We are glad you enjoy reading Business Report.
- Get access to more than a decade of story archives.
- Get access to our searchable data center of TOP LISTS.
- Get exclusive content only available to INSIDERS.
Let’s be clear: I have no clue whether or not Lea Anne Batson should be fired from her job as the Baton Rouge city-parish attorney. But don’t kid yourself, Batson will be out of a job by month’s end—pending legal appeals—unless there’s some serious mind-changing by members of the Metro Council following their Jan. 23 meeting.
The why remains a mystery, but it’s clear Metro Councilman LaMont Cole and his council cabal—which notably includes Republican Chandler Loupe—want Batson gone.
Cole has declined to publicly share his concerns regarding Batson’s job performance, but at least he’ll give a “no comment.” Loupe, who’s a personal injury attorney when not playing councilman, simply refuses to respond to multiple calls and emails as well as an in-person attempt to speak with him at the Jan. 9 council meeting.
There are whispers, from inside the parish attorney’s office and out, that Batson is tough to work with, and may—just may—have something of an anger issue when unhappy with her staff.
Let’s, for argument’s sake, say that’s true. Is that grounds for dismissal? You be the judge.
Does Cole, who is black, want Batson, who is white, to be replaced by an African-American like first Assistant Parish Attorney Tedrick Knightshead, who is resigning, effective the end of the month, because he didn’t want to be bothered by Batson’s rules of filling out time sheets—an order she backed off on for certain folks to keep Knightshead happy—or not allowing staff attorneys to use their private practice to represent people suing city-parish government agencies, like the Baton Rouge Police Department.
Batson says the notion of defending police on Tuesday and then deposing them on Wednesday as a criminal defense attorney is a conflict of interest; Knightshead claims it’s merely a financially lucrative living that’s never been seen as a problem in the past.
For the record, Cole emphatically says that’s not his agenda, yet others on the council say they hear otherwise.
Again, you be the judge.
Adding to the drama, councilwomen Erika Green and Tara Wicker are proposing not only to ban Knightshead from getting the job on an interim basis, but also want City Prosecutor Anderson Dotson to get the gig—at least on a temporary basis—if Batson is fired.
You know what no one is saying? That Batson has—or is—doing anything that’s legally wrong or in violation of legal ethics. If there’s evidence to the contrary, Cole and company have yet to provide it.
Whether Batson needs to go really isn’t the question. No doubt, if the rumblings about her temperament and how she, at times, “dresses down” employees are true, then Cole and friends can certainly trump up mismanagement charges.
Should that prove to be the case, then Cole—and, frankly, the entire council—need to explain why there are managers in the parish attorney’s office with far worse in their personnel file that aren’t being terminated? Hell, that’s also a more than fair question for Batson.
Indeed, Batson should be called to answer why she regularly—and over a long period of time—thought it was OK to downplay or wipe away the serious professional and personal misdeeds committed by Knightshead.
(Update 1/16: Multiple sources indicate Batson’s handling of a case that resulted in a $2.1 million judgement against the city-parish being awarded to Georgia Pacific will be raised at any termination hearing.)
Yet, Loupe’s role in this whole affair is intriguing. Why is he the one Republican council member on Cole’s bash Batson bandwagon? Does he know something the rest of his GOP colleagues do not? If so, why isn’t he sharing?
It’s not that Loupe is wrong for wanting Batson gone, but he sure is acting as if he’s got something to hide.
Remember, Batson rose to power in 2014 after a Loupe-led coup ousted Mary Roper, who wasn’t exactly on friendly terms with Batson, her then first lieutenant. Perhaps there’s some perverse poetic justice in her likely demise courtesy of another council crusade. Yes, this one is being led by another council member but make no mistake about Loupe’s involvement.
At least when the council went after Roper they had a white binder full of serious allegations against her, including some that were criminal. If that’s the case with Batson, again, we’ve yet to hear about it.
The rumor then was Loupe was angling to get his buddy Greg Rome the parish attorney’s job. That didn’t happen, but Rome is the director of litigation and risk management and carries quite a bit of clout in the office.
Could it be Loupe sees a path to the crown for Rome if Batson goes and Knightshead isn’t named her replacement and actually retires?
Who knows what’s motivating Loupe, he isn’t talking.
The political reality however is Rome is a long-shot to get the job. He’s not a favorite in all quarters of the parish attorney’s office, and it’s clear there will be a strong push to put an African-American in the position. Rome’s only shot seems to be if Dotson declines to take the job on a full-time basis and the council remains hell-bent on hiring someone already on the payroll.
One of Loupe’s long-standing complaints about the parish attorney’s office under Roper was that too many staff attorneys were either barely working or claiming to be working for the parish while actually handling their private legal affairs. Given that, Loupe will have some serious explaining to do if he gets behind a Knightshead candidacy since that guy is resigning because he 1) doesn’t want to keep track of his hours and 2) is perfectly OK playing both sides of the legal fence. If that’s not enough, there’s an eye-catching number of cases where he was defending the city-parish and the result was significant taxpayer money being awarded to the plaintiff.
With Loupe, like everything else about this curious case, you be the judge.
As troubling are the council members who aren’t part of the cabal pleading ignorance about what’s happening. Seriously? They’ve got the same access to public records that Business Report and The Advocate have—plus who knows what else—and yet they’re collectively playing the “see no evil, hear no evil” card? Even when talking to reporters off the record? Either these council members are mind-numbingly ignorant or simply not telling the truth.
You can be the judge on that one, too.
•••••
(Note: This column has been updated to reflect new information since it was originally written on Jan. 10)
