Grand Jury Reportedly Impaneled on 2016 Mattiello Mailer
GoLocalProv News Team
Grand Jury Reportedly Impaneled on 2016 Mattiello Mailer
“The Board of Elections resolved this issue for the campaign more than one year ago. We have no involvement in or knowledge of what was reported on earlier today,” said Doyle, who also serves as the spokeswoman for Twin River and other high profile clients.
“A statewide grand jury is actively investigating alleged campaign finance improprieties involving House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s 2016 re-election effort, the Target 12 Investigators have learned,” said the TV station.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTIn a statement to GoLocal, Kristy dosReis spokeswoman Attorney General Peter Neronha, said, "I’m able to confirm the referral of that matter to this Office by the Board of Elections and that it has been reviewed by this Office. Upon taking office in January, Attorney General Neronha had that matter assigned to our Public Integrity Unit. Beyond that, I am not able to comment."
Timeline of Events
GoLocal reported in October 2016:
The Rhode Island Republican Party has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Board of Elections over former GOP candidate Shawna Lawton's recent mailer endorsing Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello.
The GOP issued the following statement on Monday, calling for additional investigations into Mattiello's campaign.
GOP Statement:
"There is no doubt Lawton's endorsement mailer violated Rhode Island's campaign finance law. The mailer cost over $1,000. If it is a coordinated expenditure, it violated the law by exceeding the $1,000 limit. If it is an independent expenditure, it was not reported within 24 hours in violation of the law. The Board of Elections must immediately act on the R.I. Republican Party's complaint and open an investigation in order to collect evidence as quickly as possible before it disappears. Although Mattiello advisor Jeff Britt denies he discussed vaccination issues with Ms. Lawton, he has not denied talking with her about endorsing Mattiello or her endorsement mailer. It seems clear that there was consultation and coordination between the Mattiello campaign and Lawton and both should be penalized.
Second, Ms. Lawton indicated in writing that she was "promised" action on vaccination issues by the Mattiello campaign in return for her endorsement. This is a quid pro quo, and could be considered a form of bribery. For example, in New Jersey, the offer by one candidate to endorse another candidate in exchange for a government job constituted bribery. State v. Woodward, 689 A.2d 801 (1997). Although Mattiello and Lawton deny there was any deal, Ms. Lawton's written comments say otherwise. Law enforcement should investigate this deal between the Lawton and the Mattiello campaigns for any potential criminal wrongdoing.
Lastly, the Mattiello campaign will almost certainly soon be under investigation by the Board of Elections. Law enforcement may begin to investigate as well. Democrats running for state representative across this state must ask themselves, if somehow Speaker Mattiello was re-elected, how could they vote for him to be Speaker under the circumstances, especially after all the scandals. Remember, the investigation into Speaker Gordon Fox was originally about campaign finance, but in the end he went to prison for bribery. Every candidate running for state representative should declare they will not support Mattiello to be re-elected for Speaker. Let's put the scandals of the Mattiello leadership team, and now his own campaign, behind us.
GoLocal reported in June 2018:
Lawyers for then-Mattiello operatives Jeff Britt and Matt Jerzyk — who most recently has served as legal counsel for House Majority Leader Joe Shekarchi — and alleged donor Teresa Graham appeared before the Board of Elections on Thursday evening, and while the Board of Elections dismissed Jerzyk’s role, lawyers for Britt and Graham were ordered to meet with Board of Elections counsel to achieve a resolution shortly.
“The board is authorized to compel by subpoena production of goods and documents…and any person disobeying any subpoena should be considered as in contempt — and the board may punish any contempt, as could be punished by any court, which can be imposed by fine or imprisonment or both,” said Board of Elections Vice Chair Steve Erickson.
After statements were delivered by the lawyers as to their non-compliance with the recent subpoena request, Erickson remained firm.
BoE Enforcement
“I don’t think we’re trying to impose some draconian penalty here — what we’re trying to do in my mind is establish the board’s credibility as an independent agency, that has the subpoena power, that has the investigative power — and we’re going to follow that, we’re going to do that — and if we issue an order we expect it to be followed,” said Erickson.
“I'm not individually personal about any one of your clients, it’s about the authority of the board, and the fact that we continue to get campaign finance violation complaints [and] we may be doing more vigorous investigations in the future,” said Erickson, addressing the lawyers. “Last year we held somebody for the first time in contempt - and we eventually resolved that matter — but we [want people to know] when we issue and order, we’re serious about it.”
“If there’s a need for a future discussion about how to resolve this, I think we can do this,” said Erickson.
Erikson, however, immediately moved to dismiss Jerzyk.
“Your client is in a slightly different position,” Erickson then said to lawyer Timothy Dodd — who responded.
“I filed a motion to dismiss — I feel Mr. Jerzyk is differently situated — I’ve been quite candid his compliance was late, and quite candid it was late that he was of the understanding that there was a global resolution that was in the works,” said Dodd. “When a decision was made regarding Speaker Mattiello and the board still had an interest in getting compliance — I think within 24-28 hours we complied — our compliance was before any show-case order.”
“I agree with you — in the sense that — if you don’t mind I’m going to read some of it for the record because it seemed to me Mr. Jerzyk did in fact acknowledge the authority of the board and make contrition for it,” said Erickson. “He basically said, that he had never talked with or communicated with Shawna Lawton, or had knowledge of who donated money — and retrospect this is very important, that this be on the record — that we’re aware of what he said.”
“I was very impressed with — that he said they way this mailer happened was sloppy, and I take responsibility for my part in this and strive to take professional and ethical obligations from the lessons that I learned from this unfortunate event,” said Erickson. “I could not have put it better myself — it’s a good statement - although we may want to negotiation in the other cases, I think Mr. Jeryk’s case is ripe for dismissal.”
Erickson put forth a dismal proposal — which as then approved.
The motion to dismiss Britt — and Graham’s — lack of response to the Board of Elections subpoenas, as denied however.
“We’ve been sued so many times recently we can’t keep track,” quipped Erickson in an aside.