Attorney says two employees lacked required notice for executive‑session personnel discussion; commission limits executive session

An attorney who identified himself as Sherman Khan of the Khan Law Firm told the Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District commission that two people named on the agenda — Donnie Sexton and Danielle Rolo — did not receive the notice required under Louisiana law for discussions about an individual’s character, professional competence or physical or mental health.

Khan: “I represent Donnie Sexton and Danielle Rolo. I’m here to point out that neither one of my clients received any notice pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 42:17, which they’re required to do…when you are to discuss any mental health status of my clients is inappropriate and it’s contrary to the law.”

Port counsel (Mr. Garrett) responded that items concerning character, professional competence or physical or mental health do require notice and therefore those items should not be moved into executive session if notice was not sent. He said the items involving attorney‑client privileged communications about potential litigation do not carry the same notice requirement.

Following that exchange the chair and the commission agreed to defer the two agenda items that pertained to character/competence/health (items B and C in the meeting numbering) and to proceed to executive session only on the agenda items involving attorney‑client privileged litigation communications. An open‑meeting roll call showed the commission voting to enter executive session for the attorney‑client items; the transcript reports the vote as passing by a recorded margin (the meeting reported both a 7–2 and then an 8–1 tally during a reconsideration sequence before the commission entered executive session). The meeting minutes the commission announced upon returning show the commission entered executive session at 04:08 p.m. and returned at 04:17 p.m., and that “no final or binding action was taken at executive session.”

Why it matters: the exchange highlights statutory notice requirements for personnel discussions under Louisiana law and shows the commission taking steps to limit closed proceedings to matters for which notice is not required.

What the record shows: the transcript records Sherman Khan’s assertion about missing notice and Mr. Garrett’s counsel that items requiring notice should be deferred; it further records the commission’s decision to defer the two personnel items and to proceed to executive session only for attorney‑client privilege items. The commission recorded that it took no final binding action while in executive session.

Authorities and follow up: the record on the public meeting references Louisiana Revised Statute 42:17 in the course of the exchange. Khan stated his clients had not received statutory notice for the personnel items; the commission deferred those items pending proper notice and proceeded only on litigation‑related attorney‑client items.