Advisory Opinion No. 2019-9 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2019-9 Approved: February 5, 2019 Re: Albert S. Gizzarelli, Jr. QUESTION PRESENTED : The Petitioner, a member of the Smithfield Planning Board, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from participating in discussions and decision-making relative to a proposed development of property owned by a friend whose son , also a friend, has contributed to the Petitioner’s political campaign for Smithfield Town Council . RESPONSE : It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Com mission that the Petitioner, a member of the Smithfield Planning Board, a municipal appointed position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in discussions and decision-making relative to a proposed development of property owned by a friend whose son , also a friend, has contributed to the Petitioner’s political campaign for Smithfield Town Council . The Petitioner represent s that he was recently appointed to the Smithfield Planning Board (“Planning Board”). The Petitioner explains that , in 2018 , he ran for but was not elected to the Smithfield Town Council (“Town Council”). The Petitioner represents that during his campaign he received campaign contributions from local business owners , some of whom are his lifelong friends. He further represents that all contributions were properly disclosed in filings with the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The Petitioner states that currently before the Planning Board is a matter involving a proposed development owned by a friend (“developer”) whose son, also a friend of the Petitioner, contributed to the Petitioner’s campaign. The Petitioner represents that he has no business association with the developer or his son . The Petitioner seeks the guidance of the Ethics Commission regarding whether he may participate in Planning Board’s consideration of the proposed development. Under the Code of Ethics, a public official may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest occurs if the public official has reason to believe or expect that he or any family member or business associate, or any business by which he is employed, will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). A business associate is defined as “ a person joined together with another person to achieve a common financial objective.” Section 36-14-2(3). A person is defined as “ an individual or a business entity. ” Section 36-14-2(7). Further, the Code provides that a public official shall not solicit or accept a gift or campaign contribution based on any understanding that his vote, official action, or judgment would thereby be influenced. See section 36-14-5(g). Here, no familial or private business relationship exists between the Petitioner and the developer or between the Petitioner and the developer’s son that would bar the Petitioner from participating and voting on Planning Board matte r s concerning the development. The Ethics Commission has consistently held that a social relationship or personal acquaintance between parties does not, in and of itself, create an inherent conflict of interest within the meaning of the Code of Ethics. See A.O. 2004-3. Furthermore, absent any evidence of an impermissible agreement or understanding that the campaign contribution would influence the Petitioner’s judgment , nothing in the Code of Ethics prohibits his participation in this matter. See A.O. 2004-3 (opining that the Code of Ethics did not bar the City of Cranston from awarding a contract to the sole bidder, despite the fact that the bidder was an acquaintance of the Mayor contributed to the Mayor’s campaign and with whom the Mayor had prior business relationship); A.O. 99-114 (opining that a member of the Coventry Town Council could participate in negotiation, discussion , and voting on the purchase of property from persons who had served as hosts for a fundraiser for the petitioner’s re-election). Accordingly, based on the Petitioner’s representations, the review of the prior advisory opinions and the applicable provisions of the Code of Ethics, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the Planning Board’s discussions and decision-making relative to the proposed development. 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(g) § 36-14-7(a) Related Advisory Opinions : A.O. 2004-3 A.O. 99-114 Keywords : Political Activity