No pay hike for parish president, councilmen

Two amendments to the St. Mary Parish Home Rule Charter were voted down Wednesday, leaving its sponsor in protest of the vote that he claimed was pre-ordained.
A motion by Councilman Dale Rogers, originator of the proposed ordinance, and seconded by Councilman J Ina, failed on a vote of 8-3. Ina, Rogers and Councilman Craig Mathews were the only yea votes.
That ordinance would have changed the salary of the parish president from $12,000 to $78,000 per year, if approved by voters on an upcoming ballot.
A two-thirds vote is required to place a charter amendment on the ballot for voters.
Rogers pointed out that about two months ago there was a special council meeting and the terms of the ordinance were approved.
A handout presented to the council listed salaries of area parish presidents:
St. Charles Parish, $101,353; Iberia Parish, $118,906; St. Martin Parish, $158,073; Lafourche Parish, $121,872; Terrebonne Parish, $126,802; Iberville Parish, $202,052 and St. Landry Parish, $105,000.
“I think the number we all talked about months ago, and agreed to, is a good number,” Rogers said.
“I just feel embarrassed sitting here having this discussion,” Ina said. “Looking at us as a council, that are elected officials to move this parish forward, every time we come to certain issues, there’s some bumps in the road. It bothers me that when it’s time for us to take a step to move forward, something comes up…I just don’t know how good this looks having this discussion come up after months and months. If we want to be different, we have to do some different things, let’s be serious about it.”
Rogers said “everybody” voted in favor of the ordinance as offered for adoption in the special meeting. “If somebody has an idea, that’s fine, introduce an ordinance. Why wouldn’t they introduce it now if somebody had a good idea?” Rogers said.
Councilman Paul Naquin said other parishes have a full-time parish president, which the St. Mary Home Rule Charter does not stipulate one way or the other. The amendment would have specified that the president would be full-time.
“Until we re-do the (whole) charter, I will not vote for anything changing the charter,” Naquin said.
He suggested another committee to study the charter again.
“I fully understand what you’re saying,” Ina told Naquin. “But let’s do something. We sit here and something comes up, we have a million reasons why this is not right, salary’s too high, salary’s too low…let’s do something, take some action. When it’s time to vote, everybody’s quiet, nobody’s got anything to say…it just looks asinine for us to sit here over and over again and have conversations with no alternative action. Let’s move or not move, please.”
After a round of confusion about proper voting procedure, the motion failed.
“You see why we can’t get anything done in this parish?” Rogers declared to the audience.
Voting in favor were Mathews, Rogers and Ina. Against were James Bennett, Sterling Fryou, Gabriel Beadle, Kevin Voisin, Glenn Hidalgo, Ken Singleton and Patrick Hebert.
The second amendment would have changed the pay of council members: Single-district members would have an increase from $450 to $850 per month; at-large council members, of which there are three, would have an increase from $800 to $1,200 per month. In addition, the proposed ordinance states that, “Additional compensation to receive benefits for full-time employees may be offered.” Those may include insurance or other benefits.
Under income tax law, political office holders are considered full-time employees.
Rogers and Ina motioned for approval.
“I think this is overreaching,” Councilman Hebert said. “I’m going to serve as a part-time councilman and get full-time benefits, that’s like me hiring a part-time employee and pay all his benefits. I don’t do that in my own business…I’m really against that wholeheartedly.”
The amendment failed by the same number of votes by the same members as the president’s salary proposal.