News -> Walter Pierce RE:

Selling Self-Determination

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
By Walter Pierce

Supporters of charter repeal are gearing up for the October vote.

Bruce Conque is making the rounds of Lafayette Parish with a PowerPoint presentation about Lafayette Consolidated Government and the wisdom in repealing LCG’s Home Rule Charter and returning to separate charters for the city and parish. He’s offering the presentation for a wide array of interests — Rotary and Kiwanis clubs, city councils, et cetera. He’s done several thus far and plans to continue as long as someone is willing to listen. The former city-parish councilman and member of the Lafayette Charter Commission was instrumental in steering the panel toward its recommendation a few months ago that parish voters be given the choice about whether to maintain the status quo or grant Lafayette the autonomy and self-determination it deserves. That Lafayette has to go hat in hand to the rest of the parish and ask for emancipation remains lodged in my craw.

Bruce has a foil in his campaign to win over voters. Don Bacqué, one of Conque’s fellow charter commissioners who opposes repeal, is also making a pitch to civic groups along the lines of if it ain’t broke don’t fix it and two governments cost too much. Conque is highlighting the patent inequity of the city of Lafayette being the only municipality in the parish that is governed in part by non-residents — representation without taxation, if you will.

Some worry that Conque is beginning this pro-repeal tour too soon. But the election is just three and a half months away. Moreover, Bruce and many who favor repealing the charter realize this will be a tough sell in Lafayette Parish.

The Oct. 22 ballot will be a big one in Lafayette Parish: governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, insurance and ag commissioner, a seat on the state school board, City-Parish Council, parish-president, assessor, clerk of court and sheriff — assuming incumbents in those posts have competitors. But the proponents of Lafayette autonomy worry, above all, about one ballot item derailing the city’s bid to regain its independence: the school board property tax proposition.

The concern is that the tax prop — a withering increase if you’re of modest means — will be down at the bottom of a very busy ballot alongside the proposition that the Home Rule Charter be repealed. The school board tax looks to be a goner at this point, and if it galvanizes enough angry voters itching to press “no,” the charter proposition could become collateral damage.

As a result, some within the mover-shaker circles in the city of Lafayette who favor what is essentially deconsolidation (of a government that was never really consolidated) have begun a discussion about marshalling some resources to mount a public-awareness campaign: “Press Yes for Progress.” OK, I just made that up, but it’s not bad — better than “Dump the Chumps,” which is what this is really about for many city folk concerned about the possibility of a braying, regressive, vote-no-on-everything element from outside the city — especially, Gosh forbid, teabaggers — becoming a majority on the council and putting the kibosh to some of our more progressive impulses. The horse farm purchase and funding the Acadiana Center for the Arts come immediately to mind as examples.

Even if the school board tax prop weren’t on the ballot, repealing the charter will be a tough sell. Residents in the smaller towns have nothing to neither gain nor lose by repealing the charter, and unincorporated Lafayette Parish will remain a resource-deprived stepchild no matter what. Only the city of Lafayette would benefit, so from a sales perspective, supporters of repeal will need to get a solid majority of the city, which is only about 54 percent of parish, to press yes on Oct. 22 when the inherent unfairness of consolidation from a city perspective will be wagging its tail feathers: Residents in the smaller Lafayette Parish cities, which opted out of consolidation and are fully autonomous, will get a say in whether the city of Lafayette can have the same autonomy as them. 

Yes, I know, a city majority voted for consolidation in 1992. We made our bed and now we’re lying in it. But it’s time to at least change the sheets.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (27)add
...
written by yesidoknow , July 13, 2011 - 01:32 pm
A YES vote means the city of Lafayette gets what all these small towns within the parish get - autonomy and self-determination.
...
written by barb , July 13, 2011 - 05:54 pm
A yes vote will only help Lafayette. But it will hurt all the smaller cities and the unicorporated area. The towns will not have a parish president that also happens to be the mayor of Lafayette to make deals with. Once this mayor doesn't need their votes to get re-elected he will have no reason to sell them services for bargain prices, Like animal control, use of heavy equipment, city parish employee labor, water, paying more than Lafayette's fair share on draiinage and road projects. This would be a dream job for the new Lafayette mayor, but the small town mayors will have to do their jobs without help from big brother who won't need their support come election time. Remember Bruce abandent his district for a gravy job. If this passes he will just move out of state when it all falls apart.
...
written by Don Bacque , July 13, 2011 - 05:58 pm
Lafayette already has "self determination". Last I counted there are 9 council members, and 5 represent a majority of city residents. Those 5 are a majority and can determine Lafayette's destiny. Self determination is a specious issue; what is the real reason people are pushing for de-consolidation. Investigate that.
...
written by ben , July 13, 2011 - 06:32 pm
Don, I agree. If this passes after Joey is turmed, he can run for Mayor of Lafayette. All this for one mans ego.
...
written by Politico , July 13, 2011 - 09:07 pm
Durel has stated publicly on many occasions that he will Not run for mayor. The names most oftened mentioned are Dee Stanley, Don Bertrand and Bruce Conque.
The "real reason" for the debate on deconsolidation revolves around LUS. Right after the critical vote to increase rates, the committee for deconsolidation(not the commission) met and voted unanimously to deconsolidate at the urging of Greg Davis.
I would like to hear what Bacque thinks the real reason is. Don, Please elaborate!
...
written by RCajunrunner , July 13, 2011 - 09:12 pm
"regressive, vote-no-on-everything element from outside the city — especially, Gosh forbid, teabaggers — becoming a majority on the council and putting the kibosh to some of our more progressive impulses. The horse farm purchase and funding the Acadiana Center for the Arts come immediately to mind as examples."

I know, right? God forbid those public tax dollars are spent on REAL government responsibilities, like roads, drainage and police.


...
written by wow , July 14, 2011 - 02:24 am
Walter I saw you on tv last night. Keep up the good work. Glen is just one of Joeys buddys trying to scare you. Start puting pictures of his friends in your paper when they do somthing. Rob got a D W I and no one made a big deal.
...
written by ben , July 14, 2011 - 02:34 am
Politco, Durel also stated that you don't understand and its OK to deceive the federal Government. Are you still buying in to what Durel says? Its time for new blood. We can't take 4 more years of this guy. Even if I worked for him I won't vote for him.
...
written by Andy Hebert , July 14, 2011 - 10:48 am
It’s in “THE CHARTER”.

“ARTICLE II. CITY-PARISH COUNCIL
Section 2-02. Reapportionment.
…the council by ordinance shall, if necessary, alter, change or rearrange council district boundaries so as to provide for population equality among the districts…

“to provide for population equality among the districts”.

Base on the reapportionment ordinance, it appears that the COUNCIL applies “population equality among districts” to PARISH population representation and NOT CITY population representation.

I was taught our country was founded on the principal of population“taxation with equal representation".

...
written by Andy Hebert , July 14, 2011 - 11:01 am
MISLEADING:
“Yes, I know, a city majority voted for consolidation in 1992.”

CORRECT:
“Yes, I know, a majority of Parish voters living in the city voted for consolidation in 1992 Parish held election.”

The registered voters of the City of Lafayette never had any City election to “adopt, amend, or REPEAL” the City of Lafayette Home Rule Charter written and adopted by only CITY of Lafayette Registered voters.

...
written by Don Bacque , July 14, 2011 - 05:22 pm
Again the LUS argument is specious, as we could have solved it easily without adding another government and its attendent bureauocracy, that could cost the taxpayers of the parish, that's all of us, as much as $2,000,000 per year. Unfortunately the advocates of de-consolidation chose not to let us take that path, or to even let you, the voting public, decide if you wanted to maintain one government, but solve the obvious problem issues in the existing charter. Bruce was the leader of the de-consolidation forces because he does want to run for mayor; but obviously does not want to run Parish wide. None of us that wanted to continue consolidation had a personal agenda. To me that should speak volumes.
...
written by Dagnabbit Jones , July 14, 2011 - 05:27 pm
I would rather incorporate the remaining parish into Lafayette and complete the consolidation.
...
written by the original northsidian , July 14, 2011 - 11:33 pm
If the vote to deconsolidate passes could Joey Durel run for Mayor of Lafayette or would term limits still apply?
...
written by Don Bacque , July 15, 2011 - 06:15 pm
Joey could run for Mayor of Lafayette, and could serve 3 more terms.
...
written by Bruce Conque , July 15, 2011 - 07:50 pm
Indeed, I do have a personal agenda: autonomy and self determination for the City of Lafayette. Nothing more...nothing less.
...
written by Bruce Conque , July 15, 2011 - 08:04 pm
Additional info: Mine was a single vote. 6 of 9 Lafayette Charter Commissioners voted for the recommendation. 2 of the 6 were representing the unincorporated portion of Lafayette Parish.
...
written by Middle of the Road , July 16, 2011 - 01:33 am
I don't agree with Bruce Conque on everything, but I do agree with him on this. "Taxation without representation." Rather rurual or Youngsville, most people understand this.
...
written by Middle of the Road , July 16, 2011 - 01:34 am
"Taxation without representation." That's what it's all about.
...
written by Southsider , July 18, 2011 - 11:17 pm
IF, and thats a big IF, consolidation is working, why doesn't the surrounding town opt-in to it? Why were they allowed to NOT opt-in? Don? would love to hear the answers...
...
written by Bruce Conque , July 19, 2011 - 08:35 am
In 1990, then state representative Don Bacque co-authored Louisiana Legislative Act 187 which created the Lafayette City-Parish Charter Commission. It was very specific as to the creation of a "unified city-parish government...: Such government shall not include the government of any other municipality in Lafayette Parish other than the City of Lafayette."
...
written by Soop. , July 19, 2011 - 07:02 pm
To Don Bacque -- yes there are still a majority of Lafayette city residents vs. the rest of the parish. But if trends hold, that will not be the case in just 10 years. Assume we don't deconsolidate now -- how would we ever deconsolidate once the city is not a majority? And if that occurred, would the City not just be a slave to the Parish's wishes?

The fact that you can't see that has me wondering why in the world you ever represented us in the Legislature or were even selected for the Commission.

All the best,

Soop
...
written by Southsider , July 19, 2011 - 07:03 pm
Thanks for the answer Bruce. So, with the above comment, its seems as though the citizens of the city of Lafayette were duped into thinking that ALL municipalities would be involved into 'consolidation'. Thats what i voted on! So, now that THATS cleared up, where does the Lafayette Chamber stand on this issue, since they too were very vocal in pushing forth the consolidation. Nary a peep from them.....
...
written by ben , July 20, 2011 - 01:57 pm
Thanks to all for sharing your oppinions. It sounds like Don is right. Bruce if you want Lafayette as a city by itself. We will have to find a better plan then this one. For now I will vote with Don.
...
written by say no to joey , July 20, 2011 - 05:49 pm
Alot of these problems would be solved with a better leader. Just say NO to Joey
...
written by Soop. , July 20, 2011 - 06:45 pm
For fans of the current system, how about this:

We as a parish vote on one of two options: either (1) Everyone truly consolidates or (2) everyone deconsolidates.

All the best,

Soop
...
written by Andy Hebert , July 20, 2011 - 08:55 pm
written by Southsider , July 19, 2011 - 02:03 pm
Thanks for the answer Bruce.
…where does the Lafayette Chamber stand on this issue…


Does this help?

From the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce web site: http://lafchamber.org/StaffDirectory

“Staff Directory
The Greater Lafayette Chamber professional staff is at your service, always ready to answer any questions you may have regarding Chamber activities, committees and special events. You can contact any staff member …”

“Bruce Conque
VP of Marketing & Governmental Relations”

...
written by Southsider , July 21, 2011 - 09:06 pm
Thanks Andy...but the LCC still hasn't issued a formal or even semi-formal stance on it.
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 
Advertisement

Read the Flipping Paper!

Click Here for the Entire Print Version of
IND Monthly
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it