News -> INDReporter THU, SEP 29 11:35AM by Walter Pierce

Theriot submits RedFlex ordinance

The Lafayette City-Parish Council on Tuesday will consider an introductory ordinance that would require future extensions of Consolidated Government’s contract with Redflex be submitted to the council for approval. The ordinance was submitted by Distict 9 Councilman William Theriot, who during a wrap-up session for the 2011-2012 budget questioned City-Parish President Joey Durel’s exercise of a clause in the original four-year contract allowing for one-year extensions of the contract.

RedFlex_camera
                                                               Photo Illustration

The contract with Redflex, which operates the traffic signal cameras and speed vans on city streets, was signed in 2007 and was set to expire in June of this year. But last spring the Durel administration activated a one-year extension of the contract. City-Parish attorney Mike Hebert, upon Theriot’s urging, later released an opinion essentially clearing Durel and future city-parish presidents to exercise the one-year extension clause. Hebert’s opinion hinged in part on whether the RedFlex contract constitutes a “franchise” with LCG. The Lafayette Home Rule Charter stipulates that franchises can only be granted or extended by ordinance, which is a function of the council. 

Prior to Hebert’s opinion siding with Durel, former assistant city attorney Lester Gauthier issued an opinion decreeing the contract extension in violation of the Home Rule Charter, arguing that the contract is indeed a franchise and that such transactions with outside vendors must be signed by the city-parish president, in this case Durel. The administration has acknowledged that an LCG clerk actually signed the extension, not Durel.

The RedFlex contract issue raises some important questions for the council and the administration. If Hebert’s reading of the contract and Home Rule Charter stand, then the original four-year contract with RedFlex is effectively open ended: Durel can presumably renew it again next year and in all future years he’s in office, and his successor can do the same. So is the original four-year contract really a perpetual contract? And, since the original contract was entered into through a resolution and ordinance voted on by a previous council — none of the current CPC members was in office in 2007 — can a previous council tie the current council’s hands and bind it to the contract?

As this newspaper has observed, an arrangement in which contracts activated by council ordinance — a requirement of the Home Rule Charter — can be extended indefinitely by the city-parish president leave such contract renewals vulnerable to cronyism and kick-back schemes. We’re not accusing Durel of that, but the situation is ripe for exploitation by politicians with fewer scruples, and Louisiana has had no small share of unscrupulous politicos.

Theriot’s ordinance is not retroactive — it only applies to the RedFlex contract and if approved would be triggered next year when the end of the one-year extension approaches. If the council approves the ordinance on Tuesday it will go before the council for final approval two weeks later. Durel, as LCG’s chief executive, has veto power over ordinances.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (17)add
...
written by Downtowner , September 29, 2011 - 05:16 pm
Theriot will analyze the ordinance to death, as long as he is in campaign mode to keep his name out there.
...
written by Compassionate One , September 29, 2011 - 05:16 pm
Oh come now, you're not listening to the mayor:

"Redflex is a non-issue"
...
written by Shady , September 29, 2011 - 05:17 pm
I smell kickbacks. But I digress ....

Not only was the extension invalid (clerk signature not President's), it is outsourcing police work and no bite to their bark (who actually pays these fines?)

Additionally, now the budget stipulates the revenue from the program to go ELSEWHERE than it was intended for.

Cronyism. Aye aye, my captain.
...
written by Boudin Boy , September 29, 2011 - 05:50 pm
Mike Hebert is "yes man" for the Durel administration big time because that is where his paycheck comes from and accountability be damned. Gauthier, for all his faults, was being honest and on the money. Why does Durel choose to treat the City/Parish of Lafayette as his personal fiefdom? If Theriot is using this legitimate issue as political fodder, then so be it. Actually, it's a pretty smart idea. Kinda like shooting at the enemy with the ammunition given to you by them. Theriot's opponent in the District 9 race will do only as he is directed by Joey Durel and will pay no heed to the taxpayers of his district. Oh, and all of a sudden, "Redflex is a non-issue." Since when? Since Theriot began to question Durel's more than a little sneaky contract extension, that's when.
...
written by Who Der , September 29, 2011 - 05:58 pm
It is a good thing to see Theriot doing something after four years on council, cuz he mooves quicker. he very smart, just a tad slow but that ok for him.
...
written by Concerned Citizen of Lafayette , September 29, 2011 - 06:44 pm
By introducing this ordinance that will not be retroactive, you are approving what Durel did which was sneaky, underhanded, and unethical. And, if Durel has veto power, it will never pass, so it is besides the point. Durel should be sued over his actions, the scameras (cash registers on a pole) should be taken down, yellow light times should be increased to lower accidents, and everyone who paid a citation from June 1 through now, when the new contract took effect, should be reimbursed their money. If Durel can't balance the budget without Redflex money, then it's time for some belt tightening and budget cuts.....start with Durel and Tony Tramel's paychecks.
...
written by coullion , September 29, 2011 - 08:33 pm
"And, since the original contract was entered into through a resolution and ordinance voted on by a previous council — none of the current CPC members was in office in 2007 — can a previous council tie the current council’s hands and bind it to the contract?" This is irrelevant and yes.
What are we to do change any ordinance a council makes every time there is an election and new people are elected? The council created this ordinance with the stipulation of renewal built in and thats the way it is. I have no problem with Theriot amending the wording, lets see if he vote for his own amendment!
Shady, or anyone else. If you suspect kickbacks or other illegal activity, prove it or prosecute.
Concerned, "sneaky, underhanded, and unethical." Please, the council approved the ordinance and this administration or any administration in the future simply executed the will of the council.
Last thing we need to to is for the police dept. to get additional monies, who do they think they are?
...
written by realitycheck , September 29, 2011 - 11:58 pm
The entire council needs to stand up to Durel and dismantle all of his "mechanisms" to control money in the city. Destroy the General Fund and Redflex and get your own attorney to show that the city attorney is putting you at risk!
...
written by the original northsidian , September 30, 2011 - 12:03 am
coullion, brush ya teeth, then rinse with mouth wash!
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 30, 2011 - 02:11 am
" Durel is a lowlife, aiding his cronys is his priority in life, screwing the tax payer citizens is his pleasure.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 30, 2011 - 02:13 am
The council is stuck fast to joeys teat sac, AS ARE HIS CRONYS ZOOSCHLAG AND THE SURVEYOR..
...
written by Southsider , September 30, 2011 - 02:48 am
Theriot would probably vote NO on his ordinance. I don't think he knows the the YES button is for
...
written by Frankie , September 30, 2011 - 11:54 am
Why wouldn't our mayor want the board to see a redflex contract renewal? What is he hiding? There are a lot of cities out there doing sneaky little things in order to keep their cash cow working. Read about it.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3599.asp
...
written by coullion , September 30, 2011 - 07:08 pm
"Why wouldn't our mayor want the board to see a redflex contract renewal? "
It amazes me the ignorance posted here. Frankie, if by board you mean the council, they can and have read the contract or should have. There is no excuse for any member of the council to pretend that this renewal is surprising, unless they are incompetent.
The obvious jealousy that abounds is becoming comical. Apparently Northsidian Shotgun, original northsidian, etc. aren't (or no longer) getting what they have in the past. What a shame!
...
written by the original northsidian , September 30, 2011 - 07:22 pm
couillion, the only thing we have gotten from politico's on the Northside is the 2 1/2 crooked!! Now speaking of ignorance you are probably at the top of the heap!! And who do you think you are anyway, calling people ignorant if they don't agree with your ass-kissing!!
...
written by Southsider , September 30, 2011 - 09:57 pm
I'd say 'Lafayette North' has 'gotten' it pretty good. Lets see, new four laned concrete roads, a brand new school, new shopping center, cheaper gas....
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , October 01, 2011 - 03:47 am
I'd say Couillion and Southsider are together, cojoined like two dogs in Pickle Park.
And DA Southsider, the city of Lafayette has not provided any of the roads, big box stores, schools nor cheaper gas, the cheapest gas in town is at Sams Warehouse, and that for your info. is in the middle of Suetside, oops excuse moi, Southside. You & Couillion need to disjoin, you'll never get anywhere co-jointed
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