NEWS

R.I. ethics panel votes to investigate nepotism complaint against Cranston Mayor Ken Hopkins

Accusations come amid fierce Republican primary fight against Rep. Barbara Ann Fenton-Fung

Posted

The state ethics panel has launched an investigation into Cranston Mayor Kenneth J. Hopkins for alleged nepotism.

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission’s 6-0 vote Tuesday comes in response to a complaint filed by a former city worker, accusing Hopkins of helping his son-in-law get a job, and later a promotion, with the Cranston Fire Department. The decision, made following a closed-door meeting, is a preliminary determination that the alleged violations warrant further review by the commission staff for potential violations of state ethics code.

Hopkins is now facing fierce competition in his 2024 re-election bid from Republican Rep. Barbara Ann Fenton-Fung. Fenton-Fung’s husband, Allan Fung, served as Cranston mayor for two terms prior to Hopkins, and endorsed Hopkins in the 2020 mayoral race.

Once-friendly relations between these two high-profile Republicans turned sour in recent months, with Hopkins and Fenton-Fung clashing over the city’s Budlong Pool and an allegedly derelict city landlord facing pushback from tenant organizers.

Fenton-Fung in a statement Tuesday following the Ethics Commission’s decision blasted Hopkins for “ethical lapses and flaunting of the rules that ensure public trust.”

“This past weekend the Hopkins team put out a fundraiser invite that utilized the official Cranston City Seal on it — blurring the ethical lines of official government roles and political fundraising,” Fenton-Fung said. “This is a blatant violation of our City Charter. This team just doesn't get it, but Cranston residents certainly do, and they're ready for a new era in City Hall."

Hopkins declined to comment when reached by phone Tuesday, citing the ongoing investigation. However, he separately issued a statement Tuesday morning in which he called the commission’s decision to launch an investigation “not unexpected.”

“Complaints, regardless of their motive or the substance of their allegations, do not need to meet a high threshold for some level of evaluation by the staff and Ethics Commission,” Hopkins said in the statement.

He also rebutted the accusations that he was involved in his son-in-law’s hiring or promotion, instead suggesting the complaint was politically motivated.

John Psilopoulos, a former city employee under the Fung administration, filed the complaint against Hopkins earlier this month. In it, he alleges that Hopkins helped his son-in-law, Jacob Shackleford, get a job with the Cranston Fire Department seven months after he was elected mayor. Earlier this year, Shackleford was promoted to rescue lieutenant.

“You don’t become a lieutenant in a fire department in 15 months,” Psilopoulos said in an interview Tuesday morning.

His complaint highlights a section of the city charter which “expressingly vests” hiring and promotional power for the fire department leaders and employees with the mayor’s office.

The state ethics code bans elected officials from hiring or overseeing family members if their oversight benefits the family member professionally or financially. However, officials who first receive permission from the ethics commission are granted an exemption.

Hopkins never asked the ethics commission for an advisory opinion before Shackleford was hired or promoted.

Psilopoulos has also made financial contributions to prior political campaigns for Fung and Fenton-Fung, in 2008 and 2020 races according to state campaign finance filings. Fenton-Fung in February announced her campaign for the Cranston mayoral seat, setting up a Republican primary between Hopkins and Fenton-Fung that has already grown contentious.

Yet Psilopoulos disputed Hopkins’ allegations that his complaint was based on who he supported in the Republican mayoral primary.

“The complaint says it all,” Psilopoulos said Tuesday.

The Ethics Commission has 180 days to complete its investigation of Hopkins, with the option for two, 60-day apiece extensions, according to state law. If its investigation finds no evidence of ethics violation, the complaint will be dismissed. Alternatively, if it finds proof of an ethics violation, the panel can impose financial penalties of up to $25,000 per violation.

Commission member Michael Strauss was absent from the meeting.

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions at info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here