Did a food bank director's spouse working for Baker's private auditor breach the city-food bank agreement?

Plain-English summary

Baker had agreed to contribute $2,500 to the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank in exchange for food for needy city residents. The agreement said city benefits were unavailable to the food bank's personnel. The food bank's executive director was married to someone employed by the private accounting firm that audited Baker's books. In Opinion 03-0264, the AG concluded that the marriage did not violate the agreement's personnel clause.

The opinion reasoned that the spouse was employed by the accounting firm, not by the food bank. Marriage to the executive director did not make the spouse food bank personnel. The conclusion was about the identified contract term, not a broader ruling on every possible ethics or audit question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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

Baker officials

The AG said the described family relationship did not breach the cooperative-endeavor clause excluding food bank personnel from city benefits, because the spouse was not a food bank employee.

Food bank and accounting firm

The opinion kept the spouse's private accounting employment distinct from the director's food bank position. It did not find that the spouse became food bank personnel through the marriage.

Common questions

Q: Did the director's marriage violate the food bank agreement?
A: No. The AG concluded that the spouse's separate employment with Baker's private auditor did not violate the personnel-benefits clause.

Q: Was the spouse treated as food bank staff because of the marriage?
A: No. The opinion said marriage did not make the spouse a member of the food bank's personnel.

Q: What did the agreement forbid?
A: As described in the opinion, it said no city benefits would be available to the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank's personnel.

Background and statutory framework

The request concerned interpretation of the city-food bank cooperative endeavor agreement. The AG applied its personnel-benefits clause to the executive director's spouse and found the clause inapplicable because the spouse worked for a private accounting firm rather than the food bank.

Citations and references

Contract term discussed: the agreement's restriction on city benefits for food bank personnel.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0264

Original opinion text

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

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

¯ AUG 0 6 2003
Opinion Number 03-0264

90-A-1 Public Funds and Contracts
Honorable Dr. Leroy Davis
Relationship of executive director of Greater Baton
Mayor, City of Baker
Rouge Food Bank and private accounting firm does not
P.O. Box 707
violate terms of cooperative endeavor agreement
between Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank and City of
Baker, LA 70704
Baker.

Dear Mayor Davis:

The City of Baker and the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank are parties to a cooperative endeavor agreement. The agreement, in sum, provides that the city contribute $2,500.00 to the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank who in turn provides food to the city’s needy residents. The agreement provides that no city benefits shall be available to the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank’s personnel. The executive director of the food bank is married to someone who works for a private accounting firm. This firm audits the city’s books. You question if this relationship violates the terms of the cooperative endeavor agreement¯

In short, we do not believe that this relationship in any way affects, much less violates, the cooperative endeavor agreement. The spouse of the executive director is employed by a private company. The restriction is that no city benefits are available to the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank’s personnel. The spouse is not an employee of the Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank and the fact that she is married to the executive director does not make her a member of its personnel.

We trust that this adequately responds to your request. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

With kindest regards,

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

BY:
TINA VICARI GRANT
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/TVG/dam