Several of the many questions that our readers had about the sales tax proposal centered around the recently formed Legal Department consisting of just one attorney, Justin Stephens, and the decision to give Stephens a 55% raise to handle the additional work load. We have distilled many of those questions down as follows:
- Is the Parish Attorney tasked with handling the Port litigation?
- If so, then why do we need to hire an outside law firm?
- If not, then why did we need to give the Parish Attorney a substantial raise?
Cusimano seems to have given us a crude answer to several, if not all, of those questions.
A little bit of background is needed to understand how we got here: The Parish Attorney, Justin Stephens, took over as the after the Council voted 6-1 to remove the District Attorney as the legal advisor for the Parish. Stephens, who had previously worked for the District Attorney’s Office, was effectively re-assigned as the Parish Attorney for the newly formed Legal Department. As part of the re-organization, Stephens’ salary was increased by 55% – from $80,000 per year to $125,000 per year.
It can be difficult to understand budget amendments so we will walk through this together.
Step 1: Reduced the District Attorney’s budget by removing the line item providing for the salary of Justin Stephens.
Step 2: Increase the line item for the Legal Department providing for the salary for Justin Stephens in the amount of $125,000.
The two budget adjustments increased the total expense to the Parish by $55,000 for the same attorney.
Since October 1, 2024, Stephens was seemingly the attorney for the Parish in all legal matters, including the Port litigation. Almost immediately after taking this position however, the Parish moved on November 6, 2024 to hire an outside law firm, Leake & Anderson, to handle the Port litigation. While it is not exactly clear what happened or even when this happened, by February 4, 2025 Cusimano cryptically admitted that Leake & Anderson could not handle the Port litigation for the Parish.
On February 13, 2025, the Parish went public with its desire to impose a sales tax to fund the Port litigation. Judging by all of the comments on Facebook, the public was not supportive of the tax and further suspected that something was amiss about this proposed tax. To make matters even worse, Councilman Everhardt took to Facebook to declare his opposition to the proposed sales tax.
The prospects for passing the proposed sales tax did not look good going into the February 18, 2025 Council meeting.
After it had become apparent that President Pomes and Councilman Randall were joining Everhardt to oppose the tax, Cusimano took an apparent swipe at the Parish Attorney in order to impress upon her fellow councilmembers the dire need to approve the sales tax proposal and to do it right now. Take a listen for yourself!
We don’t want to hire some fly by night attorney who doesn’t know what he’s doing. We want to know that the people that are representing us on the legal side are experienced and knowledgeable – and it costs money.
Patrice cusimano
Cusimano seemed to be expressing a concern that the Parish’s current counsel, Justin Stephens, was either incapable or unwilling to handle the Port litigation. Cusimano’s choice of words were a bit harsh, but were perhaps necessary to stress the importance of approving the resolution to place the tax proposal on the next ballot and perhaps revealed some level of regret for removing the District Attorney’s office from the Port litigation.
So it seems fairly clear that Cusimano does not want Stephens involved in the Port litigation. Part of the issue seems to be that Stephens only makes $125,000 per year and that amount isn’t enough to make her feel comfortable in the attorney’s level of experience and knowledge.
As Cusimano pointed out “experienced and knowledgeable” representation “costs money.” And to that end, Cusimano was in favor of the sales tax proposal that would have raised approximately $1,166,667 per year in revenue to pay these new attorneys. (See our prior post here, here, and here for a explanation of the revenue issues.) Cusimano’s point raises the question, how much is enough to ensure “experienced and knowledgeable” representation for the Parish.
Stephens himself did not appear to be offended by Cusimano’s swipe at him. Curiously, Stephens even seemed to agree with Cusimano on the need to pass this sales tax resolution and to do it right now. Take a listen for yourself!
Stephens’ position was even more surprising since President Pomes had already publicly expressed his opposition to the proposed sales tax by this point. Stephens was later recognized to speak on behalf of the Administration only to express his support for the sales tax proposal. Stephens emphasized the importance of passing this resolution right now as there would likely not be enough time to do so later once the litigation picked up.
The tax proposal was one of two related items – the other being the introduction of an ordinance to retain another outside law firm, McGlinchey, to represent the Parish in the Port litigation. This was a curious move after the sales tax proposal failed because the Parish apparently does not have the money to fund the litigation if it eventually retains McGlinchey. Take a listen for yourself!
It is difficult to understand how the Parish can move forward with hiring an outside law firm without also passing the sales tax. If the Parish moves forward with hiring this new law firm without the ability to fully fund its obligation to that law firm, then that would appear to be not only poor money management on the part of the Parish but also a poor business practice. This would just be the most recent example of the disorder plaguing the Parish with this new government.
Cusimano’s comments further highlight the poor money management issues plaguing the Parish. Cusimano lamented the difficulty in budgeting for the Port litigation because “no law firm is going to give you an estimate through the end of the lawsuit.” However, the sales tax proposal was very specific in seeking to raise approximately $1,166,667 per year to fund the Port litigation. As usual, the Council’s actions raise more questions than answers: Is this amount ($1,166,667 per year) too much or not enough to fund the Port litigation? How did the Parish come up with the figure of $1,166,667 per year to fund the Port litigation?
The public deserves to know the answers to these questions and many more.
