IN RE: JEFFERSON PARISH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION (2025)

The Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association, Local 1374 International Association of Firefighters (Union) appeals a declaratory opinion issued on March 8, 2024 by the Louisiana Board of Ethics (BOE) regarding the Union's ability to pay for legal services in connection with the representation of its members in matters before the Jefferson Parish Fire Civil Service Board (Civil Service Board) when a member of the Civil Service Board is also a trustee or officer of the Union. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Jefferson Parish Council created the Civil Service Board to perform the necessary duties in connection with the civil service system for employees of the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District.¹ See La. R.S. 33:2536, 2536.2, and 2537. Any regular employee in the classified service may demand in writing a hearing and investigation by the Civil Service Board. The employee shall be afforded the opportunity to appear before the Civil Service Board, either in person or with counsel. See La. R.S. 33:2561(A) and (B)(2). The Union is a private organization recognized by Jefferson Parish as a bargaining representative of classified employees of the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District.

One member of the Civil Service Board must be appointed who was first nominated and elected by and from the regular employees of the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District. See La. R.S. 33:2536(C)(3)(a)(i). To be eligible for appointment to or to serve as a member of the Civil Service Board, a person must be a citizen of the United States of America, a resident of Jefferson Parish for at least five years preceding his appointment, and at the time of his appointment, a qualified voter of the parish. La. R.S. 33:2536.2(A).

In 2018, the Civil Service Board requested an opinion from the BOE regarding the service of Craig Burkett as a member of the Civil Service Board, particularly with respect to any obligation he had to recuse himself from certain matters brought before the Civil Service Board. Mr. Burkett held the position of Vice-President of the Union and had been elected by the members of the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District for appointment to the Civil Service Board. In its opinion, the BOE concluded that the members of the Civil Service Board are public servants subject to the Code of Governmental Ethics. Pertinent hereto, the BOE further concluded that:

[The] Code of Governmental Ethics prohibits the Union from representing its members before the [Civil Service] Board while Mr. Burkett serves as Vice-President of the Union and as a member of the [Civil Service] Board. La. R.S. 42:1111E prohibits a public servant or a legal entity of which such public servant is an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee from receiving any thing of economic value for assisting a person in a transaction with the agency of the public servant. ․ Because the Union receives payment of dues, in part, for its representation of its members before the [Civil Service] Board, the Union is prohibited from representing its members before the [Civil Service] Board while Mr. Burkett serves as its Vice-President.

Thereafter, on May 22, 2023, the Union applied for a declaratory opinion with the BOE, requesting a declaratory opinion “regarding its ability to pay for legal services in connection with the representation of its members in matters before the Civil Service Board while a Trustee of the [Union] serves as an elected member of the Civil Service Board.” According to its application, the election of a new firefighter representative to the Civil Service Board was scheduled for August 2023. The Union contended that La. R.S. 42:1111E did not prohibit it from paying a third-party law firm to represent its members before the Civil Service Board. The Union argued in the alternative that since the new member would be an elected member of the Civil Service Board, if La. R.S. 42:1111E was applicable, the applicable section of the statute was La. R.S. 42:1111E(2).

The BOE held a public hearing on the Union's application for a declaratory opinion on November 3, 2023. The BOE and the Union submitted a joint stipulation of facts and exhibits. The Union called as witnesses Robert Burkett, the current Union President; and Mitch Arbaugh and Brad Rodrigue, the firefighter representative nominees for the Civil Service Board, who were also trustees of the Union. Following the hearing, the BOE took the matter under advisement.

On March 8, 2024, the BOE issued its declaratory opinion. The BOE concluded that the facts established through the stipulations, exhibits, and witness testimony supported a finding that La. R.S. 42:1111E(1) prohibits the Union from receiving dues from Union members in exchange for providing legal services to Union members in connection with hearings before the Civil Service Board when an officer or trustee of the Union serves as an appointed member of the Civil Service Board. The BOE further concluded that the Ethics Code does not prohibit the Union from providing legal assistance to its members in hearings before the Civil Service Board while a regular member of the Union serves as an appointed member of the Civil Service Board. The Union appeals.² ,³

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The BOE erred in issuing a declaratory opinion concluding that La. R.S. 42:1111E prohibits a Union from using dues to pay for representation of its members before the Civil Service Board when an officer or trustee of the Union is serving on the Civil Service Board.

2. The BOE erred in its application of La. R.S. 42:1111E(1) and not La. R.S. 42:1111E(2), which applies to “elected officials.”

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The BOE is established by La. R.S. 42:1132 and is charged with enforcing the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics. The purpose of the Code of Governmental Ethics is to further the public interest by insuring that the law protects against conflicts of interest on the part of Louisiana's public officials and state employees by establishing ethical standards to regulate the conduct of those persons. See La. R.S. 42:1101; Duplantis v. Louisiana Board of Ethics, 2000-1750 (La. 3/23/01), 782 So. 2d 582, 586.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 42:1111E provides, in pertinent part, that:

(1) No public servant, and no legal entity of which such public servant is an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee, or in which such public servant has a substantial economic interest, shall receive or agree to receive any thing of economic value for assisting a person in a transaction, or in an appearance in connection with a transaction, with the agency of such public servant.

(2)(a) No elected official of a governmental entity shall receive or agree to receive any thing of economic value for assisting a person in a transaction or in an appearance in connection with a transaction with the governmental entity or its officials or agencies, unless he files a written statement with the board prior to or within ten days after initial assistance is rendered.

The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. Ellis v. Louisiana Board of Ethics, 2014-0112 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/3 0/14), 168 So. 3d 714, 723, writ denied, 2015-0208 (La. 4/17/15), 168 So. 3d 400. Words and phrases are to be read in their context and to be accorded their generally prevailing meaning. La. C.C. art. 11; La. R.S. 1:3. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and the letter of it shall not be disregarded in search of the intent of the legislature or under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. La. C.C. art. 9; La. R.S. 1:4.

The Union and the BOE stipulated to the following facts at the November 3, 2023 hearing:

1. Each member of the Civil Service Board is a “public servant” pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1102(19).

2. The “agency” of each member of the Civil Service Board is the Civil Service Board pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1102(2)(a)(vi).

3. Any hearing conducted by the Civil Service Board is a “transaction” pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1102(23).

In its first assignment of error, the Union contends that the BOE erred in concluding that La. R.S. 42:1111E prohibits the Union from using dues to pay for legal services in connection with the representation of its members in matters before the Civil Service Board when an officer or trustee of the Union is serving on the Civil Service Board. The Union argues that it is not receiving compensation for assisting its members; rather, the Union uses its dues to pay a third-party law firm, who has no relationship with the Civil Service Board. The Union argues that La. R.S. 42:1111E is therefore not applicable.

In its March 8, 2024 declaratory opinion, the BOE noted that the only issues of law for it to determine were: (1) whether the Union, through the provision and payment of legal services, assists a Union member in a transaction or in an appearance in connection with a transaction with the Civil Service Board; and (2) whether the Union receives a thing of economic value for providing such legal assistance to the Union member.

At the time of the hearing, the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District was comprised of approximately 270 employees, of which about 252 were members of the Union. There were three officers and three trustees of the Union. Union members paid an initiation fee of $10.00 and dues of 11/212 % of a starting firefighter's base salary. In exchange for the payment of dues, the Union provided services to its members. Union President Robert Burkett testified that one of the services the Union provided to its members was the payment of legal fees to represent employees subject to disciplinary action before the Civil Service Board.⁴ According to Union President Burkett, he selected an attorney to assist Union members appearing before the Civil Service Board. The attorney would bill the Union, who was considered the client.

The Union argues that La. R.S. 42:1111E is not applicable because it uses its dues to pay a third-party attorney to represent its members in hearings before the Civil Service Board. However, such an interpretation of La. R.S. 42:1111E ignores the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. The evidence, including the testimony of Union President Burkett, established that the Union receives dues, a thing of economic value, in exchange for providing legal assistance to its members in hearings before the Civil Service Board. Moreover, the application of the statute as written does not lead to absurd consequences. Louisiana Revised Statutes 42:1111E does not prohibit the Union from paying a third-party attorney to represent its members. As noted by the BOE in its March 8, 2024 opinion, the prohibition contained in La. R.S. 42:1111E(1) is only triggered by the appointment of a Union “officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee.” The appointment of a regular Union member (i.e., not an officer or trustee) to the Civil Service Board would not trigger the prohibition. Accordingly, this assignment of error has no merit.

Having found no merit in the Union's first assignment of error, we address its second assignment of error, that the BOE should have applied La. R.S. 42:1111E(2), which applies to “elected officials,” not La. R.S. 42:1111E(1). The Union argues that the new firefighter member of the Civil Service Board will be an elected member, contending that La. R.S. 33:2536 provides for the election of an employee of the fire department to the Civil Service Board.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2536(C)(3), relied upon by the Union, provides in pertinent part:

(3)(a) Two members shall be appointed who shall be first nominated and elected by and from the regular employees of the fire and police department as follows:

(i) One member shall be elected and appointed from the fire department.

(ii) One member shall be elected and appointed from the police department.

(b)(i) The employee-nominee from each department shall be elected by secret ballot of the regular employees of his respective department at an election to be called and held for that purpose by the chief of the department.

(ii) If, after the close of nominations for the employee member for the respective department, the name of only one regular employee has been placed in nomination, that nominee shall be declared elected.

We find no merit to this argument. Pursuant to the plain language of La. R.S. 33:2536, the firefighter member is appointed to the Civil Service Board after being nominated and elected by and from the fire department.

Thus, we find the BOE properly determined, based upon the facts established through the stipulations, exhibits, and witness testimony, that La. R.S. 42:1111E(1) is applicable and prohibits the Union from receiving dues from Union members in exchange for providing legal services to Union members in connection with hearings before the Civil Service Board when an officer or trustee of the Union serves as an appointed member of the Civil Service Board.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the March 8, 2024 declaratory opinion issued of the Louisiana Board of Ethics. Costs of this appeal are assessed against the Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association, Local 1374 International Association of Firefighters.

AFFIRMED.

I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion affirming the Louisiana Board of Ethics’ finding that La. R.S. 42:1111(E) prohibits labor unions or associations, such as the Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association, Local 1374 International Association of Firefighters, from providing legal representation to its members in proceedings before the corresponding Civil Service Board, when a member of the Civil Service Board is also a trustee or officer of the union.

The primary objective of the Code of Governmental Ethics is to prevent not only the actuality of conflicts of interest, but also to prevent the occurrence of those situations that tend to create a perception of conflicts of interest. In re Ferrara Fire Apparatus, Inc., 2003-0446 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/31/03), 868 So.2d 762, 765. This objective is clearly set out in La. R.S. 42:1101(B), which provides:

It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there be public confidence in the integrity of government. The attainment of one or more of these ends is impaired when a conflict exists between the private interests of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such. The public interest, therefore, requires that the law protect against such conflicts of interest and that it establish appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees without creating unnecessary barriers to public service. It is the purpose of this Chapter to implement these policies and objectives.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 42:1111 provides rules to promote this objective by prohibiting payments to a public servant outside of his authorized compensation, or otherwise allowing a public servant to be enriched or benefitted by nonpublic goods. The relevant part of La. R.S. 42:1111 at issue in this appeal is subsection (E) which provides, in pertinent part:

(1) No public servant, and no legal entity of which such public servant is an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee, or in which such public servant has a substantial economic interest, shall receive or agree to receive any thing of economic value for assisting a person in a transaction, or in an appearance in connection with a transaction, with the agency of such public servant.

First and foremost is the rule that legislation is the solemn expression of the legislative will and, therefore, the interpretation of a law primarily involves the search for the legislature's intent. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Jacket International Limited, 2019-0749 (La. 1/29/20), 347 So.3d 572, 577, citing City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Assessors’ Retirement & Relief Fund, 2005-2548 (La. 10/1/07), 986 So.2d 1, 16-17. The starting point in ascertaining that legislative intent is the language of the statute itself. Luv N’ Care, Ltd., 347 So.3d at 577, citing City of New Orleans, 986 So.2d at 17.

“The text of a law is the best evidence of legislative intent.” La. R.S. 24:177(B)(1), Luv N’ Care, Ltd., 347 So.3d at 577. It is only when the meaning of a law cannot be ascertained by the application of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the Louisiana Civil Code (La. Civ. Code arts. 9-13) and Chapter 1 of Title 1 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 (La. R.S. 1:1-1:17), that the courts will consider the intent of the legislature. La. R.S. 24:177(A).

Louisiana Civil Code article 9 provides that when a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. Louisiana Civil Code article 13 provides that laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other.

With these legal precepts in mind, I find the mechanical application of the parties’ stipulations to La. R.S. 42:1111(E)(1) resulting in the conclusion that the Firefighters Union cannot legally represent its members before the Civil Service Board when one of the Civil Service Board's members is an officer or trustee of the Firefighters Union is absurd. This absurdity is further underscored when read in conjunction with the other clauses in La. R.S. 42:1111, which prohibit public servants from being privately enriched for doing their jobs, or the clear objectives of the Code of Governmental Ethics, to prevent conflicts of interest, as set forth in La.R.S. 42:1101(B).¹

The Firefighters Union, like any union, is first and foremost a bargaining representative of a group of classified employees. In exchange for dues paid on a monthly basis, the Firefighters Union is expected, by its members, to provide a number of services including legal representation in disciplinary proceedings before the Civil Service Board, as outlined in the Firefighters Union's By-Laws. The amount of dues the Firefighters Union receives is set and based on membership in the Union. The Firefighters Union does not keep the dues but nearly “zeroes out” its balance providing services to its members whether or not those services include legal representation before the Civil Service Board.

The officers elected to run the Firefighters Union are paid a nominal monthly salary for their work as union officers, and the trustees are not paid but may receive per diem. These officers and trustees receive the same compensation or benefit whether or not they are members of the Civil Service Board, or whether or not a member of the Firefighters Union goes before the Civil Service Board for any type of hearing. The Board of Ethics has already determined that a conflict of interest, or even an appearance thereof, does not exist unless the officer or trustee has a substantial economic interest in the matter of assisting the member in a proceeding before the Civil Service Board, at which point the officer or trustee may recuse himself from the matter.

Therefore, I find that the Board of Ethics erred in concluding that La. R.S. 42:1111(E) prohibits the Firefighters Union from providing legal representation to its member before the Civil Service Board when a Firefighters Union officer or trustee is a member of the Civil Service Board. I would therefore reverse the Louisiana Board of Ethics’ March 8, 2024 declaratory opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Pursuant to La. R.S. 33:1420.11, the Jefferson Parish Council created the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District, comprised of the former Jefferson Parish Fire Districts Nos. 1 and 2. Jefferson Parish Ordinance No. 18226 created a system of classified civil service for employees of the East Bank Consolidated Special Services Fire District.

2.   Pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1141.6(D), a declaratory opinion of the BOE shall be considered a final decision and shall be reviewable by the Court of Appeal, First Circuit.

3.   In addition to appealing, the Union filed a lawsuit against the BOE in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, arguing that the conduct of the BOE violated the Union's rights pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association v. Louisiana Board of Ethics, No. CV 24-2139, 2025 WL 1115615 (E.D. La. Apr. 15, 2025). Specifically, the Union argued that the March 8, 2024 declaratory opinion stripped the Union “of its constitutional right to provide an attorney for its members’ representation.” Id., 2025 WL 1115615, at *2. The Union also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the March 8, 2024 declaratory opinion. The District Court granted the Union's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the BOE from enforcing its March 8, 2024 declaratory opinion as applied to the Union. Id. 2025 WL 1115615, at *16. The BOE appealed; that appeal is pending as of the date of this opinion.

4.   Union President Burkett testified that “out of an abundance of caution,” the Union discontinued paying for third-party legal representation after receiving the 2018 BOE opinion.

1.   I note that the record before us reflects that the Louisiana Board of Ethics has not found a conflict of interest to exist simply because an officer of the Firefighter's Union sits on the Civil Service Board. Specifically, in answering a question regarding whether an officer of the Firefighters Union sitting on the Civil Service Board must recuse himself from matters brought by the Firefighters Union, or in which the Firefighters Union represents an appellant, the Louisiana Board of Ethics found that the officer would not be required by the Code of Governmental Ethics to recuse himself, provided the Firefighters Union does not have a substantial economic interest in the matter. The opinion then stated, “[t]he [Firefighters] Union would not have a substantial economic interest in an appellant's case filed with the Board.”

PENZATO, J.

Fields, J. dissents with reasons