MANDEVILLE — The local chapter of the Alliance for Good Government held its forum and caucus last night (January 22nd), announcing its March 2024 primary election endorsements at the conclusion of the event.

The candidates for mayor, city council and district attorney were given the opportunity to answer questions on issues selected by the Alliance, after which the group held a brief caucus where they made their selections.

The Alliance endorsed incumbent Mayor Clay Madden over Jeff Lyons. Billy Rosenthal did not participate.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and 2020 District III also-ran Scott Discon were endorsed over former District III Councilman Ernest Burguières.

Incumbent Dr. Skelly Kreller — the only participant last night for the District II endorsement — got the nod from the Alliance for that race. Kreller’s opponent, Kevin Vogeltanz did not seek the endorsement.

The Alliance also picked Collin Sims over Vincent Wynne for the Washington and St. Tammany parishes District Attorney race.

The St. Tammany chapter of the Alliance for Good Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to informing the public on issues that affect the quality of life in southeast Louisiana, hosted the event for St. Tammany Parish candidates at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, January 22nd, at the St. Tammany Administrative Complex, located at 21490 Koop Drive in Mandeville.

On Wednesday, January 24th, at 6 p.m., the St. Tammany Parish Republican Executive Committee is hosting a forum, also at the St. Tammany Administrative Complex. The RPEC is established by state law and promotes Republican candidates for local elections.

Finally, on February 20th, at 6 p.m., newcomer political action committee Mande-PAC will host an event for Mandeville candidates at Frequencies, which is located on the second floor of the Spoke and Barrel Restaurant, formerly “Old Rail” at 639 Girod Street.

-30-

Council authorized mayor to negotiate purchase agreement at November meeting 5-0

Two council members proposed delay that would have forced City to default

$710K for property in question already budgeted

Unrelated $1.4M budget increase passed without debate

MANDEVILLE — The purchase of a Carroll Street property the City Council had authorized unanimously at the November 16th meeting was thrown into doubt at the January 11th meeting when two council members attempted to delay action on the item, which would have had the effect of causing the City to default on a purchase agreement the night before the scheduled closing.

The property, located in Old Mandeville at 407 and 411 Carroll Street — behind Maison Lafitte — had been identified as fitting into the City’s longterm green space property purchase program, which is funded in the current fiscal-year budget.

Purchasing property for the City of Mandeville is a two-step process, according to the Home Rule Charter.

First, the City Council adopts a resolution allowing the mayor to negotiate a purchase agreement for the property. The $710,000 price was based on a professional appraisal and was included in Resolution 23-46 when it was adopted unanimously at the November 16th regular council meeting. Closing was set for January 12th.

The council then makes the purchase official via ordinance, allowing the mayor to go through with the scheduled closing, which in this case was Ordinance 23-37 as advertised on the January 11th agenda.

But what usually ends up being a perfunctory step in the purchase process suddenly hit a snag when District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller questioned whether or not the city should go through with the sale.

District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire asked City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert what would happen if the council failed to adopt Ordinance 23-37 that night.

Sconzert replied, “We would be in default of the purchase agreement.”

Kreller asked the council, “How can we justify $710,000 to purchase two lots?”

Councilman at Large Rick Danielson also voiced his opposition to completing the purchase, saying, “I just have financial concerns in the process… Do we need to be spending $710,000 at this time?”

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman took issue with the City potentially backing out of the agreement at this juncture: “The council voted unanimously to spend $710,000 on this property… If there is in fact a discussion about not authorizing the mayor to go to closing tomorrow… that’s what we’re talking about… Reversing what we had authorized him to do and the decision we made unanimously 60 days ago.”

Sconzert reminded the council that the $710,000 was already appropriated in the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget.

Kreller said he was worried about the financial stability of the City and said, “I must have gotten from 50 to a hundred either emails or text messages against this.”

Mayor Clay Madden reiterated what he described as his vision for purchasing green space as part of the Mandeville Flood Resilience Strategy: “I laid out my vision at the November 16th meeting that I’d like to purchase this property because of its proximity to Ravine Aux Coquilles and looked to do our first storm water park at this location because of its proximity.”

He added, “It’s something I believe is supported. Nobody has called me and said ‘don’t do this.’”

After a brief discussion and public comment, Danielson offered a motion to “defer” Ordinance 23-37 until the second meeting in February, which would mean the closing would have to be cancelled. (“Postpone” would have been the correct Robert’s Rules of Order motion. See Editor’s note.)

Danielson’s motion failed 3-2, with only Danielson and Kreller voting in favor.

Ordinance 23-37 was then adopted 3-2, allowing Madden to complete the act of sale January 12th. Danielson and Kreller voted against.

The next item on the agenda that night — Ordinance 23-38, a $1.4 million capital budget increase to pay for a water line replacement project in the Golden Glen Subdivision in Kreller’s District II — was adopted unanimously, without debate nor motions to postpone.

-30-

Editor’s Note: There is no “motion to defer” under Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 12th Edition. According to RROO, the correct motion would have been “Postpone to a Certain Time.”

MandePac on Feb. 20

St. Tammany RPEC on Feb. 27

Updated 2/10/2024: Updates with rescheduled RPEC forum date and location.

MANDEVILLE — The St. Tammany Parish Republican Executive Committee’s candidate forum has been rescheduled for February 27th at 6 p.m. inside the Parish Council chambers at the St. Tammany Administrative Complex, located at 21490 Koop Drive in Mandeville.

The event was originally scheduled for January 24th but had to be cancelled due to inclement weather. The RPEC is established by state law and promotes Republican candidates for local elections.

Newcomer political action committee MandePAC will host an event for Mandeville candidates February 20th, at 6 p.m., to be held at “Frequencies,” which is located on the second floor of the Spoke and Barrel Restaurant, formerly “Old Rail” at 639 Girod Street.

March primary races heat up with forums for candidates

Updated 1/21/2024: Adds coverage of RPEC forum.

MANDEVILLE — With campaign season in full swing now that the holidays are behind us, signs for candidates in parish and city races are appearing all over town, and those seeking office will soon have several opportunities to let voters know where they stand on the issues.

Early voting for the March 23rd primary election is right around the corner, starting March 9th.

The St. Tammany chapter of the Alliance for Good Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to informing the public on issues that affect the quality of life in southeast Louisiana, is hosting an event for St. Tammany Parish candidates at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, January 22nd, at the St. Tammany Administrative Complex, located at 21490 Koop Drive in Mandeville.

On Wednesday, January 24th, at 6 p.m., the St. Tammany Parish Republican Executive Committee is hosting a forum, also at the St. Tammany Administrative Complex. The RPEC is established by state law and promotes Republican candidates for local elections.

Finally, on February 20th, at 6 p.m., newcomer political action committee MandePAC will host an event for Mandeville candidates at Frequencies, which is located on the second floor of the Spoke and Barrel Restaurant, formerly “Old Rail” at 639 Girod Street.

-30-

Sucette proponents focused on controlling social media narrative

Negative posts drew attention

Asked friends to remain silent

First impressions from meetings piqued interest

Lashed out against ‘misinformation’

Advised to feign neutrality with constituents

‘Bribe’ post triggers rebuttal, reprisal discussion

Created, pushed ‘recusal’ narrative

Claimed Sucette Harbor process ‘tainted’

Updated 1/19/2024: Expands coverage of text message excerpts concerning meetings with developer. Updates other references for clarity.
Updated 1/17/2024: Expands coverage of former P&Z member comments about project.

MANDEVILLE — Proponents of the controversial Sucette Harbor project were heavily involved in public relations and social media efforts behind the scenes, including rapid response tactics and strategies against those perceived as critics of the proposal, according to information contained in a public records release.

Editor’s Note: This is the third part in a series that will explore the recent Sucette Harbor public records release. At the end of this multi-part series, Mandeville Daily will publish a complete timeline of events from start to finish, including all text messages from all council members and other officials in PDF format for the reader to review independently.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Negative posts drew attention

In the early stages of the Sucette Harbor push — well before the initial Planning & Zoning hearing in September 2022 — former City Councilwoman at Large and project proponent Trilby Lenfant suggested to District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller that he ask Planning & Zoning member Nixon Adams to check the voting records of people who had made negative comments on a Facebook post from Mayor Clay Madden which had drawn a barrage of negative responses concerning the project.

That same day, August 30, 2022, Kreller and campaign consultant and Mariner’s Village Master Association (MVMA) President Eric McVicker speculated that Madden was setting the stage for the project to be rejected, according to text messages released as part of a public records request made by Woodward Interests Vice President Bear Cheezem on September 11th.

Asked friends to remain silent

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller appeared to be concerned about the early negative perception of the project on social media, asking former P&Z member and eventual project critic Ren Clark not to post anything negative on social media until after Woodward Interests presented the project to the public: “I am asking you as a friend to hold comments you post about the LSU Project until the public meeting.”

Clark agreed not to make negative comments on social media but expressed his negative feelings with jokes about the name “Sucette” being a double entendre for “sucker” in French.

First impressions from meetings piqued interest

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller was interested in first impressions from residents and other council members who met with the developer before the first Sucette Harbor Planning & Zoning hearing September 21, 2022.

Former City Councilwoman at Large Trilby Lenfant passed along information from meetings that she apparently had sat in on or received information about from the developer. After one such meeting that District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush had attended, Kreller asked Lenfant, “Great, any feel from her(?).”

After another meeting which apparently included project proponent Rhonda Alleman among others, Lenfant commented, “[W]e all want to reserve corner units!”

Lashed out against ‘misinformation’

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller complained to city officials, fellow council members, and members of the Woodward Interests team about what he saw as “misinformation” or attacks on the project, according to emails released as part of a public records request made by Woodward Interests Vice President Bear Cheezem on September 11th.

One such case was over a newsletter written by former District III Council Member Ernest Burguières which Burguières distributes to a private email list. Burguières attends most council meetings and reports on what he sees in his emails.

What Burguières wrote on April 18th, the day after the P&Z voted to recommend the Sucette Harbor project, drew Kreller’s ire. After forwarding it to Woodward Interests Vice President Bear Cheezem, he emailed former Planning and Development Director Louisette Scott, asking her to respond to Burguières’ argument publicly. Scott, who has emerged as a proponent of the project based on messages contained in the Cheezem public records release, essentially told Kreller to ignore Burguières.

Editor’s Note: Mandeville Daily reposted Burguières’ column with his permission starting in June 2023. We mutually ended this arrangement in December 2023 when Burguières qualified for the 2024 council-at-large race.

After the June 20th City Council meeting where a letter from local architect Vaughan Sollberger, who sits on the city’s design review committee, was read aloud by Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman, Kreller emailed Danielson and Scherer to complain.

Kreller said that it was unprofessional and a “conflict of interest” (sic) for Zuckerman to have “read it into the record” because he and Sollberger “are close friends” and they both serve on the design review committee.

However, the Sollberger letter technically was already part of the record because Sollberger had sent it to the entire council on June 16th, therefore Zuckerman reading it aloud did not make it so. Anytime a member of the public sends an email or letter to the City Council, it becomes part of the public record whether it is read aloud or not. What’s more, Zuckerman hasn’t served on the design review committee since before the Sucette Harbor application came before the council.

Advised to feign neutrality with constituents

Posts made to the New Golden Shores Facebook page by District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller neighbor and project critic Missie Noel caught the attention of the Kreller camp in late April 2023. This was weeks after the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend Sucette Harbor, but before the first City Council special meeting on the project.

Noel posted that she’d be willing to host a meeting with Kreller and residents “so that he can hear our opinions on Sucette, before he votes.”

Kreller had responded to the post in part, “I have decided not to have any meetings or make any comments about the project until the process goes forward with the entire City Council present.”

This drew responses from a number of people, including project critic Michele Avery, Councilman at Large Zuckerman and project critic Kevin Vogeltanz, who would eventually enter the 2024 race to unseat Kreller.

Former City Councilwoman at Large Trilby Lenfant, who by now knew that Kreller was a supporter of the project, asked if he had publicly declared his position yet, to which he adamantly insisted he had not, according to text messages in the Cheezem public records release.

However, Kreller had in fact previously given supportive statements to the media when early concepts of the project were first announced, including to Nola.com in September 2021 and New Orleans City Business in November 2021.

“It’s a win-win for everybody,” he told City Business in 2021. “The majority of people in my district want this to happen.”

Lenfant suggested that Kreller should meet with his constituents but to tell them he was still undecided: “I don’t know that you can avoid the opposition…”

She continued, “but I was thinking if you choose to meet with the opposition… you can listen to them, acknowledge their concerns but still be noncommittal…”

‘Bribe’ post triggers rebuttal, reprisal discussion

Project critic Michele Avery created a firestorm behind the scenes in May 2023 with a post on the Nextdoor website using the rhetorical hyperbole “bribe” to criticize the appearance of developer attorney Paul Harrison at a Kreller fundraiser on the night of the 4-3 vote by the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend the project, according to text messages in the Cheezem public records release.

Campaign consultant Eric McVicker sent screenshots to District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller and the two had an exchange that ended with McVicker saying, “Time to slap that bitch.”

The next day, Kreller, former City Councilwoman at Large Trilby Lenfant and project proponent Rhonda Alleman, who also lobbied other council members to support the project, discussed potential rebuttal tactics, which included researching Avery and her employer’s campaign contribution history, with Lenfant suggesting contacting her employer.

But roughly nine months earlier it was Kreller who told McVicker not to delete any negative comments on social media, hoping critics would defame them, claiming he had spoken to developer attorney Paul Harrison about it.

Lenfant suggested checking to see if there was a correlation between Avery’s employer’s campaign contributions and audit contracts the company was awarded by the city, according to text messages.

Kreller then shared Avery’s campaign contribution history from the Louisiana Ethics Administration campaign finance portal, information that he claimed McVicker had sent to him.

Andrew Ellender, a local social media content provider and outspoken critic of Mandeville city government officials, was one of the initial people on the Nextdoor website to respond to Avery’s “bribe” post. The two had an often contentious back-and-forth over her post and its responses.

Kreller told the group that campaign consultant James Hartman advised they should not respond on social media.

Alleman texted, “Andrew (Ellender) can get into (it) with her!” Lenfant seemed to agree, confirming that “someone else” should post on social media, later telling Kreller not to respond himself: “Do not say anything on social media.”

Over the next 24-48 hours, whether by design or by coincidence, Ellender made a barrage of social media posts using the Avery campaign contribution list that Kreller had shared with the group, according to screenshots obtained from social media by Mandeville Daily at the time.

These posts at first included her home address and personal information. Avery eventually filed a complaint letter to the Mandeville Police Department, citing over 60 instances of what she alleged to by cyber-stalking. No formal charges were filed. Ellender’s Nextdoor account was eventually temporarily suspended by site moderators.

Created, pushed ‘recusal’ narrative

Two days after the April 17th Planning & Zoning Commission’s vote to recommend Sucette Harbor to the City Council, campaign consultant Eric McVicker suggested to District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller that Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman should recuse himself from voting on Sucette Harbor over an alleged conflict of interests, according to text messages in the Cheezem public records release.

Woodward Interests is described as a real estate project developer on their website, whereas Zuckerman’s employer, The McDonnel Group, describes itself as a builder or contractor.

Kreller even asked Council Clerk Kristine Scherer her thoughts on the matter, indicating he had sought an opinion from developer attorney Paul Harrison on the question.

Scherer responded, “Guess that would be a Paul (Harrison) question.” Kreller told Scherer that he also wanted a third party to ask City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert about it: “[S]omeone other than me should ask Elizabeth (Sconzert).”

There is no mention of why Kreller would refer to an outside attorney for this advice, particularly the developer’s attorney Harrison, instead of Sconzert.

McVicker also mentioned “Not gonna send it to him quite yet.” It is unclear from their text messages who he was referring to here.

But in the weeks that followed — similar to what happened with Avery — Andrew Ellender began making repeated posts about Zuckerman on social media using the same information that McVicker, Kreller and Scherer had discussed in these texts.

Zuckerman would eventually express frustration with a friend on June 10th, sharing what he called a “100% photoshop” image that Ellender was circulating on social media as Zuckerman’s LinkedIn profile. Mandeville Daily was able to verify that what Ellender had posted was not Zuckerman’s real LinkedIn profile.

Claimed Sucette Harbor process ‘tainted’

While the debate and antics inside council chambers were often heated and confrontational, outside the chambers — or the Spitzfaden Center in this case — an all-out war was waged over the controversial project on social media, particularly after the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend the project.

This seems to be when the public began to take notice of the project, despite the fact that an early version — described at that time as a $150 million plan with restaurants, retail, hotel and age-restricted apartments — had been announced in local media as far back as mid-to-late 2021.

As the process was winding down in July 2023, project proponent Rhonda Alleman would share links to Mandeville Daily articles with Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, and she once called it “The Zuckerman Daily,” according to text messages in the Cheezem public records release.

After an op-ed was published on July 26th titled “OPINION | Latest Sucette meeting turned into tactic to save punch-drunk developer from knockout,” Alleman remarked that the process had been tainted, to which Danielson agreed.

Sucette Harbor Exposed: Part 4 will be published soon.

Editor’s Note:

• Rhonda Alleman appears frequently in text messages or emails from most of the council members, where she is seen as a staunch proponent of the Sucette Harbor project.
• Trilby Lenfant is a former at-large council member as well as former executive assistant to Madden. She appears in many of Kreller’s text messages, where she is seen offering advice and relaying information to and from developer meetings.
• Eric McVicker is a Kreller campaign consultant and Mariner’s Village Master Association (MVMA) president. He appears prominently throughout Kreller’s texts, and in May 2023 he penned a Sucette Harbor endorsement announcement on behalf of the MVMA board of directors.
• Andrew Ellender — a social media content provider on local politics— was seen as a project proponent based on the bulk of his social media posts. He was also a frequent critic of Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman, Mayor Clay Madden, and even certain officials in the Mandeville Police Department. Ellender has sent a number of emails to the City Council on various topics, some but not all relating to Sucette Harbor.

-30-

Tactics to break 90-units mulled until final Sucette Harbor meeting

Bush was set to lift 90-unit limit Aug. 15

Advocate pushed 170 units even as Sept. 5 meeting loomed

Danielson dismissive of last-minute maneuver getting 3 votes

MANDEVILLE — Project proponents were working right up until the final Sucette Harbor meeting September 5th in hopes of finding a way to strip the 90-apartment limit from the Sucette Harbor ordinance, well after the August 15th meeting where two such attempts were unsuccessful, according to information contained in a public records release.

Editor’s Note: This is the second part in a series that will explore the recent Sucette Harbor public records release. At the end of this multi-part series, Mandeville Daily will publish a complete timeline of events from start to finish, including all text messages from all council members and other officials in PDF format for the reader to review independently, but as of the publish date of this article we do not have legible text messages from two of the council members involved due to a technical error by the City of Mandeville.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Let us refresh your memory…

Before we delve into what the text messages and emails reveal, it is important for the reader to be familiar with the chain of events from the July 12th meeting all the way through to the final September 5th meeting when the project was rejected. Here is the recap:

July 12: The Zuckerman amendment

A density restriction added to Ordinance 23-16 at the July 12th special meeting in effect strangled the proposal by cutting the number of apartments from 178 down to just 90. That amendment was offered by Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman who was joined by District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire and District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush in adopting it. This was an otherwise unexpected turn of events for the developer team and by all accounts caught them completely off guard.

July 24: Danielson pumping the brakes

At the very next meeting on July 24th, presiding officer of the Sucette Harbor special meetings and Councilman at Large Rick Danielson had a surprise of his own for the standing-room-only crowd when he started the meeting by announcing there would be no amendments, conditions, questions, or votes that night.

At this meeting, developer Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman plainly stated the 90-apartment limit would make the marina portion of the proposal unfeasible, to which Bush remarked, “The revitalizing of the marina is pretty important.”

August 15: The Robert’s Rules drama

The stage was set at the August 15th meeting for a “possible” final vote, and Hoffman fired the opening salvo by telling the council that Woodward Interests simply could not comply with the 90-apartment directive and therefore had not brought plans for such to the meeting.

Right out of the gate, District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller offered an amendment to raise the number of units from 90 to 170, which would have nullified the July 12th Zuckerman amendment, to which Zuckerman immediately called a point of order. According to Robert’s Rules of Order (RROO), an amendment cannot nullify a previous amendment to a main motion.

After a recess where lawyers and council members huddled and conferred, the meeting continued with Danielson upholding Zuckerman’s point of order and announcing that assistant city attorney David Parnell Jr. advised that the “motion to reconsider” should be used instead. The only caveat was that it would have to be offered by one of the three members who had voted in the affirmative for the Zuckerman amendment July 12th. Bush offered to do so and it appeared things would move forward, although Bush equivocated on whether she would ultimately vote to remove the Zuckerman amendment or not.

Zuckerman later grew frustrated when his request to have his July 12th amendment read aloud by the secretary was ruled out of order by Danielson, despite RROO expressly stating it is permitted. But after a bit of wrangling and discussion, Zuckerman in-effect forced a second point of order.

After another recess and huddling with more lawyers, Danielson acknowledged that they could not move forward with the motion to reconsider due to time constraints. RROO requires that a motion to reconsider be made at the same meeting or at the very next meeting after the original amendment had been adopted. The August 15th meeting was the second meeting after the Zuckerman amendment.

September 5: Sucette Harbor rejected 5-0

The September 5th special meeting on Sucette Harbor was a more somber affair. A chain of amendments offered by Zuckerman and McGuire seemed to be one nail in the coffin after another until Ordinance 23-16 was voted down unanimously by the council.

The Zuckerman amendment from July 12th had become a wrecking amendment. Wrecking amendments usually force even proponents of a piece of legislation to end up voting against it, which at the time seemed to be what had happened.

’And now… the rest of the story…’

To the casual observer, it would have appeared that the August 15th meeting signaled the end for Sucette Harbor, but the reality is, behind the scenes, it had not.

Now we have the texts and emails that were released as part of a public records request made by Woodward Interests Vice President Bear Cheezem.

These conversations reveal a flurry of behind-the-scenes strategizing to somehow save the project before, during, and after the August 15th meeting.

According to text messages, it appears that Bush was willing to join the minority of Danielson and Kreller to strip the Zuckerman amendment after a meeting with the developer, possibly raising the number of units from 90 to 120, which could have been seen as a compromise.

Text messages between Bush and project proponent Rhonda Alleman show a lengthy conversation in the days leading up to the August 15th meeting, with Alleman also sending Bush an email the morning of the meeting.

Editor’s Note: Rhonda Alleman appears in the text messages from most of the council members as part of the Bear Cheezem public records release, where she is seen as a staunch proponent of the Sucette Harbor project, frequently lobbying council members with talking points, participating in social media response tactics, and offering Robert’s Rules of Order advice to break the Zuckerman amendment.

A text exchange between the two that day makes it appear that Bush was going to allow the Zuckerman amendment from July 12th to be removed.

Bush appeared to be looking past the 90-unit issue, cautioning Alleman that there were still other unrelated issues with the ordinance that she wanted to fix before a vote could be held, to which Alleman replied: “True. I would agree. Thank you so much.”

And in the aforementioned email from 11:33 a.m. that day, Alleman asked Bush to consider going from 120 units to 170 — not from 90 units to 170. This discrepancy is somewhat perplexing given that the ordinance currently stood at 90 units, not 120.

This email indicates Alleman had prior knowledge the developer would ask for 170 units at the August 15th meeting, and that Bush was prepared to go to 120 but not necessarily any higher. And of course, it ended up being Bush that night who made the “motion to reconsider.”

The City Council received no advance notice from the developer that they would lower their marina cutoff number from 178 down to 170 that night, yet Alleman had this information and was attempting to persuade Bush to go all the way to 170 earlier in the day.

Kreller also seemed to be aware of the 170-unit number the night before the meeting, texting that he would move to kill the ordinance should the 170-unit plan be rejected by the council August 15th, according to texts.

“[I]f their new proposal goes down, then I will probably call for a vote,” he texted.

It ended up being Kreller who made the first attempt to break the Zuckerman amendment at the August 15th meeting, not Bush.

After Kreller’s motion to raise the number of units to 170 was ruled out of order in a roundabout way, and another recess had been called to discuss Bush’s attempt to allow the Zuckerman amendment to be “reconsidered,” Alleman began texting Bush during the break concerning yet another RROO tactic, the “motion to rescind.”

However, Bush told Alleman that Parnell Jr. had told her the “motion to reconsider” was the correct maneuver.

But as it would turn out, Bush’s motion would in effect be ruled out of order by Danielson, ostensibly due to the time limits imposed by RROO.

During the next three weeks until the final September 5th meeting, Alleman and Bush exchanged 30 screens or pages of text messages, the majority of which are unreadable due to an error by the City of Mandeville in fulfilling the public records request.

However, August 21st — during the timeframe of the unreadable texts between her and Bush — Alleman texted Danielson that she believed the votes were there to “resurrect the 170 units” and that “it’s not complicated.”

Below is an exchange between Alleman and Bush a few days before the final September 5th meeting —deciphered by Mandeville Daily as much as possible — in which Alleman still appears to be pleading the case to save the Sucette Harbor project, despite the RROO impasse at the August 15th meeting.

Then, two days before the final meeting, Alleman texted Danielson again, asking that if the ordinance were to be voted down, could it be reintroduced without the Zuckerman amendment. Danielson replied, “I agree but at the moment, 170 would never get 3 [yes] votes from this crew.”

But Ordinance 23-16 did end up with five “no” votes that night plus an eventual federal lawsuit.

Sucette Harbor Exposed: Part 3 will be published soon.

Editor’s Note:

The City of Mandeville was contacted by other members of the public concerning RROO concerns in the aftermath of the August 15th meeting.

• Shortly after the August 15th meeting was adjourned, Ellen Pierce, ex-wife of P&Z member Mike Pierce, forwarded to Danielson and and Kreller a July 25th email between her and Alleman concerning an article published by Mandeville Daily. Pierce opined that Mandeville Daily was incorrect in asserting that amendments could not nullify previous amendments. Mandeville Daily stands by its reporting.
  
• Mandeville Daily Editor Emeritus William Kropog emailed the City Council August 24th, asking that the record be corrected after the City of Mandeville published the meeting packet for the September 5th meeting, in which Ordinance 23-16 had been incorrectly updated to show Bush as the member who had introduced the ordinance. Emails obtained as part of the Cheezem public records release show that Council Clerk Kristine Scherer acknowledged the issue and later corrected it. What’s more, it had been McGuire at the May 25th meeting who had made the motion to bring the Sucette Harbor ordinance before the council for consideration and adoption. According to RROO, the maker of a motion — once it belongs to the body — with a simple majority vote can withdraw it, stripping it of all amendments.
  
• Additionally, on September 5th, the day of the final meeting, Mandeville Daily Editor Emeritus William Kropog emailed Zuckerman a RROO order quick reference — based on the content of an article published on August 20th — relating to the parliamentary issues raised at the August 15th meeting.

-30-

Related:
Sucette Harbor Exposed: Part 1
OPINION | Text messages make righteous indignation over ‘bribe’ post look bogus
Some Sucette public records request documents not readable
OPINION | Sucette Harbor’s next move: The ‘Nuclear Option’?

Councilman claims in texts he was trying to ‘hold the votes on P&Z together’

Instructed confidant to contact P&Z member to keep as ‘yes’ vote

Complained to city attorney ‘again’ about perceived ‘no’ vote by other P&Z member

Former councilwoman suggested having P&Z member check voting records of project critics on social media

Texts suggest frequent consultations with project team, project attorney

MANDEVILLE — District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller made claims in text messages with his confidants and consultants that suggest he was trying to influence the upcoming vote on Sucette Harbor by the Planning & Zoning Commission, according to information contained in a public records release.

Editor’s Note: This is the first part in a series that will explore the recent Sucette Harbor public records release. Mandeville Daily is merely describing what was said in the text messages of those involved in the Sucette Harbor process, adding context where necessary. It is important to remember these are only text messages. Just because someone said they did or would do something, or talked to this person or that person doesn’t mean they actually did. These are public records. Anyone could ask for them and review them at any time. Mandeville Daily believes it is in the public interest for the people to inspect these documents in order to help foster and preserve the public trust. At the end of this multi-part series, we will publish a complete timeline of events from start to finish, including all text messages from all council members and other officials in PDF format for the reader to review independently, but as of the publish date of this article we do not have legible text messages from two of the council members involved due to a technical error by the City of Mandeville.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

The Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) on April 17th voted 4-3 to recommend the Sucette Harbor project for adoption by the City Council. This split decision came after a series of six special meetings by the P&Z, spanning September 21, 2022, to April 17, 2023. These text messages occurred before and during that series of P&Z meetings.

In January 2023, Kreller told his campaign consultant and Mariner’s Village Master Association (MVMA) President Eric McVicker that Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman (the project developer) “knows I’m trying to hold the votes on P&Z together,” according to text messages.

McVicker would later pen a press release announcing the “unanimous” endorsement of Sucette Harbor by the MVMA board of directors. That release was submitted to the City Council and mentioned by Hoffman at the initial Sucette Harbor meeting as evidence of community support. However, the endorsement was later disavowed by a group of 45 MVMA property owners.

After one P&Z meeting in March, Kreller — in a text conversation with McVicker and former Mandeville Mayor Donald Villere — said he planned to complain to City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert about P&Z Chairman Brian Rhinehart for his “negative position” claiming that Rhinehart had been opposed to the Pre-Stressed/Port Marigny project before he was appointed to the P&Z, therefore they assumed he would vote no on Sucette Harbor.

In that same text thread, Kreller instructed McVicker to contact one of the P&Z members, saying “need to keep Mike Pierce a yes vote.” However, Pierce ended up voting against recommending the project to the City Council.

The Planning & Zoning Commission members are appointed by the City Council. The council can also vote to remove P&Z members.

A series of texts on March 18th show that Kreller sought and received advice from former Planning and Development Director Louisette Scott concerning the CLURO as it relates to the Sucette Harbor project. He then passed along that information to P&Z member Nixon Adams.

According to a Kreller text message from August 2022, former City Councilwoman at Large and project proponent Trilby Lenfant suggested to Kreller that he ask P&Z member Nixon Adams to check the voting records of people who had made negative comments on social media about the project. They were referring to a Facebook post about Sucette Harbor by Mayor Clay Madden that received a multitude of negative comments from private citizens.

In another text from August 2022, Kreller told McVicker that he and Councilman at Large Rick Danielson had briefed the Woodward Interests team on who would be critical of the project. This appears to be a reference to either the P&Z, the City Council, or both.

Days later, Kreller warned McVicker not to delete any negative comments from Facebook, hoping critics would defame them. Kreller claimed he had consulted Woodward Interests attorney Paul Harrison, who “recommended stay low” on social media.

These and other texts that will be revealed later in this special series on Sucette Harbor suggest a pattern of frequent contact — or at least claims of such — with the developer team by Kreller, his confidants or consultants.

Sucette Harbor Exposed: Part 2 will be published soon.

-30-

Related: OPINION | Text messages make righteous indignation over ‘bribe’ post look bogus

Text messages from 2 council members pixelated, not legible

Working to get issue resolved

MANDEVILLE — Mandeville Daily is working with the City of Mandeville to resolve a technical issue with the electronic files containing Sucette Harbor-related text messages from two of the five City Council members.

Only the text messages from District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire are not legible and appear “pixelated” as if they were compressed or reduced before or while sending. The other digital documents from Bush and McGuire are fine.

Mandeville Daily wants to be clear that we believe the issue was caused by human error and was not intentional. We feel we have a duty to be thorough and to keep the reader informed of the process. The City of Mandeville’s legal department insists the pixelated, low-resolution images are exactly how they received them from the two council members in question.

We tried printing the records in question on multiple computers and printers.

Below is a sample of one of the more readable messages. While it is possible to decipher certain groups of words or complete sentences here and there, one cannot do so with absolute certainty and the messages cannot be read as one would expect.

What’s more, the recipient/sender’s names or phone numbers are completely unreadable as well as the date and time stamps, which are all necessary to add any form of context or to put them in chronological order. Without this information, they’re meaningless.

This is an example of a text message from McGuire. Her text messages are not legible at all.

Mandeville Daily was able to decipher some of Bush’s exchanges and place them in context, but with most of her texts we do not know the dates or whom they are with.

The text messages from the other three council members are good and have clearly readable names and date and time stamps.

Mandeville Daily is in the process of putting those text messages in chronological order as well as adding context to everything and everyone mentioned or participating in the message threads. It is an involved process, one we feel obligated to complete before publishing the information.

We would like to complete that process with Bush and McGuire’s text messages too.

The five council members turned over the following numbers of text messages (by screens):

When completed, we will publish a cross-referenced timeline of events, allowing the reader to inspect all text messages in context.

-30-

MANDEVILLE — The City of Mandeville has released as part of a public records request a massive trove of Sucette Harbor-related text messages, emails and other documents that the city or its officials, including City Council members, had in their possession.

A first-read reveals a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the entire process from start to finish from the perspectives of those on the City Council.

Mandeville Daily will provide in-depth coverage at a later date, which will include a cross-referenced timeline of events, allowing the reader to inspect the information with context.

These documents were released as part of a public records request made recently by Mandeville Daily, mirroring a request made on September 11th by Bear Cheezem, Vice President of Woodward Interests, the Sucette Harbor project developer.

Text messages, emails and other electronic documents in the custody of elected officials — even those received or created on personal devices — are part of the public record as long as they were created or received while conducting or discussing official business, according to Louisiana State Attorneys General opinions on the matter.

Mandeville Daily believes it was in the public interest to assert the right of the people to inspect these public documents and to report on them.

We believe this will preserve the public trust and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the controversial Sucette Harbor issue.

This is a developing story.

-30-

Mandeville Daily is contacting each candidate for City Council and Mayor, including incumbents and those who are running unopposed, and asking them to share their positions on key issues. We’re including mayoral candidates too because of the veto power over the City Council. We would love to hear from every candidate.

This is their chance to let the voters know right out of the gate where they stand on key issues. Mandeville Daily will publish the results, unaltered, provided they do not violate one of the rules below or some other editorial policy.

Five questions. Five short answers. Fifty words each. No one is obligated to respond, of course.

We feel it would be in the public interest to know where candidates stand on key issues, side-by-side.

The rules for the candidates choosing to respond are simple:

1) Do not call out individuals or other candidates by name or position. These answers are about you and what you would do.

2) For each question, you have a 50-word maximum (including articles and numbers). We will ignore or truncate anything beyond 50 words. No exceptions.

3) No hyperlinks, web addresses, email addresses or other pointers to external resources. This is an editorial policy. The public is free to search social media or the internet for candidate websites or other resources.

The deadline is Friday, December 22, at 5 p.m. No exceptions. We will email one reminder Thursday evening.

Candidates should email their responses to: editor@mandevilledaily.news. These responses must originate from the email address on file with the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court’s Office provided by each candidate when they qualified.

The questions are:

Question 1: What is your position on high-density development in Mandeville?

(50-words are less)

Question 2: After a year of hearings and public meetings, how would you have voted on the Sucette Harbor ordinance and why?

(50-words are less)

Question 3: What are your three favorite things about Mandeville?

(50-words are less)

Question 4: What are the two most important issues you think this next City Council and administration will face?

(50-words are less)

Question 5: What are your thoughts about the upcoming process of updating the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan?

(50-words are less)

-30-

Madden gets 2 challengers in mayoral race

Danielson bows out, will not seek re-election

Incumbent Zuckerman joined by 2020 also-ran and former councilman in race for 2 at-large seats

Newcomer takes District I unopposed

Kreller to face anti-Sucette stalwart newcomer in District II

McGuire unopposed in District III

Updated 12/16/2023 at 6:48 a.m. — Adds list of candidates by race.

MANDEVILLE — Qualifying closed today (December 15th) for the March 2024 primary election, revealing that Mayor Clay Madden will be challenged by Billy Rosenthal and Jeff Lyons, the son of former Mandeville Mayor Bubby Lyons, while Councilman at Large Rick Danielson announced he will not seek re-election for Council at Large.

Former District III Councilman Ernest Burguières and Mandeville Parks and Parkways commissioner and 2020 District III also-ran Scott Discon will join incumbent Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman in the race to fill the two at-large seats.

Anti-Sucette-Harbor stalwart and local attorney Kevin Vogeltanz will challenge Sucette-Harbor supporter and incumbent District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller for his seat.

District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire receives a second term unopposed, and newcomer and local wealth manager Cynthia Thompson will capture the District I seat unopposed as Rebecca Bush opted not to seek re-election.

Danielson posted a statement on social media today that reads in part:

“After a lot of serious thought and a few restless nights, I have decided to not seek re-election as a Mandeville Councilman-at-Large. l am deeply grateful for the opportunity to have served on the Mandeville City Council for almost 8 years now but at this time, I have several other priorities that I am focused on to include our business that we opened almost a year ago.”

In the coming days, Mandeville Daily will research and report on the general backgrounds of each candidate running for mayor and city council in the March 23, 2024, primary election, using publicly available records such as those on file with the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court’s Office, as well as other public resources.

If you are one of the candidates mentioned above, we welcome any information you wish to provide, including your positions on issues important to Mandeville: editor@mandevilledaily.news.

Candidates for Mandeville Offices in March 2024 Primary Election

Mayor:

Jeff Lyons (R)
Clay Madden (R) (incumbent)
Billy Rosenthal (R)

Council Members at Large (2 elected):

Ernest Burguières (R)
Scott Discon (R)
Jason Zuckerman (R) (incumbent)

Council Member District I:

Cynthia Strong Thompson (R) (unopposed)

Council Member District II:

Skelly Kreller (R) (incumbent)
Keven S. Vogeltanz (R)

Council Member District III:

Jill Lane McGuire (R) (incumbent) (unopposed)

Incumbents who are not seeking re-election:

Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush

-30-

Updated 12/14/2023 at 4:23 p.m. — Adds language that clarifies what the law is versus what this ordinance proposes and removes some reporting concerning meetings being potentially adjourned as a tactic. The state Open Meetings Law already forces adjournment if the meeting is not “visible” and “audible” to the public. The was not reported in the initial release of this story. We regret any confusion this may have caused.

MANDEVILLE — A proposed ordinance scheduled for adoption tonight (December 14th) by the City Council would add Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations for remote participation by members of the public.

Ordinance 23-36 is intended to comply with recent changes to the state’s Open Meetings Law by adding accommodations for members of the public and City Council members who fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act provisions, allowing them not only to participate remotely but also to cast votes remotely.

Act 393 of the 2023 Regular Session amended La. R.S. 42:14(E) and 42:17.2.1 mandating that public bodies, such as the Mandeville City Council, make accommodations for people with disabilities recognized by the ADA.

This ordinance would allow members of the public to participate remotely using software like Zoom Meetings so that they could provide public comment similarly to how those in attendance do. The proposed ordinance would allow members of a public body — like the City Council — to cast votes and attend executive sessions remotely as if they were onsite.

Item “f” of the proposed Section 2-10, which if adopted would be added to the city charter, says that if a member of the public who has been granted ADA accommodations is having technical issues teleconferencing to a meeting and those issues cannot be resolved “within one hour,” then that meeting would be adjourned.

The language used in item “f” of this ordinance — while similar to language in the Open Meetings law at 42:17.2 (C)(5) — addresses ADA participants directly.

R.S. 42:17(A) says that a public body “may” allow its “members” to attend and participate via electronic means. And 42:17.2(C)(5) reads:

“If the public body is aware of a technical problem that causes the meeting to no longer be audible, or if applicable, visible and audible to the public, the meeting shall be recessed until the problem is resolved. If the problem is not resolved within one hour, the meeting shall be adjourned and the presiding officer shall make an effort to alert all participants to that fact.”

The language of Ordinance 23-36’s proposed 2-10(f) reads:

“If a technical problem impairs the ability of the disabled member of the public or disabled member of the public body to participate in the meeting, the meeting shall be recessed until the problem is resolved. If the technical issue is not resolved within one hour, the meeting shall be adjourned, and the presiding officer will use all reasonable means to notify all participants of that fact.”

Critics say this is vague and leaves the reader to wonder if this means that if the disabled person (having been granted these accommodations) participating remotely has a technical issue that the meeting would have to be adjourned.

Read Ordinance 23-36 here.

All Mandeville City Council Meetings are currently streamed live on Facebook and via the city’s official website. However, the only way to provide public comment remotely is to email a member of the City Council or the council clerk and ask that a statement be read into the record. There is no legal requirement for the council to do so.

Tonight’s meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. and will be held at the Mandeville City Hall Council Chambers.

-30-

Qualifying period opens today at 8:30 a.m. at Clerk of Court’s Office and runs through Friday

COVINGTON — Qualifying opens today (December 13th) for statewide races for the March 23, 2024, primary election, including those for Mandeville mayor and City Council.

Candidates can sign up starting at 8:30 a.m. at the Clerk of Court’s Office in the St. Tammany Parish Justice Center in Covington.

After qualifying closes, Mandeville Daily will provide a complete list of candidates for the Mandeville races along with any available background information from publicly available resources.

-30-

MANDEVILLE — The City of Mandeville and Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman have filed motions to dismiss a complaint filed in October by the developer of the rejected Sucette Harbor project, Woodward Harbor, LLC, and the LSU Health Foundation.

The city filed two motions on the following grounds:

Ripeness question: Because the plaintiff still has the option to submit alternative use applications and other administrative remedies for the property in question, they cannot allege that the property has been “taken” with no other recourse, hence their complaint is not “ripe.”

Unlawful taking question: Because there is no entitlement under state or local law to use the property specifically as they have proposed in the Sucette Harbor plan and there were other uses already approved for the property, it therefore cannot be an unlawful “taking.”

Zuckerman’s motion claims that as an elected official, he has “absolute” and “qualified” immunity from the plaintiff’s complaint.

The original Sucette Harbor complaint was filed with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, on October 6th. Zuckerman is being sued individually. The suit asks the court to force the city to approve the Sucette Harbor project as it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning commission by a 4-3 vote on April 17th. The complaint also asks for monetary compensation from Zuckerman and the city.

The City Council voted unanimously at the October 26th council meeting to confirm City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert’s selections to provide legal representation for the City and Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman.

Sconzert picked James Breaux of Liskow & Lewis, APLC, to represent the city and Thomas Flanagan of Flanagan Partners, LLP, to represent Zuckerman.

Section 2-6 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Mandeville stipulates the city “shall” provide legal representation to council members, as well as most other employees and officials, in situations where they are individually targeted in lawsuits. However, the law also requires that these officials would have to reimburse the city should the jurisdictional court find them at fault.

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller read a prepared statement at the October 26th meeting expressing that he was initially opposed to the city funding Zuckerman’s legal fees but that after discussions with Sconzert, he would support the measure.

Mariner’s Village Master Association President Eric McVicker, who has served as a campaign consultant for Kreller during the Sucette Harbor application process, submitted a statement to the City Council and asked that it be read into the record at the October 26th meeting, opposing the city funding Zuckerman’s defense.

It was McVicker who penned a letter of endorsement for the Sucette Harbor project on behalf of the Master Association board of directors, which was presented to the City Council by Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman at the May 25th City Council meeting. That letter was later disavowed by petitions from a group of 45 property owners in Mariner’s Village.

Sucette Harbor would have been a massive hotel, events center, apartment complex and marina at the western end of the Mandeville lakefront between residential neighborhoods and Lake Pontchartrain:

• 82-room hotel and events center
• Restaurant
• 201 presumably HUD-age-exempted apartments*
• 103-slip marina
  

The City Council unanimously rejected the Sucette Harbor project Ordinance 23-16 September 5th. However, it was Zuckerman, District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire and District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush who had opposed various aspects of the proposed project, enough to have adopted what turned out to be a wrecking amendment that significantly cut the density of the project, which ultimately led to its demise.

Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and Kreller, on the other hand, both have expressed support for development on the property since 2021, having given supportive statements to local media outlets, including the Times-Picayune/Nola.com on August 2, 2021.

Woodward Harbor LLC (Woodward Interests) has until December 26th to file responses.

-30-

Council rejects measure that would have redefined, revived dormant 2012 panel

Council members said proposal wrested council budget authority

Danielson measure fails, 3-2

Updated 11/24/2023 at 6:28 a.m. — Expands coverage of the civil service compensation procedure.

MANDEVILLE — The City Council rejected a measure Thursday (November 16th) that would have breathed new life into the dormant “Financial Oversight Committee,” a panel of private citizens, council members and other officials that was created in 2012 to play an advisory role to the council concerning its budgeting process.

Ordinance 23-34, introduced by Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, proposed significant changes to the Mandeville Financial Oversight Committee (MFOC). The measure — which would have stricken over 50 percent of the text and replaced it with new verbiage — was defeated, 3-2, after an often-spirited debate among council members.

The MFOC is established by Sections 18-1, 18-2, 18-3 and 18-4 of the City of Mandeville Home Rule Charter, covering the committee’s composition, duties and responsibilities, meetings and terms, and rules of procedure, respectively.

Ordinance 23-34 would have changed the committee’s membership from having just three private-citizen voting members along with four ex-officio, non-voting members to seven voting members, including the two City Council members plus two members from the city administration.

Danielson’s proposal completely removed the term “ex-officio” (people who hold other offices), along with a clause that specifically said ex-officio members could not cast votes.

Ordinance 23-34 would have rewritten the “duties and responsibilities” of the MFOC, shifting its role away from being just an instrument of transparency concerning dedicated sales tax revenue and the overall budget administration process, including helping select and hire a CPA for audits, to acting more proactively, like a budget steering committee.

The new duties and responsibilities as proposed in Ordinance 23-34 would have included:

• Study the city’s current fiscal year budget and provide recommendations.
• Develop a recommended roadmap for future spending.
• Make water and sewer rate recommendations.
• Make recommendations concerning personnel pay structure and benefits.
• Recommend the prioritization of future capital projects.
• Recommend changes to the budget process.
  

This is where much of the opposition from others on the council was rooted. Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman, District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire all expressed that the changes were too drastic and broad.

Ordinance 23-34 would have changed the citizen member terms from being staggered to concurrent, presumably all being appointed or reappointed at the same time. The proposal also removed term limits from these appointees.

McGuire indicated that she felt the proposal would have usurped some of the responsibility of the City Council itself.

“This is one more board where we’re going to have people that are appointed and not elected, and they’re giving their input, and they’re going to make recommendations after a budget’s already been passed,” she said.

Danielson refuted a number of McGuire’s comments, pointing out that the committee as his proposal redefined it would have no policy-making authority.

“This committee, if needed, when needed, would meet to discuss certain tasks laid out by the City Council, to look at things, that we might not have the expertise to do. It is not to change the budget. This committee would have zero authority to do that, zero,” he said.

Zuckerman said he didn’t like the idea of “saddling” the next City Council with appointees having three-year terms, made near the end of the current council’s term.

“I just don’t think it’s the right thing to do, to saddle the next council, whoever that may be. It may be one of us, it may be all of us.”

Zuckerman added, “I think it’s a worthy idea, I don’t have a problem with that, but I just think it’s just not well thought out.”

Danielson took objection to that characterization: “It was well thought out in 2012 of which this ordinance is based off of.”

“But we took a lot out,” Zuckerman responded, referring to the changes proposed in Ordinance 23-34.

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller said he supported the proposal, citing his experience running his dental practice: “I’m on a medical/dental background and we had oversight. I’ve had it my whole life, in medicine.”

Bush said she felt the newly defined duties and responsibilities were framed too loosely, in a legal sense.

“I am cautious in that we can’t create a group of non-elected officials to substitute their opinion in place of or to be given greater weight, potentially, to an elected body charged with the budget. And I think that should be a concern for everyone,” she said.

Civil Service Board Chairman Brian Burke spoke during the public comment period, expressing concern over the wording of Ordinance 23-34 and the rewrite of Section 18-2, which would have charged the MFOC to: “Review Personnel Costs, including, but not limited to, pay structure and benefits and provide any recommendations.”

According to Louisiana Revised Statutes Act 84-164 — as amended by Acts 09-418 and 17-83 — the personnel director, who is indirectly appointed by the Municipal Police Employees Civil Service Board itself, creates the compensation plan which must be approved by the Civil Service Board after a public hearing, and then that proposal goes before the City Council for its approval, and, in addition to that, the City Council still must approve it as part of the annual budget in a separate step.

Danielson offered an amendment which was approved unanimously to remove item five, which would have had the MFOC review personnel pay and benefits, from Section 18-2, before the ordinance was defeated, 3-2. Only Danielson and Kreller voted in favor of the ordinance.

-30-

Asks court to force city to approve Sucette Harbor project

Names private citizens who attended meetings, spoke in opposition

Targets councilman at large individually

Updated October 6, 2023, at 10:04 p.m. — Expands coverage and background.

MANDEVILLE — The City of Mandeville and Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman are the targets of a federal lawsuit filed yesterday, October 6th, by Woodward Harbor, LLC, the developer behind the rejected Sucette Harbor project.

The lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Zuckerman is being sued individually in the civil suit. The suit asks the court to force the city to approve the Sucette Harbor project as it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning commission by a narrow 4-3 vote on April 17th, 2023. The City Council rejected Ordinance 23-16 in a 5-0 vote September 5th, 2023.

Sucette Harbor would have been a massive hotel, events center, apartment complex and marina at the western end of the Mandeville lakefront between residential neighborhoods and Lake Pontchartrain:

• 82-room hotel and events center
• Restaurant
• 201 presumably HUD-age-exempted apartments*
• 103-slip marina
  

The main allegations of the suit are that the City of Mandeville and/or Zuckerman violated Woodward’s rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, didn’t follow the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance (CLURO), violated Robert’s Rules of Order at one or more meetings on Sucette Harbor, among other allegations.

Click to download the suit here (PDF format).

The suit additionally claims that Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire used their personal opinions to gin up opposition to the project and consulted non-city attorneys during the months leading up to the failed bid.

“With Zuckerman taking the lead in unrestrained opposition, and McGuire supporting his efforts, their comments in denying the ordinance were best described as personal and individual interpretations of the CLURO, and all of their comments were intentionally designed to “kill” the proposed project and to prevent future, similar applications,” the suit reads.

The suit mentions attorneys Ernest Burguieres and Kevin Vogeltanz and local architect Vaughn Sollberger by name as those consulted by Zuckerman.

The suit also alleges violations of Robert’s Rules of Order on August 15th when presiding officer Councilman at Large Rick Danielson upheld two points of order by Zuckerman, not allowing a previously adopted amendment which capped the number of apartment units at 90 to be nullified or then reconsidered.

Woodward is saying the nullification of the amendment should have been allowed, but according to RROO, new amendments cannot nullify previous amendments on a motion (RROO §12:25) and a motion to reconsider must be done at the same or next meeting (RROO — §6:26 (4), §37:8 (b), §37:10 (b)) that the original amendment was adopted. The August 15th meeting was the second meeting after the 90-unit amendment was approved.

* The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has an exemption for so-called age-restricted housing, but the developer must maintain target occupancy levels for people age 55 and older.

Related:
Sucette Harbor killed, 5-0
Attempt to break 90-apartment limit fails after procedural gaffe, standoff among council members, attorneys

-30-

Seven amendments further strangled ordinance before defeat

Multitude of ‘wrecking amendments’ forced ardent supporters Kreller, Danielson to reject

Every vote against project was unanimous

Updated September 6, 2023, at 6:01 a.m. — Expands coverage on amendments and voting.

MANDEVILLE — The long-debated, often-criticized Sucette Harbor project was rejected tonight (September 5th) by the City Council after a months-long process that generated a groundswell of opposition to building a hotel, events center, and apartment complex in the middle of a residential area at the west end of the Mandeville Lakefront.

A heavily amended Ordinance 23-16 was rejected, 5-0, by a City Council that seemed to sense the proposal’s imminent defeat as Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire teamed up for a whopping seven amendments that further constricted the proposal beyond an amendment adopted July 12th that cut the number of apartment units from 178 down to 90.

From removing a blanket stipulation granting “all variances and departures from the CLURO (Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance)” to prohibiting any use not specifically listed in the ordinance itself, the “wrecking amendments” signaled the end was near.

Each of tonight’s (September 5th) seven amendments were adopted 5-0, as the other council members offered no opposition, other than asking for clarifications, leading to a total of nine amendments, dating back to the July 12th special meeting.

Even the project’s two stalwarts — Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller — agreed to each new amendment and ultimately conceded defeat, joining the majority in killing the proposal.

Only weeks ago Kreller had attempted to break the 90-unit limit placed on the ordinance by Zuckerman’s July 12th amendment but was ruled out of order under parliamentary rules. Twice in the last month, Danielson put the brakes on further votes on the ordinance when it appeared defeat was imminent.

But tonight, nothing could save the ill-fated proposal. Every vote was unanimous.

Developer Bill Hoffman opened the meeting by flatly telling the City Council that they could not conform to the 90-unit amendment, insisting that 170 units was their floor.

-30-

Cressy asked to commit to serve full term before vote

MANDEVILLE — Nicholas Cressy was confirmed unanimously as the next appointee to the Planning and Zoning Commission to replace outgoing commissioner Nixon Adams whose term expires August 31st.

Before the vote, Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman asked Cressy during the hearing at tonight’s meeting (August 24th) if he would commit publicly to serving out the entirety of his seven-year term if confirmed, to which Cressy agreed, pointing out that he is only 38 years old and wishes to learn from serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Cressy is a second-generation attorney who was born in New Orleans and raised in Mandeville. He earned his Bachelor of Arts at Louisiana State University. After completing his undergraduate education, Cressy attended Loyola New Orleans College of Law.

Two other Mandevillians — Ann Haveman and Pat Rosenow — submitted their applications for consideration to replace Adams.

The City Council’s appointment process provides that the Council Chairman — in this case Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman — makes the appointment after meeting with one of the district council members to discuss the matter. That name will be appointed at the specified regular meeting for discussion among the council members.

The Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance (CLURO) reads: “An appointment [to the Commission] shall be made, by the Council Chairman, subject to majority approval of the Council, for any vacancies.” This was amended by the City Council in 2022, changing the basic procedure, where before it read, “They [Commission members] shall be appointed and confirmed by a vote of the Council.”

There are seven Planning and Zoning commissioners and they are limited to two consecutive seven-year terms each, according to the City Charter.

-30-

City attorney’s recommendation to chair conflicted with Robert’s Rules of Order

Kreller made motion to raise limit to 170 apartments after developer asked

Zuckerman called point of order citing Robert’s Rules of Order

Motion to ‘Reconsider’ out of order

Amendments can’t nullify, modify amendments from previous meeting

Updated August 17, 2023, at 10:31 a.m. — Expands coverage. Adds more citations from Robert’s Rules of Order.

This updates and expands coverage on an earlier story.

MANDEVILLE — The City Council’s special meeting on Sucette Harbor August 15th degenerated into near chaos during a parliamentary standoff, triggering two separate recesses during which assistant city attorney David Parnel Jr., council members, as well as local attorneys in attendance all huddled and debated competing interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order. The end result was, the 90-unit limit remained in place.

After an opening pitch from developer Bill Hoffman, asking that the council consider increasing the number of apartments from the previously amended 90-unit limit to an earlier 178-unit limit, District II Councilman Skelly Kreller made a motion to comply with the request from the outset.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman immediately called for a “point of order” under Robert’s Rules of Order, alleging that such an amendment is out of order because it would have a nullification effect on a previous amendment.

When a member calls a pointer of order, the chairman is supposed to consult with the parliamentarian and then after a possible recess, announce to the assembly that the point of order was either “well taken” or “not well taken.” These rulings can be appealed.

According to Robert’s Rules of Order, §12:25 on amendments, a new amendment cannot alter or nullify an existing amendment on a ordinance that is still before the council, even across multiple-day sessions. A session is not limited to a single meeting. (See a full explanation are reference from Robert’s Rules or Order at the end of this piece.)

This triggered the first of two recesses where Parnell Jr., Council Clerk Kristine Scherer, acting Council Chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and other officials huddled for about 20 minutes before returning the meeting to order under a ruling that a “motion to reconsider” instead of a new amendment could move forward.

This was an indirect acknowledgment that Zuckerman’s first point of order was indeed “well taken” in parliamentary terms, meaning, he was right.

A motion to reconsider a previously adopted amendment, if allowed to proceed, would essentially allow the council to vote again on the amendment that was adopted July 12th.

Robert’s Rules of Order addresses the motion to reconsider under §37 where it basically says this can only be done at the same meeting the amendment was adopted or only at the very next meeting, if the business spans multiple meetings.

Robert’s Rules §37:10 (b) reads:

“The making of this motion is subject to time limits, as follows: In a session of one day—such as an ordinary meeting of a club or a one-day convention—the motion to Reconsider can be made only on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken. In a convention or session of more than one day, a reconsideration can be moved only on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the session on which a business meeting is held.”

(See a full explanation and excerpts from Robert’s Rules or Order at the end of this piece.)

But for a reason that remains unclear, Parnell Jr. returned a factually incorrect opinion to Danielson, stating that because the business of Ordinance 23-16 was still ongoing, the motion to reconsider was still in order.

As the meeting proceeded, the procedural dust-up continued while council members debated the motion to reconsider the previous amendment, which was adopted July 12th.

At one point, Zuckerman asked Scherer to read his original amendment from July 12th for which the motion to reconsider was being debated. Danielson said the request was out of order, saying discussion was limited strictly to whether the motion to reconsider should move forward or not, to which Kreller quickly concurred.

But Zuckerman insisted that the amendment itself was germane:

“All I’m asking is as part of this discussion of whether or not to reopen the amendment is if we can read the amendment we’re discussing reopening. Can we do that? … I think it’s very important before we make a motion to reconsider an amendment if we’re all on the same page as to what that amendment was. I don’t think that’s out of order.”

After waiting for Parnell Jr. to agree that it was OK to have the amendment read aloud, Scherer read from the July 12th meeting minutes.

Again, according to Robert’s Rules of Order §37:18, “Whenever the motion to Reconsider is taken up, it is debatable if the motion proposed to be reconsidered is debatable, and debate can go into the merits of the question proposed to be reconsidered, as noted in Standard Characteristic 5.”

The back-and-forth continued among council and members of the public until Zuckerman basically called a second point of order, asking for Parnell Jr. to read from Robert’s Rules of Order exactly where he pulled his first interpretation which said that the matter could be revisited. Parnell Jr. could not immediately provide an answer.

This caused a parliamentary impasse, leading to a second recess of roughly 25 minutes while the same officials huddled, looked up information on their computers and smart phones. This time round, a few local attorneys who happened to be in attendance joined the fray.

Finally, Danielson returned with a ruling that Kreller’s motion to reconsider was out of order and, like his earlier amendment attempting to remove the 90-unit limit, could not move forward either.

“The decision is we will not vote on the motion to reconsider… that is killed, OK… We are multiple meetings past… So the position from my position is, we will not, and that motion then to reconsider is killed,” Danielson explained.

This is the equivalent of the acting chairman acknowledging that Zuckerman’s second “point of order” was considered “well taken” like his earlier one. Danielson’s remark “we are multiple meetings past” is an obvious reference to Robert’s Rules of Order §37:10 (b) (found at the bottom of this piece).

The 90-unit apartment limit, established by the amendment offered by Zuckerman at the July 12th meeting and adopted by the council, will remain in place, and cannot be undone moving forward.

Below are the relevant sections and subsections of Robert’s Rules of Order for the reader’s examination:

Robert’s Rules of Order

An amendment cannot alter or nullify a previously adopted amendment

§12:25

“It should be noted that many of the rules governing the different forms of amendment are particular applications of the following principle: After the assembly has voted that certain words (or a certain paragraph) shall, or shall not, form part of a pending resolution, it is not in order, during the same session at which that vote was taken, to make another motion to Amend that raises the same question of content and effect. Common sense should guide the presiding officer in interpreting the rules, both to give freedom for improvement of the main motion finally to be voted on, and at the same time to protect the assembly from motions for amendment that present questions it has already decided.”

Robert’s Rules of Order defines a ‘session’ as being a single meeting or multiple meetings. This means Zuckerman’s amendment from July 12th cannot be nullified or altered by a new amendment on the same ordinance, even days or weeks later.

Amendments can be ‘reconsidered’ by the council under certain circumstances

§12:7 (8)

“Can be reconsidered.”

This is what opened the door to ‘reconsideration’ of an adopted amendment but strictly in accordance with §37 or Robert’s Rules of Order. Once Parnell Jr. and Danielson realized Zuckerman’s first point of order had to be well-taken, they moved to the motion to reconsider as the path to lift the 90-unit limit.

Only amendments on ordinances that have not been adopted and are before the council can be ‘reconsidered’

§37:9 (2)(h)

“In the case of subsidiary or incidental motions that adhered to a main motion, however, Reconsider can be applied only in such a way that the reconsideration takes place while the main motion to which they adhered is pending—either before the main motion is voted on or when it is being reconsidered at the same time.”

Amendments can only be ‘reconsidered’ while the main motion (ordinance) is before the council and before a final vote occurs. Once an ordinance is adopted, all amendments become the ordinance and cease to exist separately.

Debate on motion to reconsider can consider merits of item to be reconsidered

§37:18 

“Whenever the motion to Reconsider is taken up, it is debatable if the motion proposed to be reconsidered is debatable, and debate can go into the merits of the question proposed to be reconsidered, as noted in Standard Characteristic 5.”

During debate on whether to reconsider the 90-unit-limit amendment from July 12th, Danielson attempted to rule — and Kreller concurred — that Zuckerman’s request to have that original amendment read aloud was “out of order” when clearly that is not the case.

A motion to ‘reconsider’ an amendment is subject to time limits

§37:10 (b)

“The making of this motion is subject to time limits, as follows: In a session of one day—such as an ordinary meeting of a club or a one-day convention—the motion to Reconsider can be made only on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken. In a convention or session of more than one day, a reconsideration can be moved only on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the session on which a business meeting is held. ”

§37:8 (b)

“Except in committees, it must be moved either on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held.”

A motion to ‘reconsider’ an amendment must be done at the same meeting or at the very next meeting if part of a multi-meeting or multi-day session. This is where Parnell Jr. returned inaccurate information to the council chairman in an attempt to find a workable way for Kreller to move to undo the 90-apartment limit. The result was, Zuckerman’s second point of order ended up being well-taken also.

Excerpts From
Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition
Henry M. Robert III, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold & Shmuel Gerber
https://books.apple.com/us/book/roberts-rules-of-order-newly-revised-12th-edition/id1502060875
This material may be protected by copyright.

-30-

Developer made pitch to amend previous 90-limit amendment

Kreller made motion to raise limit to 170 apartments

Zuckerman called point of order citing Robert’s Rules of Order

Amendments can’t nullify, modify previous amendments from previous meeting

This story is out-of-date. Read the updated and expanded coverage here…

MANDEVILLE — The City Council’s special meeting on Sucette Harbor tonight (August 15th) degenerated into near chaos during a parliamentary standoff, triggering two separate recesses during which assistant city attorney David Parnel Jr., council members, as well as local attorneys in attendance all huddled and debated competing interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order. The end result was the 90-unit limit remained in place.

After an opening pitch from developer Bill Hoffman, asking that the council consider increasing the number of apartments from the previously amended 90-unit limit to an earlier 178-unit limit, District II Councilman Skelly Kreller made a motion to comply with the request.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman immediately called for a “point of order” under Robert’s Rules of Order, alleging that such an amendment is out of order because it would have a nullification effect on a previous amendment.

This triggered the first of two recesses where Parnell Jr., Council Clerk Kristine Scherer, acting Council Chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and other officials huddled for about 20 minutes before returning the meeting to order under a ruling that a “motion to reconsider” would could move forward.

As the meeting proceeded, the procedural dust-up continued while council members debated the motion to reconsider the previous amendment which was adopted July 12th. Finally, Zuckerman called a second point of order — really more of a point of information — asking for Parnell Jr. to read from Robert’s Rules of Order exactly where he pulled his first interpretation which said that the matter could be revisited.

This essentially caused a parliamentary impasse, leading to a second recess of roughly 25 minutes while the same officials huddled, looked up information on their computers and smart phones. This time round, a few local attorneys who happened to be in attendance joined the fray.

Finally Danielson returned with a ruling that Kreller’s motion to reconsider was not in order and could not move forward, essentially killing the issue. The 90-unit apartment limit, established by an amendment offered by Zuckerman at the July 12th meeting and adopted by the council, will remain in place.

This is a developing story.

-30-