Minutes 9-29-26

MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION

OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION

September 29, 2026

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 13^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, September 29, 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 Frank J. Cenerini

Dr. Michael N. Browner, Jr. Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

Christopher P. Callahan

The following Commissioners were not present: Emma L. Peterson and Holly J. Susi.

Also present were Herbert F. DeSimone, Jr., Commission Legal Counsel; Jason Gramitt, Commission Executive Director; Katherine D’Arezzo, Senior Staff Attorney; Staff Attorneys Teresa Giusti and Teodora Popova Papa; and Commission Investigators Peter J. Mancini and Gary V. Petrarca.

The first order of business was:

Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on September 1, 2026.

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

VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on September 1, 2026.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; and Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

ABSTENTIONS: Michael N. Browner, Jr.

The next order of business was:

Director’s Report: Status report and updates.

Complaints and investigations pending

There are three complaints pending. Executive Director Gramitt informed that the Shekarchi matter remains stayed, and he will provide a litigation update in Executive Session. Executive Director Gramitt advised that the Kent and Rogers complaints are under investigation.
Advisory opinions pending

There are 10 advisory opinions pending, four of which have been noticed for today’s meeting.
Access to Public Records Act requests since last meeting

There were six APRA requests received since the last meeting, all of which were granted within one business day. Executive Director Gramitt informed that three requests related to complaint materials, two related to documents regarding the petition for rulemaking noticed for today, and one related to recusals.

Financial disclosure

Executive Director Gramitt informed that a question relating to gifts has been added to the 2026 Financial Disclosure Statement given the Commission’s amendment to the gift rule in 2025. He explained that there has always been a statutory requirement for the disclosure of a gift or series of gifts from an interested person valued at more than $100. Executive Director Gramitt stated that such disclosure on financial statements was reasonable 26 years ago when the gift limits were $150 and $450 in the aggregate. He explained that in 2005, when the Commission lowered the gift limits, the question was removed because public officials/employees were not allowed to except gifts valued at more than $25 and $75 in the aggregate. Executive Director Gramitt explained, however, that when the gift limits were raised in 2025 to $50 and $150 in the aggregate, that question becomes relevant again and has been added to the 2026 financial statements and going forward.

In response to Commissioner Ricci, Executive Director Gramitt stated that if a public official receives a legal campaign contribution, that contribution expressly falls outside the scope of the gift rule with the Ethics Commission but must be reported to the Campaign Finance Division with the Board of Elections.
General office administration

The Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for October 20, 2026.

In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt informed that the hiring process is ongoing to fill the vacant education coordinator and investigator positions.

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:

Julie M. Diep, a certified court staff interpreter employed by the Rhode Island Judiciary, who in her private capacity owns and operates Lozada Diep Interpreting Services, LLC, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from registering her private business as a vendor on the State of Rhode Island’s Master Price Agreement list in order to provide language services to various non-state and state agencies, excluding the Rhode Island Judiciary.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. Commissioner Cenerini noted that he had professional interactions with the Petitioner prior to his retirement from the judiciary, and he spoke highly of her diligence, competence, and outstanding work for the judiciary. At the request of Chair Jones, Legal Counsel DeSimone reminded the Commissioners that four affirmative votes are required today to approve the advisory opinions. Upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Julie M. Diep, a certified court staff interpreter employed by the Rhode Island Judiciary, who in her private capacity owns and operates Lozada Diep Interpreting Services, LLC.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Shannon Massaroco, a former member of the board of trustees of Sheila C. “Skip” Nowell Academy, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits her from accepting employment with the academy as its Director of Health and Wellness, given her former position on its board of trustees.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The

Petitioner was present. The Petitioner addressed the Commission and commented that she did not understand how she can be considered an elected or appointed official and that she was not aware of this during her tenure on the board but respects whatever decision the Commission makes. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that she did not review how the school functioned as a charter school given that it is now a public school. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Executive Director Gramitt informed that the revolving door might apply to the Petitioner if the school were still considered a charter school and that charter schools are public schools. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that the Petitioner was appointed to her position on the board by its other members when the school was a charter school. In response to Commissioner Browner, Staff Attorney Popova Papa confirmed that the Petitioner remained a board member when the school became a public school and resigned therefrom after she was offered the position of director of health and wellness.

The Petitioner informed the Commission that three years earlier, when the school was still a charter school, a similar situation arose involving another board member. She explained that a position with the school was created for this board member who resigned from the board and accepted the position. Commissioner Browner commented that it would be unfair to deny the Petitioner this employment opportunity after she stepped down from the board and given that a similar situation occurred in the past. Commissioner Callahan expressed concern with these facts where the Petitioner served as a volunteer on the board, was not informed of the transition from charter to public school, and she is now precluded from accepting this employment opportunity. He inquired of the Chair and Legal Counsel as to any possible remedy for the Petitioner. Legal Counsel DeSimone informed that if the Commission does not vote to approve the opinion, then no opinion will issue to the Petitioner. He further informed that the Petitioner would not expressly be prohibited from accepting the job without an advisory opinion, but she also would not be protected in the event that a complaint was filed against her.

In response to Chair Jones, the Petitioner stated that she did not know how many other applicants there were but only that the school needs to hire a director as soon as possible. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Staff Attorney Popova Papa informed that she did not analyze the hardship exception in the draft based on her conversation with the executive director of the school, who represented that they have other applicants and, thus, there is no hardship to the entity. Chair Jones commented that these situations present a slippery slope and referenced the advisory opinion issued to William Conley, a former senator who was allowed, prior to the expiration of one year after he left office, to accept an unpaid position with the senate.

Commissioner Callahan expressed concern with sending the Petitioner back to her prospective employer without an advisory opinion. Chair Jones stated that there is no alternative guidance provided in the draft and, even if an opinion issued to the Petitioner, she could choose not to follow its guidance and proceed at her own risk. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Chair Jones stated that a given opinion may be amended but, here, that would involve significant changes. Chair Jones explained that the Commission has postponed decision-making in certain matters pending further analysis by the staff. In response to Commissioner Cenerini, the Petitioner stated that she resigned from DCYF, but her resignation is on hold and that she has other jobs that she can accept. She further stated that the instant position is the one in which she is most interested, given her background and experience. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that in her 10 years at the Commission, she does not recall any cases in which a private board transitioned into a public entity. Commissioner Callahan commented that the transition from a charter to a public school in this matter is a significant factor in his consideration.

In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Executive Director Gramitt informed that the Commission could direct the staff to prepare an alternate opinion or a long-track opinion if it is not inclined to approve the opinion as drafted. He explained that a long-track opinion would consider two options, one of which would include the current opinion, and a second option would discuss the unique facts of this case and that a strict application of the regulation would produce an unfair result. Executive Director Gramitt stated that the staff could present a long-track opinion at the Commission’s next meeting on October 20, 2026. In response to Chair Jones, the Petitioner stated that she would prefer to wait for an opinion on October 20, 2026, rather than leave today without any guidance. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To postpone issuance of an advisory opinion to Shannon Massaroco, a former member of the board of trustees of Sheila C. “Skip” Nowell Academy, to October 20, 2026.

The next advisory opinion was that of:

Carter Wilkie, a member of the Little Compton Planning Board, who also serves as the planning board’s designee on the Little Compton Agricultural Conservancy Trust, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from participating in planning board discussions and decision-making regarding matters involving properties that abut other properties which are either owned by the trust or are properties on which the trust owns an easement.

Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to the Commission proceeding in his absence. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that trusts can be private bodies, but advisory opinions are based on the representations of the petitioners. She further stated that while investigations are not required for advisory opinions, she generally does some research on her own before discussing a given request with a petitioner. Staff Attorney Popova Papa noted that she did so here and learned that this trust is public. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Carter Wilkie, a member of the Little Compton Planning Board, who also serves as the planning board’s designee on the Little Compton Agricultural Conservancy Trust.

The final advisory opinion was that of:

Charlotte R. Spinkston, the interim executive director of the Rhode Island Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, who is also a registered vendor on the statewide Master Price Agreement list as an American Sign Language interpreter, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits her simultaneous service in both positions.

Staff Attorney Giusti presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to the Commission proceeding in her absence. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Giusti stated that the Petitioner was not aware that independent contractors are not subject to the Code of Ethics. Chair Jones expressed concern that some individuals might establish themselves as independent contractors to evade the Code. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Charlotte R. Spinkston, the interim executive director of the Rhode Island Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, who is also a registered vendor on the statewide Master Price Agreement list as an American Sign Language interpreter.

The Commission took a brief recess from 10:15 a.m. to 10:20 a.m.

The next order of business was:

Petition for Adoption of Regulations: Discussion and vote to consider a petition filed by Nicole Solas, relating to expanding the protections provided by R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(m).

Chair Jones requested that Legal Counsel DeSimone explain the rulemaking process. Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that the Commission must vote to initiate or deny, with reasons, the rulemaking process. If the Commission votes to initiate the rulemaking process, the executive director and staff will conduct fact-finding and surveys of other states’ practices in the subject area. At a subsequent meeting, the executive director would present the results of the staff’s fact-finding, and the Petitioner and any other interested parties may provide supplemental information to the Commission. The Commission may then propose a regulation for consideration and notice to the public would be provided before any vote takes place. Written and/or verbal comments on the proposed regulation would be accepted followed by a hearing during which the Commission would vote. Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that the Commission could vote to approve or deny the regulation or to approve a hybrid version.

Chair Jones invited the Petitioner to speak and explain her proposal. He explained that the purpose of today’s hearing is to consider whether the Commission should move forward with the rulemaking process and not to evaluate the underlying threats. The Petitioner addressed the Commission and explained that her understanding of the current regulation is that she cannot file a complaint based on threat or intimidation by a public official unless the underlying ethics complaint against the official first has been filed. Chair Jones summarized the Petitioner’s concern that, as currently written, the regulation does not capture the circumstances that her situation presents and, therefore, she petitions the Commission to expand the protections and remedies available under the regulation to include situations in which a public official is aware that someone intends to bring an ethics complaint against them and intimidates or makes threats to stop the person from filing such a complaint.

In response to Commissioner Cenerini, the Petitioner stated that she did not contact law enforcement because it was her understanding that they would not intervene unless the Petitioner believed that her life was in danger. She further stated that she believes that her right to petition her government is in danger. Chair Jones commented that the Commission does not have a history of investigating or prosecuting threats made by public officials against putative complainants. He stated that this proposal involves a great deal of evidentiary speculation in determining what is a viable threat, what standard to apply, and what is a complainant’s intent with respect to filing the underlying ethics complaint. Commissioner Ricci concurred, stating that it would be difficult to frame a remedy based on anticipatory conduct. Chair Jones expressed concern that the Commission would be required to determine whether the public official was aware that an ethics complaint was about to be filed against them, the threats were credible, the threats were intended to prevent the filing of the ethics complaint, and the complainant intend to file the ethics complaint. Chair Jones commented that the Petitioner presents a valid concern, but he believes that her proposal goes beyond the Commission’s capability. The Petitioner argued that a complainant’s intent to file an ethics complaint is not relevant to whether the public official believed that a complaint was going to be filed and made a threat based on that belief. Commissioner Callahan noted that a complainant might also threaten to file an ethics complaint to bait the public official but not follow through with filing the complaint. He stated that there are other remedies available to a potential complainant.

Commissioner Ricci inquired as to the next step regarding the instant petition. Legal Counsel DeSimone stated that the Commission must vote whether to initiate rulemaking or deny the petition with reasons. Chair Jones noted that a vote to initiate rulemaking does not mean that the Commission definitely will adopt a regulation. In response to Commissioner Browner, Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that any discussion by the Commission must be done in open session. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Chair Jones stated that if a motion is made and seconded to deny the petition, the Commission may then discuss its reasons for the denial. Legal Counsel DeSimone concurred with Chair Jones’ proposal. Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Chair Jones, it was

VOTED: To grant the petition of Nicole Solas to initiate rulemaking to consider expanding the protections provided by R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(m).

AYES: Christopher P. Callahan.

NOES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael N. Browner, Jr.; Frank J. Cenerini; and Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

The motion failed.

Commissioner Cenerini moved to deny the petition of Nicole Solas to engage in rulemaking, and Commissioner Ricci seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the grounds for denial. Commissioner Ricci stated that the petition is nebulous and he could not envision how a regulation could be drafted that would encompass what the Petitioner is seeking. Commissioner Browner commented that the exhibits provided by the Petitioner reflect banter over social media. Commissioner Callahan stated that he believed that there could be discussion regarding public officials’ behavior, but he respects the Commission’s position. Commissioner Cenerini commented that the filing of an ethics complaint should be a condition precedent, without which the proposal is nebulous. He noted that the Petitioner has alternative options and that this issue is not ripe for rulemaking. Chair Jones stated that the filing of an ethics complaint sets a bright line to which threatening conduct by a public official clearly can be connected. He further stated that he has concerns over whether an official was aware of the complaint, whether the potential complainant actually intended to file, the baiting issue, and what constitutes a threat versus the exercise of one’s First Amendment rights.

Chair Jones informed that he would rephrase the motion to reflect the Commission’s discussion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ricci and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was

VOTED: To deny the petition of Nicole Solas to initiate rulemaking for the grounds set forth in the Commission’s discussion.

AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael N. Browner, Jr.; Frank J. Cenerini; and Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

NOES: Christopher P. Callahan.

At 11:16 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Browner 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 September 1, 2026, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

Litigation update re: K. Joseph Shekarchi vs. Rhode Island Ethics Commission, Superior Court C.A. No. PC-2026-03423, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2). Chair Jones stated that he will recuse from discussion of this matter.
Motion to return to Open Session.

At 11:24 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session.

The next order of business was:

Motion to seal minutes of September 29, 2026, Executive Session.

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

VOTED: To seal the minutes of Executive Session held on September 29, 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:

Voted (4-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on September 1, 2026. [Reporter’s Note: The vote was as follows:

AYES: Lauren E. Jones;* Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; and Hugo L. Ricci.

*Chair Jones recused to the extent that any portion of the minutes related to the Shekarchi matter.

ABSTENTIONS: Michael N. Browner, Jr.]

Received an update and discussed the litigation matter of K. Joseph Shekarchi vs. Rhode Island Ethics Commission, Superior Court C.A. No. PC-2026-03423. The Commission took no action. [Reporter’s Note: Lauren E. Jones recused and left the hearing room during discussion of this matter.]

Unanimously voted (5-0) to return to Open Session. [Reporter’s Note: Lauren E. Jones returned to the hearing room for the vote 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 11:26 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Browner and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Jason Gramitt

Executive Director