Louisiana Ethics Administration Program
Home
Charges Search
EAB Decisions Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-139
LAEthics
>
Opinions
>
SearchableOpinions
>
2022
>
2021-139
Metadata
Thumbnails
New Search
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2024 8:36:18 AM
Creation date
9/2/2022 4:11:56 PM
Metadata
2021-139
Fields
Template:
Opinion Item
Opinion Type
Consent Opinion
Docket Number
2021-139
Parties Involved
Emergent Method, LLC
Rowdy Gaudet
Agency at Issue
City of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish
Decision Date
9/2/2022
Law
42:1117
Caption
Consent opinion concerning Emergent Method employing Rowdy Gaudet, at time when Mr. Gaudet served as a member of the City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge Metro Council and Emergent had a contract with the City-Parish.
Ethics Subject Matters
Prohibited Sources
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.