Advisory Opinion No. 2011-9

Re: Katie J. Kleyla

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, a member of the East Providence City Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she may participate in and vote on City Council decisions involving TLA-Providence, L.L.C., a business in which her former employer is an interested party.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the East Providence City Council, a municipal elected position, may participate in and vote on City Council decisions involving TLA-Providence, L.L.C., notwithstanding the fact that her former employer is an interested party in that business.

The Petitioner was elected to the East Providence City Council (“City Council”) in November of 2010. She represents that at the December 21, 2010 City Council meeting, a resolution was on the agenda for discussion involving a pending civil action entitled: Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch and City of East Providence v. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and TLA-Providence, L.L.C., C.A. No. 10-6883. The Petitioner informs that her former employer, Ken Foley, has an interest in TLA-Providence, L.L.C. (“TLA-Providence”), one of the defendant entities in the lawsuit. In particular, she informs that she worked for Mr. Foley as a bartender for private events held at Francis Farm in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. She states that she last worked for Mr. Foley on December 4, 2010 and has been paid in full for all hours worked. The Petitioner states that she will not work for Mr. Foley again.

The Petitioner states that she anticipates future issues regarding this lawsuit and TLA-Providence coming before the City Council for discussion and votes. As such, she requests an advisory opinion as to whether she may participate in and vote on any City Council business regarding Mr. Foley and/or TLA-Providence.

A person subject to the Code of Ethics, such as the Petitioner, may not participate in any matter in which she has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of her duties in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest occurs if the Petitioner has reason to believe or expect that she or any family member or business associate, or any business by which she is employed, will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of her official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). A business associate is defined as “a person joined together with another person to achieve a common financial objective.” Section 36-14-2(3).

This Commission has consistently found that no potential for a conflict of interest exists when a prior business relationship between a public official and a private party has ended and there is no ongoing or anticipated future relationship between the parties; in such instances, a public official may participate in matters involving his or her former employer or business associate, assuming no other conflicts are present. A.O. 2009-23 (opining that the petitioner is not prohibited from participating in and voting on issues regarding his past business associate); see also A.O. 2008-7 (opining that the petitioner’s former general membership in the yacht club, where there was no ongoing or anticipated future relationship between the parties, did not constitute a potential conflict of interest); A.O. 2004-3 (opining that provided all work has been completed, no bills remained outstanding for services rendered, and the parties did not anticipate the performance of specific additional work in the near future, no business association presently existed between the petitioner and a bidder for a city contract).

In the present matter, the Petitioner represents that her employment and/or business association with Mr. Foley has terminated since she last worked for him on December 4, 2010. She states that she does not have any ongoing or anticipated future working relationship with Mr. Foley. She further represents that she has been paid in full for all services rendered at Francis Farm, in connection with Mr. Foley. Therefore, based upon the Petitioner’s representations, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that she is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in and voting on any City Council business regarding Mr. Foley and/or TLA-Providence.

Code Citations:

§ 36-14-5(a)

§ 36-14-7(a)

§ 36-14-2(3)

Related Advisory Opinions:

A.O. 2009-23

A.O. 2008-7

A.O. 2004-3

Keywords:

Business Associate