At its regular meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 8, the Shreveport City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a (Shreveport) Metropolitan Planning Commission.

This ordinance incorporated the provisions of what was referred to as Act 294, which was House Bill 697 sponsored by Rep. Danny McCormick.

This legislation is popularly known as HB 697 because it was introduced in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Once this act was signed by Gov. John Bel Edwards, it officially became Act 294 of the 2020 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature.

The ordinance repealed the prior ordinances establishing the Shreveport-Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission.

At the council's work session on Jan. 24, MPC Executive Director Alan Clarke and the MPC's attorney addressed the council.

Clarke objected to the proposed ordinance, incorporating the issues raised by the MPC attorney which questioned among other matters the constitutionality of HB 697. Clarke also objected to language in the proposed ordinance removing the powers for planning outside the city limits.

Clarke requested a delay in enactment of this ordinance, which was on the regular Jan. 25 council agenda for a first reading.

Clarke again appeared before the council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 8. He again requested a vote delay, citing the legal issues previously raised plus the removal of planning authority outside the Shreveport city limits.

Several members of the council had questions on the ordinance. City Attorney Ron Lattier who called to the mike Assistant City Attorney Danielle Brown, the deputy chief of litigation, to answer them.

Brown was asked many specific questions, and her responses below can be reviewed on council meeting video on Mayor Adrian Perkins’ FB page.

Brown repeatedly emphasized that the ordinance was intended to bring the city "in line with law on the books." She emphasized that if the council did not adopt the ordinance, then the city would not be in compliance with current law. She stated that "any step that does not move us into compliance with the law could be problematic in the future."

Brown did not address Clarke's opposition to the removal of planning authority outside the Shreveport city limits, or even why that language was necessary since the proposed ordinance would only be effective within the city limits.

She did mention that this author has pending litigation against the city and the MPC regarding the composition of the MPC board that was filed on Jan. 18 of this year. (The time delays for filing of responsive pleadings by the city and the MPC have not yet run.)

Brown's comments implied that adoption of the new ordinance was mandatory for the council.

She failed to acknowledge, must less advise, the council that Section 104.4 of HB 697 reads, "The city council may create a commission, to be known as the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission of Caddo Parish." Clearly, this language is discretionary, not mandatory.

Additionally, Brown did not explain why the city had not dealt with the ramifications of HB 697, which became law in June 2020 until after my litigation was filed, even though she disparaged the commission and the MPC for not resolving their differences before the Jan. 1, 2022, effective date of HB 697.

Council members John Nickelson and Grayson Boucher wanted to postpone action on the ordinance. Their motion was defeated 2-5.

The motion to adopt the ordinance was enacted on a 5-2 vote.

Unfortunately, the issue of the new MPC’s limitation on planning was not adequately addressed by Brown or council members.

Additionally, the ordinance was prepared by the city attorney's office without any communication with Alan Clarke. Their offices are on the same floor at Government Plaza.

The actions/inaction of the city attorney's office has raised further questions on the quality of work prepared by that office.

With the recent 13% pay raise that all city attorney employees received, including Lattier himself, the city should be getting top shelf legal representation.

Many question if that is the case.

The introduction and passage of this ordinance and how it was/was not handled by the city attorney's office is the most recent example.