ST. MARTINVILLE — A 16th Judicial District Court judge granted a continuance Thursday morning to attorneys for Mayor Melinda Mitchell so they could better prepare to argue why they believe the mayor should have veto authority.

Judge Curtis Aucoin denied another motion from Mitchell’s attorney John Milton seeking to have City Legal Counsel Allan Durand removed from the case because he was a “fact witness” and was prejudiced in favor of the council.

This is the second continuance issued in the case. Durand filed the request for summary judgement to determine whether veto power is vested in the mayor after Mitchell attempted to veto a move by the city council in September to pay the mayor at a part-time rate starting with the next term, which is in 2022. A continuance was granted last month when Mitchell brought Milton on board as her legal representative.

Based on the remarks from the two attorneys during Thursday’s hearing, it was clear that not only is the answer to the issue of the mayor’s veto authority in question, but the nature of the question itself will have to be defined.

Durand said that the issue should be resolved quickly so the council and mayor could have an answer as to how future legislation will be handled. He also said that the issue boils down to one thing — whether the city’s special legislative charter addresses the legislative role of the mayor’s position. “That’s the issue,” Durand said. “Is it silent, or is it not silent?”

Milton, on the other hand, said that the legal landscape is much broader. He brought up the contentious relationship between Mitchell and the council, the intricacies of the relationship between the charter and the state’s Lawrason Act, which establishes a template for municipal governments not under a charter, and even the media role in documenting the issues that have arisen during Mitchell’s term over the last two and a half years.

“As you are aware, the absurdness of this situation makes the city of St. Martinville a laughingstock,” Milton said. “Many people, from the governor on down, want to see something done.”

“What makes you think I am aware of the problems in the city of St. Martinville?” Aucoin asked.

Milton clarified his statement, noting that he meant only general knowledge from public conversations. He then went on to say he intended to enter the St. Martinville Code of Ordinances into evidence, since it was an extension of the charter and its revisions over the last 122 years.

Aucoin also asked Durand why he said that the resolution of the veto question was such a burning issue.

“Until this is resolved, when the council negotiates contracts, hires and fires, deals with vendors, they need to know whether a veto applies,” Durand said. 

In his brief to the court, Durand said that research had been done in the past month going back through 70 years of council meeting minutes. In that time, there was only one instance of a veto being attempted, in 1971. The council voted the attempt down, 5-0.

Milton said he only found out about that instance a week ago, which is one reason he wanted a period for evidentiary discovery.

Aucoin disagreed. 

“It doesn’t matter what is in the past,” Aucoin said. “We are looking at what is in the present.”

Aucoin set the next hearing date for Jan 11.