Resident urges council to revisit ordinance taking half of judgments; council sends matter to legal and holds executive session

Rhonda Arseneault, a Burris resident, told the Plaquemines Parish Council on Feb. 6 that an ordinance enacted by the parish that takes 50% of certain court judgments is unfair and should be re-examined.

Arseneault said the ordinance, which she cited as having been passed Oct. 22, 2020, left her with about $531,000 after the parish’s share and legal fees from a roughly $1.062 million judgment. “After I give up 50% of my judgment winnings, that leaves me with 500 and something thousand dollars,” she told the council. “That’s not paying my lawyer and that’s us living off of it the rest of our lives.”

The issue was raised during the public-comment portion of the meeting and drew a response from multiple council members, who said they sympathize and would ask the parish legal staff to review the matter. Council members noted the ordinance’s original purpose—described in the meeting as an effort years ago to reduce many small outstanding suits—but said the parish attorney and legal staff must evaluate whether parish policy or the ordinance’s formula should be adjusted for large judgments.

“Can we revisit this and see if we can come up with some kind of—look at this case again?” Councilman Mitch said during the meeting, describing the accident and urging review. Councilman Khanovich urged the council to send a formal request to the legal department for a position from counsel on the issue.

Later in the meeting the council voted to go into executive session “pursuant to LRS 4 2 1 7 8 2 for the purpose of receiving attorney-client privileged information regarding the recent judgment issued by Judge Kevin Connor concerning Clean Tank Solutions LLC, 25th JDC case number 67345.” The roll call establishing the executive session showed all present voting yes with Councilman DeFrance absent. The meeting returned to open session with the clerk saying, “Decision was made. We brought back to our agenda.” No further details about the executive-session deliberations were disclosed on the public record.

Following the public comment and the closed-session discussion, the council’s finance office introduced an ordinance to amend the 2025 general fund operating expenditure budget, legal judgments department, “for payment of pending legal claim,” which one council member said was “sort of addressing the thing we were talking about earlier with the lady.” The ordinance was introduced for later consideration; no final vote on that ordinance was recorded on Feb. 6.

The council did not announce any immediate change to the ordinance that governs parish handling of certain judgments. Council members told Arseneault they would press the parish attorney and legal staff to review the case and the ordinance and to report back to the council.

Arseneault concluded her remarks by asking the council to “read the case” and to contact her; council members said they would pursue the legal follow-up through the parish attorney’s office.

Votes and formal actions related to this subject were limited to: (1) a roll-call vote to enter executive session; (2) an instruction from council members to have legal staff review the matter; and (3) introduction (first reading) of an ordinance to amend the legal judgments budget for payment of pending claims. The council did not release legal findings or specific remedial steps on the public record at the Feb. 6 meeting.

— End —