LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

BOARD MEETING

JONES WALKER LAW FIRM

BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

JULY 19, 1996

MINUTES

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

STAFF PRESENT: Jean M. Faria and Jelpi P. Picou, Jr.

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 Leah Guerry and given to Thomas Casey, the proxy executed by Rebecca Hudsmith and given to Henry Walker, the proxy executed by Wayne Lee and given to Herman Robinson, the proxy executed by Robert McLeod and given to J. Michael Small. 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 June 14, 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 budget for fiscal year 1996-1997. The expense categories were explained in detail. The staff noted that the $337,500.00 allocated for administrative costs represents 4.5% of the budget. After discussion, Mr. Sanchez moved that the Board approve the budget as submitted. Mr. Walker seconded the motion which was passed without opposition.

5. Contracts. The Board was presented with an update on the Contract for the Orleans Capital Conflict Panel. The panel is currently handling approximately twenty-two cases and has resolved an additional six. The panel, if expanded, could handle over-flow cases from the Orleans Indigent Defender Program attorneys. Now that the conflict panel has a physical office, the contract would include an office stipend. The office stipend would allow the panel to hire additional attorneys on a case-by-case basis without requesting the LIDB to provide funds for this expense. The contract total would be for $347,000 for the fiscal year or $28,916.67 a month. The staff was asked for details regarding payment to attorneys and the office stipend. After further discussion Mr. Dalton moved to approve the contract. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sanchez and passed without objection.

The staff discussed the creation of a world wide web site for the LIDB and the contract for services with Affinity Applications, Inc. The staff contacted three groups, Neosoft, Inc.; Compuserve, Inc.; and Affinity Applications, Inc. Neosoft and Compuserve estimated that the project would cost between $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 for the entire project. Affinity Applications estimated that the project would cost $15,000.00.

The initial web-site configuration will cost $6,000.00 and includes the $250.00 a month cost associated with the special telephone lines which are needed. The software and hardware supplements will cost $3,000.00 and ten months of administrative services, to coincide with our fiscal year, will cost $5,000.00, or $500.00 a month. The administrative services fee would make the company responsible for maintaining the page, updating bookmarks and materials, entering data, downloading and packaging for modem transmission all information from the site to the LIDB. The service will also monitor who uses the page and how often users access the page and the various sections. On motion of Mr. Dalton, seconded by Mr. Sanchez, the motion to approve the contract to Affinity Applications, Inc. was approved without opposition.

The final contract for review was the contract for direct appeals handled by the Loyola Death Penalty Resource Center (LDPRC). The staff explained that in several cases, the public defenders had contacted the LDPRC staff directly and asked them to take certain capital appeals. In at least two of these cases, members of the LDPRC staff have completed the work. Mr. Dalton stated his concern that the Board should contract directly with attorneys and not issue checks to law firms or groups. Mr. Dalton asked whether the contract contained a provision requiring time logs. The staff noted that the contract does. Mr. Dalton also directed the staff to include in the contract a requirement that the staff be notified if counsel is substituted in any case handled by LDPRC.

On motion of Mr. Dalton, seconded by Sonja Spears, the Board voted without opposition to authorize the contract with the Loyola Death Penalty Resource Center for the specified direct appeals.

6. Louisiana Capital Project Proposal. At the direction of the Chair the staff presented the plan for the formation of the Capital Project. As envisioned the Capital Project would be implemented in the same fashion as the Louisiana Appellate Project. The organizational structure was discussed as well as the funding level. The lawyers would be selected from throughout the state and provide capital services in their respective regions. Several public defenders have expressed interest in working with the Louisiana Capital Project.

Mr. Dalton stated that the Louisiana Capital Project would be more cost effective than funding capital cases on a case per case basis. The Louisiana Capital Project would provide all capital trial and direct appeals services. Mr. Small noted that it is crucial that the Board document that the reason the Board has decided to institute the Capital Project now, is that the Board can demonstrate that the Capital Project can perform more services for less money than is currently being expended on a case per case basis. Mr. Walker moved that the Board approve the Louisiana Capital Project and its budget of $2.25 million. Mr. Dalton seconded the motion which passed without opposition.

7. Louisiana Indigent Defender Board Staffing Requirements. The staff presented a detailed job description for the Juvenile Justice Coordinator and Research Director. The Juvenile Justice Coordinator would be responsible for creating a pro bono program as a component part of the required program model. The salary range and job description were discussed in detail. The position is comparable to a senior attorney in the civil service system. Mr. Sanchez asked whether the budget for fiscal year 1996-1997 included the additional salary for the position. The staff stated that the salary amount of $45,000.00 - $50,000.00 was included in the administrative budget for the current fiscal year.

The Chair asked whether the added staff was needed at this time. The staff explained that juvenile justice was a target area for pro bono work which is mandated by Supreme Court Rule XXXI and that it is one of the few program areas with available grant monies is juvenile indigent defense. Historically, children in juvenile delinquency hearings have not received the type of indigent defense advocacy that would help lead a juvenile out of the criminal justice system. Mr. Dalton and Mr. Small both noted that effective advocacy in juvenile court required proactive litigation techniques.

The Juvenile Justice Coordinator would be expected to apply for available grant funding to defray the costs associated with the juvenile justice projects and possibly for the position.

The staff has three large research projects for which it needs assistance. The Juvenile Justice Coordinator and Research Director will coordinate the research and direct the interns and law clerks assigned to these projects. On motion of Mr. Sanchez, seconded by Mr. Dalton, the Board voted without opposition to authorize the position and salary range.

8. Other Business. The staff reported that Mr. Spangenberg had sent a letter expressing his position that The Spangenberg Group had met the terms of its contract with the LIDB. After discussing the matter further and upon motion of Mr. Small, seconded by Mr. Dalton, the Board voted to pay The Spangenberg Group $2,500.00 of the remaining $5,000.00 to settle the matter. The motion passed without opposition.

The staff informed the Board that the chief executive officer had been nominated to the Board of Directors and the Defender Council of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association.

The final subject for discussion was the preliminary draft of Providing Counsel for the Indigent Accused. Mr. Sanchez felt that the document should deal with the structure and form of the LIDB. Ms. Spears stated that the Board should be expressing its own view of its work and the agenda the Board has set for itself. Mr. Dalton felt that the purpose of this document is to outline a proposed statute for the transition of the entire Board. He felt strongly that the document should outline the present system, the proposed changes and the reasons why the proposed changes are necessary. Dr. Barron suggested that with the number of ideas being presented, the Board should conduct a "brain storming" session to fully develop the Board's view of the document(s) it wants. Mr. Walker, on behalf of the Board members from North Louisiana, asked that the meeting be held in Alexandria. Mr. Small offered his offices for the meeting which will be held Friday, August 2, 1996.

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