Advisory Opinion No. 2015-26 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2015-26 Approved: May 19, 2015 Re: Frank Caprio, Esq. QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, the Chief Municipal Court Judge for the City of Providence, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from allowing his brother to videotape Municipal Court Proceedings for commercial purposes and for which his brother will receive compensation. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Petitioner, the Chief Municipal Court Judge for the City of Providence, a municipal appointed position, from allowing his brother to videotape Municipal Court Proceedings for commercial purposes and for which his brother will receive compensation, provided that: (1) the Petitioner does not receive any financial compensation from the commercial broadcast of these court proceedings; (2) any member of the public is permitted to videotape such proceedings; (3) the Providence Municipal Court posts its videotaping policy in a place that provides notice to the public; (4) the Petitioner’s brother is not granted any special access to confidential information or Municipal Court facilities, or given advanced notice of the docket that is not available to any other member of the public; and (5) the Petitioner’s brother does not use any City of Providence resources or equipment for the videotaping of court proceedings. The Petitioner is the Chief Judge of the Providence Municipal Court (“Municipal Court”), having continuously held this position since 1985. He represents that, in addition to the Chief Judge, there are also two Associate Judges of the Municipal Court.[1] He states that all of the Municipal Court Judges are elected by the Providence City Council to serve four-year terms.[2] He informs that the Municipal Court is in session Monday through Friday, with each judge serving for one week and then having two weeks off. The Petitioner represents that since approximately 1995, portions of the Municipal Court’s open court proceedings, over which he has presided, have been videotaped by his brother, Joseph Caprio, and then aired on local public access television. He informs that Joseph Caprio, the sole owner of City Life Productions, uses his own personal equipment to videotape Municipal Court proceedings, and does not use any City of Providence (“City”) equipment. He represents that, for the duration of his thirty-year tenure on the Municipal Court, it has always been his policy to allow any member of the public or the media to videotape court proceedings. He further represents that individuals who do not wish to appear on camera will not be videotaped. The Petitioner states that, in the late 1990s, Joseph Caprio and the owners of WLNE – ABC6 entered into an agreement to broadcast an edited version of Joseph Caprio’s Municipal Court recordings on ABC6 as a television show known as “Caught in Providence.” He represents that ABC6 stopped running “Caught in Providence” in 2008. He states that, nevertheless, Joseph Caprio has continued to videotape Municipal Court proceedings over which the Petitioner presides and has broadcasted them on public access television, for which Joseph Caprio receives no compensation. However, the Petitioner represents that Joseph Caprio is considering entering into future commercial relationships with broadcast companies in which he would receive compensation for videotaping and broadcasting the Petitioner’s Municipal Court proceedings. Based upon the above representations, the Petitioner seeks guidance as to whether he may allow his brother, Joseph Caprio, to videotape Municipal Court proceedings for commercial purposes and for which Joseph Caprio will receive compensation. The Petitioner states that he has never and will never accept financial compensation of any kind from the broadcast of these Municipal Court proceedings. He further states that he has never and will not, in the future, allow Joseph Caprio or any other person to have the exclusive right to videotape Municipal Court proceedings. The Code of Ethics prohibits a public official from using his public office or confidential information received through his public office to obtain financial gain for himself, his family, his business associate, or any business by which he is employed or which he represents. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d). Additionally, 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. Section 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest exists if 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). The definition of “any person within his or her family” specifically includes “brother.” Section 36-14-2(1). In the present matter, the Petitioner represents that he will receive no compensation as a result of his brother, Joseph Caprio’s commercial agreement to broadcast Municipal Court proceedings. Additionally, the Petitioner represents that his brother does not receive any special access to the courtroom, given the Petitioner’s long-standing policy of allowing any member of the public or the media to take video of Municipal Court proceedings. He further states that his brother uses his own equipment to videotape Municipal Court proceedings. For all of these reasons, there is no indication that the Petitioner is using his public office to financially benefit his brother. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Petitioner from allowing his brother to videotape Municipal Court Proceedings for commercial purposes and for which his brother will receive compensation, provided that: (1) the Petitioner does not receive any financial compensation from the commercial broadcast of these court proceedings; (2) any member of the public is permitted to videotape such proceedings; (3) the Providence Municipal Court posts its videotaping policy in a place that provides notice to the public; (4) the Petitioner’s brother is not granted any special access to confidential information or Municipal Court facilities, or given advanced notice of the docket that is not available to any other member of the public; and (5) the Petitioner’s brother does not use any City of Providence resources or equipment for the videotaping of the court proceedings. This Advisory Opinion is strictly limited to the facts stated herein and relates only to the application of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics. 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 the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules, Article VI, Code of Judicial Conduct, or any other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional conduct may have on this situation. Code Citations: § 36-14-2(1) § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-7(a) Keywords: Family: Financial Benefit [1] The Providence City Council also appoints a Volunteer Judge who is available to serve in the case of another judge’s absence or conflict. [2] Section 501 of the Providence Home Rule Charter provides: There shall be a municipal court for the City of Providence consisting of three (3) judges, or such number as the city council may from time to time determine. Each such judge shall be a member of the bar of the State of Rhode Island, and shall be elected by the city council for a term of four (4) years or until his or her successor is elected and qualified.