Minutes 6-23-26

MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION

OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION

June 23, 2026

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 9^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, June 23, 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 Frank J. Cenerini

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

Dr. Michael N. Browner, Jr. 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 Peter J. Mancini, Gary V. Petrarca, and Kevin Santurri.

The first order of business was:

Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on June 2, 2026.

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

VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on June 2, 2026.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael N. Browner, Jr.; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank. J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; and Holly J. Susi.

ABSTENTIONS: Matthew D. Strauss.

The next order of business was:

Director’s Report: Status report and updates.

Complaints and investigations pending

There is one complaint pending, the Shekarchi matter, which will be considered today during a hearing on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
Advisory opinions pending

There are four advisory opinions pending, three of which have been noticed for today’s meeting.
Access to Public Records Act requests since last meeting

There were eight APRA requests received since the last meeting, seven of which were granted within one business day and one that requires additional time to clarify the request but will be completed within 10 business days. Executive Director Gramitt informed that six requests related to complaint materials pertaining to today’s hearing, one related to advisory opinions, and one related to financial disclosure statements.

Financial disclosure

Executive Director Gramitt informed that today is the filing deadline for those people who requested 60-day extensions. He further informed that there are currently 70 non-filers remaining, and the investigators continue their efforts to reach those non-filers. Executive Director Gramitt stated that the declaration of candidacy period runs from June 22 through June 24. He explained that some candidates, such as incumbents and those who have filed notices of organization of elections, already have filed their 2025 financial statements. Executive Director Gramitt stated that for the remaining candidates, the 30-day window during which they must file will begin on June 24, and the Commission staff will mail financial disclosure statements and filing instructions to those individuals.
General office administration

The Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2026.

Executive Director Gramitt introduced the Commission’s new summer intern and URI fellow, Tessa Grimes, who is studying a dual major in political science and criminology with a minor in Spanish.

In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that those candidates who already have filed a financial statement do not need to refile. In further response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt explained that while the APRA requests related to the complaint matter scheduled for hearing today are public records, historically the Commission has released records relating to a pre-probable cause hearing on the morning of the meeting at which the subject records will be considered by the Commission. In further response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that even if certain Commission materials have been made public, i.e., on the website, the staff still endeavors to comply with APRA upon receipt of a request for a public document.

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:

Richard Houle, a member of the Coventry Town Council, and who in his private capacity works as an associate real estate broker, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in town council discussions and decision-making relating to whether or not the town should dispose of its inventory of vacant municipal lots and buildings to private parties.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Richard Houle, a member of the Coventry Town Council, and who in his private capacity works as an associate real estate broker.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Henry F. Lombardi Jr., an advance/courier with the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Office, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from seeking election to the Middletown Town Council.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Henry F. Lombardi Jr., an advance/courier with the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Office.

The final advisory opinion was that of:

Michael Peno Jr., a social caseworker employed by the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from simultaneously engaging in advocacy work in his private capacity under the circumstances described herein and, if not so prohibited, what limitations, if any, the Code of Ethics would place upon him.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa informed that she has not had contact with the Petitioner since a draft of the opinion was sent to him via mail and email. She stated that she has tried unsuccessfully to reach the Petitioner. Chair Jones expressed concern that there is no confirmation that the Petitioner received the draft. In response to Chair Jones, Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that given that there is no indication by the Petitioner in his request of a pending or urgent matter, it would be best to continue this hearing to the next meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Browner and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously

VOTED: To continue this matter to the Commission’s next meeting.

The next order of business was:

Hearing in the matter of In re: K. Joseph Shekarchi, Complaint No. 2026-1 on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

Chair Jones recused from the Commission’s consideration of the matter and left the dais. Vice Chair Susi conducted the hearing as Acting Chair. Commissioner Ricci informed that he and Albert Medici, Esq., one of the Respondent’s attorneys, are second cousins. Commissioner Ricci noted that he had previously recused, although not required to, when Attorney Medici appeared before the Ethics Commission, but he will not recuse today.

At the request of Acting Chair Susi, Legal Counsel DeSimone explained the procedures applicable to this hearing, which is being heard in open session by agreement of the parties. He stated that the Commission will deliberate in executive session accompanied by its legal counsel. In response to Commissioner Peterson, Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that the Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing that there can be no violation of the Code of Ethics because the statutes and regulations do not prohibit him from immediately applying for a position on the Supreme Court.

Attorney Dickinson presented arguments as set forth in the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. He discussed the 1999 Advisory Opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court which came after the 1994 revisions to judicial selection and after the 1992 and 1993 Advisory Opinions to the Governor. He further discussed the 1994 amendments to Article X, § 4 of the Rhode Island Constitution approved by the voters which established a constitutional role for the Governor, the requirement of a Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), and a two-house advice and consent procedure. Attorney Dickinson explained that prior to the 1994 amendments, Rhode Island Supreme Court justices were elected by the House and Senate in grand committee. He continued by explaining the 2004 amendments to the State Constitution which established separation of powers and granted general appointment powers to the Governor.

Attorney Dickinson discussed the 2002 Inman case in which a Rhode Island Superior Court justice held that while the revolving door regulations enacted by the Ethics Commission were a valid exercise of the agency’s constitutional authority, they cannot override constitutional provisions such as Article IV, § 4’s specific grant of authority to the General Assembly to elect someone to fill a vacancy in the office of the Secretary of State. He argued that the function of interpreting the constitution is reserved for the judiciary and that the Inman decision reflects the judiciary’s interpretation that the constitution governs the selection process and that neither the revolving door statute or regulation, nor any other legislation can override or interfere with that process.

Attorney Dickinson next discussed the revolving door exemption for those seeking

or being elected to a “constitutional office.” He argued that because the Rhode Island Supreme Court justices are established by the constitution, they are constitutional offices. He further argued that because the Respondent is seeking a constitutional office, he is exempt from the revolving door prohibitions. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Attorney Dickinson explained that Article X, § 4 sets forth a specific process for the selection of Supreme Court justices that includes recommendation by the JNC, nomination by the Governor, advice and consent by the two separate houses, and appointment by the Governor. Attorney Dickinson discussed the use of the disjunctive “or” in the exemption section of the statute. Commissioner Ricci noted that the Respondent is seeking an appointment to the Supreme Court, not an election thereto. Attorney Dickinson next discussed the advisory opinion request from then Senator Erin Lynch Prata and argued that some weight should be given to the constitutional process that applied to her ultimate appointment. Following some further discussion, Attorney Dickinson rested.

Chief Prosecutor Gramitt presented the arguments set forth in the Prosecution’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Objection to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. He began his arguments by informing that this is the first time that a quasi-judicial tribunal must decide whether a sitting legislator can move directly to a Supreme Court position. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt noted that if the Respondent is allowed to do so, and if the JNC Clause trumps all revolving door prohibitions, then this may lead to legislators moving directly to the lower courts named in that clause as well.

Chief Prosecutor Gramitt discussed the Commission’s two revolving door regulations, 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, and argued that, on their face, they apply to the Respondent to prohibit him from moving to the Supreme Court prior to the expiration of one year following his severance from the House of Representatives. He noted that in the 1993 Advisory Opinion, the Supreme Court understood that the regulations prohibited appointments to the judiciary. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt next discussed the statutory revolving door prohibition under Rhode Island General Laws § 36-14-5(n)(3) and explained that the prohibitive language mirrors that of the Commission’s regulations but also broadens its application to any elected state-elected official. He stated that the General Assembly added the appointments exception and the elections exception to the statute, and he explained them. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt addressed the use of “or” under § 36-14-5(n)(2) and 5(n)(3) and its meaning. He noted that at the time that the statute was enacted, every constitutional officer was elected and, therefore, that subsection could apply only to elected offices. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt stated that the exception, therefore, does not apply to the Respondent who is seeking an appointed office.

Chief Prosecutor Gramitt next addressed the constitutional arguments relating to the statute and regulations. He stated that the Inman case is an unpublished Superior Court decision and not applicable to the present facts, because Inman was seeking an elected office and fit neatly within the elections exception under § 36-14-5(n)(3). Chief Prosecutor Gramitt explained that the JNC Clause is very general and that the JNC’s procedures, powers, and duties are set by statute. He stated that in the 1993 Advisory Opinion, the Court found that the Commission’s revolving door regulations’ restrictions were de minimis because they only require a one-year cooling off period after which the person can apply for the subject position. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt argued that such a restriction does not substantially impinge upon the JNC process and is consistent with all the other statutory restrictions imposed upon the JNC. He stated that the 1999 Advisory Opinion upon which the Respondent’s legal counsel relies did not involve the revolving door prohibitions, but approvingly cited the 1992 and 1993 opinions which did address the prohibition.

In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Chief Prosecutor Gramitt stated that the Supreme Court is a constitutional office and the justices of the Supreme Court are constitutional officials. In further response to Commissioner Cenerini, Chief Prosecutor Gramitt explained that the Supreme Court held, in the 1992 Advisory Opinion, that if there is an irreconcilable conflict between the statute and the Ethics Commission’s regulations, the regulations prevail. He further explained that this should be a last resort when the statute and the Commission’s regulations cannot be harmonized. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt stated that, here, § 36-14-5(n)(3) and Regulations 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 can be harmonized by finding that they all prohibit the same conduct, and the exception applies only for an elected office. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Chief Prosecutor Gramitt stated that the constitution refers to the general officers as the governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, secretary of state of state, and attorney general.

A brief recess was taken at 11:00 a.m., after which Attorney Dickinson presented concluding comments. He argued that the silence or lack of action on the part of the Ethics Commission, the General Assembly, and the judiciary to amend or clarify the law and the exemption following the Commission’s declination to issue an advisory opinion to then Senator Lynch Prata in 2020 can be construed as assent with her seeking a position on and eventual appointment to the Supreme Court and should be given weight by the Commission.

Chief Prosecutor Gramitt addressed the Commission with his final remarks. He stated that while he agrees that constitutional issues are reserved for the judiciary, if the Commission is convinced that something is unconstitutional, then it should do what is in its power to address it. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt informed that there is now a case in controversy before the Commission involving a legislator who is seeking appointment to the Supreme Court. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt rested.

Acting Chair Susi inquired of the Commissioners whether they wished to deliberate in executive or open session. Upon motion made by Commissioner Peterson and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To deliberate on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Executive Session.

At 11:23 a.m., Chair Jones returned to the meeting and the dais to conclude this portion of the Open Session. Chair Jones stated that, after conferring with Executive Director Gramitt and Legal Counsel DeSimone, it has been agreed to postpone consideration of Legal Counsel’s contract until the next meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was unanimously

VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:

Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on June 2, 2026, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).
In re: K. Joseph Shekarchi, Complaint No. 2026-1, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4). Chair Jones informed that he will recuse from this matter.

Motion to return to Open Session.

At 11:28 a.m., Commissioner Strauss left the meeting prior to the start of Executive Session and did not return.

At 12:10 p.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session.

The next order of business was:

Motion to seal minutes of June 23, 2026, Executive Session.

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

VOTED: To seal the minutes of Executive Session held on June 23, 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 June 2, 2026, relating to all matters excluding K. Joseph Shekarchi.

Voted (6-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on June 2, 2026, relating to K. Joseph Shekarchi.

[Reporter’s Note: The vote was as follows:

AYES: Holly J. Susi; Michael N. Browner, Jr.; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; and Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

ABSTENTIONS: Lauren E. Jones.]

In the matter of In re: K. Joseph Shekarchi, Complaint. No. 2026-1, the Commission deliberated on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Allege Violation of Code of Ethics. No motions were made and no votes were taken in Executive Session.

[Reporter’s Note: Chair Jones was not present for the deliberations and recused.]

Unanimously voted (6-0) to return to Open Session.

[Reporter’s Note: Chair Jones was not present for this vote.]

Chair Jones left the dais and recused from the Commission’s discussion and vote on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and Acting Chair Susi took his place for the Commission’s consideration of the matter. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was

VOTED: To deny the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

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

NOES: Frank J. Cenerini.

RECUSALS: Lauren E. Jones.

Commissioner Cenerini explained the basis for his vote. He stated that he considered

the motion in the context of a Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Commissioner Cenerini noted that the General Assembly shares concurrent jurisdiction with the Ethics Commission and established § 36-14-5(n)(3) and its exception. Acting Chair Susi stated that she believes more information is needed to understand the issues and nuances raised today. Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that the denial of the Respondent’s motion without prejudice means that the parties are not precluded from raising the same arguments in future proceedings in this case.

Attorney Dickinson presented a Motion to Stay the Proceedings Pending Judicial Review and provided copies to Chief Prosecutor Gramitt and the Commissioners. He argued that this also was done in the Inman case and explained that any action by the Ethics Commission is subject to review by the Superior Court. He noted that the JNC process is proceeding, and interviews with applicants already have been scheduled for the end of July. In response to Legal Counsel DeSimone, Attorney Dickinson stated that they are seeking a stay of all the proceedings, including the investigation. He also stated that he has not filed any action in court yet, because he wanted to see what the Commission decided today, but he anticipates filing an action in Superior or Supreme Court in the next day or two. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Attorney Dickinson argued that the irreparable harm to the Respondent is that the appointment process is moving forward and if there is uncertainty regarding the Respondent being an applicant it may impact the JNC selection process.

Chief Prosecutor Gramitt argued that Commission Regulation 3.17 requires that pretrial motions be filed at least five days prior to hearing. He also argued that it is not clear what type of judicial review the Respondent’s legal counsel is seeking to file, whether a declaratory judgment or an interlocutory administrative appeal. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt discussed tolling of the 180-day statutory period. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate forum in which to raise this motion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was

VOTED: To deny the Respondent’s Motion to Stay.

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

NOES: Frank J. Cenerini.

RECUSALS: Lauren E. Jones.

Chair Jones returned to the dais and the meeting.

The next order of business was:

New Business proposed for future Commission agendas and

general comments from the Commission.

There were none.

At 12:37 p.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Emma L. Peterson

Secretary