Opinion

Opinion  EC-COI-79-56

Date: 04/12/1979
Organization: State Ethics Commission

The Ethics Commission will not render conflict opinions based on abstract, hypothetical questions. A state employee may perform consulting services on a topic which neither involves nor constitutes a "particular matter" in which the state is a party or has a "direct and substantial interest". He could also perform these consulting services if he left state service, since his services would not relate to any matter in which he had participated.

Discussion

You are a full-time employee of a state agency. You ask whether you can, without violating General Laws Chapter 268A, conduct certain consulting work outside of your normal working hours. In rendering this opinion, the Commission has been guided by, and will continue to follow for the near future, the interpretations and opinions of the attorney General issued prior to November 1, 1978, the effective date of the Commission's jurisdiction over Chapter 268A matters.

You have provided us with a list of "typical assignments" which you have taken in the past and might expect to take in the future. The Commission renders conflict opinions only when presented with specific questions relating to potential conflict situations which exist or are imminent. It does not rule on abstract, hypothetical questions. This same policy is followed by others having responsibility for the issuance of advisory opinions. See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 1977 Mass. Adv. Sh. 1814; 1Opinion of the Justices 1977 Mass. Adv. Sh. 1737;347 Mass. 797 (1964); 1977-78 Opinion of the Attorney General No.18. You have informed us that there is at this time only one consulting assignment which you are considering undertaking. We will limit our opinion to that assignment. If, in the future, questions arise under Chapter 268A as to then existing or imminent fact patterns,  you may request an additional opinion from us.

You wish to perform consulting services for a federal agency or for a private Corporation, under contract with the federal agency. You would plan and implement a program of information distribution for local officials with regard to a particular topic.

As a state employee, § 4 prohibits you from receiving compensation from, or acting as agent or attorney for, anyone other than the Commonwealth or a state agency in connection with any "particular matter" in which the Commonwealth or a state agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. This consulting service neither involves nor constitutes a "particular matter" in which the Commonwealth or a state agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. You also ask whether your conduct of certain activities would constitute a conflict of interest if you were to leave state employment.  Again, we confine ourselves to discussing whether you could, upon leaving the state agency, undertake the particular consulting work currently under consideration. § 5(a) prohibits a former state employee from receiving compensation from any source other than the Commonwealth or a state agency in connection with any "particular matter" in which the Commonwealth or a state agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest and in which he participated as a state employee. Since you state that the state agency has never taken an active interest in this topic or the education of local officials with regard to such, you will not, by conducting the proposed consulting service, be receiving compensation in connection with any matter in which you "participated" as a state employee.

While we do not find a conflict in the specific arrangements addressed here, please note that the Commission can and will render no opinion on whether your acceptance of outside employment violates any terms of your employment contract with the state agency.

 

End Of Decision 

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback