Advisory Opinion No. 98-40

Re: The Honorable Eileen S. Naughton

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Petitioner, a legislator serving as a State Representative, a state elected position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether she may participate and vote on 1) a resolution to establish a state Oral Health Advocate and 2) a bill relating to dentists and dental hygienists, given the fact that her spouse is a dentist.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a legislator serving as a State Representative, a state elected position, may participate and vote on 1) a resolution to establish a state Oral Health Advocate and 2) a bill relating to dentists and dental hygienists, notwithstanding the fact that her spouse is a dentist.

The Petitioner advises that the House of Representatives will be considering a resolution to establish a state Oral Health Advocate, as well as a bill prohibiting any non-licensed person from directing the practice of dentistry. Under the proposed resolution the qualifications for the position of Oral Health Advocate include possessing a Masters Degree in Public Health or certificate in public health. Neither the Petitioner nor her spouse have such a degree and as a result could not be eligible for the position. Therefore, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Petitioner from participating and/or voting on the resolution because it will have no effect on the financial or business interests of her or her spouse.

Further, in General Commission Advisory No. 13, the Commission found that legislators may participate and/or vote on legislation affecting the financial interests of their spouses when it would not affect the spouse’s interests to any “greater or lesser extent than the interests of all other members of the affected group or profession to which the spouse … belongs." See also R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(b). In this case, both the proposed resolution regarding an Oral Health Advocate and the proposed legislation regarding the practice of dentistry would affect all dentists and dental hygienists in Rhode Island to the same extent. The Commission concludes that the Petitioner’s participation and/or vote would not be in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of her duties in the public interest because it falls within the section 7(b), or class, exception to the conflict of interest laws. The Commission also notes that the type of legislation at issue here, involving broad-based issues of public policy, is precisely the type of legislative activity contemplated by the section 7(b) exception. Finally, consistent with the requirements of the law governing notice and recusal, the Petitioner should file a section 6 (R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-6) notice with the Ethics Commission and the House of Representatives. The notice should detail her spouse’s business and financial interests, and the reasons why, despite these interests, she is able to vote objectively, fairly, and in the public interest on the resolution and legislation at issue here.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-6

36-14-7(a)

36-14-7(b)

Related Advisory Opinions:

98-14

97-79

97-75

96-71

95-55

GCA 13

Keywords:

Class exception