Which budget governed Lafourche Parish when its council adopted no new one, and could it retain surplus revenue?

Plain-English summary

Lafourche Parish had adopted a budget for 2000 but no new budgets for 2001 or 2002. Its home-rule charter said that "until a budget is enacted, parish government will operate on the previous budget." In Opinion 02-0179, the Attorney General explained that the 2000 budget had served as the parish's 2001 budget and, with no new adoption, became the previous budget for 2002 as well. He was clarifying an earlier opinion, not identifying a newly adopted 2001 budget.

The requester also asked whether the parish could accumulate revenue instead of appropriating or spending it. The AG answered yes: apart from general obligation millages, which he understood were not at issue, he said no statutory or constitutional rule required every dollar received by a parish or other political subdivision to be appropriated or spent. He added that a surplus might be fiscally prudent depending on circumstances.

A third question asked whether the council's failure to approve a budget was malfeasance in office. The opinion quoted the elements of R.S. 14:134 but did not find that any person committed the crime. It said information about suspected malfeasance should be brought to the parish district attorney, who had jurisdiction over criminal matters.

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.

What the opinion meant at issuance

Parish council members and budget staff

The AG applied Lafourche's charter carryover clause to the specific 2000–2002 sequence. Since the council had adopted neither a 2001 nor a 2002 replacement, the budget originally approved for 2000 continued to govern under the charter as the previous budget.

Taxpayers and officials reviewing surpluses

The opinion rejected the idea that all parish revenue had to be appropriated or spent immediately. Its answer expressly excepted general obligation millages and did not decide a different restriction that might apply to a specific revenue source.

People alleging malfeasance

The AG recited the criminal statute's intentional-duty requirements and directed suspected violations to the parish district attorney. The opinion did not say the failure to adopt a budget itself proved malfeasance.

Common questions

Q: Was Lafourche using a budget newly approved in 2001? A: No. The AG said the last approved budget was for 2000. That document was used in 2001 and, because no new budget was adopted, continued as the previous budget in 2002 under the charter.

Q: Did every dollar of parish revenue have to be budgeted or spent? A: The AG said no general rule required that, except for general obligation millages, which the request did not involve. He noted that accumulating a surplus could be fiscally prudent depending on circumstances.

Q: Did the AG conclude that council members committed malfeasance by not adopting a budget? A: No. He quoted the malfeasance statute and said suspected criminal conduct should be reported to the parish district attorney. He made no finding about any individual.

Q: Was this a general rule for every Louisiana parish without an adopted budget? A: The carryover answer relied on Lafourche Parish's own home-rule charter language and the history of its 2000, 2001, and 2002 budgets. The opinion did not decide the text of other parishes' charters.

Background and statutory framework

Lafourche asked which "previous budget" its charter meant after two missed budget adoptions. The AG cited Article V(A)(3) of that charter and explained the sequence from the last approved 2000 budget. For the surplus question, he made an exception for general obligation millages. For the criminal question, he quoted R.S. 14:134 and cited La.Const. Art V, Sec. 26 for the district attorney's criminal jurisdiction. The opinion's first-page date stamp reads MAY 2 3 2002 in the PDF transcription, supporting May 23, 2002.

Citations and references

Authorities in the opinion: Lafourche Home Rule Charter Article V(A)(3) (prior budget); R.S. 14:134 (malfeasance); La.Const. Art V, Sec. 26 (district attorney's criminal jurisdiction).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0179

Original opinion text

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
One American Place
301 Main Street, Suite 600
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL.. (225) 342-7013
FAX: (225t 342-2090
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MAY 2 3 2002
OPINION NUMBER 02-0179

84 PARISHES
R.S. 39:1301 et seq; R.S. 14:134

Mr. Gerald "Buzz" Breaux
Clarifies Op.Atty.Gen. 01-279 regarding failure of parish
Lafourche Parish Government
council to adopt a budget.
P. O. Drawer 5548
Thibodaux, LA 70302

Dear Mr. Breaux:

You requested the opinion of this office concerning the operations of the Lafourche Parish (the "Parish") government. You advised that the Parish is still operating on a budget that was developed in September of 1999. Since adoption of the 2000 budget, the Parish Council has not approved another budget. On August 9, 2001, this office issued Op.Atty.Gen. 01-0279 finding that Lafourche Parish must operate on the previous budget until a budget is enacted for the current fiscal year. You request clarification as to whether this means the previous year’s budget or the last budget that was approved.

Op.Atty.Gen. 01-0279 determined that the Home Rule Charter adopted by the Parish is the applicable law for the particular issue of whether the Home Rule Charter or the Louisiana Local Government Budget Act applied when the Parish Council has not approved a budget. Article V(A)(3) of the Home Rule Charter provides "until a budget is enacted, parish government will operate on the previous budget."

It is our understanding that in this instance there is no difference between the previous year’s budget and the last budget which was approved and that no supplement or amendment to the budgets have been approved for the last two years. The last budget which was approved was for the year 2000. Because the 2001 budget was not approved, the Parish used the 2000 budget during 2001. So far this year, the 2002 budget has not been approved. Under the provisions of the Home Rule Charter, the Parish is directed to operate under the previous budget which was the 2001 budget, which was previously the 2000 budget.

Your second question is whether it is legal to accumulate excess revenue (taxpayers’ dollars) that will not be appropriated or budgeted for an unspecified period of time.

The answer is yes. With the exception of general obligation millages, which we understand is not an issue in Lafourche Parish, there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that

Mr. Gerald J. "Buzz" Breaux
OPINION NUMBER 02-0179
Page -2-

all revenues received by a Parish or other political subdivision be appropriated or spent. Depending upon the circumstances, it may even be deemed fiscally prudent for a governing body to amass a surplus.

You next question whether the Parish Council’s failure to approve the budget constitutes malfeasance in office.

The crime of malfeasance in office is defined in R.S. 14:134 and 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

(2) Intentionally perform any such duty in an unlawful manner; or

(3) Knowingly permit any other public officer or public employee, under his authority, to intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, or to perform any such duty in an unlawful manner.

If you feel that such a crime has been committed by any public officer or public employee, information regarding such crime should be brought to the District Attorney for the Parish who has been constitutionally granted jurisdiction over criminal matters. La.Const. Art V, Sec. 26.

Trusting this adequately responds to your request, we remain

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

/ ~ARtHA ~’HESS
~ Assistant Attorney G~ ~eral

RPI/MSH