New Orleans Council Reverses Position, Votes to Double Attorney Contract

Despite Budget Woes, Outside Firm Handling E-mail Controversy Gets Another $125K

By Steve Beatty
The Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Just days before tackling the estimated $68 million shortfall in next year’s city budget, the New Orleans City Council found money to double the contract for its outside attorney who battled constituent requests for council e-mails.

The move represents a complete flip-flop from the council’s stern June 4 position that it simply didn’t have the money to increase the contract. At that meeting, when the e-mail issue was still very much being played out in public, the council withdrew an identical measure that would have send an additional $125,000 to the Herman, Herman, Katz and Cotlar law firm, which already had a $125,000 contract.

Councilman Arnie Fielkow said the council discussed the ordinance to double the pay in executive session, though the matter wasn’t on the executive-session agenda and doesn’t appear to meet the state’s strict rules for inclusion in such a private meeting of public officials.

A representative of Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar said at the open meeting that followed that the firm had no problem being turned away, that it was a privilege to work for the council and he understood that sometimes the firm may be asked to work with no pay.

The law firm promptly took those requesting the e-mails to court, trying to get a judge to order payment for the firm’s time and effort. All those with such a request, including Pelican Institute reporter Steve Beatty, dropped their requests. Judge Madeline Landrieu then declared the issue moot, and the firm walked away empty-handed. It also stopped processing and posting the council e-mails.

The e-mail controversy has long since died down, replaced with more immediate concern over how to balance the city’s budget by the legally required date of Dec. 1.

Neither Fielkow nor council Budget Committee Chairwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell explained this month where the money came from or why the council had a change of heart. Hedge-Morrell pushed the measure, which was approved 6-0, with council member Jackie Brechtel Clarkson absent.

Increasing the $125,000 contract to $250,000 is minor in the scope of a city budget of $486 million. Still, it’s a whopping figure compared to the total lack of money for legal work that the council has budgeted for itself next year.

The e-mail controversy dates to the start of the year. The Herman, Herman law firm went to court against the city attorney, working to prevent the city’s release of council e-mails that, in the opinion of the council, had not been thoroughly reviewed for information exempt from public disclosure.

The many requests for council e-mails followed the clandestine release of millions of e-mails to activist attorney Tracie Washington. In violation of city policy, she was given the e-mails without any review by the city attorney. She was barred by the Supreme Court from releasing the e-mails without lower court review, which at the time was estimated to take more than a year.

Herman, Herman then undertook the arduous task for reviewing what it said was 2.5 million pages of e-mails, holding back what it considered exempt material and posting the rest to the council’s Web page.

The firm hired an outside computer consultant to, among other things, gauge how long it would take for the review.

At the recent council meeting, Hedge-Morrell wasn’t clear on what the extra $125,000 covered. She initially said it was for a computer consultant, but then said she didn’t know whether the law firm was getting money for its own troubles.

In responding to questions from The Pelican Institute, Steven Lane, managing partner of Herman, Herman said “the vast majority” of the cost was to pay for the consultant. However, he also said his firm incurred “the vast majority” of the costs covered by the new $125,000.

In a Times-Picayune article on June 16, though, Lane provided information that showed the consultant cost $33,000. Lane didn’t say in his written response whether more costs were charged after that date, which would have been after the council turned down the request for more money.

In his written response, Lane told The Pelican Institute that his firm had done more than $100,000 worth of free work for the city, including litigating zoning matters that save the city “potentially millions of dollars.”

Still, the council was asked to double the contract not for other legal work, but for the consultant involved with the e-mails. “I’m going to move approval because we do need to pay this lady,” Hedge-Morrell said at the Nov. 5 meeting.

Asked to explain what happened in the five months between the two council votes, Fielkow said through a spokeswoman that Lane’s response spoke for him. Hedge-Morrell said more than a week ago that she had someone researching the matter but didn’t respond further.