Advisory Opinion No. 2009-3 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2009-3 Re: Michelle Cole QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a member of the Chariho School Committee, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether she is prohibited from participating in the School Committee’s upcoming review of the current teachers’ contract, given that her sister-in-law is a substitute teacher in the Chariho school system. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Chariho School Committee, a municipal elected position, is not prohibited from participating in the School Committee’s upcoming review of the current teachers’ contract, notwithstanding the fact that her sister-in-law is a substitute teacher in the Chariho School system, given that substitute teachers will not be financially impacted as they are not included in the Chariho teachers’ bargaining unit. The Petitioner is a member of the Chariho School Committee (“School Committee”). She states that the School Committee has begun a review of the current teachers’ contract. She further states that her sister-in-law (her husband’s sister) is a substitute teacher in the Chariho School system. She states that substitute teachers in the Chariho School system are not members of the Chariho National Education Association local teachers’ bargaining unit (“NEA Chariho”), but rather, have a separate policy governing their pay and duties, found in the School Committee’s Policy Book. Specifically, the Petitioner represents that substitute teachers will not be financially impacted by contract negotiations between the School Committee and NEA Chariho. Given this set of facts, the Petitioner requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she is prohibited from participating in the discussion, negotiation, and vote regarding the NEA Chariho teachers’ contract, given that her sister-in-law is a substitute teacher in the Chariho School system. Commission Regulation 5004, regarding “Nepotism,” includes “sister-in-law” among the list of family relations enumerated therein. Subsection (b)(4) of Regulation 5004, provides specific guidance as to the limitations placed on public officials’ participation in collective bargaining and employee contracts when such negotiations and contracts address or affect the employment, compensation and benefits of family members covered by the regulation. In this instance, however, the limitations of subsection (b)(4) do not apply, as the Petitioner’s sister-in-law, who is a substitute teacher, is not a member of NEA Chariho and will not be financially impacted by the contract review and subsequent negotiations in question. Thus, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner need not recuse from participation in the discussion, negotiations, or voting regarding the NEA Chariho teachers’ contract. However, while she is not prohibited from participating in these specific contract discussions and negotiations, the Petitioner is cautioned that she is nonetheless prohibited from participating in any other School Committee matters that may impact her sister-in-law’s employment as a substitute teacher or in which she has reason to believe or expect that her sister-in-law is a party to or a participant in such matter, or will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, or obtain an employment advantage, as the case may be. See Commission Regulation 5004(b)(1),(2), and (3). See also R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), 5(d) and 7(a). Thus, if any other potential conflict of interest should arise that is not otherwise contemplated in this advisory opinion, in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be a financial impact upon the Petitioner’s sister-in-law, she should either request further advice from this Commission or exercise the recusal provision found at R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6. Code Citations : § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-7(a) Commission Regulation 5004 Keywords : Contracts Family: Financial Benefit Nepotism