Advisory Opinion No. 2007-45 Advisory Opinion No. 2007-45 Re: Michael A. Salvadore, Sr. QUESTION PRESENTED The petitioner, a member of the Johnston Board of Canvassers (“the Board”), a municipal appointed position, who is also a member of the Johnston Republican Town Committee and the Republican State Central Committee, requests an advisory opinion as to whether the Code of Ethics prohibits or limits his participation on the Board, given his association with the aforementioned political committees. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, a member of the Johnston Board of Canvassers (“the Board”), is not prohibited or limited in his participation on the Board based on the current status of his memberships on the Johnston Republican Town Committee and the Republican State Central Committee. The petitioner is cautioned, however, that should his membership status in either committee change from that of a simple membership to that of an officer, or other leadership position that would permit him to affect the financial objectives of either committee, he is encouraged to seek further advice from the Ethics Commission as to additional limitations or restrictions that may arise in carrying out his duties on the Board. The petitioner represents that he has been a longstanding member of the Johnston Republican Town Committee and the Rhode Island Republican State Central Committee. The petitioner further represents that while he actively attends the meetings of both of these committees, he is not an officer in either of them, but rather, he describes himself as merely a “rank and file” member who provides generalized support to the committees, by way of attending meetings and functions, making modest financial contributions, and speaking out during discussions on meeting matters. The petitioner represents that he does not hold a leadership position in either committee that would permit him to affect the financial objectives of that committee. Finally, he represents that he was appointed to the Johnston Board of Canvassers in February of 2007; he notes, however, that to date the Board has not held any meeting or activity in which the petitioner has had any involvement. 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. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). An official will have an interest in substantial conflict with his official duties if he has a reason to believe or expect that a “direct monetary gain” or a “direct monetary loss” will accrue, by virtue of the public official's actions, to the official, a family member, a business associate, an employer, or any business which the public official represents. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). As a member of the Board of Canvassers, the petitioner would be in a position to make decisions that could impact an election, given that he provides that his statutory duties include, inter alia, the following: having and discharging all of the functions, powers, and duties of the town council concerning nominations, elections, registration of voters and canvassing rights; the preparing and correcting of voting lists; making or furnishing all returns or other things required by law to be made or furnished to or by city clerks, boards of canvassers, and district clerks, relative to the canvassing authority; and appointing and employing all of the Board’s necessary clerical and technical assistants and fixing the compensation of each such person appointed, within the limits of funds available to it pursuant to law. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-8-5(a). The Code of Ethics does not bar members of the Johnston Board of Canvassers from belonging to political committees, or any other organization. See A.O. 2000-20 (opining that a member of the East Providence Board of Canvassers was not prohibited from belonging to political committees, or any other organization). The Code does impose restrictions on public officials, however, depending on the nature of their involvement in activities and organizations beyond their public duties. Id. Additionally, provisions of the Code of Ethics prohibit public officials from acting to confer a financial benefit on themselves, family members or business associates. See, e.g., R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), (c) and (d). In the past, the Commission has found that those who are fellow officers in an organization, or who are in leadership positions which permit them to affect the financial directives of an organization, are business associates. See e.g., A.O. 2006-50 (opining that, while the Chairperson of the Smithfield Planning Board could simultaneously serve as the Chairperson of the Smithfield Republican Town Committee (“the SRTC”), as an officer of the SRTC he was a “business associate” of the organization, and thus, had to recuse from matters coming before the Planning Board involving the SRTC or its other officers); A.O. 2004-01 (opining that a member of the West Warwick Zoning Board of Review, who was also the Vice-Chairman of the West Warwick Democratic Town Committee (“the WWDTC”), may not participate in Zoning Board matters in which the Chairman of the WWDTC acts as an attorney, as the petitioner served as an officer in the WWDTC and thus was a business associate of the Vice-Chairman’s); A.O. 2001-72 (opining that officers of a local Democratic Town Committee in Westerly were considered to be business associates under the Code of Ethics); A.O. 99-33 (opining that, although the Democratic Town Committee, of which the petitioner, a Johnston Town Councilor, was a member, pursued various objectives that were not financial, the existence of a financial component was sufficient to qualify the petitioner and his fellow committee members as business associates). However, the Commission has consistently found that mere membership in an organization, without any correlated ability to affect the financial directives of that organization, does not create a "business associate" relationship as defined in the Code of Ethics. See, e.g., A.O. 2002-06 (opining that mere membership in the Chamber of Commerce does not rise to the level of a business association that would trigger the prohibitions set forth in R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a) and 5(f), and thus, Westerly Town Councilors who were members, but not officers, of the Greater Westerly-Pawcatuck Chamber of Commerce were not prohibited from voting on the granting of a tax exemption for the Chamber of Commerce); A.O. 96-54 (in which the Commission concluded that Town of Westerly Zoning Board members who were also members of the YMCA could participate in matters concerning rezoning for the YMCA, based upon the fact that mere membership, without the ability to affect the YMCA’s financial objectives, did not rise to the level of a “business association” requiring recusal); A.O. 95-59 (opining that a Smithfield School Committee member was permitted to vote to allow an organization to use school facilities, notwithstanding the member’s association with that organization, provided that the member was not deemed a “business associate” of the organization due to an ability to affect the organization’s financial objectives). Cf. A.O. 2002-4 (opining that the petitioner, a Burrillville Budget Board member, and a volunteer at the Jesse M. Smith Memorial Library, had received no compensation for her volunteer services, and as such, no business association existed between the petitioner and the library under the Code of Ethics and she could vote as a Budget Board member on library funding matters). Furthermore, the Commission has previously opined that although candidates that have been successfully elected to office are joined together with those from whom they received an endorsement for a shared political objective, they do not share a common financial objective. See A.O. 99-32 (opining that Johnston Town Councilors may sit as the Personnel Board of Appeals and participate in an appeal regarding the dismissal of the Public Works Director, notwithstanding the fact that the Public Works Director was the Chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee, which endorsed four of the Town Council’s five members in the most recent municipal elections); A.O. 99-114 (opining that a Coventry Town Councilor was not prohibited from participating in the negotiation, discussion, and vote on the purchase of property from persons who served as hosts of a fundraiser for the petitioner’s re-election, as no relationship covered by the Code existed between the petitioner and the host). In and of themselves, shared political affiliations and objectives are not relevant for purposes of the Code of Ethics. A.O. 2001-72 (finding that Westerly Town Councilors who were members of and/or who received endorsements from the local Democratic Town Committee may participate in the Council’s consideration of a matter involving an officer of the Democratic Town Committee, absent any other relationship with that individual that would implicate provisions of the Code of Ethics). Applying the aforementioned analysis to this petitioner’s request for an advisory opinion, if candidates endorsed by either the Johnston Republican Town Committee or the Republican State Central Committee are not “business associates” of those committees or their members, it stands to reason that neither would this petitioner be a business associate of those candidates, and therefore would not run afoul of the Code, absent any other relationship with those candidates that would implicate provisions of the Code, in carrying out any duties as a member of the Board of Canvassers that touch upon the election of those candidates. In the set of facts as represented by the petitioner, he is not an officer of any of the political organizations of which he is a member, nor is he in any other leadership position in the organizations, nor does his membership in the committees allow him to affect the financial objectives of the organizations; for these reasons, he is not a “business associate” sharing a common financial objective with candidates endorsed by either political committee of which he is a member. Thus, he need not recuse himself, barring any other relationship with the candidates that would subject him to the Code of Ethics, from duties involving those candidates in his work on the Board of Canvassers. The petitioner is cautioned, however, that should his involvement or positions in the Johnston Republican Town Committee or the Republican State Central Committee change, he is encouraged to seek further guidance from the Commission as to how his duties on the Board of Canvassers may be impacted. Code Citations: 36-14-5(a) 36-14-5(b) 36-14-5(c) 36-14-5(d) 36-14-7(a) Related Statutory Law: R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-8-5(a) Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2006-50 A.O. 2004-01 A.O. 2002-06 A.O. 2002-04 A.O. 2001-72 A.O. 2000-20 A.O. 99-114 A.O. 99-33 A.O. 99-32 A.O. 97-13 A.O. 96-54 A.O. 96-35 A.O. 95-59 Keywords : Business associate Political activity