PROVIDENCE -- The state Ethics Commission decided yesterday to investigate an alleged violation by A. Ralph Mollis, the North Providence mayor and candidate for secretary of state, but dismissed another complaint against Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch involving contributions from persons linked to DuPont Corp.

The Lynch decision means that case is over. In Mollis' case, the decision means an investigation, followed by a commission vote on whether there is probable cause to believe a violation took place when the mayor solicited campaign contributions from town employees.

The complaint against Mollis accused the mayor of violating a provision forbidding officials from soliciting political contributions from subordinates. Guillaume de Ramel -- who is running a primary campaign against Mollis for the Democratic nomination for secretary of state -- filed the complaint.

When the contributions came to light in June, Mollis said it was "regrettably true" that some town employees got fundraising letters from his campaign.

Mollis said yesterday that he expected the commission action. He said the solicitation was "an unintended mistake" where 119 municipal employees, out of a database of 1,800 past supporters, were mistakenly sent letters asking for contributions. He said the contributions have been returned.

The commission also voted to investigate a second complaint from de Ramel, against John E. Fleming Jr., Mollis' chief of staff, who signed the letter as co-chairman of "Friends of A. Ralph Mollis." The complaint, like the one against Mollis, accused Fleming of soliciting contributions from subordinates.

Mollis' lawyer, John M. Roney, said, however, that, "We don't think there is a violation." He said the Mollis contributions came form "from people who had contributed before, or said they were interested in contributing."

The commission staff report said that Lynch's acceptance of a $500 contribution from Dupont's legal counsel, while Lynch was prosecuting the state's lead-paint case against the company, "certainly gives rise to an appearance of impropriety, if not evidence of poor judgement."

But the commission found that the complaint, from Republican J. William W. Harsch, the attorney general's opponent, failed to allege facts that would meet a standard set by the state Supreme Court for a violation of the law involving campaign contributions in return for official actions.

Harsch said afterward that the decision "shocked and disappointed" him, and insisted that Lynch's behavior violated the law.

Harsch's complaint said Lynch's campaign organization, Friends of Patrick Lynch, took in $4,250 from four agents of DuPont, the company with which Lynch settled the state's lead-paint case for $12 million. The money is to be paid to the Children's Health Forum, a nonprofit agency based in Washington, D.C. The state went to trial against four other companies that had manufactured lead paint, three of which face cleanup costs that could reach billions of dollars.

The commission staff cited a 1994 state Supreme Court decision in a case involving former Gov. Edward D. DiPrete. For a violation to exist, the staff said, there must be proof that an understanding existed between an official and a contributor that the contribution would influence the official's actions. Harsch's complaint gave no indication that such an improper understanding existed, the staff said.

Harsch said Lynch got $2,500 from Bernard Nash, one of DuPont's lawyers, and from Nash's wife. Harsch also said three people from DuPont's Washington, D.C., lobbying firm, the Dewey Square Group, contributed: Francine Katz, who gave $1,000; Joseph Eyer, who gave $500; and Olivia Morgan, who gave $250.

The commission staff, however, said Katz actually worked for Anheuser-Busch Co., in St Louis, Mo., not Dewey Square. Eyer joined Dewey Square in June 2005, about the time of the settlement, and made his contribution more than five months after the case against DuPont was dismissed. Morgan also made her contribution more than five months after the dismissal.

Overall, the commission found that Lynch got only one contribution from a DuPont agent before the dismissal, $500 from Nash on June 30, 2004. Because the rest came after the dismissal, accepting them wasn't a conflict of interest under the law because by then, Lynch was no longer prosecuting DuPont, the staff report said.

blandis@projo.com / (401) 277-7487