St. Tammany charter committee hears broad debate over council size, full‑time model and cost

At a meeting of the St. Tammany Parish Home Rule Charter Committee, Councilman Coogel delivered a presentation urging caution about proposals to shrink the parish council or adopt a smaller, full‑time model similar to New Orleans or Jefferson Parish.

Coogel told the committee that converting to a smaller, full‑time council would raise operating costs substantially and could reduce access for ordinary constituents. "This would cost a lot of money," he said, citing council and staff salary comparisons and budget figures he compiled.

The exchange captured the meeting’s central question: whether a smaller, more professionalized council would improve day‑to‑day responsiveness and governance — or concentrate power, raise taxes and make elected office accessible mainly to wealthy, well‑connected candidates.

Coogel presented figures comparing St. Tammany’s current council budget and staffing with New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. He said the parish council budget is roughly $1.7 million and the parish general fund budget is about $160 million, and that the combined salaries for the 14 part‑time council members and current full‑time staff total about $873,000, excluding retirement and benefits. Using the New Orleans and Jefferson budgets as benchmarks, he estimated that adding roughly 15 professional staff positions and paying a smaller number of full‑time council members at higher salaries could add more than $1.7 million a year in compensation alone; Coogel cautioned these estimates “do not include office space, vehicles, etcetera.”

Committee members and a steady stream of public commenters pushed back, urged more study, or described different priorities. Former parish council member Marino said the final decision should go to voters. "This issue needs to come to the voters and let them decide," Marino said, adding he had not made up his mind but favored public debate and a ballot decision.

Several speakers described trade‑offs other than cost. Dr. Andy Benson and others argued a move to a smaller, full‑time council could make officeholders less representative of working‑class residents and reduce the pool of candidates able to serve because of time and income requirements. Chief Warhorse and other community leaders said the loss of trust reflected in a recent failed tax measure underscored the need for clearer public engagement and better communication about any proposed charter changes.

Members of the committee emphasized that they are still gathering information. Committee Chair Davis reminded the room that presentations from other parishes, a BGR report and outside groups were part of an information‑gathering process. Several committee members said they remain open‑minded but repeatedly stressed that any change that increased costs without a clear funding plan would meet resistance.

Public speakers urged a range of options: some supported a smaller council with at‑large members, others recommended a city‑manager or professional administrator model to improve efficiency, and multiple speakers asked the committee to consider how any change would affect rural districts, minority representation and reapportionment timing.

No formal charter change was proposed or voted on at the meeting. The committee approved the previous meeting minutes and adjourned; committee members said they will continue collecting data, hear additional presentations and meet again in April (meeting date listed on the agenda as "in April," not specified in the record).

The discussion combined technical comparisons of payroll and budgets with repeated appeals for public transparency and caution: attendees urged the committee to quantify costs, model representation changes, and explain clearly to voters how any proposed change would affect taxes, constituent access and local control.