PETTIGREW, J.
| ¡/This is an appeal by the Louisiana Board of Ethics (the Board) of a final decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board (EAB) that reversed an automatic late fee of $1200.00 that was assessed against Empower PAC (E-PAC) for the untimely filing of its campaign finance report, in an alleged violation of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (CFDA). We find that the EAB’s action — reversing the fine assessed by the Board — was based on a factual finding that E-PAC’s failure to timely file its financial report was not knowingly done. Because the Board is only entitled to seek appeals on alleged errors of law, no [399]*399appeal lies from the EAB’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
BACKGROUND FACTS, PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND APPLICABLE LAW
E-PAC is a political action committee affiliated with the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. A political committee is required, by La. R.S. 18:1491.6(A) 1 to file campaign finance disclosure reports; E-PAC elected to file such reports on a monthly basis. Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1505.42, the treasurer or chairman of a political committee who knowingly fails to file or who knowingly fails to timely file any such reports as required may be assessed a civil penalty for each day until such report is filed. | ^Further, pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1505.1 3, failure to submit the required reports shall constitute a violation of the CFDA, and failure to submit the report within three days after the final date for filing shall be presumptive evidence of intent to not file the report.
Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1491.6(1)0.), E-PAC’s financial disclosure reports are due no later than the tenth day of the month. E-PAC asserts that since its inception in 2012, it has filed all monthly reports on a timely basis, with the exception of the August 2012 report. E-PAC asserts that it has always filed its reports pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1485 by fax, and has been successful in doing so, until the August 2012 incident that forms the basis of this appeal. E-PAC further asserts that the task of fax-filing the report fell to Samantha Leone, the Information Coordinator at the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, at the direction the Chairman of E-PAC, Mr. Trey Hill, and its treasurer, Ms. Jan Swift.
On August 7, 2012, Mr. Hill and Ms. Swift signed E-PAC’s monthly report, which was due to be filed three days later, on August 10, 2012. They then gave the report to Ms. Leone to file. According to Ms. Leone, she attempted to fax-file the report as she customarily did, but for unknown reasons, the fax never reached its [400]*400intended destination.4
|4On August 14, 2012, the Board issued a notice of delinquency to E-PAC informing it that its August report, which was due by August 10, 2012, had not been received, E-PAC responded in an attempt to remedy the situation by filing its report on August 16, 2012.
On August 24, 2012, the Board issued a Late Fee Assessment Order to E-PAC, noting that E-PAC’s report, filed August 16, 2012, was six days late, and assessed an “automatic” late fee of $200.00 per day, or $1200.00, against E-PAC, its Chairperson, Mr. Hill, and its treasurer, Ms. Swift. E-PAC sought a waiver of the assessment from the Board, attempting to explain the unknown reason that the fax-filing attempt on August 10, 2012 was unsuccessful; however, the Board denied its request for a waiver, asserting it had no power in equity and that once a violation of the CFDA was established, the Board was required to assess the full penalty provided by law.
On November 1, 2012, E-PAC appealed the assessment, and a hearing on the matter was scheduled before the EAB on February 8, 2013.
Following that hearing, the EAB rendered a Decision and Order on March 6, 2018, finding that “[t]he Board of Ethics proved that Empower PAC failed to timely file the report, but no civil penalty may be assessed because Empower PAC did not knowingly fail to timely file the report,” as required by La. R.S. 18:1505.4(A)(1). Under the section entitled “Findings of Fact,” the EAB noted that prior to being notified by the Board that the report had not been filed, the chairperson, Mr. Hill, and the treasurer, Ms. Swift, believed that the report had been filed as required. It also noted that since the report had been dated and approved by Mr. Hill and Ms. Swift on August 7, 2012, and given to Ms. Leone, the employee whose task it was to fax the report, they were all unaware that the faxed report had not been received by the Board. Thus, the EAB reversed the late fee of $1200.00 that had been assessed against E-PAC.
On March 18, 2013, the Board filed a request for rehearing with the EAB. In denying the rehearing, the EAB noted that E-PAC filed an affidavit from an employee (Ms. Leone) who contends she transmitted the report by fax, and significantly, she was not one of the persons responsible for filing the report under the CFDA. According to the LEAR, this was sufficient to [401]*401establish that E-PAC did not knowingly fail to file the report. The EAB further noted that it was irrelevant whether the report was actually transmitted by Ms. Leone, or even whether the affiant was truthful that she had transmitted the report, but rather, what was relevant was whether the responsible parties in E-PAC knowingly failed to file the report.
This appeal by the Board followed.
THE APPEAL
The Board asserts that it has taken this appeal pursuant to the authority set forth in La. R.S. 42:1142(A)(2)(a). That statute, which governs appeals falling under the Code of Governmental Ethics provides:
Upon the unanimous vote of its members present and voting, the Board of Ethics may appeal a final decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, within thirty days after the signing and transmission of the notice of the final decision, or if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the transmission of the notice of the decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board on the rehearing. Only questions of law In a final decision may be appealed pursuant to this Paragraph, and the appeal shall be limited to the record created at the hearing before the adjudicatory panel of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board. For purposes of this Paragraph, “final decision” means the decision and order of the adjudicatory panel of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board on the final disposition of the entire matter the Ethics Adjudicatory Board was required to hear. (Emphasis added.) 5
On appeal, the Board argues that the EAB erred as a matter of law in conelud-ing that the evidence presented at the hearing established that E-PAC did not knowingly fail to file their campaign finance report in accordance with La. R.S. 18:1505.4(A)(1). However, we disagree with the Board’s characterization of the EAB’s conclusion as being a matter of law, because the conclusion that E-PACs failure to file its report timely was not knowingly done is actually a finding of fact. We also disagree with the Board’s implication that the term “knowingly” requires a legal determination since the term is not | ^defined by statute, “Knowingly” is a common word that has basic and universal meaning. It need not be defined by the statute, nor does it require a conclusion as a matter of law.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PETTIGREW, J.
| ¡/This is an appeal by the Louisiana Board of Ethics (the Board) of a final decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board (EAB) that reversed an automatic late fee of $1200.00 that was assessed against Empower PAC (E-PAC) for the untimely filing of its campaign finance report, in an alleged violation of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (CFDA). We find that the EAB’s action — reversing the fine assessed by the Board — was based on a factual finding that E-PAC’s failure to timely file its financial report was not knowingly done. Because the Board is only entitled to seek appeals on alleged errors of law, no [399]*399appeal lies from the EAB’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
BACKGROUND FACTS, PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND APPLICABLE LAW
E-PAC is a political action committee affiliated with the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. A political committee is required, by La. R.S. 18:1491.6(A) 1 to file campaign finance disclosure reports; E-PAC elected to file such reports on a monthly basis. Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1505.42, the treasurer or chairman of a political committee who knowingly fails to file or who knowingly fails to timely file any such reports as required may be assessed a civil penalty for each day until such report is filed. | ^Further, pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1505.1 3, failure to submit the required reports shall constitute a violation of the CFDA, and failure to submit the report within three days after the final date for filing shall be presumptive evidence of intent to not file the report.
Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1491.6(1)0.), E-PAC’s financial disclosure reports are due no later than the tenth day of the month. E-PAC asserts that since its inception in 2012, it has filed all monthly reports on a timely basis, with the exception of the August 2012 report. E-PAC asserts that it has always filed its reports pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1485 by fax, and has been successful in doing so, until the August 2012 incident that forms the basis of this appeal. E-PAC further asserts that the task of fax-filing the report fell to Samantha Leone, the Information Coordinator at the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, at the direction the Chairman of E-PAC, Mr. Trey Hill, and its treasurer, Ms. Jan Swift.
On August 7, 2012, Mr. Hill and Ms. Swift signed E-PAC’s monthly report, which was due to be filed three days later, on August 10, 2012. They then gave the report to Ms. Leone to file. According to Ms. Leone, she attempted to fax-file the report as she customarily did, but for unknown reasons, the fax never reached its [400]*400intended destination.4
|4On August 14, 2012, the Board issued a notice of delinquency to E-PAC informing it that its August report, which was due by August 10, 2012, had not been received, E-PAC responded in an attempt to remedy the situation by filing its report on August 16, 2012.
On August 24, 2012, the Board issued a Late Fee Assessment Order to E-PAC, noting that E-PAC’s report, filed August 16, 2012, was six days late, and assessed an “automatic” late fee of $200.00 per day, or $1200.00, against E-PAC, its Chairperson, Mr. Hill, and its treasurer, Ms. Swift. E-PAC sought a waiver of the assessment from the Board, attempting to explain the unknown reason that the fax-filing attempt on August 10, 2012 was unsuccessful; however, the Board denied its request for a waiver, asserting it had no power in equity and that once a violation of the CFDA was established, the Board was required to assess the full penalty provided by law.
On November 1, 2012, E-PAC appealed the assessment, and a hearing on the matter was scheduled before the EAB on February 8, 2013.
Following that hearing, the EAB rendered a Decision and Order on March 6, 2018, finding that “[t]he Board of Ethics proved that Empower PAC failed to timely file the report, but no civil penalty may be assessed because Empower PAC did not knowingly fail to timely file the report,” as required by La. R.S. 18:1505.4(A)(1). Under the section entitled “Findings of Fact,” the EAB noted that prior to being notified by the Board that the report had not been filed, the chairperson, Mr. Hill, and the treasurer, Ms. Swift, believed that the report had been filed as required. It also noted that since the report had been dated and approved by Mr. Hill and Ms. Swift on August 7, 2012, and given to Ms. Leone, the employee whose task it was to fax the report, they were all unaware that the faxed report had not been received by the Board. Thus, the EAB reversed the late fee of $1200.00 that had been assessed against E-PAC.
On March 18, 2013, the Board filed a request for rehearing with the EAB. In denying the rehearing, the EAB noted that E-PAC filed an affidavit from an employee (Ms. Leone) who contends she transmitted the report by fax, and significantly, she was not one of the persons responsible for filing the report under the CFDA. According to the LEAR, this was sufficient to [401]*401establish that E-PAC did not knowingly fail to file the report. The EAB further noted that it was irrelevant whether the report was actually transmitted by Ms. Leone, or even whether the affiant was truthful that she had transmitted the report, but rather, what was relevant was whether the responsible parties in E-PAC knowingly failed to file the report.
This appeal by the Board followed.
THE APPEAL
The Board asserts that it has taken this appeal pursuant to the authority set forth in La. R.S. 42:1142(A)(2)(a). That statute, which governs appeals falling under the Code of Governmental Ethics provides:
Upon the unanimous vote of its members present and voting, the Board of Ethics may appeal a final decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, within thirty days after the signing and transmission of the notice of the final decision, or if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the transmission of the notice of the decision of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board on the rehearing. Only questions of law In a final decision may be appealed pursuant to this Paragraph, and the appeal shall be limited to the record created at the hearing before the adjudicatory panel of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board. For purposes of this Paragraph, “final decision” means the decision and order of the adjudicatory panel of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board on the final disposition of the entire matter the Ethics Adjudicatory Board was required to hear. (Emphasis added.) 5
On appeal, the Board argues that the EAB erred as a matter of law in conelud-ing that the evidence presented at the hearing established that E-PAC did not knowingly fail to file their campaign finance report in accordance with La. R.S. 18:1505.4(A)(1). However, we disagree with the Board’s characterization of the EAB’s conclusion as being a matter of law, because the conclusion that E-PACs failure to file its report timely was not knowingly done is actually a finding of fact. We also disagree with the Board’s implication that the term “knowingly” requires a legal determination since the term is not | ^defined by statute, “Knowingly” is a common word that has basic and universal meaning. It need not be defined by the statute, nor does it require a conclusion as a matter of law. It is hardly disputable that the term “knowingly” means with knowledge about something. In this matter, E-PAC presented evidence concerning the manner in which the report was signed, approved, and given to a staff employee by the chairperson and treasurer of the committee, with directions to fax-file it, as E-PAC had customarily done in the past. But for reasons unknown, but presumably as a result of a computer or fax machine glitch, and unknown to those persons, the report did not reach its intended destination. The EAB concluded, based on the evidence, that E-PAC’s failure to timely file its report was not knowingly done. The finding that the chairperson and treasurer believed that their directions had been carried out by the staff member to whom the report and directions had been given, and who had previously accomplished the filing in the same manner, using the same procedure — as well as the ultimate conclusion that the failure to timely file the report was not knowingly done — is a factual determination, based on [402]*402the evidence presented. Neither legal analysis nor statutory definition is necessary to reach or support such a finding.
Because the Board’s appeal is based solely on that factual finding, the appeal is impermissible, pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1142(A)(2)(a). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.6
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
The aforementioned statute governing appeals of Code of Governmental Ethics matters, La. R.S. 42:1142(A)(2), also provides, in pertinent part:
(b) If the Board of Ethics does not prevail in the final disposition of its appeal, the Board of Ethics shall be responsible for the payment of reasonable attorney fees and court costs of the other party inclusive of all stages of litigation and appeal.
|7(c) The amount of attorney fees shall be determined by the court of appeal and shall be set forth in the court’s judgment.
LSA-R.S. 42:1142(A)(2)(b) and (c). In accordance therewith, since we dismiss the Board’s appeal, we hereby assess the Board with appeal costs in the amount of $203.75 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1500.00.
APPEAL DISMISSED.