Is DeHart’s electricity vote unethical?

Does a conflict of interest arise when one school board member serves on the board of directors and another board member is an employee of a benefiting regulated monopoly?

Terrebonne’s District 7 school board member Roger Dale DeHart serves on the South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association Board of Directors. And, District 4 board member Rickie Pitre is and employee of SLECA.

Pitre serves as the company’s director of industrial development, where he handles services for new business in the Terrebonne Parish area.

At its June 5 school board meeting, the board will determine whether SLECA or the City of Houma utilities is the qualifying entity to provide electricity at one of the parish schools. In order for a decision to be rendered, each school board member has to cast a vote.

At the May 15 meeting, Pitre, DeHart and several of the other board members disagreed with the maintenance staff’s recommendation to service the utilities through the City of Houma reasoning that SLECA’s demand rates are 40 percent cheaper.

The disagreement sent the recommendation back to the buildings, transportation and food services committee for further investigation.

“I want to do what’s right for the school board by saving us some money that could be used for more modular or portable classrooms for the parish. Mr. Pitre and I don’t gain anything from the board choosing SLECA to service its schools,” DeHart said after the meeting.

According to State Ethics Department staff attorney Tracy Walker, Pitre’s vote presents no conflict of interest because he doesn’t make any decisions concerning SLECA’s partnerships with other entities.

“As long as the school board is discussing using SLECA as a utility service there is no problem. The conflict of interest arises when the board member [that serves on both governing boards] has to cast a vote,” Walker said.

In his own defense, DeHart said any decision made on the school board’s behalf doesn’t impact his relationship with SLECA.

“Just like the school board, I am elected by the residents of Terrebonne Parish to serve on the SLECA board. I don’t make any more decisions about SLECA’s activities than the rest of the board of director members,” he said.

Walker said she believes the board member [DeHart] should recuse himself from voting on the issue, eliminating any possible conflict in interest.

“If that member still chooses to vote, then a disclosure statement under Section 42, Code 1120 should be filed with the state ethics committee detailing why that person feels this is not a conflict of interest,” she said.

However, if SLECA is the only entity that can provide utilities in the area in which the school board is requesting service, then no conflict of interests exists, the staff attorney said.

In February of 2004, a parish citizen requested a conflict of interest opinion concerning DeHart and his role on the parish school board, SLECA board of director and being a parish recreation maintenance employee.

According to the Board of Ethics, the resident said that the parish recreation department maintained several ball fields on property owned by the school board in which SLECA performed the maintenance to the lights.

Although the code generally prohibits a public servant from providing compensated services to a private entity that has business, financial or contractual relationships with his public agency, Walker said the ethics board concluded that DeHart didn’t violate the Code of Governmental Ethics.

The ethics board ruled that the type of relationship created when a public entity purchased necessary services from a regulated monopoly at established rates is not a violation.

Walker suggested that the school board request in writing an opinion from the ethics board like it has done in previous years if it wanted to know if DeHart’s current vote presents a problem.