Panel denies revival of Gallot ethics case
Print
Email
Save
Reprints
Twitter
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
An ethics adjudicatory panel on Friday denied a request to revive a case involving conflict charges against a Jindal administration legislative floorleader.
The Louisiana Board of Ethics had sought review of the panel’s decision to throw out allegations against state Rep. Rick Gallot, D-Ruston, who chairs the House ethics oversight committee.
Last month, a divided three-judge panel said too much time had elapsed prior to the filing of the charges and said the charges should be dropped.
On Friday, a once again divided panel rejected the Ethics Board request for reconsideration.
Ethics administrator Kathleen Allen said the decision could be the end of the line for the Ethics Board’s pursuit of the Gallot case.
“There may not be a step we can take,” Allen said. “We will certainly put the decision before the board at the Oct. 27-28 meeting and have members review the decision.”
Gallot faced seven conflict-of-interest charges involving his legal representation of the Black and Gold Facilities Inc. in business dealings with Grambling State University and the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors, on which his mother serves.
The Ethics Board argued the adjudicatory panel’s decision was contrary to the law and evidence submitted. Ethics attorneys also argued the case should be pursued in the public interest.
“Louisiana law provides for a prescriptive period within which an action to enforce must be commenced. The Board did not do so,” wrote law judges John Kopynec and Debra Basile as they nixed the reconsideration request.
Law judge Robert Aguiluz disagreed, saying his colleagues’ interpretation of the law “leads to absurd consequences.”
A 2008 law change allows for a year to issue charges after a complaint is filed or a year after the board votes to consider the matter if there is no sworn complaint.
Gallot’s attorney Joe Bleich argued the case against his client was not filed until after two years from the board not only learning of the allegation but voting to start an investigation. Bleich said his client did not have to rely on the new one-year prescription.
Ethics lawyers said Gallot’s attorney counted the two years erroneously and the board had met the time deadline.
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
