CRMC Chairman Michael M. Tikoian’s Response to CLF letter to the RI Ethics Commission

I have served for 14 years on the RI Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC), 10 of those as Chairman, and I have served well; my voting record stands on its own as a testament to that fact. As Chairman, I take pride in knowing that this agency is a transparent one, and hold my chairmanship to the same standards. Therefore, in light of the recent allegations by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) regarding my tenure and conduct as chairman of the CRMC, I feel I must set the record straight on a number of so-called conflicts listed in the group’s 14-page letter to the Rhode Island Ethics Commission.
 
On the very first page of the letter sent to Kent Willever, Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, Cynthia Giles, Director of the Rhode Island Advocacy Center for CLF, writes that there is a history and practice of the Council of “unsupportable decisions in favor of development requests…”
 
The CRMC has the unenviable task of striking a balance between environmental conservation and protection and development, where appropriate. This mandate is made clear in our enabling legislation. Ms. Giles continues that nearly all of these decisions are linked to Joseph DeAngelis, former Speaker of the House, or former Representative Scott Rabideau, or both, and she makes clear in the letter that she perceives a political or otherwise improper tie between the two men and me. During my 10 years as Chairman, I never attempted to keep from public view the fact that my accounting firm, Piccerelli Gilstein & Company prepares tax documents for Mr. DeAngelis’s law firm, Tillinghast, Licht, LLP. There is no direct business contact between Mr. DeAngelis and me, but to avoid a conflict of interest and in following the letter of the law I have recused myself on applications that come before the Council where Mr. DeAngelis is involved in the matter. And I hold myself not only to the Code of Ethics under Rhode Island law, but also to a higher level of ethical standards – that of a Certified Public Account.
 
Ms. Giles also references a passage in the 2003 NOAA report that voiced concern over the Council’s practice of approving development projects in direct contradiction to the advice of the CRMC professional staff. Ms. Giles, however, failed to address the most recent NOAA report from 2005, which explains language in the 2003 report and adds that while the Council has the prerogative to vote contrary to staff recommendations, the Council needs to provide its rationale for voting in this way. “The issue behind these necessary actions was not that [the] Council, at times, makes decisions contrary to staff recommendations,” the 2005 report states. “Instead, the issue was the Council’s failure to provide clear, compelling justification at Council meetings for such decisions denoting how the final decision upholds CRMC’s regulations regarding variances.” Our staff recommendations, while very useful and necessary, are recommendations that the Council weighs alongside other evidence proffered at the time of a hearing. At the time of the review, NOAA’s evaluation team requested information on the number of times this had occurred. Only 6 percent of CRMC decisions on all assents before the Council contravened staff recommendations during the review period of June 2003 through October 2005 (totals of which number in the thousands).
 
Ms. Giles also cites a passage from the 2003 NOAA report concerning how applications are chosen for Council review. A task that had been “traditionally done by the Executive Director,” had also been assumed by the Chairman, the report stated. NOAA also reported that it appeared as if the applications were now being placed on the agenda in no discernable order instead of the order which they became ready, and that a backlog was building. Ms. Giles in the letter alludes that the lack of order had something to do with my involvement in choosing the “ready list,” and this is false. The Executive Director and I work together to choose which applications are ready to go before the Council, and they are still chosen by order of completion, unless the applicant is unavailable or not ready to go before the Council.
 
As for my recusals and my business relationship with Mr. DeAngelis, in the last decade that I have served as Chairman of the Council, I have recused myself approximately 80 times and approximately 50 of those were because Mr. DeAngelis was somehow involved in the application. Over the course of 14 years and approximately 1,500 votes, this represents approximately 5.3 percent of the total.
 
Ms. Giles alleges that according to the RI Ethics Commission Regulation 36-14-5003 concerning limitations on recusal, by recusing myself 80 times I am in essence violating the provisions of the chapter. The regulations state, however, that a person may be viewed in violation “unless such actions are necessitated by circumstances beyond the control of such person and are the only legal course of action available to such person in order to protect a vested property interest.” I cannot demand that my partner terminate her business with Mr. DeAngelis, nor can I demand that Mr. DeAngelis cease representing his coastal clients. Therefore, in my opinion, recusal is a viable and legal option.
 
Ms. Giles and the CLF themselves state that the letter serves as a request for investigation of Council members, and is not a complaint, and that “the information submitted here does not, by itself, establish that there was a willful and knowing violation of the Code of Ethics.” I must agree. It is my opinion that, after carefully reading the content of the letter and the information contained therein, this request by the CLF is nothing more than a very long critique regarding a small number of controversial Council decisions over a longer period of time. Ms. Giles and the CLF obviously, in my opinion, did not approve of those decisions, and while they might have seemed to fly in the face of staff recommendations, the Council, as NOAA stated, has the right to vote how it sees fit given all evidence available.
 
During my tenure, this Council has approved three of the four existing Special Area Management Plans and the Marine Resources Development Plan. It has adopted numerous regulations to further protect and replenish coastal habitat, and we have been coastal agency leaders for many of these changes and programs. I understand, as well as anyone else, that the state and CRMC is faced with making crucial decisions that will impact the future of our costal environment. I am proud of the accomplishments of the CRMC during my tenure, and hope that my record and the findings of NOAA in its 2005 report validate this effort.