Marksville City Court seeks full funding of its budget

 

   As promised, Marksville City Court has filed legal action against the City of Marksville and the Avoyelles Parish Police Jury to secure adequate funding for the court’s operations.

    As expected, both elected boards wasted little time in meeting behind closed doors to discuss “pending litigation.”

  The Marksville City Council’s regular monthly meeting agenda was already printed when City Court filed the “petition for writ of mandamus” and an injunction blocking the implementation of the city’s budget that drastically cuts the court’s budget. The July 8 meeting had already included three items to be discussed behind closed doors -- a personnel issue, a bill for a rental car from someone injured in an accident involving the city, and a threatened lawsuit that has not yet been filed. 

    The City Court filing was the fourth.

    The Police Jury called a special meeting, held during their July 9 committee meetings, to discuss the suit in a closed session. 

    It held a 40-minute closed meeting during its regular meeting July 14 and emerged with a decision to pay $102,249.44 -- half of the City Court’s submitted budget of $204,498.88 -- as settlement of its obligations in the suit. 

    A “writ of mandamus” is a legal action seeking to have a court order the defendant to take action required by law. A mandamus hearing would have to be held to determine whether the action sought falls within the scope of that type of legal remedy. If it does, the court would then hear arguments to determine if the action being sought is proper or if the defendant is already abiding by the law. 

City Judge Angelo Piazza, III had said the action by Mayor John Lemoine and the City Council gave him no choice but to file suit to force adequate funding for the court.

    Alexandria attorneys H. Bradford Calvit and Eli Meaux -- of Provosty-Sadler-deLaunay-Fiorenza & Sobel -- is representing City Court. 

City Attorney Derrick Whittington said city officials met with the 12th Judicial District Court and City Court officials to discuss the issue, but the district court did not act on either the request for a hearing on the mandamus petition or the request for a temporary restraining order/ injunction against the city.

 

    The “mandamus” petition opens by stating that City Court also includes all of Ward 2 and part of Ward 3 in the parish, but “pursuant to a long-term agreement between the City Court, parish and town, all fines recovered are remitted to the town, with the town bearing 90% of operational expenses.”

    The petition refers to Marksville as the Town of Marksville, even though it is a city, having over 5,000 population.

The action notes that the court’s 2014-15 budget totaled  $258,321.12. 

   The petition states that City Court submitted a budget of $204,498.88. At the time of the filing, the Police Jury had not acted on that budget and the  City Council had cut the budget “by nearly 80 percent, to $29,100. That figure includes all operational costs and salaries the town will pay for the operation of the City Court.”

    It further contends that the approved amount “is inadequate to provide for its continued operation” and “remains well below half of the operational costs for the court as mandated” by the state law that created the City Court.

    It further alleges the city “has completely stopped any payment of the judge’s, clerk’s and marshal’s salaries, which is prohibited” by the state constitution.

   The petition points out that the Police Jury provides minimal services and sums to assist the operation of City Court, primarily by providing an assistant district attorney to serve as city prosecutor. However, it continued, “these amounts do not meet the required one half of the City Court’s operational expenses.”

    It said the state law requires the salaries of City Court staff and operation and maintenance of the City Court courtroom and offices to be paid in equal proportions by the city and parish.

 

    The action also alleges the city may have violated a state law that says “If, at the end of any fiscal year, the appropriations necessary for the support of the political subdivision for the ensuing fiscal year have not been made, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in the appropriation ordinance or resolution for the last completed fiscal year shall be deemed reappropriated for the several objects and purposes specified in such appropriation ordinance or resolution.”

    In short, that means if the amount allowed for City Court is not enough to fund the court’s operations, then half of the previous year’s budget will be automatically reappropriated to fund the court. The council-approved budget falls far short of that amount. 

    Whittington said the city disagrees with the plaintiff’s interpretation of that state statute.

   City Court is asking the district court to require Marksville and the Police Jury each to pay $8,520.78 per month to fund the City Court operations for the 2015-16 fiscal year. The Police Jury agreed to pay its share, which should remove it from the suit should it go to court.

   The petition also asks that all fines, forfeitures, penalties and court costs be held by the court until it can be determined whether they should be disbursed to the city or parish.

   The Police Jury resolution to settle its part of the case included instructions that the parish receive all fines, fees and forfeitures from the disposition of cases prosecuted as a state offense.

   City Court is also seeking to compel the defendants to not only properly fund its operations, but also to pay for the attorney’s fees and costs related to filing the petition with the 12th Judicial District Court.

    The Police Jury resolution stated that it would be removed from any obligation to pay a portion of court costs and fees.

 

   In one of its strongest statements, the action contends the City Council’s “radical defunding of the City Court prevents it from operating. Said failure and/or refusal to fund the City Court results in an unconstitutional deprivation of the City Court’s right to function.”

   The defendants could be in violation of that state law if the City Court closes due to lack of funding or remains open but unable to function due to inadequate funding, the petition states.

    In another allegation of a constitutional infraction, the petition said the adopted budget “reduces the salary of a sitting judge during the term for which he was elected, and it has eliminated all funding of Judge Piazza’s retirement,” in violation of state  constitution. Piazza’s current term does not end until December 2020.