Minutes September 24, 2024

MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION

OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION

September 24, 2024

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 12^th meeting of 2024 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, September 24, 2024, 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

Frank J. Cenerini Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

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:

Administration of Oath of Office to Jill Harrison.

Chair Jones administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Jill Harrison.

The next order of business was:

Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on August 20, 2024.

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

VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on August 20, 2024.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.

ABSTENTIONS: Jill Harrison and Scott P. Rabideau.

The next order of business was:

Director’s Report: Status report and updates.

Executive Director Gramitt informed that the meeting materials and agenda are available on the Commission’s website. He stated that the Open Session portion of today’s meeting is being livestreamed, after which the livestream will be closed while the Commission convenes in Executive Session. At the conclusion of Executive Session, 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 nine complaints pending, three of which have been noticed for today’s meeting in Executive Session and one complaint has been noticed for Open Session.

b.) Advisory opinions pending

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

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

There were 10 APRA requests received since the last meeting, all of which were granted within one business day. All of the requests related to complaint matters.

d.) Financial disclosure

To date, the staff has received 4,505 financial disclosure filings, which represents a 99.93% compliance rate. Executive Director Gramitt stated that there are only three outstanding statements for which staff has initiated non-filing complaints. He further thanked the Commission investigators for their hard work in obtaining full compliance by all candidates.

e.) General office administration

Executive Director Gramitt informed that the appointment of the ninth and final Commissioner is imminent and may take place before the Commission’s next meeting.

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:

Frederick M. Bodington, III, who has been offered the position of director of the Little Compton Department of Public Works, and who in his private capacity owns and operates a property management company for which he holds a trash hauler permit, collects trash for private clients, and disposes of it at the town’s transfer station over which the Department of Public Works director has supervisory authority, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he may accept the director position and continue to dispose of trash at the town’s transfer station.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Frederick M. Bodington, III, who has been offered the position of director of the Little Compton Department of Public Works, and who in his private capacity owns and operates a property management company for which he holds a trash hauler permit, collects trash for private clients, and disposes of it at the town’s transfer station over which the Department of Public Works director has supervisory authority.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Joshua Berry, the Chief of Municipal Planning and Programming at the Rhode Island Department of Housing, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from accepting other employment providing part-time town planner services on a contractual basis to the Town of New Shoreham.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Staff Attorney Radiches noted edits to page two of the draft based on a clarification provided by the Petitioner. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Cenerini, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion, as amended, to Joshua Berry, the Chief of Municipal Planning and Programming at the Rhode Island Department of Housing.

The final advisory opinion was that of:

Sagree Sharma, the Capital Projects Fund administrator in the Pandemic Recovery Office of the Rhode Island Department of Administration, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits her from becoming a member of the Providence Historic District Commission, a municipal appointed position, and from then serving simultaneously in both positions.

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

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Sagree Sharma, the Capital Projects Fund administrator in the Pandemic Recovery Office of the Rhode Island Department of Administration.

The next order of business was:

In re: James E. Thorsen, Complaint No. 2023-7 –

Discussion and vote on Petition to Take Discovery.

Attorney Kevin Bristow was present on behalf of the Respondent, and Chief Prosecutor Jason Gramitt was present on behalf of the People of the State of Rhode Island. There was no objection by the Prosecution to the Respondent’s petition. Chair Jones inquired whether the Prosecution had any concerns with the nature of the petition. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt noted that pretrial discovery motions before the Ethics Commission are fairly unusual. He noted that the two out-of-state subjects, who may be characterized as victims of the allegations, do not wish to be involved. Chief Prosecutor Gramitt stated that he has proposed stipulated facts in anticipation of the Respondent’s counsel doing the same, and he indicated his expectation that he would be willing to stipulate to many or most facts that the Respondent wishes to adduce from the witnesses.

Attorney Bristow addressed the Commission and stated that the Respondent wishes to exercise his right, affirmed by the RI Supreme Court and state law, to assert his innocence and engage in discovery in preparation for trial. Attorney Bristow argued that the Commission found probable cause that his client failed to pay for a lunch and that is what the trial will focus on. He disagreed with characterizing the out-of-state subjects as victims, arguing that they are material witnesses that the Respondent has a right to depose. Attorney Bristow noted that he and his co-counsel will prepare stipulated facts once they have an opportunity to complete the necessary discovery. In response to Commissioner Peterson, Attorney Bristow stated that the investigative file has been produced but they have not had an opportunity to conduct their own discovery, including depositions, consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the La Petite Auberge case referenced in the Respondent’s petition.

Commissioner Cenerini referenced R.I. General Laws § 36-14-13 regarding the presumption of innocence on the part of the Respondent. He noted that the material witnesses submitted to both State Police and Commission investigations. Commissioner Cenerini further stated that due process requires that the Respondent also have the opportunity to question the same witnesses and that the Commission should issue the subpoenas. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that there must be good cause shown to grant the petition to take discovery. In further response, Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that all of the evidence generated by the investigation may not be before the Commission at trial, as the parties may stipulate to certain facts and any evidence offered is subject to applicable evidentiary rules and noted objections.

In response to Chair Jones, Attorney Bristow stated that they do not intend to depose the material witnesses in Rhode Island and have consulted with Pennsylvania counsel relative to the process for conducting out-of-state depositions. Legal Counsel DeSimone referenced the 2009 Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act to assist counsel in this regard. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Cenerini, it was unanimously

VOTED: To find that good cause exists to permit the requested discovery to be taken.

Chair Jones advised Chief Prosecutor Gramitt and Attorney Bristow to consult as to what needs to be included in the Order to facilitate the requested discovery.

Discussion regarding Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-3.30

and Fine Schedules for Financial Disclosure Complaints.

At Chair Jones’ request, Commissioner Cenerini opened the discussion and explained the different types of punishment and their respective purposes of punishing the offender and obtaining compliance. He expressed concern as to the basis for imposing different penalties for staff-initiated complaints versus those filed by third parties. Commissioner Cenerini referenced the consolidated cases of Carmody and Luby in which the Supreme Court overruled a penalty imposed by the Ethics Commission finding that it was too rigid. He added that the Commission should administer remedial penalties before punitive ones. Commissioner Strauss concurred. In response, Executive Director Gramitt explained that the staff utilizes a schedule of fines adopted by the Commission for resolving staff-initiated complaints for delinquent or deficient financial disclosure statements. He added that there is no such schedule of fines for financial disclosure complaints initiated by third parties. Executive Director Gramitt informed that the staff tries to assess similar fines in all financial disclosure complaints. He added that some outlier complaints involving the intentional omission of required information should be treated differently. Executive Director Gramitt proposed that the Commission consider leaving room in the schedule of fines for these exceptions where higher penalties may be warranted. Commissioner Cenerini remarked that the 10-day time period for resolving these complaints is short. Executive Director Gramitt explained that the Commission previously granted him the authority to waive or impose lesser fines in unique circumstances, and he has done so when it was clear that a respondent did not timely receive the complaint materials.

Some discussion ensued regarding whether Commission Regulation 3.30(A) can be read to allow the staff to process financial disclosure complaints pursuant to Commission-established procedures as they have been, or whether every complaint first must be brought before the Commission. Executive Director Gramitt explained the background of the schedule of fines whereby the Commission authorized the staff to initiate non-filing complaints without the need to bring every case before the Commission. Commissioner Ricci noted that this process seems to be working based on compliance rates. Chair Jones stated that all financial disclosure complaints should be treated the same and inquired as to what authority should be given to the staff. Executive Director Gramitt suggested that the staff draft a new proposed fine schedule that will incorporate all financial disclosure cases to bring before the Commission for further review and discussion regarding penalty amounts and timelines.

At 10:29 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Peterson and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously

VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:

a.) Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on August 20, 2024, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

b.) In re: Santos Javier, Complaint No. 2024-10, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

c.) In re: Anastasia Williams, Complaint No. 2024-11, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

d.) In re: Olivia DeFrancesco, Complaint No. 2024-7, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

e.) Motion to return to Open Session.

Executive Director Gramitt reminded all in attendance that the Open Session portion of the livestream meeting will close for Executive Session and will be reactivated for Open Session after Executive Session concludes.

At 11:45 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session. The livestream of the meeting resumed.

The next order of business was:

Motion to seal minutes of Executive Session held on September 24, 2024.

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

VOTED: To seal the minutes of the Executive Session held on September 24, 2024.

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 (6-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on August 20, 2024.

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

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.

ABSTENTIONS: Jill Harrison and Scott P. Rabideau.]

Voted (4-4) to approve a proposed Informal Resolution and Settlement in the matter of In re: Santos Javier, Complaint No. 2024-10.

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

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Emma L. Peterson; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.

NOES: Frank J. Cenerini; Jill Harrison; Scott P. Rabideau; and Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.]

The motion failed.

Voted (6-2) to approve a proposed Informal Resolution and Settlement, as amended, in the matter of In re: Santos Javier, Complaint No. 2024-10, by which the Ethics Commission imposed no civil penalty for a violation of the Financial Disclosure mandate.

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

AYES: Frank J. Cenerini; Jill Harrison; Scott P. Rabideau; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.

NOES: Lauren E. Jones and Emma L. Peterson.]

Copies of the Informal Resolution & Settlement will be available at the conclusion of the meeting.

The Commission took no action in the matter of In re: Anastasia Williams, Complaint No. 2024-11, which was withdrawn from the agenda.
Unanimously voted (8-0) in the matter of In re: Olivia DeFrancesco, Complaint No. 2024-7, to find that probable cause does not exist to believe that the Respondent, Olivia DeFrancesco, a member of the Exeter Town Council, violated R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a) or (d) by her participation in the Town Council’s May 6, 2024 discussion related to reducing the portion of permit fees payable to the Town’s building, electrical, and mechanical/plumbing inspectors.

Unanimously voted (8-0) that probable cause does not exist to believe that the Respondent, Olivia DeFrancesco, a member of the Exeter Town Council, violated 520-RICR-00-00-1.3.1 Prohibited Activities – Nepotism (36-14-5004) or 520-RICR-00-00-1.2.1(A)(1) Additional Circumstances Warranting Recusal (36-14-5002) by her participation in the Town Council’s May 6, 2024 discussion related to reducing the portion of permit fees payable to the Town’s building, electrical, and mechanical/plumbing inspectors.

The Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Copies of the Investigative Report will be available at the conclusion of the meeting. The Commission will prepare and issue a written Decision & Order explaining the bases of its vote.
Unanimously 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 11:50 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Ricci, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________

Matthew D. Strauss

Secretary