OPINION | Sucette Harbor’s next move: The ‘Nuclear Option’?

’Adoption’ of Ordinance 23-16 set for September 5th

Editorial

The so-called cabal of city officials, lawyers and developers who have tried to ramrod the Sucette Harbor project through at any cost have seemingly exhausted all avenues to have a 90-unit wrecking amendment removed from Ordinance 23-16.

Or have they?

The Woodward Interests developers, headed by Bill Hoffman and represented by attorney Paul Harrison, had originally proposed 201 apartment units, later reducing it to 178, before being dealt a devastating blow on July 12th when a majority on the council approved a poison pill, or wrecking amendment, that capped the number of units at 90.

Two meetings later, on August 15th, they tried nullifying the amendment. That was ruled out of order. Then they tried a motion to reconsider. That too was out of order. And along the way they even tried to rule a fellow council member out of order for just asking to have the amendment read aloud for everyone to hear. It was a surreal night.

You can refresh your memory by reading this editorial and detailed analysis of what happened August 15th. And here’s a Robert’s Rules of Order quick reference for these same issues.

And now, we supposedly approach this critical juncture — a vote. What will they try next?

We think we might know what they have up their sleeves. We’ll start with the obvious option and then knock your socks off with a suspected “nuclear option.”

Option 1: Motion to Rescind/Amend Something Adopted

Problem: Out of order according to Robert’s Rules

Assistant City Attorney David Parnell Jr., who stood in for City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert at the August 15th special meeting, unwittingly signaled what the cabal’s next move might be with remarks he made that night during one of his out-of-order interpretations.

“There’s also motion to amend something previously amended [perhaps he meant ‘adopted’], so I mean, there’s different options. Uhm. We feel it’s proper.”

He’s referring to motion to “rescind” and/or motion to “amend something already adopted.” These two motions are the opposite sides or the same coin. One strikes text from something adopted, the other adds text to something adopted.

But there’s a problem with this tactic. It too would be — or should be — ruled out of order.

§35:2:

“[Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted] Can be applied to anything (e.g., bylaw, rule, policy, decision, or choice) which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions.”

Notice the words “main motion” and “adoption.” Amendments are “subsidiary motions” according to §12:1 and nothing more, therefore §35 does not apply.

The “main motion” which is what currently sits before the City Council as its open or pending business is Ordinance 23-16, and it has not been adopted yet. All the amendments made to that main motion are subsidiary motions.

For either of these two motions to succeed, the presiding chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and Sconzert would have to rule that the amendment itself is a main motion. We simply don’t see how that’s possible based on RROO.

But then again, we’ve seen amazing feats of linguistic intrepidity from the legal and planning departments thus far, so who knows.

Let’s continue.

Option 2 (Nuclear Option): Motion to Withdraw

Problem: Only McGuire can do it

Mandeville Daily noticed that when the September 5th agenda and meeting packet was published on the City of Mandeville’s website August 24th, Ordinance 23-16 had been updated to reflect the amendments from July 12th, but it was also altered to read “moved for introduction by Council Member Bush; seconded for introduction by Council Member McGuire.”

The problem is, this is not true.

Mandeville Daily wonders if this signals the cabal’s “nuclear option.” Although it was probably just an innocent mistake at City Hall, perhaps members of our shadow government saw this too and are preparing for this contingency.

Ordinance 23-16 was actually moved for introduction at the May 11th City Council meeting by District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller and seconded by by District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush.

This is clearly seen on the City Council meeting video from May 11th, 2023, at approximately the 2:39:40 mark.

An “introduction” does not bring business before the council — it just says this item will come before the council at a later date. It satisfies the legal requirement of advertisement. Ordinances are not discussed or voted on when they are introduced. In fact, the council quite often introduces multiple ordinances on the same night, but nothing happens at that time. No discussion. No votes. No nothing.

But the motion to actually consider the ordinance comes under “old business” and the council can only consider one such item at a time, and each such item remains before the council (for that session) until it is properly resolved via motions to adopt, postpone, withdraw, etc. before they can move to the next item, according to RROO.

Ordinance 23-16 was actually put before the City Council for consideration during the May 25th meeting based on a motion by District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire.

Video of the May 25th, 2023, meeting at the 31:54 mark confirms it was McGuire.

Only she can make a motion to “withdraw,” according to RROO:

§4:19      

“Until the chair states the question, the maker has the right to modify his motion as he pleases or to withdraw it entirely. After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly, and then its maker can do neither of these things without the assembly’s consent (see 33:11–19); but while the motion is pending the assembly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment (12) before acting upon it.”

Why does this matter? You might want to don your tin-foil hat before you read the answer.

A successful motion to withdraw a main motion strips all amendments or changes to the motion, just as though they never happened. Ordinance 23-16 would in effect be “reset” to its original state, without the 90-unit limit, according to the interpretation we received.

§33:16

“… Any such motions that adhere to the main motion cease to be before the assembly and require no further disposition if the main motion is withdrawn.”

And — get ready to be further blown away — it doesn’t seem that there is anything that would stop a council member from making a new motion to bring it right back before the council, but this time, without the wrecking amendments attached. Why not? It is already on the agenda, is it not? Interesting question, for sure.

§33:18      

“After a motion has been withdrawn, the situation is as though it had never been made; therefore, the same motion can be made again at the same meeting.”

The nuclear option. There you have it.

Because it was McGuire who made the motion, this should be a dead-end.

Had Bush or Kreller made that motion, then sure, this might be a thing.

Robert’s Rules really isn’t the ‘law’ you say?

Based on what we’ve seen so far, there is little reason to believe the bunch involved in this cabal will follow, let alone even acknowledge, the written rules that don’t work to their advantage.

Twice already, Danielson unilaterally decided to suspend adding new amendments or holding a vote on the ordinance when it looked as though the proposal faced imminent death. The first time was July 24th and the second was August 15th.

Either he made those decisions without a consensus from the council or if he did consult them via phone, email, or in person, it would have constituted a walking quorum which would have violated Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law. We tend to believe it was the former rather than the later:

Shouldn’t it be considered just as wrong for the chairman not to allow fellow council members to vote on a matter as it would be if he were to tell them how to vote on a matter? Something to think about.

Now let’s suppose the legal department decides that Robert’s Rules of Order is really just a guide and the council doesn’t have to follow it to the letter.

The problem with that thinking is, Resolution 20-14, adopted shortly after the current City Council took office, sets the rules by which the City Council conducts its meetings, in accordance with Section 2-06(c) of the Mandeville Home Rule Charter.

This rule-setting Resolution 20-14 says our City Council is a “Robert’s Rules of Order” body. This should mean it’s the law, but again, no telling what interpretation we might be treated to September 5th.

Have you noticed how many times we’re having to put the word “should” in italics lately?

Will the truth matter on September 5th? Or is getting Sucette Harbor approved the only thing that matters?

We shall see. Keep your tin-foil hat ready to go.

-30-