"[G]overnment transportation to a destination (private residence) for a private purpose (to go home at the end of the work-day) does in fact fulfill a public purpose, because the employee responds to emergencies from the residence."
How later courts described this case
- "[G]overnment transportation to a destination (private residence) for a private purpose (to go home at the end of the work-day) does in fact fulfill a public purpose, because the employee responds to emergencies from the residence."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATT, Justice,
concurring specially:
¶ 1 I concur in today’s pronouncement by the majority because I believe the security of our Chief Executive which is clearly set forth by statute cannot be overridden by rule of the Ethics Commission. The competing public policies of providing security for our Chief Executive and enforcing ethical standards for political candidates are both essential in today’s society.
¶ 2 Our Governor, regardless of party affiliation, becomes Chief Executive when the oath of office is administered and remains Chief Executive until a subsequent oath of office is administered to another. Scheduling of gubernatorial appearances takes place months in advance and most, if not all, trips away from the Capitol will involve more than one appearance or engagement. Often, unexpected events, emergencies or natural disasters will dictate last minute changes or cancellation of appearances.
¶ 3 I am also mindful that all candidates are subject to and must comply with those ethical standards set forth by the Ethics Commission. In balancing these competing public policies, one thing remains constant, that being the security for our Chief Executive on a twenty-four hour a day basis.
2. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.7 (1998); 5 C.F.R. § 734.503 (1998).
¶ 4 The solution to these competing public policies, if any there be, is one for the Legislature, should they chose to do so.