Advisory Opinion No. 2004-32

Re: Tracy L. Hall

QUESTION PRESENTED:

The petitioner, the Tax Collector for the Washington Fire District, a regional elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether she may serve in that position given that her husband is a firefighter in the Fire District.

RESPONSE:

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the petitioner from serving as the Tax Collector for the Washington Fire District, a regional elected position, notwithstanding the fact that her husband is a firefighter in the Fire District.

The petitioner represents that she was recently elected to the position of Tax Collector for the Washington Fire District. She asks whether she may serve in that capacity given the fact that her husband is a firefighter in the same district.

Consistent with past opinions, we find that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the petitioner from serving as the Washington Fire District Tax Collector solely by reason of the District's employment of her husband as a firefighter. See A.O. 2004-21 (petitioner may serve on Nasonville Fire District Operating Committee notwithstanding fact that his father is Chief of the Nasonville Fire Department); A.O. 2004-14 (member of Tiogue Fire District Board may continue to serve in that capacity notwithstanding fact that her spouse is employed as a firefighter in that District); A.O. 2002-53 (petitioner may serve as Hopkins Hill Fire District Tax Collector despite fact that her husband serves as Fire Chief of the District); A.O. 99-073 (member of Nasonville Fire District Operating Committee may continue to serve in that capacity notwithstanding fact that her spouse was elected Chief of the Nasonville Volunteer Fire Department).

In general, the Code of Ethics requires a public official to recuse from taking any official action that is likely to have a direct financial impact on, among others, a family member. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), 5(d) and 7(a). The petitioner has not identified any of the Tax Collector's specific duties, nor has she asked the Commission to opine as to whether the performance of any such duties may be prohibited by the Code given her spouse's position within the district. In the absence of such details, the Commission will not hypothesize as to what provisions of the Code may restrict the petitioner's performance of her duties.

In conclusion, by this opinion the Commission merely holds that the petitioner is not prohibited from serving in the position as Tax Collector of the Washington Fire District. As particular issues arise involving the performance of the Tax Collector's official duties, including whether to recuse from participating in matters that may impact her spouse, the petitioner may seek further and specific guidance from the Commission.

Code Citations:

36-14-5(a)

36-14-5(d)

36-14-7(a)

Related Advisory Opinions:

2004-21

2004-14

2002-53

99-073

GCA-1

Keywords:

Family: Public Employment

Family: Supervision

Nepotism