Some Iberia Parish Council members said the audit allegations are sufficient to oust Parish President Will Langlinais.

Langlinais is accused of spending money improperly and he also has reportedly threatened employees on the fourth floor of the courthouse.

It’s causing an atmosphere of distrust and is reducing his effectiveness as president of Iberia Parish, council members said.

Advertisement

“I think there is more than enough cause to remove him (Langlinais) from office,” Councilman Bernard Broussard said of what would be the first removal of a parish president.

It could be legally incumbent upon each council member to remove Langlinais, Councilman Ray Fremin Jr. said Tuesday because the Home Rule Charter states that if an official spends money without council knowledge that action “shall be cause for removal” of the person who authorized the payment. Fremin favors Langlinais’ removal.

“We paused a bit several months ago, saying a further investigation might be something we need to do before we take those steps,” Fremin said. “Now, I’m feeling like it should go forward — meaning the removal from office. And what I don’t understand is where some council members feel like there might not be just cause for that, when prior to the legislative audit we knew there was just cause at that point.”

The results of the final Louisiana Legislative audit showed about $500,000 in unsubstantiated spending under Langlinais’ leadership during the past six years. Langlinais, who has served as parish president since 1992, questions those numbers and facts. He has hired a lawyer and has reimbursed about $2,600 to the parish and to the Police Jury Association for unsubstantiated travel expenses and for duplicate billing.

Broussard said he is trying to find other like-minded members besides Fremin and Councilman Glenn Romero to possibly remove Langlinais. Broussard tried to remove Langlinais last year, but he didn’t have the votes.

“And I haven’t seen anything from the state that changes what Phil said previously,” Broussard said. “I still feel, as I felt then, that the parish president misrepresented the citizens by not informing the council of some of his actions. The charter has directed me what to do.”

It is unclear in the charter if the council alone can remove Langlinais. No one is sure whether it would take a majority — eight — or a super majority, 10 members, to remove him.

And not everyone is on board.

“If that’s the case, they want to impeach Will Langlinais, present the evidence,” Councilman Maggie Daniels said Tuesday. “The way it looks to me is, the purpose of the audit is to find what’s really going on. It’s like they’re keying on one thing, on Will Langlinais. But how many things have they found that should be addressed? So, we’ll push that aside and key on getting Will out? What is the true motive?”

Broussard has indicated that he would like to run for parish president, but said that’s not the reason for ousting Langlinais.

Fremin said a court could have the final say on Langlinais’ removal anyway.

“The court has to agree that it’s proper action,” Fremin said.

The charter says that unauthorized payments would be void and “such action shall be cause for removal any official who authorized or made such payment.”

It appears Langlinais could fall under that section, Haney recently noted, as he had in April 2006, that the council has cause to remove Langlinais from office stemming from a contract Langlinais brokered with local lawyer Shane Romero during from 2001 to 2005.

Haney has agreed that it’s Langlinais, not Romero, who is at fault.

The council did not know about the $750-per-month contract. Haney called it an oral contract and illegal under the Home Rule Charter. Langlinais called it a retainer.

However, the way Haney reads Section 5-06, it only provides cause for removal.

“It doesn’t mean you have to remove him,” Haney said.

“I don’t think it’s saying we have to remove him, either,” Fremin said.

“But isn’t it true that any member who does not (vote for his removal) is in violation themselves? I just think others on the council, because it’s basic human nature, are thinking, ‘I don’t want to hurt anybody.’ They’re thinking, ‘He (Langlinais) didn’t really mean to do it.’ ... They don’t want to make the hard choice. But we are, in fact, the ones who pass judgment. ... It’s our duty, and we swore to uphold it.”