Seen as direct response to email, social media posts from activist opposing Sucette Harbor

Could have ‘chilling effect’ on future dissent

Editorial

Updated to expand argument concerning free speech and the word ‘bribe.’

The controversial Sucette Harbor project will likely see a final vote by the end of the summer, bringing to a close the often heated and nasty debate over whether the Mandeville lakefront will get a new multi-story hotel, a special events center and a supposedly age-restricted apartment complex.

The Mandeville City Council is in the process of holding several public “discussion” sessions stuffed into its regular meetings. The first was on May 25th when the embers of a social media firestorm spilled into Council Chambers when District II Councilman Skelly Kreller and Sucette Harbor attorney Paul Harrison threatened lawsuits against anyone daring to impugn his integrity, or in the case of Kreller, anyone connected to a particular activist on the social media platform Nextdoor.

I have retained counsel to fully investigate her claims (activist’s social media posts) and everyone connected to these, and that legal action against her and then, if necessary, against them.

— District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller

So now Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, sponsor of the Sucette Harbor project legislation, has introduced Resolution 23-22 that would ask citizens to limit their free speech in accordance with a set of rules laid out in the document.

Some might argue resolutions don’t carry the weight of law, only ordinances do. Well, this is true, except when it comes to the council saying what it will do as a body and how it will conduct itself.

Resolutions generally express the will or sentiment of the council or request some action. They are used to authorize the mayor to enter into legal agreements with contractors, or, for example, ask the State Attorney General for an opinion on a matter.

And, it is a resolution adopted by this City Council that establishes the rules by which it conducts itself related to its meetings. In fact, the three-minute time limit for public comment that we are now all-too-familiar with is established in Resolution 20-14, adopted by this City Council in July 2020.

Resolution 20-14 establishes rules by which the public must abide inside Council Chambers. State law allows entities that are subject to the Louisiana Open Meetings law to set “reasonable rules and restrictions” for public comment. It’s up to the courts to decide what “reasonable” might be.

And that is precisely the problem with proposed Resolution 23-22, up for a vote at the June 8th council meeting.

Because proposed Ordinance 23-16 (Sucette Harbor) is only listed as being up for “discussion” and not “adoption” on the June 8th agenda, the City Council is under no obligation to let just anyone speak.

Technically, the council chair could pick and choose who is allowed to speak on Sucette Harbor as long as there is no vote on the issue. Louisiana state law only requires that public comment be allowed before an actual vote.

Considering that fact, combined with the wording of Resolution 23-22 which calls on people to “Apologize if Needed,” what is to stop the council from barring someone from speaking who made “personal attacks” on social media unless they are willing to apologize first? The answer is, nothing.

As council chairman, Danielson could probably do that now without this resolution (based solely on the aforementioned state law), but this resolution, if adopted, would provide political cover because it would become “the will of the council.”

It is the opinion of Mandeville Daily that just the mere introduction of this resolution is meant to intimidate the public from speaking or posting on social media in opposition to the Sucette Harbor project.

It’s one thing to have a rule governing public conduct inside Council Chambers, but it is part and parcel from a rule that puts the public on notice that they will be held responsible inside a public meeting for things they may have posted outside the meeting on social media, or in “small group discussions,” as the resolution states.

This could have a chilling effect on dissent with people feeling empowered to report their neighbors to the City Council for comments on social media or even among friends at a local tavern or other social gatherings.

Remember, we already had a sitting councilman — Kreller — state on the record at the last City Council meeting that he is investigating anyone connected to a person who made offending social media posts, along with a lawyer for Sucette Harbor threatening a lawsuit — also at the same council meeting — against anyone “insinuating” things about his integrity, presumably on social media. Both of these threats — allowed to go unchecked by the council chair — are beneath the decorum.

If someone defames me… online, you write it down. You will be sued the next day by my firm. Let’s be very clear about that… But you make an insinuation about MY integrity, you will get sued. That’s it.

— Paul Harrison, Sucette Harbor project attorney

It is the opinion of Mandeville Daily citizens should be held accountable only for what they say and how they behave inside Council Chambers and not on social media or in “small group discussions.” The people of Mandeville are owed an apology from Kreller, Harrison and Danielson. Regardless of what anyone wrote about them on social media, it does not justify broad threats against everyone else in the chamber nor does it justify this silly free speech resolution.

We particularly feel Danielson had an obligation to reign in the threat by Harrison as soon as it occurred, as it was broad and against everyone, not just the activist in question. Again, this was beneath the decorum.

While Mandeville Daily categorically disagrees with the language used by the activist in question on social media as it only serves to invite trouble and divert attention from the issue at hand, we do, however, believe the activist’s body of comments on social media and the email they sent to the City Council on the matter are legally protected speech. The only thing they accused anyone of in the email was giving a campaign contribution, which is perfectly legal. (See full email below.)

Let’s just consider that email, as it was the only thing up to that point that was part of the public record as far as the council is concerned, and it contained no use of the word “bribe.” It did, however, contain a screenshot of a prior social media post — presumably by the activist in question — of another social media post made by Kreller showing Harrison at his campaign event, thanking everyone for their “continued support.” The screenshot was captioned “Kreller Takes Campaign Donations from Sucette Development Team!” At worst, the activist in question had a misstatement of fact if Kreller did not actually receive campaign contributions from anyone connected to the Sucette Harbor project.

The activist’s political position that campaign contributions near a vote should be illegal and are the same as “bribes” is a separate matter.

The activist accused Harrison of making campaign contributions, which are perfectly legal. The fact that the activist believes a legal campaign contribution is the same as a “bride” does not make it so. She accused him of a perfectly legal act. Her evidence is a social media post by Kreller’s own campaign at his legal fundraiser.

It seems it would be difficult to make the case that an individual was defamed with provable damages (one of the legal requirements) by being accused of giving perfectly legal campaign contributions at a campaign event that no one disputes they actually attended. Harrison himself even said he attended the event during the council meeting.

The only remaining question is, did he actually make a contribution to Kreller’s campaign? After all the indignant posturing and threats by Harrison and Kreller, not to mention this ill-conceived social media resolution, if it later comes out that a campaign contribution was indeed made, what did the activist do that was so wrong? Wouldn’t somebody be owed an apology?

Mandeville Daily believes it was ill-advised for Kreller to post to social media a picture of Harrison at his event, regardless if any campaign contributions were made by Harrison. It was also ill-advised for Harrison to attend such an event under these circumstances, much less make a contribution, when his client is asking the City Council for a change that will likely be extremely profitable for his client. It’s a bad look. Kreller and Harrison created this problem — they were not the victims.

With that said, Mandeville Daily categorically believes that any such campaign contributions are constitutionally protected speech. Law requires public reporting of such contributions. The voters can judge at election time if they were inappropriate.

Sure, it would be nice if elected officials — out of a desire for transparency and openness — would disclose such legal contributions under these particular circumstances before such votes rather than waiting for the year-end legally required reports to be filed. We shall see.

Regardless, the adoption of this social media resolution would place the City Council amok of the long-established “Chilling Effect Doctrine.”

The so-called “chilling effect” is the concept of deterring free speech protected by the First Amendment as a result of laws or actions that appear to target expression.

If you don’t agree with the argument presented in this piece by Mandeville Daily, then ask yourself: What if the disparaging and bellow-the-belt remarks made by an activist on a silly website like Nextdoor had been about a councilperson who was against the Sucette Harbor project instead of in favor? Would there even be a Resolution 23-22?

Finally, Mandeville Daily is of the opinion that this resolution is an insult to the public and should be withdrawn.

-30-

Mandeville Daily considers return, providing context for important issues only

Sucette Harbor causes heated debate in Old Mandeville

-Editorial-

I did it for a year. I was bothered by the demise of the small-town newspaper so I started Mandeville Daily. I’m a software developer by day, working from home full-time. I’m very blessed, no doubt. But in my youth I was a reporter and editor at a couple of small-town newspapers, including the now-defunct St. Tammany News-Banner in Covington.

And more recently, for about a year — from March 2021 to February 2022 — I conducted an experiment of sorts. I provided news coverage of the Mandeville City Council, just like I used to do as a kid in my early 20s, but this time it was for free and in my spare time. I’m not saying I was very good at it back in the day, nor would I claim to excel at it now, but I do believe I provided at least adequate coverage in 2021 and 2022.

During this time, I covered Mandeville City Council, distilling the roughly two-hour meetings down to five-minute reads as objectively as possible. Not an easy task. I received criticism from both supporters and detractors of Mayor Clay Madden, who was often in the spotlight at the time. I guess that means I was doing an OK job.

Alas, the experiment came to an end. I could no longer justify the personal and financial sacrifice just to fulfill some sense of civic duty.

While I truly wish Mandeville had real, consistent news coverage, there is a silver lining: the Information Age. These days one can watch every Mandeville City Council meeting on Facebook, not to mention the historic and planning & zoning commissions as well. Granted, the video production quality is inferior to that of other nearby municipalities such as Covington or Hammond, but nevertheless, it provides access to government that didn’t exist 30 years ago.

In the months after I ended my little project, I would occasionally encounter readers who expressed a desire that I continue my coverage. But the math really had not changed in my mind. I simply could not return to full-on City Council coverage.

However, in light of recent events where certain issues before the City Council have become legitimate hot-button topics, I have reconsidered my position… at least in part.

I will not return to providing contiguous Mandeville City Council meeting coverage. If you want that, watch the meetings on Facebook. In fact, why not show up at the meeting and express your dissent on issues you oppose?

But what I will do is consider writing stories on the most important and impactful issues coming before the City Council.

One such issue might be the red-hot Sucette Harbor project. It would be a complete makeover of the Mariner’s Village end of the lakefront, bringing a multi-story hotel, senior-living apartments, an events center, and a redesigned marina to the vacant site.

Critics say it would create a traffic nightmare and the project would ultimately be a bust, which they believe would later lead to officials changing the intended purpose of the facility rather than having it shutter. This, they say, could eventually open the door to gaming on the Mandeville lakefront.

Vocal detractors of the proposed project accuse the developers of having gaming in mind as their ultimate goal, while supporters of the venture say that charge is laughable and merely an attempt to gin up hostility.

Things became so heated at the May 25th City Council meeting in response to social media posts that someone made comparing alleged campaign contributions to “bribes” that Paul Harrison, an attorney representing the Sucette Harbor project developers, had strong language for those who might go too far in their opposition on social media:

“If someone defames me… online, you write it down. You will be sued the next day by my firm. Let’s be very clear about that… But you make an insinuation about MY integrity, you will get sued. That’s it.”

Sounds like the temperature is rising fast. Is Sucette Harbor good for Mandeville? It’s an interesting question and no doubt a firestorm has been ignited in the minds of many in the public. Maybe it is time that Mandeville Daily rise from its ashes.

-30-

Jeopardized entire civil service pay package

Council clerk raise not part of salary committee recommendations: Zuckerman

Raise neither explained nor defended until after move to strike it

-Editorial-

The handling of a proposed raise for Council Clerk Kristine Scherer at the last Mandeville City Council meeting was an embarrassment, and it unnecessarily jeopardized a long-awaited and well-planned pay scale update for the city’s non-police, civil service employees.

Mandeville finally received a much-needed overhaul of police and civil service pay at the February 10th City Council meeting, resulting in significant raises across the board. The move — based largely on a city-sponsored salary survey conducted last year — puts Mandeville in a better position to retain and attract workers.

It was a big deal.

A salary survey committee, formed by Mayor Clay Madden, met four or five times from November to December, hammering out details for historic police and civil service pay changes.

The process was open and fair. It was a fine example of what happens when a city council and an administration work together for the greater good. The recommendations from that committee are what generated two ordinances — one for the police pay scale and the other for the civil service employees.

There was one big problem though. Scherer belongs to neither group. She is not a civil service employee and isn’t governed by either pay scale, yet for some reason the sponsor of the pay scale ordinances, Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, saw fit to tuck a nice 38-percent raise for Scherer into the civil service pay ordinance, which created a “poison pill” for others on the council, and rightfully so.

If you had read Ordinance No. 22-03 — for the civil service pay scale changes — you might not even have noticed that second primary clause wedged in there: “And to amend the salary of the council clerk.”

The Mandeville Home Rule Charter specifically says each ordinance must be limited to a single subject. This prevents a council member from tying a lesser-known and potentially more controversial item to a larger more popular measure with broad support, hoping other members won’t risk the political fight.

Article II, Section 2-11 or the charter reads in part:

Even by an amateur’s reading of the charter, a civil service pay scale change and a raise for one specific non-civil service employee are two separate things.

The title has two subjects, and the body of the ordinance is dealing with two different things. It’s painfully obvious.

To make the argument that because Ordinance No. 22-03 handles “raises” and they were trying to give Scherer a “raise” doesn’t pass the smell test. If that were the case then we could just have one big ordinance each meeting to handle whatever needs to be done under the subject “the people’s business.”

What’s more, city code specifically addresses how and when a raise for the council clerk is to be handled. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of wiggle room here except for maybe the date on which it happens:

Sources told Mandeville Daily that District II Councilman Skelly Kreller was involved in getting the council clerk raise added to 22-03.

So why did Danielson and Kreller do it this way?

What was really strange was the way in which Ordinance No. 22-03 was brought to the floor that night.

When an ordinance is brought to the floor, the council chairman reads the text of the subject and gives time to the sponsor to explain their proposal.

But with Ordinance No. 22-03, Danielson barely made mention of the fact that the council clerk raise was in there. His fumbling remarks gave those in attendance the impression that he himself wasn’t even sure it should be in there:

“It’s for non-police civil service employees, and as Mr. Zuckerman stated, the salary of the council clerk is part of this ordinance as well just because that really is a separate position you know from, uh, non-police civil service employees, so that’s why that’s part of this as well and being treated, you know, in this ordinance.”

And that was it. Those words — as mousy and conflicting as they were — was the first time the public at an open meeting had been informed or pitched the idea of a raise for the council clerk.

This wasn’t a pitch at all. Did he really want her to get the raise? He didn’t sound like it.

But he wrote the ordinance. Even if Kreller was a part of the effort, Danielson put his name on it.

Where was the bit about how great Ms. Scherer is, and that she deserves a 38-percent raise, and how this is good for Mandeville, and so on?

It only took District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire about five seconds after Danielson’s sheepish introduction to call a spade a spade, making a motion to strike the council clerk raise from Ordinance No. 22-03 so that the civil service pay scale changes would move forward.

Even when Madden proposed his “restructuring plan” early last year and was met with fierce resistance, he made a strong push and endured harsh questioning from several on the council, particularly Danielson and Kreller. Madden stood his ground, and arguably he eventually got the job done, even if it was through a different route.

And that right there, ladies and gentlemen, might be what this is really all about.

Was this a case of political retribution? Does that argument hold water?

Part of the mayor’s restructuring proposal in 2021 was to create a new position called “Director of Administration” with a salary of $90,000. He planned to tap mayoral Executive Assistant Trilby Lenfant for the new post.

Madden didn’t get his way, although he later found money in his salaries budget to give Lenfant a roughly $10,000 raise, bringing her to $83,827, about halfway to what would have been the salary for the ill-fated director of administration post.

When the council found out about this, Kreller demanded and got an opinion from the state Attorney General as to the legality of the raise. But the AG sided with Madden and even gently admonished the City Council for “ambiguity” in its budget ordinance, which allowed Madden to draw from a pool of salary money for Lenfant’s raise.

And there’s more evidence that this might have had everything to do with Lenfant and little to do with Scherer.

In Ordinance No. 22-03, Danielson included a side-by-side comparison for the proposed raise for Scherer with Lenfant’s pay:

Why on Earth would he bring Lenfant into this fight? It made no sense… unless there is more to this story than has been revealed to the public.

Based on on-the-record remarks by District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire and information from sources close to the situation, Scherer has made her case for a raise to council members privately and via email. Scherer reportedly expressed that she feels her current job duties are more akin to an executive assistant and not a clerk.

“There’s been new information that’s been brought to me, and I would like your assessment and I would like all the council members to see the JAQ (job assessment questionnaires administered as part of the 2021 salary survey). And there’s been lots of statements that Ms. Scherer’s emailed all of us and I’d like all of that addressed and I’d just would like it separate from the other employees,” McGuire said during debate at the meeting.

Fair enough. In the private sector, such lobbying is not only acceptable but often rewarded. So what that Scherer made a case to her “bosses” during a time when she saw that a number of other people were set to get big raises. Can’t really fault her for that.

It is worth mentioning, however, that group email chains present a huge problem for city councils everywhere, especially in Louisiana, which has one of the toughest open meetings laws in the country.

The instant there’s any kind of back-and-forth in a group email among a quorum of council members, there’s a serious problem as illustrated in this 2012 opinion by the Louisiana State Attorney General:

We’re not alleging this happened in Mandeville, but the City Council didn’t do themselves any favors with the way this was brought to the public. Perception matters in politics.

Mandeville Daily only found out about Scherer supposedly making her case to the council from off-the-record sources, which were indirectly corroborated by McGuire’s remarks at the meeting.

If Scherer’s alleged self-made comparison to the mayoral executive assistant was the real reason this side-by-side with Lenfant was included in the ordinance, why was that information not made public? Why didn’t Danielson just say that when he had the chance?

If this raise was so above-board, then why was it added to an unrelated civil service pay scale overhaul, an item that could have been sunk because of this poison pill?

This was McGuire’s finest moment as a council member. She quoted Section 2-7 of the City’s Code of Ordinances defining how raises and reviews for the council clerk are supposed to be handled. Section 2-7 spells out four conditions.

Maybe Danielson believed that sub-section (d) of Section 2-7 makes sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) null and void. Ordinance No. 22-03 only referenced sub-section (d). But City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert didn’t seem to think so in her comments on the matter that night:

“I think the intent of the Section 2.7 is just to make sure there is a yearly evaluation for the council clerk and any changes are accounted for at that time.”

With that and a few other remarks she made at the meeting, Sconzert seemed to be saying that according to city code, you can give a raise to the council clerk before an evaluation takes place, and you can adjust the council clerk pay to meet market conditions.

So perhaps Danielson (and Kreller) is arguing that this particular raise is just a market adjustment, like with the police and civil service pay changes. That is indeed a valid point which can be debated.

But that’s the problem. There was no debate. There was no explanation… not until after McGuire moved to strike it.

McGuire was correct. Just like the charter seems to say, a raise for Scherer is a different subject than civil service pay scale changes.

Point, set and match, McGuire.

It was only when McGuire’s motion was about to be voted on did Danielson and Kreller speak up and mount any semblance of a defense for Scherer.

At one point, Danielson seemed to try to goad McGuire into altering her amendment in a manner that could only be described as unconventional.

“If this were to be amended, and pulled, that we would come back, and part of that, maybe Mrs. McGuire would consider, part of that motion would be that we would introduce an ordinance that addresses the salary of the council clerk and introduce an ordinance the first meeting in March,” Danielson said.

Sources close to the situation told Mandeville Daily they were surprised that Danielson even made such a suggestion — to put in one ordinance a “promise” to introduce another ordinance by a specific date — especially considering that as a council member, Danielson has the right to introduce ordinances or amendments himself. Why would he want McGuire to change her amendment?

But McGuire didn’t waiver. “They are two separate things and it needs to be separate,” she insisted.

If Danielson didn’t like her amendment, he could have voted against it and then offered his own. But he didn’t. In fact, he voted for McGuire’s amendment. And so did Kreller. Very telling.

Councilman at Large and Council Chairman Jason Zuckerman backed McGuire by pointing out that he served on the salary survey committee and a council clerk raise was never part of the discussions.

“I was on the salary survey committee… And we really didn’t discuss this. This proposal … is not really coming to the council with a recommendation that came out of the salary survey committee,” Zuckerman said.

The question here is not if Scherer deserves a raise. She does. Most on the City Council went on the record that night saying so. How big of a raise and when it should happen, that’s up to the council and should be debated in front of the people.

The recommendations concerning the police and civil service pay scales were handled in public meetings of the salary survey committee. It was no surprise when those items showed up on the agenda for a vote.

What was a surprise was that a council clerk raise was wedged into one of them when it was unrelated and had not been vetted in an open meeting.

Whether or not this was one-upmanship with the mayor for the way he handled Lenfant’s raise, the public is left to speculate because there is no official on-the-record evidence to the contrary — there was the side-by-side comparison to Lenfant in the ordinance and the dollar amounts were roughly the same.

But if the reality was that Danielson and Kreller were persuaded privately by Scherer that she really is more like an executive assistant and deserves the same pay as Lenfant, then they should have followed the appropriate path and made their case to the public.

There was plenty of time from November through January to have given a council clerk raise the attention it deserved which would have met the conditions spelled out in Section 2-7 of city code.

But they didn’t.

This was an unforced error, and sadly, it may have done irreparable harm to the city’s relationship with Scherer.

The citizens deserved better. Scherer deserved better.

-30-