Memorandum to HDLC

LeRoy A. Hartley B.A., J.D., L.L.M.
COUNSELOR & ATTORNEY AT LAW
1805 Esplanade Avenue Telephone (504) 945-4003
New Orleans, LA 70116-1704 (504) 944-4245
Facsimile (504) 945-0640

June 9, 2005

Memorandum to:

Members, New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission

RE: With Respect to HDLC Meeting of May 10, 2005;
HDLC-ARC Meeting, May 24, 2005
Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association letter, June 2, 2005;
Times-Picayune Front-Page article of Sunday, May 29, 2005 by Gordon Russell;
“Money” Section article, Sunday, May 29, 2005 by Greg Thomas;
“Money” Section article, Thursday, June 2, 2005 by Greg Thomas;
“Metro Money” Section article, June 5, 2005 by Greg Thomas; and
“Metro” Section article, June 5, 2005 by Bruce Eggler

Dear Commission Members:

As a result of the comments exchanged at the HDLC Meeting of May 10, 2005, and my attendance at the Architectural Review Committee Meeting of May 24, 2005, and in light of the Times-Picayune articles of Sunday, May 29, 2005, June 2, 2005, and June 5, and the subsequent telephone calls that I have received, I must express my feelings, as well as my understanding of my duties as a member of this Commission.

Prior to being appointed to this Commission in August, 2004, I have had very little, if any, personal contact with any of you. Thus I do not know your position, feelings, and understanding of your duties. And since we have very little time to speak personally to each other before, during or after the regular meetings, I feel that the only way that we can work together is if each of us takes the time to share his or her positions, feelings and understandings of our duties. I encourage each of you, as well as the other recipients of this Memorandum, to provide me with your responses. I promise you I will review your responses and, where appropriate, I will respond to each of you.

From a reading of the Times-Picayune article by Mr. Gordon, I assume that Mr. Gordon was in attendance at our last meeting and at the ARC meeting of May 24, 2005, or was provided with a copy of the tapes of these meetings.

I believe that a little history is in order to understand what has transpired in the City of New Orleans over the years with respect to its development and growth.

As I am sure all of you are aware, the great majority of all the properties that fall within today’s present boundaries of the various historic districts that make up this Commission were built for Caucasians and owned by them. In fact, from the early 1600s until 1865, few of the African Americans, i.e., the African slaves, were able to own property or receive an education. From 1865 until 1965, few, if any of the African Americans of this city were able to vote or receive a decent education. It took the federal government’s intervention to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. The Board of Education, granting the right to African Americans to attend public schools, together with Caucasians. It took the 1965 Civil Rights Voting Act to grant them the right to vote. Not until the 1969 citywide elections for mayor, council, and parochial offices, were African Americans able to express their choice of this city’s leaders in significant numbers.

Beginning with the integration of schools of the 1950s, and the integration of our neighborhoods in the 1950s and 60s, the Caucasians of this city, through their elected school board, spent millions of dollars to fight integration. In fact, integration was finally implemented in New Orleans beginning in the first grade and took twelve years to fully integrate the schools. The Caucasians, instead of allowing their children to attend school with the African American children, started their own private schools, church and parochial schools. The New Orleans Public schools were allowed to decay both physically and with respect to their academic standards. One has only to read the Times-Picayune articles over the last forty years on the condition of the schools in New Orleans to understand how destructive the Caucasians’ behavior was to the school system.

With respect to New Orleans neighborhoods, instead of accepting African Americans as their neighbors, the Caucasians of this city fled to the suburbs. They either abandoned their homes or turned them into rental property. They ceased maintaining the properties or paying taxes on them, and thus they were allowed to fall into ruins.

By the 1970s, African Americans were becoming property owners of the many homes that the Caucasians had abandoned or which were purchased from them. Our first African American mayor was elected in 1977. Today, the racial makeup of the City of New Orleans is approximately 73% African American, and 27% non-African American. Notwithstanding their numerical superiority, the African Americans of this city still have a very small voice in determining the economic development of the city of New Orleans. Of the fifteen members of this Commission, only four are African American, and the volunteer architects that serve on the HDLC’s Architectural Review Committee are all Caucasians.

At every meeting that I have attended since August 2004, the great majority of those appealing adverse decisions by our staff and the ARC have been African Americans. Only one major African American development has come before the HDLC since I have been a member, and that is the development by Annunciation Properties, LLC, i.e., Mr. Melvin Irvin, which was part of the subject matter of Mr. Russell’s article in the Times-Picayune of May 29, 2005. Yes, Mr. Irvin, and his partners, desire to get demolition permits to remove derelict buildings. But Mr. Russell neglected to inform his readers that it was not the African American owners of these buildings that had allowed them to become derelict. It was, in fact, the Caucasians who built and owned them from the late 1800s until the middle of the 20th century who allowed them to become derelict, after their economical use had been exhausted.

Where was the outcry by the Caucasians of this city in the 1950s, 60s and 70s while these and other buildings were allowed to decay beyond a point where it was economically feasible to rebuild them? In 1976, the New Orleans Historic District Landmark Commission was established when the late former Representative and Judge, Billy Byrnes, introduced legislation. His original legislation was aimed at establishing the Lower Garden District Historic District in order to prevent unregulated development in that area, not specifically to get rid of the up-ramp to the Mississippi River Bridge. Over the years since then, eight additional areas of the city of New Orleans were designated Historic Districts and fall under this Commission’s jurisdiction.

Today, a substantial portion of New Orleans housing stock, outside of New Orleans East, Lakeview and some sections of Mid-City and Uptown, are under this Commission’s jurisdiction. As the recent Times-Picayune articles set forth, some forward movement in the redevelopment of properties within the jurisdiction of this Commission has begun. The issue before this Commission now is whether the redevelopment – be that rebuilding, remodeling, or conversions of residential apartments to condominiums – will be allowed to go forward when the architects and the developers are “the favorites” of staff and the ARC, and whether we, as a Commission, will allow our staff (including the ARC) to throw every legal and financial roadblock in the path of those who are “not their favorites” or who happen to be African American. The issue is clear: Are we, as Commission members, expected to vote as we are told by the Vice-Chairman of our Commission or others, or according to our conscience?

Before I agreed to serve on the HDLC, I had the opportunity to speak with the honorable C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the city of New Orleans, at the Human Rights function in Jackson Square. I asked Mayor Nagin at that opportunity what he expected of the individuals that he nominated for appointment to the various commissions of the City of New Orleans. Mayor Nagin advised me that he expected his appointees to do what they thought was right and in the best interest of the city of New Orleans. He further told me that no one had the right to tell me how to vote on any given issue. In discussions with the mayor’s representatives who spoke to me about serving on the HDLC as the Esplanade Ridge Historic District representative, I made sure that I conveyed to them the remarks made to me by the Mayor. They assured me that this was also their understanding of how they should carry out their duties.

With respect to my duty as a member of the HDLC, at my orientation I made sure to advise staff of my feelings and my understanding of my duties as a member of this Commission. I feel that as a member of the Commission, my duty is to protect and preserve the designated historic structures that have been identified as such, and, to the best of my ability, to preserve the historic character of each Historic District. I advised the members of the staff that I start out with the belief that every man and woman has the right to do with his property what he or she believes is in his or her best economic and personal interest, but not to do harm to the adjoining property owners or to knowingly disrespect the historic value of his or her property or that of his or her neighbors. I do not believe that the HDLC only represents the interests of those property owners who join the various neighborhood associations established in each of the Historic Districts or the position that the neighborhood association takes with regard to a particular piece of property. Nor do I feel that this Commission, its staff, or the ARC, should use its enforcement powers and authority to discriminate.

In the case of the development proposed by Annunciation Properties LLC, represented by Mr. Melvin Irvin as owner, and the applicant, Ms. Debra Acker, were the only owner and applicant required to file with the staff of the HDLC a financial document referred to as a “Letter of Credit”. In complying with the request of our staff, which included the Architectural Review Committee, they were required to make substantial changes in conformity with the suggestions put forth to them. After expending considerable time and financial resources, they then learned that the staff and the ARC would not recommend their proposal to construct a five-story apartment building. Before Mr. Irvin or his architect were able to complete making their formal presentation to our Commission at the meeting on May 10, 2005, it became obvious to all present, that certain members of the Commission had made their decision as to how they would vote. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Sewell asked me to step into the back of the room and gave me a message to give to Mr. Irvin. I refused to listen to Mr. Sewell and returned to my seat. During the presentation of Mr. Irvin and Mr. McElroy, a representative of the Coliseum Square Neighborhood Association grabbed the microphone out of his hands, and I realized, when such conduct was not reprimanded by the Chairman, that the die had been cast, and no more questions needed to be asked. I subsequently learned that Mr. Scott Sewell, upon whom Mr. Gordon Russell relied in the Times-Picayune article referenced above, allegedly had called members of the HDLC prior to the meeting and advised them that they should vote against this project.
I encourage Mr. Sewell and the other members of this Commission to read the Code of Ethics for the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics, and the New Orleans Historic Landmark Commission’s “Rules, Policies and Procedures” which were provided to me, and I assume to all members, upon my appointment being approved by the New Orleans City Council.

As an officer and gentleman, by an act of Congress, and an officer of the Courts of the State of Louisiana and of the United States of America, I have always endeavored to conduct myself as such. At the same time, I have never hesitated to stand up for what I believe is right, nor will I sit still while African Americans are not given a fair public hearing or treated with disrespect.

I have never felt fear, and I have no intention of seeking protection or anonymity or meeting anyone in underground car parks. Since Mr. Sewell and those who are doing his bidding, i.e., the Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association, have called for an investigation of this incident and my resignation, I am forwarding a copy of this Memorandum to Mr. Jim Letten, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana; to Mr. Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana; and to Mr. Eddie Jordan, District Attorney for the City of New Orleans, so that they may determine whether they need to conduct an investigation of Mr. Sewell’s conduct as well as my own.

I have attached a copy of the letter I received from the Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association to this Memorandum, as well as my response.

In conclusion, I wish to advise you that I “will do my duty as God gives me the ability to see that duty”, to paraphrase a great American, as I have throughout my life. I have no intention of resigning, as desired by the ERTCA. I shall always, with all the means at my disposal, stand against racial discrimination, defend my reputation, and, above all, defend the rights granted to me and to all of us by the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Louisiana.

I have forwarded this Memorandum to each of the writers of the Times-Picayune articles referenced above. I want to give them an opportunity to read this Memorandum and to enter into a discourse as to why the developments mentioned in their later articles all had a positive spin, whereas the article on 1359-61 Annunciation Street, which appeared first —in the “Metro” Section, and not the “Money” Section —was lumped together with negative comments about Mr. Carlton Charles and the Jeffersons. I’ve also forwarded a copy of this Memorandum to the ERTCA, together with my response to their letter.

Those who wish to respond to this Memorandum, including the attachments, will be able to do so at my website, http://www.leroyhartley.com.

I remain,
Sincerely yours,

LeRoy A. Hartley

LAH/gfm

Response to Marie Marcal

LeRoy A. Hartley B.A., J.D., L.L.M.
COUNSELOR & ATTORNEY AT LAW
1805 Esplanade Avenue Telephone (504) 945-4003
New Orleans, LA 70116-1704 (504) 944-4245
Facsimile (504) 945-0640

June 9, 2005

Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association
c/o Marie Marcal
2176 Esplanade Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70119-2604

RE: Letter of June 2, 2005 from Marie Marcal, President, Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association

Dear Ms. Marcal:

I am glad that Mr. Wolf and Ms. McAllister decided that they would bring the allegations set forth in your letter to the attention of the Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association. I sincerely hope that they described their own conduct, particularly that of Mr. Wolf, who approached the architect Mr. William McElroy while he was speaking on behalf of the application of 1359-61 Annunciation Street. Mr. Wolf forcibly removed the microphone from Mr. McElroy’s hand and began speaking himself. I guess that Mr. Wolf, as a thirty-ish white male thought he had the right to stop Mr. McElroy from addressing the HDLC, since he was a fifty-ish black male. Ms. McAllister, who took the microphone after Mr. Wolf read his letter, microphone in hand, charged the table to personally confront “Mr. Hartley”.

I am certain that the fact that I attended the HDLC meeting without any preconceived notion of what presentation the applicant, 1359-61 Annunciation Street, would make, or having made any decision as to how I would vote, was a shock to Mr. Wolf and Ms. McAllister. I am sure that they are used to the various neighborhood associations being assured prior to the public presentation by an applicant before the HDLC as to the outcome. That a Commission member may not have committed his or herself to a position prior to the public hearing was a surprise. It was obvious at the meeting of May 10, 2005 that most of the members of the HDLC in attendance had already made up their mind and/or were told how they were expected to vote. In other words, when a matter is opposed by the neighborhood associations, and they have lobbied their respective member and have applied whatever political and financial clout they have, they expect the outcome they presumed was assured. The fact that the vice-Chairman of the HDLC, before the start of the meeting, asked me to leave my seat and speak with him in the back of the room concerning 1395-61 Annunciation Street’s application, and attempted to give me a message for the applicant, surely irritated me.

It is not irregular for a member of the HDLC to express his or her feelings concerning a particular applicant’s appeal of a staff and/or the ARC’s decision. Usually, they express their position publicly during the applicant’s presentation. One or two members have asked me what my position was with respect to a certain applicant, but no one has ever told me how he or she expected me to vote. Nor has any member objected to my questions of an applicant prior to a vote being taken.
I realize that I was not the Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association’s chosen person to represent the Esplanade Ridge Historic District. I have never believed in joining any association in order to advance my legal career or to get business. I have only joined those associations for which I have had the time and interest to fully participate. I made a decision, when I purchased 1805 Esplanade Avenue, that I did not want to get mixed up in the ongoing fights I have witnessed in which your neighborhood association, as well as others, have been involved. I also tend to be rather outspoken and direct in what I have to say, and therefore every meeting of such an association would have been upsetting to me or to those members with whom I disagreed. In fact, if I had belonged to the ERTCA and had been asked to serve on the HDLC, I would have resigned from the ERTCA, because I do not believe that as an appointed public official I have the right to only represent the official position of any neighborhood association.

Upon my confirmation by the City Council of New Orleans to the HDLC, I received an orientation package which contained the State of Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics, the New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission Rules, Policies and Procedures, and the Code of Ethics for the City of New Orleans. I assure you that I have read all three of these documents. I wish to call your attention, as well as that of the board of directors and the members of your association, to the following provisions for the City of New Orleans:

Sec. 2-769. Responsibility of public office.

Public officials and employees are agents of public purpose and hold office for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state and to carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state and city and thus to foster respect of all government. They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern.

Sec. 2-770. Nonpartisanship and nondiscrimination.

Public officials and employees should take action and make decisions based on the merits, objectively and without partisanship. In taking action and making decisions, public officials and employees should not discriminate against any person because of racial, ethnic, religious, political, sexual or personal prejudice or because of age, disability or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2-772. Freedom from reprisal and disclosure of improper acts.

(a) Any public employee who reports information which the employee reasonably believes is a violation of any ordinance, statute, policy, order, rule, regulation or other ethical mandate shall be free from discipline or reprisal for reporting such acts of alleged impropriety. An employee with authority to hire and fire, supervisor, agency head, or elected official may not subject to reprisal any public employee because of such employee’s efforts to disclose such acts of alleged impropriety.

(b) The Provisions of this section are in addition to the protection afforded by the state code of governmental ethics and the rules of the city civil service commission to public employees who report acts of impropriety to the employee’s agency head, civil service, the ethics review board, or the state board of ethics for elected officials or commission on ethics for public employees.

I believe that I have always conducted myself in such a manner that my actions did not even have the appearance of impropriety, and I have always vigorously endeavored to give counsel to all elected and appointed officials to so conduct themselves. If you or any member of your board of directors or association expect that I will be intimidated by your letter and resign, you are seriously mistaken. I look forward to any hearings or proceedings that the City Council may instigate with respect to the May 10th meeting of the HDLC, my vote, or my conduct. I believe that the tape of the meeting is the best evidence of what was said, and that the testimony of all members of the public present, as well as that of my fellow Commission members, would support my position and my conduct.

With respect to the allegations of your letter, please define what you mean by the phrase “have a history of serving as legal counsel to Sherman Copelin”. I would also like to know what you mean by your phrase “launched into an angry rant”. Again, I feel that the tape and the witnesses present are the best evidence of what I said, and not the afterthoughts of Mr. Wolf and Ms. McAllister and/or the characterizations of Mr. Scott Sewell.

I can assure you that before I allowed my name to be placed in nomination by the mayor for the position as the Esplanade Ridge representative on the HDLC, I discussed with his representatives, members of the City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Copelin and others, both my past representation of and support of Mr. Sherman N. Copelin, Jr., for the various public offices that he has sought. I was well aware that the applicant, 1359-61 Annunciation Street, was coming before the HDLC. I knew that Mr. Irvin and Mr. Copelin had been dealing with the HDLC with regard to their developments for a number of years. For your information, I have not represented Mr. Copelin in any legal matters for over five years. I have given political advice, acted as a consultant, and have served as the Chairman of his various election committees. I have not served in any of these capacities since the 2000 election. I believe that all members of the HDLC, more particularly the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, knew that I had no intention of recusing myself when this particular applicant came before the HDLC.

I have prepared a Memorandum that I am sending to the members of the HDLC, the Mayor, and members of the City Council of New Orleans. I have decided, in light of your letter, to forward together with my memorandum, a copy of your letter, and this response. I have also decided to forward a copy to Mr. Jim Letten, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Mr. Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, and to Mr. Eddie Jordan, District Attorney of the Parish of Orleans. I hope that one of them or all of them choose to conduct an investigation of what transpired in regard to this particular applicant at the HDLC meeting of May 10, 2005.

If you and your board and the members of your association want to schedule a public meeting with proper notice and publication to all residents and property owners, I will be more than glad to attend and answer their questions.
For your information, and as a courtesy to you, I have enclosed a copy of the Memorandum I have prepared and forwarded to those that I have identified. I have every intention of publishing your letter, as well as my memorandum, on my website, http://www.leroyhartley.com. I encourage everyone to participate in a very public discussion of how the developments underway and proposed for New Orleans will affect the future of this city.

Awaiting your response, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

LeRoy A. Hartley

LAH/gfm

Letter from Marie Marcal

Esplanade Ridge & Treme Civic Association
c/o Marie Marcal
2176 Esplanade Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70119-2604
Telephone: 504 821-7567
Fax: 504 821-2082
E-mail: jmarcal@bellsouth.net

June 2, 2005

Leroy Hartley
Commissioner of HDLC
1805 Esplanade Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70116

Dear Leroy:

Two concerns have recently been brought to the attention of our board regarding a presentation and vote that came before the HDLC on May 10, 2005 relative to 1359-61 Annunciation Street. The allegations are:
• That you have a history of service as legal counsel to Sherman Copelin, a
party in Annunciation Properties, yet failed to recuse yourself, in fact,
voting on the issue and
• That you "launched into an angry rant," personally attacking the
Vice-President of the Coliseum Square Association who opposed the issue
before the commission.

If you do, in fact, have a "history of serving as legal counsel to Sherman Copelin," a party in Annunciation Properties, then it is the position of our board that you were bound by ethics to recuse yourself from this matter both as to comment as a commissioner and as to casting a vote regarding the application before the HDLC of NO on 1359-61 Annunciation Street. If this allegation is untrue, then please share that information with us upon your receipt of this letter in order that we might respond appropriately to the allegations. If the allegations are correct, then our board asks that you resign your position as the Esplanade Ridge representative to the HDLC of NO, because we believe it is important that whomever represents our neighborhood do so without even the appearance of impropriety.

In either case, the board agrees with Mr. Wolf and Ms. McAlister that there is no excuse for a commissioner to make citizens who come before the commission feel uncomfortable about taking a position on issues. As we know you are aware, the whole purpose of the HDLC is to obtain public comment on projects; and verbal attacks by commissioners are inappropriate, unprofessional and undermine the whole purpose of the hearing in the first place. However the issue of whether or not you should have recused yourself turns out, we would hope that there will be no further such incidents that embarrass our neighborhood and call for letters like this, which are certainly unpleasant to receive and send.

We hope that you understand that, as our representative, this matter, once brought to our attention, needed to be addressed by our board. We look forward to hearing your side of this issue.

Sincerely,

ESPLANADE RIDGE & TREME CIVIC ASSOCIATION
Board of Directors

By Marie Marcal, President

cc: The Hon. C. Ray Nagin

MM/lib