Superior court rules in Justice Flaherty’s favor in case over $200 fine for failing to disclose links to Catholic organization

By Katherine Gregg
Providence Journal
July 24, 2020

https://bit.ly/2Db85iC

A Superior Court judge has sided with Supreme Court Justice Frank Flaherty - and against the Rhode Island Ethics Commission - in heated long running fight over a $200 fine for failing to disclose links to Catholic organization.

In a decision out Friday, Judge Brian Stern vacated the Ethics Commission’s ruling that Flaherty’s failure to list his position as President of the St. Thomas More Society on his financial statements for the period running from 2010-2015 constituted "a knowing and willful violation’’ of state ethics law.

Among Stern’s findings: "The Commission Decision contained no finding that the Plaintiff’s actions were deliberate or intentional, and the weight of the evidence presented during the adjudicatory hearing supported a conclusion that the Plaintiff’s actions were not deliberate.

"Accordingly, the Commission Decision is clearly erroneous and affected by error of law,’’ the judge ruled in a decision that did not go as far as Flaherty wanted the court to go in challenging the Ethics Commission’s powers.

Flaherty’s judicial battle stemmed from the court decision he wrote denying the appeal of Helen Hyde, a woman who had sued the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence — unsuccessfully — seeking damages from alleged abuse by the Rev. Brendan Smyth more than 40 years ago.

Hyde brought a complaint against Flaherty before the Ethics Commission in 2016, saying he should have mentioned that he was president of the St. Thomas More Society of Rhode Island on his financial and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms from 2010 to 2015. The Society hosts the annual Red Mass, a traditional Catholic celebration of the opening of the court term.

The Ethics Commission concluded that not knowing the rules was not an adequate excuse for omitting the information and fined him $200.

In a complaint filed in Superior Court in April 2019, Flaherty asked a judge to reverse the Ethics Commission’s decision the prior February.

As he did before the Ethics Commission, Flaherty argued that the commission exceeds its constitutional authority by requiring government officials to disclose involvement with all nonprofits, not just those that conduct "business."

His appeal also argued that the Ethics Commission’s procedure of investigating and adjudicating probable cause of a violation violates due process.

"The Commission does not have the independent authority to enact substantive ethics laws or regulations in contravention of those ethics laws adopted by the General Assembly," his complaint said. "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that person shall not be tried before an administrative tribunal that is biased or otherwise indisposed from rendering fair and impartial decision."

It is not yet clear if the Ethics Commission will appeal to Flaherty and his colleagues on the state’s highest court.

Jason Gramitt, the ethics commission’s executive director, had this response to the court ruling:

"The most important part of government ethics enforcement is not the final outcome on appeal, it is the integrity and transparency of the process as evidenced by a willingness to investigate any public official without fear or favor and then making the results of that investigation public,’’

"The Ethics Commission did that in this case: fully investigating the complaint, holding an adjudicative hearing that was open to the public, and issuing a written decision explaining its findings of fact and legal reasoning,’’ he said.

"The Commission also understands that judicial review of Commission decisions helps to further advance the integrity of ethics enforcement, even if we sometimes disagree with the ultimate outcome."

He said the Commission will meet next week to discuss the Court’s decision and decide whether to seek further judicial review.