Louisiana

Indigent Defense Assistance Board

 

Minutes of the Board Meeting

June 20, 2006

Louisiana State Capital, Governor’s Press Conference Room

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

 

Members Present:  Jerri G. Smitko, Chair; Alfred Boustany; Cameron Gamble; Janet Hoeffel; Lucy McGough; Donald North; Tarvald Smith; and Majeeda Snead.

 

Ex Officio Members Present:  Anthony Champagne, Vice-Chair.

 

Staff Present:  Edward R. Greenlee and Marsha Austtun Oliver.

 

Guests Present:  Grace Bauer, Marion Chartoff, Kerry Cuccia, Vergie Green, Donna Johnson, Jim Looney, Mary Ann Roach, Sondrola Robinson, David Utter and Connie Walton.  

 

Call to Order and Opening Remarks.  The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by the Chair.   Ms. Oliver called the roll; a quorum was present.

 

Review and Adoption of Minutes from the March 2, 2006 and May 31, 2006 Meetings.  Due to computer problems, the minutes were unavailable for review and approval and will be reviewed at the next meeting.  

 

Procedure for Setting Agenda.  Ms. Smitko advised the Board that she and Mr. Greenlee would have an agenda setting conference on the Wednesday before each meeting and that any requests for agenda items must be forwarded to Mr. Greenlee by e-mail prior to the agenda setting conference.    

 

Ethics Disclosure Form.  Ms. Smitko informed the Board that an ethics disclosure form would be forwarded to each board member to complete and return to Mr. Greenlee.

 

Orleans Emergency DAF Grants.  Mr. Greenlee recommended the Board allocate emergency District Assistance Funds to the Orleans Indigent Defender Program (OIDP) for the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center (LCAC) to provide representation for indigents in capital cases for preliminary hearings for a period of 6 months.  Due to the emergency situation following Hurricane Katrina, the OIDP offices were critically understaffed and needed assistance to provide representation to capital defendants.  Mr. Greenlee reviewed the LCAC proposal for funding of $61,989.50.  Mr. Bourke of LCAC briefly addressed the Board reiterating the urgency of providing this representation.  Mr. Greenlee stated that LCAC had provided preliminary hearing representation to capital defendants in the past and such representation can result in the reduction of capital charges to second degree or manslaughter, ensuring that the clients are appropriately charged and greatly reducing the cost of representation.  Mr. Greenlee also advised the Board of a request by Pam Metzger of the Tulane Law Clinic to provide funding for 2 attorneys and a secretary to travel to Lasalle, Catahoula and Concordia Parishes to interview Orleans Parish indigents temporarily incarcerated in those parishes due to damages sustained to Orleans Parish Prison facilities following Hurricane Katrina.  OIDP currently has no personnel to handle these cases.  Mr. Greenlee stated that Ms. Metzger did not have a written proposal at the time of the meeting, but requested he describe her proposal to the Board.  Ms. Metzger requested funding in the amount of $120,000.  The funds would be used to pay 2 attorneys $45,000 each and to pay for a part-time secretary and travel expenses for a period of year.  Mr. Greenlee stated that this group of displaced inmates was in dire need of representation and that providing representation to them would enable the Board to get the caseload information necessary to get a handle on the Orleans Parish indigent defense situation.  Ms. Snead expressed reservations about the Board providing funds to a law school, stating that it might give the appearance of impropriety.  She also desired more information about Ms. Metzger’s funding request.  Mr. Greenlee stated that he agreed that this proposal needed to be fleshed out before the Board voted on it.  Mr. North suggested that the Southern Law Clinic may be able to interview the displaced indigent clients at no cost to the Board or Orleans Parish.  Ms. Snead stated that the Loyola Law Clinic also had staff that could provide free representation to the displaced inmates.  After further discussion, Ms. Hoeffel moved to approve an emergency district assistance fund grant to Orleans Indigent Defender Program in the amount of $61,989.50 for the representation of indigents at preliminary hearings in capital cases over the next six months.  Mr. Boustany seconded the motion which passed without opposition.  Ms. Hoeffel then moved to table voting on the request for additional funding to OIDP in the approximate amount of $120,000 to contract with the Tulane Law Clinic to travel to other parishes to meet with Orleans Parish clients.  Ms. McGough seconded the motion which passed without opposition.  Mr. Greenlee said he would meet with Mr. North and Ms. Snead to discuss providing representation to the displaced defendants.

 

Case Tracking Software Proposal.  Jim Looney addressed the Board on behalf of Deiter Pichowiak in regard to his proposal to provide his web-based data collection program to the Board for use by all indigent defender boards in Louisiana.  Mr. Looney stated that in addition to the 4th Judicial District Indigent Defender Board using the program, the Orleans Parish Indigent Defender Program (OIDP) had been provided the password to the program and had law school students entering caseload data.  Mr. Greenlee stated that he had received favorable reports about the case tracking program from Jelpi Picou of the Capital Appeals Project and David Carroll of NLADA.  Mr. Carroll liked that fact that the program did not require an in-house server, reducing the cost to the district indigent defender boards.   Mr. Looney said that the cost of the proposed case tracking system was $125 per month for hosting, training and maintenance for each IDB compared to $560 per month for other systems which did not provide real time statistics.  Mr. Greenlee recommended that if the Board voted to use the system, its use by all district indigent defender boards would have to be mandated.  Mr. Gamble was concerned that the Board might need to promulgate new administrative rules to mandate use of the system.  Mr. Greenlee stated that it would not be necessary to promulgate new rules as it could be a condition of the receipt of district assistance funds.  Mr. Champagne expressed concern that some districts might need assistance from the Board to obtain computers to use the case tracking system.  Mr. Looney said that most IDB’s had computer access.  Ms. Smitko inquired about how much training time is needed to learn how to use the system.  Mr. Looney said that it took about an hour and a half for the training at OIDP.  Ms. McGough, Mr. Boustany and Mr. North expressed concerns about voting at this meeting to accept Mr. Pichowiak’s proposal.  Mr. North suggested that the Board take bids for a case tracking system.  Mr. Boustany felt that he needed more time to study the proposal.  Ms. McGough suggested that the Board solicit other proposals for a case tracking system and find out how many district boards needed computers.  Mr. Gamble stated the Board should not waste any more time and vote to accept the proposal at this meeting.  Ms. Snead asked what would happen to the license if Mr. Pichowiak did not want to continue contracting with the Board.  Mr. Looney said that the LIDAB would own the license to the system if he would not agree to continue contracting for the maintenance of the system.  Mr. Boustany moved that the Board advertise and solicit proposals from other vendors for a case tracking system.  After more discussion about the urgency of the need for a case tracking system, Mr. North suggested that the motion be amended to have Mr. Greenlee research and provide the Board with a comparison of other case tracking systems.  Mr. Boustany accepted the amendment to his motion.  Ms. McGough seconded the motion.  Ms. Snead, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snead voted in favor of the motion.  Ms. Hoeffel, Mr. Gamble and Ms. Smitko opposed the motion.  The motion passed.    

 

Kerry Cuccia’s Proposal for Orleans Parish Capital Cases.  Mr. Greenlee informed the Board that in response to the crisis in Orleans Parish, Kerry Cuccia of the Capital Defense Project of Southeast Louisiana had proposed for additional funding of $460,750, his program could provide representation in all new capital cases in Orleans Parish for a year, thereby relieving some of the burden on OIDP.  Mr. Greenlee stated that OIDP had voted to endorse Mr. Cuccia’s proposal.  Mr. Cuccia addressed the Board stating the additional funds would be used to hire more attorneys to handle the new cases.  Ms. Hoeffel said that the was an entire panoply of    options to handle the problems of capital cases in Orleans Parish and suggested that no action be taken until after the Finance Committee meets.  Ms. Hoeffel then moved to table Mr. Cuccia’s proposal.  There was no second.  Mr. Greenlee compared Mr. Cuccia’s proposal to that of Mr. Picou’s proposal at the last meeting for additional funding which was approved by the Board.  Mr. Greenlee stated that the need for representation of capital defendants in Orleans was just a dire.  Richard Bourke of the Louisiana Capital Assistance Project addressed the Board stressing the urgency of the situation as there were currently 8 defendants indicted on capital charges in Orleans Parish who did not have assigned counsel and that 2 more defendants would likely be indicted on capital charges very soon.  He also stated that Orleans already had 32 capital cases and with only 3 capital attorneys.  Mr. Gamble asked Mr. Cuccia why he needed the additional funds at this time.  Mr. Cuccia responded that he could hire 2 additional attorneys right away, but only if he could be assured of funding for their salaries.  Mr. Boustany moved that the Board provide the additional funding to the Capital Defense Project of Southeast Louisiana for the representation of all new capital cases in Orleans Parish for a period of one year.  Mr. Smith seconded the motion which passed without opposition.

 

Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana Proposal.  David Utter of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana addressed the Board in regard to a joint proposal by the National Juvenile Defender Center and the Southern Juvenile Defender Center to provide 3 model juvenile defense offices and a central juvenile defense office in Louisiana at a cost of $2,984,368.  Mr. Utter stated that juvenile defense in Louisiana has been in crisis for many years and creation of the model offices by the Board would be a first step toward providing quality representation for juveniles.  He said that in 2003 the Juvenile Justice Commission made recommendations for reform of indigent defense of juveniles, but that these recommendations had not been implemented.  He spoke of a recent meeting in Shreveport in regard to a review of indigent defense of juveniles in Caddo Parish which revealed continuing inadequate representation of juveniles in delinquency proceedings.  Marion Chartoff of the Southern Juvenile Defender Center also briefly addressed the Board in support of the proposal.  Also in attendance of the meeting were members of Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FLIC).  Grace Bauer, a member of FLIC, addressed the Board stating the her 19 year old son has been incarcerated in Calcasieu Parish since he was 17 and that this was a result of her son not having an attorney to represent him in delinquency proceedings.  She stated that a probation officer told her to waiver her son’s right to counsel and that subsequently her son was placed in secure care where he was beaten and mistreated.  She stated that there were 1,000 children in Calcasieu needing attorneys, but that there was only 1 juvenile defender for indigents in Calcasieu Parish.  Ms. Bauer urged the Board to consider the proposal for the model offices.  Maryann Roach, another member of FLIC, addressed the Board, stating that her biracial son was hurt because he did not have adequate representation in delinquency proceedings.  She also stated that the lack of adequate juvenile representation disproportionately affects minorities.  Other members of FLIC who introduced themselves at the request of Ms. Smitko were Connie Walton, Virgie Green, Donna Johnson and Sandrola Robinson.  Ms. Smitko thanked the FLIC members for attending the meeting.  Following the presentation, Ms. McGough questioned Mr. Utter in regard to the salaries of the attorneys listed in the proposal as being higher than other indigent defenders.  Mr. Utter replied that to raise the quality of indigent defense you have to raise salaries and that the specialization of juvenile defense is equal to that of capital defense, requiring extra knowledge.  Ms. Hoeffel asked if any of the funding would be going to the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana.  Mr. Utter said no, the funding was to go to the National Juvenile Defender Center and that he was donating his time.  Ms. Hoeffel asked how the number of attorneys needed was determined.  Mr. Utter said it was based on caseloads of 200 per attorney.  Mr. Gamble asked if this was the first presentation of this proposal.  Mr. Utter stated that he gave a copy of the proposal to Connie Koury, an attorney with the state.  Mr. Gamble also asked if the governor’s office had taken a position on this proposal.  Mr. Utter said no.  Mr. Boustany asked why Calcasieu was chosen as one of the sites.  Mr. Utter said Calcasieu has very high caseloads.  Mr. Boustany questioned that Calcasieu had higher caseloads than other districts.  Mr. Utter said the Ron Ware, the Chief Public Defender in Calcasieu, had expressed interest in the proposal and that there were unique problems with the district attorney in Calcasieu.  Mr. Boustany also stated that the proposed salaries exceeded those of capital attorneys and questioned the justification for the higher salaries.  Ms. Snead inquired about the relationship between the high cost of the proposed offices and recidivism rates.  Mr. Utter said he would provide numbers on this later.  Ms. McGough asked if this proposal was duplicative of what the MacArthur foundation was doing in Louisiana in regard to juvenile defense.  Mr. Utter was unable to answer.  He suggested that the MacArthur Foundation would probably only provide $75,000-$100,000 for juvenile defense.  Ms. Hoeffel asked what was the point of 3 offices.  Mr. Utter said it was a starting point for a central office to control juvenile defense statewide.  Ms. Chartoff stated that 3 offices would provide the greatest benefit from the team approach and that this approach, once proven successful would move to other parts of the state.  Ms. Smitko thanked Mr. Utter, Ms. Chartoff and the members of FLIC for the presentation.

 

Georgia Standards.  Ms. Hoeffel distributed to the Board a handout comparing the indigent defense standards of Georgia, those proposed by the LAPDA and the NLADA standards.  Ms. Hoeffel advised the Board of some minor changes and additions she made to the standards proposed by the LAPDA and asked the Board to adopt the LAPDA standards with her revisions as the LIDAB Standards for Indigent Defense.  Mr. Boustany moved the Board adopt the standards proposed by Ms. Hoeffel.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith and passed without opposition.

 

Director’s Report.  Mr. Greenlee briefly reported to the Board that House Bill 1 passed with the additional $10 million in funding for the LIDAB.  Mr. Greenlee also informed the Board that Senate Bill 422 mandating uniform financial reporting by the district indigent defender boards.  SB 422 also passed and that both bills were awaiting the signature of the governor.

 

Adjournment.  There being no additional business brought to the attention of the Board, Ms. Hoeffel moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Mr. North seconded the motion which passed without objection.