasked with determining whether one’s independence of judgment has been impaired, and there are factors to assist the Commission in making that determination. She referred to the advisory opinions cited in the draft in which the Commission opined that certain petitioners were prohibited by the Code of Ethics from accepting private work within the municipalities by which they were publicly employed. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Radiches explained that the appearance of impropriety is not a violation of the Code of Ethics, but it is a part of the State Constitution that the Commission acknowledges and embraces. Upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was

VOTED: To approve and issue an advisory opinion as to Option B as represented in the draft advisory opinion that the Petitioner, Shannah Kurland, Esq., a new board member of the Providence External Review Authority (PERA), who in her private capacity is a licensed attorney who regularly represents clients in civil cases alleging misconduct against the Providence Police Department and its officers, is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from serving on the Board of PERA, given her private employment.

Prior to voting, Commissioner Rabideau commented that, in his opinion, the Petitioner can separate herself from the secondary employment issue by recusing as needed.

AYES: Christopher P. Callahan; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; and Holly J. Susi.

NOES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael Browner, Jr.; and Scott P. Rabideau.

The motion did not carry.

Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was

VOTED: To approve and issue an advisory opinion as to Option A as represented in the draft advisory opinion that the Petitioner, Shannah Kurland, Esq., a new board member of the Providence External Review Authority (PERA), who in her private capacity is a licensed attorney who regularly represents clients in civil cases alleging misconduct against the Providence Police Department and its officers, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from serving on the Board of PERA, notwithstanding her private employment.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael Browner, Jr.; and Scott P. Rabideau.

NOES: Christopher P. Callahan; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; and Holly J. Susi.

The motion did not carry.

Commissioner Rabideau proposed that the Commission defer consideration and vote on this matter to the next meeting in anticipation of the other Commissioners attending. Chair Jones deferred to Legal Counsel DeSimone who informed that such a motion would be appropriate given that no advisory opinion has issued for the Petitioner. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To defer consideration of this matter to the Commission’s April 14, 2026, meeting.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Christopher Duhamel, a member of the Westerly Town Council, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from participating in the town council’s appointment, re-appointment, or retention of members of the Westerly Planning Board, given that he is privately employed by an engineering firm that represents clients before the planning board on a regular basis.

Commissioner Rabideau noted that he had a professional relationship with the Petitioner for 30 years but has since closed his practice and not worked with the Petitioner or his firm for two and a half years. Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. The Petitioner addressed the Commission and represented that he understands the recusal requirements that apply to him but believes that he can participate in the appointment or reappointment of planning board members and requested an exception in his matter. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Popova Papa explained that she based her recommendation in the draft that the Petitioner is prohibited from participating in the Council’s appointment, reappointment, or retention of planning board members on a history of advisory opinions in which similar prohibitions were imposed. In response to Legal Counsel DeSimone, Staff Attorney Popova Papa agreed that there does not appear to be a direct financial impact to the Petitioner resulting from his participation in appointments to the planning board as required under R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). Chair Jones noted that the Commission, to his knowledge, never has allowed an official to participate in the appointment of someone to a committee before which his firm will appear regardless of a direct financial impact. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Christopher Duhamel, a member of the Westerly Town Council.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael Browner, Jr.; Christopher P. Callahan; Emma L. Peterson; Scott P. Rabideau; and Holly J. Susi.

NOES: Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Tracy Lapointe-Webber, a probation and parole officer with the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits her from establishing and operating an independent clinical therapy practice while continuing her state employment.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Staff Attorney Popova Papa noted an edit on page one of the draft to read that the Petitioner serves as a training coordinator for “Community Services” instead of Rehabilitative Services. The Petitioner addressed the Commission and inquired whether the definition of “representing oneself” before her state agency for the purpose of influencing the judgment of the agency in her favor includes her submission of monthly progress reports to the DOC probation or parole officer supervising the specific sex offender undergoing therapy with the Petitioner, given that her reports do not contain arguments for the purpose of influencing the officers in her favor. She explained that her reports contain clinical notes and that she is not arguing therein. The Petitioner cited to, without identifying, similar past advisory opinions for support. Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that she could not speak to the factors relied upon in those opinions but explained that she considered several opinions in reaching her recommendation, and those opinions did not include the petitioners’ submission of reports. She further explained that, here, the Petitioner’s signature appears on the reports, much like an engineer presenting to a planning board a development plan bearing his signature. Staff Attorney Popova Papa noted that the Petitioner’s reports influence the officers. In response to Commissioner Rabideau, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that the other two therapists in the Petitioner’s private office are her business associates by virtue of sharing office space, but their practices are separate from that of the Petitioner, and they would not be prohibited from submitting their reports to the DOC. In response to Commissioner Peterson, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that one way in which the Petitioner’s reports might influence the DOC officers is where she represents therein that her clients are or are not complying with the requirements that apply to their status. In response to Commissioner Susi, the Petitioner informed that she is working towards obtaining her independent license but is currently supervised by clinicians from whom she eventually will obtain client referrals.

Commissioner Callahan noted that the Petitioner’s question regarding whether her reports constitute representing herself had not been addressed yet, and he queried whether this matter should be deferred to permit the staff to conduct additional research. Chair Jones commented that he did not find the planning board example to be analogous because in that situation someone is appearing before the planning board with their plan to make something happen. He inquired whether the Petitioner’s reports make recommendations, to which the Petitioner responded that they do not. In response to Commissioner Ricci, the Petitioner stated that she will not have any cases. The Petitioner clarified that the advisory opinions to which she earlier referred did not specifically state that the reports discussed therein were submitted to the DOC.

Commissioner Callahan moved to defer the matter to April 14, 2026, and Commissioner Ricci seconded the motion. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that substantive edits cannot be made to a draft opinion, but the Commission can provide direction to the staff to conduct further research. In response to Commissioner Rabideau, Staff Attorney Popova Papa explained that ministerial actions are those that do not require substantive decision-making. In response to Commissioner Peterson, the Petitioner stated that her reports may be submitted, upon request, to whatever agency has supervision over her client.

Legal Counsel DeSimone clarified that while there is nothing in the statute or Commission regulations that prohibits the Commission from issuing an advisory opinion that includes a deletion of an express condition, it has been the Commission’s practice to defer such a matter and edit the draft. Chair Jones noted that deleting the condition prohibiting the Petitioner from submitting her reports, however, allows the Petitioner to make and submit her recommendations. Commissioner Ricci withdrew his seconding of the subject motion, and Commissioner Rabideau seconded it. In response to Chair Jones, the Petitioner stated that she will not be harmed by the Commission’s deferral of the matter to April 14, 2026. Executive Director Gramitt clarified that the Commission’s concern, which the staff will consider in the next draft, is related to § 36-14-5(e)’s prohibition against representing oneself or another person before one’s own agency, and whether the reports prepared by Petitioner for her paying private clients and submitted to her agency constitute representing her clients before her agency. In response to the Petitioner, Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that representing oneself or another person under the Code is not limited to attorneys.

With Commissioner Callahan’s motion having been made and duly seconded by Commissioner Rabideau, it was unanimously

VOTED: To defer consideration of this matter to the Commission’s April 14, 2026, meeting.

The final advisory opinion was that of:

Scott Sunderland, who is considering accepting an appointment to an unexpired term on the Chariho School Committee and later seeking election to a full term on the school committee, who in his private capacity owns and operates S&S Landscaping, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether, if he accepts the appointment and later is elected to the school committee, he will be prohibited by the Code of Ethics from continuing to perform landscape maintenance and snow removal services for the Chariho School District, which he has done since 1999.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to the Commission proceeding in his absence. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Radiches stated her belief that the Petitioner requested this opinion based on inquiries he received from his colleagues. In response to Commissioner Browner, Staff Attorney Radiches explained that the Petitioner must recuse from discussion and voting on any line item in the budget that directly financially impacts him. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Radiches stated that if the Petitioner is elected to the school committee and wishes to reapply to perform landscape maintenance and snow removal services upon expiration of his current contract, evidence that the Town repeatedly posted requests for bids and received no responses would bolster his case. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Rabideau, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Scott Sunderland, who is considering accepting an appointment to an unexpired term on the Chariho School Committee and later seeking election to a full term on the school committee, who in his private capacity owns and operates S&S Landscaping.

At 11:33 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously:

VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:

Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on March 3, 2026, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

Motion to return to Open Session.

At 11:41 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session.

The next order of business was:

Motion to seal minutes of March 24, 2026, Executive Session.

Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was unanimously

VOTED: To seal the minutes of Executive Session held on March 24, 2026.

The next order of business was:

Report on actions taken in Executive Session.

Chair Jones reported that the Commission took the following actions in Executive

Session:

Unanimously voted (7-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on March 3, 2026.

Unanimously voted (7-0) to return to Open Session.

The next order of business was:

New Business proposed for future Commission agendas and

general comments from the Commission.

There were none.

At 11:43 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Browner and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Emma L. Peterson

Secretary