Advisory Opinion No. 2008-52 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2008-52 Re: Michael Bouchard QUESTION PRESENTED The petitioner, a patrolman with the Burrillville Police Department, a municipal employee position, requests an advisory opinion as to whether he is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from accepting an assignment to work a detail at one of the designated polling places in the upcoming general election in the Town of Burrillville, given that his spouse is seeking election to a seat on the Burrillville Town Council. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the petitioner, a patrolman with the Burrillville Police Department, a municipal employee position, is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from accepting an assignment to work a detail at one of the designated polling places in the upcoming general election in the Town of Burrillville, given that his spouse is seeking election to a seat on the Burrillville Town Council. The petitioner is a patrolman with the Burrillville Police Department (“police department”). Additionally, the petitioner states that his spouse is running for a seat on the Burrillville Town Council in the upcoming general election. He states that the police department will be posting overtime and assigning officers to work at the designated polling places in Burrillville in the upcoming general election. He describes the duties of that detail as generally securing the premises of the polling location, ensuring that candidates do not come within fifty feet of the door of the polling place, and providing a general police presence to secure the safety of the voters and those working at the polling facility. He represents that while serving on the detail, he would have no discretionary authority in his capacity as a police officer that would have the potential to affect the outcome of the election or the candidacy of his spouse, or anyone else, nor would he have any involvement whatsoever in the actual polling process or supervision over the persons implementing the process or the procedures utilized to effectuate the election. He further states that the Chief of Police of the Town of Burrillville has informed him that prior to working a detail at one of the polling places during the election, he must obtain an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission finding that he is not prohibited from working such a detail, notwithstanding the fact that his spouse is a candidate in the election. Finally, the petitioner represents that he contacted the Board of Elections and that that entity also suggested he request an advisory opinion from this Commission. Under the Code of Ethics, a public official 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 in the public interest. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). An official will have an interest in substantial conflict with his official duties if he has a reason to believe or expect that a “direct monetary gain” or a “direct monetary loss” will accrue, by virtue of the public official's actions, to the official, a family member, a business associate, an employer, or any business which the public official represents. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-7(a). The Code further provides that the petitioner shall not engage in any employment that would impair his independence of judgment as to his public duties. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(b). He also is prohibited from using his public position or confidential information received through his position to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(d). This Commission has had prior occasion to address the issue of municipal employees whose family members are seeking election when there exists some intersection between the employees’ duties and the election process. See, e.g., A.O. 2003-69 (opining that a mail ballot clerk for the City of East Providence Board of Canvassers may continue to serve in that position, notwithstanding her spouse’s potential candidacy for a seat on the East Providence City Council, provided that she does not exercise discretionary or decision-making authority with respect to the City Council election); A.O. 2000-75 (opining that a file clerk at the Board of Canvassers in the City of Cranston may continue to exercise all of her duties in that position, notwithstanding her spouse’s candidacy for City Council, given the petitioner’s representation that her position does not involve exercising discretionary authority that could affect her spouse’s candidacy). What differentiates this petitioner’s circumstances from those described in prior advisory opinions is that the petitioner acknowledges that one of his primary duties on the detail would be ensuring that none of the candidates comes within fifty feet of the polling location; this would involve the use of discretionary authority which could affect the candidacy of his spouse and/or other Town Council candidates. Such participation would constitute a substantial conflict with the discharge of his public duties and/or a use of position for financial gain for a family member. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 36-14-5(a), 36-14-7(a), 36-14-5(d). Thus, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that this petitioner is prohibited from working a detail in his capacity as a police officer at one of the polling places in the forthcoming general election in the Town of Burrillville, given that his spouse is a candidate for Town Council in that election. Code Citations : 36-14-5(a) 36-14-5(b) 36-14-5(d) 36-14-7(a) Related Advisory Opinions : A.O. 2003-69 A.O. 2000-75 Keywords : Candidate Election