While Cutting the C-P Budget, Metro Council Created New $2.7M Slush Fund for Themselves

 By Woody Jenkins, Editor Central City News

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1973 were very deliberate in prohibiting politicians from giving away public funds. Art. 7, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution says, 

“…The funds, credit, property, or things of value of the state or of any political subdivision shall not be loaned, pledged, or donated to or for any person, association, or corporation, public or private.”  

The Constitution then makes specific exceptions and no others. These include social welfare programs for the aid of the needy.  That same section of the Constitution allows, for a public purpose, government to enter into Cooperative Endeavor Agreements. However, simply giving away money is prohibited.

Now members of the Metro Council have been sued for doing exactly that.  In December 2024, after Sharon Weston-Broome had been defeated for reelection, there were a few weeks when the Mayor-President’s office was very weak and the Metro Council was able to do things a strong executive could have prevented.

One of the things the Metro Council did was extend Entergy’s franchise for natural gas, while at the same time imposing a 4 percent tax on gas utilities.  Entergy opposed the tax, which is expected to raise $4 to $5 million a year from about 30,000 households in certain unincorporated areas. The money was supposed to be used for crime control and community services.

There were two big catches to this plan.  First, Entergy would simply pass the tax along to homeowners. Second, a large portion of the new tax would be paid directly to members of the Metro Council.

The Council appropriated themselves $105,000 each for 2025 or about $1.2 million total. In the budget just approved two weeks ago for 2026, they appropriated themselves $220,000 each or $2.7 million total.

Many citizens have labeled these pots of money as slush funds. Others have said it is illegal, even criminal.  Basically, they say, it boils down to “We’ll extend your franchise, but only if we get $220,000 each to personally spend as we please.”

This doubling of the Metro Council budget came during consideration of the City-Parish budget, which includes serious cuts in most departments and agencies, layoffs of personnel, and failure to fund urgent needs such as the Baton Rouge Police Department, which is 150 officers short.

Last week, former Metro Councilman Darrell Glasper challenged the slush funds in a suit brought against Mayor-President Sid Edwards and the 12 individual members of the Metro Council.

Elbert Guillory, attorney for the plaintiffs, issued the following memorandum in support:

Memorandum in Support

of Suit Against Metro Council

A. Article VII, Section 14 Strictly Prohibits Donations or Misuse of Public Funds

Article VII, Section 14(A) provides that no public funds may be loaned, pledged, or donated except as provided by the Constitution. Courts have held that an expenditure is unconstitutional unless:

1. A public purpose exists

2. It is legally authorized, and

3. A proportionate public benefit is received.

The expenditures described in the Petition fail all three prongs.

  B. Council Members Have No Authority to Individually Spend Public Funds Under the Plan of Government, the Metro Council is strictly a legislative body. It may not administer or disburse public funds. Spending is an administrative act reserved for authorized City-Parish departments.

C. Mislabeling the Budget Supplement as “Contractual Services” Violates Law Budget Supplement 9088 falsely labeled political discretionary funds as “Contractual Services,” violating:

• The Local Government Budget Act

• Procurement laws, and

•Financial transparency requirements.

No contracts or services existed.

D. Restricted Franchise-Fee Revenue Cannot Be Diverted The Entergy franchise-fee ordinance earmarked funds for crime prevention and community services. Diverting these funds to discretionary political spending violates:

•Article VII, Section 14

•Ordinance restrictions on revenue use,

•Fiscal-management principles.

E. Discretionary Political Expenditures Are Unconstitutional Louisiana Attorney General Opinions repeatedly held that elected officials may not:

•Sponsor events

•Direct donations

•Provide gifts

•Promote themselves or their office using public funds.

The expenditures identified by Plaintiffs meet these prohibited categories.

F. Taxpayers Have Standing to Seek Injunction and Restitution Louisiana courts grant standing when public funds are misused. Plaintiffs face ongoing harm from continued improper expenditures and imminent repetition in the 2026 budget.

G. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Restitution Officials who spend funds illegally may be held personally liable for full repayment with interest.

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE FACTS

A. Council Members Directed Public Funds for Political and Non-Public Purposes Exhibits show expenditures on

•Council Member-branded events

•Payments to private organizations without agreements

•Donations lacking public purpose.

B. Council Members Exercised Administrative Power They Do Not Possess Creation of individual “district accounts” constitutes an unlawful delegation of administrative authority.

C. Budget Supplement 9088 Was Illegally Mischaracterized Falsely labeling discretionary funds as contractual services renders the supplement void.

D. The 2026 Budget Proposal Would Perpetuate Violations The budget repeats the same unconstitutional structure and requires judicial intervention.

IV. CONCLUSION

These expenditures violate constitutional, statutory, and structural limits. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory judgment, injunction, restitution, and all other equitable relief.

NOTE: This case has been assigned to Judge Eboni Rose Johnson of the 19th Judicial District. For updates, read the Central City News