Bartels v. Roussel
Decision Date | 08 November 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 10168,10168 |
Parties | Paul B. BARTELS v. B. H. ROUSSEL et al. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Wm. Luther Wilson, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Joseph F. Keogh, Baton Rouge, for appellees.
Before LANDRY, BLANCHE and NEHRBASS, JJ.
Plaintiff, Paul M. Bartels (Appellant), appeals from judgment of the trial court recalling a previously issued alternative writ of mandamus and dismissing Appellant's action to compel the Honorable W . W. Dumas, Mayor-President, and the Honorable B. H. Roussel, Director of Finance, City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge (Appellees), to permit Appellant's examination and inspection of certain alleged public documents pursuant to LSA-R.S. 44:1 et seq. (the Public Records Law). The documents in question consist of completed department and nondepartment budget requests of all departments, agencies, offices and instrumentalities of the City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge (City-Parish), which will receive funds from the City-Parish for the fiscal year 1975. We reverse and enter a writ of mandamus ordering and directing Appellees to permit Appellant's examination of subject records which we find and declare to be public documents as defined in the applicable statute.
Appellees argue that the Public Records Law is inapplicable herein because the City-Parish Charter, La.Const. Article XIV, Section 3(a), vests the City-Parish with special powers and privileges. It is contended that said constitutional provision is self-executing; that it predominates over general state laws in conflict therewith, and according to its provisions, declares that the records in question are not public records. Alternatively, Appellees maintain that application of the Public Records Law in this instance would constitute an unconstitutional discrimination against the City-Parish and other municipal and parish governmental agencies. It is also urged that application of the Public Records Law in this case would be unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers concept of government. In this respect, it is argued that the City-Parish is an executive branch of government created by the constitution and, as such, entitled to the same treatment as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government.
The facts are undisputed. Appellee Roussel has in his possession finalized budget requests from every department, agency, office and instrumentality of the City-Parish. The written requests have been bound into four volumes to facilitate their study by Roussel as Director of Finance. Eventually Roussel will make recommendations to the Mayor based on the requests received. Thereafter the Mayor will formulate a budget and submit it to the governing authority for adoption of a budget for the ensuing 1975 fiscal year. Appellant has sought permission to view these documents, make copies thereof and otherwise inspect them, notwithstanding the Mayor has not yet prepared his budget.
LSA-R.S. 44:1 defines public records as follows:
(Emphasis by the Court.)
The documents at issue were prepared by Department heads pursuant to Section 8.07 of the City-Parish Charter which provides:
In contending that the reports are not public records, Appellees rely upon Section 8.13 of the City-Parish Charter which reads as follows:
Appellees suggest that since Section 8.13 expressly provides that the Mayor's budget and all supplemental documents shall be public, said documents do not become public until the budget is prepared by the Mayor and adopted by the governing authority. According to Appellees, after adoption of the budget, Appellant and any other interested party is entitled to access to the documents in question.
The trial court did not directly determine whether the documents were public documents. In essence the lower court held that if the documents were public, certain administrative considerations dictated delay of the right to public examination until after the budget was adopted by the governing authority. In effect, the lower court determined that to make the documents public before final adoption of the budget would subject the governmental authorities to unwarranted pressure from groups or interests favoring or opposing expenditure of public funds for certain purposes. On this ground, the court concluded that to deny the right of examination and inspection at this time would merely defer the right of examination which delay was justified in the public interest.
LSA-R.S. 44:1 et seq., was obviously intended to implement the inherent right of the public to be reasonably informed as to the manner, basis and reasons upon which governmental affairs are conducted. Section 1(A), hereinabove set forth, clearly provides that documents, etc., which have been used, are being used or which were prepared for use in the conduct of public business, are public records.
Numerous exemptions are contained in the statute. Section 44:1, subd. B exempts, under certain circumstances, electric logs filed with the Commissioner of Conservation in connection with off shore wells. Section 44:3 exempts certain records of the attorney general, district attorneys, sheriffs, police departments, marshals, investigative and intelligence agencies. These exemptions are clearly designed to protect confidential sources of information and insure that undue publicity will not prejudice pending criminal prosecutions. Section 44:4 exempts certain tax returns and information. Records of the Governor, except those pertaining to money or financial transactions handled by the Governor, are exampt by the provisions of Section 44:5. Hospital records, charts and other records kept on patients, by public hospitals and similar institutions, are likewise exempt by Section 44:7.
The right of the public to examination of public documents and the duty of custodians of such records to permit access thereto is expressly provided by Section 44:32, which recites:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
... ... Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir.1973) ; Yonkers Comm'n on Human Rights v. City of Yonkers, 654 F.Supp. 544 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ; Bartels v. Roussel, 303 So.2d 833 (La.App. 1 Cir.1974) ; Penny v. Bowden, 199 So.2d 345 (La.App. 3 Cir.1967) ... Correspondingly, Article I of the Louisiana ... ...
-
Harrison v. Norris
... ... Di Guilio, 553 So.2d 806 (La.1989); Webb v. City of Shreveport, 371 So.2d 316 (La.App. 2d Cir.1979), writ denied; Bartels v. Roussel, 303 So.2d 833 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974), writ refused. An action to enforce the PR Act is a civil action ... Nothing in ... ...
-
TECTRANS, INC. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., Civil Action No. 09-3461.
... ... Treadway v. Jones, 583 So.2d 119, 124 (La.Ct. App.1991) (citing Bartels v. Roussel, 303 So.2d 833, 836 (La.Ct.App.1974), writ denied, 307 So.2d 372 (La.1975)). The Louisiana Public Records Law should be liberally ... ...
-
Twenty-First Judicial Dist. Court v. State Through Guste
... ... 3 Warren County, Mississippi v. Hester, 219 La. 763, 54 So.2d 12 (1951); Bartels v. Roussel, 303 So.2d 833 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974), writ denied, 307 So.2d 372 (La.1975); Penny v. Bowden, 199 So.2d 345 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1967) ... ...
-
From Sunshine to Moonshine: How the Louisiana Legislature Hid the Governor?s Records in the Name of Transparency
...office and is destined for someone also inside the governor’s office, it is by definition an “intra-office 167. Bartels v. Roussel, 303 So. 2d 833 (La. Ct. App. 1st 1974) (holding that the mayor –president of East Baton Rouge Parish could not withhold departmental budget requests, even thou......