[0:21] How you doing? How are you? Well, I mean, I'm just
[0:31] I'm supposed to do uh too much more. I just got 
my blood results back and my phone's been blowing  
[0:37] up. The doctor's like, "This number's not right. 
This number is not right." So, I'm waiting for him  
[0:40] to tell me what to do. Something after a while, 
the cancer not all the incident stuff. Anyway,  
[0:53] thanks for asking. just right now and I we've gone 
through a lot. There's a there's a list and you're  
[1:01] on the list. Thank you so much. I appreciate 
you. I can feel it. I can feel it. Okay.
[1:11] Hey, how are you? Good. Okay. What you got? 
Miss Wing is going on vacation tomorrow. How  
[1:22] you doing? We are signing stuff tonight. 
Oh, I got you. So, we got new stamps with  
[1:29] new names on. Hey, mayor. Hey. Hey. How you 
doing? I'm doing well. How you This is way
[1:40] hot this time. Kind of hot.
[1:48] and I'm going to send an email to 
that lady and I'll copy you on it,  
[1:53] confirm that audit letter and all 
that. She sent it to me and I said,  
[1:57] "Are we in a hurry?" She said, "I 
don't know about a couple more days."
[2:04] So, I'll send I'll send her a response to you. See  
[2:08] if I think it's okay. I actually had 
the language about it's got to say
[2:20] today. Hey, I just got in trouble cuz you 
didn't tell me who we forgot. I forgot.  
[2:26] All right. I was going to see if 
he was going to acknowledge it.
[2:34] Opioid. Yes. I have four clients who sent 
it to me to review. Okay. cuz I represent  
[2:39] the uh I represent the treatment facility. 
I represent So you see us. I'll look at it.  
[2:48] Yeah. Cuz I think you're going to 
be turned by September 1st. Okay.
[2:56] It's a
[2:59] don't don't hesitate to text me two or three 
days before I say, "Hey bro, check everything.  
[3:05] Every document that you sign that's binding 
has to go through the council. Okay. So,  
[3:10] we probably wouldn't be able to do that. No, 
it's going to have to be on September. final  
[3:19] action on October cuz the application 
would have to be submitted due diligent
[3:32] on council approval which is feel 
like we make I'll make a change  
[3:37] you know that says contingent on 
just ice cream we'll work around  
[3:44] all that there's ways I've done this 
30 years That's why I was actually I  
[3:51] do. It's not working around it. It's just 
allowing it to happen without Yeah. Without
[4:03] Yes, ma'am. Aren't they cute?
[4:09] You see me wearing crew something that feels.  
[4:13] There you go. If you see 
me wearing crew glasses on
[4:19] you
[4:25] can see over
[4:41] prescription from her.
[4:58] 1 2 3
[5:05] one is the
[5:17] I just want to make sure I was in the correct
[5:42] sticky.
[5:51] So these will be at the
[6:01] That's right. everything
[6:08] cuz it's going to be an ordinance. So,  
[6:09] it's got to be two your approvals or 
resolutions. They don't have to first
[6:18] actual last time. This is this is the second 
meeting for this. No, I'm saying the second
[6:48] voice
[6:52] have a
[7:05] Hey, I got a I got a bullet. I should 
have brought her bought for her.
[7:21] We don't have the motor. back.
[7:57] He has a right to
[8:05] Good.
[8:28] You got
[8:32] Let's
[8:39] bring this meeting to order, please.
[8:46] I'll rise, please. Invitation.
[8:50] Lord, we just come to you tonight and ask you for 
your guidance and your mercy over our decisions.  
[8:55] Lord, may we uh have you in our 
vision and have you guiding our  
[8:58] steps and we may make the best decisions 
for the city to move forward, Lord, and  
[9:04] uh the best decisions for the citizens of Sula. 
We ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. Amen.  
[9:10] Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the 
United States of America and to the republic  
[9:17] for which it stands. One nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[9:30] Mr. Loo here, Mr. Dory here, M here, Mr. B 
here, Mr. here. Here. Um, due to public opinion,  
[9:41] we're going to have a couple things just kind 
of straightened out tonight. The the first three  
[9:46] chairs over there in the first row, if it starts 
getting a little crowded or if we have meetings,  
[9:52] it's going to be a little crowded. We're going to 
leave those people who may have mobility issues.  
[9:57] At the last meeting, uh, Miss Cindy was was forced 
to kind of go back and forth and back and forth. I  
[10:03] called her to let her know that I felt bad about 
it. Um, I'll let her tell you what happened after  
[10:12] that. But, um, I I think that's a good idea for 
people who can't get around very well. Crutches,  
[10:18] wheelchairs, whatever the case may be, or 
just any type of mobility issue is going  
[10:23] to go there. And by public opinion, we're asking 
that everybody in here, please take your hats off.  
[10:30] Uh this is what out of respect for the office 
and out of respect for the uh city council  
[10:37] and the city of Sulur. Thank you all everybody. 
Appreciate it. First iting item today is public  
[10:46] hearing on ordinance amending chapter 2 article 2 
section 216 of the code of ordinance of the city  
[10:54] of sulfur Louisiana and repeal any conflicting 
ordinances to establish council meeting dates  
[11:01] times and locations of meetings ordinance 
4826 myself I have a motion I'll have a motion  
[11:13] Have a motion. Have a motion. Have a second. I'll 
second. Have a second. Mr. Leoo, second by Mr. B.
[11:28] I'm going to go ahead and read the rest of 
the ordinance. Ordinance amending chapter 2,  
[11:34] article 2, section 216 of the code of ordinances 
of the city of Sulford, Louisiana, and repeal any  
[11:40] conflicting ordinances. Be it ordained by the 
city of city council of the city of Sulford,  
[11:45] Louisiana, the governing authority thereof, 
that they do hereby amend chapter 2, article 2,  
[11:53] section 1216 of the code of ordinances of the 
city of Sulford, Louisiana be and it it is hereby  
[12:01] amended to read as follows to wit section 216 
council meeting date, time, location, and agenda.  
[12:09] A. The city council shall hold all meetings on 
the second Monday of each month at 5:30 p.m.  
[12:16] Excuse me. Or for Monday falls on legal holiday, 
then the following business day of 5:30 p.m. If a  
[12:23] meeting does not finish, the council may recess 
or continue it to a specific date and time. B.  
[12:31] All meetings shall be held in the council chambers 
at 501 Willow Avenue. If the chairman determines  
[12:38] at any time that the council chambers will be 
inadequate to handle expected audience attendance,  
[12:44] the chairman may relocate the meeting to the 
West Calcue Community Center at 401 Arena Road,  
[12:50] Sulford, Louisiana, if available. The notice 
shall comply with applicable state law.
[13:03] Do we have any uh comments from the council?
[13:09] No comments. This of course was done at the uh 
request of Mr. Billy Laughlin Loftton in order  
[13:18] for us to be able to move these uh meetings 
if they should get to a point where it should  
[13:22] overload this location. Uh, Miss Wendy, it says 
number one on meeting number three. Sure. There's  
[13:32] three number ones. So, I'm the third. Okay. Not 
till later. Okay. Not the third item. Okay. Third.  
[13:42] Sorry. Being no comments, um, just for the record, 
members of the council, the charter does require  
[13:49] that this be designated by ordinance. And so 
with all the potential changes in location,  
[13:54] I wanted to make sure and it turns out that 
historically we haven't probably been doing  
[13:59] this right, but I figured that doesn't make an 
exception or doesn't make it right to not move  
[14:04] forward doing it right. So that's why I've 
suggested that we get this adopted. Thank  
[14:09] you. May I speak? Thank you. Thank you. And 
please fill out the card at the end. Sure.
[14:25] My name is Sheila Brussard and I have a quick 
question. Um I understand that according to Billy  
[14:32] has said according to the um the charter that we 
have to have a location in the ordinance. Is that  
[14:39] correct? That's correct. Would it be possible 
if if we're going to say that the chairman can  
[14:47] uh relocate? Is it necessary that we give an 
address where he will relocate to? Couldn't  
[14:54] that be just be an option just in case that 
one's not available? We could do WW Lewis or  
[14:59] some place. Then we would go to a second option 
after that. We talked about that. We didn't feel  
[15:06] like we had a sure place to put in there. Also, 
I feel like we're already potentially stretching  
[15:12] it because it says you shall designate the 
place and I felt like it was reasonable in  
[15:17] light of potential overcrowding to have 
uh you know a backup. Uh so that was my  
[15:24] recommendation to them that we So if we can't 
get into West Cow, what will happen then?  
[15:30] If we can't get into Westcow, then we would 
either, you know, either delay the meeting or  
[15:37] uh or or try to work change the date. Maybe we 
could uh we could change the date of the meeting.  
[15:42] There's different things that we can do to get 
around and change venue possible change. Well,  
[15:47] and we could Yeah, we we wouldn't want to go 
through all that. We might just say start the  
[15:52] meeting and say we're going to adjourn and 
pick the meeting back up on Thursday at the  
[15:58] West Cal Center. Okay. Other question is the 
uh charter says 7 days advanced notice for the  
[16:06] regular meeting. So if the regular meeting is 
going to be postponed then it does it follow  
[16:10] then it falls under the state. We only have to 
do 24-hour notice of the next location if it's  
[16:15] going to be a different day. Correct. You don't 
have to do if you've already noticed that meeting  
[16:19] and you start it and adjourn it, then you've 
satisfied that requirement. Good. Thank you.
[16:29] Yes, sir. If I may, Miss Sheila. Yes, sir. We 
talked about WW Lewis. We're in unprecedented  
[16:36] times in Sulfur. We're in a temporary building. 
So, we're trying to accommodate everybody  
[16:41] we can. We want to be fair, transparent, have 
everybody there that wants to be here. Hopefully,  
[16:47] we don't need it. It's going to be a lot 
of trouble to get people there and set up,  
[16:50] but we're trying to accommodate the 
people is the whole goal here. So,  
[16:55] that's all I wanted to put in. Thank you. Thank 
you. All right. Comments. Uh, roll call vote,  
[17:02] please. Mr. Leoo, yes. Mr. Garvey, yes. Miss 
Monzo, yes. Mr. B, yes. Mr. Capetta, yes.
[17:12] Have a motion to adjourn this meeting. 
Motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second?  
[17:18] I'll second. Second by Miss Monso. 
Motion by uh Mr. Troy. Mr. Chairman,  
[17:26] we don't need a motion. We don't need a motion. 
Okay. We'll be back in five minutes. Thank you.
[17:37] No, if anybody wants to do 
anything everybody good. All right.
[17:48] Bring this special meeting to order number two.
[17:55] Invocation we leave.
[18:00] You ready?
[18:03] You ready or
[18:10] you keep these? And Mr. Chairman, we can 
go back to back when we get to the third  
[18:16] one. Okay. Thank you. Are you ready? 
Okay. Um, please have the uh invocation
[18:26] James.
[18:29] Dear heavenly father, we come to you to to make 
these decisions for our city to be able to move  
[18:34] forward. Please help us make the right decisions 
through everything that we do in Jesus name.  
[18:39] Amen. Amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of 
the United States of America and to the republic  
[18:48] for which it stands. One nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Two  
[18:57] items on this. Roll call, please. Mr. Leoo, here. 
Mr. Derby here. Miss Monzo here. Mr. Bagel here.  
[19:05] Mr. Capetta here. Um, we have two resolutions I'll 
be going over. Resolution number one approving  
[19:13] the recommendation of Mayor Stouts for the 
appointment of Reed Ellander as interim director  
[19:18] for information technology. Resolution 3326. 
Resolution number two, resolution approving the  
[19:26] recommendation of Mayor Stouts for the appointment 
of Lindsey Luch as am I pronouncing that  
[19:32] correctly? Yes. Thank you. as interim director 
of finance. Resolution 3426. Mayor students,
[19:45] can you hear me? So Reed Ellander um has 
over 30 years of experience. Um of course  
[19:53] you know the past uh IT director has retired 
I think with 20 plus years experience. So,  
[20:01] I am going to appoint uh or 
have him serve interim director  
[20:07] uh for the IT department at this time 
until we find I find someone long term.
[20:19] Are we actively searching right now, Mayor? We'll 
be. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Um this this appointment will  
[20:28] carry us through the first of the year. Okay. 
My concern was with uh Mr. Ellen during his  
[20:33] retirement. Not to affect that was the only 
question I'd heard. So I wanted to just make  
[20:37] sure we wasn't putting him on a long term. No, 
we we've taken care time frame. Yep. For that.  
[20:42] So we we've covered that base and I agree with 
your Reed's been here forever. So it's a great  
[20:46] choice I believe and you as well. So congrats. 
Any other comments? Just like to make this quick  
[20:57] comment. you know that you know as a council we're 
not here to question is whether the individual is  
[21:03] a good good employee or not. The council wants 
to determine whether the appointment meets the  
[21:08] charter or whether the city's personnel 
procedures have been followed. Uh before  
[21:13] we vote on either one of these resolutions, I 
would like to ask the administration and human  
[21:19] resources to confirm for the record that both 
nominees have been reviewed for compliance with  
[21:24] the applicable home rule charter qualifications 
and the city's personnel policies and to have  
[21:32] identify any personal requirements 
that remain outstandings or were waved.
[21:42] Mayor, they are currently employed with the 
city. So that's that's my reason for appointing  
[21:48] them. Okay. But do they meet all the the items 
within the charter? And do they meet all the  
[21:56] requirements for each one of those positions 
that you're as it stands? Yes. As it stands,  
[22:01] yes. Yes. Okay. Because you're asking us to vote 
and and this is determined by the charter. So,  
[22:07] I just want to clarify that what we're 
voting for in a positive manner is in is in  
[22:13] uh both candidates are qualified. Yep. Both 
candidates are qualified. Compliance with the  
[22:18] charter. Yep. Yes. Thank you. Both qualified. 
Thank you. All right. Any other questions? I  
[22:24] do have one other question now. I thought about 
it. So, Billy, um I guess does this normally come  
[22:33] to the council before they appoint these people 
and then they're appointed or we members of the  
[22:38] council? I really don't think that for an interim 
appointment that charter really requires this. We  
[22:46] wanted to do it in an abundance of caution to 
make sure that nobody felt like we were just  
[22:52] making decisions without coming to you guys for 
approval. So, I think that that the both of these  
[22:59] resolutions and approval by the council are being 
done by the mayor to make sure that y'all agree  
[23:04] with the decisions he's made and not really for 
compliance with the that was my if the permanent  
[23:13] appointments come up or should he make these 
either one of these guys permanent, you'll need to  
[23:19] approve it again. Okay. and that that is required 
and this is more of an abundance of caution and  
[23:25] out of respect to the council to make sure that 
we're doing uh the right thing and giving you  
[23:29] all the opportunity for input. Okay, that's what 
I was curious. Okay, thank you. I'd like to say  
[23:34] I appreciate the the actually the interaction 
trying to get these guys in here to fill a void  
[23:40] being that we have an absence and in the presence 
of having these people's position and um I think  
[23:46] the interim appointments are are all right. 
I'm in approval of both of them actually. So,
[23:55] thank you. Any more comments from the council? 
We have no comments from the motion from the  
[24:03] audience. We have to do them separately, Mr. 
Dep. What? We have to do them separately,  
[24:07] right? Uh we have a motion. A motion. Motion by 
Mr. Batty. Second. Second. Second by me. Okay. Is  
[24:19] this on Reed Ellener? On Reed Ellander. The first 
one. Okay. Roll call vote. Mr. Leoo. Yes. Mr.  
[24:28] Derby? Yes. Mr. Monzo? Yes. Mr. B? Yes. Mr. Dea? 
Yes. Okay. Uh, Lindsay. Uh, number two, resolution  
[24:38] approving the recommendation mayor students 
for the appointment of Lindseay Douch. So move.  
[24:43] Interim director of finance. Do we have a second? 
Second. Second by Mansono. Roll call vote. Mr.  
[24:53] Leoo. Yes. Mr. Derby. Yes. Miss Monzo. Yes. Mr. B. 
Yes. Mr. Dep. Yes. Okay. Going on to number three.
[25:06] Call to order the third part of our 
special meeting. Invocation. Sure.
[25:25] Okay. Go ahead. Dear Lord, as we gather here 
tonight, I ask that you take and lead each and  
[25:31] every one of our hearts, dear Lord, and guide us 
in the right direction. Let us be open-minded,  
[25:36] dear Lord, to the things that we're actually 
in search of, dear Lord. is not of destruction,  
[25:40] but is it's for clarity and to shine a light 
on the things that we need to correct to better  
[25:45] ourselves. God, I ask each and every one of us 
that sits up here on this board to have a clear  
[25:50] conscience and a clear mind as we move forward 
through this entire process. Jesus name I pray.  
[25:56] Amen. Amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of 
the United States of America and to the republic  
[26:05] for which it stands. One nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[26:14] Roll call, please. Mr. Loo here, Mr. Dy 
here. Mr. B here. Mr. Dea here. Okay. Uh,  
[26:26] this is a resolution requesting an opinion 
from the attorney general related to potential  
[26:31] violations of public bid law by the city of 
Sulford, Louisiana. Resolution 3526, Josh B.
[26:43] Read it. Yeah, it's to you now. So, I am asking 
for a resolution uh tonight be voted upon uh  
[26:52] requesting an opinion from the attorney general 
uh related to potential violations of public bid  
[26:57] law by the city of Sulfur. Uh, be it resolved 
by the city council of the city of sulfur,  
[27:04] Louisiana, the governing authority thereof, 
that they do hereby request attorney general's  
[27:08] opinion related to the potential violations 
of public bid law by the city of sulfur.
[27:16] Uh this is requesting for attorney general's  
[27:19] opinion on suspected violations of 
public bid law concerning real estate  
[27:23] uh lease and real uh related improvements 
at 501 Willa Avenue sulfur Louisiana 70663.
[27:32] Dear Mrs. Merl, as a member of the sulfur city 
council, I respectfully request an opinion from  
[27:37] your office regarding whether there are 
violations of the Louisiana public bid  
[27:41] law in connection with the acquisition, 
lease, and related improvements of the  
[27:45] uh building located at 511 Willow Avenue, Sulford, 
Louisiana 70663. the property. Specifically,  
[27:52] I seek guidance on whether the actions 
described below, comply with the applicable  
[27:57] uh public bid and procurement requirements, 
including the mandatory fair market analysis,  
[28:02] bid solicitations, and competitive bid 
procedures. Statement of facts and concerns  
[28:08] as I understand them. The property, which is 
currently under FEMA reimbursement funding,  
[28:14] was acquired and leased under a 2-year 
agreement with a monthly rent of $20,853.
[28:22] The lease was signed on a contingency basis before 
the purchase of the building closed. A private  
[28:28] contractor owner of 10X Services LLC is alleged 
uh to be involved. And this contractor alleged has  
[28:36] uh family connections to the city marshal Brand 
Endeavors by marriage. The city marshall publicly  
[28:43] indicated in council meeting minutes that he had 
worked for approximately 4 years to lock this  
[28:49] building down to enable the project. There is no 
public record of a formal fair market analysis or  
[28:56] an appraisal comparing the rent or the building's 
value against comparable properties. No documented  
[29:03] comparables or written verification of fair market 
price have been disclosed by the city of sulfur.  
[29:08] The lease provides that all buildouts are to be 
funded by the city of sulfur. It alleged that  
[29:14] the buildout work estimated at $50 to $60,000 
performed by 10x services. The building's owner  
[29:20] without a public bid or advertised competitive 
bidding process for the work related improvements  
[29:25] project. A separate $325,000 improvements project 
was awarded to 10X Services LLC with no public  
[29:33] bid advertisement or required by the city of 
Sulfur. According to the public records, public  
[29:39] records indicate a request for $100,000 additional 
from the city uh court judge to be donated from  
[29:45] the building fund towards this project. This 
donation raises concern about bid integrity,  
[29:50] potential bid splitting or malfeasants involving 
the judge, the city marshall, the city clerk,  
[29:56] mayor, and the uh council members who approved 
the imp uh the improved projects. The project  
[30:02] was reszoned from residential to business nearly a 
year after the building purchase and nearly before  
[30:08] the completion of uh internal finish work 
uh with alleged inadequate or non-compliant  
[30:15] uh inspections. During a council meeting, it 
was observed that a drinking fountain was not  
[30:19] installed, potentially violating municipal and 
plumbing codes, yet inspectors allowed occupancy.  
[30:24] These matters have been eroded public trust in 
city government and compliance with applicable  
[30:30] uh procurement and permitting proc uh procedures. 
Requesting uh conclusions and questions for the  
[30:37] attorney general's opinion. Do the facts described 
raise material questions about compliance with  
[30:42] Louisiana's public bid law and related procurement 
status in relation to A the lease arrangement for  
[30:48] the property and its rent. B the lack of formal 
fair market analysis or appraisals, the decisions  
[30:55] uh to fund perform building improvements without 
publicly advertised bids, any potential bid  
[31:00] splitting or bid ridding concerns, and the related 
conflicts of interest involving public officials.
[31:08] What uh procedural steps, if any, should the city 
undertake uh to cure possible non-compliance,  
[31:14] including further uh bidding, rebid adjustments 
to the lease terms, or any requirement disclosures  
[31:21] regarding related uh party interest? If 
deficiencies are found, what enforcement  
[31:27] remedies or correction actions would the attorney 
general's opinion recommend that will ensure  
[31:32] compliances with the public bid law and related 
procurement requirements? Are there any additional  
[31:37] factors under the federal FEMA guidelines or 
state building zone zoning or building uh code  
[31:43] requirements that could affect the legality or 
the funding of the project? Supporting materials,  
[31:50] public meeting minutes, and transcripts uh 
mentions four years of efforts by the city  
[31:54] marshall to secure the building. Lease agreement 
documents including the contingency language and  
[31:59] the stated monthly rent. any available public 
records uh related to the uh the buildout costs  
[32:05] and payments to 10X services. Uh public records 
indicating the $325,000 improvements project  
[32:12] and the lack of advertised bids, the zoning, 
reszoning, inspection and occupancy records for  
[32:18] the for the property. Any communication or records 
suggested a potential conflict of interest related  
[32:23] party involvement and a conclusion. I request 
the attorney general's opinion to determine  
[32:28] whether the city sulfur's actions concerning the 
property's acquisition, lease, and improvements  
[32:33] were consistent with the Louisiana public bid 
law and related procurement requirements and to  
[32:38] identify any corrective measures that may be 
warranted to restore compliance and public trust.  
[32:45] I certify that I have have reason to believe 
these matters may involve violations of public  
[32:50] procurement and related laws and that 
a timely opinion from your office is  
[32:55] sought to clarify applicable law and 
potential remedies. Other concerns are  
[32:59] federal violations of FEMA guidelines and 
laws. Respectfully submitted Joshua Batten.
[33:12] Any comments from the city council?
[33:18] I have a few.
[33:23] 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  
[33:31] think we should only be getting an opinion from 
the attorney general. I really think that there  
[33:36] needs an be an investigation first. Um, I think 
the letter uh the information in this letter is  
[33:43] incomplete and it's one-sided opinion in order 
to influence the AG to make an opinion in his  
[33:50] favor. You know, and one question is where's the 
intent? I would like to add that Mr. Brandon De is  
[33:57] purely a tenant in this building. Make a motion to 
challenge I'm going to make a motion to I want to  
[34:03] challenge you on what you just said. Point of 
order. Point of order. The challenge of chair  
[34:08] goes across a point of order. Go ahead. But I'm 
going to fix You're incorrect in what you just  
[34:14] said and I want to correct you because you say 
it's inaccuracy. I have a whole stack of proven  
[34:19] documents right here if you'd like to go into 
them. We can do it now if you'd like. We can do it  
[34:30] when you want. Are you done? Order, guys. Order, 
please. Order. Are you done? Order. Are you done?  
[34:36] as long as you don't get me involved. Okay. Why 
don't we just let everybody speak? Okay. Uh and  
[34:45] had no involvement in the purchasing process 
of this building. Get your card. He wanted a  
[34:49] safe and secure building for his team and a and 
a sulfur city court. Any mention of him in this  
[34:56] investigation is no more than a grandstanding 
and part of a personal campaign against him.  
[35:02] And I'd also like to point out a letter and an 
email that you received as a part of your public  
[35:09] uh request where it pointed out all of 
the different options that were given  
[35:14] to us and how all of these options 
were proved to be wrong by different  
[35:19] uh means of uh real estate investigation. 
The Goodwill building was one of them.  
[35:28] 47 47 The building on Napoleon Street where 10X 
Services is located across from the current DMV  
[35:36] building where warehouse own the building 
across from Missy's grocery store. The  
[35:42] building in the property recently purchased on 
Rof Street and it goes on and on and on. Well,  
[35:49] that's funny that you had those cuz they weren't 
privy to me whenever I did public records request.  
[35:54] Okay. This lease was signed on a contingency 
basis for $20,000. 90% of that was paid by FEMA.  
[36:04] This familiar uh association that you put in there 
happens to be the fourth cousin of the Marshall's  
[36:12] wife. Okay. The Marshall and his team had been 
in the in at least four different buildings that  
[36:19] were moldinfested and people were falling through 
the floors. Of course, he wanted a safe and secure  
[36:25] building. You forgot to mention that. Okay. You 
can't do it by awarding illegal contracts. One  
[36:32] more one more outburst and you'll be removed. 
Okay. One more outburst and you'll be order  
[36:39] citizen. That's inappropriate. I'm sorry. Yeah. 
So, so to challenge So, to challenge the chair,  
[36:45] it doesn't matter whenever you're wrong and 
stating in improper facts. I didn't you're you're  
[36:51] stating improper stuff and if you if you would 
like me to to to speak on that. This is an email  
[36:59] from Jennifer Thorne and Brandon Devers. Do you 
remember the conversation that Babino was going  
[37:04] to fund a portion of the parking lot? I pulled 
the clear check and we paid the total of $325,000.
[37:13] This contradicts completely what we've been saying 
to folks. Wow. Wow. $325,000 on a public bid. And  
[37:21] whenever I asked for public records, folks, public 
records came back on letter six of my question.  
[37:27] Was any public bids put out on this building? 
No. So, you can't go and exceed $250,000 on any  
[37:36] capital improvements project without putting it 
up for public bid. It was never put up for public  
[37:40] bid. It was disclosed by the city that they 
didn't put it up for public bid. And then we  
[37:45] go to the city judge and we get $100,000 to take 
and reduce the amount of that to bring it below  
[37:50] the public bid requirements. That's bid rigging 
in order to award a job. And not one time has  
[37:56] anyone decided that they wanted to ask me to look 
at any of these documents. You just want to take  
[38:02] an avoid it. It's a violation of public bid law. 
And and to to go into it a little bit further,  
[38:09] I'm not really sure that you're aware that we 
haven't received not one receipt of reimbursement  
[38:14] on this particular building because you know 
why? Because the contract agreed that it had to  
[38:19] be a movable building and so no one's actually 
engaged into a contract agreement from FEMA to  
[38:26] reimburse it. So it's kind of a interesting 
topic that maybe we need to really look at.
[38:36] Members of the council, for the record, 
this matter has been submitted by the  
[38:40] administration to the legislative auditor. 
That was another question. Yeah. At this time,  
[38:45] it's has it been to the DA's office as 
well? The DA can't really do anything.  
[38:49] He doesn't he has to accept charges or or 
reject charges after an investigation. But  
[38:56] the legislative auditor, how 
long has it been, mayor? So,
[39:02] I don't know the exact date, but it's already been 
sent over. There was a three-prongong process.  
[39:08] I sent everything over to the legislative 
auditor's office. The DA's office is only  
[39:14] put on notice until there are findings from 
that investigative authority. And by speaking  
[39:24] with the two attorneys there, they have to calm 
through that. Then the auditor of which who was  
[39:33] doing the auditing at that time had to be put 
on notice. And let me tell you, I'm going for  
[39:42] another auditing session with another auditor. We 
will not the city of Sulford be using that same  
[39:49] person. We're going to use state resources 
that is investigating it. once they form an  
[39:56] opinion that will be given to attorney general. 
However, but I'm I'll be here to tell you it's  
[40:04] been submitted from a nonbiased outlook weeks 
ago just because it's at the DA's office. They  
[40:14] do not investigate things once. Hang on. Once the 
findings of what the legislative auditor finds,  
[40:25] then it comes back here. So that's as far as what 
the administration side has done. Um at that time  
[40:36] possibly. I don't want to answer for it, but 
maybe. Does it go to the attorney general? I don't  
[40:41] know. So you've got two investigations going. Do 
I understand that right? One. one two parts. Well,  
[40:50] the DA's office is just put on notice, but they 
can't accept or reject charges that don't exist.  
[40:57] There's no conclusion. So, we've got one request 
for the DA. We've got your request for the Let me  
[41:07] finish your request for a legislative auditor. 
And then on September 14th, we've got another  
[41:14] resolution or an ordinance that's going to be 
a third investigation. Is that correct? Let  
[41:20] me just correct you. You said DA. I think you 
meant attorney general. Ag. That's correct. So,  
[41:26] we've got three possible investigations are going 
to be going on in less than a month on the same  
[41:32] item. Is that correct? Technically, if they 
all occur. Okay. Are they from three different  
[41:41] agencies? The only one that I've submitted 
everything to has been uh the legislative  
[41:47] auditor's office only. Okay. So, if we ask for 
an attorney general's opinion can then we can ask  
[41:53] for attorney general's opinion to slim down the 
amount of money that our taxpayers spend for an  
[41:57] investigation to help move this thing forward 
and save ourselves the taxpayers money. Also,  
[42:03] I think we need to attack attach an ethics 
review to the e Louisiana ethics board to  
[42:08] assist them in that. There's absolutely nothing 
wrong with that. If there's ethics violations,  
[42:12] let's put it all on the table and move forward and 
that'll slim down our investigative process. Yeah,  
[42:19] that from what I've been told speaking with the 
legislative auditors, um I would definitely let  
[42:25] them go through with that process and if there's 
another process, that's fine. um and not have  
[42:32] from an attorney standpoint of pulling that on a 
on a whole another investigation. It's where it  
[42:39] definitely needs to be at this point. I can tell 
you that by speaking with them. They they are the  
[42:46] first point of contact. I was told that as well. 
And once it goes to them, it comes back to us.  
[42:51] If we're going to do an investigation oursself, 
it's got to be sent to them at the end anyway.  
[42:55] So, if we go ahead and give it to them, 
it reduces the amount of taxpayers money  
[42:59] we're spending in legal fees to fight something 
that they're going to go through and review it.
[43:09] I got a question with the Go ahead. You want 
to send it to the state to let them look at it,  
[43:20] right? Yeah, that's what you're 
saying. So, what if he comes back  
[43:22] and says nothing's wrong? We're going to 
then we're going to move forward. Are we?  
[43:26] We should. Absolutely. That's all I want 
to know. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. I mean,  
[43:31] but what what took so long to get to this point is 
my question. I don't know what that took so long.
[43:40] Do you think I could finish what I had to say? 
Yes, please do. Can I? Thank you. You know
[43:49] I in my opinion you know because the ex execution 
of this agreement was approved by then city  
[43:56] attorney Mr. Kate Cole then by Mr. Billy Loftton 
and then by Patrick Vega Vega of the legislators  
[44:06] auditor's office. I just want to make that very 
clear and that's and that's correct is it not? I  
[44:13] don't know that I approved that. I was under the 
understanding that was a Kade Cole project, but  
[44:17] if I did, I did. So, but then, okay, we take you 
out of that. There's still a legislative audit,  
[44:22] right? I just don't remember being involved in 
it. I'm not saying that I did. Well, you know,  
[44:26] 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  
[44:31] this at all. I'm not putting my name on a document 
that is is seriously making uh accusations against  
[44:40] an elected official. an elected official has 
just recently been re uh re-uped. No. Uh so and  
[44:51] 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  
[44:58] ramifications that would come out of it for me. 
Thank you. It's a sad indictment. Well, Danny,  
[45:05] only one of these statements had anything to do 
with him. There's a whole lot of other things that  
[45:11] sit on here. Well, I think what Mr. Danny says 
is for three years he got up and spoke in favor  
[45:16] of everything that they did. So, he's not going 
to get up there and go against it. I don't think  
[45:20] you're not in a position to to think what I You 
cannot have me removed. I'll be willing to walk  
[45:27] out of here, but I'm going to say what I have to 
say. Danny Deetta, you are on a political move to  
[45:32] attack Jacob Stoops as a turned into a political 
stunt. Order. Order. Order for sure. Let's talk  
[45:39] about what we're on the items, guys. And let's 
quit quit that. Danny, order both of you. Order.  
[45:47] Really? Order, guys. Once again, stay on point to 
what we're talking about. This isn't a vindictive  
[45:53] to beat each other up. I'm trying. No, it's going 
to be done. Okay, that's enough. Really, let's  
[46:00] talk about the item at hand. Any more comments? 
I have more. I got a question for the mayor and  
[46:08] Billy. Hey, chair. I got a question for Billy and 
uh the mayor. So, if we approved this, do you feel  
[46:18] that we're putting a card before the horse? 
Since you're already at the auditor's uh it's  
[46:23] already at the legislative auditor. You want me 
to answer? What? And well, go ahead and I may shed  
[46:29] some light. Yeah. Um, I I personally think I'm not 
opposed to what Mr. Ben's trying to do, right? Uh,  
[46:40] and I'm not saying that this that there would be 
anything wrong with having a multi-prong attack,  
[46:46] but I also agree with Mr. Depeta that an elected 
official's name with those accusations should not  
[46:54] be in the letter. Maybe the answer is to amend the 
letter. We can all get along. I mean, this is not  
[47:00] about we want the result. We don't have to make a 
specific allegation against a specific person. If  
[47:08] they're looking into it, they'll figure it out. 
I just put the names of the people who's in the  
[47:12] emails and all the transactions or the public 
records that was handed to him by the city. Once  
[47:16] again, I'm not disagreeing with you about your 
purpose. I just agree with Mr. Depeta about the  
[47:23] public official. That's it. It's all I got to say. 
The mayor may have something else. So, real quick,  
[47:28] you had referenced Patrick Bergado. Um, he had not 
had all of this information, by the way, of which  
[47:36] you're speaking of, but he did approve it. Okay. 
Upon speaking with the legislative auditor, we'll  
[47:45] we'll wait to see what what comes out of that. And 
and I hope that after everything comes back that  
[47:52] the people that have been at the forefront of this 
will wipe their hands of it so we can do business  
[47:56] in the city itself and not have to carry on this 
type of thing over and over and over again. Yeah.  
[48:02] Bid law procedure needs to be followed. 
I agree 100%. Miss Wendy, you want to go?
[48:14] Yeah. I'm I'm Bill Leblon live at 17 Roberto 
Drive. I don't have much to say other than the  
[48:19] fact that we cannot continue with this city with 
the shame that's going on. We're the laughing  
[48:24] stock of this area, you know, with you guys up 
there arguing like kids. I mean, I got kids that  
[48:30] don't argue like y'all do. And and you know, 
follow the guidelines that are set down by the  
[48:36] charter and do whatever it takes to find out if 
somebody made a mistake. If somebody did something  
[48:41] intentionally, let's find out about it, you 
know. But it doesn't have to be a war. You know,  
[48:47] there there's a war going on and everybody 
feels it. That's why we go into a bigger,  
[48:51] you know, people like to see a fight. I know 
I've been involved in a lot of them, you know,  
[48:56] and and and you got to stop some of this stuff. 
Quit being childish about everything. And I'm  
[49:01] talking to everybody. I mean, you know, we got 
this deal with the mayor going on, you know,  
[49:05] and his lady friend, you know, we got Josh is mad 
at everybody. You know, you guys need to settle  
[49:11] down. I mean, we had a council here at one time 
that got a lot done and I never heard the kind of  
[49:17] discussions that you guys going through. Thank you 
for your time. Thank you, Miss Wendy. Thank you.  
[49:26] Um Wendy Wingate, uh 256 Madison Crossing. I feel 
like that uh discussion was a perfect reason as  
[49:33] to why the council should not be in charge of an 
investigation to this magnitude. Um, just a couple  
[49:40] of points that were brought up just a second ago 
before I even go into my spill. Um, you know, if  
[49:44] you looked into the Goodwill building and the roof 
street building, then you would have seen in those  
[49:48] meeting notes from a foyer request that they did 
mention that they had to follow public bid law and  
[49:54] how long it actually takes to um, get that process 
started. Um, if you didn't see the minutes,  
[49:59] then you probably wouldn't see that. Um, that was 
nothing but personal attacks. And if we're here to  
[50:05] um save our friends, then I'm not interested and I 
will call it out every single time. I feel like I  
[50:11] hope uh everybody can keep the same energy about 
not accusing our elected officials of wrongdoing  
[50:17] in a personal and public uh setting in the next 
couple of meetings that we have because clearly  
[50:23] there's some ulterior motives and the colors 
were just shown pretty clear for me as to what  
[50:28] what side people stand on. Are we here to actually 
call out problems and fix them or are we here to  
[50:34] protect our friends? I feel like that conversation 
was proof that we all got the answer that we  
[50:40] needed. So, back to the actual problem which was 
a clear violation of public bid law. Just to be  
[50:46] very clear with everybody, this goes all the way 
back to 2024 um when the city back in that time  
[50:53] was actually just buying buildings like we were 
playing Monopoly. um including a building that was  
[50:58] over $300,000 for one of the previous council's 
brother. A building that we couldn't do anything  
[51:04] for with like we still to this day don't have any 
purpose for that building. So we were just blowing  
[51:09] money left and right. That's the only reason why 
I had my attention on this project in itself. They  
[51:14] called a special meeting in 2024. They showed up 
to the special meeting with one agenda item that  
[51:20] they had to amend because they didn't even bring 
the right dates on the contract. So, we can't sit  
[51:25] here and act like this just started yesterday when 
Josh started making his videos. This started years  
[51:31] ago. These are years of problems that have been 
covered up and y'all are scared of exposing them.  
[51:37] Period. With the public bid law, um there are 
some emails from Jennifer Thorne to the council.  
[51:44] They were first notified in August of 2024. At 
that time, she said it was in the best interest  
[51:49] of leasing this building instead of purchasing 
the building so we could get reimbursement for  
[51:55] FEMA. Um, come to find out, we still don't have 
any information on if we've ever even received  
[52:00] FEMA funding or not, which if you actually did 
do some investigation and foyer requests, then  
[52:06] you would have probably seen that an investigative 
journalist did request information regarding FEMA.  
[52:12] Uh, Miss Natalie Lindon did a great job with her 
foyer request and Jennifer Thorne very clearly  
[52:17] stated that none of this change of venue uh from 
the modular buildings which were approved for 90%  
[52:24] reimbursement. There was never any notification 
to FEMA that we moved buildings. As far as I can  
[52:31] read, the only FEMA coverage is for modular 
buildings. So, do we even know if this place  
[52:37] is being funded by FEMA right now? I don't 
think there's a person in this building that  
[52:42] can answer that question if we're truly getting 
90% reimburseed of that $20,000 a month rate.  
[52:48] Maybe she can, but I am not about to put her on 
a spot in a meeting such this magnitude. But that  
[52:55] is one of the biggest questions I would have in 
this entire thing is no one can actually say if  
[53:00] we are getting any reimbursement for the monthly 
rate that we're paying. If we want to bring Kade  
[53:06] Cole into it, then yeah, let's bring Cade Cole 
from the meeting back in 2024 when he clearly  
[53:11] said that they upcharge essentially to um make it 
easier for contractors to invest because it's so  
[53:18] difficult to deal with FEMA. So, if we really 
were truly investigating and not just believe  
[53:23] in everything we're told right off the bat, then 
you would have found that information out as the  
[53:28] the chair of the council who's quick to call 
inaccuracy of another council member. You're  
[53:34] you're passing 3 minutes, Mr. I would like you 
to vote and give me three more minutes, please,  
[53:38] cuz I have a lot more to say. So move second. 
I second it. Vote. Mr. Leoo, yes. Mr. Darby,  
[53:49] yes. Miss Monzo, yes. Mr. Baden, yes. Mr. Yes. So, 
the council was notified in 2024 um that there was  
[53:59] movement. The council to their defense at the time 
did have uh quite a few um problems with the uh  
[54:05] building in itself. They were concerned about the 
cost that it was going to um take in order to get  
[54:09] this building up to par. Um and they were gas lit 
at that time and told lies. I'll get into that in  
[54:15] just a second as I do have actual documents to 
support it. Um so the total cost, yes, was the  
[54:23] $232,000. What they did was they said that they 
took away the $100,000 that was given by the city  
[54:31] core. Um, but what they don't tell you is is once 
a donation is made public to public fund, it is  
[54:38] public money. So once they donated that money from 
the city court fund, it becomes public funds. That  
[54:45] is our money. So it doesn't matter how you split 
this project, which if you pulled up the law,  
[54:51] it states pretty clear that under no circumstances 
shall there be a division or separation of any  
[54:57] public work project into smaller projects. Which 
division or separation would have the effect of  
[55:02] avoiding a requirement that public law public work 
be advertised and let by contract to the lowest  
[55:08] responsible and responsive bidder. Clearly that 
says under no circumstances can you split this  
[55:15] project to get what you want out of it. Not only 
did they bring the $100,000 when we buffed that,  
[55:21] they still called me a liar. All right. So 
then they started sending out emails that  
[55:27] the contractor actually took on some of the cost. 
Nowhere in the contract that the council approved  
[55:33] states that it was okay for the contractor to take 
on cost. But if we want to go ahead and say that  
[55:39] that's not against the law, the same ordinance 
or the same resolution that Miss Thorne put in  
[55:44] the email to Mayor Stouts before he even was 
um in the job, she flat out lied to him. Okay,  
[55:53] so that's what she said. And in the law, it 
actually says again, under no circumstances  
[55:58] shall the agreement of a contractor to finance a 
public works project be used in any way to avoid  
[56:05] the requirement that public work be advised and 
led by the contract to the lowest responsible  
[56:10] and responsive bidder. So whether the contractor 
paid for it, whether the city court put money in  
[56:17] for it, it doesn't matter how you split it or 
who you ask, that is still bid rigging. Period.  
[56:25] So all he is asking is that hey if the AG finds a 
loophole in all of this then fine but you cannot  
[56:32] sit here and gaslight the public into believing 
that the previous council and mayor followed  
[56:38] the law. That is obvious if you actually pulled 
any record. If we want to talk about total cost,  
[56:45] then we have to talk about the additional cost 
outside of the parking lot where um the $6,100 was  
[56:52] paid for a canopy right outside on the southeast 
end that wasn't included in the project. Remember,  
[56:57] we can't split at all under no circumstances. They 
also paid $800 extra dollars to 10X services for  
[57:04] a handicap stencil. Wendy, we're past our time 
and I I'll I want more time. I would like a vote.  
[57:11] I'll make a motion to do it. I'll sell you. 
How much time? Three. Yes. Three minutes.
[57:19] So, five. Mr. Leoo. Yes. Mr. Derby? Yes. Miss 
Monzo? Yes. Mr. Baden? Yes. Mr. Deet? Yes. So,  
[57:30] on top of the $6,100 extra dollars and the $800 
extra dollars, we're going to now we're going to  
[57:35] say that the contractor spent $30,000 outside 
of what we um agreed to in a contract. So,  
[57:42] now we're agreeing to violating a contract, 
which would ultimately make it null and void. So,  
[57:47] that's stupid in itself. Not only did we do that, 
she is still essentially lying by saying the next  
[57:54] excuse from Jennifer Thorne uh was that the she 
told the mayor, let me read it so I don't screw  
[58:01] it up. The property lease, which was approved 
by the council, stated that the parking lot  
[58:07] was to be completed by the property owner. 
Did y'all read that in the contract? Because  
[58:12] I didn't. What the contract actually says is 
that the tenant, that's not the contractor, the  
[58:18] tenant is to pay for all of the exterior parking 
construction costs. That includes the parking lot,  
[58:23] handicap parking, and removal of poles, soil, 
rocks, and hard surfaces, architectural drawings,  
[58:29] and permittings. That clearly does not say that 
the construction person is responsible for that.  
[58:36] So again, if we did our research and didn't 
just flat out want to call people a liar because  
[58:41] you don't want to have to agree that they are 
correct, you would have seen that information.  
[58:48] The biggest problem that I have is that this has 
been created personal by such defensive strategy.  
[58:54] when I started looking at all of this, the the 
one person that we are talking about today,  
[58:59] which is the marshall, honestly, is gonna not even 
be part of the um process when it comes down to  
[59:06] who's actually in charge here cuz he can't sign 
that. And so, you're sitting here defending him  
[59:12] when he doesn't even need to be defended. And on 
his end, I don't know why his panties are in such  
[59:17] 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.  
[59:23] he was very clearly involved. We can't sit 
here and say that the council wasn't aware.  
[59:28] They knew what was going on and if they didn't, 
they just didn't ask any questions. So, again,  
[59:34] I had a feeling that this meeting was going 
to go this way and I'm very disappointed,  
[59:39] but I I'm not shocked one bit. Um the I have a 
lot more to say, but the way that just went down,  
[59:47] I I'm going to hold off and I I genuinely want 
to see how this plays out. And I just want to  
[59:51] end with the simple fact that let's hold that 
same energy about accusing elected officials  
[59:58] when we don't have anything to actually produce 
um on that topic. Especially since there's an  
[1:00:05] agenda item today that is very vague and no one 
has even bothered to even talk about it. It's a  
[1:00:12] secret. But y'all let the entire city stir up 
drama instead of addressing the real problem.  
[1:00:18] Here we are trying to address a real problem and 
you turn into this defensive personal mode and try  
[1:00:24] and shut it down. If if Jennifer Thorne talked to 
the legislative auditor's office, which she says  
[1:00:30] in her email and several foyer requests, including 
Natalie McClendon, she sent it to KPLC. Mr. John  
[1:00:37] McCartney, who had a 45minute video right before 
the election, she sent the same wrong lies to him.  
[1:00:45] Time. Thank you, Sheila. For the record, it was 
10 minutes total. 10 minutes. So, Miss Sheila,
[1:01:08] Sheila Brousard. Um, I am happy that discussions 
take place in the chambers instead of outside of  
[1:01:21] the chambers. Of course, it is um disheartening 
um that the chair would and I made notes. It was  
[1:01:31] the first time somebody got personal uh that 
the chair would ascribe intent to somebody's  
[1:01:38] um request for uh for information. Requests 
for information, investigations are what  
[1:01:48] uh give us transparency. Um, if and I love 
what Billy had said, a multi-prong approach, a  
[1:01:58] multi-prong approach cannot be a bad thing. I have 
dealt with the attorney general's office. Um, they  
[1:02:05] they gave me lots of information at one point and 
a few months later I asked for more information  
[1:02:10] and it's been a year and they have not contacted 
me back in spite of me trying to get information  
[1:02:17] from them continually. So for information to be 
requested from the attorney general, from uh the  
[1:02:25] legislative order, from the ethics board, it needs 
to be requested everywhere it can be requested. Um  
[1:02:32] I do have a question for Mr. Ben. He had said 
and I think uh Wendy referred to it also. Will  
[1:02:38] you adjust me with a question and I'll pass on Mr. 
B. Okay. May I ask Mr. Ben a question? Mr. chair.  
[1:02:47] That's also another way I can do that. Address 
the chair, please. I'm addressing you and asking  
[1:02:51] you permission to ask Mr. Ben a question. You can 
ask me the question. Go ahead. You do understand  
[1:02:57] it can be done. I'm not holding you back. I'm 
asking you a question first. You do understand  
[1:03:01] it can be both ways and it's appropriate. You 
do know that, right? However you want to do  
[1:03:05] it. Okay. I'm asking permission to address uh the 
district for representative. May I do that? Sure.  
[1:03:11] Thank you. Mr. Bane, you said in a telephone, a 
very short conversation, so I didn't get to ask  
[1:03:17] you on the phone. You had stated on the phone and 
here that uh it would be saving us money to give  
[1:03:26] to give this request to the AG's office. Could 
you please expound on that? How would that work?  
[1:03:31] So, if we're sending our information to the 
attorney general's office, they're a state paid  
[1:03:36] agency for them to review the documents that we're 
sending over to them to give us a finding, whether  
[1:03:40] it's a prosecutable finding or just some advice 
how to correct it to where we don't make the  
[1:03:45] same mistake again. And so, that's what I've been 
asking for all along. But, being that I've been an  
[1:03:50] outside citizen and not an elected official, it 
was harder to get an attorney general's opinion  
[1:03:55] on that issue. I was also hitting a block wall 
with other people interfering on state levels  
[1:04:01] and trying to stop it, which is also a sad 
indictment. But if we go through the process,  
[1:04:07] whether we go through three separate agencies or 
if we go through one, I mean, you know, where one  
[1:04:12] might be completely slammed and dragging their 
feet and we ask for one through ethics board,  
[1:04:17] we have one through attorney general's office and 
one through Louisiana legislative order. Each one  
[1:04:22] of these offices do something totally different. 
Mhm. And so I think it's a very important thing  
[1:04:28] that we address all three. And then we're supposed 
to be holding a hearing, an investigative process,  
[1:04:36] which is something that no city council 
in sulfur has ever done before. So we're  
[1:04:41] going to sit here and try to act like we're a a 
judge and and and attorneys and by questioning  
[1:04:47] people and doing what? Look, I'm just asking for 
guidance. Mhm. and head us in the right direction  
[1:04:53] by people that are skilled and trained. I 
mean, and and here's the whole question.  
[1:04:59] The past administration constantly alleged of 
transparency. If there was complete transparency,  
[1:05:06] look, then move forward with the dog on 
investigation. Let's get it over with. If  
[1:05:11] you said there's nothing to hide, then there's 
nothing to hide. Move forward with it. Get get  
[1:05:16] it over with. Get it behind us and let's move 
forward. I'm not trying to attack one person,  
[1:05:21] but let me tell you something. Whenever I bring up 
issues in every single email that I come across,  
[1:05:26] certain people's names are mentioned in every 
single one of them. Then that's an indication that  
[1:05:33] those people are directly involved in that thing 
that needs to be looked at in the investigation. I  
[1:05:38] don't care if I named them. I named who was in in 
in the in the paperwork that was given to me. So,  
[1:05:44] I mean, I'm sure there's a whole lot that I missed 
in here that I probably go in and name. I probably  
[1:05:49] wouldn't have enough paper to put them on, but I 
do believe it would drastically I mean, Mr. Billy,  
[1:05:55] what what does an attorney charge an hour? I 
charge $450 except for public work. Okay. So,  
[1:06:03] $450 an hour, we're looking at saving the city. 
So, on something that could go on for months.  
[1:06:11] So you figure how much money that would actually 
save the taxpayers. And not to mention Mr. Depetta  
[1:06:18] would actually be allowed to get an attorney to 
represent resolution one that he's passing for  
[1:06:24] the investigation. He's asking for Mr. Stouts. 
And then I would also I'd like to make a point  
[1:06:29] of clarification if I could. The investigation is 
for the hiring and firing practices of the city.  
[1:06:38] Never in that document of any document that 
I put out there is Mayor Stouts or any of the  
[1:06:45] other employees in the city council in the city 
of Sul excuse me? Never. That's what you've been  
[1:06:51] doing and that's what other people been doing. 
And I'd like to make this perfectly clear. We're  
[1:06:56] investigating the process. We're not investigating 
the people. And let's make this perfectly clear.  
[1:07:01] I am I'm clear on individuals names again 
and that's a problem. If you're pointing  
[1:07:07] fingers at individuals, like Mr. Billy said, 
that's a problem. Okay. Well, I guess I'm not  
[1:07:12] pointing fingers. I'm stating a fact that I 
received in your email and you said, "Please  
[1:07:16] give me all investigative documents involving 
Jacob Stews." So, that clarifies that. And so,  
[1:07:23] being we got that on the table, we verified who he 
Can we get some order and go back to the point of  
[1:07:27] what we're talking about? Not not the biting. Once 
again, guys, we're back. We are back off point.  
[1:07:32] I want to correct it like he said that he wasn't 
talking about one specific person but his email in  
[1:07:37] correspondence to me iterate something completely 
different. I don't I don't believe that. But to  
[1:07:42] bring it to bring it back to the to bring it back 
to the topic um if if someone's name is brought  
[1:07:49] up in a in an investigation, it's not going to 
sway the attorney general one way or the other.  
[1:07:54] If your name is in a document and your name is 
brought up, that's not going to sway the attorney  
[1:07:59] general at all. Um, so whether the mayor's name or 
Dubra's name, whoever's name is an investigation,  
[1:08:07] I don't think that's important. I am disheartened 
that any member of this council would say before  
[1:08:15] the discussions took place, before the council 
has spoken about it, before the citizens have  
[1:08:20] had a chance to speak that you would say, "I'm not 
going to put my name on this." That's a sad thing  
[1:08:28] that your mind is made up before you've heard from 
people from people who've read it certainly more  
[1:08:34] than I have read the investigative papers more 
than I have. I don't think for anybody to come  
[1:08:41] in here with their mind made up on something as 
detailed as this is a shame. I do have a quick  
[1:08:47] question for the mayor. You had said that you 
sent everything to the attorney general. Was it  
[1:08:52] everything that Mr. uh that the representative 
from district 4 had sent you in that correction  
[1:08:57] she legislative order. Thank you very much. Have 
you sent the legislative auditor everything that  
[1:09:02] the representative from district 4 gave you in 
regards to the will of street building and deeper?  
[1:09:08] So the total lease agreement, total contract 
price um is what they are looking at because  
[1:09:15] that scope of work um goes by that um no other 
information has been submitted as far as from  
[1:09:23] Mr. Ben. Um so so it is not redundant for him 
to put forth something because much of that is  
[1:09:30] not in yours to the legislative. Is that 
correct? Would is that a fair statement?  
[1:09:35] if he had other information that is beyond the 
scope of the lease agreement and the total scope  
[1:09:40] of work is is what they're interested in because 
it's new construction they wanted a final amount  
[1:09:47] it doesn't matter if I paid for it you paid for it 
goes by the total scope of work being that it was  
[1:09:53] new construction with public funds I I gave them 
that and the lease agreement no other information  
[1:10:01] was given by me to them only what they've asked 
for they wrote back to me what they needed to  
[1:10:08] go with that scope of work in an investigation. 
Now, if there is other information that I need to  
[1:10:13] include in that, I'd be more than happy to pass 
that along. However, they need to come through.  
[1:10:20] But they wanted to know procurement process and 
total scope of the work job related. Mhm. They're  
[1:10:27] only looking at the process legally of what you 
would have had to do with those two things. So,  
[1:10:34] it would be very beneficial to have what you are 
getting from the state legislative auditor. And  
[1:10:39] do we need to take a vote for me to be able to 
continue to speak? Do I hear a motion? So, move
[1:10:47] second. Okay. Mr. Leoo. Yes. Mr. Dory. Yes. Miss 
Monzo. Yes. Mr. Ben. Yes. Mr. Deet. Yes. Thank  
[1:10:58] you. Um, so, so it's not a redundant request, but 
even if it were, if if everyone in this room sent  
[1:11:05] a letter to the attorney general stating 
their concerns on this particular matter,  
[1:11:10] it would lend more credence to uh the the fact 
that an investigation needs to take place.  
[1:11:17] I don't think we can have too many requests 
on anything. I think they're smart enough to  
[1:11:21] sort out the duplication and to sort through 
what information that they need from every  
[1:11:27] uh person that submits information. Um see 
I want to go to a couple of things that Miss  
[1:11:34] Winggate brought up because uh I was listening 
to um uh Ben Shapiro today speaking on the  
[1:11:41] uh PBD pro broadcast a podcast uh that 
deals with politics and and much much more.  
[1:11:47] But uh Ben Shapiro said it doesn't make uh a 
difference to him and I don't think it should  
[1:11:56] to me and I don't think it should to anyone in 
this room. If someone has done something that is  
[1:12:02] illegal, immoral, unethical, has harmed this 
city, it should not matter. Your friends,
[1:12:12] thank you for your time. 
Sheila, anybody? Yeah, this Amy
[1:12:28] Amy Feliz 2329 Augustine and Mr. Chair, I don't 
know if this is the last public comment or period  
[1:12:36] or is there one after this? This is it. Okay. 
So, just a couple of questions based on some  
[1:12:44] observations and I did not intend to speak. Um, 
so I may fumble on my thoughts a little bit,  
[1:12:50] but my first question based on an 
observation is do we have a deputy  
[1:12:54] clerk? Miss Blanchard is phenomenal. And um I 
don't know if she ever gets any time off. So,  
[1:13:01] I don't know what happens if she, you know, 
bless her heart gets sick or something. So,  
[1:13:05] that was one question that I had. And 
another question that I have is there a way
[1:13:16] that that the chair uh positions can be changed. 
Um I know that it was voted on every year. Every  
[1:13:27] year. Okay. Um I just I I've noticed how Mr. 
Darby um does a good job trying to keep order  
[1:13:33] and stay on task. And I hear some um phrases in 
other municipalities like point of order um um
[1:13:47] well uh anyway that's all huh request for 
information. Yes. Uh you can't speak to  
[1:13:53] motives um things like that. So 
uh that that's all. Thank you.
[1:14:10] Mike Granger, 521 Oakland Drive, software. 
Uh, a couple things. I really think that  
[1:14:19] we shouldn't be using anyone's name, whether 
it be the finance director, the past mayor,  
[1:14:26] whoever in investigation and make accusations 
on. you can say the position, but I don't think  
[1:14:32] any of us needs to get up here. I think it's why 
it's become so personal is we using names. So,  
[1:14:38] I don't think it's fair to those individuals 
that we whoever is calling whatever individual  
[1:14:42] out about whatever they did or didn't do before we 
know because once you now that you said the name,  
[1:14:50] you can't go back and retract what you said. 
The mouth is a very powerful thing. Once you  
[1:14:55] say something, it's done. I want to reiterate 
on bills too. This is not just there's people  
[1:15:02] calling from Cal. They calling from all over 
the country about the city of software. What's  
[1:15:07] going on right now? I've been all my life. So 
we got to do something to quit. I'm talking  
[1:15:15] about radio stations all over. Okay. So another 
thing, so I want to address the money issue. Is  
[1:15:22] the ethics board being paid? Are they a state 
agency? Are they being paid? What about the  
[1:15:30] attorney general? Are they being paid? And then 
the legislative order is being paid. So there's  
[1:15:36] no way you can save money if you got three 
different agencies. Go ahead. By the state,  
[1:15:41] sir. They get paid by That's what I'm saying. But 
they who our taxes, huh? Is it our taxes? Okay.  
[1:15:47] So you got three investigations going on. There's 
no way you can save a public any kind of funds by  
[1:15:54] having three investigations. State funds. It's not 
state funds. Please let him talk. But correct him  
[1:16:00] then. Please let him talk. There's a difference. 
I think we want to give the investigation to you.  
[1:16:05] Well, I think you got So anyway, I'm getting just 
like you. I apologize. I I apologize. Excuse me.  
[1:16:11] Strike that. Can we strike that comment? 
Wendy, if you want I'm not saying names.  
[1:16:16] Okay. Strike that comment. So my part being 
where the funds coming from state, the city,  
[1:16:24] there's no way you can tell me we saving money by 
getting three different groups involved. So let  
[1:16:30] the let the mayor send let them do that. If they 
come back with some a finding, then we send it  
[1:16:35] to attorney general. Attorney general comes back 
with finding then we send it to the ethsics board.  
[1:16:40] I think it's a little overkill for going 
three different but it would be going  
[1:16:45] the same direction by saying that could still be 
doing the same thing. Yeah. So I mean you already  
[1:16:50] got one going. So I just don't see where it's 
saving us any money. Well three they're three  
[1:16:54] totally separate agencies. Not saving us any 
money. Is it saving us any money having three?  
[1:16:59] Well well no there's there's no discussion. 
There's no discussion on this. Miss Lena.
[1:17:16] I didn't really come here to speak tonight, but 
my name is Lena MacArthur. I live at 5514 Clark  
[1:17:21] Drive, Sulford 70665. My question is, where is 
the integrity of this city? I've lived here for  
[1:17:29] 65 years and never seen a hornets nest to this. 
Not fussing with any of y'all, but my question is,  
[1:17:35] Mayor Stouts has an investigation going 
on. Why another one? At the end of the day,  
[1:17:40] doesn't the DA get to make the decision whether 
they accept charges or reject charges if there  
[1:17:48] was something done wrong? As I've sat here 
tonight, there keep saying there is something,  
[1:17:54] but you got to get the answer to get to 
the DA to find out what really happened.  
[1:18:01] And I'm in agreement. Don't call people's 
name out. We all have families. I've been  
[1:18:06] one of the people that's been in the 
videos. I really don't appreciate it.  
[1:18:10] And I don't appreciate the attack we have on 
our citizens of software. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:18:23] Have a motion. So move. Second for the 
vote. Second. Second by Miss Danielle.  
[1:18:33] Roll call vote. Mr. Loo. Yes. Mr. Derby. Yes. 
Miss Monica. Yes. Mr. B. Yes. Mr. Teta. No.
[1:18:49] Motion to adjourn. Mr. No motion. Meetings 
adjourned. You get free. And you get free.
[1:19:24] Heat. Heat.
[1:19:48] Heat. Heat.
[1:20:00] has change into
[1:20:30] Oh,
[1:20:39] heat,
[1:20:56] heat.
[1:21:14] I take
[1:21:23] Heat. Heat.
[1:21:35] Heat. Heat.
[1:21:54] Oh yeah.
[1:22:06] Wow.
[1:22:32] Yes, ma'am.
[1:22:40] Be careful.
[1:22:54] That is appropriate. You heard 
me call your representative.
[1:23:15] I mean,
[1:23:26] how do we turn off?
[1:23:31] How do we turn off?
[1:23:39] Yeah, that is Oh, yeah.