Oversight board approves compromise chief public defender salary plan

(The Center Square) — The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met this week to decide on a compensation plan for chief public defenders and voted to approve a compromise plan that is a rebuke for Gov. Jeff Landry's proposal.

The committee had two plans to choose from at Wednesday's meeting — the one their subcommittee wrote up and the one the State Public Defender Office proposed.

The previous oversight board was eliminated when Landry took office and in the creation of the new board, more power over determining public defender compensation was given to the State Public Defender Rémy Starns.

The old board raised the base salaries of chiefs and tried to create a uniform, statewide method to chiefs' compensation in 2023.

This year, Starns proposed they go back to a local compensation formula that takes into account the actual funding sources. His plan wants to pay some chiefs less based on their district's funds, case load and types of court proceedings.

The new board, after hearing Starns' proposal, gave its own formula with recommendations. These include increases in salaries be equivalent to any increases provided to state civil employees, extra compensation for being a full time public defender and less reliance on local funding for base salaries since those governments often run short of money.

They also want a chief's salary to consider their previous experience in public defense as a lien defender more so than Starns' plan.

However, Starns said the committee's plan did not take into account the unique situations in each district, and how much money is available to them based on their local governments.

"What has been proposed today, is consistent with the same way that the old plans always failed. Because it didn't understand that each district is unique, individual, and distinct from each other," Starns said.

The state public defender also did not like the idea of paying more for full time defenders when they should not technically be employing them.

"I don't think we should be in the business of telling them whether to have or not have a private practice," Starns said.

In the end a motion was passed to accept the part of the committee's plan which states the current chief salaries are grandfathered in from any future compensation proposals. As for the future pay arrangement, the motion left those to be up for consideration at a later date.