It’s not Bossier City Attorney Charles Jacobs’ world, and Bossier Citians shouldn’t have to live in it any longer.
But Jacobs seems to think it is, from his actions and information revealed at the Aug. 29 meeting of the City Council. Discussion of a certified petition that under the city charter mandates that the City Council put its contents on the ballot, as it did not pass this into an ordinance that amends the charter within 30 days of certification on Jul. 10, within 120 days of receipt or Nov. 7, precipitated these revelations.
The existence of that petition spawned an attempt by the set of councilors who during the 30-day window opposed bringing its contents into the charter by a Council vote – Republicans David Montgomery, Jeff Free, and Vince Maggio plus Democrat Bubba Williams and no party Jeff Darby – to support a charter review commission that could address term limits. The petition calls for a lifetime three-term limit for city elected officials, retroactively. A commission could ask voters to approve the same, but much more likely any term limits proposal from it would grandfather in existing councilors, as the petition language would disallow all but Maggio from running for reelection.
Thus, the Council sifted through, first, establishing the commission, then putting the petition language on the Nov. 18 statewide general election runoff ballot. But before any of this, Jacobs wielded advice on the petition.
He continued to stress the argument that the petition was flawed because its format didn’t record directly a signatory’s year of birth, which the law asks for as part of the verification process by a registrar of voters for certification purposes although that information indirectly appeared since signatories included the unique voter identification numbers. But as the Council’s request, which he had urged, to have the state Attorney General’s office render an opinion was rebuffed with the AG citing the office’s statutory representation of registrars as creating a conflict, he then advocated having the Council resolve to have the registrar review the certification with the potential to decertify the petition.
Of course, statute contains no such avenue for decertification, in fact not even allowing for a concept of that. And even if the Council chose to do this, Bossier Parish Registrar of Voters Stephanie Agee could refuse to do so, or even ignore the request, and with impunity relative to the city since budgetary control over her office rests with the parish.
The Council didn’t get the chance. As this was a last-minute item for agenda inclusion, it needed Council unanimity for bringing up just as in the case of the charter amendment-by-ordinance at the month’s start. Not in their house, said the Council’s two proponents of putting the matter before the people Republicans Chris Smith and Brian Hammons, voting against and delaying the matter at least until next meeting.
But that Jacobs even recommended this exemplified again his consistent two-faced, if not hypocritical, freelancing beyond the scope and duties, if not the law in its various instrumentations, of his office. Consider that he presents himself as a stickler for statute and legal prudence by questioning the petition’s validity using the law, yet when the charter mandates a Council action suddenly he feels perfectly free to ignore the law, putting the city at legal risk, and wants to invent an extralegal process that has no basis in the law to justify that. He can’t have it both ways.
Later, the Council addressed the commission resolution, whereupon Hammons announced that about a year-and-a-half ago he and Smith had proposed an agenda item to create a commission that was proposed then removed from an agenda, and wondered why now this was so important. Darby queried Clerk Phyllis McGraw about the incident, and she replied Jacobs had insisted on its removal, for the reason she said was recorded in e-mail but that she recalled was “a question whether or not [sic] there was enough support for it at that time.”
Nowhere does the Charter give the city attorney the power to decide whether items could grace agendas based upon his assessment of whether these command majority support. Oddly, no councilor or, at the comment period for the item, audience member asked Jacobs, present throughout the exchange and after, about the incident and on what authority he utilized unilaterally to quash a councilor’s request to put something on the agenda.
The item eventually passed over Hammons’ negative vote and the absence of Montgomery, who now has missed three out of the last eight regular council meeting and some controversial votes. Later, the four present councilors who previously voted down bringing up amending the charter voted against putting the petition language on the November ballot, setting up the city for litigation, as Jacobs admitted under questioning.
Jacobs is not a law unto himself, arrogating powers not his while subverting the legal exercise of powers granted elected officials. Further, he is sworn to follow the law rather than choose which of its parts suit him and then bend, twist, and, if necessary, fabricate it to follow a preferred political agenda. He works for the people, not for himself and his political allies.
The people deserve a city attorney they can trust to work on their behalf and not for a select few. Jacobs’ pattern of behavior as city attorney, which includes misleading legal advice and uttering public falsehoods (as well as threatening personally members of the public during Council meetings), disqualifies him from holding that office which he has brought into disrepute. Republican Mayor Tommy Chandler, who submitted the proposed ordinance to set up the vote and who appointed Jacobs, has had political reasons for firing Jacobs based upon his obstruction of Chandler’s wishes. Now he has compelling ethical reasons to can Jacobs, and must do so to immediate effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment