Missouri Ethics Com'n v. Cornford, WD
| Decision Date | 10 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | 122 Ed. Law Rep. 344 MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Ernest A. CORNFORD, Respondent. 53613. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jane Rackers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
Dennis L. Beckley, Hazelwood, for respondent.
Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.
The Missouri Ethics Commission ("Ethics Commission") appeals the judgment of the circuit court affirming a decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission ("AHC") that Ernest Cornford was not required to file a personal financial interest statement with the Ethics Commission pursuant to § 105.483 RSMo 1994. 1 The Ethics Commission contends on appeal that the AHC erred in its determination because the mere designation of Cornford as a "decision-making public servant" by the employing entity required that he file a financial interest statement under the applicable statutes. The Ethics Commission argues that Cornford's obligation to file the financial statement is not subject to review by the AHC. The Ethics Commission also argues that the AHC erred in finding that Cornford was not properly designated as a "decision-making public servant" because the evidence showed that he negotiated contracts and supervised a staff. Because we determine that the AHC had the authority to determine whether Cornford was required to file the financial interest statement in the first place, and because we determine that the decision of the AHC is supported by the evidence, we affirm.
Ernest Cornford is employed as the Finance Director for the University of Missouri--St. Louis. The University has designated Cornford as a "decision-making public servant" pursuant to § 105.450(6) for most of the years since Cornford assumed the position of Finance Director about six years ago. The University annually designates approximately 40 or 50 employees as "decision-making public servants." All "decision-making public servants" are required by § 105.483(12) to file a financial interest statement. In May, 1995, the Ethics Commission notified Cornford that he had not timely filed his 1994 statement, which was due by May 1, 1995. Cornford claimed that he had mailed his statement in mid-April of 1995. Cornford also mailed a copy of his financial statement to the Commission on May 23, 1995, with the notation "Copy of original form mailed in April '95." The Ethics Commission assessed a late filing penalty of $230.00. Cornford appealed to the Administrative Hearing Commission pursuant to § 105.963.4. The AHC, after hearing, determined that Cornford's position did not fall within the statutory definition of "decision-making public servant," and that therefore he had no duty to file the financial interest statement. The Ethics Commission then sought judicial review in the Circuit Court of Cole County. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the AHC. The Ethics Commission appeals.
In Point I, the Ethics Commission contends that the AHC erred because Cornford's designation as a "decision-making public servant" required that he file a financial interest statement. The Ethics Commission argues that neither it nor the AHC has any authority to independently determine whether a person has been correctly designated as a "decision-making public servant" by the appropriate entity or official.
Section 105.483(12) requires that a financial interest statement be filed by, "[a]ny person identified as a decision-making public (6) "Decision-making public servant", an official, appointee or employee of the offices or entities delineated in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this subdivision who exercises supervisory authority over the negotiation of contracts, or has the legal authority to adopt or vote on the adoption of rules and regulations with the force of law or exercises primary supervisory responsibility over purchasing decisions and is designated by one of the following officials or entities as a decision-making public servant:
servant pursuant to subdivision (6) of section 105.450." The referenced section provides
(a) The governing body of the political subdivision with a general operating budget in excess of one million dollars;
(b) A state commission or board;
(c) A department, division, or agency director;
(d) A judge vested with judicial power by article V of the Constitution of the state of Missouri;
(e) Any commission empowered by interstate compact;
(f) A statewide elected official;
(g) The speaker of the house of representatives;
(h) The president pro tem of the senate;
(I) A board of regents or board of curators of a state institution of higher education;
Cornford has served as Director of Finance since approximately 1991. He testified that the University has been inconsistent in its designation of him as "decision-making public official." In 1995, he was not so designated, although he held the same position as in 1994. Mr. Cornford said he was not quarreling about having to file the statement, because he does not mind filing. He simply was contending that he did in fact file in a timely manner by depositing his statement in the mail before the deadline. However, Cornford also mentioned that individuals holding the same position at other campuses of the University of Missouri are not designated by their campuses as "decision-making public servants" and are not required to file the statement.
He testified that he is authorized to negotiate contracts in his position as Finance Director, but he does not exercise primary supervisory responsibility over purchasing decisions. He testified that the Director of Purchasing has supervisory and final authority over such contracts. The only evidence as to the nature of Cornford's duties was provided by Cornford's testimony and by the job description identified by Cornford. The job description prepared by the University's Human Resource office for Cornford's position sets forth the following:
CLASS TITLE: DIRECTOR, FINANCE
To direct the operational, financial and personnel activities of the UMSt. Louis Finance Department, including the cashiering, accounting and student loan accounting offices.
Plan, assign, coordinate and review the work of office support staff engaged in cashiering, accounts payable and receivable and student loan operations.
Develop or assist in the development of administrative data systems, management systems, University policies and procedures, and records retention.
Coordinate and assist internal and external auditors regarding all audits performed at UM-St. Louis.
Advise and assist administration, faculty and staff in resolving departmental accounting-related problems.
Direct the preparation of adjusting entries on all cashiering, accounts receivable and student loan accounts.
Handle miscellaneous financial problems.
Perform special tasks and long-term projects as assigned by the Vice Chancellor Administrative Services.
Review accounts in Administrative Services to assure that budget guidelines and policies are followed.
Develop departmental budget request and written narrative.
Review, approve and monitor department operating expenditures.
Interview, select and evaluate professional and office support staff.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED
Direction is received from the Vice Chancellor Administrative Services.
Administrative and functional supervision is exercised over a professional and office support staff.
In determining the issue raised by the Ethics Commission, we turn to the language of the applicable statutes. The issue is one of statutory construction. In construing a statute, we seek the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language, absent statutory definition of that language. Moon Shadow, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 945 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Mo. banc 1997). We are guided by the legislature's apparent purpose in enacting the statute as worded. Division of Employment Sec. v. Taney County Dist. R-III, 922 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Mo. banc 1996). We seek to avoid a result which is absurd. McCollum v. Director of Revenue, 906 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Mo. banc 1995). Section 105.450 provides that a "decision-making public servant" required to file the financial statement is one who meets two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geier v. Mo. Ethics Comm'n
...(providing that litigant who exhausted administrative remedies is entitled to judicial review); see also Missouri Ethics Comm'n v. Cornford, 955 S.W.2d 32, 33 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (reviewing Administrative Hearing Commission decision adverse to the Missouri Ethics Commission). Further, Missouri......
-
Missouri Ethics Com'n v. Wilson, WD
...public servant does not invoke the status of decision-making public servant under section 105.450. Missouri Ethics Comm'n v. Cornford, 955 S.W.2d 32, 35 (W.D.Mo. 1997). While designating a person as a decision-making public servant is required, section 105.450 also requires that designated ......
-
Geier v. Mo. Ethics Comm'n
...(providing that litigant who exhausted administrative remedies is entitled to judicial review); see also Missouri Ethics Comm'n v. Cornford, 955 S.W.2d 32, 33 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (reviewing Administrative Hearing Commission decision adverse to the Missouri Ethics Commission). Further, Misso......
-
Missouri Ethics Com'n v. Thomas, WD
...if the designation was appropriate. This court recently considered and rejected this identical argument in Missouri Ethics Commission v. Cornford, 955 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). In Cornford, as here, the Ethics Commission challenged the authority of the AHC to determine independently whe......