Financial oversight committee redux rejected

Council rejects measure that would have redefined, revived dormant 2012 panel

Council members said proposal wrested council budget authority

Danielson measure fails, 3-2

Updated 11/24/2023 at 6:28 a.m. — Expands coverage of the civil service compensation procedure.

MANDEVILLE — The City Council rejected a measure Thursday (November 16th) that would have breathed new life into the dormant “Financial Oversight Committee,” a panel of private citizens, council members and other officials that was created in 2012 to play an advisory role to the council concerning its budgeting process.

Ordinance 23-34, introduced by Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, proposed significant changes to the Mandeville Financial Oversight Committee (MFOC). The measure — which would have stricken over 50 percent of the text and replaced it with new verbiage — was defeated, 3-2, after an often-spirited debate among council members.

The MFOC is established by Sections 18-1, 18-2, 18-3 and 18-4 of the City of Mandeville Home Rule Charter, covering the committee’s composition, duties and responsibilities, meetings and terms, and rules of procedure, respectively.

Ordinance 23-34 would have changed the committee’s membership from having just three private-citizen voting members along with four ex-officio, non-voting members to seven voting members, including the two City Council members plus two members from the city administration.

Danielson’s proposal completely removed the term “ex-officio” (people who hold other offices), along with a clause that specifically said ex-officio members could not cast votes.

Ordinance 23-34 would have rewritten the “duties and responsibilities” of the MFOC, shifting its role away from being just an instrument of transparency concerning dedicated sales tax revenue and the overall budget administration process, including helping select and hire a CPA for audits, to acting more proactively, like a budget steering committee.

The new duties and responsibilities as proposed in Ordinance 23-34 would have included:

• Study the city’s current fiscal year budget and provide recommendations.
• Develop a recommended roadmap for future spending.
• Make water and sewer rate recommendations.
• Make recommendations concerning personnel pay structure and benefits.
• Recommend the prioritization of future capital projects.
• Recommend changes to the budget process.
  

This is where much of the opposition from others on the council was rooted. Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman, District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire all expressed that the changes were too drastic and broad.

Ordinance 23-34 would have changed the citizen member terms from being staggered to concurrent, presumably all being appointed or reappointed at the same time. The proposal also removed term limits from these appointees.

McGuire indicated that she felt the proposal would have usurped some of the responsibility of the City Council itself.

“This is one more board where we’re going to have people that are appointed and not elected, and they’re giving their input, and they’re going to make recommendations after a budget’s already been passed,” she said.

Danielson refuted a number of McGuire’s comments, pointing out that the committee as his proposal redefined it would have no policy-making authority.

“This committee, if needed, when needed, would meet to discuss certain tasks laid out by the City Council, to look at things, that we might not have the expertise to do. It is not to change the budget. This committee would have zero authority to do that, zero,” he said.

Zuckerman said he didn’t like the idea of “saddling” the next City Council with appointees having three-year terms, made near the end of the current council’s term.

“I just don’t think it’s the right thing to do, to saddle the next council, whoever that may be. It may be one of us, it may be all of us.”

Zuckerman added, “I think it’s a worthy idea, I don’t have a problem with that, but I just think it’s just not well thought out.”

Danielson took objection to that characterization: “It was well thought out in 2012 of which this ordinance is based off of.”

“But we took a lot out,” Zuckerman responded, referring to the changes proposed in Ordinance 23-34.

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller said he supported the proposal, citing his experience running his dental practice: “I’m on a medical/dental background and we had oversight. I’ve had it my whole life, in medicine.”

Bush said she felt the newly defined duties and responsibilities were framed too loosely, in a legal sense.

“I am cautious in that we can’t create a group of non-elected officials to substitute their opinion in place of or to be given greater weight, potentially, to an elected body charged with the budget. And I think that should be a concern for everyone,” she said.

Civil Service Board Chairman Brian Burke spoke during the public comment period, expressing concern over the wording of Ordinance 23-34 and the rewrite of Section 18-2, which would have charged the MFOC to: “Review Personnel Costs, including, but not limited to, pay structure and benefits and provide any recommendations.”

According to Louisiana Revised Statutes Act 84-164 — as amended by Acts 09-418 and 17-83 — the personnel director, who is indirectly appointed by the Municipal Police Employees Civil Service Board itself, creates the compensation plan which must be approved by the Civil Service Board after a public hearing, and then that proposal goes before the City Council for its approval, and, in addition to that, the City Council still must approve it as part of the annual budget in a separate step.

Danielson offered an amendment which was approved unanimously to remove item five, which would have had the MFOC review personnel pay and benefits, from Section 18-2, before the ordinance was defeated, 3-2. Only Danielson and Kreller voted in favor of the ordinance.

-30-