Minutes 3-25-25
MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION
OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION
March 25, 2025
The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 5th meeting of 2025 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 25, 2025, 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 Jill Harrison
Holly J. Susi, Vice Chair Emma L. Peterson
Matthew D. Strauss, Secretary Scott P. Rabideau
Dr. Michael Browner, Jr. Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.
Frank J. Cenerini
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 Investigator Kevin Santurri.
At 9:01 a.m., the Chair opened the meeting.
The first order of business was:
Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on March 4, 2025.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Harrison and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was
VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on March 4, 2025.
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Jill Harrison; Emma L. Peterson; Scott P. Rabideau; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
ABSTENTIONS: Frank J. Cenerini.
The next order of business was:
Director’s Report: Status report and updates.
Executive Director Gramitt informed that the Open Session portion of today’s meeting is being livestreamed, and the link is also available on the Commission’s website. He informed that the agenda and meeting materials, including draft advisory opinions, are available on the Commission’s website. He explained that the livestream will be closed while the Commission convenes in Executive Session. At the conclusion of Executive Session today, the Commission will resume livestreaming in Open Session and report out all actions taken in Executive Session. The report out also will be available on the Commission’s website after the meeting.
a.) Complaints and investigations pending
There are three complaints pending, including one new complaint which has been noticed for initial determination today in Executive Session. Executive Director Gramitt informed that discovery in the matter of In re: James Thorsen is ongoing. He further informed that the matter of In re: Heidi Weston Rogers will be noticed for a probable cause hearing on the Commission’s April 8, 2025 meeting agenda.
b.) Advisory opinions pending
There are 18 advisory opinions pending, seven of which have been noticed for today’s meeting.
c.) Access to Public Records Act requests since last meeting
There were seven APRA requests received since the last meeting, six of which were granted within one business day. One request sought information relating to older advisory opinions which required a broad search and two days for the staff to complete. Two requests related to complaint matters, three requests related to advisory opinion materials, and one request related to training information.
d.) Financial disclosure
Executive Director Gramitt stated that the 2024 Financial Disclosure forms were mailed last Monday and should have been received by now. He informed that, to date, the staff has received approximately 1,000 completed statements for processing and filing. Executive Director Gramitt explained that one of the Commission investigators is not present for today’s meeting in order to assist with answering the increased number of phone calls related to financial disclosure.
e.) General office administration
Executive Director Gramitt informed that the next meeting will be held on April 8, 2025. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Executive Director Gramitt stated that he is preparing a comprehensive memorandum for the Commission that will address the current gift limit amount as well as the gift rules and limits in other jurisdictions.
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:
Louise Dinsmore, a member of the Chariho School Committee, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in school committee discussions and decision-making relating to whether the school committee should support a resolution requesting the Rhode Island General Assembly to amend a state statute to require private schools to share in the cost of transporting children from the local school district to the private schools they attend, given that the Petitioner’s child attends a private school.
Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. The Petitioner addressed the Commission and informed that she is the School Committee’s new Chair and wanted to do the right thing by seeking this opinion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by Commissioner Rabideau, it was unanimously
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Louise Dinsmore, a member of the Chariho School Committee.
The next advisory opinion was that of:
The Honorable Paul Santucci, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he may, in his official capacity, participate in General Assembly discussions and voting relative to potential legislation pertaining to the construction of a large industrial park in his district, and publicly express his support for the potential construction of the industrial park, given that the industrial park’s developer is his landlord.
Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to The Honorable Paul Santucci, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives.
The next advisory opinion was that of:
The Honorable Arthur J. Corvese, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in General Assembly discussions and voting relating to the state’s operating budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2026, including an article contained therein that seeks to impose a digital advertising gross revenue tax rate of ten percent on companies with annual gross revenues exceeding one billion dollars, given that the Petitioner’s son-in-law is employed by a social technology company that would be subject to such a tax.
Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Dr. Michael Browner, Jr., it was
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to The Honorable Arthur J. Corvese, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives.
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Scott P. Rabideau; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
ABSTENTIONS: Jill Harrison.
The next advisory opinion was that of:
Jonathan Pascua, a member of the Coventry Town Council, who is also a firefighter with the Coventry Fire District, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from seeking and/or accepting employment as a firefighter with the anticipated new town fire department, given the town’s expected transition from independent fire districts to a town-run fire department.
Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The
Petitioner was present. In response to Chair Jones, the Petitioner confirmed that the Town’s Charter requires him to step down from serving on the Council if he is hired by the Town as a firefighter with the newly created, town-run fire department. In response to Commissioner Susi, the Petitioner commented that the Town is focused on resolving the issues that have long challenged its fire districts. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was unanimously
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Jonathan Pascua, a member of the Coventry Town Council, who is also a firefighter with the Coventry Fire District.
The next advisory opinion was that of:
William C. Perry, the fire chief for the East Greenwich Fire Department, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the established alternate chain of command policy is sufficient to insulate him from conflicts of interest arising out of his position, given that his brother is a firefighter for the same fire department.
Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. In response to Commissioner Harrison, the Petitioner informed that the department consists of 36 firefighters with nine on each platoon. He further informed that the department expects to hire a new Deputy Chief soon. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Harrison, it was unanimously
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to William C. Perry, the fire chief for the East Greenwich Fire Department.
The next advisory opinion was that of:
Charles R. Roberts, a member of the Middletown Town Council, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics, upon recusal as a town council member, from attending and speaking at public hearings before the town council relative to a proposed housing development to be located across the street from his personal residence.
Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Staff Attorney Popova Papa confirmed that the presumption of a financial impact to the Petitioner as a property owner is based on a line of advisory opinions in which the petitioners were considered abutters to the proposed project. Commissioner Cenerini noted that appeals of Ethics Commission decisions are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which provides that the Superior Court may reverse an agency’s decision where the agency has committed an error of law. Commissioner Cenerini then raised a concern that the Petitioner does not qualify as a legal abutter under R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-31(a). Commissioner Cenerini stated that while the town’s zoning ordinance requires that notice be provided to persons who reside within 200 feet of a proposed project, this requirement establishes a legal party of interest in a matter but does not create an abutter status for the Petitioner. Commissioner Cenerini queried as to how the financial impact to the Petitioner would be determined if the presumption of an impact is based upon his status as an abutter, but that status has been erroneously applied. [Reporter’s Note: Commissioner Strauss left the hearing room at 10:56 a.m. and returned at 10:58 a.m.]
Executive Director Gramitt clarified that advisory opinions are not subject to appeal under the APA given their advisory nature. He further informed that the Commission’s adoption of the rebuttable presumption for abutters was based on municipal ordinances at that time defining abutters as persons within 200 feet of the subject property, and that those individuals receive notice of proposed action because of the potential for impact. Commissioner Cenerini expressed reservation with the adoption of a rebuttable presumption in an advisory opinion context and not in conformity with the mandatory procedure regarding the adoption of a regulation. Executive Director Gramitt stated that Commissioner Cenerini’s concern is valid in the complaint context, in which case the prosecution must produce evidence of a financial impact. He explained that the presumption only applies in the advisory opinion context.
Commissioner Cenerini referred to the Willis advisory opinion which discusses abutters and notice requirements. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, the Petitioner stated that he ran at large and represents his entire community. Commissioner Cenerini noted that the people who voted for the Petitioner have their right to representation and the Commission should not require his recusal without considering all factors. Chair Jones commented that the term abutter has been used conventionally in zoning matters to refer to persons within 200 feet and that there is a presumption of harm for someone within 200 feet; in contrast, someone outside 200 feet must prove actual harm. Chair Jones noted that Commissioner Cenerini raised some valid concerns for Executive Director Gramitt to consider, but they do not seem to preclude the Commission’s consideration of the Petitioner’s request. Commissioner Cenerini commented that, but for the presumption that has been adopted, he does not see any evidence of a direct financial impact that would create a substantial appearance of impropriety. Commissioner Peterson stated that this is an advisory opinion which the Petitioner is not required to follow. Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that the advisory opinion is binding only on the Commission. Commissioner Peterson added that actual financial impact would have to be shown if the Petitioner chooses not to follow the guidance and a complaint is filed against him. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Charles R. Roberts, a member of the Middletown Town Council.
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Jill Harrison; Emma L. Peterson; Scott P. Rabideau; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
NOES: Frank J. Cenerini.
Staff Attorney Popova Papa informed the Commission that there is a Town Council meeting on March 31, 2025, in which the Petitioner would like to participate as a member of the public, which prompted this advisory opinion. She advised the Petitioner, however, that he may come back before the Commission to seek guidance on participating in his official capacity in similar Town Council meetings if he rebuts the presumption of financial impact.
The final advisory opinion was that of:
Anthony Tamba, an eligibility technician with the Rhode Island Department of Human Services, who in his private capacity owns and operates A & H Tax and Accounting Services LLC, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from accepting, on behalf of his business, a grant award from Rhode Island Commerce, for which the Petitioner applied prior to his hiring as a state employee.
Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to the Commission proceeding in his absence. Upon motion made by Commissioner Peterson and duly seconded by Commissioner Harrison, it was unanimously
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Anthony Tamba, an eligibility technician with the Rhode Island Department of Human Services, who in his private capacity owns and operates A & H Tax and Accounting Services LLC.
The next order of business was:
Continuing discussion of potential rulemaking: Amending the Code of Ethics’ Gift Rule at 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2 to apply to gifts from all registered lobbyists.
Executive Director Gramitt informed that Common Cause submitted a memorandum along with a proposed amendment which has been provided in the Commissioners’ meeting binders. He further informed that in this case, as in all cases in which someone proposes amendments to the Code of Ethics, he reviewed an initial draft of the proposal and provided suggestions regarding content and formatting. Executive Director Gramitt noted that he has not yet completed the staff’s analysis and review of other jurisdictions.
Commissioner Ricci queried regarding an upcoming dinner to be hosted by the R.I. Trial Judges Association for all legislators and whether such a dinner would be permitted under the proposed amendment. He inquired whether the Judiciary has a registered lobbyist, to which Commissioner Cenerini responded that the R.I. Supreme Court has a registered lobbyist.
Common Cause Executive Director John Marion addressed the Commission and explained that Common Cause submitted a single proposed amendment with respect to lobbyists (or those who employ them) that represent non-profit organizations, and the proposal has three parts as set forth in the attachment to the memorandum. Mr. Marion noted that the third part addresses one area in which lobbyists historically have been permitted to give gifts to those whom they are lobbying, which is dinners. He noted that, in response to Commissioner Ricci’s inquiry regarding the Judiciary, government also employs lobbyists. He informed that while the proposed amendment does not contemplate government groups, they should be considered in future discussions. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Mr. Marion informed that Common Cause’s original petition intended to include lobbyists as a class in the definition of an interested person, whether there was a financial impact or not, but that, after receiving feedback from the Commission, the proposal now seeks to further refine the definition and to address meals where all legislators are invited. In response to further inquiry by Commissioner Cenerini, Chair Jones stated that the proposal would not preclude a public official from receiving a gift from a lobbyist who has no interest in an issue being decided by the public official.
Mr. Marion explained that the amended gift rule would apply to a lobbyist except where he is giving a gift to someone he is not lobbying, unless the interested person analysis applies. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Mr. Marion confirmed that while the proposal eliminates the gift limit amount with respect to meals, it specifies that the food or beverage being provided or gifted is for immediate consumption only. In further response to Commissioner Cenerini, Mr. Marion stated that confidential employees or senior staff members or policymakers were not included in the proposal due to oversight. Chair Jones confirmed that Executive Director Gramitt received information from Mr. Marion regarding other states, but Director Gramitt did not have sufficient time to review those gift rules. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Dr. Michael Browner, Jr., it was unanimously
VOTED: To continue the discussion of this proposed rule and the rulemaking process until the next Commission’s meeting.
At 10:28 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Dr. Michael Browner, Jr., it was
VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:
a.) Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on March 4, 2025, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).
b.) In re: James E. Licciardi, Sr., Complaint No. 2025-1, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).
c.) Motion to return to Open Session.
At 10:48 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session. The livestream of the meeting resumed. [Reporter’s Note: Commissioner Rabideau, who had recused for, and left the hearing room during, the Commission’s consideration in Executive Session of In re: James E. Licciardi, Sr., returned to the hearing room.]
The next order of business was:
Motion to seal minutes of March 25, 2025 Executive Session.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Dr. Michael Browner, Jr., it was
VOTED: To seal the minutes of the March 25, 2025 Executive Session.
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Frank J. Cenerini; Jill Harrison; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
ABSTENTIONS: Scott P. Rabideau.
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:
-
Voted (8-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on March 4, 2025.
[Reporter’s Note: The vote was as follows:
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Jill Harrison; Emma L. Peterson; Scott P. Rabideau; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
ABSTENTIONS: Frank J. Cenerini.]
-
Voted (8-0) in the matter of In re: Jason E. Licciardi, Sr., Complaint. No. 2025-1, to initially determine that the Complaint states facts that, if true, are sufficient to constitute violations of the Code of Ethics and to authorize an investigation.
[Reporter’s Note: The vote was as follows:
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Frank J. Cenerini; Jill Harrison; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
RECUSALS: Scott P. Rabideau.
Commissioner Rabideau left the hearing room and was not present for the Commission’s consideration of this matter. He did not return to the hearing room until Open Session resumed.]
An Initial Determination is a preliminary vote that should not be construed as an opinion regarding the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint but is merely a vote to conduct an investigation into the allegations raised.
-
Voted (8-0) 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 10:52 a.m., upon motion made by Dr. Michael Browner, Jr. and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously
VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Matthew D. Strauss
Secretary