Opinion ID: 2396134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 1986 State Constitution and Regulation 5014

Text: Article 3, section 8, of the Rhode Island Constitution adopted by the electorate on November 4, 1986, made provision for the establishment of an independent non-partisan ethics commission. The section authorized the commission to promulgate and adopt a code of ethics prescribing standards of conduct expected of all elected and appointed officers and employees who serve on boards, commissions, and agencies in both state and local government. Id. The constitutional mandate was later implemented by an act of the General Assembly in 1987, P.L. 1987, ch. 195 (G.L.1956 chapter 14 of title 36), which created and made operational the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. Article 3, sections 7 and 8, of the 1986 Constitution have delegated to the commission clear authority to adopt a code of ethics establishing substantive standards of ethical conduct that would be expected and required of all who, as elected or appointed officers and employees, are responsible for governmental functions at the state and local levels. Indeed, we have previously noted the existence of that authority in the commission. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 612 A.2d at 13. That authority, however, does not include unbounded power, without limitation. The primary intent of article 3, sections 7 and 8, is to vest in the ethics commission the authority to develop a code of ethics, to investigate violations, and to enforce its provisions, always subject to review by the judicial branch of government consistent with the Constitution. 612 A.2d at 10-11. Article 3, sections 7 and 8, most assuredly did not create or establish any fourth branch of state government, but merely served to transfer to the commission a limited portion of what had always been a legislative prerogative, namely, the enactment of substantive ethics regulations. The 1986 Constitution continued to reserve to the General Assembly a concurrent authority to enact substantive legislation on codes of ethical conduct. 612 A.2d at 14. That concurrent authority restricts the Legislature only from enacting laws that [would be] inconsistent with, or contradictory, to [any] code of ethics adopted by the commission. Id. As an administrative agency, the ethics commission is bound by the acts that empower it. Clarke v. Morsilli, 714 A.2d 597, 600 (R.I.1998). Although appellate courts frequently accord agency decisions varying levels of deference, the questions before us do not result from a dispute over a set of facts as ascertained by the commission, nor from a dispute concerning an act within the commission's administrative discretion. Instead, we are faced here with a question of law, namely, whether the ethics commission possesses the requisite authority to promulgate Regulation 5014. As such, we review this legal question de novo without deference to the agency's interpretation. See City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission, 566 A.2d 1305, 1307 (R.I.1989) (holding that factual findings of an agency are typically shown great deference, but a dispute involving statutory interpretation is a question of law requiring de novo review); Stephen G. Breyer, Judicial review of questions of law and policy, 38 Admin. L.Rev. 363, 371 (1986). See also Rowse v. Platte Valley Livestock, Inc., 597 F.Supp. 1055, 1057 (D.Neb.1984) (jurisdiction of an agency is a question of law subject to de novo review). Moreover, when an agency construes its own enabling act, it is subject to increased scrutiny inasmuch as government agencies have a tendency to swell, not shrink, and are likely to have an expansive view of their mission. Hi-Craft Clothing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 660 F.2d 910, 916 (3d Cir.1981). And while the commission may promulgate regulations that do not exceed its delegated authority, this Court sits as `final arbiter of the validity or interpretation of statutory law,' as well as of any agency regulations promulgated to administer that law.  Clarke, 714 A.2d at 600. (Emphasis added.) See also Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1358 (R.I.1983) (If the lawmaking branch has not conferred such authority upon the agency promulgating the rule, the promulgation is interpretive and is not to be considered controlling by the courts.). Given these parameters, we proceed to examine de novo whether the ethics commission exceeded its authority by promulgating Regulation 5014.