Advisory Opinion No. 97-20

Re: Barbara Ruffino

A. QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, Director of the Department of Elderly Affairs, a state appointed position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether she can accept an offer for an all-expenses paid conference for her and her spouse/guest in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida sponsored by a pharmaceutical vendor.

B. SUMMARY

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, Director of the Department of Elderly Affairs, a state appointed position, may not directly accept payment of travel expenses, including transportation, accommodations, and meal expenses from a state vendor. Although the Conference may be related to her public position, General Commission Advisory No. 12 provides that public officials may not directly accept travel expenses from vendors. Additionally, the Code provides that public officials and their families may not accept gifts that would influence their judgment, nor use their office or otherwise obtain a financial gain for themselves or members of their family. Given the nature of her agency's relationship with the Vendor and the offer of travel, the Petitioner should decline the offer so as to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. The alternative of the vendor making a donation to her agency who would then reimburse the Petitioner's expenses would similarly require the Petitioner to decline expense reimbursement for her spouse.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Facts

The Petitioner, is the Director of the Department of Elderly Affairs, a state appointed position. The Director is involved in the formulation of state policy on long term care for Rhode Island's elders. The Department of Elderly Affairs, among other things, administers a pharmaceutical rebate program for elderly persons through the state. As part of this program, the Department of Elderly Affairs enters into contracts with various pharmaceutical companies to provide the medicines listed in the statute. Pfizer, Inc. is one of the companies that contracts with the state through the above process.

The Director has been offered an all-expenses paid trip for herself and her spouse/guest to a conference on "Long Term Care in the 21st Century: Challenge and Change," in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida this March. The sponsor of the event is Pfizer, Inc.

The Director requests an advisory opinion as to whether she may accept this offer from Pfizer, Inc.

2. Analysis

The Code of Ethics provides that the public officials shall not have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any employment or transaction which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of their duties in the public interest. A substantial conflict of interest occurs if, for instance, 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). Section 5(d) of the Code states that a public official cannot use his or her public office to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for him or herself or for any person within his or her family. Additionally, the Code prohibits public officials and their family members from accepting gifts based on any understanding that an official action or judgment of the person would be influenced thereby. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(g).

Also relevant to this opinion is General Commission Advisory Opinion No. 12 ("GCA No. 12") "Regarding Vendor Paid Travel - Guidelines for Public Employees Regarding Business Travel and Related Expenses." GCA No. 12 stands for the proposition that while many public employees are required to travel as part of their official duties and responsibilities, travel provided to public officials by vendors raises questions under the Code of Ethics. GCA No. 12 also states that direct acceptance by a public official or employee of travel expenses from a vendor, including transportation, accommodation or meal expenses, is prohibited under the Code of Ethics (See Sections 5(a) and 7(a)). The opinion also provides for an alternative means for private parties to pay for travel such as a grant to the agency which the agency may then expend for travel or to reimburse a selected employee for the travel.

The Commission has also issued several individual advisories to public officials regarding travel. However, none of the opinions deal with a vendor providing travel. In A.O. 96-114 and 96-115, parties providing travel expenses did not have business before the agency at issue. The petitioners were advised that given their acceptance of travel expenses, the Code of Ethics would require recusal if the travel sponsors appeared before them in their public capacity. Additionally, the Commission noted that the travel would be considered a gift that had to be disclosed on an official's financial disclosure statement. In A.O. 95-87, the Commission advised a City Solicitor that he could extend his stay at a seminar for personal reasons since the extension would not cost the municipality any extra money and would otherwise be paid for by the Solicitor.

Payment of travel expenses by a vendor to a public official squarely falls under the Code of Ethics as a prohibited gift and a potential violation of Sections 5(a), 5(d), 5(g), and 7(a) of the Code since it would result in a direct gain to the public official and her family by reason of her official activity. Public officials are already compensated for their services and the giving or accepting of gifts creates the impression that the donor may be improperly influencing or unduly enjoying the favor of the official in the performance of his or her public duties. Additionally, if the Petitioner's agency were to accept a donation from Pfizer, Inc., she may not obtain reimbursement for expenses of her spouse since it would similarly fall under the prohibitions of the Code. (At a recent COGEL Conference, this issue was discussed. Although the various Ethics Agencies have different rules regarding travel, all agreed that accepting expenses for one's spouse is a conflict of interest.) Therefore, it is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, Director of the Department of Elderly Affairs, a state appointed position, may not directly accept payment of travel expenses, including transportation, accommodations, and meal expenses for a state vendor. Nor may she accept, through donation, payment of travel expenses for her spouse.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-5(g)

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

GCA 12

96-115

96-114

95-87

Keywords:

travel