Advisory Opinion No. 2010-17 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2010-17 Re: Iva J. Lipton QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioner, Chairperson of the Town of Richmond Elder Affairs Commission, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether that Commission is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from hosting a Candidates Breakfast for seniors in Richmond, valued at $10.00 per attendee. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that nothing in the Code of Ethics prohibits the Town of Richmond Elder Affairs Commission from hosting a Candidates Breakfast for seniors in Richmond, valued at $10.00 per attendee, given that the Richmond Elder Affairs Commission is not an “interested person” as that term is defined in Regulation 36-14-5009(c). The Petitioner is the Chairperson of the Town of Richmond Elder Affairs Commission (“EAC”). She states that, by town charter, the EAC is appointed by the Town Council and serves in an advisory capacity to the Council on all matters of particular interest to older citizens and by ordinance may sponsor informational and educational programs, coordinate the Meals on Wheels program in the town and may undertake public service projects. See Ordinances of the Town of Richmond § 2.32.060. She states that in the past, the EAC has hosted a “Candidates Breakfast” to which all municipal, state, and federal candidates for office are invited to speak with, and to answer questions posed by, the senior citizens of the Town of Richmond. She represents that the purpose of the program is informational with the goal being that seniors become more informed about each candidate’s platform. She states that while no endorsements are given by the EAC for any particular candidate, candidates are allowed to hand out their campaign brochures. She states that all attendees including the candidates and the seniors are provided with a breakfast valued at approximately $10.00 per person. The Petitioner states that the Town Solicitor has questioned whether it may be a conflict of interest for a town commission to host this type of event. Accordingly, given this set of facts, the Petitioner requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the EAC is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from hosting a “Candidates Breakfast” as described herein. It is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that nothing in the Code of Ethics prohibits the EAC from hosting a “Candidates Breakfast” as described by this Petitioner. Even if some of the candidates who attend the breakfast are incumbents, and therefore, persons subject to the Code of Ethics, the gift prohibition found in the Code at Regulation 36-14-5009 regulates the acceptance of gifts by persons subject to the Code, not the giving of them. Furthermore, the EAC is not an “interested person” as that term is defined in section (3) of Regulation 5009, as it is neither a person, a representative of a person, or a business, given that the Ethics Commission has consistently opined that municipal agencies are not to be considered to be businesses as that term is utilized in the Code. See A.O. 2008-40 (opining that the Town of Warren and the Warren Town Council are not considered to be "businesses" or "business associates" under the Code of Ethics); A.O. 2005-31 (Town of Portsmouth is not a “business,” nor is it a “business associate” of the Town’s Director of Business Development); A.O. 2002-55 (term "business" as used in the Code of Ethics does not include municipal corporations such as the Town of Richmond); A.O. 97-17 (finding, inter alia, that the definition of "business" does not extend to public entities such as the Warren Town Council). Finally, the $10.00 value of the breakfast described by the Petitioner is far below the $25.00 threshold for gifts prohibited by Regulation 5009. As to the Petitioner’s second question regarding whether funds from the Town of Richmond’s budget may be allocated for a non-partisan political event such as a “Candidates Breakfast” as described herein, while this issue may be addressed by some other state or municipal statute, ordinance, regulation, provision or policy, this question is outside of the jurisdiction of this Commission, and accordingly, will not be addressed in this advisory opinion. Code Citations: Regulation 36-14-5009 Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2008-40 A.O. 2005-31 A.O. 2002-55 A.O. 97-17 Keywords: Gifts