Advisory Opinion No. 2020-4 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2020-4 Approved: January 7, 2020 Re: Joseph Reppucci QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a Principal Public Health Promotion Specialist for the Rhode Island Department of Health, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion regarding the application of the revolving door provisions of the Code of Ethics to his impending private employment with RPA: A Jensen Hughes Company, a private emergency management consulting company. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a Principal Public Health Promotion Specialist for the Rhode Island Department of Health, a state employee position, is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from representing himself or his private employer before the Rhode Island Department of Health until the expiration of one (1) year after he has officially severed his position with that agency. The Petitioner is further prohibited by the Code of Ethics from using any confidential information he obtained while working as a Principal Public Health Promotion Specialist for the Rhode Island Department of Health to financially benefit himself or his private employer. The Petitioner is a Principal Public Health Promotion Specialist at the Rhode Island Department of Health (“DOH”), where he has worked for the past ten years. He states that, in that capacity, he presently serves as the Hospital Preparedness Program Coordinator in the Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response, the mission of which is to “create and promote a state of readiness and prompt response to protect the health of Rhode Islanders during catastrophic events, large-scale disasters, and other types of emergencies.[1]” The Petitioner further states that, on January 10, 2020, he will leave his present position to start working for RPA: A Jensen Hughes Company (“RPA”), a private emergency management consulting company based in Connecticut. The Petitioner describes the work performed by RPA, both throughout the country and internationally, as including the design, implementation and support for evacuation plans for nursing homes and assisted living facilities in the event of a disaster. He adds that RPA has had a standing contract (“contract”) with the DOH since 2013, and explains that, while he participated in the development of the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) which led to the award of the contract to RPA, he has since not been involved with the terms or costs associated with that contract. The Petitioner states that in his new role with RPA he will be assisting with the development, coordination, and training for large-scale facility evacuation plans throughout New England, the rest of the country, and internationally. He further states that part of the contract between the DOH and RPA includes an annual education plan for managing disasters which may require the evacuation of residents from nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The Petitioner explains that the annual education plan includes three different training events, the first of which is an all-day event that is usually held in May. He further explains that the training events include training exercises designed to help meet the objectives set by the contract. The Petitioner represents that employees of the DOH are present at training events and, on occasion, participate in training exercises, adding that he has been present and participated in training events during his tenure at the DOH. The Petitioner represents that he will not solicit work from any Rhode Island entity or participate in the negotiation of any Rhode Island contracts for at least one year following the severance of his position with the DOH. He further represents that he will not participate in any training events run by the DOH for at least one year following the severance of his position with the DOH. It is in the context of these facts that the Petitioner seeks guidance from the Ethics Commission regarding the application of the revolving door provisions to his impending private employment with RPA. The Code of Ethics prohibits a public employee from representing himself or any other person before any state agency by which he is employed. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(e)(1) & (2). A “person” is defined as an individual or business entity. Section 36-14-2(7). This prohibition extends for a period of one year after the public employee has officially severed his position with the agency. Section 36-14-5(e)(4). The “revolving door” language of section 5(e) is designed to minimize any undue influence that a former employee may have over his former agency and colleagues by reason of his past employment there. Under the Code of Ethics, a person represents himself or another person before a state agency if “he participates in the presentation of evidence or arguments before that agency for the purpose of influencing the judgment of the agency in his [] own favor or in favor of [another] person.” Section 36-14-2(12) and (13); Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.1.4 Representing Oneself or Others, Defined (36-14-5016). In addition to section 5(e)’s post-employment restrictions, subsection 36-14-5(c) prohibits the use and/or disclosure of confidential information received through one’s public employment for pecuniary gain. The Ethics Commission has issued numerous advisory opinions interpreting section 36-14-5(e)(4)’s requirements with respect to former state employees interacting with their former agencies during the one year period following state employment. See, e.g., A.O. 2017-34 (opining that a former Principal Civil Engineer in the Bridge Design Section of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, while not prohibited from working for a private engineering firm upon his retirement, was prohibited by the Code of Ethics from representing himself or others, including his new private employer, or acting as an expert witness, before the Rhode Island Department of Transportation for a period of one year following the date of severance from his state employment and from using any confidential information he obtained while working for RIDOT for financial gain); A.O. 2017-13 (opining that a former Chief Plan Review Officer with the Rhode Island Division of State Fire Marshal was not prohibited from working for a private engineering and consulting firm specializing in fire protection, but was prohibited by the Code of Ethics from representing himself or others, including his new private employer, or acting as an expert witness, before the State Fire Marshal or its representatives for a period of one year following his state employment and from using any confidential information he obtained while working for the State Fire Marshal for financial gain). Contra A.O. 2019-50 (opining that the former Postsecondary Education Commissioner was not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from providing coaching services to representatives from Rhode Island agencies as part of her regular duties as a salaried employee or her new private employer, given that her private employer had been retained by a private third party to provide said coaching services). Here, as an employee of RPA, were the Petitioner to take part in a training event sponsored by the DOH within the first year of the severance of his position with that agency, he would be performing under a contract for which he had participated in the development of the RFP leading to its award. Further, it is reasonable to expect that any decision by the DOH regarding the contract with RPA, be it to renew or terminate it, would be influenced, if only in part, to RPA’s performance during a training event. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner’s representations that he will not solicit work from any Rhode Island entity, participate in the negotiation of any Rhode Island contracts, lead any projects in Rhode Island, or assist with any of the training events run by the DOH for at least one year following the severance of his position with the DOH are consistent with the restrictions within the revolving door provisions of the Code of Ethics and most appropriate. In the event of an actual emergency requiring evacuation, during which representatives from both the DOH and RPA would be on site and the role of RPA would be to provide guidance and technical support to the DOH, the Petitioner would not be prohibited from participating, as a salaried employee of RPA, regardless of whether one year had elapsed since the severance of his position with the DOA. Until the expiration of one year following the date of his retirement from state service, the Petitioner is advised, when in doubt, to seek further guidance from the Ethics Commission regarding the Code of Ethics’ potential application to his interactions with state agencies. Additionally, the Petitioner is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from using any confidential information he obtained while working as a Principal Public Health Promotion Specialist for the Rhode Island Department of Health to financially benefit himself or RPA. This Advisory Opinion is strictly limited to the facts stated herein and relates only to the application of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics. Under the Code of Ethics, advisory opinions are based on the representations made by, or on behalf of, a public official or employee and are not adversarial or investigative proceedings. Finally, this Commission offers no opinion on the effect that any other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional ethics may have on this situation. Code Citations: § 36-14-2(7) § 36-14-2(12) § 36-14-2(13) § 36-14-5(c) § 36-14-5(e) 520-RICR-00-00-1.1.4 Representing Oneself of Others, Defined (36-14-5016) Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2019-50 A.O. 2017-34 A.O. 2017-13 Keywords: Private Employment Revolving Door