Greg Gachassin Ethics Decision

State of Louisiana
Division of Administrative Law

ETHICS ADJUDICATORY BOARD
P.O. Box 44033, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4033
Phone (225) 219-9954 * Fax (225) 219-9983
Located at 654 Main Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
www.adminlaw.state.la.us
JOHN BEL EDWARDS
Governor
ANN WISE
Director
August 3, 2016
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Ms. Suzanne Q. Mooney

Ms. Kathleen Allen
Ms. Tracy M. Barker
Ms. Vivian Haley Williams
Attorneys at Law
Louisiana Board of Ethics
P. O. Box 4368
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Mr. R. Gray Sexton

Ms. Jennifer L. Jackson
Ms. Alesia M. Ardoin
Attorneys at Law
10715 N. Oak Hills Parkway
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
graysexton@sextonlaw.net
jennyjackson@sextonlaw.net
alesiaardoin@sextonlaw.net
RE:
NOTICE OF MAILING OF DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF: The Cartesian Company, Inc.
and Greg Gachassin
Docket No. 2012-10863-ETHICS-A
Enforcement Tracking # 2011-835
To the parties in the above entitled matter:

Attached is the decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board in the above captioned matter.
This decision is being mailed on August 3, 2016.
If you have any questions, you may call Ms. Monika Wright, DAL attorney, at (225)2199954.
Clerk of Court
Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens

An Equal Opportunity Employer
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ETHICS ADJUDICATORY BOARD
*
* DOCKET NO. 2012-10863-ETHICS-A
*
*
*
AGENCY TRACKING NO. 2011-835
*
BOARD OF ETHICS
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CARTESIAN COMPANY, INC.

AND GREG GACHASSIN
******************************************************************************
DECISION AND ORDER
The Louisiana Board of Ethics issued charges against The Cartesian Company, Inc. and
Greg Gachassin for participating in transactions prohibited by the Code of Governmental Ethics.
The Ethics Adjudicatory Board finds that The Cartesian Company, Inc. and Greg Gachassin
violated the Code of Governmental Ethics, for which they are ordered to pay fines and penalties
in the amount of $1.56 million.
APPEARANCES
A hearing was conducted April 18 and 19, 2016, in Baton Rouge before Ethics
Adjudicatory Board Panel A (EAB). R. Gray Sexton and Jennifer Jackson appeared as counsel
for The Cartesian Company, Inc. and Greg Gachassin. Suzanne Quinlan Mooney, Kathleen
Allen, Haley Williams, and Tracy Barker appeared as counsel for the Louisiana Board of Ethics.
The following testified at the hearing: Greg Gachassin, John Arceneaux, Richard Becker,
Charles C. Theriot, and Todd Little.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Louisiana Board of Ethics (BOE) issued charges against The Cartesian Company,
Inc. (Cartesian) and Greg Gachassin (Gachassin) for violating the Code of Governmental Ethics
(Ethics Code). The BOE alleged that Cartesian violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B) and La. R.S.
42:1121, and that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1112, La. R.S. 42:1113(B), and La. R.S.
42:1121, by participating in prohibited transactions.1
Cartesian and Gachassin contend that the BOE did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that they violated the Ethics Code.
The parties called witnesses, presented arguments, and offered documents into
evidence. Cartesian and Gachassin presented Exhibit U, which they contended showed the
attorney fees they incurred in this case. The BOE objected to the admission of Exhibit U,
stating that the documents are unreliable and insufficient to show the reasonableness of
Cartesian and Gachassins attorney fees. Because we rule against Cartesian and Gachassin, we
overrule the BOEs objection, and we preserve Cartesian and Gachassins appeal rights under
La. R.S. 42:1142(A)(2)(b) by admitting into the record evidence of the amount of attorney
fees and costs incurred.2
Documents including Exhibit U, were admitted into evidence and the matter was taken
under advisement.3 The record was held open until May 10, 2016, for the parties to submit posthearing memoranda. The memoranda were received and entered into the record and the matter
was submitted for decision.
This adjudication is conducted in accordance with the Code of Governmental Ethics, La.
R.S. 42:1101, et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, La. R.S. 49:950, et seq.
In the charges, the BOE did not specify particular subsections of La. R.S. 42:1121 that Gachassin or Cartesian
violated. At the hearing, the BOE argued that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(1) and (2) and that Cartesian
violated (C).
2
La. R.S. 42:1142(A)(2)(c) is clear that the amount of attorney fees shall be determined by the court of appeal and
included in the courts judgment.
3
The BOEs documents are marked BOE Exhibits A - EE. Cartesian and Gachassins documents are marked
Respondents Exhibits A - S and U.
SUMMARY OF THE ETHICS CODE VIOLATIONS

Gachassin and his wholly owned corporation, Cartesian, violated the Code of
Governmental Ethics (Ethics Code) when Cartesian contracted with an agency of the Lafayette
Public Trust Financing Authority (LPTFA) while Gachassin was the Chairman of the LPTFA.
Gachassin also violated the Ethics Code when he participated in discussions and voted on
matters before the LPTFA in which he had a personal substantial economic interest. Gachassin
also violated the Ethics Code when he assisted Cartesian for compensation in matters before the
LPTFA in the two-year period following his resignation from the LPTFA.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Governmental Entities
The Lafayette Public Trust Financing Authority (LPTFA) is a public trust created under
the authority of La. R.S. 9:2341.4 The LPTFA was created for the purpose of furthering and
accomplishing any public function and purpose of the City of Lafayette, as well as for the use
and benefit of the City of Lafayette.5
The Louisiana Housing Authority Law grants municipalities and parishes the authority to
establish public housing authorities.6 The Lafayette Housing Authority (LHA) was established
pursuant to this authority. 7 The LHA is a political subdivision of the state.8
Villa Gardens Housing Corporation (Villa Gardens Corporation) is an agency of the LHA
created on October 30, 2009, [t]o promote and advance decent, safe and sanitary housing for
BOE Exhibit Y, p. 433.

Id. at pp. 434 and 436.
6
La. R.S. 40:391, et seq.
7
Id.
8
La. R.S. 40:384(16).
5
persons of low income and particularly the elderly or handicapped . . . .9
Its Board of
Commissioners was composed of the Board of Commissioners of the LHA.10

Villa Gardens Limited Partnership (Villa Gardens LP) was created on November 1, 2009,
for the purpose of acquiring a tract of land in Lafayette, Louisiana, and developing, building,
owning, and operating the Villa Gardens development.11
Villa Gardens Corporation is the general partner of Villa Gardens LP, responsible for
managing its affairs, including responsibility for mortgages.12 A Domestic Partnership Annual
Report for period ending October 30, 2011, filed with the Secretary of States office listed
Gachassin as an officer or director for Villa Gardens Corporation; Gachassin electronically
signed the form on November 7, 2011.13
Cypress Trails Corporation was created on October 30, 2009, as an agency of the LPTFA
[t]o promote and advance decent, safe and sanitary housing for persons of low income and
particularly the elderly or handicapped . . . .14 Its Board of Commissioners is composed of the
Board of Trustees of the LPTFA.15
On November 1, 2009, Cypress Trails Limited Partnership (Cypress Trails LP) was
created for the purpose of acquiring a tract of land in Lafayette, Louisiana, and developing,
building, owning, and operating the Cypress Trails project. 16 Gachassin, in his capacity as
Chairman of the LPTFA, executed the Articles of Partnership on behalf of Cypress Trails
Corporation.17 Gachassin was also the first officer and Executive Director of Cypress Trails
BOE Exhibit Q, p. 334.

Id.
11
Id. at pp. 316-317.
12
Id. at p. 322.
13
14
BOE Exhibit F, p. 110.
15
Id. at p. 113.
16
BOE Exhibit E, pp. 85-86.
17
Id.
10
Corporation.18 Cypress Trails Corporation, represented by the LPTFA, was the general partner
with the responsibility for managing the affairs of Cypress Trails LP.19
A Domestic Partnership Annual Report for the period ending November 5, 2011, filed
with the Secretary of States office listed Gachassin as a partner of Cypress Trails LP; Gachassin
electronically signed the form on November 22, 2011.20 A Domestic Partnership Annual Report
filed with the Secretary of States office for the period ending October 30, 2011, listed Gachassin
as an officer or director for Cypress Trails Corporation; Gachassin electronically signed the form
on November 22, 2011.21 A Domestic Partnership Annual Report filed with the Secretary of
States office for the period ending October 30, 2010, listed Gachassin as a Director of Cypress
Trails Corporation.22
Cartesian and Gachassin
Gachassin served as an appointed trustee/member of LPTFA from August 19, 2003, until
his resignation on November 17, 2009. 23 Gachassin served as Chairman of the LPTFA from
April 6, 2007, until his resignation. 24
Gachassin resigned as Chairman of the LPTFA on
November 17, 2009, effective immediately.25
18
BOE Exhibit F, p114.

BOE Exhibit E, p. 85; see BOE Exhibit E, pp. 90-91. Cypress Trails Corporation was responsible for (a) keeping
complete books/records and filing tax returns for the partnership; (b) selecting a management agent; (c) making
inspections of the complex and assuring its proper maintenance/repair; (d) preparing and delivering to the other
partners all financial reports and other information relevant to the partnership; (e) paying taxes and other
governmental charges assessed against the partnership, as well as all other reasonable expenses incurred in
accordance with the agreement (Articles of Partnership) in connection with the ownership/maintenance/operation of
the partnership; (f) maintaining adequate insurance coverage; (g) employing, engaging, or contracting with persons
in the operation of the partnership business (including supervisory managing agents, building management agents,
insurance brokers, real estate brokers, and loan brokers); and (h) doing all other things necessary or desirable to
properly/efficiently administer/carry on the business of the partnership.
20
BOE Exhibit E, p. 108.
21
BOE Exhibit F, p. 119.
22
Id. at p. 118.
23
BOE Exhibit BB, p. 521; Testimony of Gachassin; BOE Exhibit J, p. 184.
24
BOE Exhibit R, p. 345.
25
BOE Exhibit J, p. 184.
19
While serving on the LPTFA, Gachassin was not an elected official.26 Between 2004 and
2007, Gachassin served as the head of the Louisiana Housing Finance Authority (LHFA).27
Gachassin admitted he had to follow the Ethics Code when he served on the LHFA.28
Cartesian is a domestic corporation incorporated in the State of Louisiana by Gachassin.29
Gachassin is the sole shareholder, Director, President, and sole employee of Cartesian. 30
Gachassin receives a salary from Cartesian.31 The Secretary of State issued a certificate of
incorporation to Cartesian on November 10, 2009.32 The Articles of Incorporation are dated
November 6, 2009.33
The Villa Gardens Development
The Villa Gardens Development (Villa Gardens) is an affordable housing development.34
Villa Gardens is located on Patterson Street in Lafayette, LA.35
On February 3, 2006, Walter Guillory, Executive Director of the LHA, appeared before
the LPTFA to request financial assistance for the LHAs purchase of property for Villa
Gardens.36
On July 20, 2006, Gachassin updated the LPTFA regarding the status of the
LPTFAs assistance to the LHA for Villa Gardens.37

Gachassin proposed that the LPTFA loan $425,000 to the LHA for the purchase of the
26
BOE Exhibit Y, p. 438. Members of the LPTFA are not elected but are appointed by the governing authority of
the City of Lafayette.
27
Testimony of Gachassin. Becker and Gachassin also testified that the LHFA is the gatekeeper/administrator of
low-income housing tax credits.
28
Testimony of Gachassin.
29
BOE Exhibit A, pp. 2-12.
30
BOE Exhibit A, pp. 2-12; Testimony of Greg Gachassin and Charles Theriot.
31
Respondents Exhibit R, pp. 13, 15, and 17; Testimony of Gachassin.
32
BOE Exhibit A at p. 2.
33
Id. at p. 3.
34
35
BOE Exhibit I, p. 152; Testimony of Gachassin.
36
BOE Exhibit H, p. 131.
37
BOE Exhibit I, pp. 152-153.
Patterson Street property.38 He proposed that the loan be made with an interest rate of three
percent per annum accruing until the earlier of five years or the closing of the tax credit
transaction. 39
The LPTFA unanimously approved the terms proposed by Gachassin. 40
Mortgage, Assignment of Rents, and Security Agreement memorializing the loan from the
LPTFA to the LHA were filed in the mortgage records of Lafayette Parish on August 10, 2006.41
As of November 4, 2009, the original $425,000 loan, with unpaid accrued interest, had grown
to approximately $460,000.42
Based on the testimony of Richard Becker, general counsel for the LPTFA, a low-income
housing developer must have control over the property to be used for the site of the low-income
housing development before it can apply for low-income housing tax credits through the LHFA.
The LPTFA did not manage or control Villa Gardens. The LPTFA did not have general
authority to oversee Villa Gardens.
On November 1, 2009, Villa Gardens LP entered into a Project Consultant Agreement
with Cartesian in which the partnership agreed to pay Cartesian $500,000 for services provided
to Villa Gardens.43 The agreement states, THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of
November, 2009 by and between [Villa Gardens LP] . . . and [Cartesian] . . ., and IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the
date first written above.44 November 1, 2009, is the only date contained in the agreement.
Gachassin signed the Project Consultant Agreement in his capacity as President of Cartesian. 45
This occurred while Gachassin was the Chairman of the LPTFA and Cartesians sole owner.
38
Id.
Id.
40
Id. at p. 153.
41
BOE Exhibit AA, pp. 481-498.
42
BOE Exhibit D, p. 40.
43
BOE Exhibit B, pp. 13 and 20.
44
Id. at pp. 13 and 23.
45
Id. at p. 23.
39
On November 2, 2009, Gachassin purchased digital prints for Villa Gardens.46 Cartesian
sought reimbursement of these expenses from Villa Gardens LP on June 29, 2010.47
During a November 4, 2009, meeting of the LPTFA, Gachassin participated in the
following discussion regarding the LPTFAs loan to the LHA: The credit market has tightened
and the LPTFA $400,000 loan to the Housing Authority is needed for the Housing Authority to
complete its affordable housing project known as Villa Gardens. 48 After this discussion, and
during the November 4, 2009, meeting, the LPTFA unanimously approved a motion to recast the
loan for Villa Gardens to a long-term, no-interest, cash-flow loan. 49
This occurred while
Gachassin was the Chairman of the LPTFA.

On November 19, 2009, Gachassin submitted an invoice to Villa Gardens LP, on behalf
of Cartesian, for the initial payment of $50,000 for professional consultation and project
management services in connection with Villa Gardens.50 On December 16, 2009, Mr. Guillory,
Executive Director of the LHA, authorized payment of that invoice, and a check for $50,000 was
issued December 17, 2009.51
On April 15, 2010, Villa Gardens Corporation and Cartesian amended the terms of their
Project Consultant Agreement.52 The amendment specifically referred to the Project Consultant
Agreement with Cartesian dated November 1, 2009.53 The Villa Gardens Project Consultant
Agreement was amended on June 30, 2010, on July 2, 2010, and again later in July 2010. 54
46
BOE Exhibit V, p. 374. Gachassin purchased the prints through another company he owned, the Lauren Group.
See also testimony of Gachassin.
47
BOE Exhibit V, p. 373.
48
BOE Exhibit D, p. 40.
49
Id. at p. 40; BOE Exhibit I, pp. 152-153.
50
BOE Exhibit V, p. 382.
51
Id. at pp. 381-383.
52
BOE Exhibit P, pp. 293-296.
53
See BOE Exhibit P, p. 293 ([Cartesian] and [Villa Gardens LP] previously entered into that certain Project
Consultant Agreement dated November 1, 2009 . . . .).
54
See BOE Exhibit P, pp. 308-314.
Cartesian submitted an invoice dated June 29, 2010, to Villa Gardens LP for $25,505.70,
which Villa Gardens LP paid.55
Cartesian submitted draw requests for payment on Villa
Gardens on October 28, 2010; November 30, 2010; January 3, 2011; February 7, 2011; March 5,
2011; April 5, 2011; and May 30, 2011.56 Gachassin signed all of the draw requests.57
Cartesian has been paid the full amount ($500,000) provided in the Project Consultant
Agreement with Villa Gardens LP.58
The Cypress Trails Project
The Cypress Trails Project (Cypress Trails) is a low-income housing development
located on Moss Street in Lafayette, LA. 59
Todd Little is a CPA Gachassin introduced to the LPTFA on February 3, 2006, to make a
presentation to the LPTFA regarding a proposed low-income housing development that would
become Cypress Trails. Investors in low-income housing developments will not start to receive
the low-income housing tax credits until the developer builds and begins to lease the housing
units.60 Low-income housing tax credits are issued pursuant to a tax credit delivery schedule tied
to the occupancy rate of the housing units.61
On February 3, 2006, the LPTFA unanimously approved a resolution presented by
member Gachassin to purchase the Moss Street property.62
On November 1, 2009, Cypress Trails LP entered into a Project Consultant Agreement
with Cartesian in which the partnership agreed to pay Cartesian $500,000 for services provided
55
BOE Exhibit V, pp. 368, 373, and 380.

Id. at pp. 386-423.
57
Id.
58
Testimony of Greg Gachassin and John Arceneaux. John Arceneaux was a member of the LPTFA; he became the
Chairman of the LPTFA on November 17, 2009.
59
BOE Exhibit D, p. 38; BOE Exhibit H, p. 130.
60
Testimony of Todd Little.
61
Id.
62
BOE Exhibit H, pp. 129-131.
56
to Cypress Trails. 63 The agreement states, THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of
November, 2009 by and between [Cypress Trails LP] . . . and [Cartesian] . . ., and IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the
date first written above.64
November 1, 2009, is the only date contained in the agreement.
Gachassin signed the Project Consultant Agreement in his capacity as President of Cartesian. 65
Gachassin was the Chairman of the LPTFA at that time.
On November 4, 2009, Gachassin advised the LPTFA that Cypress Trails was approved
for tax credit allocation; presented an overview of the strategy for the project through predevelopment, construction, and occupancy of the units; discussed the sources and uses of funds
and the general characteristics of the transaction, noting the goal was to get the project under
construction by February 2010; and informed the trustees with respect to various design aspects
of the units.66
Gachassin also instructed the general counsel, Mr. Becker, to prepare a
resolution that the officers of the LPTFA and its counsel are authorized, empowered, and
directed to do all things and take all actions necessary or advisable to cause the LPTFA tax credit
affordable housing project Cypress Trails to proceed to closing . . . .67 The resolution granted
the LPTFAs chairman, vice chairman, or general counsel, the power to hire the project
consultant for Cypress Trails without ever going back to the LPTFA for approval. 68 Gachassin
did not recuse himself from voting, and the resolution was unanimously approved.69
Gachassin resigned as Chairman of the LPTFA on November 17, 2009. On November
19, 2009, Gachassin submitted an invoice, on behalf of Cartesian, to Cypress Trails LP for the
63
BOE Exhibit C, pp. 24-34.

Id. at pp. 24 and 34.
65
Id. at p. 34.
66
BOE Exhibit D, pp. 37-39 and 67-69; Testimony of John Arceneaux and Richard Becker.
67
BOE Exhibit D, pp. 38-39.
68
Id. at pp. 67-69; Testimony of John Arceneaux and Richard Becker.
69
BOE Exhibit D, pp. 38-39 and 67-69.
64
10
initial payment of $50,000 for professional consultation and project management services in
connection with Cypress Trails. 70
On December 21, 2010, Cypress Trails LP entered into a First Amendment to Project
Consultant Agreement with Cartesian amending the terms of their November 1, 2009,
agreement.71 The amendment specifically referred to the Project Consultant Agreement with
Cartesian dated November 1, 2009.72
Gachassin appeared before the LPTFA, as a representative of Cartesian, to provide an
update on Cypress Trails on December 2, 2009, May 11, 2010, and September 2, 2010.73
Cartesian submitted nine additional draw requests to Cypress Trails LP for payment on Cypress
Trails on December 22, 2010; March 29, 2011; April 29, 2011; May 30, 2011; June 30, 2011;
August 1, 2011; September 1, 2011; September 29, 2011; and November 4, 2011.74 Gachassin
signed all of the draw requests.75 Cartesian has been paid the full amount ($500,000) provided in
the Project Consultant Agreement with Cypress Trails LP.76
Economic Advantage
Charles C. Theriot testified that Cartesian made a total of $168,000 in profit from Villa
Gardens and Cypress Trails. Mr. Theriot did not audit the information he reviewed or verify
Gachassins and/or Cartesians expenditures. 77 Gachassin did not keep records of his time or
records indicating the value of his efforts.78 Based on Gachassins testimony, since its inception
in November 2009, the volume of Cartesians projects has exceeded $70 million.
70
BOE Exhibit O, p. 228.

BOE Exhibit N, pp. 223-224.
72
See BOE Exhibit N, p. 223 (WHEREAS, [Cypress Trails LP] and [Cartesian] entered into a certain Project
Consultant Agreement dated as of November 1, 2009 . . . .).
73
BOE Exhibits K, pp. 186-188; Exhibit L, pp. 190-191; Exhibit M, p. 219.
74
BOE Exhibit O, pp. 235-266.
75
Id.
76
Testimony of Gachassin and John Arceneaux.
77
Testimony of Mr. Theriot.
78
Id.
71
11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The BOE proved that Gachassin and Cartesian violated the Ethics Code by participating
in prohibited transactions.
The purpose of the Ethics Code is to further the public interest by ensuring that the law
protects against conflicts of interest on the part of Louisianas public officials and state
employees by establishing ethical standards to regulate the conduct of those persons.79 The
Ethics Code also seeks to prevent not only actual conflicts of interest, but also situations that
tend to create the perception of conflicts of interest.80
The Consultant Agreements were executed November 1, 2009, while Gachassin was
Chairman of the LPTFA.
On November 1, 2009, while Gachassin was an appointed member and Chairman of the
LPTFA, he entered into project consultant agreements on behalf of Cartesian with Villa Gardens
LP and Cypress Trails LP. At that time, he was also the president, director, sole shareholder, and
sole employee of Cartesian. On November 17, 2009, he resigned from the LPTFA, effective
immediately.
His testimony and argument that neither he nor Cartesian entered into the
agreements on November 1, 2009, are unpersuasive.

The meaning and intent of the parties to a written instrument should be determined within
the four corners of the document and its terms should not be explained or contradicted by
extrinsic [parol] evidence.81 When a contract is subject to interpretation from the four corners of
the instrument, without the necessity of extrinsic evidence, that interpretation is a matter of
79
La. R.S. 42:1101; Duplantis v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 2000-1750, 2000-1956, p.6 (La. 3/23/01), 782 So. 2d 582,
586.
80
See In re Beychok, 495 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (La. 1986).
81
Corbello v. Iowa Production, 2002-0826, p.6 (La. 2/25/03), 850 So. 2d 686, 693 (citing Brown v. Drillers, Inc.,
93-1019 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So. 2d. 741; Billingsley v. Bach Energy Corp., 588 So. 2d 786, 790 (La. App. 2d Cir.
1991).)
12
law.82 When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences,
no further interpretation need be made into the parties intent.83
Within the four corners of both consultant agreements are the following statements:
THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of November, 2009 by and
between [Villa Gardens LP / Cypress Trails LP ] . . . and [Cartesian] . . . .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed as of the date first written above.
November 1, 2009, is the date first written above, and neither consultant agreement
contains any other dates. The agreements themselves are clear and convincing evidence that on
November 1, 2009, Gachassin, on behalf of Cartesian, entered into Project Consultant
Agreements with both Villa Gardens LP and Cypress Trails LP.84
Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1112(A), La. R.S. 42:1112(B), and La. R.S. 42:1112(D).
The BOE proved that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1112(A), La. R.S. 42:1112(B), and
La. R.S. 42:1112(D) when, while he was a public servant, he participated in transactions
involving his governmental entity, the LPTFA, in which he and Cartesian had a substantial
economic interest of which he was aware.85
Gachassin Violated La. R.S. 42:1112(A).
La. R.S. 42:1112(A) provides, [n]o public servant, except as provided in R.S. 42:1120,86
shall participate in a transaction in which he has a personal substantial economic interest of
which he may be reasonably expected to know involving the governmental entity.
82
Id.
Corbello, 850 So. 2d at 693 (citing La. C.C. art. 2046; Magnon v. Collins, 982822 (La. 7/7/99), 739 So. 2d 191,
197; Billingsley v. Bach Energy Corp., 588 So. 2d 786, 790 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991)).
84
There is additional evidence that the consultant agreements were entered into on November 1, 2009: (a) the
amendments to the consultant agreements specifically recognize that the original agreements were entered into on
November 1, 2009; and (b) on November 2, 2009, Gachassin, through his company, The Lauren Group, purchased
digital prints for Villa Gardens.
85
Governmental entity means the state or any political subdivision which employs the public employee or employed
the former public employee or to which the elected official is elected, as the case may be. La. R.S. 42:1102(12).
86
La. R.S. 42:1120 applies only to elected officials; there is no evidence that Respondent was an elected official.
83
13
In order to prove that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1112(A), the BOE must prove that:
(1) while Gachassin was a public servant,
(2) he participated in a transaction in which he had a personal substantial economic
interest,
(3) that it is reasonable to expect that Gachassin knew he had a personal substantial
economic interest in the transaction, and
(4) the transaction involved Gachassins governmental entity (LPTFA).
(1) Gachassin was a public servant.
The first requirement is for the BOE to prove that Gachassin was a public servant. For
purposes of the Ethics Code, a public servant is a public employee or an elected official. The
Ethics Code defines public employee as anyone, whether compensated or not, who is: (i) an
administrative officer or official of a governmental entity who is not filling an elective office; (ii)
appointed by any elected official when acting in an official capacity, and the appointment is to a
post or position wherein the appointee is to serve the governmental entity or an agency, either as
a member of an agency, or as an employee; (iii) engaged in the performance of a governmental
function; or (iv) under the supervision or authority of an elected official or another employee of
the governmental entity.87
While serving on the governmental entity, the LPTFA, Gachassin was a public employee
because (a) he was an official who was not filling an elective office; (b) he was appointed as a
member of the LPTFA; and (c) as a member of the LPTFA, he was engaged in the performance
of a governmental function.
The LPTFA was created as a public trust pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2341, which specifically
87
La. R.S. 42:1102(18).
14
states that all public trusts are subject to the Ethics Code.88 Because Gachassin, in his capacity
as a member and Chairman of the LPTFA from August 19, 2003, until his resignation on
November 17, 2009, was a public employee, and because his governmental entity, the LPTFA,
was subject to the Ethics Code, the BOE proved that Gachassin was a public servant for purposes
of the Ethics Code.
(2) Gachassin participated in a transaction in which he had a personal substantial
economic interest.
The second requirement is for the BOE to prove that Gachassin participated in a
transaction in which he had a personal substantial economic interest. The Ethics Code, defines
substantial economic interest as:
[A]n 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 the 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. 89
The Ethics Code defines participate as to take part in or to have or share responsibility
for an 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. 90
88
La. R.S. 9:2341(D).

La. R.S. 42:1102(21).
90
La. R.S. 42:1102(15).
89
15
Gachassins Substantial Economic Interest

On November 1, 2009, Gachassin, on behalf of Cartesian, entered into two $500,000
project consultant agreements, one with Cypress Trails LP and one with Villa Gardens LP.
Pursuant to the project consultant agreements, and for a negotiated fee of $500,000 for each
agreement, Cartesian agreed to oversee the development and construction of Cypress Trails and
Villa Gardens and to perform the services and carry out the responsibilities with respect to the
developments as set forth in each project consultant agreement.91
The project consultant
agreements were of greater benefit to Gachassin than to any other general class or group of
persons. As Cartesian is his wholly-owned company, Gachassin had a personal substantial
economic interest in any financial transactions or agreements involving Cartesian.
Gachassins Participation in Cypress Trails
During the November 4, 2009, meeting of the LPTFA, Gachassin discussed, voted, and
authorized/ordered the LPTFAs general counsel (Richard Becker) to prepare a
resolution that the officers of the LPTFA and its counsel are authorized . . . to do all
things and take all actions necessary or advisable to cause the LPTFA tax credit
affordable housing project Cypress Trails to proceed to closing . . . . These actions of
Gachassin during the November 4, 2009, meeting fall within the Ethics Codes definition
of participate.
Gachassins Participation in Villa Gardens
During the November 4, 2009, meeting of the LPTFA, Gachassin initiated and
participated in discussions regarding the $425,000 loan from the LPTFA to the LHA. The loan
was made in 2006, and the proceeds of the loan were to be used to finance the purchase of the
property that would become the site of Villa Gardens. The minutes of the November 4, 2009,
91
BOE Exhibit B, pp. 13-14; BOE Exhibit C, pp. 24-25.
16
meeting show that the discussion addressed concerns that the LHAs completion of Villa
Gardens was dependent upon favorable loan terms from the LPTFA:
The credit market has tightened and the LPTFA $400,000 loan to the
Housing Authority is needed for the Housing Authority to complete its
affordable housing project known as Villa Gardens.
Following these discussions, Gachassin voted to allow the LHA to recast the original
$425,000 loan, the balance of which with unpaid accrued interest had grown to
approximately $460,000, to a long-term, no-interest, cash-flow loan.
As Chairman and
voting member of the LPTFA during the November 4, 2009, meeting, Gachassin shared
responsibility for the discussion regarding the loan to the LHA and for the approval of the
recasting of the loan. Again, these actions fall within the Ethics Codes definition of
participate.
(3) It is reasonable to expect that Gachassin knew he had a personal substantial
economic interest in the transactions.
The third requirement is for the BOE to show a reasonable expectation that Gachassin
knew of his personal substantial economic interest in the transaction. The November 1, 2009,
project consultant agreements consisted of a contract between Cartesian and Villa Gardens LP
and a contract between Cartesian and Cypress Trails LP. However, both project consultant
agreements were entered into by Gachassin as President of Cartesian, and both were entered into
three days prior to the November 4, 2009, meeting of the LPTFA.
As Cartesians sole
shareholder and employee, Gachassin knew he would be responsible for all aspects of both
project consultant agreements.
When Gachassin voted to move forward with Cypress Trails at the LPTFA meeting, he
knew that he had entered into a $500,000 project consultant agreement with Cypress Trails LP.
17
When Gachassin, at the LPTFA meeting, voted to provide favorable terms on the LPTFA loan to
the LHA, he knew that he had entered into a $500,000 project consultant agreement with Villa
Gardens LP. He also knew that Villa Gardens was dependent upon the loan from the LPTFA.
Gachassin knew that he would receive a salary and distributions from the proceeds of both
project consultant agreements. It is reasonable to expect that Gachassin knew at the time the
discussions occurred and his votes were cast, that he had a personal substantial economic
interest in any decision made by the LPTFA regarding Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens.
(4) The transactions involved Gachassins governmental entity (LPTFA).
The fourth requirement is for the BOE to prove that the transactions involved the LPTFA,
the governmental entity of which Gachassin was Chairman. For purposes of the Ethics Code, a
transaction involving the governmental entity means:
[A]ny proceeding, application, submission, request for a ruling or other
determination, contract, claim, case, or other such particular matter which the
public servant or former public servant of the governmental entity in question
knows or should know:
(a) Is, or will be, the subject of action by the governmental entity.
(b) Is one to which the governmental entity is or will be a party.
(c) Is one in which the governmental entity has a direct interest.92
A transaction involving the agency of a governmental entity has the same meaning with respect
to the agency. 93
The Cypress Trails transactions involved the LPTFA.
The LPTFA incorporated Cypress Trails Corporation as an agency of itself on October
30, 2009, and Cypress Trails Corporation Board of Commissioners is comprised of the Board of
Trustees of the LPTFA. On November 1, 2009, Cypress Trails Corporation created Cypress
92
93
La. R.S. 42:1102(23).

Id.
18
Trails LP. By the terms of the Articles of Partnership, the general partner, Cypress Trails
Corporation, was responsible for managing the affairs of Cypress Trails LP, keeping complete
books and records, and preparing and delivering to the other partners all financial reports and
other information relevant to the partnership. Because a transaction involving the agency of a
governmental entity has the same meaning with respect to the agency, the involving the
governmental entity analysis also applies to any transaction involving Cypress Trails LP.94
When Gachassin at the LPTFA meeting voted to move forward with Cypress Trails, this
was a request for a ruling or other determination . . . or other such particular matter which he
knew involved the LPTFA. Gachassin knew that the matter (a) would be the subject of action by
the LPTFA and/or Cypress Trails LP through its general partner, Cypress Trails Corporation; (b)
was one to which Cypress Trails LP would be a party, and (c) was one in which the LPTFA and
Cypress Trails LP had a direct interest.
The Villa Gardens transactions involved the LPTFA.
The Villa Gardens LP was created to develop, build, own, and operate Villa Gardens.
The LPTFA was not a partner in the Villa Gardens LP, and Villa Gardens was not under the
direct supervision or control of the LPTFA. However, a violation of La. R.S. 42:1112(A) need
not be one in which the governmental entity, the LPTFA, is a party. A transaction may also
involve the LPTFA if the transaction was the subject of action by the LPTFA or if the LPTFA
had a direct interest in the transaction.95
The loans were the subject of action by Gachassins governmental entity, LPTFA.
During the November 4, 2009, LPTFA meeting, Gachassin participated in discussions
about the tightening credit market and the fact that the LHA needed the loan from the LPTFA in
94
95
Id.
La. R.S. 42:1102(23)(a) and (c).
19
order to complete Villa Gardens. Gachassin then voted to recast the loan to a long-term, nointerest, cash-flow loan. Gachassins discussion and vote regarding the recasting of the loan to
LHA was subject to action by the LPTFA, as the LPTFA unanimously approved the recasting of
the loan during the November 4, 2009, meeting. Because Gachassins actions were the subject
of action by the LPTFA, those actions involved the LPTFA for purposes of La. R.S. 42:1112(A).
The governmental entity, LPTFA, had a direct interest.
Gachassins discussion and vote regarding the recasting of the loan to LHA was also a
transaction in which the LPTFA had a direct interest.
In 2006, the LPTFA loaned LHA
$425,000 it needed in order to buy the land for Villa Gardens. As of November 4, 2009, the
LHA owed the LPTFA, with accrued interest, approximately $460,000 on the loan.
Knowing that the LHA needed the favorable loan terms in order to complete Villa
Gardens, and knowing that he had entered into a $500,000 project consultant agreement with
Villa Gardens LP just three days earlier, Gachassin participated in discussions regarding the
loan. Gachassin then voted to recast the loan to a long-term, no-interest loan to be repaid from
the cash-flow received after the completion of Villa Gardens. Since the LPTFA would not be
repaid on the loan unless Villa Gardens was completed, Gachassin knew that the LPTFA had a
direct interest in the discussion and vote regarding the loan.
Because the LPTFA had a direct
interest in the discussion and vote regarding the loan, Gachassins actions were transactions
involving the LPTFA for purposes of La. R.S. 42:1112(A).
Gachassin Violated La. R.S. 42:1112(B).
La. R.S. 42:1112(B) provides:
[n]o 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:
20
(1) Any member of his immediate family.

(2) Any person in which he has a substantial economic interest of which
he may reasonably be expected to know.
(3) Any person of which he is an officer, director, trustee, partner, or
employee.
(4) Any person with whom he is negotiating or has an arrangement
concerning prospective employment.
(5) Any person who is a party to an existing contract with such public
servant, or with any legal entity in which the public servant exercises
control or owns an interest in excess of twenty-five percent, or who owes
any thing of economic value to such public servant, or to any legal entity
in which the public servant exercises control or owns an interest in excess
of twenty-five percent, and who by reason thereof is in a position to affect
directly the economic interests of such public servant.
In order to prove that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1112(B), the BOE must prove that:
(1) while Gachassin was a public servant,
(2) he participated in a transaction involving the governmental entity (LPTFA),
(3) he had actual knowledge that any of the following persons had a substantial economic
interest in the transaction:
(a) any member of Gachassins immediate family;
(b) any person in which Gachassin had a substantial economic interest (of which
he may reasonably be expected to have known;
(c) any person of whom Gachassin was an officer, director, trustee, partner, or
employee;
(d) any person with whom Gachassin was negotiating or had an arrangement
concerning prospective employment;
(e) (i) any person who was a party to an existing contract with Gachassin, or (ii)
with any legal entity in which Gachassin exercised control or owned an interest in
excess of twenty-five percent or who owed anything of economic value to
Gachassin, or (iii) to any legal entity in which Gachassin exercised control or
owned an interest in excess of twenty-five percent and who for that reason was in
a position to directly affect the economic interests of Gachassin.
21
As previously discussed, the BOE proved that Gachassin, while he was a public servant
on November 4, 2009, participated in transactions involving the LPTFA, so the only remaining
requirement is for the BOE to prove actual knowledge of a substantial economic interest. While
La. R.S. 42:1112(A) requires the BOE to prove that Gachassin had a personal substantial
economic interest in the transactions, La. R.S. 42:1112(B) requires the BOE to prove that
Gachassin knew that one or more of the persons listed in La. R.S. 42:1112(B)(5) had a
substantial economic interest in the transactions.
Gachassin knew that Cartesian had a substantial economic interest in the transactions. As
the sole owner of Cartesian, Gachassin may reasonably be expected to have known that he
(Gachassin) had a substantial economic interest in Cartesian. 96 Gachassin was also the sole
officer of Cartesian.97 Gachassin was also the sole employee of Cartesian. 98 Finally, Gachassin
exercised control and owned an interest in Cartesian in excess of twenty-five percent. 99
Gachassin Violated La. R.S. 42:1112(D).
La. R.S. 42:1112(D) provides, [n]o appointed member of any board or commission,
except as otherwise provided in . . . 42:1120.4, shall participate or be interested in any
transaction involving the agency when a violation of this Part would result.100
La. R.S.
42:1120.4 provides:
(A) [e]xcept for any member of a board or commission specifically provided for
in R.S. 42:1120.1,101 if any appointed member of a board or commission 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.
96
La. R.S. 42:1112(B)(2).

La. R.S. 42:1112(B)(3).
98
La. R.S. 42:1112(B)(3) and (4).
99
La. R.S. 42:1112(B)(5).
100
The words this Part refer to Part II (Ethical Standards for Public Servants) of Chapter 15 (Code of
Governmental Ethics) of Title 42 (Public Officers and Employees) of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Part II
consists of La. R.S. 42:1111 through La. R.S. 42:1125.
101
La. R.S. 42:1120.1 applies only to the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans.
97
22
(B) [a]n appointed member of a board or commission who recuses himself from
voting pursuant to this Section shall be prohibited from participating in discussion
and debate concerning the matter.
In order to prove that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1112(D), the BOE must prove:
(1) while Gachassin was an appointed member of a board or commission,
(2) in the discharge of his duty or responsibility of position as member and Chairman of
the LPTFA, he was required to vote on a matter which, if he voted, would be a
violation of La. R.S. 42:1112,
(3) he did not recuse himself from voting, and
(4) he participated in discussion and debate concerning the matter.
Gachassin served as an appointed board member of the LPTFA from August 19, 2003, until his
resignation on November 17, 2009. He also served as Chairman of the board of the LPTFA from
April 6, 2007, until his resignation on November 17, 2009. While he was an appointed board
member of the LPTFA on November 4, 2009, in the discharge of his duty or responsibility as
member and Chairman of the LPTFA, Gachassin was required to participate in transactions
involving the LPTFA, including the vote to move forward with Cypress Trails and the vote to
recast the loan to the LHA. Gachassin participated in discussion and debate concerning both
matters, and he did not recuse himself from voting on either matter. By participating in those
discussions and failing to recuse himself from those votes, Gachassin violated La. R.S.
42:1112(D).
Gachassin and Cartesian Violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B).
The BOE proved that Gachassin and Cartesian violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B) because
they were in any way interested in the project consultant agreement with Cypress Trails LP.
The BOE did not prove that Gachassin or Cartesian violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B) when they
were in any way interested in the project consultant agreement with Villa Gardens LP.
23
La. R.S. 42:1113(B) provides that [o]ther than a legislator, no appointed member of any
board or commission, member of his immediate family, or legal entity in which he has a
substantial economic interest shall bid on or enter into or be in any way interested in any
contract, subcontract, or other transaction which is under the supervision or jurisdiction of the
agency of such appointed member.102
Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B).
In order for Gachassin to have violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B), the BOE must prove that:
(1) while Gachassin was an appointed member of a board or commission,
(2) he bid on, entered into, or was in any way interested in any contract, subcontract, or
other transaction which is under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA, his agency.
(1) Gachassin was an appointed board member of LPTFA.
The first requirement is for the BOE to prove that Gachassin was an appointed member
of a board or commission. As discussed above, the BOE proved by clear and convincing
evidence that Gachassin was an appointed board member of LPTFA.
(2) Gachassin was interested in transactions under the supervision or jurisdiction of
LPTFA.
The second requirement is for the BOE to prove that Gachassin bid on, entered into, or
was in any way interested in any contract, subcontract, or other transaction which is under the
supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
Cartesian is Gachassins wholly-owned and controlled corporation. Gachassin is
Cartesians president, director, sole shareholder, and sole employee. On November 1, 2009,
during Gachassins tenure as the Chairman and board member of the LPTFA, Cartesian entered
into $500,000 project consultant agreements with both Cypress Trails LP and Villa Gardens LP
102
La. R.S. 42:1113(B).
24
to provide services on Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens. Gachassin signed the agreements in his
capacity as President of Cartesian. His actions showed his interest in the agreements. However,
for Gachassin to have violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B), Cypress Trails or Villa Gardens must have
been under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
Cypress Trails was under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
On November 1, 2009, Cypress Trails LP was created for the purpose of acquiring a tract
of land in Lafayette, Louisiana, and developing, building, owning, and operating Cypress Trails.
Cypress Trails Corporation was created as an agency of the LPTFA, and is the general partner
with the responsibility for managing and supervising the affairs of Cypress Trails LP.
Gachassin, as Cartesians representative, appeared before the LPTFA on multiple occasions and
provided updates on Cypress Trails.
Gachassins argument that Cypress Trails was not under the supervision or jurisdiction of
the LPTFA is unpersuasive and disingenuous. Gachassin, during his tenure as Chairman and
trustee of the LPTFA, executed the Articles of Incorporation of Cypress Trails Corporation. The
Board of Commissioners of Cypress Trails Corporation is made up of the Board of Trustees of
the LPTFA. Because of the relationships between Cypress Trails Corporation and the LPTFA,
and between Cypress Trails Corporation and Cypress Trails LP, Cypress Trails was under the
supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA. The BOE proved by clear and convincing evidence
that Cypress Trails was under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
Because the BOE proved by clear and convincing evidence that Cypress Trails was under
the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA, Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B) when he
was in any way interested in the project consultant agreement with Cypress Trails LP to provide
services on Cypress Trails.
25
Villa Gardens was not under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
On February 3, 2006, the LHA requested financial assistance from the LPTFA to
purchase property on Patterson Street for Villa Gardens. On July 20, 2006, Gachassin updated
the LPTFA on the status of the LPTFAs assistance to the LHA for Villa Gardens and proposed
that the LPTFA loan the LHA $425,000 to purchase the Patterson Street property. The LPTFA
unanimously approved the terms proposed by Gachassin. Documents memorializing the loan
were filed in the mortgage records of Lafayette Parish on August 10, 2006.
On October 30, 2009, Villa Gardens Corporation was created as an agency of the LHA.
Its Board of Commissioners was made up of the Board of Commissioners of the LHA. On
November 1, 2009, Villa Gardens LP was created for the purpose of acquiring a tract of land in
Lafayette, Louisiana, and developing, building, owning, and operating Villa Gardens. Villa
Gardens Corporation, represented by the LHA, was the general partner with the responsibility for
managing the affairs of Villa Gardens LP, including responsibility for mortgages. On November
4, 2009, the LPTFA, with Gachassin present and participating, discussed the loan from the
LPTFA to the LHA and unanimously approved a motion to recast the loan for Villa Gardens to a
long-term, no-interest, cash-flow loan.
Gachassins argument that Villa Gardens was not under the supervision or jurisdiction of
the LPTFA is persuasive. The LPTFA loaned $425,000 to the LHA to purchase the Patterson
Street property, where Villa Gardens was built. Later during his tenure as Chairman, Gachassin
voted to recast the loan to a long-term, no-interest, cash-flow loan. The Board of Commissioners
of Villa Gardens Corporation is made up of the Board of Commissioners of the LHA, not the
Board of Trustees of the LPTFA. Villa Gardens Corporation was an agency of the LHA, not the
LPTFA.
Villa Gardens Corporation, not the LPTFA, was the general partner with the
26
responsibility for managing the affairs of Villa Gardens LP, including developing, building,
owning, and operating Villa Gardens.
Based on the evidence presented, Villa Gardens was not under the supervision or
jurisdiction of the LPTFA. The LPTFA did not manage, control, or administer Villa Gardens
and did not have general authority to oversee Villa Gardens. The only relationship the LPTFA
had with Villa Gardens was that it provided a loan to LHA. The BOE did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Villa Gardens was under the supervision or jurisdiction of LPTFA.
Because the BOE did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Villa Gardens was
under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA, Gachassin did not violate La. R.S.
42:1113(B) when he was in any way interested in the project consultant agreement with Villa
Gardens LP to provide services on Villa Gardens.
Cartesian violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B).
In order for Cartesian to have violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B), the BOE must prove that:
(1) while Gachassin had a substantial economic interest in the legal entity, Cartesian,
(2) Cartesian bid on, entered into, or was in any way interested in any contract,
subcontract, or other transaction which is under the supervision or jurisdiction of
Gachassins agency, the LPTFA.
(1) Gachassin had a substantial economic interest in Cartesian.
The first requirement is for the BOE to prove that Gachassin had a substantial economic
interest in Cartesian. Gachassins position as Cartesians president, director, sole shareholder,
and sole employee, shows he had a substantial economic interest in Cartesian.
(2) Cartesian was interested in transactions under the supervision or jurisdiction of
LPTFA.
The second requirement is for the BOE to prove that the legal entity, Cartesian, bid on,
27
entered into, or was in any way interested in any contract, subcontract, or other transaction which
is under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
On November 10, 2009, after Cartesian became a legal entity, it honored the provisions
of the November, 1, 2009, project consultant agreements and provided project consultant
services on Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens. By providing these services, Cartesian was in
any way interested in the agreements.
However, for Cartesian to have violated La. R.S.
42:1113(B), Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens must have been under the supervision or
jurisdiction of the LPTFA.
Although the BOE proved by clear and convincing evidence that Cypress Trails was
under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA, it did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Villa Gardens was under the supervision or jurisdiction of the LPTFA. Cartesian
violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B) when it was in any way interested in the agreement with Cypress
Trails LP to provide services on Cypress Trails. Cartesian did not violate La. R.S. 42:1113(B)
when it was in any way interested in the agreement with Villa Gardens LP to provide services on
Villa Gardens.
Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(1).
La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(1) provides that:
[n]o former agency head . . . shall, for a period of two years following the
termination of his public service as the head of such agency . . . assist another
person, for compensation, in a transaction, or in an appearance in connection with
a transaction, involving that agency or render any service on a contractual basis to
or for such agency.
In order for Gachassin to have violated La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(1), the BOE must prove that:
(1) Gachassin was a former agency head.
(2) Within two years following the termination of his public service, he assisted another
person for compensation, in a transaction, or in an appearance in connection with a
28
transaction,
(3) involving his former agency, the LPTFA.
(1) Gachassin was a former agency head.
Agency head means the chief executive or administrative officer of an agency or any
member of a board or commission who exercises supervision over the agency. 103 Gachassin
served as Chairman of the LPTFA prior to his resignation on November 17, 2009. As Chairman,
Gachassin was the chief executive and/or administrative head of the LPTFA. Gachassin was a
former agency head.
(2) Gachassin assisted Cartesian for compensation in the two years following the
termination of his public service.
Person means an individual or legal entity other than a governmental entity, or an
agency thereof. 104 Cartesian is a duly authorized Louisiana business corporation that exists as a
separate entity from Gachassin. 105 Cartesian is a legal entity that qualifies as a person under this
definition. 106 Assist means to act in such a way as to help, advise, furnish information to, or
aid a person with the intent to assist such person.107 In In re Regions Banks of Louisiana, the
First Circuit held that it could not be categorically presumed that a bank president would
necessarily assist his bank in all transactions before his former agency (the Louisiana Public
Facilities Authority).108 Instead, this was an issue to be determined on a case by case basis.109
103
La. R.S. 42:1102(3).

La. R.S. 42:1102(16).
105
La. R.S. 12:1-140(9) (Entity is defined in the Louisiana Business Corporation Act as including a domestic
business corporation.).
106
La. R.S. 42:1121 does not specifically define legal entity. However, another section of the Ethics code, La.
R.S. 42:1113, includes within the definition of legal entity any corporation. See also Bankston v. Board of Ethics
for Elected Officials, 98-0189, p.11 (La. 6/22/98), 715 So. 2d 1181, 1187 (recognizing a private, non-profit
corporation as a person under the Ethics Code).
107
La. R.S. 42:1102(4).
108
In re Regions Banks of Louisiana, 95-0061, p.6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 665 So. 2d 824, 827.
104
29
In the present case, the BOE alleged that Gachassin assisted Cartesian, for compensation,
in several transactions or in appearances in connection with transactions, involving the LPTFA.
These include several appearances before the LPTFA to update them on the status of Cypress
Trails,110 renegotiating the Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens project consultant agreements,111
and reviewing and submitting multiple requests for payment on Cypress Trails. 112 All of these
transactions occurred in the two-year period following Gachassins resignation as Chairman of
the LPTFA. Gachassin was acting in his capacity as the sole paid employee of Cartesian.
Gachassin assisted Cartesian and received payment for his services as an employee of Cartesian.
The BOE proved by clear and convincing evidence that Gachassin assisted Cartesian for
compensation.
(3) The transactions involved Gachassins agency.
As discussed previously, Gachassin assisted Cartesian in transactions involving the
LPTFA.
Gachassin did not violate La. R.S. 1121(A)(2).
La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(2) provides that [n]o former member of a board or commission
shall, for a period of two years following the termination of his public service on such board or
commission, contract with, be employed in any capacity by, or be appointed to any position by
that board or commission. Gachassin contracted with his agency when he entered into the
Project Consultant Agreement to provide services for Cypress Trails. However, this agreement
was entered into while Gachassin was still a member of the LPTFA and not during the two-year
109
Id.
Gachassin appeared before the LPTFA on December 2, 2009, May 11, 2010, and September 2, 2010.
111
The Cypress Trails Project Consultant Agreement was renegotiated on December 21, 2010. The Villa Gardens
Project Consultant Agreement was renegotiated on April 15, 2010; June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010; and July 2010.
112
Payment requests were submitted on the following dates: November 19, 2009; December 22, 2010; March 29,
2011; April 29, 2011; May 30, 2011; June 30, 2011; August 1, 2011; September 1, 2011; September 29, 2011; and
November 4, 2011.
110
30
period following the termination of his public service on the LPTFA.

The November 5, 2011, Domestic Partnership Annual Report filed with the Secretary of
States office listed Gachassin as a partner of Cypress Trails LP, and Gachassin electronically
signed the form.
He was listed as a Director on the October 30, 2011, Domestic Corporation
Annual Report. Gachassin electronically signed the October 30, 2011, Domestic Corporation
Annual Report for Villa Gardens Corporation. However, there was no other evidence presented
to explain why Gachassin was listed on these documents. There was no clear and convincing
evidence that Gachassin was employed by or appointed to any position by the LPTFA in the twoyear period following his resignation as Chairman on November 17, 2009. The BOE failed to
prove that Gachassin violated La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(2).
Cartesian did not violate La. R.S. 42:1121(C).
La. R.S. 42:1121(C) provides that:
[n]o legal entity in which a former public servant is an officer, director, trustee,
partner, or employee shall, for a period of two years following the termination of
his public service, assist another person, for compensation, in a transaction, or in
an appearance in connection with a transaction in which such public servant at
any time participated during his public service and involving the agency by which
he was formerly employed or in which he formerly held office.
Person is defined as an individual or legal entity other than a governmental entity, or an
agency thereof.113
The BOE alleges that Cartesian violated La. R.S. 42:1121(C) when it assisted Cypress
Trails LP and Villa Gardens LP. However, Cypress Trails LP is an agency of the LPTFA and
Villa Gardens LP is an agency of the LHA. Because both Cypress Trails LP and Villa Gardens
LP are governmental entities or agencies thereof, they are excluded from the definition of
person. Since there is no evidence that Cartesian assisted another person, Cartesian did not
113
La. R.S. 42:1102(16) (emphasis added).
31
violate La. R.S. 42:1121(C).

Cartesian and Gachassin are assessed fines and penalties totaling $1.56 million for violating
the Ethics Code.
A person who violates any provision of any law within the jurisdiction of the Board of
Ethics can be censured by the EAB and fined an amount not in excess of $10,000 per violation,
or both.114 If the public servant or other person has violated the Ethics Code to his economic
advantage, the EAB may order penalties in an amount equal to such economic advantage.115 The
EAB may also order an additional penalty not to exceed one-half of the amount of the economic
advantage.116
Fines under La. R.S. 42:1153
Gachassin violated five provisions of the Ethics Code: La. R.S. 42:1112(A), 1112(B),
1112(D), 1113(B), and 1121(A)(1). Cartesian violated one provision of the Ethics Code: La.
R.S. 42:1113(B).
Considering the purpose of the Ethics Code, the EAB assesses fines of
$50,000 to Gachassin and $10,000 to Cartesian for violating provisions of the Ethics Code.
Penalties under La. R.S. 42:1155
Gachassin is solidarily liable with his wholly-owned corporation, Cartesian, because both
violated the Ethics Code to their economic advantage. Considering the purpose of the Ethics
Code, Gachassins knowledge of the Ethics Code, and Gachassins use of his position on the
LPTFA to secure lucrative agreements for his wholly-owned corporation, the EAB assesses
Cartesian and Gachassin a penalty in solido of $1.5 million, which is the economic advantage
they received in addition to one-half of that economic advantage.
Cartesian and Gachassin (Respondents) argued (a) that the imposition of any fine or
114
La. R.S. 42:1153.

La. R.S. 42:1155.
116
Id.
115
32
penalty is not warranted because the evidence shows that they did not violate the Ethics Code to
their economic advantage; (b) that the term economic advantage is not defined in the Ethics
Code, is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and, therefore, is ambiguous and
must be interpreted in favor of Respondents and in accordance with the rule of lenity; (c) that the
imposition of fines and penalties of almost $2 million against Respondents would be an
unconstitutional confiscation; and (d) that the imposition of fines and penalties of almost $2
million against Respondents would be egregious and derogate the Louisiana Supreme Courts
pronouncements in Glazer v. Commn on Ethics for Public Employees.117 For the reasons
discussed below, Respondents arguments are rejected.
Respondents violated the Ethics Code to their economic advantage.
Respondents first argued that, based on the expert testimony of Charles Theriot and Todd
Little, they received no economic advantage whatsoever from the project consultant agreements.
The trial court has great discretion in whether to qualify an expert witness and the effect
and weight to be given to the expert testimony. 118 Once the expert is allowed to testify, the trier
of fact has great discretion in assessing his credibility and accepting or rejecting his opinion.119
Included in the credibility determination is the method by which the expert reached his
conclusions, 120 and the weight to be given to the testimony of experts is largely dependent upon
117
431 So. 2d 752 (La. 1983).

Gilchrist Const. Co., LLC v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 2013-2101, p.9 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/9/15),
166 So. 3d 1045, 1052; Annina v. Eschette, 2000-1892, p.7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/21/01), 814 So. 2d 13, 17 (citing
Posecai v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 981013 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/30/99), 731 So. 2d 438, reversed on other
grounds, 99-1222 (La. 11/30/99), 752 So. 2d 762).
119
La. Code Evid. art. 702; Annina, 814 So. 2d at 17. See also Sims v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2004-584, p.4 (La.
App. 3 Cir. 3/2/05), 897 So. 2d 834, 841 (citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 02-240, p. 26 (La. App. 3 Cir.
1/29/03), 838 So. 2d 821, 839, writ denied, 03-1102, 03-1104 (La. 6/6/03), 845 So. 2d 1096, (quoting Loudermill v.
Dow Chem. Co., 863 F.2d 566, 570 (8 Cir.1988)) (As a general rule, the factual basis for an experts opinion goes
to the credibility of the testimony, not its admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis
of the opinion in cross-examination.).
120
Annina, 814 So. 2d at 17-18 (citing Posecai v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 731 So. 2d at 443).
118
33
the facts upon which their opinions are based.121 Based on these principles, little weight is given
to the testimony of Charles Theriot and Todd Little.
Charles Theriot
Charles Theriot is the managing member of Charles C. Theriot and Company Certified
Public Accountants, LLC. He testified that, because Cartesian could have realized significantly
more net profits off of other development projects, Respondents did not achieve an economic
advantage over others who could have been the project development consultant for Cypress
Trails and Villa Gardens. He also stated that because there were other development projects
Cartesian could have undertaken in place of Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens, Respondents did
not achieve an economic advantage by undertaking those projects.
The BOE stipulated, and the EAB recognized, that Mr. Theriot is an expert in the field of
forensic accounting. However, his testimony was not supported by an adequate foundation of
relevant facts, data, and/or opinions to ensure its reliability. Rather, his testimony was based on
multiple presumptions: (a) that other projects were available at the same time Cypress Trails and
Villa Gardens projects were confected; (b) that in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, such projects
would have been as lucrative as Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens; and (c) that Respondents
would have been selected as the project consultant for such projects.
Mr. Theriot testified that his opinions were based on information received solely from
Gachassin (2009, 2011, and 2012 Gachassin/Cartesian tax returns and QuickBooks accounting
records). Notably, he acknowledged that he did not audit the information he reviewed or verify
Respondents expenditures. He stated that Gachassin did not keep records of his time or records
indicating the value of his efforts, explaining that he accepted as true Gachassins best estimate
121
Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 2003-2490, pp. 8-9 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/04), 899
So. 2d 24, 30, writ denied, 2005-0300 (La. 5/6/05), 901 So. 2d 1095.
34
of the amount of time he spent each year on Cypress Trails and Villa Gardens.122 Mr. Theriot
referred to no concrete, historical, or comparative evidence on which he based his opinions.
Todd Little
Gachassin and Todd Little worked together on the Cypress Trails project beginning in
2006. On February 3, 2006, during a meeting of the LPTFA, Gachassin introduced Mr. Little,
who then made a presentation to the LPTFA regarding a proposed low-income housing
development that would become Cypress Trails.
Mr. Little testified that the fees charged by Cartesian were reasonable and that Cypress
Trails and Villa Gardens were successful projects.123 The EAB recognized that Todd Little is an
expert in the field of low-income housing finance. However, he testified in general terms rather
than referring to specific historical or comparative evidence to explain the basis for his opinions.
Considering that Mr. Little testified that he did not know whether the LHA ever repaid the
$460,000 loan from the LPTFA, his testimony about the success of the project is necessarily
limited. More importantly, neither the reasonableness of Cartesians fees nor the success of the
projects to the LPTFA and the LHA are dispositive of whether Respondents achieved an
economic advantage from their violations of the Ethics Code.
122
Respondents Exhibit R and BOE Exhibit EE. The documents reviewed by Mr. Theriot reflect that 100% of
Gachassins time during 2009 was spent on Villa Gardens, with 0% time spent on Cypress Trails. The accuracy of
those records are highly questionable given that, during 2009, Gachassin negotiated and entered into a $500,000
project consultant agreement with Cypress Trails.
123
Mr. Little testified that (a) the split of development fees between Cartesian and the developers was significantly
lower than the split other development consultants would have required, (b) that the services rendered by
Respondents exceeded the services typically rendered by other development consultants, (c) that if Respondents had
undertaken the projects as a developer, instead of a consultant, they would have made considerably more money on
the projects, (d) that Cypress Trails was one of the most profitable low-income housing projects he has worked on,
(e) that Cartesian contributed to that success of Cypress Trails, (f) that Villa Gardens was successful but not as
successful as Cypress Trails, and (g) that Gachassin provided more services than most project consultants.
35
Respondents Economic Advantage

If a public servant (Gachassin) or other person (Cartesian) violates the Ethics Code to his
economic advantage, the EAB may order penalties in an amount equal to such economic
advantage, plus up to one-half of the amount of the economic advantage.124 Respondents
numerous violations of the Ethics Code resulted in their being awarded two $500,000 project
consultant agreements. Thus, Respondents achieved a total economic advantage of $1 million.
The Ethics Code does not define economic advantage, and no reported cases have
addressed the issue directly. Respondents concede that the BOEs interpretation of economic
advantagethe price of the project consultant agreementsis a reasonable interpretation.
However, Respondents argued that their interpretationthat economic advantage means the
difference between the profits made and the profits that a competitive market would have
producedis also reasonable. Based on the premise that economic advantage is subject to more
than one reasonable interpretation, Respondents argue that the term is ambiguous and must be
interpreted (a) in favor of Respondents, citing the Fourth Circuit in Doe v. Bd. of Ethics,125 and
(b) in accord with the rule of lenity.
Respondents interpretation is not reasonable.
In Freechou v. Thomas W. Hooley, Inc., the Supreme Court held that when a statute is
ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions, the courts will give that construction [to the
statute] which best comports with the principles of reason, justice and convenience, for it is to be
presumed that the legislature intended such exceptions to its language as would avoid its leading
to injustice, oppression, or absurd consequences.126
124
La. R.S. 42:1155.

2012-1169, 2012-1170 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/13/13), 112 So. 3d 339, writ denied 2013-0782 (La. 8/30/13), 120 So.
3d 265.
126
383 So. 2d 337, 340 (La. 1980) (citing State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 188 La. 978, 178, 178 So. 601
125
36
Respondents interpretation is not reasonable and would frustrate the purposes of the
Ethics Code to deter actual conflicts of interest and situations that tend to create the perception of
conflict of interest. Respondents interpretation would allow for an agency head to contract with
his own agency in clear violation of the Ethics Code and pay no penalty if a similar economic
advantage could have been achieved in a competitive market.
Additionally, rather than comporting with the principle of convenience, Respondents
interpretation would be more expensive for the parties, would use more judicial resources, and
would be of questionable reliability. Respondents experts provided little more than conjecture
about the profits Respondents could have received had he performed work as a consultant on
another project, a project only available to Respondents in a hypothetical competitive market.
Even with the testimony of two expert witnesses, Respondents attempt to show the difference
between the profits made and the profits that a competitive market would have produced proved
to be impractical and speculative. Conversely, interpreting economic advantage as the price of
the project consultant agreements is reasonable, just, and convenient.127
In IT Corp. v. Commn on Ethics for Public Employees,128 the BOE129 found that a
private corporation, ITC, violated the Ethics Code when it entered into a contract with the
Department of Natural Resources, recommended a site for a disposal facility as part of its duties
under the contract, and then negotiated to buy the land it had recommended as the site for the
(1937) and Flanagan v. A L & W Moore Trucking Contractors et al., 100 So. 2d 289 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1958), writs
denied).
127
While not defining economic advantage, the Ethics Code defines thing of economic value as money or any
other thing having economic value . . ., and it defines substantial economic interest as an economic interest
which is of greater benefit to the public servant or other person than to a general class or group of person . . . . La.
R.S. 42:1102(21) and (22). Interpreting economic advantage as the price of the project consultant agreements is not
inconsistent with these definitions; Respondents violations of the Ethics Code resulted in their being awarded a
thing of economic value (two $500,000 contracts) that benefitted Respondents but no other general class or group of
persons.
128
464 So. 2d 284 (1985).
129
The BOE was at that time called the Commission on Ethics for Public Employees.
37
disposal facility. In addition to seeking other penalties, the BOE argued that it had the implied
authority to have ITC return the contract price of $375,598. The Supreme Court ultimately
ruled that the Ethics Code at that time did not expressly grant the BOE the authority to order the
return of the contract price. Instead, the Court ruled that the Ethics Code at that time merely
allow[ed] the [BOE] (or the Attorney General or District Attorney) to bring a civil action in the
district court against any state employee or former state employee who shall, to his economic
advantage, have acted in violation of the code, to recover on behalf of the state an amount equal
to such economic advantage.130 The Court added that:
ITC [could] not rely upon [the] contract for retention of the [contract
price] should the [BOE] (or the Attorney General or the District Attorney)
bring a civil action for damages (R.S. 42:1121(F)), or return of the
consideration paid under the contract. Such a lawsuit, if filed, will present
the proper time for the courts to decide whether ITC Corporation has
enjoyed an economic advantage and the extent thereof, and/or whether the
state should be permitted to recover the $375,598.00 or some portion
thereof. In that lawsuit due consideration can be given to ITCs argument
that they have earned all or part of the contract price on the basis of
quantum meruit. Any other viable defenses, factually or legally, might also
then be asserted and adjudicated in that litigation. (Emphasis added) 131
Subsequent to the ruling in IT Corporation, the legislature amended La. R.S. 42:1155, to
authorize the EAB to order, after an adjudicatory hearing, the payment of penalties in an amount
equal to the economic advantage realized as a result of a violation of the Ethics Code, plus up to
one-half of the amount of the economic advantage. Respondents factual or legal defenses,
including those implicitly based on quantum meruit, are rejected.
Rule of Lenity
According to the rule of lenity, ambiguity in the provisions of the Ethics Code, which are
130
131
464 So. 2d at 290.

464 So. 2d at 291.
38
penal in nature, must be resolved with leniency in favor of the person subject to penalty.132
Although Respondents interpretation of economic advantage is rejected, the term economic
advantage may be susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, in which case the rule
of lenity would require the application of the construction most lenient to Respondents.
Respondents acknowledged that the BOEs interpretation is reasonable.
Another possible interpretation is that economic advantage is the economic benefit
achieved by Respondents due to their noncompliance with the Ethics Code. Some federal and
state regulators have employed a complex analysis to calculate the economic benefit regulated
entities obtained as a result of violating regulatory requirements.
For example, the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) considers factors such as the nature and gravity of the
violation; the gross revenues generated by the violator; the degree of culpability, recalcitrance,
defiance, or indifference to regulations or orders; the monetary benefits realized through
noncompliance; and the costs of bringing and prosecuting an enforcement action, such as staff
time, equipment use, hearing records, and expert assistance. 133
Similarly, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employs a BEN (short for benefit) model in its
efforts to recapture the economic benefit of noncompliance with environmental regulations. 134
132
Ellis v. Bd. of Ethics, 2014-0112, p.13 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/14), 168 So. 3d 714, 724 (citing Doe v. Louisiana
Bd. of Ethics, 12-1623, 12-1830 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/21/14) (unpublished), writ denied, 2014-1763 (La. 11/21/2014),
160 So. 3d 971), writ denied, 2015-0208 (La. 04/17/15), 168 So. 3d 400; Louisiana Bd. of Ethics v. Randolph, 20131509, p.3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/21/14) (unpublished) (citing Doe v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 2012-1169, 2012-1170 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 3/13/13), 112 So. 3d 339, 346-47), writ denied 2014-1987 (La. 11/21/14), 160 So. 3d 974.
133
La. R.S. 30:2025(E)(3)(a). The DNR also considers the history of previous violations or repeated noncompliance;
the degree of risk to human health or property caused by the violation; whether the noncompliance or violation and
the surrounding circumstances were immediately reported to the department and whether the violation or
noncompliance was concealed or there was an attempt to conceal by the person charged; and whether the person
charged has failed to mitigate or to make a reasonable attempt to mitigate the damages caused by his noncompliance
or violation.
134
See Calculation of the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance in EPAs Civil Penalty Enforcement Cases, 70 Fed.
Reg. 50326 (Aug. 26, 2005) available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-08-26/pdf/05-17033.pdf. The
EPAs calculation of economic benefit involves numerous considerations, such as entity type and location,
competitive advantage, time value of money, non-depreciable expenditures (cost estimate and estimate date),
39
The evidence shows that Cartesian did not exist prior to the Cypress Trails and Villa
Gardens projects. Through their violations of the Ethics Code, Respondents deprived another
consultant of the opportunity to perform the work on those projects. Since its inception in
November 2009, the volume of Cartesians projects has exceeded $70 million. 135 Utilization of a
BEN-type or economic benefit analysis would result in a significantly greater penalty than
what is sought by the BOE in this matter. Therefore, application of the rule of lenity supports
the BOEs interpretation of economic advantage as the price of the project consultant
agreements.
The EAB cannot address Respondents unconstitutional confiscation argument.
Respondents argued that the imposition of fines and penalties of almost $2 million
against the Respondents will be an unconstitutional confiscation.
Respondents cited no
authority for this argument, and the determination whether a statute (or its application) is
unconstitutional is a purely judicial function. 136
The judicial power of the state is
constitutionally vested in the courts; the EAB is not a court but is an administrative agency in the
executive branch of state government.137 An administrative agency does not have the authority
to determine the constitutionality of statutes.138
Respondents also argued that the Ethics Codes provisions were never intended to, and
cannot be used to, penalize, exact retribution, or otherwise achieve vindication for the BOEs
annually recurring costs, discount/compound rates, cost index for inflation, consideration of future capital
replacement, delayed vs. avoided costs, and specific cost estimates.
135
Testimony of Gachassin.
136
State v. Board of Sup'rs of Elections, 186 La. 949, 173 So. 726 (La. 1937).
137
See La. Const. Art. 5 1 and Bagert v. Bd. of Ethics for Elected Off., 594 So. 2d 922 (La. App. 1st Cir.1992).
138
See State ex rel. Ward v. Board of Suprs of Elections, Parish of Rapides, 173 So. 726, 731 (1937); Red River
Coors, Inc. v. McNamara, 577 So. 2d 187 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991) (The Board of Tax Appeals does not have
authority to decide the constitutionality of a statute, since to do so is strictly a function of the courts.), writ denied,
582 So. 2d 1306 (La. 1991); Appeal of Brisset, 436 So. 2d 654 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983) (reaffirming its previous
holding that the Civil Service Commission does not have the authority to decide the constitutionality of statutes),
writ denied, 441 So. 2d 749 (La. 1983), reconsideration denied, 442 So. 2d 1146 (La. 1983)
40
perception that a violation of the Ethics Code has occurred.139 (Emphasis in original). This
argument is rejected, as two statutes within the Ethics Code authorize the penalties advocated for
by the BOE, La. R.S. 42:1153 (Penalties) and La. R.S. 42:1155 (Penalties for illegal gain;
forfeiture of gifts, payment).
Respondents reading of Glazer is incorrect.
Respondents argued that Glazer outlined the criteria to be considered when imposing a
penalty on someone who violated the Ethics Code.140 In Glazer, the Supreme Court restated the
appellants arguments: (a) that the BOE should have articulated reasons why penalties less
severe than the appellants removal from the Mineral Board would be inappropriate and (b) that
the BOE should have considered certain criteria prior to issuing a penalty. 141 The Court did not
hold that the suggested criteria were to be considered in ethics cases. Rather, regarding the
appellants second argument, the Court stated, [w]e find some merit in this contention, but from
the record made and the opinion of the [BOE], we are unable to evaluate whether the order
requiring removal is an abuse of the broad discretion which is exclusively the province of the
[BOE].142 The Court went on to state, we do not hold . . . that the [BOEs] order was
excessive. Rather, it is appropriate that we remand this case to the [BOE] with instructions to
support its order with facts and articulated reasons, or to amend the order. Respondents
reliance on Glazer is misplaced.
Even if the Supreme Court had held that the criteria listed in Glazer were to be
considered and addressed prior to the BOE issuing a penalty for a violation of the Ethics Code,
139
Respondents Memorandum in Opposition to the Post Hearing Brief Filed by the Louisiana Board of Ethics, p.
20.
140
Respondents Memorandum in Opposition to the Post Hearing Brief Filed by the Louisiana Board of Ethics, p.
21.
141
142
Glazer v. Commn on Ethics for Public Employees, 431 So. 2d. 752, 761 (La. 1983).
Id.
41
Respondents conduct would have violated several of those criteria: the transactions with
Cypress Trails LP and Villa Gardens LP were not arms length; such transactions have
previously been determined to be illegal by the BOE; there is evidence that Respondents
received preferential treatment and that Gachassin used his position as a member of the LPTFA
to secure a competitive advantage for Cartesian; and there is evidence that Gachassin misused his
authority as a member of the LPTFA in connection with the project consultant agreements.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Greg Gachassin is assessed fines of $50,000 for violating La. R.S.
42:1112(A), 1112(B), 1112(D), 1113(B), and 1121(A)(1).
IT IS ORDERED that Greg Gachassin did not violate La. R.S. 42:1121(A)(2).
IT IS ORDERED that The Cartesian Company, Inc. is assessed a fine of $10,000 for
violating La. R.S. 42:1113(B).
IT IS ORDERED that The Cartesian Company, Inc. did not violate La. R.S. 42:1121(C).
IT IS ORDERED that Greg Gachassin and The Cartesian Company, Inc. are assessed
penalties of $1.5 million in solido for violating the Code of Governmental Ethics.
Rendered and signed August 3, 2016, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
________________________________
Adaora Chukudebelu
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
________________________________
Aaron B. Avery
Administrative Law Judge
________________________________
Romaine L. White
Administrative Law Judge
42
REVIEW RIGHTS
Please be advised that you may be entitled to a rehearing or reconsideration of this
decision within 10 days of the date of this transmission, if you can establish that one of the legal
grounds listed in La. R.S. 49:959 is applicable to your case. Requests for a rehearing or
reconsideration must be received by the Ethics Adjudicatory Board within 10 days of the date of
this transmission. You may fax your request to (225)219-9983 or email it to
EABprocessing@adminlaw.state.la.us.
You may also be entitled to judicial review of this decision within certain time limits. To
determine your rights to review, you should act promptly and seek legal advice.
NOTICE OF TRANSMISSION OF DECISION OR ORDER

I certify that on _____________________________,
I have sent a copy of
Wednesday, August 03, 2016
this decision/order to all parties of this matter.
Clerk of Court
43

Greg Gachassin Ethics Decision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greg Gachassin Ethics Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Louisiana

Division of Administrative Law

Ms. Suzanne Q. Mooney

Mr. R. Gray Sexton

NOTICE OF MAILING OF DECISION

To the parties in the above entitled matter:

Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens

THE CARTESIAN COMPANY, INC.

SUMMARY OF THE ETHICS CODE VIOLATIONS

BOE Exhibit Y, p. 433.

persons of low income and particularly the elderly or handicapped . . . .9

Commissioners was composed of the Board of Commissioners of the LHA.10

BOE Exhibit Q, p. 334.

Gachassin resigned as Chairman of the LPTFA on

November 17, 2009, effective immediately.25

BOE Exhibit F, p114.

LPTFAs assistance to the LHA for Villa Gardens.37

The LPTFA unanimously approved the terms proposed by Gachassin. 40

This occurred while

Gachassin was the Chairman of the LPTFA.

Cartesian submitted draw requests for payment on Villa

BOE Exhibit V, pp. 368, 373, and 380.

November 1, 2009, is the only date contained in the agreement.

Gachassin also instructed the general counsel, Mr. Becker, to prepare a

BOE Exhibit C, pp. 24-34.

BOE Exhibit O, p. 228.

agreements on November 1, 2009, are unpersuasive.

La. R.S. 42:1102(18).

La. R.S. 9:2341(D).

Gachassins Substantial Economic Interest

The project consultant

BOE Exhibit B, pp. 13-14; BOE Exhibit C, pp. 24-25.

La. R.S. 42:1102(23).

In 2006, the LPTFA loaned LHA

Because the LPTFA had a direct

(1) Any member of his immediate family.

La. R.S. 42:1112(B)(2).

La. R.S. 42:1113(B).

However, for Cartesian to have violated La. R.S.

La. R.S. 42:1102(3).

period following the termination of his public service on the LPTFA.

He was listed as a Director on the October 30, 2011, Domestic Corporation

La. R.S. 42:1102(16) (emphasis added).

violate La. R.S. 42:1121(C).

La. R.S. 42:1153.

431 So. 2d 752 (La. 1983).

Respondents Economic Advantage

La. R.S. 42:1155.

464 So. 2d at 290.

For example, the Louisiana

Similarly, the federal

The judicial power of the state is

NOTICE OF TRANSMISSION OF DECISION OR ORDER

You might also like