What could Cheneyville do when too few aldermen attended repeated special meetings to form a quorum?

Plain-English summary

Cheneyville's mayor reported that only two of five aldermen attended each of three scheduled special meetings, leaving the board without a quorum. He asked how to obtain three replacement aldermen. In the official opinion, the AG did not declare the absent members' seats vacant. It discussed possible recall and malfeasance proceedings instead.

The opinion quoted the malfeasance statute's rule against intentionally refusing or failing to perform an official duty. It said whether absence from these special meetings met that standard was a factual question within the district attorney's discretion. It also described recall as a voter-petition process subject to the statutory requirements and a remaining-term limit.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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.

Common questions

Did repeated missed meetings automatically remove Cheneyville's aldermen?
No. The opinion discussed potential proceedings and left the factual malfeasance question open.

Who decided whether absence from special meetings amounted to malfeasance?
The AG said that factual and prosecutorial question lay with the district attorney.

Could voters seek recall instead?
The opinion described a recall petition under R.S. 18:1300.1 et seq., subject to the statutory signature and remaining-term rules it identified.

Background and statutory framework

R.S. 33:405 supplied the meeting framework the AG cited; R.S. 14:134 supplied the malfeasance definition; and R.S. 18:1300.1 et seq. supplied the recall route. The AG used earlier opinions about school board members and a police chief to explain possible remedies, while declining to find that these aldermen had committed malfeasance.

Citations and references

• R.S. 14:134 (malfeasance in office)
• R.S. 33:405 (board meetings)
• R.S. 18:1300.1 (recall procedure)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0063

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
~31VIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 94005
TEL.: (504) 342-7013
BATON ROUGE
FAX: (504) 342-2090
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
AI-IORN EY GENERAL

MAY 0 9 2002
OPINION 02-63
77 - Officers - Local &
Municial
Mayor Robert L. Cox, Jr.,
R.S. 14:134
Town of Cheneyville
P.O. Box 322
Discusses remedy for
Cheneyville, LA 71325
aldermen who fail to
perform their duty as a public official.
Dear Mayor Cox:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attorney General in regard to failure of a quorum of the Board of Aldermen to attend Town meetings. You indicate a special meeting was called for January 29, 2002 with the agenda timely posted, provided to the media and delivered to each alderman, but only two of the five aldermen appeared.
The meeting was then reset for January 31, and again only two aldermen appeared, whereupon the meeting was reset for February 7. On this date the meeting had only two aldermen in attendance, and had to be called for lack of a quorum.

You ask what are the necessary steps needed to be taken to resolve this situation by obtaining three new aldermen who are interested in serving and providing a quorum for the conduct of the Town Business.

This office has noted that a public officer who does not perform his duty can be liable for malfeasance, Atty. Gen. Ops. 01-53, 93-541. R.S. 14:134 provides as follows:

Malfeasance in office is committed when any 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

Any duty lawfully required of a public officer or public employee when delegated by him to a public officer or public employee shall be deemed to be a lawful duty of such public officer or employee. The delegation of such lawful duty shall not relieve the public officer or employee of his lawful duty.

VVhoever commits the crime of malfeasance in office shall be imprisoned for not more than five years with or without hard labor or shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or both.

Page 2

Mayor Robert L. Cox, Jr.
OPINION 02-63
Page 2

In Attorney General Opinion of 1960-62, Page 311, it was observed that while no statute was found that penalized a school board member for failure to attend meetings, continued absence over a considerable period of time would constitute grounds for removal from office. It was then noted that in R.S. 14:134 malfeasance is defined as the intentional refusal or failure to perform any duty lawfully required of the public officer, and it was stated, "It is our opinion that the continued failure or refusal to attend meetings of the School Board, without any excuse other than that of purely business reasons, would doubtless constitute malfeasance in office, and the courts would doubtless construe such malfeasance as misconduct in office, * * * " It was further recognized that the District Attorney may file suit for removal on his own motion or initiative, and he is required to file such suits on written request of citizens and taxpayers in cases of parochial officers.

In response to a similar question in regard to a Chief of Police, this office concluded in Atty. Gen. Op. 00-51 if he fails to perform his duty as a public official, the remedy to remove him from office would be by recall election or by filing charges for maffeasance in office. With regard to a recall election it was noted qualified electors have to petition for a recall election under R.S. 18:1300.1 et seq., and to the charge of malfeasance in office, the decision rests with the district attorney who has broad discretion in both the institution and handling of criminal prosecutions for maffeasance in office.

VVherein R.S. 33:405 provides for at least one regular meeting of the board of aldermen in each month, and that special meetings may be called by the mayor or a majority of the members of the board. Whether failure to attend special meetings is malfeasance is a factual question within the discretion of the district attorney; and a recall would have to comply with the statutory provisions that mandate signatures of a specified percent of the voters for a community, and recall is not applicable if less than six months remain in the term of office.

We hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE
Assistant Attorney General
RPI/bbr~