Advisory Opinion No. 2006-32 Advisory Opinion No. 2006-32 Re: Samuel J. Shamoon QUESTION PRESENTED The petitioner, the former Director of the Department of Inspection and Standards for the City of Providence, a municipal appointed position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether he may represent a private client before the Downcity Design Review Committee which is staffed by the Department of Planning and Development. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, the former Director of the Department of Inspection and Standards for the City of Providence, a municipal appointed position, may represent a private client before the Downcity Design Review Committee which is staffed by the Department of Planning and Development. The petitioner informs that he was appointed to the position of Director of the Department Inspection and Standards (hereinafter “the Department”) for the City of Providence in April of 2003 and recently retired in March of 2006. The petitioner advises that as Director of the Department, he was responsible for leading and directing six (6) divisions which included Structures and Zoning, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Code Enforcement and Boards of Review. According to the petitioner, the Boards of Review include the Zoning Board of Review and the Building Board of Review. The petitioner advises that the primary mission of the Department was building code compliance and the issuance of building permits. The petitioner further advises that he is not representing private clients before the Department, the Zoning Board of Review or the Building Board of Review. The petitioner informs that immediately prior to his appointment as Director of the Department, he served as Director of Planning and Development for the City of Providence until February 28, 2003. The petitioner states that the Downcity Design Review Committee (hereinafter “the DRC”) is staffed by the Department of Planning and Development. The petitioner represents that since February 28, 2003, he has had no involvement with the DRC. The petitioner represents that he is currently self-employed as a private community planning consultant. He states that a private client has requested his assistance on a matter which requires the approval of the DRC. The petitioner represents that his proposed activity would be to meet with the Director of Planning and Development and his staff to review design issues. The petitioner advises that after meeting with Planning and Development, he would then represent his client before the DRC. The petitioner seeks guidance from the Commission as to whether his appearance before the DRC would violate the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics provides that the petitioner may not represent himself or any other person before any state or municipal agency of which he is a member or by which he 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 his position with the agency. This “revolving door” language is provided so as to minimize any influence the former public official may have in a matter before his former agency. 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, his official employment, particularly for the purpose of obtaining financial gain. 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 pre-existing contract with the City of Providence, except for ministerial activities). Here, the petitioner represents that he has not had any involvement with either the Department of Planning and Development or the DRC since February 28, 2003. As such, the one-year prohibitive period has long expired and is not applicable in the instant matter. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, based upon the petitioner’s representations, that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the petitioner from representing a private client before the DRC. Code Citations: 36-14-5(b) 36-14-5(c) 36-14-5(d) 36-14-5(e) Related Advisory Opinions: 99-128 98-92 Keywords: Private Employment Revolving Door