Roemer v. Guillot
| Decision Date | 20 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 711 |
| Parties | Charles E. "Buddy" ROEMER, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Bill Lynch v. Dale GUILLOT, Justin Zitler, Robert Harvey, Sr. and Cheney Joseph in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of East Baton Rouge Parish. 91 1525. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Peter G. Wright, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellees Charles E. "Buddy" Roemer and Bill Lynch.
Justin A. Zitler, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants Dale Guillot, Justin Zitler, Robert Harvey, Sr., and Cheney C. Joseph, D.A. of Baton Rouge.
Before WATKINS, CRAIN and GONZALES, JJ.
Plaintiffs filed a petition alleging that defendants Dale Guillot, Justin Zitler and Robert Harvey Sr. had repeatedly contended that plaintiff Bill Lynch, the Inspector General, had no authority and should be removed from office in a quo warranto proceeding. 1 District Attorney Cheney Joseph was included as a defendant because his office had authority to conduct quo warranto proceedings, the petition alleged. Plaintiffs asked that the court render a declaratory judgment, stating (1) that District Attorney Joseph was not obligated to file a quo warranto proceeding against Inspector General Lynch; (2) that the office of Inspector General was lawfully established and existed as a subdivision of the Division of Administration; (3) that the Inspector General had authority to carry out its duties under La. Constitution 1974, Article 4, Section 5(C) and La.R.S. 49:212; (4) that Inspector General Bill Lynch lawfully held the office of Inspector General (5) and that Executive Orders BR 88-10 and 88-26 remained in force and effect. See La.C.C.P. art. 1871, 1872; Blaize v. Hayes, 204 La. 263, 15 So.2d 217 (1943), (appointments to fill vacancy in public office are cases of public importance.) See also Hainkel v. Henry, 313 So.2d 577 (La.1975), stating that where the issue was the effect of certain provisions of the constitution on legislative actions, declaratory judgment was proper. Contra, Abbott v. Parker, 259 La. 279, 249 So.2d 908 (1971), (issues of budgetary "procedure" and state's lease rentals was not a "justifiable controversy" for declaratory judgment.)
Plaintiffs and defendants both filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs providing, in pertinent part, as follows:
1. The Office of the Inspector General is lawfully established and exists as a subdivision of the Division of Administration.
2. That the Inspector General has authority to investigate to see that the laws of the State are faithfully executed, and perform inspections, visitations and examinations of all budget units and their records to see that the law is faithfully executed, that the budget system is properly operated and that the budget units are keeping within their allotments and appropriations and in the name of the Governor to obtain reports under LSA-Const. Article 4, Section (5)(C) and LSA-R.S. 49:212.
3. That the Plaintiff, Bill Lynch, lawfully holds the office of Inspector General.
4. That Executive Orders BR 88-10 and 88-26 remain in full force and effect.
The defendants are appealing that judgment.
Rule 1-3 of the Court of Appeal Uniform Rules provides:
The scope of review in all cases within the appellate and supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal shall be as provided by LSA-Const. Art. 5, sec. 10(B), and as otherwise provided by law. The Courts of Appeal will review only issues which were submitted to the trial court and which are contained in specifications or assignments of error, unless the interest of justice clearly requires otherwise.
Defendants have failed to make any specification or assignment of error to the trial court judgment; however, in the interest of justice, we shall address their arguments.
The appellants assert that the trial court's judgment in appellee's favor fails to enforce the "checks and balances" feature inherent in the "sunset" law governing executive orders, La.R.S. 49:215.
Governor Roemer created the office of Inspector General by Executive Order BR 88-10 issued April 4, 1988. At that time, La.R.S. 39:3 allowed the Division of Administration to be subdivided by executive order as follows:
The Division of Administration shall consist of the position of commissioner of administration, and such other subdivisions or sections as are deemed necessary, in the opinion of the governor, to carry out budgeting, accounting controls, central purchasing, and purchasing supervision and centralized state planning as provided for in this Chapter. These subdivisions and sections shall be established by executive order of the governor.
An amendment to La.R.S. 36:4(B)(3), effective March 28, 1988, (a few days prior to the issuance of executive order BR 88-10) provided:
The governor may allocate within his office the powers, duties, funds, functions, appropriations, responsibilities, and personnel of the agencies within his office, provide for the administration thereof and for the organization of his office.
Under this amendment, the governor was authorized to take an unclassified aide position in his office and place that aide in charge of the Division of Administration Internal Audit Section, thereby creating the Inspector General.
Executive Order BR 88-10 provides as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, I BUDDY ROEMER, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
94 0674 La.App. 1 Cir. 10/7/94, Edwards v. Board of Trustees of State Employees Group Benefits Program
... ... Moreover, in Roemer v. Guillot, 616 So.2d 711, 712-13 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), we held there is both constitutional and statutory authority, apart from any Executive ... ...