It turns out that Southern University is indeed a public body.
And so are any of its committees assigned to carry out or to recommend university policy, according to a ruling by 19th Judicial District Judge Richard Moore, III, denying Southern’s Exception of No Cause of Action.
A no-brainer, right?
Well, not if you accept the argument of attorneys representing the university in a pending lawsuit over the decision by the university’s system-wide Grievance Committee to enter into an executive session without benefit of an official motion or vote by the committee members and despite the request of the four Southern employees that the meeting be open to the public.
Southern’s motion was filed as a result of a lawsuit by Dr. Christy Moland, Dr. Elaine Lewnau, Dr. Terrilynn Gillis and Dr. Marilyn Seibert, four university professors either fired, demoted or reduced in pay, and LouisianaVoice publisher Tom Aswell after the plaintiffs claimed that a CLOSED-DOOR MEETING by the grievance committee on March 18 was illegal.
In Monday’s hearing on the motion, Southern’s attorneys put up a rosy argument, saying that according to what Arthur Smith, III, attorney for the four professors, was saying, anytime an individual is assigned by the administration to carry out any function, their actions would constitute a public body.
Had Southern prevailed, then any public body, from the governor’s office down to the smallest town council, could hide behind that maneuver in order to keep the public uninformed of its actions.
But the grievance committee is not an individual. In fact, it is comprised of more than a dozen “individuals” who sit as a committee to hear grievances and to make recommendations to the university administration.
As such, the committee’s recommendations constitute official actions designed to set policy or official actions for the university to carry out.
At the March 18 hearing, all four professors requested that the hearing be conducted in an open forum but then, without a motion or vote to do so, Dickerson called an executive session, saying the hearing was not a public meeting and the committee was not a public body even though any decision it may make is clearly defined as an official action by a public body under state law. Dickerson’s saying otherwise does not change that.
Louisiana Revised Statute 42;4.1 THROUGH 42.13, the state’s Open Meetings Law, clearly defines a “Public Body,” and then goes on to say “A committee formed by the public body is considered a public body, e.g., an executive committee.”
Having established that point, the next issue would be the state’s OPEN MEETINGS LAW, which says, “In order for a public body to enter into an executive session, a vote of 2/3 of members present at an open meeting, for which proper notice was given pursuant to R.S. 42:19, is necessary — along with an accompanying statement of the reason for entering into the executive session. The vote of each member on the motion to enter into executive session along with the reason for entering the executive session must be recorded and entered into the minutes. (emphasis added)
So, the “Grievance Committee” violated the state’s open meetings statutes which require public hearings of grievances should those filing grievances request a public hearing, which all four in fact, did request.
The same section says:
Further, the public body may not enter into executive session for the purposes of this discussion, if the individual requests that the matter be discussed in an open meeting. (emphasis added).
Committee chairperson Marla Dickerson, in calling the closed session, ejected not only LouisianaVoice, but also the four professors and their legal counsel (Smith) as well as the legal counsel for the university itself (Winston Decuir), thus preventing legal counsel for each side from hearing any testimony by witnesses.
In his ruling, Judge Moore said, “…the Grievance Committee…is making recommendations to the President-Chancellor as to whether employment should be maintained and, if so, the amount of compensation. The…type of committee action is too important to be made in a dark room, where no one other than committee members know what factors are being considered. The actions taken by the Grievance Committee served to slam the door on…(the) Louisiana Constitution and our democratic process. For all these reasons and considerations, the exception of no cause of action filed by Southern University is overruled.”
It’s strange to see yet another “committee” within the State of Louisiana governmental structure truly believe they are not subject to “Open Meetings” laws. Tom, I wonder how many others are going under the radar and what are they discussing behind closed doors…
The way to do this at LSU is to contract with a law firm to handle the matter, have only verbal communications with the law firm, and therefore avoid any and all public scrutiny of the public’s business. To wit, in the investigation into the Dean of Students and associated minions about whether they knew of DKE behavior and did nothing about it, the Advocate reporter who requested a copy of the report from LSU was told there is no report. The investigation was handled by a private law firm that communicated the results to LSU in verbal form only. That was the same trick pulled during the F King Alexander hire, in which an “outside” corporate headhunter was used. When the judge sent the sheriff to LSU to get the documents … there were none. Unfortunately for LSU, in the New Orleans Bulldog Society v. Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Louisiana Supreme Court expanded the Public Records Law to private entities that engage in public functions. Any decent lawyer should be able to get any and all LSU or Southern University records held by “outside” law firms and corporate headhunters.
What are the chances anything will change anywhere as a result of this ruling? I would put them between zero and 10%. Civil law seems to exist only to provide a living for attorneys. Ignoring it, then litigating it, is the order of the day.
Can you imagine what would go on behind closed doors never to see the light of transparency were it not for the Open Meetings law?
Congratulations to you and the others who filed suit, and to your attorney.
And yes, a no-brainer.
Did The Advocate cover the hearing? I think I looked for a story and didn’t find one.
>
No other media were present either at Southern or for the hearing on Southern’s motion.