Advisory Opinion No. 2017-18 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2017-18 Approved: April 25, 2017 Re: Megan P. Douglas, MD QUESTION PRESENTED : The Petitioner, a member of the Barrington School Committee, requests an advisory opinion regarding the implications of the Code of Ethics , given that her husband regularly appears and provides public comment before the Barrington School Committee regarding various issues including delaying school start time s . RESPONSE : It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner , a member of the Barrington School Committee, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in School Committee matters in which her husband appear s and provide s public comment , provided that he has no financial interest, nor is he a party or participant in the matter. The Petitioner is a member of the Barrington School Committee (“School Committee” ). The Petitioner explains that in early 2016 , the School Committee voted to change the school start times for the 2017-2018 school year to align with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Before Petitioner’s election, the School Committee voted to form an Ad Hoc School Start Committee (“Ad Hoc Committee”) to assist with the implementation of the new school start times. The Petitioner states that her husband was selected to serve as the Middle School parent representative to the Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee was dissolved after it met its charge in November 2016. However, the former members of the Ad Hoc Committee became members of an advisory school start time task force put together by the Superintendent , with no reporting responsibility to the School Committee. The Petitioner further represents that her husband, as a private citizen, is a vocal supporter of the school system and that it is not uncommon for him to appear before the School Committee to speak during the public comment section. Finally, the Petitioner represents that neither she nor her husband have any financial interest s related to the school start time issue . Given this set of facts , the Petitioner seeks guidance from the Ethics Commission as to the limitations that the Code of Ethics places upon her official duties when her husband speaks during the public comment session of School Committee meetings. Commission Regulation 36-14-5002(a)(1) ( “ Regulation 5002”) requires a public official to recuse from participating in a matter before her state or municipal agency when any person within her family, or a household member, appears or presents evidence or arguments before her state or municipal agency. However, Regulation 5002 contains an exception providing that a person subject to the Code of Ethics is not required to recuse herself pursuant to this or any other provision of the Code when: The person’s business associate, employer, household member or any person within his or her family is before the person's state or municipal agency during a period when public comment is allowed, to offer comment on a matter of general public interest, provided that all other members of the public have an equal opportunity to comment, and further provided that the business associate, employer, household member or person within his or her family is not otherwise a party or participant, and has no personal financial interest, in the matter under discussion. Regulation 5002(b)(2). The Commission first had occasion to apply Regulation 5002 ’s exception in Advisory Opinion 2013-9, wherein the Commission opined that a Woonsocket Zoning Board member was not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the Zoning Board’s reconsideration of a variance application, notwithstanding his business associate’s appearance s during the public comment portion of the variance hearing. There, the petitioner represented that his business associate was not a party or participant in the variance application, did not own property within the 200 foot perimeter of the property under review, and did not have a financial interest in the matter. Most recently, in Advisory Opinion 2015-34, the Commission opined that a member of the Westerly Planning Board was not required to recuse when her business associates appeared before the Planning Board during t he public comment portion of a hearing on a major land development application, given that her business associates were not parties or participant s in the application; did not own any property within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subject property; and did not have any financial interest in the outcome of the application. In the present matter, the Petitioner is not required to recuse if her husband appears before the School Committee and speaks during the public comment section regarding the new school start times or other matters , provided that all of the requirements of Regulation 5002(b)(2) are satisfied, namely that her husband is not a party or participant in the matter , has no financial interest in the matter, and his appearance is during the public comment period in which all other members of the public have an equal opportunity to comment. The Petitioner is encouraged to seek further advice from the Ethics Commission concerning her ability to participate in specific School Committee matters as needed . 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 other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional ethics may have on this situation. Code Citations : Commission Regulation 36-14-5002 Related Advisory Opinions : A.O. 2015-34 A.O. 2013-9 Keywords : Recusal Public Comment Exception