Zuckerman and Vogeltanz trade barbs with former councilman on social media
Accuses ‘gaslighting’ – claims unwritten policy already existed
For months, one of the loudest criticisms of Mandeville’s finances was that the city lacked a formal policy protecting its financial reserves. That criticism ended Thursday — or at least it should have ended.
With the adoption of Ordinance 26-16 and its companion Resolution 26-25, the City Council enacted Mandeville’s first written reserve policy. Ordinance 26-16 permanently prohibits the adoption of a city budget projecting the General Fund’s unassigned balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenditures. The companion resolution expresses the council’s policy preference that reserves remain between 30 and 40 percent during the upcoming budget cycle.
Reasonable people may debate whether those percentages should be higher or lower. Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman himself proposed raising the legal minimum in the ordinance from 20 percent to 40 percent before that amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. That is a legitimate policy discussion.
But something interesting happened once the ordinance passed on a 4-1 vote, with only Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon voting against.
Rather than acknowledging that the city had, for the first time in its history, adopted a legally enforceable reserve policy, some critics immediately changed the subject. In social media comments, former city councilman Denis Bechac and Zuckerman traded barbs on the topic, with District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz later joining the debate. Bechac suggested the city instead needs an ordinance requiring what he called a “structurally balanced budget.”
Read the Mandeville Daily post with Bechac’s and Zuckerman’s exchange.
Read Bechac’s follow-up Facebook post discussing Zuckerman’s legislation.
Download the complete social media threads here.
That phrase has a real meaning in municipal finance. A structurally balanced budget generally requires recurring operating expenses to be supported entirely by recurring revenues, rather than relying on reserves or other one-time resources.
There is nothing inherently unreasonable about that philosophy. Many governments strive toward it.
The question is whether it is the right approach for Mandeville, especially given the size of our current reserves. By most measures, Mandeville’s fiscal health is stronger than that of neighboring municipalities, with reserves several times higher than the national standard and well above the levels maintained by nearby cities like Covington and Slidell.
Bechac also asserted that Mandeville “has always had a standing policy” of maintaining reserves equal to six months of operating expenses. A review of the City Charter, the Code of Ordinances and council resolutions, however, found no formally adopted policy establishing such a requirement. If such a policy existed, it apparently was never codified in the city’s governing documents or adopted through the public legislative process in accordance with Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.
So what is Bechac talking about?
Vogeltanz echoed that point, noting on social media that before the June 25 vote, “there was no reserve set by law whatsoever.” He acknowledged that some may believe the reserve target should be higher but argued that adopting a formal policy provides a framework that future councils can revise as circumstances change.
Considering that Resolution 26-25 set the target at 40% or about five months — and Bechac is advocating 50% or six months — doesn’t that mean that what the council adopted Thursday is within 10% of what Bechac wants and claims has been some unofficial policy for 25 years? Why wouldn’t Bechac simply congratulate the council and urge them to finish the job by taking it all the way to the 50% mark?
The ordinance the council adopted Thursday addresses the same underlying objective that these critics have long claimed to support: protecting taxpayers by ensuring the city maintains a healthy financial cushion. The difference lies in how that goal is achieved.
A reserve floor recognizes that taxpayers expect government to maintain adequate savings for emergencies while also recognizing that reserves exist for a purpose. They are not intended to become an ever-growing savings account that future elected officials are reluctant — or legally unable — to use when extraordinary circumstances arise.
A rigid structural-balance requirement could produce very different results or outright unintended consequences.
Imagine another recession, another pandemic, another hurricane, or another period of unusually high inflation. Suppose revenues temporarily but sharply decline while the city continues to hold reserves well above what most governments consider prudent.
What the council adopted Thursday also aligns with widely recognized municipal finance guidance. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that general-purpose governments maintain an unrestricted general fund balance of no less than two months of regular operating revenues or expenditures — approximately 16.7 percent of annual operating costs — as a minimum reserve. Mandeville’s newly adopted ordinance establishes a legal minimum of 20 percent, while the companion resolution sets a policy target of 30 to 40 percent, significantly exceeding the GFOA’s recommended minimum.
Under a strict structural-balance requirement, elected officials could find themselves facing immense pressure to reduce services, delay maintenance, or eliminate positions rather than temporarily using reserves that taxpayers have already funded for difficult times.
That flexibility matters.
Mandeville itself offers an example. Before the current administration took office, city employees — including police officers — spent years falling further behind the compensation offered by neighboring municipalities. To make matters worse, some officials alleged that years of deferred routine maintenance had left the city with significant infrastructure and facility needs as well.
Few would argue that allowing employee compensation and public assets to fall behind indefinitely while reserves continue to grow represents sound fiscal stewardship.
Yet Bechac’s comments highlight the growing reserves leading up to 2020 as a commendable example of fiscal leadership: “Clay Madden inherited a healthy General Fund (GF) of $23 million from the former administration…”
The alternative interpretation is that those growing reserves came at the expense of needs that had simply been kicked down the road. If employee compensation lagged behind neighboring municipalities and routine maintenance was postponed, as Madden and Zuckerman have argued, those obligations did not disappear. They merely became the responsibility of the next administration.
Financial reserves are a tool — not the objective.
The ordinance adopted Thursday reflects that principle. It establishes a legal floor beneath which reserves may not fall during the budget-adoption process while preserving the ability of future councils to decide, based on the circumstances of their time, whether maintaining reserves above that floor best serves taxpayers.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the debate is not the disagreement itself but how quickly it changed.
For months, critics argued the city needed a written reserve policy. Now that the city has one, the debate has shifted almost overnight to an entirely different concept.
That leaves an obvious question.
If the primary concern truly was protecting reserves, why is the adoption of Mandeville’s first legally enforceable reserve policy not being recognized as a significant achievement?
Throughout the exchange, Zuckerman repeatedly asked what Bechac believes the appropriate reserve level should be if not the 30%-40% target adopted by resolution. That question largely went unanswered. Whether the target should be 30%, 40% or six months of operating expenses is a legitimate public debate. But any meaningful debate begins by identifying the proposed alternative.
The council has now answered one question by enacting Mandeville’s first written reserve policy. The remaining questions are different ones: Should the minimum be higher? Should the target be different? Should the city pursue structural balance instead of a reserve floor? Those are worthwhile debates, and such discussions are good for Mandeville.
So, shouldn’t we start by acknowledging what has already been achieved instead of pretending nothing has changed while making baseless accusations against those who, by any reasonable standard, did precisely what you claim, without any evidence, already exists and you were in favor of, except now for some inexplicable reason, you oppose it?
-30-
