Advisory Opinion No. 2001-63

Re: Jennifer K. Bramley

QUESTION PRESENTED

The petitioner, Director of Communications for the Office of the General Treasurer, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether, upon her resignation from that position, she may contract with Alliance Capital to provide public relation services, given that Alliance Capital presently is under contract with the State.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the petitioner, Director of Communications for the Office of the General Treasurer, a state employee position, from contracting with Alliance Capital for the provision of public relation services upon her resignation from state employment, provided that 1) she does not have any personal involvement with a matter before her former agency that goes beyond ministerial activities for a period of one-year following her official severance of employment; and 2) she does not disclose confidential information obtained during the course of her state employment.

The Code of Ethics provides that the petitioner may not represent herself or any other person before any state or municipal agency of which she is a member or by which she is employed. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(e)(1), (2). Section 36-14-5(e)(4) extends these prohibitions for a period of one year after the petitioner has officially severed her position with the agency. This “revolving door” language is provided so as to minimize any influence the former public official may have in a consideration by her former agency that is not available to the general public. Further, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(b), (c) and (d) prohibit the use and/or disclosure of confidential information acquired by an official or employee during the course of or by reason of her official employment, particularly for the purpose of obtaining financial gain. Finally, a public official or employee may not accept any reward or promise of future employment in return for or based on any understanding or expectation that his or her vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(g).

Upon her resignation as the Director of Communications for the Office of the General Treasurer, the petitioner wishes to provide public relation services for Alliance Capital as an independent contractor. Alliance is under a five-year contract with the state to manage the state sponsored 529 college savings program, College Boundfund. The General Treasurer chairs the State Investment Commission, which oversees the investment of funds for the state’s 529 college savings program. In her state employ, the petitioner has worked with Alliance and the Rhode Island Higher Education Assistance Authority (RIHEA) on the College Boundfund. She advises that Alliance was chosen to manage the program in July 2000 pursuant to a RFP process involving a ten-member review committee which included representatives of the RIHEAA, the Rhode Island Student Loan Authority and the Treasurer’s Office. The petitioner participated in the unanimous recommendation of Alliance.

The petitioner’s proposed contract with Alliance would require her to market the savings program to the general public through media and community relations. She indicates that her duties would involve arranging community events and outreach opportunities, writing press releases, generating media attention for the program, and managing distribution of informational materials. She informs that Alliance does not receive state funds under its present contract and that she would be paid directly from Alliance funds. She further advises that she would have contact with the Treasurer’s Office as part of her public relations and marketing work for Alliance, such as scheduling outreach events, but that she would not act on its behalf in any dealings with that Office. Finally, she represents that the Treasurer’s Office does not direct or control the selection of Alliance’s public relations consultant.

The Commission consistently has concluded that under the very strict, but very clear, language of Section 5(e) public officials and employees may not appear before their own agency or board before the expiration of one year from their date of separation. See A.O. 99-125 (finding that a former Department of Health employee or his firm should not appear before his former Division in variance hearings for a period of one-year following the date of his official severance of employment with that agency); A.O. 98-92 (advising former Providence Department of Public Works employee that he should not appear before his former Department on behalf of his new employer on any matter, including the preexisting contract with the City of Providence, except for ministerial activities such as submitting or retrieving papers, submitting bills or invoices, or overseeing construction crews on behalf of his new employer, but may not make substantive presentations or appearances before the Department of Public Works on behalf of his employer); A.O. 98-11 (advising former DEM employee that he should not participate in matters that include substantive action or action that involves discretion, for example, a discussion about the applicability of a regulation or its interpretation); and A.O. 96-11 (concluding that a former Senior Budget Analyst should not represent himself, any other person or entity, or act as an expert witness before the State Budget Office for a period of one year after having officially severed his position with that office).

Although the Commission has concluded that individuals subject to the Code may not appear before their own agency or board prior to the expiration of one year from their date of separation, that prohibition does not extend to the performance of ministerial acts. See A.O. 99-108 (concluding that former Cranston Director of Economic Development could participate in a program explaining the City’s Deferred Compensation Program with her new private employer since she could not sign up employees for the program and therefore does not fall within the revolving door restrictions set out in Section 5(e)); A.O. 97-46 (concluding DEM engineer working in Office of Waste Management could submit material for approval to the DEM’s Office of Water Resources and Office of Compliance and Inspection as a private engineer so long as it was ministerial in nature and given that the petitioner did not have contact with the Office of Water Resources and Office of Inspection and Compliance in his position in the Office of Waste Management, nor exercise any supervisory or policy-making authority within the DEM that would extend to and/or affect those offices); and A.O. 98-5 (DHS Casework Supervisor in the East Providence Long Term Care Unit could accept private employment that may involve contact with the DHS so long as contact with East Providence Long Term Care Unit is ministerial in nature for a period of one-year from the date of separation). Cf. A.O. 98-96 (former employee of NBC may not appear before the Commission on behalf of his new employer on any matter, including the contract to design improvements and develop a comprehensive utility plan, except for ministerial activities such as submitting or retrieving papers until one year from his official date of severance from public employment).

The Commission concludes that the Code of Ethics does not per se prohibit the petitioner from accepting post-state service employment with Alliance Capital, a state contractor. However, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(e)(4), the petitioner may not have any personal involvement with a matter before the Office of the General Treasurer that goes beyond ministerial activities (e.g., hand delivering documents to or reviewing files at the agency) for a period of one-year following her official severance of employment with that agency. See A.O.2001-33 (opining that a DCYF employee could seek employment with a DCYF vendor upon retiring from state service, provided that she did not have personal involvement with matters within her former DCYF division for a one-year period). While routine telephone inquiries would be permitted under Section 5(e), the petitioner may not have any substantive involvement in matters before the General Treasurer’s Office during the one-year period following her resignation.

Section 5(e)’s revolving door restrictions do not extend to the petitioner having substantive involvement in matters before other state agencies or departments, provided that in her previous employment with the General Treasurer she did not exercise supervisory or policy-making authority within the particular division or agency. Further, the Commission does not have any evidence to suggest that Alliance offered the petitioner this position based on any actions she took as Director of Communications. Finally, the petitioner may not use any confidential information she obtained while working for the General Treasurer for financial gain. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(b), (c), (d).

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(b)

36-14-5(c)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-5(e)

36-14-5(g)

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

2001-52

2001-33

2001-26

2000-66

2000-60

2000-19

99-140

99-125

99-108

99-61

99-53

98-154

98-96

98-92

98-13

98-11

96-59

95-6

Keywords:

Post employment

Revolving door

Vendors