NEW IBERIA: They Finally Admitted There Was a Problem

When concerns were first raised about the legality of the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, the response from some corners was predictable: dismiss it, downplay it, or assume it would quietly go away. But it didn’t go away.

Instead, Mayor Freddie Decourt placed multiple items on the April 21, 2026, New Iberia City Council agenda to address those concerns. On its face, it looked like a course correction — an effort to bring the board into compliance with Louisiana law. What unfolded during that meeting was revealing. Not because the City ignored the problem. Because in trying to fix the problem, the City confirmed it.

Recapping the Law

One of the items on the agenda was a resolution to approve the exception set forth in Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2476(C)(4). This special carveout was created at a time when the City of New Iberia was eliminating its police force and provides in part:

…only one member shall be elected from the city of New Iberia municipal fire and police civil service system in accordance with Paragraph (C)(4) of this Section, provided that such exception is approved by resolution of the city of New Iberia governing authority.

Paragraph (C)(4) states:

…If R.S. 33:2495.2 becomes applicable, only one member shall be elected from the city of New Iberia municipal fire and police civil service system and one member shall be appointed by the mayor of the city of New Iberia upon his own nomination, provided that such exception is approved by resolution of the city of New Iberia governing authority.

A resolution is required — but so is the contingency found in Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2495.2. That contingency became effective January 1, 2008, and reads:

IF the city of New Iberia which has a municipal fire and police civil service system in existence on January 1, 2008, ceases to operate either its fire department or its police department, the civil service system shall continue in full force and effect for the remaining department as provided by law.

We know that the New Iberia Police Department would ultimately be eliminated in 2012 as contemplated by the law. Under that situation, the five-man civil service Board would remain in full force and effect. A later Attorney General opinion issued in 2013 indicated that the police representative spot would just remain vacant. Then former Senator Fred Mills further expanded the legislative carve-out, allowing the City of New Iberia to fill the vacant seat on the Board with another City appointee, provided the City adopts a resolution authorizing such action. ENOUGH WITH THE CARVEOUTS! 

The Admission That Changes Everything

During the discussion of the proposed resolution concerning the statutory exception, Mayor DeCourt made a critical statement:

I want to explain we as a body, and those before us, back all the way to 2014 have never passed a resolution invoking our exception granted to New Iberia by the state to not have a police representative on the board.

That matters because the entire structure of the current board — one without a police representative —depended on an exception that was never invoked. Without that resolution, the exception never legally existed, and the police officers were denied their statutory rights to have a duly elected representative of their department on the Board.

The City acknowledged, on the record, that it had been operating outside the law. The most interesting thing about this resolution is that it didn’t pass, yet it changed everything. This raises the question: if no resolution was necessary to allow the police officer representative on the Board, then why were they denied a seat on the Board for roughly a decade?

They Didn’t Ignore It

To be clear, this was not a meeting where the concerns we have been raising were brushed aside. The Mayor and Council attempted to correct multiple failures concerning the Board. It revisited prior appointments, obtained an updated nomination list from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, discussed oath requirements, and ultimately restored police representation.

The City attempted to fix multiple problems, but only going forward. It did not address whether what had already occurred was lawful.

It also highlighted something even more important — the duty of every resident and taxpayer to call attention to the wrongdoing of government officials, no matter how big or small. Whether these were omissions, errors, or deliberate acts doesn’t change the outcome. If they were not called out by people outside looking in, they would never have even been considered for adjustment.

Fixing the Future Doesn’t Fix the Past

At multiple points, officials described their actions as ‘correcting mistakes’ and ‘moving forward.’ But the law does not operate on intent. It operates on compliance. If appointments were made without the required nomination lists, they were improper at the time; if oaths were never filed, those positions may have been vacant by operation of law; if a board operated without a police representative, it did so without the structure required by the statute.

Those issues cannot be cured by paperwork after the fact. They are foundational defects that affect every decision made by the illegally constituted Board.

And Then There Was the Appointment

In the same meeting, the Council voted to reappoint a board member, Wyatt Collins, while openly acknowledging that he was ineligible to serve at the time of the vote because he held another public office. Mayor DeCourt offered a simple explanation: Collins would be resigning from the other board.

That may solve the problem tomorrow. But the Council’s vote wasn’t scheduled for a future date. It was occurring now. Eligibility is not prospective. It is required at the moment of appointment. And at that moment, the disqualifying condition still existed. It’s like casting a ballot before you’re registered to vote — with the promise you’ll register later. That is not how things work.

The Problem Was Real

For months, the argument was that concerns about the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board were speculative or overstated. The April 21 meeting changed that. The City itself acknowledged that required procedures were not followed, that the statutory exception had never been adopted, that appointments needed to be corrected, and that at least one board member was currently disqualified.

These were not allegations. They were admissions. To its credit, the City did not totally ignore the issue. It brought it into the open. But bringing a problem into the open does not always resolve it. Sometimes it simply serves to further define it. And a lack of legal compliance was clearly defined, raising more questions.

If the board was not lawfully structured, if appointments were improper, and if members were unqualified at the time they served, then the question is no longer whether something needs to be fixed. The question became: What does the law require to correct what has already occurred?

The Difference Between Correction and Justification

There is a difference between correcting a mistake and justifying it after the fact. The April 21, 2026, meeting suggests city leadership claims to be doing the former. But the record it created raises the possibility of the latter. And that distinction matters — because one restores the law. The other rewrites it.

There is also a shadow of uncertainty over the lingering issues that the Mayor or Council didn’t address at the meeting. Open meetings violations, criminal complaints, and the petition for investigation that was buried behind closed doors by a Board that lacked a de jure quorum to even conduct business. Those issues don’t disappear when ignored. They compound. And when a system operates outside the law long enough, the question is no longer how to fix it — but whether it was ever functioning lawfully at all.

###