Regulation 36-14-5002 -- Additional Circumstances Warranting Recusal
520-RICR-00-00-1 INACTIVE RULE
| Title | 520 | Ethics Commission |
| Chapter | 00 | N/A |
| Subchapter | 00 | N/A |
| Part | 1 | Regulation 36-14-5002 -- Additional Circumstances Warranting Recusal |
| Type of Filing | Amendment |
| Regulation Status | Inactive |
| Effective | 06/03/2012 to 05/25/2018 |
Regulation Authority:
R.I. Const. art. III, sec. 8; R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-9
Purpose and Reason:
This amendment would create two exceptions to circumstances warranting recusal. The first, at subsection (b)(1), is intended to clarify that these recusal requirements are not meant to apply when a family member, household member, business associate or employer comes before a public official's agency in a non-adversarial role, solely in his or her capacity as a duly authorized employee or member of another public body, and not in his or her private capacity, in order to share information or coordinate activities between the two public bodies. Examples of such situations might include (1) a town's school committee and town council holding a joint meeting to discuss budget strategies; or (2) two state agencies meeting together to discuss a joint venture. This exception would not apply if the public official, or his or her family member, household member, business associate or employer, has an independent financial interest in the matter. Subsection (b)(2) is meant to address situations in which the person appearing before the public body is not a party to the matter and has no individual financial interest in the matter, and merely wishes to offer his or her opinion as a member of the public on a matter of general public concern during a public comment period. For example, recusal would not be required if, during a town council discussion of whether to purchase private land for open space preservation, the spouse of a town council member spoke during the public comment period to offer an opinion as to the acquisition, provided that neither the town council member nor his spouse had an independent financial interest in the matter. There are no differences between the proposed rule and its final adopted form.
