OPINION | City Attorney’s ‘Nuclear Option’ risks precedent of delay and disruption

Other P&Z applicants could be thown into limbo like Rosenow

Precedent could paralyze future P&Z appointment decisions

Creates chilling effect on attracting future applicants

Editorial

Updated 12/16/2024: Expands coverage comparing and contrasting the state of the P&Z nomination process for different applicants.

The recent deliberations of the Mandeville City Council over an appointment to the Planning & Zoning Commission have revealed not only intricate ethical and procedural complexities but also a troubling precedent: asking for state-level legal opinions which could be used as a “nuclear option” to defer decision-making in future cases.

While transparency and legal rigor are crucial, the city attorney’s approach carries the risk of establishing a precedent that could hinder future appointments as well as council decisions in general.

---

While her intentions may have been rooted in ensuring compliance with ethics rules, the action creates a framework where any council member could invoke higher legal review to derail appointments.

---

Blowing the lid off Pandora’s box

City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert’s decision to seek guidance from federal authorities concerning Judge Pat Rosenow’s candidacy to serve on P&Z and, indirectly, support District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson’s unsanctioned request for an ethics opinion from the Louisiana Attorney General, has effectively stalled the nomination process, or worse, derailed the candidacy of an otherwise perfectly qualified individual.

While her intentions may have been rooted in ensuring compliance with ethics rules, the action creates a framework where any council member could invoke higher legal review to derail appointments. This is particularly alarming given the time-intensive nature of obtaining Attorney General opinions, which can take months to resolve.

And was Sconzert planning to seek an Attorney General’s opinion herself had Strong-Thompson not done so? Based on her and Strong-Thompson’s statements at the December 5th meeting, it seems that Sconzert either wouldn’t have done so, or she would have waited well into November.

Why not initiate the request at the end of the application process in September? She instead waited until Shawn Potter’s nomination ran into resistance by a majority on the council at the October 24th meeting.

Last I checked, the City Council, as a body, initiates a request for an opinion from the AG’s office through a resolution, not the city attorney or an individual council member acting without the council’s knowledge. This was the case August 12th, 2021, when the council sought an opinion on whether the mayor could give a raise to an employee from the already budgeted funds for salaries. Two months later, the AG opined in support of the mayor’s action.

And if Strong-Thompson’s request for an AG opinion was sanctioned by neither the council nor Sconzert, then why is the council obligated to wait for it? During debate at the aforementioned 2021 meeting, Sconzert herself — who did not initiate that particular AG opinion request — pointed out to the council that AG opinions are not binding.

Imagine if, tomorrow, another council member were to contact the Attorney General’s Office for a legal opinion regarding potential conflicts of interest for Potter.

Strong-Thompson requested an opinion for Rosenow without the city attorney’s knowledge or permission, yet the council is being told that Rosenow cannot be considered until the AG opines, and that could take months based on previous experience. So why couldn’t a different council member do the same for Potter? Even if such a request were frivolous, it would still have to wind its way through the process.

By Sconzert’s precedent, wouldn’t the council be obligated to withdraw Potter from consideration until the state legal opinion is returned? If not, wouldn’t that constitute unfair treatment of Rosenow compared to other candidates who didn’t face such a delay triggered by an identical circumstance?

Wasn’t it Sconzert who urged the council to re-do the nomination of Potter at the November 21st meeting over concerns the apparent Open Meetings Law violation by Discon and Strong-Thompson could have led to a legal challenge?

Aren’t there the same risks for legal challenges simply by the fact that Rosenow has been “asterisked” — as described by Discon — keeping him from consideration this late in the process?

By the way, who is the city attorney specifically concerned about who might sue the city if Potter isn’t appointed?

There are so many unanswered questions surrounding this mess. It doesn’t make sense.

No good deed goes unpunished

The ripple effects are clear. Rosenow’s candidacy, despite his proactive efforts to secure a favorable ethics opinion from his federal superiors, has been sidelined under the shadow of an unresolved “asterisk” as per Councilman at Large Scott Discon December 5th.

The irony is striking: Rosenow provided written confirmation that his position wouldn’t conflict with federal ethics rules, but this was disregarded in favor of waiting for state-level validation. This procedural maneuver not only hinders qualified applicants but also delays the council’s effective governance.

The broader implications of this strategy are equally worrisome. If council members feel emboldened to request Attorney General opinions on contentious issues, it could lead to a cascading series of delays, leaving critical appointments or policies in limbo. This tactic could be selectively employed, weaponizing legal bureaucracy to favor or block certain candidates. In essence, the city attorney has laid the groundwork for obstruction.

Furthermore, this approach disproportionately affects applicants, like Rosenow, who are willing to go above and beyond to clarify their qualifications. Rosenow’s email, sent just minutes before the December 5th meeting, exemplified diligence and transparency. That his efforts were disregarded reflects poorly on the city’s process, which now appears more concerned with procedural posturing than ensuring ethical clarity.

The insistence on waiting for an Attorney General opinion effectively sidelines not only Rosenow but also any sense of urgency. Discon’s assertion that all three candidates could eventually serve in staggered terms is a thinly veiled attempt to justify the delay. If the council indeed rotates through nominees, then Rosenow’s candidacy today should not warrant this level of scrutiny tomorrow.

Public trust eroded

The ultimate casualty in this debacle is public trust. Residents expect their leaders to strike a balance between legal prudence and practical governance. Instead, they are witnessing a process bogged down by unnecessary delays and bureaucratic maneuvering. The city attorney’s decision to involve the Attorney General by permitting Strong-Thompson’s unauthorized actions, while perhaps intended to ensure fairness, has only complicated matters and raised questions about the underlying reasons for these delays.

Mandeville’s City Council must reconsider its approach to handling such sensitive issues. While transparency and ethics are essential, they cannot compromise decisiveness and fairness. If the “nuclear option” of seeking Attorney General opinions becomes routine, it will undermine the council’s credibility and effectiveness.

Additionally, it could have a chilling impact on individuals in the public who otherwise would be inclined to volunteer for such bodies in the future.

Mandeville’s leaders must ensure that this incident does not set a precedent for future occurrences. The council should prioritize streamlining its processes to facilitate timely decisions while maintaining ethical scrutiny. In the meantime, Judge Rosenow and the other applicants deserve clarity—not an indefinite wait in procedural limbo.

-30-