Tangipahoa Parish special fire board votes 6-3 to hire lawyer after members debate scope of lawsuit

The Tangipahoa Parish special fire board voted 6-3 on Oct. 14 to hire attorney Glenn Galbraith to represent the board in a lawsuit, the board said at a special meeting.

The vote followed a short discussion during which board members said they had been served with a lawsuit and disagreed about whether to retain outside counsel. The presiding officer recommended hiring Galbraith because the matter "is HR related," and a motion to hire him was made and seconded before the roll-call vote.

The dispute discussed at the meeting included a referenced "2%" allocation that several members said "stays with the fire departments" based on guidance from the attorney general and prior legal advice. One board member said he had not read the full lawsuit and that "it's more than just the 2%," arguing that if there were additional issues, hiring counsel would be understandable. Another board member said that if the matter involved only the 2%, he did not see a need to hire an attorney.

Motion and vote The motion approved by the board was to hire Glenn Galbraith to handle the lawsuit (described during the meeting as HR related). Mister Havas made the motion. The second was recorded but not clearly identified in the meeting audio.

Roll-call votes as recorded in the meeting were: Mister Grama — yes; Mister Joseph — yes; Mister Havas — yes; Mister Richtal — no; Mister Maves — no; Mister Wells — no; Miss Hyde — yes; Miss Cietap — yes; Mister Synagra — yes. The tally was six votes in favor, three opposed; the board chair declared the motion passed.

Discussion vs. decision Board members repeatedly noted they had received copies of the lawsuit but that the full set of claims had not been reviewed aloud at the meeting. The presiding officer said that if the board formally hires Galbraith he "will be here at the next meeting" to address the issues. Members framed three distinct matters: (1) the immediate decision to retain counsel, (2) whether the lawsuit's central issue involved a 2% allocation that, according to guidance mentioned in the meeting, remains with the fire departments, and (3) the possibility of additional allegations in the filing that could justify outside counsel.

What was not specified The transcript and discussion did not specify the plaintiffs, the complaint's full claims, the court in which the suit was filed, or the monetary or operational stakes beyond the referenced "2%" allocation. The motion does not include a contract term, fee amount, or an effective date beyond the vote approving retention.

Next steps The board recorded that Galbraith would attend a subsequent meeting to provide counsel and to discuss the lawsuit's issues with the board. The meeting adjourned shortly after the vote.