Advisory Opinion No. 2010-45 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2010-45 Re: Carmino A. Paliotta QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioner, a Chief Distribution Officer for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ("RIDEM"), Bureau of Natural Resources, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion concerning whether and how the Code of Ethics may apply if his brother's business responds to certain RIDEM requests for bids. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that because the Petitioner, a Chief Distribution Officer for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Bureau of Natural Resources, has no involvement in two particular RIDEM contracts with outside vendors, there is therefore no regulated conflict of interest created if the Petitioner's brother responds to an open and public request for bids to fulfill the contracts. The Petitioner is the Chief Distribution Officer at RIDEM's Bureau of Natural Resources. The Petitioner's official job description lists his duties as "administering and supervising the service functions of the State's central warehouse facilities; to plan, develop and maintain modern warehouse and distribution facilities and services; also to be responsible for assisting in the same manner the acquisition and distribution of Federal surplus property made available by the General Services Administration; and to do related work as required." Additionally, the Petitioner represents that he is responsible for purchasing and distributing supplies for State Parks and beaches, approving repairs for maintenance equipment and buildings, and for overseeing the vehicle fleet maintenance program. The Petitioner states that, recently, the RIDEM's Division of Parks and Recreation put out to bid two contracts for cleaning and landscaping the State Beaches. The Petitioner represents that his brother, Giuseppe Paliotta, owns and operates a landscaping business and wishes to respond to these bids. The Petitioner asks whether such a business relationship between his public employer and a family member would amount to a conflict of interest for him under the Code of Ethics, and whether the Code prohibits his brother from bidding on or entering into such a contract. In telephone conversations with Ethics Commission Staff, the Petitioner has clarified that he is not within the Division of Parks and Recreation and that he therefore had no input into the request for bids or bid specifications. He further clarified that he will have no part in reviewing the bids and that the contract will be supervised by the regional managers and division chief of the Division of Parks and Recreation who are not within his supervisory chain of command. In short, the Petitioner states that he has had, and will have, no involvement whatsoever with these contracts or their fulfillment. However, he seeks this advisory opinion in order to avoid any unforeseen conflicts of interest and to provide full disclosure of relevant facts. Commission Regulation 36-14-5004, entitled “Nepotism,” prohibits persons subject to the Code of Ethics from participating in any matter as part of his or her public duties if he or she has reason to believe or expect that any person within his or her family, or any household member, 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. Commission Regulation 5004(b)(1). Regulation 5004 further provides that no person subject to the Code “shall participate in the supervision, evaluation, appointment, classification, promotion, transfer or discipline of any person within his or her family or a household member, in the state or municipal agency in which the official or employee is serving . . . .” Commission Regulation 5004(b)(2)(A). Furthermore, persons subject to the Code of Ethics, and their family members, are prohibited from entering into any contracts with state or municipal agencies unless the contract is awarded through and open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(h). The only exception to this prohibition is for contracts for professional services which have been customarily awarded without competitive bidding, provided such contract is awarded through a process of public notice and disclosure of financial details. Id. Based on the Petitioner's representations, it does not appear that the above provisions of the Code of Ethics are implicated. The Petitioner states that he has had no involvement, whatsoever, in RIDEM's decision to seek bids. Furthermore, he represents that in his public position he has no involvement, whatsoever, in reviewing or supervising the performance of the contracts. Finally, it appears that RIDEM is following an open and public bidding process. Given these representations, there is no particular conflict of interest created that is regulated by the Code of Ethics. The Code does not prohibit the Petitioner's brother from bidding on or entering into the subject contracts, nor does it require any further action by the Petitioner, such as recusal or additional disclosure. This advisory opinion relates only to the contracts described in the Petitioner's request for an advisory opinion and is based on the Petitioner's description of his current duties as a public employee. If the Petitioner's duties and responsibilities change, or if his brother's contract work for RIDEM is expanded or altered, then the Petitioner may be required to seek further guidance from the Ethics Commission. Furthermore, this opinion relates only to the application of the Code of Ethics. We offer no opinion as to the application of RIDEM policies, procedures or regulations, or of any other statute, regulation, ruling, policy or procedure. Code Citations: Commission Regulation 5004 36-14-5(h) Keywords: Family: Public Employment Nepotism