Could a Louisiana town council member vote on police matters while that police department investigated the member?

Plain-English summary

An Iowa, Louisiana police chief asked whether a town council member could vote on police department issues while that same department investigated the member. The attorney general's office concluded in 2000 that the member did not have to abstain in the circumstances described. It said no statute barred the vote, and the situation did not involve the personal economic gain addressed by other voting restrictions.

The opinion also pointed to the oath requiring officials to discharge their duties faithfully and impartially and quoted the malfeasance statute. Its answer concerned the right to participate in the vote; it did not decide whether any particular vote was improper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Town council members at the time

The opinion said an investigation by the police department did not itself require the member to abstain from votes concerning that department. It still described the member's oath to perform official duties faithfully and impartially.

Police chiefs at the time

The opinion rejected a categorical voting bar based solely on the department's criminal investigation of a council member. It did not assess any particular council vote or investigation.

Municipal officials at the time

The office distinguished the facts presented from a vote involving the council member's personal economic gain. Its conclusion was limited to the situation the chief described.

Common questions

Q: Did a police investigation automatically stop the council member from voting on police matters?
A: The 2000 opinion said no. It found no statute requiring abstention in the stated situation.

Q: Did the opinion say the council member had a financial conflict?
A: No. The office said no personal economic gain was at stake in the facts presented.

Q: Did the member still have to act impartially?
A: Yes. The opinion pointed to the official oath of faithful and impartial performance and discussed the malfeasance statute.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion said it found no statute on point barring the vote. It distinguished statutes addressing an ordinance in which a council member had a personal economic gain, then quoted La. Const. Art. 10, §30 on the official oath and LA R.S. 14:134 on malfeasance in office.

Citations and references

• La. Const. Art. 10, §30 (oath of office)
• LA R.S. 14:134 (malfeasance in office)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/00-0242

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

July 28, 2000
OPINION 00-242

La. Const. Art. 10, §30
Charles W. Ipes
LA R.S. 14:134
Chief of Police
A Town Council member may vote on issues
P.O. Box 1707
pertaining to the police department while
Iowa, Louisiana 70647
under criminal investigation by that same
police department.
Dear Chief Ipes:

We are in receipt of your request for an Attorney General’s Opinion concerning the voting rights of a Town Council member who is under criminal investigation. Specifically, you ask whether a Town Council member may vote on issues pertaining to the police department while under criminal investigation by that same police department.

There is no statute on point preventing the council member from participating in such a vote. Statutes exist that prevent a council member from voting on an ordinance in which he has a personal economic gain. There is no personal economic gain at stake in the situation presented. Therefore, this council member’s abstention is unnecessary.

Upon assuming the duties of the office of council member, each member is required to take an oath of office. All public officials and employees must take this oath of office. The oath, as prescribed in La. Const. Art. 10, §30, obligates the individual to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon [him or her].” Failure to conform to this oath may result in that individual committing malfeasance in office. LA R.S. 14:134 states:

Malfeasance in office is committed when a public officer or public employee shall:
(1) Intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, as such officer or employee; or
(2) Intentionally perform any such duty in an unlawful manner.

Therefore, in the event that a council member’s actions are viewed as less than honorable, action could be taken against the member for not carrying out his or her lawful duty.

Page 2

We hope this opinion addresses all of your concerns. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

BY:
_________
ANDREW D. BENTON
Assistant Attorney General

Page 3

OPINION NUMBER 00-242
Syllabus

77 OFFICERS – Local & Municipal; Selection; Qualifications & Tenure;
Vacancies

La. Const. Art. 10, §30
LA R.S. 14:134

A Town Council member may vote on issues pertaining to the police department while under criminal investigation by that same police department.

Charles W. Ipes
Chief of Police
P.O. Box 1707
Iowa, Louisiana 70647

Date Received:

Date Released: July 28, 2000

Andrew D. Benton
Assistant Attorney General