LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

REGULAR BOARD MEETING

ONE AMERICAN PLACE, BATON ROUGE

MAY 5, 1995

MINUTES

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Casey, Chair; Dr. Ben Barron; Dorothy Bonsack; Samuel S. Dalton; Timothy Daniels (by proxy); Camille F. Gravel, Jr.; Rebecca Hudsmith (by proxy); Robert McLeod; Walter M. Sanchez, Vice-Chair; Sonja Spears, Secretary/Treasurer; and Henry Walker (by proxy).

STAFF PRESENT: Jean M. Faria, Chief Executive Officer and Jelpi P. Picou, Jr., Staff Director.

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

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 Chair. The Chair welcomed the members of the board and the staff and briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting, explaining its purpose and scope.

4. Review of Minutes of the March 24, 1995 Meeting. On a motion by Mr. Dalton, seconded by Ms. Bonsack, the minutes of the March 24, 1995 regular meeting of the Louisiana Indigent Defender Board were adopted without amendment.

5. Setting of Meetings for Remainder of FY. At the direction of the Chair, the Board considered the scheduling of at least two Board meetings prior to the end of the fiscal year. After discussion, it was generally agreed to meet on June 2nd and June 23rd. Both meetings would begin at 10:00 a.m. Pending scheduling, the meetings were tentatively set to be held in the main conference room of the Jones Walker Law Firm in Baton Rouge.

6. Review of Budget. The Chair then directed the staff to give an update on the budget. The staff delivered a copy of the budget as of the last day of April 95. There were no changes in the Capital or Appellate Programs, although several capital grant requests were pending and would be forwarded to the Executive Committee when the staff review was completed. Updated expenditures in the District Assistance Fund were reviewed, due to the additional grant requests from the Seventh and Twenty-Sixth District Indigent Defender Boards, which were previously approved by the Board. There was no change in the Technical Assistance Program. Administrative expenses were well below projected levels.

The Chair made several comments on the administrative expenses, expressing his opinion that the staff should continue to strive to keep those expenses to a minimum.

7. Dissemination Policy on Approved Standards. Due to an apparent problem stemming from communication among interested parties, the Board revisited its policy for disseminating standards, rules, and procedures developed by the Rules Advisory Committee.

Mr. McLeod began by briefing the Board on the meeting he attended with the Chief Justice, Board Member Wayne Lee, District Attorneys Douglas Moreau, Douglas Greenberg, Harry Connick, and John Maumolidies, and Deputy Judicial Administrator Tony Gagliano. There were various concerns expressed by the District Attorneys about the proposed Expert Witness/Testing Fund Rule then before the Court for approval. Mr. McLeod explained that many of the concerns expressed by the parties arose from a misunderstanding of the program and the effect it would have on the district level. They also discussed some problems with the confidentiality provisions in the rule. The members of the board and the Chief Justice expressed the position that they would review the rules in detail and take into consideration the concerns expressed by the District Attorneys.

Mr. McLeod proposed that the Board send copies of all rules, procedures, and guidelines developed and approved by the Rules Advisory Committee to parties which have indicated an interest in commenting on them. After some discussion, it was agreed that all interested parties should receive copies of the proposed rules after they were approved by the Rules Advisory Committee but before they were considered by the Board for adoption. Among the parties listed that should receive copies of the materials on a regular basis were: the Louisiana District Judges Association; the Louisiana Public Defenders Association; the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center; the Loyola Federal Post-Conviction Resource Center; and the Louisiana District Attorneys Association.

Dr. Barron commented that the Board should be sensitive to the concerns expressed by these interested parties and expressed the opinion that sufficient time should be given between the dissemination of the materials and the Board's review of them. Mr. McLeod recommended that at least 30 days should be given to allow the parties time to respond to the materials; Mr. Sanchez noted that 20 days should be allowed in order to coordinate between the meeting schedule of the Rules Advisory Committee and the scheduled meetings of the Board. There was general agreement that no fewer than 20 days--more if possible--should be given the receiving parties between the mailing of the materials and the Board's review. Staff commented that it would have sufficient time to organize responses if they were received no later than two days before the scheduled Board meeting, and the Board agreed that this should be included in the policy guidelines. Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Dalton noted that the staff should attempt to identify members of the organizations who should receive the materials and that the materials should be forwarded as soon after their approval by the Rules Advisory Committee as possible.

Dr. Barron moved that the staff be directed to develop a policy based on the Board's position and to present it for approval at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. Ms. Spears seconded the motion, which was adopted without objection.

Following adoption of the measure, the Chair, at Mr. Sanchez's request, directed the staff to follow, as closely as possible, the outlined procedure regarding pending Chapters 5 and 9 of the Standards on Indigent Defense which had been approved by the Rules Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Board for its consideration.

8. Chapter 5, Early Representation. Mr. McLeod expressed concern over the apparent micro-managing being developed through these Standards. He noted particular concern over Standard 5-1.1 as too broad. Mr. Gravel agreed to some extent with Mr. McLeod, but recommended restricting the reading of the section by adding "or as otherwise provided by law" at the end of the first sentence. Mr. Dalton voiced objection to the change, but conceded that if the Board felt it would clarify the section, he would have no formal objection. After some discussion on this matter, Mr. McLeod moved that Mr. Gravel's recommendation be adopted by the Board. Ms. Spears seconded the motion. Without further discussion, the amendment was approved without objection.

9. Chapter 9, Conflicts of Interest. Mr. Sanchez objected to the inclusion of Standard 91.5(B) as repetitive inasmuch as the restrictions on prosecutors practicing indigent defense are included in the ethics standards. Mr. Sanchez moved to delete the section and renumber the remaining sections. Mr. Dalton seconded the motion, which was adopted without objection.

10. District Assistance Fund. At the request of the staff, the Board's review of the grant applications from the District Assistance Fund was deferred until the next Board meeting to give district indigent defender boards time to complete the application process. With agreement of the Board, this agenda item was deferred until June 2, 1995.

11. Legislative Update. The Board devoted some time to a review of the actions of the legislature on various bills affecting indigent defense in Louisiana and the funding of the Louisiana Indigent Defender Board. The staff was directed to track the bills and keep the members of the Board informed of any changes.

12. Adjournment. After completion of business, a motion was made, seconded and adopted to adjourn.