Advisory Opinion No. 2015-13 Approved: March 24, 2015 Re: Steven A. Stycos QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a member of the Cranston City Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from accepting a gift from the daughter of a former Cranston City Council member. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Cranston City Council, a municipal elected position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from accepting a gift from the daughter of a former Cranston City Council member. The Petitioner is a member of the Cranston City Council (“City Council”), having continuously served in that position since first being elected in 2010. He states that he represents Ward 1, which includes the Pawtuxet Village and Edgewood sections of Cranston. The Petitioner informs that Polly Toy Barey, a resident of Warwick, would like to give to him a set of cuff links owned by her late father, Paul Toy. He states that Mr. Toy was on the City Council in the 1950s and he also represented Pawtuxet Village. The Petitioner states that Ms. Barey does not have any business relationships with the City of Cranston (“City”). He represents that he does not know the value of the cuff links.[1] Cognizant of the Code of Ethics, the Petitioner seeks advice as to whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from accepting this gift from Ms. Barey. Commission Regulation 36-14-5009 (“Regulation 5009”) provides that no public official shall accept a gift valued at more than twenty-five dollars ($25) from an “interested person.” Regulation 5009(b). An “interested person” is defined as a person or a representative of a person or business “that has a direct financial interest in a decision that the person subject to the Code of Ethics is authorized to make, or participate in the making of, as part of his or her official duties.” Regulation 5009(c). For example, in Advisory Opinion 2013-4, the Commission opined that ProvPort, a non-profit corporation that operates the Port of Providence (“Port”) pursuant to an agreement with the City of Providence (“City”), was an “interested person” as to the petitioner, the City’s Director of Economic Development, because the petitioner was personally involved in renegotiating ProvPort’s lease with the City, and he supervised the agency which had the authority to approve or reject ProvPort’s budget. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the petitioner was prohibited by Regulation 5009 from allowing ProvPort to pay for his travel expenses related to Port issues. See also A.O. 2012-3 (opining that vendors and businesses that do business with the City of Pawtucket were “interested persons” as to the various City officials who may make decisions regarding those businesses, including the Director of Administration and the Economic Development Director); A.O. 2007-28 (opining, inter alia, that the O’Neill Properties Group (“O’Neill”) was an “interested person” as to the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resource Center, because O’Neill had proposed development projects in the area for which the Coastal Resources Center was charged with developing the Special Area Management Plan). In contrast to the above cited advisory opinions, the facts represented by the Petitioner do not indicate that Ms. Barey has an interest in any decision that the Petitioner is authorized to make as a member of the City Council. The Petitioner states that Ms. Barey is a resident of Warwick and does not have any business relationships with the City. Therefore, Ms. Barey is not an “interested person” as to the Petitioner. 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 accepting Ms. Barey’s gift of cuff links that belonged to her father, a former Cranston City Council 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. 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: Commission Regulation 36-14-5009 Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2013-4 A.O. 2012-3 A.O. 2007-8 Keywords: Gifts [1] In general, it is the responsibility of the public official to ascertain the fair market value of a gift prior to accepting it. For purposes of this advisory opinion, we are presuming that the cuff links are worth more than $25. If the cuff links are worth less than $25, the gift would not be prohibited by the Code of Ethics, even if it was from an “interested person.” See Commission Regulation 36-14-5009(b) & (c).