Advisory Opinion 2026-28
Rhode Island Ethics Commission
Advisory Opinion 2026-28
Approved: August 4, 2026
Re: Matt St. Ours
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Petitioner, a member of the East Greenwich Historic District Commission, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he qualifies for a hardship exception to the Code of Ethics’ prohibition on representing himself, either personally or through a representative, before his own board, in order to allow him to seek a certificate of appropriateness to replace the roof of a rental property that he co-owns with another individual.
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the East Greenwich Historic District Commission, a municipal appointed position, qualifies for a hardship exception to the Code of Ethics’ prohibition on representing himself, either personally or through a representative, before his own board, in order to allow him to seek a certificate of appropriateness to replace the roof of a rental property that he co-owns with another individual.
The Petitioner is a member of the East Greenwich Historic District Commission (HDC), having served in that position since his appointment by the East Greenwich Town Council in 2024. The Petitioner represents that, in his private capacity, he is a realtor in the town and co-owns with another individual a two-family residential rental property that is in need of a new roof. The Petitioner states that the property was purchased in 2023, has since been fully renovated, and is currently rented out. He further states that because the property is located in the East Greenwich Historic District, he is required, prior to altering its exterior, to seek and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the HDC. He represents that he would recuse from the HDC’s discussions and decision-making relative to his application. Based on this set of facts, the Petitioner seeks guidance from the Ethics Commission regarding whether he qualifies for a hardship exception that will allow him to represent himself, or to be represented by another person, before the HDC relative to the aforementioned application.
The Code of Ethics prohibits a public official from representing himself or authorizing another person to appear on his behalf before a state or municipal agency of which he is a member, by which he is employed, or for which he is the appointing authority. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(e)(1); 520-RICR-00-00-1.1.4(A)(1) Representing Oneself or Others, Defined (36-14-5016). These prohibitions continue while the public official remains in office and for a period of one year thereafter. § 36-14-5(e)(1) & (4). While many conflicts under the Code of Ethics can be avoided by recusing from participation, such recusal is insufficient to avoid § 36-14-5(e)’s prohibitions against self-representation absent an express finding by the Ethics Commission in the form of an advisory opinion that a hardship exists. Upon receiving a hardship exception, the public official is required to recuse from participating in his agency’s consideration and disposition of the matter at issue. § 36-14-5(e)(1)(ii). The public official must also “follow any other recommendations that the Ethics Commission may make to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the matter.” § 36-14-5(e)(1)(iii). Here, the Petitioner’s proposed conduct falls squarely within § 36-14-5(e)(1)’s prohibition on representing himself before an agency of which he is a member. Thus, the Ethics Commission will next consider whether the unique circumstances represented by the Petitioner herein justify a finding of hardship that will permit him to appear, either personally or through a representative, before the HDC.
The Ethics Commission reviews questions of hardship on a case-by-case basis and has, in the past, considered some of the following factors in cases involving real property: whether the subject property involved the official’s principal residence or principal place of business; whether the official’s interest in the property was pre-existing to his public office or was recently acquired; whether the relief sought involved a new commercial venture or an existing business; and whether the matter involved a significant economic impact. The Ethics Commission may consider other factors, and no single factor is determinative.
In the past, the Ethics Commission has applied the hardship exception in somewhat similar circumstances involving a modification to a commercial property. In Advisory Opinion 2017-54, for example, the Ethics Commission granted a hardship exception to a member of the Bristol Town Council, allowing him to appear before the Bristol Zoning Board of Review in order to request permission to install a 9-foot fence around a commercial boat storage facility that he had owned and managed for several years prior to his election to the town council. Similarly, in Advisory Opinion 2001-30, the Ethics Commission granted a hardship exception to the senior assistant solicitor for the City of Providence, who served as legal counsel to the Providence Historic District Commission (PHDC), allowing him to appear before the PHDC for permission to make repairs to a rental property he had owned for several years, given that absent his ability to appear before the PHDC, his property would have fallen into disrepair. See also A.O. 2010-19 (granting a hardship exception to an alternate member of the Newport Zoning Board, allowing him to appear before his own board in order to appeal the denial of a building permit so that he could refurbish unused space for commercial rental use within a residential rental property, where his ownership predated his public service, and the desired use was consistent with prior use).
In the present matter, the Petitioner would like to replace the roof on a residential rental property that he purchased prior to his appointment to the HDC. The Petitioner notes that the property has been fully renovated and is currently rented out, but it is in need of a new roof. Further, the relief sought involves a repair to the property and not a new commercial venture. Based upon the Petitioner’s representations, and the review of the relevant provisions of the Code of Ethics and prior advisory opinions, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the totality of the circumstances justifies making an exception to § 36-14-5(e)’s prohibitions against representing oneself before one’s own board. Accordingly, the Petitioner may appear before the HDC, either personally or through a representative, in order to seek a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the roof of the rental residence. However, as the Petitioner correctly anticipated, he must recuse from participation and voting when the HDC considers his application. Pursuant to § 36-14-5(e)(1), the Petitioner shall, prior to or at the time of his appearance before the HDC, inform the other HDC members of his receipt of the instant advisory opinion and of his recusal in accordance therewith. Notice of recusal must be filed with the Ethics Commission consistent with the provisions of R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6.
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:
§ 36-14-5(e)
§ 36-14-6
520-RICR-00-00-1.1.4 Representing Oneself or Others, Defined (36-14-5016)
Related Advisory Opinions:
A.O. 2017-54
A.O. 2010-19
A.O. 2001-30
Keywords:
Hardship Exception
Property Interest