Hadley argued that Diggs did not violate any city policy in effect at the time the purchasing card, or P-card, charges accrued and had no official notice that his actions were inconsistent with his public responsibilities. My office determined that the major issue we needed to prove was the element concerning corrupt intent, Hadley said.
Last summer, the commission found there was probable cause to believe Diggs had violated state ethics laws.
The panel voted to send the case to the state Department of Administrative Hearings, or DOAH, for trial. But Hadley convinced the administrative law judge to kick the case back to the commission because she concluded there was not enough evidence to send the matter to trial.