You are a member of the General Court, and you are employed by Company, a construction company which has contracts with various state agencies. The Company has offered you a new position. In that position, you would be responsible for, among other things, advising and assisting the company on state government relations, processing all requests for certain licenses and permits and attending meetings when required. You advise us that you would not be responsible for or participate in the preparation of bids, the estimating of prices or quantities, negotiations with subcontractors, or any other matters relating to competitive bidding or contract awards.
You ask whether it would be a conflict of interest under General Laws Chapter 268A for you to accept this new position with the Company.
In rendering this opinion, the Commission has been guided by and will continue to follow for the near future, the opinions of the Attorney General rendered prior to November 1, 1978, the effective date of the Commission's jurisdiction over Chapter 268A matters. Furthermore, in rendering this opinion the Commission has relied upon the facts as you have stated them and has not made an independent analysis of those facts. You are a state employee but as a member of the General Court you are exempt from the prohibitions of § 4(a) and § 4(c) by the fifth paragraph of § 4, as amended by Chapter 210 of the Acts of 1978. Under that paragraph, you are prohibited from receiving compensation other than your legislative salary for personally appearing before any state agency except in connection with ministerial matters, court appearances or quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the filing of an application for a permit or a license is a ministerial matter as that term is defined in s. 4, you would not be prohibited from engaging in that activity on behalf of the company. This Section would, however, prohibit you from receiving compensation from the company for personally appearing before any state agency to negotiate or advocate on behalf of the company unless it occurs in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding. See EC-COI-79-66.
Section 6 prohibits a state employee from participating in any particular matter in which he or a business organization which employs him has a financial interest. The enactment of general legislation is specifically excluded from the definition of "particular matter" (§ k)). Section 6, however, prohibits you from participating as a member of the General Court in any special legislation affecting the company. See Attorney General Conflict Opinions 810, 771. Should any such special legislation be filed, § 6, as amended by Chapter 210 of the Acts of 1978, would also require you to file a disclosure of that matter and of your financial interest therein with the Ethics Commission. Although there is an exemption provision contained in § 6, that exemption does not apply to an elected official. See EC-COI-79-64. Section 6A, added by Chapter 210 of the Acts of 1978, requires a public official to file a disclosure statement with the Ethics commission if, in the discharge of his official duties, he would be required to take any action which would substantially affect his own financial interest unless the effect on him is no greater than the effect on the general public. This Section does not refer to "particular matters" and therefore the enactment of general legislation is included within its coverage. Since you advise us that you will be paid by the company on an hourly basis and did not have any ownership interest in the company, it is unlikely that you would have a sufficiently substantial financial interest in any pending legislation so as to invoke the requirements of this Section. However, should any matter arise which is of concern to you, you should feel free to request an additional opinion from us.
Finally, § 7 prohibits a state employee from having a financial interest in contracts made by a state agency. You advise us that your hourly compensation is not directly funded from the company's contracts with the Commonwealth. The Attorney General has previously ruled in a similar case that there would be no violation of this section under the facts as you have stated them. See attorney General Conflict Opinion 810.
End Of Decision
