| Date: | 05/24/1983 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
A member of the General Court elected from a particular City may be reimbursed by a private group promoting the City for expenses incurred in connection with legitimate appearances at a promotional event, held out of state, organized by the private group. Those expenses must be limited to transportation to and from the out-of-state location, necessary lodging and necessary meals.
You are a member of the General Court elected from a district within a City and are Vice Chairman of a House Committee (Committee). As such, you have had dealings in the past with Inc. (Inc.), a non-profit corporation made up for the purpose of promoting the greater City area. Inc. currently receives some of its funding from the state Department of Commerce and Development under a program which provides funds to certain qualifying promoting agencies. You have filed and supported legislation on behalf of Inc. and have arranged meetings between representatives and legislative leaders.
You were invited by Inc. to attend a promotional gathering out of state organized by Inc for the purpose of generating increased interest in the City. Over a period of three days you had meetings with industry representatives who would be promoting the City. You updated them on the status of legislation affecting the City. You also attended a reception along with other Massachusetts public officials at which you met with corporate and association executives, and professionals from throughout the area.
Inc. has offered to pay your expenses incurred in connection with this trip.
May you be reimbursed by Inc. for your expenses incurred in connection with this event?
Yes, within the limitations set out below.
As a member of the General Court, you are a state employee as defined in the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, § 1 et seq, and as a result are covered by that law.
Section 3(b) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a state employee from accepting or receiving anything of substantial value for or because of any official act or act within his official responsibility performed or to be performed by him.[1] This section is much broader than the statute's bribery provisions[2] because it does not require a corrupt intent on the part of the public employee, and covers conduct which may not necessarily be viewed as corrupt.[3] The receipt of something of substantial value violates § 3 even if given solely out of gratitude for a job well done or out of a desire to maintain a public employee's goodwill;[4] no quid pro quo is necessary, but only the acceptance of something of substantial value which is given for or because of official duties.
In interpreting what is meant by the term "substantial value," a Massachusetts court has found that an item worth $50 constitutes substantial value under this statute.[5] The Commission has concurred with this determination.[6] Clearly, the value of the reimbursement here well exceeds that amount. "Official act," however, is defined in the statute as "any decision or action in a particular matter or in the enactment of legislation." G.L. c. 268A, § 1(h). The law also defines "official responsibility" as "the direct administrative or operating authority, whether intermediate or final, and either exercisable alone or with others, and whether personal or through subordinates, to approve, disapprove or otherwise direct agency action." G.L. c. 268A, § 1(i).
The item of substantial value which you will receive, i.e., reimbursement, does not appear to be for or because of any decision or action in a particular matter or in the enactment of legislation, nor is it for or because of any act within your official responsibility as a legislator. You state that you will be reimbursed for expenses incurred for your appearance and participation at a series of meetings sponsored by a private party intended to promote and benefit the City from which you are elected. therefore, § 3(b) will not prohibit you from being reimbursed by the Bureau.
The Commission has previously advised state employees to "exercise extreme caution when offered gifts or other things of value from organizations which do business with the state agency whose activities the employees participate in or for which they have official responsibility," EC-COI-81-9. This caution is based not only on the terms of § 3 but also on G.L. c. 268A, § 23 which prohibits state employees from using their official position to secure unwarranted privileges for themselves or from engaging in conduct which gives reasonable basis for the impression that any person can improperly influence them or unduly enjoy their favor in the performance of their official duties or that they are unduly affected by the position or influence of any party or person.
On this basis the Commission has held that a member of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority could not accept travel to Washington, D.C. in connection with an appearance promoting tourism in Boston from a private group which was directly affected by the Authority's actions and was contemplating applying to the Authority for funding. EC-COI-89-19. Such an official may act distinctly and directly to the benefit of an individual or group totally within his own discretion and authority.
On the other hand, as a member of the General Court and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, you possess no extraordinary authority which you could exercise to the benefit of the Bureau, Cf. EC-COI-83-87. Inc. has no special interest in actions by the Committee. Your actions in filing legislation and otherwise aiding Inc. are legitimate examples of service by a legislator to a group whose actions may benefit his constituents. The Commission must balance the interest in encouraging constituent service of this type with that of assuring that legislators perform their duties unaffected by travel or other benefits which they may be offered by private parties.
As a result, the conflict of interest law does not prohibit your acceptance of reimbursement from Inc. for expenses incurred out of state. However, that reimbursement should be limited only to those expenses necessarily incurred in connection with your appearances on behalf of Inc., i.e., transportation to and from the location, necessary lodging, and necessary meals. You may not be reimbursed for any expenses otherwise incurred, such as entertainment or extension of your stay beyond the required days.
This conclusion is based on the fact that your expenses out of state were incurred in connection with legitimate appearances which would reasonably be made by a legislator in connection with matters of interest to his constituents. The conditioned approval of your acceptance of this limited reimbursement does not preclude violation of § 3 or § 23 in this or any other case if these conditions are not complied with or if other facts beyond those contained herein so indicate.
End Of Decision
