News -> INDReporter TUE, MAR 1 11:32AM by Walter Pierce

Charter commish crawfishes, pinches city autonomy

Backtracking on the path toward separate governments for the city and the parish, the Lafayette Charter Commission Monday night voted to keep Lafayette Consolidated Government intact, but to shift control of city-owned Lafayette Utilities System to council members who only represent city residents, according to The Advocate.

The development, although not final, is a blow to city residents who hoped an autonomous government separate from the parish — effectively a deconsolidation of LCG and a return to pre-1996 governance — would be a result of the commission’s work. Commissioners must conclude their meetings by mid April and make recommendations that will go to a parishwide vote. Just two weeks ago the commission voted to create separate charters for the city and the parish with each having its own council and mayor/president.

The vote to scrap consolidation cut along city-parish lines, with one exception: Commissioner Don Bacque, a city of Lafayette resident, joined the four parish residents to form a simple majority and approve the motion keeping LCG intact; the four remaining city of Lafayette commissioners voted against the motion. But Bacque’s defection to the parish was not unexpected: He has consistently opposed the idea of repealing the home rule charter and returning to separate forms of government in Lafayette Parish.

Reached Tuesday morning, former city-parish councilman and city of Lafayette commissioner Bruce Conque expressed dismay at Monday’s one-80: “It really was a major setback in seeking autonomy for the city of Lafayette,” Conque said. “While last night’s commission action addresses the issue of LUS governance, it does nothing for the city of Lafayette as an entity. The city budget process would continue to be determined by the City-Parish Council including how revenues are expensed; the city’s general fund, its five-year capital improvement program, LUS Fiber and the Lafayette Public Power Authority.”

The motion maintaining consolidated government in the parish is an apparent bow to what’s become known as “the Hefner plan.” Demographer Mike Hefner, who has addressed and advised the commission on a few occasions, has said he’s confident that when the overlapping council and school board districts are redrawn this spring, five city districts wholly within the city can be configured. This, Hefner maintains, would allow for the creation of a city council within the City-Parish Council and would solve the prickly issue of both the Lafayette Public Utility Authority and the full council, which includes councilmen who are not LUS stakeholders, voting on matters pertaining to LUS.

The commission will not meet Monday due to Lundi Gras, but Conque says he will be scrambling to find a way for the city to gain as much self-governance as possible within what appears to be a newly limited scope of the commission.  

“It is my intent to do what is possible to make the best of what is a bad situation,” Conque sayss. “I hope to have some suggestions by the March 14 meeting.”


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (11)add
...
written by Hidden in the pumpkin , March 01, 2011 - 06:30 pm
Suggestion for a new community logo: "Lafayette:great town, mediocre city". Mr Bacque, an otherwise stalwart citizen, has ensured our great town another decade of backwater proventialism.

I don't get it.
...
written by South of I-10 , March 01, 2011 - 06:37 pm
So why is Don Bacque refusing to consider deconsolidation? Why is he on this commission if he is not willing to at least consider all options? Residents of the City of Lafayette are about to get screwed again. There should only be two options, consolidate completely or deconsolidate and give the city back our own government.
...
written by andy hebert , March 01, 2011 - 07:41 pm
"...with one exception: Commissioner Don Bacque, a city of Lafayette resident..."

It is good to know that a majority of city representation”… four remaining city of Lafayette commissioners voted against the motion”, can be outvoted by “… one … city of Lafayette resident...?

Four against the motion, one for, motion carries?

That is why the City of Lafayette should not allow non-City voters to propose, write, or vote on any issue for the City of Lafayette.

Reminds me of how 4 of the 5 City of Lafayette Council members testified in a 1996 court that there was no election to change the City of Lafayette Home Rule Charter.

Can’t wait to see how the election is called and canvassed?

...
written by yesidoknow , March 01, 2011 - 09:24 pm
This is about more than just LUS. There are so many other issues that come before the consolidated council that are shot down by councilmen who reside outside the city. Let us vote on whether we want to split.
...
written by Cajunhiker , March 01, 2011 - 10:37 pm
The parish residents have just as much to complain about as the city residents.

The main argument of the city residents seems to be parish council members exert too much influence over city matters of which the parish councilmen have no vested interest in.

The reverse is just as true.

When parish residents appeal to the City-Parish Council over concerns about uncontrolled subdivision development, drainage issues and road repairs, the CITY councilmen often vote contrary to the wishes of the parish residents and parish councilmen, even though the city councilmen have no vested interest in the particular issue.

Have to agree with South if I-10, either consolidate completely, or deconsolidate.

BTW, how come Andy Hebert wasn't appointed to the commission? Even though he a shoe-in vote for deconsolidation, is there anyone more informed of the history and issues of consolidation than Mr. Hebert?

...
written by jmbo , March 02, 2011 - 01:20 am
Unbelievable that the voters could be denied the opportunity to decide whether they want to deconsolidate or not

- members of the charter commission should do the right thing and allow this option along with any alternative.
...
written by HARDHAT , March 02, 2011 - 02:21 am
Hidden in the pumpkin, "you don't get it ?
Well, lead on Yahoo, cause they're all lining up behind you.
...
written by Southsider , March 02, 2011 - 12:26 pm
ANOTHER perfect example of how consolidated government doesn't work. Mr. Bacque, please explain to me why does mr. theriot, mr. bellard, etc. get to vote on issues for the city of lafayette, but mr keith patin doesn't get to vote on issues pertaining to youngsville and broussard, etc?
...
written by HARDHAT , March 02, 2011 - 01:47 pm
This BS is the councils "KENNY BOWEN'S Camellia Bridge life ambition, someway the once proud birthing of the consolidated government, was found not as self-gratifying as once thought it would be, otherwise Joey and the gang would be pushing instead of pulling, for government to remain thus, somewhere the gang, which consists of the GreenAmbulanceman, the Yellow pages attorney, and the Surveyor with the half bubble off scope on the inside track, have their hand in this "POT.
...
written by Unempirical Observer , March 02, 2011 - 01:59 pm
The City of Lafayette is not simply LUS alone.

We can have an autonomous Lafayette and still have regional coordination through working groups and interagency workings and consolidation of services.

This is a complete disappointment. Horrible news that the Commission is backtracking.

What's the point of having a citycouncil for LUS only, when the mayor has no loyalty or interest in LUS. Been there before done that.
Just a tool to serve others, not serve all mutually.
...
written by Unempirical Observer , March 02, 2011 - 02:05 pm
In reply to Cajunhiker, in actuality, there are some parishwide issues that city council should have an interest in.

Lack of zoning, low quality land use plans for past decades, and lesser development restrictions that allowed an anything goes mentality.
Eventually city growth has had to absorb the traffic impact, disjointed, disorganized commercial and industrial services distribution in all this land use mess that the Parish as a whole consented to for lack of more protective oversight.

In other states, cities can have an "area of influence" beyond their corporate limits and farmland is kept farmland not sprawland, and the counties often have better guidance on land use development.

So again, I'd just say that it's okay for City-Parish Council Members that are majority city to vote on Parish issues because Parishwide issues are not solely exclusive to the unincorporated areas beyond city limits of Lafayette, Carencro, Scott, Duson, Younsgville, Broussard. Those issues affect the greater whole, and CP Council members rep the great whole just like the old Parish Council.

Even De-Consolidation would not give you an "unincorporated council"
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it