Background:
The Chief of Investigations for the Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI") began his employment with the state on May 9, 2005. His spouse is a licensed insurance agent for Golden Rule Insurance Company, a subsidiary of United Health Group. This is a company that is regulated by IDOI, thus the state employee's agency has a business relationship with Golden Rule Insurance Company ("Golden Rule").
In September 2003 his spouse sat for and passed the Certified Financial Planner's exam. She did so at the urging of her employer, Golden Rule. As an incentive to study for and obtain this designation, she was offered various rewards including a pay increase and the ability to attend the Financial Planner's Association annual conference. Golden Rule was to pay the costs of the conference for her, as well as the cost of airfare and hotel for her and a guest/spouse and the cost of her meals only. The meals of her spouse/guest were not to be reimbursed. Because of military obligations the Chief of Investigations did not attend the 2004 FPA Conference, but did plan to attend the FPA Conference in San Diego on September 15-18, 2005. Travel arrangements, including airfare for both the state employee and his spouse were paid for by Golden Rule on March 14, 2005. It should be noted here, that at the time this was done, the Chief of Investigations was not a state employee.
Since the time of the payment of the travel arrangements the Chief of Investigations has begun employment with IDOI, and has become aware of ethics rules for state employees. He has already taken steps to screen himself from involvement in any decisions or votes on matters involving Golden Rule pursuant to IC 4-2-6-9.
Question:
1. Would the benefits the spouse receives through her employment be considered "gifts" to the "spouse" of a state employee from a person who has a business relationship with the Chief of Investigations agency within the meaning of the gift rule?
Relevant Law:
GiftsConclusion:
The Commission finds that the employee, in a situation where his spouse works for a company with a business relationship with his agency, should be 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. The Chief of Investigations has already been screened from any matters involving Golden Rule Insurance Company and also their parent company, when they were purchased by United Health Group of Minnesota. Therefore, the Chief of Investigations 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.