Could a Crowley alderman also work for a locally run, federally funded assistance program?

Plain-English summary

An Acadia Parish clerk asked about a Crowley alderman who also worked for A.S.S.I.S.T., a local agency whose assistance program received federal funding. In 2005, the Attorney General concluded that the two positions could not be held together on its assumption that the employee performed functions connected to the federally funded activities. That factual assumption was central; the opinion did not document the employee's actual duties.

The AG quoted Louisiana's R.S. 42:63(A)(1), which barred a state or local officeholder from simultaneous employment in the federal government, and discussed the federal Hatch Act rule for local employees whose principal work was connected to federally funded activities. It said the latter rule did not apply to a local employee who exercised no functions connected with that activity. The opinion's syllabus attributed the result to state and federal law, but its state-law passage did not explain why employment at the described local agency was federal-government employment. Its concrete application rested on the assumed grant-related duties.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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.

Common questions

Did a federal grant alone bar a local agency worker from serving as alderman?

The opinion did not make that finding from funding alone. It said the Hatch Act condition depended on the employee exercising functions connected to the federally funded activity and assumed that condition was met here.

Did the AG verify what the Crowley employee actually did at A.S.S.I.S.T.?

No. It expressly said, "We assume that in his employment Mr. Martin exercises functions in connection with the activities which are federally funded," then concluded that he could not also serve as alderman.

What did the state dual-officeholding provision quoted in the opinion cover?

R.S. 42:63(A)(1) addressed simultaneous state or local office and employment in the government of the United States, another state, or a foreign country. The opinion described A.S.S.I.S.T. as a local agency and did not explain a federal-government classification for it.

Did the AG describe an exception for work unrelated to the funded activity?

Yes. It said the federal rule did not apply to a local employee who exercised no functions in connection with the federally funded activity.

Background and statutory framework

Crowley alderman Vernon Martin worked for a local assistance program described as federally funded. The AG quoted R.S. 42:63(A)(1) on public office combined with federal-government employment and cited the Hatch Political Activity Act, including 5 U.S.C.A § 1502's candidacy restriction and 5 U.S.C.A § 1501 (4)'s definition and no-functions exclusion. The opinion treated the Hatch Act as reaching service in elective office by implication. It then assumed the factual link between Martin's duties and the funded activities rather than finding it from a job description. The page states that premise and the gap in the state-law explanation so the historical conclusion is not read more broadly than the opinion supports.

Citations

• R.S. 42:63(A)(1) (state dual-officeholding prohibition quoted in the opinion).
• 5 U.S.C.A § 1502 (federal candidacy rule quoted in the opinion).
• 5 U.S.C.A § 1501 (4) (federal definition tied to funded work).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0308

Original opinion text

November 9, 2005
OPINION 05-0308

78 Dual Officeholding
Honorable Robert T. Barousse
R.S. 42:63(A)(1); LSA-R.S. 42:61; LSA-R.S. 42:63
State and federal law prohibit a municipal alderman from holding
Clerk of Court
employment with local agency which is federally funded, where he
Acadia Parish
exercises functions in connection with the activities which are
P. O. Box 922
federally funded.

Crowley, LA 70527-0922

Dear Mr. Barousse:

You advise that Mr. Vernon Martin serves as elected alderman for the City of Crowley. Mr. Martin is also employed by the A.S.S.I.S.T. agency in Crowley, a federally-funded program which assists the indigent and disabled of the parish.

Note first that R.S. 42:63(A)(1) of our state dual-office holding and dual employment law states:

Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection, no person holding an elective office, appointive office, or employment in any of the branches of state government or of a political subdivision thereof shall at the same time hold another elective office, appointive office, or employment in the government of a foreign country, in the government of the United States, or in the government of another state. (Emphasis added).

The position of municipal council member is considered an elective office under state law. LSA-R.S. 42:62(1).1 LSA-R.S. 42:63(A)(1) quoted above states it is a violation of the dual officeholding law for an elected official to be employed by the federal government.

Further, the Hatch Political Activity Act (5 U.S.C.A. §§1501, et seq.) provides that under certain limited conditions, a state or local officer or employee may not “be a candidate for elective office” 2 and, by implication, may not serve in an elective office. In general, 1 R.S. 42:61(1) states: (1) “Elective office” means any position which is established or authorized by the constitution or laws of this state or by the charter or ordinances of any political subdivision thereof, which is not a political party office and which is filled by vote of the citizens of this state or of a political subdivision thereof. 2 5 U.S.C.A § 1502 states, in pertinent part: (a) A State or local officer or employee may not *

Page 2

Honorable Robert T. Barousse
OPINION 05-0308
Page 2

the Hatch Act applies to employees of a local government agency “whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency.”3 The Hatch Act does not apply to a local employee “who exercises no functions in connection with that activity.”4 Thus, the Hatch Act’s prohibitions apply only if the local employee exercises functions in connection with a federally funded activity.

We assume that in his employment Mr. Martin exercises functions in connection with the activities which are federally funded; thus, he may not also hold the local elected office of Crowley alderman.

Very truly yours,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: _______ KERRY L. KILPATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

KLK:ams

(3) be a candidate for elective office.
3
5 U.S.C.A § 1501 (4) states:
(4) “State or local officer or employee” means an individual employed by a State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency. . . . . 4 5U.S.C.A § 1501 (4)(A) states: (4) “state or local officer or employee” . . . does not include (A) an individual who exercises no functions in connection with that activity;

Page 3

Honorable Robert T. Barousse
OPINION 05-0308
Page 3

OPINION 05-0308

78 Dual Officeholding

R.S. 42:63(A)(1); LSA-R.S. 42:62(1); the Hatch Political Activity Act (5 U.S.C.A. §§1501, et seq.)

State and federal law prohibit a municipal alderman from holding employment with a local agency which is federally funded, where he exercises functions in connection with the activities which are federally funded.

Honorable Robert T. Barousse
Clerk of Court
Acadia Parish
P. O. Box 922
Crowley, LA 70527-0922

Date Received:
Date Released: November 9, 2005

KERRY L. KILPATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL