June 26, 2007
OPINION 07-0181

Mr. L. Douglas Lawrence
Counselor
Morehouse Parish Hospital
Service District No. 1
P. O. Box 1485
Bastrop, LA 71221

90-B-A OPEN MEETINGS – AGENDA
R.S. 46:1053(C)(3), R.S. 42:7(ii), R.S. 42:4.1; R.S. 42:9
Agenda for police jury meeting must be reasonably clear so
that the general public could ascertain that the removal and
reappointment of a hospital service district board member
would be considered. Actions by the police jury taken in
absence of this requirement are voidable by a court of
competent jurisdiction within sixty days of the action.

Dear Mr. Lawrence:
You ask this office to review the actions of the Morehouse Parish Police Jury at a
public meeting held May 16, 2007. Of concern is the validity of the police jury’s
action to remove Mr. James R. “Randy” Bowen as a member of the Morehouse
Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 Board of Commissioners.
At the outset, note the police jury is a public body which is subject to the
Louisiana Open Meetings Law and all notice provisions contained therein. LSAR.S. 42:4.2(A)(2). The Open Meetings Law must be liberally construed in favor
of assuring that public business is performed in an open and public manner and
that citizens are advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and
the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The law
further provides that any action taken in violation of the provisions of the Open
Meetings Law is voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction by a suit to void
any such action filed within sixty days of the action. LSA-R.S. 42:9; Hayes v.
Jackson Parish School Board, 603 So.2d 274 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1992).
Note that R.S. 42:4.1 sets forth the public policy underlying the Open Meetings
Law and states:
It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public
business be performed in an open and public manner and that the
citizens be advised and aware of the performance of public officials
and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of
public policy.
The notice requirements which must be published prior to the meeting are set
forth in R.S. 42:7, stating, in pertinent part:

 Mr. L. Douglas Lawrence
OPINION 07-0181
Page 2
§ 7. Notice of meetings
A. (1)(a) All public bodies, except the legislature and its committees
and subcommittees, shall give written public notice of their regular
meetings, if established by law, resolution, or ordinance, at the
beginning of each calendar year. Such notice shall include the
dates, times, and places of such meetings.
*****
(ii) Such notice shall include the agenda, date, time, and place of
the meeting, provided that upon approval of two-thirds of the
members present at a meeting of a public body, the public body
may take up a matter not on the agenda.
The statutes do not define what constitutes a “sufficient” agenda. This office
stated in Opinions 80-128 and 87-649 that “we are of the opinion that an agenda
must be reasonably clear so as to advise the public in general terms each
subject to be discussed”.
Further, the public meetings law permits public bodies to take up non-emergency
items that are not on the agenda provided two-thirds of the members present
agree to amend the agenda at the public meeting.
We are mindful that the frequent use of the agenda amendment procedure
should be avoided because such could become a subterfuge for avoiding
advance public notice of the actual agenda. See Opinion 93-230, copy attached.
Regarding the use of the agenda amendment, this office has stated:
The two thirds vote requirement was designed to facilitate the
legislative process in that an issue may legitimately arise, when, at
the time notice of the agenda was given, discussion of the issue
was not contemplated. In those instances where the issue is not on
the agenda, and the best interests of the public are served if the
issue is to be discussed, then the legislative requirement of a twothirds vote becomes necessary. It was designed to be an effective
economic means to be used in the policy-making process in good
faith. See Opinion 79-1492, copy attached.
In the current matter, there was no mention on the agenda that the police jury
would consider the removal of Mr. Bowen at the meeting. Rather, at the meeting
a unanimous motion was adopted by the police jury to place a police juror “on
the agenda to speak about a hospital board member” which evolved into an
actual vote for Mr. Bowen’s removal.

 Mr. L. Douglas Lawrence
OPINION 07-0181
Page 3
Here, the technical requirements of the law may have been met because of the
unanimous vote of the police jury to place on the agenda a discussion about Mr.
Bowen. However, there remains the question of whether or not the motion itself
reflected sufficient notice to place as an item on the agenda the removal of Mr.
Bowen. Further, a finding that the removal of Mr. Bowen was contemplated at
the time the notice of the agenda was given would, of course, invalidate the
police jury’s action.
These questions present factual determinations which are within the authority of
the judiciary and not this office. Mr. Bowen’s recourse is provided by statute in
R.S. 42:11:
11. Remedies; jurisdiction; authority; attorney fees
A. In any enforcement proceeding the plaintiff may seek and the
court may grant any or all of the following forms of relief: (1) A writ
of mandamus. (2) Injunctive relief. (3) Declaratory judgment. (4)
Judgment rendering the action void as provided in R.S. 42:9. (5)
Judgment awarding civil penalties as provided in R.S. 42:13.
B. In any enforcement proceeding the court has jurisdiction and
authority to issue all necessary orders to require compliance with,
or to prevent noncompliance with, or to declare the rights of parties
under the provisions of R.S. 42:4.1 through R.S. 42:12. Any
noncompliance with the orders of the court may be punished as
contempt of court.
Those actions taken by the police jury which are in violation of the open meetings
law are voidable by a court. R.S. 42:9 states:
§ 9. Voidability
Any action taken in violation of R.S. 42:4.1 through R.S. 42:8 shall
be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction. A suit to void any
action must be commenced within sixty days of the action.
It is imperative that any such action is commenced within sixty days of the action
of the police jury. An action taken after the sixty days is considered moot.
Regarding the new appointment, we note that the agenda made no mention of
the appointment of a new commission member; neither do the minutes reflect a
two-thirds vote to amend the agenda. Thus, it is the opinion of this office that the
police jury’s vote to appoint a new member to the commission is voidable.

 Mr. L. Douglas Lawrence
OPINION 07-0181
Page 4
Your remaining questions concern whether or not Mr. Bowen was removed for
cause.
The power to create a hospital service district, to appoint the
commissioners, and to remove the commissioners for cause is granted the police
jury under R.S. 46:1061, et. seq. R.S. 46:1053(C)(3) states:
(3) Any member of the commission may be removed from office for
cause and his appointment rescinded by two-thirds vote of the
elected membership of the parish governing authority which
appointed him.
What constitutes “cause for removal” of a hospital service district commissioner
in R.S. 46:1053(C)(3) is not statutorily defined. Further, there is no jurisprudence
which defines what “cause” means for removal pursuant to R.S. 46:1053(C)(3).
However, this office has attempted to define those instances constituting cause
for removal in Opinions 78-1196 and 80-1594A, which we attach for your review.
Both opinions stand for the proposition that removal of a commissioner “for
cause” under R.S. 46:1053(C)(3) includes the conviction of a felony while in
office, malfeasance, and gross misconduct while in office.
Here, by a vote of six to one of the police jurors, Mr. Bowen, who served as
president of the hospital district board, was removed. The “cause” identified
preceding the vote on his removal was identified as “the hospital is in financial
straits and the chairman [i.e., Mr. Bowen] is not doing his job.”
Again, whether or not Mr. Bowen’s actions (or inaction) reflect such
incompetence or neglect of his duties as a board member which would warrant
his removal is a factual determination which this office cannot make. Those
factual conclusions are within the authority of the courts.
Finally, the “pre-removal notice” and “opportunity to be heard” requirements are
generally applicable only to civil service personnel. Our research reflects a
commission member is not covered by civil service laws and thus these rights do
not attach to him. See Opinion 80-1594A.
Very truly yours,
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY:
KLK:arg

____________________________________
KERRY L. KILPATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

 Mr. L. Douglas Lawrence
OPINION 07-0181
Page 5
SYLLABUS
OPINION 07-0181
90-B-4 OPEN MEETINGS – AGENDA
Agenda for police jury meeting must be reasonably clear so that the general
public could ascertain that the removal and reappointment of a hospital service
district board member would be considered. Actions by the police jury taken in
absence of this requirement are voidable by a court competent jurisdiction within
sixty days of the action.
Mr. L. Lawrence Douglas
Counsel
Morehouse Parish Hospital Service District No. 1
Post Office Box 1485
Bastrop, LA 71221
Date Received:
Date Released: June 26, 2007
KERRY L. KILPATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL