Lawsuit challenges Baton Rouge Metro Council's spending of new Entergy franchise fee

quote:

---

A lawsuit filed Tuesday against all 12 East Baton Rouge Metro Council members alleges they violated the state constitution when they created an Entergy franchise fee last year and spent some of the money on projects in their individual districts.

The lawsuit, filed in Baton Rouge court, seeks to halt one use of the franchise fee the council placed on Entergy last December, which has since produced about $4.6 million for the city-parish general fund.

Three plaintiffs are listed on the suit, including Gold Enterprises LLC — a company owned by former Metro Council member Darrell Glasper.

"This lawsuit is about protecting the public treasury and lawful governance," said the plaintiffs in a joint statement Tuesday. "No elected official has the authority to personally distribute public funds, especially for purposes not authorized by law."

Glasper co-chaired Mayor-President Sid Edwards’ transition team late last year as Edwards prepared to take office.

Entergy officials unsuccessfully fought the fee last year. It applies only to customers in the parish’s unincorporated areas, and the company has since passed the cost on to consumers.

The cost, which amounts to about $4 added to a customer's monthly bill, applies to about 32,000 residents.

Reached Tuesday evening, Mayor Pro Tempore Brandon Noel declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

This year, the council used the funds it generated to give $500,000 each to the district attorney's office and the 19th judicial court and $250,000 each to the Baton Rouge Police Department and the parish attorney's office.

But the lawsuit focuses on $1.2 million that the council distributed evenly across each district. Council members individually chose how the money was spent in their district.

"These funds were mislabeled as 'contractual services,'" the court filing says. "... these funds were used for the illegal provision of donations and 'sponsorships,' which are an illegal form of donation."

Each district was allocated $105,000 from the fee, which Glasper and other plaintiffs say was used to pay for events and payments to private entities that lacked a public purpose.

In one case, the lawsuit says that a council member used the money to buy a trailer and put their name on it.

The only council district with a trailer like the suit describes is Darryl Hurst. City-Parish records show that the trailer was purchased about a month before the franchise fee was instituted. The city-parish invoice for Hurst's District 5 trailer is dated Oct. 25, 2024, and a check was written for $48,233.25 on Nov. 12, 2024.

Hurst did catch criticism, though, for the purchase of an off-road vehicle in February this year, which happened after council budgets received extra money from the franchise fee.

The fee came up during discussion about the parish budget at a Metro Council meeting Tuesday evening. Council member Cleve Dunn Jr., who worked with colleague Jen Racca to institute the fee, said the fee supports valuable public services.

"Yes, we gave $1.2 million to the council members, $105,000 to each council person to bolster their staff, utilize technology and basically have a greater impact in their districts," Dunn said. "Some of us hired staff members. Some of us supported and sponsored events in our districts. Some of us financed infrastructure projects and studies in our district. So the funds were put to great use."

Dunn told company officials at a public meeting last year that if customers end up paying for the fee, it would be because Entergy — which brought in $12.1 billion in revenue in 2023 — decided to do so.

"They can absorb this, and they should absorb it. They should not pass it on to the customer," Dunn said.

The suit filed by Glasper and others also argues the council violated state law by using public funds to pay for meals, which it claims are only allowed when provided to attendees of public meetings held during a mealtime.

It requests a judicial ruling that the expenditures were unlawful, repayment to the city-parish for any improper use of funds and an order preventing council members from making such discretionary allocations going forward.

"Taxpayers have a right to expect their government to follow the law," the plaintiffs said. "This lawsuit aims to ensure that public funds are used only for public purposes, not political or personal discretion."

---