Advisory Opinion No. 2017-41 Rhode Island Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 2017-41 Approved: September 12, 2017 Re: Steven J. Williams QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a member of the Charlestown Town Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he may participate in the Town Council’s consideration of increasing the amount of a tax credit available to veterans, given that he is a veteran who is eligible for the existing tax credit. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a member of the Charlestown Town Council, a municipal elected position, may participate in the Town Council’s consideration of increasing the amount of a tax credit available to veterans, notwithstanding that he is a veteran who is eligible for the existing tax credit. In accordance with the Code of Ethics class exception, the Petitioner would be affected by the amendments under discussion to no greater or lesser extent than the significant and definable class of all currently eligible veterans. The Petitioner is a member of the Charlestown Town Council (“Town Council”). He states that the Town Council wishes to consider amending an ordinance which currently grants a $150 property tax credit to veterans. The Petitioner represents that the Town Council has indicated that it will soon take up discussions relative to the veterans’ tax credit ordinance with an eye toward potentially increasing the amount of the existing $150 tax credit. The Petitioner states that he is already qualified to receive the existing veterans’ tax credit. However, he notes that he would be impacted by any increase in the tax credit, as would approximately 528 other Charlestown residents who are currently qualified to receive the credit. Based on these representations, the Petitioner asks whether the Code of Ethics permits his participation in the Town Council’s discussions and voting relative to amending the ordinance. Under the Code of Ethics, the Petitioner may not participate in the Town Council’s discussions or voting relative to any matters in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a). A substantial conflict of interest occurs if the Petitioner has reason to believe or expect that he or a family member, employer or business associate will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity. Section 36-14-7(a). However, the above prohibitions contain a “class exception” which states that a public official will not have an interest in substantial conflict with his public duties if any benefit or detriment accrues to him or his family member, employer or business associate “as a member of a . . . group, or of any significant and definable class of persons within the . . . group, to no greater extent than any other similarly situated member of the . . . group, or the significant and definable class of persons within . . . group.” Section 36-14-7(b). In analogous past advisory opinions, the Commission has applied the 7(b) class exception to allow town councilor members who were over the age of 65 to participate and vote on ordinances to freeze the property taxes of residents who are over the age of 65. For example, in A.O. 2002-27 the Commission opined that an Exeter Town Councilor could participate and vote on a tax freeze ordinance where he was one of some 350 Exeter homeowners that could benefit from the ordinance. Similarly, in Advisory Opinions 2002-10 and 2002-11, the Commission applied section 7(b) to determine that town councilors over age 65 could participate and vote on a proposed Town of East Greenwich tax freeze ordinance that would affect 660 East Greenwich homeowners. Prior to those advisory opinions, the Commission had applied the 7(b) class exception to other matters involving large groups, such as all members of a community, all hunters, all state pension recipients or all teachers within a school system. In the instant matter, the Petitioner is one of approximately 528 Charlestown residents who qualify for the existing veterans’ tax credit. While the Petitioner would be financially impacted by a change in the amount of the tax credit, he represents that he would be impacted to no greater or lesser extent than the approximately 528 other residents who are currently eligible for the credit. Under such circumstances, the Ethics Commission concludes that the class exception set forth in section 7(b) applies and the Petitioner may participate in discussions and voting relative to amending the ordinance in the ways described herein. In the event that that Town Council’s discussions veer into amending the ordinance in ways that impact the Petitioner individually, or as a member of a much smaller class or subclass of veterans, the Petitioner must either recuse from participation or seek additional guidance from the Ethics Commission. Upon recusal, a statement of conflict of interest must be filed with the Town Council and the Ethics Commission pursuant to section 36-14-6. 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: § 36-14-5(a) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-6 § 36-14-7(a) § 36-14-7(b) Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2002-27 A.O. 2002-11 A.O. 2002-10 Keywords: Class exception