Background:
An airport engineer in the aeronautics section of the multi-modal transportation division of the Indiana Department of Transportation ("INDOT") married this past July a current employee of R.W. Armstrong. R.W. Armstrong ("RWA") has been selected to provide the airside planning and design for the development of a 42-gate Midfield Terminal complex at Indianapolis International Airport. The total estimated program costs are approximately $1 billion. RWA is working closely with the Owner's Technical Representatives, the Master Architect, and the Program Construction Managers to facilitate a coordinated effort to complete the design and construction for this major development project.
The airport engineer's spouse began employment at RWA in May 2005. The airport engineer's job at INDOT consists of reviewing grant payments and design plans of RWA. He also attends construction meetings and programs airport capital improvement program funds. To the extent that RWA receives grant and program funds through INDOT, they have a business relationship with INDOT. Most of the airport engineer's actions are advisory in nature and he has no decision-making authority over RWA.
The airport engineer's spouse is a senior project engineer in one of RWA's airport divisions and is being screened from working on Indiana projects. In the course of her employment she receives many "fringe benefits". Through her employment, she is offered free Colts tickets, free golf outings, and other complimentary tickets to entertainment events around the city. September 25th is their annual company picnic for employees and their families. The event is catered, and entertainment is provided, all free of charge.
Questions:
Relevant Law:
Gifts
42 IAC 1-4-4
IC 4-2-6-1(a)
Conclusion:
The Commission believes the first thing that needs to be done in these situations is to ensure that the employee is screened from making a decision or vote where he or his immediate family may have a financial interest in the outcome, consistent with the conflict of interest rule in IC 4-2-6-9. By virtue of the airport engineer's job description, he has no decision-making authority with respect to RWA. His job at INDOT as it relates to RWA consists of reviewing design plans, programming airport capital improvement program funds, reviewing grant payments, and attending construction meetings. Most of his actions in this area are purely advisory; he has no decision-making powers over RWA. In fact, the Aeronautics Manager makes all final decisions concerning RWA. Therefore, the airport engineer would not be placed in the position of making a decision or vote on a matter where he or his immediate family would have a financial interest in the outcome of the matter.
The Commission finds that the benefit to the spouse from her employer is not a "gift" to her since it would be part of her compensation as an employee of the company she works for. If the state employee then receives the benefit from the spouse it would not be considered a gift under the gift rule since the benefit does not come from a person with a business relationship with the person's agency. The restrictions in subsection (5) of the gift rule would not apply. This Commission would still request the employee to make a disclosure to his appointing authority or agency ethics officer for each benefit received; however, no waiver under subsection (b) is required. This would satisfy the "disclose and recuse" policy which forms the basis of the gift rule.