2008-1150 - Laserfiche WebLink

• In the Declaration of Policy preamble to the Code, the Legislature sets forth three pillars of public policy in Sec. 1101: (i) "Public office and employment (must) not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law," (ii) the prohibition against improper private gain "is impaired when a conflict exists between the private interest of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such," and (iii) the foregoing goals are to be accomplished through "appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees..."All three pillars are maintained upright in the Board's decision. The Preamble also announces a policy against "creating unnecessary barriers to public service". The Board's decision avoids the creation of such a barrier. Judicial Guidance In Interpretation of Code Provisions. In conclusion, the Board is disinclined to employ an expansive interpretation of the phrase "governmental function." In so doing, the Board is guided by decisions of the appellate courts cautioning the Board of Ethics (and its predecessors) against"expansive"interpretations of various provisions of the Code. In Hill v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees , 453 So. 2d 558 (La. 1984) the undisputed facts were set forth. For twelve years, Hill served as an appointee and salaried member of the La. Board of Cosmetology. He was undisputedly a"public employee." During the same period, he was a licensed cosmetologist and held a controlling interest in a beauty solon. As a licensed cosmetologist, he periodically applied for and was granted a license by the Board on • which he served. In addition, his beauty salon was periodically inspected for health compliance by a Board employee that could be him, and the beauty salon also applied for and was granted a license to operate by the Board. The Commission held that as a public employee Hill was in violation of Section 1112 B (2) because he participated in "transactions" involving his licensing and the inspection of the beauty solon in which he owned a controlling interest. The Supreme Court noted that "the Commission was hard-pressed to state precisely the nature of the violations,..", that other inspectors could inspect his beauty salon; that "there was no showing of a violation of the Code of Ethics with regard to the supervision of the inspector.."; that "there is no showing that the board is required to vote or otherwise exercise authority with respect to the renewal of shop licenses and cosmetologist licenses"... and that "the Commission found only a remote possibility of a conflict of interest which it could not pinpoint or document." Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court reversed the Commission's ruling. The reasoning apparently requires substantial evidence to support a finding that a violation of the Code has or would occur under the existing and projected facts. Accordingly, the Board believes that the classification of Taylor Porter as a"public employee"is not supportable. In Re Regions Bank and C. C. Dabadie , 665 So.2d 824, 95 0061 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/15/96), the court reversed the Commission with the following pronouncements: . The Commission has given an expansive interpretation of the Ethics Code by the creation