Advisory Opinion No. 2003-63

Re: Paul Andreozzi

QUESTION PRESENTED

The petitioner, the Information Systems Manager for the Town of Johnston, a municipal employee position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether his sister, the owner and operator of Clerkapps, Inc., a consulting firm hired by the Town of Johnston, may share office space with him provided that he does not supervise, approve or delegate work to his sister.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Information Systems Manager for the Town of Johnston, a municipal employee position, from sharing office space with his sister, the owner and operator of Clerkapps, a consulting firm hired by the Town of Johnston, provided that he does not supervise, approve or delegate work to his sister.

The petitioner is employed as the Information Systems Manager for the Town of Johnston. In that capacity, the petitioner represents that he is responsible for installing, configuring, administrating and maintaining the Town’s networks, building networks and maintaining external and internal web presence, performing system backups on prewritten software as well as printer and desktop operating system support. The Town of Johnston hired a consulting firm, Clerkapps, which is owned and operated by the petitioner’s sister. Clerkapps is responsible for developing software applications proprietary to the Town of Johnston for departments that request specialized software applications. The petitioner states that his sister writes the software from a computer in his office since that is the location where there is space available and where the concentration is needed. The petitioner represents that the end user or department for which she is writing the software certifies all work. Further, the petitioner states that he does not assign his sister work. He represents that his only interaction with her is to inform her when there is a need to write another application for a department, since his office is the center of the computer services for the Town. Finally, he represents that all invoices from Clerkapps will be approved by the department for which the work is performed.

Under the Code of Ethics, the petitioner may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties and employment in the public interest. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). The petitioner will have an interest in substantial conflict with his official duties if he has reason to believe or expect that a “direct monetary gain” or a “direct monetary loss” will accrue, by virtue of his official activity, to himself, a family member, a business associate, or any business by which he is employed or which he represents. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). Additionally, a public official or employee may not use his public position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for himself or any member of his family. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d).

In General Commission Advisory (GCA) No. 1, the Commission applied and interpreted these provisions to specific nepotism concerns. In that opinion, the Commission recognized that the cited provisions would prohibit a public official or employee from participating in personnel decisions regarding another family member. Specifically, the Commission recognized in GCA No. 1 that, in addition to hiring decisions, the public official or employee would be prohibited from having any significant involvement in decisions concerning reappointment, promotion, or reclassification of a family member. This necessarily includes job performance evaluations since they play a role in job retention, promotion, and other job-related benefits of financial interest to the employee. Additionally, in GCA No. 1, the Commission found that not only is the public official or employee prohibited from participating in personnel decisions affecting his family member, he is also prohibited from delegating this authority to a subordinate since "the official is in a position to choose and influence the person most likely to favor [his] family member." In a series of advisory opinions since the issuance of GCA No. 1, the Commission has considered whether, in light of the relevant Code provisions and GCA 1, particular public officials or employees would be able to work for the same public agency or entity as other family members. The Commission has declined to adopt a blanket or absolute prohibition against one family member serving in a department or agency in which another family member has supervisory responsibilities. Rather, the Commission generally has taken the position that a public official or employee serving in a supervisory capacity will satisfy the requirements of the State’s Code of Ethics by recusing from participation in matters directly affecting his/her family member.

Here, the petitioner is not responsible for the supervision of his sister nor is he involved in any personnel matter that would directly affect his sister. Furthermore, the petitioner represents that the only interaction he would have with his sister is the sharing of office space and the conveyance of information received by his office. As such, based on the representations made by the petitioner that he cannot use his position to directly affect his sister the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the petitioner from sharing office space with his sister.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

2002-48

2002-43

2001-36

2001-35

2000-89

2000-81

2000-59

2000-42

99-131

98-119

97-140

GCA 1

Keywords:

Family: public employment

Family: supervision

Nepotism