Cindy goes inland; area mostly unscathed
June 22, 2017
Marie Barrilleaux
June 23, 2017
The reaction to a $50,000 payout by the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government to settle a civil rights case brought by a Houma blogger has ranged from grudging acceptance to gowing praise for Parish President Gordon Dove, who had the ultimate authority to approve the settlement without Parish Council approval.
But the administration’s dogged – although thwarted – attempts to hide the settlement from public view have also raised questions about Dove’s commitment to transparency and open government.
Elements of both perspectives are likely topics for discussion when the council meets next week.
Parish attorney Julius Hebert’s attempt to have U.S. District Judge Lance Africk seal the settlement information, a confidentiality clause built into the settlement document itself and the use of closed door meetings with individual council members to announce the settlement amount have proved a botheration to some in the legislative branch of parish government, who would have preferred a more open approach.
“I believe Parish President Dove acted with the parish’s best interests in settling the case,” said Parish Councilman Gerald Michel, echoing similar sentiments from his fellows. “But once the case was dismissed everything about the settlement should have been freely and clearly disclosed to the taxpayers who are ultimately paying the bill.”
The civil suit in New Orleans federal court arose from a blog written and posted by former legal secretary Jennifer Anderson on a web page called “ExposeDat” and on a Facebook page she maintained under the nome de plume “John Turner.” The blog alleged unholy alliances between Dove, Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Jerry Larpenter, Houma insurance broker Tony Alford and others. A vexed Alford made a criminal complaint against the blog under Louisiana’s troublesome public defamation statute, resulting in the seizure by Larpenter’s deputies of computer equipment belonging to Anderson and her husband, Wayne, a Houma city police officer. State District Judge Randy Bethancourt signed the warrant for the seizure, which was later overturned by an appeals court. No criminal prosecution resulted for Anderson or her husband. But they sued Dove, the parish government, Larpenter, Alford, and the levee board on which he serves,
alleging a conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Alford was dismissed as a defendant by the Andersons with no known settlement involved. With the parish now out in turn for $50,000, Sheriff Larpenter is the only remaining defendant, and he intends to continue fighting the case.
That’s what Councilman Al Marmande said he would have preferred in terms of the parish government.
“I am annoyed that we are rewasting money on this when we have flooding and other problems to take care of in Terrebonne Parish,” Marmande said, although he too acknowledges that the continued cost of defending against the high-profile case could have been onerous. The intrigue surrounding the final settlement, he said, raises questions about whether provisions that allow the parish president to act unilaterally on expenditures up to a $50,000 cap should be re-examined when it comes to court settlements.
“Any money going out should be controlled by the nine members,” Marmande said. “They could settle a lawsuit for $50,000 and we wouldn’t know anything about it of allowing the parish president to act unilaterally.”
Although the parish government had no say over warrants, seizures of computers or anything else related to that activity, some council members said, Wayne Anderson as a parish employee lost income during his forced administrative leave after the computer seizures, a point made in the litigation, losing valuable extra-duty detail money during that period. While that connection may or may not be valid in terms of any claims, they understand how that could make fighting the suit difficult.
The Parish Council appeared to have issued an advance stamp of approval on the outcome on May 10, when they entered a closed session for 25 minutes to discuss the case. When they came back into open session council members approved a motion by Councilwoman Arlanda Williams that they “concur with the parish attorney” in regard to the suit. Within a week’s time Judge Lance Africk ordered a partial dismissal, “having been advised that plaintiff and defendants Gordon Dove and Terrebonne Parish Consolidated have firmly agreed upon a compromise.”
The matter was never taken up by the council again, indicating that whatever occurred behind closed doors amounted to an approval, likely for settlement within the range the parish president is permitted for expenditures without specific council approval.
Subsequent public records requests were denied because the parish administration considered the case to be a “pending legal claim.”
All doubt that the matter was closed was erased by June 8, when the parish and the Andersons filed a joint motion to end the case “with prejudice,” barring any future claims. They also filed a motion to seal the record and all information concerning the settlement.
That the parish was seeking to place a gag on any settlement information was never disclosed to Assistant District Attorney Jason Dagate, when he sought information on behalf of The Times after further denial of public records requests.
On June 13 Judge Africk granted the dismissal of the case against the parish and denied the attempt to have the record sealed, specifically striking a line through a clause requesting that he order the parish government to not comply with any public records requests.
The docket entry in Pacer, the computer program through which attorneys and the public access federal court records, states that Item #84 is an order denying the motion to seal the record.
It was referenced in a June 14 demand issued by New Orleans attorney Scott Sternberg to Julius Hebert and the parish public records administrator on behalf of a Times reporter and the Louisiana Press Association.
“As you know based on the attached order, Judge Lance Africk denied your Joint Motion to Seal the contents of the Settlement Agreement from public view, specifically refusing to exempt the settlement from the Public Records Law,” Sternberg wrote, threatening a suit for civil penalties as well as attorney fees. “There is now more than enough evidence that the Parish is interested in keeping secret the amounts paid by a public body to settle this lawsuit. That is incredibly concerning. I trust you can remedy this concern of mine by producing the documentation which is very clearly a public record under the law.”
That evening no mention was made of the settlement at a regularly scheduled parish council meeting, although Dove had already met individually with some council members to disclose the amount of the settlement. At those private meetings council members were told the judge had sealed the settlement details.
Dove refused a request by a reporter made after the meeting for the settlement amount. That night The Times published an article relaying that information along with the fact that the judge had denied the request for the record to be sealed.
Those issues aside, the parish administration nonetheless did finally make details public Friday, securing a waiver from the attorney for the Andersons, Jerri Smitko, from the confidentiality clause baked into the settlement document.
“I applaud the parish’s decision to release the information,” attorney Sternberg said.
“I AM ANNOYED THAT WE ARE WASTING MONE Y ON THIS WHEN WE HAVE FLOODING AND OTHER PROBLEMS TO TAKE CARE OF IN TERREBONNE PARISH,”
“BUT ONCE THE CASE WAS DISMISSED EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FREELY AND CLEARLY DISCLOSED TO THE TAXPAYERS WHO ARE ULTIMATELY PAYING THE BILL”
Terrebonne Parish Government paid the Anderson’s $50,000 to settle the ExposeDat lawsuit. The entire settlement is available at HoumaTimes.com.
