Could a Louisiana city pay for a crossing guard at a church catechism program?

Plain-English summary

Rayne's mayor asked whether the city could pay a crossing guard for a local church's catechism program. In this January 2014 opinion, the AG concluded that the proposed expense would be a prohibited donation of public funds. The request gave no basis for a city duty to staff the crossing, and the AG said any such duty appeared to belong to the church.

The opinion applied the Louisiana Constitution's rule against gratuitous transfers of public value. It contrasted the church program with public schools, for which the AG had previously discussed a school board's supervision duty in some circumstances. It did not decide every possible crossing-guard arrangement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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.

Historical summary

City officials

The AG found no city duty or governmental purpose supporting payment for the crossing guard described in the request. It therefore treated the proposed expenditure as gratuitous under La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A).

Church program administrators

The opinion said the responsibility for a crossing guard at this catechism program appeared to lie with the church. Its conclusion concerned a city-paid guard for that program.

Common questions

Could Rayne pay a crossing guard for the church program?

The AG said no under the facts presented. It viewed the expense as a prohibited donation of city money because no city duty or purpose justified it.

Did the opinion say public schools could never have crossing guards?

No. It referred to an earlier opinion recognizing that a school board's student-supervision duty could include crossing guards depending on children's ages and circumstances. That point did not supply a city duty for the church program.

Background and statutory framework

The AG applied La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A), as interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court's public-funds decision cited in the opinion. The constitutional analysis asked whether the public entity had authority and a governmental purpose, whether the transfer was gratuitous, and whether it could expect equivalent value. The AG found the first question decisive for Rayne's proposed payment.

Citations

• La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A): constitutional restriction on gratuitous public spending.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/13-0148

Original opinion text

~htb~ of 1Gouisia:mt
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE
70804-9005
JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

JAN 16 2014
OPINION 13-0148

90-A-1 PUBLIC FUNDS & CONTRACTS
Hon. Roland J. Boudreaux
Mayor, City of Rayne
La. Canst. art. VII, Sec. 14

P.O Box 69

• The City of Rayne is prohibited from using public funds to pay for the
  Rayne, LA 70578
  services of a crossing guard at a local church.

Dear Mayor Boudreaux:

Your request for an Attorney General's Opinion has been assigned to me for research and reply. On behalf of the City of Rayne ("City"), you have asked for our opinion as to whether the City may expend public funds in order to pay for a crossing guard for the catechism program at a local church.

All questions concerning the use of public funds must be examined in light of La. Const. art. VII, § 14. La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Section 14(A) Prohibited Uses. Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, the funds, credit, property, or things of value of the state or of any political subdivision shall not be loaned, pledged, or donated to or for any person, association, or corporation, public or private ... '

In Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Board of the City of Gonzales, Louisiana, Inc. v. All Taxpayers, Property Owners; Citizens of the City of Gonzales, et al., 938 SO.2d 11, 2005-2298 (La. 9/6/06) (the "Cabela's" case), the Louisiana Supreme Court abandoned its analysis in City of Port Allen. v. Louisiana Mun. Risk Mgmt.
Agency, Inc., 439 SO.2d 399 (La. 1983), and articulated a new standard of review governing La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A), stating that La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A) "is violated when public funds or property are gratuitously alienated." Cabela's, 938 SO.2d at 20.

In light of the Cabela's case, it is the opinion of this office that in order for an expenditure or transfer of public funds to be permissible under Art. VII, Sec. 14(A), the public entity must have the legal authority to make the expenditure and must show: (i) a . public purpose for the expenditure or transfer that comports with the governmental purpose for which the public entity has legal authority to undertake; (ii) that the expenditure or transfer, taken as a whole, does not appear to be gratuitous; and (iii) the public entity has a demonstrable, objective, and reasonable expectation of receiving at least equivalent value in exchange for the expenditure or transfer of public funds. The

Page 2

Opinion 13-0148
Mayor Roland J. Boudreaux
Page 2

Cabela's standard places a strong emphasis on the reciprocal obligations between the parties to ensure that there is not a gratuitous donation of public funds.

In our view, the proposed expenditure by the City would likely be considered merely gratuitous. You have not provided our office with any information that would indicate that the City has a duty or obligation to provide a crossing guard for a catechism program at a local church. Further, our office has previously recognized that no Louisiana statute expressly requires any governmental entity, including police departments or school boards, to provide crossing guards for public schools. See Attorney General Opinion NO.1 0-0221. Nevertheless, since school boards have a duty to provide reasonable supervision over its students, we also recognized that such duty may include providing crossing guards for schools if the age of the children and the attendant circumstances warrant it. Id. Here, it appears that any duty to provide a crossing guard for a catechism program at a local church would lie with the church, not the City. Thus, the proposed expenditure does not comport with the governmental purpose for which the City has legal authority to undertake. As a result, when considering the proposed expenditure under the lens of La. Const. art. VII, Sec. 14, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed expenditure would be merely gratuitous and would amount to a prohibited donation of public funds.

We trust this adequately responds to your request. If you should have any questions about the response contained herein, please feel free to contact our office.

Yours very truly,

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
ATTO Y GENERAL

BY:
. VALLAN orney General

JDC/MJV/chb