Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Records topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council defers revision of public-records fee schedule after debate over age certification

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted to defer action on a resolution updating public-records request fees to the May 13, 2025 meeting and debated removing an age-certification line from the request form; legal counsel cited state law indicating custodians must present records to persons of majority age.

The City Council deferred consideration of a resolution to update public-records request fees to the May 13, 2025 council meeting after brief discussion that focused on an age-certification line in the request form.

Council member Laverne proposed deleting a sentence on the form that reads, "I certify that I am 18 years of age." Laverne said she wanted the sentence removed to encourage engagement by younger residents.

Council legal counsel Kyle told the council he had not previously researched any age requirement but later referenced state public-records provisions that address presentation of records to persons of majority age. During the discussion a council member read a statutory provision aloud, saying, "La. R.S. 44:32 ... a custodian shall present any public record to any person of the age of majority who so requests."

Laverne said she would make a motion to delete the sentence and added she was "okay if it doesn't get a second." The motion failed for lack of a second.

Earlier in the meeting the council record shows the item was deferred: Council member Laverne moved to defer the resolution to the May 13, 2025 meeting; the motion was seconded by Council member Wells and the item was deferred without public comment.

No fee schedule was adopted at this meeting; the council did not vote on the proposed deletion and scheduled further consideration at the May 13 meeting.