Pickett vetoes mayoral pay cut ordinance

After saying repeatedly that his salary of $3,000 a month should not be cut in half in January because “we have to respect democracy,” Mayor Kenneth Pickett overruled a majority vote of the Mansura Town Council by vetoing the measure at the June 11 council meeting.

Last month Councilwoman Judy James introduced the ordinance to reduce the mayor’s monthly pay from $3,000 to $1,500 and to raise aldermen’s pay from $200 a month to $300, effective in January when the next four-year terms for town officials begin.

The council is expected to attempt to override that veto at the July 9 meeting.

An attorney with the Louisiana Municipal Association told the newspaper after the meeting that the ordinance reducing the mayor’s salary will have to be approved before qualifying for the office opens July 18 or it will be “frozen” for at least another four years. There were efforts underway after the meeting to obtain an Attorney General’s Opinion and other guidance as to whether Pickett’s veto was proper and legally binding.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing on the ordinance was held at 5:30 p.m. on June 11, prior to the regular council meeting that began promptly at 6 p.m.

Pickett opened the hearing by saying, “News flash. The man with the gavel is in charge.”

Most of the public hearing’s 30 minutes was consumed by comments from Pickett, Councilwoman Lucille Hayes and former councilman/police chief Phillip Lucas, all in support of retaining the $36,000 annual salary for the mayor of the small town of about 1,500 people.

Rodney Barnett, who was ejected from last month’s meeting after expressing support for the introduction of the ordinance to reduce the mayoral salary, was the first to speak at the hearing.

Barnett emphasized the issue is not about Pickett or his job performance, but about the salary for the town’s mayor being “so far above what the town is able to afford.”

He said the council members’ primary responsibility “is to take care of the finances of the town.” Paying the mayor so much more than other municipalities of its size, or even larger, “is irresponsible,” he added.

Pickett countered by noting that “we have to respect democracy.” He said the elected council members set his salary at $3,000 a month in 2011 and the people re-elected him in 2014 knowing his salary.

Pickett has indicated his re-election was a public affirmation of the salary.

‘NOT ABOUT YOU’

“This is not about you,” Barnett said. “The Town Council eight years ago put the town in this situation.”

Barnett said it was a mistake at the time the salary was raised and that mistake needs to be corrected by this council.

The two alderwomen who voted against James’ motion, Hayes and Judy Bazert, were on the council in 2011.

Hayes said she may have been the one to propose raising the salary in 2011.

Pickett became the first African-American to be elected mayor of an Avoyelles Parish municipality in 2006. He was re-elected in 2010, with his second term beginning in January 2011.

Al Lemoine spoke in favor of the pay reduction, noting that elected officials’ pay used to be minimal because people ran for office “to give back to the community” and to serve the public.

“We have lost sight about giving back because we have such a good life,” Lemoine added.

Pickett noted he served 10 years in the U.S. Army and has been “giving back” to the community for most of his adult life. He accused Lemoine of questioning his patriotism.

Lemoine corrected that misperception by stating he was not questioning Pickett’s patriotism, but was only making the point that elected officials need to “learn to serve for a minimum amount of money, if for any money at all.”

Lucas defended Pickett and asked “what did he do wrong” to deserve a pay cut. He also questioned why this move is being taken now, just before the elections.

State law prohibits an elected official’s pay from being reduced during his term in office, so any pay reduction would have to take effect at the beginning of a new term.

There was some discussion about proposing a pay reduction ordinance prior to the 2014 mayoral election. There were three obvious votes against the measure, so it was not presented. However, mayoral candidate Julia Boston did state during that campaign that she would donate most of her monthly salary back to the town if she were elected.

James noted last month that qualifying for the November elections is in July and potential candidates should know what the monthly pay for a position is before they qualify to run for the office.

Pickett said the media has tried to make the issue “about population,” but he said it should be about “growth and development.”

‘GIVE GOD THE GLORY’

He said the city has a $1.7 million surplus, which is more than at any other time in its history.

“But don’t give me the credit,” Pickett said. “Give God the glory because He put me in this position.”

He also told the small audience that “God told me I will be the mayor” after the next election.

He closed the public hearing by saying someone promising to serve as mayor for less than the current salary is not a mark in favor of that candidate but “an act of desperation” on their part.

He then said, “It’s 6 o’clock. Time for our regular meeting,” and slammed his gavel to adjourn the public hearing.

During discussion in the regular meeting, Bazert noted cities like Marksville and Bunkie pay their mayors less than Mansura does, but have a city manager or superintendent who does the job
Pickett does for the town.

Councilman Gaon Escude pointed out those two municipalities are much bigger than Mansura.

That gave Pickett the open door to repeat his position that the issue “is about growth and development, not population.”

THE VETO

James, Escude and Allison Ferguson voted in favor of the ordinance. Hayes and Bazert voted “No.”

Pickett then opened a manila envelope and read state laws concerning his authority to veto a council-approved ordinance.

In making his veto, he again said “we must learn to respect democracy.”

He referenced his re-election as mayor at the current salary and made a comment equating support for the pay reduction to being “Communist” and that he had “no choice but to veto this ordinance.”

Town Attorney Alissa Piazza-Tassin was asked to review the state laws on vetoes and whether it would require the super-majority of four votes or a simple majority of three.

The LMA attorney confirmed to this newspaper that it takes a 4-1 vote of a 5-member council to override a mayoral veto.

Tassin was also asked to determine if Pickett might be legally barred from taking official action, such as a veto, on the measure since he has a direct financial interest in the outcome of that issue.

Another question was whether the veto aborts the Town Council’s obligations under the Lawrason Act for municipalities to establish the pay for elected officials.

That act states the council cannot reduce the pay of an elected official during his term in office, but it does have authority to reduce those salaries at the beginning of a new term.