East Baton Rouge Parish school board approves renewal of general counsel's contract despite objections over pay

At a Dec. 15 special meeting, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board voted to renew the employment contract of its general counsel after a divided discussion about pay and contract language.

Board member Paul Lewis moved to approve the renewal; the motion was seconded by a board member identified in the transcript as "mister Lewis." After speakers debated the measure, the board approved the renewal in a roll-call vote that counted five yes votes and three no votes.

The debate focused on three main concerns raised by board members. Board member Soule said she found typographical errors in the draft contract — including multiple places where the text still used the word "superintendent" — and urged more careful review before approval. Soule also said the contract’s language about when general counsel may engage the legislature should be clarified so the board has a clear process for setting positions, and she objected to what she called a "significant salary increase" while many classroom staff have not received comparable raises. "I found a typo in it," Soule said, adding that the document appeared to be copied from the superintendent’s contract in places.

Board member Linus (District 2) described the general counsel as highly responsive and urged approval, saying the counsel has taken calls "on the weekend when he's spending time with family just to get an important issue resolved." "I fully support this item, and I think it's the right thing to do," Linus said.

Paul Lewis, who moved the motion, emphasized the scope of the counsel’s workload: "We have roughly 40,000 students, roughly 6,000 adults, roughly 80 sites," she said, noting the legal office supports a large district and appeals and describing the counsel’s duties as substantial.

An online commenter identified as James Finney said the matter "could and should have been handled at a regular course of business" and suggested the proposed pay increase appeared questionable when teachers are repeatedly told the district cannot afford raises. Several board members, including Martin, said they would be willing to extend the counsel's term at the current salary but not to accept the proposed increase as written.

Before the vote, Linus offered a friendly amendment to change residual references from "superintendent" to "general counsel;" staff confirmed that wording had already been updated in the document. The chair called for a roll-call vote. The transcript records the following votes by district: District 1 (Mr. Blue) — No; District 2 (Linus) — Yes; District 3 (Powell Lewis) — Yes; District 4 (President Stewart) — Yes; District 5 (Mr. Lewis) — Yes; District 7 (Vice President Godet) — Yes; District 8 (Soule) — No; District 9 (Martin) — No. The motion carried.

The contract’s specific salary figures were discussed as being a "significant increase" by several members but the draft in the public meeting did not state the precise dollar amount in the transcript, so the exact increase is not specified here. The transcript also shows differing spellings and references for several individuals and a reported typo in the contract text; those inconsistencies are noted in the meeting record.

Clerk announcements closed the meeting with notices of upcoming gatherings: a special meeting and committee of the whole on Jan. 8, 2026, and a regular meeting on Jan. 15, 2026, both at 5 p.m. in the Central Office Boardroom. The meeting was then adjourned.