Guest column: Charter amendments would modernize parish government
By BARRY DUFRENE
More than 40 years ago, St. Mary Parish voters made a historic decision. In 1983, they approved a Home Rule Charter that replaced the parish’s old police jury form of government with a council-president form of government.
That charter has served St. Mary Parish since then.
But government does not stand still. The parish has changed, its population and economy have changed, the responsibilities of local government have changed, and expectations about accountability have changed.
Now St. Mary Parish voters are being asked to consider a comprehensive revision and restatement of that 1983 charter.
The question is not simply whether the existing charter has worked. It clearly has. The more important question is whether the governmental structure designed in 1983 is still the best structure for St. Mary Parish today.
The proposed revision addresses several fundamental issues: who is responsible for administering parish government, how the Parish Council is structured, how elected officials are compensated, term limits, and a number of outdated or redundant charter provisions. The current ballot proposition describes the measure as an effort to “modernize parish governance.”
The biggest issue: Who is actually responsible for running parish government?
This is perhaps the most important question raised by the proposed changes.
Under the existing charter, St. Mary has an elected parish president who serves as the chief executive officer. At the same time, the charter provides for a chief administrative officer appointed by the president and ratified by the council.
The result is a division between elected leadership and day-to-day administration.
The president is elected by every voter in the parish. The CAO is appointed.
Yet the CAO has historically been responsible for much of the actual operation of parish government.
That arrangement creates a potential accountability problem.
When citizens are dissatisfied with the operation of parish government, they naturally look to the elected parish president. But if much of the administrative authority rests with an appointed administrator, the president does not have the same direct control over parish operations that voters might assume.
The proposed charter would change that arrangement by making the parish president both the chief executive and chief administrative officer and eliminating the separate CAO position. That is expressly included in the current ballot proposition.
In practical terms, the proposal would establish a much more direct chain of responsibility:
The voters elect the parish president.
The president is responsible for administering parish government.
The president can be held accountable by the voters for how parish government operates.
That is a significant structural change.
The office of parish president would become a real full-time executive position
The original 1983 structure established the parish president as a part-time position.
The salary was set at $12,000 per year.
It has not changed since 1983.
The proposed charter takes a fundamentally different approach.
The president would be a full-time executive responsible for the duties currently associated with parish administration. Compensation would be updated to reflect those responsibilities, with future adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index.
The proposed compensation should therefore be considered in the context of the job being performed.
This is not simply a proposal to increase the salary of the existing part-time position. It changes the nature of the position itself.
A full-time parish president would be expected to devote the time necessary to oversee parish government, work with department heads, deal with state and federal agencies, respond to emergencies, develop budgets, represent the parish, and carry out the policies established by the council.
The principle is straightforward:
If the elected president is going to be held responsible for parish operations, the president needs the authority and time necessary to perform that responsibility.
The proposed change would reduce the council from 11 members to eight
The original charter created an 11-member Parish Council.
Three additional members are elected at large, with one required to reside in the eastern portion of the parish, one in the central portion and one in the western portion. The original charter actually contemplated both an 11 member and a 15-member alternative when the charter was first adopted.
The current proposal would eliminate the three at-large seats and establish an eight-member council consisting entirely of single-member districts making it considerably simpler.
Right now, there are 11 members. It operates more like a committee where nothing gets done.
Every council member would have a specific district constituency.
Every district would have one council representative.
There would no longer be three additional parish wide council races.
The change does not eliminate geographic representation. Instead, it changes the way representation is organized.
The question for voters is therefore whether three parish wide at-large members continue to provide enough benefit to justify maintaining an 11-member council, or right-size the parish with eight single member districts. This provides eight clearly defined single-member districts making it simpler and more direct form of representation.
The issue of compensation should be considered separately from the issue of government structure
The existing charter’s compensation levels were established in 1983.
According to the original structure, single-district council members received $450 per month, while at-large members received $800 per month. The parish president received $12,000 annually.
The proposed charter would replace that system with annual compensation of $18,000 for council members, $21,000 for the council elected chairperson and $125,000 salary for the parish president.
The proposal also provides for cost-of-living adjustments every four years. The increase is there, and they could decide not to take these increases.
That is an important change because the existing charter’s fixed compensation illustrates one problem with writing specific dollar amounts into a document intended to govern for decades.
The 1983 charter was written in the economic circumstances of 1983.
The revised charter attempts to create a mechanism for compensation to adjust over time rather than requiring the parish to revisit the charter every time compensation becomes outdated.
Term limits are another major change
The proposed charter would establish term limits for both the parish president and council members. It would align the term limits for the parish president and council to 1-1/2 terms, legal language for two terms. And it applies retroactively to the current elected president and council.
Term limits are a separate policy question from the administrative changes.
Supporters can argue that term limits encourage turnover and prevent elected offices from becoming long-term political positions.
Opponents could argue that voters should have the right to retain an effective elected official for as long as the voters continue to support that person.
That is a legitimate policy debate, and it is important that voters understand that term limits are part of the proposed charter, not merely an administrative cleanup.
Much of the proposed revision is housekeeping
Not every change in a new charter is a major philosophical change in government.
Some provisions simply need to be updated because they refer to circumstances that no longer exist.
The proposed revision includes clarification of procedures involving vacancies, meetings and publication of ordinances and removes obsolete or redundant provisions, including outdated ballot and district provisions.
That is normal for a governing document that has been in effect for more than four decades.
A charter should not contain provisions that describe an election system or governmental transition that occurred more than 40 years ago.
The current parish government itself directs citizens to the Home Rule Charter as the governing document for parish government and maintains current agendas and minutes online.
The important question is whether authority and accountability should be aligned.
Ultimately, the most consequential part of the proposed revision is not the number of council members or the salary schedule.
It is the question of who is responsible for running parish government.
The 1983 system created an elected parish president and a separate appointed CAO.
The proposed system would place executive and administrative responsibility in the hands of the elected parish president creating a much more recognizable form of executive government.
Under the proposed structure, citizens would have a clearer answer when they ask:
Who runs St. Mary Parish government?
The answer would be the parish president.
And when voters ask:
Who is responsible if parish government is not functioning properly?
The answer would also be the parish president.
That does not mean the president would have unlimited power. The Parish Council would remain the legislative branch, with its authority to establish policies, enact ordinances, approve budgets and exercise the other powers assigned to it by the charter.
The proposal would therefore not eliminate checks and balances.
Instead, it would attempt to make the division between legislative responsibility and executive responsibility clearer.
The 1983 charter was a change. This would be another change.
There is a useful historical perspective here.
St. Mary Parish voters did not adopt the 1983 charter because they believed the old system could never be changed. They changed the form of government because they believed a different structure would better serve the parish.
The current proposal should be considered in the same spirit.
The question is not whether the men and women who wrote the 1983 charter were right or wrong.
They designed a governmental system for the St. Mary Parish of their time.
More than four decades later, today’s voters have an opportunity to decide whether that structure still provides the clearest lines of authority, representation, and accountability.
The proposed revision would make four particularly significant changes:
First, it would make the parish president a full-time executive responsible for parish administration.
Second, it would eliminate the separate CAO position and consolidate executive and administrative authority.
Third, it would reduce the Parish Council from eleven members—including three at-large members—to eight single-member districts.
Fourth, it would update compensation and establish a mechanism for future cost-of-living adjustments, while also imposing term limits.
Those are substantial changes.
They deserve to be considered on their merits — not simply as a vote for or against the people currently holding office.
A charter is bigger than any individual officeholder.
It is the framework under which future Parish Presidents, future council members and future generations of St. Mary Parish residents will govern themselves.
That is why the debate over the proposed revision should focus on one question:
What form of parish government provides the clearest accountability and the most effective representation for St. Mary Parish for the next 40 years?
That is the decision before the voters.
I’m asking you to participate and vote yes.