A battle is quietly raging in St. Martinville that could strip away more than a century of local autonomy. Early voting is already underway for the May 3, 2025, election, where voters will decide whether to abandon the city’s special legislative charter, which has allowed for more comprehensive self-government than most other places in the state, and replace it with a one-size-fits-all system called the Lawrason Act.
It might sound boring. But here’s the catch:
This isn’t about modernization — it’s about power.
Mayor Jason Willis says the current charter is “outdated and inefficient.” Yet behind the scenes, he’s been using taxpayer money to hire a consultant — not to educate voters, but to promote the change and discredit opposition voices. Records show the consultant worked closely with the mayor to counter critics, even attempting to invoke attorney-client privilege to withhold public communications. That’s not modernization. That’s manipulation.
And once the charter is gone? There’s no going back.
What’s at stake?
St. Martinville is one of only 24 municipalities in Louisiana allowed to operate under a special legislative charter. This structure gives the City Council more say, allows faster changes to meet local needs, and ensures residents have direct access to their government.
By contrast, the Lawrason Act (the default system for over 250 Louisiana towns) gives the mayor most power, strips council members of agenda-setting, and requires state legislative action for even minor structural changes.
It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about who gets to make the rules — Baton Rouge, or the people of St. Martinville?
The Heart of Cajun Country
The City of St. Martinville is most widely known as the heart of Cajun country. In the late 1760s, many Acadian refugees settled here following the British Crown’s forced removal from their ancestral lands in present-day Nova Scotia. This lesser-known incident of ethnic genocide is commonly referred to as the grand dérangement. They would be joined by Malaga settlers from Spain, Frenchmen fleeing the French Revolution, Africans, Anglo-Americans, and others, creating a diverse culture.
The existing Charter of the City of St. Martinville was adopted in April of 1898 and remains in effect, with several amendments. It forms what is known as a “special legislative charter” for the government. Interestingly enough, 1898 was the same year the Lawrason Act took effect. This is important to note as some criticize the age of the existing Charter, which is the same age as the Lawrason Act. In a recent message to the citizens of St. Martinville, Mayor Jason Willis said: “Our government structure is outdated and inefficient,” and “It’s time we modernize and strengthen the way our city is governed.” These are just talking points that are devoid of any substance. When our present state Constitution took effect in 1974, creating additional municipalities by special legislative charter was forbidden. However, those presently in effect were allowed to continue to operate under the structure.
St. Martinville’s charter is as unique as its people. The city is one of only twenty-four municipalities in the state continuing to operate under a special legislative charter. Other cities include Abbeville, Marksville, New Roads, and Plaquemine. Approximately thirty other cities, such as Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Lake Charles, Houma, Morgan City, Natchitoches, and New Iberia, operate under what is known as a Home Rule Charter.
The remaining municipalities, about 250+/-, operate under the Lawrason Act, a cookie-cutter framework established by our legislature in the late 1890s. While the Lawrason Act is the state’s most widely used form of municipal government, it is also the most restrictive because it doesn’t allow for much local autonomy in structuring local governments. The state legislature determines the boundaries of powers and responsibilities in a Lawrason Act municipality.
Which form of government is better?
Well, that depends. Blindly picking between the established forms of government is like a doctor prescribing medicine without knowing your symptoms or ailment. The Special Legislative Charter, Home Rule Charter, and Lawrason Act have strengths or weaknesses. However, out of a municipality formed under a Special Legislative Charter or the Lawrason Act, ONLY one offers municipalities significant oversight into how the government is structured – the Special Legislative Charter. The other requires a change to be made by our state legislature, which sees thousands of bills submitted each year. But one thing the people of St. Martinville should note is that once the Special Legislative Charter is abandoned, THERE IS NO RETURN! The local autonomy they presently experience will be surrendered.
Back to the question – “What form of government is better?” Well, what symptoms are presently being exhibited? Mismanagement of funds? Failure to direct and supervise employees? Failure to take appropriate action concerning employee misconduct? Failure to promptly address the needs and concerns of residents? Those are the concerns we are hearing. If so, does this signal the need for a stronger executive form of government?
That is where the beauty of the existing legislative charter can best be realized. It allows for more local autonomy, quick action by the Council to adjust to the community’s changing needs, and non-reliance on legislative action. Changes approved by the Council simply require the Attorney General’s and the Governor’s approval.
Inadequate Separation of Powers
Aside from allegedly being “antiquated”, another criticism of the existing charter being hurled around is that it doesn’t provide adequate separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine seeks a balance of power between different branches of government. In theory, the diffusion of power over many parts makes it unlikely that any single person or branch of government can become too powerful. Despite this, there can never be “equal” power separation because the separate branches simply don’t perform the same functions. Additionally, each branch should never have an absolute “negative” power over the actions of another branch. Separation of powers is a balance that must be struck, and when it comes to local government, is it better for the balance to be struck at the state or local level?
The existing Charter provides for a strong legislative/weak executive form of government, while the Lawrason Act provides for a stronger executive/weaker legislative body. We can debate which is better and arrive at different conclusions under different circumstances. Still, the fact is that the existing charter can be amended. The Council has amended it recently and several times throughout its existence to support the community’s needs at the time.
While our system of government may be based on a separation of powers, it is also based on concepts such as “federalism.” A principle which provides for local self-government, or the fact that individuals from different cultures, different terrains, and different climates AREN’T in the best position to determine how things should be done by others hundreds and thousands of miles apart. It is also established under the premise that governments are instituted to protect the rights of the citizens. A move to becoming a Lawrason Act municipality would eliminate local autonomy in structuring the balance of powers within local government.
Employee Matters
Under the Special Legislative Charter, the Council oversees municipal officials. Under the Lawrason Act, certain public officials are required, and any official required or otherwise considered to be a department head must be recommended by the mayor for confirmation by the Council. Other employees can be hired and fired at will, except when there is an established civil service that grants them protection. Additionally, departments can only be created, abolished, merged, or consolidated upon the written recommendation of the mayor.
Even though the City of St. Martinville would generally not be required to provide a civil service system for employees under existing state guidelines, in 1997, a statutory carve-out was granted to permit it to do so when no such system was required. The statute again allows much flexibility and autonomy by allowing the local government to establish, modify, and abolish a merit system.
Additionally, a Police Civil Service Board is statutorily required to oversee the civil service function of the Police Department. This Board is responsible for ensuring selection, employment, and appointments on the police force are made based on merit, efficiency, fitness, and length of service. This system continues to exist regardless of whether the municipality acts under a Special Legislative Charter or the Lawrason Act. Yet, this Board has failed to abide by the requirements of open meetings as mandated by state statute. It also failed to take prompt action concerning the Chief of Police, Ricky Martin, and Deputy Chief, Andrew Broussard. Both men have been accused of multiple infractions, which could also constitute crimes in Louisiana, some even occurring in the presence of the Board!
Could the failure of these Boards to act appropriately be another reason St. Martinville continues to operate under a government structure in which oversight of municipal employees is further diffused amongst the many members of the Council and not concentrated under the authority of a single person (Mayor)?
A Voice for the People
One of the larger concerns for the general public is whether they will have a direct avenue to have their concerns addressed. Under the existing Special Legislative Charter and ordinances, members of the Council are permitted to add items to the meeting agenda. That would be eliminated if the municipality changed to a Lawrason Act municipality, where the mayor, as the presiding officer, is solely responsible for setting the agenda. Considering the Council is the legislative body, it seems absurd that they don’t have any control over the legislative agenda. But that is what the legislative template (Lawrason Act) mandates! Can you imagine if our elected representatives in Baton Rouge or Washington, D.C. were only permitted to discuss legislative items brought forth by the Governor or President? Some would argue that many existing problems are due to the concentration of too much power in the Executive. Will it ever be diffused?
While the Lawrason Act allows Council members to amend an agenda, it requires unanimous consent at the meeting. Also, because it occurs at the meeting, it DOES NOT allow for any notice to the public to attend and participate in the topic. This is another strength of the existing Special Legislative Charter.
Lawrason – the path to success?
It has also been insinuated that other municipalities operating under the Lawrason Act have experienced SUCCESS! OK. There are also former drug users who have experienced addiction and gone on to become sober and successful. That doesn’t mean drug use is an appropriate or efficient path to success. Is it possible that it has more to do with the personnel and elected officials’ dedication to serving the public than the actual government structure?
Officials for the City of Youngsville, a Lawrason Act municipality we have spoken of quite frequently, have self-admitted disappointment in many respects with the Lawrason Act system. This was a significant contention between the City of Youngsville and the elected Police Chief, Rickey Boudreaux. Some Youngsville councilmen have even suggested that the City of Youngsville should abandon the Lawrason Act and move to another form of government. They presently have only one other option—a Home Rule Charter.
Also, some of the most prominent cities in Louisiana operate under Special Legislative Charters and Home Rule Charters, not the Lawrason Act. Remember, approximately fifty cities operate under a Home Rule or Special Legislative Charter, compared to around two hundred fifty operating under the Lawrason Act. Depending on your measure of “success,” it would not be that difficult to find just as many failing versus thriving municipalities operating under the Lawrason Act. Have you not heard of Killian?
St. Martinville Hires a Paid Consultant!
One of the most telling details about the City of St. Martinville is that it hired a paid consultant to promote transition. According to public records, Mayor Jason Willis entered into an agreement with Karen White Consulting on February 19, 2025. The agreement outlines the consultant providing services to the City, including public engagement, informational materials development, and ballot language assistance. A recent “public meeting” held on March 6, 2025, to discuss the possible change to the Lawrason Act featured a three-person panel consisting of Karen White, Broussard officials Mayor Ray Bourque, and Councilman David Forbes. Broussard is a Lawrason Act municipality. The panel DID NOT include any members representing another municipality functioning under a Special Legislative Charter.
Additionally, the meeting lasted approximately one and a half hours. The panel spoke and addressed questions for about an hour. Council officials for the City of St. Martinville were advised from the start of the meeting that they would be allowed to address the panel at the end. When that time arrived, they were told they would only have two minutes to speak. They were then graciously granted five minutes to speak by the powers that be.
Interestingly enough, in response to a public records request seeking communication between Willis and White, City Attorney Allen Durand stated:
“I know from personal experience that most, if not all, of the Mayor’s contact with Karen was verbal, except for her proposal to the City and her bill, but I’ll check with the Mayor on that.
But if there are any written communications, my understanding is that Karen was in the position of giving legal advice to the Mayor with regard to a potential Lawrason Act election, and with a view to being hired shortly in that role. If that’s the case, and I’ll check, we’ll be claiming the Attorney – Client Privilege on those communications.
Apparently, Ms. White is also an attorney. However, the Council DID NOT hire White to provide legal advice, and the agreement with the City of St. Martinville does not mention her providing legal services. When those simple facts were pointed out, the City of St. Martinville then located and produced 37 pages of communication. This is why supporting Louisiana’s only government transparency organization is important. Without our deep knowledge and pressure, none of these records would have been made available.
Illegal use of public funds?
That communication indicates what appears to be an improper use of public funds. In one such e-mail, Mayor Willis advises White:
“…you will find a fact sheet created by Councilmen Mike Fusilier to discredit the city from converting from our Charter to the Lawson Act. In his comparison, he is using a comparison between the Home Rule Charter vs The Lawson Act. I wanted you to be aware of his tactics and not be caught off guard. We will be voting tonight on hiring you with your proposal submitted to me. I will contact you in the morning to start discussing the next steps going forward. I would like to counter Mike’s falsehood sheet if possible. I’ll be in touch.”
Clearly, Mayor Willis and White’s intention is NOT to provide unbiased information regarding the differences between a municipality acting under a Special Legislative Charter and the Lawrason Act. They are countering voices of dissent who allegedly seek to “discredit the city from converting from our Charter to the Lawrason Act.”
Louisiana Revised Statute 18:1465 provides:
“No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization. This provision shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition appearing on an election ballot.”
White was allegedly hired to “present clear and concise information to the city’s residents regarding the city council’s proposed transition from governance under the city’s current legislative charter to governance under the Lawrason Act” and “develop a one-page fact sheet detailing the operational difference between the current legislative charter and the Lawrason Act.” The communication between Willis and White seems to support the theory that she was hired exclusively to promote the change to a Lawrason Act municipality.
This can also be garnered by further reviewing the communication between Willis and White and the end product produced by White. In her February 19, 2025, communication with Willis, White states:
“In doing a markup on the MF “fact” sheet, nearly every statement is either grossly inaccurate or outright false. I’ll provide that to you this week, as well.”
Additionally, the “fact sheet” provided by White and being disseminated by the City clearly favors a move to the Lawrason Act by making statements such as:
- “Legislative Charters are Not Favored Models of Government”
- Referencing Legislative Charters, “most of which are antiquated (some pre-date the Civil War) and provide inadequate operational guidelines.”
- “… the legislature recognized the growing difficulties of operating under a legislative charter…”
- “…the St. Martinville charter stands out as being deeply problematic and ripe for litigation and/or administrative intervention.”
- “The city’s legislative charter does not conform to the separation of powers doctrine.”
- “…the city’s legislative charter contains provisions that directly contradict each other…”
- “…the city’s charter contains provisions that conflict with mandatory laws such as the Open Meetings Law, Election Code, and more.”
This one-sided argument was not only promulgated using taxpayer funds, but it is also being printed and distributed using taxpayer funds.
How could the City of St. Martinville have lasted over 125 years under an allegedly grossly deficient charter? Perhaps it simply isn’t as bad as Ms. White’s “non-biased” assessment. The entire situation really comes down to some very simple questions: Are the citizens willing to abandon a special legislative charter that grants them more flexibility and local autonomy to appease the wishes of the current elected leader? If the existing charter is so terrible, why hasn’t a significant effort been taken to change it for over a century? Any reasonable person can see there is more to this than an alleged deficient Charter. This is about power and control! Choose wisely.
