Advisory Opinion No. 2017-21 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2017-21 Approved: May 23, 2017 Re: Maria Lucia Stoddard QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a member of the East Providence Board of Assessment Review, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion regarding the application of the Code of Ethics to her participation in matters before her agency, given her business associations with persons who may be involved with, or impacted by, such matters. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the East Providence Board of Assessment Review, a municipal appointed position, must recuse from any matters before her agency that involve or financially impact her current business associates. The Petitioner is not required to recuse from matters that involve or impact her prior business associates, provided that there is no specific future business relationship anticipated. The Petitioner is a member of the East Providence Board of Assessment Review (“Board”). She represents that the Board’s function is to hear appeals from decisions of the East Providence Tax Assessor regarding property tax assessments. In her private capacity, for over twenty-nine years, the Petitioner has worked as a real estate salesperson representing many East Providence residents. Given this set of facts, the Petitioner is asking for guidance from the Ethics commission regarding the application of the Code of Ethics to her participations in matters before the Board that were brought by, or impact, her real estate clients. 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). The Code also 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 person by which she is employed or whom she represents. Section 36-14-5(d). Finally, a public official must recuse herself from any matter in which her business associate appears or presents evidence or arguments before the municipal agency of which she is a member or by which she is employed. Commission Regulation 36-14-5002(a)(2). A “business associate” is defined as an individual or business entity joined together with another person to achieve a common financial objective. Section 36-14-2(3), (7). Applying these provisions of the Code of Ethics, it is clear that that Petitioner must recuse from participating in any matters before the Board that involve or financially impact herself or her current real estate clients who are her business associates. See A.O. 2016-45 (opining that a member of the Tiverton Planning Board is prohibited from participating in the Planning Board’s discussions and voting relative to a matter in which her business associate appears as an expert witness, given that they have worked together professionally in the past on projects and often refer work and clients to each other); A.O. 2005-64 (opining that a member of the Burrillville Redevelopment Agency may not participate in discussions or votes on matters coming before the Agency regarding a nonprofit developer’s request for approval of a project, given that the petitioner is a partner in an accounting firm that provides accounting services to this developer on a “continuing basis”). In her letter requesting an advisory opinion, the Petitioner did not raise any particular matters coming before the Board that might involve such conflicts of interest. Therefore, the Ethics Commission is able to offer only general guidance to the Petitioner, advising her that, given her substantial involvement in real estate sales, she should remain diligent in identifying potential conflicts and recuse as necessary consistent with section 36-14-6. While the Code of Ethics clearly prohibits the Petitioner from participating in matters directly affecting her current business associates, the recusal provisions of the Code of Ethics do not apply to matters that involve or impact the Petitioner’s former business associates, provided that the business relationship between the Petitioner and the other party has ended and there is no specific future business relationship anticipated between the parties. See A.O. 2016-29 (finding that a member and Chairman of the West Warwick Arctic Village Redevelopment Agency must recuse from any matters before his agency that involve or financially impact his current business associates but was not required to recuse from matters that involve or impact his prior business associates, provided that there is no specific future business relationship anticipated); A.O. 2013-21 (opining that a member of the State Labor Relations Board, a private attorney, was not required to recuse from matters involving his former law client provided that the representation had concluded, that all outstanding legal fees were paid in full, and there was no reasonable likelihood of reestablishing an attorney/client relationship in the foreseeable future); A.O. 2005-56 (opining that the Executive Assistant in the Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner (“OHIC”) was not prohibited from participating in two matters related to Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, notwithstanding that he had previously represented Blue Cross in matters unrelated to those over which the OHIC had jurisdiction). In summary, the Petitioner must recuse from any matters before the Board that involve or financially impact herself or her current business associates. The Petitioner is not required to recuse from matters that involve or impact her prior business associates, provided that there is no specific future business relationship anticipated. 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: § 36-14-2(3) § 36-14-2(7) § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-5(f) § 36-14-6 § 36-14-7(a) Commission Regulation 36-14-5002 Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2016-45 A.O. 2016-29 A.O. 2013-21 A.O. 2005-64 A.O. 2005-56 Keywords: Business associate