Caddo Parish Commissioners and the community will have to wait to find out whether the commissioners' participation in a public retirement system was illegal and whether they owe the parish reimbursem*nt of more than $255,000.
An almost two year-old lawsuit that raised those questions was heard in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal on Wednesday.
The lawsuit, filed in March of 2015 by the Pesnell law firm on behalf of Caddo Parish resident Elliott Stonecipher, alleges that parish commissioners also have been taking advantage of taxpayer dollars by accepting reimbursem*nt for mileage, travel expenses andcost-of-living increases to their base salaries.
RELATED: Are Caddo Commissioners' retirement benefits unconstitutional?
Whitney Pesnell, representing Stonecipher, told the three judges that commissioners have taken part in self-enrichment activities “illegally, unconstitutionally and without remorse” and that Stonecipherhas every right to sue over the situation and that the money contributed or reimbursed to commissioners should be repaid to the parish.
Tom Arceneaux, representing Caddo Parish, told the judges in his opening arguments that no private citizen has the right to enforce the collection of debts owed to the parish or to demand that money be repaid to the parish and that the “overarching allegations” in the lawsuit were the main reason behind its lengthy wait time until court.
In his opening statements, Pesnell told the judges that the commission and its commissioners have “routinely ignored and violated” dictates of the Louisiana Home Rule Charter and constitution.
“We feel that the case is “one of the most important cases to come before the court for some time,” Pesnell said.
RELATED: Lawsuit demands return of money to parish
In addition to the more than $18,000 contributed to retirement accounts in the past year, commissioners also spent close to $40,000 of taxpayer money for travel in 2015 alone, according to public records.
The Louisiana Home Charter Rule states: “No commissioner shall receive any additional compensation, benefit or privilege, direct or indirect, because of his office.”
In defending Stonecipher’s right to bring forth the suit, Pesnell listed several agencies that he said have overlooked the CPERS issue, including the Caddo Parish Sheriffs office, Caddo Parish District Attorneys Office and the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office. It is also unrealistic to expect the Caddo Parish Commission to sue itself, Pesnell said.
“We’re talking about their salary adjustments, mileage, travel reimbursem*nts, and health and medical insurance benefits,” he said, throwing his hands up in the air. “If Stonecipher or a citizen can’t make a claim, then I don’t think there is anyone who can.”
Arceneaux said the commission had never denied Stonecipher’s right to seek damages as a private citizen but repeated that only the parish has the right to seek a return of funds to the parish. He also took issue with the implication that the Caddo Parish Commission would not act lawfully of its own accord to examine how to amend the conflicting ordinances.
“You can’t assume that the Caddo Parish Commission would not do what it’s supposed to do,” Arcenaux said. “This course of action belongs only to Caddo Parish, but if Caddo Parish doesn’t act on it, then it goes to the voters. The voters have acted on this issue, and changes have been made.”
As evidence ofthe checks-and-balances power of voters and commissioners’ integrity, Arceneaux pointed to several changes that have occurred in the past year-- including a vote by the commission to discontinue participation in CPERS as well as to reduce travel allowances.
Arceneaux said the reason the commission has not yet moved to return CPERS contributions to the parish is because there “has been no judicial determination that any amount is owed.”
Arceneaux also asserted that Stonecipher’s lawsuit was the primary reason that determination has taken almost two years and that had Stonecipher filed for summary judgment— as Arceneaux had done, though his request was partially denied— the case could be resolved much more efficiently.
In response, Pesnell said that he was unable to file for a judicial determination because he had not been provided with public records he had requested from the parish.
“It’s been lingering because the parish has stonewalled at every step,” Pesnell said.
RELATED: Legislative Auditor tells Caddo Parish Commission to reconsider CPERS position
Attorney Michael Lowe, who represents the individual commissioners in the lawsuit, also presented statements to the court on Wednesday. Lowe said individual commissioners should be dismissed from the suit becausethe commissioners had accepted parish reimbursem*nts as part of their position, not out of “malice, reckless behavior or bad faith.”
He said they had been acting in their official capacity as public employees— and as such, were protected from individual liability.
“We want private citizens to serve on public bodies. That’s why there are protections in place to protect them from liability when acting in their official capacity as members of a public board,” Lowe said.
The court has now been presented with both sides of the suit and will make a ruling. Pesnell said that process usually takes between 30 to 45 days but that this case might take longer, being “complicated in some matters and of public interest.”
