2008-1150 - Laserfiche WebLink

• determine the meaning of "governmental function." In Commission on Ethics for Public Employees v I T Corporation, 423 So.2d 695 (1st Cir., 1982) and In re George Dyer and Fire Apparatus Specialist Inc ., 677 So 2d 1075, 95 2297 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96), the two private contracting entities were held to be "public employees" by virtue of their contracts with governmental entities. In the IT Corporation (IT) case, it had entered into a contract with the La. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to conduct a feasibility study for a regional hazardous waste disposal facility, including recommending a particular site location for the facility. In discussing whether IT was "engaged in the performance of a governmental function, the IT court had to first determine what is a "governmental function." To make that determination, the court looked to the statutory law to determine whether the work related to the suitability and the location of a waste disposal site was assigned by state law as a "governmental function." The court cited Act 334 of 1978 (See now La. R. S. 30:2172 et seq) which provided, "it is in the public interest and within the police powers of the state, to establish a framework for the regulation, monitoring, and control of the generators, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of such hazardous waste..." Obviously, the Legislature had vested DNR the responsibility for the performance of all such functions. Thus, the court concluded that in performing a feasibility study to determine the feasibility and the siting of a waste disposal facility, IT was "engaged in the performance of a state function." In the instant matter, the Board must undertake a similar analysis. The court held that a conflict existed between IT, as a public employee through its • contract with DNR, and as a private corporation. As a public employee, it had the duty of securing feasible waste disposal sites at the most reasonable costs. As a private corporation, its private interest was to make a private gain based on its own work, the result of its contractual efforts. Thus, IT was serving two masters. The Board concludes that the IT opinion clearly supports the Board's decision. Neither is In Re George Dyer and Fire Apparatus Specialist, Inc ., 667 So.2d. 1075 (La App. 1 Cir. 1982), a precedent for finding that Taylor Porter would be a "public employee". Dyer was the Assistant Fire Chief of TDVFD, a quasi-public entity that had a contract with the Third Fire District, a governmental body, to be the sole provider of fire protection for the district. At the same time, Dyer owned a controlling interest in Fire Apparatus Specialties, Inc. ("FAS"), a private corporation. FAS regularly sold new fire trucks and equipment to and repaired old fire trucks and equipment for the TDVFD. The court noted that "the central issue (was) whether the Third District Volunteer Fire Department ("TDVFD") is engaged in the performance of a governmental function so as to subject its members application of the Code." 667 So.2d. 1075, p. 5. With very little discussion, the appellate court quickly affirmed the ruling of the Commission on Ethics for Public Employees that Dyer, as a member of TDVFD, was engaged in the performance of a "governmental function"by providing the sole fire protection for the public. • Thus, Dyer had a conflict between his private interest in selling truck and equipment to