Opinion Number

Dear Representative Hudson:

You submit the following inquiry to this office for review:

May the parish enforce an ordinance which allows the parish president to fine a police juror for violation of decorum or procedures during a meeting of the police jury and have such fine withheld from the police juror's compensation without any court proceeding?

A meeting of the police jury is governed by the Open Meetings Law, R.S. 42:4.1, et seq. An elected official, such as a police juror, may be removed from a meeting if he "willfully disrupt[s] a meeting to the extent that orderly conduct of the meeting is seriously compromised." See R.S. 42:6.1 (C) and Attorney General Opinion 91-91.

Further, it is within the authority of the police jury to establish parliamentary procedures for its public meetings. R.S. 33:1236 (1) empowers the police jury to "make regulations for their own government." While we think that the police jury may impose a fine upon a member for disorderly conduct as considered by R.S. 42:6.1 (C), we do not think it acceptable for the fine to be withheld from the police juror's compensation. The state constitution prohibits the reduction of the compensation of elected officers during their terms of office. LSA-Const. Art VI, Section 12 (1974) and LSA-Const. Art X, Section 23 (1974), respectively provide:

§ 12. Local Officials; Compensation

The compensation or method of fixing the compensation of an elected official of any local governmental subdivision which operates under a home rule charter or plan of government, as provided in Sections 4 and 5 of this Article, shall be provided in its charter. The compensation or method of fixing the compensation of an elected official of any other local governmental subdivision shall be provided by law. Compensation of a local official shall not be reduced during the term for which he is elected.

* * * * *

§ 23. Compensation of Elected Public Officials; Reduction

The compensation of an elected public official shall not be reduced during the term for which he is elected. (Emphasis added).

We conclude that while the police jury may impose a fine as a penalty for disruptive conduct, the police jury may not withhold the fine from the juror's compensation. Such an ordinance adopted by the police jury withholding a fine from the compensation of a jury member would, in our opinion, be unconstitutional.

We hope the foregoing is helpful to you. Should you have further questions in which we may provide assistance, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: __________________________ KERRY L. KILPATRICK ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

KLK:ams

OPINION NUMBER 91-91

April 4, 1991

22 — DISTRICT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS 63 — LEVEES, DRAINAGE DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL

R.S. 38:305; R.S. 16:2 (A); R.S. 42:261.263

Levee board may employ its own attorney without approval of Attorney General

Hon. Joe Sevario State Senator P.O. Box 94183 Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Dear Sen. Sevario:

You have requested the opinion of this office concerning whether the Lafourche Basin Levee District is authorized by law to appoint its own attorney.

R.S 38:305, which was enacted by Act 785 of 1985, provides:

Each levee board and levee drainage board for a levee district or levee and drainage district may employ one or more attorneys to represent it and to offer advice and assistance of a legal nature and one or more engineers. The salary of each attorney shall be determined by the board.

Your request points out that this provision may be in conflict with R.S. 16:2 (A) which provides that the District Attorney shall be legal counsel to state boards and commissions domiciled in his judicial district. There is also potential conflict with the provisions of R.S.42:261 and 263 which deal with representation of state boards and commissions and with procedures for appointment of special counsel when a "real necessity" exists.

Previous opinions of this office have uniformly held that R.S. 38:305
which was specifically enacted to empower levee boards to employ counsel supercedes any conflicting provisions of the more general statutes, R.S.16:2 (A) and R.S. 42:261. Attorney General's Opinions 89-249, 83-322, 80-232 and 80-1580. It is also significant that R.S. 38:305 in its present form is the latest expression of the legislative will on this subject and therefore should be given effect where in conflict with previous enactments.

Therefore, the levee district is free to employ counsel of its own choice and does not require the approval of the Attorney General. I trust that this answers your inquiry. Please advise if we can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. Attorney General

BY: ____________________________ GLENN R. DUCOTE Assistant Attorney General

GRD:012