LAKE CHARLES – The Third District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decision of a lower court in a lawsuit filed by “alumni and financial supporters of Louisiana College” related to the legality of the January 2005 election of Joe Aguillard as president of Lousiana College.
By Karen L. Willoughby
Managing Editor
LAKE CHARLES – The Third District Court of Appeals
recently affirmed the decision of a lower court in a lawsuit filed by
“alumni and financial supporters of Louisiana College” related to the
legality of the January 2005 election of Joe Aguillard as president of
Lousiana College.
The appellate court ruled the January 2005 election was legal.
In their written decision, the appellate judges focused on two issues: mandamus and money.
The plaintiff’s first point was that the trial court
erred when it did not issue a writ of mandamus, the appellate judges
wrote. The plaintiff’s second point was that it should not have to pay
for unnecessary expert testimony called by the defense.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which is used
sparingly by the courts,” the appellate justices wrote. “Further,
mandamus is to be used only when there is a clear and specific legal
right to be enforced or a duty that ought to be performed. … [But] it
has, nevertheless, been allowed in certain cases to correct an
arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion by public board or
officials.
“Plaintiffs contend that they have a cause and right
of action to institute this mandamus proceeding against the Trustees of
Louisiana College to compel the Trustees to fill the vacancy in the
office of President with a nominee presented by the PSC [presidential
search committee],” the ruling continued. “… The trial court ruled
that the bylaws of Louisiana College did not contain language
prohibiting the procedure implemented by the Trustees to elect
Aguillard. …
“Thus this Court finds that Dr. Joe Aguillard was
properly elected president of Louisiana College on January 17, 2005,”
the ruling continued. “… [T]here is no provision mandating that the
vacancy in the office of President be filled with a nominee presented
by the PSC. We agree.”
About the money issue, “The fixing of expert witness
fees is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and may
not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial
court,” according to the appellate decision.
Plaintiffs were again ordered to pay $500 to C. Alan Jennings for testimony on parliamentary procedure.
Judge Sylvia R. Cooks had indicated during the early
March appellate hearing that she undestood the lucid argument presented
by James Bolen, attorney for the plaintiffs. In the same way that the
U.S. Senate had not presented its candidate for Supreme Court justice,
but had waited for the president to nominate a second one after the
Senate had rejected his first candidate, LC trustees were to wait for
the PSC rather than come up with their own candidate, Bolen had argued.
Cooks ultimately disagreed.
“After carefully reviewing Louisiana College’s
bylaws, I am compelled to join in the majority’s opinion. In Article
II, [Section] 2 of the United States Constitution it is provided the
President of the United States ‘shall nominate, and by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all
other officers of the United States …’” Cooks wrote in her
addition to the joint decision of the three appellate judges.
“In that section, the Constitution specifically
binds the President and Senate together in the process of nominating
and selecting these “officers of the United States,” Cooks continued.
“In contrast, there is nothing in the Louisiana College bylaws which
provide the PSC more than an advisory or nominating role in the
selection process of the position of President of Louisiana College.
The bylaws do not provide that the Board of Trustees must select a
candidate nominated by the PSC; nor is there any provision in the
bylaws to prohibit nominations by the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the
PSC’s argument that the president’s position could only be filled from
a candidate recommended by it was properly rejected.”
Aguillard said he was gratified with the appellate court’s decision.
“As President of LC, I invite people in our
state and across the nation to join in our bright future as we move
into the realm of our second one hundred years of fulfilling our
mission, identity, and charter as a Christian liberal arts
institution,” Aguillard said.