Opinion  EC-COI-80-110

Date:	09/10/1980
Organization:	State Ethics Commission

A member of the General Court who serves on a Ways and Means Committee may assist his Town in its efforts to have the Department of Revenue postpone for one year the implementation of property re-evaluation. His interest as a property owner and taxpayer of that Town in the postponement of re-evaluation is one which is "shared with a substantial segment of the public" and, therefore, is not a financial interest to trigger application of Section 6 or 6A.

Facts

Dear:

You are a member of the General Court and a member of the Committee on Ways & Means.  You have been requested by individual taxpayers and the Board of Assessors of  (a town within the district you represent) to assist the Town in its efforts to have the Department of Revenue postpone for one year the implementation of property re-evaluation in You have asked whether to do so would be consistent with the conflict-of-interest law, General Laws Chapter 268A, particularly in view of the fact that you own property (your personal residence) in the Town.

In rendering this opinion, the Commission has relied upon the facts as you have stated them and has not made any independent investigation of those facts.

Discussion

As a member of the General Court, you are a state employee as that term is defined in G.L. c.268A, § 1(q).  Since you would not be compensated by the Town for your assistance, the only relevant provisions of Chapter 268A are § 6, § 6A and § 23.  Section 6 prohibits a state employee from participating in a particular matter in which he has a financial interest.  Section 6A requires a public official "who in the discharge of his official duties would be required knowingly to take an action which would substantially affect such official's financial interests, unless the effect on such an official is no greater than the effect on the general public, shall file a written description of the required action and the potential conflict of interest" with the State Ethics Commission. However, since your interest as a property owner and taxpayer in the postponement of re-evaluation is one which is "shared with a substantial segment of the public," it is not a financial interest within the meaning of § 6 and § 6A. Graham v. McGrail, 370 Mass. 133, 139 (1976).  Compare In the Matter of James J. Craven, Jr., Commission Adjudicatory Docket No. 110 (decided June 18, 1980.

This conclusion is consistent with the legitimate and appropriate function of state legislators to speak on behalf of their constituents before state agencies.  See G.L. c. 268A, § 4, 5th paragraph.  The Town should not be deprived of such representation merely because you happen to own property in that Town.  However, you will remain subject to the provisions of § 23 particularly subsection (d) which states that no state employee shall "use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or others." Accordingly, in your contacts with the Department of Revenue on behalf of the Town you must avoid indicating that your official actions with respect to that Department would in any way be affected by its decision to postpone or not to postpone reevaluation.
 

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

BY:
Robert V. Greco
General Counsel

End Of Decision 

^[1] You are also prohibited from engaging in such activities in connection with matters pending before the Commission if you have served on the Commission for more than 60 days during the proceeding 365 day period.  However, since as a Commission member you will normally either participate in or have official responsibility for the activities of the Commission, this provision is unlikely to place any additional restrictions on your activities.