A Cranston city councilor who is married to a member of the Cranston teachers’ union is not barred from participating in the City Council’s vote on whether to accept or reject a collective bargaining agreement reached between the union and the Cranston School Committee, the Ethics Commission has decided.
“Here, the Petitioner’s spouse is a ‘person within his … family,’ as that term is defined in Regulation 1.3.1(A)(2) [520-RICR-00-00-1.3.1 Prohibited Activities-Nepotism], and a member of the Cranston teachers’ union that is a party to the collective bargaining agreement. For that reason, the Petitioner would have been prohibited from participating in the negotiation of that agreement. As the Petitioner states, however, the collective bargaining agreement was negotiated by the Cranston School Committee and the Cranston teachers’ union without the involvement of the city council. Accordingly, based on the facts as represented, the relevant provisions of the Code of Ethics, and prior advisory opinions issued, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the city council’s discussion and voting to accept or reject as a whole the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Cranston School Committee and the Cranston teachers’ union, provided that his spouse is impacted by the agreement as a member of a significant and definable class of persons, and not individually or to any greater extent...
Russian propaganda is spreading false statements that the account of the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Kyrylo Budanov, was allegedly created with...