.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX May 19, 1986
Attorney General
Supreme Court Suildlng Me. Peggy Rosson Opinion No. JM-495
P. 0. S,0x 12548
Austin, TX. 78711.2543
Chairman
512,475-2501
Public Utility Co~mclssionof Texas Re: Extent to which former
Telex 9101874-1367 7800 Shoal Creek Iloulevard,400N employee of the Public Utility
Telecopier 512475-0268 Austin, Texas 711757 Commission of Texas may par-
ticipate in business before
714 Jackson. Suite 700
the commission
Dallas, TX. 752024503
214f7428944 Dear Ms. Rosson:
You indicate that an employee in the Public Utility Commission's
4S24 Alberta Ave., Suite 160
El Paso. TX. 79905.2793
engineering divis:tonleft the employ of the commission in March, 1985,
915l533-3464
for employment aith MCI Comsmnications. The employee inmoediately
thereafter became involved in a proceeding before the commission on
behalf of his new employer. Before leaving the employ of the
1001 Texas, Suite 7CU commission, the c~ployee was involved in this same .proceeding. You
Houston. TX. 77002.3111
ask whether this 'Tatternof conduct constitutes a violation of section
713l22369SS
6(j) of article Wi6c. V.T.C.S., the Public Utility Regulatory Act.
605 Broadway. Suite 312 As a prelimixlry matter, in opinions rendered under article 4399,
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 V.T.C.S., this office decides questions of law -- not disputed
SW747.5239 questions of fact. You submitted copies of a transcript of the record
in a particular administrative proceeding. We cannot comnent on
4309 N. Tenth, Suite S whether the individual in the case you present has In fact violated
McAllen, TX. 78501.1685 section 6. This kind of assessment would require a factual judgment.
512/582-4547 We can comment on:ly on the scope of section 6 and provide you with
general guidance qon what actions would, depending on proof of the
200 Main Plan. suite 4w allegations in court, constitute a violation.
San Antonlo. TX. 78205-2797
5120254191 Section 6(j) :provides:
Durin:g the time a commissioner or employee of
An Equal OpportunitYI
Altirmatlve Action Employer
the consission is associated with the commission
or at say time after, the commissioner or employee
may not represent a person, corporation, or other
business entity before the commission or a court
in a matter in which the commissioner or employee
was perzonally involved while associated with the
commis&n or a matter that was within the commis-
sioner's or employee's official responsibility
while tge commissioner or emulovee was associated
with the cormoission. (Emphasisadded).
p. 2254
Ms. Peggy Rosson - Page 2 (JM-495)
You seek guidance on whst constitutes "representing" an employer.
In specific, you ask:
[i]s it a violation of section 6(j) for a former
employee to enter an appearance on the record for
an absent attorne:rin a case on which the employee
worked while at t:he commission, if the employee
otherwise does nothing on the record for his new
employer?
You note that "the former employee did little mare than announce
present for the absent al.torney." Your question suggests a very
limited interpretation of t,heterm "represent," i.e., that it refers
only to substantive appearances on the record. -
A full understanding of section 6(j) requires examination of the
related subsection which prlxedes it. Section 6(i) provides:
No commissionec shall within two years, and no
employee shall, within one year after his employ-
ment with the colmdssion has ceased, be employed
by a public utility which was in the scope of the
commissioner's 01: employee's official responsi-
bility while thi: commissioner or employee was
associated with t'vrcommission.
This subsection restricts, for one peer, employment of a former
commission employee by a pu',:Lic
utility which was in the scope of the
employee's official responsibility. See Attorney General Opinion
JM-280 (1984). Subsection 6(i) is not Gted to "representation" of
the utility; it restricts, for one year, a11 employment by the public
utility.
In contrast, sectio~n1;l.j)applies without regard to time limits
but applies only to "representation" in specific matters before the
commission. Moreover, section 6(j) is not limited to "public
utilities" but includes ",a person, corporation, or other business
entity." Thus, the focus of section 6(j) is on all aspects of
particular matters before tha-
= commission (1) in which the employee was
personally involved or (2,) over which the employee had official
responsibility while associated with the commission.
Moreover, "represent" in subsection 6(j) is not limited to
substantive appearances on the record. We believe that the legisla-
ture intended section 6(j) t,oreach all aspects of particular matters
1. You do not ask nor do we address whether or not MCI
Communications is a "p&UC utility" under section 6(i). Our
reference to section 6(i) is for purposes of comparison only.
p. 2255
Ms. Peggy Rosson - Page 3 (34-495)
which are before the comr~ission and which the employee was either
personally involved in wh:;le associated with the commission or over
which the employee had official responsibility. Accordingly, section
6(j) reaches any aspect 09 particular matters, i.e., those requiring
any agency action, in whic'x the employee interacxn any manner with
the commission on behalf 01:his new employer. For example, subsection
6(j) applies to appearances of a former employee as an expert on
behalf of the employee'rr new employer during an administrative
proceeding before the comtd.ssion. An appearance on the record in a
formal proceeding, however, is not necessary to incur a violation of
section 6(j). Section 6(j) reaches particular "matters," not just
particular proceedings. Thus, "represent" may also reach interactions
such as letters and telep'v,ne conversations about past, pending, or
future proceedings.
SUMMARY
Section 6(j) of article 1446c, V.T.C.S., the
Public Utility Regulatory Act, prohibits a former
employee of the Public Utility Commission from
interacting with the commission on behalf of the
employee's new employer in any matter before the
commission in ,Jllich the employee was either
personally invo:lved while associated wirh the
commission or OVW: which the employee had official
responsibility.
Very truly your
l-J
JIM
.&-
MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACKBIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney Gl~leral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant AttornlryGeneral
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2256
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion