Case Name: Carolyn WELLS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; Frances FOSTER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; Shirley THOMPSON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. (Two cases)
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-04-13
Citations: 417 So. 2d 377
Docket Number: Nos. 14691-14694
Parties: Carolyn WELLS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. Frances FOSTER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. Shirley THOMPSON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. (Two cases)
Judges: Before COVINGTON, COLE and WATKINS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 377–380

Head Matter:
Carolyn WELLS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. Frances FOSTER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. Shirley THOMPSON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY. (Two cases)
Nos. 14691-14694.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
April 13, 1982.
On Rehearing June 29, 1982.
John R. Rarick, St. Francisville, for appellant Wells.
Annette R. Seng, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Baton Rouge, for appellees.
Laura D. Holmes, Civil Service Legal Counsel, Dept, of State Civil Service, Baton Rouge, for George Hamner, Director, Dept, of State Civil Service.
Jesse L. Means, Jr., St. Francisville, for appellants Foster and Thompson.
Before COVINGTON, COLE and WATKINS, JJ.

Opinion:
WATKINS, Judge.
These are consolidated cases appealed from a determination of the State Civil Service Commission upholding the discharge of Carolyn Wells, Frances Foster and Shirley Thompson from the positions they held at Louisiana State Penitentiary under the Department of Corrections as employees at the Agri-Business Commissary. The dismissals resulted from allegations of stealing cigarettes made with respect to each of the three discharged employees.
As stated in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission, the testimony of the three discharged employees was found not to be credible. The determination of the Civil Service Commission rests upon this point.
The matter was heard by a referee, as specifically permitted by Article X, Section 12 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. The recommendations of the referee in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses are not contained in the record. However, it is possible that the opinion, which does turn upon the credibility of witnesses and finds the testimony of the three discharged employees not to be credible, was the work of the referee, not of the Civil Service Commission.
The opinion states:
"A public hearing was held on March 27,1980, in Baton Rouge, before a referee appointed by the Commission. The sound recordings of the proceedings, the documents offered into evidence and the record have been furnished to the Commission for its consideration."
Under the holding of this Court in Goudeau v. Department of Public Safety, 349 So.2d 887 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977), the members of the Commission must read and examine the transcript of testimony as made up before the referee, before arriving at an opinion or determination. Furthermore, the opinion of the Commission must indicate that due reading and examination has taken place. Here, the opinion of the Commission merely indicates that the sound recordings and the record (presumably without a transcript of testimony) were furnished to the Commission for its consideration; it does not state the Commission read and considered the transcript of testimony. Counsel for one of the discharged state employees has stated both in brief and in oral argument that the transcript of testimony had not even been prepared when the Commission's decision was filed. This assertion is not challenged by opposing counsel, nor does the record indicate the date of filing of the transcript. Furthermore, although the matter turns on the credibility of witnesses, the referee's evaluation of testimony (assuming the opinion itself is not that of the referee, which would be the outgrowth of highly improper procedure) is not in the record and is unknown to us. If the referee's evaluation of credibility was made known to the commissioners, it was required to be placed in the record. See Goudeau, supra. If the referee's evaluation of testimony was not made known to the commissioners, so that the Commission arrived at a determination solely on the cold record, then the value of the Commission's opinion as to the credibility of witnesses is rendered of little worth. So that a discharged employee will receive a full and fair review of his discharge, we hold that if a referee is used in a Civil Service Commission hearing and the discharge of the employee turned upon the credibility of witnesses, the recommendations of the referee must be included as part of the record of the proceedings.
As we stated in Goudeau v. Department of Public Safety, supra, a referee appointed by the State Civil Service Commission has only the authority to take testimony, and has no decisional power whatsoever. Since the decisional power is vested only in the Commission, it is incumbent upon it to carefully review the transcript of testimony in all cases, and to complete the record by indicating in its opinion that it has done so.
This matter is remanded to the Civil Service Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. All costs to await a final determination of the matter.
REMANDED.