[V. Presentation of report by Independent Counsel, Stephen J. Herman. Adoption of proposed Resolution No. 62 to accept the report of Stephen J. Herman, ratify the engagement, and approve payment of related invoices.]

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH A PRESENTATION OF A REPORT BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, MR. STEVEN J. HERMAN. YOU CAN COME RIGHT HERE TO THE PODIUM IF YOU'D LIKE OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT, WHICHEVER YOU PREFER. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. SO I'LL JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS AND MAYBE MAKE SOME HIGHLIGHTS.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT ME.

YOU ASKED ME TO ANSWER TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST WAS TO LOOK AT PUBLIC LETTERS 202401 AND 2020404 AND RENDER AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THOSE PUBLIC LETTERS WERE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JEFFERSON PARISH ORDINANCES AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

THEN THE SECOND QUESTION WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS MAINTAINED THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF INDEPENDENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

AND I KIND OF MADE SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS, WHICH MAY BE OBVIOUS.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S NECESSARY TO READ THOSE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT.

AND IF I DIDN'T DO WHAT YOU WANTED, THEN I APOLOGIZE.

BUT I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS BEING MY RESPONSIBILITY TO KIND OF REREVIEW EVERYTHING AND SAY WHETHER THE PARISH COUNCIL WAS RIGHT OR WRONG IN DOING SOMETHING, OR WHETHER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG ON THE MERITS.

YOU KNOW, LIKE, TAKE THE CRESCENT NOT THE CRESCENT BREW PUB, THE GRETNA BREW PUB PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY OPINION ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD OR BAD PROJECT FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, AND I THINK THAT'S SOUNDLY IN THE DISCRETION OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO COME TO AN ULTIMATE CONCLUSION ON.

SO, I DIDN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE YOU WANTED ME TO OR MAYBE YOU DIDN'T.

I DON'T THINK YOU DID. I DIDN'T SAY WHETHER I THOUGHT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS RIGHT OR WRONG IN THESE AREAS, OR WHETHER THE COUNCIL WAS RIGHT OR WRONG OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. NO I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I APPRECIATED THE FACT ON PAGE TWO THAT YOU OUTLINED WHAT YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS, RIGHT? WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AND WHAT YOU WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING IN THE REPORT.

SO NO, I APPRECIATED THAT TRANSPARENCY AND CLARIFICATION FOR THE READER.

OKAY. AND IF IT SEEMS LIKE I GOT IT RIGHT, BUT IF I GOT IT WRONG, I APOLOGIZE.

OKAY. SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS THE ISSUANCE OF THE PUBLIC LETTERS, AND YOU COULD READ THE ORDINANCE IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

THERE IS A GENERAL PROVISION WHICH AUTHORIZES AND DIRECTS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO MONITOR THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. MONITOR LEGISLATION, PROPOSALS, TRANSACTIONS AND TO PREVENT WASTE.

AND THAT'S NOT REALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF HOW HE OR SHE, IN THIS CASE, SHE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO THAT.

AS A MATTER OF AND THERE'S THERE'S LOTS OF STATEMENTS AND I'VE CITED THEM IN THE STANDARDS THAT KIND OF MAKE THOSE SAME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS IN THE STANDARDS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF GENERAL REFERENCES TO ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY YOU HAVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL IS SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS CONFIDENCE IN WHAT'S GOING ON, SO THAT THERE'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC TRUST SO THAT THERE'S PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY.

THERE ARE PROVISIONS TALKING ABOUT ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC REPORTS.

AND FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HISTORICALLY, THE IG'S OFFICE DID ISSUE A NUMBER OF WHAT COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS PUBLIC LETTERS WITH, AS FAR AS I KNOW, WITHOUT VERY MUCH CONTROVERSY.

I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE MORE ABOUT THOSE LATER, BUT AS A GENERAL PRACTICE, IT WAS KIND OF DONE.

[00:05:02]

IT WAS DONE UNDER THE PREVIOUS INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A BIG PUBLIC OUTCRY ABOUT IT.

AND IN FACT, I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ISSUED BY SOME OF THE OTHER INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICES.

NEW ORLEANS, FOR ONE, AND SOME OF THE OTHER INSPECTOR GENERALS.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY BE WORKING UNDER DIFFERENT ORDINANCES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO I UNDERSTAND WHY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BELIEVED IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO RELEASE A PUBLIC LETTER. AND, AND, AND THERE IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE STANDARDS THAT COULD ARGUABLY ALLOW HER TO DO THAT. HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THE BETTER INTERPRETATION HAVING DELVED INTO THIS, THE BETTER INTERPRETATION, IS THAT IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS FIRST.

THE. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT, AND I DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS VERY MUCH IN THE REPORT.

I WAS KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS KIND OF THESE BROAD TERMS OF REPORTS, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS. IN THE I'VE COME TO LEARN THAT IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WORLD THERE ARE THESE SPECIFIC TERMS OF ART THAT ARE USED AND AUDIT AND EVALUATION INVESTIGATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ALL SOUND KIND OF THE SAME TO ME.

AND FROM, YOU KNOW, A PUBLIC STANDPOINT OR FROM MAYBE A POLITICIAN STANDPOINT THAT THOSE ARE KINDS OF MAYBE DISTINCTIONS WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AUDIT OR AN EVALUATION OR AN INVESTIGATION OR A REVIEW.

WITHIN THE IG WORLD, THESE ARE TERMS OF ART. AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT LOTS OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE DONE ON THE BACK END WITH HINDSIGHT, WHERE YOU'RE GOING BACK AND DOING AN AUTOPSY AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHO DID WHAT AND WHETHER THAT VIOLATED ANYTHING AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE WHERE YOU SEE, WELL, THIS MIGHT NOT BE A GREAT IDEA. THIS MIGHT BE WASTEFUL.

AND SO, I'M GOING TO RING THE BELL NOW IN ADVANCE.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL THINKING I'M SURE THAT THE IG HAD. I MEAN, SHE CAN SPEAK FOR HERSELF, BUT YOU KNOW AND YOU COULD INTERPRET THINGS THAT WAY.

HOWEVER, I THINK THE BETTER INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE ORDINANCE CONTEMPLATES AND WELL, NOW IT CLEARLY DOES BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AMENDED TO SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. BUT EVEN BEFORE THE AMENDMENT I THINK IT PRETTY MUCH CONTEMPLATED THAT IF YOU WERE ISSUING A REPORT, WHATEVER THAT WAS CALLED THEN AND THERE WERE SOME IMPLICATION THAT MAYBE SOMEONE OR SOMEBODY HADN'T DONE SOMETHING WELL OR CORRECTLY, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE CHANCE TO REVIEW IT BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC. I GUESS POTENTIALLY FOR TWO REASONS.

THE MAIN REASON, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STANDARDS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GETS IT RIGHT.

RIGHT. IS SHE HYPOTHETICALLY POTENTIALLY MISSING SOMETHING? IS THERE IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S INACCURATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? THEN YOU HAVE THE CHANCE TO CORRECT IT SO THE REPORT CAN BE AS STRONG AS IT CAN POSSIBLY BE.

FROM I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIALS POINT OF VIEW, THERE'S ALSO A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS.

RIGHT? I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE SAID ABOUT ME AND TO DEFEND MYSELF.

AND IN GENERAL, THOSE RESPONSES ARE ATTACHED TO THE REPORTS.

AND I'VE CITED A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS FROM THE STANDARDS THAT WHEN YOU GET.

ALTHOUGH THERE'S A LOT OF GENERAL LANGUAGE ABOUT INFORMING THE PUBLIC AND PREVENTING WASTE AND STUFF, WHEN YOU GET INTO THE ACTUAL DETAILS, IT REALLY SEEMS TO CONTEMPLATE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO REPORT THINGS FIRST AND FOREMOST TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING THE DECISIONS AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO EITHER EXPLAIN THEMSELVES, TO MAKE CORRECTIONS, TO IGNORE YOU, TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, WHATEVER THAT IS. AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE BETTER INTERPRETATION.

I TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHAT'S IN THE REPORT THAT MAY BE THAT MAY BE MORE IN THE INDEPENDENT SECTION.

LET ME SEE HOW I FRAME THIS. OH, YEAH. SO, I SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.

SO, THE IG DOES MAKE THIS DISTINCTION IN HER REPORT.

I KEEP CALLING IT A REPORT IN THE PUBLIC LETTER THAT THIS ISN'T IN THE TERM OF ART THAT WE USE IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WORLD.

THIS ISN'T A FORMAL AUDIT EVALUATION, WHATEVER.

I'VE PUT THIS TOGETHER FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION.

AND THESE ARE THE FACTS AS THEY APPEAR. BUT I'M NOT MAKING ANY QUOTE UNQUOTE TECHNICAL FINDINGS OR RECOMMENDATIONS.

AT THE SAME TIME I THINK IT'S KIND OF FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT NUANCE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE LOST ON THE PUBLIC.

[00:10:07]

I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE READING THE REPORT OR YOU'RE WATCHING A NEWS ARTICLE OR NEWS BROADCAST OR READING A NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THIS REPORT, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO COME AWAY WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT MAYBE THE PARISH COUNCIL DID SOMETHING THAT WAS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE. AND I POINTED TO SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE.

THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT MAY HAVE AND IT IS IT IS COUCHED IN MAY HAVE IT'S NOT THAT THAT THEY DID, BUT THEY MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, CONTRAVENED OR UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC BID LAW, CIRCUMVENTED THE PUBLIC LEASE LAW, VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.

YOU KNOW, AND I YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO THE FACTS.

I SAID THAT. BUT ONE THING THAT DID STRIKE ME WAS THERE WAS A SPECIFIC SENTENCE THAT THAT THE PARISH COUNCIL FRAGMENTED A SINGLE PROJECT INTO MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS ACROSS SEVERAL MEETINGS, INTENTIONALLY OBSCURING THE FULL SCOPE OF THE MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FROM THE PUBLIC. AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A OF A OF CHARGE LANGUAGE ASCRIBING AN INTENT AND KIND OF A BAD INTENT TO THE PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE THINGS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE FACTUAL MERIT, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO DECIDE.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING AT LEAST, AND I AND I THINK THIS IS BORNE OUT AT LEAST BY THE ONE CASE THAT SEEMS TO BE ON POINT, WHICH, IN FAIRNESS, WAS CITED IN THE PUBLIC LETTER, THE IG DID CITE THE CASE AND POINTED THIS OUT AND CITED THE STATUTES.

BUT THE REALITY IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT THE LAW GENERALLY ALLOWS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC BID OR PUBLIC LEASE LAWS.

SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IF PEOPLE THINK THAT THAT'S A BAD IDEA, THAT THAT'S BAD LAW, THAT THAT'S AND I THINK THE IG WOULD PROBABLY SAY THAT THAT THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. FROM A FISCAL STANDPOINT OR SOME OTHER KIND OF STANDPOINT.

BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COLLOQUIALISM WHERE YOU COULD SAY, WELL, BY DOING IT THIS WAY, YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING OR CONTRAVENING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE PUBLIC LEASE LAW, THAT KIND OF IMPLIES THAT THAT THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG OR POTENTIALLY EVEN ILLEGAL.

AND I THINK THAT CLEARLY ISN'T TRUE. IT WAS LEGAL.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE IG CAN SPEAK FOR HERSELF, BUT IN SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AND JUST READING IT, I THINK THE REAL RINGING OF THE BELL WITH THIS PUBLIC LETTER ABOUT THE BREW PUB IN PARTICULAR WAS AN ISSUE OF WASTE.

AND WASTE IS DIFFERENT THAN ABUSE, FRAUD AND POTENTIAL CRIMINALITY.

WASTE IS JUST YOU'RE SPENDING MONEY AND IT'S A BAD IDEA.

THERE'S SOME DEFINITION, BUT I MEAN, I THINK WE COULD ALL AGREE ON THAT, BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

AND WHY I THINK SOME OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS MAY HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS LETTER IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE AUDITING STANDARDS. TALK ABOUT HOW THE TERMINATION OF WASTE IS SUBJECTIVE.

AND IMPORTANTLY, WASTE CAN INCLUDE ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT INCLUDE ABUSE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

AND LOOK, I MEAN, I'M I'M COMING BACK AND USING HINDSIGHT.

AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT FAIR, BUT WITH HINDSIGHT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO FRAME THIS LETTER IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LETTER.

MORE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE COUNCIL'S RIGHT TO DO THIS.

THEY'RE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THEY MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT EXPENDITURES.

THAT'S A POLITICAL DECISION. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM.

BUT I'M TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD USE OF FUNDS AND WHETHER IT IS OR NOT, AND I HEARD A LOT ABOUT WHY IT IS A GOOD USE OF FUNDS AND ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT IT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF LIKE BEYOND THE PURVIEW. BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD IN WHY PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN NOT HAPPY WITH THIS LETTER. ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE COMPLETELY VALID IN TERMS OF ALL THE FACTUAL.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO BE WELL SUPPORTED IN TERMS OF THE CITATIONS.

I MEAN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK MOST OF THE CRITICISM THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT THE LETTER IS THE WAY THAT THE ACTION WAS CHARACTERIZED.

IT'S NOT THAT THE FACTS ABOUT THE PROJECT ARE NOT TRUE.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF INVESTIGATION THAT OBVIOUSLY WENT INTO PUTTING THIS REPORT TOGETHER.

IT'S NOT LIKE A I MEAN, IT'S A 36 PAGE REPORT.

[00:15:03]

IT'S A PUBLIC LETTER. IT'S NOT, IT WASN'T JUST A ONE PAGE PRESS RELEASE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, I THINK IT'S MAYBE INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE IG'S OFFICE ITSELF HAS ITS OWN MANUALS AND OR MANUAL. IT'S I THINK IT'S UNDER THE PROCESS OF REVISION OR SOMETHING.

BUT IT'S PUT TOGETHER LARGELY FROM THE IG'S INCORPORATION OF THESE STANDARDS, LOOKING TO ALL THESE BOOKS.

YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S THE ONE THAT THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED ME TO TALK ABOUT WAS THE INSPECTOR.

THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS, GENERALS PUBLISHES ONE GREEN BOOK.

THERE'S ANOTHER GREEN BOOK, WHICH IS KIND OF CONFUSING, THAT THERE'S TWO GREEN BOOKS, AND THEN THERE'S A SILVER BOOK AND A YELLOW BOOK AND A RED BOOK AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. BUT ANYWAY, THE IG'S OFFICE HAS SYNTHESIZED ALL THIS AND HAS A SET OF MANUAL PROCEDURES.

IT SAYS WHAT THE IG AND OR STAFF ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.

SO SINCE THIS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS AN ISSUE OF WASTE, WHAT IS THE OFFICE GOING TO DO UNDER ITS OWN STANDARDS? AND IT IS WILL ALERT APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE TO INSTANCES OF EGREGIOUS WASTE THAT BECOME KNOWN TO THE IG'S OFFICE.

YOU KNOW, NOTABLY, PERHAPS ALONG WITH THESE OTHER STANDARDS, IT SAYS, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS.

IT DOESN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC. SO BUT I THINK PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGER QUESTION ABOUT THIS HAS BEEN IN TERMS OF THE TIMING OF IT, BECAUSE WHAT I'M PRETTY SURE HAPPENED WAS ALL OF THE VOTES HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE ON THE EXPENDITURE OF THESE FUNDS.

ALL THE RESOLUTIONS, ALL THE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE ALL BEEN PASSED BY THE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO, TO SOME EXTENT, THIS WAS KIND OF ALREADY A DONE DEAL.

SO, SOME PEOPLE WOULD JUST SAY IN THE COLLOQUIAL SENSE, WELL, HOW ARE YOU PREVENTING WASTE? BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY MADE THE DECISION, RIGHT? IF YOU WERE GOING TO PREVENT SOMETHING, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN, NOT AFTER. AND HOW IS THIS BEING DONE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE? YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE IG CAN SPEAK FOR HERSELF, BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE POINTS OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T GO OFF HALF COCKED.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET ALERTED TO SOMETHING, WE DO DUE DILIGENCE.

THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED THING THAT GOES BACK LIKE 15 YEARS, AND WE HAD TO GO BACK AND DIG THROUGH ALL THE RECORDS AND KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND THE URGENCY. AT LEAST AS IDENTIFIED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THIS TIME WAS LIKE, OKAY MAYBE THIS WAS ALREADY PAST, BUT WE HAVEN'T SPENT THE MONEY.

WE DON'T HAVE THE CONTRACTS, BUT IT'S ABOUT TO START MOVING.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A GROUNDBREAKING. AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE BRAKES ON THIS OR TRY TO GET THE COUNCIL TO RETHINK IT OR WHATEVER, WE KIND OF HAVE TO DO IT SOON. COULD SHE HAVE SO THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, WELL, AND FRANKLY, FOR BOTH OF THESE PUBLIC LETTERS, YOU KNOW, WHY DID THIS HAVE TO BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC? YOU KNOW, PRESS RELEASE GOING ON THE NEWS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. WHY COULDN'T SHE HAVE JUST GONE TO THE PARISH COUNCIL PRIVATELY AND SAID, YOU KNOW, LOOK, I THINK YOU'RE MAKING A MISTAKE HERE AND HERE'S ALL MY REASONS.

YOU KNOW AND THEY COULD HAVE AGREED WITH HER OR NOT AGREED WITH HER OR OR WHATEVER.

AND THEN IF IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SHE STILL FELT THAT SHE WAS RIGHT AND THEY DISAGREED, THEN THEN MAYBE GO TO THE PUBLIC AND ALSO ATTACH IF THEY, IF ANY RESPONSES OR WHATEVER, AND GIVE THE PARISH COUNCIL A CHANCE TO REBUT.

I THINK THAT'S THE BETTER READING OF THE OF THE OF THE STATUTE AND THE STANDARDS.

NOW, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY READING. AND I DO THINK AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO DEFER AND I DEFERRED A LITTLE BIT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO HAS UNIQUE EXPERIENCE, UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE A UNIQUE EXPERTISE THAT I DON'T HAVE AND THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T HAVE.

AND SHE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GO TO THE PUBLIC.

I'VE GOT A LONG FOOTNOTE THAT KIND OF OUTLINES ALL OF HER REASONS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK YOU KNOW HER HER POINT IS, WELL, LOOK, IT WENT TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY WERE TOLD ABOUT IT, AND THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROJECT ANYWAY. SO THAT KIND OF SHOWS THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED THEIR MIND IF I HAD GONE TO THEM FIRST. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE I THINK NOT TO NECESSARILY SPEAK FOR THE PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY CAN SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES TOO, BUT I THINK THEY WOULD PROBABLY SAY, WELL, LOOK, THE REASON WHY IT'S GOING FORWARD IS BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS COMPLETELY WRONG.

WE DISAGREE WITH ALL THE STUFF IN HER REPORT, AND IT'S WE'RE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD PROJECT AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. AND YOU KNOW WE DISAGREE. SO WHERE DOES WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU? I DON'T KNOW, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS THE ONE THAT HAS HAD THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE AND ON WHAT TIMETABLE.

YOU KNOW, NOW IT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A MOOT POINT.

THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT SHE CAN DO. AND NOW THE LIMITATIONS ARE VERY EXPRESS.

SO, THIS MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.

[00:20:05]

AND HOPEFULLY, IT WON'T BE. BUT THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S KIND OF MY TAKE ON THE FIRST QUESTION.

RIGHT. THE BETTER INTERPRETATION, THE, THE PROBABLY THE MORE PRUDENT COURSE, OF COURSE, OF ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO GO TO THE PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS FIRST AND ADDRESS IT WITH THEM AND SEE WHAT THEIR REACTION WAS.

AND THEN, IF NECESSARY, THEN GO TO THE PUBLIC.

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE.

AT LEAST IT EXISTED AT THAT TIME. I DON'T THINK THERE IS NOW.

AND, OR GOING FORWARD AND AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS THE ONE THAT'S ENTRUSTED AND SHE FELT THAT THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE AND IT WAS GOING TO AND SHE NEEDED TO GO TO THE PUBLIC, AND SHE NEEDED TO DO IT SOON.

I THINK THE YOU KNOW, YOU ASKED ME TO LOOK AT BOTH LETTERS, BUT I THINK THE BREW PUB LETTER IS A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THING.

I MEAN, THE OTHER ONE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE EARLIER OR PRIVATELY OR WHATEVER, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I MEAN, THE VOTE WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE HISTORY OF IT IS IN TERMS OF WHEN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED OR WHATEVER.

BUT I DON'T THAT THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A MUCH DIFFERENT SITUATION THAT THE ACTION HADN'T BEEN TAKEN YET.

IT WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN THE NEXT DAY. IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY TO RING THE BELL.

HEY, YOU'RE TAKING THIS VOTE TOMORROW. MAYBE. MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT NOW.

I THINK SEVERAL PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH HER ON THE ACTUAL LEGALITIES, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY SHE HAD TO GO TO THE PUBLIC.

SHE COULD HAVE JUST GONE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS PRIVATELY AND SAID, LOOK, I THINK YOU'RE MAKING A MISTAKE IN DOING THIS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE FOR THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT, I DID SAY I WOULD GET BACK TO PUBLIC LETTERS ISSUED BY THE OTHER IGS OFFICES.

THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE ONES IN THIS CASE WHERE AT LEAST ON THE FACE OF THE LETTER, YOU COULDN'T IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT HAD EVER BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED WITH ANYBODY.

AND AT LEAST ARGUABLY, IT KIND OF SEEMED LIKE THE IG WAS SAYING THAT SOMEBODY ARGUABLY HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG OR WAS ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING WRONG.

I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SOMETHING WRONG. HOWEVER, A LOT OF THESE PUBLIC LETTERS THAT WERE RELEASED, FIRST OF ALL, SOME OF THEM DO INDICATE ON THEIR FACE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE DISCUSS, AS I BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE ADDRESS.

SO SOMETIMES, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE PUBLIC LETTERS, THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED WITH PEOPLE PRIVATELY.

BUT THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PUBLIC LETTERS AT ISSUE.

WHAT YOU SEE MORE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN WITH THE TASK FORCE FUNDING ISSUE, WHERE THERE'S KIND OF AN ONGOING OR UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE ISSUE OR SOMETIMES EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE, AND THE IG IS TELLING THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES IN ADVANCE OR WHILE IT'S GOING ON.

HEY, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO DO THIS. IT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

WHEREAS THE BREW PUB LETTERS, I THINK, SEEMED A LOT MORE LIKE SHE WAS RETROACTIVELY OR RETROSPECTIVELY SAYING, WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED FOR THIS BECAUSE IT HAS ALL THESE PROBLEMS. AND THAT, I THINK TO SOME PEOPLE, SEEMS A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW, AN INVESTIGATION OR AN AUDIT OR EVALUATION OR ALL THOSE, ALL OF THOSE TERMS. I KNOW THAT IT WASN'T IN THE, IN THE PARLANCE OF THE IG'S OFFICE, BUT I CAN SEE HOW IT WOULD HAVE PERHAPS SEEMED THAT WAY TO MEMBERS OF THE PARISH COUNCIL OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

SO THAT'S KIND OF MY REPORT ON THE FIRST THING.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CRITICISMS, ANYTHING? COMMISSIONERS.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT THE REPORT IS VERY THOROUGH, AND YOU TOOK A LOT OF INTENTION TO PUT IT TOGETHER SO YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT PUBLICLY. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. SO, THE INDEPENDENT QUESTION IS MAYBE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT JUST BECAUSE IT'S MORE SUBJECTIVE. AND IT ALSO WOULD SEEM TO, TO PERHAPS BE A BIGGER ISSUE TO THE EXTENT IT IS AN ISSUE FOR YOU GUYS, BECAUSE AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT OR A LARGE EXTENT, IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN MOOTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE.

THERE IS LANGUAGE AND THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE IG ACT FREE FROM AN APPEARANCE. WELL, ACT WITH AN APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE.

[00:25:04]

AND IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT THAT AN APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE IS A HIGHER STANDARD THAN BEING FREE FROM AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S COMPLETELY THE CASE. IT COULD BE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN, BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION AND THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT IS INDEPENDENCE MEAN IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT? AND I MEAN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS MY OPINION, FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH.

AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FACTS AND THE STANDARDS YOURSELF AND COME TO YOUR OWN OPINIONS.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT MATTERS MORE THAN MY OPINION.

MY OPINION, FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, FROM MEETING WITH THE IG'S OFFICE, TALKING TO HER STAFF, SEEING THE FILES, THE INVESTIGATION FILES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL THAT HER OFFICE PURSUED THINGS WITH INDEPENDENCE.

I CAN HEAR MANY PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY ON THE PARISH COUNCIL, PROBABLY DISAGREEING WITH ME ON THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF WHAT INDEPENDENCE MEANS OR MAY MEAN.

AND LOOK, I COULD BE WRONG, AND THEY COULD BE RIGHT. SO BUT THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE AND THE STANDARDS IS STRUCTURED WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT INDEPENDENCE.

AT LEAST MY READING OF IT IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT IS, IS IS THE OFFICE AND THE IG HIMSELF OR HERSELF GOING TO BE OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY SO THAT THEY FEEL FREE AND ABLE TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY THINK HAVE MERIT WITHOUT EXTERNAL PRESSURES BEING PUT UPON THEM, WHETHER THEY'RE POLITICAL PRESSURES OR OTHERWISE. AND SO WHILE IT TALKS ABOUT INDEPENDENCE AS KIND OF A REQUIREMENT FOR THE IG AND THERE IS ONE IT'S GOT A LOT TO DO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE STANDARDS.

AND IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE SET UP DO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN FUNDING SOURCE? CAN THEY BE HIRED AND FIRED BY PEOPLE THAT THEY MAY BE CRITICIZING.

ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THEY WANT THE OFFICE TO BE OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT.

AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE LIMITED OR CURTAILED IN SOME WAY.

HERE, I THINK THE COMPLAINT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE PARISH BREW PUB ISSUE.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING THIS AS AGGRESSIVELY.

RIGHT. YOU WERE YOU WERE NOT INDEPENDENT BECAUSE YOU WERE ALIGNED WITH SOME PARISH COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT, AND YOU WERE BASICALLY ALIGNING YOURSELF WITH HER, GETTING INTO THIS POLITICAL FRAY AND MAKING A LOT OF INVESTIGATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PROJECT. WHEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THAT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP AND THIS THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL.

IT MAY BE NAIVE TO THE POLITICAL REALITIES. IT MAY BE A BAD WAY TO RUN THINGS, BUT THE WAY THAT I READ IT AT LEAST, IS THEY WEREN'T REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, A FRIEND OR SOMEBODY WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA WOULD PLANT A BUG IN THE IG'S EAR, AND HE OR SHE WOULD RUN WITH IT.

THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T SEEM AS WORRIED ABOUT OVER INVESTIGATION.

AND IN FACT, THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE IG IS SUPPOSED TO IS DEFINITELY AUTHORIZED TO PURSUE THINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE THAT, THAT COME FROM ANY SOURCE.

AND THAT'S THE WORDS THAT ARE USED, ANY SOURCE. AND THEN THERE'S LATER ANOTHER PROVISION THAT SAYS ANY EMPLOYEE.

SO THERE'S KIND OF A OF AN ASYMMETRY THERE. WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL THAT THE THAT THE +IG'S NOT INVESTIGATING SOMETHING. NOT PURSUING SOMETHING.

MAYBE THIS WASN'T INTENTIONAL. MAYBE I'M JUST WRONG.

MAYBE I'M JUST BEING. I MIGHT BE WRONG IN THE WAY THAT I'M INTERPRETING IT, BUT I THINK THERE WASN'T AS MUCH OF A CONCERN THAT THE IG WOULD RUN WITH SOMETHING THAT THAT AT LEAST POTENTIALLY HAS MERIT AND THAT SHE SHOULD RING THE BELL ABOUT SHOULD SHE NOT BE DOING THAT JUST BECAUSE SHE'S FRIENDS WITH SOMEBODY OR SOMEBODY HAS A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT ALIGNS WITH THAT? ARGUABLY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE ORDINANCE AND THE STANDARDS ARE WORRIED ABOUT.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT JUST BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I'VE KIND OF NOTICED OVER THIS THAT THERE'S JUST KIND OF A DISCONNECT KIND OF IN TWO WAYS BETWEEN HOW THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND, AND THIS IS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE HOW THEY VIEW

[00:30:07]

INDEPENDENCE. OR THE WAY THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE DONE OR PUBLICIZED OR WHATEVER, AND THE WAY THAT THE IG'S OFFICE VIEWS THAT. AND SO THAT HAPPENS IN KIND OF TWO WAYS.

THE FIRST, THE FIRST WAY IS THAT AND I DIDN'T NEVER REALIZE THIS UNTIL I GOT INVOLVED IN THIS.

BUT APPARENTLY THE WAY THINGS WERE DONE IN JEFFERSON PARISH IS THAT WHEN CERTAIN FUNDS ARE SPENT WITHIN A DISTRICT, IT'S LARGELY PERCEIVED FROM A POLITICAL STANDPOINT TO BE THAT PARISH COUNCIL PERSON'S RESPONSIBILITY.

SO IF THE PROJECT'S GOOD, THEY GET THE CREDIT MORE THAN THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, AND IF SOMETHING'S BAD, THEN THEY GET THE BLAME. AND SO A INVESTIGATION OR A CRITICISM OF A PROJECT IN, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER THE BREWPUB IS, WHICH IS GRETNA, I THINK THAT'S DISTRICT ONE.

I THINK IT'S DISTRICT ONE IS SEEN AS LIKE A CRITICISM OF DISTRICT ONE.

WHEREAS IN THE EAT FAT CITY PROJECT, WHEN PEOPLE WERE CRITICIZING THAT OR WEREN'T CRITICIZING THAT, THAT WOULD BE SEEN TO BE A CRITICISM OF WHOEVER THAT COUNCIL PERSON IS.

I THINK IT'S DISTRICT FIVE. AND SO WHEN AND WHEN PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS LOOK AT THINGS AND ARE AND ARE CONCERNED WITH INDEPENDENCE THERE'S A CONCERN WHICH I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT FROM A POLITICAL OR PR STANDPOINT, THE IG SEEMS TO BE A LOT MORE INTERESTED IN THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THIS DISTRICT IN INVESTIGATIONS OF THIS COUNCIL PERSON THAN SHE IS WITH, YOU KNOW, HER FRIEND THAT'S OVER IN THIS DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, THE REALITY IS, IS THAT IN GENERAL, AT LEAST IN THE THINGS THAT I LOOKED AT.

ALL OF THESE VOTES ARE UNANIMOUS. SO IF SOMEBODY WASN'T SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING, THEN THAT'S KIND OF AN INDICTMENT.

MAYBE NOT FROM A POLITICAL OR PR STANDPOINT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THERE'S ANY LEGAL OR ETHICAL PROBLEMS OR WASTE OR WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S KIND OF AN ISSUE FOR THE ENTIRE PARISH COUNCIL.

AND SO I THINK THAT. RIGHT. WRONG. GOOD. BAD.

THE REALITY IS THAT FROM A POLITICAL PR STANDPOINT WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT EXPENDITURES IN A DISTRICT THAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE AN INVESTIGATION OF THAT COUNCIL PERSON, AT LEAST CHIEFLY OR CRITICISM, WHEREAS FROM THE IG STANDPOINT.

WELL, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE COUNCIL'S ACTIONS.

SHOULD THE COUNCIL BE DOING THIS? AND IN FACT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR THE THINGS THAT I LOOKED AT, EVERYBODY VOTED FOR EVERYTHING AT THE END OF THE DAY.

SO THAT'S ONE DISCONNECT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THE OTHER KIND OF DISCONNECT IS WHAT DOES INDEPENDENCE MEAN? WELL, I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

I WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT IT THE SAME WAY, TOO, IF I WAS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. FROM AN ELECTED OFFICIAL STANDPOINT, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY IS IT ARE WE ARE WE DOING IT FAIRLY WITH RESPECT TO POLITICAL ACTORS? RIGHT. ARE WE LOOKING AT THESE PEOPLE THE SAME WAY? WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE PEOPLE? WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS CONDUCT THE SAME WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS CONDUCT. IS THERE A CERTAIN FAIRNESS OR EVENHANDEDNESS AMONG POLITICAL ACTORS OR WITH RESPECT TO POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES? WHEREAS I THINK FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S POINT OF VIEW, INDEPENDENCE ISN'T REALLY FRAMED THAT WAY. INDEPENDENCE IS.

DO I HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THINGS AND RING THE BELL ON THINGS OR REFER THINGS WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF HINDRANCE FROM SOME TYPE OF OUTSIDE FORCE. RIGHT. AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IG IN THIS CASE, HERSELF BEING POTENTIALLY CONFLICTED, I THINK, WELL, I MAY BE WRONG, BUT WHAT I WAS MORE FOCUSED ON WERE ISSUES WHERE ARGUABLY SHE WASN'T INVESTIGATING THINGS ENOUGH, OR THERE WAS A PERCEPTION OR ACCUSATION THAT SHE WASN'T INVESTIGATING THINGS ENOUGH BECAUSE SHE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNCIL PERSON WHO WAS CONSIDERED TO BE KIND OF QUOTE UNQUOTE, TARGET OR WHATEVER IT WAS.

SO FOR ME, THE BREWPUB PROJECT AND, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT THE LETTER AND HOW IT WAS DRAFTED AND WHETHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PRIVATELY BEFORE PUBLICLY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT THE THAT THE BASIC SETUP OF THE IG'S OFFICE IS THAT IF THERE REALLY IS A PROBLEM OR A POTENTIAL PROBLEM OR THERE SEEMS TO

[00:35:01]

BE EVIDENCE OF A PROBLEM. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT THE IG SHOULD BE BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH THAT THAT HAPPENS TO ALIGN WITH SOMEBODY'S POLITICAL AGENDA. BECAUSE THE MORE IMPORTANT THING FROM THE IG STANDPOINT.

WHICH ISN'T ABOUT SCORING POLITICAL POINTS, IT'S JUST ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT, OR AT LEAST THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THINGS.

SO WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE ON THE INDEPENDENT SIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I WOULDN'T SAY SERIOUS BECAUSE MY ULTIMATE CONCLUSION WAS, WAS THAT THINGS WERE HANDLED CORRECTLY.

BUT THE TWO INSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS A PERCEPTION OR ALLEGATION THAT MAYBE THE IG WASN'T LOOKING AT IT HARD ENOUGH. SO THAT COMES UP WITH THE EAT FAT CITY PROJECT.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAD A PROPOSED LAND SWAP.

EVERY COUNCIL PERSON VOTED FOR IT. IT WAS UNANIMOUS VOTE.

IT WAS PERCEIVED TO BE ONE COUNCIL PERSON'S PROJECT, BUT IT WAS REALLY A PROJECT OF THE COUNCIL FROM, I GUESS, A LEGAL STANDPOINT. AND THERE WAS A TO GIVE A, TO GIVE A THE FULL PICTURE. THERE WAS A COMPLAINT THAT WAS MADE SOMEWHAT EARLY AS THINGS WERE GOING ALONG, BUT WHAT ULTIMATELY WAS FOCUSED ON WAS NOT REALLY THE SUBJECT OF THAT COMPLAINT.

AND THE COMPLAINT WASN'T THAT URGENT. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS IS CONFIDENTIAL IN TERMS OF THE COMPLAINTS AND WHO MADE THEM AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. BUT I'LL JUST SAY THAT IT WASN'T MADE WITH THAT MUCH URGENCY.

NEVERTHELESS, WHEN YOU REVIEW THE FILE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACTUALLY DID START LOOKING AT IT.

MAYBE SHE WASN'T SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT PUBLICLY, BUT THEY WERE LOOKING AT IT WITHIN THE OFFICE. THEN PEOPLE MADE COMPLAINTS THAT WERE VERY FORCEFUL AND KIND OF FOCUSED ON A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT ISSUE AND ARGUABLY MORE SERIOUS ISSUE.

AND IT WAS MADE KIND OF PUBLICLY. AT SOME POINT.

BUT ALL OF THIS HAPPENED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ELECTION.

AND WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS CLEAR ABOUT AND WHAT REMAINS CLEAR ABOUT IS THAT THE IG CAN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ELECTION. SO AT LEAST WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD, SHE COULDN'T HAVE ISSUED A PUBLIC LETTER, EVEN IF EVEN IF SHE HAD WANTED TO. BY THE TIME THE ELECTION OCCURRED, THE LAND SWAP HAD BEEN ABANDONED. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, GENERALLY, THE PARISH PRESIDENT KIND OF GOT INVOLVED AND RAISED SOME CONCERNS AND THEY DECIDED NOT TO GO AHEAD WITH IT. NEVERTHELESS WHAT ULTIMATELY HAPPENED WAS MAYBE YOU LOST THAT KIND OF SENSE OF URGENCY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WERE RINGING THE BELL THERE SAYING THIS IS A TERRIBLE DEAL. WHETHER IT WAS OR WASN'T IS NOT MY PURVIEW. BUT PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

BUT IT WAS DURING THIS 90 DAY PERIOD. AND BY THE TIME THE 90 DAY PERIOD WAS OVER, KIND OF THE URGENCY WAS GONE BECAUSE THE LAND SWAP HAD BEEN ABANDONED.

NEVERTHELESS, PEOPLE WILL POINT OUT, AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO POINT OUT, THAT THE PARISH DID ULTIMATELY SPEND, I THINK, ABOUT $4.85 MILLION IN SETTLING A LAWSUIT THAT WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE OF THE LAND SWAP ORDINANCE.

SO THE PARISH DID ULTIMATELY END UP PAYING SOME MONEY FOR THAT.

AND YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THAT THE ISSUE WASN'T MOOT.

AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME ISSUES RAISED. WELL, EVEN THOUGH THE LAND SWAP WAS ABANDONED BEFORE THAT, THERE WERE SOME PRELIMINARY EXPENDITURES. THERE WAS SOME MONEY THAT WAS SPENT ON SOME CONSULTANTS AND STUFF. AND SO, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT MAYBE, MAYBE THIS SHOULD STILL BE INVESTIGATED.

SO IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT OF A COMPLICATED ISSUE FOR THE IG AND FOR ME, BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION, TO THE EXTENT THERE IS ONE IS CONFIDENTIAL. AND SO I'M PROBABLY NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT IS, BUT, BUT I BUT I THINK IT WAS FAIR TO SAY, AND I THINK EVERYBODY AROUND THIS TABLE WAS COMFORTABLE WITH ME SAYING THAT. I DID LOOK AT THE CONFIDENTIAL FILES AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF, OF, OF AN INVESTIGATION BEING DONE. IT WAS DONE BY TWO DEPUTIES. IT WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTOCOLS.

REFLECTED THAT THEY INTERVIEWED PEOPLE AND THAT THEY LOOKED AND I'VE LISTED ALL THESE RECORDS THAT WERE LISTED IN A FOOTNOTE NOW.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT NOW OR IN THE FUTURE? I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY IN THE IN THE. I WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY, BUT I WAS SATISFIED THAT IT WASN'T A SITUATION WHERE THE

[00:40:09]

IG'S OFFICE JUST SAID, OH WELL, THAT'S MY FRIEND, SO I'M NOT GOING TO INVESTIGATE IT.

SO THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF MY CONCLUSION ABOUT THAT, BASED ON THE RECORDS THAT I SAW.

ET CETERA. THE OTHER ISSUE WHICH WAS POINTED TO WAS THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION MADE THAT ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD VOTED ON VARIOUS DIFFERENT PROPOSALS THAT ARGUABLY OR ALLEGEDLY THE COUNCILWOMAN MAY HAVE HAD AN INTEREST IN OR HER HUSBAND MAY HAVE HAD AN INTEREST IN, OR FAMILY MAY HAVE HAD AN INTEREST IN IT.

IN THAT SITUATION, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE IG RECUSED HERSELF AND WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT ISSUE WAS BROUGHT.

I'M HESITANT TO SAY TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE CHANGED, BUT WAS BROUGHT TO THE EEC, AND WHOEVER WAS ON THE IC AT THE TIME AND THE ECC MADE A DETERMINATION.

THERE IS A PROVISION, THERE IS AN ORDINANCE THAT CITED IN THE REPORT.

I CAN TRY TO FIND IT IF YOU WANT ME TO, BUT THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT WHERE THE IG FEELS THAT IT SAYS HE.

BUT OF COURSE WE'RE DEALING WITH SHE. BUT THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN, AND HE FEELS THAT HE NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF.

THE MATTER SHALL BE REFERRED TO ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

AND THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE THAT SO YOU CAN'T REALLY JUST HAVE A CHINESE WALL WITHIN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE AND HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE HANDLE IT, ALONG WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL. WHAT, SO THE ARGUMENT GOES, WHAT THE IG'S OFFICE SHOULD HAVE DONE IS JUST SENT THE MATTER COMPLETELY SOMEWHERE ELSE. HOWEVER, FIRST OF ALL, WHILE THAT ORDINANCE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, THERE'S ANOTHER ORDINANCE, WHICH I THINK IS THE ECC ORDINANCE, WHICH SAYS THAT WHEN THE IG HAS A CONFLICT, THEN THERE'S THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER.

SO THAT WOULD KIND OF INDICATE THAT YOU CAN USE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

THE OTHER ISSUES ARE THAT THE MATTER AT SOME POINT AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING IS NOT CLEAR BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA. I ASSUME IT'S CONFIDENTIAL WHEN OR WHO.

AND YOU KNOW, COMPLAIN TO THE TO THE STATE BOARD OF ETHICS WHEN THAT WAS DONE.

HOW THAT WAS DONE. THAT'S I THINK ALL THOSE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONFIDENTIAL. MAYBE I COULD HAVE ENDEAVORED TO FIND THAT OUT, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE, THE STATE ETHICS BOARD STARTED LOOKING AT THINGS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN HINDSIGHT, AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THE MATTER IS BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF ETHICS AND THAT THE IG'S OFFICE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THAT.

SO GIVEN ALL OF THAT, THAT IT WASN'T REALLY AND MAYBE I SHOULD MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.

I CALL IT STATUTORY. THE ORDINANCES THAT KIND OF CREATE THIS PATCHWORK OF AUTHORITY FOR THE IG AND THE ECC HAVE SOME AMBIGUITY OR INCONSISTENCY, I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY.

AND SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU PARSE IT ALL OUT, THERE'S, THERE'S KIND OF THIS DIVISION OF LABOR WHERE SOME THINGS ARE WITHIN THE WHAT I WOULD CALL THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE IG'S OFFICE.

SOMEBODY MAKES A COMPLAINT TO THEM, AND SO THEY START INVESTIGATING IT OR EVALUATING IT OR AUDITING IT OR WHATEVER THOSE TERMS OF ARTS ARE.

OR THE IG HERSELF SEES SOMETHING AND STARTS INVESTIGATING IT.

AND THEN IN THAT SITUATION, THE IG'S OFFICE DECIDES WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, DO I BRING IT TO THE IC? DO I BRING IT TO THE STATE BOARD OF ETHICS? DO I SEND IT TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? DO I SEND IT TO THE DA'S OFFICE? THE STATE BOARD OF ETHICS HAS AUTHORITY OVER STATE ETHICS VIOLATIONS.

THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS, OBVIOUSLY JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL LAW, AND IT'S A FEDERAL VIOLATION, POTENTIALLY. DA'S OFFICE, STATE LAW, POTENTIAL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS.

BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY VIOLATES A PARISH ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT COMES TO YOU GUYS? SO, THE DECIDERS, SO TO SPEAK, IN THIS SITUATION.

[00:45:02]

THIS WAS A COMPLAINT THAT WAS MADE TO THE ECC.

IT WAS REALLY BEFORE THE ECC. AND SO IN THAT SITUATION, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A SITUATION WHERE THE IG IS THE DECIDER. IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE ECC.

THE ECC MADE ITS DECISION. WHETHER I AGREE WITH THAT OR ANYBODY ELSE AGREES WITH THAT IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE REPORT.

BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE PRESENTED.

AND THE ECC MADE ITS DECISION, AND THE IG HERSELF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

SOME PEOPLE SAY, WELL, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

THE IG'S OFFICE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AT ALL. IT SHOULD HAVE JUST BEEN A SEPARATELY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, OR IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED TO REFERRED TO ANOTHER BODY.

BUT AS IT TURNS OUT IT HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF ANOTHER BODY.

IT'S IN FRONT OF THE STATE ETHICS BOARD, AND THEY MAY COME TO WHATEVER DECISION THEY COME TO. AND AS I SAID IN MY REPORT, I'M NOT REALLY AN EXPERT ON CRIMINAL LAW, BUT I THINK THE ONLY OTHER PLACE SHE COULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO IS THE STATE ETHICS BOARD, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING THAT EITHER THE DA'S OFFICE OR THE U.S.

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD GET INVOLVED IN. SO, IF FOR PEOPLE TAKING THE POSITION THAT, WELL, SHE SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, SENT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, IT'S ALREADY IN FRONT OF WHO SHE WOULD HAVE SENT IT TO.

SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT GETS THERE EITHER WAY.

BUT I'VE CITED, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE CONTROLLING THINGS? WE HAVE THIS KIND OF THERE IS ADMITTEDLY SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE WHICH KIND OF SAYS THAT KIND OF INDICATES THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE A CHINESE WALL. BUT MOST OF THE STANDARDS ACTUALLY INDICATE THAT WHEN SOMEBODY WITHIN THE TEAM IS CONFLICTED, THEN THEY DO SET UP A CHINESE WALL AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TEAM GO FORWARD WITH IT, THAT IT DOESN'T GET REFERRED OUT. PROSECUTORS OFFICES, THERE'S AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE IG WAS ANALOGOUS TO, WELL, THE IG'S OFFICE WAS ANALOGOUS TO THE PROSECUTOR.

RIGHT. YOU'RE THE JUDGE, AND THEY'RE BRINGING THE CLAIM BEFORE YOU THAT SOMETHING UNETHICAL ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED.

IN DA'S OFFICES, SOMETIMES WHEN THERE'S A AND I DO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT THE DA'S OFFICE SHOULD RECUSE ITSELF WHEN THERE'S A CLOSE, PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP. BUT IN A LOT OF OTHER CASES, JUST BEING FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE IN THE DA'S OFFICE OR INVESTIGATORS WAS REJECTED AS GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL. AND THERE'S SITUATIONS WHERE THEY BASICALLY DID LET THEM SET UP CHINESE WALLS.

THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF, WELL, IS IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF? SHE DID. SO MAYBE THAT'S A MOOT POINT. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE HAVE MADE ANALOGIES TO A JUDICIAL SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, STANDARD OR APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT STANDARD.

I THINK THAT PROBABLY A JUDGE WOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH IF THEY WERE CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS WITH THE PARTY THAT WAS BEFORE THEM.

BUT MANY OF THE STANDARDS AND ACTUALLY THE ORDINANCE FOR PARISH EMPLOYEES IS REALLY DO THEY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST? DO THEY HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS WITH A FINANCIAL INTEREST? ARE THEY PARTNERS WITH PEOPLE WITH A FINANCIAL INTEREST? SO IT THOSE GROUNDS DON'T EXTEND TO JUST APPEARANCES OR FRIENDSHIPS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND EVEN WITHIN THE, THE CODES OF, OF BOTH THE STANDARDS THAT GO TO AUDITORS AND THE STANDARDS THAT GO TO JUDGES, DA'S, PEOPLE LIKE THAT, THERE'S CATEGORICAL GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL WHERE YOU HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF.

THERE'S NOTHING THERE'S NO SUBJECTIVITY ABOUT IT.

AND THOSE ARE USUALLY RESERVED FOR DO YOU HAVE AN INTEREST OR ARE YOU A WITNESS? DOES YOUR FAMILY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST? ARE YOU ON THE BOARD OF SOMEBODY THAT HAS A FINANCIAL, YOU KNOW. SO IT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN ANY OF THOSE CATEGORICAL GROUNDS? WAS IT PRUDENT FOR HER TO RECUSE HERSELF? YES.

AND SHE DID. AND I THINK HAVING A DISINTERESTED PERSON ON HER STAFF AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL PRESENT THE MATTER WAS SUFFICIENT IN THIS SITUATION. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE MATTER'S ALSO BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF ETHICS.

AND SO, SOME PEOPLE COULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.

SOME PEOPLE COULD SAY THAT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

BUT I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS SUFFICIENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO, I THINK THAT COVERS I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT MORE IN THE REPORT, BUT I THINK IT KIND OF COVERS THE HIGHLIGHTS ON, ON, YOU KNOW, THE INDEPENDENCE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE AS WELL AS THE, AS THE PUBLIC LETTER ISSUE.

[00:50:05]

THE OTHER THING ABOUT REFERRING OUT THAT'S MAYBE A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR.

BECAUSE YOU COULD ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT AND I KIND OF PUT THIS IN A FOOTNOTE FOR POLITICAL OR PR PURPOSES, SOMEBODY COULD HAVE SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE EAT FAT CITY PROJECT OR LAND SWAP OR WHATEVER THE PROPOSAL WAS, WAS A PARISH COUNCIL THING. IT'S KIND OF PERCEIVED AS BEING THIS ONE COUNCILWOMAN PROJECT, OR AT LEAST WAS AT THE TIME. AND SO MAYBE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION SHOULD HAVE RECUSED THEMSELVES OR ASKED REFERRED IT SOMEWHERE, OR ASKED FOR AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO BE APPOINTED.

YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT COULD STILL BE DONE PROBABLY. BUT IN ANY EVENT WHEN YOU'RE REFERRING THINGS YOU HAVE CERTAIN THINGS THAT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHERE THEY SHOULD GO. WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE AT LEAST I WAS TALKING ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, IF IT'S IF IT'S A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, IT GOES TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY. POTENTIAL CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF STATE LAW GOES TO THE DA'S OFFICE.

POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE STATE ETHICS REQUIREMENTS.

IT GOES TO THE STATE ETHICS BOARD, WHICH COULD ALSO HAVE OVERLAP.

THERE COULD BE CERTAIN CONDUCT THAT MIGHT ARGUABLY FIT ALL THESE THINGS.

PARISH ETHICS WOULD GO TO YOU, THE ECC. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ISSUE IS JUST WASTE? IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ILLEGAL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S UNETHICAL.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT, AT LEAST IN THE IG'S VIEW, NOT A GREAT WAY TO SPEND MONEY.

THERE'S REALLY NO ONE TO REFER THAT TO I DON'T THINK.

THERE'S NO ONE ELSE THAT SHE CAN REFER THAT TO.

AND SO I THINK WHERE THE ISSUE IS WASTE THIS IDEA THAT YOU CAN JUST RECUSE HERSELF AND REFER IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE MAY NOT BE THAT EASY.

THERE IS, I THINK, THE AUTHORITY THAT FOR HIRING INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

BUT WHETHER THAT'S WARRANTED IS, I THINK ULTIMATELY UP TO YOU GUYS.

YOU KNOW, THAT MAY NOT BE A GREAT WAY TO SPEND MONEY EITHER, MAY NOT BE AN EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THINGS.

WHOEVER YOU HIRE, I ASSUME IS GOING TO COST SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE OF THE IG AND HER STAFF AND LOOKING AT ALL THESE THINGS. NOT GOING TO HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE.

SO YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DONE OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

YOU KNOW, I KIND OF LEAVE TO YOU GUYS, BUT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.

I DIDN'T FIND THAT THE THERE WAS A LACK OF, OF INVESTIGATION OF THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED OR THAT THE VOTING ISSUE WAS HANDLED IN THE WRONG WAY.

SO ANYWAY, PROBABLY RAMBLED ON FOR TOO LONG. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, CRITICISMS. LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION, IF I MAY, STEVE. YEAH.

IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE I KNOW WE GAVE YOU A PRETTY SHORT TIME SPAN.

WERE THERE ANY PROBLEMS WITH TRANSPARENCY OR SECURING RECORDS FROM THE IG'S OFFICE OR FROM THE PARISH, WHETHER IT'S THE COUNCIL OR ADMINISTRATION? DID YOU FIND THE PROCESS TRANSPARENT? WERE THERE ANY ISSUES THAT CAUSED YOU PAUSE OR CONCERN? NO. AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT. BUT I NOTED IN MY REPORT, I MEAN, THE AT LEAST AS FAR AS I KNOW, I MEAN, THE IG'S OFFICE WAS COMPLETE OPEN BOOK.

THEY WERE VERY GENEROUS ABOUT MEETING WITH ME.

I HAD TONS OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND WITHIN DEFINITELY WITHIN 24 HOURS.

USUALLY WITHIN A FEW HOURS I WOULD GET, YOU KNOW, THE DOCUMENTS I WAS ASKING FOR, THE RESPONSES I WAS ASKING FOR, ETC. I WAS ALSO ABLE TO MEET WITH THE PARISH PRESIDENT AND HER STAFF, WHICH I APPRECIATE.

AND SEVERAL OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO GAVE ME THEIR TIME AND WHO GAVE ME SOME DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AND THEIR PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO, ALL OF THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL AND MUCH APPRECIATED.

SO I ASSUME THERE WERE NO INSTANCES IN WHICH YOU FELT DOCUMENTS WERE WITHHELD OR, OR RESPONSES WERE NOT FORTHRIGHT? CORRECT. ANYBODY ELSE? MY BIGGEST QUESTION CENTERED AROUND INDEPENDENCE AND HOW YOU DEFINE THAT.

BUT YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING IT AS YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE REPORT.

AND THE REPORT IS VERY DETAILED. WE HAVE A FEW COPIES HERE, BUT YOU DID A GREAT JOB NOT ONLY IN THE NARRATIVE, BUT OUTLINING IN THE FOOTNOTES EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEANT AND REFERENCING BACK TO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.

SO THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, BUT LET ME JUST ASK THE QUESTION PLAINLY FIRST.

WITHIN YOUR FIELD, WHICH IS LAW, A VERY, VERY BACKGROUND ISSUE AS A MORAL IDEAL, DO YOU THINK THAT SO WITH THE ANALOGIES OF PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES, DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO BE FRIENDS WITH THE KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

[00:55:05]

SO LET ME STEP BACK AND ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THAT RIGHT. SO, I REALLY APPRECIATED ALL THE DISTINCTIONS WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE THAT YOU MADE LAWS FILLED FULL OF THOSE. I'M A PHILOSOPHER. MY FIELD IS FULL OF THOSE.

I'LL SPARE YOU MINE. BUT THIS WAS REALLY CLEAR IN SPELLING OUT SOME THINGS I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IN THE SORT OF PRACTICAL REALM OF ETHICS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT LAW, WHICH IS LIKE THE REALLY LIKE EGREGIOUS STUFF.

AND THAT RELATES TO ETHICS AND KIND OF A GENERAL WAY.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO PRAISE PEOPLE, BLAME THEM, HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? AND THERE'S SORT OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMING STUFF WHAT ARE OUR MORAL IDEALS? HOW DOES THAT INTERSECT WITH THE REAL WORLD? SO LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, LIKE HOW THE PUBLIC IN OUR SOCIETY THINKS ABOUT THAT WITH RESPECT TO REPRESENTATIVE OFFICIALS, THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, JIMMY CARTER, WHO PUT HIS PEANUT FARM IN ESCROW COMPARED TO, SAY, DONALD J. TRUMP PULLING AN INFOMERCIAL FOR THE WORLD'S RICHEST MAN ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN LAST WEEK OR CONGRESS CURRENTLY LEGALLY DEALING IN STOCKS ON ISSUES THERE. SO, YEAH, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT IN OUR SOCIETY THAT WE MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT MORAL IDEALS ABOUT AS OUR SORT OF OWN BACKGROUND. SO AND THEN THERE'S SORT OF HOW THAT WEIGHS INTO INDEPENDENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR THING.

SO WE'VE GOT THE HEAD OF THE WATCH HERE WHO'S GOT A TEAM OF WATCHERS.

SEEMS LIKE THE SHORT LIST OF PEOPLE THEY SHOULD BE WATCHING ARE THE COUNCIL, RIGHT? SO I'LL JUST BASICALLY SHUT UP. BUT THAT'S SORT OF THE QUESTION AS IT PERTAINS TO BOTH APPEARANCE OF AND CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.

WELL, I THINK, I MEAN, NOT TO DELVE TOO FAR OFF THE TRACK.

I THINK THE COUNCIL IS A IS AN INTERESTING SITUATION BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING THINGS PUBLICLY.

THERE COULD BE LOTS OF THINGS THAT THE IG IS INVESTIGATING WITH EMPLOYEES OR OTHERS THAT IS KIND OF OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE.

AND THERE IS AND I KIND OF TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.

I MEAN, AND PROBABLY JUST STATING THE OBVIOUS, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A NATURAL TENSION BETWEEN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS UP TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DECIDE, IS THIS A GOOD IDEA? YOU KNOW, LET'S ASSUME IT'S LEGAL AND ETHICAL AND, YOU KNOW, BUT IS IT A GOOD IDEA? THAT'S KIND OF A SUBJECTIVE ISSUE. RIGHT. AND SO, I THINK IF THE IG WERE JUST DEALING WITH FRAUD, ABUSE, ILLEGALITY, ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THIS IDEA OF ALSO WEIGHING IN ON THINGS THAT THERE MAY BE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOUGH, YOU KNOW, SHE CAN RING THE BELL ALL SHE WANTS, BUT THE COUNCIL IS THEY HAVE THE POWER AND THEY CAN DECIDE THAT SHE'S WRONG.

AND APPARENTLY THE BREWPUB PROJECT THEY DID. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A JEFFERSON PARISH TAXPAYER, BUT AS A TAXPAYER, I HOPE THAT THAT'S YOU KNOW, SUCCESSFUL.

AND YOU ALSO HAVE THIS WEIRD ISSUE WHERE THE PR POLITICS DOESN'T NECESSARILY LINE UP WITH THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE FAVORABLE AND OR UNFAVORABLE PR POLITICAL FALLOUT GOES TO LIKE ONE COUNCIL PERSON INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THIS ISSUE BLEW UP, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, IN, IN THE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PARISH COUNCIL, AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE SOME OTHER AREAS OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE IG MAY BE LOOKING AT.

TO KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT MORE PLAINLY.

SO, I'M LOOKING AT THINGS WITH HINDSIGHT. AND I'M LOOKING AT THINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU POSED, WHICH WERE FOCUSED ON THE ORDINANCE AND THE STANDARDS.

AND SO, I WAS REALLY FOCUSED ON IN MY OPINION, WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE OR THE STANDARDS? AND ON THE FIRST QUESTION, YOU COULD KIND OF GO EITHER WAY.

I UNDERSTAND WHY THE ECG DID WHAT SHE DID. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ONE WAY TO INTERPRET THE THINGS.

I'D PROBABLY GO THE OTHER WAY ON IT. ON INDEPENDENCE, I, I THINK AND LOOK, PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE WITH MY INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARDS IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE WAY THAT I READ THEM, WHAT I THINK THEY'RE GETTING AT WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT INDEPENDENCE.

I THINK HER AND HER OFFICE DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IN THAT REGARD.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE JUST BEING PRACTICAL GOING FORWARD, GIVEN THE WAY THAT THINGS ARE PERCEIVED, GIVEN THE CRITICISM, GIVEN THE WHAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS, I GUESS, A DECISION FOR YOU GUYS.

YOU KNOW, WHAT'S A GOOD USE OF RESOURCES? WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS? BUT I WOULD PROBABLY SAY THAT IF SOMETHING COMES UP INVOLVING A COUNCILWOMAN THAT THE IG HAPPENS TO BE CLOSE TO, MAYBE, MAYBE IF IT CAN BE REFERRED, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE REFERRED.

BUT I THINK IN MOST CASES MAYBE THE ANSWER IS LOOK, UNDER THE STANDARDS, WE'RE OKAY.

[01:00:06]

WE DON'T HAVE TO RECUSE OURSELVES. BUT JUST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, MAYBE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OR SOME INDEPENDENT PERSON APPOINTED. AND AND LOOK INTO INTO WHATEVER THE ALLEGATIONS ARE.

AND THAT KIND OF IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH RESPECT TO THE VOTING ISSUE.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED WHEN THE ENTIRE PARISH COUNCIL IS VOTING FOR SOMETHING.

BUT THEN BUT NOW WE KNOW. NOW WE'VE KIND OF LOOKED AT IT.

WE KIND OF REALIZE, YEAH, THEY'RE ALL VOTING FOR IT, BUT IT'S BUT FROM A PR POLITICAL STANDPOINT, IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE ONE PERSON'S DECISION.

AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO COME OFF. AND SO MAYBE IF THAT ONE PERSON HAPPENS TO BE SOMEBODY THAT THE IG HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH, MAYBE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, MAYBE MAYBE YOU GET SOMEBODY ELSE INVOLVED.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. WELL THANK YOU. HOPE IT WAS HELPFUL. AND I'M SURE, I'M SURE I'LL HEAR.

I'LL BE HEARING FROM THE PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME. THANKS.

WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE SECOND HALF OF NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF NUMBER 62 TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF MR. STEVEN HERMAN RATIFYING THE ENGAGEMENT AND APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF THE RELATED INVOICES.

SO PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS JUST TO ACCEPT THE REPORT THAT WE JUST WERE DEBRIEFED ON, AND THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED A COPY OF, NOT IN ANY WAY TO SHOW FAVOR IN EITHER WAY, BUT JUST THE ACCEPTANCE AND THEN THE PAYMENT OF HIS SERVICES.

SO I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT. SECONDED. THANK YOU.

SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

NOW WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS. EXCUSE ME. OKAY, SURE.

WE WILL NOW HAVE A ROLL CALL. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A ROLL CALL, JUST A YAY OR NAY.

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SO MOVED.

THANK YOU ALL FOR KEEPING ME HONEST. WE WILL MOVE NOW TO THE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.

[VI. 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]

NOW IS THE PAY. WE DO IT SEPARATELY. YEAH. YOU ACCEPTED THE REPORT.

NOW YOU NEED TO AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICE.

53. THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS PRO BONO.

OKAY. CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MR. HERMAN'S SERVICES? SO. MOVED. SECOND. CAN I HAVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND I KNOW YOU HAVE TWO INVOICES WE RECEIVED TODAY.

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL ONE AFTER TODAY THAT WILL BE COMING.

THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT PAY. I THINK NOW IT'S SAFE TO MOVE ON TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT.

OKAY. MISS CHATELAINE. YEAH, I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE MINDFUL OF TIME, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT SPECIFICALLY, LIKE FEEL FREE TO ASK ME ABOUT BUT WE DO HAVE MY ANNUAL REPORT TO GO THROUGH, WHICH I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT PRESENTATION.

I'M FINE WITH THE WAVE OFF, YOU JUST LET ME KNOW.

IN TERMS OF MY BI MONTHLY REPORTS TO YOU. WE WILL HAVE OUR FIRST QUARTER NUMBERS AT YOUR NEXT MEETING WHEN THE FIRST QUARTER FORMALLY ENDS AND WE GET THOSE NUMBERS IN.

IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE, WE HAVE NO STAFF EVALUATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR REPORTING PERIOD.

WE WILL HAVE ONE IN THE NEXT ONE. OF COURSE, MY 2024 ANNUAL REPORT IS DUE OUT ON MARCH 31ST.

THAT WAS DELIVERED TO YOU EARLY TO MAKE YOUR MEETING DEADLINE OF TODAY.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PROCUREMENT. IN TERMS OF RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.

I DID PARTICIPATE IN A CAREER DAY IN GOVERNMENT AT LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL.

THAT WAS SUPER INTERESTING, AND THERE WERE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES THERE FROM THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL. WE WERE THE ONLY IG SHOP PRESENT, BUT WE'RE HOPING TO GET SOME CANDIDATES OUT OF THERE, PERHAPS TO BOLSTER OUR STAFF. I WILL BE ATTENDING THE WHITE COLLAR CRIME SYMPOSIUM, WHICH I DO EVERY YEAR TO GET MY CLE HOURS FOR MY LAW LICENSE, WHICH I MAINTAIN AS PART OF MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.

WE HAD A REPORT THAT WENT OUT. I DO NOT HAVE THE POWERPOINT FOR THAT PARTICULAR REPORT READY FOR YOU TONIGHT. MEANING IT'S READY. IT WAS READY, BUT FOR TIME CONSTRAINTS, I CAN'T DO BOTH THE ANNUAL REPORT AND DO YOU A BRIEF ON EMERGENCY

[01:05:06]

PAY. BUT I'M PLEASED TO GIVE YOU A BRIEFING ON EMERGENCY PAY, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.

OF COURSE, WE HAVE OUR MILESTONES OF OUR INTAKES OPEN VERSUS CLOSED.

THAT IS ALSO COVERED IN PART OF MY ANNUAL REPORT.

SO I CAN STOP ON THAT SLIDE WHEN I GET THERE.

OUR CASE IS OPENED AND CLOSED FOR THE YEAR. I DO WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO TO SOME CHANGES.

IF YOU GO TO PAGE FIVE OF MY REPORT AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF CALLOUTS, BOTH RELEVANT TO THE PAGE AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE PAGE.

NUMBER ONE. I AM DEVELOPING A LIST OF, LIKE, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE FOR THE OFFICE.

GOALS THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON. ONE OF THE GOALS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO WORK ON IS UPDATING OUR WEBSITE.

OUR WEBSITE IS NOW TEN YEARS OLD. IN THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY LIKE THAT'S OUTDATED.

BUT ONE OF THE BIG LIFTS WHEN YOU GO TO UPDATE A WEBSITE IS LITERALLY MANAGING THE CONTENT THAT GOES ON THE WEBSITE, ORGANIZING IT, GETTING IT TOGETHER, AND FIGURING OUT HOW YOU WANT IT.

SORT OF LIKE DEALING WITH THE PARAMETERS OF THE WEBSITE AS IT IS.

I HAVE BEGUN TO DO SOME CLEANUPS AND SOME IMPROVEMENTS.

SO PREVIOUSLY WHEN YOU WENT TO OUR WEBSITE, THE TAB REPORTS, NEWS AND OTHER INFO, YOU WOULD CLICK ON IT AND THAT ONE PAGE WOULD HAVE EVERYTHING. IT WOULD HAVE OUR REPORTS, IT WOULD HAVE OUR ANNUAL REPORTS, IT WOULD HAVE OUR WORK PLANS, IT WOULD HAVE OUR PEER REVIEWS. AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH NOW 12 YEARS WORTH OF PUBLICATIONS OF A MIXED VARIETY TO FIND THE PUBLICATION THAT SHE WANTED.

WITH THE SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE OF KEN MARLEY IN OUR OFFICE, HE HAS CREATED FOR US NEW PAGES.

AND I'M IN THE PROCESS OF SUPPORTING HIM AND GETTING INFORMATION ORGANIZED.

SO NOW WHEN YOU GO TO OUR WEBSITE UNDER REPORTS NEWS, THERE IS A SEPARATE TAB ANNUAL REPORTS.

AND WHEN YOU CLICK ON IT, ALL OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS ARE NOW IN ONE PLACE.

THERE IS ALSO A SECTION FOR MONTHLY REPORTS. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS, AND TRANSPARENCY IS SOMETHING THAT I FULLY BELIEVE IN.

WHEN I WAS APPOINTED, THERE WAS NOT EITHER A BANK OR NECESSARILY A PRACTICE OF GIVING YOU THE WRITTEN REPORTS THAT I GIVE YOU.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONCEPT OF THE CONTENT THAT YOU SEE.

MAYBE NOT SO MUCH FOR COMMISSIONER LAROCCA OR COMMISSIONER CLEMENT, BUT CERTAINLY THE THREE OF Y'ALL WOULD NOT KNOW OF AN ERA OF AN IG THAT DIDN'T GIVE YOU SEVEN PAGES OF COLOR REPORTS. OKAY, THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE ME, BUT NOW I'M HERE FOR THREE YEARS.

AND SO WE HAVE LIKE A BANK OF REPORTS THAT ARE MONTHLY.

I AM ASSEMBLING THOSE MONTHLY REPORTS AND THEY WILL ALSO BE POSTED TO THE INTERNET JUST AS AN ADDITIONAL TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE.

AND FRANKLY, FOR AN OFFICE AS SMALL AS WE ARE AND RESOURCES AS TIGHT AS WE ARE, WE ALL KNOW THAT ONCE SOMETHING GOES ON THE INTERNET, IT'S FOREVER THERE. SO GETTING IT UP THERE IS ALSO LIKE A SAFETY SYSTEM FOR US GOING FORWARD.

YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND IT. EVERYBODY CAN ALWAYS FIND IT. I CAN ALWAYS FIND IT.

SO THE MONTHLY REPORTS ARE NOT UP THERE YET, BUT THE ANNUAL REPORTS ARE.

IN ADDITION, OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS THAT WE HAVE EVERY YEAR IN OUR PEER REVIEWS ARE ALSO LOCATED ON A SEPARATE TAB.

THE PAGE THAT I HAVE MISSING RIGHT NOW IS OUR ANNUAL WORK PLAN.

SO THAT'S LIKE THE TO DO ITEM YET TO COME. SO IF YOU VISIT OUR WEBSITE, WHAT YOU'LL SEE ACHIEVED IN THE LAST FOUR MONTHS IS THAT THERE ARE NEW PAGES UNDER REPORTS, NEWS AND INFO THAT SEGREGATE OUR WORK PRODUCT, WITH THE GOAL BEING THAT WHEN YOU CLICK ON REPORTS, THE ONLY THING YOU SEE IS LIKE REAL REPORTS, SO YOU KNOW WHERE TO GO FOR REPORTS.

AND THEN ON THE ABOUT PAGE YOU ALSO CAN FIND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF HOW THIS OFFICE WAS SET UP THAT IS NOW AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE, AS WELL AS LIKE AN INFOGRAPHIC TIMELINE OF THE OFFICE AND SORT OF OUR HISTORY AGAIN, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE.

IT IS NOW OUT THERE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE. ALONG THOSE LINES, I AM NOW WORKING TOWARDS MAKING THE BI MONTHLY REPORTS TO

[01:10:02]

YOU THAT WILL NOW BE POSTED ON THE INTERNET. MORE VISUALLY ATTRACTIVE TO SORT OF LIKE BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.

A SEPARATE INITIATIVE. AGAIN, TWO OF YOU WOULD REMEMBER, THREE OF YOU WOULD NOT KNOW.

WHEN I TOOK OVER THE OFFICE, WE HAD A CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WAS NOT UP TO DATE.

WE WERE LIKE, ON VERSION FOUR, AND THE VERSION OUT THERE WAS VERSION EIGHT. SO, A CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE AND TIME, WE UPDATED OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS THE REPOSITORY FOR ALL OF OUR DATA.

ONCE WE GOT IT ALL UPDATED, THEN I WENT THROUGH A DATA CLEANSE AND A DATA INTEGRITY EXERCISE TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH CASE HAD DATA POINTS THAT WE COULD EXTRACT AND USE. SO AMONG THE MANY DATA POINTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN UTILIZING, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT SUPPORT OUR FINDINGS TRACKER THAT REPORTS ON FINDINGS OPEN FINDINGS RESOLVED BY THE PARISH.

ALSO ON THE WEBSITE IS WHAT STATUS ARE WE IN FOR A PARTICULAR AUDIT OR EVALUATION? THE STATUSES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR INVESTIGATIONS.

FOR CONFIDENTIALITY REASONS THEY ARE NOT REPORTED.

SO IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE FIVE OF THE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE A SUMMARY OF AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS INSPECTIONS.

THESE ARE OPEN CASES TO US. AND YOU WILL SEE THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION.

SO THAT PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION IS A VISUAL DISPLAY BASED UPON THE STATUS THAT IT'S IN AND THE STATUS THAT IT'S IN, WHETHER IT'S IN FIELD WORK OR ASSIGNED. WE DON'T HAVE ANY IN PLANNING AT THIS POINT.

YOU CAN SEE BY MONTH, OVER BY MONTH HOW WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH ANY PARTICULAR AUDIT OR EVALUATION, WHETHER IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO A REPORT DRAFT REPORT IS ALSO A STATUS THAT WOULD BE REPORTED.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE PROGRESS. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE CASE OPEN DATE.

SO YOU KNOW BASED ON THE CASE OPEN DATE AND BASED ON THE PROGRESS LIKE NOT THAT I WOULD WISH FOR YOU TO JUDGE OUR EFFICIENCY.

BUT YOU CAN SEE YOU CAN JUDGE THE SPEED AT WHICH WE'RE DOING WORK OR NOT DOING WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE FOR YOU AS WELL AS OUT THERE FOR THE PUBLIC.

AGAIN, THIS THIS PARTICULAR IMAGE IS LITERALLY A SNAPSHOT OF THE EXCEL DATA THAT IS EXTRACTED STRAIGHT OUT OF OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. I ALSO THIS WAS LIKE A GOAL THAT I WANTED TO GET TO SOONER.

THIS IS WHEN I GOT THERE. IT ALSO HELPS ME FROM A MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE I CAN PULL THE REPORTS AND I CAN SEE, LIKE, HOW FAR WE'RE GONE AND HOW FAST WE'RE MOVING.

SO IT'S ALSO LIKE A MECHANISM FOR ME TO HELP WITH THE OFFICE.

SO THOSE ARE SHOWN ON PAGE FIVE. I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EVALUATIONS THAT ARE OPEN AGAIN FOR TWO OF YOU, NOT FOR ALL OF YOU. WHEN I TOOK OVER THE OFFICE IN 2022, WE HAD AN INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION AND WE HAD AN AUDIT DIVISION AND INVESTIGATIONS DID INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDIT DID AUDIT.

ONE OF THE ASKS OR THE EXPECTATIONS IS THAT THE ORDINANCE MANDATED THAT WE DO INSPECTIONS AND PERFORMANCE REVIEWS OR REVIEWS, AND THOSE FUNCTIONS HAD NOT BEEN INTEGRATED INTO OUR OFFICE.

THE REASON THAT THEY WERE NOT INTEGRATED IS BECAUSE THE OFFICE'S BUDGET, AND THIS IS MY PREDECESSOR'S POSITION.

THE POSITION IS VALID FOR ITS REASONS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH BUDGET TO SET UP ANOTHER SECTION WITH ANOTHER INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPUTY AND TWO EVALUATORS. IN OTHER WORDS, TO DO ALL THE FUNCTIONS HE BELIEVED WE NEEDED THREE SEPARATE SECTIONS. I SAID, WE CAN DO THE FUNCTIONS, BUT IF YOU'RE PUBLISHING AN EVALUATION, WELL, THEN YOU'RE NOT PUBLISHING SOMETHING ELSE.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN ACHIEVE VARIETY IN YOUR PRODUCTS, BUT YOU'RE NOT MULTIPLYING YOUR PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY CAN DO.

SO ONE PERSON CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH, WHETHER IT IS AN EVALUATION OR IT IS AN AUDIT.

SO, I CALL THE TO YOUR ATTENTION THE NUMBER OF AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS THAT WE HAVE GOING ON, BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE A COLLATERAL IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO DO INVESTIGATIONS.

SO IT IS A MATTER OF JUST NAVIGATING AND MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT PRIORITIZING WHAT YOU CAN MOVE, THE COMPLEXITY OF A PROJECT AND HOW MUCH TIME YOU WANT TO DEVOTE.

ON PAGE SIX AND AGAIN, I DO ALWAYS PROVIDE THE STATS TO YOU, BUT I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IT SPECIFICALLY.

WE HAVE 45 OPEN INTAKES AND WE HAVE 23 OPEN CASES.

[01:15:06]

THAT'S THE NUMBER OF INTAKES THAT ARE OPEN. THAT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF INTAKES THAT WE RECEIVE.

SO WE RUN IN THE REALM OF 70 INTAKES A YEAR. SO YOU TAKE 70 INTAKES AND YOU DIVIDE THAT BY TWO AGENTS. AND THOSE TWO AGENTS ARE NOT JUST WORKING INTAKES.

THOSE TWO AGENTS ARE ALSO WORKING CASES. SO IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MOVE THE 70 DOWN TO 45, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE WHOLE LITTLE PROCESS THAT THAT'S IMAGE NEXT TO THAT TABLE.

THEY'RE SCREENING THEM. THEY'RE VETTING THEM.

THEY'RE DOING PRELIMINARY RESEARCH. THEY'RE COMING TO ME AND THEY'RE SAYING EITHER AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THEY'RE SAYING, WE WANT TO RUN WITH THIS. AND IF YOU ASK ANY OF THEM AND YOU CAN ASK ANY OF THEM MY QUESTION TO THEM BACK IS CAN YOU MOVE A CASE? ARE WE CLOSE TO A REPORT? WHAT'S THE IMPACT? CAN YOU DO THIS AND YOU DO THAT.

AND WHEN THEY TELL ME, NO, I CAN'T DO THIS, THEN I SAY, WELL, WE HAVE TO CHOOSE BECAUSE WHEN I COME TO THE ECC, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT REPORTS I'M PUBLISHING.

THAT IS OUR WORK PRODUCT. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A LOT OF TIME SPENT ON INTAKES THAT JUST CANNOT GET CAPITALIZED BASED ON TWO AGENTS AND ONE DEPUTY.

THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. CASES AND THERE ARE 23 OF THEM TAKE WAY MORE TIME THAN THE INTAKES.

THOSE ARE THINGS WE'RE HOPING TO GET TO A REPORT AGAIN ON AVERAGE, DEPENDING ON COMPLEXITY.

WE LOOK AT ABOUT A REPORT A YEAR PER PERSON. IF, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WE GOT OUT FIVE PRODUCTS.

FIVE IS OUR AVERAGE. THAT MEANS IF WE GOT FOUR PEOPLE REALLY DOING THE WORK, YOU'RE LIKE ONE AND SOME.

IF YOU CAN GET SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AS COMPLEX, THEN YOU CAN SQUEEZE OUT TWO PER PERSON.

BUT BY THE TIME WE CHECK ALL THE BOXES FOR ALL THE STANDARDS THAT YOU HAVE NOW HEARD THAT WE MUST COMPLY WITH, IT IS VERY TIME CONSUMING AND IT IS LABOR INTENSIVE.

SO I ALWAYS THROW OUT THESE NUMBERS TO YOU, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY GIVE YOU THE CONTEXT OF THE IMPORT OF THESE NUMBERS RELATIVE TO THE WORK THAT WE DO. SO, AS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM MR. HERMAN TONIGHT ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE INVESTIGATED AND THINGS THAT ARE MOVED AND THINGS THAT HE LOOKED AT IT AND I MEAN, WE DID OPEN OUR BOOKS, OUR DOORS, LIKE WHATEVER HE WANTED TO SEE, HE COULD SEE.

AND I KNOW AT LEAST ON ONE OCCASION HE SAID HE WANTED TO FILE, AND WHEN HE HEARD HOW LARGE THAT FILE WAS, HE DECIDED HE DID NOT NEED TO LEAVE WITH THAT WHOLE FILE.

AND I HOPE THAT'S OKAY MR. HERMAN. SO, YOU KNOW, OUR FILES ARE VERY DENSE AND THEY CAN GET VERY LARGE IN THE CONTEXT OF WORKING THEM WHICH IS REFLECTIVE OF THE DEDICATION OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE OFFICE.

SO, I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH THOSE THINGS.

THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY BI MONTHLY REPORT. AND I CAN GET ON TO MY ANNUAL REPORT, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE ANNUAL REPORT.

YOU KNOW, WE ALL GOT IT. I DON'T KNOW, HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAS LOOKED AT IT.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY SURPRISES IN IT. SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE WAIVE THE REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL REPORT TONIGHT. AND IF WE FIND THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW IT IN TWO MONTHS, WE CAN.

WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT TO A VOTE. SO, WITH THE PROPOSAL, I MOVE THAT WE FORGO THE PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT. CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA, IT WILL HAVE TO BE BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. OKAY. IS THERE A ROLL CALL? A SECOND? OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR? I'LL HAVE TO DO IT BY ROLL CALL.

OKAY. I'M IN FAVOR. CHRIS CLEMENT. I'M IN FAVOR? MONICA PIERRE. I'M IN FAVOR? IN FAVOR? JOEL MCLELLAN.

A UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE, REVIEW

[VII. Executive Session for the performance review and evaluation of the Inspector General Kim Chatelain.]

AND EVALUATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WHICH IS TYPICALLY DONE IN MARCH.

IN LIGHT OF THE REPORT THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED TONIGHT FROM THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH MISS CHATELAINE.

[01:20:01]

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DEFER THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN ADEQUATELY REVIEW ALL OF THAT AND HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY WITH MORE TIME, SINCE WE ARE OPERATING UNDER SOME TIME CONSTRAINTS AND HAVE SOME OTHER ISSUES WE HAVE TO DO TONIGHT THAT WE DEFER THAT TO THE MAY MEETING.

I MOVE TO DEFER. SECOND. AND AGAIN, WE'LL NEED A VOTE FROM EVERYBODY ON THE ROLL CALL.

I AGREE. I AGREE. AGREED. AGREE. JOE MCLELLAN.

AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. OKAY. MATTERS REFERRED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATION,

[VIII. Matters referred to the Inspector General for Investigation, Resolution No. 63 to authorize the Office of Inspector General to close matter referred by Resolution No. 60.]

RESOLUTION NUMBER 63, TO AUTHORIZE THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO CLOSE MATTER REFERRED BY RESOLUTION NUMBER 60.

IF YOU'LL RECALL, AT THE LAST MEETING, DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHEN YOU CAME BACK OUT, THERE WAS A DECISION FOR THE SEC TO CLOSE THOSE MATTERS SINCE THEY WERE REFERRED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

THERE WILL NEED TO BE A RESOLUTION THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BE AUTHORIZED TO CLOSE THOSE MATTERS AS THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS INSTANCE ON THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES.

I MOVE TO ACCEPT A RESOLUTION NUMBER 63. SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE? RESOLUTION NUMBER 60. RESOLUTION NUMBER 60 WAS IN THE LAST MEETING.

YOU CLOSED THOSE INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE SEC. THIS IS JUST TO AUTHORIZE THE AG'S OFFICE TO CLOSE THEM AS WELL.

SO MOVED. NO, WE DON'T NEED TO DO IT BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT ONE.

OKAY. MOVING ALONG TO NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION NUMBER 64 TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND LINE ITEM

[IX. New Business A. Resolution No. 64 to approve Budget Amendment to fund Line Item 7321, Attorney’s Fees from Shared Fund Balance.]

7321 ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM SHARED FUND BALANCE.

AND LET ME ADDRESS THAT FOR JUST A MOMENT. AND THEN THEN KIM CAN ADDRESS IT.

OR GINA. THE FUND BALANCE ANTICIPATED MY FEES AND COUNCIL'S FEES.