Court Opinion

ID: 9362932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 15:09:11.764521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.517614
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 6, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                  Commonwealth of Kentucky
                             Court of Appeals

                                 NO. 2021-CA-1229-MR

DAVID LEE FINK                                                               APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                  HONORABLE OLU A. STEVENS, JUDGE
                          ACTION NO. 19-CI-003409

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT;
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY
METRO ETHICS COMMISSION; AND
METRO COUNCIL MEMBER ROBIN
ENGEL                                                                        APPELLEES

                                        OPINION
                                       AFFIRMING

                                      ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND K. THOMPSON,
JUDGES.1

1
 Judge Kelly Thompson authored this Opinion before his tenure with the Kentucky Court of
Appeals expired on December 31, 2022. Judge Denise G. Clayton concurred in this Opinion
prior to her retirement from the Court of Appeals. Release of this Opinion was delayed by
administrative handling.
THOMPSON, K., JUDGE: David Fink, pro se, was dissatisfied with a rezoning

decision by the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government’s City Council

(City Council). He believed the process was defective for a number of reasons,

among them that Metro Council member Robin Engel should have recused himself

from the zoning decision as he owned adjoining property to that which was

rezoned. Fink sought redress by both filing an ethics complaint against Engel

before the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Ethics Commission (Ethics

Commission) and filing an appeal of the zoning decision before the Jefferson

Circuit Court. Ultimately the ethics complaint was dismissed, and Fink appealed

this decision to the circuit court which dismissed his appeal; the zoning action

remains pending and is not before us. We affirm the dismissal of Fink’s appeal

because his appeal lacked merit.

             On January 22, 2018, the Louisville City Council unanimously

approved the Louisville Metro Planning Commission’s recommendation to change

the zoning on a 6.31-acre tract of land located on Fairground Road in Jefferson

County from R-4 Residential to PRD Planned Residential Development. Fink

owns land adjoining that property as does Engel.

                                         -2-
              On March 14, 2018, Fink filed an appeal of the zoning change with

the Jefferson Circuit Court.2 That appeal includes claims of violation of procedural

due process, conflicts of interest, fraud, and the violation of Section 2 of the

Kentucky Constitution which provides the Commonwealth shall be free of

arbitrary action. That litigation remains active as of the date of this Opinion and is

not a subject of this appeal.

              In April 2018, Fink lodged an ethics complaint against Engel with the

Ethics Commission. Louisville/Jefferson County’s code of ethics, the filing of

ethics complaints, and the investigation and hearings of such matters by the Ethics

Commission, are governed by the Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances (LMCO)

21.01 to 21.06. Once Fink made this complaint, his role had ended except as

potentially being a witness in further proceedings. Filing a complaint with the

Ethics Commission is akin to reporting a suspected crime to the police, not filing a

complaint as a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. At this juncture, the Ethics Commission

would determine whether or not to investigate the allegations made in the

complaint or dismiss it. If the Ethics Commission determined to investigate the

allegations, it could then require Engel to respond, conduct a hearing, and to then

determine whether any violation had taken place.

2
 Fink v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, No. 18-CI-001482; Jefferson Circuit
Court Division Eleven (11).

                                             -3-
             Fink’s ethics complaint alleged that it had been unethical for Engel to

sit on the Metro Council Planning, Zoning and Annexation Committee while also

owning property that is adjacent to property that was subject to rezoning. Engel

filed an answer to the ethics complaint and Fink filed a motion to intervene. Fink’s

motion to intervene was not ruled upon by the Ethics Commission. The Ethics

Commission ultimately voted to dismiss Fink’s complaint by a final order entered

on October 12, 2020.

             Fink filed a petition for judicial review with the Jefferson County

Circuit Court. The circuit court ordered the Ethics Commission to supplement the

record by providing the rationale behind its decision to dismiss the complaint. The

Ethics Commission did so by entering an amended order of dismissal which stated

in relevant part that it had dismissed the complaint against Engel because:

             [A]ny financial gain or financial interest in the zoning
             changes did not result in an ascertainable increase in the
             net worth or income of Mr. Engel or if so, was only a de
             minimis benefit that may have accrued to Mr. Engel as
             those terms are defined by section 21.01 of the Ethics
             Code, which the Commission concludes was no more
             than any de minimis benefit that may have accrued to any
             other surrounding landowner.

             LMCO 21.01 defines the term financial gain as “[a]n ascertainable

increase in the net worth or income of a Metro Officer, family member or a related

entity, which does not arise from a primary or proximate action by a Metro Officer

                                         -4-
or a family member of a Metro Officer or where either no or only a de minimis

benefit accrues to a Metro Officer or a family member of a Metro Officer.”

             As part of its amended order, the Ethics Commission also denied

Fink’s prior motion to intervene “because nothing in the Ethics Code allows a

complainant to be named as a party to any complaint procedure of the

Commission.”

             The circuit court ultimately dismissed Fink’s petition by order entered

September 10, 2021, finding that he had no standing to appeal the Ethics

Commission’s ruling as he was neither a party to the action nor a Metro Officer

who could appeal an adverse finding as a matter of right pursuant to the ordinance.

             Fink filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order of dismissal

which was denied, with the circuit court stating, “[t]he Plaintiff conflates subject

matter jurisdiction and standing.”

             On appeal Fink argues that, while he may not have had statutory

standing, he had constitutional standing to prosecute his petition for judicial review

and asks us to remand his appeal back to the circuit court to “complete a judicial

review.” We decline to do so; even if Fink had been granted standing, any appeal

from the Ethics Commission decision would be meritless.

             It is well established that we may appropriately affirm the circuit

court’s decision for any reason sustainable by the record. Kentucky Farm Bureau

                                          -5-
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 814 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Ky. App. 1991). It would be

pointless to reverse so that Fink may be granted standing if the ultimate outcome in

this case would not change.

             We agree that the Ethics Commission appropriately dismissed the

ethics complaint because Engel did not act unethically in voting on a zoning

change to property adjoining his own which would have at best only a de minimus

benefit to him. Fink’s underlying appeal thereby lacks all merit.

             Accordingly, the Jefferson Circuit Court’s dismissal of Fink’s petition

for judicial review is affirmed.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

 David Lee Fink, pro se                   Michael J. O’Connell
 Louisville, Kentucky                     Jefferson County Attorney

                                          I. Joel Frockt
                                          Assistant Jefferson County Attorney
                                          Louisville, Kentucky

                                        -6-