Indigent Defense Assistance Board
Minutes
of the Board Meeting
Louisiana
State Capital, Governor’s Press Conference Room
Members Present: Alfred
Boustany; Cameron Gamble; Leo Hamilton; Luceia LeDoux; William A. Monteleone,
Jr.; William Norris; Walter Sanchez; and
Ex Officio Members Present: Anthony Champagne, Vice-Chair.
Staff Present: Edward R. Greenlee and Marsha Austtun Oliver.
Guests Present:
Call to Order and Opening Remarks. The meeting was called to order at
Review and Adoption of
Minutes from the July 13, 2005 Meeting. Mr. Norris moved to dispense with the reading
of the minutes of the meeting held on
Proposed Administrative Rules. Mr. Greenlee presented
the final draft of the administrative rules for payment of expert witnesses and
specialized testing to the Board. For
the benefit of the new Board members, Ms. LeDoux and Mr. Monteleone, Mr.
Greenlee explained that a committee consisting of Denise LeBoeuf, Jelpi Picou,
Jr., Marsha Oliver and himself drafted the rules. Ms. LeBoeuf and Mr. Picou were in attendance
at the meeting to answer any questions from Board members. Mr. Gamble inquired about the provision
designating a non-profit corporation specializing in capital post-conviction
representation of indigents which was to review the applications for funding of
expert witnesses. Mr. Greenlee responded
that currently the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana (CPCPL) was the
non-profit corporation representing indigents in capital post-conviction
proceedings and that CPCPL would be reviewing the applications for expert
funding due to the expertise of its personnel.
Mr. Gamble also asked about the difference in funding of experts for
indigents represented by CPCPL and those represented by pro bono counsel. At the request of Mr. Greenlee, Ms. LeBoeuf,
Director of the CPCPL, responded to Mr. Gamble’s question. Ms. LeBoeuf stated that CPCPL budgets for the
payment of expert witnesses and specialized testing from the money it receives
from the LIDAB. The funding of experts
for indigents represented by pro bono counsel would come from funds separate
from CPCPL’s funding for indigent representation. Mr. Sanchez asked Ms. LeBoeuf to estimate the
number of applications for expert funding that might be made and amount of such
funding requests. Ms. LeBoeuf stated
that within 18 months she would expect at least 12 law firms representing
indigents pro bono would request funding in the range of $300,000 to
$500,000. Mr. Sanchez asked if the Board
had the funds for the anticipated requests.
Mr. Greenlee stated that funding for the requests would be discussed
during the review of the budget later in the meeting. Mr. Norris moved that the final draft of the
rules be approved and promulgated in accordance with the Louisiana
Administrative Code. Mr. Sanchez
seconded the motion which passed without opposition.
District Assistance Fund Distribution. Mr. Greenlee proposed
that the $4 million budgeted for the current fiscal year be distributed
differently this year because of the severe hardships some district indigent
defender boards were experiencing due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mr. Greenlee explained that because the
district indigent defender boards budget on a calendar year basis it was not
possible for the LIDAB to receive all the caseload and financial information
necessary to make an equitable distribution of funding in January. Additionally, some districts had lost most,
if not all, of their records due to storm damage and were still in the process
of retrieving and restoring these records.
Mr. Greenlee recommended $3 million of district assistance funding be
distributed to the districts in January based on the usual funding formula and
that the rest of the funds be distributed later in the LIDAB fiscal year after more
information is received from the districts about the impact of the storms on
their operations. Mr. Smith moved that
the Board distribute $3 million of the total funds budgeted for the District
Assistance Fund in January and that the remaining $1 million be distributed at
a later date after the Board received more data in regard to the effects of the
hurricanes on the districts. Mr. Hamilton
seconded the motion which passed without opposition.
Review of 2005-2006 Budget. Mr. Greenlee advised the Board that following
the issuance of Executive Order KBB 2005-82 and the special legislative
session, approximately $182,000 had been cut from the LIDAB budget. These funds were removed from the budget by
eliminating a line item amount of $50,000 which was to be distributed to St.
Martin Parish Indigent Defense Office (sic), $100,000 funding intended for the
Task Force on Indigent Defense Services (Task Force) and the remaining funds
from miscellaneous other charges. At
this time Senator Lydia Jackson was asked to address the Board in regard to the
$100,000 in Task Force funds. Sen.
Jackson stated that it was her understanding that the $100,000 was not a line
item cut from the LIDAB and that the Task Force could still receive funds from
the LIDAB. Sen. Jackson said that other
than the $50,000 line item cut, the remaining funds cut from the LIDAB budget
could be removed from any category of spending.
Mr. Hamilton then asked Sen. Jackson if the LIDAB had discretion as to
how to spend the $100,000 meant for the Task Force. Sen. Jackson responded that the as long as
the LIDAB received approval from the Executive Branch, the LIDAB could spend
the money as it chooses. Mr. Greenlee
then gave the Board the background on how the enabling statute for the LIDAB
was changed to give the LIDAB authority to contract with a non-profit corporation
to gather data in regard to the indigent defense system in
Mr. Greenlee continued with the
review of the budget, stating that approximately $700,000 remained to be
budgeted by the Board. Mr. Greenlee
recommended that funds be set aside to institute an expert witness and specialized
testing fund for capital post-conviction cases.
Mr. Sanchez moved that $300,000 be budgeted for a capital
post-conviction expert witness and specialized testing fund. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion which passed
without opposition. Mr. Greenlee stated
that the LIDAB would contract with CPCPL to administer these funds as soon as
possible.
Mr. Sanchez stated that because
capital post-conviction representation was a mandate, he moved that the
remaining approximate $400,000 be dedicating to the operating budget of
CPCPL. Mr. Hamilton seconded the
motion. Mr. Boustany stated that such a
motion was premature and he needed additional information. Judge Norris agreed with Mr. Boustany that he
did not have enough information to vote on this matter at this time. Ms. LeBoeuf addressed the Board at this time
stating the CPCPL would use the $400,000 to hire two attorneys, an investigator
and a paralegal. Mr. Gamble asked if
capital post-conviction should be placed first in budgeting these funds. Mr. Sanchez responded that capital post-conviction
should be first and that the Board should re-adjust its priorities. Mr. Sanchez also stated that $400,000 distributed
in district assistance funding statewide would not be as effective as it would
be in capital post-conviction. Ms.
LeDoux stated that as a new Board member she did not feel comfortable voting on
this matter without having more information.
Judge Norris moved that discussion and voting on the motion be tabled. Ms. LeDoux seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Gamble, and Mr. Boustany voted
in favor of Judge Norris’ motion. Mr.
Monteleone, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Sanchez voted against the motion. The motion passed.
Other Business.
Scheduling of the
Next Board Meeting. Mr. Greenlee
suggested that the Board schedule the next meeting in late February at which
time he would have received the annual reports of the district indigent
defender boards and a decision could be made in regard to the distribution of
the remaining district assistance funds.
After a brief discussion, the meeting was scheduled for
Adjournment. There being no additional business brought to
the attention of the Board, Mr. Norris moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Boustany seconded the motion which passed
without objection.