2021-139 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Ethics Board Docket No. 2021-139 Page 7 of 11 servant or other person has violated any law within the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics to his economic advantage, and after an adjudicatory hearing on the matter, the Ethics Adjudicatory Board may order the payment of penalties. Recovery may include, in addition to an amount equal to such economic advantage, penalties not to exceed one half of the amount of the economic advantage. Any appeal of such final decision by the Ethics Adjudicatory Board shall be to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,pursuant to R.S. 42:1142. V. OPINION: It is the opinion of the BOE that Rowdy Gaudet, in his capacity as Councilman, Metro District 3, East Baton Rouge Parish, violated Section 1111 C(2)(d) of the Ethics Code by virtue of his receipt of compensation for services rendered to Emergent Method while Emergent Method had or was seeking to have contractual, financial or business relationships with Rowdy Gaudet's agency. Section 1111 C(2)(d) of the Ethics Code prohibits Rowdy Gaudet from receiving compensation from Emergent Method while Rowdy Gaudet serves on the Metro Council and Emergent Method has or is seeking to obtain contractual, financial and business relationships with the City-Parish. While Rowdy Gaudet served as a Councilman on the Metro Council, Rowdy Gaudet was employed and receiving compensation from Emergent Method, and Emergent Method had contracts with the City-Parish which were overseen by and subject to the authority of the Metro Council. As Emergent Method had active contracts with Rowdy Gaudet's agency, Rowdy Gaudet was prohibited from receiving compensation from Emergent Method pursuant to Section 1111 C(2)(d) of the Ethics Code. If this matter proceeded to a public hearing before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board, and the Ethics Adjudicatory Board found a violation of the Ethics Code, the Ethics Adjudicatory Board could impose a fine of up to $10,000 for each violation of the Ethics Code, pursuant to Section