Advisory Opinion No. 96-34

Re: Joseph A. Rotella

A. QUESTION PRESENTED

The members of the Providence School Board, who are appointed to three-year terms of office, requests an advisory opinion as to whether they may consider or vote to recommend to the City Council a negotiated contract for teachers in the Providence School Department given that the City Council, by custom and practice, awards members of the Board the same benefit package as that awarded to teachers.

B. SUMMARY

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that members of the Providence School Board will not violate the Code of Ethics if they consider or vote on whether to recommend to the City Council the contract the Board negotiated with the Providence Teachers Union, provided, however, that no benefit package for the School Board shall be part of those negotiations and, further, provided, that any benefit package for the School Board shall be awarded only after a separate and independent review by the Providence City Council.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Facts

Members of the Providence School Board are appointed by the Mayor to three-year terms of office. Under § 704 of the Providence Home Rule Charter, members of the School Board are entitled to receive "compensation fixed by ordinance of the City Council." As part of the compensation package, the City Council has awarded members of the School Board benefits which, by custom and practice, have been the same as that provided to teachers. The Petitioner, however, advises that the City conducts an independent review of the benefit package awarded to members of the School Board. (When requested, the Petitioner could not either identify any City Council sessions or produce minutes of meetings in which this body considered the benefit package awarded to teachers.)

Recently, members of the Board negotiated a new one-year contract with the Providence Teachers Union. Under the terms of the negotiated contract, teachers would receive a reduced benefits package.

The petitioner advises that in the near future the School Board will be called upon to vote on whether to recommend the negotiated contract. After the School Board considers the contract, the City Council will decide whether to ratify the entire contract.

2. Analysis

Under the Code of Ethics, members of the School Board may not participate in any matter in which they have an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of their duties in the public interest. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), 36-14-7(a). (Substantial conflict is defined as a "direct monetary gain" or a "direct monetary loss" that accrues, by virtue of the public official's activity, to that individual, a family member, a business associate, an employer, or any business which the public official represents. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a).) Pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d), members of the Board also are prohibited from using their public position or confidential information received through their position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for themselves.

At issue in this advisory request is whether the members of the School Board may vote to recommend a contract that will reduce the benefit package awarded to teachers where the members have customarily received, by an ordinance of the City Council, generally the same benefit package as teachers. Although the Commission has never considered the exact question raised in this request, in its General Advisory No. 6, issued in April, 1989, the Commission provided guidance to public officials regarding salary increases. In that opinion, the Commission concluded that a public official would violate the Code of Ethics if the official took any action that affected his or her salary or benefits of employment where the official had reason to believe or expect that he or she would derive a direct monetary gain by reason of the official activity. The Commission recognized that the public official must exercise care "in every situation where the individual's action might eventually lead to financial gain for him or her, a spouse, dependent child, or business associate."

After considering the Petitioner's request and the submitted documentation, we conclude that the Code of Ethics will not prohibit members of the School Board from voting on whether to recommend the recent contract negotiated with the Providence Teachers Union provided, however, that no benefit package for the School Board shall have been part of those negotiations, and further, provided, that any benefit package for the School Board shall be awarded only after a separate and independent review by the Providence City Council. Provided that the City Council conducts such a separate and independent review of the School Board's benefits, members of the School Board have no reason to believe that their benefits will be affected by the contract with the Providence Teachers Union. Accordingly, the prohibitions set forth in General Advisory 6 and the past advisory opinions prohibiting public officials from participating in decisions affecting their salary or benefits are not applicable. See e.g., A.O. 95-52 (concluding that the Code prohibits the participation by members of the Town Council in any discussion or votes regarding the receipt of a stipend by the Council members for the administrative duties carried out on behalf of the Town Council); A.O. 93-74 (opining that the Little Compton Town Council Vice-President may not participate as a public official in any issue involving health care benefits if he has reason to expect that he will derive a benefit by reason of his official activity).

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

GCA-6

95-52

93-74

Keywords:

compensation

negotiations