Advisory Opinion No. 2007-40 Advisory Opinion No. 2007-40 Re: Ronald Iannetta QUESTION PRESENTED: The petitioner, a member of the City of North Providence School Committee, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics permits his participation in contract negotiations and in the School Committee’s decision-making to approve or reject a fully negotiated contract, between the School Committee and 1) Local 1033 of the Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (“Local 1033”), which represents teacher assistants, secretaries, and clerical staff, and 2) the North Providence Federation of Teachers, Local 920 (“the teachers’ union”), given that the petitioner has a family member who is a teacher assistant and a member of Local 1033 and another family member who is a North Providence teacher and member of the teachers’ union. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, a member of the City of North Providence School Committee, is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in contract negotiations between the School Committee and both Local 1033 of the Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (“Local 1033”), and the North Providence Federation of Teachers, Local 920 (“the teachers’ union”), given that the petitioner has family members who are members of these two unions. The petitioner may, however, participate in the School Committee’s decision to accept or reject a contract already negotiated by the School Committee and Local 1033 or the teachers’ union. The petitioner is a member of the City of North Providence School Committee. He represents that one of his children is a teacher in the North Providence School District and is also a member of the North Providence Federation of Teachers, Local 920, the collective bargaining agent for North Providence teachers. He further represents that a sister-in-law is a teacher assistant and a member of Local 1033, the bargaining unit for teacher assistants, secretaries, and clerical staff. Given these representations, the petitioner seeks clarification as to whether he is permitted to participate in the School Committee’s contract negotiations with these two separate unions and its decision to approve or reject the finally negotiated contracts. Commission Regulation 36-14-5004 specifically addresses the question raised by the petitioner. It reads, in pertinent part: (b)(4) Participation in Collective Bargaining/Employee Contracts. (A) Negotiations. No person subject to the Code of Ethics shall participate in negotiations relative to an employee contract or collective bargaining which addresses or affects the employment, compensation or benefits of any person within his or her family or a household member. (B) Vote on Entire Contract. Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in subsection 4(A), a person subject to the Code of Ethics may participate in a decision to accept or reject an entire employee contract or collective bargaining agreement as a whole, provided that the person within his or her family or household member is impacted by the contract or agreement as a member of a significant and definable class of persons, and not individually or to any greater extent than any other similarly situated member of the class. Id. Commission Regulation 36-14-5004’s blanket prohibition against involvement in contract negotiations is based on an understanding that, during negotiations, the full impact of decisions as to individual components of a contract can be difficult to predict. For that reason, an official’s participation in a contract issue that is seemingly unrelated to a family member can have a resulting impact on other areas of the contract that would directly affect the family member. Accordingly, the petitioner is prohibited from participating in any School Committee contract negotiations with Local 1033 and with the teachers’ union, given that members of his family are union members that will be impacted by these contracts. However, pursuant to subsection (b)(4)(B), the petitioner is permitted to participate in the School Committee’s discussion and decision-making relative to approving or rejecting these contracts in their entirety, once negotiated by others. The basis for allowing such participation is an assumption that a vote on an entire contract, once negotiated by others, is sufficiently remote from individual contract issues impacting a family member so as to not constitute a substantial conflict of interest in violation of the Code. See A.O. 2007-31 (opining that a member of the Johnston School Committee must recuse from contract negotiations with the teachers’ union, given that her child was a teacher and a member of the union, but could participate in the School Committee’s decision to accept or reject the labor contract as a whole); A.O. 2007-32 (opining that a member of the Johnston School Committee must recuse from contract negotiations with the teachers’ union given that her two first-cousins were employees and members of the union, but could participate in the School Committee’s decision to accept or reject the labor contract as a whole). Although the petitioner is permitted to participate in the overall vote to approve or reject these contracts, the Commission is aware that a general discussion can quickly devolve into a more narrow review of specific contractual provisions. The petitioner must be vigilant in identifying such instances where general conversation begins to focus on individual aspects of the contracts that are likely to financially impact his family members. In such circumstances, the petitioner must recuse from further participation or, if possible, seek further guidance from the Ethics Commission. Code Citations : Regulation 5004 Related Advisory Opinions : 2007-32 2007-31 Keywords : Nepotism Family: Public employment