Advisory Opinion No. 97-90

Re: George R. Roy

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, member of the Town of Lincoln Budget Board, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether there are conflicts given his private employment as the Executive Director of Healthcare Management and Billing Services, Inc. which intends to bid for the Town's rescue billing services.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, member of the Lincoln Budget Board, a municipal appointed position, may not participate in discussions or votes on matters pertaining to the Town of Lincoln's Rescue billing services if his employer is a likely bidder. The Commission interprets the prohibition against participation in the broadest possible terms. While the public forum exception to such prohibitions contained in Commission Regulation 36-14-7003 allows public officials to express viewpoints in forums generally available to the public, no substantive participation in any discussions are allowed under the Code of Ethics by an official acting in any official capacity.

Additionally, if the Petitioner has any substantive participation in the bid development process, that participation would preclude his employer from submitting a bid for those services. The Code of Ethics, R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14- 5(h) requires an open and public bid process. The Commission previously has ruled that officials who participated in the bid development process would place themselves, their family members or their business associates in a privileged position with respect to other bidders and consequently diminish, if not eliminate, the "open and public process" required under the Code. Based on the Code of Ethics, the Petitioner's employer can bid on the billing services only if the Petitioner has not participated in the bid development process as Budget Board Member. Recusal from participation until the selection of a contractor has been made would foreclose the possibility of his employer receiving an unfair advantage or gain. Additionally, if the Petitioner's employer is unsuccessful in bidding on the project, or doesn't bid at all, the Petitioner could then renew his participation in the project as a Budget Board Member. Conversely, if his employer were successful, the Petitioner must recuse from those matters pursuant to Section 6 of the Code, which also requires that a recusal statement be filed with his appointing authority and the Ethics Commission.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-7(a)

36-14-5(h)

Related Advisory Opinions:

97-84

97-83

97-72

97-66

97-50

97-37

97-35

97-24

97-15

95-116

95-104

95-90

95-60

95-41

95-24

95-16

 

Keywords:

contracts

private employment