2008-1150 - Laserfiche WebLink

of a presumption that, as President of Regions Louisiana, Mr. Dabadie would necessarily • assist Regions Louisiana in all transactions before the LPFA. This expansive interpretation of the Ethics Code by the creation of a presumption of assistance goes far beyond the literal language of the Ethics Code and reads out the intent requirement of La.R.S.42:1102(4). This was done despite the protestations of Mr. Dabadie that he would be insulated from the operations of the former First American Bank or Regions Louisiana trust department and that he would not assist Regions Louisiana in any transactions before the LPFA. It was uncontested that the possibility of an occurrence whereby Regions Louisiana would have to come before the LPFA as trustee of the St. Francis Medical Center project was remote. The Commission presumed a real and substantial conflict of interest which precluded it from finding only a remote possibility of a conflict of interest. This interpretation is unwarranted and incorrect. See Hill v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees , 453 So.2d 558 (La.1984). Additionally, (the Commission) categorically presumed the "assistance" of a bank president in all transactions conducted before the LPFA. This should be done on a case by case basis. See In re Amtext, Inc ., 625 So.2d 693 (La. App. 1st Cir.1993). XXX Consequently, the advisory opinion does not comport with the requirements of La.R.S. 42:1152(A) (1) or(A) (2). In Board of Commissioners, Fifth Louisiana Levee District and Michael 0. Hesse v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees , 484 So. 2d 845 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/2/86), the court • stated: In the situation before the court the Commission has given an expansive interpretation to the ethics code far beyond the literal language in order to cover an arrangement which presents only a remote possibility of a conflict of interest. Such an interpretation is incorrect.Hill v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees , 453 So.2d 558 (La.1984). See also McMurdo v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees , 486 So.2d 829, (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/25/86). It is the Board's opinion that the classification of Taylor Porter in this matter as a"public employee" would constitute an "expansive interpretation" of the term "governmental function" that would be rejected by the courts. While advisory opinions are not decisions on formal charges, nonetheless, an advisory opinion that concludes a violation of a code provision has or would occur if the projected facts do become reality, must be supported by existing or projected facts that fulfill each element of a code provision under consideration. While some may contend that the Code provisions should be liberally construed, we find no legislative direction in the Code to that effect. Given that the Code authorizes punitive measures against persons found in violation of the Code, one could argue that its provisions should be strictly construed in favor of the person under scrutiny. The Board declines to accept a liberal construction of Code provisions. Instead, the Board adopts as • the correct standard of construction, a"fair and just"reading of each Code provision.