How the Opioid Overdose and Death Epidemic Can Be Reversed
November 5, 2018
Lagniappe Events 11.07.18
November 6, 2018
Throughout Sheriff Jerry Larpenter’s campaign for a half-penny sales tax to pay for school resource officers, officer raises and to allow continued funding of programs that include a highly popular inmate work program, opponents have criticized not only the proposal, but methods used to bring the message to the public.
Larpenter maintains vehemently that the criticisms are unwarranted, and that he stands by all decisions he has made concerning tax campaign signs.
Most recently, some hackles were raised by the appearance of a Sheriff’s Office SWAT truck at a soccer tournament Saturday, on which a sign urging a “Yes” vote to the tax was affixed. In response, Larpenter said the truck was requested by officials of the Houma-Terrebonne Soccer Association, which leases The Lakes Soccer Complex, a private facility where the tournament was held. The league’s president, Daniel Bruce, confirmed that he requested the SWAT truck as a diversion for children at the field. Larpenter said the appearance of the truck served his department’s public outreach purposes and was appropriate.
The affixing of the sign supporting the tax proposal, however, is the latest informational activity concerning the tax to draw concerns.
Social media sites and individual pages have been awash with posts from tax opponents alleging that attempts to get out the message violate state law. In most cases examined by The Times the allegations — while understandable in the heat of a contested ballot measure — the law appears to lean toward Larpenter’s interpretations, as well as those of the Terrebonne Parish School District, which has signs concerning the tax on its properties.
In most cases, however, black-and-white interpretations are not easy to discern.
La. RS 18:1465 1465, states that “No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization.”
The law then goes on to say, “This provision shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition appearing on an election ballot” and that violation of any provision can result in a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.
Another statute, RS 18:470, bans placement of signs on public property. An attorney general’s opinion released in Oct. of 2000 extends the definition of public property to include publicly-owned vehicles.
In most cases signs on school property that reference the tax have been interpreted by attorneys for the agencies involved as falling under the category of “dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition appearing on an election ballot.” In any event, those interpretations maintain, no public money was expended for spreading the message.
“A YES vote will place an officer in every school for our children’s safety,” signs on some school properties read, as well as a banner on the school district website. Some signs initially had a more direct message but were removed after the discrepancy was found.
Schools Superintendent Philip Martin said a similar issue came up when the district was seeking a sales tax to help pay teachers, and that the provisions of law allowing certain signs were cleared.
“We went through that, it was vetted legally when we did our half cent sales tax,” Martin said. “You can’t say ‘go vote for Joe’ on a sign but it is perfectly legal to dispense information. Is it a thin line? Of course. In this case our signs say an SRO in every school. We didn’t fund signs, we didn’t sponsor signs. We did ask the principals to put up this information. As for putting signs on the (electronic) marquees you can spend money on dispensing information. You cannot spend money on campaigns. I am very comfortable.”
The school district’s attorney, Stanwood Duval, said he did give an interpretation of the law to the school officials. However, it was not a written opinion, and no written opinion appears to exist at any local agency.
What is certain is that the signs that have appeared are paid for by Larpenter’s own election campaign fund, which regulators maintain is in all ways legal.
Filings on how much of the fund has gone into the tax campaign are not yet due. But the most recent campaign document filings for Larpenter show a war-chest of $ 85,654.21 as of Jan. 31, 2018.
Larpenter bristles at criticisms of how the message is getting out, arguing that the need for money to fund his department outstrips what he sees as petty attempts to discredit both the proposal and him.
“If this tax doesn’t pass the people of this parish will suffer,” Larpenter said. “We will have a decrease in our law enforcement capability to fight crime. Those signs are not for Jerry Larpenter it is for this parish, and to protect our kids and even protect the cronies who are lying about me, my budget and my office. We are looking for an answer that will help keep maybe 20 police officers that will lose their jobs and not be able to put a deputy in every school. We spend $6.4 million per year to protect criminals in jail. The $5 million I propose will go a long way to protect our students.”
The criticism, Larpenter said Monday morning, is fanned by former deputies with axes to grind whom he has dismissed from duty over many years, and in particular when he re-took his office from former sheriff Vernon Bourgeois, who served one term during Larpenter’s absence.
“I am not going to let a few idiots try to disrupt the truth we are putting out there,” Larpenter said displaying the fervor of a Chautauqua Tent preacher as he has throughout the tax campaign.
While the presence of signs may not be as much of a legal issue as critics have stressed, the presence of a sign clearly urging a “Yes” vote on the SWAT truck might prove more problematic for anyone keeping score.
LA RS 14:470 states that “political campaign signs shall not be erected, displayed, or posted on any publicly owned property or right of way, or to or on any public utility pole or stanchion.”
Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor.
In an opinion delivered to the Plaquemine Police Department in the year 2000, Attorney General Richard Leyoub’s office declared that a political sign posted on a city-owned vehicle would constitute a placement on public property, as the law is not limited to immovables. While attorney general opinions are not binding and do not have the force of law, application of the Plaquemines opinion raises questions, although no answers can be expected soon.
While criticism has been rampant on social media there have been no known complaints to either the Terrebonne Parish District Attorney, nor any court documents filed seeking action against any perceived violations of law.
Judging by social media posts the various criticisms have moved some voters from “undecided” to “no.”
The decision of voters is perceived by political observers to be a potential referendum not just on the tax but on Larpenter’s fortunes as a candidate for re-election next year. Their verdict on the tax will be tallied Tuesday night when the polls close.
