Advisory Opinion No. 2010-55 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2010-55 Re: Wallace Gernt QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioner, a member of the Rhode Island Health Services Council, a state appointed position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether his membership on the Health Services Council conflicts with his private consulting work for the Thomas C. Slater Compassion Center, Inc. (TCS), given that TCS is applying to the Department of Health for registration as a Medical Marijuana Compassion Center. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Petitioner, a member of the Rhode Island Health Services Council, from engaging in private consulting work for a client relative to obtaining registration from the Department of Health to operate a Medical Marijuana Compassion Center, given his representations that the Health Services Council has no role whatsoever in the Department of Health’s decisions as to such registrations. The Petitioner is a member of the Rhode Island Health Services Council, a statutorily created board composed of twenty-four members appointed by the Governor and legislative leaders (see R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-17-13), serving in a strictly advisory capacity to the Rhode Island Department of Health regarding: (1) applications for initial licensure or licensure in the case of a proposed change in the owner, operator, or lessee of any licensed health care facility; (2) rules, regulations, and standards under the Licensing of Health Care Facilities Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-17-1 et seq.; (3) the Health Care Certificate of Need Act of Rhode Island, § 23-15-1 et seq.; and (4) the Health Facilities Construction Act, § 23-16-1 et seq. In his private capacity, the Petitioner informs us that he is a principal in the Bradford Group, a consulting firm located in Providence, Rhode Island, which specializes in state and federal government relations, new business development, implementing public/private partnerships, and advocating for economic development initiatives. The Petitioner states that one of the Bradford Group's clients is the Thomas C. Slater Compassion Center, Inc. (TCS), an entity which is in the process of applying to the Department of Health to operate a Medical Marijuana Compassion Center. The Petitioner notes that although the Bradford Group is assisting TCS relative to its application, he personally will have no interaction whatsoever with the Department of Health on behalf of the applicant. The Petitioner represents that the Health Services Council has no responsibilities whatsoever with respect to the Department of Health’s review of medical marijuana compassion center applications pursuant to the Rhode Island Medical Marijuana Act, and has no involvement with any issues related to the process. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-1 et seq. Accordingly, the Petitioner states that he has no role in the review of the compassion center applications. The Petitioner asks whether the above represented facts implicate any prohibitions under the Code of Ethics. A person subject to the Code of Ethics, such as the Petitioner, may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest occurs if the Petitioner has reason to believe or expect that he or any family member or business associate, or any business by which he is employed, will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). Additionally, a person subject to the Code may not accept other employment which will impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties. Section 36-14-5(b). In this case, given the Petitioner’s representations that the Health Services Council has no role in the review process of Medical Marijuana Compassion Centers, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that his private representation of TCS is not in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties because there is no reason to believe that he, the Bradford Group, or TCS will derive a monetary gain by reason of his official activity. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the Petitioner’s consulting work would impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties, since the Petitioner’s duties do not involve issues related to Medical Marijuana Compassion Centers. Code Citations: § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(b) § 36-14-7(a) Other Relevant Statutes: § 23-15-1 § 23-16-1 § 23-17-1 § 23-17-13 § 21-28.6-1 Keywords: Private Employment