Golf Outing Policy

08/02/2005
Public Employee Gifts

(Originally published in the August 2001 Issue of The Inspector) 

A commonly asked question in the last few months has concerned the giving and receiving of gifts to public employees, particularly regarding golf outings. 

On June 11, 2001,the Ohio Ethics Commission issued Advisory Opinion No. 2001-03 which stated that Ohio’s Ethics Law and related statutes prohibit a public official or employee from accepting a golf outing from a party interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the official’s or employee’s public agency. 

Advisory Opinions issued by the OEC are not binding upon members and staff of the General Assembly nor legislative agents. However, as has been pointed out in a memo circulating in the lobbying community, the statutes interpreted in OEC Advisory No. 2001-03 also apply to those who fall under the jurisdiction of the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. In light of the OEC opinion it is appropriate to again review the general prohibition concerning the accepting of gifts by members of the General Assembly. 

In determining a general assembly member’s ability to accept a gift, a review of R.C. 102.03 is necessary. R.C. 102.03(D) and (E) prohibit a public official or employee from accepting, soliciting, or using his position to secure anything of value that is of an improper and substantial character. The phrase “anything of value” is defined for purposes of R.C. 102.03 in R.C. 1.03 to include money and every other thing of value. Greens fees and golf cart rentals are things of value for purposes of R.C. 102.03(D), (E), and (F). A determination 
that greens fees and cart rentals are things of value does not end the inquiry; it is necessary to examine the source and nature of the thing of value in determining whether the gifts are substantial and improper. 

Communicating with general assembly members and staffers on legislative matters, such as the proposal consideration, or enactment of statutes, resolutions, or constitutional amendments, does not constitute “doing or seeking to do business” with the General Assembly. An entity or person is not an improper source of a gift when they are neither regulated by or doing or seeking to do business with the General Assembly and the only connection between them and the General Assembly is that the gift giver is an agent or employer of a registered legislative agent. 

It can be argued that, by definition, a legislative agent or his employer is “interested in matters” before the General Assembly because of the agent or employer status. However, the Committee in JLEC Advisory 95-010 found that this relationship does not create enough of a nexus between the agent or employer and the General Assembly to warrant a finding that gifts from legislative agents or their employers are automatically improper. Additionally, the safeguards provided in the disclosure requirements of Chapters 101. and 102. were specifically designed to disclose any potential conflicts. Accordingly, members of the General Assembly are not prohibited by R.C. 102.03(D) and (E) from accepting golf outings and other gifts from those persons who are not doing or seeking to do business with, or regulated by, the General Assembly.
.

 

 

 

---