Opinion ID: 852228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ethics Commission Finding and Sanction

Text: The Ethics Commission found that Ghosh violated the Conflict of Economic Interests provision of the Ethics Code. In relevant part, that section provides that a state employee . . . may not participate in any decision if the state employee knows that he or she has a financial interest in the matter. I.C. § 4-2-6-9(a)(1). Ghosh challenges the Ethics Commission's interpretation of the statute. Ghosh argues that participate in any decision necessarily implies that two or more people were involved in the decision. Since he acted alone when he used his state credit card at his gas station, he contends, he was not participating in a decision. The Ethics Commission counters that the statute's use of the word participate merely establishes the minimum degree of involvement in a decision required for application of the act. We agree that participate embraces people who, for example, voted on a decision, but does not imply that the same decision by only one participant is not covered by the prohibition against acting as a state employee with a financial interest. See Black's Law Dictionary 1229 (9th ed. 2009) (defining participation as [t]he act of taking part in something, such as a partnership, a crime, or a trial). An interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the duty of enforcing the statute is entitled to great weight. LTV Steel, 730 N.E.2d at 1257; accord Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 929, 106 S.Ct. 2333, 90 L.Ed.2d 921 (1986) ([A]n agency's construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference.); Ind. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Steel Dynamics, Inc., 894 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied ([W]hen a court determines that an administrative agency's interpretation is reasonable, it should terminate its analysis and not address the reasonableness of the other party's interpretation). Therefore, we must determine whether the Ethics Commission's interpretation of Indiana Code section 4-2-6-9(a)(1) was reasonable. We cannot say, given these circumstances, that the Ethics Commission's finding was unreasonable.
The Ethics Commission arrived at a total penalty of $456.96 by applying the $0.34 Internal Revenue Service mileage rate for personal use of a vehicle to the 1344 miles Ghosh drove on unauthorized trips between his home in Brownsburg and the Beech Grove gas station. The Inspector General's complaint against Ghosh alleged violation of the conflict of interest statute and also personal use of state property in violation of the administrative Code of Ethics. See 42 Ind. Admin. Code § 1-5-12. The Court of Appeals held that the use of state property did not support the mileage based penalty because the Ethics Commission found that Ghosh's supervisor had approved the trips to Beech Grove, so Ghosh did not use state property without authority. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that the amount of the Ethics Commission's $456.96 sanction was unsupported by substantial evidence. 911 N.E.2d at 148. Despite the supervisor's authorization, we think the Ethics Commission was justified in imposing the penalty based on the conflict of interest statute, which allows a penalty not to exceed three (3) times the value of any benefit received from the violation. I.C. § 4-2-6-12(1). Ghosh's travels in a state vehicle to Beech Grove were a benefit to him and the I.R.S. mileage guidelines were a reasonable means to monetize that benefit. The Ethics Commission is entitled to considerable latitude in crafting a remedy, [4] and the amount it fixed is within the statutory parameters.