ELECTION RAISES QUESTIONS OF PROPRIETY

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, bat methods used to bring the message to the public.

Larpenter maintains vehemently that the criticisms were unwarranted, and that he stands by all decisions he mads concerning tax campaign signs.

Days before Tuesdays final yore, 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 “Yea” vote to the tax was affixed. In response. Larpenter said the track 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 track served his department’s public outreach purposes and was appropriate.

Social media sites and individual pages were 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. With few definitive and authoritative legal opinions on paint legality is still in the eye of the beholder.

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 cm to say “This provision shall not prohibit the use of public funds for disseminstion 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 referenced the tax were 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 an 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 oar 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 an the (electronic) marquees you can spend money on dispensing information. You cannot spend money on campaigns. I am very comfortable”

The school district 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 $ 85,85421 as of Jan. 31.2018.

Larpenter bristled at criticisms of how the massage was getting out, arguing that the need for money to fund his department outstripped what he saw as petty attempts to discredit both the proposal and him.

“If this tax doesn’t pass the people of this pariah will suffer,” Larpentar raid the day before the election was held “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 shout 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 A 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 was 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 did 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 an the SWAT truck might prove mare problematic for anyone keeping score.

LA R8 14:470 states that political campaign signs shall not be erected, displayed, or posted an 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 Ieyouhs office declared that a political sign posted on a city-owned vehicle would constitute a placement an 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 an social media there have been no known complaints to either the Terrebonne Pariah District Attorney, nor any court documents filed seeking action against any perceived violations of law.