Lege Watch

Here is an interesting news report from WWL’s Mike Conti. Apparently Governor Jindal ‘HOPES’ that the pay raise is unconstitutional.

Jindal expresses hope payraise is unconstitutional

Ya think?

“I’m not a judge, but I hope they’re right,” said Jindal.

News flash Gov., It may or may not be unconstitutional, but it sure is UNETHICAL!

Perhaps our esteemed Governor should read the ethics laws that he helped pass.

So what would be the applicable law? Section 1112 of the Code of Governmental Ethics!

Here is an excerpt from the ethics board in the case of Charlotte Randolph - Case 2006-202 dated September 13th, 2007

At issue in this case is Section 1112 of the Code of Governmental Ethics. Section 1112 of the Code prohibits a public servant from participating in certain transactions involving his governmental entity.

Section 1112 of the Code provides in pertinent part:

§1112. Participation in certain transactions involving the governmental entity

• B. No public servant, except as provided in R.S. 42:1120, shall participate in a transaction involving the governmental entity in which, to his actual knowledge, any of the following persons has a substantial economic interest:

(1) Any member of his immediate family.
The term “immediate family” as used in the above Sections is defined at Section 1102 (13) of the Code as follows:

• (13) “Immediate family” as the term relates to a public servant means his children, the spouses of his children, brothers, sisters, parents, spouse, and the parents of his spouse.

Other definitions contained in Section 1102 that are relevant when analyzing the above Sections are as follows:

• (15) “Participate” means to take part in or to have or share responsibility for the action of a governmental entity or a proceeding, personally, as a public servant of the governmental entity, through approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or the failure to act or perform a duty.

• (21) “Substantial economic interest” means an economic interest which is of greater benefit to the public servant or other person than to a general class or group of persons, except:

• (a) The interest that a public servant has in his position, office, rank, salary, per diem, or other matter arising solely from his public employment or office.

(b) The interest that an elected official who is elected to a house, body, or authority has in a position or office of such house, body or authority which is required to be filled by a member of such house, body, or authority by law, legislative rule or home rule charter.c) The interest that a person has as a member of the general public.2

In this case, the ethics board dismissed the charges because they claimed that they did not have ’sufficient evidence’. But it does serve to point out the ethics law at issue.

Here is what the Louisiana Police Jury says in its powerpoint on government ethics for elected parish officials (December 6, 2007):

You cannot participate in a transaction in which the following person have a substantial economic interest:

1.Yourself
2.A member of your immediate family
3.A legal entity in which you have a substantial economic interest
4.A person in which you serve on officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee
5.A person with whom you are negotiating prospective employment
6.A person who owes you, or a legal entity in which you own in excess of 25%, money or can affect your economic interests because of a contractual relationship with you or the legal entity.

§1120. Recusal from voting
A. If any elected official, in the discharge of a duty or responsibility of his office or position, would be required to vote on a matter which vote would be a violation of R.S. 42:1112, he shall recuse himself from voting. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an elected official shall not be required to recuse himself if he prepares and files the statement required by this Section as provided herein. In such case, the elected official shall prepare in writing a statement describing the matter in question, the nature of the conflict or potential conflict, and the reasons why, despite the conflict, the elected official is able to cast a vote that is fair, objective, and in the public interest. Such statement shall be filed within three days of the vote with the chief clerical officer of the respective house of the legislature, of the legislative committee, of the governing authority, or of any other body in which the vote is taken, as the case may be, who shall cause the statement to be recorded in the official journal, minutes, or other official record of the body. In addition, the elected official shall be required to file a copy of such statement as it appears in such published or recorded official journal, minutes, or record, with the appropriate ethics body.
B. This Section shall not be applicable when the elected official is the sole decisionmaker in the discharge of the particular duty or responsibility of his office or position.
C. This Section shall not extend to any act of participation other than voting.
Acts 1979, No. 443, §1, eff. April 1, 1980; Acts 1988, No. 880, §1.

So the key question is, DID OUR LEGISLATORS COMPLY WITH THIS LAW?

The law does not care if they voted YES or NO on the issue. It only cares if they complied with the law. The ethics conflict is clear.

They were obligated to RECUSE themselves from voting on SB672 because the bill raises their pay for their term in office. If the bill had proposed raising the pay for the future legislative session, then they would not have to recuse themselves because that is not their elected position until they secure it through the next election cycle.

So WHO FILED THE REQUIRED ETHICS STATEMENT and WHO DID NOT?