Sheriff violated state law by putting his name on vehicles

For the second time in his 17-year tenure, Sheriff Jack Strain violated state law by not removing his name from the side of his office'€™s vehicle fleet, a move Louisiana statute calls illegal advertising on publicly owned property.

The violation unearthed in a December 2007 legislative audit but only recently released found Strain was '€œunaware'€ of the nameplate and, once acknowledged, he quickly worked to remove the roughly 1/2-inch tall by 1-inch long emblem, said Bryan Huval, audit director for Metairie-based audit firm Laporte, Sehrt, Romig and Hand, who performed the audit.

'€œIt was an oversight on (the sheriff'€™s office) part, not realizing the decal was on (the cruiser),'€ Huval said. '€œIt is so small, we just happened upon it really.'€

Tucked in the middle of the Sheriff'€™s Office crest on the side of police cruiser, Strain'€™s name is barely visible to the average passerby.

But it'€™s not the first time Strain was forced to remove his name from Sheriff'€™s Office vehicles. Earlier in his career Strain was cited during a legislative audit for plastering his name on the side of cruisers. Strain said he could not remember specific times or the size of his name.

Those names were later removed using an undisclosed amount of taxpayer money, and Strain said recently he was unaware at the time any more violations existed on his office'€™s 150 to 200 vehicles.

'€œThis was an oversight by the sheriff'€™s management,'€ the state audit report found. '€œPreviously, the sheriff had removed a larger decal from all vehicles. However, it remained within the badge decal,'€ and Sheriff Strain was unaware it existed, the report said.

By Friday, Strain had removed roughly half of the nameplates from his vehicle fleet, Sheriff'€™s Office spokesman George Bonnett said.

Unknown law

The little known law was thrust into public spotlight last year during a heated election for sheriff in St. John the Baptist Parish, where political pundits unearthed the law and used it in campaign to oust the incumbent candidate, Wayne Jones, Strain said.

'€œThe law makes sense,'€ said Ed Sherman, a law professor at Tulane University. '€œIt seems to me that the cars are the property of the parish. They shouldn'€™t serve as the place to advertise any sheriff'€™s name.'€

But for many, the law is not commonly known. Several city attorneys, law professors and political science experts surveyed were first unaware of the law until it was pointed out on the state legislative Web site www.legis.state.la.us by the St. Tammany News.

The law, revised statue 43:31 '€œstates no public official of any branch, department, agency or other entity of state or local government shall affix his or her name on any publicly owned motor vehicle,'€ according to the legislative audit.

Still Dr. Peter Petrakis, associate professor of political science at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, said it'€™s incumbent on elected officials to know their boundaries while serving elected office.

'€œIt'€™s not as trivial as what some people make it sound,'€ Petrakis said. '€œGiven the political climate in Louisiana, with Jindal making ethics reform a top priority of his administration, it'€™s exactly the wrong time for this to happen.'€

Petrakis suggest the practice likely occurs often and with no accountability.

'€œThe whole notion suggests a tone-deafness from politicians to the political climate,'€ he said.

'€œIn politics, name recognition is the first name of the battle,'€ Patrakis said, likening the practice to '€œfree advertising with the aura of government support behind it.'€

District Attorney Walter Reed spokesman Rick Wood, however, defended Strain.

'€œIt was inadvertent by the sheriff. There was not the intent to promote his name on public property, and when it was brought to his attention, he took the necessary steps to comply with the law. The sheriff has to get some credit,'€ Wood said.

No charges were filed because '€œit would have to be intentional,'€ Wood said, adding Strain was unaware of the violation. Under the statute, Strain could have faced a $500 fine.