Advisory Opinion No. 2015-6 Approved: February 3, 2015 Re: Keven Miller QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a member of the Chariho School Committee, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits his participation in the School Committee’s review of a disciplinary appeal filed by a parent with whom he had previously communicated and discussed the School District’s bullying policies. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Chariho School Committee, a municipal elected position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the School Committee’s review of a disciplinary appeal filed by a parent with whom he had previously communicated and discussed the School District’s bullying policies, given his representations that he has no personal financial interest in this appeal, and this parent is neither his business associate nor family member. The Petitioner is a member of the Chariho School Committee (“School Committee”), which is a regional school district for the Towns of Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton. He represents that a parent of a child emailed the School Committee with concerns regarding the Chariho School District’s (“School District”) bullying policy, specifically relating to instances of bullying involving his child. The parent’s email, attached to the Petitioner’s advisory opinion request letter, stated that the parent would like to work with the School Committee to improve the bullying policy. The Petitioner states that he reached out to this parent via email and shared his willingness to discuss the parent’s concerns about School District policies. He represents that he later spoke to this parent on the telephone and suggested that the parent send the School Committee a more concise list of concerns and alleged policy violations. He further represents that he advised this parent that he would put an item on the School Committee’s executive session agenda for general discussion of the School District’s bullying policies. Thereafter, the Petitioner informs that during the executive session the bullying policies agenda item was ruled out of order by other School Committee members and it never occurred. He states that he has since learned that this parent appealed the School District’s disciplinary decision relative to his child. He advises that this appeal may be heard by the School Committee. Given his prior communication with the parent, questions were raised as to whether the Petitioner has a conflict of interest in this matter. The Petitioner represents that this parent is neither his business associate nor family member and that he has no personal financial interest in this case. He states that he only reached out to the parent in his capacity as a School Committee member. He represents that he intended to initiate a dialogue on the bullying policies and has not prejudged the parent’s particular allegations. He informs that he can participate as a School Committee member in evaluating the parent’s appeal in a fair and objective manner. 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). The Code of Ethics also 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 business by which he is employed or whom he represents. Section 36-14-5(d). In the instant matter, the issue is whether, under the Code of Ethics, the Petitioner’s prior communications with this parent relative to the School District’s bullying policies require him to recuse from the parent’s appeal. The Petitioner states that he has no personal financial interest in this appeal, and this parent is neither his business associate nor family member. Based upon these representations, we find that there is no relationship between the Petitioner and this parent that would trigger the prohibitions contained in the Code of Ethics. For all of these reasons, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the School Committee’s review of a disciplinary appeal filed by a parent with whom he had previously communicated and discussed the School District’s bullying policies, given his representations that he has no personal financial interest in this appeal, and this parent is neither his business associate nor family member. This Advisory Opinion is strictly limited to the facts stated herein and relates only to the application of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics. We offer no opinion as to whether recusal is required for reasons outside of the Code of Ethics, such as bias. See Champlin’s Realty Assoc. v. Tikoian, 989 A.2d 427 (R.I. 2010). Under the Code of Ethics, advisory opinions are based on the representations made by, or on behalf of, a public official or employee and are not adversarial or investigative proceedings. Finally, this Commission offers no opinion on the effect that any other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional ethics may have on this situation. Code Citations: § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-7(a) Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2013-9 A.O. 2012-5 Keywords: Bias Recusal