LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

 

                                                BOARD MEETING

 

                                        JONES WALKER LAW FIRM

                                        BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

                                                    JUNE 14, 1996

 

 

                                             MINUTES

 

 

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Thomas Casey, Chair; Dorothy Briggs (by proxy); Samuel Dalton; Timothy Daniels; Rebecca Hudsmith (by proxy); Wayne Lee (by proxy); Robert McLeod; Herman Robinson; J. Michael Small; Sonja Spears, Secretary-Treasurer; Walter M. Sanchez, Vice-Chair; and Henry Walker (by proxy).

 

STAFF PRESENT:  Jelpi P. Picou, Jr. and Betty Lilley.

 

 

          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 and noted the proxy executed by Dorothy Briggs and given to Walter Sanchez, the proxy executed by Rebecca Hudsmith and given to J. Michael Small, the proxy executed by Wayne Lee and given to Walter Sanchez, and the proxy executed by Henry Walker and given to Walter Sanchez.  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.  The Chair then entertained a motion by Mr. Dalton to approve the minutes of the Board's May 3, 1996 meeting.  Mr. Sanchez seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.

 

          4.  Review of Budget.  At the direction of the Chair, the staff reviewed the financials for the fiscal year.  The staff reported that the Board had achieved its budgetary goals for the 1995-96 fiscal year, with approximately $2,425,079.59 being dedicated for cases which had not come to completion, approved expert witness/testing applications, ongoing technical assistance projects, and contracts for the Orleans Capital Conflict Panel, the Nineteenth JDC Capital Conflict Panel, and the Louisiana Appellate Project.

 

          The staff presented its budget report for the months of May and June of 1996, noting that the Board had kept to its previously approved budget. 

 

          Capital Program:  The staff noted that the Board was funding all or part of 99 capital cases and was working closely with several district indigent defender boards to supply funding for upcoming cases.

 

          Expert Witness/Testing Program:  The staff reported that the Board was funding all or part of the expert witness or scientific testing expenses of 52 cases and that several applications were pending at the present time.

 

          District Assistance Fund:  The staff noted that eligible districts had received a total of $3,491,946.34 in grants from the District Assistance Fund.

 

          Technical Assistance Program:  Under this program, eleven districts had applied for and received grants to assist in ongoing felony cases, investigative expenses, and specialized complex litigation support.

         

          Administrative Expenses:  With expected expenditures of $27,500 for the month of June, the staff reported that the total administrative expenses of the Board would total approximately $247,371.10 or 3.29% of its total budget.  This figure, it was pointed out, was less than the estimated 4% budgeted for the fiscal year.

 

          Mr. Dalton moved that the budget report be approved and the payables designated thus to satisfy obligations previously approved by the Board.  Mr. McLeod seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.

 

          5.  Review of the Spangenberg Report.  The Board turned its attention to the final report on indigency prepared by The Spangenberg Group.  The staff asked for approval of the report and approval to pay the remaining $5,000 due on the contract.  Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Dalton expressed disappointment in the substance of the report, noting that it was not as detailed as the Board expected and did not provide enough raw data to present to the legislature.  The staff commented that it was in the process of gathering the data and updating much of the work on indigency done during the development of the Board.

 

          The Chair asked whether the report satisfied the contract and commented that the Board should not deny payment solely on the basis that it was late, since the Board had directed Mr. Spangenberg to supplement his original memoranda.  Mr. McLeod observed that the report did not include those things Mr. Spangenberg had said would be in the report when Mr. Spangenberg had addressed the Board at its previous meeting.  Mr. Small commented that perhaps the staff should approach Mr. Spangenberg concerning an adjustment to the contract in light of the deficiencies in the report.

 

          There was general discussion concerning the legislative study committee which had been formed by joint resolution during the latest legislative session and questions about whether the Spangenberg report would provide the committee with necessary information upon which to make recommendations to the legislature.  The staff commented that, together with the in-house report being prepared, enough information could be given to the committee.  The chair noted that the Board should be prepared to present the report at the earliest time to the committee rather than wait until other groups had the opportunity to articulate positions.  There was general agreement that the Board should have a report ready for the first meeting of the committee, although it was conceded that no time line had been developed for the committee.

 

          With general agreement of the Board, the staff was directed to prepare a draft of its report for review at the next Board meeting, which was tentatively scheduled for July 19, 1996.  The staff responded that it would have a draft of the report mailed on July 15 to allow the Board members time to study it prior to the meeting.  Mr. Daniels cautioned the Board that the report would be a very important piece of information for the legislative committee and that the Board should work to make it as complete and detailed as possible.  The staff added that in addition to the report, the committee would receive a copy of the Board's annual report, which would include specifics on the workings of the Board and the management of its resources.

 

          Mr. Sanchez moved that the Board not pay The Spangenberg Group the remainder of the amount due on the contract in light of the nature of the product.  Mr. McLeod seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.

 

          6.  Louisiana Capital Project Initial Report.  The staff reported on the continued work on the Louisiana Capital Project.  The project would cost the Board approximately $2.25 million, but would result in the actual involvement in more cases through a combination of direct representation and technical assistance.  The cost of the project would be approximately the same as the case by case payments now made; and it was noted that these costs are continuing to grow.  The Board directed the staff to continue working on the project and present it at the next meeting for review. 

 

          7.  Legislative Update.  It was noted that the LIDB's budget for the 96-97 fiscal year was passed by the legislature but placed in the general appropriations bill (House Bill 1).  All indications were that the Governor would sign the bill into law without vetoing this portion.  The budget of $7.5 million would be in the executive budget but be paid upon the warrant of the Judicial Administrator's Office.  There was also general discussion on the legislative study committee, which had been reviewed in detail earlier in the meeting. 

 

          8.  Administrative Reminders.  The staff reminded the Board to complete all administrative requests by the end of July for the 95-96 fiscal year.  The staff briefly reviewed several of the upcoming criminal defense seminars, some of which were being supported in part by the LIDB to encourage certification of attorneys handling capital cases. 

 

          9.  LIDB Staffing Requirements.  The staff noted that its workload had expanded to the point that it was in need of an additional support person and an additional attorney.  Mr. Dalton moved that the Board approve the additional support position; the motion was seconded by Mr. McLeod and passed without objection.  The Board approved the additional support position and directed the staff to begin the process of hiring.  The Board, aware of the need for an additional attorney, asked that any decision be delayed until the Chief Executive Officer could provide more information on the job duties associated with the position.

 

          10.  Other Business.  The staff reported that the NLADA annual conference was to be held in Las Vegas this year and that the staff had been approached about attending.  Mr. Small informed the Board that he was involved in a capital case in Alexandria (State v. Robinson) involving an indigent defendant and was recusing himself from any and all discussion or decisions which may have to be made by the Board on this case.  The staff updated the Board on the medical condition of its executive secretary, Emer Williams, who was recovering well and expected back at work in early July.  Lastly, the staff asked the Board for permission to enter into a lease of its offices for the next fiscal year, including expanded space to house the additional staff and interns.  Upon the motion of Mr. Sanchez and second by Mr. Dalton, the Board approved the request. 

 

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