Four-hour meeting despite council not diving into meaty rules ordinance item-by-item
Vogeltanz spearheads movement against, citing numerous issues
Zuckerman wanted to push forward, shape ordinance into something palatable
Ordinance would have authorized council chairman to silence repetitive comments, other speech-related concerns
MANDEVILLE — The City Council settled for a less-intrusive version of its council rules as opposed to a bulky five-page rules ordinance that was up for adoption at the July 11th meeting.
Competing sets of council rules legislation were on the lengthy agenda in the form of a resolution-ordinance duo sponsored by Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and a resolution-only version sponsored by incoming District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz.
Adopting council rules is typically taken up by each new City Council every four years. The City Charter specifies that these rules are to be adopted via resolution.
While introducing his rules ordinance, Zuckerman explained that City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert recommended an ordinance for the rules governing behavior inside Council Chambers based on what other municipalities have done, explaining that the wording in the City’s Home Rule Charter using the word “resolution” wasn’t intended to be literal.
But as it turned out, Ordinance 24-18 was sent to Robert’s Rules purgatory when it was tabled 3-2 after almost an hour of often contentious debate.
Vogeltanz — who is a practicing attorney in the area — almost immediately made a motion to table the ordinance after it was introduced at the meeting, stating he was troubled by a number of its provisions, warning that to fix the proposal would have added at least three hours to the already long agenda.
Vogeltanz said he believes authors of the charter intended to give the City Council sole authority to set its own rules, with no interference from any other branch of city government, such as the Office of Mayor. He said setting the council rules via ordinance would give the Mayor veto authority, which would translate to influence over the tenor of the rules.
He said he believes this is the real reason the city charter specifies “resolution” instead of “ordinance.” The mayor cannot veto a resolution.
“The mayor’s office has no business vetoing or approving our internal operating rules. We’re the legislative branch… Why would we read the founding constitutional text of city government that says we should do our business in one way and then do it in a different way.” Vogeltanz said.
While Ordinance 24-18 would have addressed a number of recurring issues plaguing the Council in recent years, it went too far in other areas, especially pertaining to free speech, according to those who spoke against its passage July 11th.
Particularly, three provisions of the ordinance would have given the council chairperson wide-ranging authority over those wishing to voice objections to an issue or proposal.
Those opposed felt the provisions violated the state’s Open Meetings Law, which grants all citizens the individual right to address public bodies at “open meetings” before each vote on an agenda item.
Under a section of Ordinance 24-18 addressing public comments, the council chairperson would have been granted the following powers:
“To avoid repetition, groups interested in an agenda item should elect a spokesman to represent the views of the group. In the event a spokesman is elected, the Council Chairman shall establish a reasonable time for that spokesman for public comment.
“To the extent that public comment is repetitive in nature, the Council Chairperson has the right to request that said comment be limited to statements not previously shared during the meeting.
“The Council Chairperson is expressly granted the authority to require any person wishing to address the Council to submit to the Council Clerk a completed and signed request to speak card. In the event that speaker cards are utilized, any request to speak card must be received prior to the conclusion of the agenda item designated for such public comment.”
Critics, who spoke with Mandeville Daily at the meeting, said these provisions — had they been law during the Sucette Harbor special meetings last year — would have reduced the flood of criticism against Sucette Harbor down to a mere trickle, which they warned could have led to easy passage. Ordinance 24-18 would give the council chairperson the sole authority to determine what constitutes “repetitive” comments.
Nine locals lined up to voice their opinions either in favor of tabling the motion or outright voting it down. None spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Among them were a number of anti-Sucette Harbor stalwarts, including former City Councilman Ernest Burguières, who ran unsuccessfully earlier this year for one of the two at-large seats.
“This ordinance is a threat to people. And it doesn’t need to be a threat. It’s ‘us v. them,’ it’s ‘you v. us.’ It doesn’t have to be that way,” Burguières insisted.
Zuckerman defended his ordinance, saying:
“We’re spending almost an hour arguing about whether or not to discuss the darned thing. It’s crazy. Let’s move on and discuss it. If we get into it and it’s too complicated, call the question, we can vote on the ordinance, vote the thing down if you want to vote it down. We can vote to delete 50 percent of it. We could have been done already with it.”
After the ordinance was tabled under Robert’s Rules of Order, the council moved through the remainder of its unusually lengthy agenda, finally tackling a rules resolution by Zuckerman, which would primarily cover agenda-related procedures, such as deadlines. Resolution 24-43 was adopted 5-0 after only minor modifications.
Next, Resolution 24-44, sponsored by Vogeltanz, which followed closer to the rules format that previous councils had adopted, was also approved 5-0 with only minor modifications.
-30-
Mandeville Daily 