of the wmmissionisassocb&withthewmmissionorat~time*, the wmmissiona or employee may not mpmseat a paaoq wrporatio~~ or other business entity before the wmmission or a courtinamattainwhichthewmmissioneroranployeewas pasondyinvo~whue asao&edwiththewmmissionora mattathuwaswithinthe cxmlmhids or employee!? official responsiii while the wmmissioneroremployeewasllso&ed with the wmmision. V.T.C.S. art. 1446c. 5 6.
You 6rst ask whetha section 6(i) was violated under the facts you have provided. Although we calmot resolve fact questions in an attorney gulaal opinios we can answer a legal question based on facts provided to us. Attorney General Opiion JM-495 (1986). Attorney Genersl Opiion JM-280 (1984) concluded that section 6(i) of article 1446c applied to the employment of a former member or employee of the Public Utility Commission by a public utility, but not to that person's employment by en e5liated inkrestofrpublicutility. Acwrdingly,amumingthea5iiateinthiscaaemeetsthe definition set out in section 3(i) of PLRA, the former employee did not violate section 6(i) by awep6ng employmentwith that entity.
YounartuL~itwu"l~undaKaion6(d)urd(e)fortheemployee andthewmpMyo5catonegotiateauchM uranganentwhiletheo5cerwespresident ofboththew~undaauditMdthe~edw~~dtheemployeewrsthe PUC stafFmemba in charge of the audit?"
Section 6(d) provides that no PUlM employee may "solicit or request from or suggest or recommend to" any 05cer of a public utility, "the employment in eny capacity of~pcrsanbysuchpublicutilityora5liatediaterest." (Emphesisedded.) Inour opinion, the proh.i.ion in section 6(d) sgainst soliciting anployment for any person would bar a PURA employee fkom making such solicitations, requests, suggestions, or r-mmemMonsonbehalfofhisownallployment. IfthePURAanployeeaskedthe o5~foremploymmtwithtbe~eormademyothaoftheproMibed wmmmications, he violated section 6(d).
Section 6(e) provides that no "05ca.. .ofanypublicutilityor[any]effWed intaest.. .may givq or offa to give. [My] employment...- to any...emp4oyeeofthewmmission." Iftheo5caoftheregu&dutilitymadefmoffa of employment to the PUC employee while the employee worked for the PUC, the 05cer
p. 1100 Mr. JamesL.Croucb - Page 4 (DM-209)
violated section 6(e).3 Whetha the PURA employee or the officcx snsllgsd in wnduct proscrii by s§ion (6)(d) or 6(e) of article 1446~is a question of fact that cumot be fdhSSdiUMattorneygWMllOpiUiOll.
You~Mkwhdbamyothallpplicablekanwaeviokteduadathe~ stated. YoudonotapeciQ~statutetiyouwishwtorddrrss,butwealggestttlat youwnsider whether section 8 of article 6252~9b,V.T.C.S., as well as se&on 39.01 of the Penal Cd might apply to the case you have de&x&d. Won 8 of article 6252%. V.T.C.S.. is designed to prevent a state 05cer or employee 6vm using his 05chl position to seek personal gain. It prohibits 05ccrs and employees hm having various private ewnomic illtams that might influence them in their exacise of public authohy.' see Attorney General Opinion Jh4-587 (1986) (section 8 of article 6252-9b, V.T.C.S. provides no tanctions for violations of its provisions).
p. 1101 Mr. JamesL. Crouch - Page 5 (DM-209)
Your mmabdng three questions are as fbllows: (4)Ifthescfkctshadoc~~edatIerJanwyl,l992,the effective date of Senate Bii 1, -;=I Legidatun, R@ar sessiol& 1991. would your - * (5)Towhatextent,ifany,wiUtheethicslawestabliahedio PURA wnhue to apply to PUC wmmissionu5 and 8taff afta the dfective date of Senate Bill l? (6) Conve&y~towhatextent,ifany,willthenewethicskW &Ii&d in Senate Bill 1 apply to PUC commisrionas and staff 8fkitSCfkUiVCdlUC? senatCBiulofthe72dLegiskture~~~provisionsregulatingthedhicsof public savants.) Some of its provisions address conduct also wveted by section 6 of article 1446c, V.T.C.S. Article 6252-9b, V.T.C.S.. adopted in 1973 to establish standards of wmhlct for state 05cers and employces,~applies to 05cers and employees of the PUC. Srr V.T.C.S. art. 6252-9b. 50 2(l), (S)(A)(i), o(A). (S)(A) (dcfming