Regarding their Advisory Ethics Opinions advising Attorney General Greg Stumbo of potential Ethics complaint if he chooses to run against Gov. Fletcher.

Feature Article by LawReader Senior Editor Stan Billingsley

The recent public release of information in the press detailed a report that Danny Druen, one of the first Fletcher Administration officials to be indicted in the Merit System investigation conducted by Ky. Attorney General Greg Stumbo, was officially charged by the Executive Branch Ethics Commission for an ethical violation.

This same Commission had previously issued two advisory ethics opinions to the effect that General Stumbo might be committing a violation of the Executive Branch Code of Ethics (KRS Chapter 11A) if he became a candidate for the office of Governor as an opponent of Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s re-election effort.

The Commission’s actions raised a number of questions, both procedural and legal in nature. We have spent many hours analyzing these issues, and appreciate the cooperation of the General Counsel for the Commission, Hon. John Steffen, in being kind enough to answer some of our questions.

We appreciate the fact, and urge our readers to understand, that the Commission has its hands pretty much tied by Chapter 11A (the Executive Branch Ethics Code) which requires a great deal of confidentiality in their handling of ethics complaints. There are of course some exceptions to these confidentiality rules, which depend on the stage of the proceedings and whether or not the person investigated has himself revealed the investigation to the public. It must be assumed that the Commission members have remained silent in obedience to these rules.

When LawReader publishes a topic such as this, our intent is not to determine the facts behind any pending case and not to suggest anyone’s guilt or innocence. We do not have a bias in favor of the charged person or the Commission. We do however, look closely at legal positions asserted by parties in their public pleadings and statements to the press and will comment on the soundness of those legal positions after a review of the black letter and case law. Our opinion of course does not have the force of law, and is not intended to influence anything but good solid legal research, and hopefully fidelity to the law.

The following issues are raised by the actions of the Commission and are discussed herein:

1. Of the many people indicted, implicated, and pardoned in the Merit System probe, will Dan Druen be the only party charged?

2. Will the Governor, who has not been pardoned, be investigated by the Commission?

3. In light of the blanket pardon issued by Gov. Fletcher on Aug. 29, 2005, under what theory of law is any action against Dan Druen (and others) justified?

4. What is the legal basis for the Commission’s advisory opinions to Attorney General Greg Stumbo suggesting that he may be subject to an ethics investigation if he runs for Governor against Gov. Fletcher?

See: Fletcher v. Graham Court's Ruling

1. Of the many people indicted, implicated, and pardoned in the Merit System probe, will Dan Druen be the only party charged?

LawReader asked the Commission if Druen was the only party being investigated by the Commission.

John Steffen, Legal Counsel for the Commission responded:

“KRS 11A.080(2) requires all Commission proceedings relating to a preliminary investigation to remain confidential, with some exceptions as provided. I can therefore neither confirm nor deny the identities of any individual that might be under preliminary investigation.

It is a matter of public record at this point that the Commission has been conducting investigations relating to this administration’s merit hiring practices, but the confidentiality requirement prevents me from identifying any individuals that may or may not be under investigation.

The Druen investigation became public when the Commission issued an Initiating Order against him, which is the next procedural step. Dates contained in the Druen Initiating Order show that we began our investigation of him very early in the process, even before the Attorney General got involved.

Sometimes during the course of our investigations, one investigation may lead to another, resulting in Initiating Orders being issued in a sequential fashion even though they may involve the same matter, other times, Initiating Orders may stand alone.

My point is, no assumptions should be made either way from the fact that only one Initiating Order has been issued regarding this administration’s merit hiring practices. As I’ve stated to the press before, you have to assume that Mr. Druen didn’t operate in a vacuum, (emphasis added by LawReader) but I cannot say anything further in that regard.

The Commission’s next meeting is February 23. Perhaps I will be able to provide you with additional information at that time.

LawReader Comment:

The Initiating Order mentioned by Mr. Steffen (See Initiating Order) indicates that the Commission’s inquiry regarding Dan Druen began on March 30, 2005. This date preceded the investigation by Attorney General Greg Stumbo which began on May 13, 2005. (See Appendix to the Initiating Order which includes specific charges.)

Press reports from that time indicate that Douglas Doerting, the state worker who exposed the Merit System allegations says he gave a stack of 276 documents to the Attorney General after he had previously initially referred his complaint to the commission before showing it to Stumbo on May 10, after months of delay at the ethics commission.

On May 26, Transportation Secretary Bill Nighbert confirmed that three cabinet employees and one former cabinet employee have been notified by letter from the Executive Branch Ethics Commission (hereafter “EBEC”) that they are under investigation, but he did not identify the persons.

On July 6, 2005 the Grand Jury issued its first indictments which included Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s deputy Chief of Staff Dick Murgatroyd, Corey Meadows and Dan Druen.

Stumbo’s office asked the Executive Branch Ethics Commission to terminate its investigation after prosecutors released a telephone conversation transcript which they say indicates a leak of confidential information by the commission whose investigations are required by law to remain secret. Final decisions of guilt, if any, are then made public.

The conversation, which Stumbo described as a leak, was between commission executive director Jill LeMaster and Douglas Doerting whose 276-page complaint kicked off this whole debacle. LeMaster acknowledged to Doerting that his name and complaint had been brought up in commission meetings. LeMaster said that she did not believe a commission member would have violated the confidential nature of the investigation, but that it was, of course, possible that they did.

We do not know if the delay in the EBEC Initiating Order, dated Dec. 15, 2006 was caused in response to the request of the Attorney General to delay their investigation, or due to a desire to not interfere with the actions of the Grand Jury and resulting appeals to the Ky. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued their decision in Fletcher v. Graham on May 18, 2006.

Conclusion

We know that as early as March 30, 2006 the Commission began an investigation of the Merit System issues. Transportation Secretary Bill Nighbert told the press that three members of the Governor’s Cabinet received notices from the Commission that they were being investigated as early as May 26, 2005.

The first three people indicted by the Grand Jury were Dick Murgatroyd, Corey Meadow, and Dan Druen on July 6, 2005.

General Counsel John Steffen has told the press, and repeated to LawReader the comment:

“...you have to assume that Mr. Druen didn’t operate in a vacuum.”

There are several possible conclusions that can be made.

1. Other people are still being or were investigated.

2. Additional Initiating Orders may be announced in the future.

3. No additional Initiating Orders will be issued as any other investigation was found not to have merit.

4. Other investigations resulted only in confidential reprimands allowed under Chapter 11A.

If other people are still being investigated, they know it, and the Commission knows it, and we can only speculate on that issue.

We note that Druen was one of the first persons involved that cooperated with the Attorney General’s investigation, and if he is the only person against whom punitive action is taken, it will leave the public with the impression that he was indeed singled out. If Initiating Orders are issued against others, then this impression will be negated.

2. Will the Governor, who has not been pardoned, be investigated by the Commission?

Reporter John Stamper’s Dec. 19, 2006 story in The Herald-Leader reported that Druen told him:

“I am outraged to have been singled out in the investigation of the governor and his administration. But one thing is for certain, the Ethics Commission general counsel got it right when he said whatever happened did not happen in a vacuum. In fact, everything I did was pursuant to a directive from my supervisors, top to bottom, including the governor, in advancement of the very initiative that carried his name.”

In response to Druens statement to the Herald-Leader, Fletcher spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker told Stamper that the Governor “never directed anyone to do anything illegal or unethical.” In a story by The Associated Press that was posted by The Cincinnati Enquirer on Dec. 20 at its nky.com,

Fletcher said that Druen’s assertion that he (Fletcher) was involved had “already been refuted in sworn testimony.” Fletcher was apparently referring to cabinet Sec. Bill Nighbert who told the Personnel Board under oath on Dec. 13, “I never had a discussion with the governor, not only about Mr. Duncan, but any other merit employee.” (However, other testimony was admitted quoting Nighbert in defending merit employee Mike Duncan’s termination, “It’s not what I say, but what the governor says.”)

Fletcher said, “As I said many times, my conscience is clear. We’ve worked hard to make sure that we’ve done things properly.”

CONCLUSION

We would suggest that Druen’s statement, coupled with the Governor’s indictment and plea, provides sufficient probable cause for an investigation of the Governor by the Commission. No one at the Commission has confirmed or denied whether the Governor is under investigation by the Commission.

3. In light of the blanket pardon issued by Gov. Fletcher on Aug. 29, 2005, under what theory of law is any action against Dan Druen (and others) justified?

LawReader asked Mr. Steffen what was the legal basis for the jurisdiction of the Commission to proceed Against Druen in light of the Governor’s pardon which included Druen.

Mr. Steffen replied that the pardon related to criminal charges, and that the action of the Commission was a civil action, and therefore not included or forgiven by the pardon.

He further stated that the Commission by law had the right to proceed on issues involving “ethics”.

Mr. Steffen provided us with only two citations supporting the authority of the Commission to proceed against Druen. Those cases are:

Fletcher v. Graham, Ky., 192 S.W.3d 350, 362-363 (2006), and

Nelson v. Commonwealth, 109 S.W. 337, 338 (Ky. 1908).”

We have reviewed the law concerning the effects of a pardon. We have found no case in Kentucky that directly answer this precise question. The only case that involves an ethics sanction against a person who was also pardoned is the Nelson case. We believe that case is distinguished by the fact that Nelson was disbarred first and pardoned afterward. The issue then before the court was whether a pardon could mandate the restoration of the attorney to the right to practice law. Mr. Druen has not been disbarred, and he is not seeking to be reinstated to his executive branch job.

With regard to the case of Fletcher v. Graham, we conclude in our analysis that the Commission has misread the intent of the Court and the effect of the Court’s ruling.

We have extensively reviewed cases which dealt with civil fines vs. criminal fines, civil vs. quasi-criminal actions, we have found examples of pardons being applied to proceedings that were designated as civil in nature. We have found an instance where a fine issued by an agency regarding a public health issue was determined to be civil in nature, but even this case did not deal with the pardon issue.

We have reviewed federal and state case law. We have extensively researched the Kentucky Constitution and the Kentucky Revised Statutes for guidance.

We have our conclusion and the Commission has a contrary conclusion on the effect of a pardon against ethics proceedings. Of one thing we are certain. The right of the Commission to institute “legal proceedings” against Druen (or others) and to seek a fine under KRS 11A., in light of the immunity created by the pardon issued to him, makes this a case of first impression in this state. In order to grant the Commission the right to enforce an ethics fine against Mr. Druen, the courts will have to minimize the historical power of the pardon power created by Section 77 of the Kentucky Constitution.

We submit the following discussion of the law which we believe seriously questions the right of the Commission to proceed under Chapter 11A against any person pardoned by the Governor.

To read the full legal discussion on these issues go to:

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISSION CHALLENGES THE GOVERNOR’S PARDON POWERS Legal Analysis of Commission’s Jurisdiction to Proceed Against Dan Druen for Ethics violations in light of the Governer’s Pardon

LawReader submitted the following questions:

The advisory opinion as reported in the press indicates that the Commission has concluded that if the Attorney General becomes a candidate, against a person he has previously investigated, that this would be an improper violation of KRS 11A.020(1)(a), due to his receiving a “private” benefit from his “public” position.

I had requested a definition of the legal terms “public interest” and “private interest” as found in KRS 11A.020 (1)(a), and used in the Stumbo Advisory opinion by the Commission.

Other public officials are entitled to have the public record made clear as to the breadth of the Commissions application of the “private interest” rule they have cited in the instance of the Attorney General. If others can be deemed by the Commission to be violating Chapter 11A by running for public office, they should be made aware of the criteria under which this rule will be applied in the future.

Does that rule apply to other prosecutors? Does it apply to others who might investigate people? Would it apply to members of the Commission who sought either civil or criminal proceedings against others...and thereby prevent the Commission members from running for office against those they have investigated? We are anxious to publish the interpretation given these terms by the Commission.

Mr. Steffen responded:

[Steffen, John (Ethics)] I think the two Advisory Opinions speak for themselves and I cannot go beyond what the Commission has stated therein. Some of your questions would require additional review by the Commission itself.

That being said, you will not find “public interest” or “private interest” defined in KRS Chapter 11A. Review KRS 11A.005(1), as well as some of the Commission’s previously issued Advisory Opinions, such as AO 03-5, 03-8 and 03-9, for further insight into how those terms have been applied. All of the Commission’s Advisory Opinions may be found here, including, I believe, both AO 06-16 and 06-31, the ones relating to Mr. Stumbo: http://ethics.ky.gov/ADVOPIN.HTM.

Keep in mind that the Commission has only cautioned against a potential conflict of interest should Mr. Stumbo run for governor. The Commission has no power to say he cannot run, but rather has used its statutory authority to advise him against a run for the reasons stated in those opinions. Should Mr. Stumbo choose to run, and should the Commission have reason to believe that by running for governor he has violated KRS Chapter 11A, the Commission may vote to conduct an investigation in order to determine if there is probable cause to believe he has committed such a violation.

As the Commission stated at the conclusion of KRS 06-31, “The concern lies not with the Attorney General’s fulfillment of his official duties, as he has a constitutional and statutory obligation to carry those out. The concern arises if the Attorney General allows his personal political ambitions to interfere with his handling of those duties, or if he uses those duties to further his personal political ambitions.”

LawReader notes that there are no statutory definitions of “public interest” and “private interest” in KRS Chapter 11A or any other section of the KRS. No action has been taken against the Attorney General by the Commission. They have only issued “advisory opinions” which do not carry the force of law.

LawReader asked:

4) The Commission in their advisory opinion re: Attorney General Stumbo, said his candidacy against Gov. Fletcher would present the appearance of impropriety. If the Attorney General were to ignore the advisory opinion and run against Gov. Fletcher, under what statute would he be cited?

Mr. Steffen responded:

[Steffen, John (Ethics)] Procedurally, should Mr. Stumbo file to run against Mr. Fletcher, the Commission would first have to vote whether to open a preliminary investigation against Mr. Stumbo. (See KRS 11A.080(1)). The Advisory Opinion does not preempt the required procedural steps, or serve to “prejudge” Mr. Stumbo in any way. The purpose of an Advisory Opinion is identified in KRS 11A.110(1), which states that the Commission shall “On its own initiative or upon a signed request in writing, issue and publish advisory opinions on the requirements of this chapter for those who wish to use the opinion to guide their own conduct.” If following a preliminary investigation the Commission found probable cause to believe that a violation of KRS Chapter 11A had occurred, then it could vote to initiate an administrative proceeding against Mr. Stumbo. (See KRS 11A.080(4)). While the two relevant advisory opinions regarding Mr. Stumbo’s potential candidacy cite KRS 11A.005(1) and KRS 11A.020(1), I am not going to attempt to hypothesize what statute, if any, under which Mr. Stumbo could be cited should he run for governor.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that it was never the intent of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 11A in l992, to add additional requirements for a person’s qualifications of age and residencey to run for the office of Governor by in effect requiring, ....”and in addition, no candidate for any state office may have ever investigated anyone who is likewise running for that office.”

The public is best left to the job of determining whether or not a prosecutor’s investigation served his “private interest” or was in the “public interest”.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISSION

CASE 06-110

IN RE: DANNY G. DRUEN

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF KRS CHAPTER 11A

INITIATING ORDER

Initiation of Administrative Proceeding

And Formal Complaint

The Executive Branch Ethics Commission (the “Commission”), upon its own motion, initiated a preliminary investigation of Danny G. Druen (the “Respondent”), pursuant to KRS 11A.080(1), on March 30, 2005. The scope of this investigation was expanded at the Commission’s May 27, 2005, meeting.

At all relevant times the Respondent was a “public servant” as defined in KRS 11A.010(9), and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

The Commission initiated the preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause to believe the Respondent violated provisions of KRS Chapter 11A (also referred to herein as the “Ethics Code”).

The Commission focused upon the following possible violations of the Ethics Code in the course of its investigation:

1. The Respondent’s possible use of his official position to give others an advantage in obtaining jobs within the classified (merit) system in derogation of the public interest at large;

2. The Respondent’s possible involvement in personnel matters that posed a conflict between his private interest and his duties in the public interest; and

3. The Respondent’s possible attempt to influence a public agency in personnel matters in derogation of the state at large.

The Commission notified the Respondent of the preliminary investigation by letters dated April 1 and June 3, 2005. During the course of the investigation, the Commission found probable cause to believe that violations of KRS Chapter 11A had occurred and voted on December 15, 2006, to initiate an administrative proceeding, pursuant to KRS 11A.080(4)(b) and KRS Chapter 13B, to determine whether the Respondent violated the Ethics Code as set forth in the Allegations of Violations, attached hereto and incorporated fully herein as Appendix A to this Initiating Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. The Respondent shall file his answer to this Initiating Order within twenty (20) days from the date of service, verifying the truth and accuracy of any answer submitted.

2. The Respondent shall appear at a hearing to be scheduled by subsequent order and be prepared to defend against the Commission’s allegations that he committed the Ethics Code violations set forth in the Allegation of Violations, attached hereto and incorporated fully herein as Appendix A to this Initiating Order.

3. All material submitted to the Commission shall be addressed to the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, The Vest-Lindsey House, 401 Wapping Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. The Commission is represented by John R. Steffen, General Counsel, who may be contacted through the Commission’s office at (502) 564-7954.

4. The Respondent has the right to legal counsel during this proceeding. If the Respondent retains legal counsel, that person shall file an appearance with the Commission, and thereafter all correspondence from the Commission to the Respondent shall be mailed or delivered to the Respondent’s attorney.

5. The Respondent has the right to examine upon request, at least five (5) days prior to the hearing, a list of witnesses the Commission expects to call at the hearing, any evidence which will be used at the hearing and any exculpatory information in the Commission’s possession.

6. The Respondent has the right to subpoena witnesses on his own behalf. If the Respondent subpoenas witnesses, he shall pay for all costs associated with the subpoenas’ issuance, including any applicable witness fees.

7. If the Respondent fails to attend or participate as required at any stage of the administrative hearing process without good cause shown, he may be held in default pursuant to KRS 13B.050(3)(h).

8. The Respondent has a right to appeal any final Commission order to the Franklin Circuit Court within thirty (30) days of service.

9. This proceeding is subject to KRS Chapter 11A, the Commission’s regulations, the provisions of KRS Chapter 13B, and any Order issued by the Commission or its hearing officer issued during this administrative proceeding.

So ordered this 15^th day of December, 2006.

Executive Branch Ethics Commission:

___________________________

John A. Webb, Chair

____________________________

Cynthia C. Stone, Vice-Chair

_____________________

Thomas V. Handy

__________________________________________

J. Quentin Wesley

_______________________________________

E. Patrick Moores

APPENDIX A

CASE NO. 06-110

INITIATING ORDER

ALLEGATION OF VIOLATIONS

The Respondent, Danny G. Druen, was at all times relevant an employee of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, serving as the Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services, Transportation Cabinet, or as Policy Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Transportation Cabinet, or as Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services, Transportation Cabinet. The Respondent was subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission at all relevant times. KRS 11A.010(9)(h).

During the course of its preliminary investigation, the Commission found probable cause to believe that Druen committed the following violations:

COUNT I

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(b) and (d) by using or attempting to use his official position to influence a public agency and to give advantages to certain individuals in derogation of the public interest at large by facilitating the systematic preselection or approval of individuals, based on private political interests rather than qualifications, and directing that they be placed in merit system positions or promoted with disregard to personnel statutes or regulations governing the merit system hiring procedures.

KRS 11A.020(1)(b) and (d) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

…

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

…

(d) Use or attempt to use his official position to secure or create privileges, exemptions, advantages, or treatment for himself or others in derogation of the public interest at large.

COUNT II

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a) by placing private political interests above his duties as an employee of the Commonwealth of Kentucky when he facilitated the hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, or transfer of individuals based on political considerations rather than qualifications. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duties in the public interest.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a) provides:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

COUNT III

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) by using or attempting to use his official position to influence a public agency by drafting and maintaining a “hit list” comprised of both classified (merit) system employees of the Transportation Cabinet and unclassified (non-merit) employees of the Transportation Cabinet, for the purpose of identifying these employees for adverse personnel actions (terminations, reversions, reassignments, and involuntary transfers) based in large part on their political affiliation or opinion. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duty in the public interest in disregard of the statutes and regulations governing the merit hiring system.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

…

(d) Use or attempt to use his official position to secure or create privileges, exemptions, advantages, or treatment for himself or others in derogation of the public interest at large.

COUNT IV

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a) and (b) by using or attempting to use his official position to facilitate the involuntary transfer and demotion of Terry McKinney, a state classified (merit) system employee of the Transportation Cabinet, without cause, based on Mr. McKinney’s political affiliation or opinion. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duty in the public interest in disregard of the statutes and regulations governing the merit hiring system.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a) and (b) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

COUNT V

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) by using or attempting to use his official position to influence a public agency in the appointment of Marjorie Ann Stewart to a state classified (merit) system position in the Transportation Cabinet and give Ms. Stewart an advantage over other more qualified individuals based solely on Ms. Stewart’s political connections and support of the current administration rather than her qualifications. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duty in the public interest in disregard of the statutes and regulations governing the merit hiring system.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

…

(d) Use or attempt to use his official position to secure or create privileges, exemptions, advantages, or treatment for himself or others in derogation of the public interest at large.

COUNT VI

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) by using or attempting to use his official position to influence a public agency in the appointment of Tony Disponett based on his family relationship to a close supporter of the political agenda of the current administration, rather than his qualifications, to a state classified (merit) system position in the Transportation Cabinet. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duty in the public interest in disregard of the statutes and regulations governing the merit hiring system.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

…

(d) Use or attempt to use his official position to secure or create privileges, exemptions, advantages, or treatment for himself or others in derogation of the public interest at large.

COUNT VII

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) by using or attempting to use his official position to influence a public agency in the appointment of James Gray based on his family relationship to a high ranking state official, rather than his qualifications, to a state classified (merit) system position in the Transportation Cabinet created for this purpose. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duty in the public interest in disregard of the statutes and regulations governing the merit hiring system.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

…

(d) Use or attempt to use his official position to secure or create privileges, exemptions, advantages, or treatment for himself or others in derogation of the public interest at large.

COUNT VIII

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(a) and (b) by using or attempting to use his official position by participating in the involuntary dismissal of Mike Duncan, a state classified (merit) system employee of the Transportation Cabinet, based on Mr. Duncan’s political affiliation or opinion. Such action presented a substantial conflict between Druen’s personal political interests and his duty in the public interest in disregard of the statutes and regulations governing the merit hiring system.

KRS 11A.020(1)(a) and (b) provide:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(a) Use or attempt to use his influence in any matter which involves a substantial conflict between his personal or private interest and his duties in the public interest;

(b) Use or attempt to use any means to influence a public agency in derogation of the state at large;

COUNT IX

Druen violated KRS 11A.020(1)(d) by using or attempting to use his official position to access official documents in order to alter them so that they might not be used as evidence against him or others in legal proceedings. Such an attempt to thwart an official investigation in order to obtain a personal advantage or an advantage for others is in derogation of the public interest at large and a violation of KRS 11A.020(1)(d).

KRS 11A.020(1)(d) provides:

(1) No public servant, by himself or through others, shall knowingly:

(d) Use or attempt to use his official position to secure or create privileges, exemptions, advantages, or treatment for himse