[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.

City of Sulphur - Special Council Meeting - Live Stream (Aug 24 2026)

Agenda

Transcript