Could a Louisiana police jury advance travel money to members and employees before a work trip?

Plain-English summary

St. Helena Parish's police jury gave members and employees cash before official travel, then required receipts and return of money not spent on eligible expenses. Some recipients reportedly missed trips and could not repay the advances immediately. In Opinion 03-0393, the Louisiana AG said travel advances were not inherently illegal, but the unused or ineligible portion had to be returned immediately.

The key limit was a reasonable expectation of prompt repayment. The AG said an advance to someone from whom the parish had no such expectation would violate La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14. It also cited public officials' fiduciary duty under LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A), warning that personal use of unreturned public money, or tacit permission for that use, could violate the statute.

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

Police jurors and parish employees

The AG treated an advance for travel on the parish's behalf as permissible if the traveler returned unused or ineligible money immediately. It distinguished that arrangement from keeping public funds for personal use after the trip was canceled or cut short.

Parish officials approving advances

The AG said approving an advance when prompt repayment could not reasonably be expected would violate the constitutional restriction on public funds. It also warned that an official who tacitly allowed personal use of unreturned funds could breach the fiduciary duty in LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A).

Parish finance staff

The opinion said the parish's policy should, at a minimum, require immediate return of unused or ineligible advances. It also cited earlier AG opinions treating undocumented expense allowances as additional compensation for tax and reporting purposes.

Common questions

Could the parish give a member travel money before a convention?

Yes, the AG said a genuine travel advance for parish business was not illegal in itself, provided unused or ineligible money was returned immediately.

What if the trip was canceled?

The opinion said the traveler had to return the appropriate advance amount promptly when travel did not occur or was cut short.

What if the official was unlikely to repay an unused advance?

The AG said an advance made without a reasonable expectation of prompt repayment would violate La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14.

Was an undocumented expense allowance treated the same as reimbursed travel costs?

The AG cited earlier opinions recognizing that, without adequate itemized documentation of actual public-duty expenses, an allowance should be treated as additional compensation subject to tax and reporting requirements.

Background and statutory framework

The St. Helena Parish Police Jury reportedly advanced about $100 per expected travel day for meals and other costs apart from hotel rooms. Travelers were expected to provide receipts and refund money not validly spent. The request arose because some people had received advances for events they did not attend and could not immediately repay them.

The AG applied La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14 to the risk of an advance becoming a loan or personal use of public funds. It also discussed LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A), which imposed fiduciary obligations for public money, and cited State v. Groce, 786 So.2d 200, as an example of malfeasance involving misuse of city property. The opinion relied on AG Opinion 03-0156 for the conditional permissibility of advance travel per diem.

Citations and references

• La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14: restriction on the use of public funds discussed in the opinion.
• LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A): fiduciary obligation of officials administering public money.
• State v. Groce, 786 So.2d 200: malfeasance decision cited by the AG.
• Attorney General Opinion 03-0156: earlier treatment of advance travel per diem.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0393

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

NOV 1 4 2003
Opinion Number 03-0393

90-A-1 PUBLIC FUNDS & CONTRACTS

Mr. Clifton T. Speed
The provision of travel advances to officials and employees
Assistant District Attorney
of the police jury, who are asked to travel on behalf of, or in
21st Judicial District
the interest of the St. Helena Parish, subject to the
provision that the entire unused portion will be immediately
P.O. Drawer 787
retumed to the police jury, is not, per se, illegal. However,
Greensburg, Louisiana 70441
if the police jury has no reasonable expectation of prompt
repayment, the provision of travel advances would be in violation of law.
Dear Mr. Speed:

Reference is made to your recent request, on behalf of the St. Helena Parish Police Jury, for an Attorney General’s Opinion regarding the police jury’s practice of issuing travel advances to members of the police jury and its employees, for travel on the parish’s behalf. It is our understanding that the police jury has made it a practice to issue travel advances to its members and other employees, typically in the amount of $100.00 per each day of expected travel. This amount is meant to cover meals and travel related expenses, other than hotel room rental amounts. Upon return, the police juror or employee is to provide the parish with expense receipts for his or her meals and eligible expenses, and provide the parish with a refund of any amounts not validly expended. Pertinently, your letter provides:

"It was brought to our office’s attention that certain individuals have received advance payments to attend out of town conventions and/or seminars but some of these individuals had been unable to attend these conventions and/or seminars. Apparently due to problems in finances, these individuals were then unable to make immediate reimbursement or repayment of the amounts advanced for their attendance the said conventions and/or seminars...It was the opinion of our office that the pre- payment of an expense allowance to members of the St. Helena Parish Police Jury or its employees was essentially a loan of money and as such a violation of Article 7, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974."

Specifically, the St. Helena Parish Police Jury has requested our opinion as to whether or not it can legally advance a cash payment to police jurors and/or employees to attend out-of town events.

Please be advised that it is the opinion of this office that the provision of travel advances to officials and employees of the police jury, who are asked to travel on behalf of, or in the interest of the St. Helena Parish, subject to the provision that the entire unused and

Page 2

Opinion Number 03-0393
Mr. Clifton T. Speed
Assistant District Attorney
21st Judicial District
Page -2-

un-reimbursable portion will be immediately returned to the police jury, is not, per se, illegal. See Attorney General’s Opinion No. 03-0156, which determined that a travel per diem could be provided in advance, subject to the condition that the entire advance or the appropriate portion thereof would be returned to a political subdivision if the travel is not made or is cut short.

On the other hand, if the police jury has no reasonable expectation of prompt repayment, the provision of travel advances to a police juror or employee would, in our opinion, violate La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14. In our opinion, the police jury’s travel policy should, at a minimum, require the traveler to immediately refund unused or un- reimbursable advance amounts to the parish.

In addition to La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14, we would call your attention to LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A), which requires all public officials to administer public funds and property entrusted to them for public purposes and as a fiduciary. Attorney General’s Opinion Nos. 90-504. LSA-R.S. 42:1461 imposes a personal obligation upon public officials and employees and prohibits them from misappropriating, misapplying, converting, or misusing any funds or property under the custody of the public entity in which the office or employment is held. The breach of this obligation gives rise to an action in favor of the public entity for the recovery of such funds or property, and for damages resulting from the breach.

Improper administration of public funds and property can also give rise to an action for malfeasance in office. In State v. Groce, 786 So.2d 200, a Mayor was convicted of malfeasance in office for pawning a gun owned by the city in order to obtain cash for his personal use. The court determined that such action was "clearly in violation of Article VII, Sec. 14 of the Louisiana Constitution and Revised Statute 42:1461."

In our opinion, La. Const. Art, VII, Sec. 14 and LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A) are clearly violated when a public official or employee converts public funds to his or her own personal use by failing to immediately refund unused or un-reimbursable travel advances. We also caution the police jury that the language of LSA-R.S. 42:1461(A) is broadly written, and may be violated by an official who tacitly allows the conversion of public funds to personal use by authorizing the advance of public funds to individuals from whom the official has, or should have, no reasonable expectation of immediate repayment.

Your attention is also called to Attorney General’s Opinion Nos. 00-483, 98-85, 97-433, 92-857 and 92-716, which recognize that expense allowances should be treated as additional compensation subject to state and federal taxation and reporting requirements, in the absence of an adequately documented itemization of expenses actually incurred in the performances of public duties.

As previously noted, the provision of travel advances to officials and employees of the police jury is not, per se, illegal. Clearly, however, if the police jury ceased its policy of

Page 3

Opinion Number 03-0393
Mr. Clifton T. Speed
Assistant District Attorney
21st Judicial District
Page -3-

providing travel advances, there would be less likelihood of violation of the provisions of law cited herein.

We trust the foregoing to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we can be of further assistance to you, or to the St. Helena Parish Police Jury, in the other areas of the law.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

~. _,~NNE-MARIE zI~RII~U~’~A-3~HAM
~ssistant Attorney

RPI/JMZB/dam