Day 2 of the hearing on Cooper’s lawsuit was less eventful than day 1. Nick Pugh of the Pugh Family Foundation testified first. He testified that on one occasion, he was in Mark Babineaux’s office with Greg Awbrey and that Tehmi Chaission was on the phone. Mr. Pugh initially testified that he heard all three of these board members state that they had to get rid of Dr. Cooper. He later admitted though that he could not hear Tehmi as he was not on speaker phone. In testimony later in the day, Tehmi Chaisson denied this event and Mark Babineaux could not recall it. This was followed by succinct testimony from Billy Guidry, CFO. In a nutshell, Mr. Guidry testified that in the 20 budget meetings, both version 1 (Cooper budget) and version 2 (Board budget) were discussed at length and the public had ample opportunity to ask questions about both. He also explained that the primary difference between the two budgets is that to balance the budget, the Board reduced expenditures while Cooper, instead of reducing expenditures, wanted to move money from the rainy day fund and to transfer sums from other funds. According to Guidry, there is only a 3-4% monetary difference in the two budgets. As to the procedure, Mr. Guidry testified that the Board adopted the Board budget and that it was Cooper’s budget that was advertised (it did not come out in testimony that Cooper refused to allow Guidry to advertise the Board’s budget). Mr. Guidry, though, explained that under the circumstances, he called and spoke to someone at the legislative auditor’s office who said the Board’s budget did not have to be advertised and that all was needed was a public hearing which did, in fact, take place. Mr. Guidry also testified that Cooper directed him in writing to not follow the Board adopted budget based on Cooper’s determination that it was illegal. Cooper also testified on the budget issue. He followed the usual line that Act 1 gave him authority to make this determination. He also said that “law” said it was his responsibility to prepare the budget. This led to discussion between the Judge and Mr. Roy about what “law” was Cooper referring to. Once this law was identified (R.S. 17:88), the Judge read the first two paragraphs first of which states that it is the Board’s responsibility to cause a budget to be prepared and the CEO’s responsibility to present a “proposed” budget. Cooper also testified that he obtained legal advice to support his opinions. This lead to questions about whether he consulted the legally retained general counsel for the board (no) and, if not, by what authority did he seek legal counsel from attorneys not approved by the Board. Cooper said his contract gave him his authority. So, the Judge looked at the contract and after reviewing the supposed relevant provisions, found it did not give Dr. Cooper any such authority. Additionally, over the course of both days of the hearing, Cooper attempted several times to testify about his opinion about what the law says, but the judge, after objections from the attorneys, did not allow him to do so as he is not a legal expert. The three board members also testified and each said they can be impartial and intend to listen to the evidence presented. Mr. Roy attempted to question each board member about incidents Cooper claimed occurred, but this line of questioning did not seem to be very effective. Each of the Board members ably countered these questions and, in some instances, testified that Cooper’s version was simply not true. At the end of the day, the judge, recognizing the importance of the case and the two issues presented, decided to allow both sides to submit post trial briefs by 5 o’clock Tuesday and the judge will issue his decision Wednesday. As on the first day, several LPSB administrators and employees were present all day although none of them testified (except Billy Guidry who left after his testimony). These included S. Billedeau, Dorothy Neazey, Bradley Cruize, Bruce Leininger, Kyle Bordelon, Bobby Badeaux, Angela Morrison. This begs the question about whether the Board was paying these individuals to miss work and to observe the hearing all day.
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 02:48:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015