[00:00:02]
UM, IT'S WEDNESDAY, MAY 15TH, 2024.
THIS IS THE, UH, BIMONTHLY MEETING OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION.
UH, LET'S CALL A MEETING TO ORDER.
CAN WE HAVE ROLL CALL HOWARD MARE, ABSENT IKA, AKA.
[III. Review and approval of Minutes from the March 27, 2024 meeting.]
YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? YES.ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENT OR CORRECTIONS? IF NOT, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE, UH, LAST MEETING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, NEXT UP IS OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
UH, IF WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'D LIKE, UH, TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE, UH, COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GINA, ANYTHING ONLINE? NO, SIR.
UH, OTHER THAN THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA SPEAK ABOUT IN, UH, UNDER ITEM SIX ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
[V. Presentation and discussion of Inspector General Report, to include public discussion of any recently published reports, open letters, data, and statistics by the Office of Inspector General]
NEXT UP, UM, WE'LL HAVE OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL GIVE HER A REPORT, PLEASE.I PRESENTED YOU WITH THE REPORT, UM, ON MONDAY EVENING.
UM, PER USUAL AS AN UPDATE TO THE BUDGET.
UM, I HAVE ATTACHED OUR, UM, BUDGET TO ACTUALS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER CLOSING OUT.
UM, FOR THE MOST PART, WE'RE HITTING RIGHT AT AROUND WHERE WE EXPECT TO HIT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, 25%.
'CAUSE WE'RE FINISHED THROUGH THE FIRST QUARTER.
UM, AND I DO NOT EXPECT, UM, ANY SIGNIFICANT BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
UM, IF NOT, I'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, THE NEXT ITEM IN MY REPORT, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE.
UM, THE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, PER USUAL, UM, CONVENED, THEY INVITED ME TO COME MEET WITH THEM, UM, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD ABOUT 2023, UM, WHEN I ISSUED MY ANNUAL REPORT, UM, IN MARCH, OF COURSE, I PROVIDED THEM WITH A REPORT.
AND THEN, UM, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS WE PUBLISH REPORTS, I'LL SEND ALONG REPORTS, UM, TO MEMBERS OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
UM, AND MET WITH THEM IN MARCH TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS.
I RECEIVED THEIR DRAFT REPORT, WHICH IS CUSTOMARY, UM, AND I PROVIDED MY RESPONSE.
THEY HAVE SINCE PROVIDED ME WITH THEIR FINAL, UH, REPORT, WHICH IS NOT YET PUBLIC.
AND SO, UM, I WILL KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL.
I WILL SAY THAT THEY HAD NO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL GOING FORWARD IN 2024.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR INVITATION AND THEIR PUBLIC PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT.
WHICH CUSTOMARILY TAKES PLACE IN MAY? IT, IT SHOULD BE BY THE END OF MAY, I ANTICIPATE.
WELL, WE'LL GET, UH, A HEADS UP ON THAT WHEN IT'S, YEAH, WE WILL GET A NOTICE OF IT.
UH, JUST TO REMIND THE, THE COMMISSION HOW THE QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE IS COMPOSED, IT IS COMPOSED OF ONE APPOINTEE BY THE PARISH PRESIDENT, ONE APPOINTEE BY THE PARISH COUNCIL, AND ONE APPOINTEE BY THIS COMMISSION.
THIS COMMISSION'S APPOINTEE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
AS JIM LETTON, AS I APPRECIATED, THE OTHER APPOINTEES HAVE REMAINED THE SAME.
I BELIEVE, UH, MR. DUKE MCCONNELL SERVES ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND MR. JOHN, BEN SERVES ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL.
UM, JUST AS A REMINDER, OUR PEER REVIEW, WHICH IS OUR TRIENNIAL REVIEW THAT IS DONE OVER OUR OFFICE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL, UM, IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE IN SEPTEMBER.
UM, EVENTUALLY AS WE GET CLOSER TO SEPTEMBER, THE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL BE LOOKING, UM, TO IDENTIFY VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS TO INTERVIEW, UM, WHEN THEY COME INTO TOWN.
AND ONCE THEY START, UM, SEEKING NAMES FOR STAKEHOLDERS, I WILL REACH OUT TO YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOME DIRECT CONTACT WITH PEER REVIEW.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S EVERY THREE YEARS? YES, SIR.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S EVERY THREE YEARS.
A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.
UM, AND BOTH THE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS THE PEER REVIEW BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL, THOSE ARE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
AND SO THIS IS OUR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, UM, STAFF EVALUATIONS.
UM, I TIMELY COMPLETED THE EVALUATIONS OF KEN MARLEY AS WELL AS BRITTANY MAJEURE.
UM, BOTH WERE, UM, CONSIDERED AND RECEIVED THEIR ANNUAL RAISES.
UM, UPDATE, UM, IF I CAN, UM, PASS THE STATUS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UM, AND PRESENT MY PUBLIC LETTER TO YOU, UM, BECAUSE I HAVE A SEPARATE, UM, POWERPOINT FOR THE UPDATE ON
[00:05:01]
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.SO WE ISSUED A PUBLIC LETTER, UM, ON APRIL 30TH, 2024.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH YOU THE POWERPOINT HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS PUBLIC LETTER.
SO, FIRST OF ALL, JUST AS A KIND OF POINT OF CONTEXT, THE OFFICE HAS IN ITS TENURE, ISSUED EITHER PUBLIC LETTERS, OPEN LETTERS, POSITION PAPERS, IT MIGHT GET A DIFFERENT NAME, SAME ESSENTIAL FLAVOR.
UM, THIS IS MY FIRST PUBLIC LETTER ISSUED AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
I CERTAINLY PROVIDED INPUT INTO PREVIOUS PUBLIC LETTERS.
UM, BUT JUST BY WAY OF ORIENTATION FOR YOU, UM, OF COURSE, THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFICE IS TO PROVIDE INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT, ASSIST IN IMPROVING OPERATIONS, DETECT AND PREVENT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.
SO ONE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY TO ENGAGE IN PREVENTION.
UM, AND PREVENTION MIGHT BE BY WAY OF REVIEW OF LEGISLATION, REVIEW OF RULES, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND TRANSACTIONS, UM, AND ALSO TO PROVIDE TRAINING.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR PUBLIC LETTER WAS TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT POTENTIAL FRAUD, WASTE ABUSE, AND ILLEGAL ACTS TO PROACTIVELY COMMUNICATE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN.
UM, AND TO NOTICE RISK OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR INTERNAL POLICIES, WHICH WHICH ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY SPECIFIC FINDING OR RECOMMENDATION.
SO I WOULD SAY LIKE THE EASIEST DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PUBLIC LETTER AND OUR CUSTOMARY REPORTS IS OUR CUSTOMARY REPORTS ARE GENERALLY GOING TO BE SOME ASPECT OF AN AUTOPSY.
IT'S A LOOK BACK, IT'S A LOOK AT SOME PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR THAT OCCURRED, WHEREAS A PUBLIC LETTER IS ACTUALLY INTENDED TO PREVENT THE ACTION BEFORE IT TAKES PLACE.
SO THIS PUBLIC LETTER WAS ISSUED TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT THE UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE OF DEDICATED MILLAGE FUNDS.
SO WHAT WE WERE CONCERNED WITH, UM, UNDER STATE LAW, MILLAGE FUNDS ARE TREATED ESSENTIALLY AS A TRUST.
SO THE RECORDS OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY SHALL CLEARLY REFLECT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX ARE USED.
FOR EXAMPLE, UM, THE FUNDING FOR THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE ETHICS COMPLIANCE COMMISSION IS A DEDICATED MILLAGE.
WE OURSELVES ARE A TAXING DISTRICT.
UM, IN THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON.
WE HAVE TAXING DISTRICTS FOR STREETS, DRAINAGE, UM, OTHER PUBLIC WORKS LIBRARY.
UM, SO WE HAVE AN ASSORTMENT OF MILLAGES, AND THAT'S SORT OF THE ASSURANCE TO THE PUBLIC THAT YOU ARE PAYING THIS TAX FOR THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE, AND WE ARE SPENDING A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THAT MONEY TO GIVE YOU THAT PARTICULAR SERVICE.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE HAVE, UM, UNINCORPORATED AND LA FEET AT TWO AND A HALF MILS, UM, A PORTION OF A SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX, WHICH IS USED FOR, UM, MAINTAINING, ADMINISTERING, AND OPERATING JUDICIAL SERVICES IN THE CIVIL, JUVENILE, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS. AND THAT'S IN THE 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET.
UM, THE MONEY THAT'S GOING INTO THIS FUND THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IS ACTUALLY CARVED OUT OF TWO SEPARATE MILLAGES.
ONE OF 'EM IS A PARISH WIDE, ONE MILL, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A TWO AND A HALF MILL.
UM, BOTH OF THE MILLAGE TERMS REQUIRE THAT THE MONEY BE SPENT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, BUT THE MILLAGES ARE ALSO DIVIDED AMONG OTHER SERVICES LIKE PARKS AND REC.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, AS A CITIZEN, WE'RE PAYING THE ONE MILL, BUT WHEN THE TAX IS COLLECTED, IT'S DIVIDED UP AS A CITIZEN, WE'RE PAYING TWO AND A HALF MILS, BUT THE TAX IS DIVIDED AND IT GOES TO DIFFERENT SERVICES INCLUDING CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO, KIM, I, AS I APPRECIATE IT, THE, THERE'S A, A BUNCH OF ITEMS IN, IN THIS LIST, BUT ONE OF THE ITEMS IN THE LIST IS CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
IS THAT, IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, YES.
UM, TO BE DEPOSITED IN AND CREDITED TO THE JEFFERSON COURT AND JUDICIAL SERVICES FUND AND USED TO PROVIDE MAINTAINED ADMINISTER AND OPERATE JUDICIAL SERVICES.
AND THEN THE TWO AND A HALF MILLS HAS COMPARABLE LANGUAGE ON, ON THE ONE MILL PARISH WIDE, UM, APPORTIONMENT.
DO THEY DEFINE THE TERM, UM, ADMINISTER AND OPERATE JUDICIAL SERVICES OTHER THAN THE JEFFERSON COURT AND YOU AND, UH, JUDICIAL SERVICES? NO, SIR.
AND THIS IS QUOTED FROM THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, THE PROPOSITION.
[00:10:01]
IS THAT THERE IS A MAJOR CRIME TASK FORCE.UM, IN LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF THE TASK FORCE, IT WAS BASICALLY, UM, FOUNDED AFTER KATRINA TO SORT OF ANSWER SOME OF THE TICK UP IN CRIMES OCCURRING.
UM, AND THE REDISTRIBUTION OF CITIZENS WITHIN, UM, OUR GEOGRAPHIC REGION, UM, IDENTIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TASK FORCE WAS ALGIERS, NEW ORLEANS, JEFFERSON PARISH, WEST BANK, AND PLAQUEMINES.
UM, IN ITS ORIGIN, IT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE PARISH GRETNA AND CERTAIN STATE FUNDING OF THE PARISH FUNDING THAT WAS GOING TO SUPPORT THIS TASK FORCE.
WE WERE SUPPORTING IT WITH GENERAL FUNDS, WHICH IS UNRESTRICTED, OF COURSE, RIVERBOAT GAMING COUNCIL DISTRICT TOURISM CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND.
AND THEN COUNCIL DISTRICT PROJECTS WAS LIKE THE FUNDING SOURCES.
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023, THE PARISH ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS NEW.
UM, SO 31 30 CAME INTO OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES REQUIRING THAT THE PARISH COUNCIL APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO PROVIDE OPERATIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MAJOR CRIME TASK FORCE, THE APPROPRIATION SHALL NOT EXCEED $1 MILLION PER YEAR.
NOW, I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S ANY KIND OF BACK TO, UM, MR. SULLIVAN'S QUESTION, ANY DEFINITION ATTACHED TO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MAJOR CRIME TASK FORCE.
YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT EXPECT SOME MORE EXPANSION.
SO GOING FORWARD, PEOPLE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TASK FORCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, BUT THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 2023, NO PARTICULAR FUNDING IS IDENTIFIED TO, UH, SUPPORT THE UP TO $1 MILLION.
IN DECEMBER OF 2023, THE PARISH COUNCIL ADOPTS THE 2024 BUDGET, AND THIS BUDGET ALLOCATES $860,000 FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND TO MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE.
AND I'M GOING TO ONLY USE LOOSELY SAY ALLOCATES BECAUSE WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SLIDE IS THE BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS.
AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE POINT AT WHICH WE WERE STARTED SCRATCHING OUR HEADS.
BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS, AND FROM THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVE, YOU WOULD EXPECT, YOU KNOW, YES, A BUDGET IS DRY.
YES, IT WOULD BE EASIER IF YOU WERE AN ACCOUNTANT TO READ THE BUDGET, BUT THEN ON SOME LEVEL, YOU EXPECT SOME TRANSPARENCY TO COME OUT OF YOUR BUDGET TO THE CITIZENS.
SO IF THE CITIZENS WANTED TO KNOW WHERE THE MONEY WAS GOING TO, THEY MIGHT COME ACROSS THIS BUDGET HIGHLIGHT AND SAY, AHA, WELL, UM, $3 MILLION, 3.7 IS GOING, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE CONSTABLES AND JUSTICE OF THE PIECES ARE GETTING $96,000.
JUVENILE COURT PROCESS IS GETTING 210.
AND NOW MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE THAT PREVIOUSLY GOT $90,000 IS NOW GETTING $860,000.
DISTRICT COURT'S COMPUTER EQUIPMENT IS GETTING $66,000.
AND SO WE WOULD SEE THIS AND SAY, OKAY, I CAN SEE WHERE THIS MONEY IS GOING TO.
THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT ACTUALLY ANY EXPENDITURES CHARGED AGAINST THE ACCOUNT, MEANING THE ACCOUNT IS THERE, TAX MONEY GOES IN AND TAX MONEY IS SWEPT OUT, AND IT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THESE DISCREET EXPENDITURES.
WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS AND WE SAW THE EXPENDITURES NOT WITHSTANDING THAT THEY DON'T EXPEND AGAINST THE FUND, IT NONETHELESS RAISED THE QUESTION $860,000 GOING TO A MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY CRIMINAL IN NATURE, NOT JUDICIAL SERVICES IN NATURE.
AND THERE'S A LINE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS THAT SPEAK ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE MILLAGE FUNDS, IT MUST GO TO THE PURPOSE THAT THE VOTERS APPROVED.
IT CAN'T GO TO LIKE A CLOSELY RELATED PURPOSE, IT MUST GO TO THE PURPOSE.
SO NOW WE HAVE WHAT WOULD APPEAR FROM THE BUDGET BOOK TO BE LIKE 18% OF THIS DEDICATED MILLAGE FUND GOING TO MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE.
[00:15:03]
THAT WAS THE BUDGET.THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE MONEY IS ACTUALLY THAT TO BE EXPENDED.
IT'S NOT SPENT, IT'S JUST IN THE BUDGET.
IN APRIL OF 2024, THE PARISH COUNCIL APPROVED A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GRETNA TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE GRETNA POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $1 MILLION.
AND AGAIN, IT WAS AMBIGUOUS AT THE TIME, BUT NO REAL SPECIFIC FUNDING IS IDENTIFIED AT THE MOMENT.
IT'S PRESUMED IT'S COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND, BUT AGAIN, IT'S LIKE A MILLION DOLLARS.
THEN WE HAVE THE MAY 1ST MEETING.
SO ON THE MAY 1ST MEETING, THE PARISH COUNCIL CONSIDERED A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND OF $860,000, WHICH ESSENTIALLY DID THIS, IT TOOK THE MONEY OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND AND MOVED IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO BE EXPENDED THERE, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE THEN NOT TRACKING THE, IF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD'VE BEEN APPROPRIATE, YOU COULD HAVE PAID IT OUTTA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND.
IF YOU'RE TAKING IT OUTTA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND AND YOU'RE MOVING MILLAGE MONEY INTO THE GENERAL FUND, YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO TRACK AND PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT THAT MILLAGE MONEY IS USED FOR THAT SPECIFIC TRUSTED PURPOSE.
THE USE OF DEDICATED MILLAGE FUND FOR A PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THE ONE APPROVED MAY VIOLATE STATE LAW.
THE USE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE TO FUND THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE IS NOT PROHIBITED.
MEANING WE COULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUNDED IT THROUGH GENERAL FUNDS OR ANY OF THE OTHER UNRESTRICTED FUNDS THAT PREVIOUSLY FUNDED THIS PARTICULAR ACTIVITY.
IF THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE CANNOT BE FUNDED BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND, CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND CANNOT BE USED TO FUND THE GENERAL FUND IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE COMMITMENT.
MEANING BEST PRACTICES ARE IF YOU HAVE A MILLAGE FUND AND THAT'S YOUR TRUST, YOU TAKE EXPENDITURES AND YOU, YOU EXPEND THE MONEY OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM SO THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS RECOGNIZE AS THE AG SAYS, THESE ARE APPROVED EXPENDITURES.
SO WHAT WE RECOMMENDED IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING ESSENTIALLY TO MAKE, UM, AN ONGOING COMMITMENT, IE WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE SAYING ANNUALLY WE'RE GOING TO APPROPRIATE UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS.
SO THIS IS NOT LIKE A ONE-TIME THING.
WE NOW HAVE MADE THIS COMMITMENT VIA ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GONNA SUPPORT THIS.
UM, WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF GRETNA TO PROVIDE THIS TASK FORCE.
SO THAT'S FINE, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE.
WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO FUND IT IN A WAY THAT'S PERMISSIBLE AND NOT A MISUSE OF MILLAGE FUNDING.
AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, UM, WE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT DEPLETING AND REDIRECTING DEDICATED MILLAGE FUNDS FROM JUDICIAL SERVICES TO THE GENERAL FUND IS NEITHER A SHORT-TERM, NOR LONG-TERM SOLUTION.
AND REALLY, UM, THIS HAPPENS TO BE A PUBLIC LETTER ON THIS DISCREET, UM, MILLAGE FUND.
FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT WHETHER THE CONNECTION IS MADE, EVERY VFC REPORT WE ISSUE, THAT'S MILLAGE MONEY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MILLAGE MONEY AND TRACKING THAT MILLAGE MONEY AND APPROVED EXPENSES BY THE VFC.
AND WE'VE CALLED OUT A NUMBER OF EXPENDITURES THAT ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE.
UM, WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCED AUDIT GOING ON RIGHT NOW, UM, ON THE LEASE PROCEEDS FROM WEST JEFFERSON TRACKING HOW IS THAT MONEY BEING EXPENDED BY THE PARISH? HOW IS IT BEING MAINTAINED BY THE PARISH? SO THIS HAPPENS TO BE, UM, SAY ONE PUBLIC LETTER, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW AND FOCUSING ON IS HOW IS THE PARISH PRESERVING AND PROTECTING AND PROVIDING TRANSPARENCY IN TERMS OF MILLAGE REVENUE.
KIM, CAN CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION IN, IN PRIOR YEARS ON THE MILLAGE FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND, AND YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS ANSWER, BUT IN PRIOR YEARS ON THESE MILLAGE FUNDS OR DEDICATED FUNDS, CAN YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE EXPENDED IN PRIOR YEARS? WERE THEY EXPENDED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY? HOW WERE THEY EXPENDED IN PRIOR YEARS VERSUS THIS YEAR, IF, YOU KNOW? UM, WHAT I KNOW
[00:20:01]
IS THAT, UM, $90,000 WE BELIEVE CAME OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND.AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WAS OTHER FUNDING THAT DID COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, AND THAT WAS THE PARISHES CONTRIBUTION TO THIS MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE.
UM, AND I'M GONNA LOOSELY SAY THE NUMBER 220 COULD BE 260.
IT WAS IN THE TWO HUNDREDS THAT WE CONTRIBUTED TO THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE.
UM, THAT MONIES SUCH AS THEY WERE, HAVE NEVER BEEN QUOTE, AUDITED.
LIKE WE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE PARISH HAS, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS NOT AUDITED THAT DISCRETE FUNDING.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 220, 230, WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY A MILLION DOLLARS.
SO THIS IS GONNA BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO AUDIT ON HOW IS NOW THE CITY OF GRETNA, UM, MAINTAINING THEIR RECORDS ON HOW THIS MONEY IS BEING EXPENDED.
SO THAT CONCLUDES THE, UM, PUBLIC, UM, LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED.
UM, MOVING FORWARD, UM, WITH MY REPORT, UM, PER USUAL, I'VE IDENTIFIED OUR MILESTONES.
UM, YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR INTAKES, WE'RE STAYING PRETTY, UM, EVEN IN TERMS OF LIKE OPENING AND CLOSING.
SO, UM, WE HAVE OPEN 35, WE'VE CLOSED 36.
UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN AN INTAKE COMES IN AND IS IMMEDIATE CLOSE.
IT MEANS LIKE AN INTAKE IS WORKED.
IT MIGHT BE OLDER AND THEN NEWER INTAKES COME IN.
BUT I PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT THERE'S A BALANCE BECAUSE WHEN THE NUMBERS ARE EVEN, THAT TELLS ME THAT WE'RE KEEPING UP WITH THE DEMANDS OF OUR WORK.
UM, CASE CASES OPEN VERSUS CASES CLOSED.
UM, WE HAVE OPENED FIVE CASES AND WE HAVE CLOSED THREE CASES.
WE OF COURSE HAD SOME, UM, EARLY PUBLISHED REPORTS THAT WERE HELD OVER FROM LAST YEAR THAT WERE PUBLISHED THIS YEAR.
UM, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD IN OUR AUDIT ON EAST BANK CONSOLIDATED FIRE PAYROLL, UM, SICK LEAVE.
SO THIS IS AN ANNOUNCED AUDIT WHERE WE ARE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT ON-DUTY AND OFF-DUTY INJURIES AND SICK LEAVE THAT'S PLAYED OUT.
UM, AND OUR AUDITOR IS CURRENTLY VERY ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN FIELD WORK.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE ANNOUNCED AN EXAMINATION REVIEW OF THE JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC.
THAT'S SORT OF LIKE STILL IN THE PLANNING, UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE ENTITY PHASE.
UM, WE HAVE THE VFC AND EAST BANK CONSOLIDATED FIRE COMPANY DRUG POLICIES AND TESTING.
THAT IS A REPORT THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DRAFTED.
IT'S BEING HELD UP BY ME RIGHT NOW.
I NEED TO GET BACK TO REVIEW THE DRAFT.
AND WE HAVE OUR ONGOING PERSONNEL CLASSIFIED SERVICE EVALUATION.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE TIME TO HIRE FOCUS, MEANING LIKE ARE WE, UM, ABLE TO RECRUIT TIMELY ADVERTISE, AND DO WE HAVE ANY HICCUPS THAT ARE DELAYING, UM, THE TIME IN WHICH SOMEBODY CAN COME IN AND ARE THEY ABLE TO GAIN SOMEBODY THAT CAN DO THE JOB? UM, WEST JEFFERSON MEDICAL CENTER, UM, IS ALSO ONGOING.
THIS IS AN EVALUATION OF, UM, LC C'S PERFORMANCE UNDER THEIR COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH US, PARTICULARLY THEIR, UM, CAPITAL COMMITMENTS TO THE PARISH.
UM, THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN AUDITED, SO WE ARE GOING IN TO VALIDATE WHETHER THEY'RE KEEPING THEIR COMMITMENTS TO US.
UM, AND THAT IS DEEP INTO PLANNING RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT ESSENTIALLY, UM, CONCLUDES, UM, MY REPORT OTHER THAN FINALLY MY PRESENTATION ON THE UPDATE TO, UM, THE COMMISSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ORDINANCE.
SO, JUST BY WAY OF FAST BACKGROUND, UM, IN 2010, THE JEFFERSON PARISH COUNCIL CREATED AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THAT WAS A CALL BOTH BY COUNCILMAN AT THE TIME, THOMAS CAPELLA, AS WELL AS JOHN YOUNG.
AND OF COURSE IT CAME IN THE WAKE OF CERTAIN INDICTMENTS.
SO IN 2010, THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, CAME TOGETHER AND ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION IN SEPTEMBER TO CREATE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IN JEFFERSON PARISH.
SPECIFICALLY, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE OFFICE HAVE ALL POWERS AND AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW, UH, WHICH IS VERY EXPANSIVE
[00:25:01]
AND SPECIFIC, THAT THE OFFICE BE INDEPENDENT AND THAT THE OFFICE HAVE ADEQUATE FUNDING.IN 2011, THE PARISH COUNCIL PASSED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ORDINANCE, AND I ALWAYS LIKE TO CALL THAT TO PEOPLE'S ATTENTION 'CAUSE WE THINK ABOUT THE VOTERS APPROVING THE OFFICE.
UM, THE VOTERS EVENTUALLY APPROVED THE OFFICE IN THE CHARTER, UM, AND THE VOTERS APPROVED THE FUNDING.
BUT LONG BEFORE THE CHARTER WAS AMENDED, THE OFFICE WAS ACTUALLY CREATED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
UM, AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCE PROVIDED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SHALL HAVE DIRECT AND PROMPT ACCESS TO ALL RECORDS.
UM, THE IG APPOINTED BY THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION TO FOUR YEAR TERMS WITHOUT ANY TERM LIMITS, AND OF COURSE, THAT THE OFFICE AND THE ETHICS COMPLIANCE COMMISSION BE SUPPORTED BY DEDICATED FUNDING.
THE OFFICE OPERATED FROM 2013 TO 2019.
UM, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF MY PREDECESSOR, DAVID MCCLINTOCK, UM, HE STOOD UP THE OFFICE.
UM, IT, WE HAD, UM, GOOD EXPANSIVE ACCESS.
WE HAD DIRECT ACCESS TO PARISH SYSTEMS, WE HAD EASE OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH DIRECTORS.
I'M NOT GONNA SAY, UM, WE DIDN'T HAVE HICCUPS, BUT I'M GONNA SAY WE WERE ON OUR ROAD TO COOPERATION, UM, BEGINNING WITH PARISH PRESIDENT JOHN YOUNG, UM, AND THEN INCOMING PRESIDENT, UH, MIKE NEY.
IN 2019, THE OFFICE ISSUED A PUBLIC REPORT REGARDING CERTAIN TRANSITION COSTS, UM, THAT PARISH PRESIDENT YI EXPENDED, UM, AND PARISH PRESIDENT YI ESSENTIALLY ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
UM, THAT INVOLVED BASICALLY GOING IN AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT EMAILS WE WERE LOOKING AT AND WHY WE WERE LOOKING AT THEM.
AND THEN HE PUBLISHED IT TO THE MEDIA.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE PARISH COUNCIL, UM, I DON'T THINK I'M WRONG IN OVERSTATING THIS, IN ABOUT 45 DAYS, THE PARISH COUNCIL SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED OUR ORDINANCE.
KIM, IF I CAN JUST INTERRUPT FOR A MINUTE, I WANT TO GO INTO THAT EMAIL DISCUSSION FOR JUST A SECOND, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT.
IF YOU'LL RECALL IN 2019, UH, COUNCILMAN CHRIS ROBERTS AT THE TIME CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
AT THAT TIME, HE RAISED AN ISSUE THAT PRESIDENT YONI HAD BEEN CONDUCTING PARISH BUSINESS ON A PERSONAL EMAIL.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
SO THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF IMPROPRIETY ON PRESIDENT YONI'S PART.
HOWEVER, IT RAISED AN ISSUE THAT THE COMMISSION THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.
IF A PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST IS MADE TO THE PARISH, IS THE PARISH ENSURING THAT IT SECURES ALL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT REQUEST, INCLUDING EMAILS.
IF EMAIL, IF, IF BUSINESS IS BEING CONDUCTED ON A PRIVATE EMAIL, IS THAT EMAIL BEING CAPTURED IN THE SYSTEM WHEN THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IS MADE? SO THE, THE COMMISSION DID ASK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON THAT LIMITED PURPOSE, WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS ARE TRANSPARENT AND HAVE FULL INTEGRITY OF THE, OF RESPONSIVENESS.
AND THAT'S HOW THE ENTIRE EMAIL ISSUE BEGAN.
AND THEN, UH, PRESIDENT YONI DID PUBLISH AND THE REVIEW OF THE EMAILS PRIOR TO ANY REPORT BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
SO THAT WAS JUST A WAY OF BACKGROUND.
SO JUST, UM, LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT.
UH, THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION NECESSARILY SORT OF INVOLVED LOOKING FOR A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK.
UM, THE PARISH'S EMAIL SYSTEM AT THE TIME WAS NOT OFFICE 365.
YOU COULDN'T NECESSARILY SEE WHAT WAS IN THE EMAIL.
YOU COULDN'T NECESSARILY DETERMINE, UM, THE BODY OF THE EMAIL BASED ON THE SUBJECT.
SO YOU BASICALLY HAD TO PULL IT BASED ON SEARCH TERMS AND THEN KIND OF OPEN IT UP AND FIGURE IT OUT.
SO THERE WAS A MARRYING UP OF LOOKING FOR A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK WITH CERTAIN, UM, TECHNO JUST UNAVOIDABLE TECHNOLOGY ISSUES AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.
UM, NONETHELESS, HAD ANYBODY COME TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT WHATSOEVER, THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT THE OFFICE WAS INVESTIGATING SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION, AND IT WAS ESSENTIALLY BROUGHT UP IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
SO THERE WOULD'VE BEEN NO REASON NOT TO JUST SAY, UM, IF YOU WANNA ASK WHY WE'RE DOING THIS ASK AND, AND WE'LL ANSWER, NOBODY ASKED THE QUESTION.
[00:30:01]
SAID, BASED ON OUR BELIEF, THE PARISH PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGIES TO ESSENTIALLY AUDIT, AUDIT US, AND THEN TOOK THE AUDIT AND WENT FROM COUNCIL TO COUNCIL TO COUNCIL WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT WHATSOEVER, AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT YOUR RECIPES THAT YOU'RE SHARING WITH SOMEBODY ELSE.YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I GUESS THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE ASKED THE QUESTIONS.
THE COUNCIL DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THEY SIMPLY REACTED, UM, PARISH PRESIDENT YANNI PUBLISHED TO THE MEDIA, ALL OF THE INFORMATION, MEANING THAT IF WE HAD LOOKED AT ANYTHING PRIVATE OR ANYTHING THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, UM, WHICH WAS THE COMPLAINT, HE BLASTED IT TO THE MEDIA.
AND SO THERE WAS NO REPERCUSSIONS FOR HIS ACTION, AND THERE WAS NO CHECKS ON HIS ACTION.
INSTEAD WITH THE COUNSEL DID, WAS GO IN AND CRITICALLY WOUND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UM, YOU'LL SEE FROM THE NEXT SLIDE, BASICALLY, OUR ACCESS TO RECORDS BY THE AMENDED ORDINANCE ARE ONLY THROUGH THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
WE HAVE NO DIRECT ACCESS ANYMORE.
ESSENTIALLY, OUR ACCESS IS AT THE WILL OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
UM, AND THEN THEY LIMITED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO TWO FOUR YEAR TERMS. I INCLUDED CLIPS OF THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE DOWN, UM, AT THE BOTTOM, IF YOU CAN READ IT, THAT WAS JUST A CLIP FROM ONE OF THE ARTICLES.
THE OIG ORDINANCE WAS THE HIGHEST PROFILE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT LOOKED FAR DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE PUBLISHED LAST WEEK.
THAT VERSION WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO GET A STATE DISTRICT JUDGE TO SIGN A SUBPOENA BEFORE SEEKING ANY DOCUMENTS FROM THE PARISH.
AND IT WOULD HAVE IN, IT WOULD'VE FORCED THE OIG TO HIRE OUTSIDE LAWYERS FOR ANY LITIGATION BEYOND SIMPLE LIABILITY CASES SUCH AS A SLIP AND FALL.
SO THE WHOLE ADVANTAGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL BY DEFINITION, IS YOU ARE INTEGRATED INTO THE GOVERNMENT.
YOU ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT YOU CAN ACCESS ESSENTIAL RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
BUT THE PERSON WHO'S LEADING THE OFFICE, I A THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CAN NEITHER BE EMPLOYED OR FIRED AT THE WILL OF THE PARISH COUNCIL OR THE PARISH PRESIDENT.
THAT'S THE CONCEPT OF INDEPENDENCE.
YOU'RE INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT, BUT ESSENTIALLY NOBODY CAN FIRE YOU.
AND THAT WAY YOU DON'T FEEL THREATENED OR POSSIBLY RETALIATED AGAINST FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
THEY TOOK THE ORDINANCE, NOBODY BUT THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, SO THE ORDINANCE BEFORE ITS SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT IN DECEMBER, 2019, THERE WERE ITERATIONS OF IT THAT WERE EVEN FAR MORE DAMAGING.
UM, AT THE TIME THE IG WAS ABLE TO WALK BACK SOME OF THOSE DAMAGING AMENDMENTS, WE STILL LANDED IN A VERY UNTENABLE PLACE.
SO, UM, I WAS APPOINTED IN MARCH, 2022.
UM, MID 2023 IS WHEN I STARTED, UM, GATHERING INFORMATION, WATCHING HOW THE TEAM OPERATES IN THE OFFICE, NOTICING EFFICIENCIES, EFFECTIVENESS, AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FRAMEWORK THAT WE WERE STUCK WITH.
COME 2019, AND I, IN CONCERT WITH, UM, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE ECC WENT THROUGH AND SAID, WHAT DO WE NEED TO FIX? UM, THIS INCLUDED CONCERNS OF THE ECC BEGINNING WITH MY APPOINTMENT, AND THAT IS THAT THERE WERE NO ONLY TWO CANDIDATES APPLYING FOR THE JOB OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, MYSELF AND ANOTHER INTERNAL CANDIDATE.
UM, AND BECAUSE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, WE REALLY WEREN'T ABLE TO DRAW NATIONAL CANDIDATES THIS LAST TIME.
SO MR. SULLIVAN AND I WORKED THROUGH THE ORDINANCE AND ESSENTIALLY WENT TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING, UM, TERM OF OFFICE TO STRIKE THE 2019 AMENDED LANGUAGE AND RETURN TO NO TERM.
UH, AND AGAIN, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE TERM IS FOUR YEARS SUBJECT TO REAPPOINTMENT BY THE COMMISSION.
SO WHEN IT SAYS NO TERM, THERE'S NO TERM LIMIT, BUT, BUT THERE IS A TERM OF EVERY FOUR YEARS THERE'S EITHER A REAPPOINTMENT OR YOU GO OUT ON A NATIONAL SEARCH.
UH, THERE'S ALSO STILL THE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT THE ECC CAN REMOVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR CAUSE AND PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AT ANY TIME, AT ANY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE PERIOD WITHIN A TERM, WHETHER IT'S THE FIRST TERM OR, OR SUBSEQUENT TERMS. SO IT, IT, THERE'S ALWAYS A, A FAIL SAFE REGARDLESS.
UM, AND I, I'M JUST GONNA TOUCH ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES AND THEN I'LL LET KIM GO BACK.
BUT, BUT THE QUALIFICATIONS ISSUE, AND, AND AT THE TIME THAT THE COMMISSION WAS INTERVIEWING CANDIDATES, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF, OF ISSUES OR IMPEDIMENTS
[00:35:02]
TO THE COMMISSION GETTING THE BEST QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FROM A NATIONAL SEARCH.IF YOU HAVE A, A SCHOOL AGED CHILD, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS MOST RECENT TIME, THIS MOST RECENT WHEN DAVID MCCLINTOCK WAS HIRED.
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, BECAUSE DAVID MCCLINTOCK WAS HIRED WHEN THERE WERE NO TERM LIMITS.
AND, AND MC, MR. MCCLINTOCK HAD TWO SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN AT THE TIME.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD'VE IMPACTED IF HE HAD TERM LIMITS, UH, FORCED UPON HIM AT THAT INTERVIEW PROCESS.
BUT WHAT WE CAME TO FIND OUT IS IF YOU HAVE SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN, AND YOU ARE NO, YOU ARE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN THE POSSIBILITY OF EIGHT YEARS.
YOU'RE BRINGING YOUR CHILDREN TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION, YOU ALREADY HAVE SOME EXPOSURE WITH REGARD TO EDUCATION IMPEDIMENTS HERE, UM, THE COST OF EDUCATION, AND THEN YOU'RE LIMITING THAT EDUCATION PERIOD TO EIGHT YEARS AT BEST.
IT PUTS A CHILLING EFFECT ON, ON PEOPLE.
THE OTHER THING WE FOUND THAT PUT AN, UH, EXTREME CHILLING EFFECT ON QUALIFIED CANDIDATES, BECAUSE WE HAD CANDIDATES AND, AND NO DISRESPECT TO INSPECTOR GENERAL CHADLEY, BUT WE HAD QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO HAD EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
THE ONE THING THEY DIDN'T HAVE IS THEY WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS AN INSPECTOR GENERAL.
WHEN I CONTACTED THE, A ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WE WERE TOLD GENERALLY, YOU DON'T GET THE CERTIFICATION UNTIL YOU BECOME AN INSPECTOR GENERAL.
SO THEN WE GET THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG PROBLEM, AND WE FOUND THAT TO BE THE CASE.
WE EVEN TALKED TO STEVEN STREET, WHO WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION AT THE TIME, WHO IS OUR STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND HE TOLD US THAT IS INDEED A PROBLEM THAT IS BEING FACED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
SO IN ORDER TO GET THE BEST CANDIDATE THAT WE CAN GET, ONE OF THE ISSUES WE TALKED ABOUT WAS ALLOWING THAT CANDIDATE, IF THEY HAVE THE EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMMISSION THINKS THAT THEY WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM APPOINTMENT TO SECURE THAT CERTIFICATION.
IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO SECURE THE CERTIFICATION, THEN THE, THE COMMISSION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP.
BUT IT PUTS A, A SIGNIFICANT CHILLING EFFECT, AND YOU ARE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING A NATIONAL SEARCH FOR THE BEST PERSON THAT CAN COME TO JEFFERSON PARISH.
BUT WE ARE HAMSTRUNG IN GETTING THE BEST PERSON WITH THE ORDINANCES AS, AS THEY EXIST, AND PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE, THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE, THE CERTIFICATION.
AND THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION THAT WE SEE AS THE GREATEST IMPEDIMENT TO GETTING SOMEONE IN THE OFFICE THAT WILL FULFILL THE RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE.
UM, JUST TO SORT OF CHIME IN AND ECHO THAT THE, THE ISSUE OF TERM LIMITS HAS, YOU KNOW, BEEN BANTERED ABOUT OUR OFFICE.
I THINK IT'S BEING BANTERED ABOUT THE PARISH.
UM, IT'S THIS QUALIFICATION IS THIS ISSUE IN TERMS OF AMENDMENT IS NOT ONE THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ON, BUT THE REASON I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON IT IS BECAUSE KNOCK, YOU KNOW, KNOCK ON WOOD, I'M VERY FORTUNATE.
I HAPPENED TO COME IN, I WAS THE FIRST ASSISTANT, SO I HAPPENED TO HAVE NINE YEARS IN THE OFFICE.
I KNEW THE OFFICE BEFORE I WAS APPOINTED AND JUST LUCK AND TIME AND AGE.
IF I SERVE TWO TERMS, I WILL AGE OUT AT RETIREMENT, SO GOOD FOR ME.
BUT ANYBODY ELSE, E EVEN IF IT WAS ME AND I WOULDN'T BE HITTING 62, IF I SERVED TWO TERMS, IF I WAS HITTING 60, I DON'T WANNA BE UNEMPLOYED AT 60 YEARS OLD HAVING TO GO FIND ANOTHER JOB BECAUSE MY JOB ENDED AT EIGHT YEARS.
SO EVEN I IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE MAY NOT DO IT.
UM, THEN I CAN TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, NOBODY WANTS TO RUN AND HIRE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL LIKE YOU MAKE NO FRIENDS IN THIS JOB.
UM, YOU CAN'T RUN FOR AN OFFICE.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT A SETUP FOR ANYTHING.
YOU HAVE TO LIKE, COME HERE TO DO THIS JOB AND BE SATISFIED WITH THIS JOB.
THAT BEING SAID, IF I WAS WILLING TO DO THE JOB FOR EIGHT YEARS AND COULD AFFORD TO AND WAS YOUNG ENOUGH, I WOULD DO WHAT ANYBODY ELSE WOULD.
MY JOBS ENDING AT EIGHT YEARS, AT YEAR SIX, I'M GONNA START LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB.
AND IF I GET ANOTHER JOB BEFORE I SERVE MY EIGHT, WELL THEN I'M PIECING OUT AND I DON'T SERVE TWO TERMS, BECAUSE IF I'M YOUNG ENOUGH TO CONTINUE WORKING, I HAVE TO GO FIND ANOTHER JOB THAT, UM, CERTITUDE OF THE EIGHT YEARS IS JUST NOT VERY CONDUCIVE TO ATTRACTING CANDIDATES.
I'M HAPPY IT WORKED FOR ME, BUT I DO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE.
[00:40:01]
UM, IMPACT THAT I KNOW THE ECC HAS NOTICED IS THAT AFTER 2019 AMENDED LANGUAGE, WE NOW HAVE DRAFTS GOING TO THE PARISH FOR 30 WORKING DAYS, AND THEN DRAFTS GOING TO NON, UM, PARISH RECIPIENTS FOR 20 WORKING DAYS.SO ONE OF MY DESIRED AMENDMENTS, UM, IS TO HAVE THOSE TIMES RUN CONCURRENTLY, MEANING ONE DRAFT, ONE DRAFT PERIOD, UM, FOR 30 DAYS.
UM, THE OTHER, UH, POWERS TO STRIKE THE 2019 AMENDED LANGUAGE, UM, AND BASICALLY RESTORE THE LANGUAGE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO ACCESS PARISH RECORDS VIA WRITTEN REQUEST, VERBAL REQUEST, OR DIRECT ACCESS, AND THEN THE QUALIFICATIONS WHICH WE DISCUSSED.
SO WHERE DID THIS ALL BEGIN? UM, IN JULY OF 2023, WE BEGAN HAVING MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND WHEN I SAY WE, THAT INCLUDED MYSELF, THAT INCLUDED MR. SULLIVAN AT SOME POINT.
THAT INCLUDED MS. SCHNABEL AT SOME POINT.
THAT INCLUDED, UM, MY DEPUTY OVER INVESTIGATIONS.
JEFFREY ADOLPH EVENTUALLY DEPUTY OVER AUDIT, ERICA SMITH CAME IN.
SO IT WAS A CONTINGENCY OF DIFFERENT, BUT I DEFINITELY DIDN'T GO TO THE MEETINGS ALONE.
AND WE MET WITH ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UM, THE ORDINANCE WAS READ INTO SUMMARY, AND I WILL GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE ORDINANCE WAS READ INTO SUMMARY ON DECEMBER 6TH WITH NO BODY, MEANING IT WAS JUST A PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN INTENTION TO AMEND THIS ORDINANCE THAT WAS SPONSORED AT THE TIME BY COUNCILMAN ESTADO.
UM, ON JANUARY 7TH, WE NOW HAVE A NEW COUNCIL.
UM, THAT SUMMARY WAS CANCELED, WHICH PUT US BACK AT SQUARE ONE.
UM, AT THAT TIME IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT I, AGAIN, REACH OUT TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND WALK THROUGH THE DESIRED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
SO BETWEEN JANUARY 24TH AND FEBRUARY 6TH, WE MADE ROUNDS WITH EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AGAIN, AND EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE PARISH PRESIDENT, I SHOULD SAY.
SO WE'RE TALKING EIGHT INDIVIDUALS, MINIMUM AN HOUR MEETING CONSERVATIVELY TIMES TWO BETWEEN JULY AND JANUARY.
THE ITEM WAS READ INTO SUMMARY ON THE FEBRUARY 7TH AGENDA OF THE COUNCIL, UM, NOW BY COUNCILWOMAN AT LARGE, UH, JENNIFER VAN RANKIN.
JUST A NOTICE IT WAS DEFERRED ON MARCH 6TH, BECAUSE THERE WAS, YOU WANNA EXPLAIN WHY? MM-HMM.
I HAVE A DETAILED SLIDE TO FOLLOW.
UM, ON APRIL 17TH, WE NOW HAVE THE TEXT THAT'S PUBLISHED WITH THE AGENDA, BUT THE ORDINANCE WAS DEFERRED AGAIN.
AND THEN ON MAY 1ST IT WAS CANCELED AND READ INTO SUMMARY, WHICH PUT US BACK AT SQUARE ONE AGAIN.
AND THEN IT IS NOTICED FOR THE MAY 22ND AGENDA.
SO, UM, YOU'LL SEE FROM THIS SLIDE WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN JULY 31ST, 2023 AND SEPTEMBER 12TH, IS THAT WE MET WITH EVERY COUNCIL PERSON AS WELL AS THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION AND DISCUSSED WHAT I CALL DRAFT ONE.
THIS WAS OUR DESIRED LANGUAGE AFTER SEPTEMBER, BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND DECEMBER, WHAT HAPPENED WAS IS YOU CAN SEE A CLIP OF AN EMAIL SENT TO, UM, COUNCILMAN AT LARGE RICKY TEMPLATE.
SO COUNCILMAN TEMPLATE WAS COUNCIL AT LARGE, NOT CHAIR.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE MOVED ALONG, WE MUST HAVE IT SPONSORED TO GET ON THE AGENDA.
A COUNCILPERSON MUST SPONSOR IT TO GET ON THE AGENDA.
UM, I DIDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW OR UNDERSTAND OR APPRECIATE THE PROTOCOLS BEHIND THIS.
WHEN I HAD INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCILPERSONS, UM, MY FIRST ASK WAS OF COUNCILMAN BONANNO.
I'M LIKE, WOULD YOU PLEASE CONSIDER SPONSORING THIS? HE WAS NOT OPPOSED TO SPONSORING IT, BUT HE WAS OPPOSED TO SPONSORING IT IN 2023.
HE'S LIKE, WE HAVE TOO MUCH GOING ON, KIM FINE.
UM, SPOKE WITH COUNCILMAN ESTADO, HE WAS WILLING TO SPONSOR IT.
UM, BUT THEN I WAS SORT OF ALERTED THAT COUNCIL PROTOCOL IS,
[00:45:01]
IF AN ORDINANCE IS PARISH WIDE, THEN PROTOCOL IS COUNCIL AT LARGE, NOT CHAIR SPONSORS IT.SO ONCE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS THE WAY I WAS SUPPOSED TO GO, I REACHED OUT TO COUNCILMAN TEMPLATE.
UM, AND YOU'LL SEE HE'S ON THE EMAIL, HIS AIDE IS ON THE EMAIL.
THE, UM, THE DRAFT LANGUAGE IS ON THE EMAIL.
AND I LITERALLY, RIGHT, I'M REQUESTING YOUR SUPPORT, UM, AS COUNCILMAN AT LARGE TO PLACE THESE AMENDMENTS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA.
I HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS, UM, WITH COUNCIL AT LARGE A'S OFFICE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND THIS TIME PERIOD.
YOU KNOW, COULD YOU MOVE ON IT? WE HAVE A MEETING COMING UP.
DO I NEED TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND REALLY GOT NO COMMITMENT, NO FOLLOW UP, NO NAY, NO, YAY, NO NOTHING.
UM, SO WANTING TO GET THE ORDINANCE MOVED, I PICKED UP THE PHONE AND CALLED THE COUNCILMAN WHO HAD OFFERED TO MOVE IT.
AND THAT WAS COUNCILMAN AND PASTA.
SO AS A RESULT, JUST OF TIMING AND MEETINGS LEFT IN THE YEAR, THE ORDINANCE CAME TO BE ON THE LAST COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THE YEAR IN DECEMBER, BUT IT WAS IN FACT READ INTO SUMMARY.
IN DECEMBER, WE HAD AN ELECTION, AND AS A RESULT OF THE ELECTION, WE HAD NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THEN THE AGENDA COMES OUT IN JANUARY, AND WE NOW HAVE DISTRICT FOUR SPONSORING THIS AMENDMENT.
BUT WE HAVE A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER IN DISTRICT FOUR WHO'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
AND THEREFORE I AM TOLD, UM, BY COUNCIL, WE ARE NOT GOING TO MOVE ON THIS BECAUSE IT HAD COUNCILMAN AND PASTA'S NAME ON IT.
WE NOW HAVE A NEW COUNCIL PERSON.
SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE CANCELED AND I PROBABLY ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION.
YEAH, I NO, THE COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL, I KNOW I ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL ON THE DAY THE ORDINANCE WAS CANCELED AND SAID, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CANCELING IT.
I'M ASKING FOR IT TO PLEASE BE READ INTO SUMMARY.
IT WAS IN FACT READ INTO SUMMARY, BUT I WAS ALSO URGED TO VISIT WITH ALL COUNCIL PEOPLE AGAIN.
SO I PREPARED A DIGEST VERSION OF THIS ORDINANCE THAT IS A COMPARISON OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, WHAT EXISTS, AND WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
AND I SENT THAT DIGEST VERSION OUT ON JANUARY 9TH TO EVERYONE, UM, AND THEN PROCEEDED TO MEET WITH COUNSEL AGAIN.
SO BETWEEN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, I MET WITH, UM, ALL COUNSEL AGAIN.
UM, WE DID NOT MEET WITH THE ADMINISTRATION IN THIS PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME.
THERE WAS SOME DIFFICULTIES GETTING A DATE.
UM, ULTIMATELY WE DID MEET WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT NOT IN THIS TIMEFRAME.
UM, BUT BASED UPON THESE MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL, WE CAME UP WITH DRAFT NUMBER TWO, MEANING CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS EXPRESSED CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY OVER ACCESS LANGUAGE.
AND SO I HEARD THEIR CONCERNS MODIFIED THE LANGUAGE, AND THAT BECAME DRAFT NUMBER TWO.
WE MET WITH THE PARISH PRESIDENT ON MARCH 13TH, UM, MARCH 13TH.
THAT WOULD HAVE TEED US UP FOR ACTION ON APRIL 17TH, COUNCIL MEETING.
UM, BUT THE PARISH PRESIDENT INDICATED IN OUR MARCH MEETING THAT THEY WOULD LIKELY HAVE SOME OBJECTIONS OR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE.
EVEN THOUGH THE COUNCIL AS A LEGISLATIVE ARM WOULD ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE COUNCIL DIDN'T WANNA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS GONNA STRENUOUSLY OBJECT TO.
AND SO THAT PUT US IN THIS SPACE OF LIKE, WE NEED TO HAVE THIS LANGUAGE WORK FOR EVERYBODY.
IN MARCH, WE KNEW THAT THE PARISH PRESIDENT WAS LIKELY GOING TO BE SUGGESTING ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE.
THE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE NEVER CAME.
SO NOW WE ARE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 17TH.
UM, AND WE HAVE IT ON THE PUBLISHED AGENDA, MEANING THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS PUBLISHED, IT'S IN A POSTURE FOR ACTION.
UM, I'M STILL NOT GETTING ANY REAL SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE.
[00:50:01]
I REACH OUT TO, UM, INSPECTORS GENERAL THAT I KNOW IN PALM BEACH, UH, CHICAGO, UM, MIAMI-DADE, NEW ORLEANS, AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.AND MY SOLE QUESTION TO THEM WAS, HOW DO YOU ACCESS RECORDS? LIKE, DON'T TELL ME WHAT YOUR ENABLING LEGISLATION SAYS.
TELL ME HOW YOU DO YOUR JOB AND TELL ME IF YOU COULD DO YOUR JOB.
IF YOU HAD TO SUBMIT WRITTEN REQUEST BASICALLY TO THE ATTORNEY OVER YOUR AGENCY.
UM, THEY ALL WROTE BACK AND ESSENTIALLY SAID, WE HAVE DIRECT ACCESS.
UH, WE GO ASK FOR RECORDS VERBALLY.
UM, AND OF COURSE WE PUT THINGS IN WRITING WHEN IT MAKES SENSE.
I MEAN, THAT'S, UM, AND SO THOSE LETTERS FROM THOSE JURISDICTIONS WERE SHARED WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ON MONDAY, UH, APRIL 15TH.
WE'RE NOW STILL TWO DAYS BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING.
THE COUNCIL HAS WHAT THEY TERM AGENDA MEETINGS, UM, WHICH IS, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO THEM, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES OF THE COUNCIL TRY TO MEET TO SORT OF RESOLVE ISSUES RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS. SO THESE AGENDA MEETINGS WERE HAPPENING ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY.
AS BEST AS I CAN UNDERSTAND, UM, A PARISH ATTORNEY, DAVID CEL, WAS EXPRESSING THE ADMINISTRATION'S EITHER DESIRED LANGUAGES OR OBJECTIONS TO OUR LANGUAGES, HOWEVER YOU WANNA DESCRIBE IT.
IT WAS BEING COMMUNICATED ON THIS MONDAY AND TUESDAY BEFORE THE MEETING, I WAS IN CONTACT WITH MR. CSEL.
HE, HE LET ME KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND WE HAD A TENTATIVE MEETING ON TUESDAY AT THREE 30 THE NIGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING.
AND I UNDERSTOOD, I'M NOT SAYING BECAUSE ANYBODY TOLD ME EXPLICITLY, BUT READING THE TEA LEAVES, LIKE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT WANT A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OVER THIS ORDINANCE AND LANGUAGE SIT DOWN AND TRY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT, WHICH IS WHAT I DID.
AND WE MET, UM, AND AS TWO LAWYERS DO, WE BASICALLY BARRELED THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS.
AND, UM, MR. CORELLE WAS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THIS.
NO, THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
UM, WE ENDED UP BACK AT MY OFFICE, MODIFIED WHAT WOULD BE PROPOSED AND SENT IT OUT.
AND THAT IS WHAT TEED US UP TO THE APRIL 17TH COUNCIL MEETING.
YOU SENT IT OUT ON THE 16TH, SENT IT OUT ON THE 16TH.
WERE THERE ANY MAJOR REVISIONS? NO, THERE WERE NO MAJOR REVISIONS OTHER THAN TO THE ISSUE OF ACCESS.
THERE WAS WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE ADMINISTRATION OFFERING AND WHAT DID YOU ALL ADOPT INTO THE NEW LANGUAGE? UM, DO YOU REMEMBER? I, WE, HE AND I PICKED OVER SOME WORDING A LITTLE BIT.
UM, BUT THE PLACE WE LANDED WAS KIM PUT YOUR REQUEST IN, PUT YOUR REQUEST IN WRITING, REQUEST FOR EMAILS, NEEDS TO BE BY CONFIDENTIAL REQUESTS TO, UM, THE DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WITH COPY TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
AND HE WAS LIKE, ANYTHING, ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
IF YOU NEED DIRECT ACCESS, JUST MAKE YOUR REQUEST FOR DIRECT ACCESS IN WRITING.
AND, AND I, AND I GOT THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ADMINISTRATION WAS GONNA ACT IN GOOD FAITH TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.
IT WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE LANGUAGE I HAD SUGGESTED, BUT IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE REALITY THAT WE WERE IN.
SO YOU WERE ASK HE, HE WAS ASKING YOU TO REQUEST A, A ONE-TIME REQUEST FOR DIRECT ACCESS? YES.
IF WE NEEDED, YEAH, GOING FORWARD, HAVE DIRECT ACCESS.
SO IF WE TO A PARTICULAR SYSTEM LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, A PARTICULAR DATA SYSTEM, IF YOU NEED THAT, THEN SAY, I NEED ACCESS TO THIS DATA SYSTEM AND ACCESS WOULD BE GRANTED.
AND THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, AND THAT WAS FINE.
AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TERRITORY THAT WE CAN DO OUR JOB IN.
WHO WOULD YOU PUT THAT REQUEST TO HIM? UM, THE LANGUAGE SAID THAT THE REQUEST WOULD GO TO THE, I DON'T THINK IT SAID, I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK.
IT WAS LIKE EITHER DIRECTOR OR THE PERSON OR THE
[00:55:01]
I DIRECTOR OF IT.YEAH, BUT IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS TO GO TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY WAS ACCESS TO EMAILS, INSTANT MESSAGES OR, UM, CHAT OR WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE CALLED UNDER OFFICE 365.
BUT THOSE WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT WERE GOING TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
ALL OTHERS WENT TO THE DIRECTOR OR TO THE DIRECTOR OF IT.
AND, AND WHEN YOU, YOU, WHEN YOU WERE REQUESTING ACCESS TO EMAILS, UH, AND ELECTRONIC, OTHER ELECTRONIC FORMS OF COMMUNICATION, WERE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR OR WERE YOU GOING TO BE ALLOWED CONFIDENTIALITY? THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT KIND OF PROCESS DETAIL.
THIS WAS THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, THE JEFFERSON PARISH ORDINANCE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, COPIED STATE LAW, WHICH SAYS, AN INSPECTOR GENERAL SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO PLANS, MEMORANDUMS, DOCUMENTS, HARD DRIVES, MESSAGES IN, UM, THE LIST GOES R LONG AND EXPANSIVE.
THAT'S WHAT STATE LAW PROVIDED.
THAT'S WHAT OUR ORDINANCE ABSOLUTELY, THAT'S WHAT OUR ORDINANCE PROVIDED.
AS WRITTEN, WRITTEN, I AS ORIGINALLY WHITTEN AND THEN AMENDED IN 2019 TO TOTALLY LIMIT YOUR ACCESS TO PERMISSION ONLY.
NOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATE LAW AND OUR ORDINANCE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONCEPT WAS IT SAID WE COULD ACCESS ALL THIS INFORMATION, BUT NEITHER STATE LAW NOR OUR ORDINANCE SAID HOW.
SO IN 2019, THE HOW GOT ADDED, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
SO IN MY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, WHAT I DID WAS I TOOK THE EXACT LANGUAGE FROM STATE LAW WITH ALL OF THE LIST OF ITEMS. AND THEN AT THE END OF IT, I JUST ADDED BY WRITTEN REQUEST.
WELL, I HAD ADDED BY WRITTEN VERBAL OF DIRECT ACCESS AFTER CHRISTELLE, AND I MET, IT BECAME BY WRITTEN REQUEST.
SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE STATE LAW LANGUAGE WITH THE WORDS BY WRITTEN REQUEST EXCEPT FOR EMAILS, WHICH WILL BE BY CONFIDENTIAL WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WITH A COPY TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
AND THE COUNSEL WAS THE CONCERNS RAISED IN MY MEETINGS WITH THE COUNCIL.
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO MOVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WAS THEY STILL HAD ANXIETY OVER EMAILS.
AND I CAN DO MY JOB WITHOUT NEEDING TO GO SEARCH EMAILS.
I MEAN, LIKE, I CAN MAKE REQUESTS FOR THEM AND THAT'S FINE.
SO THAT, SO THERE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE REACHED BY, UM, MR. CCEL AND I, OTHER THAN TO ACCESS, AND THAT'S WHERE WE WERE ON APRIL 17TH WHEN WE WENT TO THE COUNCIL MEETING.
PROBLEM WAS WE WENT TO THE COUNCIL MEETING.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE STILL NOT COMFORTABLE.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE DIVISION WAS ON TERM LIMITS.
I THINK SOME WERE OKAY WITH NONE, SOME WANTED TWO, SOME WERE OKAY WITH THREE, MAYBE SOME WERE OKAY WITH THREE BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NONE AND TWO.
I, I REALLY HAVE NO, I DON'T TO THIS DAY HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT THEIR FEELINGS ARE ABOUT IT.
BUT TERM LIMITS WERE A THING THAT CAME UP.
THE OTHER THING THAT CAME UP ON APRIL 17TH WAS THE ADMINISTRATION WAS OPPOSED TO LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE CLARIFYING THAT OUR DRAFT REPORTS WERE CONFIDENTIAL.
UM, OUR DRAFT REPORTS GO TO NON-PAR RECIPIENTS, MEANING VENDORS, IE THE SETTING THAT CAME UP IN THIS MEETING WHEN WE COVERED A VFC REPORT.
AND MR. SULLIVAN IS ASKING, WHY WAS THE CHIEF ON THE NEWS DISCUSSING YOUR REPORT? THAT WASN'T FINAL.
UM, BECAUSE THE REPORT TECHNICALLY IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL IN A SENSE, LIKE I CAN ENFORCE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OR I, IT, IT ISN'T EVEN DESIGNATED IN THE ORDINANCE AS CONFIDENTIAL.
SO IT WAS FOR THE PARISH'S BENEFIT TO CLARIFY THAT, TO DECLARE AND SET EXPECTATIONS THAT THESE DRAFT REPORTS WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL.
THE ADMINISTRATION FOR WHATEVER REASON, OBJECT TO THAT LANGUAGE.
CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTED THAT LANGUAGE AND THAT DIVISION CAME UP ON APRIL 17TH.
AS A RESULT, THE ORDINANCE WAS DEFERRED.
NOW, AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, I DID ADDRESS THE COUNCIL PUBLICLY.
UM, AND I THINK IT WAS EITHER AT THE MEETING OR AFTERWARDS, YOU KNOW, I DID HAVE COUNCIL PEOPLE TELL ME, I'M SURE WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE
[01:00:01]
TO MOVE ON THIS MAY 1ST, BUT WE GOT THESE AMENDMENTS THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.AND I ACKNOWLEDGE TO THEM, IF YOU ARE GETTING AMENDMENTS THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, NOT GOOD.
ON MAY 1ST, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE SOFTER THAN WHAT YOU HAD ORIGINALLY WERE REQUESTING.
THEY WEREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
OH, THIS THING ISN'T WORKING WHERE I TURNED IT OFF.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT ON MAY 1ST, UM, FIRST OF ALL, WE ISSUED A PUBLIC LETTER THAT WENT OUT ON APRIL 30TH.
UM, AND THEN ON MAY 1ST, THE ORDINANCE IS IN A POSTURE TO NOW BE ADOPTED BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S HAD THE AMENDMENTS AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
UM, THE ORDINANCE COMES TO BE DEFERRED.
UM, AND THE STATED REASON WAS THAT COUNCILMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, UM, BECAUSE HE WAS CALLED AWAY ON AN UNEXPECTED EMERGENCY.
SO THE ORDINANCE CAME TO BE DEFERRED BEFORE THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED, THE ORDINANCE WAS CANCELED, AND THEN THE ORDINANCE WAS READ INTO SUMMARY AGAIN AND ADVERTISED, WHICH PUT US BACK AT SQUARE ONE AGAIN.
HOWEVER, THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF NEXT WEEK WAS PUBLISHED TODAY, AND THE ORDINANCE IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY WITH THE TEXT THAT WAS LAST AGREED UPON, UM, BY MYSELF AND MR. CAEL.
SO, UM, THAT IS THE, THE LAST SLIDE IS THAT IS WHERE, UM, WE ARE AND JUST, YOU KNOW, IN WHAT TIME IS THAT MEETING GONNA START? 10 O'CLOCK.
AND I KNOW, KNOW YOU ATTENDED, YEAH, YOU WERE THERE FOR THE APRIL 17TH MEETING.
YES, I WAS SO, UM, IN SHORT ORDER, UM, WHICH VERY LONG SUMMARY FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT IT'S BEEN A STRUGGLE TO GET MOVEMENT ON THIS 10 MONTHS NOW.
UM, I'VE DONE MY VERY BEST AND I COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT, BUT FOR, UM, THE SUPPORT OF MR. SULLIVAN AS WELL AS MR. NOVEL AS WELL AS MY STAFF, BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, UM, BY ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DO APPRECIATE, UM, COUNCILMAN ESTADOS WILLINGNESS TO MOVE BECAUSE IT DID PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
UM, AND THAT CREATED SOME AMOUNT OF, OF RHYTHM.
UM, I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILWOMAN VAN RANKEN AS COUNCIL AT LARGE TO, YOU KNOW, DO HER JOB AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE, I DON'T BLAME COUNCILMAN TEMPLATE FOR NOT PUTTING IT ON, BUT IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE IF HE COULD HAVE PUT IT ON IN SEPTEMBER BECAUSE THAT WOULD'VE ALLOWED A COUNCIL WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE OFFICE TO SORT OF LIKE CONSIDER IT IN THAT TIME PERIOD.
UM, AND SO THE AT-LARGE HAS, HAS PICKED IT UP.
ANY QUESTIONS, Y'ALL? WHAT TIME IS THE MEETING ON 5 22 10:00 AM AND, AND IF I CAN, LEMME JUST ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS.
I KNOW KIM MET WITH MR. CCEL AND, AND THEY HASHED OUT A, A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
IF, IF THREE TERMS IS, IS WHAT THE COUNSEL CHOOSES TO GIVE AT LEAST THAT LETS A CHILD GET THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL, THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
ONE OF THE OTHER CONCERNS I HAVE, AND I'VE RAISED THIS TO KIM, I I RAISED IT TO MR. CCEL AND, AND IT'S STILL A CONCERN TO ME, IS THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
IT'S NOT A, AN ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THE CONCERN I HAVE IS A CONFIDENTIALITY TO BOTH THE PARISH AND THE RECIPIENT BECAUSE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AN AUDIT IS DONE, AN AUDIT IS SENT OUT TO THE ENTITY BEING AUDITED IN DRAFT FORM, THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT DRAFT BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE PERSON WRITING THAT REPORT GETS SOMETHING WRONG.
AND IF IT'S IN DRAFT FORM, IT GIVES THE PERSON WHO IS THE TARGET OF THE, OF THE REVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATION OR OF THE AUDIT TO GIVE THEIR THOUGHTS, TO GIVE THEIR DOCUMENTS TO SAY WHY THIS COULD BE WRONG.
THE PROBLEM WITH NOT KEEPING THE CONFIDENTIALITY DURING THAT DRAFT PERIOD IS INFORMATION THAT'S NOT ACCURATE CAN BE SENT OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
SO IT CREATES THE POTENTIAL FOR MISINFORMATION, WHICH IS UNFAIR TO
[01:05:01]
THE TARGET OF THE INVESTIGATION.IT'S UNFAIR WHETHER THAT TARGET IS THE, IS A PARISH DEPARTMENT, A PARISH COUNCIL MEMBER OR AN OUTSIDE VENDOR.
AND I I I DO HAVE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY BEING FAIR NOT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BECAUSE AT AT THE POINT THAT THE DISCUSSION BECOMES PUBLIC, I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THEN HAS A DUTY TO NO LONGER REMAIN SILENT, BUT HAS TO, HAS A DUTY TO, TO STEP UP INTO THE CON THE CONVERSATION.
BUT IT DOES RAISE THE ISSUE, AND WE SAW THIS WITH THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT IT, IT PUT A SPIN ON, ON INFORMATION THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY IN THE FINAL REPORT.
SO IT, IT RAISES A CONCERN, I THINK FROM, FROM A TRANSPARENCY STANDPOINT, THAT YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY BEING FAIR TO THE, TO THE PERSON WHO IS THE VERY SUBJECT OF THAT INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE COUNCIL.
UH, I, I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE DEPARTMENTS WILL BE MORE AT RISK OF MISINFORMATION THAN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, BUT IT DOES RAISE A CONCERN.
AND THAT'S ON BEHALF OF, OF JEFFERSON PARISH, NOT ON BEHALF OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, BUT, AND WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS, IF I MIGHT ADD, WE DISCUSSED WITH EACH OF THE, UH, COUNCIL PEOPLE, UH, THIS ISSUE OF, AT LEAST IF YOU REFERENCE THAT IT SHOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL IN THE ORDINANCE, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT ARE WELL NOTIFIED THAT THAT'S THE IDEA.
THE IDEA IS FAIRNESS AND THEN PUBLICATION.
UM, SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE PARISH.
AND WE'RE SU I I'M PERSONALLY SURPRISED AT ANY PUSHBACK FROM THE PARISH ON THAT ISSUE AND DON'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT.
YEAH, I, IT JUST, IT, IT JUST RAISES ISSUE THAT COMPLETE, COMPLETE OBJECTIVE REPORTS AREN'T FINAL BEFORE THEY'RE, THEY'RE OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC.
AND THE ONE THING THAT I THINK THIS COMMISSION STRIVES FOR AND HAS AN EXPECTATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IS TO BE COMPLETE, TO BE ACCURATE, AND TO BE FAIR, AND TO BE FAIR, INCLUDES ALLOWING THE TIME TO RECEIVE A DRAFT, UH, RESPONSE BACK FROM A PERSON WHO IS A SUBJECT OR THE DEPARTMENT WHO IS A SUBJECT AND, AND GET THEIR INPUT.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT CAN CHANGE THE WAY THAT REPORT IS FINALIZED.
AND IT'S NOT VERY FAIR TO THE, TO THE THIRD PARTY, WHETHER IT'S THE PARISH DEPARTMENT, WHETHER IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL WHERE IT'S THE VENDOR THAT HERE THIS INFORMATION IS OUT THERE THAT MAY NOT BE PART OF THE FINAL REPORT.
AGAIN, I, I SEE THE GREATER CONCERN, UH, TO THE SUBJECT THAN IT IS TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
BUT, BUT WE RESPECT IF, IF THE COUNSEL DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT TO BE A, A CONCERN THAN WE CERTAINLY RESPECT THAT I'VE MADE, UM, NO SECRET THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, THE DAMAGE TO THE OFFICE BY WAY OF ITS ACCESS DAILY IMPACTS OUR ABILITY TO DO OUR JOB.
UM, IT MINIMALLY IT IMPACTS OUR EFFICIENCY MAXIMALLY, IT IMPACTS OUR INTEGRITY.
AND CERTAINLY, I KNOW IN MY MEETINGS, IN MY REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION, PARTICULARLY DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE, I WARNED YOU, WE CANNOT DO OUR JOB BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FUNNEL ALL OF OUR REQUESTS THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION.
UM, I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, UM, WHENEVER ANYBODY BRINGS INFORMATION TO US, UM, I ALWAYS ALLOW THEM TO DECLARE, DO YOU WANNA BE ANONYMOUS? DO YOU WANNA BE PRIVATE? DO YOU WANT FOR US TO REACH OUT TO YOU? THAT IS WHAT I ASK OF EVERYBODY IN THE OFFICE BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME THAT PEOPLE FEEL AS THOUGH WE ARE A RESOURCE.
THAT ISSUE IS IMPORTANT TO ME AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME TO ADVOCATE FOR IT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO MY STAFF FOR THEIR ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOB.
EVERY OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT ME.
I MEAN, LIKE, I'VE ALREADY BEEN APPOINTED, SO THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT GOING TO AFFECT ME PER SE.
THAT BEING SAID, UM, I HAVE NINE YEARS BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT OF BEING AN INSPECTOR GENERAL.
DURING THE NINE YEARS I DID GET CERTIFIED AS AN INSPECTOR GENERAL.
I GOT CERTIFIED AS AN INSPECTOR GENERAL EVALUATOR.
I TEACH AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL INSTITUTES.
UM, I'M NOW AN OFFICER ON THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.
I WORK WITH OTHER OFFICES TO BUILD THEIR BEST PRACTICES AND I WANT THE BEST FOR MY PARISH.
SO THESE DESIRED AMENDMENTS REALLY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND EXCELLENCE OF THIS OFFICE, WHICH I BELIEVE JEFFERSON PARISH DESERVES.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE OFFICE SHOULD STAND AND ALWAYS BE A RESOURCE TO GOVERNMENT.
WE TEND TO FALL IN THIS SPACE IN JEFFERSON PARISH, WHEREAS THERE'S, THERE'S
[01:10:01]
SOME SORT OF LIKE SUBTLE HOSTILITY BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND THIS OFFICE THAT I HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH TRYING TO, UM, ADDRESS AND CHANGE THAT DYNAMIC BECAUSE I WANT FOR GOVERNMENT TO SEE US AS A TOOL AND AS A RESOURCE, UM, TO HELP THEM WITH DEVOTING OUR RESOURCES, UM, TO LOOK AT AN ISSUE DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY WOULD LOOK AT IT.DOES THAT MEAN WE ALSO HAVE TO CALL OUT BEHAVIOR THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT IDEAL IN GOVERNMENT? YES, WE HAVE TO DO THAT TOO, BUT THE BULK OF WHAT WE DO IS TO TRY TO MAKE GOVERNMENT BETTER.
AND WE NEED AN ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO SUPPORT THAT WORK.
AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY, UM, DESERVES THAT.
THE CITIZENS DESERVE A GOOD OFFICE THAT CAN HELP GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS, UM, ARE ABOUT.
AND I HOPE VERY MUCH THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ACT ON THEM.
ALRIGHT, UH, KIM, JUST TO CUT TO THE CHASE.
SO THIS IS MY MBA, I'M PUTTING ALL MY MBA HAT AND MY MBA HAT HELPS TAKE THE FOREST AND GET TO THE TREE.
WHAT YOU'VE DISCOVERED OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF IS THAT YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE THE COUNCIL OR THE, THE PARISH PRESIDENT ON YOUR SIDE, WHICH IS WHICH YOU'VE DONE WITH DAVID CORELLE.
ARE YOU POSITIVE THAT YOU AND DAVID ARE ON THE SAME PAGE TODAY AND THAT IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK, SIR? AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, ANYTHING UNTIL THAT MEETING HAPPENS,
I MEAN, YOU JUST NEED TO CALL HIM AND MAKE SURE.
'CAUSE IF YOU AND HE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, I THINK THIS IS GONNA GO A LOT EASIER.
WE, UM, WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THE LANGUAGE PUBLISHED WITH THE AGENDA THAT CAME OUT TODAY IS IN FACT THE LANGUAGE, UM, THAT MR. CCEL AND I WORKED ON TOGETHER.
SO I WOULD HAVE, AND WE, WE HAVE EMAILS OUT THERE WITH EVERYBODY THAT SAYS, 'CAUSE WE WERE SITTING AT THE COMPUTER SENDING IT OUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT, UM, KIM AND DAVID HAVE SAT DOWN.
UM, SO CROSS MY FINGERS AND I AGREE.
I, I DID SPEAK WITH, WITH MR. ELL RECENTLY, AND HE DID CONFIRM THAT THEY SAT DOWN, CAME UP WITH, WITH THE DRAFT AS THEY DID.
HE DID RAISE THE ISSUE OF, OF, OF TERM LIMITS.
AND I, HE, THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF, OF SOME TERM LIMIT.
AND I RESPECTED THAT AND, AND, UH, WE'LL LET THE COUNCIL MAKE THAT CALL BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DO THAT.
BUT BEYOND THAT, UH, AS I APPRECIATE IT FROM HIM, THE, THE RESOLUTION THAT HE AND KIM, UH, CAME UP WITH WAS FAIR, UH, AND PRESENTABLE A AS FAR AS THEY WERE CONCERNED.
IT'S NOT EVERYTHING WE WOULD LIKE, BUT IT'S A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT.
ANYTHING ELSE FOR US? THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT.
[VI. Discussion regarding letter received by the Ethics and Compliance Commission]
ON THE AGENDA IS, UM, DISCUSSION, UH, REGARDING SEVERAL ANONYMOUS LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE, UH, ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION IN THE, UH, LAST, UH, WEEK OR SO.UM, MS. LAN'S ALREADY TOUCHED ON, UH, SOME OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, UH, WITHIN THOSE LETTERS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
UH, BUT I'M GONNA LET, UM, MR. SULLIVAN AND MS. SHALAN AND, UH, MS. NOBEL, UH, ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS OF THE TWO, UH, LONGER, UH, ANONYMOUS LETTERS.
UH, I'M GONNA ADDRESS RIGHT NOW THE, UH, ONE LETTER ADDRESS TO, UM, ECC MEMBERS.
AND I'M GONNA READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
IT SAYS, ECC MEMBERS, YOU PASS AN ORDINANCE TO FIRE THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN ON THE ECCA PASTOR.
WHY WOULD YOU SEEK HIS REMOVAL? DID HE FAIL TO FILE A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE LIKE NEARLY EVERY OTHER MEMBER? HMM.
JUST HOW MANY MINORITIES SERVE ON THE ECC, GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER, WAR ON YOUR FAILURES TO COME, ET CETERA? SO FIRST, I, I, I, I'D JUST LIKE TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND.
UM, THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF FIVE VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE APPOINTED BY A PROCESS INVOLVING, UH, FIVE LOCAL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING,
[01:15:01]
THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE PARISH COUNCIL.UH, WE SIT HERE AS VOLUNTEERS AND AS A COMMISSION OF FIVE, WE HAVE TO HAVE THREE PEOPLE, THREE ATTENDEES IN ORDER TO HAVE A QUORUM IN ORDER TO CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS.
WHEN PASTOR SPEAKS WAS APPOINTED IN AUGUST OF, UH, 2022, UH, HE WAS, UH, GIVEN AN INTRODUCTION AND BROUGHT UP TO SPEED, UH, BY, UH, HOWARD MAY STREET, WHO WAS, UH, THEN, AND, UH, OFFICIALLY IS STILL THE CHAIRMAN OF THE, UM, ETHICS COMMISSION.
AND BY MR. SULLIVAN, SINCE AUGUST 22ND, THROUGH THE TIME THAT HE FINALLY GAVE HIS RESIGNATION, HE DID NOT STEP FOOT IN THIS CHAMBER.
ONE TIME, I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT FATHER SPEAKS LOOKS LIKE IF I SAW HIM ON THE STREET OR IN THIS ROOM.
SO, UM, WE DIDN'T FIRE FATHER SPEAKS.
WE REQUESTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND FATHER SPEAKS WAS EVENTUALLY PERSUADED TO RESIGN HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION IN JUNE OF 2023.
SO, AS YOU SEE, WE'RE STILL SITTING HERE WITH JUST THREE COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE FATHER SPEAKS, HIS POSITION, WHICH WAS RESIGNED IN JUNE OF 2023, IS STILL NOT FILLED.
AND IT, THE PROCESS HAS STILL NOT BEEN COMPLETED FOR WHATEVER COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS THERE HAVE BEEN BETWEEN THE NOMINATING UNIVERSITY AND THE ADMINISTRATION.
SO, THAT BEING SAID, I'LL TURN THE MIC OVER TO YOU ALL TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THE OTHER TWO LETTERS IF YOU, IF YOU WISH TO.
AND IF I CAN JUST FURTHER ELABORATE ON HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
BY PARISH ORDINANCE, WE HAVE FIVE UNIVERSITIES OR, OR COLLEGES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA, UH, THAT WOULD BE XAVIER DELGADO, UNO, TULANE, AND LOYOLA.
EACH OF THOSE UNIVERSITIES HAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THREE NAMES AS NOMINEES TO THE PARISH PRESIDENT TO FILL EACH ONE OF THE FIVE SEATS FOR FIVE YEAR TERMS. THE PARISH PRESIDENT AT THAT POINT WILL VET THOSE NOMINEES.
THE PARISH PRESIDENT THEN MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL IS ULTIMATELY THE ENTITY THAT APPOINTS OR CONFIRMS THAT APPOINTMENT.
THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS, NOR DO THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE APPOINTMENT.
ANY MEMBER OF THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION WHO SERVES MORE THAN ONE TERM MUST BE ON THE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR OR COLLEGE TO THE PARISH PRESIDENT.
AND THE PARISH PRESIDENT CAN THEN RENOMINATE, BUT THEY MUST BE ON THE LIST.
SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INPUT ON WHO IS APPOINTED OR WHO IS, UM, SELECTED IN THE PAST.
WE HAVE HAD, UM, AND, AND THE STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN.
AND, AND, AND THIS IS NOT TO DERIVE FATHER SPEAKS.
I DID MEET WITH HIM VERY PLEASANT MAN IN AUGUST OF 22.
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE I NEVER HAD ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATION FROM HIM OR WITH HIM, UH, DESPITE EMAILS TO HIM UNTIL JUNE OF JUNE 13TH OF 23, WHEN HE DID SEND HIS LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO ME.
WE HAD SOMEBODY THAT SERVED, UH, VERY WELL, SANDRA JOSEPH FROM AN APPOINTEE FROM DELGADO, WHO WAS A, UH, CPA.
SHE AL SO WAS AN OFFICER OF DELGADO, AND SHE WORKED, UH, SERVED HER ENTIRE TERM UNTIL HER TERM, UH, WAS UP.
AKA WHO SERVES, UH, IN HER PLACE.
UH, AT THE TIME, FATHER SPEAKS THE WAS APPOINTED.
THE PRIOR APPOINTMENT WAS, UH, LAURA DONAWAY, WHO WAS, UH, APPOINTED BY XAVIER, OR NOMINATED BY XAVIER AT THE REQUEST.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION, UH, I CONTACTED XAVIER IN JANUARY OF 24 BECAUSE WE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM THE TIME OF JUNE OF 23 TO JANUARY OF 24.
AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE NOMINATING PROCESS.
I SPOKE WITH THE PERSON, XAVIER RESPONSIBLE.
I PUT HER AND THE PERSON WITH THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION IN CONTACT WITH ONE ANOTHER TO SEE THAT THE, UH, THE PROCESS COULD GET UNDERWAY.
AND APRIL OF 24, XAVIER DID MAKE, UH, NOMINATIONS OF THREE INDIVIDUALS, WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, SO IT WAS A 10 MONTH PROCESS BETWEEN THE TIME OF RESIGNATION AND TO THE TI UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE NOMINATIONS WERE MADE BY XAVIER.
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THAT DELAY, BUT THERE IS DELAY.
WE HOPE THAT THAT POSITION WILL BE FILLED AND WE WILL GET FOUR NOMINEES, UH, FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ACTIVELY SITTING.
[01:20:01]
SPEAK WITH MR. MASONRY THIS WEEK.AS YOU KNOW, MR. MASONRY HAD A, A VERY SERIOUS, UM, ACCIDENT A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO.
AS A RESULT OF THAT ACCIDENT, HE HAS BEEN PHYSICALLY DISABLED, CONTINUES TO SUFFER FROM A DISABILITY.
I ANTICIPATE THAT MR. MASONRY WILL BE, UH, SENDING A, A LETTER TO THE PARISH PRESIDENT, UH, SEEKING TO, TO RESIGN AND ALLOW ANOTHER APPOINTMENT FROM LOYOLA, WHICH IS WHERE HE WAS APPOINTED.
NOW, IF I CAN ADDRESS ONE OF THE OTHER LETTERS, IT'S A VERY LONG LETTER THAT THAT WAS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF A, OF A RECENT, UM, ARTICLE IN THE TIMES PICK IN NEW ORLEANS, ADVOCATE OF NOLA.COM, WHICH, UH, ADDRESSES PARTICULAR, UH, ACTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND A PARTICULAR COUNCILMAN, PARTICULARLY COUNCILMAN AT LARGE, UH, VAN FRANKEN.
WE UNDERSTAND NOW WHY THAT LEGISLATION WAS PUT FORTH BY COUNCILMAN VAN FRANKEN, BECAUSE SHE IS THE COUNCILMAN AT LARGE WHO IS NOT THE CHAIR.
SO WE UNDERSTAND FROM, FROM MR. CHATLINE THAT, AND WE AGREE AFTER SPEAKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THAT THAT IS THE TYPICAL BEHAVIOR ANYTIME THERE'S A PARISH WIDE ORDINANCE THAT IS TO BE PUT IN PLACE.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION, AND BOTH, UM, VICE CHAIR AND ACTING CHAIR, UM, DR.
BOURGEOIS AND MYSELF MET WITH THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE YESTERDAY WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
BUT WE, WE MET WITH INVESTIGATIONS AND, AND THE REASON WE HAD THIS MEETING WAS TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE PROTOCOLS AND WHAT ARE THE PROCESSES OF INVESTIGATIONS WHEN IT INVOLVES A PARISH COUNCILMAN OR OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL.
DURING THAT DISCUSSION, WE LEARNED THAT THE PROCESS IS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS.
AS INTAKE COMES IN, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY DOCKETED.
THE INTAKE IS, IS PROCESSED THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS, ASSUMING AS INVESTIGATION, RATHER THAN AN, AN ISSUE RELATING TO AUDIT.
AND THE PROCESS CONTINUES FROM THERE WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HERSELF.
IT WAS, IT WAS COMFORTING TO SEE HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, HOW THE, UH, REVIEW WORKS.
AND I'M, I WAS VERY COMFORTABLE IN, IN LOOKING AT THE, THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS DONE, HOW CASES WERE CLOSED.
I, WE WERE SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED IN CLOSED CASES, IN OPEN CASES, AND IN CASES THAT ARE, ARE PENDING.
ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT CAME TO LIGHT IN THIS ISSUE, AND IT'S AN ISSUE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AND THIS, THIS COMMISSION ISSUED A ADVISORY OPINION.
THE PARISH COUNCIL, IN MOST OF THEIR DISCUSSIONS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH THEY PASS, THE CHAIR WILL ANNOUNCE THE ORDINANCE.
IT WILL EITHER BE MOVED UPON BY AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER OR THE PARISH.
THE CHAIR WILL, WILL SIGNIFY WHO THE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IS PRO MOVING ON THE MOTION.
THEN USUALLY THE COUNCIL CHAIR WILL SECOND, AND THEN THE STATEMENT IS HEARING NO OBJECTION.
WHAT IS VERY TROUBLING, AND I SAW THIS THIS IN, IN THE INVESTIGATIONS, IN AT LEAST TWO INSTANCES, WE CANNOT TELL IF THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION THAT IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL EITHER AT I REQUEST OR AT THEIR OWN REQUEST.
IF IT INVOLVES A COUNCIL MEMBER VOTING ON A MATTER WHEN THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IS USED, AND YOU CAN'T TELL IF A PARISH MEMBER, UH, A COUNCIL MEMBER HAS ACTUALLY UNDERTAKEN TO VOTE ON THE MATTER.
IT, IT PUTS A VERY DEBIL, IT'S DEBILITATING IN LOOKING AT IT IN HINDSIGHT, TO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENED.
YOU STILL CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
SO IT DOES IMPACT INVESTIGATIONS WHEN YOU CANNOT DETERMINE IF A COUNCIL MEMBER HAD VOTED ON A PARTICULAR MATTER THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE VOTED ON.
IT'S A CONCERN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST.
IT'S EVEN MORE OF A CONCERN NOW THAT WE MET WITH THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND HAVE SEEN THAT THERE'S MORE THAN ONE INVESTIGATION THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ARISEN, AND IT, THE INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BASED UPON THE VOTE AND BASED UPON THE VIDEO THAT'S WATCHED.
SO, SO IT DOES RAISE A VERY SERIOUS CONCERN, I THINK, UM, TO US.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT, UH, THIS LETTER RAISES IS ONE OF, UM, THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
AND I, I WAS VERY CANDID WHEN MR. PATTERSON CALLED ME AND THIS COUNCIL, THIS COMMISSION WILL ALWAYS BE TRANSPARENT FOR GOOD, BETTER OR WORSE.
WE, WE WILL NEVER STAND BEHIND SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T OWN.
AND IN FACT, WE OWN THE ISSUE OF, OF SOME LACK OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
THEY HAVE SINCE BEEN RESOLVED.
UH, I TOLD MR. PATTERSON IT WOULD BE RESOLVED AND THEY HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
UH, SO THE, THE, UM, COMMISSION MEMBER WHO WAS DELINQUENT HAS
[01:25:01]
FILED THEIR, UM, THEIR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.MR. MAY STREET, OBVIOUSLY WILL BE RESIGNING, AND HE IS PHYSICALLY DISABLED.
HE'S NOW CURRENTLY IN A WHEELCHAIR.
I HOPE HE'S NOT IN A WHEELCHAIR FOR LONG.
BUT, BUT HE HAS BEEN PHYSICALLY IN REHAB AND, AND PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO DO MUCH OF ANYTHING.
UH, BUT I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH HIM AND HE WAS ARTICULATE AT THE TIME.
BUT, UM, WE APPRECIATE THAT SOMEBODY BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.
IT HAS BEEN REMEDIED AND, AND AGAIN, WE TAKE OWNERSHIP OF, OF OMISSIONS AND, AND MISTAKES THAT, THAT ARE MADE.
UM, THE OTHER ISSUE, AND I'D, I'D LIKE MS. SCHNABEL TO TALK ON THIS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS, AND AND WE'RE GONNA BE VERY CANDID AND TRANSPARENT ON THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WITH MS. VAN FRANKEN, UH, WHO IS THE COUNCILMAN AT LARGE, UH, COUNCILWOMAN AT LARGE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT STATEMENT.
AND SOME STATEMENTS WERE MADE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, KNOWING THAT THIS IS A SMALL PARISH, KNOWING THAT BOTH MS. SHALAN, MS. VAN FRANKEN, AND MS. VAN FRANKEN'S HUSBAND ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR.
UM, BUT INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, MS. SCHNABEL IS A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.
UH, SHE ALSO DEFENDS AND ADDRESSES ISSUES OF ETHICS ALL THE TIME.
AND I DID ASK HER, AND I'M GOING TO ASK HER CURRENTLY TO ADDRESS WHAT IS THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION FOR US TO HAVE BECAUSE WE, AS LAWYERS, DEAL WITH JUDGES EVERY DAY, IF YOU, SO, UH, EXACTLY.
I, I, WE AS THE, AT LEAST THE THREE OF US AS LAWYERS, DEAL WITH JUDGES EVERY DAY.
I ALSO SEE JUDGES ON A SOCIAL BASIS.
HOWEVER, THERE'S NOT AN INSTANCE IN MY 40 YEARS OF PRACTICE THAT I'VE EVER SPOKEN TO A JUDGE ABOUT A PENDING CASE ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS BEFORE THAT JUDGE OR ANYTHING THAT I WAS DOING, BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY WORK WHEN I'M NOT AT WORK.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE FOR MOST PEOPLE, BUT I, I DO WANT MS. NOBEL TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE SHE'S INTIMATELY INVOLVED FROM AN ETHICAL STANDPOINT WITH THE BAR ASSOCIATION.
I THINK YOU FOLKS KNOW THAT I'M GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE, UM, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND I'VE HAD THAT ROLE NOW FOR ABOUT A YEAR.
UM, IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING ROLE BECAUSE AS AN OUTSIDE LAWYER COMING IN AND WATCHING HOW THINGS ARE HANDLED IN THE OFFICE, I CAN, I CAN PIGGYBACK ON WHAT, UH, THE CHAIRMAN AND MR. SULLIVAN NOTED WITH REGARD TO HOW FILES ARE HANDLED AND INVESTIGATIONS ARE HANDLED, AND THINGS ARE OPENED IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
IT'S NOT A ONE PERSON OPERATION, AND THERE'S A VERY DISTINCT CONSCIOUSNESS OF, UM, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ANALYZE AND WHO SHOULD TOUCH SOMETHING AND WHO SHOULDN'T TOUCH SOMETHING.
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? IT'S IMPORTANT, OR HOW DOES IT MESH WITH APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY? WELL, LET'S, AND TRYING NOT TO BE TOO PROFESSORIAL ABOUT THIS, BUT THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY RELATES TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, RIGHT? UM, AND IT IS THE JOB OF EVERY LAWYER, EVERY JUDGE, EVERY INSPECTOR GENERAL, PRESUMABLY MOST PEOPLE ON IN GOVERNMENT, TO BE VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEIR ROLE AND THEIR JOB AND THEIR POSITION, AND ANY PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE, ANY PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO LETTERS OF COMPLAINT, THE LONGER ONES THAT WERE SENT, NOT THE ONE THAT THE, UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, REFERRED TO, THERE'S, THERE'S A, A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO, UH, DOESN'T THIS LOOK BAD? WHICH IS, I THINK, HOW THE PRESS ARTICLE GOT TO THIS WHOLE IDEA OF APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
BUT THE FIRST ANALYSIS IS, WAS THERE ANY FORM OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST? THE FACT THAT I, AS A PRACTICING LAWYER, JERRY SULLIVAN, AS A PRACTICING LAWYER, MEETS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BAR, GOES TO PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEETINGS, UM, EVEN TRAVELS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BAR OR THE JUDICIARY, UH, OTHER PEOPLE'S CLIENTS SOMETIMES DOES NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
UM, AND IT SHOULDN'T, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'D NEVER BE ABLE TO TALK TO ANYBODY.
AND ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF BEING ABLE TO TALK TO OTHER LAWYERS, UH, OTHER PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT TO JUDGES, IS TO BE SURE THAT WHEN THERE GETS TO BE A CONFLICT SITUATION, WHEN THERE GETS TO BE A PROBLEM, WHEN YOU HAVE TO IRON OUT THE LANGUAGE OF AN ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH PEOPLE.
SO, UM, I START FROM THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT, UH, GOING
[01:30:01]
TO A BAR ASSOCIATION EVENT, TRAVELING ON A BAR ASSOCIATION EVENT, GOING TO A, UM, UH, A, A MARDI GRAS EVENT THAT CREATES INHERENTLY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.IS THERE A FRIENDSHIP? I THINK PROBABLY SO.
DO FRIENDSHIPS CREATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? NOT IF THE STRUCTURE OF THE OFFICE OUT OF WHICH PEOPLE ARE WORKING IS PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND IF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE FRIENDSHIP UNDERSTAND THEIR RULES, NOTHING ABOUT THE EFFORT TO GET THE ORDINANCE AMENDED THAT, AS MS. SHELENE TOLD US, WHEN HAS GONE ON FOR A VERY LONG TIME, 10 MONTHS INVOLVED ASKING FAVORS OR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FROM ANY OF THE, UM, COUNCIL PEOPLE, MUCH LESS, UH, COUNCILWOMAN VAN RANKEN.
UM, AND THEN SEPARATELY, THE IDEA THAT, UH, THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE OUGHT, OUGHT NOT TO LOOK AT AN ISSUE RELATED TO PARISH BUDGETING AND EXPENDITURE OF A MILLION DOLLARS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PETTY CASH.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY BUYING LUNCH FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS AT ISSUE COMES TO THE, UH, ATTENTION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
A REVIEW IS DONE INTERNALLY BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO AUDIT WORK, BECAUSE I PROMISE YOU, LAWYERS DON'T DO AUDIT WORK.
LAWYERS ARE VERY BAD WITH NUMBERS.
UM, AND A PUBLIC LETTER IS ISSUED.
UM, SO WHETHER THOSE, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE TWO, THE ORDINANCE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC LETTER IS CONNECTED, NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OR EVEN A SUGGESTION THAT SOMEHOW THERE HAD TO BE A FAVOR PULLED OR AN IMPROPRIETY PULLED IN ORDER TO GET EITHER OF THOSE THINGS BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
WHAT THE SUGGESTION IS, IS THAT THESE ARE TWO PEOPLE WHO GO TO PROFESSIONAL EVENTS TOGETHER AND OCCASIONALLY HAVE A DRINK TOGETHER AND SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON INSTAGRAM.
UH, AND THAT, UH, THAT DOES NOT CREATE, IN MY VIEW, UM, AS SOMEBODY WHO ISSUES ETHICS OPINIONS PRETTY REGULARLY, DOES NOT CREATE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
UH, YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEFINE WHAT WAS IMPROPER AS THE OUTCOME OF THAT INTERACTION.
RIGHT? IF IT APPEARS INAPPROPRIATE, WELL, WHAT'S THE OUTCOME THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE? AND NEITHER OF THE TWO THINGS THAT OCCURRED, EITHER A REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE OR THE LETTER WERE INAPPROPRIATE.
BUT TAKING EVEN A STEP FURTHER BACK, AS GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, THERE ARE PROCEDURES IN PLACE THERE THAT YOU SAW, AND YOU KNOW, THAT IF, IF THERE WERE A MOMENT WHEN SOMEBODY THOUGHT THEY COULD CURRY FAVOR, THERE WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE RECUSAL, THERE WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE STEP BACK, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE ALL HAVE TO OPERATE.
YOU, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ISSUES I THINK HERE ARE ISSUES OF INTEGRITY.
AND, AND I EXPECT OUR INTEGRITY TO BE ABOVE REPROACH.
AND I EXPECT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S INTEGRITY TO BE ABOVE REPROACH.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS, DEEP CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN US.
BOURGEOIS AND, AND MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, NOT JUST KIM, BUT MEMBERS OF THE STAFF ABOUT THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT INTEGRITY'S NOT PLACED AT ISSUE.
UH, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WAS RAISED IN THE LETTER, AND, AND IT DID CAUSE ME CONCERNS, AND, AND PERHAPS IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A LACK, A, A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON WHAT, IF A, IF A ALLEGATION IS MADE AS TO THE BEHAVIOR OF A, OF A PARISH EMPLOYEE, COUNCIL EMPLOYEE, OR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, NOT ONLY SHOULD THE, UM, ALLEGATION BE RAISED WITH A STATE OFFICE ETHICS BOARD, BUT IT SHOULD BE RAISED WITH THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION.
WE SHOULD NOT READ ABOUT SOMETHING IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT HAS RAISED AN ALLEGATION, WHETHER IT'S IN A COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE OR OTHERWISE.
SO THAT WAS A BIT OF CONCERN THAT I SAW THAT THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD OF A POTENTIAL, UM, ETHICAL ISSUE WAS IN THE NEWSPAPER.
UM, AND I SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM, UH, ABOUT THAT AS, AS WELL.
SO I, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME, SOME, SOME EDUCATIONAL
[01:35:01]
OPPORTUNITIES FROM THIS TO THE PARISH EMPLOYEES, TO PARISH DEPARTMENTS, AND TO PARISH COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION THAT IN THE EVENT YOU BELIEVE AN ETHICAL VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THERE IS THE ABILITY TO ANONYMOUSLY REPORT THAT TO THIS COMMISSION.AND THE COMMISSION WILL TAKE EVERY ALLEGATION VERY SERIOUSLY AND WILL UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS APPROPRIATE.
THE, THE OTHER ISSUE, AND I, I KNOW MARTA TALKED ON IT BRIEFLY, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ON THE ISSUE OF, OF THE PUBLIC LETTER, AND NOT JUST THE LETTER, BUT I WATCHED THE ENTIRE COUNCIL MEETING, AND IT, IT WAS A PAINFUL COUNCIL MEETING TO WATCH, UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF DISSENSION AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
THE ISSUE IS NOT THE 860,000 THAT WAS PAID FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
THE ISSUE IS NOT IN MY MIND, THE CEA, BUT I DO HAVE QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK THIS COMMISSION HAS QUESTIONS.
IF THERE'S A MILLAGE, AND THAT MILLAGE IS FOR A SPECIFIC FUNCTION, AND IF THAT FUNCTION IS CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR AND, AND PROVIDING RESOURCES FOR THAT, DOES THE TRANSFER OF THOSE FUNDS QUALIFY TO MEET THAT PARTICULAR DEDICATED FUND? AND I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT, ALTHOUGH KIM'S TOUCHED ON IT, I THINK IT HAS TO BE EXPLORED FURTHER.
NOT THE ISSUE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE FUNDS FROM THE PARISH, BUT THE ISSUE OF THE TRANSFER OF, OF THAT MILLAGE.
AND, AND, AND IT RAISES A CONCERN THAT I THINK WE AS A COMMISSION SHOULD, SHOULD HOPE WILL GET RESOLVED, BECAUSE MILLAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT.
WE ARE ONE OF THE FEW MILLAGES THAT IF WE HAVE EXTRA MONEY, IT GOES TO THE PARISH GENERAL FUND, UH, AFTER ONE, WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO KEEP ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF MONEY AFTER THAT ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF MONEY.
EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT GOES TO THE PARISH GENERAL FUND, BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THIS MILLAGE AND THIS DEDICATED FUND.
SO IT DOES RAISE AN ISSUE OF, UH, IN MY MIND, EXACTLY WHAT WAS THAT DEDICATED FUND FOR.
UM, I KNOW SOMETIMES WE HAVE VAGUE LANGUAGE IN, IN MILLAGES, BUT WHEN YOU'RE GOING OUT TO THE PUBLIC, YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO GIVE YOU MONEY FOR A PARTICULAR FUNCTION, YOU SHOULD SPEND THAT MONEY ON A PARTICULAR FUNCTION.
SO I THINK, I THINK KIM'S PUBLIC LETTER WAS VERY FAIR IN TERMS OF, OF BEING PRESENTED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COUNCIL WAS VERY TAKEN BACK BY THE TIMING, AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THE WAY THE TIMING WAS.
BUT KIM, WHEN KIM SAW IT, SHE, I ASSUME, RESPONDED TO IT AS QUICKLY AS SHE COULD.
I SAW THE PARISH INTERACTION BETWEEN THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN, IN THE MEETING, UM, AND IT WASN'T ALWAYS ON THE SAME PAGE THAT MS. SHALAN RAISED, BUT THEY DID RAISE ISSUES.
UM, ULTIMATELY, IT, IT, IT PASSED OVER OVER, UH, THE, UM, PUBLIC LETTER THAT WAS PRESENTED AND OVER THE OBJECTION BY, BY COUNCILMAN COUNCILWOMAN VAN FRANKEN.
BUT AGAIN, I, I DON'T, IF I CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT PRESS MENTIONED WAS THIS IDEA THAT, OR SOMEBODY HAD SUGGESTED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS SO POWERFUL THAT WE CAN'T GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANY ADDITIONAL POWER THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE POWER IS SIMPLY IN THE PEN, RIGHT? THE POWER IS SIMPLY IN THE REPORT.
AND THE REPORT WAS A PUBLIC LETTER.
UH, IT WENT TO THE PUBLIC, IT WENT TO THE PARISH, UH, COUNCIL.
AND THE PARISH COUNCIL NONETHELESS, UH, CHOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ACTION THAT IT CHOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
SO THIS IDEA THAT THERE'S THIS ALL POWERFUL, UH, ACTIVITY GOING ON AROUND AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT, I THINK IS, UH, IS PROVEN TO BE WRONG BY THAT OWN, BY THAT PARTICULAR MOVEMENT.
YOU KNOW? AND THE ONE FINAL POINT I, I THINK IS VERY SIGNIFICANT IN, IN MY OPINION, THIS COMMISSION AND I WOULD BE, UH, WOULD NOT, NOR DO WE WANT AN INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO IS AFRAID TO FACE DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS.
UH, I AS AN ATTORNEY, DO IT ALL THE TIME.
YOU WERE DOING YOUR JOB RIGHT.
AND IF SHE DIDN'T, SHE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS POSITION BECAUSE YOU'D BE SITTING THERE HAVING A DISCUSSION THAT SHE SHOULDN'T BE IN THE POSITION.
SO, QUITE CANDIDLY, I'D BE EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IF SHE HAD A VIEW THAT SHE CHOSE NOT TO SHARE.
IT'S OKAY THAT THE COUNSEL DIDN'T AGREE WITH HER.
UH, I GO BEFORE JUDGES EVERY DAY, AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH ME.
I HAVE TO DO MY JOB THAT I THINK IS RIGHT AND ADVOCATE THE BEST I CAN FOR THE POSITION I'M, I'M BRINGING BEFORE THAT COURT.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE COUNCIL DOESN'T AGREE WITH HER.
AND, AND I THINK SHE DID AND DID IT ADMIRABLY.
AGAIN, THE COUNCIL IS FREE TO MAKE A, A DIFFERENT CALL, AND THAT'S OKAY.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LEGISLATIVE
[01:40:01]
GOVERNMENT.BUT, UH, I APPLAUD THE FACT THAT WE DID IT, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, THAT SHE HAD SLACK THAT SHE HAD TO TAKE, AND THAT'S OKAY, THAT WE'RE ALL BIG BOYS AND GIRLS, AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO, UH, TAKE CRITICISM AND SHOULDER IT.
AND, AND AGAIN, I, THAT'S, THAT'S IN CONCLUSION.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE OPEN AND CANDID DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD.
UH, I GUESS I SHOULD JUST ADD A FEW WORDS.
UM, I WASN'T PLEASED WITH THE ARTICLE
I I STARTED WITH THE PARISH IN 2011.
UM, AT THE TIME JENNIFER VAN RANKIN WAS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.
UM, SHE EVENTUALLY BECAME AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WHILE DAVID MCCLINTOCK WAS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT MR. MCCLINTOCK WAS HERE ORIGINALLY FROM BALTIMORE.
UM, I CAN'T TELL YOU THE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD SAY, WELL, HE'S JUST NOT FROM HERE.
HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND US, YOU KNOW, AND WE HAVE, WE TEND TO HAVE A VERY PAROCHIAL MINDSET.
UM, HE WASN'T FROM HERE, UM, BUT I THINK HE DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB STANDING UP THIS OFFICE.
AND HE TOOK A LOT OF HITS, AND HE WAS SLAYED A LOT FOR IT.
UM, AND NOW YOU HAVE ME, AND I'M FROM HERE.
UM, AND I PRACTICED LAW FOR 20 YEARS, UH, BEFORE I GOT TO THE PARISH.
UM, AND MADE A LOT OF GOOD, SOLID RELATIONSHIPS WITH ATTORNEYS, WITH JUDGES, UM, THAT CARRIED ME IN MY PROFESSION.
AND WHEN I GOT TO THE PARISH, I STARTED ALL OVER AGAIN DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE.
AND I THINK THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WHEN MR. MCCLINTOCK CAME HERE, HE GOT ME TO BE HIS FIRST ASSISTANT, BECAUSE I HAD FIGURED OUT THE PARISH, I'D FIGURED OUT THE PEOPLE, AND I HAD BUILT RELATIONSHIPS, AND THAT SERVED OUR INTEREST FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT I SERVED HIM AS HIS FIRST ASSISTANT.
THAT BEING SAID, UM, THERE HAS BEEN NUMEROUS COUNCIL PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE TENURE OF THE OFFICE WHO HAS REACHED OUT.
UM, WE STARTED, AND THE PARISH WAS IN A MAJOR TRANSACTION FOR THE PRIVATIZATION OF ITS TWO PUBLIC HOSPITALS.
UM, WE WERE ASKED TO COME INTO THAT SITUATION BECAUSE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE NOT GETTING ALONG AND WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT EACH OTHER.
THAT WAS THE MOMENT, UM, FROM TIME TO TIME, THE ENTIRE TIME HE WAS HERE, WE CONTINUED TO GET, UM, COMPLAINTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS OR ABOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS.
AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN, UH, APPOINTED INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THAT MEANS THAT JUST BY DEFINITION, UM, VARYING ON THE ISSUES I HAVE, UM, AGREED WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM TIME TO TIME.
AND FROM TIME TO TIME, WE HAVE JUST NOT AGREED, AND WE HAVE AGREED TO DISAGREE.
AND THAT DEFINITELY HAS INCLUDED COUNCILWOMAN VAN RANKIN BECAUSE SHE IS A VERY STRONG INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS PARTICULAR OPINIONS, AS DO I.
AND SO THEREFORE, WE HAVE DISAGREED, AND THAT IS HER JOB, AND THAT IS MY JOB, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
UM, AND THAT HAS HAPPENED WITH OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE.
SO, UM, WHEN THIS ARTICLE CAME OUT, IT SORT OF STRUCK ME TO, UM, REASSESS WHO I AM, BECAUSE, UM, FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT I HAVE ALWAYS PRIDED MYSELF ON WALKING INTO A COURTROOM AND FIGHTING FOR HOWEVER HARD WE HAVE TO FIGHT.
AND THEN LITERALLY WE DO, IT'S A JOKE AMONG LAWYERS, BUT IT, IT'S TRUE.
WE GO OUT AND WE HAVE LUNCH, YOU HAVE LUNCH WITH THE LAWYERS, YOU HAVE LUNCH WITH THE CLIENTS, YOU HAVE LUNCH WITH THE JUDGES, AND THEN YOU GO BACK IN AND YOU FIGHT SOME MORE.
AND THAT YOU JUST DO THAT FOR DECADES, AND YOU JUST BECOME DESENSITIZED IN A CERTAIN WAY, AND YOU JUST ORGANICALLY RECOGNIZE BOUNDARIES, AND THAT'S HOW YOU DO YOUR JOB.
AND THAT IS IN FACT, MY BACKGROUND.
BUT AS I SAT AND CONSIDERED THIS, UM, OVER THE WEEKEND AFTER THE ARTICLE WAS POSTED, I DID BREAK DOWN AND THINK LIKE, LET ME BACK UP AND THINK ABOUT THIS OBJECTIVELY.
WHAT DO I WANT? WHAT DO I WANNA COMMUNICATE? WHAT DO I NEED? AND I DID REACH OUT TO MR. SULLIVAN AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO.
[01:45:01]
I WANT FOR YOU TO COME IN AND GET A CONFIDENTIAL BRIEFING BY MY STAFF.WE WILL OPEN UP EVERY SINGLE INVESTIGATIVE MATTER INVOLVING EVERY SINGLE COUNCIL PERSON, AND THEY WILL JUST WALK YOU THROUGH IT, YOU KNOW, FROM BEGINNING TILL ENDING AND EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY, AND ANY CHALLENGES THAT THEY HAVE.
BECAUSE I KNEW THAT IF SOMEBODY COULD GO IN AND SEE THE CALIBER OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN MY OFFICE, WHO ARE NOT GOING TO BE SILENCED AT ALL, NOT INSIDE THE OFFICE AND NOT OUTSIDE THE OFFICE, UM, AND SAW THEIR DEDICATION AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO ACCURACY AND INTEGRITY, I DIDN'T NEED TO BE IN THE ROOM.
THEY DO THE WORK, AND THEY WERE GOING TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE WORK IS DONE.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT.
I AM EMBARRASSED BY THE ARTICLE, UM, BECAUSE I WANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO SUPPORT, UM, OUR INTEGRITY.
UM, BUT I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE DO IT.
AND IF IT MEANS THAT I HAVE TO GET SHOT IN THE PAPER BECAUSE I'M DOING MY JOB, BECAUSE I'VE ISSUED A LETTER THAT UPSET SOMEBODY, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS LIKELY THE NOT, NOT THE LAST TIME THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE UPSET BY SOMETHING I PUBLISH.
THAT IS THE JOB OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
IF YOU DON'T WANNA GET SHOT AT, THEN DON'T TAKE THE JOB.
CAN I ASK THE QUESTION? PROBABLY? SURE.
DID COUNSEL PERSON VAN FRANKEN ASK YOU TO WRITE THE LETTER? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
DID YOU TALK TO HER ABOUT WRITING A LETTER BEFORE YOU WROTE THE LETTER? SHE BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO OUR ATTENTION.
ACTUALLY, HER QUESTION WAS, UM, WHEN IT CAME UP, WHICH I SAID IN A PUBLIC MEETING, LIKE, WE KIND OF HAD PARTS AND PIECES OF THIS IN LOOKING AT IT, NOT EXACTLY THIS PIECE, BUT IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, BUT THERE WAS NO MONEY.
LIKE ALL THESE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PUZZLE WERE ALREADY IN OUR SCOPE, BUT NOTHING REALLY CAME OF IT.
WHEN SHE CONTACTED ME, HER QUESTION AND HER ASK WAS, IS THERE AN AUDITOR THAT YOU HAVE THAT CAN MAKE SENSE OF THIS? THAT WAS THE QUESTION.
UM, THEN WHEN I LOOKED AT IT CRITICALLY, IT HAD NOTHING TO LIKE, SHE AN AUDITOR.
I MEAN, I DIDN'T TELL HER THIS.
I'M LIKE, IT, IT'S NOT ABOUT AN AUDIT.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD'VE, IF I WOULD'VE BEEN MORE DIRECT, WHICH I WASN'T, I WOULD'VE SAID, COUNCILWOMAN, IT'S NOT ABOUT AN AUDIT.
IT'S ABOUT MILLAGE FUNDS AND IT'S ABOUT MILLAGE FUNDS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A GENERAL FUND.
SHE WAS SEEING A QUESTION, I GUESS.
SO, UM, SO SHE, NO, SHE DID NOT ASK FOR ME TO, TO WRITE THE PUBLIC LETTER.
UM, I SHE DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE GONNA DO IT, AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT BEFORE YOU OH, NO.
THAT, THAT LETTER GOT HIT SEND AT, AT NINE 30, UM, THAT NIGHT, AND IT WENT TO EVERYBODY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? NO, SIR.
I, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THAT SECTION, MR. CHAIR.
DO YOU THINK WE STILL NEED TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? I THINK THERE IS A, AN ISSUE THAT, UH,
[VIII. Executive Session for discussion regarding ethics complaint and related matters]
WE, WE DID SEE A NOTICE OF THAT.I, I, I WOULD LIKE US TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UM, AS TO A PARTICULAR PARISH EMPLOYEE.
WELL, I'LL NEED A MOTION FROM, UH, ONE OF YOU OTHER FINE COMMISSIONERS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO LEAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UM, HOWARD MAY STREET, ABSENT.
SO NOW WE RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION.
UM, I NEED A MOTION FROM ONE OF YOU ALL TO, UM, HAVE MR. SULLIVAN SEND A NOTICE OF, UM, AN INVESTIGATION ON THE SUBJECT WE DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND FOR THAT, UH, REQUEST TO GO TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
[01:50:03]
I'LL MAKE A MOTION OF THE INVESTIGATION.DO WE WANT A VOICE VOTE? NO, NOT ON THAT.
[IX. Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 ]
LASTLY, NEXT MEETING IS WEDNESDAY, JULY 17TH.CURRENTLY ON THE CALENDAR, AS YOU ARE AWARE, TODAY IS TECHNICALLY MY LAST DAY ON THE COMMISSION.
SO I AM HANDING THE ACTING CHAIRMANSHIP TO MRS. AKA AS OF, LET ME JUST SAY, UH, CHAIRMAN, THAT SOUNDS REALLY GREAT, BUT TECHNICALLY YOU'RE REMOVED WHEN A NEW PERSON IS APPOINTED, BUT WE DO KNOW YOU WON'T GET THE NEXT MEETING.
I WILL BE OUTTA THE STATE ON JULY.
SO EITHER Y'ALL HAVE TO MOVE THE MEETING.
YOU'RE IT NOW,
WHERE ARE WE WITH WARREN'S POSITION? THE LETTER HAS BEEN SENT IN TULANE.
I DO BELIEVE TULANE WILL ACT QUICKLY.
I, I CALLED, I, I, I SENT AN EMAIL TO TULANE LIKE TWO MONTHS AGO, LETTING THEM KNOW WHAT WAS UP.
SO HOPEFULLY THEY'VE KIND OF GOTTEN A HEADSTART.
THE, THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T SEND A LETTER UNTIL LAST WEEK.
THAT WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION, IS HOW MUCH LEAD TIME WE'RE GIVING THE INSTITUTIONS THAT COMMUNICATION THE INSTITUTIONS, I DON'T THINK ARE THE PROBLEM.
UH, BUT I, I THINK, UH, I THINK TULANE WILL BE VERY RESPONSIVE.
THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY QUICK TO RESPOND.
AS HIS LOYOLA, I SPOKE TO THE, THE PERSON WHO WRITES THE LETTERS THAT ADRIAN, SHE SAYS, I THOUGHT THIS WAS DONE.
AND AFTER I HAD COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH WITH HER, IT WAS DONE QUICKLY.
SO HONESTLY, PEOPLE ARE BEING RESPONSIVE IF YOU GIVE THEM A NUDGE AND JUST REMIND THEM, I DID NOT GET INVOLVED UNTIL JANUARY WEEK, XAVIER, I, I, I DIDN'T WANT THE TO STICK THEIR NOSE IN, BUT IT'S TIME TO STICK YOUR NOSE IN WHEN WE NEED MORE.
SO, UH, I THINK THEY WILL ACT QUICKLY.
IN FACT, I WOULD ASK, UH, WELL, HOPEFULLY THE ADMINISTRATION'S GONNA PICK SOMEONE OFF OF THE LIST THAT XAVIER SENT AND GET IT TO THE, THEY'RE ALL THREE VERY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.
YEAH, I, I, I REVIEWED THEIR CV, VERY IMPRESSED WITH ALL OF THEM.
SO I CAN'T IMAGINE, I WAS HOPING IT WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA TODAY FOR THE NEXT MEETING, BUT I DID NOT SEE IT YET.
SO HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE ON THE ADDENDUM.
UH, THAT COMES OUT MONDAY, BUT I, I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT.
WE'LL SEE ON MONDAY IF IT'S ON, IF IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY.
UH, BUT BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT HAVE AN APPOINTMENT BY THEN, WE WILL NOT HAVE QUORUM.
SO WE WILL NOT HAVE ONE IN JULY AND WE DO NOT HAVE NO WARRANT.
EITHER TWO LANE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT ADMINISTRATION'S NOT GONNA HAVE THAT RESOLVED BY JULY 17TH.
EVEN IF TWO LANE SENDS THEM THREE NAMES TOMORROW, I WOULD HOPE SO.
BUT LOYOLA ANTICIPATE IS GOING BE PRETTY QUICK.
THEY HAVE A PERSON, XAVIER, BUT APPOINTMENT FOR MR. FOR MR. MASON.
SO I, I KIND OF HOPE WE MIGHT GET THREE NEW PEOPLE ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
UH, IT'LL BE A BIG LEARNING CURVE AND WE'LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WHEN WE DEAL.
AND WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE A, AN EDUCATIONAL NIGHT, UH, AT A MEETING AND JUST TALK ABOUT EXPECTATIONS OF PERMISSION AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE IG AND, AND HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
UH, SO THAT MIGHT, THAT WILL BE AN UPCOMING MEETING.
I, I'LL BE THERE NEXT WEDNESDAY.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU SITTING, YOU'RE GONNA SIT RIGHT BACK THERE.
IF YOU THINK THERE'S ANY WAY I CAN HELP AFTER JULY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT SHY.
UH, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.