CIVIL SUIT NO.

: 270,665
DIVISION "E"

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ETAL NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT

VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES VILLARD, ETAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO CO-DEFENDANT

FOWLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes JAMES VILLARD,

REDDEX WASHINGTON, GERBER M. PORTER, CYNTHIA PERRY, and CATHERINE

DAVIDSON, individually and as members of the Alexandria City Council (collectively,

the "City Council Members" or "Defendants"), named defendants herein, who hereby

oppose Co-Defendant Charles "Chuck" Fowler, Jr.'s Motion for Summary.

Fowler's Motion seeks two rulings from this Court:

(1) Declaring that Fowler is "free from fault" as it relates to the claims in the Mayor's
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Temporary Restraining
Order, filed on May 5, 2021; and

(2) Declaring that these Defendants "are not free from fault" by knowingly or
intentionally violating the City of Alexandria Home Rule Charter and other
Louisiana laws.'

While the former is a proper basis for a motion for summary judgment filed by a co-

defendant, the latter unequivocally is not. As to these Defendants, Fowler's Motion must

be denied, as a matter of law, for the following reasons:

1. Fowler's request for a judgment against these Defendants is procedurally

improper and such relief is unavailable to Fowler.

2. Alternatively, intent is not proper in the context of a summary judgment motion.

3. Alternatively, transcripts from proceedings before this Court and the April and
May Council Meetings in the record establish that these Defendants did not
knowingly or intentionally violate the law;

4. Alternatively, at a minimum, the evidence in the record establishes there are

genuine issues of material fact; and/or

5. Alternatively, there has not been an adequate opportunity for discovery.

For the reasons addressed herein, Fowler's motion must be denied, with prejudice, and

Fowler should be cast with all associated costs, including attorney's fees.2

1 See e.g., Fowler's proposed "Order Issuing Rule to Show Cause Regarding Motion for Summary
Judgment."
2 See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 863(D). If a pleading is presented for the purpose to "harass, cause

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation," the Court may impose sanctions,
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2021, the "City of Alexandria" and Jeffery Hall, individually and in his

capacity as Mayor, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and

Temporary Restraining Order ("Petition") naming all members of the Alexandria City

Council as defendants: James Villard, Charles L. Fowler, Jr., Lee Rubin, Reddex

Washington, Gerber M. Porter, Cynthia Perry, and Catherine Davidson. As the Court is

aware, the Mayor's Petition and request for injunctive relief centered around budget

amendments made by the City Council and a related override of the Mayor's veto during

April/May of 2021. Fowler neither filed a cross-claim against these Defendants nor has

he filed a separate suit in a competent jurisdiction.3

The Mayor's Petition alleged three Home Rule Charter violations in relation to

two (2) specific budget amendments made by the City Council: (1) a lack of certification

of funds to meet continuing obligations; (2) improper undermining of union contract

negotiations; and (3) improper removal of a city administrative officer via a budget

amendment.4 The first two related to the allocation of "$2 Million" in connection with

police pay raises, benefits, and recruiting. The latter related to an amendment that

eliminated funding for the Public Safety Commissioner position. Fowler's Motion solely

relates to the fiscal issues raised in Number 1.

The Mayor sought a declaratory judgment that the "$2 million Budget

Amendment, and the cited line-item Budget Amendment, violate the Home Rule

Charter, and are thus illegal, invalid and unenforceable."5 Further, the Mayor sought a

temporary restraining order and an injunction "to prevent implementation and

enforcement of the two (2) illegal, invalid and unenforceable Budget Amendments."6

This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on May 5, 2021 and set the

preliminary injunction hearing for May 17, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the Mayor filed a

Motion and Order for Extension of the TRO to May 17, 2021, in light of the impending

injunction hearing, which the Court granted. Ultimately, the preliminary injunction

including "an order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of
the filing of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees."
3 Indeed, Fowler's Motion concedes throughout that the relief sought is the Mayor's request for
relief in his May 5th Petition. Motion at p. 1; Memorandum in Support at § III ¶ 4 ("These legal violations
were the subject of a declaratory suit, which has yet to be ruled upon as to the legal violations."); § IX
("The law is quite clear that the Mayor was authorized to bring suit for declaratory, injunctive, and
extraordinary relief in the form of the writ of mandamus.").
4 See the Mayor's Petition - attached as Exhibit F to Fowler's motion.
5 Petition, at ¶ 24.
6 Id.

2
hearing was rescheduled for Friday, May 21, 2021 and the Court signed an Order

extending the TRO to such date. On May 21, 2021, in response to arguments of counsel

and Defendants' Motion to Dissolve TRO filed on May 19, 2021, the Court dissolved the

TRO finding it improper as the Mayor was not clearly entitled to such "an extraordinary

remedy."7

After the dissolution of the TRO, the Court proceeded to take evidence and hear

testimony on the Mayor's request for a preliminary injunction. At the conclusion of the

May 21, 2021 hearing, the Court asked the parties to return on June 21, 2021. At this

second hearing, after a conference with all counsel of record, the Court ordered that

Trey Gist work with both parties to achieve a resolution within 3o days in order to

address semantic issues with the Council's previous budget amendments.8

In an effort to bring the Mayor's request for a preliminary injunction to a

conclusion, on July 14, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion and Order to Set Preliminary

Injunction for Hearing and Order to Set Declaratory Judgment for Bench Trial. In

response, the Court set the Mayor's preliminary injunction hearing for August 9, 2021,

which would have presumably been limited to the Court issuing a ruling in response to

the evidence presented at the May 21, 2021 hearing.

On August 6, 2021, after a phone conversation between undersigned and counsel

for the Mayor, Josh Dara, the Court was notified that "the issues that were the subject of

the request for injunctive relief are now moot" and the August 9 th hearing was removed

from the Court's docket.9 To date, this Court has never issued a ruling granting or

denying the Mayor's request for an injunction and a bench trial on the declaratory

judgment action has not been set.

This case has been pending for seven months and the first three months related

to the request for injunctive relief, which ended in an agreement by the parties that the

request for a preliminary injunction and, in turn, a permanent injunction was rendered

moot due to the adoption of Ordinance 130-2021 on July 13, 2021, which addressed the

Mayor's concerns with the Council's previous budget amendments.

7 See May 21, 2021 Transcript, pp. 16 - 17 (Exhibit B).

8 See June 21, 2021 Transcript, pp. 5-8 (Exhibit C), wherein the Court uses the word "semantics"
five times to describe the issues raised by the Mayor in relation to the Council's earlier budget
amendments.
9 See Affidavit of Barbara Bell Melton and attached August 6, 2021 email (Exhibit A).

3
 Since August 6, 2021, the Mayor has done nothing in furtherance of this suit. And

more pertinent to Fowler's motion, there has been no discovery conducted in this case

nor an adequate opportunity to do so considering the preliminary injunction issues were

only recently resolved.

II. EXHIBITS FILED IN OPPOSITION TO FOWLER'S MOTION

A. Exhibits Attached Hereto

1. Affidavit of Barbara Bell Melton and attached August 6, 2021 email

(Exhibit A);

2. Transcript of May 21, 2021, hearing on dissolution of TRO and the

preliminary injunction (Exhibit B);10 and

3. Transcript of June 21, 2021, hearing regarding the Court's order that
Attorney Trey Gist assist all parties in preparing a resolution to address
semantic issues (Exhibit C).

B. Exhibits Adopted and Incorporated Herein by Referencen

1. Mayor's Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and

Temporary Restraining Order;12

2. Video of April 20, 2021 Alexandria City Council Meeting;13 and

3. Video of May 4, 2021 Alexandria City Council Meeting.14

III. FOWLER'S MOTION IS UNNECESSARY TO "CLEAR HIS NAME"

Fowler ostensibly brings the Motion "to clear his name" and asserts that he must

protect himself and his city council position from civil jeopardy. This is a facade

because, for all intents and purposes, this matter was concluded upon Ordinance 130-

2021 when the semantic problems were addressed. And Fowler fails to pled any

continued concerns or issues as to how he or his position on the Council are threatened.

Moreover, the Mayor has done nothing to advance this suit since the issues were

resolved via Ordinance. Simply put, the only party that has any right of action to seek

relief against these Defendants — Mayor Hall — has not seen fit to do so. Yet now, it is

inexplicably imperative that Fowler be declared free from fault and, more importantly,

that these Defendants be found at fault.

10 The cover of the Transcript erroneously has "June 21, 2021" but the first page of the transcript

(and the content) makes clear it is for the May 21, 2021 hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the
TRO and the Mayor's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
11 See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 853.
12 Attached to Fowler's Motion as Exhibit F.

13 In the Record as part of Exhibit G from the May 21, 2021 injunction hearing.
14 In the Record as part of Exhibit G from the May 21, 2021 injunction hearing.

4
 If Fowler was merely seeking to "clear his name," a declaration that these

defendants are at fault would be unnecessary. Based on the Motion, it appears Fowler

really seeks to (1) remove these Defendants from office,15 (2) a "return of all funds

expended by the City on this litigation" including the cost of Fowler's Motion, 16 and/or

(3) to prevent these Defendants from being afforded indemnity under Section 2-32 of

the Alexandria Code of Ordinances and other provisions of Louisiana law.17

Fowler states that "he is exposed to civil jeopardy in the maintenance of his office

or other harm." This is a thinly-veiled ploy for a number of reasons, particularly

because, other than Fowler, no one has asserted that any of the city council members

have committed malfeasance with regards to the budget. Indeed, the Mayor's Petition

does not even allege that these Defendants actions were knowing or intent onal.18

Further, the laws cited by Fowler related to the "removal from office" provide that

only one who knowingly or intentionally performed an illegal act may be subject to

penalties; 19 so, it stands to reason that a political figure who votes "no" to such action is

not subject to "civil jeopardy" or removal from office. Thus, a declaration that he is free

from fault with regards to the now-concluded budget issues is unnecessary and exposes

what this motion is really about.

There is no remaining conflict or controversy as to the budget concerns. Fowler's

hollow contention that "the corrected budget process alleviated the need for injunctive

relief, but the harm done and continued process of recalcitrance is subject to

declarations by this Court" adds nothing to support that a ruling against these

Defendants is necessary for Fowler to achieve the relief of a finding that he is "free from

fault" or, better yet, that Fowler has standing to seek such relief. In any event, Fowler

offers no facts or evidence of any "continued process of recalcitrance." Hopefully the

irony of Fowler contending these Defendants' actions wasted taxpayer money,

considering Fowler's pending Motion, is not lost on the Court.

15 Fowler's Memorandum in Support § III ¶ 1(a), p. 5 at ¶ 3, p. 6 at ¶8, and p. ii; Fowler's Answer
at 11 III.
16 See Fowler's Memorandum in Support, p. 5 at ¶ 6.
17 Fowler's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts at ¶ 7; Fowler's Memorandum in Support §
III ¶ i(c) and (d), p. 5 at ¶ 3; Fowler's Answer at 1111 27, 3o (c) and (d), and paragraph beginning wherefore;
Mayor's Affidavit at ¶ 14.
18 It is not until Fowler's Motion and the attached Affidavit that the Mayor, ironically, makes these
contentions.
19 See e.g., Fowler's Memorandum in Support, p.

5
IV. OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVITS ATTACHED TO FOWLER'S MOTION

Defendants formally object to each of the Affidavits attached to Fowler's Motion.

"Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set

forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that

the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein."20 The Affidavits

attached to Fowler's Motion, however, make statements that would not be admissible as

evidence, are not based on personal knowledge, and that the respective Affiants are not

compete to testify about as well as impermissible conclusions of law.21 The mere fact the

Affiants state their affidavits are based on "personal knowledge" does not satisfy the

requirements of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 967.22

Finally, "[t]he affidavit must affirmatively establish that the affiant is competent

to testify as to the matter by a factual averment showing how he came by the knowledge.

The court must first determine whether the supporting affidavits and documents

presented by the moving party are sufficient to resolve all material issues of fact. If they

are not sufficient, summary judgment is not appropriate."23 In summary, "[u]ltimate

facts and conclusions of law contained in supporting affidavits cannot be considered in

granting summary judgment."24 Defendants formally object to the following Affidavits

and those portions objected to herein must not be considered by the Court, as a matter

of law, for the reasons provided.

A. Affidavit of Mayor Jeffery W. Hall

The following paragraphs in the Mayor's Affidavit are impermissible legal

conclusions that must be stricken: Paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 25

20 La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 967 (emphasis added).

21 As recently held by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, "[i]n the context of summary judgment
procedure, an affidavit must be based on personal knowledge, set forth facts admissible in evidence, and
affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters to which he attests. La. Code Civ.
Proc. art. 967(A). Personal knowledge is based on what the affiant actually saw or heard, as opposed to
what he learned second hand from another source. Conclusory statements about an affiant's competency
or personal knowledge do not satisfy La. Code Civ. P. art. 967(A)." Gypsum Subfloors, Inc. v. DDG
Constr., Inc., 2019-0877, p. 6 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/8/20); 304 So.3d 573, 577 (internal citations omitted).
22 Gypsum, 304 So.3d at 577 (quoting Unifund CCR Partners v. Perkins, 2012-1851 (La. App. 1

Cir. 6/25/13); 134 So.3d 626, 631-32) ("Article 967's requirement of personal knowledge is not satisfied by
the mere statement that the affidavit is made on 'personal knowledge' since that would tend to make the
affiant both the judge and witness.").
23 Diamond McCattle Co., L.L.C. v. Range Louisiana Operating, LLC, 53,896, p. 12 (La. App. 2 Cir.
4/14/21), writ denied, 2021-00681 (La. 9/27/21); 324 So.3d 92 (internal citations omitted).
24 Farmer v. Reyes, 95-0734, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/16/95); 665 So.2d 129, 1.31; see also Harris v.

Boh Bros. Constr. Co., LLC, 2020-0248, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/26/21); 322 So.3d 397, 405, writ denied,
2021-00910 (La. 109/21) ("Mere conclusory allegations, improbable inferences and unsupported
speculation cannot support a summary judgment, even if contained in an affidavit.").
25 Paragraph .1: "Affiant was advised Ordinance 66-2021 violated the law as amended." Paragraph

4: Affiant was advised Ordinance 66-2021 violated the law as an instrument overriding Affiant's veto."
Paragraph 8: The Mayor contends the actions of the Council Members violated the Home Rule Charter.
Paragraph 1R: "Affiant has been advised the acts with regard to the Ordinance 66-2021, as amended and

6
Additionally, Paragraph 16 is rank speculation, improper, constitute legal conclusions,

and nothing more than Mayor Hall's opinion that any actions of these Defendants were

knowingly unlawful or intentional acts to violate the law.26 Indeed, the April 20, 2021

and May 4, 2021 Council meetings, which were placed into evidence at the May 21, 2021

hearing as part of Exhibit G, evidence to the contrary and, moreover, evidence the City

Attorney's equivocal position (or legal advice) as to the appropriateness of these

Defendants' actions at issue. Thus, such contentions as "proper warning"27 was given to

these Defendants and "knowingly" violating the law are not only inaccurate, but

improper in an affidavit.

What the April loth and May 4th Council meetings evidence, and which this Court

took notice of, is the Defendants' effort to properly amend a budget with absolutely no

assistance from the Administration, despite requests for such assistance. Instead, the

Administration preferred to play a game of semantics, as also noted by the Court,28 as to

what the "source" of the funds should have properly been called and the purported lack

of a specific direction that the police pay raises be broken into specific line items per

position (assuming that is even required). To aver that this amounts to "knowingly or

intentionally" violating the law is not only improper for an Affidavit, but disingenuous

considering the evidence before the Court.

B. Affidavit of David Johnson

As to Paragraph 10, Defendants would implore the Court to, once again, view the

April 20, 2021 meeting and for Fowler to direct this Court to where Mr. Johnson advised

the Defendants that the proposed budget was imbalanced, as Defendants were unable to

locate such a statement during the April 20, 2021 council meeting. Finally, Paragraph 13

is a legal conclusion to which Mr. Johnson is not competent to testify. While Mr.

Johnson may testify that he believes a budget is imbalanced, he does not have the

as purporting to override Affiant's veto, in fact and at law were illegal, ultra vires, and null and void."
Paragraph 14: "Affiant proposes this would violate the law and specifically indemnification procedures of
the City of Alexandria. Alexandria City Ordinance 2-32." Paragraph "Affiant notes the length of
statutes of limitations allow claims to be made well in to the future and Affiant notes the necessity of
declaring the acts formally illegal to bring repose to this issue." Paragraph 16: Mayor Hall alleges that they
council members knew or should have known they were violating the law. Paragraph 17: "Affiant alleges
after proper warnings some members did still commit the charter and other legal violations."
26 Notably, Mayor Hall's Affidavit, Paragraph 16, is identical to Fowler's Affidavit, Paragraph 8.
27 Mayor Hall's "Veto Message", attached to Fowler's Motion as Exhibit E-2, does not state or
"warn" that the Defendants' amended budget caused an imbalanced budget. Instead, it contends (1) the
amended budget interfered with his negotiation power with the police union, (2) that the pay raise and
fringe benefits for police officers is "contrary to Sec. 5-04" as it was not duly made; and (3) defunding the
Public Safety Commission position violated Sect. 2-07(B) of the Home Rule Charter.
28 See Transcript from June 21, 2021 proceedings before the Court, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

7
competency to testify whether actions or omissions violate Louisiana law as that is a

conclusion of law to be determined by this Court.

C. Affidavit of Fowler

The following paragraphs constitute conclusions of law that may not be

considered in relation to the pending summary judgment motion: Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8,

9, and 17.29 Next, the following are not statements based on facts known by Fowler or

based upon personal knowledge, but simply citations of the law and the regurgitating of

allegations from a pleading, which are not proper for an Affidavit: Paragraphs 5, 7, 8,

and 19.3°

D. Affidavit of Crutchfield

Paragraphs 13 and 19 are legal conclusions to which Mr. Crutchfield is not

qualified or competent to testify. While Mr. Crutchfield may opine that a proposed

amendment or proposed budget would not be balanced or in need of remediation, he is

not competent to testify as to what constitutes a violation of the law.

V. RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS

Defendants hereby respond to Fowler's "Statement of Uncontested Material

Facts" as the following are certainly not "uncontested" and, for many, do not even

constitute a "fact":

2. "Fowler is an individual and official standing to bring this matter as a

party in interest."

Mr. Fowler has no standing to bring this matter as he failed to file a suit in a

competent jurisdiction seeking the relief requested and failed to file a cross-claim

29 Paragraph 4: "Affiant knew Ordinance 66-2021 violated the law as originally amended and as
overridden." Paragraph 5: "Affiant alleges the acts of the other subjected Affiant to enjoinment by this
Court for an illegal act." Paragraph 6: "Affiant claims under oath he was exposed to civil jeopardy in the
maintenance of his office or other harm by the Petition and bases for the suit." Paragraph 8: Fowler
contends these Defendants knew or should have known they were violating the law. Paragraph Q: "Affiant
alleges after proper warning some members did still commit the charter and other legal violations."
Paragraph 17: "Catherine Davidson of the Council continued by introducing an ordinance to override the
Mayor's veto in relation to the budget as amended and adopted, which further continued a process of
illegal review of an imbalanced budget."
30 Paragraph 7: "Affiant verifies and affirms the statements of fact in his Answer, in the nature of
and as, an affirmative defense, as follows: 'Alexandria City Ordinance 2-32; public malfeasance laws of the
state of Louisiana; and constitutional and other prohibitions against donations of public things, require
Affiant to clear his name and his actions of association with official actions of the Alexandria City Council
which were, and should be determined by the Court to be, ultra vires, illegal, void(able), and invalid acts.
Because the Home Rule Charter provides specifically for jeopardy in the holding of office, as to such acts,
and to ensure Affiant affirmatively demonstrates the application and availability of Alexandria City
Ordinance 2-32 to him, Affiant [made the allegations in his Answer." Paragraph 19: "The mayor filed suit
against the members of the council who violated the law according to the mayor, and these same members
litigated, wasted taxpayer money, and have never acknowledged or had it declared that it was in fact their
act that led to the veto and litigation." See e.g., Darr v. Marine Elecs. Sols., Inc., 11-908, p. 9 (La. App. 5
Cir. 5/22/12); 96 So.3d 527, 533, writ denied, 2012-1442 (La. 10/8/12); 98 So.3d 86o ("A plaintiff may
not satisfy his burden under La. C.C.P. art. 967 by resting on mere allegations or by filing self-serving,
conclusory affidavits which merely restate those allegations.").

8
against Defendants seeking such relief. Furthermore, this is not a statement of fact, but

an improper legal conclusion.

3. "Fowler did not vote with the other five (5) council members who voted
together initially and on a veto override to violate the Home Rule Charter
(the "charter violations"), which Fowler and the Mayor of Alexandria have
alleged violated laws."

This is a conclusion of law and improperly posited as a fact. Specifically, Fowler

inappropriately concludes there was a "violation" of the Home Rule Charter, which is

not a fact and, in any event, is certainly contested.

5. "Fowler instead shows no action ever has been proper against him; yet
Fowler was sued by the Mayor and Ethel City as a result of the charter
violations of colleagues."

This is a conclusion of law and not a statement of fact. Specifically, whether an

action is "proper" against Fowler and whether there were charter violations are solely

conclusions of law.

6. "Fowler claims under oath in this motion he was exposed to civil jeopardy
in the maintenance of this office or other harm by the Petition and basis
for the suit."

This is a conclusion of law and not a statement of fact.

7.— 9. These paragraphs simply regurgitate portions of Fowler's Answer or

summarize Fowler's allegations.

These paragraphs do not constitute facts. Simply restating what was "alleged" in

an Answer does not constitute facts and all allegations have been contested in pleadings

filed by these Defendants.

13. "The Alexandria City attorney informed the council prior to the adoption
that the budget was improper as amended."

As addressed in this Opposition, this statement is incorrect, misleading, and is

not "uncontested."

15. "Catherine Davidson of the Council continued by introducing an ordinance

to override the Mayor's veto in relation to the budget as amended and
adopted, which further continued a process of illegal review of an
imbalanced budget."

This is a conclusion of law as to a "process of illegal review of an imbalanced

budget" and not a fact. Further, it is certainly contested.

16. "A majority of the Council, the defined defendants in this Motion, voted to
override the veto of the mayor and again adopt a budget ordinance and
budget documents which were not balanced."

This is not a statement of fact, but a misleading conclusion by Fowler, and is not

uncontested. It is clear from the May 21, 2021 and June 21, 2021 hearing transcripts,

9
which are addressed at length below, that these Defendants in no way intended to adopt

an imbalanced budget or violate Louisiana law.

17. "The council again was advised before this vote and yet continued in this
action."

This statement is incorrect, misleading, and is certainly contested. In fact, City

Attorney Shane Williams, during the May 4, 2021 City Council meeting, advised that he

could not say "its 100 percent legal" or illegal or that he was "100 percent right" as to his

legal opinion. At best, the City Attorney was equivocal on his position as to the legality of

overriding the Mayor's veto.

18. "The council continued to receive and take advice from Catherin Davidson,
an attorney and also an appointed member of the council, who was
without authority to give advice and gave improper advice to the council,
in violation of Section 5-03 and 5-04 of the Home Rule Charter and the
Louisiana Local Government Budget Act."

This is not a statement of fact. This is a conclusion by Fowler as to the mindset of

other council members and is pure speculation. Further, it is not a statement of fact as

what Fowler believes was "improper advice" or what was a violation of the law constitute

improper conclusions of law.

20. "The mayor filed suit against the members of the council who violated the
law according to the mayor, and these same members litigated, wasted
taxpayer money, and have never acknowledged or had it declared that it
was in fact their act that led to the veto and litigation."

This is not even remotely a "fact." This is solely Fowler's belief and opinion.

21. "As a matter of fact, the declaratory suit by the mayor sought the following
in its requests for declaratory relief, to which Fowler concurred in his
Answer:"

This is an incomplete statement or thought and, thus, these Defendants cannot

properly respond. But based on the beginning of the sentence, it appears this is, again,

an improper, regurgitation of what Fowler pled in his Answer and not a statement of

fact.

VI. LAW AND ARGUMENT

"In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court's role is not to

evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead

to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact."31 A triable or material fact

31 Sketchler v. Hernandez, 2020-0292, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/19/21); --- So.3d ---, 2021 WL
1997328, *5; see also Wroten v. Ferriday Auto Ventures, LLC, 2020-0387, P. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/16/20);
310 So.3d 621, 624, writ denied, 2021-00085 (La. 3/9/21); 312 So.3d 585 (quoting Hines V. Garrett,
2004-0806, pp. 1 - 2 (La. 6/25/04); 876 So.2d 764, 765 (per curiam)). See also, Phillips v. City of Crowley,
2012-1306 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/19/13, 5-6); 115 So.3d 1240, 1243- 44, writ denied, 2013-1718 (La. 11/1/13);

10
is one that "potentially insure[s] or preclude[s] recovery, affect[s] a litigant's ultimate

success, or determine[s] the outcome of the legal dispute."32 And a "genuine issue is one

in which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one

conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue, and summary judgment is

appropriate."33 As explained by the Louisiana Third Circuit, "[d]espite the legislative

mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn

from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all

doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor."34

A. Fowler Has No Procedural Standing to Seek Judgment Against

His Co-Defendants.

Ironically, Fowler cites Louisiana Revised Statutes 39:1315(B) as the basis for

filing his motion for summary judgment, which provides that "[a]ny person may

commence a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction for the parish in which the political

subdivision is domiciled for mandamus, injunctive, or declaratory relief to require

compliance with the provisions of this Chapter." But Fowler has not "commenced a suit"

seeking any relief — the Mayor commenced a suit and, thus, is the only proper party who

may seek a judgment from this Court related to the Mayor's allegations as to these

Defendants.

The fact Fowler never brought a proper "suit" against these Defendants is

evidenced by the lack of a cross-claim lodged in his Answer.35 At best, Fowler asserted

an affirmative defense in his unverified Answer. Affirmative defenses cannot be the

basis for a summary judgment as to co-defendants without the institution of an

incidental demand and Fowler cites no law or jurisprudence holding otherwise.

For example, if Fowler is correct that he can seek a judgment against his co-

defendants without filing suit, who bears the burden of proof — Fowler or these

Defendants. Had Fowler filed a lawsuit or a formal claim against these Defendants in

this suit, the answer to this question is obvious as it would be clear who would bear the

125 So.3d 432 (quoting Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 1993-2512 (La.7/5/94); 639 So.2d 730,
751).
32 Phillips, 115 So.3d at 1243-44 (quoting Our Lady of the Lake., 639 So.2d at 751).
33 Id.
34 Domingue v. Louisiana Guest House, LLC, 2017-0633, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/6/17); 258 So.3d
3, writ denied, 2018-0014 (La. 2/23/18); 237 So.3d 517.
35 Fowler's Answer is attached to his Motion as Exhibit G. See La. Code Civ. Proc. arts. 891 and
1032. Article 1032 provides that, while an incidental demand may be incorporated into a party's Answer,
Tin this event, the caption shall indicate appropriately the dual character of the combined
pleadings." (emphasis added).

11
burden at tria1;36 but since he did not, the answer is not obvious and illustrates the error

in Fowler's understanding or misguided belief he can seek a judgment from this Court

against his co-defendants without ever filing a claim against them.

While Fowler may use an affirmative defense to seek dismissal of the claims (or

any theory or issue) against him by the Mayor, it cannot be the basis for a ruling against

his co-defendants, which is what Fowler is unequivocally seeking from this Court — a

ruling that his co-defendants are at fault and a judgment finding they knowingly and

willingly violated the law. Accordingly, Fowler lacks standing to bring this motion and it

must be denied, as a matter of law.

B. Alternatively, intent is not proper in the context of a Motion for

Summary Judgment
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Court finds that Fowler has standing

to assert a summary judgment motion against these Defendants, which is denied, the

motion still must be denied, as a matter of law, as intent and motive are not proper

fodder for summary judgment when there are any issues of material fact. Indeed, the

Supreme Court of Louisiana and every appellate court in this state have found that "[a]

motion for summary judgment is rarely appropriate for disposition of a case requiring

judicial determination of subjective facts such as intent, motive, malice, good faith, or

knowledge."37 And "issues that require the determination of reasonableness of acts and

conduct of parties under all facts and circumstances of the case cannot ordinarily be

disposed of by summary judgment."38

The only exception to these general rules is where there is absolutely "no issue of

material fact[s]" concerning the pertinent intent.39 That burden has not been remotely

reached here. Moreover, "[w]eighing evidence and making credibility determinations

are to be addressed at a trial on the merits, not at the summary stage of the

36 See e.g., Domingue, 258 So.3d 3 ("On a motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof is
on the mover. If, however, the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before
the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require that
all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense be negated.").
37 Biggs v. Cancienne, 2012-0187, p. 6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/21/12); 111 So.3d 6. See e.g., Succession of
Pittman, 2019-0683, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/1/20), writ not considered, 2020-00974 (La. 11/4/20); 303
So.3d 643; Brown V. Int'l Paper Co., 38,892, p. 6 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/22/04); 882 So.2d 1228, 1232;
Harrison v. Natchitoches Par. Sheriffs Dep't, 2005-0133, p. 1 (La. 4/1/05); 898 So.2d 349; Haynie v. Twin
Oaks Nursing Home, Inc., 2017-0192, p. 5 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/17); 232 So.3d 74, 78, writ denied, 2017-
2062 (La. 2/2/18); 235 So.3d 1107; and Cressy v. Huffines Hyundai McKinney, LP, 2016-0712, p. 14 (La.
App. 3 Cir. 2/22/17); 212 So.3d 683, 692, writ denied, 2017-0510 (La. 5/19/17); 220 So.3d 751 ("The law
is clear that summary judgment is seldom appropriate for determinations based on subjective facts such
as motive, intent, good faith, knowledge and malice.").
38 Id.
39 See Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 2003-1424, p. 6 (La. 4/14/04); 87o So.2d 1002,1006.

12
proceedings."4° The Council Meetings in evidence and the testimony provided at the

May 21, 2021 hearing establish that there was no intent to violate the law and that

reasonable minds could certainly disagree on this front. Simply stated, there are

certainly genuine issues of material fact whether these Defendants intentionally and

knowingly violated the law by making budget amendments they fully intended to make,

adopt, and implement in a legal, proper manner.

C. Alternatively, The City Council Meetings and The Transcript

from The Preliminary Injunction Hearing Clearly Establish That
the Defendants Did Not Knowingly or Intentionally Violate the
Law. At a Minimum, There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact.

According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, "A 'genuine issue' is a 'triable issue'

[and] 'An issue is genuine if reasonable persons could disagree. . .. The court further

explained that a 'fact is 'material' when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to

plaintiffs cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.'"41 Here, there is a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether these Defendants violated the law at all. At a

minimum, there is a genuine issue as to whether it was done intentionally or knowingly.

1. The May 21, 2021 Transcript

The May 21, 2021 Transcript, attached hereto as Exhibit B, makes clear that these

Defendants did not knowingly or intentionally violate Louisiana law. At the absolute

bare minimum, the Transcript evidences genuine issues of material fact.

The hearing on the Mayor's preliminary injunction focused primarily on two

things the Mayor and his Finance Director, David Johnson, found objectionable about

the "$2 Million" budget amendment; namely, that the Council failed to properly identify

a proper funding source and, second, that the Council failed to adequately identify a line

item to be created or adjusted in response to the allocation of such funds.

a. The funding source

The question of whether the Council had authority to allocate the $2 Million at

issue, such as for police pay raises, is not disputed, as testified to by the City's Finance

Director:

Q: .... Were the funds avail — it doesn't matter what they're for, Mr.
Johnson — were the Two million dollars available to be allocated
and appropriated by the Legislative Branch of the City?
A: Yes.

40 Mire v. Guidry, 2017-745, P. 7 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/27/18); 250 So.3d 383, 387-88 (internal
citations omitted).
*Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d at i006 (quoting Our Lady of the Lake, 639 So.2d at 750).
13
 Q: .... when I asked you that earlier you're saying, no, not really. ... —
because your (sic) saying you believe it creates an ongoing
obligation.
A: Yes.
Q: But the singular question of whether or not that Two million dollars
could be appropriated by the Council, the answer is legislatively
they could, correct?
A: Yes.42

Instead, Johnson's issue (and presumably the Mayor's) had to do with the source

of the funds and the fact it created a continuing or "ongoing" obligation. As to the

continuing obligation, Mr. Johnson ultimately had to concede that an "appropriation",

by itself, does not equate to an "obligation."43 Instead, Mr. Johnson was focused on the

potential recurring obligation as the funds were for the purpose of funding salaries.

As to the source, the Administration contends that the Council used the wrong

term or verbiage for the funding source. But Johnson concedes that the "general fund

balance" (also referenced as the "savings account")44 is proper and constitute available

funds for allocation by the Council:

Q: So at the end of the day, maybe you're being conservative, and they
made a decision to not be conservative, as the Legislative Branch
it's their decision what to appropriate in funds for this city, is that
correct?
A: Yes.

Q: ... and do you know what that figure is [in the fund balance]?
A: Twenty-three million.
*****
Q: Okay. So, and that Twenty-three million, I think we've already
established, is available for appropriations by the Legislative side of
the city, correct?
A: Yes.45

Again, Johnson's primary issue was that police pay raises constitute an on-going

obligation and that it is not wise to use "savings account" monies to fund same as the

"savings account" could potentially be depleted. But his testimony makes clear that the

Council's use of "savings account" funds is not illegal.

Further, the record bears out that there is a misunderstanding as to what

verbiage was even used. In the April 20, 2021 Council meeting, Council Member

Davidson called the source for the police pay raises as the "surplus of 1.7 Million," but

42 Exhibit B, p. 42, Lines 15 — 28 (emphasis added).

43 See May 21, 2021 Transcript of Johnson's testimony, p. 47, lines 27 — 33 and page. 48, lines 1-
5.
44 See May 21, 2021 Transcript of Johnson's testimony, p. 35 at lines 9 — 12.
45 Exhibit B, p. 50, Lines 15- 33 (emphasis added); see also testimony of David Crutchfield, p. 121,
lines 8- 12 (Q: .... would [you] agree that the Council can appropriate funds that are located in that savings
account? A: Yes).

14
the Mayor's witnesses testified at the May 21, 2021 hearing that Davidson called it

"unspent funds."46 However, it was Council Member Lee Rubin that called it "unspent

funds" after Davidson discussed the funding.47

The record, particularly the testimony of Council Member Catherine Davidson,

makes clear that these Defendants intended to use what is referenced as the "fund

balance" or the "savings account", but used the term "surplus"48 and that such

terminology was based on the understanding of available funds. Moreover, her

testimony confirms that there was no "warning" about the legality of their actions.

Council Member Davidson testified as follows at the May 21, 2021 hearing:

Q: Okay. So, understanding what the two budgetary issues were, ah, were, as
a member of the City Council were you ever advised by the city attorney
that, that these proposed amendments were illegal?
A. Oh no. We, there was an exchange. I specifically ask him, he indicated he
was our attorney as well the, the Mayor's attorney and the city's attorney,
and I specifically ask him, if what was done, the allocation of money by the
City Council, or the unallocation as it were, was illegal, and he specifically
didn't answer, but told me that his opinion was that it's ill advised,
meaning he didn't like it.
Q. Okay. That, your interpretation was (interrupted)
A. My interpretation is that they don't like it.
Q. That, was that ill-advised meant that he did not think it was a good idea.
A. Right. He specifically did not say that it was illegal and specifically asked
by me.
Q: Okay. when the, the budgetary issue that we have today, specifically with
respect to the, the One point two in salaries and the Eight hundred in the
recruiting for a total of Two million, so we talk about Two million we're
talking about that together ...
A. Right.
Q . . . . did you understand when you moved to have that money,
appropriated, to amend the budget to appropriate that money, did you
understand from the city Finance Director and discussions you
heard in open meetings that those funds were available for
appropriation?
A. Yes.
Q: ... did you understand that the move was to create a line item in the budget
that, that y'all were proposed by the Mayor and now amending?
A. Of course.
Q. And that would be the way that you understand that you would have
appropriated those funds?
A. It's exactly . . . right, it's how you do it.49

Council Member Davidson's testimony establishes that there was no intention to

violate the law nor were the Members unequivocally told that their actions would violate

46 See May 21, 2021 Transcript, at p. 31, lines 28 — 30 (Johnson testimony), p. 78, lines 18 — 21
(Fowler testimony), and p. 126, line 29 — 33 (Crutchfield testimony).
47 See April 20, 2021 Council meeting, starting at 26:33.
48 See April 20, 2021 Council Meeting, starting at 23:16.
49 May 21, 2021 Transcript, beginning at line 25 of p. 102 through line 32 of p. 103 (emphasis
added).

15
any law. At the bare minimum, it establishes there is a genuine issue of material fact as

to whether these Defendants knowingly or intentionally violated the law.

b. The "missing" line item(s)

The issue here related to whether the $2 Million had to be broken down by job

titles in the Police Department's budget or could it be a general line-item in the

Department's budget. But even David Johnson and Fowler's expert, David Crutchfield,

disagreed as to what was necessary on the line-item issue:

David Johnson Testimony

Q: ... other than the ... [ongoing] obligation issue that we've already addressed
that you believe was the problem with the Two million. What was the other
issue, you believe, with the Two million?
A: The, because it's not specific to the line items.
*****

A: ... how much each line item would get. And that would be a
determination by a person by person basis ... based on whatever
new pay plan there is.
Q: Okay. So what you're saying is, the City Council, you believe, the City
Council cannot allocate money to a department in general.
A: Correct. Not without a specific line item purpose.
*****
Q: .... So, if they would have allocated pursuant to that, you mentioned
earlier, police chief now goes to 'Y', or whatever ...
A: Exactly, just whatever the appropriate raise is to place it in the individual
salary line item:
Q: Okay. So I assume you're saying then, had they done that, that would have
alleviated your second concern which was that it wasn't actually associated
to a line item.
A: Yes. 50
*****

Q: So you could not do a general line item for that department as

general funding?
A: No.
Q: You can't?
A: No. It's a reservation of sorts; I don't think you can do that. It has to
be specific to the line item.
Q: That's what I'm saying, if you created a line item for use by the Police
Department of general funding you can't, that can't, you can't do that?
A: No, what you would have to do, like we said earlier is spread it out
between the chief, the assistant chief, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, and so
forth.51

But contrast Johnson's testimony to Crutchfield's testimony:

Q: Okay. Now, kind of in line with what the Judge was asking, how at this
point could we fix it, because we are where we are.
A. It needs, it just needs a funding source. Either the . . . I think two
things, and they were both mentioned today. Ah, it would be better if the
Two million dollars was broken down into the pay line items and the fringe
benefit line items, not just a lump sum. But that, if that's a new line
item that's created, that's probably okay, and the, the listing,
naming of a funding source for those funds.52

50 May 21, 2021 Transcript, beginning at Line 30 on p. 58 to line 26 on page 59 (emphasis added)
51 May 21, 2021 Transcript, p. 67, lines 26 — 31 and p. 68, lines 1— 3 (emphasis added).
52 May 21, 2021 Transcript, p. 127, lines 16 — 23 (emphasis added).

i6
 Next, consider Council Member Davidson's testimony on the "line-item" issue:

Q: Okay. And so you understood that a line item was being created for that
exact purpose, which you stated on the record, of police salaries and
benefits, correct?
A: Right. And you, we said a lot about pay raises, there should, there's a
salaries section of the budget that lists out the certain positions, and then
there's a fringe benefit section. And so One point million was line
itemed and allocated to salaries, and then the match for your
pension deficit is in fringe. So the Two million didn't go into salaries,
it was One point two and Eight million, and Eight hundred thousand.
Q: Okay. So it was understanding at the, during the Council meeting
that there were, there was Two million, ah, available for
appropriation, and that you moved to appropriate those as line
items with respect to the police salaries and fringe benefits?
A. Yes, exactly, ma'am.53

Finally, there were clear efforts by these Defendants to do exactly what the

Finance Director and Crutchfield identified as what could have been done, which is to

tick and tack the budget to reflect line-by-line changes, but those efforts were thwarted

by David Johnson and Council Member Lee Rubin as being unnecessary:

Q. And so, did you start a process of going line by line by line
through the four hundred page budget to try and, and, and we've
talking about tick and tack, and move money from here and put it over
here to achieve, ah, in the neighborhood of the Two million dollars?
A. Yeah, I actually found a little under Three million.
Q. Okay.
A. And so that was completely, I had a meeting with Mr. Johnson, Ken Nolly,
who I believe is the internal auditor, and the Mayor, on the Tuesday before
the first finance meeting. And we went through line by line, as I
moved money, the budget was up on spreadsheet, Mr. Johnson would
scroll down, I would ask what these particular items were. So it's called a
zero sum budget. So they present, the Administration presents Sixty-four
million, bearing in mind there's Twenty-four million over here that you
can use, and be appropriated, which you just move it. But I was doing a
zero sum budget. We did that at both of the finance meetings, one took
place in March, I believe it was the 3oth and 13th of April, you got it, I
mean, that's easily figured out.
Q: Yeah.
A: And so I went line by line by line, I found roughly Two point eight million
dollars and so I started that process. As we got into, I believe the April
loth and then the May 4th meeting, I was specifically told, actually
Mr. Rubin, was like you don't need to go line by line, because we
have the money. I called David Johnson, I requested that information
over and over and over, and was never responded to by the Administration
related to those numbers, and through e-mails.54 And was told, you don't
need to go line by line and move a Thousand dollars from this supply
money over to this line item, because there was One point seven million
that's left over that wasn't spent from last year. [A]nd I specifically said
I need Two million, we'll use the Three hundred thousand
dollars from the surplus or what's not necessarily left over from

53 May 21, 2021 Transcript, p. 104, lines 2 - 15 (emphasis added).

54 Contrast with David Crutchfield's testimony that such information must be provided to the
Council: "Q: But you think that's in the home rule Charter, he's gotta advise the Legislative Branch about
the financial condition of the city. A: Yes. ... A: There're specific reporting requirements in the Charter. Q:
Okay, and would that include providing information from the Council member such as how much money
is in the surplus or the savings account as Mr. Johnson ... A: Yes. Yes. It would.) May 21, 2021 Transcript,
p. 112, lines 1 — 3 and lines 16-20.
17
 last year, but Three hundred thousand out of the Twenty-four
million that Mr. Johnson testified to today. Just like where the
condemnation money came from.
Q: So, ... we move it from this line item to this line item so it does a
zero sum [game], correct?
A. Right, that's exactly, yes, exactly.
Q. And, and these are actually things that you moved for to achieve just that,
correct?
A. Exactly.
Q. And you were attempting to achieve that with respect to the
money you were looking for to fund the pay raises, correct?
A. Right. I would just like to say I submitted a line itemed in red budget to
David Johnson. I personally hand delivered that ... copies were made for
all the councilmen, actually they all had a copy of it.
Q. Umm hmm.
A. So they were fully aware of me going line by line.
Q. Okay. And the reason that you did not continue the line by line
process, or present the line by line process is because it was
your understanding that the One point seven was available.
A. Right. Mr. Rubin told me he actually called David Johnson, he
returned his call, and that is an exchange in the meeting that's
on one of those videos.55
*****

Q. On May 4th, 2021, did David Johnson advise the Council the budget
wasn't balanced?
A. No. Actually, David Johnson told me that the money was
available, which is the opposite.
Q. If David Johnson advised you the budget wasn't balanced on May 4th,
would you have still voted for the budget as amended?
A. I would've clarified that there's a Twenty-four million dollar pot
of money that Two million dollars could be easily appropriated
to, which then makes your budget balanced.56
*****
A; Hypothetically speaking, if a line item had not been created by me during
the May 4th meeting, I would've created a line item. But I, I did that. ... So
of the Two million I specifically went down and said One point two
million needs to be in salaries, and Eight hundred thousand
needs to be the pension match. Yes sir, that's exactly what I said.57
*****

Q. Did ever, anyone ever confirm to you that the budget was balanced?
A. No one ever confirmed that it wasn't.58

According to David Johnson, a "balanced budget" means "your sources and uses

of funds are equal."59 Based on Council Member Davidson's testimony, that is what

these Defendants attempted to do, but were led to believe there were funds available

without the need to go line-by-line moving money from one line item to another.

2. June 21, 2021 Court Transcript

Finally, these Defendants would be remiss to not point out this Court's comments

during the June 21, 2021 hearing, wherein the Court ordered the parties to work on an

55 May 21, 2021 Transcript, beginning on p. 104 at line 21 and ending on p. 106 at line ii
(emphasis added).
56 May 21, 2021 Transcript, p. 108, lines 4 — 12 (emphasis added).
57 Id. at p.108, lines 20-22 and 27 — 30 (emphasis added).
58 Id. at p. 113, lines 17 —18.
59 M. p.21, lines 14 — 15.

18
ordinance to address the Mayor's budget concerns. Specifically, this Court used the

word "semantics" five times when discussing the budget issues and asked the parties to

work together to address those "semantic" issues. Suffice it to say that, based on the

evidence the Court heard at that juncture, it certainly does not appear that there was

evidence these Defendants did anything knowingly or intentionally to violate the Home

Rule Charter or any other Louisiana law.

D. Alternatively, there has not been adequate opportunity for

discovery

The Mayor filed this suit on May 5, 2021. Between the filing of this suit and early

August of 2021, the parties were dealing with the Mayor's request for a preliminary

injunction, which was rendered moot by agreement of counsel for the Mayor and

undersigned.60 And despite these Defendants' request that the Mayor's declaratory

judgment action be set for trial, that has not occurred. Nonetheless, on October 22,

2021, Fowler filed this pending summary judgment motion.

There has not been a single deposition taken nor any written discovery exchanged

between the parties. Further, this matter has been pending for less than seven months

with the first three months dedicated solely to the Mayor's request for a preliminary

injunction.61 To contend there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether these

Defendants knowingly and intentionally violated the law — in the face of the evidence

before this Court to date — is disingenuous. In any event, assuming this Court were to

find that Fowler has standing to bring such a motion against his co-defendants,

depositions of various individuals, including the Mayor, Shane Williams, David

Johnson, Chuck Fowler, and likely others, would be highly relevant and pertinent to this

pending motion. As a result, there has not been an adequate opportunity for discovery,

as mandated by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966, and Fowler's motion

must be denied.

6o See Affidavit of Barbara Bell Melton and attached August 6, 2021 email (Exhibit A).
6i Francois v. Ports Am. Louisiana, L.L.C., 2020-0440, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/21); 314 So.3d
894, 899, writ denied, 2021-00496 (La. 6/1/21); 316 So.3d 830 ("A scant nine months elapsed between
the filing of this lawsuit and the filing of Ceres and NOT's summary judgment motion. While Ceres and
NOT point to some lack of diligence in Francois' discovery efforts, we find no indication at this stage that
any party completed its discovery or had adequate opportunity to do so, and it remains too early in the
litigation to determine whether material factual disputes remain.").
19
 CONCLUSION

Co-defendant Fowler has no standing or procedural authority to bring this

summary judgment motion as Fowler has never instituted a proceeding against these

Defendants. However, even assuming he has the ability to lodge such a motion, (1)

intent is not proper fodder for summary judgment motions, (2) the evidence in the

record and attached to this Opposition establish a genuine issue of material fact exists as

to the relief sought; namely, that these Defendants intentionally and knowingly violated

the law, and (3) there has not been an adequate opportunity for discovery, which is in

derogation of the requirements of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966.

Fowler's motion must be denied and, should the Court find it is warranted, Fowler

should be cast with the costs of these proceedings, including attorney's fees.62

Respectfully submitted,

FAIRCLOTH MELTON SOBEL & BASH, LLC

By:
arbara Bell Melton #27956
bmeltonpfairclothlaw.com
Laura Beth Matthews #33862
lmatthewspfairclothlaw.corn
Christopher Chesne #38696
cchesne@fairclothlaw.com
105 Yorktown Drive
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 619-7755
Facsimile: (318) 619-7744

ATTORNEYS FOR JAMES VILLARD, REDDEX

WASHINGTON, GERBER M. PORTER, CYNTHIA
PERRY, AND CATHERINE DAVIDSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE
ALEXANDRIA CITY COUNCIL

62 See La. Code Civ. Proc. art 863(D) ("If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the
court determines that a certification has been made in violation of the provisions of this Article, the court
shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate
sanction which may include an order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses
incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.").

20
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing was this date forwarded

via e-mail and/or regular U.S. Mail to all counsel of record and parties appearing pro se

as follows:

Richard A. Rozanski: richardPrarlaw.net

Joshua Dara, Jr.: idara@goldweems.com

Lee Rubin
Pro Se
6704 Tennyson Oaks Lane
Alexandria, LA 71301

on this 29th day of November, 2021 Alexandria, Louisiana.

OF COUNSEL

21
 CIVIL SUIT NO.: 270,665
DIVISION "E"

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET AL NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES VILLARD, ET AL STATE OF LOUISIANA

AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF RAPIDES

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, duly commissioned and qualified,

in and for the aforesaid State and Parish, personally came and appeared:

BARBARA BELL MELTON

a person of the full age of majority, who being duly sworn did depose and state that the

statements set forth below are true and correct and based upon her personal knowledge.

The statements contained in this Affidavit are true as of this date and were true on

November 29, 2021.

1. I am counsel of record for Alexandria City Council members Gerber Porter,

Catherine Davidson, Reddex Washington, Cynthia Perry, and James "Jim" Villard
in the above captioned matter.

2. I wrote the attached electronic mail message (Exhibit A-1) regarding the above
captioned matter on the afternoon of Friday, August 6, 2021, and am familiar with
its contents.

3. The attached electronic mail message is a true and accurate copy of a message that
I sent to Christie Gallagher of the Ninth Judicial District Court.

4. The attached electronic mail message notified Ms. Gallagher that I had spoken
with Counsel for the City of Alexandria and Mayor Hall, Joshua Dara, Jr., and we
were in agreement that the issues before the Court regarding the request for
injunctive relief by the City of Alexandria were moot and requesting that the
hearing on August 9, 2021, be removed from the Court's docket.

BARBARA BELL MELTON

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on

this 29th day of November, 2021.

0117714/
Ch r15 to pit er Ch.e9te c,fe. .... ... c4A
Notary Name 14- Nota Si ature
EXHIBIT
r..-• • -7 b
"Pl: %:?/fOLL
44-0i ..........
iimunuimioo
Barbara Melton

From: Barbara Melton

Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Christie Gallagher; jdara@goldweems.com
Cc: Tammy McBride; Laura Matthews
Subject: City of Alexandria v City Council

Ms. Gallagher,

Josh Dara and I have spoken this afternoon and agree that the issues that were the subject of the request for
injunctive relief are now moot and we ask the Court to remove Monday's hearing from the Court's docket.
Please call if you have any questions.

Barbara Bell Melton

EXHIBIT

1
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
JEFFREY W. HALL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES VILLARD, CHARLES L.

FOWLER, JR., LEE RUBIN, REDDEX
WASHINGTON, GERBER M. PORTER,
CYNTHIA PERRY, AND CATHERINE
DAVIDSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
MEMBERS OF THE ALEXANDRIA CITY
COUNCIL STATE OF LOUISIANA

Transcript of the Proceedings held in the

above captioned matter on June 21, 2021
at Alexandria, Louisiana before
before Her Honor, Judge
Patricia e. Koch, presiding

APPEARANCES:

Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell

By: Joshua J. Dara, Jr . & Michael O'Shee
P.O. Box 6118
Alexandria, LA 71307
Counsel for City of Alexandria and Jeffrey W. Hall

Faircloth, Melton, Sobel & Bash

By: Barbara Bell Melton & Laura Beth Matthews
105 Yorktown Drive
Alexandria, LA 71303
Counsel for James Villard, Reddex Washington, Gerber M. Porter,
Cynthia Perry and Catherine Davidson

Richard A. Rozanski
Attorney at Law
2312 South MacArthur Drive
Alexandria, LA 71301
Counsel for Charles L. Fowler, Jr.

Rhonda L. Ryland
Certified Court Reporter
EXHIBIT
1 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT I BY MR. DARA: I plan to call Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fowler, so I don't
2 MAY 21, 2021 2 know (interrupted)
3 3
4 BY THE COURT: Thank y'all. We're in Docket Number 270,665, if y'all 4 BY THE COURT: And Mr. Fowler's a party.
5 begin introducing yourselves on the record for me. 5
6 6 BY MR. DARA: Right.
7 BY MR. DARA: Good morning, Your Honor. Joshua Dara and Mr. 7
8 Michael O'Shee on behalf of the Mayor and the city of Alexandria. 8 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I have, ah, Mr. Crutchfield that I, ah, submit as an
9 9 expert, so he would not necessarily be sequestered.
10 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Richard Rozanski on behalf of Charles Fowler. 10
11 11 BY THE COURT: Agree to that or you don't agree to that?
12 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, Barbara Melton and Laura Beth Matthews 12
13 on behalf of Faircloth, Melton, Sobel and Bash on behalf of James Villard, 13 BY MS. MELTON: Oh no, I don't (interrupted)
14 Reddex Washington, Gerber Porter, Cynthia Perry and Catherine 14
15 Davidson, individually and as member s of the Alexandria City Council. 15 BY THE COURT: That he's the expert.
16 16
17 BY THE COURT: All right, before we got on the record y'all were telling 17 BY MS. MELTON: Oh no, I wasn't shaking my head for that.
18 me that, that, ah, Mr. Odom who was present with us on the record the 18
19 other day has withdrawn and we're going to get that formal pleading, 19 BY THE COURT: Okay.
20 ah, but just for the note of the record. Now, I've got a nice audience 20
21 out there. I believe we're gonna have some testimony, but I'd love to 21 BY MS. MELTON: We just have the council members that we may put on
22 know who stays, who needs to make an appearance for the purposes of 22 the stand.
23 the record today and who might need to be ejected. Anybody? 23
24 Anybody? 24 BY THE COURT: That are parties.
25 25
26 BY MR. DARA: Ah, Mayor Hall is obviously here, ah, as the Plaintiff, ah, 26 BY MS. MELTON: So as parties they can stay.
27 so he'll be here. We have in terms of testimony Mr. Johnson will testify, 27
28 ah (interrupted) 28 BY THE COURT: So I think the only one is Mr. Johnson, unless y'all fine
29 29 with Mr. Johnson either staying in here, or does he need to be
30 BY THE COURT: Does he need to be in the courtroom or outside the 30 sequestered?
31 courtroom? I was about to say, we need to bring any witnesses forward 31
32 and I need to go ahead and sequester anybody (interrupted) 32 BY MR. DARA: I'm certainly fine with him staying, but it's up to
33 33 (interrupted)

1 1 BY THE COURT: So you're not testifying yet, but what you're gonna do
2 BY THE COURT: It's up to everybody. That's what I'm asking. I'm 2 is get kicked in the back, if you don't mind, Lisa, and he can go find a
3 happy to tell 'em to come on down and kick 'em out. That's what I was 3 cup of coffee, and ah, you get hang out back there. Just what you
4 making sure for Mr. Crutchfield if he'll be accepted as an expert. At this 4 wanted to do.
5 initial stage it may be better to sequester 'em and then . . . 'cause I 5
6 think we're gonna have some argument first. 6 BY MR. JOHNSON: Turning out already.
7 7
8 BY MS. MELTON: That's probably true. Yeah, that's probably true. I 8 BY.THE COURT: It is turning out ready, turn, turning out good already,
9 mean, obviously the parties can stay, and if he intends to offer Mr. 9 that's right. Thank y'all. Another look at the audience, make sure
10 Crutchfield as an expert obviously under the Rules he's allowed to stay. 10 there's not somebody who's potentially . . . to warn the audience, once
11 Ah, but I think anyone other than that, I think under the Rules they're 11 you're potentially a witness, if you're out here listening, you won't get
12 supposed to sequestered. So it'd be Mr. Johnson it sounds like. 12 to testify unless you're the party. So there's not anybody else?
13 13
14 BY MR. DARA: That's correct, Your Honor. 14 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, there's one witness who may be a rebuttal
15 15 witness, it depends on what testimony they have, and I understand the
16 BY THE COURT: Come on down, Mr. Johnson. And then just, ah, for the 16 gentleman's in the room, which is a Mr. Branton. So I don't know what
17 record, Mr. Johnson and I attend the same church. We rarely we see 17 testimony they're offering today or intend to illicit but he may be a
18 each other across the way from the church, wave to 'im, but I do wants 18 rebuttal response to that testimony.
19 make a, a record of that, is that I do know Mr. Johnson, we do attend 19
20 the same church in case somebody has a issue with that, if anybody 20 BY THE COURT: Be safer call Mr. Branton up here.
21 let's me know. Come on down, Mr. Johnson. I wun't sure if he was 21
22 gonna be a witness or not today. I mean, I saw the pleadings. If you 22 BY MR. BRANTON: Sure.
23 would, say your name out - - just close enough to the microphone . . 23
24 what happened to our podium? Yeah, just say your name out loud for 24 BY THE COURT: I'm all for being safe. Let's be cautious, because I'd
25 me. 25 hate it comes out (interrupted)
26 26
27 IBY MR. JOHNSON: David Johnson. 27 BY MS. MELTON: Well, that's why I'm raising it, I mean, he, I, it depends
28 28 on what they put on and he would be rebutting that testimony.
29 BY THE COURT: Great. If you'll raise your right hand. Swear to tell the 29
30 truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? 30 BY THE COURT: If you'd just get near the microphone and just say you
31 31 name. It . . . anywhere near. Okay, just say your name out loud for me.
32 IBY MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I do. 32
33 33 BY MR. BRANTON: Bobby Branton.

3 4
1 1 in opposition. The second requirement, and that is conjunctive not
2 BY THE COURT: That's Bra n to n? 2 disjunctive, ah, they must also, the applicant, which in this case would
3 3 be Mayor Hall, the City, ah, certifies to the Court in writing the efforts
4 BY MR. BRANTON: Yes ma'am. 4 which have been made to give the notice or the reason supporting his
5 5 claim that notice should not be required. In this particular instance,
6 BY THE COURT: Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but 6 what they have not shown is their clear entitlement; they didn't show it
7 the truth, so help you God? 7 then. We'll address their clear entitlement whether or not to an
8 8 injunction later today, right, that's what the Court's gonna hear. But
9 BY MR. BRANTON: I do. 9 the TRO we believe was wrongfully issued because first it did not
10 to illustrate that they were clearly entitled to the relief. We've alleged
11 BY THE COURT: Great. So, I don't know if you heard what we said 11 various reasons, which again will become more, ah, we'll probably
12 about Mr. . . . you've probably testified before, you get to go hang out 12 discuss more at length later today in respect to the injunction, but we
13 in one of our lovely off spaces back there. Lisa'lI show you, if you'll 13 do not believe the TRO, the petition, set out that they were clearly
14 wait, if you'll come this way . . there she is. Get yourself a cup of 14 entitled to a TRO, that extraordinary remedy. With respect to the
15 coffee. Last call, last call. Take a look around. Nope, we're good? All 15 irreparable injury, as you know, they don't allege irreparable injury, they
16 right, thank you all. Start with the Motion to Dissolve to me makes the 16 don't attempt to allege irreparable injury, they say I don't have to allege
17 logical sense, is that correct? 17 it because there's a clear violation of the law. The Third Circuit said
18 18 that has, that has to be a clear, not arguably, not possibly, not
19 BY MR. DARA: Sure. 19 potentially, it has to be clearly a violation of the law. We do not believe
20 20 that the petition - - because that's the evidence they put forward, if, if
21 BY MS. MELTON: We can. Okay. Your Honor, as we discussed briefly on 21 you want to call that evidence - - the allegations in the petition. There
22 Monday, ahm, in our intent to file the Motion to Dissolve, ah, we sought 22 was no affidavit similar to what they're gonna attach today or anything
23 to, to dissolve the motion pursuant to 3607, and sought damages 23 that supported that, that this was a clear a violation of law other than
24 pursuant 3608. Ahm, essentially the temporary restraining order, 24 simply their argument. The argument is not that there's no petition in
25 obviously, Your Honor, you know, is, is quite an unusual remedy. It's 25 the world that could ever satisfy that on it's own, but what they have
26 quite an extraordinary remedy. And the Code actually provides the 26 alleged are not clear violations. And reality is, we alleged in opposition
27 requirements for someone to be entitled to achieve a TRO, to secure a 27 to the injunction, what they allege are effects of issues that clearly the
28 TRO, and then of course for the Court to enter a TRO. So what 3603 28 Executive Branch was not happy with here. The Legislative Branch
29 provides under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure is that a temporary 29 appropriated the money in accordance with its authority. The Executive
30 restraining order shall be granted without notice when one, it clearly 30 Branch did not care for that appropri, those appropriations, however it's
31 appears from specific facts shown by a verified petition or supporting 31 exclusively within the Legislative's authority to appropriate those funds.
32 affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result 32 So what they've alleged in their petition, at best, are effects of what
33 to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard 33 the Executive Branch thinks happens with respect to those

appropriations. But that's not gonna be clear entitlement. The clear
2 entitlement is gonna be if they show the act itself clearly, actively
3 violated any prohibitive law. With respect to the Two million dollars the
4 allegation as I understand it is, that they're saying that violates two
5 separate provisions, 504 and 704. With regards to 704, that has to do
6 with the negotiating of union contract. So we talk about negotiating
7 the union contract, that provision that discusses the mayor as - - I'm
8 just getting into my notes, Your Honor, so that I can go quick - - all
9 right, so they've argued in their petition that part of the issue with the
10 Two million dollar appropriation by the Legislative Branch was that it
11 undermines contract negotiation, that's 704. Seven oh four has been
12 interpreted, that exact provision by the Third Circuit. And what the
13 Third Circuit says, that gives the payer, the Mayor absolutely zero
14 power. He has no power under that Article, under that section of the
15 Ordinance. It says he is merely the, he is, the exact words are that the
16 mayor lacks power to alter, modify, or terminate labor contracts in as
17 much as that authority rests solely in the City Council. And it also, the
18 Smith versus Alexandria case also says: "A reading of Section 704
19 clearly recognizes the City Council as the authoritative body for entering
20 into labor contracts with the city employees, the mayor merely acts as
21 the City representative in labor negotiations", end quote. So, again, for
22 a TRO are they clearly entitled to relief under that section? I believe
2.3 they are not. To argue that it somehow undermines his ability to
24 negotiate does not equate to violations of the cha, of the section that's
25 at issue. The Council is who approves the contract with the union. The,
26 the Council is the authoritative body under the Ordinance who approves
27 that contract. The Mayor is merely the party that has been designated
28 under the Charter to negotiate that. That's so, therefore, the funding
29 of the Two million is not a clear violation of Section 704. Finally with
30 respect to, ah, Section 504, as the Court knows we've argue that's not
31 even applicable to this instance. Section 504 is entitled Administratio
32 of a Budget, it doesn't have an application here for the purposes of a
33 TRO, and showing clear entitlement to violating a law, because it deals
1 with a budget that has already been adopted. When that budget has
2 been adopted, and that budget's in place, the Executive Branch as
3 obligations before they can expend certain funds and representations
4 have to be made. Simply it doesn't apply to this process of the Mayor
5 putting up a proposed budget, the Legislative Branch amending it, the
6 Mayor choosing to veto that, and the Legislative Branch overriding that
7 ve, veto and adopting a budget. Five oh four we think has no
8 application here. That can't have been a clear violation of the law. So,
9 with respect to the, the, again the clear entitlement, which is what they
10 have to show TRO, I don't believe they have shown that. Next we have
11 the notice issue. Well, I, I'll address the status quo real quick. I, I don't
12 disagree with Plaintiffs' representation that are instances where the
13 status quo can be altered. What I'm providing to there's element that
14 required in TRO's normally that it, it's to maintain the status quo. It is
15 to maintain the status quo and time out on doing anything that alters
16 that status quo. Again, my argument's not that there's never a
17 situation where the status quo can't be altered, and I understand that
18 they're arguing that's the case here. The budget was amended and
19 adopted pursuant to the budget act and pursuant to the ordinances of,
20 of the city, city of Alexandria. Therefore that is the adopted budget.
21 When they overrode that veto that is the adopted budget. So, I'm not
22 understanding how the status quo changes or doesn't changes (sic)
23 based on their argument, and here's what I mean. The money was
24 allocated. It was appropriated by the Legislative ba, Branch. It wasn't
25 spent, it's not incurring obligations - - and we're gonna get to that
26 today. It's an appropriation of money. That, that's the simplicity of
27 what just happened. We, the Legislative Branch did what it's authorized
28 to do which is to appropriate funds of the city to certain line item
29 things. That's what happened. So again, this is not a clear violation of
30 the Ordinance, I mean, of, of the city's Home Rule Charter. They did
31 exactly what the Charter authorizes them to do. As for the notice,
32 again we've attached affidavits and we'll offer, officially offer, file and
33 introduce those into evidence. Ahm, the notice requirement is, is
1 extremely important in TRO's, because a TRO by it's very nature denies
2 a person due process. So that's why it's extraordinary, that's why it's
3 drastic, and that's why it's harsh. And those are the adjectives you'll
4 see at the Louisiana Supreme Court, and that's why they're very rarely
5 used and very rarely granted, because it really denies due process. We
6 filed affidavits, they . . . from, ah, three council members basically
7 saying they were not advised that what was gonna be sought the next
8 morning was a temporary restraining order, they - - and I'm
9 paraphrasing, Your Honor, we have them - - they were not advised what
10 the content of the TRO was. Instead it appears to me the response
11 from the city is, well Ms. Davidson as a lawyer should've known that
12 when we said we were giving notice by Statue, she should've known
13 that meant it included a TRO. That's not how that works. That's, the
14 notice requirement is strictly construed there's a due process denial.
15 So, wh, if you tell the individual the normal procedure - - and I'm not
16 saying it's a procedure you have to do - - the normal procedure is you
17 had someone the pleading you're going to file, and then you go file it.
18 I'm not saying that's what you have to do, so before they stand up and
19 say it, there's no law saying I gotta do that, that is the normal
20 procedure to provide and satisfy the notice requirement. But at a
21 minimum, the person who you are seeking to enjoin, enjoin should be
22 told that you're going to be filing a temporary restraining order, not an
23 injunction, and that here's what I'm gonna seek to restrain you from
24 doing, so that party has the ability to show up at this very quick trigger
25 process, and say here's why I don't the Court should grant it. Based on
26 the affidavits, the notice was insufficient. So for those reasons and the
27 failing to satisfy the requirements for a temporary restraining order, we
28 filed a motion to dissolve it, we seek the Court to dissolve it and award
29 damages to the Defendants, to the Movants.
30
31 BY MR. DARA: Good morning, Your Honor, Joshua Dara on behalf of
32 the Mayor and the city of Alexandria. Your Honor, the citizens of
33 Alexandria deserve a lawful budget with duly made appropriations,
9 10
exact same process. What happens in that case, the Council says, hey
2 look, we wants hire an attomey. The Mayor says, well no, you can't hire
3 an attorney, vetoes the ordinance. They override the veto. Sounds
4 very familiar doesn't it. You run to the court say I need a temporary
5 restraining order. The court says, yeah, you're right because otherwise
6 we're gonna be administering an ordinance that's il, illegal. Then of
7 course you get to the preliminary injunction hearing, the Mayor wins,
8 and of course it goes up to the Third Circuit, the Third Circuit says, hey,
9 great job, affirms the TRO, affirms the preliminary injunction. Same
10 thing in the Baton Rouge case of the, ah, I think it's Baton Rouge
11 Audubon Society versus Sandifer. Same exact process. The, the Police
12 Jury passes an ordinance about grass and weed regulation. Citizens
13 come and say, no, no, no, this is illegal. They get a TRO, they stop
14 ordinance right in its tracks. Same process. Preliminary Injunction
15 hearing, they win, goes up to the Third Circuit, Third Circuit says, yep,
16 you guys did it the exact same way. All we're doing is following the
17 same exact process that's already been laid out. We did not create this
is process. The Mayor sees an illegal budget due to two amendments
19 Now also, ah, the Johnson versus Morehouse Parish Police Jury case,
20 same process. Except in this case, the Court said, no, no, no, we're not
21 gonna give 'em the TRO, but when it got to the Third Circuit, the Third
22 second, Third Circuit overturned. Actually, let me be more clear, the
23 trial court said, hey, yeah, we can't alter the status quo, but when it got
24 to the Third Circuit, the Third Circuit said, well, how else can you fix the
25 ordinance that's illegal except you stop it. You stop it from being
26 implemented. Those cases that I just talked about, the Baton Rouge
27 and the Roy versus City of Alexandria, the Johnson versus Morehouse
28 Police Jury, that blows up the status quo argument. It blows up the
29 legal entitlement; this is the procedure that's set before us. Our
30 petition tells you exactly what the lawful problems are, and I'm happy to
31 run through 'em. We see four problems. First under 504 requires that
32 appropriations be duly made, means in a proper manner, ah, following
33 legal requirements. That's a duly made appropriation. That didn't
1 certifiable funds. The Mayor is clearly entitled to seek a temporary
2 restraining order - - excuse me, Your Honor, I'm a little under the
3 weather - - is entitled to seek a temporary restraining order when he
4 believes he's forced to administer a budget that is unlawful. And I want
5 you to keep in mind some of the, the time line here. On April 26 the
6 Mayor gives the Council a veto message saying, hey, wait a minute, I
7 think this thing is illegal based on two amendments. Not everything you
8 guys did, but two amendments here are illegal. On May 4., at the
9 Council meeting, despite the Mayor's veto message, warnings from the
10 Finance Director, warnings from Finance Chair of the Council Mr. Rubin,
11 warnings from the Legal Division, members of the Council voted to
12 override it anyway. The vote to override the amendment, I mean
13 override the veto, excuse me, made the budget ret, retroactive to May
1.. So on May 4., goes back to May 1., which is the beginning of the
15 fiscal period. Your Honor, you see that move there created this
16 emergency situation. And that's when you need a temporary restraining
17 order. The temp, temporary restraining order is a type of injunction
when you can't get in front of a court to have a preliminary injunction
19 hearing. That's the whole point of it. Once the Council adopts the
20 budget with what the Mayor believes to be illegal amendments he's
21 forced with two choices now. Under the Charter he's forced to, to stop
22 any illegal thing that he sees. At the same time when he receives that
23 ordinance, that budget ordi, ordinance from the, the Council, he has
24 another choice. Well, I gotta, I, I have to administer this thing under
25 the law. That's the emergency situation. That's why you have to get
26 this restraining order to stop that. Now the consequences, Your Honor,
27 if he doesn't seek a temporary restraining order, very serious, removal
28 from office, office, personal liability under 504, which we do believe
29 applies. That's the emergency situation, removal from office, financial
30 consequences, potential malfeasance in office. Judge, what they're
31 asking you to do is reinvent the wheel; to ignore precedence that's been
32 affirmed by the Third Circuit, ignore precedence straight out of the 9.
33 JDC. In Roy versus City of Alexandria, Your Honor, exact same process,
1 happen here. That's in the Mayor's veto message. That's what we're
2 here to fight about, duly made appropriation. Two, we believe it creates
3 a continuing obligation of Two million dollars appropriation that we
4 cannot certify. There's not been a disclosure of funds that we can
5 certify. We can't certify the Two million dollars, and if cannot certify it,
6 under 504 it's a void. You cannot, you can't do it. Third, to the point
7 about the union negotiations, Your Honor, very simply put Section 7 of
the Charter requires the Mayor to do the negotiation with employee
9 unions. The Smith versus - - it's the city of Alexandria case that they've
10 been talking about with the language about he's just a mere negotiator,
11 dealt with a completely different issue. It wasn't about negotiation, it
12 was about whether or not the mayor could alter an already existing
13 contract. Specifically, what happened in that case, the mayor said, hey,
14 we're spending too much money and he tried to knock down the hours
is of the workers, the Police Union got upset and that's how they got
16 there. It wasn't negotiating a contract. So, of course, the City
17 Council's the final approver of the contract once you get to that stage.
18 We're not even there yet. They put the cart before the horse. They
19 gave the Union the object of the contract, one of the objects of the
20 contract. That's what'll I get, Two million dollars, stuck it right there.
21 It's, it's called Two million dollars in pay raises and fringe benefits. What
22 am I negotiating? That's why we think it's illegal. And then, of course,
23 the final one, of course, has to do with the, the funding of the police,
24 ah, the Public Safety Commissioner position. Again, 207 has a very, this
25 Article has a very specific rule about a council removing or dictating in
26 any manner the removal of a mayor's appointment. Well, the
27 commissioner is a mayor's appointment, and what they did, is they took
28 the, the money to pay the appointment to zero dollars and zero cents.
29 And the argument will be today, is, Judge, we didn't actually remove
30 'im, we just defunded 'im. Last time I checked, Your Honor, people
31 don't work for zero dollars and zero cents. It's just subterfuge, they
32 removed 'im. The only person that lost their job at the Council meeting
33 was the Public Safety Commissioner. And we believe that's illegal. A
12
 direct violation of 207. And, Your Honor, and guess I'll address the, the 1 that's a little bit weird, Your Honor. The reality is I certified my efforts
2 notice requirement. I guess three of the Defendants are saying they 2 to give them notice, in all of their affidavits the only thing that it shows
3 didn't get enough notice. Ah, but I guess the, in a way somewhat 3 is certainly tried to give 'em notice. Keep recap, Your Honor, the truth
4 immaterial, because the way the TRO is written is that as long it applies 4 is they're trying to get you to reinvent the wheel. The process has
5 to one of the Council members, it applies to anybody that would work in 5 been in the same in the 9. JDC, affirmed by the Third Circuit multiple
6 concert with 'em. But I guess that's beside the point, Your Honor. My 6 times. Ordinance passes, vetoed, veto overrode, mayor runs to the
7 job under 3603 is to certify my efforts to give notice. There's nothing 7 courthouse and says, hey, I need to stop this, otherwise I'm forced to
8 in the record that would lead the judge, lead you, Judge, to believe I did 8 administer something that is illegal. And that's why we're here, Judge.
9 not try to give notice to the Defendants. That's the reality. On May 4. 9 And, and let's get the merits of the thing, let's get to the preliminary
10 after the Council meeting, I walked straight up to, straight up to the 10 injunction. Judge, we're asking you to deny the Motion to Dissolve and
11 Council president, I said, hey, I need to talk to you guys, I'm filing an 11 obviously deny, ah, damages.
12 injunction, temporary, I said TRO actually, TRO tomorrow morning. Nine 12
13 thirty, Ten O'clock, I actually waited in the courthouse till 10:15. Judge, 13 BY THE COURT: Any follow up.
14 the reality, there was a lot of stuff going on, people were pulling some 14
15 of the Defendants pulling me, hey, how is going, I wanta talk to you 15 BY MS. MELTON: I do, Your Honor. Ah, I, I . . . we'll go backwards. Ahm,
16 about this, blah, blah, blah, but one thing's consistent in the affidavit. I 16 this, this is what was certified to this Court, that was signed on May 5.
17 repeatedly kept trying to say, I have to give you notice under the 17 by Mr. Dara. And what it says is one, I personally notified all Defendants
18 Statute. That's the reality; I kept saying it. Ms. Perry is absolutely 18 of the following. I personally notified all Defendants of the following: 1)
19 right. She did speak to me, she did ask me if she had to be there 19 On May 2., 2021 at approximately 10:00 AM I would file a petition for
20 because she had to work, and I respect that, you can't take time off of 20 declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and temporary restraining order
21 work. But I, I do disagree with this, I never said you don't have to come. 21 in the 9. Judicial District Court. There's affidavits saying that didn't
22 I said, that's not for me to decide you need to speak to your attorney 22 happen. I don't, I don't think Mr. Dara just said it did happen. He said,
23 who I thought at the time was the city attorney. The reality is, Your 23 he said he was filing a TRO. Next he says, I further advise Defendants
24 Honor, they had notice. Ms. Melton called me right after I sat back 24 would, that the referenced lawsuit would seek a temporary order to
25 down in my chair when got back to the office. Hey, give me a copy of 25 prohibit implementation and enforcement of the budget amendments.
26 what you're filing. Somebody knew I was there. Somebody knew I was 26 It appears like Mr. Dara's just admitted that's not what was told to
27 in the courthouse. The reality is, Judge, there's a reason why only three 27 them, he assumes they knew what he would be filing a TRO about. But
28 of the defendants are saying it, because I certainly tried. All the 28 I'm reading his varication (phonetic), verification. Second, third, I
29 affidavits show is that they saw me go up there, they saw me talking 29 further advise the Defendants that immediately after filing of the
30 about an injunction, the TRO, the type of an injunction, they heard me 30 lawsuit and the assignment of the matter, I would appear before the
31 talking about filing something at 9:30. They knew the time. I, I find it a 31 District Judge assigned to hear the case to seek the issuance of a TRO
32 little bit hard to believe they did not know what I was filing an injunction 32 as described above. Again, pursuant to the affidavits and what Mr. Dara
33 about. I mean, that was the whole point of the meeting. That's a little, 33 just told you, that, that's not how that went down either. Finally I

13 14

1 further advise Defendants they had a right to be present when I ask for 1 an appropriated budget. Again, I just don't think there's clear
2 the issuance of the TRO and I would be at the courthouse at 2 entitlement to a TRO. This is an extraordinary remedy and, again, I think
3 approximately 10:00 AM to file the petition. When they respond to this, 3 the notice requirement failed. I think that the clear entitlement failed.
4 they say, well Ms. Davidson really shoulda known. Well, I that's not what 4 We've talked about the status quo, I think, I think the Court should
5 you've certified. Ms. Davidson shoulda understood when I was telling 5 grant, grant damages to the Defendants.
6 'em I'm giving pursuant to a statute, I giving it to, pursuant to a statute, 6
7 they shoulda known what I was doing. That's not what you certified. 7 BY THE COURT: Any other response? Don't feel obligated to, but I, I
8 And what Mr. Dara just told you Is hung around till 10:15 to file it. Well, 8 just want everybody to be heard.
9 the injunction was filed at 10:07. So I'm not, I'm not sure anyone was 9
10 waitin' till 10:15. So, I, I, the problem I have is to say, well some maybe 10 BY MR. DARA: The, just real quick on the, the, Ms. Davidson's
11 got sufficient notice, 'cause they didn't file an affidavit. He has sued 11 affidavit. The argument that we actually briefed is that if you take the
12 them individually and in their capacity as city council members. There's 12 affidavit at face value. We're not saying that because she was an
13 three affidavits saying, I, I didn't, I did not under, he, I didn't understand 13 attorney she should've known anything. She said she was an attorney
14 what he was telling me, I didn't, I never said that it was a TRO, I 14 and she knew the difference between this that and the other, and then
15 understood he was filing an injunction which obviously isn't immediate 15 we just pointed out, if all of this, that is true, then you should've known
16 (claps hands) like that. You do get a hearing fast, but there's service 16 that we were seeking a TRO. I've not admitted I did not do anything. I
17 requirements and due process. So the notice requirements were not 17 did my darndest (phonetic) - - I had to catch myself, it's Friday - ah, I
18 satisfied. It, it, and when you sue, you get an injunction against seven 18 did my damdest to try to let everybody know what I was filing, when I
19 people, I think what they're saying is, well I gave notice to enough of 19 was filing, what is for, and the reality is, Judge, that's all that matters.
20 'em. This is a TRO, this is a temporary restraining order. I gave notice 20 My effort to give them notice. I guess they want to play semantics with
21 to enough of 'em is not sufficient to satisfy the granting of the TRO 21 exactly what was in the, ah, you know, the, ah, certification, but I think
22 that happened on May 5.. It should be dissolved. When it comes to 22 that's in appositive at this point.
23 what he talks about the effects of not issuing the TRO, one he talks 23
24 about removal of office. I just remind the Court that a TRO is requested 24 BY THE COURT: Okay. So I've looked at all of this a lot since Monday,
23 on behalf of the applicant. The Safety Commissioner was not on this 25 and listening to y'all very intently today, and going back and forth with
26 petition. He did not file for a TRO; he didn't seek to join the lawsuit to 26 that. As to notice, ahm, just to say it to ya'Il, I think there was probably
27 say that is irreparable injury. They are arguing to an individual who's 27 enough notice actually, they all knew what y'all were about to do. But
28 not an applicant. It's clear under the Code the applicant has to suffer 28 as to the TRO, where I've really been listening intently today was were
29 those injuries. Further, I don't see anything that they've put in an 29 you clearly entitled to it. And, ah, the arguments that I've heard is that
30 affidavit or in their petition that says that anything is administered out 30 there's belief for a illegal amendment, ah, worries that there's a personal
31 of the Legislative Branch appropriates funds. It's in the budget. I, I'm 31 liability, I really think the TRO was, ah . . . it's an extraordinary remedy,
32 at a loss to figure out what it is they think that Mayor Hall is being 32 reserved only for the extreme, ah, situation, so I think the TRO needs to
33 forced to do. What he's being forced to do under an administra, under 33 be dissolved, but instead the issue is more for a preliminary injunction

15 16
 which we're here for today. Ah, that's why I was listening to your 1
2 argument today, I'm less on about the notice, everybody is . . . I've not, 2 MATTFR PROCFFDS AS TO INJUNCTION
3 I have not looked at the video, I don't know anything, but from the more 3
4 that I've read, this was building up. From the date . . . I've timed out 4 BY THE COURT: Come on up. All right, he's been sworn and ready for
5 the dates like you're talking about. In April, then you had the end of 5 testimony.
6 April, then you had the 1. of May, I think people knew about what the 6
7 TRO with the injunction it might would be. And so, I think actually what 7 (DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID JOHNSON, BY MR. DARA ON
8 y'all's issue is, is more in line for the, for a preliminary injunction, and 8 BEHALF OF CITY AND MAYOR HALL)
9 that's what our hearing is gonna be about. Ah, I, I think the notice was 9 Q. All right, Mr. Johnson, go ahead and state your name for the record,
10 probably sufficient, but I think the, what I'm hung up on is were you 10 please.
11 entitled to the TRO, was there that immediate damage, ah, such that 11 A. David Johnson.
12 you had to stop the implementation of that or to change the status 12 Q. Do you work for the city of Alexandria?
13 quo. So I'm gonna dissolve the TRO and guess we're ready now to 13 A. Yes.
14 move for the preliminary injunction issues on it. 14 Q. And what is your position at the city of Alexandria?
15 15 A. Director of Finance.
16 BY MR. DARA: All right. 16 Q. How long have you been the Director of Finance?
17 17 A. Approximately two years.
18 BY MS. MELTON: That's you. 18 Q What are your duties as Director of Finance?
19 19 A. To oversee the sources and uses of city funds.
20 BY THE COURT: All righty. 20 Q. Do you have to be a licensed CPA to hold the Director of Finance
21 21 position?
22 BY MR. DARA: Well, good deal. We will go ahead and call Mr. David 22 A. No.
23 Johnson to the stand. 23 Q. Okay. Do you have a CPA?
24 24 A. Yes.
25 BY THE COURT: He will be delighted I feel certain, since he was ready a 25 Q. Current and all that?
26 minute ago. 26 A. Yes sir.
27 27 Q Okay. What does CPA even stand for?
28 BY MS. MELTON: He can get out of purgatory. 28 A. Certified Public Accountant.
29 29 Q. Do you have any special certifications and memberships related to
30 BY THE COURT: Before he goes in, because I wasn't sure if he was 30 government accounting?
31 actually gonna be a witness . . . and y'all tell me if I, 'cause David and I 31 A. Yes sir, I hold the certification of Certified Government Finance Officer
32 are church friends, not . . . I never socialize with 'im, I don't do any of 32 that's granted by the Louisiana GFOA or Government Finance Officer's
33 those things. 33 Association, of which I'm a member.

17 18

1 Q. As the city's Director of Finance, are you required to be familiar with the 1 one t the Judge as well, that makes sense. Judge, may I approach the
2 city's payment obligation under various union, union contracts? 2 witness?
3 A. Yes. 3
4 Q. Which union contracts do you have to be familiar with? 4 BY THE COURT: Oh, yes, certainly, certainly.
5 A. Let's see there's police, fire, transit, and the ASME Union. 5
6 Q. Do you know whether the city is currently negotiating pay, pay and 6 BY MR. DARA: I justa wanted to be sure. Mr. Johnson, go ahead and
7 benefit obligations with any of these unions? 7 look through this, and Judge, I've brought a copy for you as well.
8 A. Yes. 8
9 Q. Ah, I wants go ahead and direct you to the city budget, okay? 9 BY THE COURT: Thank you. No opposition to . . . you have the same
10 A. Yes sir. 10 copy?
11 Q. Does the city have anyone specifically assigned to the city's budget? 11
12 A. Yes. 12 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, I mean, I just it this morning, I'm assume it's
13 Q. Who is that person? 13 correct and accurate.
14 A. That would be me. 14
15 Q. Is the Director of Finance typically assigned to the city budget? 15 BY THE COURT: Yeah, y'all let me know as you go along. But you don't
16 A. Normally not, but when I assumed the position of Director of Finance, 16 have any opposition to me looking at it at the same time. It certainly
17 we haven't filled the Budget Officer's position yet, so I'm doing both 17 helps me (interrupted)
18 roles. 18
19 Q. How long did you serve as the city, city's Budget Officer? 19 BY MS. MELTON: No, no, no.
20 A. About twenty years. 20
21 Q. As Budget Officer and Director of Finance are you required to be familiar 21 BY THE COURT: . show me a page that I can look at it as well.
22 with the Charter's rules concerning budgeting? 22
23 A. Yes sir. 23 Q What is that document, Mr. Johnson?
24 Q. What Charter rules apply to the budget? 24 A. That is the 2021/2022 Mayor's proposed budget that was submitted to
25 A. There are many, but particularly Section 5. 25 the City Council In mid March.
26 Q. Are there any other laws that apply to the, ah, the city's budget? 26 Q. And go ahead and look through it, make sure that's an accurate
27 A. Yes sir. The Louisiana Local Budget Act as it is commonly referred to. 27 representation of the budget that was proposed.
28 Q What role if any did you play in the preparation of the city's 2020, 28 A. Yes sir, it is.
29 2021 and 2022 proposed budget? 29 Q. It was prepared in the ordinary course of business and all that?
30 A. I built it. 30 A. Yes.
31 Q. Okay. Mr. Johnson, I'm gonna go ahead and show you something, I've 31
32 given a copy to the other counsel, and I think I probably need to give 32 BY MR. DARA: Judge, I'd like to introduce that budget as, ah, the
33 City's Exhibit A.

19 20
1 i Q. Mr. Johnson, I'mma show you this document here.
2 BY MS. MELTON: A, again, I have, I have no objection assuming it's 2 A. Thank you.
3 accuracy, and I think it's public record, but, yeah. 3 Q Go ahead and review that while I give a copy to the Judge.
4 4
5 BY THE COURT: It's admitted then. I would think Mr. Johnson is familiar 5 BY MS. MELTON: I think the foundation's gonna have to be laid, Your
6 with it, would say I recognize an error or something like that, so we'll, 6 Honor. I mean, this clearly was prepared for today, so he, he's gotta lay
7 it's admitted. But please note if there's a typo or something different 7 foundation of some sort.
8 about it (trails off). 8
9 9 BY THE COURT: I, I don't disagree. And I'm guessing that's what you're about
to Q. Mr. Johnson, as part of your role and your duties with the budget, are to to do.
11 you required to insure that various appropriations and uses come to a 11
12 balance? 12 BY MR. DARA: That's correct.
13 A. Yes. 13
14 Q. What does it mean to have a, a balanced budget? 14 Q. What, what is this document?
15 A. Basically that your sources and uses of funds are equal. 15 A. It is a summary of the amendments passed by the City Council to the
16 Q. Is that proposed budget there balanced? 16 proposed budget, prepared by me.
17 A. Yes. 17 Q And if you look at this document here, what do those top red lines show
18 Q How can the Court tell by looking at that budget that it's balanced? 18 you?
19 A. On page sixteen (interrupted) 19 A. The top red lines are the sources and uses, the same ones we looked at
20 20 on page sixteen, the Sixty-six million two hundred fifteen thousand
21 BY THE COURT: Okay. 21 seven ninety-six, in both columns.
22 22 Q. So this document here is the reflection of what, this, this document, the
23 A. . . all right, in the first column with numbers in it, the general fund 23 spreadsheet you just created?
24 column, you can see that the total sources at the top come to Sixty-six 24 A. It's a reflection of, we start with the totals of the submitted budget, the
25 million two hundred fifteen thousand seven ninety-six, and the total 25 proposed budget, and then altered those totals, either up or down, by
26 uses at the bottom come to the same figure, Sixty-six million two 26 the amendments approved by the Council.
27 hundred fifteen thousand seven ninety-six, so it's in balance. 27 Q. And that's all shown on this spreadsheet?
28 28 A. Yes sir.
29 BY THE COURT: Okay, thank you. 29
30 30 BY MR. DARA: Your Honor, I'mma ask that we admit this as Exhibit B.
31 Q. Mr. Johnson, I understand you prepared a spreadsheet to help the Court 31
32 with your testimony today? 32 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, I'mma object to it. Here's the reason, this,
33 A. Yes sir. 33 I think this was prepared in the ordinary course of business despite the

21 22

1 representation. It was clearly prepared for today. The, there's no, the prepared this in response to Council, then I'll, I can't, that's his
2 budget itself they just offered, the proposed budget, does not serve as 2 testimony, so.
3 a backup to explain all of these numbers and the manner in which they 3
4 were done. I object to it being offered for that reason. This is not an 4 BY THE COURT: I'mma allow it in, ahm, with the noted objections, and I,
5 ordinary course of business document that Mr. Johnson would've 5 perhaps clarity'll come as go through the numbers and where they came
6 prepared. It was clearly prepared for today, and, and so we're talking 6 from. So this'll be exhibit two, is that correct?
7 about things moving, not moving. I don't believe their proposed budget 7
8 supports what he's saying in here. So there's gonna have to be 8 BY MR. DARA: That's Exhibit B, Your Honor.
9 something that supports what he put in here. And I, I don't think that 9
10 foundation has been laid. 10 BY THE COURT: I think that's what you called exhibit two?
11 11
12 BY THE COURT: Well, I, I think it needs some more foundation as well. I 12 BY MR. DARA: I think I said 'B'.
13 agree with you, 'cause I have questions about it. So maybe get a little 13
14 more out of Mr. Johnson. 14 BY THE COURT: Oh, B, was the first A? You can tell I'm, I'm labeling it
15 15 wrong, thank y'all.
16 Q. Mr. Johnson, would you prepare a document like this in the normal 16
17 course of business? 17 BY MS. MELTON: Josh, was that, just this one? It's not, is it just this
18 A. Yes. 18 one, not this one yet?
19 Q. Okay. Why would prepare a document like this in the normal course of 19
20 business? 20 BY THE COURT: Just the one page?
21 A. So I can plug the changes into the budget. 21
22 Q. Correct. And you prepare, you prepared this document for that very 22 BY MR. DARA: Not that . . . yes, just the colored one.
23 reason, is that correct? 2.3
24 A. Yes. 24 BY MS. MELTON: So this'll be 'B' on it's own.
25 Q. So this document shows, essentially shows how the Council amendment 25
26 affected the budget, am I correct? 26 BY MR. DARA: That's correct.
27 A. Yes. 27
28 28 BY THE COURT: Correct. I'm the on who screwed it calling 'em one or
29 BY MR. DARA: Then I would again offer it into evidence. 29 two.

30 30

31 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, based on that testimony, he's under oath, 31 BY MS. MELTON: I know, I'm trying to keep 'em straight.

32 if he's saying this is something he would normally do, and he that 32

33 BY MR. DARA: Oh, we're good, we're gonna make it through this.

24
1 1 BY THE COURT: I'm talking about Ms. Melton.
2 BY THE COURT: No, I like the letters 'cause there's so many numbers 2
3 on something else. Let's keep the letters on the exhibits. 3 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, I have a (interrupted)
4 4
5 BY MR. DARA: Plenty of numbers. 5 BY THE COURT: Okay. Because that was the other piece of paper you
6 6 had.
7 BY MS. MELTON: That's right. 7
8 8 BY MS. MELTON: I think you know what my objection's gonna be.
9 Q. Look, Mr. Johnson, we're gonna come back to this document actually. I 9
10 wanta direct you to the April 20., 2021 City Council meeting, okay? 10 BY THE COURT: Okay.
11 A. Yes sir. 11
12 Q _Did you attend that April 20" meeting in your capacity as Director of 12 BY MS. MELTON: So, yes, I do . .. he did provide me a copy this morning,
13 Finance and Budget Officer? 13 Your Honor.
14 A. Yes. 14
15 Q. At the April 20., ah, meeting did you witness the coun, councilmen 15 Q. Mr. Johnson, go ahead and explain . . . well first of all, do you recognize
16 approve amendments to the budget proposed by the Mayor? 16 this document?
17 A. Yes. 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. What documents did the Council give you to reflect their 18 Q. What is the document?
19 approved amendments? 19 A. It is the, the summary of the approved amendments by the City Council
20 A. I didn't get any from the Council. 20 in a slightly different format as the docUment up there.
21 Q Okay. In your role as, as Budget Director, did you have to create 21 Q. Okay. What, what's the difference between the two formats?
22 documents to reflect those amendments? 22 A. The difference between the two formats is, it starts with the submitted
23 A. Yes. 23 budget column, the first one, the adjustments either up or down, either
24 Q. Is this an example, is Exhibit B an example of that, that kind of 24 an increase or a decrease, and then going to the adjusted budget after
25 document? 25 the amendment is considered.
26 A. Yes. 26 Q. Is it fair to say that one document is simply a summary of the
27 Q. I wanta show you one other spreadsheet here. i'mma label 'C" for the 27 amendments and the other document shows how it affects the budget?
28 time being, Judge. 28 A. Yes.
29 29 Q. And were, was this document, Exhibit C, prepared in the normal course
30 BY THE COURT: You've got, you've got Exhibit C? 30 of business?
31 31 A. Yes.
32 BY MR. DARA: Yes, Your Honor. 32
33

25 26

1 BY MR. DARA: Okay. Your Honor, I'd like to introduce the, the I A. Yes sir.
2 amendment spreadsheet prepared by the city's Finance Director as 2 Q. Can tell the Judge what information if any you provided to the Council
3 Exhibit C. 3 members about the budget as amended?
4 4 A. That it was not balanced.
5 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, the only question, if I may, and I, I think it 5 Q. After you told the Council it wasn't balanced what did they do?
6 was just an oversight, that I don't think was ask Mr. Johnson, and with 6 A. The Council overrode the Mayor's veto and passed the budget
7 leeway ask Mr. Johnson, just to be clear, you prepared this? 7 imbalanced.
8 8 Q. In your experience as a Budget Officer and Director of Finance, can the
9 BY MR. JOHNSON: Yes ma'am. 9 city operate in an unbalanced budget?
10 10 A. No.
11 BY MS. MELTON: And, and I, I heard him say ordinary course of business, 11 Q. I want to direct your attention to the Two million dollar appropriation for
12 but I just wanted the record to be clear, you actually are the one who 12 police officer raises and benefits made at the April 20. meeting, okay?
13 prepared this based on your understanding from the April 20, 20. 13 A. Yes sir.
14 meeting, is that my understanding. 14 Q. Is the Two million dollar appropriation reflected on your spreadsheet
15 15 there?
16 BY MR. JOHNSON: Yes ma'am. Umm hmm. 16 A. Yes sir.
17 17 Q. And I'm talking about Exhibit B, this one on the front.
18 BY MS. MELTON: Okay. 18 A. Right.
19 19 Q Where is located so the Judge can be on the same page?
20 Q. And, that's what you would normally do as the Budget Officer and city 20 A. On the use, in the uses column is the third entry in blue below the top,
21 Finance Director? 21 the Two million dollars in a box. It's actually in blue.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now as the Budget Officer and Finance Director, what if any problems
23 Q. Okay. Perfect. 23 do you see with the Two million dollar appropriation?
24 24 A. Well, it needs an offset, basically either an increase in sources of fund or
25 BY THE COURT: Okay. So C is admitted with the noted questions. 25 a decrease in another use of fund to make it work out, to basically fund
26 26 it.
27 Q. All right, Mr. Johnson, after the April 20. meeting, did Mayor Hall veto 27 Q You see anything else wrong with the Two million dollar appropriation?
28 the budget? 28 A. Yes sir, it, it's in summary format, it doesn't go into the specific line
29 A. Yes. 29 items in the Police Departments budget. More accurately for salaries,
30 Q. Now let me direct your attention to the May 4', 2021 Council meeting. 30 the different positions in the Police Department.
31 A. Yes. 31 Q So in the proposed budget, where can we find the APD, so in Exhibit A,
32 Q. Did you attend that May 4., 2021 Council meeting in your capacity a 32 where can we find the APD?
33 Budget Officer?

27 28
 A. On page 137, that begins the Police Department's budget, and the 1 BY MR. DARA: Well no, it's, they told, they, as matter of law they
2 individual line items begin on the next page 138. 2 have to tell (interrupted)
3 Q Did you say the line items are on 138? 3
4 A. Yes sir. 4 BY THE COURT: But you, it would be one thing what they said, but not
5 Q Are you there? 5 the intent, is your objection is. How would you know the (interrupted)
6 A. Yes sir, umm hmm. 6
7 Q What, what am I looking at? Or what are,'what is the Court looking at 7 BY MS. MELTON: His question was what was the intent.
8 this 138? 8
9 A. That is the specific layout of each line item for the Police Department's 9 BY THE COURT: . . . intent. I agree.
10 budget. The, the beginning of the line items are for salaries for the 10
11 Police Chief, the Assistant Chief, so forth and so on through the ranks, 11 Q. How does, what does the Council represent they would use to fund the
12 captain, lieutenant, sergeant, corporeal, police officer, on down to 12 Two million dollar appropriation?
13 communications officers, records clerks, secretaries. 13 A. One point seven million dollar favorable budget variance in the Police
14 Q. So where, where's the Two million dollar appropriation supposed to go 14 Department's budget.
15 on this thing? 15 Q. How does One point seven million dollars equal Two million dollars?
16 A. Well, it, it would have to be spread appropriately between each of those 16 A. It doesn't.
17 line items by the amount needed. 17 Q. How much of the Two million dollars is unaccounted for?
18 Q. And how would, how would you do that? 18 A. Three hundred thousand.
19 A. Well you can't because you don't know what's needed yet. 19 Q. Does your spreadsheet here show where the Council matched or
20 Q. Was that something that should have been included in the appro, 20 accounted for the remaining Three hundred thousand?
21 approved amendment? 21 A. No sir.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. Where is the other Three hundred thousand accounted for?
23 Q. All right. You mentioned there wasn't an increase in revenue or a 23 A. It is not.
24 decrease in expenditures for the Two million dollar appropriation, am 24 Q. Let's talk about this One point seven million dollars, ah, that's alleged.
25 correct? 25 What's a fund surplus, Mr. Johnson?
26 A. Yes. 26 A. Fund surplus occurs at the end of a fiscal year where your sources of
27 Q. How does the Council intend on funding the Two million dollar 27 funds exceeds your uses of funds and your fund balance actually
28 appropriation? 28 increases or goes up.
29 29 Q. Does a funds surplus result in extra money?
30 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, I'mma go ahead and object to the extent 30 A. Yes sir.
31 how, what the intent of the Council was. 31 Q. Okay. Is a budget variance the same as a fund surplus?
32 32 A. No sir.
33 Q. What's the difference between a budget variance and a fund surplus?

29 30

1 A. Well, like we just talked about the fund surplus is created by comparing 1 A. Whereas the Police Department's the big department in the city's
2 the actual sources of funds to the actual uses of funds, whereas a 2 general fund, it is one of many. All the departments have their own
3 budget variance, like the name implies, is comparing the budget either 3 variances, both favorable and unfavorable, and that's on your use side.
4 or uses whatever you're comparing, to the actual to see how close you 4 On your source side you'll have budget variances in your revenues,
5 are to the budget basically. 5 favorable and unfavorable.
6 Q. Does a budget variance result in extra money? 6 Q Okay. Can you give us a simple example what you're talking about?
7 A. No sir. 7 A. Yes sir, I believe I can. If, ah, using an example of my personal finances,
8 Q. Okay. 8 let's say I estimate my, how much I'm gonna spend on gasoline for the
9 A. Not necessarily. 9 next month, my estimations a budget essentially. And I also estimate
10 Q. The Defendants have said that you told them there's a One point seven 10 how much my electric bill is gonna cost. Well, let's say that this
s million dollar surplus, Mr. Johnson. it particular month I stayed home more than usual because of the
12 A. Yes sir. That was taken out of context, I was talking to some members 12 weather. Okay. It's probably the case that I won't use as much
13 of the Council to ascertain what they were asking me and what they 13 gasoline as I thought I would. That would give me a favorable budget
14 were referring to was actually budget variance in the Police Department, 14 variance in gasoline, but because I'm staying home, probably watching
15 favorably. is more, running the air conditioner more, opening the refrigerator more, I
16 Q. So for clarity to the, to the Court, what is the One point seven million 16 probably will use more electricity. That would be a unfavorable budget
17 dollars classified as? 17 variance because I used more than I thought. To get a true picture,
18 A. It is a budget variance, favorable budget variance. 18 you'd have to offset them against each other.
19 Q. How did does the city arrive at a One point seven million dollar budget 19 Q. Okay. So when will the city know the final netted number of up and
20 variance in the APD? 20 down, positive, favorable, negative variances?
21 A. Vacate positions in the Department. 21 A. At the conclusion of the audit.
22 Q. Can you use the APD's favorable budget variance from this year's 22 Q. And when does that occur?
23 budget as a funding source for an appropriation next year? 23 A. On or about October 31..
24 A. No sir. 24 Q. Of which year?
25 Q. Why not? 25 A. Ah, 2021.
26 A. It, per the City Charter, the appropriation for the Police Department and 26 Q. Is that point where the city will know whether there's a true funding
27 all other departments lapses. 27 surplus?
28 Q. Was the Council warned at the April 20. meeting that the unspent 28 A. Yes.
29 appropriation would lapse? 29 Q. How would a pandemic, two hurricanes, a once in a lifetime storm, how
30 A. Yes. 30 could that effect those netted numbers?

31 Q. How is it that an unspent One point seven million dollars doesn't result 31 A. Oh, it could have a devastating effect. It could actually turn it into a
32 in extra money for next year's appropriation? 32 deficit.
33 Q. At this point do you know whether or not it will be a surplus or deficit?

31 32
 A. No. 1 In your experience as a budget officer, have you funded a (sic)
2 Q. At this point under oath can tell the Judge whether the city will have a 2 appropriation, an appropriation with a funding source like vacancies?
3 One point seven million dollar fund surplus to fund the Two million dollar 3 A. Not that I can recall.
4 appropriation? 4 Q. I'mma talk to a bit about the certification of funds for employee raises
5 A No. 5 and benefits.
6 Q When's the earliest you could do that? 6 A. Yes sir.
7 A October 31". 7 Q. As Director of Finance you're designated, are you designated by the
8 Q Of what year? 8 Mayor to certify estimated funds for purposes of the budget?
9 A. Ah, 2021. 9 A. Yes.
10 Q And even if there was a One point seven million dollar fund surplus, how 10 What happens if you certify payments based on illegal appropriations?
11 does that make Two million dollar appropriation balance? 11 A. It is my understanding that I could be removed from my position at the
12 A. It doesn't. 12 city, and/or the Mayor could be removed from his position at the city,
13 Q. Going back to the variance issue, Mr. Johnson, will be there another One 13 per Section 504 of the City Home Rule Charter.
14 point seven million dollar budget variance next year in the APD? 14
15 A. Can't tell that at this point. 15 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, I'mma lodge the objection because this
16 Q Why not? 16 record's got to be super clear. I'mma object to Mr. Davidson giving, I
17 A. Well, you can't predict vacant positions in the new year, and in 17 mean Mr. Johnson, giving what amounts to a legal opinion as to what he
18 particular if a large raise is given that could affect that. 18 think happens. He can testify if he wants (interrupted)
19 Q Is there any way you could lock the budget variance into place? 79
20 A There is one way. You could delete the vacant positions in the budget 20 BY THE COURT: Right.
21 thereby preventing that expense from ever happening. 21
22 Q And even if you cut those vacant positions and locked in the budget 22 BY MS. MELTON: . . . but I want this record to be super clear that Mr.
23 variance, could you predict a fund surplus? 23 Johnson's giving a legal opinion of what he thinks will happen.
24 A No. Even (interrupted) 24
25 Q Why not? 25 BY THE COURT: Noted.
26 A. . . with all that, you would still have the issue of the budget variances 26
27 both on the revenue side and the expenses in the other departments in 27 Q. Mr. Johnson, I'mma direct you to the spreadsheet that you, ah, created
28 general fund. 28 here.
29 Q Can you balance an appropriation with an unpredictable funding source 29 A. Yes sir.
30 like vacancies? 30 Q. What do the items in blue with the square around 'em represent?
31 A. No. 31 A. Those are the items that don't have a source, that are leading to the
32 Q Is that what happened in this case? 32 imbalance.
33 A. Yes. 33 Q. All right. And what are those items, just for clarity?

33 34

1 A. City Marshall, the police raises, and services demolition. 1 Q. When evaluating funds for a pay raise, what considerations do you have
2 Q. The Marshall, can you certify those funds? 2 to take into account as Director of Finance and Budget Officer?
3 A. Yes. 3 A. Affordability and sustainability.
4 Q. How 'bout the money for the demolition increase? 4 Q. Can you rely on just this year's current fL financial, ah, financial picture
5 A. Yes. 5 to evaluate sustainability?
6 Q. Where will the money come from to fund the Marshall and demolition 6 A. No sir.
7 amendment? 7 Q. Why do you have to look past this year for sustainability?
8 A. From general funds fund balance. 8 A. You have to consider potential changes in the city's financial position
9 Q And what is the fund balance? 9 and condition, particularly the adverse changes.
10 A. The fund balance basically is an accumulation of funds, sources that are to Q. As an accountant, ah, and Director of Finance are you familiar with the
11 greater than fund uses. In simple terms, it's general funds savings it going concern principle?
12 account. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you certify funds for the Council's Two million dollar appropriation in 13 Q. Can you explain what the going concern principle is?
14 this case? 14 A. It's an accounting principle that basically states that a given entity is
15 A. No sir. 15 assumed to be in existence for a long period of time to come.
16 Q. How is it you can certify the unfunded demolition and Marshall 16 Q. Do you have to use the going concern principle with the city of
17 appropriations, but not the Two million dollar increase? 17 Alexandria?
18 A. Reason is three fold really. In this case, size really matters. The 18 A. Yes.
19 Marshall amendment and the demolition amendment are one-tenth or 19 Q. Okay. How does the going concern principle relate to increases in pay
20 less the size of the police raise amendment. It's much more easily 20 raises and benefits?
21 absorbed. And secondly, the police raise doesn't specify who will get 21 A. Goes back to the same reoccurring nature of the pay raises. They will
22 how much. Does the, out of the Two million dollars, does the Chief get 22 be an additional cost to the city for a very long time to the come and
23 Two fifty? The Captain get a Hundred thousand? We don't know. And 23 representative of a financial claim if will on city resources for a very long
24 then thirdly it goes to the nature of the three amendments. The 24 time to come.
25 Marshall amendment and the demolition amendment are not recurring in 25 Q. Did you apply the going concern principle to the evaluation of the Two
26 nature. What that basically means is, at the city's discretion if finances 26 million dollar appropriation?
27 got tight, you could quite easily reduce those increases back down to 27 A. Yes.
28 their original level or even below. The police raise being a raise of the 28 Q. Considering the going concern principle will the Two million appropriation
29 employees, it is reoccurring in nature. Basically a raise you give an 29 be a recurring obligation?
30 employee will be an increased cost to the city throughout that employ, 30 A. Yes.
31 employee's employment, career maybe. If he's a long termer and goes 31 Q. Can you explain that to the Judge?
32 all the way to retirement, that could be twenty-five to thirty years. 32 A. Goes back again because the, you have to assume that a person that
33 was hired as a police officer will stay with the city for twenty-five years

35 36
1 until that person is eligible to retire. And that incremental cost of the I Q. Did the Council vote to use fund balance to cover the Two million dollar
2 raise, the pay and benefits and so forth associated, will be the, with the 2 appropriation?
3 city for the next twenty-five years. 3 A. No sir.
4 Q. Are you privy to any funding analysis or anything that would confirm the 4 Q. As the acting Budget Officer, can you assume that Council meant to use
5 city can pay this Two million dollars going forth? 5 the fund balance?
6 A. No sir. 6 A. No.
7 Q. As Budget Director and Director of Finance is that something that you 7 Q. Why not?
would do? 8 A. The Council was pretty specific in saying they wanted to use the One
9 A. Yes. 9 point seven million dollar budget variance from the police department to
10 Q. As the Mayor's designee, are you required to certify that the city can 10 pay for it. And another Three hundred thousand in reduced
It make this payroll obligation every time it comes due? 11 expenditures, but those didn't pass.
12 A. Yes. 12 Q. And we've established that the One point seven million dollar variance
13 Q. Can you do that now? 13 isn't extra money?
14 A. No sir. 14 A. Yes sir, exactly.
15 Q. Once pay raises and benefits are given to city employees, how can you 15 Q. Even if the Council did vote to use the fund balance, would you certify
16 scale 'em back? 16 or could you certify funding from the use of funds source?
17 A. That's the only way I can think of is to lay off some furloughs. 17 A. No sir.
18 Q. What's a furlough? 18 Q. Why not?
19 A. Furlough's basically a temporary layoff, it's for a period of time and then 19 A. Well, two reasons, one I don't know what the fund balance is yet, I won't
20 you go back to work. 20 till October. And two, I can't pay for a reoccurring obligation out of the
21 Q. Can the employee come back? 21 savings account.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. What kind of financial consequences will happen from the, using the city
23 Q. And then what happens to the payroll obligation? 23 savings account as you call it, for a recurring obligation?
24 A. You resume the same payroll obligation as before, the employee's rate 24 A. You would eventually drain it to zero.
25 of pay goes back to what it was. 25 Q. Just real quickly, Mr. Johnson, ah, who currently serves as the
26 Q. So once a pay raise is given it stick, it stays with the city, is that 26 Commissioner of Public Safety?
27 correct? 27 A. Ah, Daryl Terry.
28 A. Yes. 28 Q. Okay. What is the Council's budget amendment do to the position of,
29 Q. Absent an increase in the revenue, the decreases in expenditures, how 29 ah, the Public Safety Commissioner?
30 would the city pay the Two million dollar appropriation this year? 30 A. Council amendment removed all salaries and benefits from the budget
31 A. Out of fund balance. 31 that relate to the Commissioner.
32 Q. How 'bout next year? 32 Q. And how does the city of Alexandria classify Mr. Terry's employment
33 A. Fund balance again. 33 position as the Commissioner of Pubic Safety?

37 38

1 A. As a Mayor'll appointee. (CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, MIKE JOHNSON, BY MS. MELTON ON

2 2 BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS)
3 BY MR. DARA: I appreciate your time, Mr. Johnson, I don't have any 3 Q Okay. So let me, ah, Mr. Johnson, Barbara Melton on behalf of the
4 further questions. I tender 'im over to Ms. Barbara and Rick. 4 Defendants. I, I'm trying to understand a lot of accounting principles
5 5 that you have put out here and I, and, and I hope that what do here not
6 BY MS. MELTON: I guess we're without the podium. 6 only helps myself but helps the Court, because, ah, there are a lot of
7 7 accounting issues that are being.discussed today. So we're gonna ask a
8 BY THE COURT: Ya'll can have it. It's just pushed back there, you can e couple've of general questions and then we'll get into some specificity.
9 have it. 9 Was the One point seven million dollars available to be ap, to be
10 10 appropriated by the Legislative Branch of the city?
11 BY MS. MELTON: No, no, it's all right 11 A. Ah, no ma'am.
12 12 Q Okay. And why is that the case?
13 BY THE COURT: It's just right there. 13 A Because of the lapsing of the funds at the end of the fiscal year.
14 14 Q. Okay. And this is where, I'mma be honest with you, this is, this is where
15 BY MS. MELTON: I'll stay right here. Well, I just commenting it's 15 you're losing me. So what happens to the One point seven million?
16 normally, you kinda get over there and (trails off). 16 A. The One point seven million is a budget figure, so it is a management
17 17 tool essentially. And when that budget lapses, basically when the
Is BY THE COURT: You can, you can have it. Whatever makes y'all 18 Council passes a new budget, a new appropriation, if you will is born.
19 comfortable. I think, they thought it was gonna block the (interrupted) 19 Q Okay.
20 20 A. And that one continues on. And then at the end of that fiscal year that
21 BY MS. MELTON: Just commenting. 21 one dies too.
22 22 Q. Okay.
23 BY THE COURT: You can go ahead. 23 A You have to do it by the Charter. That, that's normal; you do that
24 24 every year.
25 BY MS. MELTON: I was just (trails off). 25 Q No, no, I, I do get all that. And, again, I, I'm being honest, I really am
26 26 trying to figure out how this works, because I think, frankly, sir, that,
27 (Bringing out podium with accompanying chatter.) 27 that's the confusion that kinds got us here into the issue (interrupted)
28 28 A. Yeah.
29 BY MS. MELTON: Okay. Glasses will come on and off. 29 Q. . . . at these Council meetings based on what I've listened to. So I'm
30 30 truly trying to figure this out. So you have a . . . the Mayor gives a
31 BY MR. JOHNSON: Mine too. 31 proposed budget.
32 32 A. Correct.

39 40
I Q. Okay. Where do . . . and I understand you're the one that prepares that, 1 A. . . a reoccurring expense.
2 is that right? 2 Q. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you, go ahead.
3 A. Umm hmm. 3 A. But that's, that's the basic thing. You can't do it forever. And you also
4 Q. Okay. So I'mma reference you when I'm asking these questions. What 4 factor in how much fund balance you're going use. You're basing that
5 do you use to determine the total amount that you are going to put in 5 on how much risk you want to take as to, to put it in layman's terms,
6 that proposed budget? What do you use as you're preparing it? 6 how much of your savings account you're willing to spend.
7 A. Okay. Basically it is, you start with your sources, (interrupted) 7 Q. Okay.
8 Q. Okay. 8 A. How much do you want to retain for the next time so to speak, or
9 A. . . . your revenues, if you will. You make an estimation basically of how 9 whatever.
10 much you're going to have. Now you take a look on your use side. 10 Q. I completely agree with that, but, but, but isn't it correct then that
11 Q. Okay. 11 what you're really saying that it's not that the Two million was not
12 A. Look at what was budgeted last year, that's where you begin. Any 12 available to be appropriate, your concerns have to do with ongoing
13 changes that you may want to put in, (interrupted) 13 obligations. Those are two different things, you'll agree?
14 Q. Okay. 14 A. No.
15 A. . . . and you basically line it up on the uses side. 15 Q. Okay. Well we're gonna ask this as a singular question. Were the funds
16 Q. Okay. 16 avail - - it doesn't matter what they're for, Mr. Johnson - - were the Two
17 A. To match. 17 million dollars available to be allocated and appropriated by the
18 Q. All right. So, do you ever include in the Mayor's proposed budget 18 Legislative Branch of the city?
19 money that's in what you've referenced as the savings account? 19 A. Yes.
20 A. Yes. That would be the use of fund balance (interrupted) 20 Q. Okay. That, that's one question right? And that's my point. If . . .
21 Q. Okay. 21 when I asked you that earlier you're saying, no, not really. Well, you're
22 A. . . . in the sources side of the general fund. 22 saying no, not really - - correct me if I'm wrong - - because you're
23 Q. Okay, so, here's where my confusion comes in. If you're doing that, 23 saying you believe it creates an ongoing obligation.
24 (interrupted) 24 A. Correct.
25 A. Umm hmm. 25 Q. But the singular question of whether or not that Two million dollars
26 Q. .. . then I'm not understanding why the Legislative side of the city, why 26 could be appropriated by the Council, the answer is legislatively they
27 that money's not available for a appropriation by the Legislide (sic), 27 could, correct?
28 Legislative side of the city. 28 A. Yes.
29 A. It would be in the short term, (interrupted) 29 Q. Okay. So when we talk about the ongoing obligations and incurring
30 Q. Okay. 30 obligations, because I get it, that's what you're saying, you're saying,
31 A. . . . but not in the long term. That relates back to being able to use the 31 hey look, I, I think y'all are thinking this is gonna keep going forward and
32 fund balance on a continuous basis to liquidate (interrupted) 32 that's where I think Mr. Johnson's problem comes in, correct?
33 Q. And, and Mr. (interrupted) 33 A. Yes.

41 42

1 Q So, let me ask you this, when the, when a budget is approved and that, 1
2 that budget is now the approved and adopted budget by the City 2 BY MS. MELTON: I'm just giving her, him the Ordinance, (interrupted)
3 Council, 'cause they are the ones that do it, correct? 3
4 A. Correct. 4 BY MR. DARA: Yeah, sure.
5 Q. Okay. What is the obligation, if you will, of the Executive Branch once 5
6 they're holding that approved budget, adopted budget? What do you 6 BY MS. MELTON: . . . ah, the, ah, the, I mean, the Home Rule Charter,
7 do with it? 7 keep doing that.
8 A. Basically put it in and run with it. • 8
9 Q. Exactly, okay. So is there anything about an appropriation that requires 9 BY THE COURT: Right, it was attached to one of y'all's.
10 the Executive Branch to spend it? 10
11 A. Oh, but you have to certify it. 11 BY MS. MELTON: You want me to just hand you this one right quick?
12 Q. Well, now, you have to certify it before you spend it, correct? 12
13 A. Yes. 13 BY THE COURT: That'll be cleaner, yeah, thank you.
14 Q. Okay. So is there anything about money that is allocated and 14
15 appropriated by a city council that requires the Executive Branch to 15 BY MS. MELTON: There we go. Thank you, Your Honor.
16 spend it? 16
17 A. No. 17 Q. So I think your testimony's established that the, like, that, that funds
18 Correct. And the certification only comes about when you attempt to 18 were available to be appropriated by the City Council, and then you
19 spend it, correct? 19 directed us to Section 504 . . . I'm sorry, I shoulda turned it to you, it's
20 A. Certification has to come about in the budget process because by 20 page twenty.
21 making it available in the budget you have created the potential to 21 A. Oh, thank you.
22 spend it. 22 Q. Umm hmm.
23 Okay. Well, we're gonna read, because they're gonna ask, they've been 23 A. Okay, I'm there.
24 asking you today about you're interpretation of this, so we're gonna 24 Q. Well, let's, let's ask it this direct, and then we'll get here. You talked
25 look at it. Because I assume what you're referencing is 504, is that 25 earlier about the ongo, ongoing obligation and, and that that seemed to
26 correct? 26 be your concern.
27 A. Yes ma'am. 27 A. Umm hmm.
28 Q. So 504 says . . . I'm gonna give you a copy actually. 28 Q. So, if we've established that the Legislative Branch can appropriate and
29 A. Thank you. 29 allocate the One point seven million, which I believe you've agreed with,
30 30 is that correct?
31 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, you have the Ordinance? 31 A. Umm hmm.
32
33 BY THE COURT: Ahm, it was attached to one of y'all's, wun't it?

43 44
 Q. Then I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about the appropriation 1 million that was appropriated by the City Council does not constitute a
2 that you as the Director of Finance thinks violates this Home Rule 2 payment, correct?
3 Charter. 3 A. Correct.
4 A. That's because of the, (interrupted) 4 Q. Okay. And so . .. under 504, correct? Correct?
5 Q. Go ahead. 5 A. Yes.
6 A. The 504 doesn't restrict you to looking just at a year. 6 Q. Yeah, (interrupted)
7 Q. Okay. 7 A. I'm sorry.
8 A. You're looking prospectively. 8 Q. That's okay, we've just gotta talk out loud, I know. Ah, but you believe
9 Q. Okay. 9 it's an obligation incurred.
10 A. The silence about a year means look prospectively. Now, given the 10 A. Yes.
11 recurring nature of a pay raise, that means it's going to be for multiple 11 Q. So that's what I need some clarity on. How does allocating,
12 years, and that's where the problem with the certification comes in. 12 appropriating Two point million dollars, which they are, they have the
13 Q Okay. 13 legislative, you and I agree, they have the legislative authority to
14 A. Yes. 14 appropriate.
15 So we look at 504, so we're back exactly where I think were, I just 15 A. Yes.
16 wanted to get clarity on that. Five oh four says: "No payment shall be 16 Q. How is that incurring an obligation? If, how's that incur an obligation
17 made . . . ", right, so let's start with that. Is the appropriation of funds 17 and who does it incur that obligation on?
18 by the City Council, quote, a payment? 18 A. It incurs the obligation on the city for the pay raise.
19 A. Not necessarily. But it (interrupted) 19 Q. But there's, but there's no contract approving a pay raise.
20 Q And then . . . go ahead. 20 A. Not as of yet.
21 A. Oh, go ahead. The obligation is incurred at that point. 21 Q. I agree, Mr. Johnson, that's where the confusion comes in. You're
22 So, okay, let's get there. So you think the second part is what's at 22 saying they allocated Two million dollars and they've incurred an
23 issue. 23 obligation. What obligation did they incur? I don't understand
24 A. Yes. 24 (interrupted)
25 You think the no obligation incurred against an allotment or 25
26 appropriation, except in accordance with appropriations duly made, and 26 (Voices in background)
27 unless the Mayor or his designee first certifies that there is a sufficient 27 BY THE BAILIFF: Order in the court.
28 unencumbered balance, and that's that certification section, correct? 28
29 A. Correct. 29 BY MS. MELTON: Where at?
30 Q. So if the, if the City Council allocates One point seven million dollars to 30
31 the Police Department, I think we've agreed, 'cause we're gonna take 31 BY THE COURT: Just people were whispering, that's all.
32 this is bite size pieces, 'cause that's probably gonna be the only way I 32
33 can understand it. So, you and I can agree that the One point seven 33 BY MS. MELTON: Oh, okay.

45 46

1 1 pursuant to that 'cause an allo, and appropriation by the Legislative

2 Q. I'm not understanding what the obligation is they incurred. It, it's, the 2 Branch is not a payment made. And it appears to me that there's no
3 Executive Branch is gonna spend that money in accordance with 3 ongo, obligation incurred by an appropriation, it is just an appropriation,
4 (interrupted) 4 correct?
5 5 A. Correct.
6 BY MR. DARA: Judge, (interrupted) 6 Q. So that's . . . okay.
7 7 A. But it is a reoccurring obligation.
8 Q .. the Legislative Branch's appropriation, correct? 8 Q Why is it reoccurring?
9 9 A. Because of the nature of it, that's the issue.
10 BY THE COURT: I think she's just asking (interrupted) 10 Q The nature of an appropriation for the purposes of (interrupted)
11 11 A. A raise, yes.
12 BY MR. DARA: . .. I'm gonna object. 12 Q. Which hasn't gone into effect, correct?
13 13 A. Correct.
14 BY THE COURT: Go ahead. 14 Q. There's no union contract saying what the raises will or won't be,
15 15 correct?
16 BY MR. DARA: Because they've already admitted in their in, in their 16 A. No.
17 answer that the Two million dollars is for pay raises. I mean, it's already 17 Q. And it again goes back to, it, it's recurring once these union contracts
18 established what it's for. That is the obligation; it's for pay raises. 18 and all of that has been negotiated and signed, correct?
19 19 A. Correct.
20 BY THE COURT: So let's let him get to . . . I, I think you're leaping 20 Q Correct?
21 ahead, Mr. Dara. I think (interrupted) 21 A. Correct, umm hmm.
22 22 Q But, but that doesn't create a recurring obligation merely by the fact
23 BY MS. MELTON: Yes, that's the point of the questioning. 23 money was appropriated for the purposes of those raises, true?
24 24 A. True, contractually, yeah.
25 BY THE COURT: . . . that's what the discussion is. 25 Q Okay. And who ultimately approves the contract with the unions?
26 26 A. City Council.
27 Q. How is an obligation incurred via an appropriation? How is that 27 Q Okay. They, they ask you about negotiations, and, and I, I really would
28 incurred? 28 not have gone in this area with you, but I guess I, they've opened the
29 A. It's still an obligation from the pending contract, in my mind. 29 door to it. Ahm, he asked you, ah, Mr. Dara asked you about
30 Q. But there is no existing obligation, correct? 30 negotiations with the police unions. Do you know when those

31 A. Correct. 31 negotiations started, and what I'mma ask you about is not about

32 Q. That's, and that's where, that goes back to the issue of, when does 504 32 incentives . . . 'cause do you understand there's two different
33 apply. So the, so we've now agreed there's no payment shall be made 33 negotiations occurring?

47 48
1 A. I've heard that, but I'm not privy to them specifically. I A. You use it very, very conservatively for that very reason.
2 Q. Okay. Well then what are you privy to that allows you to answer his 2 Q. Umm hmm.
3 question and say I'm aware that negotiations are ongoing? 3 A. You don't know where you're gonna land yet.
4 A. I know that they are ongoing. I haven't been involved directly with 'ern. 4 Q Okay.
5 Q. Okay. 5 A So you, you go light on it to make sure you can retain some
6 A. And it's my job to watch them once they are approved. 6 (interrupted)
7 Q. Okay. So who told you they were ongoing, because it appears like you 7 Q Right.
8 don't have personal knowledge of that. 8 A. . . . for any future need that you may have.
9 A. The Administration. 9 Q Right. So what I'm hearing, Mr. Johnson, are your considerations when
to Q. And that would be Mayor Hall? to you prepare a budget, correct?
11 A. Yeah. Not directly. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. 12 Q But you agree that the Council is who appropriates and approves
13 A. Other members of the Administration. 13 budgets, correct?
14 Q. That's fair,,i'm not (interrupted). 14 A Yes.
15 A. That they're talking to the union. 15 Q So at the end of the day, maybe you're being conservative, and they
16 Q. Okay. And so you don't know what . . . do you know when negotiations 16 made a decision to not be conservative, as the Legislative Branch it's
17 started, ah, between, ah, the Mayor's office and the union as it relates 17 their decision what to appropriate in funds for this city, is that correct?
18 to police salaries and compensation? 18 A Yes.
19 A. No. 19 Q So was there requests made to you from Council members asking what
20 Q. Okay. So, again, kinds taking this in bite size pieces, you talk about - - 20 the surplus was for the city?
21 and I'm paraphrasing here and I want the record to reflect that, I'm not 21 A The budget surplus or the fund surplus?
22 trying to, to mischaracterize your testimony. Some of the things that 22 Q The fund surplus.
23 you testified about earlier said that, ah, you, you kinda can't make some 23 A. No. However, that is in the last audit.
24 of these determinations until August or October, do you recall that 24 Q Okay. And, and do you know what that figure is?
25 testimony when he (interrupted) 25 A Twenty-three million (interrupted)
26 A. October, yes. 26 Q Okay. Is this (interrupted)
27 Q. Okay. So, so very colloquial question, then how do you prepare a 27 A. . . . some odd.
28 proposed budget when you say you don't have certain information until 28 Q. . . . the savings account we were talking about?
29 later in the year? I'm sure you can I just want you to explain how you 29 A Exactly.
30 do that. 30 Q Okay. So, and that Twenty-three million, I think we've already
31 A. Oh, basically what you're doing, the use of fund balance we referred to a 31 established, is available for appropriations by the Legislative side of the
32 little while ago? 32 city, correct?
33 Q. Umm hmm. 33 A Yes.

49 50

I Q. Okay. When did you prepare Exhibits B and C? 1 Q Did, did you do an affidavit or anything for attaching to the petition - -
2 A Would have been some time after the May 41, meeting, once I got it 2 because I don't see anything in the petition or attached to the petition
3 compiled, went over the list of what approved, and what, what was 3 wherein you've said it is unbalanced.
4 approved and what not. 4 A. I've stated that previously on other occasions, but no, not in an
5 Q. And what was the purpose of it? 5 affidavit.
6 A. To plug 'em into the budget if (interrupted) 6 Q. Okay. So what about the budget . . again, your impression is, your
7 Q. That's how this went. 7 opinion is it's unbalanced.
8 A Yeah, if this is how went, yeah, exactly. 8 A. Correct.
9 Q Okay. I got it. 9 Q. The law says if the Mayor's vote is vetoed that is the adopted budget,
10 A. Depending on the next thing. 10 does it not?
11 Q So and, and let me ask you this, in your position, and, and, and really for 11 A. Yes.
12 the topics of which they've kind've offered you today, ahm, as you sit 12 Q. Okay. So, I'm, I'm again, how, how does Mr. Johnson say that we do not
13 here today, what do you understand, what budget do you understand 13 have an adopted budget pursuant to law that was, the veto was
14 the city of Alexandria's operating under right now? 14 overridden and the Council therefore adopted that budget?
15 A. Presently? 15 A. Because it's not duly adopted being out of balance, and the other issues
16 Q. Yes sir. 16 with it.
17 A. We don't have a budget, therefore we operate on the, there is a section 17 Q. But that's your opinion, correct?
18 in the `Louisiana Local Budget Act" that basically says if a given entity 18 A. Yeah.
19 fails to pass a budget timely, (interrupted) 19 Q. And that's (interrupted)
20 Q. Umm hmm. 20 A. I've, that is my opinion.
21 A. . . . you fall to the default of fifty percent of your adjusted budget from 21 Q. And the law says once they did that, that is the budget, correct?
22 the previous year. 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. 23 Q. And you just . . . so who made the decision to not, I guess follow, or
24 A So until everything is resolved, that's what we're under. 24 administer the budget that was adopted on May 4 by the Legislative
25 Q Well we have a passed budget, don't we? We have an adopted budget, 25 Branch?
26 do we not? 26 A. The Administration, again, becaute it 's not duly adopted.
27 A We do but it lacks certification. 27 Q, So, you believe that y'all have the right to make the decision to just not
28 Q Okay. With all due respect, Mr. Johnson, I think that's your opinion. Do 28 administer a budget that's adopted by the Legislative Branch?
29 we under the "Louisiana Budgetary Act", and under this Home Rule 29 A. In this case, yes.
30 Charter, have an adopted budget? 30 Q. Okay. Do you know what the subject of the TRO is?
31 A. No, it's not balanced. 31 A. No ma'am, not directly.
32 Q. Okay. But as the Director of Finance, you've been advised that we do
33 not have a budget in place right now.

51 52
I A. Correct. 1 Q. Okay. That's the only accounting thing I know, so just (interrupted)
2 Q And that was by the Administration. 2
3 A. Yes. 3 BY THE COURT: I'm impressed.
4 Q And when you say Administration, you're talking about Mayor Hall's 4
5 office, correct? 5 Q ... besides the debit and credit.
6 A Talking about myself and the rest of the Administration (interrupted) 6 A. That's the big one, yes.
7 Q Fair enough, I'm, (interrupted) 7 Q. So just run with it.
8 A. . .. basically. 8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. . . . I'm just try . . you're talking about the Executive Branch then, can 9
10 say it that way? 10 BY THE COURT: I'm impressed with that one, (interrupted)
11 A. Exactly that's (trails off) 11
12 Q Ah, wun't there a two percent page rage in your proposed budget? 12 BY MS. MELTON: Thank (interrupted)
13 A Yes ma'am, umm hmm. 13
14 Q Okay. And, and what did you do to, apparently you believe has to be 14 BY THE COURT: . . . tick and tack.
15 certified, what did you do to certify that those funds would be available 15
16 for the ongoing obligation? 16 Q. All right. So you're saying, look I had a source that would fund that
17 A Oh. Actually there is an obligation that the city has had for quite some 17 ongoing obligation.
18 time that rolls off at the end of this upcoming fiscal year. 18 A. Exactly.
19 Q Okay. 19 Q. Okay. But since the Administration does not believe that there is a legal
20 A. And basically the, the two percent raise and the 85/15 health care, if 20 bugget (sic), budget in place, I assume these 2% pay raises have not
21 you're familiar with that? 21 gone in effect.
22 Q Umm hmm. 22 A. Correct.
23 A. Okay. Basically the city would assume 85% of all health care obligations 23 Q. All right. The One point seven million that, that keeps coming up about
24 of the employees regardless of which class of health care they had. 24 a dev, it, it was, it was some type of budget deviation, right?
25 Anyway, the combination of those two was roughly equal to the 25 A. Yes. It's a variance, yes.
26 obligation that's rolling off at the end of this year. 26 Q. Budget variance, that's right, I'm sorry. So, again, I'm trying to
27 Q Okay. 27 understand, did the Mayor's proposed budget include that One point
28 A. So I'm funding it with that after the current year. 28 seven million?
29 Q Okay. 29 A. No, it wouldn't, because the One point seven is derived from the
30 A. Yes. 30 difference between what you spent and what you budgeted, and we
31 Q So, you, what I understand it, it's tick and tack, you ticked and tacked, 31 haven't spent anything yet because we haven't gotten in the new year.
32 is that right? 32 So the One point seven isn't part of the equation as of yet.
33 A That's exactly it.

53 54

Q Okay. So, we're gonna go back to my original question then, where is 1 Q Okay. I guess I'm, I'm still trying to figure out, you, you, you had to
2 the One point seven? 2 make a determination, I assume, at some point that all of these
3 A. It doesn't exist. 3 departments have this money left over, correct?
4 Q It doesn't exist, so (interrupted) 4 A. Not really, because the budget as a management tool, it's basically how
5 A It is a, by being a budget variance, back to my little illustration that I a department determines if they're over budget or under budget.
6 used in my testimony of, ah, (interrupted) 6 Q Umm hmm.
7 Q Umm hmm. 7 A. That equation, determination, or however you wants put it, that ceases
8 A. . . . the gasoline and the electricity, what matters at the end of the day 8 to be a issue as soon as the budget lapses. When the year is over, time
9 is how much money did I spend and how much money did I get in. 9 for a new year, and you start the calculation all over again. The actual
10 Q Sure. results of the old one, they're not really as important, like we were
11 A. Not the variances between what I thought I would spend and what I 11 talking about the, ah, operating surplus if there is one, or deficit is there
12 actually spent, (interrupted) 12 isn't one, (interrupted)
13 Q Right. 13 Q Sure.
14 A. . . . is the case here. 14 A. . . . that's a comparison of your actual uses and your actual sources,
15 Q Okay. So under that theory then, how do you term, determine as the 15 which one's bigger basically. That is really your determination of how
16 Finance Director what happened to the One point seven million? 16 much money you have in the quote "savings account", unquote. And
17 understand that the One point seven million was what you advised the 17 how much you can make a determination estimating that you have to
18 Council was, were, were monies that were not used (interrupted) 18 spend next year. That's the issue at hand.
19 A Right. 19 Q But you don't know whether or not the One point seven million was in
20 Q. . . . out of the police - - I'm using that generally - - police budget, 20 the Mayor's budget, that you've drafted?
21 correct? 21 A No, it wun't be, because the, the difference between actual and budget
22 A. Yes, umm hmm. 22 doesn't exist yet. We haven't started the fiscal year yet.
23 Q Okay. So, I'm trying to understand then, you're the guy that's gonna 23 Q. Okay. And so, I think I understood your testimony earlier that you don't
24 prepare this, this, this mayoral, this Mayor's budget, correct, so I'm 24 really know how much over or under the city was on it's 2020/21
25 trying to understand, what did you do with the One point seven when 25 budget, is that correct?
26 you were preparing the budget? 26 A. Correct, because the calculations are still going in. The fiscal year's
27 A Nothing, because it lapses, it's no longer part of the equation. What 27 actually over, but there's still entries left to make.
28 happens in the new year budget, you budget the positions assuming 28 Q. But obviously, despite not having those definitive numbers, you're able
29 that all will be filled all year. Now, there will be another budget variance 29 to prepare a Sixty-six million dollar budget, correct?
30 next year. How big, that's undetermined, particularly with the raise. I 30 A. Correct.
31 would think that would shrink the number of, of unfilled positions, that's 31 Q For the 2% raises, will the Mayor have to certify those funds?
32 the intent of the raise. 32 A. Yes.

55 56
1 Q Are you aware of any efforts that were made by the Council to try and 1 approving, we're not approving a salary for that position, can they do
2 tick and tack? To move money from one place to another? 2 that?
3 A. There were some, and those are the amendments in green, 3 A. He couldn't appoint until they approved the position. It's gotta be in
4 (interrupted) 4 the budget first.
5 Q Yes sir. 5 Q. And, I agree, I think we're agreeing.
6 A. . . those ticked and tacked if you will. 6 A. Yeah.
7 Q Umm hmm. 7 Q. I, he, if he wants to appoint this person, the City Council is ultimately
8 A The ones in blue did not, but yes, (interrupted) 8 who approves whether they, that bu, that position is funded, correct?
9 Q Okay. 9 A. Correct. It's part of the appropriation process.
10 A. ... the ones in green did tick and tack. to Q So how is it any less their authority and ability to make a decision to not
11 Q So, but are you aware of any other efforts that were done by the 11 fund that position?
12 Council in open meeting, or maybe not in open meeting, to try and move 12 A. Inappropriating effectively removes the position from the budget.
13 money from somewhere to put it towards police pay raises? 13 Q. But then appropriating it effectively appointed him to the position,
14 A. No, not that I'm aware of. That, that's all that I'm aware of. 14 correct?
15 Q Okay. Ahm, one of things, one of the last things that Mr. Dara asked 15 A. No. It just made the appointment available, if you will.
16 you about was the Public Safety Commission. 16 Q Okay.
17 A. Yes ma'am. 17 A. It authorizes the expenditure.
18 Q Okay. And it appears to me that - - I won't put words in his mouth - - 18 Q Do you know how the Public Safety Commission came about, that
19 that based on what he questioned you, your answer was that by not 19 position? How was it created?
20 funding that position, what do you believe the result is? 20 A. It was a position in the budget already that was converted to that
21 A. Basically that the commissioner is cut out of the budget. 21 purpose in the previous administration.
22 Q Okay. So, do you believe that that is, is a removal of that individual? 22 Q. So the, I, and, and I don't wants put words in your mouth, so you don't
23 A Yes, unless he wants to work for no pay. 23 actually know how it was created do you? Meaning was it created by,
24 Q Okay. So do you also equally believe then that if the Mayor asked the 24 under the Home Rule Charter, or was it created by an Executive order?
25 City Council to fund that position, that amounts to the City Council 25 A. Not really.
26 appointing the Public Safety Commissioner? 26 Q. You don't know, correct?
27 A. No. 27 A. No.
28 Q Okay. So what's the difference? 28 Q. Okay.
29 A The difference basically being the Mayor appoints the position, but by 29 A. Couldn't say for sure.
30 the removal of the budget, all salaries and fringes relating, in effect the 30 Q All right, I think we're getting close. So what what were the . . other
31 position has been removed. 31 than the, the, the on, the ongoing allege, I mean, obligation issue that
32 Q So if the Mayor appoints someone, brand new position, brand new thing 32 we're already addressed that you believe was the problem with the Two
33 he appoints, and he goes to the Council and the Council says, we're not 33 million. What was the other issue, you believe, with the Two million?

57 58

1 A. The, because it's not specific to the line items. Q Okay. And that's true for the Two million dollars as well, correct? He's
2 Q Okay. 2 not required to pay it to anyone, correct?
3 A. Which is to say, I want to clarify that, (interrupted) 3 A. Correct.
4 Q Sure. 4 Q. So, the, the Legislative Branch could've gone in and upped all these
5 A. . . . ah, how much each line item would get. And that would be a 5 numbers enough to get to Two million, Two million, that would've solved
6 determination by a person by person basis, (interrupted) 6 your second problem, and he in fact doesn't have to pay it, correct?
7 Q Okay. 7 A. Correct.
8 A. . . . based on whatever new pay plan there is. 8 Q. So were those the two things, the, the incurring obligation, the line
9 Q Okay. So, what you're saying is, the City Council, you believe, the City 9 items?
Council can't allocate money to a department in general. 10 A. Yes.
it A. Correct. Not without a specific line item purpose 11
12 Q So how, it, let's assume that, that the issue is, as you've raised it, that, 12 BY MS. MELTON: Okay. I think we're almost done, Your Honor.
13 that . . . what is your issue, they allocated the Two million for the 13
14 purposes of the Police Department, correct? 14 And, and I, I just wanta, again, your, your position as the Finance
15 A Right. 15 Director, I wanta get a coupla things clear for the record. You agree
16 Q So, if they would have allocated . . . I see if you look at 138 of the 16 that the City Council can amend the Mayor's budget, correct?
17 budget, ah, I see all these codes to the left, (interrupted) 17 A. Yes.
18 A Yes. 18 Q. Okay. And when we look at, because I'm sure you're, you're very
19 Q . . . so, if they would have allocated pursuant to that, you mentioned 19 familiar with the, with the, the 'Louisiana Local Government Budget
20 earlier, police chief now goes to 'Y', or whatever, (interrupted) 20 Act", correct?
21 A. Exactly, just whatever the appropriate raise is to place it in the 21 A. Yes.
22 individual salary line items. 22 Q And, and you see the term governing authority throughout that, don't
23 Q Okay. So I assume you're saying then, had they done that, that would 23 you?
24 have alleviated your second concern which was that it wasn't actually 24 A. Yes, umm hmm.
25 associated to a line item. 25 Q. And it is your understanding that governing authority for the purposes
26 A. Yes. 26 of what we're talking about is the City Council, correct?
27 Q Okay. And, and let's say if, if, if this police budget says police chief gets 27 A. Yes. That could, (hesitates)
28 Ninety-six thousand dollars, correct? 28
29 A. Right. 29 BY THE COURT: Go ahead.
30 Q Is the Executive BranCh required to pay the police chief Ninety-six 30
31 thousand dollars? 31 A. . . . the governing authority could be the Council in some cases, but in
32 A. Not required to. 32 the administration of the budget, it would be the Administration.
33 Q. Fair enough.

59 60
1 A. Yeah, that . . . depending on what you're doing, yes. 1 A. Not at present, from what I've seen so far.
2 Q That, no . . . and I appreciate making that clarification because that's a 2 Q. And if it did exist, as the Finance Director you would notify the Council,
3 really good point, depends on whether you're exercising a Legislative 3 correctly (sic)?
4 authority or an Executive Branch authority, correct? 4 A. Notify the Council, and probably amend the budget yet again.
5 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay.
6 Q So when it comes to appropriating funds, governing authority in the 6 A. That's the purpose of the five percent rule to fix your budget.
7 "Budget Act" is the City Council, correct? 7 Q. Right. To go to the City Council and say, I gotta fix this.
s A. Right. The Legislative Branch. 8 A. Right. Exactly.
9 Q Okay. Have, have y'all, have you reported to, to any of the Council 9 Q. Okay. So just to be clear, the Mayor's proposed budget, it, it did not
10 members that the general fund's in a deficit? 10 attempt to use all of what you call the savings account, correct?
11 A. In a deficit? 11 A. No.
12 Q Umm hmm. 12 Q. No?
13 A. No. 13 A. No.
14 Q No. It, it .. . do you believe it to be in a deficit? 14 Q. And that's the Twenty-three million, correct?
15 A Last time I looked it was, but the year ain't up. 15 A. Correct.
16 Q Okay. 16 Q. Okay.
17 A. We'll see what happens. 17
Is Q And so what's the five percent rule on deficit? 18 BY MS. MELTON: I think that's all I have.
19 A. The five percent rule applies to your budget; I kinda call it the five 19
20 percent bad news rule, (interrupted) 20 BY THE COURT: Mr. Rozanski?
21 Q That's right. 21
22 A. . . . here's the way it works. If you over estimate your revenues by 5%, 22 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Ah, yes, Your Honor? May I sit?
23 you've violated it, if you under estimate your expenses by 5% you've 23
24 violated it. That's applicable under the local budget act to the general 24 BY THE COURT: Yes.
25 fund and special revenue funds only. 25
26 Q Correct. So has there been any report to the Council of a, a 5% 26 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Okay, thank you.
27 deviation in the general fund? 27
28 A. No. 28 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID JOHNSON, BY MR. ROZANSKI,
29 Q Because you don't believe one exists, right? 29 ON BEHALF OF MR. FOWLER)
30 A. No, (interrupted) 30 Q Mr. Johnson, I'm Richard Rozanski, I'm representing Mr. Fowler in this
31 Q And if that (interrupted) 31 case.
32 A. . . . not at present. 32 A. Yes sir.
33 Q Sorry, go ahead.

61 62

1 Q Ah, so let's just, ah, to be clear, ah, initially the Mayor submitted a 1
2 balanced budget to the City Council, correct? 2 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I think that's all I have. Thank you.
3 A. Yes. 3
4 Q Okay. And the budget that was proposed, ah, that the City Council 4 BY THE COURT: Can I ask a question, 'cause it, it circle . . . it's just for
5 allegedly amended and submitted back to the Mayor was not balanced, 5 me to make sure I'm not making any assumptions. Ahm, the Mayor's
6 is that correct? 6 budget, when you, when you create . . . I'mma assume you did the
7 A. Yes. 7 preparation of the Mayor's budget.
8 Q Okay. And so, in your opinion, ah, does an unbalanced budget violate 8
9 the Charter? 9 BY MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
10 A Yes. 10
11 Q Okay. Ah, and does it violate the, ah, Legislative Budget Act? 11 I BY THE COURT: Did you use numbers from the prior year's budget?
12 A. Potentially. 12
13 Q Okay. Now, you've mentioned, you talked about, ah, in Section 504, ah, 13 BY MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Judge, you, that's how you begin it basically, start
14 that Ms. Melton covered with you that appropriations be duly made. Ah, 14 it with doing, a DILLY, do it like last year, and then look at whatever
15 what is your interpretation of that? 15 changes you need to make for the new year.
16 A. It's a multiple thing. The appropriation has to be for a lawful purpose, a 16
17 public purpose, because there are public funds, (interrupted) 17 BY THE COURT: Ah, and because that's not in front of me, were then
18 Q Okay. 18 any significant changes to the police department fund, or the Mayor'
19 A. . . . and also your sources and uses have to balance. 19 Executive Branch fund between the years twenty (interrupted)
20 Q Okay. And so as we talked about you agree that the budget that was 20
21 returned to the Executive Branch, ah, with expenditures exceeding 21 BY MR. JOHNSON: No, not that I can recall but if you look at the budget
22 projected revenue it was not in compliance or duly made, correct? 22 document, ah, page 138, (interrupted)
23 A. Yes. 23
24 Q Okay. Ahm, also with regard to the budget that was submitted back to 24 BY THE COURT: Uhn huh. I see.
25 you by the Council, ah, there was some discussion about an 25
26 appropriated expense by the Council of One point seven, ah, did they 26 BY MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. You can see the, kinda in the middle of the page,
27 specify the source of funding for that? 27 the column up at the top is the 2020/2021 budget, the original, and
28 A. Yes sir. One point seven was the budget variance we talked about 28 then the final as amended whatever it is. And then the new year, you
29 earlier. 29 can see kind of, it gives you kind of a snapshot of how it compares to
30 Q Okay, okay. And that's what caused, ah, was one of the factors In, ah, 30 the prior year. Only major changes I recall is the, the raise and the
31 that the bal, the budget was not balancing, correct? 31 health care issue.
32 A. Correct, yes sir. 32
33 Q Okay.

63 64
1 BY THE COURT: And then any, ah - - I had a question, my brain just flew 1 Q Now, did the Council say, say we use One point seven million dollars
2 out the window. It just went away, whatever it was, my next thought 2 from the general use fund?
3 was. Go ahead, 'cause it'll probably come back to me. 3 A. From, from the fund balance?
4 4 Q. Yes sir.
5 (RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID JOHNSON, BY MR. DARA 5 A. No sir, they did not.
6 ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND MAYOR HALL) 6 Q. Can you assume as the Finance Director that they meant to use the
7 Q. Mr. Johnson, how many steps are in a, an appropriation? 7 fund balance when they said something different?
8 A. Sony? 8 A. No.
9 Q. How many steps are in appropriation, a balanced appropriation? 9 Q. That's not your job.
10 A. Oh, how many steps are in it? 10 A. No sir.
11 Q. Yes. 11 Q. Can you assume the Council meant to use Three hundred thousand
12 A. Quite a few. You basically begin, like we talked about, with last year's 12 dollars from/the fund balance when they said they were getting it
13 budget. Now you would have the requested, by typically the 13 another way?
14 department, police or any other department, they would request any 14 A. No sir.
15 changes that they would like to do to the budget, typically increases. 15 Q. So the Two million dollars, is it balanced?
16 Q. Okay. I asked you a bad question. On a specific appropriation like the 16 A. No.
17 Two million dollars, what are the steps in that? 17 Q. What does that do to the budget?
18 A. Okay. Basically you have to get it sourced before you can fund it. 18 A. It basically knocks the budget out of balance.
19 Q. All right. As it relates to the Two million dollars that's at issue in this 19 Q. Did you tell the Council that on May 4th before they overrode the veto,
20 case, (interrupted) 20 that the budget wasn't balanced?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. Yes sir, I did.
22 . . . what does the Council identify as the source for the Two million 22 Q. Did they fix it?
23 dollars? 23 A. No.
24 A. The One point seven million dollar budget variance in the Police 24 Q. The Two million dollars that's, ah, been appropriated, right now it's
25 Department 25 sitting in the budget, right?
26 Q All right. Now how does One point seven equal the Two million dollars? 26 A. Yes sir.
27 A. It does not. 27 Q. Where exactly on 138 it's sitting on, in the budget?
28 Q. All right. Where does the Council say the remaining Three hundred 28 A. Oh, I misunderstood you. No sir, it's not in this document at all.
29 thousand would come from? 29 Q. Is there a line item called pay raises and fringes?
30 A. Through some other reductions in expenses. 30 A. No sir.
31 Q. Did those other reductions in expenses occur? 31 Q. It's not there.
32 A. No, they did not pass. 32 A. No.
33 Q. Did the Council create a new line item?

65 66

1 A. Yes, in effect. 1 A. No, what you would have to do, like we said earlier is spread it out
2 They, I'm saying did they say they were creating a new line item for 2 between the chief, the assistant chief, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, and
3 potential pay raises and fringe benefits? 3 so forth.
4 A. They didn't state that per se, no sir. 4
5 Okay. Whether that Two million dollars is spent or not, it's somewhere 5 BY MS. MELTON: No further questions.
6 in the budget, right? It, it's been indicated that's it's in, in the budget? 6
7 A. Correct. That was the intent of the amendment. 7 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I don't have anything further.
8 Q And that throws this thing out of balance? 8
9 A. Yes. 9 BY THE COURT: Now I follow up the rest of my questions, because that
10 10 hit on it. So, when - - 'cause I know this isn't the first time people've
11 BY MR. DARA: No further questions, Your Honor, and Mr. Johnson. 11 talked about raises, whatever, whichever department it is - - what, what
12 12 is traditionally done, is it literally what you just said, go line by line, by
13 BY Ms. MELTON: I, yeah, I just have one. 13 line, or is it, hey, we've got enough money to fund, I use the example
14 14 the 2% raise, how is, how is it done?
15 (RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID JOHNSON, BY MS. 15
16 MELTON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS) 16 BY MR. JOHNSON: Typically, Judge, what would happen is, whatever
17 Mr. Johnson, is it your testimony that you are not, that there was no, 17 triggers the raise, like the 2% for example, that's one way of doing it,
18 you were not made aware at a open meeting or city council meeting 18 but even if it's a altered pay plan or a, for the police, or for fire, or for
19 that, that there was a new line item being created for the purposes of 19 the rest of the employees, typically what you would do is establish the
20 those salaries and raises? 20 plan, whatever it is. And now I would make the comparison of the
21 A. Not specifically, no. 21 current salary of an individual employee and the new salary, based on
22 Q And what does that mean? 22 the plan, arrive at the difference. And then if so happens to coincide
23 A. The Two million dollars was just a designation, it wasn't a line item 23 with the beginning of the new budget, build it into the new budget. If
24 created, and it wasn't spread throughout the line items as we discussed 24 it's during the year, amend the existing budget for it. And yes, you
25 earlier. 25 would do it line item by line item, actually person by person. Like in the
26 Q. So you could you not do a general line item for that department as 26 Police Department, good example, there are four captains, you'd have
27 general funding? 27 four different calculations for the four captains, and then you'd amend
28 A. No. 28 the budget or put it in the new budget accordingly, whichever way
29 Q. You can't? 29 you're doing it.
30 A. No. It's a reservation of sorts; I don't think you can do that. It has to 30
31 be specific to the line item. 31 BY THE COURT: So we'll pick another department, like, ah, during the

32 Q. That's what I'm saying, if you created a line item for use by the Police 32 hurricane - - I know that was an off, weird thing - - but let's say

33 Department of general funding you can't, that can't, you can't do that? 33 suddenly we now need, urn, twenty more garbage trucks, because our

67 68
1 city has now added another subdivision. How, how would that be done 1 BY THE COURT: Is he free to leave us, or do y'all need 'im to stay in the
2 that you're now adding some things? 2 back in case he might be recalled.
3 3
4 BY MR. JOHNSON: Basically the same way. If you're adding the twenty 4 BY MR. DARA: I'm sure he wants to hang with us today.
5 new garbage trucks at the beginning of the fiscal year, you would put it 5
6 into your new budget. You could also do it during the fiscal year by 6 BY THE COURT: Hah, yeah, the little bit I know about Mr. Johnson, uhn
7 amending the existing budget. 7 uhn, he never lingers.
8 8
9 BY THE COURT: So is there, kinda hard my wording, ah, because it's 9 BY MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Judge.
government, and planning, is there a preference for that, ah, long range 10
11 planning? What made me think about the garbage trucks was the 11 BY THE COURT: He dun't stay around for breakfast and fellowship. Did
12 hurricane hit, so is there ways in government budgeting to do short 12 y'all need him to stay though for, for sure in case he possibly might be a
13 term and long term changes? 13 rebuttal? I mean, we can call 'im back . . . if he wants to go back to the
14 14 city, he can back down in fifteen minutes, that's the other thing too.
15 BY MR. JOHNSON: There is typically, it depends on what you're out to do. 15
16 There are, you'll hear the term batted around, capitol budgeting, that's 16 BY MR. DARA: Okay. That'll work.
17 stuff we would do like that would be streets, drainage, very long term 17
18 improvements, those typically you'd budget over a long term period. 18 BY THE COURT: Yeah, if you wanta go back to your office. Is that good
You can even split them between fiscal years because that's their 19 with you, (interrupted)
20 nature. It takes two or three years to build a new street. But on this 20
21 side, it's the operating side of the city if you will, the general fund that 21 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, that's fine.
22 we're talking about, that's on an annual basis year by year. 22
23 23 BY THE COURT: 'cause he can be back.
24 BY THE COURT: Okay. Did that prompt any other questions to circle 24
25 back around? Mr. Rozanski, I think, I had one, looked like you were. 25 BY MS. MELTON: As long as . I mean, yeah, if needs to come back he
26 26 can come back.
27 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I, no, Your Honor, I don't. 27
28 28 BY MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
29 BY THE COURT: Anything else? 29
30 30 BY THE COURT: That's it, thank you. Let's take a quick, a restroom
31 BY MR. DARA: We're good. 31 break, and then we'll come back with y'all's next one. Thanks. Oh
32 32 before we break, break, Home Charter, do y'all wanta introduce that,
33 realized that 'cause it's'got the other A, B and C (interrupted)

69 70

1 1 BY THE COURT: Yeah. So it's in and admitted with no objection. Thank

2 BY MR. DARA: Yeah, that'd be D, I'm fine with it. 2 you. Who we got next?
3 3
4 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah. 4 BY MR. DARA: Your Honor, I'd like to call, ah, councilman Fowler on
5 5 cross.
6 BY THE COURT: . . . for it to officially be in the record? 6
7 7 BY THE COURT: All right. Come on up, Mr. Fowler. If you'll come on
8 BY MS. MELTON: That'd just be D, Your Honor. 8 and have a set, get comfortable.
9 9
10 BY MR. DARA: D for Dara. 10 BY MR. FOWLER: We don't go to church together.
11 11
12 BY THE COURT: All right. And i'mma keep the one that I've got? 12 BY THE COURT: No, we're just, he's my backdoor neighbor, let me say
13 13 that too. Chuck Fowler lives in my neighborhood. We wave at each
14 BY MS. MELTON: Yes ma'am. 14 other when I'm walking the dog, the very dog I just said I'm dying to get
15 is rid of if somebody would like a dog. Got an extra, If you'll go ahead and
16 BY THE COURT: Works for me, Carter, it's actually got a sticker on it. 16 have a seat and I'll go ahead and swear you in. Just 'cause it's closer to
17 Do you have the other two? 17 the microphone. Raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the
18 18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
19 BY REPORTER: I have none of 'em. 19
20 20 BY MR. FOWLER: Yes.
21 BY THE COURT: Here, I'll give 'em all to you. Yeah, it'll end up being 21
22 the city . . . here you go, you can have all of 'em. This is A, B, C, D. 22 BY THE COURT: Thank you. Answer any questions the lawyers may
23 23 have 'cause you've sat in court today, you kinda see what the routine is.
24 (Court in Recess) 24
25 (COURT RESUMES) 25
26 26 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, CHARLES FOWLER, BY MR. DARA ON
27 BY THE COURT: All right, we back on, Carter? And just to clarify at the 27 BEHALF OF CITY & MAYOR HALL)
28 end, we were all talking, just to make sure the record's clear, but there 28 Q. All right. Good morning, Mr. Fowler, my name's Joshua Dara, I represent
29 was the City Charter that, Mr. Dara, y'all offered as Exhibit D? 29 the Mayor and the city of Alexandria. You currently serve as a
30 30 councilman in the city of Alexandria, correct?
31 BY MR. DARA: That's correct, Your Honor. 31 A. Yes, District Five.
32 32 Q. How long have served, served as a councilman?

71 72
1 A. Started some time in the last century. I think, ah, twenty-eight years, I A. Yes.
2 on the twenty-ninth year now. 2 Q. Even in matters of budgeting, huh?
3 Q. Are you the longest tenured council person? 3 A. Absolutely.
4 A. I think so, yes. 4 Q. That's for the benefit of the citizens, isn't it?
5 Q. You've chaired committees on the City Council, correct? 5 A. True.
6 A. Yes. 6 Q. Let's talk about budgets for a little bit. In your umpteen years as a
7 Q. Including finance? 7 Councilperson, you've been involved with several budgets, I'm sure.
8 A. Yes. A. Every year.
9 Q. And you're familiar with the Home Rule Charter? 9 Q. You agree that budgeting for a city requires strict compliance with the
10 A. Yes. 10 law?
11 Q. That's basically like the Alexandria constitution, huh? 11 A. Absolutely.
12 A. Exactly. 12 Q. That's 'cause you're, you're dealing with the public's money, is that
13 Q. Council members are required to abide by the Charter, am I correct? 13 correct?
14 A. Correct. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you agree that a minimal requirement to council members is to 15 Q. So no room for grey areas.
16 understand the Charter? 16 A. No.
17 A. Yes. 17 Q. Let's talk about the budgeting process real quick. You would agree the
18 Q. You've read the Charter, I'm sure? 18 Mayor proposes a budget to the Council?
19 A. Yes. 19 A. Yes. He submits a budget to us, ah, and we then act on it, discuss it,
20 Q You agree the Charter spells out different powers for the Councilpersons 20 can amend it and then act on it.
21 and the Mayor? 21 Q. Now the Mayor can't send the Council an illegal budget, am I correct?
22 A. Yes. 22 A. No.
23 Q. You agree the Charter requires the Mayor to see that all provisions of 23 Q. For example, the budget must be balanced when the Council receives it?
24 the Charter and acts of the Council are faith, faithfully executed? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Yes. I believe that's exactly what it says. 25 Q. And then as you mentioned, the Council's allowed to make amendments
26 Q. That would include if an ordinance passes from the Council, the Mayor 26 to the Mayor's proposed budget, right?
27 has a affirmative obligation to faithfully execute that ordinance? 27 A. True.
28 A. Yes. 28 Q. You understand that those amendments must comply with the law?
29 Q. And then he has a separate duty to make sure the Charter's provisions 29 A. Yes.
30 are followed, is that correct? 30 Q. Laws like the local, ah, the "Local Government Budget Act"?
31 A. Correct. 31 A. Yes.
32 Q. You agree the Charter forces both branches to work together in many 32 Q. And laws like the Home Rule Charter?
33 instances? 33 A. Yes.

73 74

1 Q With all your years on the Council I'm sure you've got experience making I A. Ah, over time, yes.
2 appropriations, am 1 right? 2 Q. Okay. You'd, ah, agree Section Five directly with budget?
3 A Yes sir. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q Making an appropriation is a two-part transaction, correct? 4 Q. All right. And you've looked at 504 before?
5 A Yes. 5 A. Yes. I've looked at the whole budget. I can't remember it by numbers,
6 Q So, for example, you appropriate money on one side, but you gotta 6 ah, (interrupted)
7 match it on the other side, (interrupted) 7 Q Okay. The whole section regarding the budget?
8 A. Correct. 8 A. Right.
9 Q. .. . am I correct? I'm correct? 9 Q. Okay. Will you, would agree that any appropriation made by the Council
10 A. Yes. Either through revenue or a reduction somewhere else. 10 must be duly made?
11 Q Okay. So either you raise the revenue, (interrupted) 11 A. Right.
12 A. Right. 12 Q. You understand an expenditure without a reciprocal funding source is
13 Q. . . . or you reduce expenditures? 13 not an appropriation duly made.
14 A. Correct. 14 A. Right.
15 Q So you can't just appropriate money without identifying how it's gonna 15 Q You agree that a, an appropriation duly made is an appropriation that's
16 get paid. 16 lawful in content, am I correct?
17 A Can't, can't take money outta the air, yeah. It has to come from 17 A. Correct.
18 somewhere. 18 Q And procedure?
19 Q. All right. So you, and you also have to say exactly what the money's 19 A. Yes.
20 gonna be spent on, am I correct? 20 Q The budget rules require that the Mayor certifies the funds that are
21 A. Right. 21 gonna be used?
22 Q For example you just can't say sanitation gets a million, an extra million 22 A. I believe that's the terminology they use. And, and certify on an
23 dollars, am I right? 23 ongoing basis that he believes budgetarily the funds will be there to do
24 A. No, you can't do that. 24 a continuing source.
25 Q You'd have to put it in a specific line item? 25 Q That they're now?
26 A. Yes. 26 A. They're there now and they will continue to be there in the future.
27 Q So, for example, you could say more office supplies (interrupted) 27 Q. That's exactly right. Seems like you've been here before.
28 A Well, I mean, sanitation, if they needed a new pumper truck of some 28 A. Once or twice.
29 type to do something then they, they would request an appropriation 29 Q. All right. Would you agree that the rules on the budget in the Charter
30 for that. You cite a funding source and then add it to a line item in the 30 stop the Council from appropriating money that isn't there?
31 budget. 31 A. Yeah, we can't appropriate money that's not there.
32 Q Okay. Okay. You ever had to review the Charter rules related to the
33 budget?

75 76
 Q Would say that in your time as a councilman, the rules on budgeting 1 Q. Those members took that money and created a new line item for APD
2 force the Mayor and the, the Council to work together on the 2 recruiting, am I correct?
3 dissemination of public funds? 3 A. That's correct.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, at least from the prospective of an up or down increase in
5 Q. And that's good for the public right? 5 expenditures, that's an appropriate, ah, appropriation, am I correct?
6 A. Right. Yes it is. 6 A. From a, yes, from a, ah, accounting standpoint, yes.
7 Q. Let's go to the April 20", 2021 Council meeting real quick. You 7 Q. Correct. Now let's discuss the Two million dollar increase in police
8 attended that meeting, right? 8 officer raises and benefits, real quick. Some of the cou, Council voted
9 A. Yes. 9 to increase police salaries and fringes by Two million dollars, am I
to Q. Everybody was there, all the Council? 10 correct?
11 A. I believe so, yes. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Council, ah, some of the Council members made several amendments to 12 Q Now there's not just a line item for salary and fringes, am I correct?
13 the Mayor's proposed budget? 13 A. No. I think they went over that shortly ago, but no there's not just one
14 A. Correct. 14 item.
15 Q. For example Ms. Perry and Mr. Porter advanced money for drainage 15 Q. Okay. Did the amendment adopted by some of the Council explain
16 projects, correct? 16 which officers received which part of the Two million dollars?
17 A. Right. 17 A. No.
18 Q. And they took that money from the City Hall renovation fund, am 18 Q. Okay. Let's talk about the funding source real quick. The proposed
19 correct? 19 funding source for the Two million dollars was an unspent One point
20 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 seven million dollars due to vacancies, am I correct?
21 Q. Now that's a proper appropriation, am I correct? 21 A. That's correct.
22 A. Right. They just transferred where it was going to. 22 Q. Now the city's legal division warned that the unspent One point seven
23 Q. Okay. So in other words there's an increase in ex, expenditure, and then 23 million dollars would actually lapse at the end of the fiscal year, is that
24 there's a decrease in an expenditure somewhere else? 24 correct?
25 A. Correct. 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. So that balances. 26 Q. The city's legal division actually warned that you can't just drag and
27 A. Yes. 27 drop money from one year to the other, am I correct?
28 Q. That's a yes? 28 A. That's true.
29 A. I did say yes. 29 Q. One point seven million dollars doesn't equal Two million dollars does it?
30 Q. Now at that April 20' meeting the Council members, some of 'em, 30 A. No sir.
31 voted to eliminate salary and benefit funding for the commissioner, for 31 Q. Missing Three hundred thousand.
32 Commissioner Terry, is that correct? 32 A. Correct.
33 A. That's correct.

77 78

1 Q. Now that other Three hundred thousand is supposed to come from a 1 Q. And then the Mayor was gonna take the results of that pay study and
2 reduction in expenditures, am I correct? 2 go negotiate, correct?
3 A. I believe that's what they alleged they were gonna do. 3 A. That's exactly what I would assume he would do.
4 Q. But you can't identify which expenditures to fund the police raises can 4 Q. As far as you know the pay study is still ongoing, am I right?
5 you? 5 A. I, I don't know if it's finished, I know it, it should be finished shortly if it's
6 A. No, no I can't. 6 not finished at this time. I don't know.
7 Q. That's because those cuts never happened, did they? 7 Q. Mr. Fowler, you're on record saying you wants give the police officers
8 A. Not to my knowledge. 8 raises, am I correct?
9 Q. Based on your experience, without a reciprocal funding source for the 9 A. Well, I, I, what I think I said is that when it's negotiated out I will support
10 Two million dollars, is that Two million dollar appropriation duly made? 10 what, what is negotiated with the Mayor and, ah, the police union.
11 A. No. 11 Q. But you understand as the longest tenured councilman that the Council
12 Q. Real quick I wants discuss the union contract negotiation. You know the 12 isn't supposed to interject in the union's negotiations, am I correct?
13 Home Rule Charter recognizes employee unions, am I correct? 13 A. The Mayor's supposed to do all negotiations. The Mayor or his designee
14 A. That is correct. 14 I believe.
15 Q. Most of the APD police officers are part of employee unions, correct? 15 Q. Actually the Charter says that the negotiation role shall be done by the
16 A. Yes. 16 Mayor his designee, is that correct?
17 Q. You know the mayor's currently negotiating with the union, am I 17 A. Yes.
18 correct? 18 Q. And then when the negotiation is done, the Mayor proposes a contract,
19 A. That's correct. 19 am I correct?
20 Q. Negotiating about benefits, pay, incentive, all that stuff. 20 A. Yes.
21 A. Actually I don't know exactly what he's negotiating, it's, it's a broad 21 Q. And then it's at that point the Council approves the contract, am I
22 contract; it covers a lot of things. 22 correct?
23 Q. Sure. 23 A. Right, 'cause I understand that we vote it up or down.
24 A. I think they have working contract, they have a pay contract, and they 24 Q. That's correct. Let's talk about the Public Safety Commissioner position
25 have, it's several moving parts in there that I'm not knowledgeable on. 25 real quick and then I'll let you outta here. Maybe a couple more

26 But he is negotiating, I've been told by the Mayor he's negotiating. 26 questions. You know Commissioner Terry?

27 Q. You actually assume my next question, the Mayor has communicated to 27 A. Yes.

28 you guys he is now negotiating with the union. 28 Q. Is he in this room?

29 A. Ah, he has said that publicly, I believe. 29 A. Yes.

30 Q. In fact the Council voted earlier this year to fund a pay study so the 30 Q. The Mayor appointed Daryl Terry to be the Public Safety Commissioner,

31 Mayor could determine exactly how much money would be needed to 31 am I correct?

32 make salaries competitive, is that correct? 32 A. That is correct.

33 A. That is correct. 33 Q. Are you aware of any disciplinary actions against 'im?

79 80
1 A. None whatsoever. 1 BY MR. DARA: And, and I wasn't really get too much into his
2 2 character, I think I asked one question about his disciplinary, if he knew
3 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, I'mma gonna, we're gonna . . . I, I've let go 3 anything about it, but I should move on per the Judge's wish, wishes.
4 long enough when he said he was calling 'im on cross which frankly he 4
5 can't do. I mean he, he's not a hostile witness, he's led him all over the 5 Q. You understand the Council's not to dictate the removal of any
6 place. That's fine. We are where we are, but (interrupted) 6 employee the Mayor's empowered to appoint under the Charter, am I
7 7 correct?
8 BY MR. DARA: I think he is a hostile wit, witness; (interrupted) 8 A. You are correct.
9 Q. That's in the section called "Council Prohibitions", am correct?
10 BY MS. MELTON: . . . but now we getting into the (interrupted) 10 A. I believe that's the title.
11 11 Q. On April 20"' of this year, some of the Council made amendments to the
12 BY MR. DARA: . . . he's a defendant. 12 Public Safety Commission line items, am I correct?
13 13 A. Correct.
14 BY MS. MELTON: I'mma make my objection, Mr. Dara. 14 Q. Some of those Council members voted to defund the Public Safety
15 15 Commissioner to zero dollars and zero cents, am I correct?
16 BY THE COURT: Yeah, let 'er, let her object, thank you. 16 A. Correct.
17 17 Q. Employees usually don't work for zero dollars and zero cents do they?
18 BY MS. MELTON: And, and then, now, we're gonna get into, ah, some 18 A. No.
19 character testimony about . . . how is any of this relevant at all? We're 19
20 here on a preliminary injunction hearing about whether or not the 20 BY THE COURT: If you can pause just a second, Mr. Dara. Only because
21 Council clearly violated an ordinance. It's just . I'm sure he's a great 21 I see Mr. Johnson has joined us again, do y'all want . . . I'm sorry, yeah,
22 guy, that's not what this is about. 22 we didn't make that clear. It's like so we need to be out of the
23 23 courtroom, is he a potential rebuttal witness?
24 BY THE COURT: Right. 24
25 25 BY MS. MELTON: I, I think so.
26 BY MS. MELTON: So I, I just, I withheld my objections about the leading, 26
27 he's not their hostile wit, witness, but be that as it may, now we're 27 BY THE COURT: Yeah, sorry, Mr. Johnson. We said you could leave, we
28 getting into just completely irrelevant (interrupted) 28 literally meant leave the courthouse, or if you wanta hang out in the
29 29 back. I apologize.
30 BY THE COURT: I, I agree about, ah, Mr. Terry. The issue before me is 30
31 not about his qualities or character or, it's more about what did the 31 BY MR. JOHNSON: All right.
32 Council do or didn't do, or (interrupted) 32
33

81 82

1 BY THE COURT: 'Cause we were a little bit confusing, going well maybe 1. Q. Okay. Did the Finance Director tell you that the budget wasn't balanced
2 not, but, you get to leave us. 2 that night?
3 3 A. He sure did.
4 BY MR. JOHNSON: All righty. See y'all later. 4 Q. And in your experience as a Councilperson, you should know that, or
5 5 would you agree that voting for an imbalanced budget is illegal?
6 BY THE COURT: So, Lisa, if you can find . . . he's going around the back 6 A. That is true.
7 side. If you got your train of thought back where it was. 7 Q. Obviously then there was a vote, am I correct?
8 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Just one last question on the, the defund . . did the Council members Q. Two-thirds majority of the Council voted to override the veto.
10 defund any other position? 10 A. Yes.
it A. No. 11 Q. That's despite all the warnings.
12 Q. Okay. Let's go to April 26th. The Mayor vetoed the entire budget, am 12 A. Right.
13 correct? 13
14 A. Correct. 14 BY MR. DARA: I don't have any other questions for this witness.
15 Q. Mayor submitted a veto message to the Council members. 15
16 A. Yes he did. 16 BY THE COURT: All right, Ms. Mixon. I'm stuck with that, Ms. Mixon.
17 Q. And you agreed with the veto. 17
18 A. Yes I did. 18 BY MS. MELTON: That's all right.
19 Q. You understood the Mayor's veto message to say two of the Council's 19
20 appropriations were not duly made appropriations, am I correct? 20 BY THE COURT: She is, she's a lawyer, she's from Avoyelles Parish.
21 A. Correct. 21
22 Q. Let's go to the May 4t° meeting and we'll finish up here. You attended 22 BY MS. MELTON: Well, I know, I didn't even know who it was.
23 that meeting, am I correct? 23
24 A. Yes. 24 BY THE COURT: She worked at Neblett, Beard and Arceneaux; did Soda
25 Q. Were all the other Council members there? 25 Security. She's a hoot; you need to meet 'er.
26 A. I believe so, yes. 26
27 Q. The veto message was read aloud to the Council, am I correct? 27 BY MR. DARA: Barbara Mixon, I (interrupted)
28 A. Yes. 28
29 Q. The same one that you'd received prior to the meeting. 29 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, yeah (interrupted)
30 A. Yes. 30
31 Q Did anyone from the Administration warn the Council that there wa 31 BY THE COURT: She works at Neblett, Beard and Arceneaux. You can
32 something wrong with the budget? 32 tell that's where I see 'er from. She's a hoot.
33 A. Ah, I believe the city attorney did, yes. 33
 1 , (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, CHARLES FOWLER, BY MS. MELTON 1 A. He specifically did not say it was illegal. He was asked that I believe.
2 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS) 2 Q. I, I think you're right. That's why I asked that. So his recommendation
3 Q. All right, Councilman Fowler, you were asked a couple times about duly 3 to y'all, or his legal advice to y'all was not that that what they were
4 made, what does duly made mean? 4 about to do was illegal, correct?
5 A. Duly, made has to be a legal, ah, way of doing it, duly made. 5 A.' It was improper, I guess is what he was trying to tell us, but I had, ah,
6 Q. Okay. So it's your opinion that, your understanding that duly made 6 done research on it prior to, and I, I was prepared to vote against it at
7 means that it complies with the Home Rule Charter, (interrupted) 7 the time.
8 A. Right. 8 Q. And for what reason?
9 Q. .. . correct? The Louisiana law. 9 A. Eh, just like I said, legal advice that it (interrupted)
10 A. True. 10 Q. The legal advice was that it was ill advised, correct?
11 Q. All right. So during the Council meeting he asked you about some 11 A. Well, not saying specifically it was Mr. Williams.
12 reports or recommendations by, by the city attorney, do you recall that 12 Q. J Okay. So it was different legal advice you got.
13 questioning? By Mr. Dara. 13 A. Well, over time, I've, I've served a long time, and, and my opinion was it
14 A. I, I, he, I think he just said did anyone from the city warn us that we 14 was not proper.
15 were, had some problems with what they were fixing, fixing to do. 15 Q. Okay. So what about it was not proper?
16 Q Okay. And do you recall what the, the city attorney told y'all about this 16 A. , Ma'am, I'm just telling you over time I've built (interrupted)
17 proposed amendment? 17 Q. I'm not, no, I'm not being argumentative, I'm, (interrupted)
18 A. Ah, he gave advice not to vote for it. 18 A. I'm not either. I'm (interrupted)
19 Q. Okay. But, but what was his characterization of . . . did he, did he, did 19 Q. . . . you, you I made a decision, and I assume that decision was based on
-J
20 the city attorney say you can't do this 'cause it's unbalanced? 20 your knowledge (interrupted)
21 A. I don't remember specifically what he said. He said that, ah • and I 21 A. It was based on my knowledge, my experience, and my dealing with the
22 had thought before it was unbalanced and I was prepared to vote 22 things over time. Ah, as far as citing you legislative, ah, things, or legal
23 against it. 23 that's in the Charter or whatever, I can't specifically say, but over time
24 Q. Did the city attorney ever tell y'all that this proposed amendments were 24 I've built a belief that it was not proper, it's not, not legal and our
25 illegal? 25 attorney advised us not to vote for it, and I voted no.
26 A. I don't think he used the term illegal. I think that he gave us advice to 26 Q. Okay. And, and I'm trying to get to you're, you're relying on your
27 vote against it. 27 experience and the time you've spent on the Council. Fair enough. What
28 Q. And I, and, and correct me if I'm wrong (interrupted) 28 you are up here testifying under oath is you didn't think they were duly
29 A. He said legal advice. 29 made. I'm asking for specificity. What about the two amendments that
30 Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, didn't he, the sole thing that Mr. Williams 30 they have sought a preliminary injunction for, the Two million dollars for
31 said was that he thought it was ill advised? 31 the police, and the, the issue with the funding of the commissioner,
32 A. I don't remember that term. 32 (interrupted)
33 Q. Okay. But you don't recall him saying it was illegal. 33 A. Well, (interrupted)

85 86

Q . .. what about those do you believe was not duly made? 1 BY THE COURT: .. . hypothetical.
2 A. Well, one it didn't have the proper amount of money offsetting the, ah, 2
3 the appropriation, and the other I, I felt like it was dealing with, ah, an 3 BY MS. MELTON:. I'm sorry.
4 employee and removing him from office. 4
5 Q. Okay. So did you ever have an understanding or was them any Counsel 5 BY THE COURT: Yeah, I agree with you, it's a hypothetical.
6 members that indicated that the money that was to be used to fund the 6
7 pay raises, at least in part, was gonna be from the general fund? From 7 BY MS. MELTON: I'm just addressing your two concerns. It's a
a what we've called the, the savings account of the city? 8 hypothetical. I can certainly question the witness about a hypothetical.
9 A. I don't think it was ever mentioned. 9
10 Q. Ahm, do you recall there being anything in the hearings, ahm, that 10 BY MR. FOWLER: If you will repeat your question?
11 indicated that the money was gonna be used from, ah, a surplus fund 11
12 and a line item created? 12 Q Sure. So if in fact, based on the concerns you've said, if in fact there
13 A. I don't remember that specifically, no. 13 was a - - with whatever specificity you thought it had to be done - -
14 Q. Okay. So had a recommendation been made that One point seven 14 there was a decision by the Council to take One point seven million and
15 million dollars be used for the general fund, and that there be a line item 15 put it in the budget from the general fund, and put it in the budget as
16 created in the amended budget specifically for police salaries, do you 16 line item towards the Police Department, do you think that would've
17 think that would have been duly made? 17 been duly made?
18 18 A. I think the Council coulda done that, yes.
19 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I just would object, Your Honor, I think that's facts 19 Q. Okay. Now with respect to, ahm, with the commissioner, I, you
20 (interrupted) 20 obviously were present when asked Mr. Johnson about this earlier, so
21 21 you've got a benefit of that. So as I understood your answer, you
22 A. No, I wouldn't (interrupted) 22 believe that was not appropriate because you believe that that has, it, it
23 23 dictates the removal of a Mayor's appointment, correct?
24 BY MR. ROZANSKI: . . . that are not in evidence. 24 A. Right.
25 25 Q. Okay. So you probably heard me ask Mr. Johnson, so does that mean
26 BY MS. MELTON: That's why it's a hypothetical. 26 that when y'all appropriate the funds for a position you've now
27 27 , appointed that person?
28 BY THE COURT: And I, I don't know that we can hear what his answer 28 A. No, it does not.
29 was, but when they're objecting you can't answer, and I don't know 29 Q. So is it, okay, so what's the distinction?
30 what his answer was anyway. So, it's (interrupted) 30 A. The distinction is, is the Council was asked to approve that position
31 31 long, long ago, which we did. Ah, then it was funded and somebody was
32 IBY MS. MELTON: I'm just addressing your (interrupted) 32 appointed to it. Ah, when the last mayor left, the person that was in
33
1 that position left, and the new Mayor, ah, appointed a new person in 1 Ah, would you agree that . . . well, let me ask you this, you, you said,
2 that position, Mr. Terry. 2 you started talking about the police union contract, ahm, do you know
3 Q. So you believe that the Legislative Branch of the city of Alexandria is 3 when negotiations regarding, ah, compensation and salary with the
4 prohibited from moving any funds in that balancing process that 4 union started?
5 amounts to the potential or even the known certain effect that 5 A. I have no idea.
6 eliminates a position at the city. 6 And you don't know if they're ongoing correct?
7 A. I do think that, yes. 7 A. I've been told they're ongoing. I don't know whether they are not. I,
s Q. And you think the law supports that, that that's what the law says. 8 am not privy to, as stated, I'm not privy to those negotiations.
9 That's what the Ordinance (interrupted) 9 Q. Fair enough.
10 A. I can't tell what the law says. You ask me what I thought. 10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Okay. You think the home room char, the Home Rule Charter supports 11 Who told they were ongoing?
12 that? 12 A. Ah, persons from the Administration.
13 A. I think that we remove somebody from their office, yes, I do. 13 Q Would you agree - - and I think, I think this part of what I asked you
14 Q. And you think that the, the Public Safety Commissioner was created, 14 earlier in the hypothetical - - would you agree that the Council can
15 ahm, through the City Council? 15 create an additional line item in a, in a budget?
16 A. It was approved by the City Council. 16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When did, when do you think that happened? 17 Q Okay.
18 A. Ahh, I would say, ah, I believe, ah, maybe, ah, was it Neal Bates, was 18
19 that the correct name, the Chief that, Bates I think was the first one. It 19 BY MS. MELTON: That may be it. Let me just check real quick. You
20 was after he had, was Chief and he, he moved on, ah, was gonna retire, 20 Honor, I have no more questions for Mr. Fowler. Thank you, Mr. Fowler.
21 and they asked him to stay on, stay on as Public Safety Director, the 21
22 Director of Public Safety. 22 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Ah, Your Honor, I'mma reserve my right to recall Mr
23 Q.' And that was under Mayor Roy, correct? 23 Fowler in my case in chief.
24 A. Yes. 24
25 Q. Okay. And so you have an independent recollection that the Public 25 BY THE COURT: Okay. Any follow up questions, Mr. Dam?
26 Safety Commissioner was create, commissioner position was created 26
27 pursuant to the Home Rule Charter? 27 (RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, CHARLES FOWLER, BY MR. DARA
28 A. Yes, it was. It was, it was suggested by the mayor and then it was 28 ON BEHALF OF CITY AND MAYOR HALL)
29 approved by the Council. 29 Q. And the only follow up I, I'd ask is, did the Council create a new line item
30 Q. Is a pay study necessary for the Council as the Legislative Branch to 30 for salary and fringe benefits in this particular situation?
31 appropriate funds? 31 A. I, I actually don't recall exactly. They, they, ah, passed a, I would
32 A. No. 32 assume that they had, but there, there's, there's really not exactly that

89 90

1 in the, in the, ah, budget. It's several different items in there that it 1
2 would have to be spread between. 2 BY MR. DARA: Yeah, absolutely, correct.
3 3
4 BY MR. DARA: All right. Thank you. 4 BY MS. MELTON: . . . under evidentiary rules.
5 5
6 BY MR. FOWLER: Am I through? 6 BY THE COURT: Of the records.
7 7
8 BY THE COURT: Yep. You are. You can sit, sit back down in the 8 BY MS. MELTON: I'm opposed to Mr. Terry's for this reason only. Ahm,
9 audience. Who you wanta call next? 9 a, again, I, I think the issue with that affidavit is a similar issue we've
10 10 been raising all along. Mr. Terry's affidavit is, is really just trying to say
11 BY MR. DARA: Judge, we're actually pretty much done. We're going 11 what the effects are as it relates to what they perceive as the effects
12 to offer just three affidavits I believe I sent to everybody yesterday. 12 of funding this money while negotiations are going on. What's before
13 Ah, affidavit of Mayor Hall that's basically saying he's a citizen here. Do 13 the Court is whether or not what they did violated that provision. So
14 you want me to read these into the record, or just . . . how would you 14 object to the extent that I, I don't think what he's saying is relevant to
15 like me to (interrupted) 15 the Court's consideration. They could've been in day two of
16 16 negotiating, they could've been in day eight hundred of negotiation,
17 BY THE COURT: Not the words, but what are y'all gonna label it is what 17 whether it was legal or it wasn't legal is the only issue before the Court.
18 we'd want. So there's an affidavit of Mayor Hall. 18
19 19 BY THE COURT: The issue . . . go ahead, Mr. Dam.
20 BY MR. DARA: Yes, that's Exhibit E. There's an affidavit from 20
21 Commissioner Terry, who was the Union negotiator prior to his 21 BY MR. DARA: Judge, I was gonna say, I, I think it would go to the
22 defunding, as Exhibit F. And then there is the affidavit of Emily Lacaze; 22 weight. I mean, you would have to review it and determine whether or
23 she works at the City Clerk's Office just certifying the different 23 not it affects the issue or not.
24 documents, the veto message and all that good stuff. 24
25 25 BY THE COURT: I, I'mma allow it with the noted objection, (interrupted)
26 BY THE COURT: Are you opposed to the affidavits or anything, Ms 26
27 Melton or Mr. Rozanski? 27 BY MS. MELTON: Thank you, Your Honor.
28 28
29 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I'm not opposed, Your Honor. 29 BY THE COURT: . . . but, but I'm clear on what the issue is, and, ahm
30 30 and what I said openly, it's not about any character of Mr. Terrell (sic
31 BY MS. MELTON: I, I'm not opposed to Mayor Hall's. I don't . . . I'm not 31 or (interrupted)
32 opposed to Ms. Lacaze's, I assume that was just for purposes of 32
33 establishing custodian of, (interrupted) 33 BY MS. MELTON: Uhn uhn.

91 92
1 1 BY MS. MELTON: Okay. That's my question, Josh, are you, you,
2 BY MR. DARA: And, and for clarity of that (interrupted) 2 (interrupted)
3 3
4 BY THE COURT: For the Court, I'm saying. I don't know for y'all, I don't 4 BY THE COURT: What is (interrupted)
5 have a clue (interrupted) 5
6 6 BY MS. MELTON: . . . putting in the record everything that the affidavit
7 BY MS. MELTON: No, I, no, as to us, no. 7 says is attached to it, I assume, right? Because the only point of the
8 8 affidavit.
9 BY THE COURT: . . . but for the Court, no. Go ahead. 9
10 10 BY MR. DARA: Yeah.
11 BY MR. DARA: For clarity, Your Honor, the affidavit of Mr. Terry 11
12 speaks not, it actually doesn't speak to the 207 issue, (interrupted) 12 BY MS. MELTON: Okay. I'm just making . . . I just didn't see you, all I saw
13 13 was you hand him that.
14 BY THE COURT: Okay. 14
Is 15 BY THE COURT: So, hold on, what are the CD's?
16 BY MR. DARA: . . . it simply about the, the union negotiations. 16
17 17 BY REPORTER: Yeah, this one's got attachments also. I mean, it's not
18 BY THE COURT: Oh, okay. 18 just an affidavit. I mean, I just need to make sure (interrupted)
19 19
20 BY MR. DARA: Right. It has nothing to do with his character. 20 BY MR. DARA: This is an affidavit with the attachment of the veto
21 21 message, (interrupted)
22 BY THE COURT: Sounds good. So Exhibit E, F and G, ah, with the noted 22
23 objections by Ms. Melton . . . and you had no objections, right, Mr. 23 BY MS. MELTON: Whatever it says, I'm fine.
24 Rozanski? 24
25 25 BY THE COURT: Oh, from Lacaze, to make sure what (interrupted)
26 BY MR. ROZANSKI: No objection, Your Honor. 26
27 27 BY MR. DARA: Correct, correct.
28 BY THE COURT: You have no objection, so those are admitted. The 28
29 Mayor's is E, Daryl Terry's is F, and Lacl, Lacaze is G. 29 BY THE COURT: So that's, Exhibit G is gonna include an affidavit from
30 30 Lacaze just certifying what all occurred at the meeting, (interrupted)
31 BY MR. DARA: (Talking to fellow counsel - not distinguishable) 31
32 32 BY MR. DARA: Correct.
33

93 94

1 BY THE COURT: . . . is it multiple meetings that you . . . I see it's two 1 BY MR. DARA: It's, it's only to document that the meetings occurred
2 CD's, that's why I'm asking. 2 (interrupted)
3 3
4 BY MR. DARA: The, the April 20'° meeting and the May 4th, ah, 4 BY THE COURT: 'Cause to say I need to go watch those meetings
5 meeting where the override happened. 5 (interrupted)
6 6
7 BY MS. MELTON: Oh, no, I'm not . . . I just wants, you're calling it G, I 7 BY MR. DARA: .. . and what they actually (interrupted)
8 (interrupted) 8
9 9 BY THE COURT: . . . you know, announcing to the world I did not watch
10 BY THE COURT: We're just trying to clarify it for Carter. It is G, Lacaze 10 the meetings, do I have to watch the meetings. Ahm, 'cause don't they
11 was G. ii last like two hours each?
12 12
13 BY MS. MELTON: E was Mayor, F (interrupted) 13 BY MS. MATTHEWS: Longer if (interrupted)
14 14
15 BY MR. DARA: Daryl Terry. You're okay, that's exactly right. 15 BY THE COURT: Even longer? Or, the purpose of the affidavit is to say
16 16 that the meetings occurred and I've received through testimony what
17 BY THE COURT: I wanta make sure on the CD is the same things that 17 happened at the meetings, (interrupted)
18 the paper is, or is the CD a video . . . I'm trying to figure out what's on 18
19 the CD. 19 BY MR. DARA: That's, that's correct, that's (interrupted)
20 20
21 BY MR. DARA: The, the affidavit says, hey, this attached CD is the 21 BY THE COURT: . . . 'cause, I mean, I don't need to know all the other
22 April 4. meeting, (interrupted) 22 business of the city, of whatever the meetings were about.
23 23
24 BY THE COURT: Oh, okay, so the CD has the actual video of the 24 BY MR. DARA: That's, that's correct, Your Honor.
25 meeting? 25
26 26 BY THE COURT: So I'm trying to . . . y'all can say, I, I'm happy to go
27 BY MR. DARA: That's correct, Your Honor. 27 watch all the videos, but if there's parts of those meetings I don't have
28 28 a thing to do with today's hearing, then I don't wants watch 'em.
29 BY THE COURT: Okay. Now for purposes of me making a ruling today, 29
30 do I need to look at the videos, or is it only to document that the 30 BY MR. DARA: I, I believe the testimony has been clear, Your Honor, as
31 meetings occurred? 31 to what actually happened at the meeting. Ah, that, that's, again, just
32 32 more for record purposes, Ms. Lacaze is simply saying, hey, this is the

95 96
1 video from the meeting. Of course, I would never tell a judge to not 1 just looking at what Ms. Matthews said, some of 'em are more than two
2 look at any evidence. 2 hours long. Anyway, let's hold off on the two CD's, Carter. So G is just
3 3 gonna be her affidavit?
4 BY THE COURT: I mean, it's saying, whether they go up, y'all win or 4
5 lose, what, what are you wantin' the peo, me as the judge, and if it goes 5 BY MR. DARA: Okay.
6 up, do they need to watch two hours of the City Council meeting, or is 6
7 it, are you adding something to the record that's not necessary, that's 7 BY MS. MELTON: I think I still had some more, huh, Josh?
8 what I'm trying to figure out. 8
9 9 BY THE COURT: And the minutes?
10 BY MR. DARA: Well, it, I guess I could be necessary to the extent in
ti someone counter, ah, counteracts the testimony as to what happened it BY MR. DARA: Yeah, the, the other attachments are simply the veto
12 at the meeting. You have two testimonies so far that have been pretty 12 message, I think minutes, and the Ordinance or something to that
13 consistent about (interrupted) 13 effect?
14 14
15 BY THE COURT: So why don't we wait to the end of the testimony to 15 BY THE COURT: It just worried me with the, the full meetings being
16 decide whether you're gonna attach the two CD's of the meetings, if 16 introduced.
17 that makes sense? 17
18 18 BY MS. MATTHEWS: So, ex, exhibits five and six which were attached to
19 BY MR. DARA: That's, that's fine, yeah. 19 Exhibit G, those are being held out?
20 20
21 BY THE COURT: 'Cause once you introduce it, then, then I do feel 21 BY THE COURT: Is that what the CD's were? I, I don't have 'em,
22 obligated to make y'all pause, everybody's looking for answer today, but 22 (interrupted)
23 if you want me to watch two CD's I will, it's just gonna take a few hours, 23
24 ah, that's why I'm kinda getting to the point if everybody's dying for an 24 BY MS. MELTON: Yes, Your Honor.
25 answer today, but I'm happy to go watch videos or part of it. So I think, 25
26 why don't we hold the videos and we could label 'em something else if 26 BY THE COURT: . . . I don't get to touch 'em until I say it's admitted.
27 you, (interrupted) 27
28 28 BY MS. MATTHEWS: Yes, Your Honor.
29 BY MR. DARA: That's fine. 29
30 30 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, number seven is: "I further certify that the video
31 BY THE COURT: . . . if you find it does not come out in test .. . 'cause I 31 attached hereto as exhibit five is a true and accurate copy of the video
32 think both of ya'll might . . . or you could easily, ah, y'all could take 32 of April 20' and number eight is exhibit six is a true and accurate copy
33 parts of the meeting off the video instead of the whole. Cause I was 33 of the video of the May 4.", so yes (interrupted)

97 98

1
2 BY THE COURT: So we're gonna hold back on the videos. 2 BY MS. MELTON: All right. So what I'mma ask the Court to do is give me
3 3 five minutes, we'll take a little short recess and so we can talk and
4 BY MS. MELTON: . . so five and six of Exhibit G are not being offered at 4 figure out what we wanta, who we wants put on the stand.
5 this time. Well, I'm not the Plaintiff, but I mean, it's not being offered 5
6 by them. 6 BY THE COURT: And so I was gonna ask that with whoever the next
7 7 witness, that if y'all need a break we can take a short break. The
8 BY THE COURT: But that's the understanding, right, Mr. Dara? 8 canteen downstairs closes at 1:30, so if anybody did want something to
9 9 eat, just be aware of the time. Yeah, that's all, I mean, I, I had a nice
10 BY MR. DARA: Yes, Your Honor, that's right. 10 break, 'cause Carter didn't, I told him go get a break. So we'll take five
11 ti minutes while y'all can go visit.
12 BY THE COURT: Five and six which are the CD's are being held. 12
13 13 (Court in Recess)
14 BY MR. DARA: That's correct. All right, well with that we would rest, 14 (COURT RESUMES)
15 Your Honor. 15
16 16 BY THE COURT: We're back on. All right, Ms. Melton.
17 BY THE COURT: All right. Looking to whoever wants to go next. 17
18 18 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, just a matter of housekeeping, the Third
19 BY MS. MELTON: Well, I thought Mr. Rozanski was putting on a budget 19 Circuit has gotten . . . just a couple've things.
20 expert, that's why (interrupted) 20
21 21 BY THE COURT: Well that's why Carter's really gonna make it clear.
22 BY THE COURT: Yeah, I thought so too. 22
23 23 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, so, ah, we just wanta be clear that, you know, to
24 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I, ah, (interrupted) 24 what extent we need to offer and introduce our opposition that was
25 25 filed in response to the petition. We wants make sure very clear that
26 BY THE COURT: It's up to you. We can go out of order or in order. 26 that's offered, introduced for the record.
27 27
28 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I would rather wait until the end. It may not b 28 BY THE COURT: Thank you for saying that. I should've ask y'all
29 necessary, Your Honor. 29 beforehand. So all the filings and the objections to the exhibits that
30 30 were attached, for equally all of y'all I should have done at the

31 BY MS. MELTON: Okay. 31 beginning, so I'll start with . . . any objections to those filed by, ah, Ms.
32 32 Melton or Ms. Matthews?
33 BY THE COURT: So we'll go . . . whatever order y'all wanta go. 33

I00
1 BY MR. DARA: No. 1
2 2 BY MS. DAVIDSON: All right
3 BY THE COURT: So all that'll be admitted. So the, that record, before I 3
4 say the entire record let's go individually filings. I don't know if Mr. 4 BY THE COURT: Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
5 Rozanski had exhibits attached to yours (interrupted) 5 the truth, so help you God?
6 6
7 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I did not, Your Honor. 7 BY MS. DAVIDSON: I do, yes.
8
9 BY THE COURT: Okay. But Mr. Dara did. Any objections to his exhibits, 9 BY THE COURT: Thank you.
10 Ms. Melton, other than what we discussed earlier? 10
11 11 BY MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
12 BY MS. MELTON: No, Your Honor. 12
13 13 (DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, CATHERINE DAVIDSON, BY MS.
14 BY THE COURT: All right. So, then the entire record's being introduced, 14 MELTON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS)
15 or is that right words to say, Carter? We get record discussions about 15 Q. Ms. Davidson, what do you understand are the two budgetary issues, if
16 the entire records being introduced or not. It is, being introduced and 16 you will, that the Mayor's seeking to enjoin?
17 accepted. That's a small . . . considering in one week how much you can 17 A. Ahm, the allocation of Two million dollars, that's One point two into
18 put in (interrupted) 18 salaries and Eight hundred thousand into fringe, ah, the Police
19 19 Department, that allocation, funding, of that and, ahm, the Police
20 BY MS. MELTON: That's right, how much could it be. 20 Commissioner's, ah, salary being, ah, being reduced to zero. Notably it
21 21 was a, a Hundred and thirteen thousand one eighty-three that was then
22 BY THE COURT: Ten days, how 'bout that, how much . . . it's gotten 22 line hewed for recruiting. So it was moving of those unnecessary funds
23 thicker than most, how 'bout that. Okay, I'm glad you did that, Ms. 23 for that position into necessary recruiting funds given the current
24 Melton, so yes all that's been admitted. So where are we at now after 24 environment.
25 our break? 25 Q Okay. So, understanding what the two budgetary issues were, ah, were,
26 26 as a member of the City Council were you ever advised by the city
27 BY MS. MELTON: Right, so is it us? 27 attorney that, that these proposed amendments were illegal?
28 28 A. Oh no. We, there was an exchange. I specifically ask 'im, he indicated
29 BY THE COURT: Yep. 29 he was our attorney as well the, the Mayor's attorney and the city's
30 30 attorney, and I specifically ask him, ahm, if what was done, the
31 BY MS. MELTON: All right, we'll call Councilman Davidson to the stand. 31 allocation of money by the City Council, ahm, or the unallocation as it
32 32 were, was illegal, and he specifically didn't answer, but told me that his
33 BY THE COURT: And once you get seated I'll swear you in. 33 opinion was that it's ill advised, meaning he didn't like it.

101 102

1 Q. Okay. That, your interpretation was (interrupted) 1 I A. That's the process.

2 A. My interpretation is that they don't like it. 2 Q. Okay. And so you understood that a line item was being created for
3 Q. That, was that ill advised meant that he did not think it was a good idea. 3 that exact purpose, which you stated on the record, of police salaries
4 A. Right. He specifically did not say that it was illegal and specifically 4 and benefits, correct?
5 asked by me. 5 A. Right. And you, we said a lot about pay raises, there should, there's a
6 Q Okay. Ahm, when the, the budgetary, ah, issue that we have today, 6 salaries section of the budget that lists out the certain positions, and
7 specifically with respect to the, the One point two in salaries and the 7 then there's a fringe benefit section. And so One point million was line
8 Eight hundred in the recruiting for a total of Two million, so we talk 8 itemed and allocated to salaries, and then the match for your pension
9 about Two million we're talking about that together, (interrupted) 9 deficit is in fringe. So the Two million didn't go into salaries, it was One
10 A. Right. 10 point two and Eight million, and Eight hundred thousand.
11 . ah, did you understand, ah, when you moved to have that money, 11 Q, Okay. So it was understanding at the, during the Council meeting that
12 ah, appropriated, to amend the budget to appropriate that money, did 12 there were, there was Two million, ah, available for appropriation, and
13 you understand from the city Finance Director, ah, and discussions you 13 that you moved to appropriate those as line items with respect to the
14 heard in open meetings that those funds were available for 14 police salaries and fringe benefits?
15 appropriation? 15 A. Yes, exactly, ma'am.
16 A. Yes. 16 Q Okay. Ah, did you, were there efforts made by you when you were
17 Okay. And with respect to the funding in relation to the Public Safety 17 looking, ah . . . 'cause I understood from the open meetings that, that
18 Commission, were, did, did anyone during these open meetings, or 18 open of the issues that you've raised is the, the lack of police officers,
19 outside of these open meetings, from the city attorney's office advise 19 correct?
20 you that not appropriating those funds were illegal or would violate the 20 A. Correct.
21 Charter? 21 Q. And so, did you start a process of going line by line by line through the
22 A. No. 22 four hundred page budget to try and, and, and we've talking about tick
23 Did you understand that when you, in these meetings when you moved, 23 and tack, and move money from here and put it over here to achieve,
24 ah, to - - when I say moved, I mean in the, in the Roberts Rule of Order 24 ah, in the neighborhood of the Two million dollars?
25 kind of way - - that when you moved to have the One point two and the 25 A. Yeah, I actually found a little under Three million.
26 Eight hundred, ah, did you understand that the move was to create a 26 Q. Okay.
27 line item in the budget that, that y'all were proposed by the Mayor and 27 A. And so that was completely, I had a meeting with Mr. Johnson, ahm, Ken
26 now amending? 28 Nally, who I believe is the internal auditor, and the Mayor, ah, on the
29 A. Of course. 29 Tuesday before the first finance meeting. And we went through line by
30 Q. And that would be the way that you understand that you would have 30 line, as I moved money, the budget was up on spreadsheet, Mr. Johnson
31 appropriated those funs? 31 would scroll down, I would ask what these particular items were. So it's
32 A. It's exactly . . . right, it's how you do it. 32 called a zero sum budget. So they present, the Administration presents
33 Q, Okay. 33 Sixty-four million, bearing in mind there's Twenty-four million over here

103 104
1 that you can use, and be appropriated, which you just move it. But I Q Okay.
2 was doing a zero sum budget. We did that at both of the finance 2 A. . . .ahm, copies were made for all the councilmen, actually they all had
3 meetings, one took place in March, ahm, I believe it was the 30th and 3 a copy of it.
4 13°' of April, you got it, I mean, that's easily figured out. 4 Q Umm hmm.
5 Yeah. 5 A. So they were fully aware of me going line by line.
6 A. And so I went line by line by line, I found roughly Two point eight million 6 Q Okay. And the reason that you did not continue the line by line process,
7 dollars, ahm, and so I started that process. As we got into, ah, I believe 7 or present the line by line process is because it was your understanding
8 the April 20°' and then the May 4. meeting, I was specifically told, ah, 8 that the One point seven was available.
9 actually Mr. Rubin, ahm, was like you don't need to go line by line, 9 A. Right. Mr. Rubin told me he actually called David Johnson, he returned
10 because we have the money. I called David Johnson, I, I requested that to his call, and that is a exchange in the meeting that's on one of those
11 information over and over and over, and was never responded to by the 11 videos.
12 Administration related to those numbers, and through e-mails. And, ah, 12 Q Okay. And so it was understanding that (interrupted
13 was told, you don't need to go line by line and move a Thousand dollars 13 A. It's there.
14 from this supply money over to this line item, ahm, because there was 14 Q. . . . you could take the One point seven million, which would be from the
15 One point seven million that's left over that wasn't spent from last year. 15 general fund or the surplus depending on (interrupted)
16 Ahm, and I specifically said I need Two million, we'll use the Three 16 A. Where it is.
17 hundred thousand dollars from the surplus or what's not necessarily left 17 Q . . and you were, you were moving that for the purposes of
18 over from last year, but Three hundred thousand out of the Twenty-four 18 appropriating it, correct?
19 million that Mr. Johnson testified to today. Just like where the 19 A Right. And the One point seven number specifically came from David
20 condemnation money came from. 20 Johnson, which is the amount that wasn't used because we're at, at the
21 Q. So, ah, Exhibit C is something they've put in with respect to, ahm, as 21 beginning of the year we were, you know, forty-one officers down, we're
22 Exhibit C that Mr. Johnson, and so, for example it starts talking about, 22 now fifty, ahm, and that money was moved from there. And specifically
23 ahm - - or we can even use Exhibit B - - where they talk about monies 23 the Three hundred thousand to make it Two million comes from the
24 moved from one place to another, and we move it from this line item to 24 Twenty-four million that is fully available for the City Council to
25 this line item so it does a zero sum gain, correct? 25 appropriate.
26 A. Right, that's exactly, yes, exactly. 26 Q And did, what, did, did the city attorney, and I hope I, if I covered
27 Q. And, and these are actually things that you moved for to achieve just 27 apologize, did the city attorney, or, or, or the, or even the Finance
28 that, correct? 28 Director, did anyone advise you that the decision to not fund the Public
29 A. Exactly. 29 Safety Commissioner or those benefits would violate any Home Rule
30 Q. And you were attempting to achieve that with respect to the money 30 Charter or violate the law?
31 you were looking for to fund the pay raises, correct? 31 A. No. We specifically talked about it in a meeting that's also on the video,
32 A. Right. I would just like to say I submitted a line itemed in red budget to 32 that the Mayor presented two secretary positions at a Hundred and fifty
33 David Johnson. I personally hand delivered that (interrupted) 33 thousand dollars each, if, then the reverse would be true where we're

105 106

1 required or where you have to fund those positions that are clearly out 1 BY THE COURT: Yes or no. That's a, he's been this way. So just
2 of line. Ahm, so un, we're not fire, it's a position. I understand there's 2 answer his and she'll follow up if you wanta elaborate.
3 a person in it, there's a position. We felt like the priority was recruiting 3
4 since we are in dire need for police. 4 Q. On May 4°', 2021, did David Johnson advise the Council the budget
5 Q. Umm hmm. 5 wasn't balanced?
6 I A. And so we took money from a position that we didn't prior, prioritize as 6 A. No. Actually David Johnson told me that the money was available,
7 high as a recruiting position, because we're hemorrhaging. 7 which is the opposite.
8 Q. Umm hmm. And it's your understanding as the Legislative Branch, y'all 8 Q. If David Johnson advised you the budget wasn't balanced on May 4°',
9 are the, the governing authority, ah, for the city to appropriate funds, 9 would you have still voted for the budget as amended?
10 correct? 10 A. I would've clarified that there's a Twenty-four million dollar pot of
11 A. We're, that is the job of the legislative branch in any form of, ah 11 money that Two million dollars could be easily appropriated to, which
12 government. 12 then makes your budget balanced.
13 13 Q. So you would've taken another step.
14 BY MS. MELTON: I have no further questions, Your Honor. 14 A. Ah, no I'd already taken the step . . . is you're a hypothetical or you
15 15 asking me a, a real question?
16 BY THE COURT: Who's going next? 16 Q. I'm asking, ah, we're talking about a hypothetical, that you were
17 17 (interrupted)
18 BY MR. DARA: I'll, I'll go ahead, Your Honor. 18 A. Okay. Hypothetically speaking.
19 19 Q. Yes.
20 BY THE COURT: Okay. 20 A. Hypothetically speaking, if a line item had not been created by me
21 21 during the May 4. meeting, I would've created a line item. But I, I did
22 BY MR. DARA: Judge, you don't mind if I sit here, do you? 22 that.
23 23 Q. You said those words, I create a line item?
24 BY THE COURT: I do not. 24 A. I said we have One point seven million dollars, we will put that, I need
25 25 Three million, I need Two million, so I need another Three hundred
26 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, CATHERINE DAVIDSON, BY MR. 26 thousand, and I believe somebody said, where you getting that from,
27 DARA ON BEHALF OF CITY AND MAYOR) 27 said we have a surplus. So of the Two million I specifically went down
28 Q. Ms. Davidson, does a budget have to be balanced? 28 and said One point two million needs to be in salaries, and Eight hundred
29 A. A budget has to be balanced, correct. And may I, may I elaborate on 29 thousand needs to be the pension match. Yes sir, that's exactly what I
30 that, Your Honor? 30 said.

31 31 Q. You didn't say at the April 20°' meeting that the Three hundred

32 BY MR. DARA: I think my question was just a yes or no question. 32 thousand dollars I will get from expenditures somewhere else, you didn't

33 33 say that?

107 108
1 A. I may've said that, but then we moved forward to the May 4. meeting 1 BY MS. MELTON: And, Your Honor, and I'mma, ah, I, I've, I've, again, I've
2 when David Johnson said we have the money. 2 let a lot of leeway, but I'mma ask counsel to stay within what's proper
3 Q At the May 4. - - I just wanta be clear, and I (interrupted) 3 cross-examination. If he wanted to ask Ms. Davidson a litany of
4 A Yes. 4 questions, he shoulda called 'er direct, that's how that works. So stay
5 Q. .. . apologize - - the May 4. meeting David Johnson told you we have 5 within the cross (interrupted)
6 the money? 6
7 A. Yes, correct. He also testified today we have Twenty-four million 7 BY MR. DARA: Judge, did I (interrupted)
8 dollars. The way you balance the budget is, you move it into it. 8
9 Q You don't believe that the Council have (sic) any obligation to say, hey, 9 BY MS. MELTON: . . . and she'll answer the questions.
10 I'm taking it from the general use of fund balance? 10
11 A. Mr. Dara, I, I was at the meetings, I would, I do believe we have an 11 BY MR. DARA: Respectfully, Judge, she crossed Mr. Johnson for about
12 obligation to do that, and I believe that when you have a budget that's 12 forty-five minutes, I'm five minutes in (interrupted)
13 presented, and I've gone line by line, and I found Two point eight million 13
14 dollars, and I'm told by the Finance Director, who also told other council 14 BY MS. MELTON: Because I could cross (remainder not distinguishable)
15 members, we have the money, it's not my assumption, it is at that 15
16 direction that we have the money. 16 BY MR. DARA: Again, I'm five or ten minutes into my cross-
17 Q So that wasn't really my question, my question was, does the Council 17 examination. I'm asking a very simple question.
18 have an obligation to state affirmatively if they're using fund balance? 18
19 A. I believe that the City Council did exactly what it was supposed to do, 19 BY THE COURT: Ahm, I'll direct the witness to answer as best she can,
20 relying on David Johnson's testimony. And that's exactly what I did, 20 because I don't wanta put words in her mouth. So just answer it again,
21 Mr., I don't, we can dance around this. I created a line item at One two 21 how 'bout that, because I've heard some things.
22 million in salaries, and Eight hundred thousand dollars in fringe benefits. 22
23 I'm not sure how much more clear you would've liked me to be, but 23 IBY MR. DARA: Do, do you guys need me to restate my question?
24 that's what it (interrupted) 24
25 Q A yes or no answer is what I'm looking for. 25 BY MS. MELTON: Sure.
26 A My answer is, I created a li, I have an obligation which I fulfilled, One 26
27 point two million in salaries and Eight hundred thousand in fringe. 27 BY THE COURT: It's the counsel's obligation to . . . go ahead.
28 28
29 BY MR. DARA: Judge, I would ask the, that you ask, that you instruct 29 Q. Yeah, sure. Does the Council have an obligation to affirmatively state
30 the, the witness to answer my question which is does the Council have 30 that they're going to use money from the fund balance?
31 any obligation to state affirmatively that they are using the fund 31 A. Well, I, I, which fund balance? Which fund balance are you talking
32 balance. 32 about? Because during those meetings also, I - - and in my e-mails that
33 33 were not responded to - - I mean, you gotta be clear enough, what is

109 110

1 the fund, the fund balance from last year, the Twenty-four million dollars I A. I wrote e-mails starting on (interrupted)
2 that we talk about being a savings account, what isn't reserved is 2
3 what's been called. What, I think the, I think that the City Council has 3 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I'm sorry, Your Honor, (interrupted)
4 an obligation to use funds that are available. And it is my testimony 4
5 that, yes, I have an obligation to use funds that are available, and those 5 A. . . . starting on (interrupted)
6 funds were available. 6
7 Q. You agree the Mayor has a duty to faithfully execute the law, ah, ah, the 7 BY MR. ROZANSKI: .. . it's a yes or no question (interrupted)
8 Charter, excuse me? 8
9 A. The correct interpretation of the Charter, yes. 9 A. You're, you're going into (interrupted)
10 Q. You agree that the Mayor to faithfully execute ordinances passed by the to
11 Council, is that correct? 11 BY MR. ROZANSKI: . of whether she has an obliga (interrupted)
12 A. As, as requisitely and, and correctly interpreted, yes. 12
13 Q I'm almost done here, Ms. Davidson. You would agree that any 13 A. And I would like to (interrupted)
14 appropriation made by the Council must follow legal requirements, 14
15 obviously, right? 15 BY MR. ROZANSKI: . . . she believes she has an obligation (interrupted)
16 A. Of course. 16
17 17 BY THE COURT: No, this is turning into an argument, and, and you're in
18 BY MR. DARA: That's all I've got. 18 the role of a witness and not the attomey, so you have to answer with a
19 19 yes or no.
20 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I have a few follow ups, Your Honor. 20
21 21 A Yes I did, and I made independent . . . I independently verified that.
22 BY THE COURT: Thank you. 22 Q Okay. And the budget that you submitted or the Council overrode is
23 23 not balanced, correct?
24 BY MR. ROZANSKi: If I may be seated, still. 24 A. I, I don't, I don't agree with that.
25 25 Q Okay. That, is that a no?
26 BY THE COURT: Yes. 26 A. Ah, I, I don't agree. I am unsure. I've yet to get . . . now Mr. Johnson is
27 27 saying that. I don't (interrupted)
28 (CROSS-EXAMINTION OF WITNESS, CATHERINE DAVIDSON, BY MR. 28 Q Well, well, wait, you submit (interrupted)
29 ROZANSKI ON BEHALF OF FOWLER) 29 A I don't agree.
30 Q. Ah, Ms. Davidson, you, you used the term obligation a number of times, 30 Q. . . . you submitted a budget or, or (interrupted)
31 and you referenced Mr. Johnson told you this and that, but don't you 31 A. Right.
32 believe as a City Council member that you have the obligation to 32 Q. . . . overrode and voted to, for a budget (interrupted)
33 independently verify that the budget is balanced? 33 A Correct.

111 112
1 Q. . . . that was not balanced, correct? 1
2 A. That is an incorrect characterization. 2 BY MS. MELTON: Thinking.
3 Q. Okay. And why is that? 3
4 A. Because the Two million dollars that is at issue, I specifically put One 4 BY THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
5 point two million into salaries, and I put Eight hundred thousand dollars 5
6 into fringe, just like we put zero in Public Safety Commissioner position 6 BY MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
7 and moved that to a line item that we created called recruiting in the 7
8 exact same amount. So I believe that that was done, so therefore the 8 BY MS. MELTON: That's all I have.
9 budget is balanced. Once the money is moved from the One point 9
10 seven that the chief, the Financial Officer said was there, and the Three 10 BY THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Rozanski?
11 hundred thousand that is in the reserves. So I believe that, yes, once 11
12 you move the money it's budget, it's balanced. 12 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Ah, yes, Your Honor. Ah, I would call Mr. David
13 Q. But did anybody ever tell that, ah, that it was balanced? 13 Crutchfield to the stand.
14 A. When we passed it, we had allocated the money, and the money was 14
15 available, which once you move the money into that budget, 'cause it 15 BY THE COURT: All right. Mr. Crutchfield? If you would raise your right
16 wasn't there in the proposed budget, it becomes balanced. 16 hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the while truth and nothing but
17 Q Did ever, anyone ever confirm to you that the budget was balanced? 17 the truth, so help God?
18 A. No one ever confirmed that it wasn't. 18
19 Q And Mr. Johnson, you were here during his testimony, and he testified 19 BY MR. CRUTCHFIELD: Yes.
20 that the budget was not in balance, correct? 20
21 A. Today he said that, yes. 21 BY THE COURT: Thank you.
22 Q. Okay. So for the Mayor to pass a balanced, an unbalanced budget, you 22
23 would agree would be an illegal act, correct? 23 (DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MR
24 A. Ahm, I, I mean, I would assume so, yes. If that happened, if it happened. 24 ROZANSKI ON BEHALF OF FOWLER)
25 25 Q. Would you please state your name for me?
26 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Okay. That's I have, Your Honor. 26 A. David Crutchfield.
27 27 Q. Ah, Mr. Crutchfield, and ah, you're a citizen of Alexandria, correct?
28 BY THE COURT: Any follow up? 28 A. I live outside the city limits.
29 29 Okay.
30 BY MS. MELTON: Uhn uhn. No. 30 A. Right outside.
31 31 Ah, what's your residence address?
32 BY THE COURT: Is that uhn uhn? I was looking down, and I was like 32 A. Seven one one seven Bayou Rapides Road.
33 don't know if she shook her head or not.

113 114

1 Q Okay. Ah, Mr. Crutchfield, ah, tell me briefly a little bit about your 1 Q. Okay. Ah, have you ever, ah, testified as, you've testified as an expert
2 education. 2 before correct?
3 A. Ah, a Bachelor's in Business Administration and Accounting, ah, from 3 A. That's correct.
4 Northeast Louisiana University. Ahm, I'm a CPA, passed the CPA exam 4
5 in 1992. 5 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Okay. I would offer, ah, Mr. Crutchfield as an expert in
6 Q And you're also, it's my understanding you have some other 6 Certified Public Accounting as well as, ah, municipal accounting and
7 certifications, correct? 7 budgeting.
8 A. Ah, I'm a Certified Government Finance Officer. 8
9 Q What does that mean? 9 BY THE COURT: Objections, Mr. Dare?
10 A. Ah, it's a, it's a certification iss, issued by the, ah, Louisiana Government 10
11 Finance Officer's Association, ah, after completion of some tests. 11 BY MR. DARA: No objection.
12 Q Okay. Ahm, and that's a certi, Mr. Johnson is also that, correct? 12
13 A Yes, that's correct. 13 BY THE COURT: Or any questions of 'im, I was gonna say, or
14 Q Okay. Ah, and how many years did you, ah, practice with the certified 14 (interrupted)
15 government, as a Certified Government Officer? 15
16 A. Ah, I got that certification in 2008, I think, so twelve years. 16 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah, I got, ahm, (trails off)
17 Q And why did you get that certification? 17
18 A Ah, after being, ah, employed by the city of Alexandria I completed the 18 BY THE COURT: Thank you.
19 requisites to, ah, (interrupted) 19
20 Q Okay. 20 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MS.
21 A. . . . get the certification. 21 MELTON AS TO QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT)
22 Q. Ahm, and you, and you said you're a Certified Public Accountant, 22 Q. All right, Mr. Crutchfield, what's the certification that, that has to do
23 correct? 23 with the government accounting?
24 A. That's correct. 24 A. Certified Government Finance Officer.
25 Q I mean, how many years did you serve, ah, in the administration as a 25 Q. Okay. And what do you do to achieve that, to get that certification?
26 Certified, ah, Government Finance Officer? 26 A. Ah, there's some tests that administered by the Louisiana Government
27 A Ah, from 2008, went, I went to work for the city in 2004, ah, received 27 Finance Officers Association. Which are required to be passed.
28 the certification a couple years later and worked there, ah, except for 28 Q. Okay. Do you take classes, or is it just that test?
29 2010 and '11, I worked there until last year. 29 A. No, there are classes, and there're thirty hours per year of required
30 Q. Okay. Air, just estimating how many, ah, city budgets have you been 30 continuing education.
31 involved in, ah, approving or directing? 31 Q. That you take, you just have to take to keep that certification.
32 A. Ah, fourteen I would say. 32 A. That's correct.
33 Q. Okay.

115 116
1 1 A. Ah, no, it's my understanding that the amendments that were added to
2 BY MS. MELTON: That's it. That's all I got. 2 the Mayor's submitted budget by the Council, ah, included more
3 3 expenses than revenues.
4 BY THE COURT: So you, no objections then to, (interrupted) 4
5 5 BY MS. MELTON: Your Honor, I, I gotta lodge an objection. This record's
6 BY MS. MELTON: No objection. 6 gonna have to be super clear. Mr. Crutchfield's not at these meetings.
7 7 I, I don't know what was provided to him for him to come to a
8 BY THE COURT: . . . to the cert, him being declared an expert in 8 conclusion. He, he can't wear the cape of an expert and, and they don't
9 Certified Government Finance Officer, as well as him also being 9 lay any foundation to explain how he's reaching his opinions.
10 recognized as a Certified Public Accountant, correct? Am I getting 10
11 those expertise correct? 11 BY THE COURT: I agree.
12 12
13 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Ah, yes, Your Honor. 13 BY MS. MELTON: That's (interrupted)
14 14
15 BY THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 15 BY THE COURT: I agree.
16 16
17 (DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MR. 17 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Well, I think, Your Honor, we, I asked 'im if he reviewed
18 ROZANSKI ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT MR. FOWLER) 18 the, ah, the current budget that was submitted by the Mayor, ah, and
19 Ah, Mr. Crutchfield, ah, what did you review in preparation for your 19 then the budget that was proposed, ah, by the City Council, ah, back to
20 testimony today? 20 the Mayor.
21 A. I, I looked at the, the proposed budget that the Mayor submitted to the 21
22 Council, and ah, the proposed amendments to that by the Council. 22 BY THE COURT: Which entailed what, I think that's the question.
23 Okay. And as reviewing that budget . . . ah, let's break it up. The 23
24 budget that you reviewed that Mayor Hall submitted, ah, was that 24 BY MS. MELTON: That's, that's the (interrupted)
25 budget in balance? 25
26 A. Yes. 26 BY THE COURT: What, what exactly did he review.
27 Okay. Ah, and that's a requirement, is that correct, under your 27
28 understanding under the Charter and the legislative act? 28 BY MS. MELTON: What is it he's relying on?
29 A. Yes. 29
30 Q Okay. Now, had the budget that was submitted by the City Council 30 BY MS. MATTHEWS: The Mayor's proposal is Exhibit A, what is this second
31 back to the Mayor, was it In balance? 31 document that he's referring to?
32
33 Q. Can you testi (interrupted)

117 118

1 A. I did watch some of the Council meetings. Not, I did not watch the 1
2 entirety of all of the Council meetings. And I've re, I've seen the 2 Q And after reviewing Exhibits A, B and C, ah, with the proposal of, ah, of
3 document, ah, that's one of the exhibits today that, ah, as I understand 3 the balances submitted, ah, this budget is not In balance, correct?
4 it reflects the, ah, proposed changes made by the Council. 4 A. That's correct.
5 5 And what is your understanding of the position that the Mayor's in with
6 BY THE COURT: I have a note that he kinda pointed toward, we do have 6 regard to what his requirements are with regard to a balanced budget?
7 a, (interrupted) 7 A. Ah, well, the Mayor and the Administration are tasked with, ah,
8 8 administering the budget, collecting the revenue and expending the
9 BY MR. ROZANSKI: And that would be exhibit (interrupted) 9 funds, and in the case of the budget that it appears we have, there are
10 10 more expenditures listed than sources of funds coming in, so, ah, I,
11 BY THE COURT: . . demonstrative, ah, piece in, in the room, so we 11 think it would be very difficult to administer that.
12 need to be clear, is he talking about the - - which we do have the pieces 12 And what is your understanding, there's been some reference and
13 of paper - - what did he see, Exhibit B or C (interrupted) 13 you've been in the courtroom, ah, with regard to Section 504 of the
14 14 Charter and ah, with regard to what it means to say duly made?
15 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Ah, that would be exhib, is he referring to Exhibit B and 15 A. Well, as, as from what I, I've listened to and understand that to mean is
16 C, is that correct? 16 that it would be appropriately made. Ah, and a, a budgetary
17 17 appropriation should include a use, a use and a source of revenue, ah, a
18 BY CRUTCHFIELD: Yes, ah, (interrupted) 18 revenue and a expense. And they should be balanced. In fact, ah, the
19 19 Local Government Budget Act requires that they be balanced,
20 BY THE COURT: This is B that you're looking at in the room. 20 expenditures cannot exceed revenues, which what we have here.
21 21
22 BY CRUTCHFIELD: I saw Exhibit B; I'm not sure what C is. 22 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Okay. I think that's all I have, Your Honor.
23 23
24 BY THE COURT: We can show 'em to you just to see if that's what he's 24 BY THE COURT: Who wants to go next? Mr. Dara or Ms. Melton?
25 looked at. Carter, if you don't mind passing 'em to 'im. We got B and 25
26 C and the budget, so we might as well give all three to 'im. So it's be A, 26 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MS.
27 B and C, to make sure he's looking at the same things that I've looked 27 MELTON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS)
28 at. 28 Q. Mr. Crutchfield, when you were at the city, who was your, ah, who was
29 29 the Mayor?
30 BY CRUTCHFIELD: That's correct. I, I, these Exhibits A, B and C, ah, I have 30 A. Ah, Ned Randolph and Jacque Roy and Mayor Hall.
31 seen and reviewed. 31 Q. And so the Plaintiff in the suit is who were the City Finance Director for
32 32 correct?
33 BY THE COURT: Okay, thanks. 33 A. For one year, yes.

119 120
1 1 Q And, when monies are appropri . . . would you agree that, that the
2 Q. And after reviewing Exhibits A, B and C, ah, with the proposal of, ah, of 2 Council is the Legislative portion of the city of Alexandria's
3 the balances submitted, ah, this budget is not in balance, correct? 3 government?
4 A. That's correct. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what is your understanding of the position that the Mayor's in with 5 Q And would agree that the City Council is the governing authority for the
6 regard to what his requirements are with regard to a balanced budget? 6 purposes of appropriating funds?
7 A. Ah, well, the Mayor and the Administration are tasked with, ah, 7 A. Yes.
8 administering the budget, collecting the revenue and expending the 8 Q Okay. And would you agree that funds that are in a, a, you heard
9 funds, and in the case of the budget that it appears we have, there are 9 earlier, kinda called a savings account is the way that Mr. Johnson
to more expenditures listed than sources of funds coming in, so, ah, I, I 10 referenced it, so we'll borrow his verbiage, ah, would agree that the
11 think it would be very difficult to administer that. 11 Council can appropriate funds that are located in that savings account?
12 Q. And what is your understanding, there's been some reference and 12 A. Yes.
13 you've been in the courtroom, ah, with regard to Section 504 of the 13 Q Ah, would you agree that when an appropriation's made, ah, it, it does
14 Charter and ah, with regard to what it means to say duly made? 14 not create an obligation for the Mayor or the Executive Branch to
15 A. Well, as, as from what I, I've listened to and understand that to mean is 15 expend those funds, to spend that money?
16 that it would be appropriately made. Ah, and a, a budgetary 16 A. Yes.
17 appropriation should include a use, a use and a source of revenue, ah, a 17 Q Do you agree that the Council can create line items in the amended
18 revenue and a expense. And they should be balanced. In fact, ah, the 18 budget process?
19 Local Government Budget Act requires that they be balanced, 19 A. Yes.
20 expenditures cannot exceed revenues, which what we have here. 20 Q Okay. Ahm, do you agree based on your time, ah, with the Mayor's
21 21 office - - and, and I know it's multiple mayors, I'm not trying to insinuate
22 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Okay. I think that's all I have, Your Honor. 22 it was all Mayor Hall. I understand you were only with him for a year. Is
23 23 it, ahm, is it your understanding that there are obligations by the
24 BY THE COURT: Who wants to go next? Mr. Dara or Ms. Melton? 24 Executive Branch to give the Legislative Branch, ah, financial data, you
25 25 know, the, the financial condition of the city.
26 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MS. 26 A. Yes.
27 MELTON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS) 27 Q Okay. And that's actually a requirement under the Budgetary Act,
28 Q. Mr. Crutchfield, when you were at the city, who was your, ah, who was 28 correct?
29 the Mayor? 29 A. I think it's a requirement in the Charter.
30 A. Ah, Ned Randolph and Jacque Roy and Mayor Hall. 30 Q In both places, is that fair?
31 Q. And so the Plaintiff in the suit is who were the City Finance Director for 31 A. Ah, I'm not sure about the, (interrupted)
32 correct? 32 Q That's fair.
33 A. For one year, yes. 33 A. . .. the Government Budget Act.

120 121

1 Q. But you think that's in the Home Rule Charter, he's gotta advise the, the
2 Legislative Branch about the financial condition of the city. 2 BY MS. MELTON: Well, let me do one follow up (interrupted)
3 A. Yes. 3
4 Q. And during your tenure if a council member made a request to you for 4 BY THE COURT: I've got, let me, let me (interrupted)
5 certain, ah, specific information regarding the finances of the city, did 5
6 you feel obligated to provide that information? 6 BY MS. MELTON: Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.
7 A. Yes. Ah, those requests usually didn't come directly to me, but. 7
8 Q, Okay. Fair enough. So who, during tenure who were they usually made 8 BY THE COURT: 'Cause then there may cause some others.
9 to? 9
10 A. City attorney or the Mayor's office. 10 BY MS. MELTON: That's right, that's right.
11 Q. Okay. And they filter their way to you. 11
12 A. Sure. 12 BY THE COURT: Let me go ahead and ask that. Ahm, so in you
13 Q. Okay. And then, like, like, but just my question is, you feel like under 13 experience, 'cause you're my expert here now so it's broader, ah, what
14 the Home Rule Charter you had an obligation to provide that 14 . . has it ever occurred to have an unbalanced budget before, in you
15 information? 15 fourteen years?
16 A. There're specific reporting requirements in the Charter. 16
17 Q. Okay. And would that include providing information from the Council 17 BY CRUTCHFIELD: No.
18 member such as how much money is in the surplus or the savings 18
19 account as Mr. Johnson (interrupted) 19 BY THE COURT: So when it got to the point of, ah, that it appeared to
20 A. Yes. Yes. It would. 20 be unbalanced, what would be the step to take? If there was
21 21 conversations that would've been had, shoulda been had?
22 BY MS. MELTON: That's all I got. 22
23 23 BY CRUTCHFIELD: It appears in this case a revenue source or a reduction
24 (CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MR. DARA 24 of expenditures - - I think that's been mentioned a few times today - -
25 ON BEHALF OF CITY AND MAYOR HALL) 25 shoulda been identified, ah, in the proposed amendment to balance it.

26 Q. Just real quick, ah, Mr. Crutchfield. Just wanta point out some (word 26 Ah, either through discussions with the Administration to figure out how

27 not distinguishable)information. That budget as adopted by the Council 27 to do that, or through just the Council making the statement of, of the
28 is not budgeted, is not balanced, is that correct? 28 source to be used.

29 A. That is correct. 29

30 Q. Can the city operate under an imbalanced budget? 30 BY THE COURT: Can't, where (interrupted)

31 A. I, I don't see how, no. 31

32 32 BY CRUTCHFIELD: But I don't think an assumption would be appropriate.

33 BY MR. DARA: That's it, Your Honor. 33

122 123
1 BY THE COURT: Good. So where, where would that be typically be 1 BY THE COURT: All right, thank you. So, (interrupted)
2 done? Is that in finance, separate finance meeting? In your, in your 2
3 years of experience of drafting budgets, because I feel certain there's 3 BY MS. MELTON: Me?
4 been more than one time where you short one place, the tick/tack, I've 4
5 learned a new, the tick/tack occurs. Is that in a finance committee, or 5 BY THE COURT: Umm hmm.
6 is that as a full council meeting? 6
7 7 (RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MS.
8 BY CRUTCHFIELD: I would say in a finance committee meeting where 8 MELTON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS)
9 those more casual discussions would take place, if there was a, a 9 Q. Mr. Dara ask you about, again, the, the City Council's amended budget.
10 proposal, ah, for a, an additional expenditure by a council person, ah, 10 So I, I just want the record to be clear, the only things you have seen is
11 which is a regular occurrence, there would be a discussion about how to 11 the Mayor's proposed budget, correct? I, I'm not (interrupted)
12 fund that, specifically how to fund it, because it's very specific and 12 A. Oh, you're not asking, not the only thing I've seen.
13 technical, as to where the rev, where the, the funding source is gonna 13 Q. No, no, I know, so we're gonna, we're gonna name 'em (interrupted)
14 come from or where the other expenditure would be reduced to keep it 14
15 in balance. 15 BY THE COURT: She'll list 'em.
16 16
17 BY THE COURT: So is it the role of the, ah, city's Finance Director to 17 Q. . . . and I'mma let you go.
18 give that solution, or is that one where it goes between the 18 A. Okay.
19 Administration and the Legislative Branch? 19 Q. I'll, I'll rephrase it, fair enough, Mr. Crutchfield. It's my understanding
20 20 you have seen: 1) The Mayor's proposed budget that's been offered as
21 BY CRUTCHFIELD: I, I would guess ideally it would be a, a combination of 21 Exhibit A?
22 them working together. Ah, but a proposal could be made, I think in this 22 A. Yes.
23 case, there was a proposal made, take this money from here and put it 23 Which is in that binder.
Q.
24 over there. That was specific by the proposing Councilperson, where to, 24 A. Yes.
25 what expense to reduce, what expense to increase so that it remained 25 IQ. Second would be what was offered as B and C, which are, ah,
26 balanced. But some of the offered, ah, changes did not include the 26 documents that we've been told today were created by Mr. Johnson
27 offset. 27 with respect to specific allocations and funding, (interrupted)
28 28 A. Yes.
29 BY THE COURT: Okay. 29 . . . correct? Okay. What else did you look at?
30 30 A. Ah, did the Council prepare something that I should've seen? That was
31 BY CRUTCHFIELD: But typically that would be worked out I think through 31 balanced, 'cause I haven't seen that.
32 communication. 32 I'm asking you whether you looked . . . I'm not testifying.
33 33 A. Oh, I thought maybe you had something.

124 125

1 Q. What did you look at? I'm asking you did you, what else did you look at 1 Q. Do you remember what Mr. Johnson called it?
2 other than those three? 2 A. No.
3 A. As far as I know that's all that exists. 3
4 Q. Okay. Did, you were not provided, ah, a budget, a Mayor's budget that 4 BY MS. MELTON: That's all I got.
5 had handwritten amendments by the Council, any Council member on it? 5
6 A. No. 6 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I don't have anything further, Your Honor.
7 Q Were you made aware of that existing? 7
8 A. No. 8 BY MR. DARA: Just, just two points of clarity, Your Honor, just
9 Q. Okay. So those three things are all that you, that you've reviewed. 9 because Ms. Melton does bring up a good point.
10 A. That's correct. 10
11 Q. And you said you saw some of the Council meetings, not all of the 11 (RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MR.
12 (interrupted) 12 DARA ON BEHALF OF CITY AND MAYOR HALL)
13 A Correct. 13 Q. Based on what you've reviewed, is the city, does the city have a
14 Q. . .. Council meetings 14 balanced budget?
15 A. Correct. That's correct. 15 A. No.
16 Q. And so you can't say definitely that there was not request by a Council 16 Okay. Now, kind of in line with what the Judge was asking, how at this
17 member to take funds that were in the surplus of the savings account 17 point could we fix it, because we are where we are.
18 for the purposes of specific line item appropriations. 18 A. It needs, it just needs a funding source. Either the . . . I think two
19 A. I've not seen any evidence of that. 19 things, and they were both mentioned today. Ah, it would be better if
20 Q Okay. Meaning you haven't seen it in the three things you were 20 the Two million dollars was broken down into the pay line items and the
21 provided. 21 fringe benefit line items, not just a lump sum. But that, if that's a new
22 A. Or the Council meeting portions that I watched. Which were significant, 22 line item that's created, that's probably okay, and the, the listing,
23 but not in, totally inclusive. 23 naming of a funding source for those, ah, funds.

24 Q Okay. Did, in, in the portions that you listened to did you hear anything 24 Q. And what would be the process for that?

25 that you understood the Council members were representing as 25 A. I would expect that would be a Council budget amendment. Well, a
26 funding source for the Two million? 26 different bud, a new budget, but a coun, Council action to, ah, pass a

27 A. Ah, the only thing I heard was the mention of the budget variance as a 27 budget with those changes.
28 funding source, which it's not. 28 Q So for clarity, to fix this we need to pass a new budget that balances

29 Q Will you agree that it wasn't called a budget variance in that meeting? 29 this thing out?

30 A. It was called unspent funds, what, but, that's not a funding source 30 A. Right. The, the budget that you have with a few more lines for, ah,

31 either. 31 funding sources and Council action.

32 Q Okay. And who called it unspent funds? 32

33 A Ah, I'm not sure. I believe it was councilman Davidson, though. 33 IBY MR. DARA: No further questions, Your Honor.

126 127
1 1 even say it that lightly, made efforts to use general fund balance for the
2 (RE-RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS, DAVID CRUTCHFIELD, BY MS. 2 purposes of funding the One point seven million?
3 MELTON ON BEHALF OF DEENDANTS) 3 A. I came in after Ms. Davidson had started her testimony, (interrupted)
4 Q. You know, because he ask you that, Mr. Crutchfield, and you were there 4 Q. Okay.
5 for, I understand, for, for a long time, do you, do you understand 5 A. . . . she may've said that before I got here, (interrupted)
6 whether there is or isn't a budget in place right now as we sit here? 6 Q Okay, that (interrupted)
7 A. As, as, I, I would agree with Mr. Johnson's assessment earlier that, ah, 7 A. . . . I'm sorry.
8 the current budget is not in proper form, or the, the budget that was, 8 Q Fair enough. No, that's fair enough. So I guess my question I'm trying
9 ah, adopted by the Council is not in proper form, it's not balanced, can't 9 to get clarity as to is, is, is he saying, whoa, you're saying there's,
10 administer it, so you would revert to the Local Government Budget Act 10 there's an unbalanced budget, and so, I'm get the impression that
11 fifty percent of the prior approved budget. 11 you're saying then under the law that that budget is not the adopted
12 Q. Okay, so what is your basis, considering your tenure in that position, 12 budget.
13 what is the basis that you would recommend to the Mayor, I don't think 13 A. The Local Government Budget Act requires the budget, the
14 we have an adopted budget? What would be, what would be the basis 14 expenditures to not exceed revenues. If, if they do, then it dun't
15 of that recommendation to tell the Mayor, I don't think we have an 15 comply with the law. The Charter requires that, ah, expenditures do not
16 adopted budget under the law? 16 exceed revenues. So if they do, it, it's not a lawful budget,
17 A. Well the budget's not, the revenues don't equal the expenditures. The, 17 (interrupted)
18 the expenditures exceed the revenues. At some point on that budget 18 Q Okay, now (interrupted)
19 you're gonna run out of revenue and be spending money you don't have 19 A. . . . it's not duly passed.
20 'cause there's Sixty-eight million dollars in expenditures and only Sixty- 20 Q Okay. And I'm, all I'm asking, Mr. Crutchfield, is that, that you're saying
21 six million in revenues listed in, in that document. So I, at some point 21 that its appropriate for the Executive Branch to make a determination
22 (interrupted) 22 that they believe a budget is not in accordance with law and therefore it
23 Q. In which document? You keep pointing to a document, which 23 is not the budget, it is not the duly adopted budget.
24 document? 24 A I don't see how it's possible to administer a budget that's not balanced.
25 A. Exhibit B. 25 Now whether it, that's, I don't, I can't make that legal interpretation
26 Q. Okay. We just gotta be clear for the record, Mr. Crutchfield. 26 that you're telling me (interrupted)
27 A. I'm sorry, Exhibit B. Ah, which as I understand it, I haven't heard 27 Q Okay, that's (interrupted)
28 anybody say that's not what, what's passed. So I assume that's what 28 A. . . . of whose job it is.
29 passed. It dun't, it just dun't work, so it needs . . . it's not proper 29 Q Got it. That's what I want to know. Thank you.
30 accounting, it's not proper budgeting. 30
31 Q. So you haven't heard anything today testimony that, that, that the 31 BY THE COURT: Did that bring out any questions, Mr. Rozanski, 'cause
32 Council's, the, the Legislative Branch at least made efforts, let's just 32 earlier you may not have had any, but you might have some now.
33

128 129

1 BY MR. ROZANSKI: No, no, Your Honor. away, it take us a few minutes. And I'mma at least, if you wants tell Mr.
2 2 Johnson he's free to leave us . . . oh, there was the other officer, is he
3 BY THE COURT: Mr. Dara? 3 free to leave us? Are y'all gonna call him? I forgot about that.
4 4
5 BY MR. DARA: No, Your Honor. 5 BY MS. MELTON: They released him, yeah.
6 6
7 BY THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Crutchfield. And he is free to 7 BY THE COURT: Oh, okay. He's already back there. Let me visit with
8 leave us. 8 y'all in the back, come on.
9 9
10 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Yes, Your Honor. 10 (Court in Recess)
11 11 (COURT RESUMES)
12 BY THE COURT: That's what he'll want to know. 12
13 13 BY THE COURT: Just to make sure, ahm, 'cause I know I said I just
14 BY CRUTCHFIELD: Somebody need these exhibits back? 14 wanted to visit with all the lawyers, but everybody now rests, right, we
15 15 excused the witnesses. Just to make the record really clear with all
16 BY THE COURT: Yes. Carter gets them right there, thank you. And he, 16 that.
17 he's allowed to leave us. What else y'all wanta do? 17
18 18 BY MS. MELTON: Yes, Your Honor.
19 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I don't have any other witnesses, Your Honor. 19
20 20 BY MR. DARA: Yes, Your Honor.
21 BY MR. DARA: Neither do I, Your Honor. 21
22 22 BY THE COURT: So, I asked y'all to break with me, and part of that
23 BY THE COURT: Were you gonna call anybody back? 23 discussion was to figure out do I need to watch the entire video or not
24 24 watch the video, so I think we now need to introduce the video, 'cause
25 BY MS. MELTON: No, Your Honor. 25 y'all have told me some things about the video, and ah, kinds given me
26 26 directions, thank you. LB., she even told me the minutes to look at. So
27 BY THE COURT: I didn't know if y'all were gonna call Mr. Johnson back 27 if any, any of y'all have a particular minute, y'all could e-mail Christy and
28 or anything like that. 28 say, oh yeah, be sure and look, but I, I'mma look at the videos. And,
29 29 ahm, I would love, I know everybody's waiting to hear with this, so I
30 BY MR. DARA: No, Your Honor. 30 would love for us to set a date that I can rule from the bench on this.

31 31 So, Christy, ahm . . . and everybody pull out your phones, let's see what

32 BY THE COURT: Okay. Ah, I wanta, I wanta visit with the lawyers real 32 we might have available. Ahm, so I said maybe a week, then on next,

33 quick, if, if . . . let's take a break, and ah, if the audience wants to walk 33 next week, ahm, I could do next Friday morning the 28., and then it

130 131
1 goes Into the holiday weekend, so I know it's that Friday. I don't know if 1 right, anything else y'all wants make note of? Oh, yeah, the videos
2 anybody's taking a long weekend. 2 need to be, do we now . . . what'd y'all call 'em a while ago, fi
3 3 (interrupted)
4 BY MR. ROZANSKI: I have a wedding that weekend, my daughter's getting 4
5 married, but I think I can be there on Friday (interrupted) 5 BY MR. DARA: They were five and six.
6 6
7 BY THE COURT: Oh, that's important. That's important. 7 BY THE COURT: I guess we wanta keep 'em as part of G now.
8 8
9 BY MR. ROZANSKI: That's Saturday. 9 BY MS. MELTON: Yeah.
10 10
11 BY THE COURT: So we could do, ah, I see I got domestics. What if I did 11 BY THE COURT: They'll, they're now gonna be attached to G in globo.
12 something June 2., Christy, before that other hearing? I could do it 12
13 that morning if y'all are not . . . that one may not be, be too much. 13 BY MS. MELTON: And they're listed in G, so.
14 That June 2', what about that date? I've got a domestic case, but I'd 14
15 do y'all first, and then I'd do them afterwards. 15 BY THE COURT: So it now just gets, goes into G. And then we'll plan, if
16 16 y'all wanta do argument, you'll do argument that day, ah, or if there's
17 BY MR. DARA: I can make it. 17 anything you want me to look at in advance y'all feel free to let me
is 18 know about that, but we'll go with June 2n° for hearing argument, and
19 BY MS. MELTON: Nine, 9:30? 19 ah, I'll try my best to rule from the bench that day, based upon what
20 20 y'all might send me or things in advance. All right, anything else that
21 BY MR. DARA: Yes, that, that'll work. 21 we need to make on the record?
22 22
23 BY THE COURT: June 2.? 23 BY MR. DARA: No, I think that's it.
24 24
25 BY MR. DARA: Yes, yes, Your Honor. 25 BY THE COURT: All right. Thank you guys.
26 26
27 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Yes, Your Honor. 27 BY MS. MELTON: Thank you, Your Honor.
28 28
29 BY THE COURT: Okay. So June 2', we'll plan to be back, and that gives 29 BY MR. ROZANSKI: Thank you, Your Honor.
30 me time enough to watch the videos. And if there's anything particular 30
31 about the videos y'all let me know, 'cause from our conversations back 31
32 there, and me listening to Carter in the past it may be that I need to 32
33 play it back, or listen louder, of if there's anything else to go with it. All 33

132 133
 CIVIL SUIT NO. 270,665

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

JEFFREY W. HALL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES VILLARD, CHARLES L.

FOWLER, JR., LEE RUBIN, REDDEX
WASHINGTON, GERBER M. PORTER,
CYNTHIA PERRY, AND CATHERINE
DAVIDSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
MEMBERS OF THE ALEXANDRIA CITY
COUNCIL STATE OF LOUISIANA

CFRTIFICATF

STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISH OF RAPIDES

I, RHONDA L. RYLAND, Official or Deputy Official Reporter in and for

the State of Louisiana, employed as an Official or Deputy Official Court
Reporter by the Ninth Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana, as
the officer before whom this testimony was taken, do hereby certify that
this testimony was reported by Carter Humphreys, II in the digital reporting
method, was prepared and transcribed by me or under my direction and
supervision, and is a true and correct transcript to the best of my ability and
understanding; that the transcript has been prepared in compliance with
transcript guidelines required by statute; and that I am not closely related to
counsel or to the parties herein, nor am I otherwise interested in the
outcome of this matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this

the Wit''_ day of October 29, 2021, at Alexandria, Louisiana.

RHONDA L. RYLAND
COURT REPORTER
 CIVIL DOCKET NUMBER 270,665

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

JEFFREY W. HALL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES VILLARD, CHARLES L. STATE OF LOUISIANA

FOWLER, JR., LEE RUBIN, REDDEX
WASHINGTON, GERBER M. PORTER,
CYNTHIA PERRY, AND CATHERINE
DAVIDSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
MEMBERS OF THE ALEXANDRIA CITY
COUNCIL

Transcript of the PROCEEDINGS held in the

above captioned matter on June 21, 2021, at
Alexandria, Louisiana, Before Her Honor, Judge
Patricia E. Koch, District Judge, presiding.

APPEARANCE S:

Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell

by: Joshua J. Dara, Jr.
Attorney at Law
P. 0. Box 6118
Alexandria, Louisiana 71307-6118
Counsel for City of Alexandria and Jeffrey W. Hall

Faircloth, Melton, Sobel & Bash

by: Barbara Bell Melton & Laura Beth Matthews
Attorneys at Law
105 Yorktown Dr.
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303
Counsel for James Villard, Reddex Washington, Gerber
M. Porter, Cynthia Perry and Catherine Davidson

Richard A. Rozanski
Attorney at Law
2312 South MacArthur Dr.
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
Counsel for Charles L. Fowler, Jr.
EXHIBIT

CARTER E. HUMPHREYS, II
POST OFFICE BOX 6323
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323
(318) 767-2824 1
 JUNE 21. 2021 1 clients are present or not present.
2 IBY THE COURT: 2 IBY MR. DARA:
3 270,665, the City of Alexandria versus the 3 I'll point out Mayor Hall is present in the

4 City Council Members. If y'all would, begin 4 Courtroom.

5 introducing yourselves on the record for me. 5 BY THE COURT:

6 BY MR. DART: 6 Okay. Perfect timing.

7 Good morning, Your. Honor, for purposes of the 7 BY MR. ROZANSKI:

8 record, Joshua Dara, Jr. on behalf of Mayor 8 Richard Rozanski on behalf of Charles Fowler.

9 Jeffrey Hall and the City of Alexandria. I would 9 BY THE COURT:

10 point out that Mr. Rozanski stepped out to use the 10 And is he--

11 restroom but he's coming right back. 11 BY MR. ROZANSKI:

12 BY THE COURT: 12 He's not present, Your Honor.

13 Oh,, okay, well, let's - y'all can go ahead 13 BY THE COURT:

14 and introduce then and we'll get Mr. Rozanski in. 14 Okay. And she's having to look now to see

15 BY Ms. MATTHEWS: 15 which city council members are present.

16 Laura Both Matthews and Barbara Melton on 16 BY MS. MATTHEWS:

17 behalf of the - certain of the City Council 17 Catherine Davidson, Reddex Washington,

18 Members, specifically Jim Villard, Catherine 18 Cynthia Perry and Gerber Porter are present.

19 Davidson, Reddex Washington, Cynthia Perry and 19 BY THE COURT:

20 Gerber Porter, individually and in their official 20 Okay. Great. Just for us to have that

21 capacity as City Council Members for the City of 21 record. And I don't see Mr. Johnson - oh, Mr.

22 Alexandria. 22 Johnson is back there and I see some of the city

23 BY THE COURT: 23 attorneys as well that are there. Only because

24 And do we want to make a record of who is 24 y'all knew from my pretrial to say what I'm going
25 present just for the purposes - is that necessary 25 to say, it's like, okay, who might be present with

26 or not necessary? It's up to the attorneys. 26 me for--

27 BY MR. DARA: 27 BY MS. MATTHEWS:

28 I don't know that it's necessary to be - but 28 I would note for the record, Your Honor, that

29 I don't mind. 29 Mr. Rubin is not present nor--

30 BY THE COURT: 30 BY THE COURT:

31 That's up to y'all. It's according to what 31 He's just adjusting your microphones. Yeah,
32 do you want physically on the record to say 32 y'all don't get nervous when he is approaching

CARTER R. HUMPHREYS, H CARTER E. HUMPHREYS, Il

POST OFFICE BOX 6323 POST OFFICE BOX 6323
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307.6323 ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323
(318) 767-2824 (318)767-2824 3
•

you. Okay. So we've gone back and forth, not 1 required. He is not with me today that's why I

2 only the first day we met for me to get a good 2 was looking around to see, that I'm giving a

3 grasp on the expectations of - of a political body 3 mandate to him as loosely as I'm able to do that

4 creating a budget. And I had some familiarity 4 but I hope that the mayor and the City Council is

5 with our police jury is what I told the attorneys 5 supportive of this idea. That we attorneys

6 and so it's been very informative for me. I 6 regularly joke that we are not accountants, that's

7 appreciate the education given by Mr. Crutchfield 7 why we went to law school. So there is an

as well as Mr. Johnson. And so the last time we importance to the semantics here and in particular

met I was going to dig a little bit more into the 9 with a political entity and the fear that has been

10 Louisiana Budgetary Act and since that occurred 10 expressed and what I saw in the Louisiana

11 the City Council has had another meeting that I 11 Budgetary Act is that moving forward, how do you

12 learned more about today. I purposefully - for 12 make sure your budget is balanced and all the

13 the purpose of my audience is I don't watch 13 things have been met. Personalities have got to

14 anything if I don't - if it's - might possibly 14 be set aside. I've watched the meetings that I

15 come in front of us so I actually got caught up 15 did see. I could see that the council members did

16 today about what has occurred since the last time 16 work together when there is some adjustments to

17 we came. I only heard little snippets on the news 17 the community services piece of this. The same

18 but I have intentionally stayed away from 18 thing needs to happen when we're talking about the

19 observing any City Council meetings or anything 19 public safety budget and the pieces that need to

20 like that. So I appreciate the attorneys this 20 be there. And that's what I seen, sincere effort

21 morning visiting with me to say what's going on 21 on both parts and that's what some of the

22 today. 22 conversations have been today. It just needs to

23 There has been a sincere effort from the 23 be a little bit more and I think it needs the

24 paperwork that has been given to me today to try 24 assistance of Mr. Johnson, who is present with us,

25 to be very supportive of law enforcement and the 25 to make sure the semantics are there to make sure

26 public safety and the need to get the appropriate 26 this budget gets passed.

27 funding into that budget. What has not occurred 27 Now, something that Mr. Dara brought up, as

28 though is to get it completely balanced. There is 28 well as the council members, it's like, Judge,

29 still some little things that need to be done and 29 don't put a time delay on us because there is

30 so after much discussion this morning, a voice 30 certain things that have to be met by meetings and

31 that has not been here is Mr. Trey Gist, and so 31 so in our discussions today - and Mr. Trey Gist is

32 his many years and talents is going to be 32 not with us today, I don't know if he's on

CARTERE.HUNIPHREYS,II CARTER E. HUMPHREYS, II

POST OFFICE BOX 6323 POST OFFICE BOX 6323
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323 ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323
(318)767-2824 4 (318)767-2824 5
 vacation or he might be at his office but I would
2 say let's hope we try to get this done within
3 thirty days but I'm looking to the attorneys that
4 are present and making a record to say that y'all
5 please reach out to Mr. Gist and Mr. Johnson to
say what are the semantics to get this moving so
7 that the public safety budget is appropriately in
line with the right words. I use words that I'm
let's get Mr. Gist on this. I did I told this
2 to y'all, I did listen when I was on - watching
3 the meetings and listening to the meetings and
4 that I did not - I'm not saying Mr. Gist did not
5 speak up but I did not hear his voice or at least
6 I didn't see him come to the podium and so, guess
7 what, he's being wrangled in there now in order to
8 do this. Questions?

used to in the police jury and I don't want to say 9 BY MS. MELTON:

10 those words because that may not be the right 10 No, Your Honor.
11 words to be used for the city council budget but 11 BY THE COURT:
12 it's clear that every person that has been with us 12 Any questions though. And, Mr. Rozanski, any
13 wants law enforcement to be appropriately funded 13 questions?
14 and I want that message to go out. It's just try 14 BY MR. ROZANSKI:

15 to get the right words and make sure that it fits 15 None, Your Honor.
16 into the Louisiana Budgetary Act expectations as 16 BY THE COURT:

17 well as our own Home Charter rules, that we are 17 You think this will work? I don't want to
18 not creating - not creating something that can't 18 give y'all another court date because what if it

19 be fulfilled. And I hope that - questions, Mr. 19 takes six weeks but I'm saying a minimum of thirty

20 Dara or Mr. Rozanski or Matthews-- 20 and if y'all hear something from Mr. Gist or Mr.
21 BY MR. DARA: 21 Johnson what does it take to get this fixed so
22 Judge, just briefly, you're suggesting a 22 that we can have the public safety because the
23 thirty day kind of-- 23 bottom line that I think - as I listened to the
24 81 THE COURT: 24 meetings there wasn't a single council member who

25 Well, I'm saying at least thirty - maybe 25 said, oh, we don't want the police to be funded

26 y'all can get it done in three weeks but y'all 26 appropriately. There's - and now y'all have moved
27 reach out to Mr. Gist and say what has to happen 27 so far past that meeting that I watched April

28 here for the semantics to be right. And for him 28 20th, you know, there is the study already been

29 to draft the ordinance. Let's get somebody who 29 done, there's really a lot of negotiations going
30 has been working for the city a long time. I 30 on, it needs to be a positive feedback and I know
31 respect Mr. Williams a lot but let's get - and I 31 that's what the City Council wants to see and
32 know Mr. Williams is going to work with them but 32 y'all certainly don't want the judge telling

CARTERE.HUMPHREYS,H CARTER E, HUMPHREYS, II

POST OFFICE BOX 6323 POST OFFICE BOX 6323
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323 ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323
, (3)8) 767-2824 6 (318) 767 -2824
•

y'all what to do. So that's what the lawyers been

2 working hard to get the right semantics and it's

3 going to move there without courts of appeal or

4 anything else. Y'all have the ability, just go

5 ahead and put the personalities aside and figure

6 out how to get it done. Thank y'all very much.

7 BY MR. ROZANSKI:

8 Thank you, Your Honor.

9 BY MS. MATTHEWS:

10 Thank you, Your Honor.

11 BY MR. DARA:

12 Thank you, Your Honor.

13 BY THE COURT:

14 So there is your marching orders. Trey Gist

15 gels involved.

16

17 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

CARTERE.HUNWHREYS,E
POST OFFICE BOX 6323
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323
(318) 767-2824 8
 CERTIFICATE

I, Carter E. Humphreys, II, Official or Deputy Official

Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, employed as

an official or deputy official court reporter by the Ninth

Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana, as the

officer before whom this testimony was taken, do hereby certify

that this testimony was reported by me in the digital reporting

method, was prepared and transcribed by me or under my

direction and supervision, and is a true and correct transcript

to the best of my ability and understanding, that the

transcript has been prepared in compliance with transcript

format guidelines required by statute or by rules of the board

or by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and that I am not related

to counsel or to the parties herein nor am I otherwise

interested in the outcome of this matter.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature at

Alexandria, Louisiana, this the 23rd day of June, 2021.

CARTER E. HUMPH YS, CDR

# 2402010

CARTER E. HUMPHREYS, II
POST OFFICE BOX 6323
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71307-6323
(318) 767-2824 9