In their first formal advisory opinion of the year, the Ohio Ethics Commission (OEC) expanded the definition of family member to include domestic partnerships. A “domestic partner” includes a person who is living with the public official or employee in a common law marital relationship or who is otherwise cohabiting with the public official. In this context, “cohabitate” means a romantic/intimate relationship. Following this expansion, the Commission’s definition of a “member of a public official’s family” includes but is not limited to: (1) grandparents; (2) parents and step-parents; (3) spouses; (4) children and step-children; (5) grandchildren; (6) siblings; (7) any person related by blood or marriage that resides in the same household as the public official; (8) and domestic partners.

Ohio’s Public Contract Law prohibits public officials from using their authority or influence to secure a contract in which they, a member of their family, or any of their business associates has an interest. Additionally, conflict of interest laws prohibit public officials from using their authority to secure anything of value for family members who are seeking employment with, or are employed by, the same public agency, and from soliciting or accepting anything of value that may manifest in a substantial and improper influence upon the public official.

These laws create several general family hiring restrictions. Notably, public officials cannot:

• Directly hire members of their family or vote to authorize the employment of a family member;
• Recommend, nominate, or use their position in any way to secure a job for a family member;
• Participate in a decision to give a family member a raise, promotion, job advancement, overtime pay or assignments, favorable performance evaluations, or other things of value related to employment; or
• Use their official position, formally or informally, to impact the decisions or actions of other officials or employees in matters that could affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment.

The Ohio Ethics Commission has advised that this does not amount to a “no-relatives” policy. Provided the school official is sufficiently detached from all employment decisions involving their family member, Ohio’s Ethics laws do not absolutely bar family members from working for the same school district. However, their obligation to remain impartial goes beyond the initial hiring process.

Even if the decision does not directly affect the public official’s family member, they may be prohibited from weighing in on certain actions involving lay-offs or terminations. For example, if a district needed to reduce their staff and one of the official’s family members worked in a department targeted for lay-offs, the public official should refrain from weighing in on those decisions. Even if they are not directly advocating for their family member to keep their position, the official’s actions could still “affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment” as the decision to lay off a different employee indirectly decreases the chances the family member will be affected by the lay-off.

The prohibitions of O.R.C. 102.03 serve the public interest in impartial government by preventing the creation of a situation which may impair the objectivity and impartiality of a public official in a matter affecting themself or a related party. Even if the public official is acting in good faith, the nature of the family relationship alone is enough to call into question the impartiality of their decision, and has the potential to undermine the public’s faith in the district. Prior to taking any employment-related action, district officials who have family members working in the same district need to consider whether the particular decision, even if it relates to another employee, could indirectly improve their family member’s own employment prospects.