LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

 

                                        REGULAR BOARD MEETING

                              LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT BUILDING

                                SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM

                                                 AUGUST 27, 1994

 

 

                                             MINUTES

 

 

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Dr. Ben Barron; Thomas A. Casey, Chair; Samuel S. Dalton; Timothy F. Daniels; Camille F. Gravel, Jr.; Leah Guerry; Rebecca L. Hudsmith; Wayne J. Lee; Robert McLeod; Walter M. Sanchez, Vice-Chair; Sonja M. Spears, Secretary-Treasurer; and Henry Walker.

 

STAFF PRESENT:  Dr. Hugh Collins, Judicial Administrator; Anthony Gagliano, Deputy Judicial Administrator; and Jelpi P. Picou, Jr., Interim Staff Director.

 

          1.  Call to Order.  The meeting was called to order by the Chair.

 

          2.  Roll Call.  The Chair recognized the members of the Board present for the meeting.  On the basis of these introductions, it was noted that a quorum was present.

 

          3.  Welcoming Remarks of the Acting Chair.  The Chair welcomed the members of the board and the staff and briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting, explaining the purpose and scope of the retreat.

 

          4.  Background Presentation.  At the direction of the Chair, the staff delivered background information on the Legal Framework of the Louisiana IDB System, the District IDB Structure and Financing, a Comparative Analysis of Structure and Financing in the United States, and Estimates of Total Funding Needs.  Within the briefing of the Funding Needs, there was some discussion concerning the following:  Per Capita Method; Per Case Method; Caseweighted System; and District Attorney's Method.

 

          Mr. Dalton brought to the Board's attention that some district courts, while appearing to assess the maximum $25 allowed by law, actually suspend part of this fine.  Mr. Bussie, Mr. Walker, and Ms. Hudsmith commented that the Board should investigate a mechanism for determining what actual amount of the assessment is being ordered collected by the trial courts.  Mr. Gravel suggested that the Board require the chief judge of the district to certify that the maximum court costs are being assessed and collected by the judges of his district.

 

          Moving to the issue of the determination of indigency, Mr. Daniels commented that the Board should work toward a better system for determining whether an accused is actually indigent or, as is sometimes the case, can afford to defray at least part of the cost of defense services.  Mr. Lee added that recoupment can work and that the local boards should be given guidance on how to implement systems to improve this area.  Ms. Hudsmith stated that the federal government has a workable system in place and often requires that the accused pay a reduced sum of money prior to being given appointed counsel.  She added that she would make available to the staff the forms and procedures used in the federal system.  The Chair noted that these areas and issues clearly needed to be addressed by the Board and by the local boards, but that such matters should not prohibit the Board from assisting the local boards in other areas before more work could be done on the standards of indigency and recoupment.

 

          5.  Budget Analysis.  The staff next delivered a briefing on the proposed $10,000,000 budget presented to the legislature and recommended by the Task Force.  Following this, discussion was had on the later, revised, $5,000,000 budget provided to the legislature.  Several members noted that the budget to be considered at this meeting should, as closely as possible, reflect the spirit and thinking behind the revised $5,000,000 budget.

 

          6.  Interim Staffing/Physical Arrangements.  At the direction of the Chair, the staff gave a briefing of the staffing to date and the physical arrangements made prior to the Board's organizational meeting.  See p. 21, Retreat Booklet.

 

          Upon the motion of Mr. Bussie, seconded by Mr. Gravel, the Board resolved without objection to ratify the Interim Staffing and Physical Arrangements which took place before the Board's organizational meeting.

 

          7.  Expenditures to Date.  The staff next briefed the Board on the Past Expenditures of LIDB as of August 18, 1994, which totaled $16,474.  See p. 22, Retreat Booklet. 

 

          Following some questions by members of the Board, it was moved by Mr. Bussie and seconded by Mr. Gravel that the Board ratify the Past Expenditures of the LIDB as of August 18, 1994.  The motion carried without dissent.

 

          8.  Administrative Budget and Cost Assumptions.  The Board considered the Administrative Budget and Cost Assumptions, previously reviewed by the Executive Committee, including sample job descriptions for certain civil service classified positions.  See pp. 23-35.

 

          There was general discussion among the members that the overall budget appeared in keeping with the proposed budget presented to the legislature and reflected fiscal responsibility, with the maximum amount of funds being made directly available to local indigent defender boards.  Mr. Dalton moved, seconded by Mr. Bussie, that the proposed Administrative Budget and Cost Assumptions be adopted by the Board.  Without dissent the motion carried.

 

          9.  Program Budget.  The Board next considered the proposed Program Budget, previously reviewed by the Executive Committee.  See p. 36, Retreat Booklet.

 

          There was general discussion concerning the amounts designated to each of the programs, with Mr. Lee pointing out that although monies could be moved from one program to another, that the money could not be moved once it was disbursed.  Mr. Lee expressed concern that members of the Board should delay voting on the proposed program budget until the staff had an opportunity to brief the Board on the procedural mechanisms which were to be used to calculate the level of funding for the various local boards.

 

          It was moved by Mr. Bussie and seconded by Mr. Gravel that the Program Budget be adopted by the Board, with the understanding that the motion would be tabled until the staff was given the opportunity to more fully explain the financial assumptions contained in the budget.  The Chair tabled the motion for consideration later in the meeting.

 

          10.  Rules, Guidelines, Policies.  A brief review was made of the mandates to the Board contained in the Supreme Court Rule establishing the Board.  See pp. 37-38, Retreat Booklet.  It was noted that the Rule required the Board to develop standards and rules for a Capital Litigation Program, an Appellate Program, and Expert Witness/Testing Fund, and a District Assistance Fund.

 

          11.  Rules Advisory Committee.  At the request of the Chair, Ms. Hudsmith, Chair of the Rules Advisory Committee, gave a brief review of the work of that committee to date.  She noted that it had completed the standards for expert witness fees and specialized testing costs and had forwarded them to the Board for consideration at today's meeting.  Standards on the Capital Litigation Program were underway, she explained, and should be completed and distributed to the Board and others for preliminary review by the end of September.  Ms. Hudsmith also noted that the Rules Advisory Committee had adopted a Rules Drafting Schedule, see pp. 39-40, Retreat Booklet, and welcomed participation and/or comments from those Board members not serving on the committee.

 

          Mr. Sanchez moved and Mr. Lee seconded that the Rules Drafting Schedule be adopted by the Board.  The motion passed without dissent.

 

          12.  Policy Analysis of Required Rules.  The Chair then recognized staff members for the purpose of a briefing on the policy analysis of the rules required by the Supreme Court Rule.  See pp. 42-51, Retreat Booklet.

 

          Following review of the benchmark model, there was some discussion concerning the validity of the statistics used by the staff to develop the model.  The staff conceded that the statistics of exact number of indigent defenders in each district was not highly reliable, but countered that the margin of error would be the same for every district.

 

          Mr. Sanchez noted that the numbers being used could be tightened up somewhat in the future by checking them with the numbers which would be submitted by local boards applying for assistance under the District Assistance Fund.  Mr. Sanchez added, however, that the numbers presently being used were certainly accurate enough to make considered judgments concerning the first round of disbursements based on the individual needs of the applying districts.

 

          Mr. Lee commented that the Board, without delaying assistance to the local boards, should work to get more accurate numbers.  He urged members of the Board who worked with local boards to gather that information and forward it to the Board.  Ms. Guerry agreed with Mr. Lee, adding that in order to make fair financial decisions, the Board must do what it could to insure the accuracy of the numbers being submitted by the local boards.  Mr. Dalton commented that in many of the smaller, less financially well-off districts, reporting accurately at this point in time would be a great burden, if even possible.  He proposed, with general agreement from other members of the Board, that the Board investigate the possibility of standardizing reporting forms and, if possible, assist local boards in organizing a case filing system.

 

          The staff then presented a briefing on the comparative standards of capital trial attorneys and appellate counsel.  See pp. 52-73, Retreat Booklet. 

 

          13.  Recruitment, Selection and Promotion Policy.  The Board reviewed the Recruitment, Selection and Promotion Policy, previously considered by the Executive Committee.  See pp. 74-78. 

 

          There was discussion concerning whether the Board should be able to terminate employees at will or whether cause must be established.  Specifically concerning Section 3(I), several members voiced the opinion that the policy went further than was required by law and removed some discretion from the Board.  It was moved by Mr. Gravel and seconded by Mr. Sanchez that the second paragraph of Section 3(I) should be deleted.  The amendment would change Section 3(I) to read as follows:

 

                   (I) Probationary Status.  Upon acceptance of the job offer by an applicant, the Board or its designated supervisory manager shall, within five days, schedule a meeting with the applicant for the purpose of completing personnel forms and receiving an employee orientation.  After signing the forms and completing the orientation, the employee shall be immediately placed on a six-month probationary status and shall receive a date for reporting to work.

 

          After some discussion, this motion carried without objection.

 

          Moving to Section 3(J), there was discussion of conforming this section to reflect the general position that an employee of the Board could be fired at will.  It was moved by Mr. Gravel and seconded by Mr. Walker that Section 3(J) be amended to read as follows:

 

                   (J) Permanent Placement.  At the end of the probationary period, the employee, upon a positive evaluation from the Board's designated supervisory manager, may be placed on permanent employment status.

 

          After some discussion from members of the Board, the motion carried without objection.

 

          With these amendments made, Mr. Sanchez moved that the Recruitment, Selection and Promotion Policy be adopted by the Board; Mr. Gravel seconded the motion.  The motion carried without dissent.

 

          14.  Emergency Rules and Forms.  The staff delivered a brief review of the emergency rules and forms previously adopted by the Board with amendments.  See pp. 79-96.

 

          There was particular discussion concerning the LIDB STANDARD for expert witnesses and specialized testing.  See p. 92, Retreat Booklet.  The staff explained that the copy of the schedule was placed in the Booklet prior to the last amendments made by the Rules Advisory Committee.  It was noted the document as it appeared had to be revised to have the heading read:  "LIDB STANDARD."  The column marked "Estimated Costs Per Hour" was to be changed to "Maximum Fees."  And the column marked "Estimated Costs Total" was to be changed to read "Cap." 

 

          Mr. Sanchez moved, and Mr. Walker seconded, that the LIDB STANDARD for expert witnesses and specialized testing be adopted as recommended by the Rules Advisory Committee.  The motion carried without objection.

 

          15.  Other Business.  At the direction of the Chair, the Board took up the matter of amending the Bylaws.  Due to the pressing nature and volume of work being handled by the Rules Advisory Committee, it was recommended that Section 2 of the Bylaws be amended to allow an extra member to be appointed as an at-large seat and that members of the Executive Committee be allowed to sit as ex-officio, non-voting, members of the Rules Advisory Committee.  The amendment as proposed read:

 

                   Section 2.  The chairperson shall appoint a Rules Advisory Committee, consisting of four Board members appointed by the chairperson, one person nominated by the Louisiana State Bar Association, three persons nominated by the Public Defenders' Association, three persons nominated by the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, three persons nominated by the District Judges Association, and one chief public defender at-large, for the purpose of providing advice and guidance on the development of all permanent, substantive rules, guidelines, policies and procedures affecting District IDB services or relating to the Board's Capital Program, its Appellate Program, its Expert Witness/Testing Fund, its District Assistance Fund, and its Pro-Bono Program.  Members of the Executive Committee of the Louisiana Indigent Defender Board shall sit as non-voting, ex-officio members of the Rules Advisory Committee.

 

          Members of the Board generally agreed that this amendment was necessary to facilitate the work of the Rules Advisory Committee.  Mr. Sanchez moved and Mr. Dalton seconded that the amendment be adopted.  The motion was passed unanimously.

 

          16.  Adjournment.  After completion of business, a motion was made, seconded and adopted to adjourn until September 16, 1994.