Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defenders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State public defender outlines Act 22 reorganization, funding shortfalls and building needs
Summary
Ramey Starnes, the state public defender, told the Senate Finance Committee at a budget hearing that the Office of the State Public Defender is asking for $48.8 million in state support for FY26 and described organizational changes enacted by the legislature in 2024.
Get email alerts on the Public Defenders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ramey Starnes, the state public defender, told the Senate Finance Committee at a budget hearing that the Office of the State Public Defender is asking for $48.8 million in state support for FY26 and described organizational changes enacted by the legislature in 2024.
Starnes said Act 22 of the 2024 second special session moved authority for public defender services from the former Louisiana Public Defender Board into the Office of the State Public Defender, eliminated the 11‑member board and created a nine‑member Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board, and made the governor responsible for appointing the state public defender to a two‑year term subject to oversight‑board approval and senate confirmation. “This legislature has always invested in the public defender system and I’m very appreciative of it,” Starnes said during his presentation.
The office continues to rely largely on statutory dedications. Starnes and staff described two dedicated funds that finance most work: the Public Defender Fund (Title 15) and the DNA Post‑Conviction Relief for Indigence Fund (Code of Criminal Procedure 926.1). The office also receives interagency transfers, notably Title IV‑E reimbursements from the Department of Children and Family Services for parent representation in foster‑care proceedings. The committee was told the DCFS transfer will rise to $1.5 million after a planned increase.
Starnes and agency staff emphasized that about 93% of the office’s expenditures are “other charges” that are sent directly out to district public defender offices and contract programs; personal services account for roughly 5% of the budget. The presentation showed historical funding volatility: conviction and user fees and local funding declined substantially during COVID, rebounded somewhat in 2023–24, but remain an unstable revenue source. “It would be somewhere in the ballpark of about $47,000,000 would be their actual expenditure,” the presenter said when describing projected year‑end spending trends.
On capital and facilities, Starnes outlined a multiyear program in which the office has purchased district offices to reduce recurring rent costs. He said the office has acquired 12 buildings in 11 districts and is seeking a $2 million supplemental appropriation for the district building fund; the committee was told that request is not included in the governor’s executive budget. Starnes described two priority projects: (1) a $1 million request to replenish Jefferson Parish’s fund balance after the district used fund balance to acquire an office, and (2) a replacement/renovation in Winn Parish after an electrical fire rendered an existing office unusable.
Starnes also described a policy request the office will press during the session: statutory “warrants” that would fund district defender operations in a manner similar to how district attorneys are funded. He estimated the warrant approach would cost roughly $56 million and said the financing would enable the office to provide benefits such as retirement and health insurance to line defenders, which the presenter said would reduce turnover and improve recruitment.
During questioning, Tiffany Simpson, identified as an Office of the State Public Defender official, confirmed the agency does not operate under Office of Technology Services (OTS) standard services for email domain and is instead using an exemption; Simpson said the office manages some technology functions internally and uses an interagency transfer for limited OTS services.
Starnes closed by repeating a central theme he raised throughout the presentation: that the office needs a “reliable, renewable, sustainable funding source” and that the office is moving to standardize compliance, auditing and data collection to support data‑driven policy requests to the legislature.
The committee did not take a final vote on the supplemental request during the hearing; members asked for additional detail on the district building fund requests, revenue trends, and projected savings from purchased buildings.
