OPINION | Council meetings embarrassing under Discon leadership

Robert’s rules, decorum ignored, misused

Elected council members silenced, intimidated

‘Point of Order’ used to gag opposition

Editorial

Former Councilman at Large Rick Danielson may not have always been right, especially regarding Sucette Harbor, but as presiding officer, he upheld basic decorum at City Council meetings. He never silenced a dissenting voice or allowed intimidation among council members — not even inadvertently.

Danielson had a gift for noticing when someone signaled to speak, no matter how subtly, a trait that Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman adopted during his tenure as well. Both men, in the alternating role as council chairman, gave every council member the chance to speak on each agenda item until all perspectives were either resolved or at least aired.

I don’t recall any meetings under their leadership where council members resorted to yelling, fist-pounding, aggressive pointing, or calling baseless points of order simply because they disagreed. Unfortunately, these behaviors have become all too familiar since Councilman at Large Scott Discon took over as chairman a few months ago.

At the October 24th meeting, the contentious issue of Planning & Zoning (P&Z) appointments was on the agenda. District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire was given the floor after Discon explained his decision to appoint District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson to a “small committee” responsible for making a P&Z nomination.

McGuire’s comments were among the most thoughtful I’ve heard in the Council Chambers — until she was abruptly interrupted by Strong-Thompson, who claimed to be “offended” by what she was hearing.

Here’s an excerpt from the October 28th meeting video:

McGuire: “… (1:52:07) and it’s sad and depressing that the District II (council) member (Kevin Vogeltanz) reached out and said, ‘Hey, I wanna be on this committee, I want to be involved in this,” and they weren’t given… (interrupted).”

Strong-Thompson: “(1:52:17) I think I want to do a point of order. You’re challenging who was nominated — uh — asked to discuss this. That needs to stop.”

Discon: “(to Strong-Thompson) (1:52:23) I got it, I got it… (turning to McGuire) Yeah, this is not a debate.”

Strong-Thompson: “Yeah, this is not a debate of how this was chosen. … (1:52:53) I am OFFENDED! (shouting) Absolutely OFFENDED that you are challenging how the representation is going on.”

McGuire sat frozen with mouth agape, her hands raised in disbelief, effectively silenced by Discon’s intervention. Meanwhile, Strong-Thompson shouted, pounded the desk, and pointed emphatically, a scene underscoring the deterioration of civility in recent council meetings.

Though Zuckerman and District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz attempted to support McGuire, they were forced to wait as Discon reprimanded her.

Outraged viewers have described Strong-Thompson’s actions as an attempt at physical intimidation — a larger, louder member silencing her smaller, more composed colleague, with Discon’s authority reinforcing the dynamic.

If you didn’t attend the last meeting or haven’t heard about it yet, you might want to catch up here first.

Discon and Strong-Thompson crossed the line by disregarding both parliamentary procedure and decorum. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, the presiding officer should facilitate fair discussion, not muzzle dissent. McGuire’s comments were directly relevant to the P&Z nomination discussion, which makes Strong-Thompson’s point of order followed by Discon’s intervention inappropriate.

McGuire had done nothing wrong. The council chairman is supposed to protect everyone’s rights, not aid in trampling them.

A few points on parliamentary procedure make this clear:

Relevance/Germaneness (Freedom of Debate): McGuire’s remarks were pertinent to the main motion regarding the P&Z nomination. Discon had already shared his reasoning for Strong-Thompson’s appointment to the committee, making McGuire’s dissent relevant to the topic.

Rules of Decorum: McGuire violated no decorum rules. Strong-Thompson’s interruptions, on the other hand, broke several.

Point of Order: Strong-Thompson’s points of order were baseless. She failed to cite any rule McGuire was allegedly violating, instead expressing personal discomfort with McGuire’s criticism.

Time Limits: No time limit exists for council members, though citizens must keep comments to three minutes.

Instead of backing Strong-Thompson, Discon should have ruled: “The councilwoman from District I is out of order. The councilwoman from District III has broken no rule. Her comments are germane to the agenda item. Ms. Strong-Thompson, you will have every opportunity to respond to Ms. McGuire’s comments. Ms. McGuire, would you kindly wrap it up so that everyone has a chance to respond. Thank you.”

Instead, Discon’s body language and dismissive responses further suggest he views council discussions as a courtesy he grants, not as the free exchange of ideas that council meetings should be.

Discon allows allies to exceed the three-minute rule during public comment periods, as seen in the October 10th meeting, when Zuckerman had called a point of order that was not recognized by Discon.

During the September 26th meeting when property tax renewals were before the council, Strong-Thompson called another junk point of order, this time, to shut Zuckerman down — with Discon’s help — while he was comparing and contrasting property tax rates with sales tax rates, making a parallel about the need to cut them or not. Perfectly germane and relevant to the discussion before the Council. And… Zuckerman had the floor.

Nevertheless, Strong-Thompson interrupted him, “Can I just say a point of order? Can we just discuss the ordinance at hand and not go off into left field?.” This was immediately followed by Discon, and then Strong-Thompson again, basically telling him he’s not allowed to make an argument they disagree with.

“That’s called hostage holding … I don’t like that kind of game plan,” Discon said, with Strong-Thompson chiming in, as if she were co-council-chairman, “You keep going off into left field on this, that and the other…”

Zuckerman retaliated, “I feel like I’m being bullied up here … This is not fair. I am allowed to make … an analogy if I wanna make an analogy … If y’all don’t agree with my points I’m making, don’t agree with them, but don’t shut me down … Disagree, but I don’t appreciate not being allowed to speak.”

Discon and Strong-Thompson have repeatedly stepped over the line by breaching decorum, violating parliamentary procedure, and intimidating fellow council members into silence.

This has led to parliamentary chaos at meetings.

Discon nor Strong-Thompson understands what a point of order is for. It’s strictly reserved for when a rule has been broken. No rule was broken by Zuckerman September 26th. No rule was broken by McGuire October 24th. But on October 10th, a rule actually was broken but Discon didn’t seem to have a problem, presumably, because it was a political ally doing it.

Strong-Thompson needs to learn to wait her turn and not step on, bully or shut down her fellow council members.

The Mandeville City Council is a legislative body — quite literally — so council meetings are the place they should air their disagreements on matters before the City. A point of order is not carte blanche to silence opposition.

With the way Danielson and Zuckerman facilitated meetings before August 2024, council members never felt the need to yell or interrupt each other. They simply waited their turns to speak, no matter how much they disliked what they were hearing.

To restore order and professionalism, Discon should apologize to McGuire, Zuckerman and their constituents at the next meeting, acknowledging the deprivation of fair representation on a critical issue. Strong-Thompson should do the same and promise to restrain herself.

Both should take the time to familiarize themselves with the true purpose of a point of order under Robert’s Rules of Order as well as what it means to respect the rights of your fellow elected members, even the ones you disagree with.

-30-