Could Baton Rouge pay travel costs for an out-of-state candidate interviewing for a city-parish job?

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether Baton Rouge’s city-parish government could pay travel expenses for an out-of-state applicant interviewing for an unclassified position. In 2006, the Attorney General gave a conditional answer. The city-parish needed a legal obligation to pay, a public purpose, and a public benefit proportionate to the expense.

The AG said the city-parish itself had to decide, case by case, whether interviewing a particular person produced a benefit equivalent to the travel cost. The opinion did not identify an existing payment obligation or approve payment for a named candidate. It applied the Louisiana Constitution’s restriction on giving public funds away without a legal obligation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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 the AG categorically ban travel reimbursement for out-of-state interviewees?

No. It said payment could be permissible if the city-parish had a legal obligation and the public benefit was proportionate to the cost.

Did the AG decide that one particular candidate’s trip was worth its cost?

No. It left that factual determination to the city-parish for each interview.

Was a public purpose alone enough under the opinion?

No. The AG said the expenditure also needed a legal obligation and a public benefit proportionate to the expense.

Background and statutory framework

Article VII, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution generally prohibited donations of public funds. The AG quoted City of Port Allen v. Louisiana Municipal Risk for the legal-obligation threshold and cited prior opinions for the additional public-purpose and proportionate-benefit requirements. It applied that framework to applicant travel without finding whether a specific proposed payment met it.

Citations

• La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14 (public-funds restriction).
• City of Port Allen v. Louisiana Municipal Risk, 439 So.2d 399 (La. 1983) (legal-obligation rule quoted by the AG).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0378

Original opinion text

February 6, 2006
OPINION NUMBER 05-0378

90-A-2 PUBLIC FUNDS – Loan, Pledge or Grants La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14

Hon. William B. Daniel, IV
The City-Parish of Baton Rouge may pay the travel
State Representative
expenses for an out-of-state job interviewee provided the
District 68
City-Parish has a legal obligation to do so, and the benefit
17170 Perkins Road
to the City-Parish is equivalent to the value expended.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810

Dear Representative Daniel:

You requested an Attorney General’s opinion regarding the legality of the use of public funds to pay for certain travel expenses. Specifically, you ask whether the City-Parish of Baton Rouge is prohibited by the state constitution from paying travel expenses for an out-of-state job interviewee. You indicate that the position in question would be unclassified.

The issues presented by your request must be addressed in light of the provisions of Article VII, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, which contains the constitutional standard for the lawful use of public funds and property. La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14 generally prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from loaning, pledging or donating public funds, assets or property to persons, associations or corporations, public or private.

This office has long recognized that caution must be exercised in the expenditure of public funds. Historically, the Attorney General has followed the Louisiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14, as set forth in City of Port Allen v. Louisiana Municipal Risk, 439 So.2d 399 (La. 1983), wherein the Court states: “…this Section is violated whenever the state or a political subdivision seeks to give up something of value when it is under no legal obligation to do so.” The previous opinions of this office recognize that the requirement of a legal obligation to expend public funds or use public property is the threshold predicate for the constitutionality of an expenditure or use; but it is not, however, the only predicate. The expenditure must also be for a public purpose and create a public benefit proportionate to its cost. Attorney General’s Opinion No. 90-63. See also: Attorney General’s Opinion Nos. 02- 0125; 01-0389.

Page 2

Hon. William B. Daniel, IV
OPINION NUMBER 05-0378
Page - 2 -

The City-Parish of Baton Rouge can only pay the travel expenses of a job interviewee if there is a legal obligation to do so. Whether the opportunity to interview a particular individual provides a benefit to the City-Parish which is equivalent to the value expended is a factual determination that must be made by the City Parish on a case-by- case basis.

Trusting this adequately responds to your request, we remain

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: _________
KENNETH L. ROCHE, III
Assistant Attorney General

CCF, JR/KLR, III/jv

Page 3

OPINION NUMBER 05-0378

90-A-2 PUBLIC FUNDS – Loan, Pledge or Grants
La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 14

The City-Parish of Baton Rouge may pay the travel expenses for an out-of-state job interviewee provided the City-Parish has a legal obligation to do so, and the benefit to the City-Parish is equivalent to the value expended.

Hon. William B. Daniel, IV
State Representative
District 68
17170 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810

Date Received:

Date Released: February 6, 2006

KENNETH L. ROCHE, III
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL