A taciturn Gary Lacombe exited Ascension Courthouse Annex in Gonzales Thursday afternoon after Judge Ralph Tureau denied his bid to extract damages, attorney fees and a fine against Chuck LeBlanc, Chairman of SaveGonzales. LeBlanc heads the group which convinced over 2,700 citizens to sign a recall petition against Lacombe resulting in the election scheduled for December 6. Lacombe claimed that he was illegally denied access to the petition which is public record and was thereby denied the ability to fend off the recall.
Judge Tureau did not agree.
He ruled that Chuck LeBlanc had not acted in bad faith and did not arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably deny Lacombe access to the recall petition. Tureau did order LeBlanc to pay a portion of the court costs incurred by Lacombe, a first-term councilman for the City of Gonzales, the amount to file his initial pleading which sought only a Writ of Mandamus.
Lacombe tried to convince Judge Tureau to award damages.
“The thing you can’t count is all the tossing and turning,” he began to quantify those alleged damages.
But the court was not interested in Gary Lacombe’s sleepless nights spent worrying about the upcoming recall election. Was there something more concrete?
The recall target testified that he has spent $2,300 on his campaign. He also sought reimbursement for his attorney fees.
“I haven’t seen the legal bill, but it’s in the many(s) of thousands of dollars,” Lacombe told the court.
Required to pick a more specific amount, he claimed to have paid his lawyer, Ivy Graham, between $4,500 and $5,000. Lacombe also requested reimbursement for court costs he had incurred, between $400 and $500.
Judge Tureau would ultimately award only the costs to file the original Writ of Mandamus. He noted from the bench that Gary Lacombe had not prayed for damages in his original petition but only the writ compelling LeBlanc to produce the recall petition for Lacombe’s review. Lacombe had included a factual allegation in the body of his pleading which addressed entitlement to damages and attorney fees so Judge Tureau allowed the councilman to proceed.
Tureau made several findings of fact which he listed in his reasons for judgment:
SaveGonzales filed recall petitions against Gary Lacombe and fellow first-term Gonzales councilman, Timothy Vessel, on April 23.
On August 6 Lacombe sent a certified letter to Chuck LeBlanc “asking for all pages of the public record.”
LeBlanc responded within the statutorily required five days on August 11 by correspondence and informed Lacombe that he did not have actual possession of the recall petition/public record. There were numerous copies of the petition in possession of any number of SaveGonzales volunteers who were trying to acquire signatures.
LeBlanc identified four “core members” of the group; Neal Bourque, Gordon Kernan, Mike Dick and Ralph Rebowe. Those members would distribute the petition to other volunteers who had little, if any, contact with SaveGonzales’ chairman.
It required time and effort to gather all the copies.
Lacombe filed suit against LeBlanc on August 21 but the case was randomly allotted to Judge Alvin Turner, Jr, who recused himself. Judge Turner had filed suit against Lacombe, his council colleagues and the City of Gonzales over denial of a rezoning request made by the judge. The matter was re-allotted to Judge Tureau’s court and he scheduled the matter for hearing on October 8.
It was continued when Lacombe persisted in asserting his damage claim even though he had received the requested documents by that first hearing date. In fact, the recall petition had already been certified.
Gary Lacombe sent a second letter to LeBlanc on September 2 which was received the next day. By September 6 LeBlanc had collected “all the documents” and offered to hand over copies on September 10 after a special meeting of the Gonzales council called by Lacombe, Vessel and Councilman Terance Irvin to hire their personal attorney in the Turner zoning suit.
Lacombe refused those copies but, with mediation provided by Mayor Barney Arceneaux, he agreed to meet LeBlanc the next day, September 11, so that Lacombe could have his own copies of the original recall petition made.
SaveGonzales would turn the recall petition in to Ascension’s registrar of voters on September 16 and the registrar certified the successful petition ten days later.
2,771 signatures were turned into Registrar Robert Poche, of which, he deleted 603. That left 2,168, 23 more than the number required to trigger a recall election, 2,145.
Lacombe had convinced approximately 100 signers to remove their names from the recall petition. SaveGonzales recovered most of those and the final total was 2,290 according to documents introduced into the record on Thursday.
His case hinged on the argument that, had he been provided the recall petition in a timely manner, he could have convinced even more voters to remove their names and there would have, ultimately, been fewer than the required number.
“Do you believe you could’ve convinced enough voters to withdraw their names from the petition and avoid the recall?” Ivy Graham, his attorney, asked Gary Lacombe.
Lacombe began the effort in August.
“I do,” he responded.
But, as Lacombe presented the necessary affidavit to have a name removed from the recall, SaveGonzales would re-visit that original signer and try to convince him to add his name back to Lacombe’s recall.
“So, of all the signatures you got, only four ultimately removed their names from the final recall?” Matt Pryor asked Lacombe on cross-examination.
“He netted out four signatures. At that rate he could have had the petition in April and he still could not have convinced enough people to remove their names from the recall petition,” Pryor maintained in his closing argument. “There is no damage.”
Pryor would not concede that his client, Chuck LeBlanc, had violated the applicable legal standard either but, even if he did, it did not deprive Gary Lacombe of the opportunity to defend himself before Gonzales’ voters.
“He claims damages for his inability to defend the recall,” Pryor asserted. “He’s had every opportunity to defend his votes that form the reason for this recall.”
Gary Lacombe has the best forum there is; his seat on the council.
“You’re looking forward to this recall campaign, right?” Matt Pryor put Lacombe on the spot. “That’s what the Gonzales Weekly reported on September 23.”
“I like getting out and talking to people; listening to what their issues and concerns are,” Lacombe explained his meaning.
“You’ve got the bully pulpit, Mr. Lacombe,” Pryor said. “You are on the council; you sit on that dais; you have a microphone right in front of you; you have the opportunity to speak on every matter that comes before the council; twice when it involves and ordinance?”
Matt Pryor deftly phrased his client’s argument (and an argument for Gary Lacombe’s recall) in the form of questions. Judge Tureau would not allow Pryor to delve into specific, offending votes cast by the councilman, but not due to a lack of effort by Chuck LeBlanc’s counsel.
Ivy Graham objected to the relevance of her client’s three extremely unpopular votes to deny zoning requests; his vote to pay attorney fees to Quality Design, a company that sued the city ten years ago; and three votes by Gary Lacombe to reduce funding for the police department.
Judge Tureau agreed with Graham, but Matt Pryor had already gotten his point across. Gary Lacombe had every opportunity to defend the recall by publicly defending his voting record but chose not to do so.
Tureau found additional reasons to deny Lacombe’s request for damages, though. Chuck LeBlanc had not acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in waiting until September 10 to turn over the “complete” public record, or trying to anyway.