On split council proposition, amendments to the amendments on the way

Illustration by Peter DeHart

The gist: Following a rocky roll out and a series of sometimes tense town halls, council members have tweaked the details of a proposition to create separate city and parish councils. Most notably, updated amendments would prohibit termed-out incumbents from sitting on either new council, clarify protocols that govern the privatization of LUS and shift the boundaries of proposed district maps. Each issue had sparked suspicion among voters of the split council’s intended purpose and outcome.

Policy whack-a-mole: When the first version of the split council amendments went public at the beginning of July, it spawned surprised and irritated opposition in several different corners. Backers of the proposition contend that the proposition was just that: a proposal to be refined. Over the last three weeks, cosponsors Bruce Conque and Jay Castille have worked to mollify the overriding concerns, and the latest amendments published July 5 are the result. Here are the major updates as they stand:

Maps: The parish district map remains the same. The city map creates two majority-minority districts roughly based on areas currently represented by Kenneth Boudreaux and Pat Lewis, the council’s two black council members. Downtown would move to District 5, the majority black district based on Boudreaux’s current boundaries; it was originally included in proposed District 2, which is based on Bruce Conque’s current district.

Term limits: Updated language prohibits term-limited council members from sitting on either council. There are four termed-out members: Boudreaux, Castile, Jared Bellard and William Theriot.

LUS: Charter provisions governing the sale or lease of LUS are expanded to account for professional management agreements, the acquisition creature currently considered by the Robideaux administration. The provision closes a “loophole” whereby a management agreement would not require approval by general election and clarifies that an election would be called by vote of the city council, not the combined council as currently practiced. The original charter only explicitly considers a sale or lease. Robideaux has acknowledged receipt of a legal opinion, related to management agreement, that the arrangement would circumvent a sale.

What to watch for: Final tweaks and a final vote at the Aug. 7 council meeting. Councilwomen Hebert and Nanette Cook will propose a “rollover” mechanism to tweak the term limit provisions. Hebert, Cook, Naquin and Conque would deduct terms served on the city-parish council from future eligibility. Conque, for instance, has served one term and would thus be eligible for two more on the city council, should he run.

Conque says he will tweak the LUS provision to require at least a two-thirds vote — oddly, in this case, four out of five — of the city council to call for an election in the event of a sale, lease or management agreement monetizing LUS.

Early indication is the split council proposition has the the six votes required to call an election this fall. Although once it goes to the public, all bets are off. Success at the ballot box largely depends on whether the changes made sufficiently satisfy voter skepticism.

“My constituents feel like they’ve been listened to,” says Liz Hebert. Hebert says term limits was the overriding concern. Still, assuming the council votes to put the proposition before voters in December, it’s likely that opposition will continue to mount. Opponents argue the proposition is rushed, that the details are unknown and that their policy prescriptions won’t fix the problems they’re meant to solve.

Leave a Comment