Minutes 8-19-25

MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION

OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION

August 19, 2025

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 12^th 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, August 19, 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 Frank J. Cenerini

Matthew D. Strauss, Secretary Emma L. Peterson

Christopher P. Callahan Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

The following Commissioners were not present: Dr. Michael Browner, Jr.; Holly J. Susi; and Scott P. Rabideau.

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 and Gary V. Petrarca.

At 9:00 a.m., the Chair opened the meeting.

The first order of business was:

Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on July 29, 2025.

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 July 29, 2025.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; and Matthew D. Strauss.

ABSTENTIONS: Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

The next order of business was:

Director’s Report: Status report and updates.

a.) Complaints and investigations pending

There are nine complaints pending. Executive Director Gramitt informed as follows:

In the Thorsen matter, the Respondent obtained affidavits from the two out-of-state witnesses which obviates the need to conduct in-person depositions. There remains one outstanding subpoena for a local witness. Executive Director Gramitt will communicate with the Respondent’s legal counsel regarding an adjudication date. In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt explained that the Respondent’s legal counsel has indicated that the affidavits likely will be used as evidence of prior sworn statements, if needed, rather than in lieu of live testimony.
In the Heidi Weston Rogers matter, respective counsel has agreed upon an adjudication date of October 21, 2025, which will be a regular meeting with a light agenda to accommodate the adjudication. In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt informed that the prosecution is working with the Respondent’s legal counsel on stipulated facts and exhibits to facilitate an expeditious adjudication. Chair Jones stated that the Commission members would like to be informed, when possible, of the expected length of the trial. In further response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt explained that while the Commission is not required to render a decision on the day of the adjudication, it typically has done so. He further explained the administrative trial process, including the prosecution’s and the Respondent’s presentations of their respective cases and the Commission’s option to engage in private deliberations in executive session. Executive Director Gramitt stated, however, that any voting must take place in open session.

When asked by Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt informed that a written decision will be drafted by the Commission’s legal counsel, explaining the Commission’s bases for its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and all Commission members will have an opportunity to review the draft decision. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Executive Director Gramitt explained that it would be in the Commission’s discretion to allow dissenting opinions to be included in the final written decision. Chair Jones requested that the final form of the written decision come before the Commission for review and vote by all members. Legal Counsel DeSimone informed that a commissioner must be present for the entire adjudicative hearing to participate in deliberations and voting. In response to Executive Director Gramitt, Chair Jones stated that only post-adjudication decisions need to come before the Commission for its review and vote prior to issuance, given that those decisions are subject to appeal and should reflect properly the Commission’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final ruling.
The Commission’s written decision in In re: Jason E. Licciardi, Sr. is expected to issue on Friday.
In re: Jonathan Pascua is under investigation.
Both complaints against Robert L. Lombardo are on today’s executive session agenda.
In re: James Durkin is under investigation.
In re: Jeffrey McCormick is scheduled for an initial determination today in executive session.
The staff filed In re: John M. Hoyle Jr. against the only remaining 2024 financial disclosure non-filer. Director Gramitt explained that staff-initiated non-filing complaints do not require the Commission to conduct an initial determination, but they are brought before the Commission for a probable cause hearing if an informal resolution and settlement cannot be reached.

b.) Advisory opinions pending

There are six advisory opinions pending, four of which have been noticed for today’s meeting.

c.) Access to Public Records Act requests since last meeting

There were four APRA requests received since the last meeting, all of which were granted within one business day. Executive Director Gramitt explained that three requests related to complaint matters and one related to financial disclosure.

d.) Financial disclosure

Discussed above under Complaints and investigations pending.

e.) General office administration

Executive Director Gramitt informed that the next meeting will be held on September 9, 2025, with a light agenda largely focused on rulemaking with respect to the two proposed amendments to the gift rule. He explained that all public comments received will be published and provided to the Commissioners in advance of the meeting. He informed that the public comment period will remain open for one week following the meeting. Executive Director Gramitt stated that public comments will be heard but no vote will be taken regarding whether to adopt the amendments.

In response to Commissioner Ricci, Executive Director Gramitt explained that the staff has complied with, and exceeded, the notice requirements under the rulemaking procedures. He informed that notice has been posted both on the websites of the Commission and the Secretary of State and at the Commission’s office. Notice also has been provided to all 39 municipalities through their clerks, and email notices have been sent to all legislators and persons on the Commission’s agenda distribution list. Email notices also have been sent to all 2024 online filers (approximately 4,000) and 2024 registered lobbyists. Executive Director Gramitt noted that historically most public comments come from good government groups and municipal officials.

In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that the meeting will be open to remote viewing as always, and he is exploring whether to allow remote comments if the Commission is so inclined. Executive Director Gramitt explained that the agenda will include a disclaimer stating that remote viewing will be offered but is not guaranteed.

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:

Mark Schwager, a member of the East Greenwich Town Council, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he qualifies for a hardship exception to the Code of Ethics’ prohibition against representing himself before the East Greenwich Historic District Commission, a municipal agency over which the town council has appointing authority, in order to request approval of the replacement of three windows and a door at his primary residence.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present along with Town Solicitor Andrew Teitz. Commissioner Cenerini inquired regarding the use of mandatory language such as “must recuse” and “shall” in the draft opinion, and whether it would be more appropriate to use advisory language given that the petitioner is not required to follow the advice. Commissioner Ricci expressed concern that changing the language might result in a petitioner choosing not to follow the guidance. Chair Jones stated that the proper way for the Commission to change language in a draft is through a formal motion to amend. Legal Counsel DeSimone concurred that a motion should be made and voted upon. Commissioner Cenerini moved to issue an advisory opinion that the applicant can appear as requested in his letter, noting that the opinion is advisory in nature, and, if he has any further questions, he should return to the Commission for further guidance. There was no second to the motion.

Attorney Teitz addressed the Commission explaining that the Petitioner recognizes that he has a conflict of interest and is requesting a hardship exception because of that conflict. Attorney Teitz stated that this opinion differs from other opinions on the basis that, in the instant matter, the Commission is granting an exception and imposing conditions as part of granting the exception. He further stated that they do not have any objection to the language used in the draft opinion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Mark Schwager, a member of the East Greenwich Town Council.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

The Honorable Jason Knight, a legislator serving as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, who in his private capacity is a criminal defense attorney licensed to practice in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from re-applying to be included on the list of court-appointed attorneys to represent indigent clients in the Rhode Island criminal courts.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. He asserted that his situation is distinguishable from the advisory opinions cited in the draft. He posited that if the statute provides for the Commission to grant an exception, then the regulation should as well, given that the statute supersedes the regulation. Chair Jones clarified that the Commission has the constitutional authority to adopt regulations that have the full force of law and are not superseded by statute. Staff Attorney Radiches explained that Commission Regulation 1.5.2 does not provide for any exception. Commissioner Cenerini expressed concern over the right of an indigent person to an attorney as supported by U.S. Supreme Court cases. He discussed the establishment of the R.I. Public Defender’s Office, which primarily handles cases involving indigent persons, and the delegation of authority to the trial justices to appoint attorneys from a court-appointed list. Commissioner Cenerini informed that funding for the indigent persons program is sourced by the judiciary, and the court-appointed attorney’s duty of loyalty is to his client. Commissioner Cenerini opined that there is no direct financial benefit to the Petitioner if his name is added to the court-appointed attorneys list because the benefit of the program inures to the client, much like a pre-paid legal benefit, with the attorney’s services rendered to the client and not to the state or a state agency.

In response to Commissioner Peterson, the Petitioner explained that the judiciary was in a crisis, until recently, due to a shortage of attorneys willing to be added to the list, which prompted the judiciary to raise slightly the rates paid to court-appointed attorneys. Commissioner Peterson stated that while she understands the Petitioner’s situation and Commissioner Cenerini’s arguments, she does not see another way to interpret the regulation. Chair Jones questioned whether the Petitioner is an independent contractor of the state, in which case the regulation does not apply to him. Commissioner Peterson explained that her firm provides certain legal services to the public for which it is paid by the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. She explained that the funding is provided by the government, but the money is earmarked for the client to pay their attorney. She stated that the attorney is not employed by the federal government in those cases. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Radiches stated that the outcome would have been different if the Petitioner had never come off the list. In further response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Radiches stated that the Petitioner was not on the list at the time of the last election. Further discussion ensued regarding the independent contractor analysis.

In response to Chair Jones, Legal Counsel DeSimone informed that the Petitioner would not have safe harbor protection if the Commission voted not to issue the advisory opinion. Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that the Commission could ask the staff to draft a separate advisory opinion. In response to Chair Jones, the Petitioner stated that he was able to wait for a new advisory opinion to be drafted. Chair Jones commented that a new draft should incorporate a legal analysis of whether court-appointed attorneys constitute independent contractors.

Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the advisory opinion as drafted by staff. There was no second to the motion. After further discussion, upon motion made by Commissioner Strauss and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To reject the advisory opinion as presented by the staff.

Commissioner Peterson moved to request that staff prepare an alternate opinion that focuses specifically on what is an independent contractor in the state of Rhode Island. Commissioner Cenerini seconded that motion. Commissioner Ricci inquired about adding language to the motion that would instruct the staff to analyze, in the new draft, the statute that prohibits legislators from the subject conduct. Commissioner Peterson did not agree to amend the motion, given that the statute and regulation already were addressed in the current draft opinion. Commissioner Cenerini commented that he would like the draft to address the indigent person program and the attorney’s role in that context. Legal Counsel DeSimone informed that the motion contemplates those issues which the draft will discuss. It was unanimously

VOTED: To request that staff prepare an alternate advisory opinion that addresses the Petitioner’s request and focuses specifically on what is an independent contractor in the state of Rhode Island.

Chair Jones informed Staff Attorney Radiches that she should use her independence of judgment, based on the Commission’s discussion and comments, to prepare a new draft opinion.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Samantha Contreras, a staff interpreter for the Rhode Island Supreme Court, who in her private capacity owns and operates SC Interpreting and Translation Services, LLC, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from registering her private business as a vendor for the State of Rhode Island in order to provide language services to various non-state and state agencies, excluding the Rhode Island Judiciary.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. In response to Commissioner Callahan, the Petitioner stated that it would not be possible for her to move to another area in state service because of a need for an interpreter. In response to Commissioner Ricci, the Petitioner informed that her private business would exclude all the courts in the state. Commissioner Ricci noted that the draft refers to the Petitioner as an interpreter for the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Petitioner explained that the Supreme Court is the umbrella for all the courts for which she works. Staff Attorney Radiches informed that she had mistakenly understood that the Petitioner’s services were limited to the Supreme Court. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Radiches explained that any individual in state employment who wishes to work for the Petitioner’s private business would need their own advisory opinion, but presumably none of her of private employees will come from state employment and that she will not be soliciting them. Staff Attorney Radiches proposed an edit to the last sentence of the third paragraph on page one of the draft to clarify the Petitioner’s interpreter services in all the courts. Executive Director Gramitt suggested that the first sentence of that paragraph could read that she is employed by the Supreme Court as an interpreter for the judiciary and the last sentence could be deleted. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Cenerini, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion, as amended, to Samantha Contreras, a staff interpreter for the Rhode Island Supreme Court, who in her private capacity owns and operates SC Interpreting and Translation Services, LLC.

The last advisory opinion was that of:

The Town of New Shoreham Town Council, by and through its solicitor, Nicholas A. Solitro, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether one or more town council members may, pursuant to the Rule of Necessity, participate in the town council’s consideration of a proposed ordinance that would regulate the operation of courtesy shuttles by local business owners, notwithstanding the stated conflicts of interest by those town council members, so that the town council can achieve a necessary quorum of three members.

Executive Director Gramitt informed that some persons will be attending remotely,

including Town Solicitor Solitro who was present via video link. Staff Attorney Radiches stated that Mr. Payne was the only impacted council member who indicated that he would attend today. Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Radiches stated that Mr. McCombe’s license under which he operates is his personal license and that he permits his employer to use it. Commissioner Cenerini raised concern with the source of the Commission’s authority to apply the Rule of Necessity in such matters, and why some constituents should be denied representation by their respective council member while others are not. Executive Director Gramitt explained that before the Commission began applying the Rule of Necessity, the Commission drew by lots to determine who could participate in a given matter, but then decided that the more appropriate way would be to consider who was the least conflicted official and allow that person to participate. He further explained that the Commission has the authority to offer safe harbor protection to persons through the advisory opinion process and, to the extent that the Commission chooses to offer safe harbor to one of these three people today, it will utilize the Rule of Necessity to do so.

In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that, while the Code of Ethics does not contain a specific Rule of Necessity provision, the rule has been used by the judiciary. He further stated that 25 years ago the Commission sought guidance from the Attorney General’s office to determine which commissioners could participate in a complaint matter. Executive Director Gramitt stated that the Rule of Necessity has been applied to and by the Ethics Commission. Chair Jones commented that the Rule of Necessity is a common law standard that applies to any board or judicial issue where there is a sufficient conflict and that there would not be a quorum otherwise. He noted that the Commission is being asked only to choose who is least conflicted to participate and not to decide the merits of the matter before the town council. Commissioner Peterson stated that the Rule of Necessity is being applied here only to one council member because only one is needed to establish a quorum. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Town Solicitor Solitro informed that the General Assembly allows the Town of New Shoreham to regulate taxi licenses in the town. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Cenerini, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to The Town of New Shoreham Town Council, by and through its solicitor, Nicholas A. Solitro.

At 10:51 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was unanimously

VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:

a.) Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on July 29, 2025, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

b.) In re: Robert L. Lombardo, Complaint Nos. 2025-3 & 2025-5, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

c.) In re: Jeffrey McCormick, Complaint No. 2025-6, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

d.) Motion to return to Open Session.

At 11:18 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session.

The next order of business was:

Motion to seal minutes of August 19, 2025, Executive Session.

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

VOTED: To seal the minutes of Executive Session held on August 19, 2025.

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 (5-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on July 29, 2025.

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

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; and Matthew D. Strauss.

ABSTENTIONS: Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.]

Unanimously voted (6-0) to approve a proposed Informal Resolution and Settlement in the matters of In re: Robert L. Lombardo, Complaint Nos. 2025-3 & 2025-5. The Informal Resolution and Settlement is a public document, and copies may be obtained from the Ethics Commission upon request.
Unanimously voted (6-0) in the matter of In re: Jeffrey McCormick, Complaint No. 2025-6, to initially determine that the Complaint states facts that, if true, are sufficient to constitute violations of the Code of Ethics and to authorize a full investigation.

An Initial Determination is a preliminary vote that should not be construed as an opinion regarding the truth of the facts alleged in the complaints but is merely a vote to conduct an investigation into the allegations raised.
Unanimously voted (6-0) to return to Open Session.

The next order of business was:

New Business proposed for future Commission agendas and

general comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Callahan raised two issues for possible future discussion. The first issue related to the use of mandatory boilerplate language in advisory opinions. The second issue related to whether, given the discussion of Representative Knight’s advisory opinion, changes to the revolving door regulation may be appropriate. As to the latter, Chair Jones suggested that the Commission first allow the staff to address the issues raised in a new opinion and then the Commission can discuss the matter further.

As to the first issue, Chair Jones inquired of Executive Director Gramitt as to how to handle that concern. Executive Director Gramitt stated that he appreciated Commissioner Cenerini’s and Commissioner Ricci’s comments. He explained that in advisory opinions applying the hardship exception, the applicable statute requires the petitioner to follow any recommendations made by the Commission. Executive Director Gramitt proposed that, in the context of non-hardship matters, the staff be allowed to incorporate language in the next few opinions for the Commission to review.

At 11:25 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Matthew D. Strauss

Secretary