- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:39 pm to moneyg
Maybe he’ll link the post for us. He’s been referencing it for 15 months. I’m sure it’s bookmarked.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:48 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Maybe he’ll link the post for us. He’s been referencing it for 15 months. I’m sure it’s bookmarked.
Are you trying to deny something you admitted to last week?
All you have to do is say “I was wrong”
Your inability to say “I was wrong” for 15 months says a whole frick ton about you
I’ll take either one. You can admit you were wrong about Trayvon or Sandra bland.
This post was edited on 7/26/26 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:22 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Assuming you’re correct that the June 21 presentation violated the Open Meetings Law
It did and I've proven how. You've yet to prove it didn't, thus there's no assumption.
quote:
what relief should the court grant after the Commission later approved the same resolution in a properly noticed public meeting?
If your concern is that post hoc ratification creates incentives for future violations, I understand that policy concern.
That's the problem. The court tending to allow that (even though there's no room for such an allowance) does indeed create incentives for future violations for not just the Caddo commission, but all public bodies.
quote:
But in this case, the public ultimately received the open meeting and public vote the statute is designed to protect.
No, they didn't. They are supposed to receive it prior to the official act, not after. The whole reason is for public input before the act is carried out (read: transparency) so doing it after the fact is to fail both the letter of and the reason behind the law (and the court, in its laziness, has allowed it through the years).
quote:
What continuing injury remains that justifies judicial intervention?
The erosion of public trust in the commission's transparency.
quote:
It seems like your frustration lies in that a technically legal avenue exists to retroactively ratify resolutions.
No, my frustration is that such a law doesn't exist -at all- but the court is going to try to act like it does.
Posted on 7/27/26 at 10:39 am to Bard
quote:
It did and I've proven how. You've yet to prove it didn't, thus there's no assumption.
Under the Louisiana Open Meetings Law (La. R.S. 42:13), a violation requires proof that a quorum met or deliberated in secret. This has not been proven. Handing a visitor a framed piece of paper or a ceremonial welcome proclamation on June 21 is not a legally binding act of government. Individual elected officials hand out ceremonial proclamations, keys to the city, and welcome letters all the time without holding public meetings or votes.
Ratification exists in administrative law specifically to convert an informal or procedurally incomplete gesture into a formal, binding action of the public body. Ratifying a ceremonial document after it is presented doesn't prove an illegal meeting took place beforehand, it simply provides the official stamp of the full body in accordance with open meeting rules.
Simply standing together at a public event or photo-op does not legally convert a gathering into an official "meeting" under the Louisiana Open Meetings Law. A violation requires proof that a quorum gathered specifically to deliberate or conduct public business in secret.
quote:
The erosion of public trust in the commission's transparency.
Since when are you concerned with public trust over procedural legalities?
quote:
No, my frustration is that such a law doesn't exist -at all- but the court is going to try to act like it does.
Marien v. Rapides Parish Police Jury (717 So.2d 1261, La. App. 3 Cir. 1998) held that taking a formal ratification vote at a subsequent, properly noticed public meeting cures prior procedural or notice deficiencies under the Open Meetings Law.
Sometimes the law isn't fair my friend. Would you like an invitation to the next secession meeting? It certainly won't be properly noticed.
Posted on 7/27/26 at 10:42 am to 4cubbies
So no
Posted on 7/27/26 at 11:45 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Handing a visitor a framed piece of paper or a ceremonial welcome proclamation on June 21 is not a legally binding act of government. Individual elected officials hand out ceremonial proclamations
It is when it states...
quote:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Caddo Parish Commission that it does hereby formally welcome
I mean, it's literally stating that it is an official document by "formally" welcoming him in the name of the Commission.
Furthermore, we know that they knew it was an official act because they held the ratification vote. If they didn't believe it was an official act they wouldn't have held the ratification vote at all.
quote:
Marien v. Rapides Parish Police Jury (717 So.2d 1261, La. App. 3 Cir. 1998) held that taking a formal ratification vote at a subsequent, properly noticed public meeting cures prior procedural or notice deficiencies under the Open Meetings Law.
What it did was rely on the finding in Wagner v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury where the court said the ability of a public body to reconsider and ratify is an implied power. Implied from where? The judge's arse, that's where. Reading "voidable" as "may be voided, unless there is corrective action" is a ridiculous stretch which has now created precedent.
quote:
Sometimes the law isn't fair my friend.
"Fair" is often highly subjective, what I get annoyed with is the illegality of judicial legislation creating precedent which is inherently in error and that's what this is.
Posted on 7/27/26 at 11:59 am to 4cubbies
Some other states have a slightly different model. The open meeting violation is noticed to the appropriate body and the AG is copied. The Ag stays out in the first offense other than logging. If there are subsequent complaints they investigate and take action
IMHO, the first step is fairly good at insulting against lawfare. It sounds like your judge concluded the “investigation” step was proper but not performed within the standards required by your courts
Nevertheless, I do agree somewhat with the Bard. Tge nefariousness is not an official action; its deliberation outside of a public forum. Many states that have Sunshine laws try to prevent that. Otherwise open meetings are pro forma and the work is done in the hallways without public participation ( eg federal legislation). I think the more open meetings the more citizens feel part of the government rather than being antagonistic to the government
IMHO, the first step is fairly good at insulting against lawfare. It sounds like your judge concluded the “investigation” step was proper but not performed within the standards required by your courts
Nevertheless, I do agree somewhat with the Bard. Tge nefariousness is not an official action; its deliberation outside of a public forum. Many states that have Sunshine laws try to prevent that. Otherwise open meetings are pro forma and the work is done in the hallways without public participation ( eg federal legislation). I think the more open meetings the more citizens feel part of the government rather than being antagonistic to the government
This post was edited on 7/27/26 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 7/27/26 at 12:21 pm to dukkbill
quote:
It sounds like your judge
My judge? Good grief. Sounds like your AG overshot the mark.
quote:There is zero evidence that this was deliberated.
its deliberation outside of a public forum
Posted on 7/27/26 at 12:32 pm to Bard
quote:Phrasing does not equal authority. We've already established that calling the document a resolution did not make it a legally binding resolution. A document only acquires the legal character of an official board resolution when it goes through the required statutory process.
I mean, it's literally stating that it is an official document by "formally" welcoming him in the name of the Commission.
Even when employing formal language, a welcome proclamation is non-binding rhetoric. It creates no legal duties, appropriates no funds, and alters no rights.
quote:Circular logic. Public bodies routinely pass ratification votes to clean up administrative records, clear up public confusion, or shield themselves from bad-faith litigation, such as the AG's action against the Commission.
Furthermore, we know that they knew it was an official act because they held the ratification vote. If they didn't believe it was an official act they wouldn't have held the ratification vote at all.
quote:I just think it's so vindicating that you're on the other side of legal action that is techincal legal but you hate because it isn't fair. I think this is exactly what is meant by poetic justice.
"Fair" is often highly subjective, what I get annoyed with is the illegality of judicial legislation creating precedent which is inherently in error and that's what this is.
I'm countering your offer with gin fizzes that you must personally shake yourself. It can be well gin. Don't worry about the chips. It appears you could really use my assistance.
Posted on 7/27/26 at 1:03 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
My judge? Good grief. Sounds like your AG overshot the mark
My AG may be subject to adverse rulings but my AG is not involved in this matter. I don’t know why calling a government official of a state where you are a resident, “your official,” causes you angst
quote:
There is zero evidence that this was deliberated.
I am struggling to understand your position. What vocabulary are you using for the event that was the basis of the complaint? You seem to object to any presentation as an act; and any discussion as a deliberation. What are you contending happened— a sole person, ultra-vires to their authority bestowed an honorific completely unconnected from their official position?
You are litigating the sanction and I think others are discussing the impropriety of the behavior. As a simple matter, many do not want
- elected municipal officials acting ultra vires to their authority
- elected municipal officials discussing the people’s business outside an open meetings
- a quorum of elected officials taking action outside a meeting
Those objections are independent of whether there are sanctions, whether sanctions are properly adjudicated; and whether or not your AG engaged in lawfare in this instance
Your point that the measure of harm is low is taken, but that doesn’t mean that the behaviors, actions, discussions or however you wish to characterize the actions are laudatory
Indeed, in those other states council members do exactly what you suggest is not feasible. They coordinate their attendance at any event when one of their members are a presenter, speaker, or that otherwise invites a dialogue on the people’s business. When you don’t do that you do develop easy cracks in sunshine laws
This post was edited on 7/27/26 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 7/27/26 at 1:08 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Phrasing does not equal authority.
Phrasing, intent and action do. All three are present.
quote:
We've already established that calling the document a resolution did not make it a legally binding resolution.
We've established nothing of the sort. You are literally making things up now.
What we've established is that the creation and presentation of the resolution was done as an official act by the Commission and that official act was presented via a public meeting beforehand.
quote:
Even when employing formal language, a welcome proclamation is non-binding rhetoric. It creates no legal duties, appropriates no funds, and alters no rights.
It's not the language; it's the engaging in official acts by the board and those official acts not having been discussed (much less approved) in a public meeting prior to the act. Trying to change the context of the issue only exposes the weakness of your stance.
quote:
Public bodies routinely pass ratification votes to clean up administrative records, clear up public confusion, or shield themselves from bad-faith litigation
When they do it to ratify official acts already accomplished, it's because they knew what they were doing was a violation of the law so they are going back to cover themselves. It's interesting you mention "bad-faith litigation" when trying to defend a bad-faith act.
quote:
I just think it's so vindicating that you're on the other side of legal action that is techincal legal but you hate because it isn't fair.
I've already explained that "fair" doesn't factor into this for me, yet here you are still trying to falsely assign it to me.
I've also explained that the precedent Marien relied on was crafted not from the legislature, but by the courts so it's not "technically legal" at all (quite the opposite).
I think Beerjeep may be onto something in that you will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Posted on 7/27/26 at 1:14 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Circular logic. Public bodies routinely pass ratification votes to clean up administrative records, clear up public confusion, or shield themselves from bad-faith litigation, such as the AG's action against the Commission.
Yes and so do businesses, but that’s not what is at issue. If a junior employee enters into a multi-million dollar deal contrary to his stated authority, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad deal— but it’s still a bad action. The company may see profit. They may ratify the deal to take such advantages and accept such perils but it doesn’t mean they don’t talk to the employee and remind them they need permission first. I’m sure there is a home governance analogy you could use which would illustrate the same concept
Statutorily, it can be difficult for a govt representative to act ultra vires to their authority and create peril in the govt bc the statutes insulate the peril away from the govt. (I.e. what you discuss on the binding nature of council actions). That doesn’t mean you don’t want officials to comport themselves in a certain way. If they transgress, you want some admonition but not necessarily a heavy sanction
The Bard can speak for himself but his latter point resonates with me. You have precedent that without peril ( eg the voidable action) then there is no admonition and seeking admonition can create peril for yourself. That’s a pretty wide exception that will make the behaviors I discussed in the previous post outside the purview of any of your open meeting laws
This post was edited on 7/27/26 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 7/27/26 at 2:03 pm to Bard
quote:Are you now alleging that there was a secret public meeting before June 21 in which this was all presented and voted on? Wouldn't that negate your claim of an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law?
What we've established is that the creation and presentation of the resolution was done as an official act by the Commission and that official act was presented via a public meeting beforehand.
I presume you meant the Commission acted collectively outside an open meeting, but there is zero evidence that this actually occurred.
quote:This exact argument was presented to the court. Judge Davidson explicitly rejected the claim that ceremonial presentations by individual members at a public event constitute an "official act" or an illegal quorum. Fulfilling a ceremonial gesture does not meet the statutory threshold of a public body conducting official business in secret.
It's not the language; it's the engaging in official acts by the board and those official acts not having been discussed (much less approved) in a public meeting prior to the act. Trying to change the context of the issue only exposes the weakness of your stance.
quote:OK, well your interpretation of the events does not align with the facts or legal outcome.
I've already explained that "fair" doesn't factor into this for me, yet here you are still trying to falsely assign it to me.
quote:Passing a formal resolution to affirm a ceremonial statement in an open meeting isn't a "confession of guilt"; it's standard municipal risk management designed to take away frivolous litigation talking points.
When they do it to ratify official acts already accomplished, it's because they knew what they were doing was a violation of the law so they are going back to cover themselves.
You're rejecting the legal framework because it contradicts your personal conclusion. Again, relatable. But I had to accept the reality of the situation that frustrated me, and so must you with this situation.
quote:Respectfully, this is textbook projection. Feel free to follow me around this message board for rest of your life seeking vengeance, though. It will probably be as satisfying as the AG's lawsuit.
I think Beerjeep may be onto something in that you will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Posted on 7/27/26 at 2:18 pm to dukkbill
quote:Because I live in Louisiana. I do not want to be associated with any of the buffoons in leadership here. I didn't vote for any of them.
I don’t know why calling a government official of a state where you are a resident, “your official,” causes you angst
quote:
What are you contending happened— a sole person, ultra-vires to their authority bestowed an honorific completely unconnected from their official position?
Ceremonial Expressions are not ultra vires. Elected officials hand out welcome letters, proclamations, and keys to the city at events every day. Doing so without a formal binding council vote is standard constituent and public relations work that carries zero legal weight, not an illegal overreach
My theory is that at the last minute, they were scrambling to put together some sort of token of their appreciation for the visit. Someone came up with the idea to present this ceremonial document, the people in attendance signed it, they slapped it in a frame and the rest is history.
quote:Correct. I'm litigating the legality of their actions, the injuries caused by their actions, and the cure for the alleged injuries. Others are litigating other things. This is very reminiscent of the Clerk of Court debacle in Orleans Parish, where I happened to be the only person who was concerned with identifying impropriety.
You are litigating the sanction and I think others are discussing the impropriety of the behavior.
quote:I'm certainly nor praising them, but there was no injury. Nothing was lost because this ceremonial document was ratified at the meeting after which it was presented to the dignitary.
Your point that the measure of harm is low is taken, but that doesn’t mean that the behaviors, actions, discussions or however you wish to characterize the actions are laudatory
Posted on 7/27/26 at 4:01 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Ceremonial Expressions are not ultra vires. Elected officials hand out welcome letters, proclamations, and keys to the city at events every day
I’ll take you at your word but this is not how governance works in some other areas. A councilor/alderman/commissioner has no authority. All authority is in the board. They just have a vote. Similar for a director of a corporation. No power qua individual director
quote:
Correct. I'm litigating the legality of their actions, the injuries caused by their actions, and the cure for the alleged injuries. Others are litigating other things
Yes but your responses aren’t meeting their concerns. More specifically, you have a real disagreement on what should be the legality. I think everyone is in accord there is no direct harm. The harm is in what the precedent may allow. There wasn’t a holding that it’s de minimas that is causing an issue; it’s the holding there is no action on “voidable conduct” which causes the concern. As for the scope of any remedy against either party I’ve missed or not yet reviewed that duscussion
I dont know the baggage and history you bring from that other debate.
Nevertheless, I don’t think you are addressing this point. I think your s parent of young kids. One might sneak out at night and go to dangerous areas. They might do great acts and get home safely. Nevertheless, I presume you would still address the conduct
That’s the issue here. The action wasn’t a tort where we are trying to make someone whole. There is a behavior you don’t want repeated
Posted on 7/27/26 at 4:05 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Respectfully, this is textbook projection.
Then……. Say you were wrong?
Posted on 7/28/26 at 6:30 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Are you now alleging that there was a secret public meeting before June 21 in which this was all presented and voted on? Wouldn't that negate your claim of an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law?
I'm saying there was an unacceptable level of coordination outside of a public meeting in order to propose, create and sign the resolution, enough that it rises to being an official act in and of itself (ie: aside from the presentation).
quote:
but there is zero evidence that this actually occurred.
The resolution did not create itself, did not approve itself and did not sign itself. That all of this happened before ever being mentioned in a public forum is evidence that it occurred. It's like (prior to artificial insemination) a pregnant woman saying she's a virgin. Yeah, we're not seeing her actually engaging in coitus, but that the pregnancy exists disproves the claim.
quote:
Judge Davidson explicitly rejected the claim that ceremonial presentations by individual members at a public event constitute an "official act" or an illegal quorum. Fulfilling a ceremonial gesture does not meet the statutory threshold of a public body conducting official business
I cut off "in secret" because the presentation wasn't in secret. It was an official document presented by a quorum as an official welcoming. This is a perfect example of judicial activism as the law is very strict on this.
quote:
OK, well your interpretation of the events does not align with the facts or legal outcome.
My interpretation is in perfect alignment of the facts, the court's decision is not.
quote:
Passing a formal resolution to affirm a ceremonial statement in an open meeting isn't a "confession of guilt"
I disagree.
quote:
You're rejecting the legal framework because it contradicts your personal conclusion.
There's no part in the law which backs either stance, so it's simply a difference of views. I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to the law so my view reflects that.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News