Are Louisiana Cities Paying Officials Illegally?

Public records requests submitted to four Lafayette Parish municipalities uncovered an unexpected problem. Two cities could not produce the ordinances that Louisiana law appears to require before municipal officers may legally be paid. Two others handled the issue very differently.

That matters because under Louisiana law, a municipal budget authorizes spending—but it does not, by itself, create the legal obligation to spend public money. If the obligation never legally existed, an obvious question follows: Are Louisiana cities paying officials without legal authority?

The Budget: Legislative Authorization to Spend

Pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 33:362, the legislative power of a Lawrason Act municipality is vested in the Board / Council. Further, municipal budgets in Louisiana are governed by the Local Government Budget Act (La. R.S. 39:1301–1315). The Act requires each political subdivision to prepare and adopt a comprehensive budget presenting a complete financial plan for the fiscal year.

When a municipal council adopts its annual budget, the legal effect of that instrument is to appropriate public funds. In a Lawrason Act municipality, the budget must be adopted by ordinance. An appropriation authorizes the government to spend money for specified purposes up to certain limits. An appropriation, however, does not create a duty to spend those funds. It merely allows spending to occur if a separate legal obligation exists that requires payment. In this sense, a budget ordinance functions as a spending authorization rather than a mandate.

Obligations: The Legal Duty to Pay

Separate from an appropriation is the concept of an obligation. An obligation arises when a municipality becomes legally bound to make a payment. Obligations typically arise from contracts, employment relationships, statutory duties, or ordinances establishing compensation for public offices. In each case, the government has undertaken a legal commitment that requires payment.

The distinction between appropriations and obligations is fundamental. An appropriation authorizes spending, while an obligation creates the duty to spend. Think of it this way: a budget is like giving someone a credit card with a set spending limit. But payments are only issued for a legitimate purchase. The budget itself doesn’t create debt; it merely anticipates expenditures and sets aside sufficient funds to cover them.

In government, salaries of municipal officers in a municipality governed by the Lawrason Act MUST be fixed by ordinance. When a municipal council adopts an ordinance fixing the salary of an elected official, that ordinance establishes the compensation attached to the office. The annual budget is the mechanism that appropriates the funds necessary to satisfy the obligation created by the ordinance. Without the underlying obligation, a budget appropriation alone does not justify the payment of public funds.

Expenditures: The Actual Disbursement of Public Funds

The final step is the expenditure, which occurs when the municipality actually disburses public funds. Payroll payments, checks issued to vendors, and electronic transfers all constitute expenditures. The Local Government Budget Act requires that expenditures remain within the limits established by the adopted budget. But compliance with the budget alone is not enough. Each expenditure must also be supported by a valid legal obligation or other lawful authorization.

In other words, lawful municipal spending requires both legislative authorization and a legal duty to pay BEFORE it may be legally expended.

Constitutional Limits on Public Spending

Louisiana’s constitution imposes an additional safeguard on the use of public funds. Article VII, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the state or any political subdivision from loaning, pledging, or donating public funds.

The intent of this provision is to ensure that public money may only be spent when the government has legal authority to do so and when the expenditure serves a legitimate public purpose. When public funds are spent without a valid legal obligation or authorization, the expenditure may violate both statutory law and constitutional restrictions.

None of this necessarily means any individual official acted with criminal intent. Municipal governments often continue longstanding administrative practices without revisiting whether those practices fully comply with evolving legal interpretations. The legal question is whether the existing process satisfies Louisiana law—not whether every official involved believed it did.

When Misuse of Public Funds Becomes Criminal Conduct

The misuse of public funds can also constitute criminal conduct. Louisiana law recognizes several offenses that may apply when public officials misuse their authority. Among the most significant is malfeasance in office (La. R.S. 14:134), which occurs when a public officer intentionally performs an unlawful act in office or intentionally fails to perform a duty required by law. This is the same statute under which former Lafayette City-Parish President Josh Guillory was indicted on four counts by a St. Martin Parish Grand Jury related to the spoil bank removal project, after District Attorney Don Landry declined to prosecute.

Louisiana law also criminalizes conduct such as injuring public records (La. R.S. 14:132). This is the statute under which Robert Gautreaux of the Lafayette Parish School System is presently facing nine counts of violating, along with public bribery (La. R.S. 14:118). Additionally, violations of the Local Government Budget Act may constitute malfeasance in office under Louisiana Revised Statutes 39:1315.

These statutes exist to protect the public treasury and ensure that public officials comply with the legal safeguards governing public spending.

A Public Records Investigation Across Four Cities

Public records requests submitted in November 2025 to Scott, Youngsville, Broussard, and Carencro sought the ordinances fixing the salaries of municipal officers.

The responses revealed four very different approaches.

The City of Scott

The City of Scott was the first to provide the requested data. For the most part, they seem to follow what most municipal attorneys would consider the best practice. This is not surprising, as the City historically has had sound legal advice. However, it failed to provide ordinances fixing the salaries of the Mayor, Chief of Police, and certain other municipal officers.

Scott does, however, maintain a separate ordinance that explicitly fixes the salaries of elected council members. That ordinance establishes the legal obligation to pay the compensation attached to each office. The annual budget ordinance is the mechanism to appropriate the funds necessary to satisfy those obligations. Simple. Straightforward. No surprises.

If the City wishes to raise the compensation of elected council members, it must legally comply with the procedures of the Lawrason Act governing the adoption of ordinances, which includes advertising the proposed changes in the official journal and holding public hearings.

The City of Youngsville

The City of Youngsville, by contrast, over the last decade has relied on the annual budget ordinance to address compensation. The only problem is that for most of those years, the budget ordinance didn’t actually do that.

The last known stand-alone salary ordinance for municipal officers and elected officials adopted by the City of Youngsville occurred in 2014. Between 2015 and 2017, the salaries of municipal officers and elected officials continued to increase, and they were paid WITHOUT any identifiable ordinance fixing those salaries.

The practical effect is significant. If salaries are never fixed by ordinance, they may be increased simply by appropriating additional funds in the budget, avoiding the public notice and procedural requirements that accompany the adoption of a compensation ordinance. If Louisiana law requires salaries to be fixed by ordinance, that shortcut is legally insufficient.

In 2018, the City of Youngsville began adding an additional section to its annual budget ordinance, which read to the effect: “The adoption of this ordinance also serves as approval of annual salaries for the elected and appointed officials of the City of Youngsville.” The only problem is that the adopted budget provided for a lump-sum appropriation of funds, WITHOUT specifying any obligation to pay to any person or position. This practice continued until 2025.

After questions were raised during the public records process, the city modified its approach. Earlier ordinances contained only aggregated salary figures within the budget, but that changed. An Exhibit B was added to the ordinance to outline the “fixed salaries.” It wasn’t perfect, but it was a step closer to satisfying the statutory requirement that compensation be fixed by ordinance and appropriated by a budget ordinance.

Two Failing Examples

The City of Broussard and the City of Carencro, both of which responded to the November 2025 public records request, presented similar problematic situations.

Both Broussard and Carencro FAILED TO PRODUCE any ordinances setting salaries for municipal officers. Both cities maintain that municipal officers’ salaries are set in the budget ordinance and accompanying schedules, rather than in a separate compensation ordinance. The ordinances themselves say otherwise.

There is no language in either city’s ordinance that indicates the intent of the instrument is to ‘fix salaries.’ Additionally, the budgets adopted by both Broussard and Carencro DO NOT provide a breakdown of salaries for each municipal officer.

These differences may appear technical, but they highlight an important legal distinction. When salaries are established through a dedicated ordinance, the governing authority clearly establishes the legal obligation to pay those amounts. When salaries appear only within a budget document, the ordinance functions as an appropriation instrument rather than a law fixing compensation. Without a legal obligation requiring payment, the expenditure itself becomes legally questionable.

If This Is Illegal, Why Isn’t Anyone Being Prosecuted?

The existence of a possible legal violation does not automatically result in criminal charges.

Louisiana law contains several criminal statutes that may apply when public officials knowingly authorize unlawful expenditures, including malfeasance in office and related offenses. Whether those statutes apply in any particular case depends on the specific facts and, ultimately, prosecutorial judgment. In Louisiana, that decision rests almost entirely with one elected official: the local district attorney.

District attorneys possess broad discretion to determine whether criminal charges will be filed. If the district attorney declines prosecution, the matter typically ends there. Even when evidence of wrongdoing exists, the case may never reach a courtroom if the prosecutor chooses not to pursue it.

When that discretion is exercised poorly — or not exercised at all — laws designed to protect the public treasury can become largely symbolic.

Grand Jury Review of Public Corruption Cases

One potential legislative response would preserve prosecutorial discretion while introducing an additional layer of independent review. The law could require that certain cases involving public corruption be presented to a grand jury. This would prevent serious public-corruption allegations from disappearing through an unexplained decision not to prosecute.

Such a reform would not require a prosecutor to seek an indictment. Instead, it would ensure that an independent body of citizens has the opportunity to review the evidence and determine whether charges should proceed. Laws are only as effective as their enforcement. When violations are never investigated—or are routinely declined for prosecution—the practical deterrent they were intended to create begins to disappear. When decisions about whether to pursue criminal charges are made behind closed doors, elected officials can escape accountability.

Restoring Accountability in Public Finance

At its core, the issue is not simply technical compliance with municipal budgeting law. It is about preserving the integrity of the system that governs public spending. Appropriations authorize spending. Obligations create the legal duty to pay. Expenditures disburse public funds.

When those steps are followed, Louisiana law provides strong safeguards to protect the public treasury. When they are not — and when enforcement fails — those safeguards depend on reforms that ensure misconduct allegations receive independent review instead of disappearing into unchecked prosecutorial discretion.

###