Advisory Opinion 2025-55
Rhode Island Ethics Commission
Advisory Opinion 2025-55
Approved: September 30, 2025
Re: William J. DePasquale Jr., AICP
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Petitioner, the town planner for the Town of Exeter, a municipal employee position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from performing his public duties relative to an application by the town’s assistant clerk in her private capacity for the subdivision of a parcel of land that she owns in the town.
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, the town planner for the Town of Exeter, a municipal employee position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from performing his public duties relative to an application by the town’s assistant clerk in her private capacity for the subdivision of a parcel of land that she owns in the town.
The Petitioner is the town planner for the Town of Exeter, having been employed in that position since his appointment to it by the Exeter Town Council in 2021. He states that he works part-time for a total of 21 hours each week. The Petitioner further states that, as the town planner, he also serves as the town’s administrative officer. He cites among his duties in that capacity responsibility for evaluating applications seeking approval of proposed minor subdivisions of property within the town. The Petitioner explains that these applications were previously brought before the town’s planning board for consideration and decision. He further explains that recent amendments to state land development regulations now enable a municipal administrative officer to consider and approve subdivisions on existing public roads without the involvement of the planning board, contingent on compliance with local zoning standards.[1] The Petitioner informs that a preliminary application for approval of a minor subdivision includes the submission of all relevant survey plans and the completion of a checklist encompassing approximately 25 items.
The Petitioner states that he was recently contacted by a land surveyor who requested a minor subdivision checklist in anticipation of filing a preliminary application for approval of a minor subdivision on behalf of a client. The Petitioner further states that upon learning the address of the subject property from the surveyor, the Petitioner recognized the address to be that of the town’s assistant clerk. The Petitioner represents that the assistant clerk is not a member of his family. He informs that he and the assistant clerk do not own or operate a business together, nor do they serve together as officers or leaders for any private organization. The Petitioner further informs that he is not privately employed by the assistant clerk and that she is not privately employed by him. The Petitioner states that neither he, nor any family member, business associate, or private employer will be financially impacted by the minor subdivision proposed by the assistant clerk. The Petitioner represents that he is concerned that his involvement with an application filed by a fellow municipal employee could violate the Code of Ethics. The Petitioner explains that, although this application has not yet been received by the town, he expects that its filing is imminent. He further explains that, given the strict deadlines associated with the processing of these applications, he is seeking guidance from the Ethics Commission now regarding whether he will be prohibited from performing his public duties relative to this particular application.
Under the Code of Ethics, a public employee may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A public employee will have an interest that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his official duties if it is reasonably foreseeable that a direct monetary gain or loss will accrue by virtue of the public employee’s activity to the public employee, his family member, his business associate, or any business by which he is employed or which he represents. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). Further, 520-RICR-00-00-1.2.1(A)(2) Additional Circumstances Warranting Recusal (36-14-5002) states that a public employee must recuse from participation in a matter in his official capacity when his business associate, or a person authorized by his business associate, appears or presents evidence or arguments before his municipal agency. Any person within a public employee’s family includes a spouse or any dependent children, as well as any person who is related to the public employee, whether by blood, marriage, or adoption and enumerated in R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-2(1). A business associate is defined as “a person joined together with another person to achieve a common financial objective.” § 36-14-2(3). A person is defined as “an individual or a business entity.” § 36-14-2(7). A business is defined as “a sole proprietorship, partnership, firm, corporation, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust or any other entity recognized in law through which business for profit or not for profit is conducted.” § 36-14-2(2).
In order to determine whether the above provisions of the Code of Ethics are implicated, the Ethics Commission must first ascertain whether the Petitioner, his family member, his business associate, or any business by which he is employed or represents will be financially impacted by the official action that is under consideration. If a financial impact upon someone in any of the aforementioned categories is not reasonably foreseeable, then the Petitioner is not required by these provisions of the Code of Ethics to recuse from performing his public duties relative to this particular application.
The Ethics Commission has indicated that the Code of Ethics does not consider a public body to be a “business” or the relationship between a public official and a public body to be that of “business associates.” See, e.g., A.O. 2015-27 (opining that the petitioner was not a business associate of either the Town of Westerly or the Community College of Rhode Island, notwithstanding his simultaneous employment by both public entities); A.O 2011-29 (opining that a petitioner was not a business associates of either the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) or the Town of Portsmouth, notwithstanding his employment by RIDOT and his service on the Portsmouth Planning Board).
Here, the town is not a business by which the Petitioner is employed; nor is it the petitioner’s business associate. Likewise, the Petitioner and the assistant clerk are not business associates. The Petitioner states that the assistant clerk is not a member of his family, nor is she his employer or employee. Additionally, the Petitioner states that neither he, nor any family member, business associate, or private employer will be financially impacted by the minor subdivision proposed by the assistant clerk. Therefore, the above-cited provisions of the Code of Ethics are inapplicable. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from performing his public duties relative to an application by the town’s assistant clerk for the subdivision of her property which is located in the town.
This Advisory Opinion is strictly limited to the facts stated herein and relates only to the application of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics. An advisory opinion rendered by the Commission, until amended or revoked by a majority vote of the Commission, is binding on the Commission in any subsequent proceedings concerning the person who requested the opinion and who acted in reliance on it in good faith, unless material facts were omitted or misstated by the person in the request for the opinion. Under the Code of Ethics, advisory opinions are based on the representations made by, or on behalf of, a public official or employee and are not adversarial or investigative proceedings. Finally, this Commission offers no opinion on the effect that any other statute, regulation, agency policy, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of judicial or professional ethics may have on this situation.
Code Citations:
§ 36-14-2(1)
§ 36-14-2(2)
§ 36-14-2(3)
§ 36-14-2(7)
§ 36-14-5(a)
§ 36-14-7(a)
520-RICR-00-00-1.2.1 Additional Circumstances Warranting Recusal (36-14-5002)
Related Advisory Opinions:
A.O. 2015-27
A.O. 2011-29
Keywords:
Conflict of Interest
[1] See R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-23-38, et seq.