LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

 

                                        REGULAR BOARD MEETING

                           LOUISIANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

                                        BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

                                                     JUNE 2, 1995

 

 

                                             MINUTES

 

 

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Thomas Casey, (by proxy); Dr. Ben Barron; Dorothy Bonsack; Samuel S. Dalton; Timothy Daniels; Leah Guerry; Camille F. Gravel, Jr. (by proxy); Rebecca Hudsmith (by proxy); Robert McLeod; Herman Robinson; Walter M. Sanchez, Acting-Chair; and Henry Walker.

 

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

 

GUESTS PRESENT:  Anthony Champagne; Michael Courteau; Wilson Rambo; and Peggy Sullivan.

 

          1.  Call to Order.  The meeting was called to order by the Acting 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 first welcomed the guests present for the Board meeting.  The Chair thanked Leah Guerry and the Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association for the use of their board room and for graciously hosting lunch for guests, members of the Rules Advisory Committee, members of the board, and staff.  The members of the board and the staff were welcomed by the chair who then briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting, explaining its purpose and scope.

 

          4.  Review of Minutes of the May 5, 1995 Meeting.  At the request of the staff, the Board deferred review of the minutes of the 5 May 95 meeting until the final meeting of the fiscal year, scheduled for June 23, 1995.

 

          5.  Budget Review.  At the direction of the Chair, the Board considered the reallocation of funds remaining in its budget to address the perceived need through the remainder of the fiscal year.  The staff presented a review of the budget, stressing that with the reallocation of funds, particularly for block grants to assist districts in meeting needs in the area of capital cases and expert witness expenses, the Board could most effectively use its remaining monies.  It was recommended that the capital program be funded at a level of $1,613,000, the expert witness/testing fund be funded at a level of $110,000, the district assistance fund be funded at a level of $3,087,000, that the technical assistance fund be funded at a level of $30,000, and that administrative expenditures be capped at $160,000.  As part of the reallocation of funds, the staff recommended that block grants, totaling $981,800, be approved.  The block grants would cover eleven different indigent defender districts and provide direct assistance in 34 cases.

 

          Mr. McLeod suggested that the block grants be solemnized with written contracts restricting the expenditures of the monies on specific cases and that the district boards be responsible for supplying the Board with all necessary financial disclosures to ensure that the monies were being spent as intended.  Mr. Daniels agreed with this recommendation.  Mr. Dalton suggested that the district boards should be responsible for refunding any unused funds to the Board.

 

          Mr. McLeod, with the agreement of the Board, requested that the staff prepare the necessary documents for the Board's review at the next meeting.  The staff noted that the documents would be prepared and circulated to members of the Board prior to the meeting. 

 

          With the above stipulations and requirements, Mr. McLeod moved that the reallocation of funds be approved, that the block grants be approved and that the necessary documents be prepared.  Mr. Dalton seconded the motion, which was adopted without objection.

 

          6.  Technical Assistance Program.  The Chair then directed the staff to give an update on the Technical Assistance Program.  The staff reported that the response from the district boards for copies of the Capital Manual and Motions Discs was well above expected levels and requested that up to $3,500 of the Technical Assistance Program funds be approved to meet this need.

 

          The staff next updated the Board on the 73rd Annual Meeting of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, which will be held in New Orleans in December of 1995.  The staff recommended that the remainder of the funds in the TAP be allocated to assist in getting district boards involved in this educational program and defray part of the expense of attending the meeting.  There was also a recommendation that the staff be allowed to work with NLADA in developing substantive programs for presentations at the conference.  With the limited funds--being reallocated from the administrative budget--the staff estimated that it would be able to fund two or perhaps three substantive programs focusing on criminal indigent defense.

 

          Following a general discussion of the proposals, Dr. Barron moved that funds from the TAP be allocated in accordance with the staff's recommendation.  Mr. Dalton seconded the motion, which was adopted without objection. 

 

          7.  District Assistance Fund Grants.  The staff presented a briefing on the 30 applications for grants from the district indigent defender boards for funds from the District Assistance Fund.  The total disbursement came to $1,021,500, and the staff asked for approval of all 30 applications, with some stipulations.  It was noted that the following districts had minor deficiencies in their applications:  3rd; 6th; 8th; 13th; and 25th.  Because none of the deficiencies related to eligibility or level of need, the staff recommended that the requests be approved but held until the application was brought into proper form.

          Dr. Barron moved, with Mr. Dalton seconding, that the grant applications be approved, with the stipulation that the above listed districts would not receive funds until they were able to complete the formal requirements of the application process.  The motion was adopted without objection.

 

          8.  Chapters 5 and 9 of the Standards on Indigent Defense.  At the request of the Chair the staff reported on the two chapters of the Louisiana Standards on Indigent Defense approved by the Rules Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Board for its review.  The staff noted that copies of the proposed standards were forwarded to the District Judges Association, the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Louisiana Public Defenders Association, and the Louisiana District Attorneys Association.  The staff further reported that no comments or replies were received from these parties.

 

          Mr. Daniels noted that, while he was a member of the committee which drafted the proposed standards, he was concerned about the ability of the Board to draft a specific standard dealing with the relationship between a district board and a defense attorney representing an indigent client.  Specifically calling the Board's attention to Standard 5-1.5, he noted that he was not recommending a change in the language but wanted input from members of the Board prior to formal consideration of the Standards.  Comments were made by Mr. McLeod, Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Dalton, and the staff concerning the extent of the rule, its intent, and its purpose.  Mr. Daniels commented that he was satisfied that the recommended Standard did not veer into territory the Board should avoid.

 

          Following discussion on both chapters, Mr. Dalton moved that they be adopted as recommended by the Rules Advisory Committee.  Dr. Barron seconded the motion, which was adopted without objection. 

 

          9.  Review of Certification Programs.  At the direction of the Chair, the staff delivered a report on the Capital and Appellate Certification Programs.  There was some concern expressed by Mr. Walker that the list of certified attorneys would not reach all geographical areas of the state, to which the staff replied that it was working to fill any gaps and stood ready to provide, through grants, defense services to those areas which might lack for a certified attorney.  Orleans was also raised as a possible problem, as none of the attorneys on the capital defense team had applied for certification.  The staff assured the Board that it was working with Numa Bertel of the Orleans Indigent Defender Program to resolve the problem.

 

          10.  Programs Review.  The staff reported that in light of the block grants approved by the Board earlier in the meeting, the Capital and Expert Witness/Testing Programs remained funded at the same level.

 

          11.     Review of Administrative Expenses.  The staff reminded the members of the Board that the fiscal year ended on June 30, 1995 and that all Board-related expense requests should be submitted for approval no later than this date.

 

          12.     Rules Review Procedure.  The Board next considered the procedure drafted at its request to ensure that all interested parties be supplied with rules, procedures, and guidelines approved by the Rules Advisory Committee and be given an opportunity to respond prior to the Board's consideration of the materials.  The procedure, drafted in accordance with the Board's mandate from the 5 May 95 meeting was reviewed.  The Chair noted that the list of associations automatically receiving a copy of the materials did not include the Louisiana District Judges Association and asked for a motion to amend the procedure to include that association.  Mr. McLeod moved to adopt the procedure, with the amendment recommended by the Chair.  Mr. Walker seconded the motion, which was adopted without objection.

 

          13.     Legislative Update.  The Chair opened the meeting to a general discussion of the state of LIDB funding in the legislature and received a chronology of events from the Chief Executive Officer.  HB 2271, the judicial funding bill, was in the Senate Finance Committee and was not yet scheduled for review.  The Board requested that they be kept informed of any changes in circumstances.

 

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