By ROBIN SHANNON
L’Observateur

LAPLACE — State ethics board members concluded Wednesday that a St. John Parish Council member, who works as an insurance agent, is not in violation of any ethics code since he does not deal with insurance companies that do business with the parish.

The ruling alters the board’s previous advisory opinion, which said council members were not allowed to receive any compensation from an insurance company that has a contractual relationship with the parish.

The ethics board drafted the opinion in response to a request from the parish’s ethics attorney, who had asked that the board reconsider the original advisory opinion requested by a LaPlace area insurance agent who lost a recent bid for a parish insurance contract.

At a hearing before the board in Baton Rouge, St. John Ethics Attorney Gray Sexton argued that the councilman in question, Division B Councilman-at-large Steve Lee, does not directly or indirectly receive commission from insurance companies doing business with the parish. Sexton explained to the board that Lee receives a fee from an insurance broker who does business with an insurance company that is linked with the parish. Sexton said the commission is given to the broker, and Lee is given a fee for signing up a customer with insurance.

Following Sexton’s presentation, the board adopted a motion to draft an opinion that said Lee was not in violation.

LaPlace insurance agent John Millet requested the advisory opinions from the board on whether he could submit proposals on behalf of insurance companies when members of the council have relationships with those companies. The February 2008 opinion said he could not submit proposals for those companies according to a state ethics code that does not allow officials or their spouses to receive compensation from a business that has a contract with the parish.

Sexton said the ruling does not bar Lee, or any other council member with affiliations with insurance companies, from voting on parish insurance matters since that issue was not addressed during the hearing.