Advisory Opinion No. 96-109

Re: Robert G. Connaughton

A. QUESTION PRESENTED

The petitioner, Cranston Director of Administration, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion as to how to structure the official relationship with his spouse under the Code of Ethics given that she is Cranston's Purchasing Agent and reports to the Director of Finance who then reports to the petitioner.

B. SUMMARY

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, Cranston Director of Administration, a municipal appointed position, may adopt a procedure such that he does not participate in any matter which directly affects his spouse, the Cranston Purchasing Agent, or is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a), 7(a). As provided for by General Commission Advisory 1, the petitioner may not participate in the day-to-day supervision of his wife nor personnel issues that directly affect her. Those matters must be handled by either the Mayor or an official who does not report to the petitioner as Director of Administration. The petitioner must exercise the notice and recusal sections of the Code, R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6, in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Facts

The petitioner was appointed as the Cranston Director of Administration recently. In that position, the petitioner supervises all of the Department Heads. The petitioner previously served as Director of Community Development since 1985 and has been employed by Cranston since 1977.

The petitioner's spouse is Cranston's Purchasing Agent. She reports directly to the Finance Director who in turn reports to the petitioner. The Finance Director would typically evaluate the Purchasing Agent.

The petitioner requested an advisory opinion as to how the official relationship might be structured to avoid conflicts of interest. At the Commission meeting held on November 6, 1996, the petitioner and City Solicitor DiSegna represented that the Mayor could assume the responsibility for handling matters that could impact the petitioner's spouse.

2. Analysis

The Code of Ethics provides that the petitioner shall not have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any employment, transaction which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest. A substantial conflict of interest occurs if the petitioner has reason to believe or expect that she or any family member or business associate, or any business by which she is employed will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of her official activity. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), 7(a). Also, he may not use his office for financial gain for himself or any member of his immediate family. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d). As discussed in General Commission Advisory No. 1, these Code provisions prohibit participation by one family member in personnel decisions regarding another.

The Commission has previously considered this issue in advisory opinions. In A.O. 95-71, the Commission concluded that a spouse could be considered for promotion even though her supervisor is her husband's subordinate. In that matter, the petitioner was also advised that he could not be involved in the day-to-day supervision of his wife, or personnel issues that affect her directly and recognized that recusal would require an individual from an unrelated Department, not under the husband's control, to make such decisions. Similarly, the Commission has found that it was permissible for a spouse to be considered for promotion, given that her husband was excluded from review from his wife's personnel matters and possible promotion. See A.O. 91-32. And see A.O. 92-56 (permitting the spouse of the Chief of the Fire Department for Narragansett to run for Town Council provided that she recuse herself from matters which may affect her husband so that reduces any incentive on the part of his supervisor, the Town Manager, to treat him favorably in anticipation of reciprocal treatment) and A.O. 96-16 (concluding that a woman could be appointed to the Warwick Sewer Board of Review where her spouse was employed by the Warwick Sewer Authority as a maintenance worker given that there was limited involvement between the two entities and that the appointee recuse herself if she is put in a position of reviewing conduct and/or work involving her husband)..

In this matter, the central issue is that the petitioner has authority over his spouse's immediate supervisor. Given the provisions of the Code and General Commission Advisory 1 and other advisory opinions, the petitioner may adopt a procedure by which he does not participate in any matter which directly affects his spouse, or is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties. Those matters must be handled by either the Mayor or an official who does not report to the petitioner as Director of Administration. Additionally, the petitioner must exercise the notice and recusal sections of the Code, R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6, in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

96-16

95-71

92-56

91-32

Keywords:

family: supervision

nepotism