DeAngelis v. Rhode Island Ethics Com'n

• Decision Date: 10 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-577-MP,93-577-MP
• Citation: 656 A.2d 967
• Parties: Joseph DeANGELIS v. RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION and Richard W. Morsilli, Chairperson.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 967

656 A.2d 967

Joseph DeANGELIS v. RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION and Richard W. Morsilli, Chairperson.

No. 93-577-MP.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 10, 1995.

Linda E. Buffardi, Cranston, for plaintiff.

Gary Yesser, Richard Galli, Martin Healey, R.I. Ethics Com'n, for defendant.

OPINION

WEISBERGER, Chief Justice.

This case comes before us on a petition for certiorari filed by Joseph DeAngelis (petitioner) which seeks review of a decision of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission (commission) denying his motion to dismiss complaints that had been filed with the commission and upon which findings of probable cause had been made. We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the decision of the commission. The facts of the case insofar as pertinent to this petition are as follows.

In 1991 petitioner held the office of Representative in the General Assembly and also served as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island. At that time, the General Assembly was in the process of considering legislation to relieve a catastrophic situation which had arisen as a result of the closing of forty-five credit unions and other financial institutions by the governor on January 1, 1991. This action by the governor was based upon the perceived insolvency of many of the institutions, the acknowledged insolvency of the Rhode Island Share and Deposit Indemnity Corporation (RISDIC), their private insurer, and the unavailability of federal insurance to protect their depositors.

On February 4, 1991, one Susan Bressette filed a complaint with the commission against petitioner. On March 5, 1991, one Peter C. Marra also filed a complaint with the commission against petitioner. These complaints generally alleged that petitioner had committed ethical violations by participating in the discussions and consideration of a body of legislation which resulted in the formation of the Rhode Island Depositor Economic Protection Corporation (DEPCO). The petitioner denied the allegations.

During the year 1991 legislation was adopted effective June 16, 1991, G.L.1956 (1990 Reenactment) § 36-14-12(c), as amended by P.L.1991, ch. 177, § 1, which required the commission to make findings of probable cause, and if probable cause was found, to prepare written findings within 180 days of the receipt of a written complaint, with a possibility of two extensions of sixty days each for good cause.

The commission at that time consisted of fifteen members of whom eight members constituted a quorum. The staff of the commission considered the complaints and presented a report to an investigating committee of the commission on October 31, 1991. On December 13, 1991, the investigating committee found that probable cause existed to find that petitioner on a number of occasions knowingly and willfully violated five provisions of the Code of Ethics in Government (code of ethics). The findings of the investigating committee were then referred to an adjudicative panel pursuant to the provisions of § 36-14-13 then in effect. The adjudicative panel on February 25, 1992, issued a notice of hearing, setting April 16 and 30, and May 7 and 21, 1992 as hearing dates to adjudicate the matter.

On March 2, 1992, petitioner objected to these hearing dates and pointed out that they posed a significant conflict with his duties as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The dates selected by the adjudicative panel coincided with the busiest period of the legislative session at a critical time for the consideration of some of the most important pending bills. The adjudicative panel responded to petitioner's objection by granting a continuance until July 2, 1992. No hearing took place on this date.

Effective July 21, 1992, the Legislature enacted and the governor signed into law a statute which completely modified the commission and made sweeping substantive and procedural changes to the ethics statutes. This legislation was designated P.L.1992, ch. 436 and has since been codified as §§ 36-14-5,-8,-9,-12,-13 and -14.

This statute reduced the commission from fifteen members to nine members. The new commission could act with a quorum of five members. Before the 1992 amendment, an investigating committee composed of six members would investigate each complaint to determine the existence of probable cause to support the allegations in the complaint, and if probable cause was found, to prepare written findings. Pursuant to the 1992 amendment, investigating committees were abolished and the commission as a whole, or a quorum thereof, was given the duty of conducting investigations. The same commission was clothed with the power to adjudicate the merits of allegations of violations of the code of ethics. Prior to the 1992 amendments, at least five members of the commission who had attended all hearings in their entirety were required to make a determination of violation. Subsequent to the 1992 amendments, a majority of the commission members who had attended all hearings could make such a finding of violation. The new statute also increased the maximum penalty from $10,000 per violation to $25,000 per violation.

Section 3 of chapter 436 of the Public Laws of 1992 provided for the procedural requirements relating to cases previously pending before the commission. This section read as follows:

"Cases pending in which there has been a finding of probable cause prior to the effective date of this act shall be adjudicated in accordance with the procedure in effect prior to the enactment of this act by the commissioners appointed pursuant to the preceding statute. Cases under investigation and complaints filed after the effective date of this act containing allegations about events which occurred prior to the effective date of this act shall be investigated according to procedures established by this act." (Emphasis added.) P.L.1992, ch. 436, § 3.

At the time that this new statute went into effect, the previous commission had been encountering quorum problems due to the existence of two vacancies on the commission and due to the expiration that month of the five-year terms of three additional commissioners (under the statute, commissioners appointed to five-year terms could not be reappointed). In petitioner's case, the commission was also faced with a number of recusals by commissioners appointed under the prior statute, further contributing to the commission's inability to achieve a quorum. As a result of these problems, the chairperson of the commission requested the governor to fill the two existing vacancies. Apparently the governor declined to make such appointments. Meanwhile the adjudicative panel after hearing a motion to dismiss on July 6, 1992 voted to delay consideration of the motion for thirty days.

As pointed out in the commission's brief, the enactment of P.L.1992, ch. 436 placed the complaints pending against petitioner in a procedural limbo. The statute clearly required that complaints upon which probable cause had been determined prior to the July 21, 1992 effective date of the act be decided by the commission as it existed prior to the passage of P.L.1992, ch. 436, and according to the procedural requirements then in effect. In light of the governor's failure to appoint additional members to the former commission, the executive director of the commission...