Advisory Opinion No. 2013-22 Advisory Opinion No. 2013-22 Re: Bryan K. Barros MSW, LCSW QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioner, a Department of Corrections Probation Officer, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from providing counseling services in his private capacity at Bridgemark Addiction Recovery Services. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a Department of Corrections Probation Officer, a state employee position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from providing counseling services in his private capacity at Bridgemark Addiction Recovery Services, provided that he does not participate in any activities involving individuals currently in his Department of Corrections caseload, and that all such work is performed on his own time and without the use of public resources or confidential information obtained as part of his public employment. The Petitioner is an Adult Probation Officer with the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“DOC”). He states that he works full-time, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., in the Washington County Regional Probation Office at the Washington County Courthouse. He informs that he presently has a caseload of approximately 165 offenders. He states that probation is the community supervision of an offender in lieu of incarceration, with conditions imposed by the court for a specified period during which the court retains authority to modify the conditions or to resentence the offender should they violate the conditions. He states that his duties include meeting with probationers to monitor progress with court ordered conditions, filing reports with the District and Superior Courts, and court coverage once a week in the 4th Division District Court. In his private capacity, the Petitioner is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (“LCSW”) in Rhode Island. He states that he would like to become a Rhode Island certified Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker, but he is not eligible until he has more clinical experience, under appropriate supervision, as an LCSW.[1] Therefore, the Petitioner seeks advice as to whether he may work as a substance abuse and mental health counselor at Bridgemark Addiction Recovery Services[2] (“Bridgemark”) in Warwick, Rhode Island. He states that he would work at Bridgemark one day per week, after his normal DOC work hours, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. He informs that his duties at Bridgemark would include providing individual and group counseling sessions and conducting initial assessments for new patients. To avoid any conflicts of interest, the Petitioner represents that while at Bridgemark he would not participate in any activities, including individual or group counseling, assessments, paperwork or discussions, involving individuals currently in his DOC caseload. He represents that he will not reveal any confidential information that he obtained as part of his public employment during the course of his private employment at Bridgemark. He states that he will not use any state equipment or resources for his private employment. He informs that, although he has referred a few probationers to Bridgemark in the past, it was a rare occurrence because his probationers reside in Washington County and are generally referred to facilities in that region. However, he represents that if permitted to work at Bridgemark he will not refer any probationer there and would transfer any probationer who relocates to the Warwick area to a probation officer in Kent County. Under the Code of Ethics, a public official may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest exists if an official has reason to believe or expect that he, any person within his family, a business associate or an employer will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). Additionally, the Code prohibits a public official from using his public office or confidential information received through his public office to obtain financial gain for himself, his family, his business associate, or any person by which he is employed or whom he represents. Section 36-14-5(d). Finally, the Code of Ethics provides that a public official shall not accept other employment that would impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties or require or induce him to disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties. Section 36-14-5(b). The Commission has issued a number of analogous advisory opinions in which it has given approval for DOC employees to accept outside employment. See e.g. A.O. 2001-77 (opining that a DOC Probation and Parole Counselor could accept private employment facilitating domestic violence group sessions at the CODAC Treatment Centers, provided that she did not participate in activities at CODAC, including paperwork and/or discussion, where individuals in her DOC probation caseload were involved); A.O. 96-72 (opining that a DOC Probation and Parole Counselor could simultaneously work at Kent House as a counselor provided that he did not participate in any activities at Kent House, including paperwork or discussion, involving individuals in his DOC caseload). Contra A.O. 2006-8 (opining that a DOC Probation and Parole Supervisor was prohibited from accepting a part-time position to provide counseling and administrative services to a private counseling program where his subordinates referred probationers). In the present matter, the Petitioner seeks to work as a substance abuse counselor at Bridgemark in Warwick. To avoid any conflicts with his public employment, the Petitioner represents that he will not participate in any activities, including individual or group counseling, assessments, paperwork or discussions, involving individuals currently in his DOC caseload. He further represents that his private employment will occur on his own time, after his normal DOC work hours. He states that he will neither reveal any confidential information obtained during his public employment nor use any state equipment or resources for his private employment. He represents that he will not refer any patients to Bridgemark while he is employed there in his private capacity. Given the above representations, and assuming that the Petitioner’s position as a Probation Officer does not require him to disclose to the DOC information about probationers and parolees that he learns while off duty, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from providing counseling services in his private capacity at Bridgemark. This opinion solely addresses the Code of Ethics and provides no opinion as to whether such outside employment is permissible under the policies of the Department of Corrections, or pursuant to any other policy, statute or rule. Code Citations: § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(b) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-7(a) Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2011-41 A.O. 2009-17 A.O. 2006-8 A.O. 2001-77 A.O. 96-7 Keywords: Private Employment [1] A “licensed clinical social worker” is permitted to practice clinical social work, whether in a private practice or in association with a public or private agency or institution. A “licensed independent social worker” is permitted to practice clinical social work autonomously, whether in private practice or in association with a public or private agency or institution. R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-39.1-3; R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-39.1-8 (licensing requirements for social workers). [2] Bridgemark was formerly known as Kent House.