Advisory Opinion No. 2003-27

Re: Suzi Nance

QUESTION PRESENTED

The petitioner, a Middletown Town Council member, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether she may participate in matters involving the Town’s development of land, given that her brother-in-law owns property that directly abuts the subject property.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, a Middletown Town Council member, a municipal elected position, may not participate in matters involving the Town’s development of land, given that her brother-in-law owns property that directly abuts the subject property.

The petitioner represents that prior to her election to Town Council, the Council began negotiating the purchase of a large parcel of land that abuts a shopping center. The petitioner states that if the Town elects to develop a portion of the property, it is likely that the owners of the abutting shopping center will be contacted to potentially participate in the development. The petitioner informs that her brother-in-law is a 30% owner of the abutting shopping center. Given these representations, the petitioner seeks guidance as to whether she may participate in matters regarding the proposed commercial development of this land when it abuts property owned by her brother-in-law.

Under the Code of Ethics, the petitioner may not participate in any matter in which she has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of her duties and employment in the public interest. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). The petitioner will have an interest in substantial conflict with her official duties if she has a reason to believe or expect that a "direct monetary gain" or a "direct monetary loss" will accrue, by virtue of her official activity, to herself, a family member, a business associate, an employer, or any business which she represents. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d) prohibits the petitioner from using her public position or confidential information received through her position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for herself, a family member, business associate, or any business by which she is employed or represents. Additionally, Commission Regulation 36-14-5005 extends the definition of family members to brothers-in-law.

The Commission previously has concluded that the Code of Ethics prohibits public officials from participating in matters that may affect their families, including decisions regarding property. See A.O. 2000-90 and A.O. 99-99. The Commission has expanded its analysis to include participating in property matters where a family member is an abutter. See A.O. 98-39 (concluding that the Coventry Town Solicitor could not advise the Council regarding parcels that are adjacent to land owned by a corporation in which his brother-in-law has a substantial interest); A.O. 97-76 (finding a Coventry Planning Commission member could not participate in matters relating to a proposed subdivision given that her brother was an abutter to the project).

Here, absent some evidence that action by the Town Council regarding the property would not affect the financial interests of her brother-in-law as an abutter, the petitioner may not participate in the Council’s consideration of matters involving the Town’s development of land that directly abuts property owned by her brother-in-law. Notice of recusal should be filed both with the Middletown Town Council and the Ethics Commission in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-5005

36-14-6

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

2000-90

99-99

99-34

98-47

98-39

98-26

97-76

97-63

Keywords:

Family: property interest

Recusal