Advisory Opinion No. 2007-48 Advisory Opinion No. 2007-48 Re: Margaret L. Hogan, Esq. QUESTION PRESENTED The petitioner, who was appointed as a member of the Town of Charlestown's Charter Revision Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) by that municipality's Town Council, and who is also a licensed, practicing attorney in the State of Rhode Island, requests an advisory opinion as to whether her appointment to the Committee violates the Code of Ethics, given that she frequently represents clients before various boards and commissions within the Town of Charlestown. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Town of Charlestown's Charter Revision Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) is not a "municipal agency," as that term is defined in the Code of Ethics, because its powers are purely advisory in nature. As a result, the petitioner's appointment to the Committee by the Town Council does not cause her to become a "municipal appointed official." Therefore, as a member of the Committee, she is not subject to the statutory and regulatory provisions of the Code of Ethics. The petitioner represents that she is a resident of the Town of Charlestown. She states that in 2007, she was appointed by the Charlestown Town Council to the seven member Charter Revision Advisory Committee pursuant to the Code of the Town of Charlestown § 6-2(A). The Committee is mandated to meet at least once annually to review the Charlestown Home Rule Charter, and, if it determines that revisions or amendments to the Charter should be made, “the Committee shall forward its recommendations to the Town Council after first conducting a public hearing or hearings and affording opportunity for public debate, review and discussion of the proposed revisions or amendments.” Id. at § 6-3(B). If after the hearing, the proposed amendment is approved by a vote of the majority of the Town Council, then it is placed on a ballot for the electors to vote upon at the next general or special election. Id. at § 6-4. Given that the Committee’s recommendations would have to pass through both the Town Council and be voted on at the next general or special election before being adopted, we conclude that recommendations offered by the Charter Revision Advisory Committee are purely advisory in nature and that the Committee, therefore, is not a municipal agency as that term is defined in the Code of Ethics. Section 36-14-2(8)(ii) of the Code of Ethics defines a "municipal agency" as “any department, division, agency, commission, board, office, bureau, authority quasi-public authority . . . within Rhode Island, other than a state agency and any other agency that is in any branch of municipal government and exercises governmental functions other than in an advisory nature.” Regulation 36-14-2002(4)(b), a provision promulgated by the Ethics Commission in 1999, defines "municipal agency" using the same language as statutory Section (2)(8)(ii), except that it adds “and whether comprised of officials and employees from a single or multiple municipalities, and any other agency that is in any branch of municipal government and which exercises governmental functions other than in a purely advisory nature.” Finally, Regulation 36-14-2001(22), another regulation promulgated by the Ethics Commission, states that a "municipal agency" shall include any entity that: “(a) exercises governmental functions other than in an advisory nature, and expends public funds in excess of $10,000 yearly, or; (b) those entities whose directors or other governing members are appointed by or through the governing body or highest official of state or municipal government.” Most relevant to the instant advisory opinion is the fact that both the statutory and regulatory definitions of “municipal agency” exempt advisory boards. The Commission has previously addressed a fact pattern similar to this petitioner’s in A.O. 2000-70. There, the Commission was faced with a petitioner who was appointed by a municipal governing body, in that circumstance, the Little Compton Town Council, to that municipality’s Charter Review Commission. Id. This Commission explicitly opined that the petitioner in that request was not a "municipal appointed official” under the set of facts presented, and thus, in that capacity, was not subject to the Code of Ethics. Id. See also, A.O. 2002-58 (opining that a Tiverton Economic Development Committee (TEDC) member was not required to file a financial disclosure statement pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-16 as the TEDC acts in a purely advisory capacity and, therefore, is not a “municipal agency” for purposes of the Code of Ethics); A.O. 2001-23 (opining that a Warwick Affirmative Action Commission member was not required to file a financial disclosure statement pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-16 as that Commission acts in a purely advisory capacity and, therefore, is not a “state or municipal agency” for purposes of the Code of Ethics); A.O. 2000-78 (opining that members of the Chariho/Tri-Town Task Force on Substance Abuse Prevention were not regional appointed officials or employees, and thus, were not bound by the statutory and regulatory provisions of the Code of Ethics); A.O. 2000-13 (opining that the Little Compton Harbor Commission is an advisory entity as that term is defined in the Code of Ethics, and thus, is not a municipal agency bound by the Code of Ethics). We find that, under the circumstances presented by the petitioner that are analogous to those found in A.O. 2000-70, this petitioner, in her capacity as a member of the Town of Charlestown's Charter Revision Advisory Committee, is also not subject to the Code of Ethics. Code Citations : 36-14-2(8)(ii) 36-14-2001(22) 36-14-2002(4)(b) Other Authority : Code of the Town of Charlestown §§ 6-2(a), 6-3(B) & 6-4 Related Advisory Opinions : 2002-58 2001-23 2000-70 2000-78 2000-13 Keywords : Advisory Body