CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH or ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA N0. DIVISION MARLIN N. GUSMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE PARISH OF ORLEANS VERSUS CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FILED: DEPUTY CLERK PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMU NOW INTO COURT, ?irough undersigned counsel, comes plaintiff, Marlin N. Gusrnan, Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans (hereinafter referred to as the who, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the City of New Orleans, through its Mayor, the Honorable Mitchell J. Landrieu and his agents, pursuant to La. R.S. 33 :4715, to fund the OPSO in accordance with the Budget attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff requests an expedited hearing within ten days of the ?ling of this petition, as required by La. C.C.P. art. 3782. 1. Made defendant is the City of New Orleans, through its Mayor, the Honorable Mitchell J. Landrieu and his agents (hereinafter referred to as the ?City?), at all times the managing authority in this dispute and elected Executive of the City of New Orleans, who made the decisions complained of by plainti? herein. 2. Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3 863, a writ of mandamus may be directed to a public of?cer to compel performance of a ministerial duty required by law. Further, a writ of mandamus shall issue in all cases where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice. 3. The City is obligated to fund all jail operations pursuant to various provisions of Louisiana law, including La. RS. 33 :4715 (providing a ?good and suf?cient jail?), La. R.S. 13:5604 (salaries of the sheriff, and his deputies, assistants and clerks), La. RS. 15:7 02 (physical maintenance of all parish jails and prisons), La. R.S. 15:703 (medical care), and La. R.S. 15:705 and 757 (feeding and clothing prisoners). 4. More speci?cally, La. RS. 33 :4715 provides: ?The police jury of each parish shall provide a good and su??icient court-house, with rooms for jurors, and a good and su?icient jail, at such place as they may deem most convenient the parish at large, provided that when the seat of justice is established by law, they shall not have power to remove it. 5. According to Amiss v. Dumas, 41 1 So.2d 1137, 1 141 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1982), the controlling case on this issue, ?the general scheme which we gather ?om a reading of all of the statutes is that the City-Parish is responsible for the expenses of establishing, maintaining and operating the jail and for all the expenses of feeding, clothing, and providing medical treatment to the prisoners while the sheri?? has the duty of operating the jail and seeing to it that the prisoners are properly cared for, fed and clothed.? 6. Unfortunately, the City, on numerous occasions, has breached its ministerial duty and refused to comply with the aforementioned statutes mandating that it fund the expenses of establishing, maintaining and operating the jail. 7. Recently, the City has refused to approve and fund the OPSO pursuant to the Budget, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. Pursuant to the aforementioned statutes, the OPSO, over the past couple of years, has attempted to have the City provide the required funding to operate the subject jail. 9. Unfortunately for the OPSO and the citizens of New Orleans, the City has continuously, despite its duty to do so, refused to properly fund the OPSO. 10. Recently, the OPSO has submitted the Budget attached hereto as Exhibit A to the City for approval. 11.? As has been the case in the past, the City has refused to provide the funding requested by the OPSO. 12. The OPSO also ?nds it imperative to point out that Arthur Morrell, Clerk of Court, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, recently litigated a very similar issue against the City and was successful in obtaining a writ of mandamus. 13. On June 25, 2015, the Honorable Judge Sidney Cates, IV, under case number 2012-9435, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the City failed to comply with its statutory obligations to fund the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal District Court?s Of?ce for the year 2012 and granted the Clerk of Court?s writ of mandamus. See Exhibit B. WHEREFORE, for the reasons discussed above, the OPSO respectftu prays that this Honorable Court grant its Petition for Writ of Mandamus and order the City of New Orleans, pursuant to La. R.S. 33:4715, to fund the OP SO in accordance with the Budget attached hereto as Exhibit A, and for any and all equitable or legal relief that justice or equity may allow. Respectfully submitted, CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM HAYES, LLP mew M. WILLIAMS, BAR NO. 26141 INEMESIT BAR NO. 30007 MATTHEW A. SHERMAN, BAR NO. 32687 One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 PLEASE SERVE: City of New Orleans Through City Attorney Sharonda Williams 13 00 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 -And- Through the Mayor The Honorable Mitchell Land?eu City Hall 1300 Perdido Street, Second Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 USRY, WEEKS AND MATTHEWS FREEMAN MATTHEWS, BAR NO. 9050 BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR NO. 27625 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 592-6400 Facsimile: (504) 592?4641 -PUBLIC EXEMPT- (See R.S. 13:4521 &13:5112) CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. DIVISION NIARLIN N. GUSMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE PARISH OF ORLEANS VERSUS CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FILED: DEPUTY CLERK RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Considering the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus: IT IS ORDERED that defendant show cause on the day of 2015 at o?clock why the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should not be maintained. New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of 2015. CIVIL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE PLEASE SERVE: City of New Orleans Through the City Attorney Sharonda Williams 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 ~And? Through the Mayor The Honorable Mitchell Landrieu City Hall 1300 Perdido Street, Second Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. DIVISION MARLIN N. GUSMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE PARISH OF ORLEANS VERSUS CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FILED: DEPUTY CLERK REQUEST FOR NOTICE NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes plaintiff, who makes the following requests: 1. Pursuant to Article 1572, plaintiff requests Writtenlnotice ten (10) days in advance of the date ?xed for the trial or hearing on any exceptiOns, motions or rules on the merits of the captioned matter. 2. Pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. Articles 1913 and 1914, plaintiff requests immediate notice of all interlocutory and ?nal orders and judgments on any exceptions, motions or rules on the merits of the captioned suit. the premises considered, plaintiff requests that it be furnished with the above speci?ed information. submitted, CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM HAYES, LLP AMES M. WILLIAMS, BAR NO. 26141 MESIT BAR NO. 30007 MATTHEW A. SHERMAN, BAR NO. 32687 One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 -AND- USRY, WEEKS AND MATTHEWS FREEMAN MATTHEWS, BAR NO. 9050 BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR NO. 27625 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 592?6400 Facsimile: (504) 592-4641 -PUBLIC EXEMPT- (See R.S. 13:4521 &13:5112) A I 1 2 OPSO 3 2015 Projected Revenue and Expenditures: 4 5 City of New Orleans 6 On Behalf payments health insurance 5,201,305.00 7 Department of Corrections Louisiana 5,556,000.00 8 Out of Parish Inmate Charges 88,800.00 9 State Grants 240000000 10 Inmate Telephone 1,400,000.00 11 Inmate work release fees 525,000,053 12 Inmate medical co-pays 5,000.00 13 State Supplemental Pay 2,700,000.00 14 Release processing fees 270,000.00 15 3% Bail Bonds Fee I 230,000.00 16 Cooperative Endeavor Agreements - City 900,000.00 17 Electronic Monitoring Program 92,700.00 18 Municipal and Traffic Court Security 100,000.00 19 City Grants 24,550.00 20 Commissary 700,000.00 21' Other Revenue 550,000.00 22 City Funds- Acute Mental Health 2,448,000.00 23 I 24 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE 22,891,355.00 25 26 Employee PERSONNEL BENEFITS 15.4% CONTRACTS OPERATIONS 27 28 CENTRAL SERVICES 29 I 30 Sheriff?s Of?ce 1001 5 535,261.00 82,430.19 250,000.00 280,000.00 1,147,691.19 31 Independent Monitor 300,000.00 300,000.00 32 Legal Department 1002 2 52,166.00 8,033.56 1,600,000.00 600,000.00 2,260,199.56 33 Administrative Suppon 1003 9 421,081.00 64,846.47 1,200.00 487,127.47 34 Planning, Compliance 1004 2 89,419.00 13,770.53 6,500.00 109,689.53 35 Inspections 1024 4 135,242.00 20,827.27 2,000.00 158,069.27 36 Communications 1093 8 326,101.00 50,219.55 35,000.00 411,320.55 37 Transition Team 1079 8 298,222.00 45,926.19 2,000.00 346,148.19 38 Special Projects 1056 0 83,000.00 83,000.00 39 Young Marines 1058 4 122,013.00 18,790.00 9,000.00 149,803.00 40 Risk Management 1128 5 223,912.00 34,482.45 665,000.00 923,394.45 41 Salary Adjustments 81,954.00 12,620.92 94,574.92 42 TOTAL 47 2,285,371.00 351,947.13 2,150,000.00 1,683,700.00 6,471,018.13 43 44 COURT SERVICES 45 Transportation 1045 8 315,872.00 48,644.29 2,000.00 366,516.29 46 Court Security 1046 37 874,515.00 134,675.31 2,000.00 1,011,190.31 47 Subpoenas Capias 1047 14 587,072.00 90,409.09 5,500.00 682,981.09 48 Salary Adjustments 414,953.00 63,902.76 478,855.76 49 TOTAL 59 2,192,412.00 337,631.45 9,500.00 2,539,543.45 50 51 SECURITY SERVICES 52 Admin. Central Securit' 1018 0 900,000.00 9,000.00 909,000.00 53 Special Operations 1019 68,307.00 10,519.28 78,826.28 54 Security - OPP 1027 115 3,141,489.00 483,789.31 3,625,278.31 55 Security - HOD 1028 3 84,128.00 12,955.71 97,083.71 56 Security - Warren 1030 25 1,057,424.00 162,843.30 - 1,220,267.30 57 Security- Conchetta 1031 41 1,201,254.00 184,993.12 1,386,247.12 58 Security - Females 1068 38 1,039,104.00 160,022.02 1,199,126.02 59 Security - Templeman 1090 54 1,534,188.00 236,264.95 - 1,770,452.95 60 Security Tents 1104 39 1,099,066.00 169,256.16 1,268,322.16 61 Security- Perimeter 1130 10 244,474.00 37,649.00 282,123.00 62 Medical Transportatior 1131 5 207,522.00 31,958.39 239,480.39 63 Security - Temp. Deten 1133 38 1,078,139.00 166,033.41 1,244,172.41 64 Security Inmate 9999 - - 65 Uniforms for Recruits 59,524.00 59,524.00 66 2015 Deputy Hiring - 2nd 8 166,154.00 25,587.72 191,741.72 67 2015 - Deputy Hiring - 3rd 25 337,500.00 51,975.00 389,475.00 68 2015 - Deputy Hiring - 4th 25 181,725.00 27,985.65 209,710.65 69 State Supplemental Pay 2,700,000.00 2,700,000.00 70 HOLIDAY PAY 684,000.00 684,000.00 71 OVERTIMEI 2,145,284.00 2,145,284.00 72 Salary Adjustments 1,538,381.00 236,910.67 1,775,291.67 73 TOTAL 427 18,508,139.00 1,998,743.67 900,000.00 68,524.00 21,475,406.67 74 - 75 INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES - 76 Internal Affairs Admin.I 1141 6 237,910.00 36,638.14 279548.14 5000.00 A I 77 lnteiligence Unit 1142 4 112,528.00 17,329.31 5,000.00 134,857.31 78 Investigative Unit 1143 27 1,354,149.00 208,538.95 10,000.00 1,572,687.95 79 Support Unit 1147 5 189,779.00 29,225.97 5,000.00 224,004.97 so Unit I 1020 0 - 4,000.00 4,000.00 81 Mounted Division 1084 0 29,000.00 29,000.00 82 PREA Unit I 1144 1 41,600.00 6,406.40 1,000.00 49,006.40 83 Internal Affairs Crimine 1145 6 184,621.00 28,431.63 213,052.63 84 Salary Adjustments 81,095.00 12,488.63 93,583.63 85 TOTAL 49 2,201,682.00 339,059.03 59,000.00 2,599,741.03 86 87 RECORDS AND BOOKING 88 Intake Processing Ce 1048 95 3,316,454.00 510,733.92 3,827,187.92 89 Salary Adjustments 452,545.00 69,691.93 522,236.93 90 TOTAL 95 3,768,999.00 580,425.85 4,349,424.85 91 92 ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES 93 94 Accounting 1005 11 458,557.00 70,617.78 126,000.00 655,174.78 95 Payroll 1006 3 92,726.00 14,279.80 184,000.00 291,005.80 96 Personnel 1007 8 303,079.00 46,674.17 35,000.00 384,753.17 97 Recruitment - 300,000.00 300,000.00 98 Purchasing 1008 1 23,171.00 3,568.33 12,000.00 38,739.33 99 Training 1026 29 812,961.00 125,195.99 14,000.00 952,156.99 100 Technical Service Dept 1050 0 1,175,000.00 275,000.00 1,450,000.00 101 New Accountants 1005 3 67,500.00 10,395.00 77,895.00 102 Salary Adjustments 70,996.00 10,933.38 81,929.38 103 TOTAL 55 1,828,990.00 281,664.46 1,485,000.00 636,000.00 4,231,654.46 104 105 INMATE SERVICES 106 Medical Department 1038 1 56,555.20 8,709.50 15,555,973.00 15,621,237.70 107 Acute Mental Health 1022 2,448,000.00 2,448,000.00 108 Kitchen I 1039 18 463,851.00 71,433.05 1,976,475.00 264,000.00 2,775,759.05 109 Inmate Adm. Serv. 1063 9 211,906.00 32,633.52 78,800.00 323,339.52 110 Inmate Trust Dept. 1064 2 57,013.00 8,780.00 65,793.00 111 Salary Adjustments 78,803.00 12,135.66 90,938.66 112 TOTAL 30 868,128.20 133,691.74 19,980,448.00 342,800.00 21,325,067.94 113 - - 114 GRANTS 115 Day Reporting Center 1073 5 198,848.00 30,622.59 229,470.59 116 Reentry Program 1114 12 467,979.00 72,068.77 540,047.77 117 Electronic Monitoring 1117 6 245,951.00 37,876.45 283,827.45 118 Harmony House 1118 0 22,738.00 22,738.00 119 Intensive Incarceration 1119 0 120 Salary Adjustments 36,862.00 5,676.75 42,538.75 121 TOTAL 23 949,640.00 146,244.56 22,738.00 1,118,622.56 122 - 123 PLANT 8: MAINTENANCE 124 Maintenance OPP 1010 34,200.00 236000 270,200.00 125 Maintenance - 1011 1,500.00 - 126 Maintenance - HOD 1012 1,356.00 400.00 1,756.00 127 Maintenance - Warren 1013 3,900.00 50,000.00 53,900.00 128 Maintenance - Conche 1014 5,580.00 120,000.00 125,580.00 129 Maintenance - Zaffuto 1015 1,956.00 27,000.00 28,956.00 130 Maintenance - Central 1035 23 856,731.00 131,936.57 35,000.00 2,800,000.00 3,823,667.57 131 Maintenance - Mechar 1037 8 261,061.00 40,203.39 301,264.39 132 Maintenance Other 1061 - 133 Maintenance - CWA 1080 1,500.00 15,000.00 16,500.00 134 Maintenance - EPC 1081 1,500.00 160,000.00 161,500.00 135 Maintenance - Temple 1087 8,100.00 180,000.00 188,100.00 136 Maintenance - Store 1099 6 174,158.00 26,820.33 10,000.00 210,978.33 137 Maintenance - New Kit 1078 51,900.00 86,000.00 137,900.00 138 Maintenance Tents 1105 3,900.00 105,000.00 108,900.00 139 Maintenance - 3205 P6 1106 140 Maintenance - Westba 1109 500.00 500.00 141 Maintenance - Temp. 1116 6,800.00 110,000.00 116,800.00 142 Maintenance - Inmate 1017 214,000.00 214,000.00 143 Maintenance Amer. 'i 1120 3,900.00 23,500.00 27,400.00 144 Salary Adjustments 52,175.00 8,034.95 60,209.95 145 TOTAL 37 1,344,125.00 206,995.25 161,092.00 4,137,400.00 5,849,612.25 146 147 ON BEHALF PAYMENT 148 City of New Orleans 5,201,305.00 5,201,305.00 149 - 150 Vehicle Replacement 700,000.00 700,000.00 151 - 152 DEBT REPAYMENT - A One 15 GRAND TOTAL 15 Funds Needed From 15 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1 Kitchen/Warehouse 1 lnmmate 162 New Jail ent 163 AL 165 166 167 168 CIVJL DIVISION 169 170 Revenues 171 172 Fees and Commissions 173 OTAL 17 175 176 Division 34 65 105.66 [Administratives 44 086 49.000.00 3 000.00 17 ,000.00 17 ,000.00 1,500 .00 00 00 000.00 00 1,600 .00 3,700,000.00 5 459,931.93 647 730.00 58,000.00 3 ,145.95 647 730.00 00 4 .88 - .. . . .- 4' . a I. CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-9435 DIVISION SECTION 10 STATE OF LOUISIANA, through Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Clerk of Court, ARTHUR MORRELL VERSUS THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, through its Mayor, MITCHELL J. LANDRIEU JUDGMENT This Petition for Writ of Mandamus came for evidentiary hearing on November 6, 2014, following Remand from the Court of AppeaI, Fourth Circuit, for a determination of whether the City of New Orleans complied With its statutory obiigation to fund the Clerk of Criminal District Court's of?ce for the year 2012, and whether any amounts are owed by the City to the Clerk of Court for the year 2012. Present: Madro H.'Bandaries, attorney for/and Clerk of Court Arthur MorreiI Sharonda R- Williams and Chenell Simms, attorneys for The City of New Orleans After considering the Remand Order from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, the pleadings, the evidence, the law, and for written reasons assigned this day: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the City of New Orleans failed to comply with its statutory obligation, pursuant to La. R.S. to fund the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal District Court?s Of?ce for the year 2012. IT iS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus be, and the same is hereby GRANTED, and therefore judgment is issued herein in favor of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Clerk of Court, Arthur Morrell, and against the City of New Orleans in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND 50? 00 DOLLARS for the year 2012, together with interest and costs, as authorized by law. JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED AND SIGNED in New Orleans, this 25th day of June, 2015. .ria . a- is.) CIVIL COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 12?9435 DIVISION SECTION 10 STATE OF LOUISIANA, through Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Clerk of Court, ARTHUR MORRELL VERSUS THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, through its Mayor, MITCHELL J. LANDRIEU REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This matter derives from a mandamus action ?led by Arthur Morrell, the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal District Court, to compel the City of New Orleans to satisfy its statutory obligation to fund his of?ce for the year 2012- The background facts surrounding this action are summarized in the October 2014 Opinion of the Fourth Circuit, which remanded this matter back to this Court for an evidentiary hearing and determination of whether the City of New Orleans complied with its statutory obligation, pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1381.7, to fund the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal Court?s of?ce for the year 2012, and whether the City owes any amounts to the Clerk for the year 2012 (only). The Court heard testimony from The Honorable Arthur Monell, Clerk of Criminal Court; Ms. Cheryl Bean, deputy clerk working in human resources for the Clerk of Com; Ms. Alicia Brumtield, deputy clerk Working as the judicial administrator for the Clerk of Court; Mr. Anderw Kopplin, the Chief Administrative Of?cer for the City of New Orleans; and Mr. Cary Grant, the Assistant CAO for budget and operations for the City of New Orleans. The Clerk of Criminal Court has a substantive right, with the approval of the judges of Criminal District Court, to appoint deputy clerks ?as are necessary to property conduct business? of the Clerk?s Of?ce and Criminal District Court. La. R.S. 13:1371.2. Further, the law mandates that the City of New Orleans pay ?expenses, including salaries and maintenance of constitutional o?icers, their deputies, subordinates, and employees? and shall not reduce those amounts without approval of the legislature. R.S. 13:1381.7. The Honorable Arthur Morrell, testi?ed that the number of employees/deputy clerks necessary to properly conduct business is established by reference to previous years. Mr. Morrell maintained that the 90.5 full time employees, submitted to the City in his 2012 budget, are all necessary to properly conduct business and the 90.5 number was based on the same number of employees he had the previous year, and?that this 1 . I if." . -w .. .- .- has been the same for several years, all with the tacit approval of thejudges of Criminal District Court. Mr. Morreli testi?ed that his budget director in ?nance uses the City?s pay scale to add upwhat each of the 90.5 employee?s salary is supposed to be and that is where they get the budget ?gure to submit to the City for a payroll of 90.5 necessary employees/deputy clerks. Mr. Cary Grant con?rmed that the adopted budget for 2012 accounted for the Clerk of Court having 90.5 full time positions, which was inclusive of all positions within the Clerk of Court?s of?ce regardless of the deputy clerks' designation, accountant, etc. The Clerk's budget for 2012, which accounted for 90.5 full time employees, was approved by the City Council. it was undisputed that approximately 98% of the budget of the Clerk is for salaries of employeesldeputy clerks. Additionally, this Court ?nds that those 90.5 employees of the Clerk of Court are all "deputy clerks?, regardless of thejob function they are assigned in the office and for purposes of determining their pay grade, pursuant to the Citfs pay scale. The City?s argument to the contrary is rejected- The City of New Orleans was mandated by law to pay the salaries of 90.5 deputy clerks/employees of the Clerk of Criminal Court?s Of?ce for the year 2012. in July 2012, Mr. Andrew Kopplin, sent a letter to the Clerk which stated that he was directing the City budget of?ce to reduce the Clerk?s spending authority by 3.8% and that this would be a permanent reduotion in the Clerk?s funding. it was undisputed that the 3.8% reduction amounted to $141,600.50. As a result, Mr. Morrell testi?ed that he had 5 vacancies that arose in 2012'and the City refused to put the necessary replacement employees on the payroll to be paid- The Clerk of Court does not directly pay any of his deputy clerks; rather, they are paid by checks issued by the City of New Orleans. Mr. Monell testi?ed that the City had never before, during his tenure, reduced or attempted to reduce the number of necessary employees in his of?ce. Mr. Cary Grant confirmed that this is the ?rst lawsuit that the Clerk of Court has ever ?led against the City, to his knowledge, in his many years with the City. Additionally, the testimony presented, particularly the testimony of Ms. Alicia Brumfield, the judicial administrator for the Clerk, who is in charge of all accounting and financial matters within the Clerk?s of?ce, established that the adoption of Ordinance No. 25130, on November 30, 2012, which transferred funds in the amount of $372,237.00 to the Clerk of Criminal Court, was a formality for audit purposes to get the City's adopted budget in line with the actual amounts expended by each of?ce, agency, department, that the City is required to fund. According to the testimony, the adopted budget is not necessarily the actual amounts that are expended during the year. In fact, according to Mr. Kopplin and Mr. Morrell, Mr. Morrell was not even informed of the Ordinance. The Court finds from the evidence presented that Ordinance No. 25130 was not intended to and did not replace the 3.8% permanent reduction in funding. it is undisputed that the $372,237.00 Was not used by the City to fund the vacant positions in the Clerk's of?ce. The 5 positions that went vacant during 2012, remained vacant, and the Clerk was unable to ?ll those necessary positions as a result of the City refusing to put them on the payroll. The Court ?nds from ail of the evidence presented that the City's 3.8% permanent reduction of the Cierlc?s spending authority for the year 2012 resulted in the City failing to meet its statutory obligation to pay the salaries of the 90.5 deputy clerks who are necessary to properly conduct the business of the Clerk?s o?ice. Although the City?s Home Rule Charter gives the City the authority to alter its budget even after it has . been adopted by the City Council; if that alteration affects the City?s statutory obligation to fund the Clerk of Court?s of?ce, the City must seek advanced legislative consent, which they admittedly did not do, Mr. Andrew Kopplin, CAO for the City, who made the decision to reduce the Clerk?s funding by admitted that he did not consider how the 3.8% reduction would impact the Clerk?s of?ce or how it would impact the City?s statutory duty to pay the salaries of the deputy clerks (where 98% of the Clerk?s budget is for deputy clerk salaries). Mr. Cary Grant con?rmed that the permanent reduction imposed in 2012 by the CAO's of?ce was as to all departments, agencies, of?ces, etc, and the City?s statutory duty relative to the Clerk of Criminal Court?s Of?ce was not considered. From all the evidence presented, the Court finds that the City of New Orleans failed to oomon with its statutory obligation, pursuant to La. Rs. 13:13:31.7, to fund the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal Court?s Of?ce for the year 2012. It was established that the adopted budget for the Clerk?s of?ce would have supported salaries for the 90.5 employees/deputy clerks necessary to properly run the of?ce and that the adopted budget was reduced by 3.8% or $141,600.50. Therefore, the Court ?nds that the City of New Orleans owes the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal District Court $141 ?300.50 for the year 2012. Judgment will be rendered accordingly. New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of June, 2015. ENTEEDON muss JUDGE sum Jim $1115