Advisory Opinion No. 97-75

Re: Melanie Marcaccio

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, Chief of Human Resources, Department of Environmental Management, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether she may participate in further negotiations, review, and/or approval of a settlement agreement involving the bargaining unit for employees of the Division of Parks & Recreation given that she has discovered that her brother is one of the potential recipients of back pay, which is the focus of the ongoing negotiations.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, Chief of Human Resources, Department of Environmental Management, as state employee position, may not participate in matters concerning a settlement agreement involving the bargaining unit for employees of the Division of Parks & Recreation given that she has discovered that he brother is one of the potential recipients of back pay, which is the focus of the ongoing negotiations. The Code of Ethics provides that a public official may not participate in any official action when he or she has an interest, financial or otherwise, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her duties or employment in the public interest. A substantial conflict includes potential financial benefit for the official, a family member, or a business associate. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). Clearly, negotiating, voting, or otherwise participating with respect to the substantive provisions of a settlement agreement constitutes a substantial conflict. The Code of Ethics recognizes an exception to this prohibition if the potential financial benefit to the public official or, as in this instance, the official's family member, would accrue to him or her to no greater extent than any similarly situated member of a significant and definable class of persons within a particular business, profession, occupation or group. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(b).

The settlement negotiations here involve approximately 85 employees of the Division of Parks & Recreation, all members of Council 94, Local 2881. The Commission concludes that an employee group of approximately 85 members within a single division in, in this instance, the Department of Environmental Management, does not constitute such a significant and definable class of persons so as to trigger the 7(b) exception. In previous advisory opinions, the Commission has recognized 7(b) exceptions when a public official's actions would impact, for instance, all of the teachers in a school system, including an official's family member. Those opinions involved definable classes, however, much larger and more dispersed than the 85 workers found in the employee group here. Here, the Code of Ethics prohibits the Petitioner from participating in negotiations, votes or other substantive matters relating to or affecting the employee group of which her brother is a member. It does not, however, prohibit the Petitioner from providing technical, or non-subtantive, advice regarding a proposed settlement agreement.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-7(b)

Related Advisory Opinions:

97-52

96-66

96-19

Keywords:

class exception

family: public employment