Opinion Number

Dear Chief Buell:

You advise this office that you serve as the elected chief of police for the City of Mandeville and as chairman of the St. Tammany Parish Communications District (911 Board) Board. You advise that the majority of the board members are public employees.

Your first question concerns the legality of a public employee serving simultaneously as a board member. Our response to this question is that the law does not prohibit a person holding a full-time local employment from also holding a part-time appointive office within a political subdivision of the state. See our state Dual Officeholding and Dual Employment Laws, R.S. 42:61, et seq.

You further advise that the board has voted to pay its members $100.00 per meeting. You inquire as to the legality of such action.

The provisions of R.S. 33:9103 set forth the powers of the board of commissioners of a communications district. The statute is silent with respect to a specific per diem allowed board members. Since there is no statutory authority allowing the communications board to vote themselves a per diem, it is our opinion that such an action by the board is in violation of Article VII Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution concerning the prohibition against the donation of public funds. However, note that board members may be reimbursed actual travel expenses which are incurred in the performance of their duties.

Despite our foregoing conclusion, we do find that the police jury may establish a per diem for these board members. The communications district is a creature of the police jury pursuant to R.S. 33:9101. This office has previously determined that "under the authority of the police jury to create a commission and finding no prohibition, they could provide for a per diem for the members of the commission they appoint". See Attorney General Opinion 95-72.1

Finally, there is no statutory restriction on the number of meetings for which a member could receive meeting fees; however, the fee must be a reasonable one in the determination of the police jury.

Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: _________________________ KERRY L. KILPATRICK ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

KLK:ams

1 In contrast, note that R.S. 33:9103 (3) and (4) specifically disallow a per diem to both the Evangeline Parish Communications District and the Ouachita Parish Communications District.

*1 OPINION NUMBER 95-72

April 21, 1995

Political Subdivisions — Officers, Agents, Employees R.S. 33:9103

A member appointed to the Board of a communication District would be entitled to be a per diem if provided by the police jury creating the commission.

Rodney N. Erdey, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Twenty-First Judicial District P.O. Box 337 Livingston, LA 70754

Dear Mr. Erdey:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attorney General in regard to the Livingston Parish Communication District. You indicate the Board of Commissioners of the Livingston Parish Communication District have been serving without compensation and you ask the following questions:

1. Can the board members receive a reasonable compensation, and if so, what is the maximum amount of compensation to which they are entitled; and

2. If the Board of Commissioners cannot be compensated for performing their duties, is their employer required to pay them from their regular jobs on the dates in which they perform duties for the Livingston Parish Communication District.

While there are numerous statutory provisions which provide for the creation of various boards, and state that a board member shall serve "without compensation" or specifies a per diem, the statutes relative to the communication district does not contain such a declaration. R.S.33:9103 simply states when the communication district is created, "the parish governing authority creating it may appoint a board or commission" to be comprised of seven members who are electors of the district to govern its affairs. However, it further provides that "in lieu of appointing a commission, the parish governing authority may serve as governing authority of the district".

While the police jury may serve in lieu of appointing a commission and there is no mention of compensation for a commissioner, we would conclude the police jury could not set any compensation for themselves if they serve as the Commission rather than appointing a Commission for this office has recognized the police jurors compensation is set under R.S.33:1233 and are authorized to receive a maximum of $856.00. Police juries have only those powers that are conferred upon them by the constitution and laws of the state.

R.S. 33:9106 (c) provides in order to provide additional funds for the communication district, the governing authority may receive federal state, parish, municipal or private funds and may expend the funds for the purpose of the Chapter, and defines "Fund the District" in 9106 (A) (7) as "pay the expenses necessary to carry out all purposes of the district, including but not limited to identification of all streets, roads, highways and dwelling places in the district". Thus, we would conclude a police juror board member of the district would be entitled to reimbursement from the funds of the district for actual expenses.

With regard to an appointed commission since the law is silent on compensation, we believe under the authority of the police jury to create a commission and finding no prohibition, they could provide for a per diem for the members of the commission they appoint.

*2 In answer to your question if the Commissioners are not compensated for performing their duties, "is their employer required to pay them from their regular jobs on dates in which they perform duties for the Livingston Parish Communication District", we must conclude there would not be such a legal requirement on the part of the employer, but payment would depend upon each company policy with regard to leave.

We hope this sufficiently answers your questions, but if we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours,

Richard P. Ieyoub Attorney General

Barbara B. Rutledge Assistant Attorney General

La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 95-72, 1995 WL 362506 (La.A.G.) END OF DOCUMENT