Advisory Opinion No. 95-79

Re: Donald W. Wyatt

A. QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Donald W. Wyatt, a member of the Rhode Island Lottery Commission ("Lottery Commission"), may participate and vote on matters involving his daughter's employer, GTECH, a company which provides services and products to the Lottery Commission.

B. SUMMARY

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that Mr. Wyatt, as a member of the Lottery Commission, may generally participate and vote on decisions involving GTECH, his daughter's employer. Mr. Wyatt, however, should recuse himself from any matter for which either his daughter appears personally before the Lottery Commission or his daughter is affected specifically (as opposed to matters which affect all employees of GTECH).

C. DISCUSSION

1. Facts

In May of 1995, Mr. Wyatt was appointed as a member of the Lottery Commission. For approximately the last five years Mr. Wyatt's daughter, Donna E. Carlson, has worked for GTECH as a security officer.

Mr. Wyatt attended his first meeting of the Lottery Commission in June of 1995. During this meeting, the Commissioners were asked to consider whether GTECH, a manufacturer/distributor of lottery devices, may install four automatic demonstration machines at separate locations. Mr. Wyatt, concerned of a potential conflict of interest, abstained from the vote on this matter.

2. Analysis

At issue in this advisory request is whether Mr. Wyatt, a member of the Lottery Commission may participate in decisions involving his daughter's employer, a contractor/vendor of the Lottery Commission. Pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a), Mr. Wyatt, as a public official, 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. See also R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7. Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d), Mr. Wyatt is also prohibited from using his position or confidential information received through his position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for himself or any person within his family. For the purposes of § 5(d), the definition of family includes, whether by blood, marriage or adoption: parents, grandparents, adult children, siblings, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and first cousins. See Commission Regulation 36-14-5005.

After considering the petitioner's request, the Commission concludes that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit Mr. Wyatt from participating in general issues involving GTECH, a vendor/contractor of the Lottery Commission which employees his daughter.(1) In reaching this decision, we were guided by previous advisory opinions where we concluded that a member of a municipal board did not violate the Code of Ethics by virtue of the fact that a firm which employed his or her child or relative appeared before the official's board. See A.O. 90-17 (determining that a member of the Bristol Planning Board would not violate the Code of Ethics based on the sole fact that a firm which employed his dependent daughter appeared before the Planning Board for hearings on a Site Plan Review); A.O. 91-59 (a member of the Bristol Zoning Board of Review would not violate the Code of Ethics if he participated or voted in general matters involving his daughter's employer, which occasionally appeared before the Bristol Zoning Board, provided that the petitioner did not have a business relationship with his daughter's employer).

To comply with the Code, however, Mr. Wyatt should recuse himself and notify the Lottery Commission and this Commission pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6 on any matter in which his daughter either appears personally before the Lottery Commission or is affected specifically (as opposed to a matter which affect all employees of GTECH). Furthermore, in order to ensure complete compliance with the requirements of the Code of Ethics, in situations in which he may vote or participate, Mr. Wyatt should disclose his relationship with GTECH before he participates in such matters. See A.O. 91-59 (recommending that a member of the Bristol Zoning Board of Review, to avoid an appearance of impropriety, make formal public disclosure of his relationship with his daughter's employer whenever the interests of that employer appears before the Board). Such disclosure will also allow GTECH or other interested parties to advise Mr. Wyatt as to whether a matter before the Lottery Commission will in fact specifically affect his daughter as a GTECH employee.

Footnotes

(1) The Commission has issued a similar advisory opinion which, although appearing to be analogous, is in fact distinguishable. See A.O. 90-45. In that opinion, the Commission determined that a State Representative and member of the Lottery Commission would not violate the Code of Ethics based on the sole fact that his adult emancipated daughter had been hired by GTECH. Id. The Commission based its conclusion on the fact that, at the time of the request, there were "no provisions within the Prohibited Activities section of the Code of Ethics in connection with benefits or employment of an adult emancipated child of a public official." Id. The current version of the Code, unlike the situation at the time of that previous request, extends the prohibitions set forth in sections 5(a) and 5(d) to adult children. See Commission Regulation 36-14-5005.

Keywords

Nepotism

Family: Private Employment

Vendors

Contracts