| Date: | 06/23/1983 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
A member of the General Court may travel out of state for a speaking engagement at the expense of a private corporation because he has had no prior dealings with the corporation or any of its representatives and it has no special interest in his actions as a legislator.
You are a member of the General Court. During the 1982 legislative session, you supported the passage of St. 1982, c. 556, which repealed to a substantial degree the so-called "Blue Laws" in the Commonwealth. You have been asked to speak out of state to legislators and business leaders from that state concerning Sunday closing laws. Corp. (Corp.), a corporation has offered to pay your expenses in connection with this engagement. You have had no prior dealings as a legislator with Corp.
May you travel out of state at the expense of Corp. for a speaking engagement?
Yes.
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.
The Commission has recently issued two advisory opinions concerning the limitations placed by the conflict law on travel by legislators at the expense of private parties. In EC-COI-83-87; the Commission ruled that the Chairman of a legislative committee could have the expenses incurred in connection with a legitimate speaking engagement borne by a private professional organization interested in legislation before the committee as long as the expenses were limited to those items of transportation, lodging and meals directly related to and made necessary by the engagement, In EC- COI-83-88, the same limitations were imposed in a case involving a series of meetings where the sponsor was a private group which had extensive prior dealings with the legislator.
These two opinions were based on § 3 and 23 of the conflict of interest law. The former prohibits the acceptance or receipt by a state employee of anything of substantial value for or because of his official acts. The latter 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. These concerns arise when, as in these two opinions, the legislator's actions, which may benefit or harm interests of the sponsoring organization, might be affected by the offer and receipt of such travel expenses.
In your case, however, you have had no prior dealings as a legislator with Corp. or any representatives of that company. Your invitation to speak out of state resulted from a prior appearance which you made which was attended by company officials. Therefore, Corp. has no special interest in your actions as a member of the General Court, nor have you had prior dealings in your legislative role which could have resulted in this invitation. As a result, the conflict of interest law does not prohibit you from appearing out of state to speak at the expense of Corp.
End Of Decision
