How you doing? How are you? Well, I mean, I'm just
I'm supposed to do uh too much more. I just got my blood results back and my phone's been blowing
up. The doctor's like, "This number's not right. This number is not right." So, I'm waiting for him
to tell me what to do. Something after a while, the cancer not all the incident stuff. Anyway,
thanks for asking. just right now and I we've gone through a lot. There's a there's a list and you're
on the list. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. I can feel it. I can feel it. Okay.
Hey, how are you? Good. Okay. What you got? Miss Wing is going on vacation tomorrow. How
you doing? We are signing stuff tonight. Oh, I got you. So, we got new stamps with
new names on. Hey, mayor. Hey. Hey. How you doing? I'm doing well. How you This is way
hot this time. Kind of hot.
and I'm going to send an email to that lady and I'll copy you on it,
confirm that audit letter and all that. She sent it to me and I said,
"Are we in a hurry?" She said, "I don't know about a couple more days."
So, I'll send I'll send her a response to you. See
if I think it's okay. I actually had the language about it's got to say
today. Hey, I just got in trouble cuz you didn't tell me who we forgot. I forgot.
All right. I was going to see if he was going to acknowledge it.
Opioid. Yes. I have four clients who sent it to me to review. Okay. cuz I represent
the uh I represent the treatment facility. I represent So you see us. I'll look at it.
Yeah. Cuz I think you're going to be turned by September 1st. Okay.
It's a
don't don't hesitate to text me two or three days before I say, "Hey bro, check everything.
Every document that you sign that's binding has to go through the council. Okay. So,
we probably wouldn't be able to do that. No, it's going to have to be on September. final
action on October cuz the application would have to be submitted due diligent
on council approval which is feel like we make I'll make a change
you know that says contingent on just ice cream we'll work around
all that there's ways I've done this 30 years That's why I was actually I
do. It's not working around it. It's just allowing it to happen without Yeah. Without
Yes, ma'am. Aren't they cute?
You see me wearing crew something that feels.
There you go. If you see me wearing crew glasses on
you
can see over
prescription from her.
1 2 3
one is the
I just want to make sure I was in the correct
sticky.
So these will be at the
That's right. everything
cuz it's going to be an ordinance. So,
it's got to be two your approvals or resolutions. They don't have to first
actual last time. This is this is the second meeting for this. No, I'm saying the second
voice
have a
Hey, I got a I got a bullet. I should have brought her bought for her.
We don't have the motor. back.
He has a right to
Good.
You got
Let's
bring this meeting to order, please.
I'll rise, please. Invitation.
Lord, we just come to you tonight and ask you for your guidance and your mercy over our decisions.
Lord, may we uh have you in our vision and have you guiding our
steps and we may make the best decisions for the city to move forward, Lord, and
uh the best decisions for the citizens of Sula. We ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. Amen.
Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Loo here, Mr. Dory here, M here, Mr. B here, Mr. here. Here. Um, due to public opinion,
we're going to have a couple things just kind of straightened out tonight. The the first three
chairs over there in the first row, if it starts getting a little crowded or if we have meetings,
it's going to be a little crowded. We're going to leave those people who may have mobility issues.
At the last meeting, uh, Miss Cindy was was forced to kind of go back and forth and back and forth. I
called her to let her know that I felt bad about it. Um, I'll let her tell you what happened after
that. But, um, I I think that's a good idea for people who can't get around very well. Crutches,
wheelchairs, whatever the case may be, or just any type of mobility issue is going
to go there. And by public opinion, we're asking that everybody in here, please take your hats off.
Uh this is what out of respect for the office and out of respect for the uh city council
and the city of Sulur. Thank you all everybody. Appreciate it. First iting item today is public
hearing on ordinance amending chapter 2 article 2 section 216 of the code of ordinance of the city
of sulfur Louisiana and repeal any conflicting ordinances to establish council meeting dates
times and locations of meetings ordinance 4826 myself I have a motion I'll have a motion
Have a motion. Have a motion. Have a second. I'll second. Have a second. Mr. Leoo, second by Mr. B.
I'm going to go ahead and read the rest of the ordinance. Ordinance amending chapter 2,
article 2, section 216 of the code of ordinances of the city of Sulford, Louisiana, and repeal any
conflicting ordinances. Be it ordained by the city of city council of the city of Sulford,
Louisiana, the governing authority thereof, that they do hereby amend chapter 2, article 2,
section 1216 of the code of ordinances of the city of Sulford, Louisiana be and it it is hereby
amended to read as follows to wit section 216 council meeting date, time, location, and agenda.
A. The city council shall hold all meetings on the second Monday of each month at 5:30 p.m.
Excuse me. Or for Monday falls on legal holiday, then the following business day of 5:30 p.m. If a
meeting does not finish, the council may recess or continue it to a specific date and time. B.
All meetings shall be held in the council chambers at 501 Willow Avenue. If the chairman determines
at any time that the council chambers will be inadequate to handle expected audience attendance,
the chairman may relocate the meeting to the West Calcue Community Center at 401 Arena Road,
Sulford, Louisiana, if available. The notice shall comply with applicable state law.
Do we have any uh comments from the council?
No comments. This of course was done at the uh request of Mr. Billy Laughlin Loftton in order
for us to be able to move these uh meetings if they should get to a point where it should
overload this location. Uh, Miss Wendy, it says number one on meeting number three. Sure. There's
three number ones. So, I'm the third. Okay. Not till later. Okay. Not the third item. Okay. Third.
Sorry. Being no comments, um, just for the record, members of the council, the charter does require
that this be designated by ordinance. And so with all the potential changes in location,
I wanted to make sure and it turns out that historically we haven't probably been doing
this right, but I figured that doesn't make an exception or doesn't make it right to not move
forward doing it right. So that's why I've suggested that we get this adopted. Thank
you. May I speak? Thank you. Thank you. And please fill out the card at the end. Sure.
My name is Sheila Brussard and I have a quick question. Um I understand that according to Billy
has said according to the um the charter that we have to have a location in the ordinance. Is that
correct? That's correct. Would it be possible if if we're going to say that the chairman can
uh relocate? Is it necessary that we give an address where he will relocate to? Couldn't
that be just be an option just in case that one's not available? We could do WW Lewis or
some place. Then we would go to a second option after that. We talked about that. We didn't feel
like we had a sure place to put in there. Also, I feel like we're already potentially stretching
it because it says you shall designate the place and I felt like it was reasonable in
light of potential overcrowding to have uh you know a backup. Uh so that was my
recommendation to them that we So if we can't get into West Cow, what will happen then?
If we can't get into Westcow, then we would either, you know, either delay the meeting or
uh or or try to work change the date. Maybe we could uh we could change the date of the meeting.
There's different things that we can do to get around and change venue possible change. Well,
and we could Yeah, we we wouldn't want to go through all that. We might just say start the
meeting and say we're going to adjourn and pick the meeting back up on Thursday at the
West Cal Center. Okay. Other question is the uh charter says 7 days advanced notice for the
regular meeting. So if the regular meeting is going to be postponed then it does it follow
then it falls under the state. We only have to do 24-hour notice of the next location if it's
going to be a different day. Correct. You don't have to do if you've already noticed that meeting
and you start it and adjourn it, then you've satisfied that requirement. Good. Thank you.
Yes, sir. If I may, Miss Sheila. Yes, sir. We talked about WW Lewis. We're in unprecedented
times in Sulfur. We're in a temporary building. So, we're trying to accommodate everybody
we can. We want to be fair, transparent, have everybody there that wants to be here. Hopefully,
we don't need it. It's going to be a lot of trouble to get people there and set up,
but we're trying to accommodate the people is the whole goal here. So,
that's all I wanted to put in. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Comments. Uh, roll call vote,
please. Mr. Leoo, yes. Mr. Garvey, yes. Miss Monzo, yes. Mr. B, yes. Mr. Capetta, yes.
Have a motion to adjourn this meeting. Motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second?
I'll second. Second by Miss Monso. Motion by uh Mr. Troy. Mr. Chairman,
we don't need a motion. We don't need a motion. Okay. We'll be back in five minutes. Thank you.
No, if anybody wants to do anything everybody good. All right.
Bring this special meeting to order number two.
Invocation we leave.
You ready?
You ready or
you keep these? And Mr. Chairman, we can go back to back when we get to the third
one. Okay. Thank you. Are you ready? Okay. Um, please have the uh invocation
James.
Dear heavenly father, we come to you to to make these decisions for our city to be able to move
forward. Please help us make the right decisions through everything that we do in Jesus name.
Amen. Amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Two
items on this. Roll call, please. Mr. Leoo, here. Mr. Derby here. Miss Monzo here. Mr. Bagel here.
Mr. Capetta here. Um, we have two resolutions I'll be going over. Resolution number one approving
the recommendation of Mayor Stouts for the appointment of Reed Ellander as interim director
for information technology. Resolution 3326. Resolution number two, resolution approving the
recommendation of Mayor Stouts for the appointment of Lindsey Luch as am I pronouncing that
correctly? Yes. Thank you. as interim director of finance. Resolution 3426. Mayor students,
can you hear me? So Reed Ellander um has over 30 years of experience. Um of course
you know the past uh IT director has retired I think with 20 plus years experience. So,
I am going to appoint uh or have him serve interim director
uh for the IT department at this time until we find I find someone long term.
Are we actively searching right now, Mayor? We'll be. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Um this this appointment will
carry us through the first of the year. Okay. My concern was with uh Mr. Ellen during his
retirement. Not to affect that was the only question I'd heard. So I wanted to just make
sure we wasn't putting him on a long term. No, we we've taken care time frame. Yep. For that.
So we we've covered that base and I agree with your Reed's been here forever. So it's a great
choice I believe and you as well. So congrats. Any other comments? Just like to make this quick
comment. you know that you know as a council we're not here to question is whether the individual is
a good good employee or not. The council wants to determine whether the appointment meets the
charter or whether the city's personnel procedures have been followed. Uh before
we vote on either one of these resolutions, I would like to ask the administration and human
resources to confirm for the record that both nominees have been reviewed for compliance with
the applicable home rule charter qualifications and the city's personnel policies and to have
identify any personal requirements that remain outstandings or were waved.
Mayor, they are currently employed with the city. So that's that's my reason for appointing
them. Okay. But do they meet all the the items within the charter? And do they meet all the
requirements for each one of those positions that you're as it stands? Yes. As it stands,
yes. Yes. Okay. Because you're asking us to vote and and this is determined by the charter. So,
I just want to clarify that what we're voting for in a positive manner is in is in
uh both candidates are qualified. Yep. Both candidates are qualified. Compliance with the
charter. Yep. Yes. Thank you. Both qualified. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? I
do have one other question now. I thought about it. So, Billy, um I guess does this normally come
to the council before they appoint these people and then they're appointed or we members of the
council? I really don't think that for an interim appointment that charter really requires this. We
wanted to do it in an abundance of caution to make sure that nobody felt like we were just
making decisions without coming to you guys for approval. So, I think that that the both of these
resolutions and approval by the council are being done by the mayor to make sure that y'all agree
with the decisions he's made and not really for compliance with the that was my if the permanent
appointments come up or should he make these either one of these guys permanent, you'll need to
approve it again. Okay. and that that is required and this is more of an abundance of caution and
out of respect to the council to make sure that we're doing uh the right thing and giving you
all the opportunity for input. Okay, that's what I was curious. Okay, thank you. I'd like to say
I appreciate the the actually the interaction trying to get these guys in here to fill a void
being that we have an absence and in the presence of having these people's position and um I think
the interim appointments are are all right. I'm in approval of both of them actually. So,
thank you. Any more comments from the council? We have no comments from the motion from the
audience. We have to do them separately, Mr. Dep. What? We have to do them separately,
right? Uh we have a motion. A motion. Motion by Mr. Batty. Second. Second. Second by me. Okay. Is
this on Reed Ellener? On Reed Ellander. The first one. Okay. Roll call vote. Mr. Leoo. Yes. Mr.
Derby? Yes. Mr. Monzo? Yes. Mr. B? Yes. Mr. Dea? Yes. Okay. Uh, Lindsay. Uh, number two, resolution
approving the recommendation mayor students for the appointment of Lindseay Douch. So move.
Interim director of finance. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mansono. Roll call vote. Mr.
Leoo. Yes. Mr. Derby. Yes. Miss Monzo. Yes. Mr. B. Yes. Mr. Dep. Yes. Okay. Going on to number three.
Call to order the third part of our special meeting. Invocation. Sure.
Okay. Go ahead. Dear Lord, as we gather here tonight, I ask that you take and lead each and
every one of our hearts, dear Lord, and guide us in the right direction. Let us be open-minded,
dear Lord, to the things that we're actually in search of, dear Lord. is not of destruction,
but is it's for clarity and to shine a light on the things that we need to correct to better
ourselves. God, I ask each and every one of us that sits up here on this board to have a clear
conscience and a clear mind as we move forward through this entire process. Jesus name I pray.
Amen. Amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call, please. Mr. Loo here, Mr. Dy here. Mr. B here. Mr. Dea here. Okay. Uh,
this is a resolution requesting an opinion from the attorney general related to potential
violations of public bid law by the city of Sulford, Louisiana. Resolution 3526, Josh B.
Read it. Yeah, it's to you now. So, I am asking for a resolution uh tonight be voted upon uh
requesting an opinion from the attorney general uh related to potential violations of public bid
law by the city of Sulfur. Uh, be it resolved by the city council of the city of sulfur,
Louisiana, the governing authority thereof, that they do hereby request attorney general's
opinion related to the potential violations of public bid law by the city of sulfur.
Uh this is requesting for attorney general's
opinion on suspected violations of public bid law concerning real estate
uh lease and real uh related improvements at 501 Willa Avenue sulfur Louisiana 70663.
Dear Mrs. Merl, as a member of the sulfur city council, I respectfully request an opinion from
your office regarding whether there are violations of the Louisiana public bid
law in connection with the acquisition, lease, and related improvements of the
uh building located at 511 Willow Avenue, Sulford, Louisiana 70663. the property. Specifically,
I seek guidance on whether the actions described below, comply with the applicable
uh public bid and procurement requirements, including the mandatory fair market analysis,
bid solicitations, and competitive bid procedures. Statement of facts and concerns
as I understand them. The property, which is currently under FEMA reimbursement funding,
was acquired and leased under a 2-year agreement with a monthly rent of $20,853.
The lease was signed on a contingency basis before the purchase of the building closed. A private
contractor owner of 10X Services LLC is alleged uh to be involved. And this contractor alleged has
uh family connections to the city marshal Brand Endeavors by marriage. The city marshall publicly
indicated in council meeting minutes that he had worked for approximately 4 years to lock this
building down to enable the project. There is no public record of a formal fair market analysis or
an appraisal comparing the rent or the building's value against comparable properties. No documented
comparables or written verification of fair market price have been disclosed by the city of sulfur.
The lease provides that all buildouts are to be funded by the city of sulfur. It alleged that
the buildout work estimated at $50 to $60,000 performed by 10x services. The building's owner
without a public bid or advertised competitive bidding process for the work related improvements
project. A separate $325,000 improvements project was awarded to 10X Services LLC with no public
bid advertisement or required by the city of Sulfur. According to the public records, public
records indicate a request for $100,000 additional from the city uh court judge to be donated from
the building fund towards this project. This donation raises concern about bid integrity,
potential bid splitting or malfeasants involving the judge, the city marshall, the city clerk,
mayor, and the uh council members who approved the imp uh the improved projects. The project
was reszoned from residential to business nearly a year after the building purchase and nearly before
the completion of uh internal finish work uh with alleged inadequate or non-compliant
uh inspections. During a council meeting, it was observed that a drinking fountain was not
installed, potentially violating municipal and plumbing codes, yet inspectors allowed occupancy.
These matters have been eroded public trust in city government and compliance with applicable
uh procurement and permitting proc uh procedures. Requesting uh conclusions and questions for the
attorney general's opinion. Do the facts described raise material questions about compliance with
Louisiana's public bid law and related procurement status in relation to A the lease arrangement for
the property and its rent. B the lack of formal fair market analysis or appraisals, the decisions
uh to fund perform building improvements without publicly advertised bids, any potential bid
splitting or bid ridding concerns, and the related conflicts of interest involving public officials.
What uh procedural steps, if any, should the city undertake uh to cure possible non-compliance,
including further uh bidding, rebid adjustments to the lease terms, or any requirement disclosures
regarding related uh party interest? If deficiencies are found, what enforcement
remedies or correction actions would the attorney general's opinion recommend that will ensure
compliances with the public bid law and related procurement requirements? Are there any additional
factors under the federal FEMA guidelines or state building zone zoning or building uh code
requirements that could affect the legality or the funding of the project? Supporting materials,
public meeting minutes, and transcripts uh mentions four years of efforts by the city
marshall to secure the building. Lease agreement documents including the contingency language and
the stated monthly rent. any available public records uh related to the uh the buildout costs
and payments to 10X services. Uh public records indicating the $325,000 improvements project
and the lack of advertised bids, the zoning, reszoning, inspection and occupancy records for
the for the property. Any communication or records suggested a potential conflict of interest related
party involvement and a conclusion. I request the attorney general's opinion to determine
whether the city sulfur's actions concerning the property's acquisition, lease, and improvements
were consistent with the Louisiana public bid law and related procurement requirements and to
identify any corrective measures that may be warranted to restore compliance and public trust.
I certify that I have have reason to believe these matters may involve violations of public
procurement and related laws and that a timely opinion from your office is
sought to clarify applicable law and potential remedies. Other concerns are
federal violations of FEMA guidelines and laws. Respectfully submitted Joshua Batten.
Any comments from the city council?
I have a few.
Uh um yeah, I'm going I'm going I'll go ahead and start if that's okay. Um you know, I I don't
think we should only be getting an opinion from the attorney general. I really think that there
needs an be an investigation first. Um, I think the letter uh the information in this letter is
incomplete and it's one-sided opinion in order to influence the AG to make an opinion in his
favor. You know, and one question is where's the intent? I would like to add that Mr. Brandon De is
purely a tenant in this building. Make a motion to challenge I'm going to make a motion to I want to
challenge you on what you just said. Point of order. Point of order. The challenge of chair
goes across a point of order. Go ahead. But I'm going to fix You're incorrect in what you just
said and I want to correct you because you say it's inaccuracy. I have a whole stack of proven
documents right here if you'd like to go into them. We can do it now if you'd like. We can do it
when you want. Are you done? Order, guys. Order, please. Order. Are you done? Order. Are you done?
as long as you don't get me involved. Okay. Why don't we just let everybody speak? Okay. Uh and
had no involvement in the purchasing process of this building. Get your card. He wanted a
safe and secure building for his team and a and a sulfur city court. Any mention of him in this
investigation is no more than a grandstanding and part of a personal campaign against him.
And I'd also like to point out a letter and an email that you received as a part of your public
uh request where it pointed out all of the different options that were given
to us and how all of these options were proved to be wrong by different
uh means of uh real estate investigation. The Goodwill building was one of them.
47 47 The building on Napoleon Street where 10X Services is located across from the current DMV
building where warehouse own the building across from Missy's grocery store. The
building in the property recently purchased on Rof Street and it goes on and on and on. Well,
that's funny that you had those cuz they weren't privy to me whenever I did public records request.
Okay. This lease was signed on a contingency basis for $20,000. 90% of that was paid by FEMA.
This familiar uh association that you put in there happens to be the fourth cousin of the Marshall's
wife. Okay. The Marshall and his team had been in the in at least four different buildings that
were moldinfested and people were falling through the floors. Of course, he wanted a safe and secure
building. You forgot to mention that. Okay. You can't do it by awarding illegal contracts. One
more one more outburst and you'll be removed. Okay. One more outburst and you'll be order
citizen. That's inappropriate. I'm sorry. Yeah. So, so to challenge So, to challenge the chair,
it doesn't matter whenever you're wrong and stating in improper facts. I didn't you're you're
stating improper stuff and if you if you would like me to to to speak on that. This is an email
from Jennifer Thorne and Brandon Devers. Do you remember the conversation that Babino was going
to fund a portion of the parking lot? I pulled the clear check and we paid the total of $325,000.
This contradicts completely what we've been saying to folks. Wow. Wow. $325,000 on a public bid. And
whenever I asked for public records, folks, public records came back on letter six of my question.
Was any public bids put out on this building? No. So, you can't go and exceed $250,000 on any
capital improvements project without putting it up for public bid. It was never put up for public
bid. It was disclosed by the city that they didn't put it up for public bid. And then we
go to the city judge and we get $100,000 to take and reduce the amount of that to bring it below
the public bid requirements. That's bid rigging in order to award a job. And not one time has
anyone decided that they wanted to ask me to look at any of these documents. You just want to take
an avoid it. It's a violation of public bid law. And and to to go into it a little bit further,
I'm not really sure that you're aware that we haven't received not one receipt of reimbursement
on this particular building because you know why? Because the contract agreed that it had to
be a movable building and so no one's actually engaged into a contract agreement from FEMA to
reimburse it. So it's kind of a interesting topic that maybe we need to really look at.
Members of the council, for the record, this matter has been submitted by the
administration to the legislative auditor. That was another question. Yeah. At this time,
it's has it been to the DA's office as well? The DA can't really do anything.
He doesn't he has to accept charges or or reject charges after an investigation. But
the legislative auditor, how long has it been, mayor? So,
I don't know the exact date, but it's already been sent over. There was a three-prongong process.
I sent everything over to the legislative auditor's office. The DA's office is only
put on notice until there are findings from that investigative authority. And by speaking
with the two attorneys there, they have to calm through that. Then the auditor of which who was
doing the auditing at that time had to be put on notice. And let me tell you, I'm going for
another auditing session with another auditor. We will not the city of Sulford be using that same
person. We're going to use state resources that is investigating it. once they form an
opinion that will be given to attorney general. However, but I'm I'll be here to tell you it's
been submitted from a nonbiased outlook weeks ago just because it's at the DA's office. They
do not investigate things once. Hang on. Once the findings of what the legislative auditor finds,
then it comes back here. So that's as far as what the administration side has done. Um at that time
possibly. I don't want to answer for it, but maybe. Does it go to the attorney general? I don't
know. So you've got two investigations going. Do I understand that right? One. one two parts. Well,
the DA's office is just put on notice, but they can't accept or reject charges that don't exist.
There's no conclusion. So, we've got one request for the DA. We've got your request for the Let me
finish your request for a legislative auditor. And then on September 14th, we've got another
resolution or an ordinance that's going to be a third investigation. Is that correct? Let
me just correct you. You said DA. I think you meant attorney general. Ag. That's correct. So,
we've got three possible investigations are going to be going on in less than a month on the same
item. Is that correct? Technically, if they all occur. Okay. Are they from three different
agencies? The only one that I've submitted everything to has been uh the legislative
auditor's office only. Okay. So, if we ask for an attorney general's opinion can then we can ask
for attorney general's opinion to slim down the amount of money that our taxpayers spend for an
investigation to help move this thing forward and save ourselves the taxpayers money. Also,
I think we need to attack attach an ethics review to the e Louisiana ethics board to
assist them in that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If there's ethics violations,
let's put it all on the table and move forward and that'll slim down our investigative process. Yeah,
that from what I've been told speaking with the legislative auditors, um I would definitely let
them go through with that process and if there's another process, that's fine. um and not have
from an attorney standpoint of pulling that on a on a whole another investigation. It's where it
definitely needs to be at this point. I can tell you that by speaking with them. They they are the
first point of contact. I was told that as well. And once it goes to them, it comes back to us.
If we're going to do an investigation oursself, it's got to be sent to them at the end anyway.
So, if we go ahead and give it to them, it reduces the amount of taxpayers money
we're spending in legal fees to fight something that they're going to go through and review it.
I got a question with the Go ahead. You want to send it to the state to let them look at it,
right? Yeah, that's what you're saying. So, what if he comes back
and says nothing's wrong? We're going to then we're going to move forward. Are we?
We should. Absolutely. That's all I want to know. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. I mean,
but what what took so long to get to this point is my question. I don't know what that took so long.
Do you think I could finish what I had to say? Yes, please do. Can I? Thank you. You know
I in my opinion you know because the ex execution of this agreement was approved by then city
attorney Mr. Kate Cole then by Mr. Billy Loftton and then by Patrick Vega Vega of the legislators
auditor's office. I just want to make that very clear and that's and that's correct is it not? I
don't know that I approved that. I was under the understanding that was a Kade Cole project, but
if I did, I did. So, but then, okay, we take you out of that. There's still a legislative audit,
right? I just don't remember being involved in it. I'm not saying that I did. Well, you know,
I'm I'm going to make this very brief. I'm not put my name on this. I'm not putting my name on
this at all. I'm not putting my name on a document that is is seriously making uh accusations against
an elected official. an elected official has just recently been re uh re-uped. No. Uh so and
I'm not gonna I am not going to be I'm not going to be a part of this and I don't want any legal
ramifications that would come out of it for me. Thank you. It's a sad indictment. Well, Danny,
only one of these statements had anything to do with him. There's a whole lot of other things that
sit on here. Well, I think what Mr. Danny says is for three years he got up and spoke in favor
of everything that they did. So, he's not going to get up there and go against it. I don't think
you're not in a position to to think what I You cannot have me removed. I'll be willing to walk
out of here, but I'm going to say what I have to say. Danny Deetta, you are on a political move to
attack Jacob Stoops as a turned into a political stunt. Order. Order. Order for sure. Let's talk
about what we're on the items, guys. And let's quit quit that. Danny, order both of you. Order.
Really? Order, guys. Once again, stay on point to what we're talking about. This isn't a vindictive
to beat each other up. I'm trying. No, it's going to be done. Okay, that's enough. Really, let's
talk about the item at hand. Any more comments? I have more. I got a question for the mayor and
Billy. Hey, chair. I got a question for Billy and uh the mayor. So, if we approved this, do you feel
that we're putting a card before the horse? Since you're already at the auditor's uh it's
already at the legislative auditor. You want me to answer? What? And well, go ahead and I may shed
some light. Yeah. Um, I I personally think I'm not opposed to what Mr. Ben's trying to do, right? Uh,
and I'm not saying that this that there would be anything wrong with having a multi-prong attack,
but I also agree with Mr. Depeta that an elected official's name with those accusations should not
be in the letter. Maybe the answer is to amend the letter. We can all get along. I mean, this is not
about we want the result. We don't have to make a specific allegation against a specific person. If
they're looking into it, they'll figure it out. I just put the names of the people who's in the
emails and all the transactions or the public records that was handed to him by the city. Once
again, I'm not disagreeing with you about your purpose. I just agree with Mr. Depeta about the
public official. That's it. It's all I got to say. The mayor may have something else. So, real quick,
you had referenced Patrick Bergado. Um, he had not had all of this information, by the way, of which
you're speaking of, but he did approve it. Okay. Upon speaking with the legislative auditor, we'll
we'll wait to see what what comes out of that. And and I hope that after everything comes back that
the people that have been at the forefront of this will wipe their hands of it so we can do business
in the city itself and not have to carry on this type of thing over and over and over again. Yeah.
Bid law procedure needs to be followed. I agree 100%. Miss Wendy, you want to go?
Yeah. I'm I'm Bill Leblon live at 17 Roberto Drive. I don't have much to say other than the
fact that we cannot continue with this city with the shame that's going on. We're the laughing
stock of this area, you know, with you guys up there arguing like kids. I mean, I got kids that
don't argue like y'all do. And and you know, follow the guidelines that are set down by the
charter and do whatever it takes to find out if somebody made a mistake. If somebody did something
intentionally, let's find out about it, you know. But it doesn't have to be a war. You know,
there there's a war going on and everybody feels it. That's why we go into a bigger,
you know, people like to see a fight. I know I've been involved in a lot of them, you know,
and and and you got to stop some of this stuff. Quit being childish about everything. And I'm
talking to everybody. I mean, you know, we got this deal with the mayor going on, you know,
and his lady friend, you know, we got Josh is mad at everybody. You know, you guys need to settle
down. I mean, we had a council here at one time that got a lot done and I never heard the kind of
discussions that you guys going through. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Wendy. Thank you.
Um Wendy Wingate, uh 256 Madison Crossing. I feel like that uh discussion was a perfect reason as
to why the council should not be in charge of an investigation to this magnitude. Um, just a couple
of points that were brought up just a second ago before I even go into my spill. Um, you know, if
you looked into the Goodwill building and the roof street building, then you would have seen in those
meeting notes from a foyer request that they did mention that they had to follow public bid law and
how long it actually takes to um, get that process started. Um, if you didn't see the minutes,
then you probably wouldn't see that. Um, that was nothing but personal attacks. And if we're here to
um save our friends, then I'm not interested and I will call it out every single time. I feel like I
hope uh everybody can keep the same energy about not accusing our elected officials of wrongdoing
in a personal and public uh setting in the next couple of meetings that we have because clearly
there's some ulterior motives and the colors were just shown pretty clear for me as to what
what side people stand on. Are we here to actually call out problems and fix them or are we here to
protect our friends? I feel like that conversation was proof that we all got the answer that we
needed. So, back to the actual problem which was a clear violation of public bid law. Just to be
very clear with everybody, this goes all the way back to 2024 um when the city back in that time
was actually just buying buildings like we were playing Monopoly. um including a building that was
over $300,000 for one of the previous council's brother. A building that we couldn't do anything
for with like we still to this day don't have any purpose for that building. So we were just blowing
money left and right. That's the only reason why I had my attention on this project in itself. They
called a special meeting in 2024. They showed up to the special meeting with one agenda item that
they had to amend because they didn't even bring the right dates on the contract. So, we can't sit
here and act like this just started yesterday when Josh started making his videos. This started years
ago. These are years of problems that have been covered up and y'all are scared of exposing them.
Period. With the public bid law, um there are some emails from Jennifer Thorne to the council.
They were first notified in August of 2024. At that time, she said it was in the best interest
of leasing this building instead of purchasing the building so we could get reimbursement for
FEMA. Um, come to find out, we still don't have any information on if we've ever even received
FEMA funding or not, which if you actually did do some investigation and foyer requests, then
you would have probably seen that an investigative journalist did request information regarding FEMA.
Uh, Miss Natalie Lindon did a great job with her foyer request and Jennifer Thorne very clearly
stated that none of this change of venue uh from the modular buildings which were approved for 90%
reimbursement. There was never any notification to FEMA that we moved buildings. As far as I can
read, the only FEMA coverage is for modular buildings. So, do we even know if this place
is being funded by FEMA right now? I don't think there's a person in this building that
can answer that question if we're truly getting 90% reimburseed of that $20,000 a month rate.
Maybe she can, but I am not about to put her on a spot in a meeting such this magnitude. But that
is one of the biggest questions I would have in this entire thing is no one can actually say if
we are getting any reimbursement for the monthly rate that we're paying. If we want to bring Kade
Cole into it, then yeah, let's bring Cade Cole from the meeting back in 2024 when he clearly
said that they upcharge essentially to um make it easier for contractors to invest because it's so
difficult to deal with FEMA. So, if we really were truly investigating and not just believe
in everything we're told right off the bat, then you would have found that information out as the
the chair of the council who's quick to call inaccuracy of another council member. You're
you're passing 3 minutes, Mr. I would like you to vote and give me three more minutes, please,
cuz I have a lot more to say. So move second. I second it. Vote. Mr. Leoo, yes. Mr. Darby,
yes. Miss Monzo, yes. Mr. Baden, yes. Mr. Yes. So, the council was notified in 2024 um that there was
movement. The council to their defense at the time did have uh quite a few um problems with the uh
building in itself. They were concerned about the cost that it was going to um take in order to get
this building up to par. Um and they were gas lit at that time and told lies. I'll get into that in
just a second as I do have actual documents to support it. Um so the total cost, yes, was the
$232,000. What they did was they said that they took away the $100,000 that was given by the city
core. Um, but what they don't tell you is is once a donation is made public to public fund, it is
public money. So once they donated that money from the city court fund, it becomes public funds. That
is our money. So it doesn't matter how you split this project, which if you pulled up the law,
it states pretty clear that under no circumstances shall there be a division or separation of any
public work project into smaller projects. Which division or separation would have the effect of
avoiding a requirement that public law public work be advertised and let by contract to the lowest
responsible and responsive bidder. Clearly that says under no circumstances can you split this
project to get what you want out of it. Not only did they bring the $100,000 when we buffed that,
they still called me a liar. All right. So then they started sending out emails that
the contractor actually took on some of the cost. Nowhere in the contract that the council approved
states that it was okay for the contractor to take on cost. But if we want to go ahead and say that
that's not against the law, the same ordinance or the same resolution that Miss Thorne put in
the email to Mayor Stouts before he even was um in the job, she flat out lied to him. Okay,
so that's what she said. And in the law, it actually says again, under no circumstances
shall the agreement of a contractor to finance a public works project be used in any way to avoid
the requirement that public work be advised and led by the contract to the lowest responsible
and responsive bidder. So whether the contractor paid for it, whether the city court put money in
for it, it doesn't matter how you split it or who you ask, that is still bid rigging. Period.
So all he is asking is that hey if the AG finds a loophole in all of this then fine but you cannot
sit here and gaslight the public into believing that the previous council and mayor followed
the law. That is obvious if you actually pulled any record. If we want to talk about total cost,
then we have to talk about the additional cost outside of the parking lot where um the $6,100 was
paid for a canopy right outside on the southeast end that wasn't included in the project. Remember,
we can't split at all under no circumstances. They also paid $800 extra dollars to 10X services for
a handicap stencil. Wendy, we're past our time and I I'll I want more time. I would like a vote.
I'll make a motion to do it. I'll sell you. How much time? Three. Yes. Three minutes.
So, five. Mr. Leoo. Yes. Mr. Derby? Yes. Miss Monzo? Yes. Mr. Baden? Yes. Mr. Deet? Yes. So,
on top of the $6,100 extra dollars and the $800 extra dollars, we're going to now we're going to
say that the contractor spent $30,000 outside of what we um agreed to in a contract. So,
now we're agreeing to violating a contract, which would ultimately make it null and void. So,
that's stupid in itself. Not only did we do that, she is still essentially lying by saying the next
excuse from Jennifer Thorne uh was that the she told the mayor, let me read it so I don't screw
it up. The property lease, which was approved by the council, stated that the parking lot
was to be completed by the property owner. Did y'all read that in the contract? Because
I didn't. What the contract actually says is that the tenant, that's not the contractor, the
tenant is to pay for all of the exterior parking construction costs. That includes the parking lot,
handicap parking, and removal of poles, soil, rocks, and hard surfaces, architectural drawings,
and permittings. That clearly does not say that the construction person is responsible for that.
So again, if we did our research and didn't just flat out want to call people a liar because
you don't want to have to agree that they are correct, you would have seen that information.
The biggest problem that I have is that this has been created personal by such defensive strategy.
when I started looking at all of this, the the one person that we are talking about today,
which is the marshall, honestly, is gonna not even be part of the um process when it comes down to
who's actually in charge here cuz he can't sign that. And so, you're sitting here defending him
when he doesn't even need to be defended. And on his end, I don't know why his panties are in such
a wad because he it's not going to be on him. But we can't sit here and say that he wasn't involved.
he was very clearly involved. We can't sit here and say that the council wasn't aware.
They knew what was going on and if they didn't, they just didn't ask any questions. So, again,
I had a feeling that this meeting was going to go this way and I'm very disappointed,
but I I'm not shocked one bit. Um the I have a lot more to say, but the way that just went down,
I I'm going to hold off and I I genuinely want to see how this plays out. And I just want to
end with the simple fact that let's hold that same energy about accusing elected officials
when we don't have anything to actually produce um on that topic. Especially since there's an
agenda item today that is very vague and no one has even bothered to even talk about it. It's a
secret. But y'all let the entire city stir up drama instead of addressing the real problem.
Here we are trying to address a real problem and you turn into this defensive personal mode and try
and shut it down. If if Jennifer Thorne talked to the legislative auditor's office, which she says
in her email and several foyer requests, including Natalie McClendon, she sent it to KPLC. Mr. John
McCartney, who had a 45minute video right before the election, she sent the same wrong lies to him.
Time. Thank you, Sheila. For the record, it was 10 minutes total. 10 minutes. So, Miss Sheila,
Sheila Brousard. Um, I am happy that discussions take place in the chambers instead of outside of
the chambers. Of course, it is um disheartening um that the chair would and I made notes. It was
the first time somebody got personal uh that the chair would ascribe intent to somebody's
um request for uh for information. Requests for information, investigations are what
uh give us transparency. Um, if and I love what Billy had said, a multi-prong approach, a
multi-prong approach cannot be a bad thing. I have dealt with the attorney general's office. Um, they
they gave me lots of information at one point and a few months later I asked for more information
and it's been a year and they have not contacted me back in spite of me trying to get information
from them continually. So for information to be requested from the attorney general, from uh the
legislative order, from the ethics board, it needs to be requested everywhere it can be requested. Um
I do have a question for Mr. Ben. He had said and I think uh Wendy referred to it also. Will
you adjust me with a question and I'll pass on Mr. B. Okay. May I ask Mr. Ben a question? Mr. chair.
That's also another way I can do that. Address the chair, please. I'm addressing you and asking
you permission to ask Mr. Ben a question. You can ask me the question. Go ahead. You do understand
it can be done. I'm not holding you back. I'm asking you a question first. You do understand
it can be both ways and it's appropriate. You do know that, right? However you want to do
it. Okay. I'm asking permission to address uh the district for representative. May I do that? Sure.
Thank you. Mr. Bane, you said in a telephone, a very short conversation, so I didn't get to ask
you on the phone. You had stated on the phone and here that uh it would be saving us money to give
to give this request to the AG's office. Could you please expound on that? How would that work?
So, if we're sending our information to the attorney general's office, they're a state paid
agency for them to review the documents that we're sending over to them to give us a finding, whether
it's a prosecutable finding or just some advice how to correct it to where we don't make the
same mistake again. And so, that's what I've been asking for all along. But, being that I've been an
outside citizen and not an elected official, it was harder to get an attorney general's opinion
on that issue. I was also hitting a block wall with other people interfering on state levels
and trying to stop it, which is also a sad indictment. But if we go through the process,
whether we go through three separate agencies or if we go through one, I mean, you know, where one
might be completely slammed and dragging their feet and we ask for one through ethics board,
we have one through attorney general's office and one through Louisiana legislative order. Each one
of these offices do something totally different. Mhm. And so I think it's a very important thing
that we address all three. And then we're supposed to be holding a hearing, an investigative process,
which is something that no city council in sulfur has ever done before. So we're
going to sit here and try to act like we're a a judge and and and attorneys and by questioning
people and doing what? Look, I'm just asking for guidance. Mhm. and head us in the right direction
by people that are skilled and trained. I mean, and and here's the whole question.
The past administration constantly alleged of transparency. If there was complete transparency,
look, then move forward with the dog on investigation. Let's get it over with. If
you said there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to hide. Move forward with it. Get get
it over with. Get it behind us and let's move forward. I'm not trying to attack one person,
but let me tell you something. Whenever I bring up issues in every single email that I come across,
certain people's names are mentioned in every single one of them. Then that's an indication that
those people are directly involved in that thing that needs to be looked at in the investigation. I
don't care if I named them. I named who was in in in the in the paperwork that was given to me. So,
I mean, I'm sure there's a whole lot that I missed in here that I probably go in and name. I probably
wouldn't have enough paper to put them on, but I do believe it would drastically I mean, Mr. Billy,
what what does an attorney charge an hour? I charge $450 except for public work. Okay. So,
$450 an hour, we're looking at saving the city. So, on something that could go on for months.
So you figure how much money that would actually save the taxpayers. And not to mention Mr. Depetta
would actually be allowed to get an attorney to represent resolution one that he's passing for
the investigation. He's asking for Mr. Stouts. And then I would also I'd like to make a point
of clarification if I could. The investigation is for the hiring and firing practices of the city.
Never in that document of any document that I put out there is Mayor Stouts or any of the
other employees in the city council in the city of Sul excuse me? Never. That's what you've been
doing and that's what other people been doing. And I'd like to make this perfectly clear. We're
investigating the process. We're not investigating the people. And let's make this perfectly clear.
I am I'm clear on individuals names again and that's a problem. If you're pointing
fingers at individuals, like Mr. Billy said, that's a problem. Okay. Well, I guess I'm not
pointing fingers. I'm stating a fact that I received in your email and you said, "Please
give me all investigative documents involving Jacob Stews." So, that clarifies that. And so,
being we got that on the table, we verified who he Can we get some order and go back to the point of
what we're talking about? Not not the biting. Once again, guys, we're back. We are back off point.
I want to correct it like he said that he wasn't talking about one specific person but his email in
correspondence to me iterate something completely different. I don't I don't believe that. But to
bring it to bring it back to the to bring it back to the topic um if if someone's name is brought
up in a in an investigation, it's not going to sway the attorney general one way or the other.
If your name is in a document and your name is brought up, that's not going to sway the attorney
general at all. Um, so whether the mayor's name or Dubra's name, whoever's name is an investigation,
I don't think that's important. I am disheartened that any member of this council would say before
the discussions took place, before the council has spoken about it, before the citizens have
had a chance to speak that you would say, "I'm not going to put my name on this." That's a sad thing
that your mind is made up before you've heard from people from people who've read it certainly more
than I have read the investigative papers more than I have. I don't think for anybody to come
in here with their mind made up on something as detailed as this is a shame. I do have a quick
question for the mayor. You had said that you sent everything to the attorney general. Was it
everything that Mr. uh that the representative from district 4 had sent you in that correction
she legislative order. Thank you very much. Have you sent the legislative auditor everything that
the representative from district 4 gave you in regards to the will of street building and deeper?
So the total lease agreement, total contract price um is what they are looking at because
that scope of work um goes by that um no other information has been submitted as far as from
Mr. Ben. Um so so it is not redundant for him to put forth something because much of that is
not in yours to the legislative. Is that correct? Would is that a fair statement?
if he had other information that is beyond the scope of the lease agreement and the total scope
of work is is what they're interested in because it's new construction they wanted a final amount
it doesn't matter if I paid for it you paid for it goes by the total scope of work being that it was
new construction with public funds I I gave them that and the lease agreement no other information
was given by me to them only what they've asked for they wrote back to me what they needed to
go with that scope of work in an investigation. Now, if there is other information that I need to
include in that, I'd be more than happy to pass that along. However, they need to come through.
But they wanted to know procurement process and total scope of the work job related. Mhm. They're
only looking at the process legally of what you would have had to do with those two things. So,
it would be very beneficial to have what you are getting from the state legislative auditor. And
do we need to take a vote for me to be able to continue to speak? Do I hear a motion? So, move
second. Okay. Mr. Leoo. Yes. Mr. Dory. Yes. Miss Monzo. Yes. Mr. Ben. Yes. Mr. Deet. Yes. Thank
you. Um, so, so it's not a redundant request, but even if it were, if if everyone in this room sent
a letter to the attorney general stating their concerns on this particular matter,
it would lend more credence to uh the the fact that an investigation needs to take place.
I don't think we can have too many requests on anything. I think they're smart enough to
sort out the duplication and to sort through what information that they need from every
uh person that submits information. Um see I want to go to a couple of things that Miss
Winggate brought up because uh I was listening to um uh Ben Shapiro today speaking on the
uh PBD pro broadcast a podcast uh that deals with politics and and much much more.
But uh Ben Shapiro said it doesn't make uh a difference to him and I don't think it should
to me and I don't think it should to anyone in this room. If someone has done something that is
illegal, immoral, unethical, has harmed this city, it should not matter. Your friends,
thank you for your time. Sheila, anybody? Yeah, this Amy
Amy Feliz 2329 Augustine and Mr. Chair, I don't know if this is the last public comment or period
or is there one after this? This is it. Okay. So, just a couple of questions based on some
observations and I did not intend to speak. Um, so I may fumble on my thoughts a little bit,
but my first question based on an observation is do we have a deputy
clerk? Miss Blanchard is phenomenal. And um I don't know if she ever gets any time off. So,
I don't know what happens if she, you know, bless her heart gets sick or something. So,
that was one question that I had. And another question that I have is there a way
that that the chair uh positions can be changed. Um I know that it was voted on every year. Every
year. Okay. Um I just I I've noticed how Mr. Darby um does a good job trying to keep order
and stay on task. And I hear some um phrases in other municipalities like point of order um um
well uh anyway that's all huh request for information. Yes. Uh you can't speak to
motives um things like that. So uh that that's all. Thank you.
Mike Granger, 521 Oakland Drive, software. Uh, a couple things. I really think that
we shouldn't be using anyone's name, whether it be the finance director, the past mayor,
whoever in investigation and make accusations on. you can say the position, but I don't think
any of us needs to get up here. I think it's why it's become so personal is we using names. So,
I don't think it's fair to those individuals that we whoever is calling whatever individual
out about whatever they did or didn't do before we know because once you now that you said the name,
you can't go back and retract what you said. The mouth is a very powerful thing. Once you
say something, it's done. I want to reiterate on bills too. This is not just there's people
calling from Cal. They calling from all over the country about the city of software. What's
going on right now? I've been all my life. So we got to do something to quit. I'm talking
about radio stations all over. Okay. So another thing, so I want to address the money issue. Is
the ethics board being paid? Are they a state agency? Are they being paid? What about the
attorney general? Are they being paid? And then the legislative order is being paid. So there's
no way you can save money if you got three different agencies. Go ahead. By the state,
sir. They get paid by That's what I'm saying. But they who our taxes, huh? Is it our taxes? Okay.
So you got three investigations going on. There's no way you can save a public any kind of funds by
having three investigations. State funds. It's not state funds. Please let him talk. But correct him
then. Please let him talk. There's a difference. I think we want to give the investigation to you.
Well, I think you got So anyway, I'm getting just like you. I apologize. I I apologize. Excuse me.
Strike that. Can we strike that comment? Wendy, if you want I'm not saying names.
Okay. Strike that comment. So my part being where the funds coming from state, the city,
there's no way you can tell me we saving money by getting three different groups involved. So let
the let the mayor send let them do that. If they come back with some a finding, then we send it
to attorney general. Attorney general comes back with finding then we send it to the ethsics board.
I think it's a little overkill for going three different but it would be going
the same direction by saying that could still be doing the same thing. Yeah. So I mean you already
got one going. So I just don't see where it's saving us any money. Well three they're three
totally separate agencies. Not saving us any money. Is it saving us any money having three?
Well well no there's there's no discussion. There's no discussion on this. Miss Lena.
I didn't really come here to speak tonight, but my name is Lena MacArthur. I live at 5514 Clark
Drive, Sulford 70665. My question is, where is the integrity of this city? I've lived here for
65 years and never seen a hornets nest to this. Not fussing with any of y'all, but my question is,
Mayor Stouts has an investigation going on. Why another one? At the end of the day,
doesn't the DA get to make the decision whether they accept charges or reject charges if there
was something done wrong? As I've sat here tonight, there keep saying there is something,
but you got to get the answer to get to the DA to find out what really happened.
And I'm in agreement. Don't call people's name out. We all have families. I've been
one of the people that's been in the videos. I really don't appreciate it.
And I don't appreciate the attack we have on our citizens of software. Thank you. Thank you.
Have a motion. So move. Second for the vote. Second. Second by Miss Danielle.
Roll call vote. Mr. Loo. Yes. Mr. Derby. Yes. Miss Monica. Yes. Mr. B. Yes. Mr. Teta. No.
Motion to adjourn. Mr. No motion. Meetings adjourned. You get free. And you get free.
Heat. Heat.
has change into
Oh,
heat,
heat.
I take
Heat. Heat.
Oh yeah.
Wow.
Yes, ma'am.
Be careful.
That is appropriate. You heard me call your representative.
I mean,
how do we turn off?
How do we turn off?
Yeah, that is Oh, yeah.