Louisiana

Indigent Defense Assistance Board

 

Minutes of the Board Meeting

 August 15, 2006

Louisiana State Capital, Governor’s Press Conference Room

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

 

Members Present:  Jerri G. Smitko, Chair; Alfred Boustany; Cameron Gamble; Addison Goff, IV; Janet Hoeffel; Rev. Dan Krutz; Donald North; Walter Sanchez; Majeeda Snead; and Gina Womack

 

Ex Officio Members Present:  Anthony Champagne, Vice-Chair

 

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

 

Guests Present:  Derwyn Bunton and David Utter.  

 

Call to Order and Opening Remarks.  The meeting was called to order at 2:20 p.m. by the Chair.   Ms. Oliver called the roll; a quorum was present.

 

Review and Adoption of Minutes from the June 20, 2006.  Upon review of the minutes from the June 20, 2006 minutes, Ms. Hoeffel noted a mistake in the minutes regarding the case tracking proposal.  Ms. Hoeffel moved that a sentence be deleted from the minutes and that the minutes be approved with the sentence deleted.  Mr. Sanchez seconded the motion which passed without opposition.  The minutes from the July 18, 2006 were unavailable for review and approval and will be reviewed at the next meeting.  

 

Standards Committee Report.  Ms. Hoeffel reported that the Standards committee met on July 31, 2006 and that she, Mr. Champagne, Ms. Snead and Mr. Sanchez were present for the meeting.  The committee discussed the need for the district boards to provide a general needs assessment in regard to number of attorneys, caseloads for each attorney whether full-time of part-time, the number of investigators and whether or not the chief carried a caseload.  The committee also wanted to make sure the district boards had the minimal equipment necessary to use the new case tracking system.  The committee asked the staff to send out hard copies of the new LIDAB standards as well as a survey to all the district indigent defender boards requesting the information outlined above in order to start bringing all the district boards in to compliance with the standards.  The committee discussed the need for someone to be in charge of training that was necessary for compliance with the standards.  The committee recommended in order for the district boards to begin compliance with the standards that the Board vote to mandate that the district boards meet the following three criteria:  meet with clients within 72 hours of appointment; use a standard client intake form provided by the LIDAB at the first meeting with the client; and use the LIDAB provided case tracking system for all cases.  Any districts not in compliance would not be eligible for DAF or CAF funding.  Some Board members expressed concern about the ability of the district boards to comply.  After discussion, Ms. Hoeffel moved that in order to qualify for the District Assistance and Compliance Assistance Funds, the district indigent defender boards must use the case tracking system provided by DMP Web Plus, use an initial client intake form as provided by the Board and have someone from its office meet with the client within 72 hours of appointment.  Mr. Boustany seconded the motion which passed without opposition.

 

Salary Comparison Presentation by Richard Bourke.  Richard Bourke from the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center presented a Power Point presentation comparing the salaries of indigent defenders and private and public attorneys statewide.  Mr. Bourke advocated for wage parity between prosecutors and defenders, stating it was a fundamental part of the indigent defense system.  Mr. Bourke opined that the salaries for attorneys in the LIDAB funded capital offices were seriously insufficient compared with attorneys in similar public agencies statewide.  He presented several comparisons of wages for private attorneys, civil service attorneys, and attorneys paid pursuant to state contract as approved by the Attorney Fee Review Board.  According to Mr. Bourke, the salaries of capital defenders funded by the LIDAB were far lower than that of private, state contract, and civil service attorneys and asked the Board provide funding sufficient to raise the salaries of the attorneys in all its capital defender offices Mr. Gamble asked about the salaries of the capital defenders working for the district indigent defender boards.  Mr. Bourke responded that the LIDAB did not have adequate funding to increase salaries of all indigent defenders statewide, but could increase the capital offices funded by it and under its control.  Ms. Hoeffel commented that all indigent defenders need salary parity and that the Board should embrace parity as a principle.  Ms. Hoeffel stated that the Board should find out what the salaries of the ADA’s statewide.  Mr. Greenlee stated that no one has been able to get the salaries of the ADA’s, not even the Louisiana Supreme Court.  Mr. Boustany stated that an Opelousas attorney obtained DA salary information from the retirement board and suggested that the Board do the same.  Ms. Hoeffel said that the Board could not address the parity issue statewide without knowing the salaries of ADA’s.  Several Board members suggested that a FOIA or public records request be made to the district attorney’s offices to find out the salaries of ADA’s prosecuting capital cases and amount of supplemental pay each receives.  Ms. Hoeffel then moved that the Board resolve to endorse wage parity and refer Mr. Bourke’s final report to the Standards committee for review.  Ms. Hoeffel’s motion was not seconded.  Ms. Smitko pointed out that the Board already adopted the ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System which included wage parity.  Mr. Champagne stated that David Carroll of the NLADA had information about comparative salaries that could be provided to the Board.  Mr. North stated that any changes in salary structures must include the capital defenders working for district indigent defender boards.  Mr. Greenlee said that some district boards did not have certified capital counsel on staff.  Ms. Smitko suggested the Board require the district boards to have capital certified counsel in order to receive CAF, suggesting the lack of certified capital counsel in some districts was a systemic problem that needed to be addressed.  She asked the Standards committee to consider mandating district boards to have certified capital counsel.  Mr. Boustany then moved that the Board make a FOIA and/or public records request to obtain the amount of salaries and benefits paid to ADA’s statewide in order to address the problem of wage parity in the indigent defense system.  Mr. Sanchez seconded the motion which passed without opposition.  Mr. Sanchez then expressed concern about requiring district boards to have capital certified counsel in regard to Calcasieu Parish where the caseloads are extremely high and it would cause other difficulties to move attorneys to capital defense.  Mr. North asked Mr. Sanchez to do a report on the Calcasieu Parish capital attorney issues.

 

Juvenile Budget Discussion.  Mr. Greenlee informed the Board that Mr. Sanchez, Chair of the Juvenile Defense Committee was setting a meeting date in the very near future.  Mr. Greenlee suggested the Board vote to commit funds to juvenile defense to send a message that the Board will address the inadequacies of juvenile defense in Louisiana.  Mr. Greenlee suggested the Board commit approximately $3 million to fund juvenile defense this fiscal year.  Mr. Greenlee said the funds could come from the New and Enhanced Programs Fund, the District Assistance Fund, the Compliance Assistance Fund.  Ms. Smitko moved to reaffirm the Board’s strong commitment to provide funding to address the issues of juvenile defense in Louisiana.  The Board unanimously seconded the motion.  Mr. Sanchez said that the members of the Juvenile Defense Committee would meet immediately after the present meeting to select a date and time for the Juvenile Defense Committee to meet.

 

Director’s Report.  Mr. Greenlee briefly updated the Board in regard to the case tracking program.  He said several districts had received passwords and training and had begun entering data into the system.  Mr. North requested that the Board receive monthly reports on the status of the case tracking system and the district boards’ compliance with date entry.  Mr. Champagne advised the Board that the Louisiana Public Defenders Association will provide a training session for the case tracking system on September 1, 2006 at its Chiefs Plus One Conference in Baton Rouge.  Mr. Greenlee noted that the salary survey of indigent defenders in Louisiana was almost complete and would be forwarded to each of the members shortly.  Mr. Greenlee then advised the Board that he still had not received the budget information from the Orleans Parish Indigent Defender Program that the Board had requested at its last meeting in July.  Mr. North moved that the Board set a deadline of August 30, 2006 for the Orleans Parish Indigent Defender Program to provide all budget information requested by the Board at its last meeting.  Mr. Sanchez seconded the motion.  The motion passed with Ms. Hoeffel as the only Board member to oppose the motion.    

 

Public Comments.

 

Derwyn Bunton, Treasurer of the Orleans Indigent Defender Program, addressed the Board in regard to the current status of  Orleans indigent defense.  Mr. Bunton stated that the Orleans Board had voted to require all attorneys to work full-time and raise salaries to create parity with the local district attorneys.  He stated that Orleans had enough money to fund salaries at the new parity without benefits, approximately $3.6 million.  Ms. Smitko asked how long would Orleans be able to fund salaries at the new level.  Mr. Bunton responded that the present funding would be sufficient until the end of the calendar year.  Ms. Smitko asked how many attorneys could be paid at the new salary level.  Mr. Bunton said 30-35 attorneys.  Mr. North requested a list of Orleans Parish defendants that were currently housed outside the parish so that Southern Law School could provide representation to those clients.

 

Other Business.  The Board discussed setting meeting dates for the next few meetings.  Mr. North moved that the Board meet every other month.  Mr. Sanchez seconded the motion.  Mr. Boustany, Mr. Gamble, and Ms. Smitko voted in favor of the motion.  Ms. Womack, Ms. Snead, Ms. Hoeffel, Rev. Krutz and Mr. Goff voted in opposition of the motion.  The motion failed.  Ms. Hoeffel voted to schedule a meeting every month.  Ms. Womack seconded the motion.  Mr. Goff, Rev. Krutz and Ms. Snead voted in favor of the motion; Mr. North, Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Gamble and Smitko voted against the motion.  The motion failed.  Ms. Snead then moved that the board schedule a meeting for September only.  Ms. Hoeffel seconded the motion.  Mr. North offered an amendment to the motion to set a September meeting which could be cancelled if unnecessary and rescheduled for October.  Ms. Snead accepted the amendment and Ms. Hoeffel seconded the motion.  The motion passed without opposition.

 

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.