Former public defender faces accusations

By: TONY MARKS
Editor

A report from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor revealed former head of the parish’s Indigent Defendant Board, Alex “Sonny” Chapman Jr., earned $66,194 per year, which is more than his approved salary, for a period of time from October 2016 through March 2020.
In the report addressed to current head of the parish’s Public Defender’s Office, Trisha Ward, Chapman’s salary was set at $56,500 per year by the Louisiana Public Defender Board, which solely has the ability to increase the salary. Also, according to board policy, no public defender can supplement his board approved salary with funds from other sources.
According to the report, the legislative auditor found Chapman, without board approval, increased his salary on two occasions in October 2016 and August 2018.
In 2016, Chapman increased his salary from $4,708 per month to $6,070 per month when an attorney with the Indigent Defendant Board resigned. Chapman, at the time, assumed the responsibilities of the former employee and thus paid himself the same salary. Then, in 2018, Chapman again increased his salary from $6,070 per month to $7,578 per month. He did so, according to the report, because he believed it was the district defender’s discretion to increase his salary if funds were available. Since he did not entirely read the contracts he signed with the board, he was not aware that sole authority rested with the board.
As a result, the legislative auditor recommended that Ward take appropriate action after consulting with legal counsel.
Ward, in her response to the findings, said, “I was hired by the Louisiana Public Defender Board to serve as district defender in January of 2021. Since then, I have been actively working to implement controls and have continually adjusted processes as needed. Additionally, I have sought legal counsel on the matter of recovering funds that were not properly disbursed before my tenure as District Defender, and I will follow the advice of that attorney.”
The following is Chapman’s response, that is attached to the auditor’s report, in its entirety.
“Please let this email serve as my response to the Legislative Auditor’s Letter regarding the dispute of my alleged unauthorized receipt of compensation as district defender of 13th District Defender of the Indigent Defender Program.”
“In 2007, the legislation totally revamping the state’s Indigent Defendant Program was enacted. I was the “chief defender” of the 13th JDC Indigent Defender Board at that time. We were operating under the supervision of a local board. That system had been in existence for some 20 years prior to 2007.”
“The 2007 Legislation ‘grandfathered” the “chiefs” to becoming district defenders. The statutory enabling language also gave the newly created district defenders plenary power to run their districts. The authority to hire and fire and set compensation was absolute. As a former indigent defender, who was once a state legislator and then later a two term district judge said, ‘You are now a czar.’”
“The statute specifically stated that the individuality and uniqueness of each district, existing in 2007, should be respected. That statutory will was respected by the original LPDB Board.”
“As time elapsed, the composition of the board changed, and they began to micromanage the individual districts and to totally disregard the legislative will of respecting the individuality of each district.”
“Thus, several years after 2007, the board required that each district defender sign a 21-page contract with them in order to receive state funds. I read the initial contact and signed it.
“It did not contain any language whatsoever about maximum amounts which a district defender could pay himself. Nor did this initial contract contain any language about the necessity of obtaining board approval for an increase.”
“The following year, all district defenders received another ‘take it or leave it’ contact from the board. I perused the 21-page contract and signed it.”
“The year after that, we district defenders received our next annual contract. I have been told, by other district defenders, that this third year contract from the board contained a two-sentence revision regarding the language about the issue herein-capping the money which a district defender could pay himself and requiring board approval to deviate.”
“I was totally unaware of this two- sentence revision to the third 21-page contract.”
“Two other district defenders who I’ve spoken to were also totally unaware of this change to their contract with LPDB Board until I raised it with them.”
“The auditor report is accurate in that I increased my compensation when the contact attorney, Gilbert J. Aucoin, who was handling indigent defender duties in Ville Platte City Court Misdemeanor Docket as well as juvenile matters and also CINC matters in 13th JDC District Court, suddenly resigned. I took over performing those duties and began paying myself the compensation which he had been receiving for performing those duties.”
“It is also correct that I increased my compensation for performing district defender duties based on projected budget forecast. Both of these actions were done without board approval because I was totally unaware of the provision in the revised contract.”
“I did the work for every penny which I received over and above the contract limitation.”
“Quantum merit.”
“Based on the totality of this whole scenario, I will not pay back, voluntarily, anything to anyone for money which I received for work which I have done.