Mayoral candidate lawsuit v. City pushed back due to judge scheduling conflict

Lyons, social media ally filed suit Feb. 27 against City of Mandeville

Claim City not providing financial data and access to public records

City response: requests granted, plaintiffs misquote charter

City asks suit be dismissed

---

UPDATED 3/19/2024 — FLASH: Lyons case v. City dismissed with prejudice.

---

COVINGTON — A suit filed by candidate for mayor Jeff Lyons and social media ally Andrew Ellender that was scheduled for a hearing on March 7th has been moved to March 19th due to a last-minute scheduling conflict by Division I Judge Reginald T. Badeaux III.

Ellender, known mostly for his pro-Sucette Harbor social media posts, and Lyons filed for a writ of mandamus in 22nd Judicial District Court on February 27th in an attempt to force the City of Mandeville to provide certain end-of-year financial data, alleging the City had not complied with public records requests nor Section 3-05, Subsection 6 of the City’s Home Rule Charter.

The original hearing was set for March 7th at 9:30 a.m. but when the parties arrived for court that day they were notified that a criminal trial had taken precedence and the judge asked if they could return in the afternoon or have the hearing reassigned to a later date.

The Lyons and Ellender party reported they had a scheduling conflict for the afternoon so the hearing was reassigned for March 19th.

According to the City of Mandeville’s initial March 5th response to the complaint on file with the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court, the City claims it has complied with the plaintiffs’ requests or that the plaintiffs are asking for something they are not entitled to.

City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert claims in the memorandum response:

1. the City complied with all public records requests submitted by both parties,
2. the plaintiffs are asking for a record to be created where none exists,
3. they are misrepresenting the actual language of the City Charter, and
4. the City has fulfilled its obligation according to the charter, with the monthly reports and other documents it already makes available on its website.

The City’s response takes particular exception to the plaintiffs allegedly misquoting the relevant provision of the City Charter.

Lyons and Ellender state in their complaint that the City Charter requires “a complete and final end-of-year financial report, including fund balances.”

However, the actual language of the charter instead reads: “a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of the City as of the end of each fiscal year.”

Sconzert’s response points out that Lyons and Ellender added the words “final” and “including fund balances” which is not part of the Charter.

“Instead, the Charter provides direct instructions of what is required, and the City has not only met those requirements, but made this information available to the Petitioners,” Sconzert argues on behalf of the City.

The relevant subsections of the Charter to which Sconzert’s response refers are:

“(5) Prepare a monthly financial statement comparing the operating budget with income and expenditures for the month and for the fiscal year to date. The report shall be submitted to the council no later than fifteen (15) days after the end of the month.

“(6) Submit to the council and make available to the public, within forty-five (45) days after the end of the fiscal year, a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of the City as of the end of each fiscal year.”

The City has since filed for and on March 11th received an “order to show cause” which is scheduled for the March 19th hearing date. This essentially is asking that the suit be dismissed.

An order to show cause is a court order or the demand of a judge requiring a party to justify or explain why the court should or should not grant a motion or a relief.

Additionally, each year the City is audited by an outside firm and that audit is usually delivered by the end of February and then posted on the City’s website. This year, the audit was completed in the first week of March, and was available on the City’s website at the time of the aforementioned March 7th court appearance.

-30-