Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to place proposed term-limits settlement on next agenda after executive session; vote 8-1
Summary
After an executive session on litigation over parish term limits, the council voted 8-1 to place a tentative settlement on the next meeting agenda so the public can weigh in. The draft settlement would resubmit split propositions and set a four-term limit effective retroactively from Jan. 2016 if later approved by voters.
Tangipahoa Parish legal counsel briefed the council in executive session on July 28 about pending litigation challenging the parish's term-limits charter amendment, which plaintiffs argue combined two propositions into one ballot question in violation of state law.
The counsel described a tentative settlement the parish negotiated to avoid prolonged litigation. Under the proposed settlement the parish would put the matter back before voters with separate propositions (splitting the prior combined question) and adopt a four-term limit (instead of three) with the transition dated back to Jan. 2016. According to counsel, that retroactive start date would limit any net additional terms for current officeholders compared with the present charter while resolving the legal challenge; counsel said the alternative could be losing term limits entirely if the lawsuit succeeds.
After discussion the council voted to place the settlement on the next meeting agenda for public discussion and input; the council did not approve the settlement itself at the July 28 meeting. The motion to place the settlement on the next agenda passed by roll call 8-1. Council members were advised that final action to send a proposition to the voters would later require seven votes under the charter.
Parish counsel emphasized the advantages of the settlement: preserving term limits in some form, reducing litigation costs and allowing voters another chance to decide with separate propositions. Council members asked procedural questions about thresholds and future voting requirements before agreeing to place the settlement on the agenda.
The council's decision was to bring the proposed settlement to a public meeting for comment; a final vote to approve any settlement terms or any ballot language would occur at a later meeting and would require the charter's seven-vote threshold to send a proposition to the voters.
