Minutes 9-9-25
MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION
OF THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION
September 9, 2025
The Rhode Island Ethics Commission held its 13th 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 9, 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
Matthew D. Strauss, Secretary Scott P. Rabideau
Dr. Michael Browner, Jr. Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.
Christopher P. Callahan
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 9:07 a.m., the Chair opened the meeting.
The first order of business was:
Approval of minutes of the Open Session held on August 19, 2025.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was
VOTED: To approve the minutes of the Open Session held on August 19, 2025.
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; and Matthew D. Strauss.
ABSTENTIONS: Michael Browner, Jr.; Scott P. Rabideau; and Holly J. Susi.
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:
(1) In the Thorsen matter, respective legal counsel is working out possible adjudication dates.
(2) In the Heidi Weston Rogers matter, the Respondent’s legal counsel has requested to continue the original adjudication date of October 21, 2025, to a later date.
(3) In re: Jonathan Pascua is under investigation.
(4) In re: James Durkin is under investigation.
(5) In re: Jeffrey McCormick is under investigation.
(6) In re: John M. Hoyle Jr. is a financial disclosure complaint that will be noticed for a probable cause hearing on September 30, 2025.
b.) Advisory opinions pending
There are four advisory opinions pending, two of which have been noticed for today’s meeting. Executive Director Gramitt informed that the amended advisory opinion for Representative Jason Knight will be presented at the Commission’s September 30, 2025, meeting.
c.) 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 the proposed gift rule amendments, one related to financial disclosure, one related to meeting materials, and one related to advisory opinions.
d.) Financial disclosure
None.
e.) General office administration
Executive Director Gramitt informed that today’s public hearing will be stenographically recorded. Executive Director Gramitt explained that the purpose of today’s hearing is to allow for comments from the public and that the Commission will not engage in deliberations or voting today. He stated that the public comment period will remain open for one week following today’s hearing, and any additional comments received will be posted on the Commission’s website. Executive Director Gramitt informed that 33 written comments have been received thus far and are available on the Commission’s website. He advised that anyone wishing to speak today should sign in on the public comment sheet.
Chair Jones informed that the order of items on today’s agenda will be switched to allow the hearing and public comments regarding the proposed regulatory amendments to be considered before the Commission goes into executive session.
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:
Chris Hauver, a member of the board of directors of the Jamestown Community Theatre Association, a program which falls under the Jamestown Department of Parks and Recreation, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from establishing a private, non-profit entity in order to conduct fundraising activities to benefit the Jamestown Community Theatre Association and from then serving as the entity’s chairperson and, further, what restrictions, if any, the Code of Ethics would place upon him while serving in both positions.
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 Chair Jones, Staff Attorney Popova Papa stated that the Petitioner had no objection to the draft opinion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Susi and duly seconded by Commissioner Peterson, it was unanimously
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Chris Hauver, a member of the board of directors of the Jamestown Community Theatre Association, a program which falls under the Jamestown Department of Parks and Recreation.
The next advisory opinion was that of:
Carol Mossa, an alternate member of the Charlestown Planning Commission, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether, upon recusal, she may attend and speak at public hearings before the planning commission regarding a proposed development on two parcels of land located across the street from her personal residence.
Staff Attorney Popova Papa presented the Commission Staff recommendation. The Petitioner was not present but had consented to the Commission proceeding in her absence. Commissioner Ricci expressed concern that the Petitioner, if permitted to speak before the planning commission of which she is a member, could indirectly influence the members of the planning commission. Commissioner Cenerini requested that future advisory opinions include language providing safe harbor against potential complaints as discussed in the Commission’s Licciardi decision. In response to Chair Jones, Commissioner Cenerini stated that members of the public or attorneys may not be aware of the safe harbor protection afforded by a given opinion if not expressly stated therein. Executive Director Gramitt addressed Commissioner Cenerini’s concern and suggested adding boilerplate language in advisory opinions that tracks the language of the statute. Chair Jones expressed concern with adding standardized language to the effect that non-compliance with the direction in the opinion is not a violation of the Code of Ethics. Upon motion made by Commissioner Cenerini and duly seconded by Commissioner Rabideau, it was
VOTED: To issue an advisory opinion to Carol Mossa, an alternate member of the Charlestown Planning Commission.
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Michael Browner, Jr.; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Scott P. Rabideau; Matthew D. Strauss; and Holly J. Susi.
NOES: Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.
The next order of business was:
Hearing and public comment 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 and 42-35-2.8:
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.
[The hearing was stenographically recorded, and a transcript of the proceeding is available at the Commission’s Office.]
Chair Jones informed that the Commission has not proposed to change the rule as part of this hearing but only to consider whether to change the rule. He stated that the Commission has not made any decision on any of the proposed amendments to the regulation nor does it have any predilection to either position. Chair Jones noted that there is no time limit for speaking but requested that all speakers be mindful and respectful of the time.
John Marion, Executive Director at Common Cause Rhode Island, spoke first and discussed Common Cause’s proposal to amend the Code of Ethics’ gift rule to close the loophole which currently allows public officials and employees to accept unlimited gifts from lobbyists, lobbying firms, and those employing lobbyists as long as the lobbying party does not meet the definition of an interested person under the Code. Mr. Marion explained that Common Cause’s proposed change to the definition of an interested person categorically includes lobbyists, lobbying firms, and those employing lobbyists. He referenced the proposed exception in the form of food and drink for immediate consumption at an event to which all members of the General Assembly or statewide officials are invited. Mr. Marion noted Common Cause’s opposition to a proposed increase in the gift limit amount.
Following Mr. Marion’s comments, members of the public who spoke in support of the proposed amendments were: H. Philip West, Jr.; Kathleen Odean; Patrick Laverty; Jesse Kingston; and Kate McGovern. There were no other speakers.
At 10:00 a.m., after public comments concluded, Chair Jones closed the public hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Callahan, it was unanimously
VOTED: To go into Executive Session, to wit:
a.) Motion to approve minutes of Executive Session held on August 19, 2025, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) & (4).
b.) Motion to return to Open Session.
At 10:04 a.m., the Commission reconvened in Open Session.
The next order of business was:
Motion to seal minutes of September 9, 2025, Executive Session.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Callahan and duly seconded by Commissioner Browner, Jr., it was unanimously
VOTED: To seal the minutes of Executive Session held on September 9, 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 (6-0) to approve the minutes of the Executive Session held on August 19, 2025.
[Reporter’s Note: The vote was as follows:
AYES: Lauren E. Jones; Christopher P. Callahan; Frank J. Cenerini; Emma L. Peterson; Hugo L. Ricci, Jr.; and Matthew D. Strauss.
ABSTENTIONS: Michael Browner, Jr.; Scott P. Rabideau; and Holly J. Susi.]
-
Unanimously voted (9-0) to return to Open Session.
The next order of business was:
New Business proposed for future Commission agendas and general comments from the Commission.
Executive Director Gramitt noted that during the Director’s Report he had informed the Commission that the adjudication date in the Rogers matter will be continued to a later date. He inquired regarding the Commission’s preference for the November 18, 2025, or December 16, 2025, meeting for the adjudication. Commissioner Cenerini expressed a preference for the later date. In response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that the prosecution will reach out to the Respondent’s legal counsel regarding a stipulation of facts and exhibits, and each side will inform the other of witnesses expected to testify. In further response to Chair Jones, Executive Director Gramitt stated that the Administrative Procedures Act and Commission regulations govern an administrative trial, and the Chair rules on any evidentiary objections made during such a trial.
At 10:10 a.m., upon motion made by Commissioner Rabideau and duly seconded by Commissioner Susi, it was unanimously
VOTED: To adjourn the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Matthew D. Strauss
Secretary