Louisiana Ethics Administration Program
Home
Charges Search
EAB Decisions Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-072
LAEthics
>
Opinions
>
SearchableOpinions
>
2021
>
2021-072
Metadata
Thumbnails
New Search
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2021 9:48:37 AM
Creation date
6/9/2021 11:07:17 AM
Metadata
2021-072
Fields
Template:
Opinion Item
Opinion Type
Advisory Opinion
Docket Number
2021-072
Requesting Party
JoAnn Rucker
Decision Date
6/4/2021
Law
R.S. 42:1113A
R.S. 42:1111C(2)(d)
Caption
Advisory Opinion whereby the Code of Governmental Ethics would prohibt Larry Rolling, Councilman for the City of Covington, from receiving compensation from Action Screen Printers while they have a business relationship with the City of Covington and Action Screen Printers would be prohibited from selling products bearing the City logo to third parties while Mr. Rolling serves on the City Council and receives compensation from Action Screen Printers.
Ethics Subject Matters
Prohibited Assistance
Prohibited Transactions
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The Board concluded, and instructed me to inform you, that ASP is prohibited from selling <br /> products bearing the City logo to third parties while Mr. Rolling serves on the City Council and <br /> receives compensation from ASP. <br /> Question 3: The final purchaser is irrelevant because to the extent the license of the logo <br /> represents a business relationship between ASP and the City, the analysis under <br /> Question 2 applies, and any compensation paid to Mr. Rolling would be a violation <br /> of Section 1111 C(2)(d) and Section 1117. <br /> The Board concluded, and instructed me to inform you, that ASP is prohibited from selling <br /> products bearing the City logo to City employees while Mr. Rolling serves on the City Council and <br /> receives compensation from ASP. <br /> Question 4: The reimbursement of a city employee would represent a transaction separate from the <br /> exchange of the logo between the City and ASP. These transactions would represent <br /> neither a transaction nor a business relationship between the City and ASP.However, <br /> neither the City nor Mr. Rolling should direct employees to use the services of ASP. <br /> However,under Question 3,the initial sale from ASP to the City employee would be <br /> prohibited. <br /> The Board concluded, and instructed me to inform you, that ASP is prohibited from selling <br /> products bearing the City logo to City employees while Mr. Rolling serves on the City Council and <br /> receives compensation from ASP. <br /> Question 5: Insufficient information was provided to determine the nature of the relationship <br /> between ASP, as a subcontractor, and the City. If this subcontract relationship is <br /> pursued, a more specific request should be submitted. However, to the extent this <br /> work involves ASP performing work using the logo licensed to ASP by the City,the <br /> analysis under Question 2 applies, and any compensation paid to Mr. Rolling would <br /> be a violation of Section 1111C(2)(d) and Section 1117. <br /> The Board concluded, and instructed me to inform you, that ASP is prohibited from <br /> performing subcontract work involving the City logo while Mr. Rolling serves on the City Council <br /> and receives compensation from ASP. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.