Branco Antoet Aron
January 8, 2019
(Me. Thomas B. Altritton
Executive Director
‘Alabama Ethics Commission
100 North Union Szeet, Suite 108
Montgomery, AL 36104
Re: Request for Formal Advisory Opinion Regarding Sutus of Members of the
Biraingham Airport Authority Board of Directors Unde the Alabama Ethics Act
Dear Mr. Albiton
(On behalf of the Birmingham Aieport Authority's Board of Directors (“Board”), | am
suiting this request to the Alabama Ethics Commission ("Commission") fora formal advisory
‘opinion regarding several questions related tothe status of Board menbers under the Alabama
Ethics Act, Ala. Cate §36-25-1 et seq. ("Act” or "Ethics Act’)
‘The Birmirgham Airport Authority ("Authority") was incorpomted on Tune 6, 1986 as &
public nonprofit corporation under the provisions of the Code of Alabama, Title 4, Chapter 3.
‘Anicle 2. The Authority is responsible for managing and operating the Biminghan-Shutlesworth
International Aieper (“Airport”), which is owned by the City of Bieningham, The Airport i=
‘operated by the Authority pursuant to 2 SO-year lease, which became efective on September 16,
1986 and expires cn September 15, 2085./ The Authority is governed by a seven (7) member
Board, whose members are nominated by the Mayor of Birmingham and elected by Birmingham
City Council. See Ala. Code § 4-3-4.
‘The Authotity’s operating expenses consist of personnel costs, contractual services,
ities, maintenance, materials and supplies, professional services, deprecation and amortization,
and equipment renal and repairs. The opeaiions and improvements athe Airport are funded by
airport user charges Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), Customer Fact Charges (CFCS), bond
funds, and funds received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), Of particular note for purposes ofthe Board's questions herein is
‘hat no general tax fand revenues ae used to fund the Authority's operating expenses
‘The Board is submitting this request fora formal advisory opinion to obtain answers to
several questions regarding what obligations, if any, Board members have under the Act.
Specifically de Bear presents sx questions
“See Comprehensive Annual Financial Reportfor the Fiscal Year Ending June $0, 2017, avaible
at hips: /wwr,fybirmingham comp. contenUuploade/2018I07/BAA-CAFR.2017-cbook pa.Basuncaows Aavoxr Amer’
1, Are Board members subject tothe Eties Act?
2. Given that employees of the Authority are compensited from funds generated from noa-
public sourees, are they nonetheless considered Public Employees subject othe Act?
3. Assuming Board members ae subject to the Act, are they required to file Statements of
Economic Interest?
4. Assuming Board members ate subject othe Act, ifthe Authority hires lobbyist through
authorization provided vin at least « majority vote of the Boar, is each individual Board
‘member considered a principal under the Act? Is the analysis different for an individval
Board member who voted against providing authorization to hie the lobbyist but whose
vote was ultimately defeated by majority vol in favor of providing the authorization? I
£0, please explain
'S. Does the act of sigting the Principal's Statement for Lobbyist Registration or the
Prinepal's Quarterly Statement of Lobbying Activities on behalf ofthe Authority, standing
alone, make the indivdual signing those forms a principal under the Act? Ts the analysis
different ifthe indivdual who signs the principal-telated filings has no authority or
supervision over the hiring, firing, or activities of the lobbyist, but merely signs a a
funetion of his o her job duties? IF 50, please explain.
6. The Authority has the responsibilty to increase and improve ar service from airlines and
to promote the Airpor. What limitations does the Act place on this marketing
responsibility?
Each of these questions is adcessed below,
1, Ate Board members subject othe Ethics Act?
‘The Boar is aware of 1996 advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission issued tothe
Mobile Airport Authority that addresed whether members ofthe Mobile Airport Authority Board
"Mobile Board") ave consideted public officials subject othe Ethics Act, See AO-S4. In tha
advisory opinion, the Commission determined thatthe members ofthe Mobile Board were subject
to the Act. As discussed below, the Board believes this question is ripe for consideration bere
‘because itis unclear whether the Mobile Airport Authority operated on general tax fund revenues
a the time the Commission Sued AO96-54, and if t did, AOB6-54 is silent as fo wheter the
‘Commission considered the mture ofthe funding in reaching its conclusion,
Inreaching its conclusion, AO96-S4 relies only on the Act's definitions for “Governmental
Corporations and Authariies,’ Publi Official,” and “Public Employee." The definitions fr each
‘of those terms appear to have the same substantive application tothe Authority and Board now as
they dd to the Mobile Airpor: Authority and Mobile Board when the Commission issued AO96-Baxancavs Anvoer Amex
‘54. The Commission nted that “Lin 1995, the Alabama Legislature broadened the definition of a
“public official” in the Alabama Ethice Law to include the newly-defined “governmental
corporations and authcites,” pursuant to Act No. 95-194.” AO2015-06. Prior tothe addition of
the “governmental corporations and authorities” language to the Act in 1995, members of the
Mobile Board were not considered public officials subject tothe Act.? According to AO96-54, the
addition ofthe “goverrmenal corporations and authorities” language to the Actin 1995 rendered
Mobile Board member: subject tothe Act.
‘What remains unclear to the Boar is whether the fact thatthe Authority uses no general
tax fund revenues to operate or maintain the Airport affects the Commission's analysis of the
‘Board members’ status as public officials subject to the Act. The Board respectfully requests the
Commission's guidance as to whether ts members ae subject to the Act.
2. Given that employees of the Authority are compensated from funds generated fom non=
‘public sources, ate they nonetheless considered Public Employees subject tothe Act?
In AO96-54, the Commission concluded that “employees ofthe Mobile Aigport Authority
are public employees; and therefore are subject othe Alabama Ethics Law.” AQ96-S4 at p. 4. As
referenced above, no general tax fund revenues are used to fund the Authority's operating
expenses, which include the compensation and benefits of the Authority's employees. For similar
reasons set forth above in Question I, the Board respectfully requests the Commissicn’s guidance
as (o whether the employees of the Authority are Public Employees subject to the Actin light of
the fat that they compensated from funds generated from non-public soUrees.
43, Assuming Boned members are subject to the Act are they required fo fle Statements of
Economic Intent?
In. 4096.54, th: Commission concluded that because “the Mobile Airport Athority does
‘ot have statewide jurisdiction, board members fof the Mobile Airport Authority] ae n0t required
to file Statements of Economic Interest (*SOEI") unless their base pay with th Board is $50,000
for more per yea.” AOM6-S4 at p 4
Like the Mobile Airport Authority the Authority does not have statewide jurisdiction.
Further, Boant members are not compensited for their service, therefore they do 20t meet the
'$75,000 base pay threshold for fling SOEI set forth in the curent version ofthe Actat Ala, Code
$36-25-144902)?
* See AO96-54 tp 3 (referencing that “the members ofthe [Mobile] Boord and employees ofthe
[Mobile] Airport Thad] not been considered subject 10 the Ethics Act” prior Io the 1995
amendment.
> Since the Commission issued AO96-S4,the $50,000 threshold for ing SOEI has been increased
10 $75,000. See Ala. Code § 36-25-14(a)2) (requiring the filing ofa yearly SOEI by’