A legislator may accept an offer from an organization funded by the federal
and state governments to fly the legislator in its aircraft over the legislator's
district, in the event of a disaster, so that the legislator can help in assessing
damage and directing disaster relief to areas of greatest need.

(November 13, 1996)

The Ethics Board advises that a legislator not advocate for, or participate in
discussions, deliberations, or votes on funding a state contract with a
foundation in which the legislator’s spouse is executive director. If the
biennial budget appropriates money to the foundation, the legislator may
participate in debate, discussion, and voting on all other budget issues, and
vote on the budget itself.

(April 10, 1997)

Agency officials may participate in a trip to a foreign country if the trip is
authorized by the agency as an undertaking on behalf of the state and
primarily for the state’s benefit and the agency officials travel as the state’s
representatives.

(June 27, 1997)

The Ethics Board advises that a school board member whose spouse is
employed as a teacher by the school district:

   (1) not participate in negotiations, discussions, or votes on the teachers’ contract;

   (2) may vote on the district’s budget if the school board has already entered
         into a contract that establishes teachers’ salaries and benefits for the
         period covered by the budget but may not vote on the budget if the
         budget will substantially affect teacher salaries or benefits;

   (3) not participate in negotiations, discussions, or votes on the terms of
         another union’s contract if it will affect the terms of the teachers’ contract
         in other than an inconsequential manner;

   (4) may participate in a disciplinary or similar matter affecting another
         teacher if the action does not result in a school board member’s spouse
         obtaining a substantial benefit or anything of substantial value from
         such decision;

   (5) may participate in decisions affecting class size, teaching hours, other
         general school district policy decisions if the effect on the school board
         member’s spouse does not differ materially from the effect on other
        teachers.

The Ethics Board advises that a school board member who is covered by the
school district’s health benefits plan not participate in consideration of the
terms of that plan or the award of the district’s health benefits contract.

(September 5, 1997)

The Ethics Board advises that §19.59, Wisconsin Statutes, does not bar a
local government official (1) from acting in a matter concerning another body
politic with which the official is associated or (2) from acting in a matter that
could affect the financial interests of an organization to whose board of
directors the local governmental unit has appointed the official pursuant to
statute, ordinance, or resolution to represent the interests of the local
government.

A local government official may not simultaneously be an officer or director of
a private organization (in a capacity other than as a representative of the
local governmental unit’s interests) and (a) take official action substantially
affecting the organization or (b) use his or her public office to produce a
substantial benefit for the organization. OEB 96-9 (July 31, 1996)

Unless a legislator’s family’s business determines that it will try to benefit
financially from video gambling devices if those devices are legalized, the
legislator may, without restriction from the Ethics Code, sponsor, promote, or
vote on legislation to legalize such devices.
OEB 96-3 (February 22, 1996)

The Ethics Board advises that a member of the governing body of a local
government unit should not participate in any labor issues in which a union
is involved or that could affect the union’s interests while the member’s law
firm simultaneously represents that union.
OEB-94-6 (September 28, 1994)

A town board member should not as a matter of policy, participate in the
town’s consideration of a landfill expansion as long as the member derives
financial benefit from his or her spouse’s employment by a company owned by
the individual owning the controlling interest in the landfill operator. A
town board member may participate in such a decision without restriction
from laws administered by the Ethics Board where the town board member’s
child is so employed and the member’s child neither supports nor derives
support from the town board member. (OEB94-7) October 20, 1994
 

An elected state official may accept compensation for participating as a
commentator on state government issues on a weekly television program as
long as the company that owns the television station operates independent of
its corporate parent, which is a lobbying principal. Unless an official has
evidence to the contrary, he or she may rely on the television stations’s representation
that in asking the official to appear on the television program it
has not acted in consultation or cooperation with, or at the request or
suggestion of, the parent company that is a principal. (OEB94-9) October 24,
1994

Lobbying principals may furnish cash and in-kind contributions to a national
organization or the Department of Development for the organization’s annual
meeting in Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s officials may accept food and drink
furnished at events that are provided, sponsored, or sanctioned by the national
organization and authorized by the officials’ agency. State officials generally
may accept items that the national organization or the Department of
Development furnishes. A state official should accept an item furnished by a
vendor at the meeting only if the item is of insubstantial value and the vendor
is not a lobbying principal.
OEB 95-2 (June 1, 1995)

Neither the lobbying law nor Ethics Code applies to every state agency
employee. However, state employees are likely to report to, and act at the
direction of, individuals subject to one or both of these statutes. Therefore,
the Ethics Board advises that an agency may solicit and accept money from
others to cover administrative expenses for its project as long as (1)
individuals, businesses and organizations that are solicited for, or who make,
contributions are not likely to be substantially affected by statutes and rules
the agency administers and enforces; and (2) neither lobbyists nor organizations
that employ lobbyists are solicited unless a specific exception
pertains. OEB 95-7 (December 22, 1995)

Neither the Ethics Code nor lobbying law is an impediment to the production
and airing of a videotape about a public official as long as the video
production company can clearly and convincingly demonstrate that (1) the
production is not at the behest of or initiation of the official and (2) editorial
direction is independent of the official and others operating on his or her
behalf, including his or her appointees and campaign committee.

Neither the Ethics Code nor lobbying law is an impediment if the funding is
appropriately treated as a campaign contribution, complies with the lobbying
law’s timing restrictions, and is permitted and reported under Wisconsin’s
campaign finance laws. OEB 95-5 (July 31, 1995)

As a general proposition, a legislator's simultaneous membership on the
governing board of a governmental entity is not an obstacle to the legislator's
discussions, deliberations, and votes upon matters before the Legislature that
affect the entity.

A legislator should not simultaneously receive compensation for services as a
member of a governmental agency’s governing board and participate as a
legislator in actions affecting a bill that would increase or sustain or preserve
the legislator’s eligibility to receive compensation from the entity. OEB 95-3
(June 21, 1995)

The Ethics Code is unlikely to be an obstacle to a legislator’s participation
in the discussion, deliberation, or votes on a bill that would create a tax incentive
for individuals who purchase a commodity that can use a product manufactured
by a company in which the legislator owns a small number of shares of stock
when there is no basis to believe there will be a substantial financial affect on the
legislator’s interest.

The Ethics Board advises that a legislator not participate in any
discussions, debate, or votes on a proposed budget provision that would provide
tax credits totaling several million dollars to each of only a handful of businesses
in Wisconsin and the value of the credits to the legislator’s family could be as
much as several thousand dollars. If the proposal is incorporated in the budget,
it will not be an obstacle to the legislator’s participation in the consideration of
other budget provisions or the budget as a whole.

The Ethics Board advises that a state official may accept food, drink, and entertainment
from anyone as long as the person extending the invitation is not a lobbyist
or a lobbying principal and the official can demonstrate that the person
made the offer for a reason unrelated to the official’s holding or having held a
government position.

 The provision of the Ethics Code most pertinent to your inquiry is §19.46
(1) (a), Wisconsin Statutes. That section provides, in relevant part, that a state
government official may take no official action substantially affecting a matter in
which the official or the official’s spouse has a substantial financial interest.1 The
statute pertains regardless of whether an official is party to a marital property
agreement that provides for the separation of the official’s and spouse’s income.

Two reasons cause us to conclude that the provision just cited does not
bar your voting on, or otherwise participating in the consideration of 2007
Assembly Bill 243.

First, the bill’s effect, if any, on your spouse’s finances is remote and
speculative. Public policy supports a public official’s exercise of official duties
when the financial effect of an official decision on the official’s personal interests
is uncertain and speculative.

Second, as we noted in the Ethics Board’s guideline, “Mitigating conflicting
interests: private interest vs. public responsibility” [Ethics Board publication
#232], an official may participate in a legislative action, even though the action
will affect the official or a member of the official's immediate family as long as:

  • The official's action affects a whole class of similarly-situated interests;

  • Neither the official's interest, the interest of a member of the official's
      immediate family, nor the interest of a business or organization with which
      the official is associated is significant when compared to all affected
      interests in the class;
 
  AND
 
  • The action's effect on the interests of the official or of a member of the official's
      immediate family is neither significantly greater nor less than upon
      other members of the class.

The Ethics board advises:

A former state official may not for compensation act on behalf of an organization
other than the State of Wisconsin in connection with a federal agency’s resolution
of a matter in which the official personally and substantially participated in
negotiations on behalf of the official’s former agency to resolve the matter. This
is so even if the official redirects the compensation or the compensation is paid
directly to the official’s employer or to any other individual or organization.

The Ethics Board has no basis for believing that the bill will promote your
business’s sale of items. If our understanding is correct, then:
  • your action on the bill will not result in a substantial benefit for your
      business [§19. 45 (2)];

  • your business does not have a substantial financial interest in the bill [§19.
      46 (1) (a)]; and

  • your action on the bill will not produce or assist in the production

The Board advises:

1) That you notify the Ethics Board and the appropriate state agency before entering a contract
      with a local Wisconsin government in which the local government is acting as the state’s agent; and

2) You need not provide notification to anyone if the contract is paid from shared revenues or
      other funds the state provides the local government over which the state has ceded control.

The Ethics Board advises that a board member of an institution of higher education
whose spouse is employed as a teacher by the institution:

  (1) not participate in negotiations, discussions, or votes on the teachers’ contract;
 
  (2) may vote on the institution’s budget if the board has already entered into a
        contract that establishes teachers’ salaries and benefits for the period covered
        by the budget but may not vote on the budget if the budget will
        substantially affect teacher salaries or benefits;
 
  (3) not participate in negotiations, discussions, or votes on the terms of another
        union’s contract if it will affect the terms of the teachers’ contract in other
        than an inconsequential manner;

  (4) may participate in a disciplinary or similar matter affecting another teacher if
        the action does not result in a board member’s spouse obtaining a
        substantial benefit or anything of substantial value from such decision;

  (5) may participate in decisions affecting teaching load, teaching hours, and
        other general policy decisions if the effect on the board member’s spouse
        does not differ materially from the effect on other teachers; and

(6) if the board member is covered by the institution’s health benefits plan, not
        participate in consideration of the terms of that plan or the award of the
        institution’s health benefits contract.

The Ethics Board further advises that abstention does not avoid a conflict, it simply
mitigates it. If the above restrictions materially impede the board member’s ability
to fulfill his or her responsibilities as a public official, or conflicts are frequent and
continuing, the member should consider withdrawing from the position so that
another appointee may participate fully in the activities of the board.

The Ethics Board advises that state agency may accept funds from private
sources to be used to reimburse a state official’s travel expenses incurred by the
official while engaged in official duties.

A legislator should not take official action that has a fiscal effect on a private
organization on whose board of directors the legislator serves unless the
legislator’s appointment to the organization’s board were pursuant to a statute, a
resolution of the Legislature, or a condition imposed by the State of Wisconsin
that established the legislator’s role as an agent of our state’s government representing
governmental interests, not the separate interests of the organization.

In determining whether a gift is of “substantial value,” the Ethics Board
looks at the totality of the circumstances.* Here, the value of the gifts is small in
comparison to the time you devoted to the two organizations, the sentimental
value of the gifts is greater than their monetary value, and the gifts are, in
essence, commemorative in nature. In these circumstances, we conclude that
the gifts are not of “substantial value” as that term is used in the Ethics Code,
and you may keep them.