2022-060 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Ethics Board Docket No.2022-060 Page 5 of 8 children,the spouses of his children, his brothers and their spouses, his sisters and their spouses,his parents, his spouse, and the parents of his spouse. (19)defines"public servant"to mean a public employee or elected official. V. OPINION• It is the opinion of the BOE that DCIA violated La.R.S.42:1113A(1)(a)of the Ethics Code by virtue of entering into a transaction under the supervision or jurisdiction of the agency of an immediate family member of Donald Cravins, who owns a controlling interest in DCIA. La. R.S. 42:1113A(l)(a) prohibits DCIA from entering into any contract or transaction under the supervision of Charles Cravins'agency while Donald Cravins owns a controlling interest in DCIA. While Charles Cravins served as District Attorney of the 27th Judicial District, DCIA entered into a financial agreement between the District Attorney's Office and DCIA. As Charles Cravins' immediate family member, Donald Cravins and any legal entity in which he owned a controlling interest were prohibited from entering into an agreement with the District Attorney's Office pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1113A(l)(a)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 La. R.S. 42:1153. The Ethics Adjudicatory Board could also impose penalties equal to one and one-half times the amount of economic advantage gained,pursuant to La. R.S.42:1155A. In this particular situation, the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably. Therefore, it is the conclusion of the BOE that the interests of the public and judicial efficiency