The Iberia Parish Council could soon be its own investigative body into Iberia Parish President Will Langlinais’ alleged unsubstantiated spending, though council members are a bit unsure about how to go about that because it’s never been done since the Home Rule Charter went into effect in 1984.

But District Attorney Phil Haney, who said his office is conducting a criminal investigation stemming from the state audit and will call a grand jury within 60 days, said Thursday he will have guidelines in time for the April 25 meeting so the council’s investigative process can begin.

Even veteran Councilman Caesar Comeaux, 81, has never been involved with an investigation conducted by the council.

Advertisement

“I’ve never heard of a parish governing body investigating anything,” Comeaux said. “Maybe we’d call in people to ask a question about something, but not the size of this.”

Some members have unanswered questions from the legislative audit, which uncovered thousands of dollars in unsubstantiated spending under Langlinais’ administration. Since the audit was released, council members have wondered how to go about digging deeper into the document. Some believe that not everything was fleshed out during the 10-month audit — such as certain contracts and terms that were mentioned but not released in the final document.

Section 2-08 of the charter provides that the council has the authority to “subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony and require the production of evidence,” Haney said.

Haney told the council Wednesday that one way to recover any money that might have spent improperly is to use the charter, which empowers the council to conduct its own investigation.

“We know how to do it,” Haney said. “We’re going to do it with due process and to make sure proper notice is given to people. But even though the charter doesn’t specify how to do it, you do the right things as the law requires. The council’s going to decide themselves how they’ll handle it — like who’s going to chair or do they want a court reporter there, or whether it’ll be in executive (closed-door) session if it involves personnel issues.”

Councilman Bernard Broussard said he would like the meetings held in public. Haney said that would be up to the council.

“If, for instance, it involves some conduct by an employee, there’s some provisions where they can say they want (their testimony) in an executive session,” Haney said.

“You have to understand,” he said. “People will be talking about a delicate issue that involves a supervisor or boss, so you may be very cautious as to what you’ll say. I think the Parish Council wants a process that people can talk freely.”

The auditors did not talk to everyone on the council, Councilman Barry Verret said. That leaves some questions unanswered, or incomplete, other members said.

Broussard said Thursday that although the council ensured employees they would be protected from possible retribution if they go to talk to the council, some are still leery of speaking out. Haney said several employees already went to him alleging that they’ve been intimidated by Langlinais.

Haney said not all items in the audit were illegal, though they could be improper in regards to the Home Rule Charter, the document that in 1984 formed the new parish president-parish council form of government.

“Not everything is criminal,” Haney said.

“I don’t think the Shane Romero thing is necessarily a crime, but it’s something under the charter that gives rise to the council to say, ‘This is serious to us. We need to take some sort of action.’ ”

Haney has opined that the oral contract between Romero and Langlinais, because it was brokered without council knowledge, went beyond the charter’s scope. Romero made about $35,000 from the deal, which involved a $750-per-month retainer that ran from 2001 to 2005.

During that time, Romero charged the parish more than $300,000 in additional legal expenses.

Haney reiterated Wednesday in a letter to the council and the president that Section 5-06 “provides that any authorization of payments in violation of the provisions of the charter are void and the payment illegal. The person who knowingly authorized or made such payments shall be liable to the parish for any amount so paid.”

He said Section 5-06 also “provides that such authorization shall be a cause for removal from office.”

“The facts are going to be the facts. It doesn’t appear that everything in the audit is directly involved in something he (Langlinais) is doing.”