Advisory Opinion No. 2006-18 Advisory Opinion No. 2006-18 Re: June Speakman QUESTION PRESENTED The petitioner, a member of the Barrington Town Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is permitted to participate in Town Council discussion and voting relative to the Town's acquisition of park land and the subsequent creation thereon of baseball fields for use by the Barrington Little League, given that the petitioner's spouse is a Little League coach, serves on its board and is a vocal advocate for the purchase and development of the park for use by the Little League. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, a member of the Barrington Town Council, a municipal elected position, is permitted to participate in Town Council discussion and voting relative to the Town's acquisition of park land and the subsequent creation thereon of baseball fields for use by the Little League, notwithstanding that the petitioner's spouse is a Little League coach, serves on its board and is a vocal advocate for the purchase and development of the park for use by the Little League. The petitioner is a member of the Barrington Town Council. She represents that the Town Council is considering purchasing Haines Park ("the park") from the State of Rhode Island. The Town Council is also considering several plans for recreational uses of the park subsequent to its acquisition by the Town, including a request from the Barrington Little League to create two new fenced fields in the park. The petitioner states that her spouse is a volunteer coach for the Little League, serves on its board and acts as its Fields Director/Liaison to Parks and Recreation. The petitioner also states that her spouse has been a vocal advocate for the purchase of the park and creation of new baseball fields thereon. She represents that her spouse does not receive any compensation for his work with the Little League, and that issues relating to the purchase and development of the park will have no financial impact upon her or her spouse. Given these representations, the petitioner asks whether she is permitted to participate in the Council's discussion and voting relative to the purchase and development of the park. Under the Code of Ethics, a public official 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 in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). An official will have an interest in substantial conflict with her official duties if it is likely that a "direct monetary gain" or a "direct monetary loss" will accrue, by virtue of the public official's activity, to the official, a family member, a business associate, an employer, or any business which the public official represents. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). Also, a public official may not use her public position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for herself, her family members or business associates. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d). Business associates are defined as individuals or entities joined together to "achieve a common financial objective." R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-2(3). Finally, the Code requires that a public official recuse from participation when her spouse is appearing before her board. Commission Regulation 36-14-5002(1). The petitioner's representations indicate that neither she nor her spouse stand to be financially impact by the Council's actions relative to purchasing the park or to building baseball fields thereon. Rather, it is the Barrington Little League that stands to be financially impacted by these decisions. If the petitioner herself had a business association with the Little League, then she would be required to recuse from these matters. See A.O. 97-13 (Chair of South Kingston Recreation Commission, who also serves as volunteer Vice-President of Little League, must recuse from Recreation Commission matters financially impacting the Little League). However, it is the petitioner's spouse rather than the petitioner herself who is a business associate of the Little League. The relationship between the petitioner and the Little League is too remote to require her recusal under the Code. A public official is not required to recuse from matters that cause a financial impact solely upon her spouse's employer or business associate. See A.O. 99-28 (Zoning Board of Review member not prohibited from participating in review of application for special use permit to construct drive-thru, notwithstanding fact that applicant employs his spouse, since petitioner's relationship with applicant is too remote to implicate prohibitions set forth in Code and there is no evidence that construction of drive-thrus would impact his spouse's employment); A.O. 98-45 (Administrator of Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers may participate in matters relating to Bell Atlantic, notwithstanding fact this his spouse was employed by Bell Atlantic, since there was no evidence that the matter would impact his wife's employment interest). Based on the petitioner's representations, it is our opinion that the petitioner is not required to recuse from Council matters relative to the park unless her spouse makes an appearance before the Council. In such situation, the petitioner must recuse pursuant to Regulation 5002(1) and file a notice of recusal pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6. Code Citations: 36-14-2(3) 36-14-5(a) 36-14-5(d) 36-14-6 36-14-7(a) Regulation 5002 Related Advisory Opinions: 99-28 98-45 97-13 97-5 96-54 95-59 95-43 Keywords: business associate recusal