Louisiana state seal Louisiana Ethics Administration Program
Home Charges Search EAB Decisions Search
Ethics Board Docket No. 2021-139 <br /> Page 8 of 11 <br /> V. <br /> OPINION: <br /> It is the opinion of the BOE that Emergent Method violated Section 1117 of the <br /> Ethics Code by virtue of providing compensation to Rowdy Gaudet which he was prohibited from <br /> receiving by Section 1111 C(2)(d) of the Ethics Code. Section 1117 of the Ethics Code prohibits <br /> Emergent Method from paying compensation to Rowdy Gaudet if Rowdy Gaudet is prohibited <br /> from receiving such compensation under the Ethics Code. <br /> While Rowdy Gaudet served as a Councilman on the Metro Council, Rowdy Gaudet was <br /> employed and receiving compensation from Emergent Method, and Emergent Method had <br /> contracts with the City-Parish which were overseen by and subject to the authority of the Metro <br /> Council. As Emergent Method had active contracts with Rowdy Gaudet's agency, Rowdy Gaudet <br /> was prohibited from receiving compensation from Emergent Method pursuant to Section <br /> 1111 C(2)(d) of the Ethics Code. Accordingly, because Rowdy Gaudet was prohibited from <br /> receiving compensation from Emergent Method,payments by Emergent Method to Rowdy Gaudet <br /> were a violation of Section 1117 of the Ethics Code. <br /> If this matter proceeded to a public hearing before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board, and the <br /> Ethics Adjudicatory Board found a violation of the Ethics Code, the Ethics Adjudicatory Board <br /> could impose a fine of up to $10,000 for each violation of the Ethics Code, pursuant to Section <br /> 1153A of the Ethics Code. In this particular situation, it is the conclusion of the Board that the <br /> interest of the public would be served by, and the parties have agreed to resolving this matter <br /> amicably through the publication of this Consent Opinion with the imposition of a $2,500 civil <br /> penalty against Emergent Method. <br />