Amid continued fallout from the controversy surrounding a Fire Protection District 5 chief accused of using racially derogatory language, the Livingston Parish Council faced public scrutiny June 25 over a proposed anti-discrimination pledge for parish boards and commissions.
The council also adopted a resolution requiring parish-appointed boards and commissions to follow state and federal anti-discrimination laws and approved an ordinance raising compensation for council members beginning with the next term.
The most debated item of the meeting was the introduction of a proposed commitment stating that all Louisiana public officials should “pledge and endeavor to never violate the Louisiana Constitution and any and all state and federal laws pertaining to discrimination.”
“It takes an oath to abide by this provision, but all boards and commission members seeking to hold these positions of authority in Livingston Parish must take an oath of office to abide by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the constitutional laws in the state of Louisiana,” Councilman John Mangus read. “Further, a policy for the violation of this pledge, an oath of office is hereby created which specifies removal from employment or office as a penalty for repeat offenses.”
Daniel Robinson was the first resident to address the council regarding the draft, asking why the pledge was being brought forward now and what had been in place before to address discrimination.
“What was followed prior to this?” Robinson asked the council. “So, everyone has just been able to run rogue … and they weren’t held to any standard? There is no standard? Because this should have been the standard.”
“Who is going to be responsible for holding anyone accountable who does not abide by the pledge? How do we know if they followed it or not? Who’s gonna report it?” Robinson continued.
“Everyone should already be following it,” Mangus said. “And if someone does not take the pledge, whatever iteration it takes, then they would not be acceptable to be on the board.”
Throughout the discussion, residents repeatedly referenced the sentencing of the District 5 fire chief, who was found to have used racially derogatory language in a recording. Several residents criticized the discipline as too lenient.
Robinson pointed to the pledge’s language stating that “repeat offenses” would constitute grounds for removal from office and asked the council what consequence would apply for a first offense.
“You guys sat here and said that you did not agree with what the fire board did and the actions that they took,” Robinson said, “but based upon [the language of] that pledge, you are saying that you are okay with it because you took and put the same thing in your pledge.”
Mangus reiterated that disciplinary decisions made by boards subject to civil service rules are not governed by the council. Because of that, he said, the council cannot alter a board’s sentence or impose harsher punishment.
Another resident, Heather Acore, asked the council, “Why are we having to reinvent the wheel?” given that council members said laws already address discriminatory language and behavior.
Attorney Marty Maley came forward at the request of the council and explained that the pledge “is merely being introduced to get the conversation started, and to seek input from the council … and the public.”
Maley said the pledge can and will be redrafted, reworded, and presented again with public input before any official action is taken.
“Right is right and wrong is wrong,” Maley said, “and the whole point here is to put a policy in place that reflects that we do have laws that must be followed, and that you’re recognizing that, and that you ask that, as a matter of policy, the people that serve on boards and commissions take a pledge to follow the law, to follow the Constitution … and publicly acknowledge that they’re going to do that.”
Those assurances, however, were not enough for some residents. Several continued to approach the council to voice concerns about the pledge and how it would be enforced.
“What I’ve heard so far is very weak,” Debra Keller said, referring to the pledge’s language. “I am not sure the difference between a minor discrimination and a serious discrimination … to me, discrimination is discrimination.”
“I guess I’m just a little bit disappointed in the direction,” Keller continued. “And I know the intent is good, and I do respect you guys for giving us this opportunity … but to me, it just sounds kind of wishy-washy.”
Ultimately, the pledge was not up for a vote. It was introduced to the public so that further comments, concerns, and changes could be considered before it is brought back for possible adoption as a document for council members to sign.
After the discussion, Mangus made a motion to adopt a resolution requiring all parish board appointees and commissions to follow state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The resolution was unanimously approved.
Council President Billy Taylor also said the proposed pledge will go to the council’s ordinance committee for revision. He invited community members to attend that committee meeting to offer input and address their concerns.
The council then took up Ordinance No. 26-13, which sought to amend council member compensation under Section 2-05(B) of the Home Rule Charter and Louisiana Revised Statute 33:1233.
Adrienne Bordelon was the first to speak on the ordinance, citing her research into council salaries across Louisiana.
According to Bordelon, the average annual compensation for parish council members across 62 parishes is $16,689.20. The ordinance would raise Livingston Parish council members’ monthly compensation from $800 to $1,200 for those serving in the next council term, not the current term in which the ordinance is adopted.
The ordinance states that compensation paid to members of the Livingston Parish Council would be set and “automatically adjusted hereafter as the legislature allows additional compensation,” with the change becoming effective with the next official term of office in 2028.
“What I have an issue with is this ordinance states that when the state legislature changes this amount from $1,600 to something else, y’all automatically get a pay raise, but it never comes back to the public to hear that you are seeking to raise the pay for this council again [in the future],” Bordelon said.
“I think that is wrong,” Bordelon continued. “I think that is not a government that is transparent.”
Bordelon said she is “not opposed to [the council] getting a pay raise,” but is “opposed to [the council] putting in automatic pay raises that the people in this parish have no idea that the legislature can go and then change [the council’s] pay.”
Council members repeatedly said the pay raise would not take effect during their current terms but would instead apply during the next council term, when some current members may no longer be in office.
Councilman John Wascom used the discussion to announce that, after 28 years in office, he will not run for re-election to his council seat.
“I just want to say that I do know that the people who serve with this council work hard,” Wascom said. “And for that $1,000 a month that we get, it’s hats off to anybody who signs up, runs, and works for this seat.”
The council ultimately voted unanimously to approve the ordinance after members said the pay raise would not affect them during the current term and would apply only during the next term.
Afterward, representatives from Fire Protection District 4 approached the council during a presentation to discuss their $32 user fee, which was on the June 27, 2026, ballot.
The fee, which has been in place since 1996, “funds our stations, our apparatuses, and our manpower,” the representatives said. “It’s a vitally important diversification of our income … represents roughly about 10% of our budget, and our fire department is growing rapidly.”
As the 12th busiest fire department in the state, representatives said the tax is necessary to support the department’s rapid growth and to meet the community's needs.
The representatives said the district covers 225 square miles, answers around 7,500 calls a year, has a fire protection rating of 3 (1 being the best on a 10-point scale), and operates 11 stations in a rural parish.
The closer the rating is to 1, the less “our constituents pay” in fire insurance, the representatives said.
“So that means that the better job we do, they pay less fire insurance,” they said.
The council thanked the representatives for their time, efforts, and presentation before moving on to a resolution formally naming the bridge on Burgess Road in Walker the “Donald Burgess Bridge” and requesting that the Livingston Parish Department of Public Works install signage donated by Traffic Control, Inc., on each end of the bridge.
Burgess, according to his obituary, dedicated 35 years of his life to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and later served as Livingston Parish planning director. He died after a life spent in service to his family and community. His wife and son were present at the meeting for the resolution in his honor.
“This family’s done a tremendous amount and is still doing a tremendous amount for this parish,” Councilman Ricky Goff said.
Goff said naming the bridge after Burgess was an honor and that the dedication should not be taken lightly, but instead should stand as a testament to Burgess’ contributions to the community.
Taylor and Mangus also shared memories of meeting and working with Burgess, emphasizing their gratitude for his service and contributions.
“We appreciate … all that y’all have done for him,” Betty Burgess told the council, “and I know that he’s very happy that things are going along well.”
The council unanimously approved the resolution, formally naming the bridge the “Donald Burgess Bridge,” before the meeting was adjourned.
