Did Louisiana's election-year payroll-padding law stop a clerk of court from funding an ongoing office renovation?

Plain-English summary

The DeSoto Parish clerk asked whether funding an ongoing project to reconstruct office space within six months of the 2003 governor's election would violate Louisiana's political payroll-padding law. In Opinion 03-0227, the AG concluded that this ongoing project did not fall within the prohibition. The opinion said the work was not being done "in conjunction with or because of the 2003 gubernatorial election."

The statute addressed an increase in payroll or other operating expenses above a specified 15 percent threshold during the six months before a governor's election. The AG read its legislative history as aimed at corrupt payroll padding. It added that physical improvements to the office were capital improvements, not operating expenses; even under the harshest reading, only furniture, equipment, and other physical movables would be subject to the opinion's stated operating-expense limit.

Currency note

The full issue date is not legible in the available official extract. 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

DeSoto Parish clerk's office

The AG said the clerk could fund the described ongoing restructuring within six months of the governor's election without violating LA R.S. 14:139. The conclusion rested on the nature and timing of that project and the distinction between capital improvements and operating expenses.

Other public offices

The opinion addressed the statutory election-period cap on payroll and other operating expenses. It did not give a blanket exemption for every office purchase or new project during that period.

Common questions

Q: Did the 2003 governor's election stop the clerk's ongoing renovation? A: No. The AG concluded that the described restructuring project was outside the payroll-padding prohibition.

Q: Did the AG count physical improvements to the office as operating expenses? A: No. It classified the cost of physical improvements as capital improvement expenses.

Q: What office items might still have fallen under the 15 percent limit? A: The opinion said that, even under the harshest scenario, furniture, equipment, and physical movables could be subject to that limitation.

Background and statutory framework

LA R.S. 14:139 prohibited specified political payroll padding in the six months before a gubernatorial election, including an increase in payroll or other operating expenses beyond the statutory comparison amount. The AG consulted the legislative history of Act No. 454 of 1980 to understand the provision's purpose and applied it to the clerk's ongoing office restructuring.

Citations and references

Statute quoted or cited: LA R.S. 14:139.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0227

Original opinion text

P.O. BOX 94095
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-9095
RICHARD P. IEYOUB CRIMINAL DIVISION Telephone:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(225) 342-7552
FAX:
L 3 0 2003
(225) 342-7893
OPINION 03-0227

O. L. Stone, Jr.
Clerk of Court 10 CLERKS OF COURT
11th Judicial District
LA R.S. 14:139 (2)
Parish of DeSoto
Since the on-going restructuring project of the 11n’ Judicial District
Post Office Box 1206
Court Clerk of Court’s Office is not being done in conjunction with or
because of the 2003 gubernatorial election, such project does not fall
Mansfield, Louisiana 71052
under the purview of the payroll padding prohibition of LA R.S.
14:139.
Dear Mr. Stone:

This office is in receipt of your opinion request wherein you asked whether the Clerk of Court’s Office would be in violation ofLA R.S. 14:139 by funding an on-going project to reconstruct its office space within six months of the 2003 gubernatorial election.

LA R.S. 14:139 states, in pertinent part:
Political payroll padding is committed when any public officer or public employee shall, at any time during the six months preceding any election for governor: ... (2) Increase the payroll or other operating expenses of his office, department, board, agency, or institution more than fifteen percent over its average amount of such expenditures for each of the months of the first six months of the twelve months preceding said election. (Emphasis added)

The key question here is whether the Clerk of Court’s renovations fall under the "other operating expenses" provision of this statute, so that the funding provided for the restructuring would be limited to no more than fifteen percent over the average expenditures for each of the first six months of the twelve months preceding the election.

The language of LA R.S. 14:139 is silent on the issue of on-going renovation projects, therefore, absent such express language; one must look to the intent of the legislature in drafting the provision. Such intent is clearly set forth in the official legislative history of Act No. 454 of 1980 (also designated as Senate Bill No. 1001 of 1980), specifically the hearing of the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice on the proposed amendments to this legislation. The official minutes of this meeting established that the "payroll padding" envisioned under this Act is a white collar felony, to be ranked as such alongside " ... crimes of corrupt influencing, injuring public records, filing false public records, malfeasance in office, public salary deductions, public salary extortion ... ," all of which " ... strike at the nature of our government." It is absurd to argue that an on- going project to fund a new filing system has such corrupt activities. Therefore, it seems that the activities in question do not fall within the scope of LA R.S. 14:139.

Page 2

O. L. Stone, Jr.
OPINION 03-0227
Page 2

It is the opinion of this office that the on-going reconstruction project of the 11th Judicial District Clerk of Court’s Office does not fall under the purview of the payroll padding prohibition of LA R.S. 14:139. Even the harshest possible scenario would subject only furniture, equipment and physical movables to the 15% limitation of LA R.S. 14:139, as the cost of any physical improvements to the office would not be considered "operating expenses," but rather capital improvement expenses. Therefore, the Clerk of Court’s Office would not be in violation of LA R.S. 14:139 by funding an on-going project to restructure its office space within six months of the 2003 gubernatorial election.

If we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BG:emt/jy