Advisory Opinion No. 98-162

Re: Joseph A. Terranova

QUESTION PRESENTED

The petitioner, a Westerly School Committee member, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether (1) he may serve as Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Westerly School Committee (2) participate in negotiations with the teachers to develop a new contract given that his spouse is an elementary teacher; and (3) he may vote as a member of the Westerly School Committee.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, a Westerly School Committee member, a municipal elected position, may vote on matters relating to teacher contracts as a member of the School Committee provided that his spouse, a teacher in the school system, is not affected individually by the contract, except as a member of the entire class of teachers in the system. The petitioner also may participate in contract negotiations provided that it is not reasonably foreseeable that terms of the contract to be considered could affect his spouse individually. Additionally, the petitioner may serve as Chairperson or Vice Chairperson for the School Committee to the same extent that he may participate as a member as to matters concerning family members. This opinion is based on and limited by Section 7(b) of the Code which provides that the petitioner may participate in actions as a public official so long as they do not affect him or his family to any greater extent than any other similarly situated member of a significant and definable class.

The Ethics Commission has concluded in past advisory opinions that School Committee members with family members in the school system could participate in negotiations and voting on the contract so long as the family members were part of a significant and definable class; for example, all of the teachers in a school system. Correspondingly, the Commission has concluded that School Committee members with family members in the school system may not participate in negotiations or voting when a matter concerning a family member's subset of teachers (e.g., nurses or teachers aides) or the family member individually came before them. See A.O. 97-65 and A.O. 95-23. In situations requiring recusal the petitioner should follow the dictates of Section 6 of the Code and complete a recusal form, filing a copy with the Ethics Commission.

(Note that the issue of whether the class exception should apply to school committee/family member issues has been discussed at various junctures over the years by the Commission. Additionally, whether there should be more restrictions for negotiating contracts since one does not know at the outset whether or to what extent all the persons subject to the contract will be treated the same has been in issue in this and in other contexts. See A.O. 92-53 (concluding that a Tiverton School Committee member could not participate in negotiations of the new teachers' contract because his spouse is a teacher covered by that contract). See also various opinions issues to legislators finding that they could not participate in negotiations related to pension benefits for state workers and teachers since they had an interest and because the class exception could not be applied because of the tentative nature of which groups would be significant and definable during the negotiations. A.O. 95-54, A.O. 95-55, A.O. 95-56, A.O. 95-63, A.O. 95-64, A.O. 95-69, A.O. 95-70, A.O. 95-75.)

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-7(b)

Related Advisory Opinions:

98-130

97-118

97-86

97-65

97-52

95-54

95-56

95-63

95-64

95-69

95-70

95-75

95-23

94-44

94-29

94-27

92-53

Keywords:

Class exception

Contracts

Family: public employment