Let The Public Vote on Council Confirmation Power

By Christopher Tidmore
Contributing Columnist

Mayor LaToya Cantrell vetoed an ordinance last week which would give the New Orleans City Council the same confirmation authority of executive branch officials as the Louisiana Legislature holds over the governor or the United States Senate over the president. Now, it is up to the absent councilmembers to override her veto.

The Council had voted 4-1 on Tuesday, April 19, to put on the ballot a charter amendment that would give the City Council confirmation power over department chiefs appointed by the mayor.

“This city has not been run well in a long, long time,” Morrell said at the time. “We’ve allowed mayors for 300 years – 300 years – to pick all of their people without any oversight.”

Helena Moreno co-sponsored the ordinance calling for the referendum, and they also won the support of Joe Giarrusso III and Lesli Harris. Cantrell ally Eugene Green opposed. Interestingly, both Oliver Thomas and Freddie King III were both out of town at the time of the ordinance vote, and it will be up to them as to whether the veto can be overturned.

King, who previously voted for the council’s measure in a committee meeting, could prove the key swing vote in overriding the veto. The District C councilman, in particular, has shown a willingness to oppose the administration, siding with Morrell on a charter amendment to set the contract terms for the superintendent of NOPD on a three-year renewable term in office, a tenure as police chief which would run from one administration into the next – and a concept heavily opposed by Cantrell. Morrell has also supported state legislation to give the City Council authority over the Sewerage and Water Board, an idea ardently opposed by the current mayor, but with which Oliver Thomas has expressed sympathy in the past. In other words, the two absent councilmen might be each willing to defy the administration, though the District E rep told the daily paper that he is still “considering his position.” Nevertheless, our editors believe both councilmen should vote to override – and give the electorate the final say on this matter.

In her veto letter almost one week later, Cantrell called the Morrell’s and Moreno’s ballot measure “both duplicative and duplicitous,” noting that the charter already allows the council to remove unclassified employees for cause. “This ordinance is a power grab for control, and a bad-faith attempt to hobble the authority of the duly-elected executive,” Cantrell wrote.

However, this logic is akin to stating the United States Senate can impeach members of the Cabinet, the federal legislative branch should have no authority to approve the appointees of the president. Such an idea would end gridlock, and bring both parties into opposition of any president who would rob the legislative branch of those constitutional prerogatives.

Confirmation of senior officials is key to the oversight responsibility which the founders of our Republic believed key to avoiding tyranny. Elections were not enough, as many democracies had failed throughout history. “Checks and balances” between the branches of government, “jealous to guard their prerogatives” would be the defense of liberty, as the Federalist Papers put it.

The mayor labeled the ordinance as a naked power grab, yet Cantrell proclaimed that she would “gladly embrace and support a more expansive, deliberate process” to pursue charter amendments, possibly under the auspice of a charter commission. Placing the measure on the ballot after just two debates in a committee and a full council meeting is “dangerous,” she said, adding that “the Council’s approach could produce unintended consequences by taking an ordinance-by-ordinance, piecemeal approach to re-evaluating the charter.”

Her reasoning is equivalent to arguing that the Congress cannot amend the U.S. Constitution without holding another constitutional convention. Understandably, Mayor Cantrell wishes to jealously guard her unilateral ability to hire and fire the 14 department heads of city government, but she should not stand in the way of the voters giving the New Orleans City Council the same authority possessed by every other parliament in the English-speaking world. Since she already has chosen to use her veto stamp, the absent councilmen should vote to override – in order to give the local electorate a choice. Let the debate happen before the citizenry of New Orleans, and let the public amend their city’s constitution if they so choose.

This article originally published in the May 2, 2022 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.