VOTE NO ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT
On your Nov. 5th ballot as “Parishwide Home Rule Charter Amendment Proposition”
I’m pretty confident most voters in East Baton Rouge Parish are aware there is a significant election taking place on November 5th. President, Congressional Representatives, Public Service Commissioners, Mayor-President, etc. But I suspect few in East Baton Rouge Parish are aware of an item on the Nov. 5th ballot proposing significant amendments to our City-Parish Plan of Government which will have profound—and in my opinion, adverse—effects on our local government if adopted.
If you access your sample ballot on the Louisiana Secretary of State webpage, this item will appear as “PW Home Rule Charter Amendment - HRC Amendments – MC.” The sample ballot on the Geaux Vote app offers a little more detail. Its description also includes “Parishwide Home Rule Charter Amendment Proposition.” And if voters have the wherewithal to click “Read more,” they’ll also be provided with the ballot language:
Shall the Plan of Government of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (the “Plan of Government”) be amended pursuant to Article VI, Section 5 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana and Section 11.09 of the Plan of Government, and be renumbered as necessary, as further described in the Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Plan of Government, which may be reviewed on the official website (http://www.brla.gov/planofgovernment) of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge or may be obtained from the Council Administrator for the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, and which proposed amendments are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Proposition?
This ballot language is not especially illuminating about what precisely is being proposed. Even Rowdy Gaudet, the Metro Councilperson primarily responsible for getting this item on the ballot, has expressed frustration with the lack of detail. At least we agree on that point. Otherwise our positions differ sharply. Councilman Gaudet urges voters to vote “Yes.” I urge voters to vote “No.”
I think it’s important to appreciate the full scope of this proposition. To fully evaluate it for yourself, you’ll need to follow the link in the ballot language to the brla.gov website.1 There you will find three links, including one to the 64-page copy of the Plan of Government with all of the proposed edits—additions, deletions, changes in policy, etc.2 This—not the summary—is the document you need to read to fully inform yourself about all of the changes. It’s not just one amendment to the Plan of Government. It’s not even just a few amendments to a section or two. This ballot item amounts to an extensive revision of the Plan of Government, which is effectively the constitution of the City-Parish consolidated government.
One would think a proposal of this magnitude would warrant significant coverage in our local media, meaningful public engagement, and thoughtful consideration from a variety of viewpoints. There have been a handful of articles in various news outlets recently, but all have focused on just one or two sections of the overall amended document and have primarily provided arguments in favor of the proposed amendments. If opposing arguments are mentioned, they are poorly developed and/or inaccurately characterized.
In this post, I am going to attempt to offer a few of the more significant reasons to oppose the proposed amendments and more fully develop arguments to support my positions. They are:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (PROPOSED PARISH ADMINISTRATOR) AND MAYOR-PRESIDENT ELIMINATES OUR ABILITY TO ELECT MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATION.
CHAPTER 2 AMENDMENT ELIMINATES VOTERS’ OVERSIGHT OF METRO COUNCIL MEMBERS’ COMPENSATION AND GRANTS THAT AUTHORITY TO METRO COUNCILMEMBERS.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND ITS CITIZENS
Before I begin, here’s a few things you should bear in mind:
One, if this is the first you are hearing about this ballot item, you should already plan to vote “No.” A vote in favor of the proposal authorizes a major revision of your parish constitution. Such a revision is going to have significant effects on our governance structure, and that warrants meaningful public engagement. The fact that there was no effort at public outreach ahead of this recent effort is deeply troubling. More worrisome is that these profound changes were put on the ballot without thoughtful and transparent consideration of their implications in light of the impending incorporation of the City of St. George. If those behind the push for these amendments were not worried about meaningful dissent, they clearly would have invited a cross-section of community groups to provide input before the Metro Council voted on March 27, 2024 to put the item on the ballot and again to educate voters ahead of the November 5th election. No such outreach was conducted.
Councilman Gaudet is currently hosting a handful of public meetings, but he freely acknowledges he is advocating for the proposition’s passage; he is not providing opposing viewpoints or soliciting public input for recommended changes. Such a marketing campaign doesn’t genuinely provide voters with sufficient information to make an informed decision, and that alone is sufficient reason to vote “No.”
Two, the proposition is all or nothing. It refers to significant revisions through the 64-page Plan of Government. A vote in favor accepts all proposed amendments. A vote opposed rejects all proposed amendments. If you have significant concerns about even one aspect, you should vote “No.” Even if you see some benefit to one aspect, please consider whether that perceived benefit outweighs the most serious concerns about other proposed amendments. I think you’ll find the bad outweighs any good, and I recommend you vote accordingly.
Three, for this post I’m going to focus on just a handful of issues in order to highlight reasons voters should vote against the proposed changes. If you’d like to hear arguments in favor, you should be able to find them in our local news media. Also, please know that I was opposed to proposed amendments to the Plan of Government which were considered by the Metro Council in 2021. Since the amendments proposed in this election are similar if not identical to the ones proposed in 2021, I will draw heavily from or copy from my 2021 post if the opportunity presents itself.
With that, let’s begin.
A FEW REASONS TO OPPOSE THE PARISHWIDE HOME RULE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSITION.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (PROPOSED PARISH ADMINISTRATOR) AND MAYOR-PRESIDENT ELIMINATES OUR ABILITY TO ELECT MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATION.
The proposed changes to the duties of the Mayor-President are reason enough to vote against this proposition. The amendments include a few overlapping changes that in conjunction effectively divest the office of the Mayor-President from most if not all of its power.
The current language of the Plan of Government states that the Mayor-President “may appoint a Chief Administrative Officer” [emphasis added]. The proposed amendment eliminates the Chief Administrative Officer position and creates a City-Manager position in its place. More significantly, the proposed language stipulates the Mayor-President “shall appoint a City-Manager.” That change of one word—“may” to “shall”—is significant. If the measure is approved by voters, it will no longer be the prerogative of the Mayor to hire someone to assist with the duties of the office. The Mayor must hire a City-Manager, and more worrisome, that City-Manager is given the authority currently assigned to the Mayor. Our current Plan of Government states that a CAO may be hired “[f]or the purpose of assisting in the supervision and coordination of the Mayor-President’s office.” The proposed version stipulates the City-Manager shall be hired not “to assist” but “to supervise the agencies that report to the Mayor-President.”
And even more worrisome, the proposed language stipulates that the City-Manager is “subject to confirmation by the Metropolitan Council.” In other words, the Mayor doesn’t even have final say on who will serve as the City-Manager. That power would reside with the Metro Council. Such a diversion of power doesn’t offer a reasonable check on the executive branch. It effectively usurps it. So much for the balance of power.
Other concerns: The proposed amendments significantly increase the required qualifications for the City-Manager position, which will further circumscribe the Mayor’s ability to appoint his or her candidate of choice.
The proposed amendment also stipulates that “the compensation of the City-Manager and all other expenses of the office shall be provided by appropriations made by the council.” Such a funding arrangement ensures the Metro Council’s de facto control of the City-Manager, since a slim majority on the Metro Council could vote to reduce or eliminate funding in order to debilitate any City-Manager with whom they disagree.
If this proposition is passed, the voters in this parish will still elect a Mayor-President, but the responsibilities and powers of the position will be so seriously curtailed, the person elected will not be able to meaningfully represent the voters.
At the recent public information meetings, Councilman Rowdy Gaudet has been joined by Councilman Aaron Moak. During these meetings, members of the audience (not just me) have expressed concerns about undercutting the mayor’s authority by subjecting the City-Manager to Metro Council confirmation. Councilman Moak dismisses those concerns, arguing that the Metro Council’s oversight is mitigated by the Mayor’s ability to fire the City-Manager without Metro Council approval. But the power to fire the City-Manager is inconsequential if the Mayor is still mandated to hire a new City-Manager who meets the prescribed education and experience requirements and is subject to Metro Council confirmation.
Ultimately, the Metro Council wields the power. The education and experience requirements will certainly narrow the pool of potential candidates. A slim majority of Metro Councilmembers need only refuse to confirm any candidate who isn’t their candidate of choice. It may give the appearance that the Mayor-President is exercising some oversight, but it’s largely an illusion. The process can easily be manipulated by a subset of the Metro Council in order to dictate the outcome.
Should one worry about such a shift in power? Absolutely. Historically, the legislative branch in our local government has been configured and reconfigured over the decades in response to shifts in population and demographics in ways seemingly designed to undercut fair and equal representation of the people.
Those efforts continue. In 2019 and initially in 2021 the proposed amendments to the Plan of Government included adding an at-large seat to the Metro Council, increasing its size to 13 members. There was also some discussion about reducing the size of the Metro Council to nine members. Either option would likely benefit the financial interests who could afford to underwrite the campaigns for candidates in the larger districts that would be created under either scenario.
While neither of those changes are proposed in these amendments, there is some indication they are on the horizon. If this ballot measure passes, no longer will ordinances and such require “the affirmative votes of not less than seven (7) members” of the Metro Council, seven constituting a simple majority of its current 12-member configuration.
Instead the language is revised to delete the reference to “seven (7) members.” The new rules would stipulate that action by the Metro Council will require the affirmative votes of “a simple majority of members,” which is defined to mean “more than one half of the membership of the Metro Council.” Eliminating the specific numeral reference lays the groundwork to more easily propose amendments to alter the Metro Council’s configuration in the future. Since historically such reconfigurations have undermined the equitable representation of the community, you should anticipate future proposals will do the same.
CHAPTER 2 AMENDMENT ELIMINATES VOTERS’ OVERSIGHT OF METRO COUNCIL MEMBERS’ COMPENSATION AND GRANTS THAT AUTHORITY TO METRO COUNCILMEMBERS.
In my opinion, this is not the second most worrisome amendment in this proposal, but judging from the amount of discussion this revision generated in recent meetings, it may be to many others. Here’s what you need to know. The salary for Metro Councilmembers is stipulated in the Plan of Government. It’s currently set at “$1,000 per month.” In order to increase the Metro Councilmembers’ compensation, an amendment to the Plan of Government must be passed. That requires voter approval. This proposed amendment would entirely change that process. If adopted, it would eliminate the need to pass an amendment delineating a specific compensation amount, and instead allow Metro Councilmembers to set Councilmembers’ pay by adopting an ordinance.
In their arguments in support of this proposed change, Councilpersons Gaudet, Moak, and Jenn Racca argued the Metro Councilmembers deserve a raise. Guess what? I wholeheartedly agree. The current salary of $12,000 is inadequate. Our elected councilmembers deserve a raise, and for more reasons than Gaudet, Moak, and Racca mentioned. Namely, I believe that abysmal pay facilitates corruption of our public officials.
Our elected officials are always susceptible to being influenced by “special interests,” but abysmal pay renders them more susceptible not less. Whether that influence is exerted by their own or their spouse’s employer, or the need to generate consulting fees, or to secure new customers for their business, the fact that our elected officials cannot depend upon the salary associated with their elected office to provide even a modest standard of living for themselves and their families does not prevent corruption. It invites it.
But do I think eliminating voter oversight of elected officials’ compensation is the appropriate means of addressing this issue? No.
The proponents of this policy change overlook or fail to grasp that it is not necessary to undermine the democratic oversight of Councilmembers’ compensation in order to secure a pay raise for Metro Councilmembers. On the contrary, it would be incredibly beneficial for community members to fully consider their responsibility to provide a liveable wage to those they presumably expect to represent their interests.
…And then support an amendment to increase the Metro Councilmembers’ compensation to a specific amount.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES DETRIMENTAL TO THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND ITS CITIZENS
There are a slew of proposed changes which are being characterized as “basic updates” to outdated language. Some of the proposed edits in this resolution do include changes to pronoun references and job titles and such which are fairly characterized as “basic updates.” However, there are other changes proposed to the language that could have significant implications. These revisions warrant careful consideration from City-Parish officials and especially voters. The proposed changes in terminology should be meaningfully examined for possible consequences—intended or not. A thorough review would require hearing from a variety of viewpoints, not just from a few cherry-picked public figures.
In order to appreciate the possible implications of two of the proposed language changes, you need to be somewhat familiar with the history of our local government. (My understanding of the original constitutional amendment authorizing the creation of the consolidated government in 1949 relies heavily on a book by William C. Harvard, Jr. and Floyd L. Corty entitled Rural-Urban Consolidation: The Merger of Governments in the Baton Rouge Area.3 I found it in the special collection section of the Main Library on Goodwood.)
Since 1949 East Baton Rouge Parish has had what is called a consolidated government. Prior to 1949, there was a parish government and the governments of the city of Baton Rouge, and the townships of Zachary and Baker. But in 1949, the City of Baton Rouge government was consolidated with the East Baton Rouge Parish government. (The townships of Zachary and Baker were allowed to remain as separate incorporations in the “rural” area.) This consolidation was possible only because in 1946 there was an amendment made to the state constitution. That amendment, Article XIV Section 3(a), did three things that are relevant to our consideration of the current proposed amendments to the Plan of Government.
It authorized the creation of a City-Parish Charter Commission to create a plan of government.
It allowed the plan of government to provide “for the extension of municipal limits.”
It stipulated that the parish would be divided into three areas—industrial, urban, and rural. It did so for tax purposes. Section 3(a) of Article XIV subsection 3 states, “The provision of this constitution relating to limitation of taxation by municipalities shall apply in the urban areas and those relating to the limitation of parish taxation shall apply in the industrial and rural areas.”
Vested with this authority, the Charter Commission created by Article XIV did something that may have implications to our current moment in time. The plan of government it created dramatically expanded the Baton Rouge city limits. And it did so with the justification that the area incorporated into the city limits “had undergone urban development to the point of requiring city services” (Havard & Corty 28). Because the unincorporated area was no longer rural, it was incorporated into Baton Rouge city limits.
Also important is the fact that in 1949 the Metro Council did not exist. The Metro Council was not created until 1983. Prior to the creation of the Metro Council, the consolidated government of the City of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish was governed by two separate but overlapping councils. One was a city council whose members were elected by those who lived in Baton Rouge city limits. The second was a parish council which consisted of the city council members as well as two representatives elected by the rural areas.
The parish council oversaw parish business. The city council oversaw city business. City revenue could only be spent within city limits. If an area outside the city wanted to benefit from city revenue or city services, it had to be annexed into the city limits. That changed after the Metro Council was created in 1983. At first, city revenue still could only be spent in city limits. But with the creation of the Metro Council and the manner in which its districts were drawn, the voting strength of the people within city limits was diffused, and within 10 years, the rule stipulating that city revenue could only be spent within city limits was changed. City revenue was redirected from investments in infrastructure within city limits to infrastructure in the unincorporated area, including the Mall of Louisiana, Seigen Lane Marketplace, and Perkins-Rowe among others. City revenue went towards the infrastructure—roadways, sewerage, lighting—that allowed for these projects. The population growth followed the construction of the infrastructure and retail outlets, and over the years the area became “urbanized.” This created the possibility of the proposed City of St. George. Investing city revenue into the rural unincorporated area without requiring the area to be annexed into the city limits “urbanized” that large swath of the unincorporated area and made it vulnerable to efforts to create a new municipality.
As most are aware, the incorporation of the City of St. George—while still contested—is impending. The history of the consolidated government and the issues created by the incorporation of the City of St. George are relevant when considering the implications of the current proposed amendments to our Plan of Government.
»“Council” vs. “Metropolitan Council”
One of the two worrisome proposed language changes in the proposed amendment is to replace the use of “council” with “Metropolitan Council” throughout the entire Plan of Government. The reasoning offered for this change is that it is a “basic update” to reflect current circumstances. However, it seems peculiar to propose this change after all this time—the Metropolitan Council has existed since 1983—and it seems to ignore not reflect our current circumstances.
It’s important to note that the separate and overlapping councils which existed prior to the creation of the Metro Council in 1983 allowed Baton Rouge city residents to have the same representation as that granted to voters in the other municipalities in East Baton Rouge parish. The cities of Zachary, Baker, and Central all have their own city councils. If (when?) the City of St. George begins operations, it will have its own city council. And if that comes to pass, then Baton Rouge city residents should certainly have the right to the same representation as voters in the other municipalities; Baton Rouge should once again have its own city council. The proposed changes in this resolution appear to, if not prohibit that possibility, then at least make it much more difficult. If this amendment is approved, it’s possible the change from “council” to “Metropolitan Council” could further entrench the existence of the Metropolitan Council in our governance structure, and if not prohibit, then make it exceedingly difficult to return to the previous governance structure of two separate but overlapping city and parish councils.
Proponents of the proposed amendment claim the change is a “basic update” with no serious implications. But if it has no significant implications, then why propose the change now, especially before the matter of St. George is resolved? If St. George proceeds, it is possible the Metropolitan Council could be dissolved and replaced with the two separate and overlapping councils. If that happens, these language changes will need to be amended in the Plan of Government once again.
If the existence of the Metro Council is entrenched in our governance structure under these circumstances, it clearly has negative implications for Baton Rouge city residents. But it could also have negative implications for city residents in the other municipalities as well. Consolidated governments were not intended to have more than one municipality in their jurisdiction. When the Baton Rouge City-East Baton Rouge Parish consolidated government was first created, there were only two “townships” in addition to the City of Baton Rouge. Now there are three cities with the fourth looming. Why would the city residents in four other municipalities want to be subjected to the governance of a council created by the consolidation of their parish government and another municipality? Might they prefer a separate parish council? At the very least, those questions should be thoughtfully considered before voters approve these amendments.
»“Urban” and “Rural” vs. “Incorporated” and “Unincorporated”
Another worrisome language change in the proposed amendments is to replace the terms “urban” and “rural” with “incorporated” and “unincorporated” throughout the Plan of Government.
Here, too, the proponents for amendments characterize the change as inconsequential, intended to simply better reflect the current demographics in East Baton Rouge Parish. They claim because some areas in the unincorporated area are clearly no longer rural, it is simply inaccurate to describe them as such. According to proponents, there are no other implications to the proposed language change.
It’s difficult to imagine there are no other implications. The areas “urban” and “rural” as well as “industrial” were mandated by Article XIV Section 3(a) in the 1946 Louisiana Constitution which authorized the consolidation of the city and parish governments in 1949. That article unequivocally declared that the parish was to be divided into urban, rural, and industrial areas “for tax purposes.”
It is true that Section 3(a) of Article XIV does not appear in the current Louisiana Constitution. (I assume it was deleted during the Constitutional Convention of 1973.) However, the fact that this article no longer appears in the state constitution makes the current proposal to change the language more worrisome, not less. Remember Article XIV Section 3(a) also authorized the plan of government to provide “for the extension of municipal limits,” and in 1949 the Baton Rouge city limits were dramatically extended based on the justification that the area incorporated into the city limits “had undergone urban development to the point of requiring city services” (Havard & Corty 28). Because the area had been urbanized and required city services—because it could no longer be characterized as “rural,” the city was authorized to expand its limits to include the adjacent urbanized areas.
The proponents of this proposed language change—“urban” and “rural” to “incorporated” and “unincorporated”—argue the proposed change in terminology is a basic update necessary because portions of the unincorporated area are no longer rural and shouldn’t be characterized as such. However, there is another argument to be made. Based on the precedent set by Section 3(a) Article XIV of the 1946 Louisiana Constitution, the City of Baton Rouge may be entitled to expand its limits to include those urbanized areas which now require city services. If the unincorporated area adjacent to the city limits can no longer be characterized as “rural,” the appropriate response is not to simply change the terminology from “urban” and “rural” to “incorporated” and “unincorporated.” The appropriate response may be to once again authorize the plan of government to “provide for the extension of municipal limits” and allow the City of Baton Rouge to expand its limits to take in the adjacent portions of the unincorporated area deemed urban. It appears Article XIV Section 3(a) of the 1946 Louisiana Constitution which authorized the creation of the consolidated government in East Baton Rouge Parish intended for this process to be ongoing. As portions of the rural area became urbanized, they were supposed to be added to the “urban area,” the City of Baton Rouge. The constitutionally-mandated creation of the three areas—urban, rural, and industrial—was intended to facilitate the expansion of the Baton Rouge city limits, thereby prohibiting the possibility of the incorporation of additional municipalities within East Baton Rouge Parish. The proposal to change the terminology is certainly not a “basic update.” It abandons a fundamental premise of the consolidated government particularly relevant as we confront the issues created by the impending incorporation of the City of St. George and prepare for settlement negotiations.
No changes to the use of “urban” and “rural” should be allowed at least until the incorporation of the City of St. George is finalized and all settlement negotiations are concluded.
CONCLUSION
These are not the only reasons to oppose the “PW Home Rule Charter Amendment” that is on the November 5th ballot, but I think they should suffice. I hope what is most apparent is that the proposed changes further undermine the integrity of our representative democratic government. The power of the elected Mayor-President is redirected to a City-Manager who is effectively appointed. Voters lose oversight of their elected officials’ compensation. Language changes entrench a governing body likely rendered obsolete and ineffectual but nonetheless impose it on Baton Rouge city residents. These are not “basic updates,” and they are certainly not improvements. Please vote “No.”
https://www.brla.gov/1257/Plan-of-Government
Plan of Government Proposed Amendments. Accessed 17 Oct 2024. https://www.brla.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18934/Plan-of-Government-Proposed-Amendments-2024
Havard, William C. & Floyd L. Corty. Rural-Urban Consolidation: The Merger of Governments in the Baton Rouge Area. Louisiana State University Press, 1964.