St. Martinville City Council, mayor continue to be divided
Published 9:00 am Wednesday, October 7, 2020
ST. MARTINVILLE — The divisions between a majority of the St. Martinville City Council and Mayor Melinda Mitchell were on full display Monday night as the council voted to move ahead with amendments to the city’s charter to limit the number of terms for the city’s elected officials and to pay the mayor on a part-time, both to take effect after the 2022 council and mayor are sworn in.
Before the amendments even came up for debate, the council members had to amend the approval of its minutes from the Sept. 21 meeting. Adoption of minutes is usually an automatic function of the council, but after District 1 Councilman Mike Fuselier made a motion to approve, there was no second.
“I can’t approve this with that letter attached,” said Mayor Pro Tem Craig Prosper.
Although none of the council members discussed the content of the letter, The Daily Iberian received a copy after the meeting. It was a letter from Mitchell stating that she vetoed the amendment to move the mayor to a part-time status.
Prosper made an amended motion to adopt the minutes without the letter, which passed by a 3-1 vote, with Fuselier, Prosper, and District 3 Councilman Dennis Paul Williams in favor and District 5 Councilman Edmond Joseph opposed. District 4 Councilman Juma Johnson was absent.
That voting pattern recurred throughout the night. Joseph voted against both the term limot and part-time mayor amendments.
The discussion over the term limit amendment was short, with little rancor. That changed when the proposal to cut the next mayor’s pay came up.
Resident Chris Cormier, a Mitchell supporter, said he had never heard of such a thing.
“I have a serious problem with this part time mayor,” Cormier said. “I never heard of a part-time mayor. Y’all are taking all her (Mitchell’s) rights from her. She’s the mayor but the city council makes all the rules.”
The city’s charter establishes the city government based on a strong council-weak mayor model of government by design. Prosper said in his defense of the amendment that Mitchell had made it clear to him that a part-time mayor could easily perform the duties of the office.
“Every one of us ran for office because we wanted to give back to the community,” Prosper said. “She didn’t say she wanted to run for a 40-hour a eek check. Her phone was off for six weeks. We now hire really really good people. We have a good superintendent in Public Works. We have a good administrator. Our mayor doesn’t get grants. We have a grant writer. The mayor may go have coffee with the governor. That’s cool. She can do that. You run to give to your community. You don’t run to line your pockets.”
Mitchell took issue with Prosper’s claims, saying that she was out with COVID-19 for the six weeks he referred to, although she did hold meetings and town halls during that time, lobbying to have the city’s charter overturned.
“I’m here busting my butt,” Mitchell said, obviously upset over Prosper’s attacks. “This council won’t let me do my job. I don’t have to prove anything to you. I’ll continue to be a full time mayor.”
She reiterated her intention to veto the amendment, but it is unclear whether she has that authority under the city’s charter. The council also passed a resolution authorizing the city’s legal counsel to file a writ with the 16th Judicial District Court to clarify whether Mayor Melinda Mitchell has the power to veto the proposed amendments.
Mitchell has claimed that the Lawrason Act, which provides for basic municipal government structures in Louisiana, allows her to wield that power. But City Legal Counsel Allan Durand said that his interpretation of the act does not supersede the city’s special legislative charter, which limits the mayor’s legislative power to casting a vote in case of a tie.
Joseph spoke up during the discussion, loudly attacking Prosper.
“This is bullcrap!” Joseph exclaimed several times. “Every meeting you do this same stuff.”
As with the other proposals, the amendment passed, 3-1. Durand said the writ to clarify whether or not Mitchell’s veto would stand will be filed with the 16th Judicial District Court Wednesday.