Lambert-led budget amendment would have killed off Gonzales Ambulance Service

Lambert’s budget amendment would have reduced Fire Department salaries by $494,381.96

Monday’s Gonzales City Council meeting agenda included no controversial agenda item, at least that’s how it appeared on paper.  But the council (a three, maybe a four-member majority) is unhappy about the General Fund Budget that they themselves unanimously adopted on May 26.  Giving voice to their frustration was the loudest voice among them as Terri Lambert took her turn verbally jousting with Mayor Tim Riley’s Chief of Staff.

At the end of the festivities, the Finance Report had just been given with only adjournment to go, Lambert demanded to know why a 19-page “amendment” to Mayor Riley’s budget had not gone into full effect.  The purported amendment itemized 169 positions in 13 separate departments, each with corresponding salary amounts coming to an unspecified sum which, the written amendment boasted, “Reduces the Budgeted Salaries By: $680,281.12” had it actually amended those department salaries.

It did not, according to Chief of Staff Wade Petite who said that Gonzales Fire Department would have seen its salaries reduced by $494,381.96.

NOTE: The council approved the 2025-2026 General Fund Budget with a similar amendment that did not go into effect either.  Maybe experience is not a good teacher with this group.

“In practical terms, losing half-a-million dollars from Fire Department salaries would mean the end of our ambulance service because we would not be able to pay our paramedics,” he said, relating “a conversation with the Fire Chief.  I’ve seen the email thread alerting Councilwoman Lambert beginning in late April.”

An email to Terri Lambert advised that the budget amendment “would be catastrophic for the fire department’s operation.”  The councilwoman’s response demonstrated no concern at all.

Curiously, if the council amendment would have become law, the Administration Salary line item would have added $166,797.68 to its budgeted amount; from $630,000 to $796,797.68.  It is abundantly clear, given Lambert’s tirade aimed at Petite on Monday (with an assist by Cynthia Gray James and Kirk Boudreaux), that he is a (probably “the”) target of the council’s budgetary machinations.

Petite’s position was not included among the 169 listed in the amendment.

Several positions were misplaced under departments from which the respective position salary is not paid.  There is no way to perform an apples -to-apples comparison of Mayor Riley’s proposed/adopted budget with the council’s itemization of salaries because of it.  City Clerk Anthony Keller tried to provide some context…

Other noteworthy changes to departmental budgets:

1. Police Department would have seen a $22,942.64 increase
2. General Government – $119,770.22 increase
3. Utilities (Water/Gas/Wastewater) – $72,767.12 increase
4. Recreation would have seen a $109,046.65 decrease

Unlike high school, the authors were not required to show their work which simply does not add up.  The administration is unworried.

“As I explained Monday, the budget can only be amended by specifying which line-item amount is being changed with the replacement figure provided,” Petite said.  “In fact, the council did it correctly by reducing three other line items, reducing Community Development’s amount from $100,000 to $50,000, the annual appropriation for Jambalaya Festival Association from $50,000 to $30,000 and the Senior Citizen Recreation line-item from $12,000 to $5,000.”

Petite tried to invoke Louisiana’s Local Budget Act (LA R.S. 39:1301-1315) during the discussion, but no one was in the mood to hear it.  He pointed to Section 1305 which reads that the “Chief Executive…shall prepare the proposed budget” for Lawrason Act municipalities like the City of Gonzales, i.e. the legislative body has no budget proposing authority.

“When it comes to expenditures, Section 1305(2)(a) is crystal clear.  ‘The budget document…shall include…recommended expenditures itemized by agency, department, function, and character,” Petite asserted.  “Nothing in the Budget Act allows for municipal salaries to be itemized by individual positions.”

Terri Lambert, Kirk Boudreaux and Cynthia Gray James were unreceptive to the assertion but offered no counterargument.  Instead, the Lambert v. Petite discourse centered around a recently received Attorney General’s Opinion.

AG’s Opinion vindicates Mayor Riley and his Chief of Staff | Pelican Post – Online Newspaper

Page 4 of the four-page opinion qualified the AG’s conclusions:

Question: Does the mayor of Gonzales have the authority, under the powers granted by the Lawrason Act, to create the position of “Chief of Staff” and appoint/hire an individual to fill that role without city council approval?

Answer: Yes.  The mayor of Gonzales, pursuant to his authority under La. R.S. 33:321, et seq (and) may create and appoint a person to the position of “Chief of Staff.”

And:

Question #2: Is Gonzales City Code Ordinance Section 2-159 an infringement on the mayor’s power to delegate performance of administrative duties to municipal officers and employees as he deems necessary and advisable in accordance with La. R. S. 33:404(A)(2)?

Answer #2: Yes.  Gonzales City Code Section 2-159 is unenforceable to the extent it operates to restrict the mayor’s authority to delegate powers in accordance with La. R.S. 33:404(A)(2).

The board may adopt policies and procedures but may not make individual decisions or usurp the mayor’s executive functions.  Therefore, to the extent that Section 2-159 requires city council approval for hiring and firing non-municipal officer personnel, such as a Chief of Staff, it constitutes an improper encroachment on his executive authority.

NOTE: The opinion concerned mayoral authority aside from budgetary matters and this AG’s verbiage is akin to dicta in a court opinion.  The operative language upon which Terri Lambert based her argument that the council has authority to set individual salaries is, it seems, found in the last paragraph of the opinion.

Finally, we note that the mayor does not have independent authority to amend or reallocate items within the city’s adopted budget for allocation of funds to compensate the Chief of Staff.  Pursuant to La. R.S. 33:496 (in the Lawrason Act) and 39:1305 (Local Budget Act), the municipal governing authority (i.e. the city council) is responsible for adopting the annual operating budget and making any amendments thereto.  The mayor, however, has discretion in administering funds within the constraints of that budget.  If the adopted budget includes sufficient funds within an appropriate category (e.g. executive salaries, administrative personnel, or mayor’s office discretionary funds) the mayor may utilize those funds to pay the salary of a Chief of Staff.  Nevertheless, the creation of a new salary line item or significant reallocation of existing funds not contemplated in the adopted budget would require city council approval through a budget amendment.

“Just like the 2025-2026 budget, no new salary line item or reallocation of existing funds occurred in our current budget,” Wade Petite stated.  “I asked Councilwoman Lambert to clarify which clause in the AG’s opinion supported her position that the council is vested with this authority.  That ended the discussion because no such support can be found in that opinion.”

The administration has moved on to other business.  It remains to be seen if the council has done the same.

 

Comments

comments