Advisory Opinion No. 2010-56

Rhode Island Ethics Commission

Advisory Opinion No. 2010-56

Re: Vincent F. Ragosta, Jr., Esq.

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, a member of the East Greenwich Personnel Board, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion regarding his ability, as a private attorney, to represent the Town of East Greenwich (“Town”) in disciplinary proceedings against a Town police officer. 

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the East Greenwich Personnel Board, a municipal appointed position, may represent the Town of East Greenwich, in his private capacity as an attorney, in disciplinary proceedings against a Town police officer.

The Petitioner informs that he is a member of the East Greenwich Personnel Board (“Personnel Board”), a municipal appointed position.  The Petitioner states that the Personnel Board advises the Town Council and the Town Manager on matters of personnel policy and personnel administration.  The Petitioner further advises that the Personnel Board does not have authority to commence, oversee, monitor, or adjudicate any disciplinary measures against the Town’s police officers.  The Petitioner also represents that, as a matter of law, the Personnel Board could not have influence over the Town’s police officers because the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (“LEOBOR”) is the exclusive remedy for all permanently appointed law enforcement officers subject to disciplinary actions.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-15. 

In his private capacity, the Petitioner informs that he is an attorney who concentrates in labor and employment law. He represents that the Town wishes to engage his legal services on an hourly basis to prosecute disciplinary proceedings against a Town police officer pursuant to the LEOBOR.  Thus, the issue with respect to this Petitioner is whether he may represent the Town in LEOBOR proceedings while also serving as a member of the Town’s Personnel Board.

Under the Code of Ethics, a public official may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest exists if an official has reason to believe or expect that he, any person within his family, a business associate or an employer will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity.  Section 36-14-7(a).  A public official or employee is also prohibited from accepting other employment that will either impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties or employment, or require him to disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties.  Section 36-14-5(b).  Finally, a public official may not use his office for pecuniary gain, other than provided by law, for himself, a family member, employer, business associate, or a business that he represents. Section 36-14-5(d). 

In the present matter, given the Petitioner’s representations that the East Greenwich Personnel Board has no jurisdiction over the dismissal or prosecution of the Town’s permanently appointed police officers, or the power to review LEOBOR proceedings, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that his private legal work for the Town is not in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties on the Personnel Board.  Furthermore, based upon the Petitioner’s representations that his duties do not involve issues involving police officer dismissal, prosecution, or LEOBOR proceedings, there is no reason to believe that the Petitioner’s legal work would impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties.

Code Citations:

§ 36-14-5(a)

§ 36-14-5(b)

§ 36-14-5(d)

§ 36-14-7(a)

Other Relevant Statutes:

§ 42-28.6-15

Keywords:  

Private Employment