Advisory Opinion No. 96-47 Re: Richard Newman A. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A member of the Board of Examiners of Electricians, a state appointed official, who also serves as an electrical inspector in the City of Newport, requests an advisory opinion as to whether he may teach continuing education classes mandated for electricians and journeymen in the State; and, further, if the answer to the above question is no, whether he may 1) teach without salary, collecting expenses only, 2) serve as a "guest speaker" in such classes, for a fee, 3) recuse on voting on matters relating to continuing education classes, and thereby free himself to teach for a fee, or 4) take a leave of absence from the board to teach and return to board status after the course is completed. B. SUMMARY The Code of Ethics prohibits the petitioner, an appointed member Board of Examiner of Electricians from teaching continuing education classes mandated for electricians and journeymen in the State given that the Board of Examiners of Electricians establishes the continuing education program and provides advice and recommendations on licensing. Such duality of status may create a substantial conflict with the proper discharge of the petitioner's duties in the public interest and may impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a), (b). However, if petitioner were to or teach the class pro bono (not charging a fee, but receiving reimbursement for verifiable out-of-pocket expenses), the Commission does not find the same conflict to exist. The petitioner may not receive fees as a guest speaker, nor does the Commission find that recusal from matters relating to continuing education or a leave of absence by the petitioner would allow him to teach or lecture at such courses for compensation. C. DISCUSSION 1. Facts The petitioner, a licensed electrician, is the electrical inspector for the City of Newport. The petitioner is also an appointed member of the Board of Examiners of Electricians, the state agency responsible for licensing of electricians. The petitioner would like to teach a fifteen-hour mandatory education class for electricians. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-5-20.1 sets forth the continuing education requirements for electricians. Pursuant to the statute, the Board of Examiners of Electricians is charged with establishing the mandatory continuing education program with the State Building Code Commissioner approving the course of study. (The petitioner, and other officials familiar with the education and licensing process for electricians, have advised the Commission that the Board of Examiners of Electricians does not carry out this statutorily mandated function, instead delegating that responsibility to another state office. Whether, how and why that delegation has been made does not impact this advisory opinion.) An electrician seeking renewal of his or her license must complete fifteen hours of continuing education classes. The petitioner also represents that the provider of the course issues a certificate to the attendee upon completion and that any disputes regarding attendance at a course is handled by the Department of Labor, Division of Professional Regulation. 2. Analysis At issue in this advisory request is whether the petitioner, as an appointed member of the Board of Examiners for Electricians and a municipal electrical inspector, would violate the Code of Ethics if he teaches a mandatory continuing education class required for electricians seeking license renewal. The Rhode Island Code of Ethics provides that the petitioner may not engage in any business or professional activity which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of their duties or employment in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). The petitioner also may not accept other employment which either impairs his independence of judgment as to his official duties, or requires or induces him to disclose confidential information acquired in the course of his official duties. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(b). In an analogous advisory opinion request, we concluded that the Code of Ethics did not prohibit the State Building Commissioner and members of his staff from teaching continuing educational classes for local officials and inspectors. See A.O. 92-49. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission recognized that a) the Building Commissioner and his staff possessed unique qualifications necessary to teach the courses; b) neither he nor any members of his staff were in a position to influence the Building Code Standards Committee; and c) the work as course instructors would not interfere with his or his staff's responsibilities as State employees. In that opinion, the Commission also concluded that members of the Building Code Standards Committee, who are statutorily charged with the task of developing and supervising the continuing education program, could not teach courses in this program since such simultaneous activity (regulating the program and teaching in the program) created an inherent conflict of interest. After considering the petitioner's request and the relevant provisions of the Code, we conclude that the Code of Ethics prohibits the petitioner from teaching a mandatory continuing education class for electricians while he serves as a member of the Board of Examiners of Electricians. This conclusion is based on the petitioner's representations and R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-6-1 et seq. that the Board of Examiners of Electricians established the continuing education requirements as well as advises and recommends the Director of Labor on licensing. It is our opinion that the teaching position may create a substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties as a Board of Examiners of Electricians member or affect the petitioner's independence of judgment as to his official duties on the Board. With respect to the additional questions posed by the petitioner, we conclude that he is not prohibited from teaching the mandatory continuing education class if he volunteers and teaches the class pro bono (not charging any fee, but receiving reimbursement for verifiable out-of-pocket expenses), given that the petitioner will not derive any financial benefit from teaching. Also, we conclude that the petitioner may not receive fees as a guest speaker, nor does the Commission find that recusal from matters relating to continuing education or a leave of absence by the petitioner would allow him to teach or lecture at such courses for compensation. In each of these instances, the same substantial conflict with the discharge of the petitioner's public duties would apply. Code Citations: 36-14-5(a) 36-14-5(b) Related Advisory Opinions: 92-49 Keywords: licensing private employment