Oversight committee votes to reverse earlier finding on nonrenewal of five district public defenders

A review committee of the Public Defender Oversight Board voted to reverse an earlier committee recommendation on the nonrenewal of five district public defender contracts and agreed to present proposed findings to the full board, following testimony that the State Public Defender did not allege just cause.

The committee voted to reverse after multiple district chiefs and defense advocates told the panel they had received one-sentence letters saying their contracts would not be renewed and that Louisiana statutory language requires continuity of district defender contracts unless there is just cause.

Trisha Ward, district defender in Evangeline Parish, told the committee it should consider newly available legislative history and statutory text and “hold firm in its duty to supervise and not simply ratify actions that are running contrary to the law and the legislative will.” Ward cited RS 15:146(B)(1) as the source of the board’s supervisory authority and said RS 15:161(h)(1) reflects a legislative intent to preserve continuity in district leadership.

John Hogue, district defender for the Sixth Judicial District, said the statute’s mandatory language — “in an effort to maintain continuity of public defender services in each judicial district, any person serving as the district public defender of a judicial district shall continue to contract with the office and serve as the district public defender of that district” — means contracts continue absent one of the five statutorily enumerated vacancy events: demotion, termination, retirement, resignation or death. “Remy Starnes does not have the discretion to ignore the law,” Hogue said.

Brett Bronson, chief in the 10th District (Natchitoches Parish), told the committee the State Public Defender had repeatedly sought changes that would remove board oversight and complained that district chiefs were being forced into contracts with unlawful terms. “He is trying to get you to abdicate your authority to oversee and supervise him,” Bronson said.

Deirdre Fuller, chief district defender in the Ninth JDC, said she and colleagues were not seeking more than statutory protections. Fuller described losing opportunities to vest or participate in retirement programs if their contracts are not continued, saying, “We do not seek more than the law provides, a statutory right to continue our contracts when there is no just cause or good faith to end them.”

Other witnesses included Michelle Onderpont, Caddo Parish district public defender; Jean Ferria, a long-time public defender and former state public defender; Nathan Fennell of the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center (SMU); Jim Boren, president of the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and Jacob Longman, counsel for the five defenders. Longman asked the committee to adopt findings that the law is silent on “nonrenewal” and that legislative behavior shows the legislature intended continuation absent good cause.

Witnesses and advocates pointed to legislative activity this spring in which bills that would have changed the statutory framework (including a House bill described in testimony as “447”) were voluntarily deferred by authors, testimony they said indicated the legislature did not remove the protections for continuation. Nathan Fennell said the phrase “not renewed” was created by the State Public Defender, not the legislature, and that SB 8 and the 2007 reforms left continuity provisions intact.

Committee members said the supplemental materials and testimony reviewed at this second hearing broadened their understanding beyond the narrower contract-law question considered at the panel’s initial meeting. One committee member said the additional materials and testimony changed their view about whether the State Public Defender must show cause. After discussion, three committee members announced votes to reverse the earlier committee recommendation; the chair declared the vote unanimous and said the committee will draft findings and present them to the full board.

The committee also noted that no representative for State Public Defender Remy Starnes appeared at the hearing to offer cause for the nonrenewals. The committee asked that its proposed written findings be circulated among committee members before presentation to the full board.

The panel’s action is procedural: the committee will draft proposed findings of fact and law and present those proposals to the full Public Defender Oversight Board for consideration. The committee did not itself order any reappointments; it voted to reverse the committee’s earlier recommendation and to forward proposed findings to the full board for a final decision.

Votes at a glance: The review committee voted to reverse its earlier recommendation (chair declared the vote unanimous). The panel instructed staff to prepare proposed findings and to circulate them to committee members before presenting them to the full board.

Next steps: Committee members said they will draft proposed findings and transmit them to the full board; the timeline and date for the full-board consideration were not specified in the hearing record.