2023-1093 - Laserfiche WebLink

� Ethics Board Docket No. 2023-1093 Page 7 of 9 It is the opinion of the BOE that Mr. McKinney, in his capacity as an employee of MPD, violated Section 1113A by virtue of entering into transactions with Trigger that were under the supervision or jurisdiction of MPD. Section 1113A of the Ethics Code prohibits Mr. McKinney from entering into transactions related to traffic enforcement which are the jurisdiction of MPD. While Mr. McKinney was employed by MPD,he received compensation from Trigger for off-duty services related to traffic enforcement. As Mr. McKinney also performed services related to traffic enforcement as part of his employment with MPD, his receipt of compensation from Trigger violates Section 1111C(1)(a) of the Ethics Code. Further, as traffic enforcement is under the jurisdiction of MPD, Mr. McKinney's transactions with Trigger to provide traffic enforcement violate Section 1113A 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 1153B of the Ethics Code. The Ethics Adjudicatory Board could also impose penalties equal to one-and-a-half times the amount of economic advantage gained,pursuant to Section 1155A of the Ethics Code. In this particular situation, it is the conclusion of the Board that the interest of the public would be served by, and the parties have agreed to resolving this matter amicably through the publication of this Consent Opinion with the imposition of a $2,500 civil penalty against Mr. McKinney.