LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES AGAINST DISTRICT TWO COUNCILWOMAN BARBARA SHANKLIN

COMPLAINT

Pursuant to KRS 67C.143(1), we, the undersigned members of the Louisville Metro Council, prefer the following charges against Councilwoman Barbara Shanklin for misconduct or willful neglect in the performance of the duties of her office, and respectfully seek her removal from office as District Two council member. COUNT I 1. In April 2003, the Louisville Metro Council adopted an Ethics Code for certain

elected and appointed officials in Louisville Metro Government, including Metro Council members. Louisville Metro Ordinance No. 71-2003, approved April 16, 2003, codified at 21.01(1)(b). Section 21.05 of the Ethics Code established a Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Ethics Commission comprised of seven unpaid members appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Metro Council, and provided that those members shall be chosen by virtue of their known and consistent reputation for integrity and their knowledge of local government affairs. 21.05(c). Section 21.05(B)(1) provides that The investigation and determination of whether a Metro Officer has committed any violation of this subchapter shall be the responsibility of the Ethics Commission. Section 21.05(B)(2) further provides that the Ethics Commission shall have authority to issue an opinion concerning whether or not an act or activities undertaken by a Metro Officer constitute a violation of this subchapter. The Ethics Commission shall have

authority to adjudicate factual issues, and to determine whether the alleged act or activity constitutes a violation of this subchapter. 2. part: In furtherance of the public trust assumed by Metro Officers upon their election or appointment to public office or employment, the following standards of conduct shall be applicable: (A) No Metro Officer or member of his or her family shall have an interest in a business organization or engage in any business, transaction, or professional activity, which is in conflict with the proper discharge of such officers duties in the public interest. (B) No Metro Officer shall use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or herself, members of his or her family or other persons. (C) No Metro Officer shall act in his or her official capacity in any matter where such officer, a member of his or her family, or a business organization in which such officer has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his or her objectivity or independence of judg[]ment. Louisville Metro Amended Ordinance No. 52-2010, March 25, 2010. 3. On March 14, 2013, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Ethics Commission As currently stated, Section 21.02 entitled Standards of Conduct provides, in

unanimously found and concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that Councilwoman Shanklin intentionally violated Sections 21.02(B) and 21.02(C) of the Ethics Code in her official actions in connection with obtaining Neighborhood Development Funds for the Petersburg-Newburg Improvement Association. The Ethics Commission found that Councilwoman Shanklin had used her position as a Council Member to request and obtain appropriations of $75,000 in Neighborhood Development Funds for the Petersburg-Newburg Improvement Association for for Fiscal Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-12 when the address listed as the primary address for the Association was her home address, when she was 2

listed as the process agent for the Association in its Articles of Incorporation, and when she was a member of the Board of Directors for the Association. The Ethics Commission further found that during the times relevant to the grant process for three grants approved for Fiscal Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-12, Councilwoman Shanklin had signatory authority for the accounts of the Association, and contracted for services on behalf of the Association after funds were appropriated pursuant to grant agreements with Metro Government. 4. For example, the Ethics Commission found that for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, when

a grant of $25,000 had been approved for the Petersburg-Newburg Improvement Association, Councilwoman Shanklin signed 84 checks totaling $24,808 out of a total of 92 checks issued on behalf of the Association. The Ethics Commission concluded that by using her position to obtain these funds for an Association in which she had such significant personal involvement, including the authority to control and spend the grant money obtained, Councilwoman Shanklin was using her position to secure a privilege and advantage for herself that was unwarranted. The Ethics Commission further found that Councilwoman Shanklins personal involvement with the Association was so significant and extensive that a reasonable person would conclude that her involvement might reasonably be expected to impair Councilwoman Shanklins objectivity or independence of judgment in any matter concerning the Association. 5. Additionally, news stories in the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that at least

$14,000 of the Neighborhood Development Fund grants obtained through the official actions of Councilwoman Shanklin was paid to relatives of hers during years when she held signatory authority for the Association. However, the Ethics Commission was unable to develop the evidence concerning this matter because the Ethics Commission lacked the power to compel evidence through issuance of subpoenas.

6.

As currently stated, Section 21.03(C) of the Ethics Code provides: (C) When any Metro Officer, or any member of his or her family, shall have any private financial interest, directly or indirectly, in any contract or matter pending before or within his or her office, or any Metro Agency, the Metro Officer shall disclose such private interest to the Ethics Commission, the governing body of the affected Metro Agency and, if the contract or matter requires formal action by the Metro Council, to the Metro Council.

7.

On March 14, 2013, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Ethics Commission

unanimously found and concluded that that there was clear and convincing evidence that Councilwoman Shanklin intentionally violated Sections 21.03(C) of the Ethics Code because she had been required to disclose that she had signatory authority on behalf of the PetersburgNewburg Improvement Association for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, and she intentionally failed to make the disclosures required by the Ethics Code. COUNT II 8. provides: (C) No Metro Officer shall exercise direct management or supervisory authority over any member of his or her family; nor shall any Metro Officer exercise contract management authority where any member of his or her family is employed by or is under contract to any vendor who is subject to such officers direct authority or management. 9. On March 14, 2013, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Ethics Commission Section 21.04(C) of the Ethics Code adopted by the Louisville Metro Council

unanimously found and concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that Councilwoman Shanklin in her official actions intentionally violated 21.04(C) of the Ethics Code when she deliberately and purposefully hired her grandson to work as her legislative aide, even knowing that she would be exercising direct management and supervisory authority over him.

10.

Citing testimony by Councilwoman Shanklin, the Ethics Commission found that

Councilwoman Shanklin had hired her grandson Gary Bohler to work in her office as her paid legislative aide in 2005, and that Mr. Bohler had worked in that position until May 2012, with a sixteen-month period during that time in which he worked as a volunteer. On May 11, 2012, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Mr. Bohler had been arrested at least seven times for offenses including robbery, trafficking in cocaine, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence. On May 14, 2012, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Mr. Bohler had been paid for his work as a legislative aide at least twice while he was actually in jail. Citing testimony by Councilwoman Shanklin, the Ethics Commission found that when Councilwoman Shanklin learned that Mr. Bohler had been paid for time that he was incarcerated, and had not worked, she required Mr. Bohler to repay the money that he had been paid for this time to Metro Government and she dismissed Mr. Bohler from his position. The Ethics Commission further found that despite his dismissal, Mr. Bohler was paid for 200 hours of accumulated vacation time. COUNT III 11. part: In furtherance of the public trust assumed by Metro Officers upon their election or appointment to public office or employment, the following standards of conduct shall be applicable: (B) No Metro Officer shall use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or herself, members of his or her family or other persons. Louisville Metro Amended Ordinance No. 52-2010, March 25, 2010. As currently stated, Section 21.02 entitled Standards of Conduct provides, in

12.

News stories in the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Councilwoman

Shanklin established an upholstery training program purportedly for ex-offenders funded with $30,000 through Metro Corrections that actually may have never served any ex-offenders. Instead, the Councilwoman and several of her family members were often the only people recorded as benefiting from the program. The Ethics Commission found that attendance records were not kept for the program from its beginning in mid-2006 until August 2010, when Metro Corrections requested that the instructor, Linda Haywood, submit attendance records with her invoices. From then until the program was terminated by the Department of Corrections in November 2011, the Ethics Commission found that very few people participated. For example, in August and September 2010, and from December 2010 through October 2011, the attendance records for the program listed only one person attending each of the classes offered during those time periods. Councilwoman Shanklin attended the class on fifteen occasions, and on ten of those occasions, was the only person listed on the attendance sheet. Other attendees included Craig Shanklin and Carla Shanklin, who have been reported to be Councilwoman Shanklins son and daughter. 13. Concerning the upholstery program, the Ethics Commission attempted to perform

their regulatory function of investigat[ing] and determin[ing[whether a Metro Officer has committed any violation of this subchapter. However, the Ethics Commission was unable to develop the evidence concerning this matter because of Councilwoman Shanklins refusal to provide testimony, which the Ethics Commission found to have been improperly asserted, and because the Ethics Commission lacked the power to compel evidence through issuance of subpoenas.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF We request that the Louisville Metro Council convene a hearing on the preceding charges that Councilwoman Shanklin intentionally violated Sections 21.02(B), 21.02(C), 21.03(C) and 21.04(C) of the Ethics Code, at the earliest convenience of the Council and Councilwoman Shanklin, so that the Council may decide whether to remove her from office, pursuant to KRS 67C.143(1). Respectfully submitted,

1) _________________________________ Jerry T. Miller, District 19 2) _________________________________ Madonna Flood, District 24 3) _________________________________ Vicki Aubrey Welch, District 13 4) _________________________________ Tina Ward-Pugh, District 9 5) _________________________________ James Peden, District 23