Advisory Opinion No. 2016-7 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2016-7 Approved: January 26, 2016 Re: Sharon Turner QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, the Probation & Parole Training Officer and Intern/Volunteer Coordinator for the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from working in her private capacity as a facilitator of a batterer intervention program at Rhode Island Batterer’s Intervention Program. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, the Probation & Parole Training Officer and Intern/Volunteer Coordinator for the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, a state employee position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from working in her private capacity as a facilitator of a batterer intervention program at Rhode Island Batterer’s Intervention Program, based upon her representations below and provided that all such work is performed on her own time and without the use of public resources, equipment or confidential information obtained as part of her public employment. The Petitioner is the Probation & Parole Training Officer and Intern/Volunteer Coordinator (“Training Officer/Volunteer Coordinator”) for the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“DOC”). She represents that she works full-time from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at DOC’s Cranston offices. She states that she has been employed with DOC for twenty-one years, first working as a probation and parole officer and, since August 2015, in her current position as the Training Officer/Volunteer Coordinator. She states that her duties as the Probation & Parole Training Officer include organizing training sessions for probation and parole officers on topics relevant to their work, such as wellness, sex offenders, and the criminal mind. She informs that her duties as the Intern/Volunteer Coordinator include coordinating the applications, clearances, placements and orientations for over 400 volunteers and interns throughout DOC. She further states that she will soon begin providing orientation training to new DOC probation and parole employees as well. In her private capacity, the Petitioner represents that she has been working part-time at the Rhode Island Batterer’s Intervention Program (“RIBIP”)[1] since 2008 as a facilitator of a twenty-week, court-mandated batterer intervention program which persons convicted of, or on probation for, a domestic violence offense are generally required to complete.[2] She states that she works at RIBIP one night per week after normal DOC work hours. She informs that prior to accepting her position at RIBIP, she notified her supervisor who advised her that there had already been an Ethics Commission advisory opinion on a similar question and there was no need to seek an opinion for herself. However, she represents that she was recently directed by DOC Administration and Legal Counsel to obtain an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission in order to continue her part-time employment at RIBIP. Cognizant of the Code of Ethics, the Petitioner states that while at RIBIP she has taken, and will continue to take, the following steps to avoid any conflicts of interest. First, she states that she has not revealed, and would not reveal, any confidential information that she obtained as part of her public employment during the course of her private employment at RIBIP. Second, she represents that her private employment occurs on her own time, outside of her DOC hours, and she does not use any DOC resources or equipment for her private employment. Finally, she states that in her current position at DOC her duties do not involve the supervision of any offenders, or any probation and parole officers. Therefore, she represents that she would not be in position to refer anyone to RIBIP for a batterer’s intervention class or to supervise anyone that referred offenders to such a class. Under the Code of Ethics, a public official may not participate in any matter in which she has an interest, financial or otherwise, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of her duties or employment in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest exists if an official has reason to believe or expect that she, any person within her family, a business associate or an employer will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of her official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). Additionally, the Code prohibits a public official from using her public office or confidential information received through her public office to obtain financial gain for herself, her family, her business associate, or any business by which she is employed or which she represents. Section 36-14-5(d). Finally, the Code of Ethics provides that a public official shall not accept other employment that would impair her independence of judgment as to her official duties or require or induce her to disclose confidential information acquired by her in the course of her official duties. Section 36-14-5(b). The Commission has issued a number of analogous advisory opinions in which it has given approval specifically for DOC employees to accept outside employment. The Commission recently considered a similar fact pattern in Advisory Opinion 2015-38, in which a probation and parole officer, who was assigned a sex offender specific caseload of probationers, inquired whether he could work in his private capacity at Vantage Point, Inc., as a facilitator of a court-mandated batterer intervention program. There, the Commission opined that the petitioner’s proposed private employment was not prohibited by the Code of Ethics based upon his representations that his private employment would occur on his own time, without public resources or confidential information obtained from his DOC employment, and that, because his caseload was limited to sex offender probationers, it was unlikely that he would be assigned a probationer that required a referral to a batterer intervention program. See also A.O. 2013-22 (opining that a DOC probation officer was not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from providing counseling services in his private capacity at Bridgemark Addiction Recovery Services, provided that he did not participate in any activities that involved individuals on his DOC caseload, and that all such work was performed on his own time and without the use of public resources or equipment, or confidential information obtained as part of his public employment); A.O. 2001-77 (opining that a DOC Probation and Parole Counselor could accept private employment facilitating domestic violence group sessions at the CODAC Treatment Centers, provided that she did not participate in activities at CODAC, including paperwork and/or discussion, where individuals in her DOC probation caseload were involved). Contra A.O. 2006-8 (opining that a DOC Probation and Parole Supervisor was prohibited from accepting a part-time position to provide counseling and administrative services to a private counseling program where his subordinates referred probationers). The Petitioner in the present matter, having been asked to seek this advisory opinion by DOC, would like to continue to engage in private, part-time employment as a facilitator of a batterer intervention program at RIBIP. In questions of proposed private employment, the Commission seeks representations from the Petitioner to establish that her private employment is not in violation of the prohibitions contained in section 36-14-5. The Code of Ethics prohibits the Petitioner from using her public position to financially benefit herself or her private employer, and from accepting private employment that impairs her independence of judgment as to her official DOC duties or induces her to disclose confidential information acquired by her at DOC. Based upon the representations noted above, the Commission is satisfied that sufficient separation exists between the Petitioner’s duties as the DOC Training Officer/Volunteer Coordinator and her part-time work at RIBIP, that she is not taking actions while at DOC to financially benefit herself or RIBIP, and that her private employment at RIBIP does not impair her independence of judgment or induce her to disclose confidential information gained in the course of her duties at DOC. Accordingly, based upon the above representations, and consistent with prior advisory opinions, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from working in her private capacity as a facilitator of a batterer intervention program at RIBIP. 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 any Rhode Island Department of Corrections policy, or any other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional ethics may have on this situation. Code Citations: § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(b) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-7(a) Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2016-6 A.O. 2016-5 A.O. 2016-4 A.O. 2015-38 A.O. 2013-22 A.O. 2006-8 A.O. 2001-77 Keywords: Private Employment