STATE OF RHODE ISLAND BEFORE THE RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION In re: Gina Raimondo, Complaint No. 2018-1 Respondent (TIAL DETERMINATION REPORT This report is submitted in accordance with Commission Regulation 1002, which specifies that the Executive Director or his designee shall forward each accepted Complaint to the Ethics Commission (“Commission”) for a review at initial determination. Pursuant to Commission Regulation 1003, at initial determination the Commission must determine whether the Complaint alleges facts that, if true, are sufficient to constitute a knowing and willful violation of the Code of Ethics. On February 12, 2018, Brandon S. Bell, in his capacity as Chairman and President of the Rhode Island Republican Party, filed the instant Complaint against the Respondent, the Governor of the State of Rhode Island (“Governor”), a state elected position. The Complaint alleges that the Respondent may have violated Commission Regulation 36-14-5011 (“Regulation 5011”) by entering into an “agreement of mutual support” with the Providence Democratic City Committee (City Committee”) involving the solicitation of campaign donations designed to benefit the Respondent's re-election. ‘The Complaint states that, subsequent to Patrick Ward's election as Chairman of the City Committee in February 2017, the Respondent's administration hired Mr. Ward, in June 2017, to # position in the Rhode Island Department of Human Services (“DHS”), an executive branch state agency. It is alleged that, approximately seven months later, Mr. Ward and undisclosed members of the City Committee’s executive board approved an “agreement of mutual support”with the Respondent's campaign, which included “fundraising support” with the intention of “doing whatever is needed to elect Democrats,” including the Respondent. The Complainant maintains that Mr. Ward, an employee of an executive branch state agency, is a subordinate of the Respondent pursuant to Regulation 5011(c).! As an elected state official, the Respondent is a person subject to the Code of Ethics. RL Gen, Laws § 36-14-4(1). Regulation 5011, Prohibited Activities- Transactions with Subordinates, provides as follows: @ () © No person subject to the Code of Ethics shall engage in a financial transaction, including participating in private employment or consulting, and giving or receiving loans or monetary contributions, including charitable contributions, with a subordinate or person or business for which, in the official's or employee’s official duties and responsibilities, he or she exercises supervisory responsibilities, unless (1) the financial transaction is in the normal course of a regular commereial business or occupation, (2) the subordinate or person or business described above offers or initiates the financial transaction, or (3) the financial transaction involves a charitable event or fundraising activity which is the subject of general sponsorship by a state or municipal agency through official action by a governing body or the highest official of state or municipal government, No person subject to the Code of Ethics shall solicit or request, directly or through a surrogate, political contributions, from a subordinate for whom, in the official's or employee's official duties and responsibilities, he or she exercises supervisory responsibilities. This does not prohibit or limit the First Amendment rights of a subordinate, as defined in this section, to make political contributions. For purposes of this regulation, “subordinate” means an employee, contractor, consultant, or appointed official of the official's or employee’s agency. (Emphasis added.) "Mr. Watd has since resigned as Chair of the City Committee.‘The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s campaign, acting as the Respondent's agent, entered into an agreement with the City Committee that includes “fundraising support” and is designed to do “whatever is needed to elect” the Respondent and others. Therefore, itis alleged that the Respondent's campaign and the City Committee share common financial objectives, making them “business associates” under the Code of Ethics. A business associate is defined as “a person joined together with another person to achieve a common financial objective.” RI. Gen. Laws § 36-14-2(3). A person is defined as “an individual or business entity.” Section 36-14-2(7) ‘The Complaint further posits that, through this agreement between the Respondent’s campaign and the City Committee, the Respondent became a business associate with her subori ate state employee, Mr. Ward, in a “financial transaction” under Regulation 501 (a). The Complainant suggests that it is neither likely that Mr. Ward initiated or proposed such an agreement to the Respondent or her campaign, nor that the financial transaction was in the normal course of a regular commercial business or occupation. It is stated that the Commission should obtain further information from everyone involved in this arrangement to determine who initiated the financial arrangement. Pursuant to the plain language of Regulation 5011(c), Mr. Ward would not be deemed to be the Respondent's subordinate given that he is not “an employee, contractor, consultant or appointed official of the [Respondent’s] agency.” As set forth in the Complaint, Mr. Ward is an employee of DHS, rather than an employee of the Office of the Governor. Here, Regulation 5011(c)’s definition of subordinate would not extend to all employees of all agencies within the entire executive branch of government.In Complaint No. 2006-9, the Commission previously considered the issue of whether employees of various state agencies who had received solicitation letters from then Governor Donald L. Carcieri’s campaign were his subordinates pursuant to Regulation 50112 Pursuant to the Informal Resolution and Settlement, which was unanimously approved by the Commission on March 6, 2007, the Commission concluded that the subject state employees were not subordinates of Governor Carcieri, as that term is defined in Regulation 5011(c) and, therefore, such solicitation did not run afoul of Regulation 5011(b). In contrast, however, the Commission determined that additional state employees, who ‘were identified during the investigation as having also been solicited by the campaign, were the subordinates of the Governor for purposes of Regulation 5011. These individuals included an employee of the Office of the Governor and five department heads, all under the direct control and supervision of Governor Carcieri? Based upon the plain language of Regulation 5011(c), and consistent with the Commission’s past findings in Complaint No. 2006-9, all employees of the executive branch of state government would not be subordinates of the Respondent for whom she exercises supervision and control. Accordingly, Mr. Ward, an employee of DHS, would not be the Respondent's subordinate. Further, Mr. Ward executed the subject agreement in his capacity as Chair of the City Committee. Said agreement is between the Respondent's campaign and the City Committee, not he solicited individuals were employed by the following state agencies: Department of Administration (Human Resource Analyst); Department of Transportation (Supervising Electrical Inspector); Office of the Lieutenant Governor (Secretary/Scheduler and Director of Administration); Department of Environmental Management (Environmental Scientist); Rhode Island Senate (Secretary); and Office of the General Treasurer (Deputy Treasurer of Finance). * The additional individuals held the following positions: Director of the Department of Business Regulation; Director of the Department of Environmental Management; Director of the Department of Elderly Affairs; Director ‘ofthe Departinent of Children, Youth and Families; Director of the Department of Labor and Training; and an Associate Executive Assistant in the Office of the Governor.between the Respondent's campaign and Mr. Ward, individually. As such, Mr. Ward has not entered into a financial transaction with the Respondent and or her campaign, Based upon the foregoing, the Prosecution submits that the Complaint fails to state facts that are sufficient to constitute a knowing and willful violation of Regulation 5011 and, therefore, should be dismissed. Dated: Respectfully submitted, rine ‘Arezzo (Bar N65710) ion Prosecutor