Minutes 9-30-25

MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION

OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION

September 30, 2025

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 14^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, September 30, 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

Holly J. Susi, Vice Chair Emma L. Peterson

Dr. Michael Browner, Jr. Scott P. Rabideau

Christopher P. Callahan Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

The following Commissioner was not present: 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.

At 9:02 a.m., the Chair opened the meeting.

The first order of business was:

Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on September 9, 2025.

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

VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on September 9, 2025.

Chair Jones informed that certain items on the agenda would be considered out of order to accommodate Commissioner Peterson who must leave the meeting by 11:00 a.m.

The next order of business was:

Director’s Report: Status report and updates.

a.) Complaints and investigations pending

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

In the Thorsen matter, respective legal counsel continues to work on scheduling an adjudication date.
In the Heidi Weston Rogers matter, a tentative adjudication date of December 16, 2025, has been agreed upon.
In re: Jonathan Pascua is under investigation, and a motion for an extension of time has been noticed for consideration today in executive session.
In re: James Durkin is under investigation.
In re: Jeffrey McCormick is under investigation.
In re: John M. Hoyle, Jr., has been noticed for a probable cause hearing today in executive session.

b.) Advisory opinions pending

There are three advisory opinions pending, all 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 informed that two related to public comments made concerning the proposed gift rule amendments, one related to complaint-related materials, and one related to recusal forms.

d.) Financial disclosure

None.

e.) General office administration

The next meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2025. Executive Director Gramitt informed that the annual election of the Commission’s officers will be scheduled for the Commission’s meeting in November.

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:

Sonia Frias, an environmental scientist with the Rhode Island Department of Health, Center for Drinking Water Quality, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from serving in her private capacity as a co-author for a paper intended to be published in a scientific journal which incorporates the use of data that the Petitioner compiled as part of her public duties and later requested and received in her private capacity through the state’s Access to Public Records Act.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was present. In response to Commissioner Callahan, Staff Attorney Radiches stated that in this situation there does not appear the potential for the journal to profit from this article and, even if there were such a potential, it would not directly financially impact the Petitioner. Commissioner Susi expressed appreciation to the Petitioner for her voluntary contribution to the journal. Upon motion made by Commissioner Peterson and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Sonia Frias, an environmental scientist with the Rhode Island Department of Health, Center for Drinking Water Quality.

Chair Jones announced that the Commission would consider next item number eight on the agenda before considering the remaining advisory opinions.

Discussion and Vote on proposed regulatory amendments to the Code of Ethics’ gift rule at 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-9:

a.) As to Gift Limits: The Code of Ethics’ gift rule has, since 2005, prohibited gifts from interested persons to public officials that are valued in excess of $25 per gift or $75 in aggregate from the same source. This proposed amendment to subsection (B) of 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2 raises those limits to $50 per gift or $150 in aggregate to acknowledge increases in inflation over the last twenty years and moving forward.

b.) As to Definition of “Interested Person” to include Lobbyists: The gift rule prohibits public officials from accepting expensive gifts from an “interested person,” which is defined to mean a person or entity with a direct financial interest in decisions made by the public official. While this definition has historically been understood to include gifts from lobbyists to the public officials they lobby, lobbyists for not-for-profit entities may not fit neatly into this definition. This amendment to subsections (C) and (D) of 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2 seeks to expressly prohibit expensive gifts from all lobbyists to the public officials they are lobbying.

Chair Jones informed that additional comments from the public had been received following the last meeting. In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that all rulemaking procedural requirements had been met and, if the Commission adopts any of the proposed amendments today, the next step would be for the executive director to file those amendments with the Secretary of State’s office. He explained that the amendments would become effective within 20 days of filing or at another date that the Commission chooses.

Chair Jones opened the discussion regarding the proposed amendment to the gift limit amounts from the current $25 per gift or $75 in the aggregate to $50 per gift or $150 in the aggregate from the same source. Commissioner Callahan opined that it makes sense to update the amounts to adjust for inflation but emphasized that it is incumbent on the public official to be aware of artificial influence and the reason behind the gift regardless of the amount. Commissioner Rabideau commented that the gift amendment would apply also to municipal officials and employees and small local boards which he believes will provide a safe buffer for these individuals in smaller communities to accept gifts from members of their communities. Commissioner Cenerini noted that the current limits have existed for 20 years and that those who enter public service do so for good reasons. He opined that an amendment to the gift limit amounts based on inflation will not negatively impact that commitment.

Chair Jones informed that many of the public comments that had been received urge the Commission not to raise the limits and even to eliminate the gift rule completely and prohibit gift giving of any kind. He stated that the regulation pertains to gifts and not campaign contributions. He reiterated Commissioner Callahan’s comment that it is important for public officials to be mindful of their obligations under the regulation.

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

VOTED: To amend Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2(B) Gifts as proposed by raising the current limit of fair market value or actual cost per individual gift or other thing of value from $25 to $50 from a single interested person.

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

VOTED: To amend Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2(B) Gifts as proposed by raising the current limit for the aggregate fair market value or actual cost of gifts or other things of value in a calendar year from $75 to $150 from a single interested person.

Chair Jones stated that the next set of gift amendments relate to the inclusion of lobbyists in the definition of interested persons. He noted that while the definition historically has been understood to include lobbyists, lobbyists for not-for-profit entities do not fit neatly into the definition of interested persons. The amendments to 1.4.2(C) and (D) are intended to expressly prohibit expensive gifts from all lobbyists to the public officials they are lobbying. Commissioner Cenerini expressed his support of the amendment. There was no further discussion.

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

VOTED: To amend Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2(C) Gifts as proposed in Regulation 1.4.2(C)(1) to expand the definition of interested persons to expressly include businesses or other entities whether for profit or not-for-profit or representatives of such entities that have a direct financial interest in a decision that the person subject to the Code of Ethics is authorized to make or to participate in the making of as part of his or her official duties.

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

VOTED: To amend Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2(C) Gifts as proposed to expand the definition of interested persons to expressly include all registered lobbyists and lobbying firms and the persons, businesses, and the entities that engage them whether they be for profit or not-for-profit.

Chair Jones introduced the final set of amendments relating to 1.4.2(D), and Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that these amendments pertain to food and beverage exceptions to the gift prohibitions. Chair Jones noted that the exceptions apply to events to which all members of the General Assembly or statewide officers have been invited. Commissioner Peterson commented that the section (D)(3) exception is not specific to members of the General Assembly and provides that if a gift is coming from a non-profit lobbyist who does not lobby in front of the group of which the public official is a member, then that lobbyist is not considered to be an interested person.

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

VOTED: To amend Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2(D)(3) to provide that the prohibitions do not apply if the gift is given to a public official or employee who is not a member or employee of the state or municipal agency that the interested person is lobbying.

Chair Jones introduced the last exception relating to food and beverage for immediate consumption under (D)(4). Commissioner Rabideau inquired how a not-for-profit entity could not be considered an interested person given that all non-profits are interested persons. Legal Counsel DeSimone explained that 1.4.2(C)(1) defines an interested person as someone with a direct financial interest. Commissioner Peterson added that 1.4.2(C)(1) refers to anyone with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or decision that the public official is authorized to make or to participate in the making of while (C)(2) includes a non-profit lobbyist in the definition of an interested person.

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

VOTED: To amend Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.4.2(D) to expressly provide that the prohibitions do not apply to food and beverage for immediate consumption at a reception or fundraiser to which all members of the General Assembly or statewide officers are invited and is hosted not more than once in any year by a not-for-profit entity that does not have a financial interest in a decision that the person subject to the Code of Ethics is authorized to make, or to participate in the making of, as part of his or her official duties.

Chair Jones stated that legal counsel suggested that the Commission formally adopt the regulatory analysis provided by the executive director in support of the rule changes. Commissioner Cenerini expressed his appreciation for the analysis which he found extremely helpful in his evaluation of this matter. In response to Commissioner Peterson, Chair Jones stated that by adopting the analysis the Commission is affirming its use by the executive director in compliance with the requirements of the rulemaking statutes. Executive Director Gramitt informed that he is required to file the analysis with the amendments and the Commission’s approval confirms its agreement with the analysis. Upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adopt the regulatory analysis that the executive director and staff prepared and submitted to the Ethics Commission for consideration.

Chair Jones commented that this rulemaking process, beginning with Mr. Marion’s presence and continuing through the public hearing and the executive director’s and staff’s efforts to present the materials to the Commission, has been exemplary. He added that the regulatory analysis and the reports provided by the staff were responsive and helpful, including the national comparison.

In response to Commissioner Callahan, Chair Jones stated that the Commission may now consider the effective date for the amendments. Commissioner Cenerini proposed an effective date of January 1, 2026, for the increase in gift limits, with the other amendments taking effect within the 20 days, or alternatively, an effective date of January 1, 2026, for all the amendments. A motion was made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan to make all the amendments effective January 1, 2026. Commissioner Ricci suggested a sooner date. Discussion ensued as to whether the effective date should be sooner than January 1, 2026, and whether to amend the present motion to separate the amendments and their effective dates. Commissioner Susi withdrew her motion.

In response to Commissioner Cenerini, Executive Director Gramitt stated that the amendment to the gift limit amounts should be made effective January 1, 2026. He informed that, while the financial disclosure statute requires the disclosure of gifts received greater than $100 in the aggregate, the Commission amended its gift regulation in 2005 to prohibit the receipt of gifts in excess of $25 per instance and $75 in the aggregate. As a result, the gift disclosure question was eliminated from the financial disclosure statement because such gifts were now prohibited by the regulation. He informed that today’s adoption of the amendment to increase the aggregate amount to $150 will require amendments to the financial disclosure statements. Executive Director Gramitt stated that an effective date of January 1, 2026, provides sufficient time to make the required changes on the 2026 statements for filing in 2027. Executive Director Gramitt also requested that the January 1, 2026, effective date apply to all the amendments to facilitate and simplify the filing process and to allow sufficient time to notify the public, especially lobbyists, of the amendments.

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

VOTED: To make all the amendments on which the Commission voted today effective January 1, 2026.

Chair Jones informed that the Commission next will resume its consideration of the remaining advisory opinions.

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 seeking re-certification to the list of court-appointed attorneys available to represent indigent clients in criminal matters before the Rhode Island courts.

Executive Director Gramitt explained that this matter was a continuation of Representative Knight’s advisory opinion request first considered at the Commission’s August 19, 2025, meeting. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to the Commission proceeding in his absence. Executive Director Gramitt explained that, given differing opinions among the commissioners during the initial presentation, the staff prepared a long-track opinion that offers two options and their respective analyses. He presented the draft options.

Commissioner Callahan queried whether it was appropriate under the Code of Ethics for the Petitioner to be on the court-appointed attorneys list when he was first elected as a representative and, if so, whether the intervening reelection(s) has interfered with his ability to apply now for recertification following his request in 2019 to be removed from the list. Executive Director Gramitt directed the Commission to pages eight and nine of the draft opinion and explained that it was permissible for the Petitioner to be on the list and seek election to the General Assembly back in 2016, and that he is seeking recertification now to resume the same work in which he previously engaged. Commissioner Ricci argued that the Petitioner got off the list and, under a strict reading of the regulation and consistent with the tenet of the revolving door prohibition, he should not be allowed to seek recertification to the list. Commissioner Cenerini referenced the United States Supreme Court case cited in the draft that held that a court-appointed attorney should be free of any state control and questioned whether it is suggested that the Code of Ethics vitiates the Court’s holding. Commissioner Rabideau replied that if the Petitioner is eligible to be on the list, then the Court’s holding applies; but the issue here is whether he is qualified to seek recertification. Commissioner Rabideau stated that if a person is grandfathered and gives up that benefit, then he is not eligible to be grandfathered again.

Commissioner Peterson commented that there is no appearance of impropriety here based on what the Petitioner wants to resume doing and the spirit behind the revolving door provision. She added that she could envision a different result if the Petitioner had been involved in another kind of work to which he now wanted to return. Commissioner Peterson opined that the advisory opinion cited in the instant draft that was issued to the school nurse prohibiting her from administering vaccinations to students on a volunteer basis during COVID was, in contrast, an absurd result. She stated that the purpose behind the revolving door prohibition is to prevent people from taking advantage of their official positions and deriving a financial benefit. Commissioner Ricci noted that the Petitioner would be compensated for his position as a court-appointed attorney and should not be allowed to return to that position. Commissioner Susi commented that she does not find an appearance of impropriety given that he is willing to do work that many are not. Chair Jones commented that he does not accept the opinion that the Petitioner is an independent contractor or employee of the state or that this type of work was intended to be prohibited by the regulation.

A motion was made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi to issue an advisory opinion to the Petitioner, after which Commissioner Cenerini requested that precedence be given to the Supreme Court’s decision cited in the draft. Executive Director Gramitt informed that if the Commission votes to adopt option two, option one and all references to option one will be removed, and the footnote citing the Supreme Court case will remain. It was next

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion, as presented in option two of the draft, to 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.

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

NOES: Scott P. Rabideau and Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.

The motion carried.

Executive Director Gramitt informed that, consistent with Commissioner Cenerini’s previous request, boilerplate language is being added to advisory opinions stating that, until amended or revoked by the Commission, the advisory opinion is binding on the Commission concerning the person who requested and relied, in good faith, on it.

The final advisory opinion was that of:

William J. DePasquale Jr., AICP, the town planner for the Town of Exeter, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from performing his public duties relative to an application by the town’s assistant clerk in her private capacity for the subdivision of a parcel of land that she owns in the town.

Staff Attorney Radiches presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to proceeding in his absence. In response to Commissioner Ricci, Staff Attorney Radiches explained that in some towns, an official who has a conflict may ask an official from a neighboring town to fill in his place and vice versa. She stated that the Petitioner represented that such a scenario likely would not happen under these facts, but if an actual conflict arises, the matter may go before the planning board. In response to Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Radiches stated that the Petitioner is not involved in the appointment of the assistant clerk. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Cenerini, it was unanimously

VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to William J. DePasquale Jr., AICP, the town planner for the Town of Exeter.

At 10:38 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by

Commissioner Rabideau, it was unanimously:

VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:

a.) Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on September 9, 2025, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

b.) In re: John M. Hoyle, Jr., Complaint No. NF2025-1, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).

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

d.) Motion to return to Open Session.

At 11:01 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session. Commissioner Peterson left the meeting.

The next order of business was:

Motion to seal minutes of September 30, 2025, Executive Session.

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

VOTED: To seal the minutes of Executive Session held on September 30, 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:

Unanimously voted (8-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on September 9, 2025.
Unanimously voted (8-0) in the matter of In re: John M. Hoyle, Jr., Complaint No. NF2025-1, to find that there exists probable cause to believe that John M. Hoyle, Jr., the former Building Official for the Town of Tiverton, violated Rhode Island General Laws § 36-14-16 by failing to file a 2024 Financial Disclosure Statement with the Rhode Island Ethics Commission.
Unanimously voted (8-0) in the matter of In re: Jonathan Pascua, Complaint No. 2025-2, to grant the Prosecution’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Investigation, First Extension by 60 days to December 21, 2025.
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 11:05 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Browner and duly seconded by Commissioner Ricci, it was unanimously

VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Jason Gramitt
Executive Director