Advisory Opinion No. 95-24

Re: William A. Wetterland III

A. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) Whether a member of the Tiverton School Committee may bid on and/or be awarded a contract to provide architectural and consulting services to the Tiverton Housing Authority and 2) whether an individual who has been acting as a consultant and architect to the Tiverton Housing Authority may bid on and be awarded a contract to provide architectural services on projects on which he previously worked as a consultant.

B. SUMMARY

1) The Code of Ethics provides that a public official may enter into a contract with a state and municipal agency, including the one which he or she serves, so long as the contract has been awarded through an open and public bidding process. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(h). Here, the contract at issue was awarded through a public bidding process and the Petitioner had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding the awarding of the contract. Therefore, absent some other prohibited interest or involvement by Mr. Wetterland, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the award merely because the Petitioner is a) an elected member of the School Committee or b) a previously retained consultant of the Housing Authority.

2) Various provisions of the Code of Ethics, particularly R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a), (b) and (d), prohibit a public official or employee from having employment or engaging in actions that would either impair his or her independence of judgment or constitute the use of his or her public office to obtain private financial gain. In this instance the Petitioner, while having familiarity with the project on which he bid because of his prior work with the Tiverton Housing Authority, is neither responsible for the decision as to the awarding of the contract, nor participated in the process that led to the awarding of the contract. Again, the contract resulted from an open and public bidding process, which in and of itself goes a long way towards addressing the sort of conflict of interest concerns embodied in the Code of Ethics. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner may, under the Code of Ethics, bid on and receive the subject contract from the Tiverton Housing Authority.(1)

C. DISCUSSION

1. Facts

Willard A. Wetterland III was elected to serve as a member of the Tiverton School Committee in November, 1994. His private employment is as an architect and architectural consultant. In that capacity he has on several occasions provided services to the the Tiverton Housing Authority.

Mr. Wetterland recently bid on and was awarded a contract to provide architectural services to the Housing Authority. The project for which he received the contract is one on which previously he had worked as a consultant. The contract for architectural services was awarded through an open and public bidding process with which Mr. Wetterland had no involvement, either as a member of the School Committee or as a consultant to the Housing Authority. Also, with respect to his status as a member of the School Committee, it and the Housing Authority have no formal or informal involvement with each other; specifically, the School Committee does not exercise any sort of jurisdictional or fiscal authority over the Housing Authority.

2. Analysis

1) The Code of Ethics provides that a public official may enter into a contract with a state and municipal agency, including the one which he or she serves, so long as the contract has been awarded through an open and public bidding process. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(h). Here, the contract at issue was awarded through an open and public bidding process. The Petitioner had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding the awarding of the contract, nor did his previous work as a consultant give him any sort of unfair or improper advantage in bidding for the contract. Therefore, absent some other prohibited involvement or interest by Mr. Wetterland, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the award merely because the Petitioner is a) an elected member of the School Committee or b) a previously retained consultant of the Housing Authority.

2) Various provisions of the Code of Ethics, particularly R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a), (b) and (d), prohibit a public official or employee from having employment or engaging in actions that would either impair his or her independence of judgment or constitute the use of his or her public office to obtain private financial gain. In this instance the Petitioner, while having familiarity with the project on which he bid because of his prior work with the Tiverton Housing Authority, is neither responsible for the decision as to the awarding of the contract, nor participated in the process that led to the awarding of the contract. Again, the contract resulted from an open and public bidding process, which in and of itself goes a long way towards addressing the sort of conflict of interest concerns embodied in the Code of Ethics. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner may, under the Code of Ethics, bid on and receive the subject contract from the Tiverton Housing Authority.(2)

Footnotes

(1)Because of the conclusion reached here, we decline to address the issue of whether the Petitioner's status as a consultant to the Housing Authority falls within the definition of "municipal appointed official" or "employee of local government" under the Code of Ethics.

(2)Because of the conclusion reached here, we decline to address the issue of whether the Petitioner's status as a consultant to the Housing Authority falls within the definition of "municipal appointed official" or "employee of local government" under the Code of Ethics.

Keywords

Contracts