Can a Louisiana mayor cut budgeted retirement contributions for city court judges and employees?

Plain-English summary

Monroe City Court judges asked about the mayor's reduction of city-paid employee-share retirement contributions for judges and court staff after the court budget had been approved. In 2005, the Attorney General said reducing the judges' payments during their elected terms violated La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21, which protected judges' retirement benefits and compensation during those terms.

For the court budget more broadly, the AG said the mayor could not unilaterally withhold or redirect funds already appropriated to or for the court without a proper budget amendment. It also said the city court had to follow normal budget procedures: judges did not have a blank check for expenses and had to submit the court budget to the municipal governing authority before committing funds.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005 about Monroe City Court and its adopted budget. Verify current constitutional, retirement, and municipal budget law before applying it to another period or court.

What this means for you

City court judges and employees

The opinion found constitutional protection against a midterm reduction of judges' retirement benefits. On budgeted court expenditures, it said the mayor could not change the adopted allocation unilaterally; the court still had to comply with budget procedures.

Mayors and municipal budget officials

Once court funds were properly appropriated, the AG said a mayor could not withhold them or direct different spending without a proper budget amendment. The opinion described the mayor's role regarding already budgeted court payments as ministerial.

Common questions

Could the mayor stop paying the judges' employee-share contributions during their terms?

The AG said the unilateral reduction violated La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21's bar on decreasing a judge's retirement benefits or compensation during the elected term.

Could the mayor redirect money already budgeted for the city court?

No, absent a proper budget amendment. The AG said the mayor could not withhold appropriated court funds or require them to be spent differently from the adopted budget.

Did the opinion give judges unlimited control over city money?

No. It said city court judges had to comply with budget requirements and submit the court budget before expenditures or commitments.

Background and statutory framework

La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21 protected a judge's term, retirement benefits, and compensation from reduction during the elected term. The opinion applied that text to the judge contributions. It relied on earlier AG opinions and cited Cosenza v. Aetna Ins. on the mayor's lack of supervision over court personnel and McCain v. Grant Parish Police Jury on the judiciary's inherent power regarding reasonably necessary court expenses.

Citations

• La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21 (judicial compensation and retirement protections).
• Cosenza v. Aetna Ins., 341 So. 2d 1304 (La. App. 1977) (court personnel independence discussion).
• McCain v. Grant Parish Police Jury, 440 So.2d 1369 (3rd Cir. 1983) (inherent court funding power).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0173

Original opinion text

July 25, 2005
Opinion Number 05-0173
15 COURTS
71 MUNICIPALITIES

Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge, Div.”B” Mayor’s unilateral reduction of retirement contribution payments on behalf of the Monroe City Court judges is in Honorable Daryl Blue, Judge, Div. “C” violation of La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21. A mayor cannot, in
City Court, City of Monroe
the absence of a proper budget amendment, unilaterally
P. O. Box 777
withhold funds appropriated to or for the city court, nor
can a mayor direct that those funds be expended other
Monroe, Louisiana 71210
than as specified in the adopted budget.

Dear Judge Leehy and Judge Blue:

This office is in receipt of your request for an Attorney General’s opinion regarding the recent modification, by the Mayor of the City of Monroe, of a long-standing policy under which the City paid the employee’s share of retirement contributions, in addition to the mandatory employer’s portion thereof, for all employees of the City of Monroe and the Monroe City Court, including the Monroe City Court judges. With respect thereto, you have presented two questions for our review.

“Does the Mayor’s unilateral reduction of payments on behalf of the judges of the Monroe City Court to the Louisiana State Employee Retirement System violate Art. 5, Sec. 21 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, which prohibits the reduction of a judge’s salary or retirement benefits during his/her term of office?”

La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21 provides:

“The term of office, retirement benefits, and compensation of a judge shall not be decreased during the term for which he is elected.”

By virtue of this provision, the Louisiana Constitution unequivocally provides that the retirement benefits and compensation of a judge cannot be reduced during the term for which he or she is elected. In accord: Attorney General’s Opinion No. 00-79. It is the opinion of this office that the Monroe Mayor’s unilateral reduction of retirement contribution payments on behalf of the Monroe City Court judges is in violation of La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21.

“Does the Mayor’s unilateral reduction of payments on behalf of the judges of the Monroe City Court and the employees of Monroe City Court violate constitutional principles of separation of powers in that

Page 2

Opinion Number 05-0173
Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge, Div.”B”
Honorable Daryl Blue, Judge, Div. “C”
City Court, City of Monroe
Page -2-

the employees of Monroe City Court are court employees, subject solely to the budget authority of the court?”

In accordance with your advice to the undersigned, it is our understanding that sometime after the Monroe City Court budget was submitted to, approved and adopted by the Monroe City Council, the Mayor unilaterally reduced payments for the employee’s portion the retirement contributions of both the judges and the employees of the City Court. It is your position that after a city court’s budget has been properly approved through the municipal budgetary process, it cannot be unilaterally changed by the Mayor.

Please be advised that this office agrees with your position. In the opinion of this office a mayor cannot, in the absence of a proper budget amendment, unilaterally withhold funds appropriated to or for the city court, nor can a mayor direct that those funds be expended other than as specified in the adopted budget.

Pertinent to your inquiry is Attorney General’s Opinion No. 98-34, addressed to the Hon. Larry D. Jefferson of the Monroe City Court on April 1, 1998. Therein, we determined that “…the Mayor does not have authority over the expenditure of funds previously budgeted for the court, and his position in regard to the budgeted payments is ministerial.” Opinion No. 98-34 also determined, based upon the decision rendered in Cosenza v. Aetna Ins., 341 So. 2d 1304 (La. App. 1977), that the City Court does not fall under the supervision of the Mayor, nor is “…his signature required to employ personnel, set the rate of pay or make changes in the status of court personnel.”

It should be noted that the City Court and its judges do not have a “blank check” with regard to the expenses of operation of the city court “and must comply with budgetary requirements in seeking payment of expenses of operation and maintenance of court and office.” Attorney General’s Opinions No. 79-479. See also: Attorney General’s Opinion No. 98-34. Fiscal responsibility requires the city court judges to submit the court’s budget to the municipal governing authority in advance of making expenditures, committing funds, etc.

The requirement to follow proper budgetary procedures does not, however, require that a city court thereby relinquish its authority to exercise control of its employees and their compensation. In this regard we call your attention to the decision rendered in McCain v. Grant Parish Police Jury, 440 So.2d 1369 (3rd Cir. 1983), wherein the court had before it the issue of “Whether a court, as an equal member of our governmental triumvirate, has the inherent power to compel a legislative body, another of the co-equal branches of government, to budget the reasonably necessary expenses incurred to provide the basic needs of an efficient, effective court?” The Third Circuit held, “That courts in the state of Louisiana do possess such inherent power.”

Page 3

Opinion Number 05-0173
Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge, Div.”B”
Honorable Daryl Blue, Judge, Div. “C”
City Court, City of Monroe
Page -3-

In accord with the McCain decision, prior opinions of this office recognize the necessity for courts to operate independently of the other branches of government without fear of retaliation, with respect to expenses which are reasonable and necessary with respect to the functions and administration of the court. Attorney General’s Opinions Nos. 98- 34, 86-177, 85-902, 83-987.

We trust the foregoing to adequately respond to your request. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we can be of assistance in other areas of the law.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
Attorney General

BY: _________
JEANNE-MARIE ZERINGUE BARHAM
Assistant Attorney General

CCF, jr./JMZB/dam

Page 4

Opinion Number 05-0173
Syllabus

15 COURTS
71 MUNICIPALITIES

Mayor’s unilateral reduction of retirement contribution payments on behalf of the Monroe City Court judges is in violation of La. Const. Art V, Sec. 21. A mayor cannot, in the absence of a proper budget amendment, unilaterally withhold funds appropriated to or for the city court, nor can a mayor direct that those funds be expended other than as specified in the adopted budget.

Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge, Div.”B”
Honorable Daryl Blue, Judge, Div. “C”
City Court, City of Monroe
P. O. Box 777
Monroe, Louisiana 71210

Date Received:

Date Released: July 25, 2005

Jeanne-Marie Zeringue Barham
Assistant Attorney General