Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over Attorney General complaint and outside counsel: attorney-client privilege, individual responses and executive-session procedure
Summary
Council members debated how to respond to an Attorney General inquiry alleging an open-meetings-law violation, with parish legal counsel advising that a formal council response requires a vote and warning that consulting outside counsel can waive attorney-client privilege.
Council members spent significant time discussing an open-meetings-law complaint that the parish received and how to respond to the Louisiana Attorney General's office.
Procedural posture and legal advice
Parish attorney Michelle Veil told council there was no posted agenda authorizing hiring special outside counsel at that meeting; adding such an item would require unanimous consent to add to the agenda. She also told council that the parish attorney represents the council and reminded members that consulting outside attorneys about parish business risks losing attorney-client privilege for those communications.
Members' positions and actions
Several council members said they had received the AG's letter addressed to individual council members and that they planned to prepare individual responses rather than a single council response. Councilman Steve Trostclair said he requested a letter from an outside attorney and objected to restrictions on access to the parish attorney's draft. Council members on both sides of the earlier vote split said they intended to submit individual responses to the AG if they wished. Council members discussed whether the council as a body had authorized a formal response; parish legal staff advised that a council response on behalf of the council requires a council vote.
Outcome and next steps
Attempts to convene an executive session on the complaint earlier in the meeting failed (the motion to go into executive session did not carry), and council members were advised that the proper language to convene a permissible executive session on related matters had been added to a future (Wednesday) agenda. Separately, a motion to seek outside counsel on the subject was discussed but staff advised it could not be acted on without proper agenda placement and, in any event, that outside counsel could affect privilege.
Why it matters: The council's handling of the AG complaint is governed by open-meetings rules and attorney-client privilege concerns; how the council responds could affect legal exposure, confidentiality of council deliberations and whether a single council response or individual responses are submitted to the AG.
Next steps: The council's legal staff provided alternative language for an executive-session item on an upcoming meeting to ensure compliance with open-meetings law; councilmembers said some intend to file individual responses to the AG while others await a collectively authorized council response if the council votes to authorize one.
