Advisory Opinion No. 2012-27

Re: Kenneth Parrilla

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, a member of the Westerly Town Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from participating in the Town Council’s consideration of a resolution to fund a sewer expansion to the Misquamicut Beach area, given that his mother-in-law’s property is no longer included in the sewer expansion plans.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Westerly Town Council, a municipal elected position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the Town Council’s consideration of a resolution to fund a sewer expansion to the Misquamicut Beach area, given that his mother-in-law’s property is no longer included in the sewer expansion plans.

The Petitioner is a member of the Westerly Town Council (“Town Council”). He represents that the Westerly Town Manager has proposed a resolution to fund a sewer expansion to the Misquamicut Beach area, given the area’s close proximity to coastal water features and the mandates of the Rhode Island Cesspool Act of 2007 (“Cesspool Act”) (R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-19.15-1 to -11). The Petitioner represents that the Town’s initial plan for the sewer expansion proposed installing the main sewer line down the entire length Winnapaug Road and required all properties on Winnapaug Road to connect to the sewer system and pay sewer assessments. He informs that his mother-in-law owns and resides in one of approximately 70 properties on Winnapaug Road, north of Shore Road, that would have been potentially affected by this plan even though these properties are located outside of the Misquamicut Beach area and are not subject to the Cesspool Act.

The Petitioner requested an advisory opinion in June of 2012, indicating at that time that the sewer expansion plans, including the location of the main sewer line, had not been finalized. On July 17, 2012, the Commission issued Advisory Opinion 2012-17 to the Petitioner, opining that he was prohibited from participating in the Town Council’s consideration of the sewer expansion to the Misquamicut Beach area, given that the Town Council’s deliberations and vote directly impacted whether his mother-in-law’s property was included in the sewer expansion plans. The Petitioner was instructed to seek further advice from the Commission in the event the sewer expansion plans were finalized.

At this time, the Petitioner represents that the sewer expansion plans have changed and no longer require the residents of Winnapaug Road, north of Shore Road, to connect to the sewer system. He states that although a forced sewer main will be installed down the length of Winnapaug Road, there will not be a gravity line with laterals to which the properties along Winnapaug Road, north of Shore Road, can tie into. Therefore, the residents of Winnapaug Road, north of Shore Road, will not be required or even able to connect to the public sewer system and will not be assessed any fees for the forced main being installed by their property. As such, he represents that his mother-in-law will not be financially impacted by the sewer expansion. The Town Manager, Steven T. Hartford, confirms the change of plans and states that any action taken by the Town Council will not impact the Petitioner’s mother-in-law’s property.

Given the above representations, the Petitioner seeks advice as to whether he may participate in the Town Council’s consideration of the Misquamicut Beach area sewer expansion, given that his mother-in-law’s property is no longer impacted by the sewer expansion plans. The Petitioner informs that although he has been recusing from this matter, he has nevertheless attended all meetings pertaining to the sewer expansion in order to remain informed on this matter of general public interest. He states that he can fairly and objectively consider the sewer expansion plans if he is allowed to participate in the future.

Under the Code of Ethics, a public official 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 substantial conflict of interest exists if, for example, an official has reason to believe or expect that he, any person within his family, a business associate or an employer will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). Finally, a public official may not use his office for pecuniary gain, other than as provided by law, for himself, a family member, employer, business associate, or a business that he represents. Section 36-14-5(d). The term “family” is defined as persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, and expressly includes “mother-in-law.” Section 36-14-2(1).

In the present matter, the Petitioner’s representations, along with the letter from the Town Manager, demonstrate that his mother-in-law’s property on Winnapaug Road, north of Shore Road, is no longer included in the sewer expansion plans. Although a sewer line may be installed down her street, the Petitioner’s mother-in-law will not be required or even able to connect to the sewer system and will not be charged any fees if the sewer expansion plan is implemented. Accordingly, the Commission finds that, due to the change in circumstances, there is no direct financial nexus between the sewer expansion plans presently before the Town Council and the Petitioner or any members of his family. For all of these reasons, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the Town Council’s consideration of a resolution to fund a sewer expansion to the Misquamicut Beach area, given that his mother-in-law’s property is no longer included in the sewer expansion plans.

Code Citations:

§ 36-14-2(1)

§ 36-14-5(a)

§ 36-14-5(d)

§ 36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

A.O. 2012-17

Keywords:

Family: Property Interest