Ernest Burguieres - Mandeville Worth Saving

Latest from Mandeville Daily News.

Council settles on simpler council rules, tabling bulky rules ordinance after groundswell of public resistance The City Council settled for a less-intrusive version of its council rules as opposed to a bulky five-page rules ordinance that was up for adoption at the July 11th meeting…

THE LAKE LOT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Office of Coastal Management Hearing
St. Tammany Parish Council Chambers
July 16, 2024

Well, a very interesting meeting that played to a packed house. There must have been over 100 people in attendance, even lined up against the walls. The issue was whether a coastal permit should be issued by the State to allow Lake Lot Development to bring in almost 20,000 cubic yards of fill in large dump trucks down Copal St. in Lewisburg and install a bulkhead to reclaim land lost to erosion. The ultimate goal was to build several large, expensive lakefront homes. This effort might require as much as 1,700+ dump truck loads. A PowerPoint presentation estimated 1500 dump truck loads creating 3000 trips (in and out) over a period of several years, plus concrete, etc. through an established residential neighborhood and negatively affecting identified wetlands.

As a point of law, the 1921 constitution does allow for reclamation projects. However, as was pointed out, that provision was made 100 years ago and we know much, much, more about the negative effects of destroying wetlands and changing the natural order of the lakefront. Plus, thousands of people and houses are now sitting to the north which could be affected by this project.

There were old people, young people, professional people who all provided comments. The Chair, a Mr. Laughlin (or Lofflin? Lovell?) from the State Office of Coastal Management and a court reporter took down comments. The rules were 3 minute time limit per person.

Mandeville Mayor Clay Madden along with Councilmen Jason Zuckerman, Scott Discon and Keven Vogeltanz were all present and made comments opposed to the project. Odd that Councilwoman Cynthia Thompson was not present despite the fact that the project affected her constituents, some of whom from The Sanctuary who were present.

Parish Councilwoman Maureen O’Brien, State Representative Kim Carver and State Senator Bill Wheat were all present and made comments opposed to the project. Additionally, there was a letter from former Parish President Kevin Davis opposing the project that was read into the record.

The only person that spoke in favor of the project was James Bradford who is the owner Lake Lot Development.

The meeting started around 5pm and ended around 8:30pm. Almost everyone spoke. There were mothers and grandmothers who spoke of unspoiled nature and children riding bicycles along narrow roads. There were residents who appeared to be professionals who also prepared written letters / reports / PowerPoint that depicted historical images and technical issues all disputing conclusions offered by the developer. It was readily evident that this group of residents spent much time, effort, and funds to articulate their opposition, including hiring their own experts to rebut the applicant's assertions. There was a charming incident where a mother brought up her 7 year old daughter and placed her on a chair so she could reach the microphone to talk about her special neighborhood. After almost every speaker the crowd cheered and clapped. Surprisingly, the Chair gave no admonishments to anyone. I wonder if citizens in Mandeville would be allowed to do that? It was certainly discouraged by the prior City Council. Likewise, the three minute speaking rule was never really mentioned. Many comments were repetitious, would that be tolerated under the new proposed Mandeville City Council Rules? The Chair of this meeting was very laid back and while he had not a cross word to say to anybody, he was always in control.

We learned a lot. Copal St. is between 18' and 20' wide with ditches on both sides. There is a large mature oak tree that is beside the street. There was a large 16 acre parcel west of Lewisburg Estates and east of the Lake Lot project that is owned by Crosby Development (although someone stated that this property was in fact owned by Mr. Bradford, the Applicant). Interestingly, the Crosby Development property had been filled previously and someone pointed out that there was an angled berm on the westside of the property that was supposed be dedicated to conservation to help prevent to prevent erosion but that this property was now part of the Lake Lot project and would go away. By incorporating this conservation lot, it appears that the conservation property may not have actually been dedicated by title.

Bayou Chinchuba starts near I-12 and Hwy. 59 and proceeds in a southwesterly direction all the way to Lake Pontchartrain just west of the Lake Lot area. There were fears that any changes or disruptions near the Lake by bringing in 20,000 cubic yards of fill would have a ripple effect upstream to increase the risk of flooding. There was also concern that this new activity could have an adverse impact on the large water / sewage treatment area purchased by the City that goes pretty much to the Tchefuncte River. A very risky and complicated project making it a very controversial project. Someone from the Lake Pontchartrain Conservancy spoke and I believe she said that this project had been applied before a number of years ago and resoundingly denied for apparently many of the reasons brought forth tonight. What would justify going through this process a second time? What has materially changed that would now warrant approval?

At the end of the evening the overriding sentiment was that everyone was polite, even to Mr. Bradford. If you want to make a comment on this project you need to get it to the Louisiana Office of Coastal Management P.O. Box 94396, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396 by I believe Friday, July 26th.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

Interesting opinion piece on the Mandeville Daily News regarding last Thursday's Council meeting and the new Council Rules.

OPINION | Proposed council rules ordinance needs surgery before adoption 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& #8230…

THE FIRST MEETING OF THE NEW COUNCIL
July 11, 2024

I guess we all had a few pre conceived notions about what to expect, and they turned out to be wrong.

Last night’s Council meeting started at 6:00 p.m. I finally left a little after 9:30 p.m. and it was still going.

It was a long agenda, but three items were taken up by creating council rules. This would be rules that the Council would follow in the discharge of its duties. These agenda items took on a sense of urgency that was never explained. If no rules were adopted the new Council would just continue using the old rules until new rules were adopted. Big deal.

In any event, notable news:

1. Kathy Sides decided to go back to being a senior accountant for the City. Jessica Farno (spelling), a CPA, formerly with the City’s audit firm would take over as the director of finance in the next few weeks.

2. A group called Desire Line gave a presentation about their project to devise a new comprehensive plan for the City of Mandeville. This plan will help shape the personality and direction for the City of Mandeville over the next 10-15 years. This will be well worth watching.

3. A request by Banner Ford to de-annex (remove from the city limits) a 1.8 acre of ground that sounds like it is near the backside of the Banner Ford property. It was difficult to tell from the information in the agenda packet. I requested that the city include a Google image of pieces like this so citizens could find the property. (I don’t think they were paying attention maybe because they may have never tried to figure what was going on in an agenda). In any event, Banner Ford originally wanted to have the City annex their whole property. The sticking point was Banner Ford’s desire to install (I guess) a new larger electronic sign that did not meet Mandeville requirements. The old, existing sign should have been grand-fathered in. In any event, when the City would not allow the new bigger sign Banner Ford changed course and moved to have their entire property outside the city limits. This ought not to affect any revenue the City received but it will reduce some property tax dollars. This is the first time I have heard of the City of Mandeville agreeing to de-annex.

4. Next, the first effort at new Council Rules in Ordinance24-18. Out of the box Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz objected because the City Charter states that the Council shall adopt rules by resolution. He moved to table the matter until everyone could have tome to give it serious consideration. The difference between a resolution and an ordinance is that a resolution does not have the force of law and does not have to be approved by the mayor. It is a legislative prerogative that binds the Council. An ordinance requires approval by the mayor but the theory was that if anyone breached the ordinance they could be exposed to sanctions. Councilman Zuckerman thought it was a good idea to have the mayor approve the Council Rules. Whoa! City, county, state and federal governments all pretty much subscribe to a separation of powers concept between the legislative branch and the executive branch. The Governor of Louisiana does not approve Legislature rules and the president of the United States does not approve Congressional rules. You can imagine. But how about a few “what ifs” if this had ben approved? What if the Council passes these rules, ... and the mayor vetoes it? You then need four votes to override a veto for a matter that should never have been brought as an ordinance. Or what if it passes, and then it is decided in a few moths that a rule needs to be changed, and the mayor vetoes that? It might not be a problem with Madden, but I can imagine a prior mayor where it would be an awful situation. Somebody sold Zuckerman a bad idea. In any event, there were many citizens in attendance who had opinions about the matter with the end result being that the matter was tabled with a question about when it should be re-set for hearing. This brought our first encounter with Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised 12th edition from Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz (and not the Council Clerk or the City Attorney) who opined that once the matter was tabled it could be reconsidered or re-scheduled by another council vote that night or it would just be in limbo until the Council decided to take it up again. The matter was tabled on a 3-2 vote with Councilman Jason Zuckerman and Councilwoman Cynthia Thompson voting against tabling.

5. The news of note was the re-appointment of Mike Pierce as a member of the Mandeville Planning and Zoning Commission. He has been an excellent Planning and Zoning member and a worthwhile member. The City is very fortunate. As a sidebar, I don’t believe Mike Pierce was aware that this matter was coming up for a hearing and a vote. Another example of things being hidden in plain sight. Is there someone at City Hall who has the responsibility to inform its commission members when their terms expire and if they will be considered for re-appointment? Maybe Pierce should be checking the Council agenda on a regular basis to see if he is mentioned? Or the City could designate someone (like in Planning and Zoning) to inform members of their status? Planning and Zoning members are citizens who often work.

6. The next item of interest were two resolutions to approve two lawyer-client agreements amendments to update hourly rates to the Louisiana Attorney General maximum fee schedule for attorneys working for government. This affected the City Attorney, Elizabeth Sconzert, who works for the firm Blue Williams and Michael Wainer who handles mostly civil service matters. It was disclosed that Blue Williams had received about $345,000 so far this fiscal year and that the new fee schedule may change Elizabeth Sconzert’s hourly rate from $225. to $350. (She has been practicing 19 years.) Some people are starting to wonder how much an in house city attorney (e.g. a city employee) would cost the City. A copy of the fee schedule is attached.

7. The next big deal was Resolution 24-43 by Councilman Zuckerman seeking to establish what he described as internal Council Rules. There was some discussion about tabling this so that all the Council Rule issues could be considered but that wasn’t to be. I asked that the Council add a requirement to have a short summary for each agenda item that described what it sought to accomplish so citizens would have a better idea what was going on. I did not get the impression that anyone was interested. The matter passed 5-0.

8. Then came a real controversy; an expression of sentiment by the City of Mandeville regarding a water front development west of Lewisburg (and therefore outside the city limits) on Lake Pontchartrain. This is a water front development of I believe 7 homesites that would require about 20,000 cubic yards of fill (20,000 cubic yards!). To provide you a little perspective; a 6 cubic yard dump truck has one set of double wheels in the back. A 12 yard has two sets of double wheels, in other words, 8 rear wheels. A 6 yard truck is 20'L x 8'W x 12'H. A 12 yard truck is 22'L x 8.5'W x 16'H. See attached photos. If you just used 6 cubic yard trucks it would require approximately 3,333 loads comprised of 6,666 round trips. A 12 yard dump truck would require approximately 1,666 loads comprised of 3,333 round trips. My experience is that even the smaller 6 cubic yard trucks would struggle to make corners and not tear up the sides of the old narrow roadway and run everybody else (especially kids walking or on bikes) off the road. The 12 yard trucks would be very concerning. The developer did not want to barge in its fill from the Lake. In any event, the mayor is firmly opposed to this and so was the Council. The resolution passed disapproving this project and it will go to the State agencies that I believe will be conducting a hearing on permits on Tuesday, July 16th at 5pm at the Parish Council building on Koop Drive. Check to make sure this time and date is correct.

9. Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz’s resolution 24-44 that sought to implement a paired back set of rules was next and it was already after 9:00 p.m. I asked the Council to consider deferring the matter because of the late hour because people were tired and leaving. Councilman Zzuckerman insisted that it could be resolved quickly and preferred to take it up. I left at 9:30 p.m. so I do not know what finally happened.

10. I thought Scott Discon did a commendable job at his first crack as Council Chairman and Councilwoman Cynthia Thompson also hit the ground running. The star of the evening was Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz. Well informed and good questions.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

Sucette Musings and Plaquemines Parish Doings
July 9, 2024

Looking back over the last 12-18 months of the Sucette saga we are reminded of all the head butting between The Council, The City Attorney and the Director of Planning over the direction of the Sucette decision and the possibility for litigation. Well, litigation happened against the City and one councilman got himself sued personally for his role in the decision.

When suit was filed by the Sucette interests, I can imagine the “ I told you so” from The City Attorney and the Director of Planning. The City then hired outside counsel and the race commenced over who was right; the City of Mandeville or Sucette. We are awaiting a decision from Judge Brandon Long on cross motions to dismiss.

However, a bit of providence may have been directed our way.

Unbeknownst to most of us, a similar story was unfolding in Plaquemines Parish. A company, Plaquemines Parish Ventures, LLC (PPV) made an application with Plaquemines Parish to re-zone a piece of property to build an RV park to house employees of a natural gas plant. Administrative boards were completed and the matter was sent to the council for final approval.

The matter never came to a vote.

According to PPV, the Parish President and the Council deferred the matter several times thus avoiding a vote. PPV alleged that Carlton LaFrance, the Parish President, also had a conflict of interest relating to his ownership of a competing RV park. (Sounds much more exciting than Mandeville!)

After the suit was filed in federal court in 2023 there were several motions filed to dispense with the case and avoid a trial. (The same thing happened in the Mandeville case and the motions are still pending a decision.) A decision came down in the PPV case on April 3, 2024.

The first issue: Did the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

In Federal Court subject matter jurisdiction is either based on diversity (plaintiff and defendant are from different states) or a federal question. A federal question is typically a constitutional question (e.g. violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights; failure to provide due process). In this case Plaquemines Parish apparently objected to the court exercising subject matter jurisdiction in part because the actions complained of were protected by the concept of legislative immunity.

To make the issue more confusing there is a variation that looks at procedural due process rights. In the PPV case the Court found that it did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction because PPV did in fact plead a federal question.

Then the decision process went in to if there was a constitutionally protected right that may have been violated by the Parish acts or omissions. PPV argued that the failure of the Parish to conduct a council hearing and vote on PPV’s application violated its 14th amendment right to Due Process.

Did PPV possess a property interest as a matter of state law?

In this analysis the court turned to the Louisiana Supreme Court that described what a vested Louisiana property was. Citation was made to Sawicki v. K/S Stravanger Prince, a 1972 Louisiana Supreme Court case that stated: In Louisiana, a vested property right is a present interest in which its owner has “the right to enjoyment, present or prospective.” Further, “the right must be absolute, complete and unconditional independent of a contingency, and a mere expectancy of future benefit... does not constitute a vested right.”

Well, that kind of puts that issue into perspective. The Court stated: the mere fact that PPV’s application has been deferred is not a violation of due process rights. * * * Its right to use the land as an RV park is a mere expectancy * * *

The acts of the Plaquemines Parish Council did not deprive PPV of its current rights to the land; rather, they are mere refusals to potentially grant rights. The land they bought was not approved for an RV zoning at the time of purchase therefore there was no expectant right to RV zoning. Seems clear when you say it like that.

Does this remind anyone of the Sucette claim?

Then the discussion drifted off into due process rights related to legislative activity.

The general rule has been that once an action is characterized as legislative, procedural due process requirements do not apply. The distinction is when a municipal body engages in an adjudicative decision.

In limiting actions against legislative acts the court stated, “When individuals can sue members of a legislative body to ensure that a certain piece of legislation is brought before that body for a vote, the process is no longer democratic. Procedural due process right do not attach.

There was peripheral discussion regarding the Parish President potential conflict of interest (this was not formally raised in the PPV complaint) and a purported moratorium on RV developments. However those issues had not been voted and therefore were not ripe for adjudication.

This case shares issues with the Mandeville case involving Sucette. A thoughtful, sober analysis is required to pick your way through the web of interests and constitutional subtleties. If the city knew at the start of the Sucette process what has been revealed here (in the PPV case) would there have been as much hand wringing (by the City of Mandeville) ? This PPV case (Judge Jay Zainey, a senior judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana) and the positions as articulated by the Mandeville and Zuckerman attorneys ought to provide comfort for the city on what Judge Brandon Long may do.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

nextdoor.com

Things that are not addressed by these Rules:

1. As a matter of regular procedure, why can’t there be a brief introductory paragraph accompanying a resolution or ordinance explaining what the resolution or ordinance seeks to accomplish? This could be a requirement of the person or entity that is seeking approval of the resolution or ordinance.

2. If a resolution or ordinance affects a particular area or piece of real estate (e.g. zoning issues, property acquisition issues, event involving street closure, etc.) why can’t a map or image (Google Maps?) be attached by hyperlink so a regular citizen can quickly find the area in question? This would be much more helpful than a survey. Few lay people are familiar with Subdivision / Tract / Lot / Range references used in surveys.

3. Why can’t the Public Works agenda along with Works in Progress be included on the agenda so that citizen’s know before the meeting if a matter of interest to them is going to be discussed or decided? The information is already in place.

4. Why can’t the exhibits and visual aid presentations of the Public Works agenda along with Works in Progress be attached by hyperlink to the Council agenda before the meeting if a matter of interest to them is going to be discussed or decided? It also makes it easier to view than solely on the video.

5. Do you think the City Council should encourage or discourage citizen participation in council meetings?

- If a rule discourages citizen participation should it be changed?

6. Should a citizen be allowed to ask a question to a particular council person at a council meeting? Yes, or no and why?

7. Should a citizen be allowed to ask a question to the entire council and expect a response at a council meeting? Yes, or no and why? If no, then will the conclusion be that nobody is allowed to query their elected officials in public?

8. With regard to the Rules that will be adopted by the Council in the coming weeks:

a. If a citizen wants to make a suggestion for a rule or a modification of a rule, how would they do it? Should these rules provide an explanation as to how to do it?

b. Is it a good or fair practice to require a citizen who wishes to make a suggestion for a rule or a modification of a rule to make the suggestion on the night the matter will be voted on by the Council? Does this give it much time for consideration?

i. How much time will the Council, and the public, get to consider such a suggestion? 5 minutes?

ii. Does this really allow for a thoughtful, considered decision?

iii. Would it not be fairer, and more useful to all involved, to provide more time for consideration of such matters? If the time between agenda publication and Council meeting were expanded by say, a week, would that not provide more of an opportunity for a larger discussion? Would a broader discussion, with the opportunity for more input by citizens, improve the quality and support of the Council decisions? Is there some urgency in considering these rules? Can’t they just be added, deleted or amended as time passes and we get to see what works and what may not work?

9. How about having a sign up sheet that allows for anyone to receive the agenda by email? It is not a private document and it would keep the matters that come before the Council in the public eye and it costs almost nothing. Why make it more difficult to keep abreast of issues?

10. If a Council Meeting unexpectedly goes past 8:00p.m. (2 hours) shouldn’t the Chair be open to continuing the meeting to a later date so that everyone doesn’t get tired, cranky, or just leave before the matter is resolved. This happened during Sucette and some just gave up and went home.


Let your elected officials know how you feel about this. The next Council Meeting is Thursday, July 11th at 6:00pm when the rules will be discussed and may be voted on.

Clay Madden - Mayor
[email protected]
(985) 630-8578

Scott Discon - Council at Large
[email protected]
(985) 353 - 2929

Jason Zuckerman - Council at Large
[email protected]
(504) 881- 6920

Cynthia Thompson - Council District 1
[email protected]
(985) 205 - 8039

Kevin Vogeltanz - Council District 2
[email protected]
(985) 353 - 2975

Jill McGuire - Council District 3
[email protected]
(985) 778-8671



Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

US versus THEM
June 28, 2024

[Editor’s Note: text of the proposed legislation as submitted for consideration by Council Member Jason Zuckerman can be read in the photos attached to this post.]


Thoughts on the proposed Council Rules

If you are an attorney who ended up doing litigation your world is all about us vs. them. The competition in a courtroom is a constant need to follow subtle and not so subtle moves. Behavior and speech are tightly regulated. You try to control your environment. You want win.

A congress, legislature or a city council are not court rooms. They are arenas where the parties are not necessarily adverse, except on a particular issue. The proceedings often appear chaotic. But then that is the nature of democracies, you break a few eggs to get an omelette. For success in a democratic process, you need consensus. That is the biggest challenge. And to develop consensus, you need participation, the more participation the better the quality of the consensus.

And so it goes in a city council in a small town of 12,000.

We have witnessed protracted hearings, emotional hearings, tiresome hearings. But everyone should get to participate, often in different ways. The Sucette matter is a good recent example. By far the animated behavior came from citizens who were frustrated by a wealthy, well organized protagonist who had legions of experts on hand. Another more fanciful issue was the great chicken caper. Many found the debate amusing. There was animation, emotion, surprises and to some extent, hard feelings. In the end, serious decisions resulted. There was a lot of participation and therefore more consensus on the direction that the community wanted to go. The fact that there was greater participation, and more consensus, made it easier for the Council to figure out what their constituents really wanted, and what they didn’t want. It may have been messy, but it was worthwhile and there was a value to the process. If there was no notice of the chicken ordinance there would not have been many in attendance.

So, it is with this introduction that I look at the proposed Council Rules embodied by Ord. 24-18.

My initial impression is that the tenor of these rules is definitely from an “us vs. them” perspective. The proposed rules seem to be more about limiting access or responses. The environment will be tightly controlled. A defensive posture designed to limit outside the box events.

A reflection on the Sucette experience is that as more citizens learned of the project, they wanted their voices heard. They brought signs. They wore T shirts. They passed out literature. They got emotional. They approached elected officials. And yes, sometimes they cheered, clapped and booed. Exceptional outbursts, but a cogent reminder that many peoples’ lives would be adversely affected by the council decision. Some people, reflecting on the effect on their biggest personal asset, their home, to please an out of town, wealthy developer who had little concern for their well being. He was going to make a killing and you would not stand in the way.

The proposed rules are attached. I plan on making a more focused response in a later post. In the meantime, pay attention. Ask your councilperson for information and insight.

Ernest A. Burguières

PROPOSED SECTION 2-11 RULES OF CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURE

1. The officers of the City Council shall be the Council Chairperson and the Council Vice-Chairperson and shall be selected from the Council Members elected at large. The Council Chairperson and Council Vice Chairperson shall be elected by a majority vote of the City Council. Following election of a Council Chairperson at the first meeting of a new Council, in accordance with the Charter, a vote will be taken each year at the first meeting in July for the purpose of electing a Council Chairperson.

a. The Council Chairperson shall have the following duties:

i. to preside at all sessions of the Council, unless otherwise agreed upon by majority vote of the Council;
ii. to open each session of the Council by taking the chair and calling the Members to order;
iii. to cause the Council to proceed with its business in the proper order under the rules if a quorum is present, and to announce the business before the Council as the Council proceeds upon each order of business.
iv. to preserve order and decorum; to speak on points of order, in which case he or she shall have preference over other Members;
v. to decide all points of order and to inquire with the parliamentarian to resolve any disputes concerning points of order according to Robert’s Rules of Order;
vi. to explain or clarify any rule of procedure upon request; and/or elicit the assistance of the parliamentarian for these purposes;
vii. to state or direct the Clerk to state each motion as it is made;
viii. to recognize Members of the Council, the Mayor and other members of city government, and the public in accordance with Robert’s Rules and the rules adopted by the City Council for the governance of its meetings;
ix. to state and put to a vote all questions requiring a vote and to announce the vote;
x. to sign all ordinances and other documents which require his or her signature; and
xi. to do and perform such other duties as may be required by the laws of this state or by the charge of the City or by the City Council.

b. The duties of the Council Vice Chairperson shall be to preside at meetings of the Council in the absence of the Council Chairperson and shall exercise those duties (set forth in Section 1a i-ix) of the Chairperson necessary to facilitate the orderly conduct of the council meeting over which the Chairperson presides.


2. The date, time, and place of Council meetings may be changed by the Council Chairperson upon his or her discretion or upon request of other Council Members, subject to meeting all requirements for proper public notice.

3. The regular order of business for meetings of the City Council shall be as follows:
a. Meeting called to order
b. Roll call
c. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
d. Announcements
i. Council
ii. Mayor
iii. Department heads (as requested) Should a department head volunteer a comment raised by an issue during a council meeting when they have not been called on to comment by the Council?
e. Presentations
f. Consent agenda
i. The consent calendar shall be in two parts, and any item may be removed from the consent calendar by Council Members for individual consideration prior to the adoption of the consent calendar. Part One shall be for agenda items that do not necessarily require individual debate, discussion or consideration; part two shall be for resolutions or motions that do not require a public hearing, but may require individual debate, discussion or consideration by the Council prior to Council action.

(a) Consent Agenda Part One:
(i) Approval of minutes from previous meetings
(ii) Introduction of ordinances: ordinances for introduction shall be introduced by title only, sponsored by a Council Member, shall not require public reading, and be presented in full written form at the time of introduction.

(b) Consent Agenda Part Two:
(i) Approval of alcoholic beverage permit applications
(ii) Special event applications
(iii) Change orders and substantial completion certifications for City Public Works projects

QUESTION: How and when do councilmembers discuss whether to put something on the “Consent Agenda”? Is this done before a council meeting or during a council meeting. If it is done during a council meeting, what is the point of a consent agenda? Is it supposed to save time for what is usually a half dozen items?
g. Unfinished Business
i. Any deferred agenda item
ii. Adoption of ordinances introduced at previous meeting

h. New Business
i. Nomination and approval of Board Members to City Commissions
ii. Resolutions

i. Public Comment

j. Finance Report and Public Works (Insert this for clarity) Projects in Progress: these reports shall alternate. The Projects in Progress report shall be on the 1st regularly scheduled monthly meeting and the Finance Report shall be on the 2nd regularly scheduled monthly meeting.

Any matter discussed, presented or exhibits in these reports during a council meeting shall be part of the published agenda (via hyperlink) so that citizens will have an opportunity to be aware of what will be presented or discussed at the meeting.

k. Executive Session, if any

l. Adjournment


4. On any question of council procedure, where these rules are not applicable, all meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition.

5. Public comment will be allowed for agenda items prior to any vote with a 3-minute limit per person. Public comment will be allowed for non-agenda items at the end of each meeting with a 3-minute limit per person.


a. If additional time is requested by an individual, for an agenda or non-agenda item, a majority vote of the Council will be required to extend the time limit for that individual.

b. To avoid repetition, groups interested in an agenda item should elect a spokesman to represent the views of the group. How is this established or enforced? Is such formality really needed? Can a citizen donate his time to another person present at the meeting? Why not? Is this restriction for the benefit of the Council or the citizens?


c. To the extent that public comment is repetitive in nature, the Council Chairperson has the right to request that said comment be limited to statements not previously shared during the meeting.

d. The Council Chairperson is expressly granted the authority to require any person wishing to address the Council to submit to the Council Clerk a completed and signed request to speak card. In the event that speaker cards are utilized, any request to speak card must be received prior to the conclusion of the agenda item designated for such public comment. Is such formality really necessary for what is typically a small meeting with just a few people in the audience? If a citizen or group wish to address the council on an issue along with a presentation that exceeds three minutes, how do they accomplish this? Do they send in a written request prior to the council meeting such that it may generate its own agenda item? Is there guidance on when this should be done? At the time that the agenda is published? How would this be different from any civic organization (e.g. Humane Society, etc.)

e. No Council Member or other City government representative shall interrupt the person offering public comment, and all questions shall be addressed to such person only at the conclusion of his or her remarks and he or she has returned to his or her seat. Any response to a question raised on a non-agenda item shall be limited to information that is already released to the public domain and/or a matter of public safety, health and welfare.

6. Slides or presentations by members of the public are not permitted in Council Chambers or other designated meeting places except through advance submission to a Member of the Council or the Mayor (why should the mayor have any say so of what goes on in a Council meeting?) under an advertised agenda item, in accordance with the provisions of the State Open Meetings Law, review by the City Attorney, (What will the city attorney review for? Spelling? Content?) and final approval by the Council Chairperson.


SECTION 2-12 RULES OF DECORUM FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

Rules 1-7 seem a bit superfluous. I struggle to think of when this might be used and the striking example that comes to my mind is the Anti Sucette crowd. Is this what the city thinks we need to curb?

I. All members of the Council, City Government, and the audience shall confine themselves to decorous language in addressing the Council. Does this remind anyone of Councilman Rick Danielson’s civility ordinance back in another form? Members of the audience shall not engage in disruptive conversations or other behavior not recognized by the Chairperson, nor heckle individuals recognized as having the floor. Any violation of these rules will subject the offender to immediate removal from the chambers. Why couldn’t the chair just admonish that person? Why do you need to codify it? It ought to be part of the inherent power of the chair.

II. Placement of political, personal, or campaign literature or paraphernalia inside Council Chambers or the designated meeting place in advance, including placing materials on empty seats or posting materials on walls or fixtures, is prohibited. REALLY??? Is this an effort to keep those pesky anti -Sucette people quiet and in their seats? Any violation of these rules will subject the offender to immediate removal from the Chambers. I am waiting for someone to suggest the city issue demerit books. After so many demerits your right to access a council meeting could be suspended, just like in junior highschool. Maybe the city should get a special hat for whoever will be “the enforcer”. Add a little prestige and recognition to this important function. (not)

III. There shall be no signs, banners, or other demonstrative displays in Council Chambers. Any handheld sign brought to the Council Chambers by the public shall only be displayed in the area designated in the Chambers for said purposes by the Chairperson. Any violation of these rules will subject the offender to immediate removal from the Chambers. No more anti Sucette signs? How about T-shirts? Handouts? Is this an attempt to inhibit freedom of expression which is not disruptive in a public forum? Does this mean no chicken costume during discussions on any chicken ordinances? Shouldn’t there also be a rule that you cannot mock or have fun at any Council meeting? Was this an oversight?

IV. All videos taken at any public meeting held in the Council Chambers, except those by City staff, shall only be taken from an area designated in the Chambers for said purposes by the Chairperson. Any violation of these rules will subject the offender to immediate removal from the chambers. This is restrictive and seems likely to invite a lawsuit on freedom of speech in a public meeting. It is one thing if a person is disruptive. The chair has the tools to address this. It is quite another if someone stands at the lectern and films the council during his comments. Everything is already visually and optically recorded, what difference does it make? Why is there this obsessive need to control every little detail?

V. Use of cell phones during Council Meetings is prohibited. Members of the public shall silence their phone. So if the phone is silenced then a citizen can use it? Who will be the hallway monitor going row by row to insure compliance?

VI. There shall be no solicitation of any kind to the public, Council Members or other City government representatives prior to, during, or after Council meetings. The Council Chairperson shall prevent the public from any such solicitation prior to, during, and after Council Meetings (This is laser focused. Actually, it isn’t. It is vague and ambiguous) and shall put in place other such measures as may be deemed necessary and appropriate for the safety of Council Members and City government representatives. Is this addressing a specific problem? Has anyone, a council person or citizen ever been assaulted? Could this not be addressed by just having a cop (or two) walk around the parking lot before or after a meeting? Maybe the city should put up surveillance cameras to document when a potential problem occurs. This has not been mentioned. At least with a camera you would have objective evidence of a problem. Besides, who will enforce this? If there is such a threat in Mandeville why not just assign body guards for each councilperson? That is what New Orleans does. Besides, what is solicitation? Asking for donations to the Humane Society as part of a parade or fundraiser? Allowing a candidate for judge or the Legislature to address the council? Where does this start and stop?

VII. The Council Chairperson shall ensure that a police officer is present at all Council Meetings and said police officer has the authority to cause the immediate removal from the Chambers of any individual in violation of these rules. Hasn’t a police officer always had the authority to remove, or if necessary, arrest, anyone who is threatening, disruptive and non compliant? So many rules.

Rules that delve down into minutiae (think of IRS rules or regulations) often annoy people for their punctiliousness. (inordinate attention to details)


If you have an interest in these rules you have to let your elected official know how you feel.



Clay Madden - Mayor
[email protected]
(985) 630-8578

Scott Discon - Council at Large
[email protected]
(985) 353 - 2929

Jason Zuckerman - Council at Large
[email protected]
(504) 881-6920

Cynthia Thompson - Council District 1
[email protected]
(985) 205 - 8039

Kevin Vogeltanz - Council District 2
[email protected]
(985) 353 2975

Jill McGuire - Council District 3
[email protected]
(985) 778-8671



Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270