The debate over what is and what is not a public meeting has been ramped up a notch by an email exchange between blogger Robert Burnes and Baton Rouge attorney Todd Gaudin.
It was Gaudin, whose law practice specialty is adoptions, who, when Burns insisted he was entitled to videotape proceedings of last Friday’s meeting of the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI) because it was a public meeting, said, “I don’t agree with your interpretation.”
Gaudin was in attendance because LSLI was meeting to act on House Concurrent Resolution 79 of the 2016 legislative session. HCR 79, introduced by State Rep. Rick Edmonds (R-Baton Rouge), directed LSLI to “study and make recommendations to the legislature regarding abuse of incentives in the adoption process.”
In an email exchange between Gaudin and Burns, Gaudin explained his position further:
“I was referring to the issue of whether our group is actually a public body,” he said. I assumed it was not because it is a group of professionals who volunteer and (who) are not appointed to improve our laws by discussing their merits.”
Actually, LSLI was chartered precisely to “improve our laws by discussing their merits,” but I’ll get to that point presently.
After reading his response to Burns, I sent him the following, lifted verbatim from the Louisiana statute (R.S. 42:13):
- “Public body” means village, town, and city governing authorities; parish governing authorities; school boards and boards of levee and port commissioners; boards of publicly operated utilities; planning, zoning, and airport commissions; and any other state, parish, municipal, or special district boards, commissions, or authorities, and those of any political subdivision thereof, where such body possesses policy making, advisory, or administrative functions, including any committee or subcommittee of any of these bodies enumerated in this paragraph. (emphasis mine.)
Clinging doggedly to his position, he replied an hour later:
“That may be your opinion whoever you are but I disagree. This committee does not meet any of those definitions. So, what is clear to you apparently is not so clear.”
Okay, it’s on now. I’m not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I fired off this email to Gaudin:
“LSLI was created by the Louisiana Legislature to advise the legislature on drafting bills for law reform. The fact that members are volunteers makes not a whit of difference.”
This is from the LSLI home page:
- The Louisiana State Law Institute, originally authorized by the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, with its domicile at the Law School of that University, was chartered, created and organized as an official law revision commission, law reform agency and legal research agency of the State of Louisiana, by Act 166 of the Legislature of 1938 (Chapter 4 of Title 24 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950).
- The Institute is sustained by legislative appropriation. (Again, this is from the LSLI home page on the web.)
- This organization originated in a movement, initiated here at L.S.U. in 1933, to establish an institute dedicated to law revision, law reform and legal research. Due to economic reasons that project was postponed until April, 1938, when the Board of Supervisors authorized its revival, under its present name. The Legislature, later in the year, chartered, created and organized it as ‘an official, advisory law revision commission, law reform agency and legal research agency of the State of Louisiana.’(Ditto.)
(All emphasis in the above paragraphs mine.)
And if that’s not sufficient, here is the first paragraph of the LSLI charter (also on its web page):
LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES OF 1950
TITLE 24
CHAPTER 4. LOUISIANA STATE LAW INSTITUTE
R.S. 24:201. Creation and functions
The Louisiana State Law Institute, organized under authority of the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, domiciled at the Law School of the Louisiana State University, is chartered, created and organized as an official advisory law revision commission, law reform agency and legal research agency of the state of Louisiana.
This definition extends to all reports generated by LSLI, to wit:
R.S. 24:205. Reports; advisory capacity; printing and distribution of reports
The Louisiana State Law Institute, in submitting reports to the legislature shall act solely in an advisory capacity. Its reports, studies, and recommended publications shall be public and available as provided by law. (As before, all emphasis mind.)
“Now I respectfully ask, what about this do you not comprehend? Everything about LSLI—even its very charter—screams public body.”
There has been no response from Gaudin to that last message.
Louisiana Voice 
The very fact that he doesn’t want this meeting videotaped says it all. Sometimes just being a lawyer doesn’t give you privileges above the law.
You nailed it, and I’ll make a prediction: over time, the reason he had that stand will become painfully obvious.
How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? They are awake.
That was a good one but you forgot also when their mouths are moving.
It is amazing to me that Mr. Gaudin, whoever he is, can be so blinded by his own sense of self importance that he could be trained in law and actually believe his own babble regarding a very clearly written law.
By definition that’s what attorneys are trained to do..argue both sides of an issue. A very clearly written law can be argued to be ambiguous.
Bob In BR is SPOT ON! Well said. Especially enjoyed your noting Gaudin’s “whoever you are” pompous sarcasm. I trust that by now he knows who Mr. Aswell is and wishes that he had kept his ignorant mouth shut.
Perfectly said, Bob, except for the fact most of the members didn’t verbalize as Gaudin did, they have the same mindset!
Bottom line: LA R. S. 42:23 is so crystal clear that Gaudin had no choice but to pivot away from the “your interpretation” remark. Hence, he pivoted to “I don’t think this is a public body.” I sent him an email stating, “O. K. That means your beef regarding ‘interpretation’ is with your colleague, Ms. Isabel Wingerter, since, as Tom pointed out in the article, when I repeatedly asked her if it was a public meeting of a public body, she responded in the affirmative on each occasion. Gaudin had no response to that statement (I guess because there simply is no counter-argument to it unless he wants to declare a colleague flat-wrong when it’s obvious she is right).
What happened is, when they sent Ms. Braun over to whisper to me to turn the camera off, they thought that would be the end of that. When it wasn’t, they simply figured they could put me on the spot in a room full of “superior” folk (by virtual they hold law licenses) and essentially intimidate me into turning the camera off. They obviously don’t know me very well at all. WHEN I return to videotape the next meeting, I assume they have no plans to make a big issue of my camera, which I’m considering nicknaming Roger Dangerfield.
Robert, somehow I think your camera will have a whole lot more respect than Rodney Dangerfield always complained about by the time the next meeting rolls around.
You’re likely, right, Bob, and thanks for the correction on Mr. Dangerfield’s first name. I can’t believe I put “Roger”!!
Nope, respect wont be in the cards. My bet is they will pull the old tried and true- “You are now creating a disturbance, and in fear of outburst from you (which they will be sure to entice with intimidation) we must ask you to leave or be removed.” Check all the old videos of this kind of thing available online. Just type in “removed from public meeting” to find random people exercising established rights, while being dragged out, maced, arrested, barred, etc. I would bring a reporter/lawyer friend along if I were you.
You got that right. Don’t forget the bail money also and a friend/lawyer to go bail you out because they will not give up. People who have something to hide never give up but I have a good feeling neither will Mr.Burns because he knows he is right. He is going to take a stand for the right reasons and I really admire him for that. We need more men like him to get it done, although Burns is doing a heck of a good job by himself, don’t ya think?