Apart from the limited exceptions contained in §19.56(3), Wisconsin Statutes,
the Ethics Board advises that a judge either not partake of free food and
drink not available to the general public or pay the higher of the fair value of
such food and drink or the ticket cost of the event.

Except in the uncommon instance in which the teacher's appointment is for a
specified term or at the pleasure of the appointing authority, a public school
teacher is not a local public official covered by §19.59, Wisconsin Statutes.

In an instance in which a teacher is a local public official, the teacher should
consult with the school district's legal counsel to review the specific circumstances
to determine whether §19.59 restricts participation in a program
open to teachers whose benefits include lodging and meals in connection with
a training seminar in another state, the provision of certain equipment,
reimbursement for released time (with prior approval), expense
reimbursement for presentations (with prior approval), and lodging and
meals in connection with an annual reunion.

The Ethics Board advises that a not-for-profit foundation not furnish an
annuity to the director of a state agency in response to its concern about the
director’s level of compensation and retirement benefits.

The Ethics Board advises:

The responsibility for the care and use of grant funds lies in the first instance
and primarily with the state agency that receives a grant. The agency’s
officials have broad discretion to identify the agency’s interests and the
means to further those interests.

   1. State public officials. An agency’s state public officials should strive to
        assure that the agency’s expenditures related to an out-of-state event are
        not for their own personal advantage except to the extent any personal
        advantage is merely incidental to the officials’ specific activities at
        particular events in furtherance of substantial, well-articulated business
        purposes of the agency, in contrast, for example, to expenditures for undefined
        or ill-defined or tenuously related “representational” responsibilities.

   2. Spouses, companions, and family members. With rare exception, the
        public purpose doctrine and §§19.45 and 19.46, Wisconsin Statutes, foreclose
        officials from authorizing the travel of their spouses and other family
        members to events at state expense, even if the source of the public funds
        is a grant rather than taxes. An expenditure for this purpose merits close
        scrutiny.

   3. Others. Because officials subject to the Ethics Code may not use their
        positions to obtain unlawful benefits for others, the Ethics Board
        encourages them not to authorize the payment of expense for travel for
        employees, employees’ spouses, and others except as those expenses are in
        connection with specific activities at particular events in furtherance of
        substantial, well-articulated business purposes of the agency.

The Government Accountability Board advises that a legislator continue the practice of
not communicating with state agencies on behalf of special purpose districts that the
legislator represents and that the legislator refer questions from department employees
to other representatives of the districts who are not state public officials.

The Government Accountability Board advises that ¶19.59, Wisconsin Statutes,
does not prohibit a county board from hosting an appreciation dinner for county
employees nor county employees from accepting the dinner. Section 19.45 (3)
prohibits a district attorney and circuit court judge from accepting the meal
without paying for it.

The Government Accountability Board advises that a judge may not accept, for
participating in a program, an award that is a glass plate on an inscribed base,
valued at $400, which is furnished by an organization that is a lobbying principal.
An appropriate disposition of the award would be donating it to the court system,
through the director of state courts.

The Ethics Board advises that:

(1) Consistent with statutes administered by the Ethics Board, a public
      official may negotiate terms and conditions of employment with a new
      employer, even a lobbying principal, after the effective date of the official's
      resignation from the official's state agency even though the official is
      scheduled to continue to receive salary for accumulated vacation and
      sabbatical leave until a later date.

(2) The revolving door provisions of §19.45(8)(a) prohibit a state public
      official's representing a private organization for compensation before either
      the agency or board with which the official was associated as a state public
      official prior to one year after the official's resignation.
 

The Ethics Board:

(1) advises that the Ethics Code does not require an appointed official of a state agency toresign if the official runs for election to
public office; and (2) reaffirms the advice given in 1997 Wis Eth Bd 7.

1. You have asked about the propriety of an appointed official of a state
     agency establishing a committee to explore running for election to public
     office.

2. The matter about which you have asked is a personnel matter not
     governed by Wisconsin’s Ethics Code. Nothing in the Ethics Code requires
     an appointed official of a state agency to resign if the official runs for election
     to public office. Whether the official may simultaneously retain his
     position with the agency and seek election to a government position rests in
     the discretion of the official’s appointing authority.

3. The Ethics Board reaffirms its recent opinion addressing a like
     matter, 1997 Wis Eth Bd 7; and commends it as a guide for the agency.

(September 26, 1997)

The Ethics Board advises that:

(1) Both state and local officials may participate in a round-trip train
     excursion that celebrates a lobbying organization’s 10th anniversary;

(2) The lobbying organization should not furnish refreshments to elected
     state officials or to state agency officials whose responsibilities relate to rulemaking;
     and

(3) Local public officials and non-elected state officials whose responsibilities
     do not involve state rule-making may pay for and partake of the food
     and drink that is offered in connection with the proposed event. The official
     should pay the greater of [i] the established charge to others for the
     refreshments, [ii] the organization’s cost of providing the refreshments, or
     [iii] the fair market value of the recipient’s independently acquiring like
     items at a comparable event.

(October 9, 1997)

The Ethics Board advises:

that a member of a municipality’s governing body who lives in an
unsewered subdivision may, consistent with §19.59, Wisconsin
Statutes, participate in a decision whether to require the
extension of water and sewer service to all existing and future
development in the municipality.

The Ethics Board advises:

that a salaried state public official not represent an individual for
compensation in a legal claim against a state authority, its
employees, or employees of the state.

The Ethics Board advises, consistent with laws it administers, that:

(1) a state agency may use state resources in connection with its
      hosting of a convention of a national organization in Wisconsin;

and

(2) state public officials associated with the agency, and the agency’s
      employees may not, either orally or in writing, personally solicit
      contributions from a lobbyist, an employee of a lobbying
      organization, or an employee of a business or organization that is
      regulated by or does business with the agency.

The Ethics Board advises that a member of the legislature may authorize a
company to use the legislator’s name and likeness in advertising tours that
would include a meeting between the legislator and tour members, but
recommends that a legislator permit this only so long as the legislator
neither solicits nor accepts a campaign contribution or anything of
substantial value from the company or individuals affiliated with it and that
the company and individuals affiliated with it do not furnish campaign contribution
or items of more than inconsequential value to the legislator and do
not independently make campaign expenditures on the legislator’s behalf.

The Ethics Board advises:

(1) A state public official may accept for the official and for the
      official’s spouse transportation, lodging, meals, food, and
      beverages, or reimbursement of actual and reasonable costs,
      from a national association of which the official’s state
      agency is a member, for attendance at the association’s
      meetings to the extent that the official can clearly and
      convincingly demonstrate that the association’s payments
      are received on behalf of, and primarily for the benefit of, the
      state and not primarily for private benefit.

(2) In the normal course of business and in the absence of evidence
      to the contrary, the Ethics Board will defer to a state
      agency’s determination of whether the provision of travel
      costs for an official or an official’s spouse by a national
      association of which the state agency is a member is
      primarily of benefit to and on behalf of the state.

The Government Accountability Board advises:

1) A member of an agency governing body who would receive an allocation of
      business opportunities regulated by the agency should not participate, in an
      official capacity, to increase those opportunities while the official is one of only a
      handful of licensees eligible for such increase.

2) The official may not shield himself or herself from application of the Ethics
      Code by transferring the member’s allocation to a sibling unless the official can
      demonstrate that the transaction is not a mere sham and that neither the official
      nor the official’s company will profit from the increase.

The Ethics Board advises that §19.45 (8), Wisconsin Statutes, prohibits a
former state public official appearing as a paid representative of a private
entity before the agency to which the responsibilities of the official’s former
agency were transferred (1) until twelve months after the official has left
office on matters that involve applications, contracts, claims, or other quasijudicial
matters or proceedings under the official’s responsibility while the
official was with the official’s former agency or (2) ever on applications,
contracts, claims, or other quasi-judicial matters or proceedings in which the
official participated personally and substantially as a public official. Apart
from these restrictions, §19.45 (8) (a), Wisconsin Statutes, does not limit a
former official’s appearing as a paid representative of a private entity before
the agency to which the responsibilities of the official’s former agency were
transferred.

The Ethics Board advises that in general, neither the Ethics Code nor
lobbying law restricts your employment in the circumstances you have
described. The only restrictions are (1) that you not receive any payment
from a lobbyist or from an organization that employs a lobbyist (including
the local governmental unit if it is a lobbying principal) (§13.625, Wisconsin
Statutes); (2) that you be able to demonstrate that you have not used the
prestige or resources of your office to obtain or to perform consulting work
(§19.45 (2), Wisconsin Statutes,); and (3) that you not represent the local
government or consultant before a state agency unless it is a ministerial
matter or a contested case which involves a party other than the state (§19.45
(7), Wisconsin Statutes).

The Ethics Board advises that a member of the Village’s governing board
may participate in the consideration or decision about improvements the
village will make to the village’s sewage system and the financing of those
improvements as follows:

1. If the sewer improvement does not personally and substantially benefit
      the property interest of a village trustee, the trustee is disqualified
      neither from participating in the designation of the sewer improvement
      nor from determining how the improvement’s cost will be met.

2. If the sewer improvement personally and substantially benefits the
      property interest of a village trustee, but the improvement also confers a
      substantial benefit on all or a sizeable portion of the village’s property
      owners, the trustee is disqualified neither from participating in the
      designation of the sewer improvement nor from determining how the
      improvement’s cost will be met.

3. If the sewer improvement produces a substantial or personal benefit to
      the trustee’s property interest that is not common to all or a sizeable
      portion of the village’s property owners, but the village assesses the
      improvements’ costs to the property owners who are the beneficiaries of
      the improvement, the trustee is disqualified neither from participating
      in the designation of the sewer improvement nor from determining how
      the improvement’s cost will be met.

4. If the sewer improvement produces a substantial or personal benefit to
      the trustee’s property interest that is not common to all or at least to a
      sizeable portion of the village’s property owners, and the village assesses
      the improvements’ costs to all of the village’s property owners or at least
      to property owners who do not benefit from the improvements ordered,
      the trustee should not participate in discussions and actions that have
      as their goal the transfer of the costs of the sewer improvements to the
      trustee’s property to others in the village.

The Ethics Board advises that a state agency may accept a grant from a
company that employs a lobbyist for an agency program initiative.

The Ethics Board advises:

A member of a county board who serves as a trustee of the county’s nursing
home facility, whose mother is a resident of the facility, should not use her
position to obtain anything of substantial value or a substantial benefit for
the official personally or for a member of the official’s immediate family.
Whether that will, or is likely to occur, is a question of fact that the Ethics
Board cannot resolve. If a matter comes before the nursing home board that
would have a financial effect on the supervisor or the supervisor’s immediate
family, then she should abstain from participation in the matter. If her need
to recuse herself becomes so frequent as to impede her ability to contribute to
the nursing home board, then the better alternative is that another
individual take her place.

The Ethics Board advises that a town chair should not simultaneously
participate in Town decisions concerning services provided to the Town by a
company owned by the same individual that owns the company of which the
town chair is an employee.

The Ethics Board advises that in the case of a local official who has been
elected to serve on the board of directors of a municipal mutual insurance
corporation by a government approved process, to represent the local
government’s interests on the board, §19.59, Wisconsin Statutes, does not bar
the official from participating in the local government’s consideration, discussion,
or votes to award a contract to or change government policy to permit
the purchase of services from the corporation.

The Ethics Board advises:

For state and local government officials
Neither a state public official nor a local public official should accept or
purchase a ticket or admission to an event or access to a loge, skybox,
or other premium area unless the official can clearly and convincingly
demonstrate that at least one of these conditions obtains:

     • The ticket, admission, or access is offered for a reason unrelated
          to the official’s holding or having held a public office;

     • The ticket, admission, or access is available to the general public
          on the same terms and conditions as available to the official; or

     • The ticket, admission, or access is without pecuniary value.

In addition, for state officials and organizations that employ
lobbyists

A lobbying principal should not give, sell, or furnish or arrange for
another to give, sell, or furnish to an elected state official, legislative
employee, candidate for state office, or agency official a ticket or
admission to an event or access to a loge, skybox, or other premium
area unless the ticket, admission, or access is available to the general
public on the same terms and conditions or the ticket, admission, or
access is without pecuniary value.

An elected state official, legislative employee, candidate for state office,
or agency official should not accept or purchase from a lobbying principal
a ticket or admission to an event or access to a loge, skybox, or
other premium area unless the ticket, admission, or access is available
to the general public on the same terms and conditions or the ticket,
admission, or access is without pecuniary value.

In addition, for state officials and lobbyists

A lobbyist should not give, sell, or furnish or arrange for another to
give, sell, or furnish to an elected state official, legislative employee,
candidate for state office, or agency official a ticket or admission to an
event or access to a loge, skybox, or other premium area unless the
ticket, admission, or access is without pecuniary value.

An elected state official, legislative employee, candidate for state office,
or agency official should not accept or purchase from a lobbyist a ticket
or admission to an event or access to a loge, skybox, or other premium
area unless the ticket, admission, or access is without pecuniary value.

Limited exception

To the extent that an official's participation in an event is in furtherance
of substantive or ceremonial governmental responsibilities appropriate
to the official's government office so as to be clearly and convincingly
for the benefit primarily of the state or a local government
and any private benefit is merely incidental, then an individual or
organization may provide admission to or accommodation at the event
and a state or local public official may attend the event without
payment or on terms not available to the general public.

The Ethics Board advises that :

1) Under §19.59, Wisconsin Statutes, the village trustee whose property
      abuts the property that is the subject of the company’s rezoning
      petition, and who is an employee of the company, should not participate
      in discussion, debate, or votes on the petition;

2) Section 19.59, Wisconsin Statutes, is unlikely to restrict the village
      trustee who is an employee of a company that sells supplies to the
      company seeking the rezoning to vote on the petition; and

3) Section 19.59, Wisconsin Statutes, is unlikely to restrict the village
      trustee who owns a company that, in the past, has done business with
      the company seeking the rezoning to vote on the petition.

The Ethics Board advises:

The effect of building a public facility on the value of an official’s adjacent
property is a factual one. The factual assessment is important but is not one
we can make. In the absence of anything other than conjecture about that
effect, public policy favors a public official’s exercise of official duties. But the
official, at his or her discretion, may abstain from participation if the official
believes participation is likely to undermine citizen confidence in the county’s
government. Therefore:

(1) If building the public facility on adjacent property will, or is reasonably
      likely to have a financial effect on the official’s land, the official
      SHOULD ABSTAIN from participation in the decision.

(2) In the absence of any financial effect, the official SHOULD PARTICIPATE;
      and

(3) If the effect is conjectural or attenuated, the official SHOULD
      PARTICIPATE UNLESS, in the official’s judgment, to do so would
      undermine public confidence in the decision or in government.

The Ethics Board advises:

Neither the Ethics Code nor lobbying law appears to restrict a legislator’s
working as a consultant to a company that is a broker-dealer that assists
institutional money managers in identifying investment opportunities.

The Ethics Board advises:

For chairing a conference about state government issues, a state public
official may accept an award sanctioned, approved, endorsed by, and
presented under the auspices of the organization that is sponsoring the
conference but may not accept an award from another organization.

The Ethics Board advises:

An employee of the Legislature should not solicit lobbyists or lobbying
organizations for contributions to a community organization on whose board
the employee sits. Nor should the employee use the status or prestige of
office to solicit contributions to the organization.

The Ethics Board advises:

A lobbying organization may, consistent with the Ethics Code and lobbying
law, furnish food and drink to state officials at a reception if:

   (1) the organization can demonstrate its genuine attempt to attract the general
         public to the reception;

   (2) the reception is open to the public on the same terms it is available to state
         officials without the purpose or effect of the manner of invitation conferring
         an advantage on a state official greater than that available to the general
         public; and

   (3) either: (a) the organization sets and collects from each state official the
         greater of: [i] the established charge or ticket price, if any, charged others for
         the same or comparable benefit , [ii] the organization’s cost of acquiring the
         goods or services the organization provides, or [iii] the market price of the
         recipient’s independently acquiring like benefits; or (b) the reception is
         unrelated to state officials’ discussion of state government processes or
         issues initiated by or affecting state government.

(October 8, 1997)

A legislator should not solicit or accept contributions of legal services or
money to pay for legal services if the contributions could reasonably be
expected to influence judgment or actions or be considered a reward for past
action. A legislator should not accept legal services or contributions to defray
litigation expenses unless the legislator can demonstrate, clearly and
convincingly, that the contribution is made primarily for a reason that is
independent of the legislator's holding a public office. OEB 92-24

June 16, 1992

A vendor should not sponsor a river cruise for local public officials attending
a convention if more than an insignificant number of the officials attending
are responsible for making or approving purchasing decisions that could
involve the vendor’s goods. OEB 92-31 (November 25, 1992)

A member of a state regulatory board should refrain from participating in
any discussions or decisions concerning educational and course requirements
for members of the profession regulated by the board while the official serves
as a consultant to an organization that sets generally accepted practice
standards for the profession and approves educational courses required by
many government bodies, and the official should not, in any way, use his or
her position to benefit the organization. If these restrictions materially
impede the official’s ability to fulfill his or her responsibilities as a public
official, the official might withdraw from the official’s consulting contract or
relinquish his or her public position so that another appointee may
participate fully in the activities of the board.
OEB 92-33 (December 3, 1992)

A legislator may not accept anything of pecuniary value from a lobbying
principal. To the extent that a referendum committee is an intermediary,
agent, or alter ego for a lobbying principal, a legislator should treat the referendum
committee as if it were a lobbying principal and be guided by the
advice given in 1992 Wis Eth Bd 26.

A legislator should not bid or negotiate for, nor should anyone offer him or
her, work on behalf of a referendum committee if it involves a matter on
which the legislator is authorized to take any discretionary action unless the
Legislature has completed its final action on that matter.

Because referenda are part of the work of the Legislature, we recommend
that a legislator not take pay to work on a referendum unless the legislator is
confident that he or she can demonstrate that the employment is unrelated to
being a member of the Legislature and is unlikely to influence the judgment
the legislator exercises as a state official.
OEB 93-4 (February 10, 1993)

Section 19.44(1)(a), Wisconsin Statutes, requires a state public official who is
a lawyer to identify on the individual’s Statement of Economic Interests those
clients of the individual’s law firm for which the individual provides
representation in dealings with third parties or for which the individual is
authorized to act as part of overall supervisory responsibility for the firm's
providing those services. An official need not identify clients of the official’s
firm for which the official did not act as an authorized representative or
agent in dealings with third parties or act in a supervisory capacity with
respect to other attorneys in the firm who did provide such services.
OEB 93-7 (May 7, 1993)

A state public official may not use his or her office or position to obtain anything
of substantial value for private benefit. The connection between an
official's receipt of a prize at a conference and holding public office is too
remote to conclude that public office was used to obtain the prize because (1)
the prize was awarded by chance, (2) the prize was available to anyone
attending the conference, and (3) the great majority of conference attendees
were not Wisconsin public officials. An official must comply with any state
policy to make available to the state items received at events attended on the
state's behalf. OEB 93-11 (December 15, 1993)

Statutes administered by the Ethics Board are not an impediment to a
municipal judge's serving as a mediator, arbitrator, or mini-trial judge in
dispute resolution as long as: (1) the official does not serve in matters over
which the official, as a municipal judge, might have jurisdiction; (2) the
official does not use his or her public position to obtain private employment;
and (3) the official does not use the municipality's time, facilities, supplies, or
services not generally available to the public in pursuing the official's private
endeavors. OEB 94-2 (April 14, 1994)

A village board member should not participate in official discussions,
deliberations and votes with respect to legislation (that is, ordinances and the
like) affecting his or her real estate interests except to the extent that the
action affects a whole class of similarly situated interests, the board
member’s interest is insignificant when compared to all affected interests,
and the action’s effect on the board member's private interests is neither
significantly greater nor less than upon other interests affected by the act.

The village board member ought not to participate in quasi-judicial deliberations
or decision-making such as actions on permits, licenses, rezoning of
specific parcels, and the like affecting the member's interests or competing
real estate interests.

In those instances in which the member should refrain from votes, the
member should also refrain from discussion and deliberations and ask that
the minutes reflect that the member has withdrawn. OEB 92-22

June 16, 1992

A state public official may retain items presented for participation in opening
ceremonies of a not-for-profit sporting event if they are presented for a reason
unrelated to holding public office or are only of inconsequential value.
Eth. Bd. 638

March 4, 1991

Consistent with the Ethics Code, a legislator, while attending a conference on
behalf of the state, may accept meals, refreshment, and the like that are
provided, sponsored, or sanctioned by the event organizer and authorized by
the legislature. Eth. Bd. 654

August 22, 1991

A state public official may attend a dinner to which the official has been
invited because of his or her public position if attendance is primarily for the
benefit of the state and not for private benefit. OEB 92-4

March 24, 1992

A local official should not permit another to pay the official's costs of a golf
outing to which the official has been invited because of holding an official
position. OEB 92-8

March 24, 1992

A local public official is not disqualified from participating in the award of a
contract to a business simply because that business is involved in an unrelated
joint venture with the official's employer. OEB 92-10

March 24, 1992

A law firm should not purchase meals for officials of the local units of government
the firm represents (nor should a local public official accept) unless,
and only to the extent that, the local government would otherwise bear the
official’s expense and the governmental units' obligation to bear the expense
is expressly authorized by, and in accordance with, established written
criteria. OEB 92-17

April 27, 1992

Section 19.45, Wisconsin Statutes, does not prohibit a legislator from publicly
opposing a proposed private project or from representing a person before a
department if he or she receives no compensation therefore beyond the salary
and other compensation or reimbursement to which the legislator is entitled
by law, and neither the official, the official’s family or an associated
organization will financially benefit from the defeat of the proposal. OEB 92-
19

April 28, 1992

The Ethics Board advises that a member of a city council that is a negotiator
for a labor union in other municipalities should not participate in any official
discussions or vote on the Union's contract with the city on whose council the
member serves; should not use any information not available to the public,
derived from the council member's holding public office, to benefit the Union
in other municipalities; and should not be present during closed sessions in
which labor negotiations with the Union are being discussed.
OEB94-4 (August 31, 1994)

A city council member who is a retired city employee and who receives health
insurance paid for by the city, should not participate in consideration of the
terms or award of such contracts.

A city council member whose child participates in the city’s health insurance
program, and who either provides more than one-half of the official’s support
or receives more than one-half of his or her support from the official, should
not participate in consideration the terms or award of such contracts.

A city council member, disqualified from voting on the health insurance
contracts themselves may nevertheless vote on the city’s budget as a whole as
long as the member’s personal stake in the budget is indirect and attenuated
and the member does not participate in discussions or votes on any
amendment to the budget affecting such member’s health insurance.

OEB 96-10 (July 31, 1996)