Advisory Opinion No. 2009-19 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2009-19 Re: Danielle Coulter QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioner, a member of the Tiverton School Committee, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding: 1) whether, as a School Committee member, she can make a recommendation to the Tiverton Budget Committee regarding School Committee members’ stipends; and 2) whether she may participate as an elector in the Tiverton Financial Town meeting in matters regarding the School Committee budget, including an item regarding School Committee members’ stipends. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Tiverton School Committee, a municipal elected position: 1) may make a recommendation to the Budget Committee regarding School Committee members’ stipends; and 2) may participate as an elector in the Tiverton Financial Town meeting in matters regarding the School Committee budget, including an item regarding School Committee members’ stipends. The Petitioner is a newly elected member of the Tiverton School Committee (“School Committee”). She states that School Committee members receive a stipend of $100 per month pursuant to authority predating her election. She represents that this stipend is one line item, the amount of which has been fixed for many years and will go unchanged, that the School Committee considers as part of its total $26,000,000.00 budget. She states that the School Committee transmits its recommended budget to the Tiverton Budget Committee (“Budget Committee”) for consideration. She further states that the Budget Committee then presents its recommendation to the electors at the Tiverton Financial Town meeting. She further states that pursuant to the Home Rule Charter for the Town of Tiverton, it is the electors who approve the town budget, not the members of the School Committee or Budget Committee. Given this set of facts, the Petitioner requests an advisory opinion as to: 1) whether, as a School Committee member, she can make a recommendation to the Budget Committee regarding School Committee members’ stipends; and 2) whether she may participate as an elector in the Tiverton Financial Town meeting in matters regarding the School Committee budget, which includes an item regarding School Committee members’ stipends. Under the Code of Ethics, a public official may not have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any employment or transaction which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her duties in the public interest. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest occurs if the official has reason to believe or expect that he or she or any family member, business associate, or any business by which he or she is employed or represents will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his or her official activity. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). Further, the official may not use his or her position or confidential information received through said position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for him or herself, a business associate, or any business which the official represents or by which he or she is employed. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d). In Advisory Opinion 2002-29, this Commission opined that the Code of Ethics prohibits public officials from taking any action affecting their own salary or benefits. An important basis for this is the provision in the Code that a public official has a substantial conflict of interest with his or her duties in the public interest if the official has reason to believe or expect a financial gain by reason of his or her official activity. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), 7(a); G.C.A.6. In that advisory opinion, the Commission addressed the responsibilities of all public officials who are in a position to grant themselves salary increases, or who may have any role in the granting of such increases. The Commission stated that, in general, it would be a violation of the Code of Ethics for a public official to vote on, participate in the discussion of, promote or otherwise have any role in the granting of a raise or increase of benefits to him or herself. The Commission referred specifically to Celona v. R.I. Ethics Commission, 544 A.2d 582,(R.I. 1988). However, the Commission further opined in A.O. 2002-29 that a public official could propose a compensation increase as an article on the agenda of the annual town financial meeting. Here, the Petitioner would not be voting in her capacity as a public official for an increase in her own compensation. Rather, School Committee members would be including an item in their proposed budget to the Budget Committee that neither increases nor reduces their stipend, after which, the budget would go to the annual Financial Town meeting for a vote by the qualified electorate. In two distinguishable advisory opinions, the Commission opined that public officials could not participate in discussion or votes regarding the receipt of a stipend by members of their public bodies, despite the fact that such compensation would be voted on and approved by the electorate at annual financial town meetings. See A.O. 97-130 and A.O. 95-52. There, however, the stipends were proposed to compensate incumbent members for taking on additional administrative responsibilities on behalf of the municipality or regional district at issue, rather than for the performance of their regular public duties, and represented an increase in compensation. In the instant matter, the compensation to be voted upon and approved by the electorate reflects no increase in compensation for the regular duties of the School Committee members. Consistent with these prior advisory opinions, the Commission concludes that the Petitioner may make a recommendation to the Budget Committee, as a part of the overall School Committee budget, as to School Committee members’ stipends for incumbent members that does not include an increase in compensation, given that such action will be voted upon by the qualified electorate at a duly noticed public meeting. As to the Petitioner’s second question, nothing in the Code of Ethics limits a duly registered member of the Rhode Island electorate from properly voting, pursuant to R.I. Const. art II, sec.1, on any matter submitted to the electors. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating as an elector in the Tiverton Financial Town meeting in matters regarding the School Committee budget, including School Committee members’ stipends. Finally, the Petitioner is advised that this opinion solely addresses the application of the Code of Ethics. We note that this opinion does not address whether any municipal charter provision or ordinance limits her ability, as a School Committee member, to make recommendations regarding School Committee members’ stipends. Such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission and, as a result, cannot be addressed in this advisory opinion. Code Citations : 36-14-5(a) 36-14-7(a) 36-14-5(d) Related Advisory Opinions : 2002-29 97-130 95-52 G.C.A. No. 6. Other Law Cited : Celona v. R.I. Ethics Commission , 544 A.2d 582 (R.I. 1988) Keywords : Budgets Financial Interest