louisiana public defender boardlpdb.la.gov/meetings/txtfiles/pdf/budget_committee/z_budget_may...

Louisiana Public Defender Board BUDGET COMMITTEE

May 22, 2018 Bluebonnet Regional Library, Room 2

Baton Rouge, LA 11:30 a.m.

1. Call to Order and Remarks by Chairman

2. Adoption of the Agenda* pg. 71-72

3. Call for Public Comment

4. Adoption of the Minutes, April 4, 2018* Tab 1, pgs. 73-76

5. Financial Report - through April 30, 2018* Tab 2, pgs. 77-81 a. Budget Timeline pgs. 82-83 An outline of the state’s and agency’s budget process is provided for your information.

6. FY18 Tab 3 a. Solvency Projections – informational pg. 84 b. FY18 Exigency Requests* i. District 8 - $40,000 pg. 85 ii. District 13 - $5,500 pgs. 86-87 iii. District 16 - $88,477.03 pgs. 88 - 91 iv. District 19 - $358,112 pgs. 92-96 v. District 28 - $15,000 pg. 97 c. Final FY18 DAF Disbursement - $715,891.80* pg. 98 After exigency needs of $507,089.03 have been considered, Staff recommendation is to distribute all remaining DAF in the amount of $208,802.77, pro rata, to all districts following the original FY18 distribution formula. d. Authority to Disburse FY18 Year End Funds* Because the next meeting of the Board is scheduled in a new fiscal year, staff is requesting authority to disburse all remaining FY18 funds to the districts as deemed necessary. e. 501(c)3 Contract Overages – Informational pgs. 99-102 Pursuant to the agreement by the programs to voluntarily follow a contract as would be amended in FY19, the programs are required to notify staff when they have either not expended the work hours to earn their monthly allotment by 5% or if they have exceeded the work hours and gone over their monthly allotment by 5%. Three programs have submitted documentation of overages on their contracts.

71

7. Executive Budget Recommendation Tab 4, pg.103-110 The original Executive Budget recommendation for LPDB for FY19 is $35,661,710. As of Tuesday, May 15th, HB1 indicates a 24.2% budget cut to that amount. The FY19 DAF and CINC amounts are being provided under both scenarios. a. FY19 DAF* pgs. 111-114 b. FY19 CINC* pgs. 115-116

The CINC distribution is pursuant to the Board’s CINC policy. 8. Salary Increase Request, District 14* Tab 5, pgs.117-122 In February 2018, the staff of the 14th PDO submitted a request for a salary increase for District Defender Harry Fontenot. Staff has completed site visits pursuant to the protocols and is recommending a salary increase of $15,000 bringing Mr. Fontenot’s salary to $120,000 in District 14. 9. Other Business

10. Next Meeting

11. Adjournment*

72

1- LPDB_Budget Committee_Apr 4 2018

Louisiana Public Defender Board

BUDGET COMMITTEE April 4, 2018

Bluebonnet Regional Library Baton Rouge, LA

11:30a – 1:00p

Draft Minutes

1. Call to Order and Comments of the Chairman. A meeting of the Budget Committee of the Louisiana Public Defender Board, pursuant to lawful notice, was duly convened and called to order by Professor Donald North on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at the Bluebonnet Regional Library, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, at approximately 11:40 a.m.

The following committee members were present: Donald North, Chairman Zita Andrus Flozell Daniels Michael Ginart Ami Stearns The following members of the Board’s staff were present:

Jay Dixon, State Public Defender Barbara Baier, General Counsel Natashia Carter, Budget Officer Anne Gwin, Executive Assistant Richard Pittman, Dep. State Public Defender, Dir. Juvenile Defender Services Erik Stilling, I.T. Director

2. Adoption of the Agenda. Mr. Flozell Daniels moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. Zita Andrus seconded the motion which passed unopposed.

3. Call for Public Comment. The following people signed up for public comment on the funding plans: Ms. Natasha George (District 14), Ms. Carla Edmonson (District 14), Mr. Derwyn Bunton (District 41) and Mr. Kerry Cuccia (CDPSLA). Professor North stated public comments would be welcomed throughout the meeting.

4. Adoption of the Minutes, February 27, 2018. Mr. Flozell Daniels moved to adopt the Minutes of the February 27, 2018 meeting as presented. Professor Stearns seconded the motion which passed unopposed.

5. Financial Report - through February 28, 2018. Budget Administrator Natashia Carter reported $31,923,323 expended or encumbered to date, $2,181,571 projected to be spent by the end of the fiscal year and zero funds available for reallocation. Mr. Daniels moved to adopt the financial report as presented. Mr. Ginart seconded the motion which passed unopposed.

73


a. FY18 Solvency Projections. Mr. Dixon stated that solvency projections compiled by staff for the districts through the end of FY18 are for information only. He further reported that several districts are being closely monitored for shortfall (Districts 28, 8, 16, 34 and 19) and that the interim district defender in District 16 has indicated the need for approximately $120,000 to make it through FY18.

6. HB167 . Mr. Dixon reported that HB167, authored by Representative Sherman Mack, would require the distribution of all DAF by August 15; however, several amendments were added to the bill which was heard this morning by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. The bill if passed in its current form will amend the statute to require the Board to disburse 65% of the entirety of its annual budget to the districts in the first 45 days of the fiscal year based on an objective plan published by the Board no later than April 30th of each calendar year with an additional 5% of the entirety of the Board’s annual budget to be reserved only for the districts as part of the DAF and designated as for contingencies that may arise in the districts.

Mr. Daniels asked if staff knew the source of the bill. Mr. Dixon reported that it was his understanding that the original bill was requested from Mr. Reggie McIntyre (District Defender, District 21) and several others and that the bill in its current form had been adopted by the Public Defender Association of Louisiana’s Executive Committee. Mr. Daniels expressed concern of the Board’s lack of knowledge of legislation being presented which may affect their abilities as a Board and urged that the courtesy of the sharing of information could be more effective and impactful for everyone involved. Mr. Dixon informed the bill passed favorably this morning in Committee, that the proposed additional 5% of the LPDB’s annual budget is approximately 1.7 million dollars and that the Board will have to determine from where that increase to be reserved for the districts will be shifted. The options he proposed are: pro-rata from administrative and contracts, cutting capital programs or eliminating one entire contract program. Mr. Daniels indicated that the districts should be prepared to state where they believe the money will come from. The following people provided comment and clarification: Mr. G. Paul Marx (District 15), Mr. Gary Clements (CPCPL), Mr. Bob Noel (District 4), Ms. Emily Maw (IP-NO) and Mr. Kerry Cuccia (CDPSLA).

7. District Assistance Fund Formula. Mr. Dixon gave a brief summary of the three funding plans for the districts presented for discussion: the Public Defender Association of Louisiana (PDAL) Plan; the Postlethwaite and Netterville (P&N) Plan; and, the Hybrid Plan, all of which are shown by comparison on page 52 of the materials. Mr. Dixon provided some pros and cons of each plan for discussion.

Under the PDAL Plan, which has the support of most of the districts, all of the smaller districts end FY19 with healthy fund balances and none of them will go into ROS; however, the PDAL plan is not an objective formula which could be hard to defend in litigation, six of the small districts would get no funding at all while four of the larger districts would experience shortfall.

The P & N Plan, presented by a respected accounting firm is objective across the board, is backed by data, and leaves enough money in reserves to cover 6 districts that will fail. The concerns with the P&N plan is that it favors the larger districts, doesn’t account for local variances, is not preferred by the district defenders, would change every year, and doesn’t provide the safety net for the smaller districts that the PDAL Plan does.

74


The third and final plan, the Hybrid Plan, is 85% objective, ends FY19 with every district having fund balances and has approximately one million dollars in reserves to cover exigencies. This plan is not entirely objective, is not supported by the district defenders, and leaves some larger districts with less than one month in reserves.

The floor opened for discussion on the three plans. The following people addressed the Committee and provided their comments and/or concerns: Mr. Derwyn Bunton (District 41), Mr. G. Paul Marx (District 15), Mr. Paul Fleming (District 24), Ms. Natasha George (District 14), Mr. Tony Champagne (District 32), Ms. Carla Edmonson (District 14), Mr. David Marcantel (District 31), Mr. Richard Stricks (District 40), Mr. Steve Thomas (Districts 11/42), Mr. Tom Gernhauser (District 34), Ms. Deirdre Fuller (District 9), Mr. Harry Fontenot (District 14).

After discussion, Professor Ami Stearns moved that the Committee vote to recommend a plan to the full Board. Ms. Zita Andrus seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion passed with three in favor, 1 vote against.

Ms. Andrus then moved to recommend the Hybrid Plan to the full board. Professor Stearns seconded the motion. Ms. Andrus stated that her job as a member of the Board is to fairly distribute limited funds and to reach the goal that every district survives. Professor Stearns concurred that the Hybrid Plan, statewide, does the most good for the most people. Upon vote, the motion to recommend the Hybrid Plan to the full board passed with four in favor and one opposed.

8. Contract Amounts* a-b. 501c3 Programs. Mr. Dixon reported that staff’s recommendation for contracting

with the 501c3 for FY19 is for a standstill budget from FY18 as presented in the materials. After a brief discussion, Mr. Dixon clarified that staff is also recommending standstill budgets for the professional and consulting contracts on page 69. Mr. Daniels moved to recommend the standstill budget contract amounts as presented to the full board. Mr. Ginart seconded the motion. Professor North called for a vote on the program contract first. Upon a vote, all were in favor. Upon a vote for the standstill budgets for the professional and consulting contracts, four were in favor and one abstained. The motion passed.

a-i. FY19 Budget Submittals. This issue was not addressed. c. Districts. This item was not discussed. d. Needs Based Budgets*. Mr. Dixon reported that Staff is recommending that the

Districts submit Needs Based Budgets by August 15, 2018 to give staff time to review the submittal and compile them all into the FY20 LPDB budget request submittal. Prof. Stearns moved to recommend to the full Board that Mr. Dixon be authorized to request the data from the districts for a Needs Based Budget request. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion which passed unopposed.

9. Next Meeting. Professor North indicated the next meeting would be set after the Board’s meeting today.

10. Adjournment. Mr. Daniels moved to adjourn. Ms. Andrus seconded the motion and the meeting adjourned at approximately 1: 10 p.m.

75


Guests:

Harry Fontenot Brian McRae Bob Noel Mike Mitchell John Albert Ellis Deirdre Fuller Paul Fleming Jim Looney Richard B. Stricks Kerry Cuccia G. Paul Marx Tony Champagne Ella Kliebert Lindsey Blouin Natasha George Carla Edmonson Derwyn Bunton John Lindner Clarke Beljean Emily Maw Steve Thomas

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct account of the proceedings

of the Louisiana Public Defender Board’s Budget Committee meeting held on the 4th day of

April, 2018, as approved by the Committee on the 22nd day of May, 2018, at Baton Rouge,

Louisiana.

____________________________________

Professor Donald North, Chairman

76

LPDB APPROPRIATION SUMMARYSUMMARY FY 18

For the period ending 04.30.18

FY 2018 Budget YTD Expenditures YTD EncumbrancesTotal Expended & Encumbered

% of FY18 Budget

Projected thru 06/30/2017

Available for Reallocation

FY 2017YTD Actual

% of FY17 Actual

MEANS OF FINANCING:FEES & SELF GENERATED ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%GRANTS 75,000$ 59,131$ 9,111$ 68,242$ 91.0% 6,758$ (0)$ ‐$ 0.0%STATUTORY DEDICATIONS: DNA TESTING POST‐CONVICTION FUND (CR5) 28,500$ 21,873$ ‐$ 21,873$ 76.7% 6,628$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% INDIGENT PARENT REPRESENTATON FUND(S08) 980,680$ 980,680$ ‐$ 980,680$ 100.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% PUBLIC DEFENDER FUND (V31) 33,265,521$ 29,147,200$ 2,433,940$ 31,581,140$ 94.9% 1,150,813$ 533,568$ ‐$ 0.0%TOTAL MEANS OF FINANCING 34,349,701$ 30,208,883$ 2,443,052$ 32,651,935$ 95.1% 1,164,198$ 533,568$ ‐$ 0.0%

EXPENDITURES: Salaries 1,349,946$ 939,337$ ‐$ 939,337$ 69.6% 209,288$ 201,321$ ‐$ 0.0% Other Compensation 160,726$ 72,724$ ‐$ 72,724$ 45.2% 7,885$ 80,117$ ‐$ 0.0% Related Benefits 709,248$ 495,076$ ‐$ 495,076$ 69.8% 111,281$ 102,891$ ‐$ 0.0%TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 2,219,920$ 1,507,137$ ‐$ 1,507,137$ 67.9% 328,454$ 384,329$ ‐$ 0.0% Travel 71,549$ 30,874$ ‐$ 30,874$ 0$ 6,000$ 34,675$ ‐$ 0.0% Operating Services 205,050$ 164,268$ 15,106$ 179,375$ 87.5% 13,265$ 12,410$ ‐$ 0.0% Supplies 61,995$ 41,556$ 633$ 42,189$ 68.1% 2,422$ 17,384$ ‐$ 0.0%TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 338,594$ 236,699$ 15,739$ 252,438$ 74.6% 21,687$ 64,469$ ‐$ 0.0%

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 492,530$ 222,340$ 124,378$ 346,719$ 70.4% 75,000$ 70,811$ ‐$ 0.0%‐$

DNA Testing Post‐Conviction 28,500$ 21,873$ ‐$ 21,873$ 76.7% 6,628$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% Indigent Parent Representation 980,680$ 980,680$ ‐$ 980,680$ 100.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% District Assistance 21,396,274$ 20,680,382$ ‐$ 20,680,382$ 96.7% 715,892$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% Contract Programs and LCLE Grant contracts 8,753,364$ 6,443,670$ 2,302,934$ 8,746,604$ 99.9% 6,759$ 1$ ‐$ 0.0%TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 31,158,818$ 28,126,605$ 2,302,934$ 30,429,539$ 97.7% 729,279$ 1$ ‐$ 0.0%

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY ‐$ 476$ ‐$ 476$ 0.0% 8,000$ (8,476)$ ‐$ 0.0%

INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS 139,839$ 115,625$ ‐$ 115,625$ 82.7% 1,780$ 22,434$ ‐$ 0.0%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 34,349,701$ 30,208,883$ 2,443,052$ 32,651,935$ 95.1% 1,164,199$ 533,567$ ‐$ 0.0%

EXCESS (OR DEFICIENCY) OF FINANCING OVER EXPENDITURES ‐$ 0$ ‐$ 0$ (1)$ 0$ ‐$

(384,329)$ 149,238$

AUTHORIZED FULL‐TIME EQUIVALENTS:Classified 8Unclassified 8

TOTAL POSITIONS (Salaries Regular) 16

Less Personal Services:Available for Reallocation

77



FY 2018 Budget YTD

Expenditures YTD

Encumbrances

Total Expended and

Encumbered

% of FY18 Budget

Proj



FY20

FY 2017 YTD Actual

% of FY17 Actual

2100 Salaries ‐ Classified ‐ Regular 424,133$ 341,933$ ‐$ 341,933$ 80.6% 69,600$ 12,600$ ‐$ 0.0%2110 Salaries ‐ Classified ‐ Overtime ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2120 Salaries ‐ Classified ‐ Termination ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2130 Salaries ‐ Unclassified ‐ Regular 925,813$ 589,498$ ‐$ 589,498$ 63.7% 139,688$ 196,627$ ‐$ 0.0%2150 Salaries ‐ Unclassified ‐ Termination ‐$ 7,906$ ‐$ 7,906$ 0.0% ‐$ (7,906)$ ‐$ 0.0%

Total Salaries 1,349,946$ 939,337$ ‐$ 939,337$ 69.6% 209,288$ 201,321$ ‐$ 0.0%

2200 Wages 136,390$ 68,044$ ‐$ 68,044$ 49.9% 5,885$ 62,461$ ‐$ 0.0%2210 Student Labor ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2220 Compensation of Board Members 24,336$ 4,680$ ‐$ 4,680$ 19.2% 2,000$ 17,656$ ‐$ 0.0%2260 Wages ‐ OT & Termination Pay ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

Total Other Compensation 160,726$ 72,724$ ‐$ 72,724$ 45.2% 7,885$ 80,117$ ‐$ 0.0%

2300Retirement Contributions ‐ State Employees 489,931$ 344,039$ ‐$ 344,039$ 70.2% 75,151$ 70,742$ ‐$ 0.0%

2320 Retirement Contributions ‐ Teachers 30,564$ 26,049$ ‐$ 26,049$ 85.2% 4,796$ (281)$ ‐$ 0.0%2345 Post Retirement Benefits 35,000$ 23,864$ ‐$ 23,864$ 68.2% 5,293$ 5,843$ ‐$ 0.0%2350 FICA Tax (OASDI) 1,509$ 295$ ‐$ 295$ 19.6% 232$ 981$ ‐$ 0.0%2360 Medicare Tax 21,405$ 13,839$ ‐$ 13,839$ 64.7% 5,762$ 1,804$ ‐$ 0.0%2370 Unemployment Benefits ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2380 Group Insurance 130,839$ 86,907$ ‐$ 86,907$ 66.4% 20,048$ 23,885$ ‐$ 0.0%2410 Tax Fringe Benefits ‐$ 84$ ‐$ 84$ ‐$ ‐$ (84)$ ‐$ 0.0%

Total Related Benefits 709,248$ 495,076$ ‐$ 495,076$ 4$ 111,281$ 102,891$ ‐$ 0.0%2,219,920$ 1,507,137$ ‐$ 1,507,137$ 67.9% 328,454$ 384,329$ ‐$ 0.0%

2500 In‐State Travel, Administrative ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

2510In‐State Travel, Conferences, Conventions, & Athletics 24,127$ 22,477$ ‐$ 22,477$ 93.2% 1,000$ 650$ ‐$ 0.0%

2520 In‐State Travel, Field Travel 15,000$ 1,507$ ‐$ 1,507$ 10.0% 1,100$ 12,393$ ‐$ 0.0%2530 In‐State Travel, Board Members 32,362$ 6,829$ ‐$ 6,829$ 21.1% 2,400$ 23,133$ ‐$ 0.0%2550 In‐State IT Travel/Training 60$ 60$ ‐$ 60$ 100.8% (0)$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2600 Out‐of‐State Travel, Administrative ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

2610Out‐of‐State Travel, Conferences, Conventions, & Athletics ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% 1,500$ (1,500)$ ‐$ 0.0%

2620 Out‐of‐State Travel, Field Travel ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2630 Out‐of‐State Travel, Board Members ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2650 Out‐of‐State IT Travel/Training ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

Total Travel 71,549$ 30,874$ ‐$ 30,874$ 43.2% 6,000$ 34,675$ ‐$ 0.0%

EXPENDITURES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES

78



FY 2018 Budget YTD

Expenditures YTD

Encumbrances

Total Expended and

Encumbered

% of FY18 Budget

Proj



FY20

FY 2017 YTD Actual

% of FY17 Actual

EXPENDITURES

2700 Advertising 1,000$ 38$ ‐$ 38$ 3.8% ‐$ 962$ ‐$ 0.0%2710 Printing 500$ 11$ ‐$ 11$ 2.2% ‐$ 489$ ‐$ 0.0%

2770Maintenance of Property & Equpment, Automotive Repairs 2,000$ 317$ ‐$ 317$ 15.9% ‐$ 1,683$ ‐$ 0.0%

2800 Maintenance of Equipment ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2810 Maintenance ‐ Janitorial ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

2820Maintenance of Data Processing Equipment ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

2825Maintenance of Data Processing Equipment, Software ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

2830 Rentals ‐ Buildings 120,500$ 108,498$ 9,957$ 118,455$ 98.3% 2,000$ 45$ ‐$ 0.0%2840 Rentals ‐ Equipment 14,000$ 3,558$ 4,404$ 7,962$ 56.9% 4,000$ 2,038$ ‐$ 0.0%2870 Rentals ‐ Other 31,000$ 27,301$ ‐$ 27,301$ 88.1% 250$ 3,449$ ‐$ 0.0%2875 Data Processing ‐ Licensing Software 7,000$ 4,944$ ‐$ 4,944$ 70.6% 1,245$ 811$ ‐$ 0.0%2880 Internet Provider Costs ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%2890 Dues & Subscriptions 17,000$ 11,593$ ‐$ 11,593$ 68.2% 2,160$ 3,247$ ‐$ 0.0%2900 Mail, Delivery, & Postage 50$ 20$ ‐$ 20$ 39.9% 10$ 20$ ‐$ 0.0%2910 Telephone Services 6,000$ 4,260$ 724$ 4,984$ 83.1% 2,000$ (984)$ ‐$ 0.0%2930 Other Communication Services 6,000$ 3,986$ ‐$ 3,986$ 66.4% 1,600$ 414$ ‐$ 0.0%3000 Other Operating Services, Misc. ‐$ (258)$ 21$ (237)$ 0.0% ‐$ 237$ ‐$ 0.0%

Total Operating Services 205,050$ 164,268$ 15,106$ 179,375$ 87.5% 13,265$ 12,410$ ‐$ 0.0%

3100 Office Supplies 8,224$ 1,287$ 501$ 1,788$ 21.7% 800$ 5,636$ ‐$ 0.0%3120 Operating Supplies, Computer 1,500$ 728$ ‐$ 728$ 48.6% 772$ (0)$ ‐$ 0.0%3140 Operating Supplies, Medical ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3150 Operating Supplies, Education 10,000$ 9,994$ ‐$ 9,994$ 99.9% ‐$ 6$ ‐$ 0.0%3160 Operating Supplies, Food 36,271$ 28,338$ 132$ 28,470$ 78.5% 450$ 7,351$ ‐$ 0.0%3170 Operating Supplies, Auto 1,000$ 400$ ‐$ 400$ 40.0% 400$ 200$ ‐$ 0.0%3180 Operating Supplies, Other 3,500$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ 3,500$ ‐$ 0.0%3200 Operating Supplies, Household ‐$ 9$ ‐$ 9$ 0.0% ‐$ (9)$ ‐$ 0.0%3300 Repair & Maintenance Supplies, Auto ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3310 Repair & Maintenance Supplies, Other ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3320 Software 1,500$ 801$ ‐$ 801$ 53.4% ‐$ 699$ ‐$ 0.0%

Total Supplies 61,995$ 41,556$ 633$ 42,189$ 68.1% 2,422$ 17,384$ ‐$ 0.0%338,594$ 236,699$ 15,739$ 252,438$ 74.6% 21,687$ 64,470$ ‐$ 0.0%

3400 Accounting & Auditing ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3410 Management Consulting ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3430 Legal 135,234$ 35,304$ 24,930$ 60,234$ 44.5% 75,000$ 0$ ‐$ 0.0%3460 Other Professional Services 96,296$ 16,320$ 9,165$ 25,485$ 26.5% ‐$ 70,811$ ‐$ 0.0%3470 Other Professional Services, Travel ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3480 IT Consulting 261,000$ 170,717$ 90,284$ 261,000$ 100.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

492,530$ 222,340$ 124,378$ 346,719$ 70.4% 75,000$ 70,811$ ‐$ 0.0%

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

79



FY 2018 Budget YTD

Expenditures YTD

Encumbrances

Total Expended and

Encumbered

% of FY18 Budget

Proj



FY20

FY 2017 YTD Actual

% of FY17 Actual

EXPENDITURES

3560 Aid to Local Governments 22,376,954$ 21,661,062$ ‐$ 21,661,062$ 96.8% 715,892$ (0)$ ‐$ 0.0%3650 Miscellaneous Charges ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3730 Other Charges, Supplies ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3735 Professional Service Travel 7,692$ 4,231$ 3,461$ 7,692$ 100.0% ‐$ 0$ ‐$ 0.0%3740 Other Charges, Professional Services 8,774,172$ 6,461,312$ 2,299,473$ 8,752,909$ 99.8% 21,263$ 0$ 1$ 875290917.0%3742 Contract Attorney ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%3744 Contract Expert ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

3750 Other Charges, Acquisitions/Major Repairs ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%31,158,818$ 28,126,605$ 2,302,934$ 30,421,663$ 97.6% 737,155$ 0$ 1$ ############

4440 Acquisitions ‐ Equipment ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4441 Equip <$1,000 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4450 Acquisitions ‐ Capital ‐ Software ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4451 Acquisitions ‐ Capital ‐ Hardware ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4454 Acquisitions ‐ Hardware ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4457 Acquisitions ‐ Hardware < $1,000 ‐$ 476$ ‐$ 476$ 0.0% 8,000$ (8,476)$ ‐$ 0.0%4472 Household <$1,000 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4490 Acquisitions ‐ Office Equipment ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4491 Capitalized Office Equipment ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

4492 Acquisitions ‐ Office Equipment <$1,000 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4512 Acquisitions ‐ Library < $1,000 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%

‐$ 476$ ‐$ 476$ ‐$ 8,000$ (8,476)$ ‐$ 0.0%

4900Interagency Transfers, Commodities & Services 84,273$ 68,469$ ‐$ 68,469$ 81.2% ‐$ 15,805$ ‐$ 0.0%

4960 Interagency Transfers, Printing 9,521$ 9,521$ ‐$ 9,521$ 100.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%4980 Interagency Transfers, Insurance 18,119$ 18,119$ ‐$ 18,119$ 100.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.0%5010 IAT‐Rentals ‐$ 1,075$ ‐$ 1,075$ 0.0% ‐$ (1,075)$ 5030 Interagency Transfers, Postage 2,819$ 2,123$ ‐$ 2,123$ 75.3% 80$ 616$ ‐$ 0.0%5040 Interagency Transfers, Telephone 14,028$ 5,241$ ‐$ 5,241$ 37.4% 1,700$ 7,087$ ‐$ 0.0%5045 Interagency Transfers, Technology 11,079$ 11,078$ ‐$ 11,078$ 100.0% ‐$ 1$

139,839$ 115,625$ ‐$ 115,625$ 82.7% 1,780$ 22,434$ ‐$ 0.0%

34,349,701$ 30,208,883$ 2,443,052$ 32,644,059$ 95.0% 1,172,075$ 533,568$ 1$ ############

Less Personal Services (384,329)$ 149,238$

Notes: The reallocation cost is an estimate.

INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS

TOTAL EXPENDITURES


TOTAL OTHER CHARGES

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY

80

LOUISIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARDDETAIL OF OTHER CHARGES

DESCRIPTIONFY 16‐17

EXPENDITURE BUDGET

YTD EXPENDITURES

YTD ENCUMBRANCES

PROJECTED EXPENDITURES

EXPEND, ENCUMB, & PROJECTED

EXPEND

AVAILABLE FOR REALLOCATION

Administrative (less Personal Services) 970,963 575,140 140,117 106,467 821,724 149,239

District Assistance 21,396,274 20,680,382 0 715,892 21,396,274 0Budget ‐ Contract Programs (11,575) (11,578) 9,113 (9,110) (11,575) (0)Contracts ‐ Baton Rouge Capital Conflict 1,110,009 832,507 277,502 0 1,110,009 0 Capital Appeals Project 1,110,009 832,507 277,502 0 1,110,009 0 Capital Defense Project of SE Louisiana 1,110,009 832,507 277,502 0 1,110,009 0 Capital Post‐Conviction Project of Louisiana ‐ EW Trial 250,000 187,500 62,500 0 250,000 0 Capital Post‐Conviction Project of Louisiana ‐ EW 250,000 187,500 62,500 0 250,000 0 Capital Post‐Conviction Project of Louisiana (OPER) 1,110,009 832,507 277,502 0 1,110,009 0 Innocence Project New Orleans 360,000 270,000 90,000 0 360,000 0 Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center 1,110,009 832,507 277,502 0 1,110,009 0 Louisiana Appellate Project (LAP Operations) 1,523,891 1,142,918 380,973 0 1,523,891 0 LA Center for Children's Rights (JRS) 460,000 345,000 115,000 0 460,000 0 Angola 5 296,003 100,665 195,338 0 296,003 0Total Contracts 8,678,364 6,384,539 2,302,935 0 (9,110) 8,678,364 (0)

Auditor ‐LCLE Grant 75,000 59,131 0 15,869 75,000 0DNA Testing Post‐Conviction 28,500 21,873 0 6,628 28,500 0Indigent Parent Representation 980,680 980,680 0 0 980,680 0

Total Other 1,084,180 1,061,683 0 0 22,497 1,084,180 0

TOTAL LA PUBLIC DEFENDER FUND ‐ OTHR CHRGS 31,158,818 28,126,604 2,302,935 0 729,279 31,158,818 149,239

PROJECTED BUDGET CUTS

81

Statutory deadlines/timeline for budget-related decisions and actions that may be considered by the Budget Committee for recommendation to the full Board in order to ensure a timely receipt and distribution of funds in an upcoming fiscal year, as follows: FEBRUARY 1st – Annual report to Legislature pursuant to 15:147B(4) and 180 due

OPB sends the document outlining LPDB’s budget recommendation MARCH 1st – Annual Financial Report to JLCB due 1st through the 15th - House Appropriations holds Agency Hearings (Scheduled in numerical order). LPDB is Dept 01, Agency (Schedule) 116 APRIL 1st – Districts Pro Forma Budgets the districts due. Regular Legislative session begins (date varies annually) Senate Finance usually begins Agency Hearings on the OPB adopted Executive Budget 15th – Office begins to identify contracts that can be reduced and encumbered funds that can be freed up for reallocation. 30th – Contracts amendments must be received in the state system for processing. Contracts and contract amounts must be approved by this date to ensure that FY18 contracts are approved before the new fiscal year begins. MAY 15th – Office continues to identify contracts that can be reduced and encumbered funds that can be freed up for reallocation. JUNE 1st – Per R.S. 15:185.3(B)(17), an unexpended balance letter of authorized expenditures is due to Governor, Legislative Auditor and Legislative Fiscal Officer. Reg. Legislative session ends 6 p.m (date varies annually) 15th – Office continues to identify contracts that can be reduced and encumbered funds that can be freed.

82

30th – Fiscal year end closes. JULY 1st – New Fiscal Year Begins. 1st – CAFR info due from OFSS to us to complete paperwork on notes to financial statements. Early Mid July - Budget is loaded and funds are available for distribution. * BA-7 for carry forwards—OPB informs the Budget Officer of the date the BA-7 needs to be submitted AUGUST Staff prepare division budget requests for next FY SEPTEMBER 1st – LPDB Division budget requests for next fiscal year are due to the Budget Officer for compilation. Mid-September (latest) —Board begins the discussion concerning the next FY’s budget. The budget submission date is sent to all agency’s from OPB. Budget submission date varies year to year. In 2016, the budget submission date was November 15. FY19’s deadline is October 16th. OCTOBER 31st – LaTrac budget information for last year actual, current year, and total request due NOVEMBER None. DECEMBER OPB officials meet with Commissioner of Administration to review agencys’ budget requests and make recommendations. * Note – BA-7s are submitted for approval to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget 16 working days prior to a scheduled JLCB meeting. Currently, the JLCB meets the third Friday of each month.

83

A B C D E F G

District

June 2017 Fund Balance (ACTUAL FY18 Starting FB per database)

Proj. MONTHLY Expenses in Excess of Revenues [Negative

number = growth]Proj FY18 YEAR END Balance using 12‐mo projection Feb 2018 data and June 17 FB

Expected number of months beyond June 30 the fund balance will last at current

fund balance growth or burn rates (neg # means likely shortfall in FY18)

Growth or Depletion of FY18 Starting Fund Balance by Year's End

Fund Balance Change Jul'17‐Jun'18 as a

proportion of FY17* Expenditures

28 11,233 10,643 (1,458) (0.14) (12,691) ‐6.7%

41 1,283,530 381,164 (429,421) (1.13) (1,712,952) ‐23.3%

8 37,528 14,417 1,310 0.09 (36,217) ‐13.7%11 ‐ 26,903 21,754 0.81 Co‐Op w/42nd n/a16 199,627 85,538 70,123 0.82 (129,504) ‐6.5%

34 66,774 29,748 18,387 0.62 (48,387) ‐9.6%

5 178,353 16,547 117,876 7.12 (60,477) ‐14.3%7 86,377 18,450 33,156 1.80 (53,221) ‐16.5%

10 134,178 18,640 126,926 6.81 (7,252) ‐1.6%18 312,869 17,210 255,091 14.82 (57,778) ‐7.6%

19 703,795 202,685 304,744 1.50 (399,051) ‐9.2%24 1,182,261 57,396 1,081,226 18.84 (101,035) ‐3.2%29 584,262 14,566 537,263 36.88 (47,000) ‐4.0%31 197,570 29,653 135,599 4.57 (61,971) ‐11.6%

36 94,834 7,715 75,412 9.77 (19,421) ‐5.3%42 491,473 10,729 412,474 38.44 (78,999) ‐17.9%

15 850,001 142,225 583,824 4.10 (266,177) ‐8.0%22 648,184 125,112 633,002 5.06 (15,182) ‐0.6%27 281,045 31,846 275,974 8.67 (5,072) ‐0.5%

35 102,579 11,350 98,959 8.72 (3,620) ‐1.5%13 11,296 16,413 13,209 0.80 1,914 0.7%37 26,473 9,572 42,505 4.44 16,032 9.7%4 618,521 66,548 651,192 9.79 32,671 1.6%17 213,474 31,225 233,374 7.47 19,900 2.1%1 288,529 143,348 309,342 2.16 20,813 0.7%12 63,737 13,232 85,039 6.43 21,302 6.0%25 131,299 13,897 153,337 11.03 22,037 7.5%9 235,364 35,144 281,673 8.01 46,309 4.3%26 631,596 71,929 686,771 9.55 55,176 3.2%

33 75,617 3,873 132,673 34.25 57,056 22.7%23 208,814 29,368 274,243 9.34 65,429 6.5%6 233,969 3,115 301,021 96.64 67,052 12.0%39 11,086 8,077 84,159 10.42 73,073 57.9%21 457,340 128,495 568,235 4.42 110,894 3.6%30 235,079 4,350 370,207 85.10 135,128 23.2%40 232,927 1,280 409,428 319.84 176,501 21.4%20 208,990 4,415 406,726 92.12 197,736 77.0%32 513,821 23,115 742,607 32.13 228,785 19.4%14 715,005 34,814 1,492,831 42.88 777,826 37.4%2 334,992 (2,473) 430,769 (174.19) 95,776 25.5%3 337,515 (1,039) 495,092 (476.43) 157,577 28.3%38 178,351 (1,404) 195,195 (139.07) 16,843 23.4%

May 1, 2018 Solvency Projections for FY18 (Using March 2018 Data, includes March 1.7% State DAF Year‐End Contingency Payment and Final CINC payment)

[Note: We have received no reports of significant increases in expenditures due to Miller/Montgomery cases. Such expenses could affect these projections should they be paid before July 1, 2018 and therefore ending fund balances might be reduced. ]

Districts in dark green show growth (i.e., numbers in parentheses) from local revenues even without considering state funding; pale green shows growth at least partly due to accrual of state funds yet clearly require some state funding to avoid partial depletion of fund balances; districts in yellow show a depletion in fund balances (therefore show dependence upon fund balances to maintain current levels of service); districts in orange are also depleting, but dangerously close to falling short;

districts in red are likely to fall short before June 30, 2018 pending some intervention.

84

1

Anne Gwin

From: James DixonSent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:36 AMTo: Anne GwinSubject: FW: DAF FY18

Here is Herman’s email.

From: Herman Castete [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 7:39 PM To: James Dixon <[email protected]> Subject: Re: DAF FY18 As per our conversation on this date ,we should end May 2018 with about $5000.00 in the bank. We would need $40000.00 to ensure that we can be solvent through July 31, 2018. This would cover us in case the DAF is not deposited in July. If you need any further information please advise and i will supply same. Herman Castete. 8th JDC Defender. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 27, 2018, at 2:29 PM, James Dixon <[email protected]> wrote:

Herman, We have been tracking the fund balance in the 8th for the past few months. You had mentioned earlier this year that you might be in need of exigency DAF funds to make it to next year. Is that still the case? If so, please let us know how much you believe you will need in additional funding. Thank you, Jay Dixon James T. Dixon, Jr. State Public Defender 301 Main Street, Suite 700 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 (225) 219‐9305

85

1

Anne Gwin

From: James DixonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 10:17 AMTo: Erik Stilling; Anne GwinSubject: Fwd: DAF FY18

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

Categories: ANNE-FOLLOW UP

Please note Mr. Chapman's request for exigency funds.

James T. Dixon, Jr. State Public Defender Louisiana Public Defender Board 301 Main Street, Suite 700 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 (225) 219-9305

From: Alex Chapman <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:06:56 AM To: James Dixon Subject: Re: DAF FY18 For our Internal purposes, we run our FY from July‐July. We currently need $23,000 per month for operations of 13th JDC Indigent Program. We use DAF received in August to cover our August expenditures. My best estimate is that with our current General Funds Balance & anticipated Local Funding( Sheriff, VP City Court & Probation & Parole monies),we will come up $5,500 short to cover our July 2018 expenditures. I will keep you informed on the status of our Finances as we approach July. It may be necessary to request additional funds from LPDB to finish "our" FY. I will advise. TY On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Alex Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: I will review and get back with ya'll. The FY 2019 figures for 13th JDC look very good. TY for all of the hard work that you do internally. Sonny On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:40 PM, James Dixon <[email protected]> wrote:

Sonny,

Erik sent you a solvency projection last month which indicated you might be in the need for assistance from exigency funds. I have attached the most recent projections. Please review and determine whether they match your local figures. If you believe you do need funds to make it through to the next fiscal year, please make a formal request for

86

2

additional DAF funds. Feel free to call me or Erik, should you need to discuss the matter further or have any questions about the projections.

Sincerely,

Jay Dixon

James T. Dixon, Jr.

State Public Defender

301 Main Street, Suite 700

Baton Rouge, LA 70825

(225) 219‐9305

87

1

Anne Gwin

From: James DixonSent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:36 AMTo: Anne GwinSubject: FW: 16th JDC FinancialsAttachments: 16 th JDC FNANCIAL BREAKDOWN.docx

Here is Tony Champagne’s email.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:43 PM To: James Dixon <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: 16th JDC Financials Jay: In March of this year the office had a bit of a boost in funding. Some was from the additional amount in DAF and CINC money and a little bit of a jump from the District Courts. I have added projections for May through July. It now looks like the District will make June by a very slim margin of $2,884.98. If the DAF funds do not come in in July, the District will be short for that month in the amount of $88,477.03. This is derived simply by taking the ending cash balance at the end of April and projecting what has been the average of monthly income and expenses for the current fiscal year though February. If you have any questions please give me a call. Tony Champagne 985 873‐6831

88

16 th JDC FNANCIAL BREAKDOWN JUNE 2017 REVENUE 106,807.65 CONFLICT 25,971.16 EXPENSES 166,016.52 ‐59,208.65 BEGINNING BALANCE 272,194.32 ENDING BALANCE 199,627.04 JULY 2017 REVENUE 82,107.28 CONFLICT 12,361.54 EXPENSES 148,971.60 ‐66,864.32 BEGINNING BALANCE 217,812.93 ENDING BALANCE 1,000,975.82 AUGUST 2017 REVENUE 91,529.05 CONFLICT 32,407.69 EXPENSES 188,603.87 ‐97,074.82 BEGINNING BALANCE 1,020,680.77 ENDING BALANCE 868,552.02 SEPTEMBER 2017 REVENUE 59,089.16 CONFLICT 17,269.18 EXPENSES 223,755.48 ‐164,666.32 (INCLUDES 3 PAY PERIODS) BEGINNING BALANCE 889,279.91 ENDING BALANCE 753,195.74 OCTOBER 2017 REVENUE 72,187.05 CONFLICT 18,633.33 EXPENSES 152,813.49 ‐80,626.44 BEGINNING BALANCE 783,852.91 ENDING BALANCE 670,908.09 NOVEMBER 2017 REVENUE 55,134.97 CONFLICT 12,083.53 EXPENSES 148,287.10 ‐93,152.13 BEGINNING BALANCE 696,839.60 ENDING BALANCE 565,751.98 DECEMBER 2017 REVENUE 81,732.64 CONFLICT 16,576.35 EXPENSES 157,231.85 ‐75,499.21 BEGINNING BALANCE 578,512.62 ENDING BALANCE 494,854.81 JANUARY 2018 REVENUE 89,338.79 CONFLICT 15,661.23 EXPENSES 146,654.86 ‐57,316.00 BEGINNING BALANCE 522,376.63 ENDING BALANCE 432,488.94

89

FEBRUARY 2018 REVENUE 49,847.25 CONFLICT 13,250.60 EXPENSES 145,544.44 ‐95,697.19 BEGINNING BALANCE 464,492.88 ENDING BALANCE 337,210.25 TOTAL CONFLICT COST FOR 8 MONTHS 138,243.25 AVERAGE PER MONTH 17,280.41 12 MONTH TOTAL COST 207,364.92 4 MONTH TOTAL COST 69,121.64 TOTAL DEFECIT FOR 8 MONTHS 730,896.00 AVERAGE DEFECIT PER MONTH 91,362.05 4 MONTH PROJECTED DEFECIT 365,448.00 BALANCE AT THE END OF FEBRURY 2018 337,210.25 TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 8 MONTHS 1,311,862.69 MONTHLY EXPENSE AVERAGE 163,982.84 4 MONTHS PROJECTED EXPENSES 655,931.36 April ending cash balance 185,609.00 May starting balance 185,609.00 Average local monthly income 72,620.83 Average monthly expenses 163,982.84 Estimated ending balance 94,246.99 June starting balance 94,246.84 Average local monthly income 72,620.83 Average monthly expenses 163,982.84 Estimated ending balance 2,884.98

90

July starting balance 2,884.98 Average local monthly income 72,620.83 Average monthly expenses 163,982.84 Estimated ending balance ‐88,477.03

91

Revenues District 19 CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 CY2017 CY2018 (thru April)$40 Indigent Defense Application Fees [as per 15:175 A (1)(f)] 144,546 147,087 159,638 104,302 56,950 20,375 Criminal Bond Fees [$2 per bonded case as per 15:85.1] and Surety Bond 466,755 454,883 565,026 453,488 450,565 160,899 Judicial District Courts 970,554 977,418 962,672 913,475 711,563 167,368 Juvenile Court 20,097 10,870 15,653 17,726 13,837 2,806 Mayor's Court ($35 Special Court Costs for Mayor's Court Only)Municipal Court 1,912,457 1,845,114 1,638,363 1,226,283 726,686 270,187 Other Reimbursements 48,235 80,717 184,609 7,667 Partial Attorney Fees Reimbursements [as per 15:176] 123,013 117,599 137,826 128,998 94,103 33,635 Traffic Court 3,080 2,223 3,455 3,041 3,171 770

EBR Recent Trends in Revenue Streams CY13-18 YTD

In EBR, the major revenue streams (Municipal Court, Judicial District Court and Criminal Bond Fees) are shown in the graph on the left. They show a major decrease in Municipal Court receipts , a slight decrease in District Court receipts and almost stable Criminal Court Fees.

The graph on the right shows the minor revenue streams. It shows a notable rate of decline in Partial attorneys Reinbursements, and serious decline in Application Fees. Other Reimbursements and Mayor's Courts Fees receipts plummet starting in CY15. Juvenile and Traffic Courts revenue streams are more or less stable but very minor contributors

to the overall reveniues of the District.

These charts exclude data from CY18 because the year is not yet complete as of this writing (5.16.18).

‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 CY2017

CY13‐17 EBR's Major Revenue Streams:JDC, Bond Fees and Muni Ct

Criminal Bond Fees [$2 per bonded case as per 15:85.1] and Surety Bond Licensing Fees [per 22:822B]

Judicial District Courts

Municipal Court

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 CY2017

CY13‐17 EBR's Minor Revenue Streams:Apps Feees, Traffic, Mayor's & Juv Ct, Other

Reimbursements

$40 Indigent Defense Application Fees [as per 15:175 A (1)(f)]

Juvenile Court

Mayor's Court ($35 Special Court Costs for Mayor's Court Only)

Other Reimbursements

Partial Attorney Fees Reimbursements [as per 15:176]

Traffic Court

96

LaSalle Parish Public Defender’s Office 3170 N. First Street ● PO Box 13 ● Jena, LA 71342

Phone (318) 992-0881 ● Fax (318) 992-0887

Derrick Carson Judy Pugh Chief IDB Office Administrator

May 2, 2018 James T. Dixon, Jr. State Public Defender 301 Main Street, Suite 700 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 RE: Additional funds for the 28th Judicial District Public Defender Office LaSalle Parish Dear Mr. Dixon: I am writing to inform you and the State Public Defender Board that the 28th Judicial District Public Defender Office will need additional funding to make it through the end of the fiscal year. At present it looks that we will a deficit of approximately $11,000. Due to cases coming up that have conflicts and regular monthly expenditures it will take an additional $15,000.00 to get through the end of June. Very truly yours, Derrick Carson

97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DIST # t Recommended Emergency Disbursal

April 2018

Recommended Disbursal of remainder of 5% Funds

Distributed Pro Rata per current FY18 distribution method

Total Recommended for Disbursal (May 2018)

Total 5% Supplemental DAF to be disbursed by end of FY18: $1,073,784

District Pro Rata Portion of original DAF disbursal July 2017

1 16,410.95 16,410.95 1/3 Disbursed March 2018 357,892.20 7.9%2 599.27 599.27 Remaining 2/3 Suppl'tal DAF 715,891.80 0.3%3 1,277.47 1,277.47 Recommended Emergency Total 507,089.03 0.6%4 7,638.50 7,638.50 Remaining Pro Rata 208,802.77 3.7%5 5,500 1,235.31 6,735.31 Year to Date Balance ‐ 0.6%6 1,004.62 1,004.62 0.5%7 1,620.16 1,620.16 0.8%8 40,000 1,348.08 41,348.08 0.6%9 4,275.20 4,275.20 2.0%

10 2,102.67 2,102.67 1.0%11 3,244.92 3,244.92 1.6%12 1,777.48 1,777.48 0.9%13 1,893.05 1,893.05 0.9%14 11,296.02 11,296.02 5.4%15 13,349.86 13,349.86 6.4%16 88,477 8,646.85 97,123.88 4.1%17 3,630.70 3,630.70 1.7%18 1,384.75 1,384.75 0.7%19 358,112 20,011.00 378,123.00 9.6%

20 2,486.21 2,486.21 1.2%21 15,428.06 15,428.06 7.4%

22 13,705.00 13,705.00 6.6%

23 3,982.83 3,982.83 1.9%

24 5,309.78 5,309.78 2.5%

25 1,855.83 1,855.83 0.9%

26 8,559.80 8,559.80 4.1%

27 3,604.28 3,604.28 1.7%

28 15,000 1,137.07 16,137.07 0.5%29 1,214.22 1,214.22 0.6%30 1,762.90 1,762.90 0.8%31 2,790.68 2,790.68 1.3%32 4,512.79 4,512.79 2.2%33 1,002.00 1,002.00 0.5%34 2,920.81 2,920.81 1.4%35 1,281.07 1,281.07 0.6%36 625.57 625.57 0.3%37 1,285.31 1,285.31 0.6%38 ‐ ‐ 0.0%39 1,679.91 1,679.91 0.8%40 1,880.79 1,880.79 0.9%41 28,600.67 28,600.67 13.7%42 430.37 430.37 0.2%

Total 507,089.03 208,802.77 715,891.80 100.0%

May 2018 Recommended Final 2/3 of Year End Disbursals of 5% Contingency DAF

98

BATON ROUGE CAPITAL CONFLICT OFFICE

KYLA BLANCHARD-ROMANACH 525 FLORIDA STREET EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUITE 310 BATON ROUGE, LA 70801 TELEPHONE: (225)338-0235 FAX: (225) 338-1948

April 8, 2018 Ms. Jean Faria Louisiana Public Defender Board 301 Main Street, Suite 700 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Re: Contract FY 2018- Reporting Requirements Dear Ms. Faria: In accordance with LPDB’s request that we comply with the proposed contract amendments for the fiscal year 2019, I am providing the following report regarding the work provided by the Baton Rouge Capital Conflict Office for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017- March 31, 2018). In the first three quarters of FY 2018, the Baton Rouge Capital Conflict Office exceeded the hours required under the contract by more than 5 percent in 3 of the service categories. We were not under the hours required by the contract by more than 5 percent in any category. CATEGORY HOURS

REQUIRED HOURS WORKED

DIFFERENCE PERCENTAGE

Lead Counsel 2,550 3,330.75 +780.75 30.6% Associate Counsel

3,825 3,889.25 +64.25 1.7%

Mitigation Specialist

2,550 2,941.25 +391.25 15.3%

Fact Investigator 2,550 2,789.75 +239.75 9.4% Office Manager 1,125 1106.5 -18.5 -1.6% Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Kyla Blanchard-Romanach

99

L O U I S I A N A C A P I T A L A S S I S T A N C E C E N T E R

6 3 6 B A R O N N E S T R E E T N E W O R L E A N S L O U I S I A N A 7 0 1 1 3

P H O N E : + 1 ( 5 0 4 ) 5 5 8 - 9 8 6 7 F A X : + 1 ( 5 0 4 ) 5 5 8 - 0 3 7 8

Louisiana

Capital

Assistance

Center A Non-Profit Law Office

Month of Report: February, 2018

Monthly Report of Quantum of Work Pursuant to Contract

Pursuant to Clause IV of our contract for criminal defense services, the table below contains a list of the total hours of work performed under the contract for each category

of staff position described in the staffing plan, as amended on February 1, 2018. The quantum of work required under the contract is satisfied by annual hours of work equal to or

greater than ninety-five percent of the annual hours budgeted in the staffing plan. Caution should be taken in interpreting figures for an individual month as the contract is based

upon annual service delivery and monthly figures can be expected to fluctuate due to factors including case demands, staffing levels, leave and cost control measures.

Expected

Monthly

Hours

2017-07 2017-08 2017-09 2017-10 2017-11 2017-12 2018-01 2018-02 2018-03 2018-04 2018-05 2018-06 FY

Total

% of

Expected

YTD

% of Total

for FY

Lead

counsel 464 204 454 587 725 516 482 595 442 573 0 0 0 5044 110% 91%

Associate

Counsel 143 219 135 122 194 144 141 151 157 194 0 0 0 1599 113% 93%

Junior

Counsel 255 48 255 372 415 346 306 334 209 273 0 0 0 2813 111% 92%

Mitigation

Specialist 638 719 960 914 1050 677 669 755 653 745 0 0 0 7781 125% 102%

Paralegal 241 239 290 287 220 211 203 227 229 215 0 0 0 2362 98% 82%

Manager 85 178 194 178 164 165 129 157 128 190 0 0 0 1568 194% 154%

102

GEN. FUND STAT. DED.I.A.T. SELF-GEN. T.O.I.E.B. FEDERAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION

01_116


ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING OPERATING BUDGET

SIFO 3

16$34,274,701$0 $75,000 $25,537 $0 $0 $34,375,238 Existing Oper Budget as of 12/01/17

A. STATEWIDE STANDARDS

$0 $0 0$5,954$0 $0 $0 $5,954 2% General Increase Annualization Classified

$0 $0 0$10,293$0 $0 $0 $10,293 2% General Increase Annualization Unclassified

$0 $0 0$19,603$0 $0 $0 $19,603 Market Rate Classified

$0 $0 0$29,702$0 $0 $0 $29,702 Related Benefits Base Adjustment

$0 $0 0$32,400$0 $0 $0 $32,400 Acquisitions & Major Repairs

$0 $0 0($339,353)$0 $0 $0 ($339,353) Non-recurring Carryforwards

$0 $0 0$12,138$0 $0 $0 $12,138 Risk Management

$0 $0 0$4,950$0 $0 $0 $4,950 Rent in State-Owned Buildings

$0 $0 0$66$0 $0 $0 $66 UPS Fees

$0 $0 0($151)$0 $0 $0 ($151) Civil Service Fees

$0 $0 0($1,077)$0 $0 $0 ($1,077) Office of Technology Services (OTS)

$0 $0 0($9,328)$0 $0 $0 ($9,328) Office of State Procurement

$0 ($25,000) 0$1,571,812($25,537) $0 $0 $1,521,275 TOTAL OTHER ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTMENT

$0 $50,000 $0 $35,611,710 $0 $0 $35,661,710 16 Total Budget

$0 ($25,000) ($25,537) $1,337,009 $0 $0 $1,286,472 0 Total Adjustments

B. AGENCY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

01_116 Louisiana Public Defender Board

0 LA Defender Board -A reduction in the Juvenile Immersion Grantreceived from Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement.

$0 ($25,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($25,000)

0 LA Defender Board -Increases funding to resume hosting regulartrainings and onsite visits to ensure the districts are being fiscally andethically responsible.

$0 $0 $0 $79,436 $0 $0 $79,436

Page 1 of 21/10/2018 14:55:49im_budrec_mssql

106

GEN. FUND STAT. DED.I.A.T. SELF-GEN. T.O.I.E.B. FEDERAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION

01_116


ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING OPERATING BUDGET

SIFO 3

B. AGENCY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

01_116 Louisiana Public Defender Board

0 LA Defender Board -Increasing funds to get representation for theMiller Clients that may be eligible for parole.

$0 $0 $0 $1,340,000 $0 $0 $1,340,000

0 LA Defender Board -Non-recur budget authority to receive ArnoldFoundation Grant in order to develop an equitable, transparent, andreplicable District Assistance Fund Formula for distribution of theannual state appropriation out of the Louisiana Public Defender Fund.

$0 $0 ($25,537) $0 $0 $0 ($25,537)

0 LA Defender Board -One-time upgrade of the Case ManagementSystem used to complete daily duties.

$0 $0 $0 $26,100 $0 $0 $26,100

0 LA Defender Board -Reduces donation of funds to the agency to beutilized as contribution to the Indigent Parent Representation ProgramFund, which served as a pass-through to public defender districts insupport of Child in Need of Care (CINC) cases.

$0 $0 $0 ($1,000) $0 $0 ($1,000)

0 LA Defender Board -This funding is to analayze data collected andbuild an expert witness database system to automate the entireprocess associated with the expert witness requests.

$0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000

0 LA Defender Board -This is to cover the auditing function provided byDOA to fulfill the requirements of R.S. 36:8.2.

$0 $0 $0 $27,276 $0 $0 $27,276

TOTAL OTHER ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTMENTS0$1,521,275$0 ($25,000) ($25,537) $1,571,812 $0 $0

TOTAL AGENCY SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENTS0$0 ($25,000) ($25,537) $1,571,812 $0 $0 $1,521,275

Page 2 of 21/10/2018 14:55:49im_budrec_mssql

107

1

Anne Gwin

From: James DixonSent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 12:04 PMTo: [email protected]: ExecutiveStaffSubject: FW: 24% Reduction

Darrilyn, We will begin with the smallest fund, DNA Testing Post‐Conviction Relief for Indigents: reduction of $6,840. This would limit the number of DNA tests available for post‐convictions, statewide. This is essentially a pass‐through fund. After having found a legal basis and belief that a DNA test might go to the guilt or innocence of a client, Courts order DNA testing in a post‐conviction matter. Once that fund is exhausted, testing would end. This could cause delays in litigation and result in wrongfully convicted inmates remaining incarcerated, at a costs to the state and judicial system. This would be the least impactful. Indigent Parent Representation Program Fund: reduction of $235,123 The full amount of $978,680 covers only about one‐fourth of these costs statewide. The other three‐quarters of the costs fall on the individual districts. The additional cut would be assumed by the districts, as well. The problem arises when combined with the Louisiana Public Defender Fund reduction of $8,289,634. If that reduction is imposed, most of the districts would fall into restriction of services and have to stop accepting certain cases for which the office has responsibility. The districts have a constitutional duty to handle criminal matters. The Indigent Parent Representation Program imposes only a statutory duty. That means most districts might feel compelled to stop indigent parent representation once that fund runs out. For most districts, this would be sometime in August. That is when the real problems arise. There are millions of dollars in federal funds that could be jeopardized should representation of indigent parents cease. With an $8 million cut to district funding, most districts would no longer have the funds necessary to assume the funding of more than 75% of indigent parent funding out of their budget. Louisiana Public Defender Fund: reduction of $8,289,634 To assess the impact of this reduction, one has to take into account the provisions of Act 571 of the 2016 Regular Session. It required that 65% of all funds in the Louisiana Public Defender Fund be allocated to the districts. That means the districts would bear the brunt of 65% of the aforementioned reduction, or $5,388,262. At the time Act 571 was passed, there were 14 districts in fiscal crisis. The net result of the Act was an increase of almost $5 million to the districts. The reduction suggested would eliminate that increase in funds and place them at the same precarious position in which they found themselves in FY16. The immediate impact would be the financial collapse of the district defender offices in the 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge), 41st (Orleans), 1st (Caddo), 15th (Lafayette/Acadia/Vermillion), and 16th (St. Mary/St. Martin/Iberia). The following districts would be in severe distress, but might be able to make it through the fiscal year: 21st (Livingston/Tangipahoa/St. Helena), 13th (Evangeline), 8th (Winn), 28th (LaSalle), 34th (St. Bernard), 37th (Caldwell) Judicial Districts. Additional districts that could face fiscal crisis in the coming year are the 7th (Catahoula/Concordia), 12th (Avoyelles). While the remaining districts may be able to make it through the next fiscal year without collapse, all would be adversely affected by the cut and most would have to adjust the public defender services they provide to absorb the loss in funding. The largest districts would be in restriction of services, as would many smaller ones. Litigation against the Louisiana Public Defender Board, Governor, and State Public Defender would be greatly aided by this cut in funding, as its basis is the shortage of funding for defense in Louisiana’s criminal defense system.

108

2

The second impact of this cut would be the $2,901,372 reduction in administrative services. We are already experiencing a restriction of services in capital litigation. There are currently 12 people accused of capital crimes and potentially facing the death penalty that do not have counsel. This is because the extra $5 million increase to the districts arising from Act 571 came primarily from reductions to capital representation. An additional cut would result in a freeze in capital representation. All new death penalty cases would stop and the state would be barred from moving forward, as there will be no funding to pay for additional capital defense attorneys. Further, the cases that are presently being litigation would be stopped, as funds for expert witnesses would dry up, as well as the funding necessary to handle the live cases that exits. To summarize, the cut suggested would lead to a collapse of the indigent defense system and, in turn, the criminal justice system. I am more than willing to supplement this email or speak to the impact such a cut would have on indigent defense. Sincerely, Jay Dixon James T. Dixon, Jr. State Public Defender 301 Main Street, Suite 700 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 (225) 219‐9305

From: Natashia Carter Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:02 AM To: James Dixon <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 24% Reduction FYI for FY 19.... They need a response by noon. Get Outlook for iOS

From: Darrilyn Favorite <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:43:19 AM To: Natashia Carter Subject: 24% Reduction Natashia, We’ve been told that they’re trying to do a 24% reduction to general fund which will impact the Indigent Parent Representation Program Fund, Louisiana Public Defender Fund, and the DNA Testing Post‐Conviction Relief for Indigents Fund. Indigent Parent Representation Program Fund: Reduction of $235,123 Louisiana Public Defender Fund: reduction of $8,289,634 DNA Testing Post‐Conviction Relief for Indigents Fund: Reduction of $6,840 Can you please tell me what the impact would be to the agency ASAP. I need it by noon please.

109

3

Thanks, Darrilyn Favorite State Budget Management Analyst Division of Administration Office of Planning and Budget Telephone: (225) 342- 7040 Email: [email protected]

110

DAF Proposal May 8, 2018 per Hybrid Formula including $1,340,000 set aside for Miller/Montgomery Cases and 5% for Contingencies/Yr‐End Disbursal

P&N/PDAL i2B Hybrid Formula Methodology with Miller/Montgomery $1.3M Set Aside

Assess Solvency of each district based on initial disbursement: Combine expected local revenues (Col. 5) with estimated FY19 Starting Fund Balance (Col. 7) and the initial DAF disbursal (Col. 4) and then subtract the Projected Annual Expenditures (Col. 6). The results are each district's FY19 Projected Ending Fund Balance (Col. 9). Negative numbers indicate likely shortfall before June 2019. (Projected Expenditures were based on FY17 Expenditures as suggested by the DDs at the EBR meeting except Districts 1, 8, 15, 17 and 40 which were made in consultation w/ the DD.) [Note that EBR's in‐house estimates of FY18 local revenues are about $550K lower than the $2.32M projected for this analysis.]

Derive total for disbursal to districts: For the purposes of this exercise, we assume the total appropriation for the Louisiana Public Defender Fund will be the $34,603,230 proposed in HB1 (reengrossed as of 5.1.18 but SUBJECT TO CHANGE). In keeping with the Governor's wishes, set aside $1,340,000 of the total $34.6M specifically for assistance to those districts with Miller/Montgomery cases. The remaining $21,621,100 will be the DAF amount to be disbursed per the P&N/PDAL i2 Hybrid Formula. (The method by which the $1.34M is to be disbursed to districts with Miller/Montgomery cases has not yet been established by the Board as of 5.1.18.)Derive total for Initial July 85% Disbursal per the Hybrid Formula: From the $21.6M DAF set aside 5% for contingencies or if not needed, for year‐end disbursal pro rata to all districts ($1,081,055); set aside for the small districts 5% for fund balance maintenance and enhancements per PDAL i2B Plan ($1,081,055); set aside 5% for Big Districts for Solvency and Pro Rata disbursal for fund balance enhancements per PDAL i2B Plan ($1,081,055); The resulting 85% is $18,377,935 which is to be disbursed immediately upon receipt of funds from DoA in July per the Steps below.

Derive each District's pro rata percentage of P&N Original Disbursal per P&N Plan: Divide the DAF amount proposed by P&N for each district (Col. 2) into the total proposed for disbursal by P&N (see cell B45) to derive each district's P&N pro rata percentage (Col. 3) of the July disbursal amount (Step 2).

Derive each district's Initial July Disbursal amount: Multiply each district's P&N pro rata percentage (Col. 3) by the Initial 85% July Disbursal Amount (i.e., $18.377M) to determine the amount each district initially receives of the 85% (Col. 4).

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Determine Total Enhanced DAF Hybrid Amount (includes any amount needed for Basic Solvency as well as pro rata Fund Balance Enhancement): Big Districts' Final Enhanced DAF Hybrid Amount (Col. 15) for July Disbursal represents the total of the initial DAF amount (Col. 4) plus the amount needed for solvency for each shortfalling Big District (Col. 12) and the pro rata disbursal of the remainder (Col. 14) of the $1,081,055 after all districts are assured solvency.

Step 10 ‐ Big Districts Only

After the July 95% Disbursal of $20,540,045 there would remain $1.081M for contingencies/Yr‐end disbursal AND $1.34M for Miller/Montgomery expenses to be disbursed per Board Policy TBD

Divide Districts into Big and Small Groups: Per the PDAL plan, districts were sorted in to "Big" and "Small" districts. The Big Districts' district numbers in Column 1 are shaded in grey (Small Districts, no shading).

Derive each district's Projected FY19 Ending Fund Balance as a proportion of its annual expenditure: Divide the FY19 Ending Fund Balance (Col. 9) into the Estimated Annual Expenditure (Col. 6) resulting in a percentage. If white cell color in Column 10, the ending balance is less than 20%, or less than about 2 months. If yellow it is 20‐50%, or about 2‐6 months. If red, it is between about 6 months and one year. If purple, it is more than one year's worth of fund balance.

Derive the Amount needed for Fund Balance Maintenance and Enhancement: Using the 5% ($1,081,055) set aside for Small Districts per the PDAL plan, a target fund balance amount was determined by trial‐and‐error considering what percentage of the Projected Annual Expenditure could be reached using the entire $1,081,055 set aside for this purpose. To do this, any district with a projected FY19 Ending Fund Balance already at or above the target would receive no additional enhancement. Districts below this target would receive enough additional DAF to bring the Ending FY19 Fund Balance up to the target (Col. 12). The target was determined to be 33.63145% (roughly 4 months of expenditures).Determine total July DAF Amount including Maintenance and Enhancements: Add the initial DAF amount (Col. 4) to the Maintenance & Enhancement Amount (Col. 12) to derive the final total DAF amount for each small district (Col.15) labelled Final Enhanced DAF Hybrid Amount.

Derive the Amount Needed for Basic Solvency among Districts with negative FY19 Ending Fund Balances: Using the 5% ($1,081,055) set aside for Big Districts, the first portion of these funds was used to keep all districts solvent. If Column 9 is a negative number, this is the additional DAF amount (Col. 12) needed by that district to reach bare‐bones solvency, with an estimated Zero ending fund balance. This requires an estimated $705,883 of the $1,081,055 set aside. The leaves a residual of $375,172 for pro rata disbursal to all Big Districts for Fund Balance enhancement.Determine the Pro Rata Portion of the remainder of the 5% Set Aside for Big Districts: Collectively, the Big Districts received $15,226,483 in the Initial disbursal calculus (Step 4), and each Big District's individual DAF amount (Col. 4) was converted to a pro rata percentage (Col. 13 ) of the Big Districts' collective total $15.22M. This percentage was multiplied by the remaining $375,172 (from the $1,081,055 set aside for this purpose) to derive the Big District Pro Rata Portion of that remaining $375K. The resulting pro rata amount for Big Districts is listed in Column 14.

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8‐ Small

Step 9 ‐ Small

Step 8 ‐ Big

Step 9 ‐ Big

111


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

DistrictOriginal Proposed P&N Amounts

District pro rata % of P&N Original Disbursal

85% amount to be disbursed initially

in July

CY17 MOST RECENT Local Revenues

Projected Expends Based on FY17 (except 1, 8, 17, 40 estimated by DD; 15th estimated using higher recent

spending upon notice from DD )

FY19 Starting FB estimated in Feb

2018 (Feb'17‐Jan'18 data) [If current projection is

negative, assume zero]

Estimated Starting FB as a Percentage of Annual Expends

FY19 Projected Ending Fund Balance

Ending FB as Proportion of

Annual Expends

Small Districts FB Target 33.63145%

Portion of Big & Small 5% for solvency (FB Maintenance) & FB Enhancement to

33.63145% for Smalls

Big District pro rata % of total 15,226,483 to Big Districts

Big District Pro rata portion of remaining $375,172

Final Enhanced DAF Hybrid Amount w/

$1.34M Miller/Mont'y Set

Aside

Final Ending FB after Enhancement

Final Ending FB as % of annual expends after Enhancement

FY18 Actual DAF @95%

FY19 Hybrid Plan Demo Amounts

from Apr. 2018 Bd Mtg

Difference from Bd Mtg Demo Amount to Miller/Monty Set‐

Aside Amt

1 1,769,722 8.7% 1,597,178 1,317,133 3,140,000 292,541 9.3% 66,853 2.1% 10.5% 39,354 1,636,532 106,207 3.4% 1,769,722 1,617,918 18,6144 806,914 4.0% 728,242 1,457,953 2,106,726 714,782 33.9% 794,252 37.7% 4.8% 17,943 746,185 812,195 38.6% 806,914 737,698 8,4879 468,306 2.3% 422,647 662,210 1,089,064 261,417 24.0% 257,211 23.6% 2.8% 10,414 433,061 267,625 24.6% 468,306 428,135 4,926

14 986,143 4.8% 889,996 1,625,211 2,080,230 1,334,754 64.2% 1,769,731 85.1% 5.8% 21,929 911,925 1,791,660 86.1% 986,143 901,553 10,37215 1,298,294 6.4% 1,171,713 2,432,008 4,100,000 630,000 15.4% 133,721 3.3% 7.7% 28,870 1,200,584 162,592 4.0% 1,298,294 1,186,928 13,65616 703,219 3.5% 634,657 985,628 2,003,558 111,516 5.6% (271,757) ‐13.6% 271,757 4.2% 15,638 922,052 15,638 0.8% 703,219 920,118 1,93417 397,912 2.0% 359,117 520,510 960,000 250,638 26.1% 170,264 17.7% 2.4% 8,848 367,965 179,113 18.7% 397,912 363,780 4,18518 212,082 1.0% 191,404 580,353 763,456 248,344 32.5% 256,645 33.6% 1.3% 4,716 196,121 261,361 34.2% 212,082 193,890 2,23119 1,528,085 7.5% 1,379,100 2,326,258 4,318,809 287,810 6.7% (325,641) ‐7.5% 325,641 9.1% 33,980 1,738,722 33,980 0.8% 1,528,085 1,734,520 4,20221 1,574,042 7.7% 1,420,577 1,696,889 3,120,805 475,007 15.2% 471,668 15.1% 9.3% 35,002 1,455,579 506,670 16.2% 1,574,042 1,439,023 16,55622 1,250,413 6.1% 1,128,501 1,568,749 2,721,035 699,732 25.7% 675,947 24.8% 7.4% 27,806 1,156,306 703,753 25.9% 1,250,413 1,143,154 13,15223 442,846 2.2% 399,670 693,163 1,009,548 284,468 28.2% 367,752 36.4% 2.6% 9,848 409,517 377,600 37.4% 442,846 404,859 4,65824 946,451 4.6% 854,174 2,572,557 3,171,166 1,034,995 32.6% 1,290,559 40.7% 5.6% 21,046 875,221 1,311,606 41.4% 946,451 865,266 9,95526 1,008,522 5.0% 910,193 764,993 1,713,268 668,480 39.0% 630,398 36.8% 6.0% 22,427 932,620 652,824 38.1% 1,008,522 922,012 10,60827 504,353 2.5% 455,180 673,514 1,000,516 318,489 31.8% 446,668 44.6% 3.0% 11,215 466,395 457,883 45.8% 504,353 461,090 5,30532 430,562 2.1% 388,583 1,027,584 1,177,990 848,521 72.0% 1,086,697 92.3% 2.6% 9,574 398,158 1,096,272 93.1% 430,562 393,629 4,52941 2,543,540 12.5% 2,295,551 4,011,858 7,363,892 948,000 12.9% (108,484) ‐1.5% 108,484 15.1% 56,561 2,460,596 56,561 0.8% 2,543,540 2,453,601 6,9952 118,719 0.6% 107,144 449,711 375,335 436,523 116.3% 618,042 164.7% 126,231 107,144 618,042 164.7% 58,326 106,222 9223 281941 1.4% 254,452 637,736 556,479 545,070 97.9% 880,779 158.3% 187,152 254,452 880,779 158.3% 124,334 252,262 2,1905 201732 1.0% 182,064 301,428 423,442 163,571 38.6% 223,621 52.8% 142,410 182,064 223,621 52.8% 120,231 180,496 1,5676 125720 0.6% 113,463 586,045 556,745 311,801 56.0% 454,564 81.6% 187,241 113,463 454,564 81.6% 97,778 112,486 9777 179926 0.9% 162,384 136,345 323,102 32,920 10.2% 8,546 2.6% 108,664 100,117 262,501 108,664 33.6% 157,688 221,689 40,8128 92172 0.5% 83,185 83,980 265,016 9,776 3.7% (88,074) ‐33.2% 89,129 177,203 260,389 89,129 33.6% 131,207 226,913 33,475

10 238049 1.2% 214,840 241,630 463,532 126,289 27.2% 119,227 25.7% 155,893 36,665 251,505 155,893 33.6% 204,650 221,902 29,60311 242297 1.2% 218,674 57,780 403,716 221,875 55.0% 94,612 23.4% 135,775 41,163 259,837 135,775 33.6% 315,824 345,936 (86,100)12 222109 1.1% 200,454 192,460 354,525 68,728 19.4% 107,116 30.2% 119,232 12,115 212,569 119,232 33.6% 173,000 204,451 8,11813 139924 0.7% 126,282 84,437 271,159 26,343 9.7% (34,098) ‐12.6% 91,195 125,292 251,574 91,195 33.6% 184,248 217,323 34,25120 107481 0.5% 97,002 236,729 256,893 401,079 156.1% 477,918 186.0% 86,397 97,002 477,918 186.0% 241,979 96,167 83525 101232 0.5% 91,362 171,331 294,380 166,591 56.6% 134,904 45.8% 99,004 91,362 134,904 45.8% 180,625 123,049 (31,687)28 87744 0.4% 79,189 62,027 190,190 ‐ 0.0% (48,974) ‐25.7% 63,964 112,937 192,126 63,964 33.6% 110,669 168,103 24,02429 146831 0.7% 132,515 979,882 1,167,974 524,851 44.9% 469,274 40.2% 392,807 132,515 469,274 40.2% 118,178 188,092 (55,577)30 145068 0.7% 130,924 586,474 583,250 413,432 70.9% 547,580 93.9% 196,155 130,924 547,580 93.9% 171,581 129,797 1,12731 147785 0.7% 133,376 262,359 533,750 132,016 24.7% (5,999) ‐1.1% 179,508 185,506 318,883 179,508 33.6% 271,613 271,391 47,49233 72673 0.4% 65,588 220,564 251,367 149,681 59.5% 184,465 73.4% 84,539 65,588 184,465 73.4% 97,523 65,023 56534 280835 1.4% 253,454 169,652 505,239 35,798 7.1% (46,335) ‐9.2% 169,919 216,254 469,708 169,919 33.6% 284,278 405,889 63,81935 89516 0.4% 80,788 139,737 244,716 107,434 43.9% 83,244 34.0% 82,302 80,788 83,244 34.0% 124,685 104,979 (24,190)36 85023 0.4% 76,733 290,531 368,010 81,923 22.3% 81,178 22.1% 123,767 42,589 119,323 123,767 33.6% 60,886 77,479 41,84437 119271 0.6% 107,642 45,348 164,986 37,119 22.5% 25,123 15.2% 55,487 30,364 138,006 55,487 33.6% 125,097 119,638 18,36838 7013 0.0% 6,329 92,511 72,005 194,284 269.8% 221,119 307.1% 24,216 6,329 221,119 307.1% ‐ 6,275 5439 60782 0.3% 54,856 41,465 126,204 84,564 67.0% 54,680 43.3% 42,444 54,856 54,680 43.3% 163,503 84,739 (29,883)40 122605 0.6% 110,651 637,930 825,000 353,031 42.8% 276,612 33.5% 277,459 847 111,499 277,459 33.6% 183,055 187,070 (75,572)42 75456 0.4% 68,099 590,000 442,069 221,875 50.2% 437,905 99.1% 148,674 68,099 437,905 99.1% 41,887 67,513 586

P&N draft estimate total DAF @95% 20,363,310

100%

18,377,935

Total Disbursed before enhancements 1,081,055 375,172 20,540,045 20,614,251 20,352,059

Initial July FY19 DAF Amt @85% (excl. Miller/Mont'y) 18,377,935 3,151,451

Small Dist Unenhanced ‐

5% of DAF for Maintenance &

Enhancement to Smalls (to reach 33.63145% FB)

15,226,483 Big Dist Unenhanced 705,883

Total Public Defender Fund Approp. 34,603,230 PDF minus 1.34M Miller/Mont'y 33,263,230

65% PDF for initial DAF disbursal (excl. Mil/Mont 1.34M) 21,621,100 15% set aside 3,243,165

5% 1,081,055 5% for Big Solvency 705,883 375,172 remain for Big Districts' Pro Rata disbursal5% 1,081,055 5% for Small Solvency. Maintenance & Enhancement ‐ 5% 1,081,055 5% for Contingencies/Yr‐End Disbursal

for Districts w/Miller/Mont'y cases 1,340,000

remainder for pro rata disburse to Bigs for enhancement after $705,883 to Bigs

facing Insolvency (Col. 9 & 12)

total initial July disbursement (still 5% i.e., $1,081,055 remains for contingencies/ yr‐end disbursal and $1.34M remains for Miller/

Mont'y): by yrs‐end will disburse $22,961,100 (which ix 66.36% of the total Public Defender Fund appropriation). part of 5% to Bigs for

Solvency (Districts 16, 19 & 41); $375,172 remains for pro rata disbursal to

Big Districts

112


A Total Public Defender Fund Appropriation (per HB1 Reengrossed as of May 1, 2018) 34,603,230

B Total Set Aside per Governor's Request for Miller/Montgomery Cases 1,340,000

C 65% of remaining Public Defender Funds for Hybrid Formula Disbursal 21,621,100

D 85% for Initial July Disbursal (before 5% set asides are applied) 18,377,935

E 5% Set Aside for Small District Fund Balance Maintenance & Enhancement per Formula 1,081,055

F 5% Set Aside for big District Solvency & Fund Balance Enhancement per Hybrid Formula 1,081,055

G 5% Set Aside for Contingency/Year‐end pro rata disbursal per Hybrid Formula 1,081,055

H 95% FY19 July Disbursal after Miller/Montgomery Set Aside 20,540,045

ITotal to Disburse by Year‐end FY19 (after disbursing 1.34M Miller/Montgomery Funds and 5% contingency/pro rata = 66.4% of Total PDF)

22,961,100

J 95% FY19 July Disbursal per Hybrid Formula Demo at April Meeting 20,352,059

K 95% of Actual FY18 DAF (5% contingency amount = $1.032M ) 20,614,251

L $34.6M PDF at 65% with no preceding Miller/Montgomery 1.43M Set Aside 22,492,100

M Increase to District Assistance by Deducting $1.34M from Total PDF BEFORE applying 65% rule 469,000

Breakdown of the Totals Required by the Hybrid Plan

113

24.2% Reduced DAF Proposal May 16, 2018 per Hybrid Formula including $1.015M set aside for Miller/Montgomery Cases and 5% for Contingencies/Yr‐End Disbursal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

DistrictOriginal Proposed P&N Amounts

District pro rata % of P&N Original Disbursal

85% amount to be disbursed initially

in July

CY17 MOST RECENT Local Revenues

Projected Expends Based on FY17 (except 1, 8, 17, 40 estimated by DD; 15th estimated using higher recent

spending upon notice from DD )

FY19 Starting FB estimated in Feb

2018 (Feb'17‐Jan'18 data) [If current projection is

negative, assume zero]

Estimated Starting FB as a Percentage of Annual Expends

FY19 Projected Ending Fund Balance

Ending FB as Proportion of

Annual Expends

Small Districts FB Target

16.3343847%

Small Districts in Shortfall to

Maintain FY19 STARTING Fund

Balance

Small District Need to Reach Target Fund Balance of

16.3343847%

Por rata Portion of Big District Toal Shortfall (gray) & Small 5% for

solvency (FB Maintenance) & FB Enhancement to 16.3343847% for Smalls (white)

Big District pro rata % of total 15,226,483 to Big Districts

Big District Pro rata portion of remaining $375,172

Final Enhanced DAF Hybrid Amount w/

$1.34M Miller/Mont'y Set

Aside

Final Ending FB after Enhancement

Final Ending FB as % of annual expends after Enhancement

1 1,769,722 8.7% 1,210,661 1,317,133 3,140,000 292,541 9.3% (319,664) ‐10.2% 118,087 10.5% ‐ 1,328,749 (201,577) ‐6.4%4 806,914 4.0% 552,007 1,457,953 2,106,726 714,782 33.9% 618,017 29.3% 4.8% ‐ 552,007 618,017 29.3%9 468,306 2.3% 320,367 662,210 1,089,064 261,417 24.0% 154,930 14.2% 2.8% ‐ 320,367 154,930 14.2%

14 986,143 4.8% 674,617 1,625,211 2,080,230 1,334,754 64.2% 1,554,352 74.7% 5.8% ‐ 674,617 1,554,352 74.7%15 1,298,294 6.4% 888,159 2,432,008 4,100,000 630,000 15.4% (149,834) ‐3.7% 55,350 7.7% ‐ 943,509 (94,483) ‐2.3%16 703,219 3.5% 481,070 985,628 2,003,558 111,516 5.6% (425,344) ‐21.2% 157,127 4.2% ‐ 638,197 (268,217) ‐13.4%17 397,912 2.0% 272,210 520,510 960,000 250,638 26.1% 83,358 8.7% 2.4% ‐ 272,210 83,358 8.7%18 212,082 1.0% 145,085 580,353 763,456 248,344 32.5% 210,325 27.5% 1.3% ‐ 145,085 210,325 27.5%19 1,528,085 7.5% 1,045,358 2,326,258 4,318,809 287,810 6.7% (659,384) ‐15.3% 243,584 9.1% ‐ 1,288,942 (415,800) ‐9.6%21 1,574,042 7.7% 1,076,797 1,696,889 3,120,805 475,007 15.2% 127,888 4.1% 9.3% ‐ 1,076,797 127,888 4.1%22 1,250,413 6.1% 855,403 1,568,749 2,721,035 699,732 25.7% 402,850 14.8% 7.4% ‐ 855,403 402,850 14.8%23 442,846 2.2% 302,950 693,163 1,009,548 284,468 28.2% 271,032 26.8% 2.6% ‐ 302,950 271,032 26.8%24 946,451 4.6% 647,464 2,572,557 3,171,166 1,034,995 32.6% 1,083,849 34.2% 5.6% ‐ 647,464 1,083,849 34.2%26 1,008,522 5.0% 689,927 764,993 1,713,268 668,480 39.0% 410,131 23.9% 6.0% ‐ 689,927 410,131 23.9%27 504,353 2.5% 345,026 673,514 1,000,516 318,489 31.8% 336,514 33.6% 3.0% ‐ 345,026 336,514 33.6%32 430,562 2.1% 294,546 1,027,584 1,177,990 848,521 72.0% 992,660 84.3% 2.6% ‐ 294,546 992,660 84.3%41 2,543,540 12.5% 1,740,027 4,011,858 7,363,892 948,000 12.9% (664,007) ‐9.0% 245,292 15.1% ‐ 1,985,319 (418,715) ‐5.7%2 118,719 0.6% 81,215 449,711 375,335 436,523 116.3% 592,113 157.8% 61,309 81,215 592,113 157.8%3 281941 1.4% 192,875 637,736 556,479 545,070 97.9% 819,202 147.2% 90,897 192,875 819,202 147.2%5 201732 1.0% 138,004 301,428 423,442 163,571 38.6% 179,561 42.4% 69,167 138,004 179,561 42.4%6 125720 0.6% 86,005 586,045 556,745 311,801 56.0% 427,106 76.7% 90,941 86,005 427,106 76.7%7 179926 0.9% 123,087 136,345 323,102 32,920 10.2% (30,751) ‐9.5% 52,777 30,751 52,777 206,614 52,777 16.3%8 92172 0.5% 63,055 83,980 265,016 9,776 3.7% (108,205) ‐40.8% 43,289 108,205 43,289 214,549 43,289 16.3%

10 238049 1.2% 162,849 241,630 463,532 126,289 27.2% 67,236 14.5% 75,715 8,479 171,328 75,715 16.3%11 242297 1.2% 165,755 57,780 403,716 221,875 55.0% 41,693 10.3% 65,944 24,251 190,006 65,944 16.3%12 222109 1.1% 151,944 192,460 354,525 68,728 19.4% 58,607 16.5% 57,909 151,944 58,607 16.5%13 139924 0.7% 95,722 84,437 271,159 26,343 9.7% (64,658) ‐23.8% 44,292 64,658 44,292 204,672 44,292 16.3%20 107481 0.5% 73,527 236,729 256,893 401,079 156.1% 454,443 176.9% 41,962 73,527 454,443 176.9%25 101232 0.5% 69,252 171,331 294,380 166,591 56.6% 112,794 38.3% 48,085 69,252 112,794 38.3%28 87744 0.4% 60,025 62,027 190,190 ‐ 0.0% (68,137) ‐35.8% 31,066 68,137 31,066 159,229 31,066 16.3%29 146831 0.7% 100,447 979,882 1,167,974 524,851 44.9% 437,206 37.4% 190,781 100,447 437,206 37.4%30 145068 0.7% 99,241 586,474 583,250 413,432 70.9% 515,897 88.5% 95,270 99,241 515,897 88.5%31 147785 0.7% 101,099 262,359 533,750 132,016 24.7% (38,276) ‐7.2% 87,185 38,276 87,185 226,560 87,185 16.3%33 72673 0.4% 49,715 220,564 251,367 149,681 59.5% 168,593 67.1% 41,059 49,715 168,593 67.1%34 280835 1.4% 192,118 169,652 505,239 35,798 7.1% (107,671) ‐21.3% 82,528 107,671 82,528 382,317 82,528 16.3%35 89516 0.4% 61,238 139,737 244,716 107,434 43.9% 63,693 26.0% 39,973 61,238 63,693 26.0%36 85023 0.4% 58,164 290,531 368,010 81,923 22.3% 62,608 17.0% 60,112 58,164 62,608 17.0%37 119271 0.6% 81,593 45,348 164,986 37,119 22.5% (926) ‐0.6% 26,949 926 26,949 109,468 26,949 16.3%38 7013 0.0% 4,798 92,511 72,005 194,284 269.8% 219,587 305.0% 11,762 4,798 219,587 305.0%39 60782 0.3% 41,581 41,465 126,204 84,564 67.0% 41,405 32.8% 20,615 41,581 41,405 32.8%40 122605 0.6% 83,874 637,930 825,000 353,031 42.8% 249,834 30.3% 134,759 83,874 249,834 30.3%42 75456 0.4% 51,619 590,000 442,069 221,875 50.2% 421,425 95.3% 72,209 51,619 421,425 95.3%

P&N draft estimate total DAF @95% 20,363,310

100%

13,930,474

Total Disbursed before enhancements (2,218,233)

total Big Dist Shortfall 418,624 400,816 ‐ 0.00 15,569,354 (1,398,793)

Final Big District Shortfall

Initial July FY19 DAF Amt @85% (excl. Miller/Mont'y) 13,930,474 2,388,800

Small Dist Unenhanced

remaining for Small District Fund Balacne Enhancement

5% of DAF for Maintenance &

Enhancement to Smalls (to reach 16.3343847% FB)

11,541,674 Big Dist Unenhanced 819,440

Total Public Defender Fund Approp. 26,229,248 PDF minus 1.01M Miller/Mont'y 25,213,528

65% PDF for initial DAF disbursal (excl. Mil/Mont 1.34M) 16,388,793 15% set aside 2,458,319

5% 819,440 5% for Big Solvency 819,440 0 remain for Big Districts' Pro Rata disbursal5% 819,440 5% for Small Solvency. Maintenance & Enhancement ‐ 5% 819,440 5% for Contingencies/Yr‐End Disbursal

for Districts w/Miller/Mont'y cases (after 24.2% reduction) 1,015,720 0.758

remainder for pro rata disburse to Bigs for enhancement after $705,883 to Bigs

facing Insolvency (Col. 9 & 12)

total initial July disbursement (still 5% i.e., $1,081,055 remains for contingencies/ yr‐end disbursal and $1.34M remains for Miller/

Mont'y): by yrs‐end will disburse $22,961,100 (which ix 66.36% of the total Public Defender Fund appropriation). part of 5% to Bigs for

Solvency (Districts 16, 19 & 41); $375,172 remains for pro rata disbursal to

Big Districts

114

A B C D E

DistrictCINC‐Parent Cases from May 1, 2017‐ April 30, 2018

% of State Wide CINC Caseload Total

INCLUDING Accruing Districts

Standard CINC Disbursement Amount

($979,680)

24.2% Reduction of Standard CINC

Disbursement Amount ($742,597)

1 703 8.41% 82,431 62,4832 38 0.45% 4,456 3,3773 170 2.03% 19,934 15,1104 493 5.90% 57,808 43,8185 149 1.78% 17,471 13,2436 54 0.65% 6,332 4,8007 40 0.48% 4,690 3,5558 28 0.34% 3,283 2,4899 277 3.32% 32,480 24,620

10 40 0.48% 4,690 3,55511 96 1.15% 11,257 8,53312 17 0.20% 1,993 1,51113 97 1.16% 11,374 8,62114 403 4.82% 47,254 35,81915 814 9.74% 95,447 72,34916 333 3.99% 39,046 29,59717 226 2.70% 26,500 20,08718 73 0.87% 8,560 6,48819 273 3.27% 32,011 24,26420 18 0.22% 2,111 1,60021 987 11.81% 115,732 87,72522 826 9.89% 96,854 73,41523 157 1.88% 18,409 13,95424 424 5.07% 49,717 37,68525 25 0.30% 2,931 2,22226 313 3.75% 36,701 27,82027 132 1.58% 15,478 11,73228 12 0.14% 1,407 1,06729 38 0.45% 4,456 3,37730 91 1.09% 10,670 8,08831 95 1.14% 11,139 8,44432 356 4.26% 41,743 31,64133 51 0.61% 5,980 4,53334 141 1.69% 16,533 12,53235 34 0.41% 3,987 3,02236 93 1.11% 10,905 8,26637 17 0.20% 1,993 1,51138 0 0.00% 0 039 12 0.14% 1,407 1,06740 31 0.37% 3,635 2,75541 161 1.93% 18,878 14,31042 17 0.20% 1,993 1,511

Total CINC‐P CASES 8,355 100.00% 979,680$ 742,597$

standard amount to be disbursed at start of year FY19 979,680

24.2% Reduced amount to be disbursed at start of year FY19 742,597

FY18 CINC‐Parent FY19 Pro Rata 100% Disbursal at Start of FY19 (estimating Caseloads using May 1, 2017‐ April 30, 2018 case counts)

115

Salary Increase Request – District 14 Site Visit Report

Because of a raise request submitted by the staff of the 14th District PDO on behalf of

District Defender Harry Fontenot, LPDB conducted a site visit. The site visit consists of a review of the data available through DefenderData, observing court hearings, reviewing case files, and interviewing staff. The purpose of the site visit is to get a detailed picture of how the office runs, the quality of the representation, and the performance of the District Defender and office personnel.

The site visit was conducted Deputy Public Defender Richard M. Pittman, with Barbara

Baier assisting in conducting staff interviews. The site visit occurred between April 25, 2018, when Richard Pittman observed court and reviewed files, and May 2, 2018, when Richard Pittman and Barbara Baier conducted interviews.

As a result of the site visit, LPDB staff concludes that the 14th District PDO is well run.

Mr. Fontenot has the deep respect of staff and the criminal justice community. He works well with the judges and with the local political circles to the benefit of his office. He has high standards of performance for staff. The office is well-organized with clear divisions of responsibility while also being supportive of practitioners. He values both investigative and clerical resources, and has a strong emphasis on juvenile defense.

The primary challenge facing the office is that caseloads are very high. There are six

divisions of court. Each division has a single staff attorney assigned, plus access to conflict counsel. Dedicated LWOP attorneys take the most serious cases, but the bulk of the casework from a court division falls to the staff attorney assigned to the division. These attorneys take in between 400 and 500 felony cases in a year, plus cases that hold over from one year to another. One attorney regretfully told us in interviews that this heavy caseload makes it effectively impossible to meet the accepted standard of meeting each incarcerated client within 48 hours of appointment, to name just one consequence. We have come to understand that many of these cases end up not being prosecuted, so the number may be somewhat deceptively high. Nevertheless, each division of court would do well to have an additional ½ of a full time attorney if not a whole full time attorney added to its roster.

Unfortunately, a solution of that nature eludes the public defender office because of

financial constraints. While the office is financially stable, it would take a large influx of revenue to meaningfully reduce caseloads.

Despite the high caseloads, morale in the office is very high. Strikingly high, in fact. This

perhaps could have been guessed by how the raise request came to us from staff, not from Mr. Fontenot. Staff consistently reported that they are satisfied with their work. They report being well supported both with investigative resources and clerical support. The secretarial staff appears knowledgeable and capable of handling high level work. New attorneys are supported and encouraged to seek advice on handling tricky cases. Staff reports that no attorney is expected to handle a trial without a second chair attorney.

120

Staff reports also that their role in the criminal justice community is high respected. They are proud of their work. Veterans of the office report that this is a change from pre-LPDB administration, when the office was not respected and morale was low.

A review of the data available in DefenderData shows that the district maintains its data

better than most. There are relatively few autodormant cases compared to open cases. They make use of ‘Notes’ features and populate demographic data well. Richard M. Pittman Deputy Public Defender Director of Juvenile Defender Services Louisiana Public Defender Board

121

District

District Defender Classification (+ signifies

management of 2 districts; * signifies grandfathered

salary)

Chief District Defender

Board-Approved Annual Contract Compensation

Amount

Statistics:Average (Mean),

Minimum and Maximum of

Range

1 DD4 Pam Smart 100,000 121,600

15 DD4 G. Paul Marx 129,000 100,000

19 DD4* Mike Mitchell 110,880 139,720

21 DD4* Reggie McIntyre 119,600

22 DD4 John Lindner 115,000

24 DD4* Richie Tompson 139,720

41 DD4 Derwyn Bunton 137,000

4 DD3* Mike Courteau 123,000 103,978

9 DD3 Deirdre Fuller 90,085 90,085

14 DD3+ Harry Fontenot 105,000 123,000

16 DD3 T.Champagne, interim* 3000/mo

23 DD3 Alan Robert 110,000

26 DD3 Michael Miller 97,500

32 DD3* Tony Champagne 98,280

3 DD2 Rick Candler 80,000 83,086

5 DD2 John Albert Ellis 90,000 57,781

17 DD2 Mark Plaisance 76,000 112,897

18 DD2* Jerome D'Aquila 66,180

27 DD2* Ed Lopez 95,124

29 DD2* Vic Bradley 112,897

30 DD2 Tony Tillman 93,622

42 DD2+* Steven Thomas 57,781

28 DD1+* Derrick Carson 25,995 79,572

38 DD1+ Harry Fontenot 10,000 39,600

2 DD1 Don Kneipp 75,000 100,380

6 DD1* LeRoy Smith 81,960

7 DD1+* Derrick Carson 74,232

8 DD1* Herman Castete 84,000

10 DD1 Brett Brunson 100,380

11 DD1+* Steven Thomas 57,781

12 DD1 Brad Dauzat 70,000

13 DD1* Alex Chapman 56,499

20 DD1 Rhonda Covington 90,000

25 DD1 Clark Beljean 75,000

31 DD1* David Marcantel 87,888

33 DD1 Chad Guidry 90,000

34 DD1 Tom Gernhauser 94,000

35 DD1* Robert Kennedy 84,089

36 DD1 David Wallace 90,000

37 DD1* Louis Champagne 86,874

39 DD1* Brian McRae 39,600

40 DD1* Richard Stricks 95,000

*Prior DD paid $97,500

FY 18 Chief District Defender Salaries

122

louisiana public defender boardlpdb.la.gov/meetings/txtfiles/pdf/budget_committee/z_budget_may...

Documents