As recently reported, Councilman Everhardt has proposed a resolution to open an investigation in to the discussions between St. Bernard Parish Government and the Port of New Orleans.
In an unexpected twist, Justin Stephens, General Counsel for St. Bernard Parish Government, opined that due to the seeming conflicts of interest of certain council members, the Council would not be able to open the investigation.
The reasoning is a little unclear, so it’s worth breaking it down step-by-step:
- The Charter prohibits any individual council member from voting on any matter for which that council member has a conflict of interest.
- The Charter states that if three or more council members must disqualify themselves, the investigation must be conducted by the ethics board.
- Mr. Stephens has implied that three or more council members have a conflict of interest for which they must disqualify themselves.
- Therefore, the investigation must be conducted by the ethics board.
- St. Bernard Parish does not have an ethics board.
Mr. Stephens opinion suggests, if not outright claims, that there are at least three members of the council who have a conflict of interest related to the negotiations with the Port of New Orleans.
This is an astounding suggestion and implied accusation, especially since the council members with a conflict of interest have not been named. And therefore, the question that must be asked is, who are the council members with a conflict of interest?
The apparent conflict of interest requires the investigation to be done by the ethics board. But since there is no ethics board, a board would have to be composed before moving forward with the investigation. Since this is surely to be a lengthy process, the alleged conflicts of interest all but shut down the investigation altogether.
The result itself raises questions in to the motives of Mr. Stephens opinion. It is not clear who solicited Mr. Stephens opinion on the matter. And it is not clear who Mr. Stephens represents. The general subject of the investigation was the administration. The ultimate result of Mr. Stephens opinion certainly benefits the administration by effectively preventing the investigation from going forward. But Mr. Stephens opinion was directed only to the Council.
The diverging interests and goals related to the investigation highlight why Mr. Stephens himself may have a conflict of interest. Mr. Stephens opinion to one client, the Council, would be expected to persuade that client to follow his advice. Mr. Stephens other client, the President, is the beneficiary of the Council’s action. It makes it difficult to be confident that Mr. Stephens’ opinion to the Council was done, or could have been done, independent of the President’s interests.
Even more bizarre is the claim by Mr. Stephens that “the resolution does not actually state the specific purpose of the investigation as required by the charter…” The resolution to open the investigation is reproduced in its entirety below.
The resolution itself contains no less than nine paragraphs explaining the reasons for requesting an investigation and the purposes of the investigation, i.e. to get a full understanding of the discussions between the St. Bernard Parish Government and the Port of New Orleans regarding the proposed sewer tie in and proposed relocation of the water service lines.
That Mr. Stephens seems to disregard the obvious raises the concern that he may have been attempting to improperly sway the Council by contriving some perceived deficiency for the benefit of his other client, the Parish President.
This is why in many parishes, the President and Council each have their own sets of attorneys to avoid even the appearance of this type of conflict of interest. One man can’t serve two masters.