CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE on 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 MANDAMUS NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes plaintiff, Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans (hereinafter referred to as the who, respectftu 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. RS. 13 :5 6.04, to provide suf?cient funding in order to increase the salaries of the deputies, sergeants and lieutenants as presented below. Plaintiff requests an expedited hearing within ten days of the ?ling of this petition, as required by La. C.C.P. art. 3782. l. . 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 plaintiff 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 performanceof a ministerial duty required by law. Further, a writ of mandamus shall issue in all cases where the law provides no relief byordinary means or where the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice. La. R.S. 13:5604 provides: The salaries of the criminal sheriff of the parish of Orleans, his deputies, assistants and clerics shall be paid by the city of New Orleans. The governing authority shall make appropriation there?ir in its yearly budget and, through its proper o??icers, transfer said appropriation to the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriffs general ?tnd, for issuing of all checks in payment of all the salaries, by the criminal sheri?? for the parish of Orleans. 4. The City is obligated to fund all jail operations pursuant to various provisions of Louisiana law, including La. R.S. 13:5 604 (salaries of the sheriff, and his deputies, assistants and clerks) and La. R.S. 33:4715 (providing a ?good and suf?cient jail?). 5. According to Amiss v. Dumas, 411 So.2d 137, 1141 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1982), the controlling case on this issue, ?The general scheme which we gather from 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, ?ed and clothed.? 6. Unfortunately, the City, on numerous occasions, has breached its ministerial duty and refused to fund an increase for the salaries of the OPSO personnel. 7. Despite what the City has done for the New. Orleans Police Department by increasing its deputy?s salaries, despite What the City now demands ?om City vendors, and despite the City?s plan for its own employees, the City has repeatedly questioned Whether the deputies deserve a pay increase. This suggestion is extremely insulting, in?ammatory, and insensitive to the service of the deputies and the families they must support. 8. The OPSO deputies risk their lives and safety to protect the public from violent criminals all while ensuring that inmates are housed in a safe, humane, and constitutional manner. The City?s lack of respect for their job is unjusti?ed and offensive. 9. Adding insult to injury, the City has repeatedly obstructed efforts to improve the deputies? working conditions and move out of the dilapidated, city-owned, Orleans Parish Prison (OPP). 10. The City must compensate the OPSO deputies? sacri?ce and commitment to a safer New Orleans by paying them a living wage. 1. The deputies of the OPSO are the lowest paid law enforcement officers in the region (see graph below), which is largely responsible for the shocking attrition rate at OPSO. 12. Susan W. McCampbell, the independent lead monitor overseeing compliance with the Federal Consent Decree, has explained how the unacceptably low salaries at the OPSO serve as a barrier to compliance. 13. In a Memorandum to Sharonda Williams, City Attorney of New Orleans, on December 13, 2013, Ms. McCampbell stated the following: ?There is no doubt that the starting salaries and career salaries] of those working in the Orleans Parish jail need to be competitive with similar occupations and competitors (local, state, federal) in the region. The attrition rate is unacceptable. Work assignments in a direct supervision jail require, among other things, above average communication and people?management skills. Without the ability to attract and retain quality employees, the ability to achieve compliance with the conditions required ?ir a constitutional jail will be diminished If the impact of having a living wage for jail employees is estimated at $4.6 million this computation needs to take into the impact of NOT having an appropriate, competitive salary.? 14. Ms. McCampbell has extensive experience within this industry - she presently serves as an independent monitor appointed by Federal Courts for three large jail systems. She has even served as an independent monitor for one private consent agreement. She also serves as a consultant to the Department of Homeland Security. 15. A statistical comparison of OPSO salaries with other law enforcement agencies in the region supports Ms. McCampbell?s position. Such a comparison reveals the great disparity between the OPSO salaries and other local law enforcement agency salaries. 6. The following chart clearly illustrates that the salaries are not competitive with the surrounding law enforcement of?ces: 545,000.00 $35,000.00 .. $30,000.00 4,800.0 525.000.00 - i 553 E. LU .0: $20,000.$15,000.00 Q. . $10,000.00 4 -. 55.000.00 ST 850 Km) NOPD STCSO 17. This chart does not re?ect the even greater disparity that now exists since New Orleans Police Department of?cers received a ?ve percent pay raise on July 1, 2015 and will receive another ?ve percent pay raise on January 1, 2016. 8. This severe pay disparity exists despite the fact that the job quali?cations for these other agencies are nearly identical to those of the OPSO. The OPSO needs a pay increase because it is unable to hire and retain suf?cient deputies without one. 1 9. 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. 20. 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 1. WHEREFORE, for the reasons discussed above, the OP SO reSpectfully prays that this Honorable Court grant its Petition for Writ of Mandamus and order the City of New Orleans, pursuant to 13 :5604, to increase the salaries of the OPSO employees in amounts which are consistent with the pay increase recommended in the proposed budget prepared by the Federal Court? 8 ?nancial and budget monitor, and for any and all equitable or legal relief that justice or equity may allow. Respectfully submitted, CI-IEHARDY, SHERNIAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM HAYES, LLP M. WILLIAMS, BAR 26141 EMESIT BAR 30007 MATTHEW A. SHERMAN, BAR 32687 One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833~5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 USRY, WEEKS AND MATTHEWS FREEMAN MATTHEWS, BAR 9050 BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR 27625 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 592?6400 Facsimile: (504) 592-4641 -PUBLIC (See R.S. 13:4521 3513:5112) PLEASE SERVE: City of New Orleans Through City Attorney Sharonda Williams 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 -And- Through the Mayor The Honorable Mitchell Landn'eu 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 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 LSA-C.C.P. Article 1572, plaintiff requests written notice 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 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. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, plaintiff requests that it be furnished with the above speci?ed information. Respectfully submitted, CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, ST AKELUM HAYES, LLP WW M. WILLIAMS, 26141 MESIT BAR 30007 MATTHEW A. SHERMAN, BAR 32687 One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 USRY, WEEKS AND MATTHEWS FREEMAN MATTHEWS, BAR 9050 BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR 27625 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, Louisiana 7 01 12 Telephone: (504) 592?6400 Facsimile: (504) 592-4641 -PUBLIC (See R.S. 13:4521 &13:5112) CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 1249435 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 Appeal, Fourth Circuit, for a determination of whether the City of New Orleans complied With its statutory obligation to fund the Clerk of Criminal District Court's office for the year 2012, and whether any amounts are owed by the City to the Clerk of Court for the year 2012. Present Madto Bandaries, attorney for/and Clerk of Court Arthur Morrell Sharoncla R- Williams and Cherreli 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 [3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the City of New Orleans failed to comply with its statutory obligation, pursuant to La. RS. 13213817, 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 81X HUNDRED AND 501100 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. 9mm .. 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 MORRELI. 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 Morreli, 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 1, 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. RS. 13:12:81.7, 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 Morreli, Clerk of Criminal Court; Ms. Cheryl Bean, deputy clerk working in human resources for the Clerk of Court; Ms. Alicia Brumtield, deputy clerk Working as thejudicial administrator for the Clerk of Court; Mr. Anderw Koppiln, the Chief Administrative Officer 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 properly conduct business? of the Clerk?s Of?ce and Criminal District Court. La- RS. 1311371 .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 reierence 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?thatthis . i 51 has been the same for several years, all with the tacit approvai of thejudges of Criminal District Court. Mr. Morrell testi?ed that his budget director in ?nance uses the City?s pay scale to add up. what 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 payroil of 90.5 necessary empioyees/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. lt was undisputed that approximately 98% of the budget of the Clerk is for salaries of employees/deputy clerks- Additionally, this Court ?nds that those 90.5 empioyees of the Clerk of Court are all ?deputy clerks?, regardless of the job function they are assigned in the of?ce and for purposes of determining their pay grade, pursuant to the City?s pay scale. The City?s argument to the contrary is rejected. The City of New Orleans was mandated by law to pay the saiaries of 90.5 deputy clerksiemployees 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. Morreil testi?ed that he had 5 vacancies that arose in 2012?and the City refused to put the necessary replacement employees on the payroli 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 Orieans. Mr. Morrell 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 con?rmed 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 Brum?eld, the judicial administrator for the Clerk, who is in charge of all accounting and ?nancial matters within the Cierk?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. Morreil, Mr. Morrell was not even informed of the Ordinance. The Court ?nds 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 Cierk was unable to those necessary positions as a result of the City refusing to put them on the payroll. The Court ?nds from all of the evidence presented that the City?s 3.8% permanent reduction of the Clerk?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 of?ce. 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 Kopptin, 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 wouid impact the City?s statutory duty to pay the salaries of the deputy clerks (where 98% of the Cierk?s budget is for deputy cierk salaries). Mr. Cary Grant con?rmed that the permanent reduction imposed in 2012 by the 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 ?nds that the City of New Orleans failed to oompiy with its statutory obligation, pursuant to La. R.S. 13:13811?, 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 employeesldep uty 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 Cierk of Criminal District Court $141,800.50 for the year 2012. Judgment will be rendered accordingly. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of June, 2015. WEED 0N mums JEN 31115