Mosquito district’s governance fight highlights broader dilemma: When do appointed commissions become immune to oversight?

Editorial

At the heart of the debate over appointed boards and special districts lies a fundamental question of representative government: how much authority can an elected legislative body delegate before it begins to surrender powers the constitution expects it to exercise? In Louisiana’s parish-president and council-mayor systems, councils hold the purse strings. They levy taxes, adopt budgets, and set spending priorities. Yet the state’s landscape is dotted with autonomous boards and districts — governing mosquito control, drainage, water, recreation and more — that operate with their own millages and policymaking authority, often beyond the direct reach of the officials voters elect.

The St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District highlights that tension. Its five-member volunteer board, appointed by the parish’s elected leadership, sets the district’s millage rate annually and manages a tax-funded operation with professional staff and millions in assets. That structure provides stability and shields technical work from day-to-day politics. But it also raises the question: when a board’s financial decisions stand apart from the council that levies taxes parish-wide, where does voter accountability ultimately reside?

Mandeville grappled with issue in 2023

That concern is not new in St. Tammany Parish. Mandeville confronted a similar issue in 2023, when city officials debated reviving a now-defunct Financial Oversight Committee with an expanded mandate. Critics argued the proposal would have effectively transferred core budgetary powers from the elected City Council to an appointed advisory body, forcing the council to adopt spending recommendations it did not originate and could not amend, thereby usurping the budgetary authority placed in council members by the voters. Opponents warned that such a shift could violate the separation of powers required by the city charter and the state constitution. The council ultimately rejected the proposal.

Both cases underscore a structural dilemma. Appointed commissions can offer expertise and continuity, and voters often approve the millages that fund them. But when those bodies set tax rates, influence spending or initiate policy in ways that bind or bypass the elected legislative branch, the risk is not just operational drift — it is democratic drift. The more authority shifts to entities that voters cannot remove, the harder it becomes to ensure transparency, enforce oversight or determine who is accountable when disputes arise.

Mosquitos fighting back

The tension surfaced most visibly with the mosquito abatement district, when a recent push by some parish council members to rein in spending and consolidate budgets led to an unsuccessful effort to remove several of the district’s commissioners. The dispute escalated after District Attorney Collin Sims publicly criticized the district’s spending and conduct, following the district’s decision to file a complaint with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board over Sims’ role on St. Tammany’s DOGE-style transparency committee, which had been reviewing its finances.

The district even filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the parish from investigating the district’s finances, arguing the probe is politically motivated and intended to exert control over its dedicated tax dollars.

At the same time, a small but vocal group on social media — including some with ties to the district or who previously served on it — has been stoking public anger at elected officials for exercising their one remaining constitutional lever of control: the power to appoint and remove. The result is a narrative increasingly distorted and potentially dangerous.

Are we to accept, at face value, that once a committee, board or district is appointed and funded with its own long-term special tax, it is no longer answerable to the public or to the body that created it, or to any law enforcement official, not even a duly appointed financial review committee?

Autonomous or above the law?

It defies logic to argue that the parish’s chief law enforcement officer has a conflict of interest simply for reviewing the finances and operations of an appointed commission in the parish he serves. Likewise, it is untenable to claim that the appointing authority — the parish council — is somehow barred from examining the finances of a district funded with taxpayer dollars, the very taxpayers who elected them to provide said oversight in the first place.

The mosquito abatement district is a public body under Louisiana law, which holds that any board, committee, commission or entity created or appointed by an elected public body becomes a public body itself. As such, it is subject to the state’s Open Meetings Law (RS 42:11-28) and Public Records Act (RS 44:1-41), just as the parish council and every other public body is. Any resident has the right to request and obtain its financial records — a standard that applies all the more to the district attorney and the parish council.

Ultimately, voters should ask themselves a deeper question: when does the autonomy granted to a specialized district funded by dedicated tax dollars begin to resemble immunity from scrutiny? And if this publicly funded commission can reject oversight from both the parish council and the district attorney — even going to court to do so — has it not already crossed into a status no public body should ever hold: one that is, in practice, above the law?

-30-

A four-panel cartoon published by Mandeville Daily satirizes a familiar pattern on social media, where a small but vocal group of disgruntled citizens denounce every institution that rules against them. The cartoon offers commentary on how online outrage often intensifies in inverse proportion to public support, especially when criticism stems not from evidence, but from dissatisfaction with an undesired outcome.

-30-

An informed public needs multiple news sources — not attacks on those who dare report

To the reader:

A handful of people seem to put a huge amount of energy into trying to control what others write or limit what others can read on social media. It must be exhausting for them.

I see a ruthless pursuit of ad hominem attacks simply because they disagree with what others say or post about Mandeville city government.

Back in the ’70s and ’80s, we had to do this radical thing in school. It was called: critical thinking. We read opposing views, thought about them, and came to our own conclusions. We didn’t knock on neighbors’ doors to ask what newspapers they read or TV news they watched. And we certainly didn’t try to report them to the authorities for disagreeing with us — even Nextdoor, if you take my meaning.

Some people confuse misinformation with bias. Misinformation is a misstatement of facts. Bias is the prism through which we all see the world. Everyone has one, shaped by life experience. A citizen journalist is no different. But bias does not erase accuracy as long as quotes and facts are verifiable. This is the foundation of what I practice: observational journalism.

Thanks to the collapse of the small-town daily newspaper, Mandeville today is a “news desert.” As recently as the 1990s, three reporters — one each from The Times-Picayune, The News-Banner, and The Tammany Farmer — loitered about City Hall, scrambling to make their counts. Today, there is only Nola.com/Times-Picayune, which absorbed The Farmer in 2017 and now tries to cover the whole region with a fraction of the staff it once had. The News-Banner closed in 2013. Ironically, the Information Age marked the beginning of the end of small-town print news.

That void is why citizen journalism matters. Mandeville Daily is just that: one person, in his spare time and at personal cost, trying to keep the record straight. I haven’t always been alone at this. Local attorney and former councilman Ernest Burguières did it for years, earning a strong following through solid reporting and commentary.

I’ve gone to great lengths to present my reporting professionally despite limited resources. The name Mandeville Daily itself is a tribute to a bygone era. “Mandeville” signals it is intensely local. “Daily” is an homage to the printed paper that once landed on every doorstep.

My recent article on the budget debate was one of the most carefully documented I’ve ever written — grounded in the city’s own numbers and in comments from the mayor, the finance director, council members, and others who spoke. I combed through public records, old council meetings and newspaper archives, providing meticulous attribution for every detail. Not one fact has been disputed. Think about that. Instead, the response from a familiar faction is to attack me personally, trying to gin up a mob to dig into my private life.

“Who writes the Mandeville Daily, and why does he lock out comments? Is he close friends with Jason Zuckerman and part of the mayor’s propaganda machine?” one post read. Predictably, others seized on it, launching their own searches and insults into my personal life.

For the record: the answers are the same as before — me, because I can, yes, and no. This is a small town where everybody knows somebody.

The individual behind that post has met me numerous times and knows exactly who I am and my background. He pulled similar stunts during the Sucette Harbor hearings in 2023. He has used antisemitic language in attacking Mr. Zuckerman, who was born and raised Jewish, despite converting to Catholicism later in life. Mr. Zuckerman has made clear that converting to Catholicism did not mean abandoning or disavowing his Jewish heritage, which he continues to honor and celebrate as a central part of his family history. Mr. Zuckerman is also a staunch supporter of Israel in its war against Hamas and an outspoken critic of the unprovoked October 7, 2023, large-scale attack on Israel.

Someone should remind this individual making these posts that only six million Jews had to literally die so that he could have a witty punchline to use on planning and zoning in Mandeville, Louisiana. At one point, he even published completely false and defamatory claims about me. Coincidentally, I received text messages in 2023 from a different individual threatening that “dirt” on me and a friend would be released if I didn’t stop my reporting.

Recent national headlines prove that unstable people are easily provoked by online figures or twisted ideologies — and how quickly Nazi analogies are weaponized to brand opponents as threats to democracy. That behavior is toxic at the national level and no less so here at home. Inciting others to dig into citizen journalists is just as reckless, and it can lead to serious harm.

Now, these same voices demand that I allow their propaganda and counterpoints be carried on my social media posts which provide links to my articles. But I refuse. I am under no obligation to platform competitors using the readership I’ve built. Should Coke have to include a Pepsi with every six-pack? Should Burger King have to sell McDonald’s burgers, too?

If they truly disagreed with a bias, they already have the means to counteract my effectiveness: do their own work. Present the facts professionally, consistently, and without libel or personal attacks. Just tell the story as if I, William Kropog, didn’t exist. That would give the public a real choice, which is exactly what I ultimately want. True, it would take time and effort, but it can be done. Instead, they resort to false accusations and attempts to de-platform others who stray from their narrative.

They are too shortsighted and focused on the next election or maybe even Sucette Harbor 2.0 in order to see that they’re not just hurting me, but the entire community too. Their behavior has a chilling effect on local journalism at a time when we need it most.

The Louisiana Open Meetings Law is called “the Sunshine Law” because the intent is to shine the light of day on local government. But if would-be citizen journalists are intimidated into silence with personal attacks, then the law isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

To those critics I say this: if you want to comment on my stories, submit a letter to the editor. I might publish it — if it avoids personal attacks and falsehoods and meets the standards that I alone set. But expect a counterargument, as is my prerogative.

I wish there were more of us — two, three, four competing citizen news sources — because that would make Mandeville stronger, and provide a check against potential corruption. Attacking people for what they say or write is not debate. It is an assault on the principle that Americans should be free to inform and to be informed.

That principle is worth defending. Always.

In defense of the record,

William “Wild Bill” Kropog, a middle name I gave myself
Editor Emeritus, a title I made up

-30-

Queer Northshore ‘no’ vote does not justify confrontation

Editorial

An ugly thing happened at the last City Council meeting.

This reporter was there to witness it, and I reported it to the best of my ability.

The City Council voted 3-1 to approve a special event permit for “Queer Northshore” to hold its second annual “Pride Northshore Parade” on the Mandeville Lakefront in June.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman had the audacity to vote against it, although it still passed, 3-1. (District III Councilwoman Jill Lane, formerly McGuire, was absent.)

But who does he think he is, going around voting on things as he sees fit? Where was the city attorney when we needed her to step up and tell Mr. Zuckerman how he is supposed to vote?

You can’t let freedom just ring willy nilly. Democracy will never survive people voting their conscience.

But seriously folks…

Let’s explore why someone would vote against a parade by an organization whose stated purpose is to bring awareness to their struggle for equal rights, especially after that certain someone voted in favor of it last year.

Transgender ideology objections

We would have to start with the fact that most Conservatives see the LGBTQ+ movement as having been hijacked by what they feel is a radical transgender ideology.

According to numerous polls, including one from Gallup, most Americans — not just Conservatives — oppose the notion of biological males competing as “girls” against biological females in grade school, high school, and collegiate sports. Moreover, they disapprove of biological males sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with their underage daughters. The issue exploded in the months leading up to the 2024 Presidential Election which saw Donald Trump win in a landslide.

So if you ask most Conservatives, their opposition to this group has little or nothing to do with gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Queer Northshore’s co-founder is a transgender Democrat named Mel Manuel who ran unsuccessfully for Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District against Steve Scalise in 2024. Manuel, who campaigned on a platform of abortion rights, universal basic income, and gun control, advocated for transgender rights during the campaign, once even receiving a Testosterone injection on a video posted to the internet.

Naturally, this opposition from Conservatives reflected in polling is going to manifest itself as pushback to a self-ascribed LGBTQ+ organization with a transgender-rights activist organizer and their “Pride Northshore Parade” in Mandeville’s mostly Republican, historic M04 precinct.

That’s it in a nutshell, whether you like it or not. I’m just the one telling you how it is.

Pro-Palestinian connections

Another challenge for Queer Northshore in a predominantly Conservative neighborhood is their perceived association with local pro-Palestinian groups. Pro-Palestinian supporters with their banners, flags and symbols (watermelon logos and keffiyehs) marched in the 2024 “Queer Northshore Parade” which was issued a permit as “CELEBRATION OF PRIDE MONTH” and not a pro-Palestinian event. Most Conservatives are staunchly pro-Israel when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian war that’s currently in a fragile ceasefire.

Posts on multiple Instagram accounts — @northshore4palestine, @queernorthshore, @qtcap_nola and @louisianaalliesforpalestine — promoted last year’s parade as a pro-Palestinian event or boasted of their participation in the parade afterwards.

Americans almost daily see images on TV and social media of pro-Palestinian groups on college campuses in other parts of the country blocking Jewish students from attending their classes, burning American flags and other actions that Conservatives typically find offensive. So this association with local pro-Palestinian groups is seen as a tough pill to swallow for someone with Jewish lineage.

Mr. Zuckerman is an ethnic Jew, who recently converted to Catholicism.

Zuckerman’s vote no surprise

And on February 27th, he was the only council member who voted against the 2025 “Pride Northshore Parade” permit.

Progressive Democrats would say he’s a bigot. Republicans would say he did what he was elected to do.

He was twice endorsed by the St. Tammany Republican Parish Executive Committee (RPEC) in 2020 and 2024.

So was Mr. Zuckerman’s “no” vote really all that surprising to anyone? He gave no explanation nor did anyone ask him.

So why would several of the 20 or so Queer Northshore supporters who attended the February 27th meeting feel it was necessary to wait for Mr. Zuckerman outside? They had filed out of Council Chambers after their victory over 15 minutes earlier. Most of those inside the building thought they had left after their victory, which, by the way, is typical for most organizations after their special event permits are approved. These meetings can be very long.

But as we would learn later, they had in fact not gone anywhere. Most of them were still hanging out near the front entrance while three or four others waited by Mr. Zuckerman’s vehicle at the side entrance. They were observed for some time from inside the building before adjournment. That’s why the police officer escorted him to his vehicle. It was out of an abundance of caution.

Don’t lie in wait

In today’s world, it’s not a good idea to wait in the dark for an elected official after a controversial vote. Even if you have no ill intentions, your actions could easily be misinterpreted.

And it has nothing to do with this group in particular or its supporters. This advice goes for everyone, whether you’re wearing LGBTQ+ shirts, red MAGA hats, keffiyehs, kippahs, or you’re just pissed off they voted to raise your water rates.

Don’t do it. You’re inviting trouble.

Perhaps their intentions were to engage in a “discussion” with Mr. Zuckerman about his earlier vote. Maybe they wanted to express their admiration for his unwavering commitment to his beliefs despite being different from their own. Or perhaps it was something worse.

Who knows. Fortunately, we didn’t have to find out, as Mr. Zuckerman made it safely to his vehicle with the police officer at his side, as the three or four individuals did a simultaneous about-face.

But what happened next is a real head-scratcher. Some of these individuals apparently thought it would be a good idea to make a few allegedly vulgar hand gestures and then follow Mr. Zuckerman after he left in his vehicle. The police officer saw it and called Mr. Zuckerman, advising him which route to take in order to determine if he was really being followed. After making several turns from Lambert Street to Lafitte Street, ending near Lakeshore Drive, the car in question quit following when Mr. Zuckerman made an abrupt turn onto a side street, according to his account of the incident.

They got the license plate number, but it was Mr. Zuckerman who opted not to have the police take action.

Despite what some folks have posted on social media, this incident really did happen. I saw the whole thing.

Everyone needs to understand, this is Mandeville, not Seattle, not San Francisco, and not New York City. This type of intimidating behavior — even if it could be explained away as an unfortunate series of coincidences — is not acceptable.

Council response needed

What happened to Mr. Zuckerman needs to be unequivocally addressed by the City Council, either via resolution, a statement from the mayor, or both.

At least Mandeville Police Chief Todd Schliem immediately stepped up and issued the following:

“Our public servants are fulfilling a sacred civic duty to serve our wonderful community. No one should ever be subjected to threats or intimidation, especially a public official over a disagreement with a public policy position.”

You’re a good man, Charlie Brown.

But now we’re hearing that the other RPEC-endorsed councilman at large, Mr. Discon, has been sending congratulatory response emails to Queer Northshore supporters. Maybe he’ll speak out against what happened to Mr. Zuckerman while he’s at it. That would be very Republican of him, assuming he intends to seek the RPEC endorsement again in 2028.

If this mob behavior is met with silence or timidity, you’re only inviting more of it, regardless of which group it is. Worse still, you’re signaling to your voters that they should remain silent themselves, lest they face similar retribution.

If this City Council doesn’t acknowledge the events that transpired and publicly defend their fellow council member, then what good are they to anyone?

-30-

Does not mean judge is ‘ordering’ parties to settle

Talks could help judge assess merits if no agreement

Dismissal of both cases still on table

MANDEVILLE — A federal judge has ordered a “settlement conference” in the ongoing lawsuits between Woodward Harbor LLC and the LSU Health Foundation New Orleans, and the City of Mandeville and Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman.

The order doesn’t mean that U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long is actually “ordering” the parties to settle the cases. Instead, it suggests that they at least attempt discussions to assess the current state of affairs before he goes any further. It’s been 14 months since the lawsuits were filed and Long is not the original judge assigned to the case.

According to a minute entry filed on January 31st, Long held a status conference with attorneys representing both parties.

After the discussions, the court instructed counsel to contact U.S. Magistrate Judge Eva J. Dossier to schedule a settlement conference in February.

The lawsuits, filed in 2023, have been a contentious issue in Mandeville, with developers and city officials at odds over zoning and property rights.

The city and Zuckerman had previously filed motions to dismiss the cases, but with this latest order, a settlement becomes at least a possibility, albeit unlikely, given the nature of the cases and the central question of home-rule legislative authority.

While the order does not take dismissals off the table, judges can require settlement conferences before hearing cases like these for numerous reasons which may include the following:

• Reduces court backlog by freeing time for trials.
• Saves judicial resources and time by avoiding lengthy hearings and evidence review.
• Helps judges evaluate merits informally, potentially encouraging reconsideration or expediting dismissal.

More updates will follow as the legal proceedings continue.

-30-

Ordinance 25-03 would make situation worse

Editorial

Councilman at Large Scott Discon’s proposed Ordinance 25-03, which seeks to rewrite Section 10-70 of the city’s code of ordinances to prohibit parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. along Lakeshore Drive and other places, may have exposed a much bigger problem, at least when it comes to parking restrictions and signage in general on Lakeshore Drive.

Existing signs say parking already restricted on Lakeshore Drive

There are over 40 signs along the 1.5-mile stretch of Lakeshore Drive (not including speed limit, historical markers, and pet waste disposal signs), among which are at least a dozen no-parking signs that appear to contradict even the existing law at Section 10-70, which only prohibits parking for more than six hours.

According to current signage on Lakeshore Drive, parking is either prohibited from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., completely prohibited around the clock, or not prohibited at all. And these no-parking signs have been there for years, dating back from before any of the current council members or mayor.

Although it’s challenging to discern where one parking zone ends and another starts, the casual observer would have to conclude that some form of nighttime parking is already illegal on at least half to three-quarters of Lakeshore Drive.

Where did all the no-parking and other signs come from?

Mandeville Daily couldn’t find in the city code of ordinances where the Lakeshore Drive no-parking zones are codified. The only places that even come close are sections 10-70, 10-72, and 10-73 which prohibit parking longer than six hours, “sleeping overnight,” and parking in medians, respectively.

However, under Louisiana law, infractions related to parking signs can be cited. La. R.S. § 32:143(14) says that parking is prohibited “at any place where official signs prohibit such.” And we do seem to have plenty of signs along Lakeshore Drive that do indeed prohibit such.

This means that according to state law you already can be cited if you are parked across from “The Barley Oak” or “Donz on the Lake” starting at 2 a.m. And if you park your car to work out at 5:15 a.m., again, you could be cited. That’s what the signs say.

But the real question is, who had the signs along Lakeshore Drive erected in the first place?

Public Works Director Keith LaGrange has stated at multiple City Council meetings that Public Works can’t erect no-parking signs without council approval.

LaGrange may have been referring to Section 10-64 “Regulations at Specific Locations” which says “the mayor and councilmen” as a body can “restrict” parking “from time to time” (as needed) at various locations.

What’s more, LaGrange said at the July 27th, 2023, City Council meeting that his department couldn’t find a record or ordinance for one particular no-parking sign on Claiborne Street, a block from the lakefront.

Another one of Mandeville’s little unsolved sign mysteries.

Recent encounters further highlight need for action

Just recently we had mysterious no-parking and no-dumping signs appear along historic Marigny Avenue and West Beach Parkway, to which Mayor Clay Madden told Mandeville Daily that he did not order those particular signs and he either had, or is having, them removed.

Local residents are becoming so frustrated with the sign litter, an as-yet-unidentified vandal defaced a few of those no-dumping signs on West Beach Parkway. Longtime residents on Marigny Avenue claimed in December to have had encounters with Mr. Discon or other city officials over activities banned by the now-removed no-dumping and no-parking signs.

Mandeville Daily asked Mr. Discon about the alleged confrontations and if he had ordered the signs erected to which we received the following reply, along with forwarded responses from City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert and another lawyer from the Blue Williams Law Firm:

“Please see the attached and remember there is No Parking and /or Littering on Public thoroughfares in the City of Mandeville. Public Works put the signs out; I only suggested aa (sic) reduction in the number of signs and placement to work with the residents of both of Mandeville’s historic avenues,” Mr. Discon wrote in part.

The “attached” essentially provided a legal rationale from Blue Williams explaining why littering and dumping leaves are unlawful and that the city doesn’t need permits to install signs.

Death by a thousand cuts… or signs

Is this simply a situation where elected officials have ordered, requested, or “suggested” certain signs at various locations in order to address pet-peeve code violations, or perhaps to appease complaints from “Karen” constituents, and then the Public Works Department felt compelled to comply?

Some sources are telling Mandeville Daily that’s exactly what’s been going on in Mandeville for decades, from before the current City Council and mayor, and no one has really noticed the broader problem it has created — sign litter or sign creep — until now.

They say that Section 10-70 (no parking longer than six hours) originated in either 1979 or 1985, probably to keep residents of Lakeshore Drive at the time from using public parking spaces adjacent to or across from their homes as their own personal parking.

But how we transitioned from the initial six-hour prohibition to the dozen or so signs with varying parking periods remains a mystery. It was probably driven by the best intentions, but has resulted in a bunch of signs that don’t match what’s on the books, and on face value seem quite onerous.

And the fact remains: these signs are definitely enforceable, should officials choose to do so.

Creates more problems than it solves

Proposed Ordinance 25-03 would only cause more chaos and add new parties to the list of the offended, i.e. Woodrow and General Pershing streets.

What about the St. Tammany Parish School System buses that park on Woodrow Street?

The preamble of Ordinance 25-03 mentions a “hardship” faced by the Mandeville Police Department in enforcing the “in excess of six (6) hours” rule as one of the factors prompting the proposed modifications.

But the no-parking signs all along Lakeshore Drive already negate the six-hour rule, giving authorities the ability to write tickets for parked cars between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. today, right now, without this proposed ordinance.

Wouldn’t it create a far greater burden on the Mandeville Police Department to have to track which vehicles along Woodrow or General Pershing streets belong to residents of the local apartments and hence exempt as stated in Ordinance 25-03?

Wouldn’t the city have to issue parking permits to accomplish this?

I would find it hard to believe that it’s the Mandeville Police Department who is clamoring for this ordinance. If not, then who is? Who would stand to benefit?

Council needs to overhaul Old Mandeville signage strategy and process

The signage situation in Old Mandeville can hardly tolerate a partial or half measure like Ordinance 25-03 at this point. And we certainly don’t need anymore citizens reporting that they’ve been video-recorded by officials for blowing leaves and then reported to a council member… allegedly.

The City Council needs to ask itself: what are we so afraid of with all the signage? And then do something about it.

So what, that a car is parked overnight because the driver didn’t want to risk driving home from Donz?

Is it really a problem if someone comes to work out on the lakefront at 5 a.m. instead of waiting until six?

And what is so terrible about a few conscientious homeowners on Marigny Avenue or West Beach Parkway raking leaves on the medians?

Do we really want to make otherwise responsible, law-abiding citizens feel like criminals just for doing the right thing?

-30-

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

Precedent could paralyze future P&Z appointment decisions

Creates chilling effect on attracting future applicants

Editorial

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

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

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

---

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

---

Blowing the lid off Pandora’s box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No good deed goes unpunished

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

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

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

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

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

Public trust eroded

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

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

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

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

-30-

Robert’s rules, decorum ignored, misused

Elected council members silenced, intimidated

‘Point of Order’ used to gag opposition

Editorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few points on parliamentary procedure make this clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has led to parliamentary chaos at meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

Council needs to strike 10 items else risk overreach by future council chairs

Sucette Harbor could have faced little public resistance under these rules

Editorial

A set of proposed rules to be considered by the City Council tonight (July 11th) contains a number of troubling items, especially for those who stood in opposition to Sucette Harbor last year.

It is the opinion of Mandeville Daily that had a number of these rules been in place during the series of special meetings on Sucette Harbor, it is entirely possible that the developers would have met very little public resistance, as some of these rules would have given the presiding officer the authority to consolidate opposition speakers — no matter how many there were — into a single voice with only three minutes to make their case. The presiding officer would have also had the authority to stop speakers who he or she deemed were being repetitive to comments already made.

With that said, there is nothing nefarious going on here. The City Council needs to address its rules situation in a serious way, and this rules ordinance is a big step in the right direction, despite its flaws that we will discuss here in detail.

Overall, Mandeville Daily’s objections have to do with the authority that would be granted the council chairperson and/or the presiding officer.

This ordinance seems to make no distinction between the council chairperson — a position established by the City Charter — and the presiding officer over meetings, which is a function of Robert’s Rules of Order.

In the City Charter, one of the duties delegated to the council chairperson is that of the presiding officer over meetings, but it is only one of myriad duties that belong to the council chairperson.

Here are the items we take issue with — labeled A-J — superimposed on Ordinance 24-18:

• A. (Section 2-11: 1.a.iv) This is a violation of Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO). RRO has a clear procedure for handling points of order and this council has no business overriding that. But this ordinance would give the council chairman unilateral authority on points of order, even if he or she was not acting as the presiding officer at the time. This would hand too much power to the council chairperson. This ordinance makes no distinction between the council chairperson and the presiding officer. This is a function of the presiding officer, not the council chairperson. Additionally, this entire sub-section 2-11, 1.a, allows for a situation where the council chairman and the presiding officer are two different individuals, just like during Sucette Harbor where the elected council chairman, Jason Zuckerman, had delegated the duties of presiding officer to Rick Danielson. This should be stricken. Suppose that had been the other way around during Sucette? Danielson could have used several of the rules in this ordinance to quell dissent.
• B. (Section 2-11: 1.a.v) Same objection as item A.
• C. (Section 2-11: 1.a.iv) Same objection as items A and B.
• D. (Section 2-11: 1.a.viii) This is a duty or function of the RRO presiding officer — as well as items A-D — and not the council chairperson. According to this rule, during Sucette Harbor, it would have been Zuckerman’s responsibility “to recognize Members of the Council, the Mayor and other members of city government” during meetings even though Danielson was the presiding officer at the time. Makes no sense.
• E. (Section 2-11: 1.a.ix) Redundant. This is a duty of the presiding officer and not the council chairperson.
• F. (Section 2-11: 5.b) This is the real killer. Anti-First Amendment. Anti-Open Meetings Law. Anti-free speech. This gives the council chairman (not the presiding officer) the authority to compel all opposition on an issue to choose a single spokesman. This is very dangerous. If this rule had been in place during Sucette Harbor, the vast majority of those wishing to speak against the issue could have been silenced. The state Open Meetings Law protects individuals, not groups, per se. The law says that each individual has the right to observe these open meetings and to make comments directed at their elected representatives. If the council chairman is given the authority to compel a group of, say 100, to select only one person to speak on their behalf, that would violate the rights of the other 99 people. This City Council — we the people — do not have the right to take away the rights of others for the sake of expediency. That’s the bedrock of a constitutional republic, which is what we are. We are not a democracy, where a majority can vote to take the rights and property of a minority.
• G. (Section 2-11: 5.c) Again, the council chairman could unilaterally silence anyone they may choose. He or she could make the judgement that a person speaking is repeating something that was already said and shut them up. But suppose they might make the point better or more effectively than the previous person? This is too much power in the hands of the council chairperson, and another violation of free speech and Open Meetings Law. And again, would he or she overrule the presiding officer, in case the council chairperson was not the presiding officer, like during Sucette?
• H. (Section 2-11: 5.d) This gives the council chairman the authority to screen questions comments in advance. What information could the council chairman request in advance? We already use a sign-up list, but this item is vague and opens the door to requiring those wishing to speak to provide their question or comment in advance and hence could be screened.
• I. (Section 2-12: 3) This won’t rest well with the anti-Sucette Harbor folks. Feels like a violation of free speech to say that you cannot hold a sign. Would a shirt with anti-Sucette Harbor sentiment be considered signage?
• J. (Section 2-12: 6) While no one wants council members to be ambushed in the parking lot, the wording here is too vague. Are we saying that citizens are not allowed to try to persuade other citizens to support or stand in opposition to an issue?

But to reject this entire ordinance because of these 10 items would be a terrible waste. There are many other very good things found within the proposed ordinance.

The restructuring of the agenda format is badly needed and would bring Mandeville in line with other municipalities. Having a “Consent Agenda” would greatly expedite routine and perfunctory duties such as event licenses and other things.

Not allowing council members to text each other or people outside — or even inside — the meeting room is a good thing and would prevent the appearance of impropriety. Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law is very clear that all council business must be observable to the public.

Members of the public wanting to present a slide show would need to go through one of their council members and have such an item placed on the agenda in order to comply with state law. This is a good thing and in recent years has been a problem at times.

This ordinance also addresses the overall decorum and attempts to reign in disruptive behavior and language.

For the most part, this ordinance is a good thing… It just needs a little surgery before it can be adopted.

-30-

Tax revenue exceeded budget by 9.77%

’Deficit’ caused by lagging delivery of promised funding

Updated 2/12/2024: Expands on budgeting against receivables.

Editorial

A graphic is being circulated on social media highlighting Mandeville’s general fund “deficit” of a negative $2.38 million, and Mayor Clay Madden is being blamed for his “overspending,” including giving city employees “3 huge” raises.

The people sharing this graphic and pushing the budget crisis narrative are the same usual suspects — pro-Sucette Harbor social media troll Andrew Ellender, mayoral candidate Jeff Lyons, efficiency consultant Glen Runyon, and a few others, including also-rans from previous elections.

It’s based on the City of Mandeville’s “Governmental Funds Report” dated August 31, 2023, marking the close of the fiscal year. There’s a big orange box magnifying the so-called deficit figure.

Sounds pretty bad, right? After all, a deficit is a deficit and it means you’re spending more than you’re taking in.

There’s just one problem… it’s not true.

Just like their sky-is-falling conclusion over a capital outlay hypothetical in the recent auditor’s report, this too is patently false and intellectually dishonest.

Don’t believe me? I’ll prove it.

Let’s take a look at the graphic this handful of people on social media are posting and re-posting, ad nauseam.

Notice the huge orange box containing “$2,375,614.00 Deficit” and its positioning on top of the actual government funds report, specifically toward the upper right of the screen. Doesn’t that placement seem a little odd?

Well as it turns out, this was not by accident. They were hiding something.

The data being covered up by the unnecessarily large orange box actually debunk the false deficit narrative, completely and irrefutably.

Carefully examine the same report below, without obfuscation, but instead with helpful context to show what is actually going on. Don’t take our word for it. Do the math yourself. We’ll let you be the judge.

(Click to download…)

The first thing we notice is, Mandeville’s FY 2023 tax revenue exceeded the budgeted or projected amount by 9.77 percent. And the projected amount, set when creating the FY 2023 budget, was a two-percent increase over the FY 2022 actuals.

So knowing that Mandeville only adopts balanced budgets, where did this “deficit” come from?

Good question.

The answer lies in what Ellender’s graphic was covering up — the shortfall in “Grants Revenue” and “Other Revenue” which includes things like FEMA reimbursements, among other sources.

To date, Mandeville has only received a paltry 35.71 percent of those anticipated funds for FY 2023. The FEMA reimbursements can take years to recoup.

This means there are still millions of dollars in receivables the city is owed. Even if the city doesn’t spend a dime on Ida-related repairs in FY 2023, for example, it can still budget against that receivable.

So critics might ask, what kind of municipality would base their budget on money they haven’t received yet?

The answer is simple: the one with a shit-ton of money in the bank, that’s who.

It’s no different than how individuals in the real world budget their money. There are those who live paycheck-to-paycheck, and then there are those who are financially responsible and have plenty of money in the bank — like the City of Mandeville.

Mandeville is in such a strong position financially, we are able to do the things that really count and truly grow our city, without borrowing money, cutting services, or any other form of a compromise just because a hurricane hits and FEMA is slow to pay us back. How many other municipalities can say that?

Madden and this City Council did what the previous administration had only kicked down the road for eight years.

In the ultimate irony, it was Runyon — the chief Madden critic today — who authored the 2020 Mandeville Efficiency Study, which revealed Madden was handed an employee morale issue from the Villere years where pay remained generally flat. That study helped lead to a salary survey, and eventually a pay scale overhaul to help Mandeville attract and keep the best people among its municipal neighbors.

This is how Mandeville grows. Not by building some monstrosity on the lakefront that will forever ruin our scenic character and only bring in a token $74,000 a year to the city.

Some members on this very council along with a certain mayoral candidate and their trolls on social media see only misery and despair in what by any honest assessment are good things and are the residue of hard work and responsible leadership.

This cabal that we wrote about in our special series Sucette Harbor Exposed and our recent opinion piece about the fake budget crisis wishes to return the old guard to power so they can finish what they started — Sucette Harbor and God only knows what else.

Winning an election is obviously more important than preserving Mandeville’s character or producing real quality growth.

Ask yourself… isn’t Mandeville worth saving from these people?

-30-

Editorial

Updated 2/5/2024: Adds background on efficiency consultant Glen Runyon.

Perhaps you’ve heard about the budget crisis the City of Mandeville is facing. Yes, Mandeville, the same city that has over $19 million in its general fund, over $60 million in the bank, and has zero debt.

Yep… It’s a crisis alright.

So you might be thinking, what happened?

I’ll tell you what happened: Sucette Harbor.

Almost to the man — or woman — it is the exact same group of people who fought tooth and nail to try to ram Sucette Harbor down our throats who have now pivoted almost seamlessly, in the same breath, in the same sentence, just like in 1984, to a new cause — the budget crisis.

They’re still mad as hell and now they see the 2024 election as their chance to get even. They’re hellbent to put that damned hotel-events-center-old-dude-apartments-restaurant-check-cashing-place-maybe-and-marina on the Copeland property, so all you District 2 and District 3 people with your “apprehension” need to quit being so “closed minded,” as City Council candidate Scott Discon said at the recent Alliance for Good Government forum. “Mandeville has to grow,” he insisted.

I say they’re betting that if they can get Discon elected, somehow manage to keep Kreller from imploding any further, combined with Cynthia Thompson having gone in unopposed, they could win the battle of Sucette Harbor 2.0 later this year or next.

There’s just one problem… It will all be for naught if they don’t eliminate the veto threat, ergo Madden must go.

The fake budget crisis

So now we have a budget crisis.

Their “evidence” is a recent Carr, Riggs & Ingram CPAs and Advisors report in which two slides show hypothetical scenarios of what it would take to deplete the general fund balance.

The graph in question shows what would happen to the $21.4 million general fund if the City of Mandeville paid for every wish-list capital outlay project for the next five years without a single dollar of matching state or federal funds. The result: the general fund drops to a paltry $4.6 million by 2028.

Sounds pretty dire, right? Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller, efficiency consultant Glen Runyon, candidate for mayor Jeff Lyons, plus the usual-suspect trolls on social media have been sounding the alarm. Even Discon made mention of it at the Alliance for Good Government forum in January: “I believe that we should be looking at ways to increase our revenue in the city. We’ve got valuable land on the lakefront that needs to be balanced with our quality of life…”

At the November 16th City Council meeting when debating a Mandeville Financial Oversight Committee revival and rewrite, Danielson said, “All of sudden it’s 2028, and your fund balance is gone because that’s what the financial forecast said. It was very clear. In 2028, at our current spend plan, the fund balance is gone.”

But the problem with this narrative is, it’s based on a false-premise hypothetical, which means the result cannot happen. The slide in question even says so: “Does not include any additional revenue sources currently being pursued for fiscal years 2024-2028. If additional funding is not obtained, projects will not commence.”

Thats right. Projects will not commence without additional or matching funding. Period. So the scenario could never happen.

But shouldn’t we look at this graph as a positive? Doesn’t it really illustrate how strong our fiscal position is? Mandeville is so strong and we have so much money in the bank, we could fund every single project that we’ve dreamed up 100-percent on our own and still not run out of money until well after 2028.

How many municipalities can say they could fund their next five years of projects from cash reserves, without additional income, without going into debt, and still have money in the bank? Not many I bet.

Leave it to the Revenge-of-the-Sucette gang to turn a positive into a negative, just to win an election and get their hotel-events-center-old-dude-apartments-restaurant-check-cashing-place-maybe-and-marina built on the lakefront.

And then they throw in a balance sheet for good measure, failing to mention that we’re still missing about $6.2 million in FEMA reimbursements from Ida — which we will eventually get. In their minds, it’s a slam dunk. I guess Hurricane Ida hitting Mandeville was somehow Madden’s fault too.

Tax cuts floated to downsize surplus

Rewind to April 8, 2021. The first regular City Council meeting of the month.

Danielson and Runyon were pushing the idea of lowering sales and property taxes and giving the general fund surplus back to the taxpayers.

Runyon said, “You are a flush with money coming in … You made reference to reducing sales tax but I’d almost want y’all to commit to doing that. Because you’re already running close to … another $2 million general fund surplus this year, by the end of the year, and that money should go back to the taxpayers.”

Danielson seemed to agree, saying the Council was in favor of reducing taxes. “One of the goals of the council was to be able to reduce our sales tax rate that is currently charged and to be more inline with other municipalities across the parish as well as being able to further reduce the property tax rate,” he said.

Watch the video here…

So let’s get this straight:

In 2024, they’re forecasting doom and gloom because the surplus might be nearly gone by 2028 if we were to spend on everything imaginable, which in reality we’re not even allowed to do.

But as recently as 2021, they promoted depleting the very same surplus with tax cuts because we had too much money.

I guess it’s a good thing we didn’t take their advice in 2021, and we certainly shouldn’t be taking it now.

Runyon was the author of the 2020 Mandeville Efficiency Study, which revealed Madden was handed an employee morale issue from the Villere years where pay remained generally flat. That study helped lead to a salary survey by SSA Consultants, and eventually across the board pay raises to catch Mandeville up to fair market levels.

As of late, Runyon frequently attends City Council meetings complaining about the budget and spending. He is often afforded quite a bit of leeway in going beyond the council’s three-minute public comment rule, though it never seems to be enough. He is not an elected official, not an appointed official, not an employee, and no longer a contractor for the City of Mandeville.

I wonder what would happen if Mandeville Daily were to show up at the end of every meeting asking for extended time to complain about the pro-Sucette cabal.

Sucette Harbor: $74,000 to the rescue

We’ve all read the text messages by now, so we know the exact moment that the budget crises took form. It came in late August and early September when the defeat of Sucette Harbor was imminent. Project proponent and lobbyist Rhonda Alleman texted Danielson:

“It wouldn’t be wrong to make a statement that the city needs more tax revenue to meet unbalanced budget projections.”

And she hit District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush with page after page of the same budget pitch right about the same time.

But once again, these people’s statements are easily refuted by on-the-record information. The Sucette Harbor economic impact report shows only a combined $74,000 annually would go to the City of Mandeville.

So $74,000 is going to save Mandeville. Hoorah.

Whenever someone starts a sentence with the words “it would not be wrong if,” what they’re really saying is, “This is wrong but I think we can get away with it.”

You be the judge.

It’s rich that most of the Sucette enthusiasts actually live on the so-called “west side” of Mandeville, or the group of neighborhoods on West Causeway approach to be exact. They lost their minds when a carwash approval came before the Planning & Zoning Commission in 2021.

Maybe we should see how they would feel about a hotel-events-center-old-dude-apartments-restaurant-check-cashing-place-maybe-and-marina nestled behind Fontainebleau and Mary Queen of Peace. I’m sure all the trucks could easily make it down Rue Beauvais no problem during the 18 months or so of construction. After all, “Mandeville has to grow.”

Jeff Lyons to the rescue

The best part of this elaborate hoax is that these supposedly smart people want Jeff Lyons for mayor, to save us from Madden.

The former Piccadilly manager has touted his experience as a businessman when addressing the council on the budget. He was afforded the opportunity to describe what kind of mayor he would be at the recent Alliance for Good Government forum in January.

His lackluster performance should give anyone considering his candidacy serious concerns. Maybe he’ll fair better at the upcoming RPEC or Mande-PAC forums.

Local political consultant James Hartman, who has consulted for some of these same pro-Sucette people who are pushing Lyons and the false budget narrative, wrote an impassioned letter to the mayor and City Council in January, criticizing Madden on several fronts.

But the most interesting part of that letter was what Hartman said about Lyons: “your opponent was so weak.”

That’s not very encouraging if you’re a Lyons supporter.

“I congratulate you in advance on your likely endorsement tonight and on your likely victory in March,” Hartman wrote to Madden.

Hartman has been in this line of work for a long time, and admittedly he has an impressive list of clients. Anyone who has ever worked with James will tell you — he’s a straight shooter and won’t sugar coat things for you, which is probably a big reason people are willing to pay for his services.

Interestingly, in Kreller’s text messages, Hartman was the one person giving them the correct advice, which was not to try and fight a social media war. Too bad they didn’t listen to him.

Don’t take the cheese

At the end of the day, these Sucette cabal folks expect you to believe the following:

• A projected $67 million in the bank is a crisis when just 30 months ago they favored tax cuts because we had too much money.
• A hypothetical scenario in an auditor’s report intended to illustrate Mandeville’s fiscal strength is a harbinger of doom.
• Sucette Harbor would have rescued Mandeville from a financial crisis with only $74,000 annually.
• Weakly Jeff Lyons would make a great mayor.

Beware the ides of March.

-30-

Re: Sucette Harbor Exposed: Part 1

Editorial

A big deal was made over Michele Avery using the word “bribe” to describe potential campaign contributions by a member of the Sucette Harbor developer team to District II Councilman Skelly Kreller at a campaign event April 17, 2023.

It was on the same night as the successful 4-3 vote by the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend the Sucette Harbor project to the City Council.

Avery later shared screenshots of a Facebook post from Kreller’s campaign page showing a photo of developer attorney Paul Harrison at the event.

There’s nothing illegal about Harrison being at that event or even if he were to have given a donation. Avery used the rhetorical hyperbole “bribe” to illustrate her belief that it should be illegal. She later emailed the City Council the images and complained about the appearance of impropriety, urging the City Council to adopt an ordinance restricting campaign contributions by parties having a matter before the council.

The righteous indignation by several people involved in the project was extreme. Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman brought it up at the next council meeting. Harrison went on a tirade at that meeting threatening to sue anyone “the next day” who challenged his integrity. Kreller read a statement that he had retained “consul” and was considering legal action. Councilman at Large Rick Danielson later introduced a social media resolution that was seen by many as an attempt to quell criticism on Facebook and Nextdoor.

All this over a picture of a perfectly legal campaign event that someone added the word “bribe” to. Truth be told, most people might agree with Avery on this subject.

Did it occur to the Woodward Interests folks that maybe, just maybe, it was not a good look to be attending that campaign event on the very same night as the controversial 4-3 vote by the P&Z Commission? And how smart was it to plan the fundraiser for that particular night to begin with?

What a shame.

Because now we have the text messages from Kreller and other council members that were released as part of a public records request made by Woodward Interests Vice President Bear Cheezem.

As it turns out, Kreller — in his own text messages — told his campaign consultant and Mariner’s Village Master Association President Eric McVicker in January that Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman “knows I’m trying to hold the votes on P&Z together.”

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 “attempting to push his negative position on the other members.”

In that same text thread, Kreller instructed McVicker to contact one of the other P&Z members saying “need to keep Mike Pierce a yes vote.”

This is the very same Planning & Zoning Commission that Kreller — as a member of the City Council — can appoint its members, and by the way, can also vote to remove them.

And they were upset about the word bribe? I wonder how they would have felt about the word coercion?

And let’s not forget that Michelle Avery’s controversial post happened in May 2023.

But a text message from August 2022 — almost nine months earlier — reveals that Kreller told McVicker he wanted someone to libel or defame him, and that he had talked to developer attorney Paul Harrison, who would end up being the very person pictured in the Avery “bribe” post.

Suddenly, the ire and fury expressed toward Michelle Avery seem disingenuous.

These text messages make it sound like Kreller at the very least thought he controlled P&Z votes or that he wanted others to believe he did. And what was he hoping to gain by preemptively complaining to the city attorney about a P&Z member he feared might vote no? Read his words. Judge for yourself.

Even project proponents would have to admit that this new information paints an unsavory picture of what was going on in the Kreller camp behind the scenes.

Maybe he didn’t actually “control” any P&Z votes like he claimed or thought. Maybe the P&Z members didn’t take him seriously. After all, Mike Pierce ended up voting against it. So who knows.

But knowing what we know now, was it really all that outrageous that Avery used the word “bribe” to describe something that Kreller’s own text messages reveal, that at the very least he was bragging that the developer knew he was working to control P&Z votes, he was threatening to complain to the city attorney about a “negative” P&Z member, and he was telling his consultant to reach out to yet another P&Z member to hold their vote, for a vote that occurred on the same night as his campaign event, an event that one of the developers attended as evidenced by pictures posted on social media by Kreller’s own campaign?

It’s starting to sound like someone — maybe several someones — will owe Michelle Avery a huge apology when all is said and done.

Sucette Harbor Exposed: Part 2 will be published soon.

-30-

City Attorney, Planning Director were right

Judge needs to make council approve Sucette Harbor

Democrocy cannot survive if people are running around saying what they think

Boy, did we get this one wrong. How could we have been so stupid.

We humbly offer the supporters of Sucette Harbor and the downtrodden people of Mandeville who desperately need jobs as janitors and maids but were afraid to speak up, a huge apology.

And to you people out there who attempted to tear a hole in the very fabric of democracy by lobbying your council members and mayor, by showing up to council meetings and speaking out, by having the nerve and audacity to clap and disrupt the town square with fascist opinions, you should have just shut the hell up and let the adults run things. You are stupid and your money and investments in your homes do not entitle you to counterproductive opinions.

I cannot believe you swept me up in your talk of conservation and lofty faux platitudes about freedom, democracy, and keeping the Mandeville lakefront idyllic. This ain’t the olden-dude times of the Founding Fathers. No one’s invading ‘Merica last time I checked.

Your outdated, outmoded and downright stuffy attitudes violated the safe space the good people from Woodward Interests should have been afforded. They should have felt protected and valued when appearing at City Council meetings in their efforts to make sure that certain aloof council members did the job they were elected to do — which is to vote how the City Attorney and Planning Director tell them.

Instead, we literally had amendments being offered directly by council members themselves during public council meetings, without getting them approved, vetted, filtered, or scrutinized by the City Attorney and Planning Director in advance, in private, behind closed doors.

Were they not concerned with the chaos and lawsuits that were bound to ensue when the will of the people made it to a vote by their duly elected representatives in a public, open meeting?

That’s not the ‘Merica I want to live in.

Everyone flipped out over the beautiful conceptual site plan, nitpicking and scrutinizing every tiny detail. But hello people… It’s just “conceptual.” Once approved, it could have morphed into whatever was needed to best serve the 40,000-plus voters who wanted it. Think of the possibilities and the amenities they could have crammed into it. Who knows, we might have finally gotten a check-cashing store at the lakefront.

What a shame that it is taking a lawsuit by Woodward Interests in order to protect the rights of the City Attorney and Planning Director to run the city how they see fit. How do we ever hope to get a casino built in Port Marigny if we can’t even get a hotel-events-center-old-dude-apartments-restaurant-check-cashing-place-maybe-and-marina built next door?

Who do we think we are? And what were these out-of-touch council members thinking? If the Planning Director says that multi-family residential really means commercial and not residential, then so be it. Everyone knows that whatever the Planning Directors says is law, regardless of whatever the hell the City Charter or the CLURO Articles 7.5.15.5 or 7.7 say.

The City Charter’s CLURO is a living, breathing document whose meaning is ever-changing and can only be interpreted by the Planning Director. It’s not easy to look into that crystal ball and keep the goalposts moving. Who are these council members to question anything the Planning Director says… anything at all… ever… in this lifetime… or the next.

Robert’s Rules of Order. Hah! Talk about stale. What good are rules if they stand in the way of progress? Those “rules” were written in the late 1800s by a relative of actual slave owners. Yeah, bet ya’ didn’t know that! It’s on the internet so it must be true.

And these so-called “citizens” — meeting with their council member at a publicly advertised secret outdoor meeting at a local pizzeria, that anyone could have attended, and, that outspoken proponents of the project did indeed attend and speak at — took the cake. Where were the Mandeville Police to break up such brazen acts of disinformation? Maybe being spread-eagle on the hood of a police cruiser would have taught some of these local ruffians a lesson or two about the true cost of freedom in Mandeville.

As Max Boot — who was born in Communist Russia by the way — once said, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”

Well, the same should go for Mandeville too. Those old Soviets knew a thing or two about efficient democracy.

Thankfully we had one councilman at large who tried to reign in the lies with a brilliant social-media-safe-speech resolution that could have made these ne’er-do-wells mouthing off on Facebook, Nextdoor and in “small group discussions” answerable to City Council justice by “asking” them to apologize. But noooooooooo. The loud-mouths laughed at, ridiculed, clapped, and forced him to withdraw the proposal in utter shame.

They claimed it was meant to intimidate and quell dissent and would have violated their “rights.” But in the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger during the Covid-19 lockdown: “Screw your freedom!”

Yes, screw your freedom. It doesn’t outweigh the need for low-wage jobs that could have been created by a hotel-events-center-old-dude-apartments-restaurant-check-cashing-place-maybe-and-marina in the middle of existing “commercial” housing.

We pray the court will force the City Council — under the threat of arrest or double secret probation — to re-vote in favor of Sucette Harbor, bar the mayor from using his veto power, and place a gag order on the citizens of Mandeville from saying, writing or thinking anything negative about Sucette Harbor in public, in private or in “small group discussions,” so help them God.

And if any of those council members complain that it’s not fair, then hopefully the judge will say what Dean Vernon Wormer said in Animal House: “I’ll tell you what’s fair and what’s not!”

The judge should let these council members know that on all future ordinances they are to check with the City Attorney and Planning Director before casting their votes.

You can’t let freedom just… ring.

The very existence of democracy is at stake. We cannot afford to have a city council running around voting on things as they see fit. It’s unna-Merican.

Pray the judge does the right thing and gives us the hotel-events-center-old-dude-apartments-restaurant-check-cashing-place-maybe-and-marina that Mandeville desperately needs.

‘Lighten up Francis.’ The preceding was satire. Funnier to some than to others, I bet.

-30-

Even approval of modest 90-units would open door to much larger development

By Ernest A. Burguières

September 3, 2023

---

Ernest A. Burguières is a Mandeville attorney who formerly served as District III Councilman. Mandeville Daily is honored to publish Mr. Burguières’ column with permission which is a combined reporting of the goings on in Mandeville government with his personal commentary.

---

As we stumble into the homestretch of our prolonged distraction, more subtle thoughts have come to mind for citizens who are concerned about this project.

On its face, the big battle seems to be the prospect of 90-plus apartments, 80 hotel rooms, an event center, a restaurant and a marina. Those are the immediate concerns because that is what was being presented.

But there is another more nefarious potential result.

If the City Council does not separate the issues of zoning change and conditional use approval, then there is a prospect that just one council member may justify in their mind that it is only “fair” that the developer get a shot.

And what if the mayor does not veto this if it passes?

The checker player says it’s over. The chess player says, not so fast. There are more shoes that could drop.

What happens if Sucette gets approval and is not vetoed? Then the developer has some time to decide if there is a smarter play given the economy.

Well, it would now be now zoned commercial. How about several multi-story towers and 1,000 apartments?

Maybe luxury units plus affordable units, to press all of the buttons.

A rooftop restaurant/night club, overlooking the lake.

Think of it… there would be nothing like it on either side of the lake. All of those height, parking, scale, compatibility and density issues fade away as the “planned district” cudgel is used to push a development in to the realm of the absurd. This sleepy time, virgin, coastal community would be forever violated. We would be done.

Sucette spent their first phase time and money to depict a general concept of a hotel, apartments, a restaurant, event center and marina that might attract some people. It was just a concept so the big investments had not yet been made. That could go away as just the cost of a diversion while the real money gears up for the whole enchilada. The chess move.

If the Council (and/or the mayor) want to avoid the risk of unintended consequences, they need to vote no to the re-zoning which is no to the project.

If you care, or if you just want to watch the slow motion train wreck, show up this Tuesday, September 5th, at 6:00 p.m. at the Spitzfaden Center.

By Ernest A. Burguières

August 30, 2023

---

Ernest A. Burguières is a Mandeville attorney who formerly served as District III Councilman. Mandeville Daily is honored to publish Mr. Burguières’ column with permission which is a combined reporting of the goings on in Mandeville government with his personal commentary.

---

On Tuesday, September 5th, the final act of our shared Sucette experience will be unveiled. There will be a council meeting and there will reportedly be a vote!

If you have enjoyed and/or suffered through the Sucette experience over the past year, it may very well come to a head at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 5th, in the Spitzfaden Center. If there is a capacity crowd, you ought to arrive early or resign yourself to pressing your nose against the window to watch.

There are several reasons why you may want to attend.

It will be a defining experience.

At center stage will be our five beleaguered council members. The Sucette decision that night may have a significant effect on the political future of the council and the mayor.

We are told that our elected officials are supposed to represent the views and desires of the citizens. Each elected official will have to ask himself; do I side with my friends and constituents, or, do I side with the Sucette developers? Will my vote for Sucette be in the best interest of my friends and constituents? Will I be able to look my friends and constituents in the face and say, what I did is in your best interest? Or will I betray those friends and constituents and side with the Sucette developers? Will the city attorney and the Director of Planning make new efforts to thwart the sentiment of council members? Interesting times.

The mayor and the entire council will be up for election in 2024. Qualifying is in 90-plus days, December 13-15, 2023. The primary is March 23, 2024. The run-off, if required, is April 27, 2024.

Provocative questions abound.

Will the vote on Sucette be political suicide for some? You have to wonder how the constituent contact to each council member has been trending over the past 8 months, for or against Sucette? As a point of interest, I learned that my post entitled, “The August 15, 2023, Sucette Experience” had 4,300 views. The vast majority of comments I received were in opposition to Sucette. The numbers speak for themselves.

If the council votes to approve Sucette, what will the mayor do? Will he veto it? What are his chances for re-election in Council Districts II and III if he does not veto Sucette?

If a council member believes the mayor will ultimately veto any Sucette approval, why would that council member risk the political disadvantage of voting for Sucette?

When the vote comes, who will decide the order in which the council members’ names are called out to vote? Will the first council member called upon to vote set the stage for subsequent council members? What will the strategy be? The last council member on this issue will have the advantage of knowing how his four peers have already voted.

And think of the consequences of a vote in favor. You would have approved a change in the zoning from residential to commercial… forever. If this project is not built, it will still be zoned commercial, then what other commercial venture could be foisted on the citizens? We are supposedly still facing a recession in the next 12 to 18 months. There will be the presidential election of the century. Would a subsequent commercial venture be guided by the B-2 rules or B-1 rules? A car wash? A shopping center? A grand music / entertainment venue? How do you control these future potential consequences at this stage? Who wants to shoulder that risk?

An interesting spectacle.

Our opportunity to participate in this theater of the absurd ought to be a no-miss date. You are not likely to see more intriguing brinksmanship and stress in a local government experience. Come on down and sit in the peanut gallery with the rest of us pilgrims while this sausage is made!

’Adoption’ of Ordinance 23-16 set for September 5th

Editorial

The so-called cabal of city officials, lawyers and developers who have tried to ramrod the Sucette Harbor project through at any cost have seemingly exhausted all avenues to have a 90-unit wrecking amendment removed from Ordinance 23-16.

Or have they?

The Woodward Interests developers, headed by Bill Hoffman and represented by attorney Paul Harrison, had originally proposed 201 apartment units, later reducing it to 178, before being dealt a devastating blow on July 12th when a majority on the council approved a poison pill, or wrecking amendment, that capped the number of units at 90.

Two meetings later, on August 15th, they tried nullifying the amendment. That was ruled out of order. Then they tried a motion to reconsider. That too was out of order. And along the way they even tried to rule a fellow council member out of order for just asking to have the amendment read aloud for everyone to hear. It was a surreal night.

You can refresh your memory by reading this editorial and detailed analysis of what happened August 15th. And here’s a Robert’s Rules of Order quick reference for these same issues.

And now, we supposedly approach this critical juncture — a vote. What will they try next?

We think we might know what they have up their sleeves. We’ll start with the obvious option and then knock your socks off with a suspected “nuclear option.”

Option 1: Motion to Rescind/Amend Something Adopted

Problem: Out of order according to Robert’s Rules

Assistant City Attorney David Parnell Jr., who stood in for City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert at the August 15th special meeting, unwittingly signaled what the cabal’s next move might be with remarks he made that night during one of his out-of-order interpretations.

“There’s also motion to amend something previously amended [perhaps he meant ‘adopted’], so I mean, there’s different options. Uhm. We feel it’s proper.”

He’s referring to motion to “rescind” and/or motion to “amend something already adopted.” These two motions are the opposite sides or the same coin. One strikes text from something adopted, the other adds text to something adopted.

But there’s a problem with this tactic. It too would be — or should be — ruled out of order.

§35:2:

“[Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted] Can be applied to anything (e.g., bylaw, rule, policy, decision, or choice) which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions.”

Notice the words “main motion” and “adoption.” Amendments are “subsidiary motions” according to §12:1 and nothing more, therefore §35 does not apply.

The “main motion” which is what currently sits before the City Council as its open or pending business is Ordinance 23-16, and it has not been adopted yet. All the amendments made to that main motion are subsidiary motions.

For either of these two motions to succeed, the presiding chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and Sconzert would have to rule that the amendment itself is a main motion. We simply don’t see how that’s possible based on RROO.

But then again, we’ve seen amazing feats of linguistic intrepidity from the legal and planning departments thus far, so who knows.

Let’s continue.

Option 2 (Nuclear Option): Motion to Withdraw

Problem: Only McGuire can do it

Mandeville Daily noticed that when the September 5th agenda and meeting packet was published on the City of Mandeville’s website August 24th, Ordinance 23-16 had been updated to reflect the amendments from July 12th, but it was also altered to read “moved for introduction by Council Member Bush; seconded for introduction by Council Member McGuire.”

The problem is, this is not true.

Mandeville Daily wonders if this signals the cabal’s “nuclear option.” Although it was probably just an innocent mistake at City Hall, perhaps members of our shadow government saw this too and are preparing for this contingency.

Ordinance 23-16 was actually moved for introduction at the May 11th City Council meeting by District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller and seconded by by District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush.

This is clearly seen on the City Council meeting video from May 11th, 2023, at approximately the 2:39:40 mark.

An “introduction” does not bring business before the council — it just says this item will come before the council at a later date. It satisfies the legal requirement of advertisement. Ordinances are not discussed or voted on when they are introduced. In fact, the council quite often introduces multiple ordinances on the same night, but nothing happens at that time. No discussion. No votes. No nothing.

But the motion to actually consider the ordinance comes under “old business” and the council can only consider one such item at a time, and each such item remains before the council (for that session) until it is properly resolved via motions to adopt, postpone, withdraw, etc. before they can move to the next item, according to RROO.

Ordinance 23-16 was actually put before the City Council for consideration during the May 25th meeting based on a motion by District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire.

Video of the May 25th, 2023, meeting at the 31:54 mark confirms it was McGuire.

Only she can make a motion to “withdraw,” according to RROO:

§4:19      

“Until the chair states the question, the maker has the right to modify his motion as he pleases or to withdraw it entirely. After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly, and then its maker can do neither of these things without the assembly’s consent (see 33:11–19); but while the motion is pending the assembly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment (12) before acting upon it.”

Why does this matter? You might want to don your tin-foil hat before you read the answer.

A successful motion to withdraw a main motion strips all amendments or changes to the motion, just as though they never happened. Ordinance 23-16 would in effect be “reset” to its original state, without the 90-unit limit, according to the interpretation we received.

§33:16

“… Any such motions that adhere to the main motion cease to be before the assembly and require no further disposition if the main motion is withdrawn.”

And — get ready to be further blown away — it doesn’t seem that there is anything that would stop a council member from making a new motion to bring it right back before the council, but this time, without the wrecking amendments attached. Why not? It is already on the agenda, is it not? Interesting question, for sure.

§33:18      

“After a motion has been withdrawn, the situation is as though it had never been made; therefore, the same motion can be made again at the same meeting.”

The nuclear option. There you have it.

Because it was McGuire who made the motion, this should be a dead-end.

Had Bush or Kreller made that motion, then sure, this might be a thing.

Robert’s Rules really isn’t the ‘law’ you say?

Based on what we’ve seen so far, there is little reason to believe the bunch involved in this cabal will follow, let alone even acknowledge, the written rules that don’t work to their advantage.

Twice already, Danielson unilaterally decided to suspend adding new amendments or holding a vote on the ordinance when it looked as though the proposal faced imminent death. The first time was July 24th and the second was August 15th.

Either he made those decisions without a consensus from the council or if he did consult them via phone, email, or in person, it would have constituted a walking quorum which would have violated Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law. We tend to believe it was the former rather than the later:

Shouldn’t it be considered just as wrong for the chairman not to allow fellow council members to vote on a matter as it would be if he were to tell them how to vote on a matter? Something to think about.

Now let’s suppose the legal department decides that Robert’s Rules of Order is really just a guide and the council doesn’t have to follow it to the letter.

The problem with that thinking is, Resolution 20-14, adopted shortly after the current City Council took office, sets the rules by which the City Council conducts its meetings, in accordance with Section 2-06(c) of the Mandeville Home Rule Charter.

This rule-setting Resolution 20-14 says our City Council is a “Robert’s Rules of Order” body. This should mean it’s the law, but again, no telling what interpretation we might be treated to September 5th.

Have you noticed how many times we’re having to put the word “should” in italics lately?

Will the truth matter on September 5th? Or is getting Sucette Harbor approved the only thing that matters?

We shall see. Keep your tin-foil hat ready to go.

-30-

Robert’s Rules of Order trampled by the cabal

Editorial

Updated August 21, 2023 at 7:40 a.m. — Clarify analysis about scheduled vote.

Anyone who has watched or attended the series of City Council meetings debating the Sucette Harbor proposal has to be asking themselves: What the hell is going on in Mandeville city government?

A recurring theme seems to be that words don’t matter anymore, rules don’t matter anymore, and worse, does the actual law even matter, as long as Sucette Harbor gets approved?

We are going to walk through each violation of parliamentary procedure and each time the written word was ignored during the most recent Sucette Harbor special meeting August 15th. In the end, you too will feel as we do, Mandeveille has been seized by a shadow government, a cabal, of lawyers, council members, and appointees who all conspire to get around the rules and defy what the people actually want.

By the time you finish reading this, and if you go back and watch the video excerpts that we point to, you will be purchasing your copy of Robert’s Rules of Order (RROO) and making your tin foil hat to wear to the next Sucette Harbor special meeting.

Danielson discards advertised agenda, declaring there will be no vote on adoption

The advertised agenda clearly read “Adoption of Ordinance 23-16,” but at the outset, presiding chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson declared there would be no vote on the adoption of the ordinance that night, despite “adoption” having been legally advertised in accordance with Louisiana Open Meetings Law. His explanation was that the ordinance wasn’t ready yet for a final vote.

“I think it would be very difficult to vote on a final ordinance this evening until we have cleaned up everything in Ordinance 23-16, with any amendments, any conditions, any possible changes that we would discuss this evening. So the plan is to not vote on the final ordinance tonight.”

That may be well and good if you’re a Sucette Harbor proponent, but what about those council members who had the right to vote it down if they so chose?

Analysis:

Danielson’s surprise no-vote declaration at the start of the August 15th meeting seems to run contrary to Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law. We guess the cabal realized that if they didn’t quash a potential motion to adopt that night, it would have been completely over for Sucette Harbor.

Sometimes pieces of legislation become malformed or nonsensical due to so-called “poison pills” or “wrecking amendments,” forcing even the proponents to vote against their own proposals. It’s part of the process and it’s all fair game.

This is exactly what should have happened to Ordinance 23-16 on August 15th. The vote was legally advertised in accordance with Open Meetings Law.

Each council member should have had the right to move for adoption under RROO and state law, even if, or we should say particularly if, their intention was to kill it. That’s how the system is supposed to work. The proponents of Sucette Harbor likely would have felt compelled to vote against it.

Danielson was essentially saying that in case the results of the meeting would have been to yield a “good” ordinance which might have gained support from the majority, including a drastically changed site plan and other provisions, the ordinance may have needed to be re-advertised before a vote, not to mention the developer would have needed the time in which to make said changes.

But Mandeville Daily believes that if they wanted to change the scheduled vote, they should have used the rules to do so. This would have meant making the case to Council Chairman Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman to publish an updated agenda reflecting that change before the legal deadline.

And as for the developer at this point, they were given marching orders from a majority on the council July 12th with the 90-unit limit. They should have (1) complied with the 90 units, (2) asked a council member to move to “reconsider” on July 24th and win that argument on merit, or (3) withdrawn their application.

If they had tried the motion to “reconsider” on July 24th, it sounds like they would have succeeded, based on District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush’s comments August 15th, which we will dive into later in this piece.

Had they done that, we could have had a workable ordinance by now. This was their fault, and yet another unforced error. By all accounts, the ordinance deserved to be voted down August 15th.

City attorney offers absurd interpretation of time limits rule for ‘reconsideration’

The second stop on our journey to the Land of the Lawless happened when Zuckerman called his first point of order after Kreller moved to amend a previously adopted amendment. Citing RROO, the chairman should have immediately called Kreller out of order instead.

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. And under the prescribed procedure for considering a point of order, the job of the chairman, parliamentarian and lawyer is to strictly determine if the motioner, Kreller, is out of order, and not to find him some other means to achieve his objective.

And the issue really wasn’t resolved yet as we would soon find out.

Local attorney Kevin Vogeltanz spoke during public comment addressing assistant city attorney David Parnell Jr.:

Video 2

17:03

Vogeltanz: “In a prior life, I did a lot of work with Robert’s Rules. I do not believe that this is a proper motion because under Robert’s Rules you can only make a motion to reconsider an amendment at the same meeting it was passed, or at the next meeting, and we are at least two meetings beyond when the 90 amendment passed. … Motions to reconsider can be made at the same night of the meeting, or at the next meeting. The motion should be withdrawn. Thank you.

Parnell Jr.: “It’s actually when that business has adjourned. And so these meetings have been adjourned, (but) there’s been no decisions on anything. The amendments have not been voted on finally. Uh, so the issue is still before the City Council, and there hasn’t been a finding. So he’s correct that you can’t carry over business to business to business, but this is still the same piece of business. There’s an ordinance in front of you that’s had seven meetings that have been adjourned, so…”

Danielson: “Ok. Alright.”

Analysis:

What the hell is Parnell Jr. talking about?

Vogeltanz was 100% correct. Based on his prior recommendation to Danielson, Parnell Jr. at the very least had stumbled upon §12:25 of RROO which says a new amendment cannot alter or nullify an existing amendment.

What’s more, three different sections of RROO — §6:26 (4), §37:8 (b), §37:10 (b) — all specifically say that the motion to “reconsider” a previously adopted amendment can only be done at the same meeting the amendment was adopted “or on the next succeeding day within the session” of multiple meetings. The August 15th meeting was the second Sucette session meeting after the amendment in question was adopted.

So Parnell Jr.’s statement that “it’s actually when that business has adjourned” is completely absurd and contradicts everything in RROO, which repeatedly uses the term “session” and defines it as either a single meeting, or a series of meetings, like at a convention, or the series of meetings on Sucette Harbor.

Did developers believe they had a deal with Bush?

Bush, who is seen by many as a potential swing vote in this matter, let everyone know right away at the August 15th meeting that the developer team — Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman and attorney Paul Harrison — had met with her twice to discuss the situation.

“Let me reiterate the reason I made the motion and that was to make sure we have a full hearing and consideration of all the issues. And I met with the developer twice in the past few weeks. … [Then, while looking to her left directly at Kreller] I’m a bit disappointed that this issue has come up at this juncture. I felt like there were some other things we could have addressed before, but here it is.”

Does this mean Bush was expecting this tactic and planning for it, but Kreller screwed things by showing the developer’s hand too early… had he been instructed to wait until after less controversial pieces of the ordinance had been fixed?

Consider Bush’s next statement only minutes later:

Video 2

6:33

Bush: “One thing in response … One of the reasons why I wanted to listen to the new information is, my big issue, two of my big issues are scale [and density], and what I see before me did a lot toward scale. I don’t know how I will vote, and we still have to address the number of units, but I think it’s worth discussing.”

Analysis:

Is this why the developers, despite having been asked to return with a site plan that matched the 90-unit amendment, showed up August 15th with so-called “new information” or a site plan for 178 units instead?

Does this mean that Hoffman and Harrison felt they had reached a deal with Bush, by conceding one of her issues — scale — in exchange for her allowing the 90-unit limit to be lifted?

She was very quick to offer the “motion to reconsider” once Zuckerman won his first point of order against Kreller. And she did say “we still have to address the number of units.” Because she was one of the votes for the 90-unit limit July 12th, could this be interpreted to mean she was now willing to nullify that previous action?

Having amendment read aloud considered dangerous to the cause

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

Video 2

10:08

Zuckerman: “Can I ask you to read back the previous amendment that we passed? I want to make sure we’re not putting some different spin on what we passed previously. I just think it would be helpful for everyone…”

Danielson: “But I think that is out of order as well because that’s getting to that amendment and we’re not at the amendment yet.”

Kreller: “I agree, that is out of order.”

Zuckerman: “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 don’t think that’s out of order.”

After a few minutes of back-and-forth and then asking Parnell Jr. for his sacred permission, he relented and allowed Scherer to read the minutes from the July 12th meeting that described Zuckerman’s amendment.

Analysis:

We knew the fix was in — that all the events of August 15th were being orchestrated by the shadow government — when Danielson tried to block the public from merely hearing the words read aloud.

Words. Just words. The truth. The public isn’t allowed to hear the truth. It might confuse them. It could destabilize the shadow government.

Zuckerman’s amendment — adopted by a majority of the council July 12th — is so dangerous and damaging to their cabal, the public wasn’t even going to be allowed to hear the words.

RROO §37:18 reads: “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.”

Zuckerman was right. He had in effect called a second point of order. But sadly, the point of order was “well taken” not because Parnell Jr. consulted RROO as we did here, but rather because he believed it would end up serving their long game to get around the 90-unit limit. Read his answer carefully:

Parnell Jr.: “But again, her motion is to reconsider that based on new information. Those are the only grounds you can file a motion to reconsider. You can’t just say I changed my mind two weeks later. It’s based on the new information that’s been received. That’s been the motion that’s made, seconded and is being discussed now. So again, I think it’s a good idea to find that original … amendment to the application, because you’re contemplating going back to what the applicant originally said, versus what the amendment y’all did the first time, or some other new amendment that may pass tonight.”

We peasants humbly thank Parnell Jr. for his magnanimous act of allowing us to hear words from the minutes of a meeting subject to Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law read aloud.

And we feel obligated to correct the record here, seeing that Parnell Jr. opened the door so widely.

This whole notion that the only way you can “reconsider” under Robert’s Rules is if there is some “new information” is poppycock.

It is a reason you can reconsider, but not the only reason you can reconsider.

“Those are the only grounds you can file a motion to reconsider,” he said.

RROO §37:1 reads: “The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit correction of hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote.”

So really, the council could reconsider a previous action for whatever reason they want — not just “new information” — as long as it is within the time limitations that Parnell Jr. repeatedly ignored. Pretty much anything can fit into “ill-advised” if you are one of the affirmative swing votes who had changed their mind.

Parnell Jr. started repeating this “new information” mantra during the meeting, and soon other council members started repeating it too, but it was not based in rules that govern the motion to reconsider.

So where did he get it from?

Under §6:25 and §6:26, which is sort of like the table of contents for motions “that bring a question again before the assembly,” you will find: “pull from the table,” “rescind,” “amend something previously adopted,” “discharge to committee,” and last but not least “reconsider,” each with a brief summary of what they are with pointers to their respective detail sections.

But §6:26 does not set the rules for those items. The rules for “reconsider” are found at §37. This summary list at §6:26 is the only mention of the term “new information” in the entire body of RROO and it is non-binding, but the details found at §37 are binding.

City attorney forced to concede after Zuckerman pressed another point of order

And then about 10 minutes later, the absurd turned into insanity, when Zuckerman essentially called a third point of order:

Video 2

27:44

Zuckerman: “I just heard an interpretation from you to say, well, the business of the council, this overall issue hasn’t been concluded, … I’d like somebody to just read that out of Robert’s Rules, whether it’s the parliamentarian or the city attorney.”

District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire: “And we did vote on the amendment.” [Parnell Jr. had minutes earlier said, “The amendments have not been voted on finally.”]

Parnell Jr.: “But the motion to reconsider was brought based on new information which is the only grounds it can be brought.”

Zuckerman: “I’m questioning your interpretation of whether it can be brought several meetings later after it’s been voted on. I’d just like somebody to read that.”

Parnell Jr.: “There’s also motion to amend something previously amended, so I mean, there’s different options. Uhm. We feel it’s proper.”

Person in Audience: “Could somebody read the rules, please?”

Zuckerman: “I’m just asking for somebody to read the rule.”

Analysis:

He could not answer the question. When given the benefit of the doubt and asked to show where — four times by Zuckerman and once by some lady in the audience — he could not even point to a general section or chapter of RROO.

Instead, he ominously let everyone know that they — this shadow government — have other “options” that they are willing to use in order to remove the 90-unit limit and to get this project pushed through. It was a reminder that they, this cabal, are the ones in charge, not us.

Parnell Jr. made another peculiar statement, by saying that the amendments weren’t really adopted yet, prompting the earlier retort from District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire.

So we finally ended up getting a second recess during which members of the audience were treated to several scrums of council members, developers, city officials, lawyers and members of the public who also happened to be lawyers.

The result, as we all know by now, was Danielson kinda-sorta acknowledging — without actually saying the words — that Zuckerman’s third point of order was also “well taken.” Zuckerman was three for three, even if Danielson refused to admit it.

What’s next?

At least some good came from Parnell Jr.’s performance that night. He unwittingly telegraphed the cabal’s next move: “There’s also motion to amend something previously amended [perhaps he meant ‘adopted’], so I mean, there’s different options. Uhm. We feel it’s proper.”

Hoffman et al are not likely to just go away and surrender the issue even though they’ve been backed into a corner. They may very well try what Parnell Jr. signaled with his “different options” remark.

In RROO, motion to “Rescind” or motion to “Amend Something Previously Adopted” found at §35 in RROO could very well be their last attempt to strike the 90-unit amendment using actual rules.

These motions allow one to either strike text from a previously adopted main motion or modify text of a previously adopted main motion.

§35:2: “[Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted] Can be applied to anything (e.g., bylaw, rule, policy, decision, or choice) which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions.”

Notice the words “main motion.” Amendments are “subsidiary motions” according to §12:1 and nothing more, therefore §35 should not apply.

According to the rules, such a motion would be ruled — or should be ruled — out of order.

But based on what we’ve seen during this process, there is no telling what this bunch involved in the cabal will do.

Sucette Harbor must be approved at all costs.

Let’s pray that Zuckerman and McGuire have their copies or RROO on-hand at the next meeting. Better yet, maybe they should hire attorneys to attend the meetings with them.

Don’t forget your tin foil hats.

-30-

Admit the people have a right to know who is being considered

Should be transparent, open from start to finish

Editorial

The Planning & Zoning Commission is a big deal to a lot of people, and rightfully so. Surely the City knows this by now, yet they seem to continue to struggle with openness, transparency, and consistency when it comes to the selection process.

City officials — both elected and appointed — have claimed in the past that the reason the process here in Mandeville is so guarded is in an effort to protect the privacy of the applicants. This claim comes despite them being well aware that the Louisiana Public Records law very clearly says that most of the information concerning such applicants is public and must be made available.

Of course, there are those who claim the real reason the process is so secretive here is that elected officials generally would rather avoid the inevitable criticism over who they do not pick.

The Louisiana Public Records Law, or Title 44, specifically addresses these applicants. R.S. 44:12.1 (A) reads:

“The name of each applicant for a public position of authority or a public position with policymaking duties, the qualifications of such an applicant related to such position, and any relevant employment history or experience of such an applicant shall be available for public inspection, examination, copying, or reproduction as provided in Part II of this Chapter.”

This does not say the City has to release copies of the resumes or whatever documents an applicant may have mailed, emailed or faxed to the City. While such documents could be obtained via a public records request — such as the one made by Mandeville Daily August 11th, Section 12.1 (A) is really only directing the City to make certain information available. There is a difference.

Mandeville Daily believes that the requirements of R.S. 44:12.1 (A) could have been satisfied — as far as we are concerned — by publishing a complete list of applicants, containing the information required by law, specifically: the name of each applicant, their qualifications for the position, and their relevant employment history.

It would have been that simple. Mandeville Daily would have felt no need to exercise its right to submit a public records request. People are naturally going to be suspicious of their government — as they should be — when that government, either by accident or by intention, creates the appearance of impropriety.

So the solution to this problem is really very simple:

1) Acknowledge that the people — the voters — have an inherent right to observe this process from start to finish, as opposed to how it is now, where it is simply announced at a meeting that we have a new Planning & Zoning appointee-designate whom the people may know little or nothing about.

2) Set up a form on the City’s website for people to submit their applications for the Planning & Zoning Commission, while making them aware which parts of their information will be made public in accordance with the applicable state law (R.S. 44:12.1). Once the application period closes, all the applicants’ information which is covered by law will immediately be viewable by the public online, in one nice, consistent list where each application is treated equally and fairly in the eyes of the public.

Boom. Done.

This stuff with the Cressy appointment was an unforced error.

-30-

1984 state act says City Council has final say after Civil Service Board signs off

Council first votes to approve raise then separate vote to fund it

Council ‘no’ vote does not mean ‘unfunded mandate’

Contradicts board member’s statements from July 18th meeting

Editorial

Updated 8/7/2023 at 6:41 a.m. to include a reference to the first COLA from one year ago.

Does the Municipal Police Employees Civil Service Board have the authority to set police pay and then leave the City Council obligated to fund it, a notion we have been led to believe for years?

The presumption of absolute authority

During the July 18th joint Civil Service Board and City Council meeting, longtime board member Jack B. McGuire reminded everyone: “So this board has the authority to set the salaries of the police officers who are covered by the police system and that is our sole authority subject to funding by the City Council.”

McGuire then dropped a not-so-subtle hint to the City Council members in attendance about what could happen if they didn’t fund the request. He recounted the events of four years earlier when the Civil Service Board was asking for a 15-percent across-the-board increase but the City Council at that time initially only wanted to grant 3.5 percent.

“But thanks to a large number of city employees and police officers who attended some meetings then, the council eventually adopted 14.2 percent, which probably is the highest annual raise that we’ve ever had and that was made the same for non-employees and municipal employees,” McGuire said.

The joint meeting came about because this City Council put into law that a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) would be proposed in the Mayor’s annual budget. This was on the heels of what many saw as a generous yet much-needed pay scale overhaul in 2022, where most city employees saw 10- to 40-percent raises, followed by the first annual COLA of 5.9-percent last year.

The peculiar story behind Act 84-164

But does the Civil Service Board have the authority to unilaterally set police pay and then if the City Council doesn’t fund it, it becomes an unfunded mandate?

The answer may be unsettling to some, but the evidence supporting the case we are about to make has been right under our noses the entire time. Here is the real story:

Mandeville was granted a special carveout of sorts in 1984 by the Louisiana State Legislature when it passed Act 84-164, creating a separate municipal police civil service board for Mandeville. The legislation describes the board’s responsibilities and duties, how they are appointed, and so on. It was amended in 2009 and again in 2017, mostly to change who appoints the police chief, how the board members themselves are appointed, and how the personnel director is hired.

McGuire referred to this act as if it were sacrosanct legislation:

“One [civil service system] for police was enacted by municipal ordinance of the board of alderman [which preceded the City Council form of government Mandeville now has] and was then to ensure that a future board of alderman meeting could not by a majority of vote repeal it, enshrined it in a state legislative act. So the police system is actually regulated by a state act. The only change that can be made in that is if you change the state act,” he told the council members in attendance that night.

But according to a copy of Louisiana Revised Statutes Act 84-164 obtained from the Law Library of Louisiana — as amended by Acts 09-418 and 17-83 — the personnel director, who is indirectly appointed by the Civil Service Board itself, creates the compensation plan which must be approved by the Civil Service Board after a public hearing, and then — you guessed it — also approved by the Mandeville City Council.

The text in Section 3 which lists the duties of the personnel director reads: “To develop and to administer a compensation plan for all positions in the classified civil service. Such compensation plan shall be effective only upon approval by the (Civil Service) board after public hearing thereon and approval by the municipal governing authority [the City Council].”

It is important to note that because Section 3 mentions that a duty of the Civil Service Board is to approve the compensation plan, that same duty is subsequently repeated under Section 4 which lists all the duties of the board. But this in no way means that only the Civil Service Board approves the compensation plan.

Talk of unfunded mandates

Perhaps this is what has led to a misunderstanding by some over the years. If one were to read or quote only Section 4, they might be inclined to misinterpret the entire act as saying the Civil Service board alone sets the pay scale. This is clearly not the case.

Up until this point, more than one city official has thrown around the term “unfunded mandate” as if the compensation plan for police would magically go into effect without an ordinance once the Civil Service Board approves it from the personnel director.

But as we can see now, this is clearly not what Act 84-164, Section 3 B(2) does. In fact, we only need to go as far back as February 2022 to prove it.

Council has always had right to just say ‘no’

The way city government works is, anytime they do something that requires spending money, not only do they have to pass an ordinance authorizing the thing they want to do, but then they have to adopt a second ordinance, called a budget adjustment, that gives them the money to do the thing they just approved. (Or they simply include the money in the next annual budget and wait until then to do the thing they want to do.)

This is exactly how the pay scale overhaul of February 2022 was done. The police raises were enacted by Ordinance 22-02. And then, at the very same council meeting, the money that funded those raises was approved in budget adjustment Ordinance 22-04.

But la pièce de résistance can be found in the wording of Ordinance 22-02:

Notice the first and fifth “Whereas” clauses. These make our case.

Because Act 84-164 is specifically cited means the City is, and always has been, very aware of the role the Civil Service Board plays, and while that role is significant, it is still very limited. By the way, the exact same language was used in the first COLA adopted and funded roughly one year ago, Ordinance 22-24.

In other words, the City Council has to first approve the pay scale change in one piece of legislation, and then, in a completely separate act, they must approve to fund it. So it actually takes two different votes by the City Council to enact one pay scale change.

The only way it could ever become an unfunded mandate would be if the City Council were to vote for the pay scale change ordinance but then — for some weird reason — vote against the budget adjustment ordinance.

If what McGuire is saying were true, then the City Council wouldn’t have needed Ordinances 22-02 (pay scale overhaul) or 22-24 (first COLA); the raises would have simply become the law after the Civil Service Board approved them, leaving the City Council only a perfunctory duty in adopting budget adjustments for each.

But that’s not what the Act 84-164 says, and of course, that’s not what happened in 2022, or any other time a pay scale change has happened.

Act 84-164 gave Civil Service Board seat at the table

The only material thing Act 84-164 did when it comes to the police compensation plan was it ensured the Civil Service Board a role in negotiating police compensation plans.

Sure, it’s possible they could get a lone council member to introduce an ordinance without full council support, but it would simply fail, and there would be no raises, and there definitely would be no unfunded mandate.

This brings us back to the current situation and the debate over the proposed 5.8-percent COLA recommended by the Civil Service Board. Mayor Clay Madden had proposed a 2.7-percent COLA. What will happen August 7th when the two parties meet again?

Mandeville Daily has a strong suspicion they will come to an agreement on a new number. They’ll negotiate, just as Act 84-164 really intended they do.

The complete text of Louisiana Revised Statutes Act 84-164 — as amended by Acts 09-418 and 17-83 — can be downloaded here.

-30-

---

Related Stories:
Mandeville police, workers get historic raises in pay-scale overhaul (2/12/2022)
Mandeville’s lowest paid get less than market minimums (11/18/2021)
OPINION | Goodwill COLA gesture exposes delicate relationship with Civil Service Board

---

Council gets second joint meeting August 7th

Some on council soften, recant support for higher COLA at recent budget meeting

Who really said what at the first joint Civil Service meeting?

Editorial

No good deed goes unpunished.

What started out as a noble gesture to the hard-working employees of the City of Mandeville — after decades where pay scale adjustments were few and far between — the City Council decided to put into law that a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) would be part of the Mayor’s annually proposed budget.

This was on the heels of what many saw as a generous yet much-needed pay scale overhaul in 2022, where most city employees saw significant raises, which also baked in an annual COLA moving forward to be based on the Social Security Administration’s annual number. No one ever imagined that we’d see the 8.7 number that was announced this year due to inflation during the Biden administration. The Mandeville COLA mandate was later amended to give both the Municipal Employees Civil Service Board (MECSB) as well as the City more flexibility in negotiating a COLA at a joint meeting.

The only problem is, what happens when the two parties are seemingly a mile apart on their numbers?

That’s what we’re seeing play out now.

5.8 percent versus 2.7 percent

The Civil Service Board returned a recommendation of a 5.8-percent COLA for the upcoming fiscal year, but Mayor Clay Madden proposed only 2.7 percent, which some on the council seem fine with, by the way.

Others on the council, like Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller, sent mixed signals, advocating 5-percent and 4.5-percent COLAs respectively during the July 18th joint Civil Service Board meeting, but then during later City Council meetings they seemed to back off those prior statements made in front of the Civil Service Board members and moved toward advocating a second joint Civil Service Board meeting.

To be fair, Danielson did take care to surgically qualify his recommendation at the joint meeting, saying “but that’s going to be a budgeting thing.”

Kreller, however, did such an about-face during the special budget meeting just eight days later on July 26th — suggesting a pay freeze for 2024, cutting City-paid retirement system contributions, as well as a pay increase for the City Council — that Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman expressed frustration at the contradiction.

As for Zuckerman, he had deferred offering a specific number during the July 18th joint Civil Service Board meeting, only saying that he wanted to wait until the council moved deeper into the budget review process, which is still going on as of this posting.

Mandeville Daily submitted a public records request for and received the audio recording of the July 18th joint Civil Service Board meeting. A transcript of key exchanges from that meeting as well as the City Council special budget meeting July 26th can be found at the end of this piece.

Overshooting the mark

It was during the July 26th special budget meeting that a consensus of resistance to the Civil Service Board’s 5.8 number began to materialize, not just from Kreller’s reversal.

Danielson, Zuckerman, Kreller, District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire, District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush… they all peppered Finance Director Kathleen Sides with questions and scenarios during the meeting.

Zuckerman warned of the risk of “overshooting” the number by going too high, especially considering that the pay scale overhaul of 2022 — which established and paid a 5.9-percent COLA that first year after the new pay scale — was less than 18 months ago.

Most City of Mandeville employees, including police, saw anywhere between 10 and 40-percent raises, even without that first COLA of 5.9 percent.

Zuckerman drummed up enough support from his fellow council members at the July 27th regular meeting to ask the Civil Service Board if they’d be willing to meet to reconsider the COLA.

And now it would appear that Zuckerman has been granted his request with the second joint meeting scheduled for August 7th at 6 p.m.

The City has about $48.9 million in the bank, so to speak, (excluding enterprise fund) and even with a 5.8-percent COLA is projected to continue a trend of surpluses in the millions.

But Zuckerman and others on the council expressed that they are not worried about this year, per se, but rather what could happen over the next decade.

A COLA is not the same thing as a one-time bonus which would be based on how well the City did just this year. The COLA is a percentage and it is permanently added to an employee’s pay rate which then becomes their new pay rate.

When Zuckerman says they don’t want to “overshoot the mark” he is likely referring to the effects of payroll growth outpacing revenue growth and compensation for certain positions moving beyond their real-world marketplace valuations.

Not-so-subtle hint

What further complicates things is the unique relationship that Mandeville’s Civil Service Board has with the City of Mandeville compared to other cities in Louisiana. According to longtime Municipal Employees Civil Service Board member Jack B. McGuire, they have the authority to outright set the salaries for police, even though the City Council still has to vote to fund it.

During the July 18th joint Civil Service Board meeting he said, “So this board has the authority to set the salaries of the police officers who are covered by the police system and that is our sole authority subject to funding by the city council.”

McGuire then dropped a not-so-subtle hint to the City Council members in attendance about what could happen if they didn’t fund the request. He recounted the events of four years earlier when the Civil Service Board was asking for a 15-percent across-the-board increase when the City Council at that time initially only wanted to grant 3.5 percent.

“But thanks to a large number of city employees and police officers who attended some meetings then, the council eventually adopted 14.2 percent, which probably is the highest annual raise that we’ve ever had and that was made the same for non-employees and municipal employees,” McGuire said.

At the July 26th City Council special budget meeting, when council members asked what would happen if they refuse to fund the Civil Service Board’s 5.8-percent request, Human Resources Director Joanna Anderson — who is hired by the Mandeville Personnel Committee, which in turn is appointed by the Civil Service Board — echoed McGuire’s sentiment with only two words, “unfunded mandate.”

Apparently, the Louisiana Legislature saw fit to create an exception for Mandeville in 1984 when it comes to civil service boards. With Act 164, it supposedly granted the Mandeville Civil Service Board the authority to set police pay, but not regular civil service pay. There have been other acts by the Legislature in the intervening years to amend the original act.

As of this posting, Mandeville Daily has requested the full text and an opinion of Act 84-164 from multiple state sources, including the Law Library of Louisiana.

And none of the city officials in attendance at the City Council meeting that night could expound on the “unfunded mandate” explanation. Sides deferred to the legal department, which was not represented at the meeting.

Can the Civil Service Board give themselves raises to whatever they want and the City Council simply must fund it? Or… will the board be willing to come to an agreement August 7th on a COLA that the City Council feels more comfortable with?

We shall see August 7th at 6 p.m.

---

Pull quotes:

Joint Civil Service Board meeting

July 18, 2023

Councilman at Large Rick Danielson:

29:48

“(O)ur number one asset is our employees, period. And when we did the salary survey, we made a major investment, we bit the bullet to do a catch-up that had not been done in a long time. What can we afford? What can we not afford?

“Me personally, I feel that 2.7 is too low. What’s the appropriate number? If I was going to pick a number, I’d say at least 5 percent, but that’s going to be a budgeting thing. That’s how I feel.

“I don’t know the perfect number, but I do think that 2.7 is too low.”

District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller:

32:45

“The other thing too, and I agree with, um, Mr. Danielson, you know, when I was crunching the numbers, I thought we should have… I don’t think the city can afford an 8.7, but… the 2.7 figure is low, and I think we should be in the middle, and my number was about 4.5…

“Because what I think we need to consider is, along with that, the COLA, if it’s 4.5, and we give merit raise, OK, and let’s say this individual gets a 4… so that’s 8.7. That’s a nice number. Coming from a 2.7 and adding 4, that’s really, you know, I think kind of chintzy. So I would um, I’d like to meet little bit in the middle.”

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman:

48:00

“We want to pay highly competitive salaries and very good compensation packages so that we can retain, we can attract and retain.

“For me it comes down to what can we do and what’s reasonable. We’re just now getting into the budget process. … So I’m not ready to throw out a number yet that I can agree to. I think for me I need to get through much more of the budget process to decide what can we do.

“Certainly I’d like to do as much as we can. And I would certainly put it above other priorities to do as much as we can for our employees.”

District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush: (did not speak)

District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire: (did not attend)

---

City Council special budget meeting

July 26, 2023

Zuckerman attempts to gauge support for COLA

41:05

Zuckerman: “So those are my thought’s on it. I know Dr. Kreller, you were at the meeting, and Mr. Danielson, you were at the meeting, were pushing for a higher COLA than what was being presented [the 2.7 in Madden’s budget].”

41:18

Kreller: “I’m gonna correct that. I was not pushing for a higher COLA. What I was listening to was, Mr. McGuire wanted it much higher than the 5.8 and what Brian Burke said and what they decided was, let’s get an average, and they asked us. And so my number 4.9* but they, you know, recommended 5.8, and so that’s where we are. But… a recommendation to us. Now, at that point, I didn’t have the budget in my hand, and so we’re going to have to take all that into consideration. Uh, 5.8, 5.8, and this was Kathleen’s number, it would affect $698,000. And 2.7 is $325,000. Um. So I mean that’s a significant change. I’m open to anything. Personally, I think our employees make good money… with the merit raise and with their package, and a COLA 2.7, or 3.5, whatever it is, I think they’re making a real nice, nice salary, and I mean that’s competitive.”

Zuckerman: “I hear ya, and I agree with a lot of that… I do wish that you would have verbalized that at the Civil Service joint meeting. Because what I heard at the joint Civil Service meeting was, you were recommending a 4.9-percent* COLA and you were good with that, when they came back to us all and asked so if 4.9* percent is, just say, that’s fine, I think that’s overshooting the mark. I think we need to stay conservative with it considering everything we’ve done in the last 18 months, but 4.9* is what came out of Dr. Kreller at the meeting. The recommendation from the Civil Service board was 5.8, um, we have to decide, like you said, we have to decide what we’re going to do.”

Kreller: “Quite frankly I’m not sure where you’re going with that but I stand, you’re right, I said 4.9*. I was trying to break it, get an an average there because I knew what they were doing.

Zuckerman: “I’m just trying to figure out, trying to move the discussion along and figure out where everybody’s at on what they think the COLA should be, that’s all.”

*Kreller had actually proposed a 4.5-percent COLA at the July 18th joint Civil Service meeting and not the 4.9 percent that Kreller first mentioned in this exchange at the July 26th meeting. It would appear that once Kreller mentioned 4.9, both he and Zuckerman kept referring to that number instead of what Kreller had actually said.

Kreller floats salary freeze for 2024

1:03:05

Kreller: “With the salary survey we brought everybody up and they’re getting paid very nicely and now with this high COLA, now I’m talking about the 5.8, OK, let’s just say that. Can we think about a possible salary freeze for 2024? And put a freeze on the salaries?”

Joanna Anderson, Human Resources Director: “We have civil service rules that talk about merit increases and words they use are ‘shall.’ It’d be pretty hard to get around the merit increases.”

Bush: “I’m not sure I’m conformable with that.” (chuckles)

Kreller: “Several years ago, if I’m not mistaking, they froze the salaries in the City of Mandeville.”

Danielson: “I think it was only for the directors.”

Kreller: “It was the directors? OK. So… it seems like that’s a possibility.”

Bush: “Look, the good will we have attained in the past year, you just, that all goes down the drain.”

Kreller: “You think the good will that we’ve raised all these salaries? … For the directors. That level.”

Bush: “I mean I think you have to … continue to strive to be an employer of choice. I want to attract top directors as well.”

Kreller: “I’m just throwing this out. I ran a business for 38 years and I assure you, some of these increases, I would have never done that, because I could not even afford that. And we are getting to a point here we need to consider down the line.”

Kreller asks about a pay raise for council members

1:38:05

Kreller: “I do have one item. On page 7. The council meeting fees. I just noticed. Those have been the same.”

Danielson: “That’s your pay.”

Kreller: “I know it is. That’s where I’m going. OK? I’m thinking about that you know as a retiree. You know, maybe we should adjust that a little bit.”

McGuire: “Have fun with that one, Dr. Kreller. You’re on an island on your own, my friend.”

Kathleen Sides, Finance Director: “I think the ordinance says you can adjust it for the next council.”

Kreller: “I would rather do it, you know, prior to an election.”

Danielson: “Although it did actually increase about four years ago. It was $60,000 and went to $72,000 because it was $1,000 a month and it went to $1,200.”

Kreller suggests asking employees to start paying city-funded retirement

1:52:08

Kreller: “We have got to think about not paying the 100 percent… The employees are going to have to participate… That’s my feeling, OK. Because it is absolutely, it cannot be sustained. And I don’t think it’s going to go five years.”

1:52:30

Anderson: “So the city of Covington felt that way for a very long time and recently they have started paying the employee portion of retirement, and it was to retain their employees and to attract the best of the best. And they’re doing a good job since they’ve done that.”

Kreller: “But they just did that, not too long ago.”

Anderson: “They did, a few years ago.”

Kreller: “But in the private sector, the employee pays something. That’s it, you know. That’s how you survive as a business owner.”

1:52:10

Zuckerman: “I don’t think you can make a general statement like that… I just think you have to look at the total package. What your total compensation is… I think what’s important is the total compensation. If pay is less, benefits might be higher. If pay is high and you gotta pay your own benefits, that’s gotta be taken into account… People do those calculations… they do that math. They see what the value of benefits is.”

Kreller: “The cards are gonna come falling down and we’re going to have to do something drastic.”

---

-30-

Understanding the differences between B-1 and B-2 zoning districts

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 31, 2023

---

Ernest A. Burguières is a Mandeville attorney who formerly served as District III Councilman. Mandeville Daily is honored to publish Mr. Burguières’ column with permission which is a combined reporting of the goings on in Mandeville government with his personal commentary.

---

I was listening to Larry Grundman and Councilman Jason Zuckerman’s comments about the application of the B-2 zoning designation in the Sucette case. What follows was inspired by them.

Something struck me at the last Council Sucette meeting… Director of Planning and Development Cara Bartholomew stated that with Sucette, it was the applicant that selected the use that it wanted to apply to their project. This in turn caused Planning to identify the zoning designation that would allow these uses.

I guess their thinking was the since planned development is theoretically open with no restrictions they could pick any use that they wanted.

---

Editor’s Note:

There are two zoning districts that could come into play here:

• B-1 Neighborhood Business District: Businesses that are in a typical neighborhood.
• B-2 Highway Business District: Businesses that are next to or near a highway or major thoroughfare.

---

What I came to realize from Cara’s comments is that it’s not necessarily the zoning classification they requested, but the uses they requested that could only fall into the classification B-2 for those areas of the property. Since the Planned District classification provides that the development regulations for the zoning classification under which those proposed uses are allowed as a “baseline” to consider departures from those regulations, one must first make the leap to agree that proposed uses under that zoning regulation (in this case B-2, Highway Commercial) are appropriate for that site. They are not.

I don’t recall any real discussion of this particular issue. The applicant in effect gets to select the zoning that they would like to apply and the city must accommodate?

Understanding what B-2 means

The B-2 zoning rules are found in 7.5 of the CLURO:

7.5. – BASE DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ZONING DISTRICTS.

The regulations of this Article identify the purpose of each of the created zoning districts and shall be considered the minimum requirements, in addition to all other applicable regulations of this Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance or other laws of the City or state as provided, for the use and development of all land within the separate zoning districts in conjunction with the Table of Permitted Uses By Zoning District included in this Article.

7.5.9.5. Special B-2 Highway Business District Criteria.

1. Access. B-2 districts shall be located on lots with street frontage on major arterial or collector streets only and shall not require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district.

Additionally, I believe B2 provides for the largest limit on a building, 100,000 square feet, more like what you see in the Rouse’s area or Whole Foods area. It should be noted that at 108,000 square feet the Sucette hotel is bigger than permitted even in B2.

Then I looked at the Planned Development regulations. When you drill down on the language certain things pop up.

7.5.15.1. Purpose of the Planned District.

Planned District applications shall contain a statement by the developer as to how the submitted plan departs from the existing requirements of this Land Use Regulations Ordinance and any other regulations applicable to the proposed use or uses for the district in which the proposed use could be established of right and how each departure improves what otherwise would be required under these regulations.

Have we heard how the Sucette departures improves what otherwise would be required under these regulations? I think I will have to check my notes, I would say, no.

7.5.15.2. Planned District Permitted Uses.

The uses permitted in this zoning district, including signage, shall be in accordance with those uses listed under this district in the Table of Permitted Uses By Zoning District found at the end of this Article and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this Land Use Regulations Ordinance including any supplemental or special use criteria provided in Article 8 and the Sign Code in Article 10.

7.5.15.4. Flexible Site Planning.

When considering a Planned District application, the unique nature of each proposal may require, under proper circumstances, the departure from the strict enforcement of certain present codes and ordinances

And then under Commercial Uses:

B-2 Highway Business District, provided, however, that commercial uses designated on a site plan providing for a mix of commercial uses and residential uses shall comply with the requirements of the B-1 Neighborhood Business District.

B-1 should be used for Sucette

What does all this mean?

This looks like Sucette can use B-2 Highway Business District, however, if commercial uses designated on a site plan providing for a mix of commercial uses and residential uses then it shall comply with the requirements of the B-1 Neighborhood Business District.

Whoa!

Does that mean that we are not supposed to use a B-2 highway Business District mentality when there are a mix of commercial and residential and then you must use the B-1 rules instead?

This is kind of consistent with Rule 7.5.9.5. Special B-2 Highway Business District Criteria wherein B-2 districts shall be located on lots with street frontage on major arterial or collector streets only and shall not require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district.

If Sucette has a mix of commercial and residential, and it is not located on a major arterial or collector street and access would require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district, then it must be relegated to a B-1 zoning designation analysis.

If Sucette is relegated to a B-1 zoning designation analysis then the maximum size building would be 15,000 square feet, the same as in the B-3 area of old Mandeville. It is almost like there was a consistency of thought to not dump a huge departure in size, scale and density into a residential neighborhood. Who would have thought?

Sucette appears to have articulated uses to Planning that could be satisfied by B-2, highway business zoning. The problem with highway business is that it contemplates a business on a highway and therefore has much larger limits on the size of the uses and access. A business on a highway would be like West Causeway Approach, Hwy. 22, Causeway Blvd. and really East Causeway Approach before it joins Hwy. 190. A highway business will need more space for vehicles, especially large commercial vehicles, to routinely come in and out. Higher traffic is expected. And,… there is a limitation on B2 that shall be located on lots with street frontage on major arterial or collector streets only and shall not require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district. Was this limitation considered? Even in the no rules arena of “Planned Development” was it contemplated that Sucette would not be on a major highway? Was it also contemplated that access would have to be through existing (unusually narrow) residential streets? Apparently not.

When you try to shoehorn a 100,000+ square foot structure into a residential area of narrow streets you have obvious density, compatibility and scale problems. Is this what was contemplated by the Mandeville CLURO? Is this what was contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan? Is this what was contemplated by the Planned Development idea? It seems to go against everything else in the CLURO about small town atmosphere, at least in our old town. An interpretation that fosters this B-2 development into a residential area is a perversion of the rule and concept. Are we talking strict enforcement or common sense of trying to put a square peg in a round hole?

The real problem

I realized that in reality, what’s causing all of the heartache is density, scale, proximity to residential and access to the site.

Sucette is proposing uses with development regulations for properties that are meant to be on a major artery (highway commercial) with truck access, no residential adjacency, etc. On top of that, they are requesting additional departures…increase in area, increase height, reductions in parking, etc. Unfortunately, they ignored the safety valve of access and proximity to residential areas. Plus, they quickly, and quietly, with virtually no discussion, seem to be on the verge of dispensing with five (5) mature (centuries old) live oak trees with no discussion.

The whole issue seems to me to be caused by requesting (demanding?) uses that can only be shoe-horned into B2 Highway Commercial zoning on that site and applying Highway Commercial site development criteria. This is viewing the rules through a tunnel.

If this is a “no rules football” scenario then there is no reason why a 30-story tower or a creosote plant could not be built on this 15 acres. The rules were not intended to be perverted by half-clever sophistry that might appear to allow such an aberration. Sucette is employing a perverted interpretation of the rules that absolutely ignores the context of Mandeville. and at the same time ignoring the common sense safety valve of access and proximity to residential neighborhoods. If this project were in Destin or Panama City, Florida they would never try to located it in an older, narrow area. They would locate it near the highway for visibility and access, something they do not have at Sucette Harbor.

It is useful to think of outlandish applications because it helps to drive home the point that if Planning believes that they have no say so except that once uses have been identified (by the applicant) they must go with the zoning designation that (they believe) fits the uses. If this is the case then the tail is wagging the dog. There is no place in the CLURO that anyone envisioned that a very dense, very tall, over-developed application could be placed right in the middle of a narrow residential area. I even doubt that such a dense proposal could fit on West Causeway Approach or Causeway Blvd., both serviced by four lane highways with a median.

If it were this simple why couldn’t anyone request a zoning change to planned development multi use? What is the argument against this? According to the Director of Planning there is none. How can that be? Doesn’t that lose sight of the big picture of what Mandeville is? This is not Destin or Panama City, and if it were, it would never be located on narrow back streets.

Sucette made comparisons to event centers, restaurants and B&B’s in the B-3 district. The B-3 designation is more like a B-1 designation where the absolute size of a structure is limited to 15,000 square feet. The Sucette hotel is 108,000 square feet. This was never intended in the big picture of Mandeville building and zoning regulations. It is the antithesis of what was intended. There is no comparison.

Is the situation we are in the result of some clever lawyer’s sophistry?

I’m simply asking, why? Why would we not first make the judgment as to whether or not B-2 Highway Commercial Uses are even appropriate for that site, rather than just say “well those are the uses the applicant proposed so we’re using that as a baseline as long as they comply with those – box checked,” or “here’s the minor deviation from those B-2 development standards that they propose.”

The intent of the CLURO

Sucette should at least be reviewed under the B-1 guidelines.

When you do this it is obvious what the CLURO was trying to do is not create the “high volume” highway businesses that would need to attract a large volume of customers that would come and go at the same time and therefore could overwhelm narrow neighborhood roads and keep those businesses instead at or adjacent to highways like strip shopping centers on Florida Ave. (Highway 190).

The CLURO certainly didn’t contemplate such 100,000-plus-square-foot commercial structures deeply imbedded on a peninsula, isolated by a single access point from/to a two-way residential street like Monroe and then on to unusually narrow streets, Antibes West and East in the middle of residential zoning and co-located with residential units. Hello?

The Council looked (subconsciously at first, then openly) at CLURO to give guidance on the apartments density question and should do the same for the commercial aspects. When they do, they will see the departure requested is not 9,000 square feet but 90,000-plus square feet.

The Director of Planning keeps telling us: Developers can put most any uses in a multiple use zone.

But this is not an absolute. What they should say is that they could put in any use that fits in the application process.

The Planning Department is abdicating their role as gatekeeper and protector of Old Mandeville.

-30-

Kreller amendments will need to be corrected

Editorial

Something’s not quite right when it comes to the wording of the Sucette Harbor ordinance after recent amendments were added in an attempt to join together parcels D and U.

Developers had once hoped to build a sprawling hotel, events center, adult living apartments, and marina on Mandeville’s western lakefront on land donated to the LSU Health Foundation by Al Copeland Jr.

The proposal has run into staunch opposition by some on the council, who passed an amendment cutting the number of apartments roughly in half at a special meeting July 12th. This led to acting Council Chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson pumping the brakes on further amendments at the next meeting July 24th when the developer floated the idea of not even building the new marina if the apartment limit stays at 90 units.

Aside from all this fuss, District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller’s amendments July 12th, attempting to join Parcels D and U together after developer Woodward Interests agreed to the move at the July 5th meeting, have created a bit of a technical mess in the wording of Ordinance 23-16.

Kreller used “Whereas” clauses to require or direct action by the City or Planning and Zoning Commission. A “Whereas” clause should only explain a motivation behind an ordinance or cite what gives the City the authority or reason for doing what’s in the ordinance.

Mandeville Daily believes the ordinance has the following problems:

So all in all, Ordinance 23-16 is one hot mess. Maybe things will get cleaned up at the next scheduled special meeting August 15th. But then again, maybe they won’t.

-30-

Danielson halted new amendments and conditions

Effort to ‘filter’ which amendments come to a vote

Previously wanted city attorney, planning director to approve amendments prior to meeting

Afforded developer chance to deliver marina ultimatum to Mariner’s Village residents

Updated July 27, 2023, at 5:40 a.m.: Cleans up language for clarity; Adds artwork for agendas from July 12th and July 24th.

Editorial

The surprise change of format at Monday night’s special meeting (July 24th) on Sucette Harbor was designed to do two things — to provide a filter for which amendments can make it to the floor, and to allow the developer to deliver an ominous warning to those pesky and intractable property owners in Mariner’s Village: Give us the 120 units we want, or you don’t get your marina.

The property owners in Mariner’s village, particularly those along the body of water, would naturally welcome the installation of bulkheads and dredging to stabilize the shoreline, hence protecting their investments.

Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman seemed to be counting on that as a means hopefully to peel away at least one vote from Los Tres Amigos — council members Jason Zuckerman, Rebecca Bush and Jill McGuire, who have formed quite a beachhead against what they characterize as high density development.

“We said from the beginning we thought the marina was an amenity… We would request some consideration on this,” Hoffman said.

So it now appears that Hoffman’s highly anticipated countermove to having been pelted with conditions and a near-fatal-blow from an amendment that cut the apartment number in half, was to get Councilman at Large Rick Danielson to surreptitiously change the format of the meeting, halting all new amendments and conditions, and holding all public comments until the end.

Pushback to meeting format change

The only clue that something was going to be different this meeting may have been signaled in the subtle yet significant differences in the published agendas from July 12th versus July 24th. (See images below.)

Not everyone was peachy with the change of format. Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman voiced his objection right away.

“I’m not in favor of sort of taking a pause and backtracking. … I’m ready to keep moving forward with discussion on amendments, so that we can send the developer on their way to get a site plan together that reflects that and can be attached to an ordinance. That’s my two cents.”

Danielson replied that he thought if there could be a meeting where they simply discussed potential amendments with the developer first so that they could come back later and let them know if they were workable, it would be a more efficient way of proceeding instead of just voting the same night.

“Part of the reason for the discussion this evening is, for possible amendments or conditions that would be proposed, that the applicant and the council and the planning department could look at those things to look at what the different impacts could be before a vote is taken on those items,” he said.

Ad hoc ‘veto’ power over bad amendments

This retort revealed that Danielson had simply found another way to accomplish a tactic he had floated at the end of the July 5th special meeting when discussing how amendments and conditions would be handled at the upcoming July 12th special meeting.

He had suggested that council members should submit their potential amendments to City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert and Director of Planning and Development Cara Bartholomew in advance so that they could reduce the list down to only those amendments they deemed as workable. District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire shot down that idea almost immediately.

On July 5th Danielson suggested, “Any possible conditions or amendments that we want to make need to be submitted for review to make sure they can be voted on. So if we have something we need to send it through Ms. Scherer (council clerk) so it can get through Ms. Bartholomew and Ms. Sconzert before the next meeting so if it’s applicable…”

McGuire interjected: “I’d rather do it in the public.”

But Danielson kept trying: “We’d be doing it in the public, but if there are some things like, no, no, no, you can’t even talk about that, then we don’t need to bring it up.”

Thankfully, McGuire prevailed.

There’s a reason for Robert’s Rules of Order when it comes to members of a body — the elected City Council members — being able to exercise their authority to offer amendments without having them, for lack of better term, censored first.

There’s no issue with a city attorney checking amendments for legal purposes when they’re offered, but that must happen in view of the public. It is part of the deliberative process which the Louisiana Open Meetings Law says is open to the public.

Sconzert has been seen by many thus far as being very pro-developer in this case. Having all amendments go through her first — privately and before a meeting occurs — would have been beyond the pale.

Only elected council members have the authority to offer and vote on amendments. Danielson’s tactics — both what he floated at the July 5th meeting and what he ended up doing July 24th — attempted to insert a “veto” step into the process. In the case of the former, it would have given an appointed official — the city attorney — a veto over potential amendments. The latter — what happened July 24th — was intended to hand that same ad hoc veto power to the developer instead.

Tactics out of order

These tactics are out of order and there is a strong case to be made they are an outright violation of Robert’s Rules, the city charter, not to mention state law. There is no provision in state law that says an appointed official or an applicant before a municipality gets to pick and choose which amendments come to a vote. This would be a usurpation of the authority vested in these council members by the people.

At the close of the previous special meeting on July 12th, the plan was to pick right back up with more amendments and conditions. In fact the last act Danielson did during that meeting was to defer a condition Zuckerman was trying to add that night until “our next meeting on July 24th.”

The presumption was that we had entered the final phase of the process, and amendments and conditions would lead directly to a final vote. Up or down, this long nightmare of a process would finally come to an end.

Nope. Not when you’re the acting council chairman. Pick your metaphor. Standing eight-count. Moving the goalposts. Hand on the scales of justice. It happened. More accurately, nothing happened at the meeting. It was all filler to allow Hoffman to unload about the marina having always been expendable, and to hopefully pare down potential amendments to only those favorable to the developer.

Adding insult to injury was Danielson at times stepping on his fellow council members, stopping them mid-sentence to allow an already filibustering project attorney Paul Harrison to continue. Danielson never seems to cut off Harrison when he interrupts Zuckerman or McGuire.

He never seems to show frustration when Sconzert or Bartholomew roll their eyes and make faces at elected council members when forced to answer contentious questions.

Danielson never showed any angst at the May 25th meeting when Harrison threatened to sue anyone and everyone “the next day” if they make an “insinuation” about his integrity. Not a peep. Just a sheepish “Thank you, Mr. Harrison.”

Keeping the rowdy folks in check

We wish Danielson would keep in mind that the “rowdy” people in the back of the room are the important ones. They are some of Mandeville’s most successful, most established, best and brightest. It’s not a good look when he snaps at them like a seventh-grade math teacher — “No clapping!” — or lectures them on social media civility or has a Mandeville police officer threaten and warn them.

And the final blow — at least to the spirits of those who thought this was nearing an end — came when Danielson announced the next scheduled meeting wouldn’t be until August 15th, more than three weeks away. Maybe they’re hoping that the extra time will soften the aforementioned beachhead of resistance.

Will Danielson allow any amendments or conditions from fellow council members at the next meeting?

Will we get another surprise announcement as the meeting starts, perhaps that the public won’t be allowed to speak at all? Remember, according to state law, they are not obligated to let the public speak unless there is an actual vote on the agenda item in question. Just saying.

So who knows. Stay tuned. It’s bound to get worse.

-30-

Sucette meeting #147?

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 25, 2023

---

Ernest A. Burguières is a Mandeville attorney who formerly served as District III Councilman. Mandeville Daily is honored to publish Mr. Burguières’ column with permission which is a combined reporting of the goings on in Mandeville government with his personal commentary.

---

This is starting to seem like the movie “Groundhog Day.” It seems like week after week it is the same story.

There was one citizen comment that neatly summarized what was happening in a joke that I will try to paraphrase:

A man was going to have a party in which he requested that his guests bring a dish. One guest brought a beautiful roasted turkey. Unfortunately the host was a vegetarian and explained this to the guest. The guest responded that it was one of the finest turkeys around. But the host said he was a vegetarian. The guest then said the turkey was prepared by one of the city’s most famous chefs. But the host said he was a vegetarian. The guest then said he had sliced off a small portion of the turkey to make it all right. But the host said he was a vegetarian.

It does not matter how you dress it up or how you cut it, it is still a turkey and it is unacceptable.

Indeed.

What got us here?

Discussions of how and why the city should try to jam a highway zoning designation into a residential area that is hidden in a labyrinth of narrow streets far away from a highway.

The usual legal and intellectual gymnastics proliferated from the city attorney and director or planning. They were talking a different language and were apparently immune to the fear and loathing that has become a regular feature of citizen comments about this project.

An attempt was made to equate the 4,000-square-foot or 10,000-square-foot Sucette “event center” or “ballroom” (I don’t know what the functional difference is.) with the less than 2,000-square-foot Maison Lafitte on Lafitte St. How does this compare?

Then Sucette attorney, Paul Harrison, tried to equate local one or two bedroom B&B / VRBO short term rentals in the old town with Sucette’s 80-room hotel. Why, it’s almost identical! What’s the fuss?

Councilwoman Rebecca Bush then lamented how the magical (my word) traffic studies did not seem to take in to account the effect of frequent weddings or other events that could bring 100-200 cars into this tight area all at one time. The traffic study is an academic tool that amortizes traffic over a large period of time, years, which minimizes the effects of potentially frequent big events. It is a flaw in the study that because it is an unknown methodology we are likely powerless to criticize, despite the reality of events.

When asked by Councilman Jason Zuckerman if the reduction of the apartment units from 178 to 90 would correspondingly reduce the height of the building Sucette responded, “we don’t know”. Really? A 50-percent reduction in the number of apartments might not affect the height of a building that is almost twice as high as anything for miles around. Oh, and then what appeared to be a veiled threat that if Sucette is frustrated on height they may have to pull the marina portion of the project. That threat almost sounds like a virtue.

Sucette appears to want to view each component of its project separately when it suits their analysis involving density and scale but falls back to the big picture when they want to talk about the need to look at the big picture that they have divined through the CLURO.

The room was packed as usual and while there were many familiar faces there were also many new ones. Many were wearing red in solidarity with the No Sucette movement. I only counted one citizen that I know was a Sucette proponent although she made no comments. In fact no one but Sucette representatives spoke in favor of Sucette.

Another citizen rhetorically wondered how anyone could sit in judgment over this issue week after week and watch scores of citizens plead with their elected officials to protect them, and not do anything to hurt them.

The vice president of the New Golden Shores neighborhood association who lived on Dona Dr. (a neighbor of Councilman Skelly Kreller) shared the results of a poll on Sucette in which there was a ratio of 12-to-1 against Sucette. I wonder if Kreller participated in the poll?

The public comments wrapped up with citizen Pat Rosenow commenting on the difficulty in being a judge (which he is or was) and how delaying a difficult decision is death by a 1000 cuts. He, like several others, implored the council to separate the re-zoning issue from the conditional use and vote on the re-zoning. Very logical. Re-zoning would be forever. If you think re-zoning is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mandeville, then vote to re-zone. If you cannot honestly say that re-zoning helps anyone but the developer, then vote no.

For a reason that is not clear Councilman Rick Danielson announced that there would be at least two more meetings on Sucette, August 15th and August 23rd. To discuss what that we haven’t heard already? A turkey is still a turkey.

-30-

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 23, 2023

---

Ernest A. Burguières is a Mandeville attorney who formerly served as District III Councilman. Mandeville Daily is honored to publish Mr. Burguières’ column with permission which is a combined reporting of the goings on in Mandeville government with his personal commentary.

---

Residents of Mandeville were treated to a new salvo being hurled in the battle over Sucette. Beyond the retort that the opposition represents only a few disgruntled people is evidence of a slick mail-out piece opposing Sucette. I can tell you from personal experience that the artwork, printing and mailing represents several thousand dollars of disgruntlement. That citizens in a small town should have to expend such resources to get the attention of their elected officials is in itself remarkable. It make me wonder how an elected official can seriously ignore this effort.

Rumors are swirling about what to expect. Will Sucette succeed in trying to get a do-over of the 90 apartment limit? Will Sucette make substantial concessions on height? Will the event center survive? Will we be forced to tear up tiny little Antibes St. so the Sysco tractor trailer trucks can lumber back to the Sucette pavilion? What will be the tipping point to get that third council vote to approve? Will the out of town interests prevail in ripping the heart out of the quaint coastal village that has endured so far without any high-rise packed apartments or hotels in the middle of their sleepy lakefront enclave? Remember, once you re-zone this to commercial (Planned Development Multi Use in Planner speak), it will forever be commercial.

The money quote on the mailer by Nicole Stanley of Old Golden Shores (Councilman Skelly Kreller’s district and neighborhood):

We bought our property in Mandeville for the ambiance and the quality of life. This project would set a precedent for us becoming exactly what we moved away from in New Orleans. Mandeville has nothing to gain and everything to lose if this development goes through.

— Nicole Stanley, Old Golden Shores

Will we all be able to lay our heads on our pillows if we allow this to go through? Would this be fair to the hundreds of people that would be affected?

If you oppose this, the least you can do is email your elected official. Their names and email addresses are on the flyer. The next meeting is tomorrow night, Monday, July 24th at 6:00pm at the Spitzfaden Center.

Make a difference, it is worth it, if not just for yourself, then for your neighbors.

-30-