OPINION | Proposed council rules ordinance needs surgery before adoption

Council needs to strike 10 items else risk overreach by future council chairs

Sucette Harbor could have faced little public resistance under these rules

Editorial

A set of proposed rules to be considered by the City Council tonight (July 11th) contains a number of troubling items, especially for those who stood in opposition to Sucette Harbor last year.

It is the opinion of Mandeville Daily that had a number of these rules been in place during the series of special meetings on Sucette Harbor, it is entirely possible that the developers would have met very little public resistance, as some of these rules would have given the presiding officer the authority to consolidate opposition speakers — no matter how many there were — into a single voice with only three minutes to make their case. The presiding officer would have also had the authority to stop speakers who he or she deemed were being repetitive to comments already made.

With that said, there is nothing nefarious going on here. The City Council needs to address its rules situation in a serious way, and this rules ordinance is a big step in the right direction, despite its flaws that we will discuss here in detail.

Overall, Mandeville Daily’s objections have to do with the authority that would be granted the council chairperson and/or the presiding officer.

This ordinance seems to make no distinction between the council chairperson — a position established by the City Charter — and the presiding officer over meetings, which is a function of Robert’s Rules of Order.

In the City Charter, one of the duties delegated to the council chairperson is that of the presiding officer over meetings, but it is only one of myriad duties that belong to the council chairperson.

Here are the items we take issue with — labeled A-J — superimposed on Ordinance 24-18:

• A. (Section 2-11: 1.a.iv) This is a violation of Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO). RRO has a clear procedure for handling points of order and this council has no business overriding that. But this ordinance would give the council chairman unilateral authority on points of order, even if he or she was not acting as the presiding officer at the time. This would hand too much power to the council chairperson. This ordinance makes no distinction between the council chairperson and the presiding officer. This is a function of the presiding officer, not the council chairperson. Additionally, this entire sub-section 2-11, 1.a, allows for a situation where the council chairman and the presiding officer are two different individuals, just like during Sucette Harbor where the elected council chairman, Jason Zuckerman, had delegated the duties of presiding officer to Rick Danielson. This should be stricken. Suppose that had been the other way around during Sucette? Danielson could have used several of the rules in this ordinance to quell dissent.
• B. (Section 2-11: 1.a.v) Same objection as item A.
• C. (Section 2-11: 1.a.iv) Same objection as items A and B.
• D. (Section 2-11: 1.a.viii) This is a duty or function of the RRO presiding officer — as well as items A-D — and not the council chairperson. According to this rule, during Sucette Harbor, it would have been Zuckerman’s responsibility “to recognize Members of the Council, the Mayor and other members of city government” during meetings even though Danielson was the presiding officer at the time. Makes no sense.
• E. (Section 2-11: 1.a.ix) Redundant. This is a duty of the presiding officer and not the council chairperson.
• F. (Section 2-11: 5.b) This is the real killer. Anti-First Amendment. Anti-Open Meetings Law. Anti-free speech. This gives the council chairman (not the presiding officer) the authority to compel all opposition on an issue to choose a single spokesman. This is very dangerous. If this rule had been in place during Sucette Harbor, the vast majority of those wishing to speak against the issue could have been silenced. The state Open Meetings Law protects individuals, not groups, per se. The law says that each individual has the right to observe these open meetings and to make comments directed at their elected representatives. If the council chairman is given the authority to compel a group of, say 100, to select only one person to speak on their behalf, that would violate the rights of the other 99 people. This City Council — we the people — do not have the right to take away the rights of others for the sake of expediency. That’s the bedrock of a constitutional republic, which is what we are. We are not a democracy, where a majority can vote to take the rights and property of a minority.
• G. (Section 2-11: 5.c) Again, the council chairman could unilaterally silence anyone they may choose. He or she could make the judgement that a person speaking is repeating something that was already said and shut them up. But suppose they might make the point better or more effectively than the previous person? This is too much power in the hands of the council chairperson, and another violation of free speech and Open Meetings Law. And again, would he or she overrule the presiding officer, in case the council chairperson was not the presiding officer, like during Sucette?
• H. (Section 2-11: 5.d) This gives the council chairman the authority to screen questions comments in advance. What information could the council chairman request in advance? We already use a sign-up list, but this item is vague and opens the door to requiring those wishing to speak to provide their question or comment in advance and hence could be screened.
• I. (Section 2-12: 3) This won’t rest well with the anti-Sucette Harbor folks. Feels like a violation of free speech to say that you cannot hold a sign. Would a shirt with anti-Sucette Harbor sentiment be considered signage?
• J. (Section 2-12: 6) While no one wants council members to be ambushed in the parking lot, the wording here is too vague. Are we saying that citizens are not allowed to try to persuade other citizens to support or stand in opposition to an issue?

But to reject this entire ordinance because of these 10 items would be a terrible waste. There are many other very good things found within the proposed ordinance.

The restructuring of the agenda format is badly needed and would bring Mandeville in line with other municipalities. Having a “Consent Agenda” would greatly expedite routine and perfunctory duties such as event licenses and other things.

Not allowing council members to text each other or people outside — or even inside — the meeting room is a good thing and would prevent the appearance of impropriety. Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law is very clear that all council business must be observable to the public.

Members of the public wanting to present a slide show would need to go through one of their council members and have such an item placed on the agenda in order to comply with state law. This is a good thing and in recent years has been a problem at times.

This ordinance also addresses the overall decorum and attempts to reign in disruptive behavior and language.

For the most part, this ordinance is a good thing… It just needs a little surgery before it can be adopted.

-30-