Opinion ID: 852228
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conflict of Interest Violation

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.