2020-131 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ethics Board Docket No. 2020-131 Page 10 of 14 a company of which Mr. Temple served as a director, from receiving compensation for assisting a person in a transaction involving his former agency for a period of two years. Under the terms of the CEA between BCHI and the City-Parish, Mr. Temple's status as a member of the BCHI Board subjected him to the Ethics Code. Accordingly, Mr. Temple was a "public employee"and a"public servant,"pursuant to Section 1102 of the Ethics Code. BCHI was Mr.Temple's"agency"and as a member of the BCHI Board,he was considered an"agency head," pursuant to Section 1102 of the Ethics Code. Mr. Temple personally executed the Lease Agreement between RI and HRG, his wholly owned company, for the purpose of RI fulfilling its services agreement with BCHI. By leasing property to RI,Mr. Temple, through his wholly owned company, assisted RI in a transaction with BCHI within two years of resigning from the BCHI Board. Accordingly, this represents aviolation of Sections 1121A(1), 1121A(2) and 1121B ofthe Ethics Code by Mr. Temple, and a violation of Section 1121 C of the Ethics Code by HRG. 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, 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$25,000 civil penalty against Mr. Temple and HRG.