Advisory Opinion No. 2018-16 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2018-16 Approved: March 15, 2017 Re: Sandra C. Cano QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a member of the Pawtucket City Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits her from participating in discussions and decision-making regarding matters concerning the possible construction of a new baseball stadium in Pawtucket, given her membership in a group known as Pawtucket’s 20/20 and her private employment with Navigant Credit Union. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Pawtucket City Council, a municipal elected position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in discussions and decision-making regarding matters concerning the possible construction of a new baseball stadium in Pawtucket, notwithstanding her membership in a group known as Pawtucket’s 20/20 and her private employment with Navigant Credit Union. The Petitioner represents that she is a member of the Pawtucket City Council (“City Council”). The Petitioner states that in her private capacity, she is employed by Navigant Credit Union as its Assistant Vice President of Community Development and is also the co-chair of a nonpartisan group known as Pawtucket’s 20/20 (“Group”). She informs that the Group was formed in 2017 with the purpose of discussing and advocating for matters and/or projects that could have a positive impact on the revitalization of the City of Pawtucket (“Pawtucket” or “City”), including the extension of the Blackstone River Bikeway, the establishment of a Pawtucket-Central Falls Commuter Rail Station, the relocation and construction of a new baseball stadium for the Pawtucket Red Sox in downtown Pawtucket. The Petitioner explains that the Group is comprised of approximately twenty members who represent different facets of the Pawtucket community such as education, business, community-based organizations, and neighborhood associations. The Petitioner states that the Group is not a corporate or municipal entity but, rather, “a loose association of persons” who all serve as unpaid volunteers. The Petitioner represents that the Group does not have a bank account nor a source of funding, does not have a principal place of business and its meetings are held at different venues as they become available. She further states that the Group acts in a manner that is independent from the municipal government, it does not receive any funding from Pawtucket and is not endorsed by the City Council. Furthermore, the Petitioner informs that although the Group presents various ideas for the revitalization of Pawtucket to the Mayor (“Mayor”), the Group does not receive any input from him. The Petitioner explains that the Group, in conjunction with the Pawtucket Foundation,[1] created a website in order to address questions regarding the proposed construction of a baseball stadium in downtown Pawtucket and to articulate its effects on the City’s downtown area. Subsequent to the launching of the website, the Petitioner states that the City Council was asked to consider a proposed resolution supporting the possible construction of a new Pawtucket Red Sox stadium. She further explains that the Group has not and does not appear before the City Council on any matter that is under the Group’s consideration including matters relative to the proposed construction of a new baseball stadium. The Petitioner states that, prior to the City Council’s vote on the resolution, a question was raised as to whether she has a conflict of interest given her position as a co-chair of the Group and her employment with Navigant Credit Union. Thus, the Petitioner seeks guidance as to whether she may participate in the City Council’s discussions and decision-making relative to matters related to the proposed construction of a new Pawtucket Red Sox baseball stadium given her involvement with the matter as a co-chair of the Group and her employment with Navigant Credit Union. 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 of Ethics 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). Here, the above prohibitions are not implicated as the Petitioner represents that neither she, the Group nor her employer, Navigant Credit Union, would be financially impacted in any way by the City Council’s decision-making relative to the proposed construction of a new Pawtucket Red Sox baseball stadium. See A.O. 2016-36 (advising that a member of the Westerly Town Council may participate in discussion and voting relative to a proposed Airport Protection Overlay District Ordinance, given that the petitioner and his wife own properties in zones not regulated under, nor financially impacted by, the adoption of the proposed ordinance). Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in discussion and decision-making regarding matters concerning the possible construction of a new baseball stadium in Pawtucket, notwithstanding her membership in the Group and her private employment with Navigant Credit Union. 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) § 36-14-7(a) Commission Regulation 36-14-5002 Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2016-36 Keywords: Financial Interest