[00:00:01]
CONVENE THE[ I. Call Commission meeting to order]
JEFFERSON COMPLIANCE COMMISSION MEETING.UH, WE ARE AT 1221 ELMWOOD PARKWAY, JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA.
AND I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER MS. ABDU.
[III. Review and approval of Minutes from the March 18, 2026 meeting]
THE, UH, MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.I HOPE EVERYONE ELSE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO DO SO.
AND IF SO, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 18TH, 2026 MEETING.
UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY AMENDMENTS.
I'M GONNA ATTAIN A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 18TH MEETING.
[IV. Public Comment (Each speaker will be allowed a total time limit of two [2] minutes)]
COMMENT.EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A TOTAL, UH, TIME OF TWO MINUTES.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE? UM, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GIVES HER A REPORT.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA PRESENTATION
[V. Presentation and discussion of Inspector General Report and public discussion of any recently published reports, open letters, data, and statistics by the Office of Inspector General]
AND DISCUSSION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY RECENTLY PUBLISHED REPORTS, OPEN LETTERS, DATA AND STATISTICS BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR, GENERAL INSPECTOR EIGHT.WILL YOU, YOU HAVE MY REPORT, UM, IN FRONT OF YOU.
I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW, UM, OPERATIONAL ITEMS AS WELL AS OUR UPDATE ON OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW.
UM, ATTACHED TO THE BACK, YOU HAVE THE FIRST QUARTER BUDGET TO ACTUAL FOR THE IG EXPENDITURES.
AND I WOULD JUST CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION, THIS IS THE WAY I LOOK AT IT.
UM, AT THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER, WE'RE RUNNING AT 24%.
SO THAT TELLS ME AT THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER, WE HIT OUR MARK.
UM, WE DON'T ALWAYS HIT OUR MARK, AND THEN WE WAKE UP AND LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
BUT WE DID, UM, THERE WERE TWO STAFF EVALUATIONS THAT FELL.
UM, BOTH STAFF WERE EVALUATED AND RECEIVED RAISES IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR POLICIES.
THAT WOULD BE BRITTANY MAJEURE AND KEN MARLEY.
UM, WE ARE STILL NAVIGATING THE REALITIES OF GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT BY WAY OF, UM, OUR WEBSITE.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE OUR KICKOFF MEETING IN JUNE, UH, TO BEGIN WORK ON OUR NEW WEBSITE.
WE STILL YET HAVE SOME COMPLICATIONS.
UM, ADDING TO THAT, THE PARISH IS MIGRATING THEIR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO A NEW SYSTEM.
AND SO SOME, UM, ACTIVITIES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
LIKE WE'LL HAVE A DARK PERIOD DURING THAT MIGRATION.
UM, NEXT, IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE, WE DO HAVE A DATE IN SEPTEMBER, 2027 FOR OUR NEXT PEER REVIEW.
THAT'S CONDUCTED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.
BUT THEN, IF YOU WILL RECALL, EVERY YEAR, WE ALSO HAVE A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW.
UM, THE OFFICE WAS STOOD UP IN 2013.
IF YOU VISIT OUR WEBSITE, HOWEVER, YOU'LL SEE OUR FIRST QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW, ALTHOUGH REQUIRED TO OCCUR ANNUALLY UNDER THE ORDINANCE, UM, DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL 2019.
AT WHICH TIME, UH, THE COMMITTEE REVIEWED, UM, 2018.
UM, THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS WERE, UM, JIM LETTON, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE ECC VERY EARLY ON.
UM, AND HE WAS THE ONLY MEMBER APPOINTED FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
WE COULD NOT GET EITHER THE COUNCIL OR THE PARISH PRESIDENT TO BRING ON, UM, SOME A APPOINTEES.
WE EVENTUALLY GOT JOHN BENS, WHO WAS THE COUNCIL APPOINTEE, UM, HAPPENS TO BE A LAWYER, UM, JEFFERSON PARISH, IDB.
UM, AND THEN WE GOT DUKE MCCONNELL, WHO HAD WORKED EXTENSIVELY FOR YEARS IN KENNER, UM, IN THE AREA OF ACCOUNTING.
AND TOGETHER THESE INDIVIDUALS, I THINK, DID A PHENOMENAL JOB.
UM, THEY WERE THE FIRST, UM, THEY CREATED THE TEMPLATE FOR HOW THESE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS, UM, WOULD LOOK AND GO FORWARD.
UM, WE GOT WORD, UH, IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR, UM, THAT JEN LETTON WOULD RESIGN.
HE GAVE US A LOVELY RESIGNATION, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT HIS WORK OBLIGATIONS, UM, DID NOT ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE.
UM, IN JANUARY, MR. BENS LIKELY ALSO RESIGNED, UM, I BELIEVE FOR HEALTH REASONS.
AND THEN I BELIEVE MR. MCCONNELL SAID, WELL, IF THEY'RE LEAVING, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD DEPART AS WELL FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON.
UM, SO WE HAVE KNOWN SINCE NO LATER THAN JANUARY OF 2026, UM, THAT WE NEEDED TO APPOINT NEW PEOPLE IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW HAPPEN BY THE DEADLINE OF MAY 31ST.
[00:05:02]
UM, THE GENTLEMAN WHO PREVIOUSLY SERVED WOULD WAIT UNTIL I ISSUED MY ANNUAL REPORT IN MARCH.UM, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY THEY WOULD REVIEW MY PUBLISHED REPORTS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
UM, AND THEN THEY WOULD SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW WITH ME TO DISCUSS ANY WORK THAT I HAD DONE OR QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD HAD.
UM, A LOT OF TIMES THEY ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE I WAS ON GETTING CORRECTIVE ACTION OUT OF THE PARISH, ET CETERA.
AND ALL OF THESE WENT INTO THEIR REPORT.
UM, AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, NOT TODAY, THE PREVIOUS ONE THERE HAS BEEN ON SEVERAL COUNCIL AGENDAS, NOMINATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO APPOINT SOMEBODY.
UM, ONE RESOLUTION CAME FORWARD WITH A NAME THAT ONE WAS LIKE DEFERRED OR CANCELED, NOT ACTED ON.
AND THEN I BELIEVE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WAS TWO RESOLUTIONS WITH TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.
UM, AND THE COUNCIL DID NOT ACT ON EITHER ONE OF THEM.
UM, AND THEN TODAY THERE WERE SAME RESOLUTIONS WITH I THINK TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE AT THE END OF MAY, SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE MEETING OF THE DEADLINE THAT IS SET BY THE ORDINANCE.
UM, AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN THERE WAS TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS WITH TWO DIFFERENT NAMES, UM, I DID ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, JUST TO SAY LIKE, YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS WITH TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.
UM, WE NEED ONE APPOINTEE BY THE COUNCIL.
I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS COMING TO ME FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, THAT SORT OF SUGGESTED THEY WERE NOT FULLY APPRISED OF THIS COMMITTEE OR APPRISED HOW IT WORKED.
I DID MY BEST TO SORT OF EDUCATE THEM.
AND THEN I FOLLOWED UP WITH AN EMAIL, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO MY REPORT TO YOU BASICALLY SAYING LIKE, THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS, THESE ARE THE RESIGNATIONS.
WE NEED APPOINTMENTS TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, I HAVE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER FROM THE PARISH PRESIDENT.
UM, SHE COULD APPOINT SOMEBODY, DUNNO WHERE THAT IS.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THE COUNCIL MET TODAY THAT MEETING'S COME AND GONE.
WE STILL HAVE NO APPOINTMENTS.
SO OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW IS JUST SITTING IN LIMBO.
WHAT'S NEXT? WELL, WE HAVE, WE HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED AND ASKED THAT THEY JUST APPOINT SOMEBODY.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ON WHO THE COUNCIL APPOINTS.
I WAS NOT AWARE, AND I DON'T THINK KIM WAS AWARE OF DUKE MCCONNELL'S RESIGNATION UNTIL JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO WHEN WE GOT, KIM SENT ME A COPY OF HIS RESIGNATION.
WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HE HAD RESIGNED.
AND THAT HAD HAPPENED IN JANUARY.
IF YOU'LL NOTICE, UH, KYLE SHAKI WAS APPOINTED BY THIS COMMISSION, JANUARY 21ST.
HAD APPOINTMENTS BEEN MADE TIMELY, THE MAY DEADLINE COULD HAVE BEEN MET.
'CAUSE IT'S ALWAYS THE LAST WEEK IN MAY, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET IT.
NOW WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT THEY TAKE ACTION.
UM, ALL WE CAN DO IS REQUEST AGAIN.
DO, UH, BUT IF YOU'LL RECALL, WE DID A RESOLUTION ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING AND, UH, IN THE PAST, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY DID BACK IN 17 OR 18.
AND PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE THE, THE SOLUTION BECAUSE WE, THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
IT'S, UH, YEAH, IT'S AN INTEGRAL PART OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN MY MIND.
AND NOT ONLY DOES THE COMMISSION NEED IT, THE CITIZENS OF JEFFERSON PARISH NEED IT.
SO, UH, HOW MANY OF THE, OF THE THREE DO YOU NEED? TWO.
WE NEED TWO MORE BECAUSE THE COUNCILS, WE NEED ALL THREE BECAUSE THE COUNCIL'S APPOINTEE IS THE CHAIR.
SO WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THREE TO, TO MAKE IT GO FORWARD.
SO, BASED UPON WHAT IS NOT HAPPENING REALISTICALLY, WHEN CAN WE HAVE A REPORT OR THEY HAVE TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A TEMPLATE OR BEST PRACTICES THAT THEY COULD USE? I HAVE, I WOULD THINK IF YOU GOT SOMEBODY APPOINTED TOMORROW, REALISTICALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT 60 TO 90 DAYS.
BECAUSE HONESTLY, JUST FOR THEM TO MEET, TO DO, TO SET UP THE PARAMETERS OF THEIR REVIEW, SET UP THE PROTOCOLS, AND THEN START THE PROCESS AND THEN WRITE THE PAPER, I THINK MINIMUM OF 16, THAT'S WORKING HARD.
SO MY OVERALL GENERAL CONCERN, I THINK THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF THERE.
BUT MY, MY, MY OVERALL GENERAL CONCERN, OF COURSE, THE OFFICE CONTINUES TO WORK, TO OPERATE TO, TO PUBLISH.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IT WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO THAT SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, AS WELL AS THE PARISH PRESIDENT WAS STANDING BEFORE THE ECC, UM, YOU KNOW, LODGING COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME.
[00:10:01]
UM, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS.IT COULD BE PARANOIA OR IT COULD BE NOT PARANOIA, UM, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PARISH IS ATTEMPTING OR WOULD ATTEMPT TO USE THIS QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, TO POLITICIZE IT TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
WHICH IS, UM, TO GET TOGETHER THREE INDEPENDENT QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T OTHERWISE HAVE ANY OPINIONS ABOUT ANYTHING OR ANYBODY TO GIVE A COLE READ TO THESE REPORTS AND SAY, DO THEY MAKE SENSE AND ARE THEY SUBSTANTIATED? I HAVE NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT OUR WORK STAND FOR ITSELF.
UM, I THINK THAT'S WHY THE INVESTIGATION WENT WELL, BECAUSE I OPENED UP MY BOOKS AND SAID, HERE WE GO.
UM, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, UH, IT WOULD TAKE THREE AND FOUR MONTHS TO IDENTIFY, UH, ONE OBJECTIVE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S WILLING TO SERVE ON A COMMITTEE THAT ONLY HAS A FUNCTION ONCE A YEAR.
AND, AND QUITE CANDIDLY, BOTH OF THE CANDIDATES THAT WERE ON THE AGENDAS TODAY AND THE LAST MEETING ARE QUALIFIED, UH, THAT THE COUNCIL HAS SET FORTH.
I, I WOULDN'T CARE WHO THEY APPOINTED AS LONG AS WE HAVE AN APPOINTMENT AND WE'VE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION FROM THE PARISH PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
SO THERE'S NO ACTION THAT WE CAN TAKE, WE CAN, WE CAN PRESENT A RESOLUTION AND SEND IT BOTH TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE PARISH PRESIDENT ASKING THAT THEY TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER AND WITH THE, UH, ORDINANCES REGARDING THE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
HAVEN'T HAVE WE DONE THAT ONCE BACK IN 2017, AND IT WAS A POINT THEY DID APPOINT.
SO I THINK IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA.
IT'S SEEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
MAYBE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND NOT, UH, BAD GOVERNMENT.
WE, WE, YEAH, WE DON'T, WE SHOULDN'T JUMP TO A CONCLUSION.
WE JUST NEED TO ASK THEM TO ACT, IS MY THOUGHT.
BUT WE'LL NEED JUST ASK FOR THE RESOLUTION.
UM, IF, IF SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION ON THAT, WHO CAN WORDSMITH THAT REAL QUICK?
DOES ANYONE WANNA MOVE? WE CAN MAKE IT A TAG TEAM, UH,
SO, UH, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FORWARD COMMUNICATION TO THE JEFFERSON PARISH PRESIDENT OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE PARISH COUNCIL TO BASICALLY GET THE BALL ROLLING TO, UH, FIND THE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
GIMME A SECOND, I'LL SECOND THAT.
JEAN WILL PREPARE THE RESOLUTION AND I'LL SEND A LETTER OUT REQUESTING IT BY NEXT WEEK.
WAS THAT THE PROPER TIME TO DO THAT DURING THIS AGENDA? SURE.
I HAVE IN MY REPORT, UM, THE STATUS OF THE VARIOUS, UM, AUDITS, EVALUATIONS, UM, THAT WE HAVE OPEN, UM, AS WELL AS THE IDENTIFIED LIST OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INTAKES.
UM, I WILL JUST CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO DO THINGS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PUBLIC LETTER, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED TODAY.
UM, AND THAT IS THE STATUS OF A PUBLISHED A PUBLIC LETTER, UM, 20 26 1, UM, NOTED ON, UM, PAGE NINE OF MY REPORT, CLARIFICATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, I WILL JUST NOTE TO YOU THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL OPEN MATTERS, UM, SEVERAL INTAKES, MEANING TIPS AS WELL AS INVESTIGATIONS, UM, INTO WOULD BE VIABLE, UH, AND CREDIBLE, UM, ALLEGATIONS OF POTENTIAL FRAUD THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE PROTOCOL SET UP IN THE ORDINANCE, HAVE A LONG SINCE SAID THAT THE PROTOCOL IS NOT GOING TO WORK AT SOME POINT.
UM, STATE LAW SAYS THAT WE HAVE ACCESS.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE PARISH PRODUCES, IT SAYS WE HAVE ACCESS TO ALL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
WE ARE MAKING, UH, REQUESTS OF THE PARISH.
UM, AND INSTEAD OF PROVIDING US ACCESS, THEY'RE ATTEMPTING, ATTEMPTING TO PRODUCE, UM, AND IN THE COURSE OF PRODUCING, THEY'RE REDACTING AND NOT PRODUCING.
UM, AND THEN THE FORMAT THEY ARE PRODUCING IN IS NOT USABLE TO US, MEANING THE QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCTION CAN'T BE ACCESSED WITHIN TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS THAT CONTINUE, UM, TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE PARISH.
BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL MATTERS THAT ARE STALLED AT THIS MINUTE, UM, BECAUSE
[00:15:01]
WE CAN'T GET MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO INFORMATION.UM, AND THOSE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS ARE BEING HELD UP.
UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF SOMETHING THAT WE'RE MONITORING, MONITORING, CONTINUING TO WORK ON.
WE DID PUBLISH, UM, A PUBLIC LETTER TODAY, REVIEW OF JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC.
A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, LET ME JUST WARN YOU AND PREFACE FOR THIS, 'CAUSE Y'ALL WEREN'T AROUND.
UM, RIGHT AFTER I WAS APPOINTED, UM, I HAD OPENED SEVERAL AUDITS ON VOLUNTEER FOR OUR COMPANIES.
DO ANY OF Y'ALL REMEMBER THAT? UM, I, I READ ABOUT 'EM.
AND AT SOME POINT THE COMMISSIONERS LOOKED AT ME AND WAS LIKE, IF I HAVE TO HEAR ONE MORE REPORT ON A VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, KIM, I'M GONNA LOSE IT.
UM, BUT I WAS LIKE, WE, WE NEEDED TO LOOK AT ALL OF 'EM.
WE NEEDED TO LEARN WHAT CUMULATIVELY WHAT WE COULD LEARN.
AND FOR THE SIZE OF THE OFFICE, WE TAKE THE ISSUE BY IT AT A TIME.
UM, IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE PORT AND THE BREW PUB PROJECT IS LIKE THE NEXT VOLUNTEER FOR OUR COMPANY, YOU'RE NOT WRONG.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE BITING IT OFF MORE SO AT A TIME.
UM, THE LATEST MORSEL BEING, UH, QUESTIONS OF THE IMPACT, UM, THAT THE WAY THIS DEAL IS STRUCTURED WILL HAVE ON JFI.
SO JFI, JUST TO REMIND YOU IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT ULTIMATELY BUILT THE GARAGE.
UM, THEY BUILT THE GARAGE WITH, UM, BOND MONEY.
THAT BOND DEBT IS STILL OUTSTANDING.
UM, THEY GOT THAT BOND MONEY BECAUSE THEY WERE A NONPROFIT TAX EXEMPT ENTITY.
UM, AFTER THAT, UH, GARAGE, THEIR NEXT PROJECT, AND THESE ARE ALL VERY, UM, OF RECENT YEARS, WAS TO REDEVELOP, UM, FIVE 19 HU EP LONG, WHICH WAS A HISTORICAL BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN GRETNA.
AND THEY REDEVELOPED IT INTO COWORKING SPACE.
UM, AND NOW THEY HAVE A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR THE OPERATION OF THAT COWORKING SPACE AND ESSENTIALLY RECEIVE THEORETICALLY A PERCENTAGE OF RENT.
THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVING, GENERATING REVENUE OFF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE HAVE SPENT MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T GIVING A RETURN.
UM, THEN OF COURSE, TWO YEARS AGO, UM, THREE IN OCTOBER, 2023 WITH THERE WAS A LEASE APPROVED, UM, AND THE PARISH AGREED TO, TO GIVE JFI 10.3 MILLION TO BUILD A BREW PUB.
AND THE TERMS OF THAT TRANSACTION HAVE JFI RECEIVING NO BASE RENT, UM, AND RECEIVING A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FROM ALCOHOL AND PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FROM GAMING.
SO WHAT WE LOOKED AT IN THIS LETTER IS WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPLICATIONS OF A NONPROFIT ENTERING INTO A LEASE TRANSACTION AND RECEIVING REVENUE THAT IS CLEARLY GENERATED FROM COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
UM, AND THESE WERE THE CONCERNS THAT WE RAISED.
SO THAT J FI'S NONPROFIT STATUS MAY BE JEOPARDIZED BY THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
UM, FOR PRIVATE INTEREST, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT UNDER SEVERAL IRS REGULATIONS AS WELL AS IRS RULINGS, IF THERE IS A GREATER BENEFIT TO THE PRIVATE, THEN THERE IS A BENEFIT SERVING THE NONPROFIT EXEMPT, THEN THE IRS WILL COME IN AND REVOKE YOUR NONPROFIT STATUS HERE.
UH, JFI WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP TO BE CHARITABLE TO UNDER THE AUSPICES THAT IT NEEDED TO DELIVER JOBS AND THAT THE AREA NEEDED TO BE DEVELOPED, EVEN THOUGH AT ITS INCEPTION IT WAS IDENTIFIED TO BUILD A GARAGE, NOT NECESSARILY DO ANY OF THE TAX EXEMPT, UH, REPRESENTATIONS THAT IT MADE.
UM, AND IT HASN'T ACTUALLY DONE ANY OF THE TAX EXEMPT REPRESENTATIONS THAT IT MADE OTHER THAN WHEN IT REDEVELOPED FIVE 19 QEP, LONG A HISTORICAL BUILDING.
IT CLEARLY REDEVELOPED A PUBLIC BUILDING THAT WAS HISTORIC FOR SOME PURPOSE.
THE BREW PUB IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE SITUATION.
SO, UM, I REACHED OUT TO JFI AND ASKED THEM, DID YOU GET ANY OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THIS KIND OF REVENUE SHARING WOULD PUT AT RISK YOUR TAXES AND STATUS? DID YOU GET ANY ASSESSMENT? UM, AND THE ANSWER WAS NO, THAT THEY, THEY DID NOT GET ANY ASSESSMENT WHATSOEVER.
SO ONE OF OUR CONCLUSIONS WAS THAT GETTING AN
[00:20:01]
OPINION WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE IF YOU WAIT AND GO FORWARD AND FIND THAT YOU LOSE YOUR TAX EXEMPT STATUS, YOU'VE NOT ONLY LOST IT AS AN ENTITY, YOU HAVE ALSO LOST THE TAX EXEMPT STATUS ON THESE BONDS.UM, AND THE IRS HAS A WAY TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION SO THAT THE BOND HOLDERS ARE NOT HARMED.
BUT NONETHELESS, IT PUTS THE ENTITY IN PLAY IN A WAY THAT YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO DO WITHOUT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
UM, JFI RESPONDED TO THIS PUBLIC LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS WAS A VALID CONCERN, AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY HIRING A, UM, A TAX ATTORNEY SPECIALIST TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES AND DELIVER SOME SORT OF ADVICE AND OPINION AS TO WHAT THE RISKS ARE.
UM, ANOTHER VEHICLE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, UM, AND NO JUDGMENT THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE THIS VEHICLE, IS YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO TO THE IRS AND SEEK A PRIVATE LETTER RULING WHERE YOU ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE THEM THE FACTS OF WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO, AND THEY WILL GIVE YOU A PRIVATE LETTER RULING.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S GOLD.
IT MEANS LIKE AT LEAST YOU KNOW YOUR GOOD FAITH TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT.
OUR NEXT CONCERN WAS WHETHER OR NOT JFI BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE AND SUITABILITY ON THE LOUISIANA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LAWS.
SO AGAIN, THIS LEASE IS PURELY REVENUE SHARING, MEANING THERE IS NO BASE RENT, IT'S JUST A 6% REVENUE SHARING.
SO IN OUR RESEARCH, WHAT WE FOUND UNDER THE ALCOHOL, UM, BEVERAGE LAWS WAS THAT ONCE YOU CROSS 5%, THE STATE BEGINS TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS BUSINESS AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE A FINANCIAL BACKER.
SO WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THE MINUTE A REVENUE SHARING LEASE CONTRACT HITS BATON ROUGE, THAT'S LIKE A RED FLAG FOR THEM.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S WRONG, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S A PROBLEM.
IT MEANS IT RAISES QUESTIONS AND THEY CHASE IT DOWN.
UM, SO IN THIS SITUATION, WE NOT ONLY HAVE REVENUE SHARING OF UP TO 6%, WE ALSO HAVE JFI AND THE PARISH PURCHASING THE BREWERY EQUIPMENT AND OWNING THE BREWERY EQUIPMENT.
SO WE'RE NOT ONLY BUILDING THE BUILDING, WE'RE OUTFITTING THE BUILDING AND WE'RE BUYING THE BREW EQUIPMENT, WHICH MAKES US LOOK MORE LIKE FINANCIAL BACKERS AND NOT MERELY, UM, UNINVOLVED LANDLORDS.
SO AGAIN, IF THE JFI IF, IF THE, IF THE STATE DECIDES THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE LICENSING, WELL THEN YOU WOULD GO LOOK AT THE ENTITY TO BE LICENSED AND MAYBE THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.
BUT BECAUSE JFI IS A NONPROFIT, YOU ONLY HAVE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
SO THEN IT WOULD BE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT TO SUITABILITY UP AT THE STATE.
MEANING YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY GO THROUGH AN FBI BACKGROUND, BE FINGERPRINTED, TURN OVER YOUR FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO THE STATE, BE FOUND SUITABLE IN ORDER FOR JFI TO RECEIVE ITS QUOTE RENT BY WAY OF REVENUE SHARING.
SO THIS IS NOT ONLY A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, UM, GOING FORWARD, THIS IS A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF YOU NOW HAVE TO FIND PEOPLE WILLING TO SERVE ON A BOARD WHO ARE WILLING TO GO SUBMIT TO SUITABILITY AT THE STATE, WHICH I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS THOUGHT THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING UP FOR.
AND MOST VOLUNTEER BOARD MEMBERS WOULD NOT KNOWINGLY SIGN UP FOR THAT ONE.
SIMILARLY, UM, IT WORKS THAT WAY FOR GAMING CONTROL LOSS.
SO ALSO WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF REVENUE UNDER THE LEASE IT PROVIDES FOR GAMING, WAGERING, ET CETERA.
NOW, UM, AS TO THE RESPONSE FOR THESE TWO ISSUES, JFI, UM, DIDN'T ENTIRELY AGREE WITH US.
UM, MORE PRECISELY THEY SAID, WE DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THESE ISSUES COULD BE RESOLVED VIA AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE, WHICH I WILL TELL YOU, IF YOU NEED TO AMEND THE LEASE TO FIX THE PROBLEM, THEN THE PROBLEM IS THERE RIGHT NOW.
UM, WE HAVE HAD AND HEARD, UM, THAT PRINCIPALS RIGHT NOW REPRESENTING PORTAL LIENS HAVE SAID, WELL, WE'RE NOT HAVING GAMING, WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO HAVE GAMING.
PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE LEASE CONTRACT SAYS GAMING.
THE ORIGINAL LEASE SAYS GAMING THE LEASE WAS AMENDED, STILL SAYS GAMING.
AND THE LEASE PROVIDES THAT THEY CAN TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TO ANY AFFILIATE OR OTHERWISE SELL.
[00:25:01]
REPRESENTATIONS THAT THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE GAMING REALLY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING UNLESS THE GAMING REVENUE IS TAKEN OUT OF THE LEASE.SO, AS THE LEASE IS CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED THESE REMAIN ISSUES AND TO GO FORWARD AND SAY, OUR ONLY SOURCE OF REVENUE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE IS A PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL AND OR GAMING AND OR WHATEVER, AND THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE TO UNDERGO SUITABILITY AT THE STATE, THE WHOLE SITUATION WHERE WE COULD GET RENT IS AT RISK, UM, ASIDE FROM THE RISK TO JFI THAT THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS.
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT JFI AND THE PARISH ARE CURRENTLY IN COURT, AND BY WAY OF A RECON CONVENTIONAL DEMAND, BECAUSE PORTER ORLEANS SUED THEM, UM, THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY COUNTERSUED TO HAVE THE LEASE NULLIFIED VOIDED AND SET ASIDE BASICALLY ON THE BASIS OF CABELA'S, WHICH WAS THE ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN THE PUBLIC LETTER TWO YEARS AGO.
MEANING THAT THIS IS A GRATUITOUS ALIENATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE ARTICULABLE RETURN.
ANY QUESTIONS? UM, SO A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT JFI.
CAN YOU PLEASE DISENTANGLE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM AND THE PARISH, AND ESPECIALLY JUST ABOUT RISK HERE.
LIKE BREAK IT DOWN WHAT IT REALLY IS.
UM, BACK IN 2001, THE PARISH ENTERED INTO A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH TWO ENTITIES, UH, JEFFERSON REDEVELOPMENT INC.
WHICH IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION.
AND, UM, JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC.
WHICH IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THAT COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT, THE PARISH AGREED TO LEASE FOUR PARCELS OF LAND TO THESE TWO ENTITIES.
IT WAS GOING TO LEASE IT TO JRI AND THEN JRI WAS GONNA SUBLEASE IT TO JFI.
UM, AND THE CONDITIONS OF THAT COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WAS THAT JFI WOULD GO GET BOND MONEY TO BUILD A GARAGE.
JRI, THE MIDDLE PERSON WAS GONNA OWN THE GARAGE AS LONG AS THE BONDS WERE OUTSTANDING.
JFI WAS GONNA BUILD THE GARAGE AND THE REVENUE FROM THE GARAGE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY THE BOND DEBT.
THE REVENUE FROM THE GARAGE WAS RETAINED BY JFI FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS.
THE PARISH HAS PAID THE DEBT ON THE GARAGE, AND JRI CONTINUES TO OWN THE GARAGE.
NOW, A COMPLICATING FEATURE IS THAT A MORTGAGE ON ALL OF THESE PARCELS OF LAND WAS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE BOND HOLDERS TO SECURE THE BOND DEBT, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO OUT TO THIS ARRANGEMENT UNTIL THE BOND DEBT IS PAID OFF.
SO, UM, FROM TIME TO TIME, THERE'S BEEN LIKE A CONFLATION OF THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES WITH THE PARISH.
UM, AND AT DIFFERENT MOMENTS IN TIME, EVEN AT COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE PARISH ATTORNEY HAS SAID, WELL, J-F-I-J-R-I, IT'S ALL THE SAME.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ALL THE SAME.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE PARISH IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION IS A LITERALLY A PUBLIC CORPORATION.
AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS LITERALLY A PRIVATE NONPROFIT, UM, CORPORATION.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE HAD THESE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS WHERE THE PARISH HAS COMMITTED FUNDS, GIVEN THEM FUNDS, GIVEN THEM CONTROL OF OUR PROPERTY, AND SHORT OF PAYING OFF THE BONDS AND TERMINATING LEASE, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO GET OUR ASSETS BACK.
SO THE PARISH GET OUR, YEAH, THE PARISH GET OUR ASSETS BACK.
SO WE'RE IN A SITUATION OF A HUNDRED PERCENT EXPOSURE ON LIABILITY AND NO REAL OUT AND NO REAL RETURN.
WELL, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I I DO THINK THAT, THAT YOU, YOU'VE MADE THAT POINT A LONG TIME AGO, AND THAT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A GOOD POSITION FOR THE PARISH TO BE IN.
WHO OWNS THE BUILDING THAT THE BREW PUB WILL OCCUPY? THE PARISH WILL OWN IT, BUT THE PARISH ISN'T BUILDING IT.
AND WHO MUST APPLY FOR A GAMING LICENSE IF THEY'RE GONNA GET ONE? UM, THE, UH, TENANTS, WHICH IS POB
[00:30:01]
GRETNA BEER AND POB RESTAURANT.DO WE KNOW IF THE STATE HAS HAD ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON MATCHING FUNDS? IF YOU RECALL, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A NINE PLUS MILLION MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE STATE.
DO WE KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS OR, UM, BASED UPON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE SITUATION WITH STATE FUNDING, UM, IS THAT, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS HAS CHANGED, BUT IT'S FAIRLY RECENT.
THERE'S NO ACCESSIBILITY TO THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE SIDEWALKS NEED TO BE DUG UP AND RESET, INCLUDING THE DRAINAGE REDONE TO PROVIDE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING IN ORDER TO GET THE FIRE MARSHAL TO COME OUT AND GIVE THE BLESSING.
UM, AND THAT'S GONNA BE OF SUBSTANTIAL COST.
UM, WE STILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH A MATCH FOR THE GARAGE.
UM, THE STATE IS NOT RECOGNIZING ANY MONEY SPENT ON THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS ANY MATCH FOR STATE DOLLARS.
AND THE REASON IT'S NOT IS BECAUSE, UH, CAPITAL PROJECTS IS ESSENTIALLY BACKED BY STATE ISSUE BONDS THAT ARE TAX EXEMPT AND THE CONDITION OF THOSE BONDS ARE, YOU CANNOT USE THE MONEY FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PUBLIC PURPOSE.
YOU CANNOT USE THE MONEY FOR COMMERCIAL OR PRIVATE GAIN.
SO THEY WILL NOT RECOGNIZE MONEY SPENT ON A BREWERY IN A TACO RESTAURANT TO MATCH STATE MONEY TO BUILD A PUBLIC GARAGE.
MAYBE YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT I'M, I'M STAYING ON TOP OF THIS.
YOU ALSO MENTIONED FIVE 19 HUEY P LONG MM-HMM
SO IS, IS IT ENTANGLED IN THIS AS WELL, OR IS IT GONNA BE SOMETHING SEPARATE WITH SEPARATE CONCERNS? UM, THE FIVE 19 IS A STANDALONE, BUT RELEVANT, SAY TO CONSIDERATION OF THE TAXES EXEMPT STATUS.
'CAUSE I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST LIKE FORAY INTO, UM, ULTIMATELY COWORKING SPACE IS PRIVATE COMMERCIAL SPACE, RIGHT? UM, SO WE REALLY CALLED IT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE THE FIRST SLIP OFF THE LEDGE.
UM, DO I REALLY, NUMBER ONE, THEY'RE NOT MAKING RETURN.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY GONNA BE THE ONE THAT THE IRS WOULD, WOULD LOSE THEIR LUNCH OVER.
IT'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, MY TAX ATTORNEY, NO, I'M NOT A TAX ATTORNEY.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I WAS LIKE, YOU NEED TO GO HIRE PEOPLE WHO DO THIS FOR A LIVING, UM, TO GET THESE ANSWERS.
WELL, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT, UH, WE NEED TO GET SOME EXPERT ADVICE WHERE WE NEED TO.
SO THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS SET IN THE, UH, 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT RELATED TO THE ONGOING LITIGATION NOW ABOUT THIS.
SO WE WILL BE GOING TO COURT JUST TO MONITOR THE ARGUMENTS EXCEPT FOR TOMORROW, CORRECT.
SO, WE'LL, WE'LL AT LEAST, UH, KNOW WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON FROM THE INITIAL THIS, THESE ARE INITIAL HEARINGS TOMORROW.
IT'S JUST EXCEPTIONS AS I RECALL.
SO, UH, BUT I WILL LET EVERYBODY KNOW BY AN EMAIL WHAT HAPPENS.
UM, AND THEN JUST FINALLY TO CONCLUDE, WE DID HAVE A LOT OF, UM, PUBLIC OUTREACH IN THIS LAST, UM, UM, SINCE YOU LAST MET.
UM, I WAS ON THE POLITICS WITH THE PUNCH PANEL.
I, AND THEN ALSO I GAVE SOME CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS TO LEGAL PROFESSIONALS OF NEW ORLEANS, UM, AS WELL AS DOING A PRESENTATION TO THE WEST JEFFERSON CIVIC COALITION.
AND THEN FINALLY, UH, WE GREETED THE JOHNNY BRIGHT, UH, BOOSTER CLUB.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN ANY OF THE, UM, ARTICLES IN THE PAPER REGARDING JOHNNY BRIGHT PLAYGROUND.
UH, THERE WAS A LETTER OF INTENT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA TO, UH, APPROVE, UM, CERTAIN MUTUAL AGREEMENTS VIA THIS LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN THE PARISH, UM, AND A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, SPLIT SETS FOUNDATION TO TAKE OVER JOHNNY BRIGHT PLAYGROUND AND TO TURN IT INTO A 30 COURT TENNIS COMPLEX.
UM, WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THIS TRANSACTION.
NOT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE QUESTIONS WE FIRST STARTED ASKING WITH PORTAL LIENS, WHICH IS HOW WE FOLLOWED PUBLIC LEASE LAW.
HAVE WE FOLLOWED PUBLIC BID LAW? WHO'S GONNA BUILD IT? HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING A RETURN RETURNING OF AN ASSET? DID YOU DO ANY APPRAISALS? UM, AND THE, THE ITEM SORT OF HIT THE AGENDA COLD.
I MADE A REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL TO DEFER THE ITEM BY WRITTEN LETTER.
UM, THE COUNCIL DECLINED TO DEFER THE ITEM.
[00:35:01]
UM, THE DEFERRAL OF THE ITEM GAVE ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING.UM, AND THE JOHNNY BRIGHT, UH, BOOSTER CLUB WOKE UP AND WOKE UP THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG WITH THEM.
SO, UM, THEY ASKED ME TO COME, THEY REALLY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD DO IF THIS WAS WRONG.
AND SO I DID THEM THE COURTESY TO TELL THEM TO THEIR FACE THAT I CANNOT DO ANYTHING, THAT I'M IN THE BUSINESS OF FOLLOWING PROCESSES TO SEEING WHAT THE OUTCOME IS.
I'LL REPORT IF THE PROCESSES WERE FOLLOWED OR WHAT'S THE IMPACT IF THEY WEREN'T, WISH THEM WELL, AND THANK THEM FOR, UM, SUPPORTING THE OFFICE, UM, ANNUALLY BY PAYING THEIR TAXES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW WE STAY IN BUSINESS.
SO THAT WAS JUST A MEET AND GREET WITH THE, WITH THE, UM, TARRYTOWN, UM, TERRYTOWN, UH, JANET BRIGHT VISTA CLARK, JOHN BRIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MS. PA? NO.
[VI. Consideration of Resolution No. 72 authorizing the transfer of funds from the shared fund balance of the Ethics and Compliance Commission and Office of Inspector General into the budget of the Office of Inspector General to satisfy costs related to the design & implementation of the new websites and to provide for related matters.]
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 72 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE SHARED FUND BALANCE OF THE ECC AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL INTO THE BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL SATISFIED COST RELATED TO THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW WEBSITES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.THAT IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 72, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF OUR PACKAGE.
JERRY, ARE WE ENTERING INTO, UH, DO WE NEED A MOTION HERE OR DO WE NEED ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION? YOU WILL NEED A MOTION AND, AND DISCUSSION IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION, BUT YOU DO NEED THE MOTION FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE TRANSFER, RIGHT? SO WE DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THAT ALREADY? NO, NO.
IT, IT, IT'S A NEW ISSUE REGARDING THE WEBSITE.
WE ALSO VOTE PAPER-WISE OR JUST A VERBAL VOTING? NO, IT'S JUST A VERBAL VOTE.
THIS WILL BE THE RESOLUTION THAT'S ULTIMATELY YOU'RE VOTING ON IS THE TRANSFER OF THE FUNDS.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION NUMBER 72? YEAH, I'LL MOVE.
AND HOW MUCH OF THE TEXT DO I NEED TO READ HERE? UH, JUST IF YOU RESOLVE, IF YOU CAN READ THE LAST PART NOW RESOLVED.
UH, THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE JEFFERSON PARISH ETHICS COMPLIANCE COMMISSION, THAT THERE SHALL BE A TRANSFER FROM THE SHARED BALANCE OF THE ETHICS COMPLIANCE COMMISSION AND OFFICE OF EXPECTOR GENERAL FUND.
2 2 6 0 0 INTO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30,000 AND DOLLARS, UH, INTO LINE ITEM 2 2 603 5 6 2 7 3 3 1.
I MOVE FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSFERRING THE FUNDS.
WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION.
IF EVERY, ALL SHALL WE HAVE A VOTE? YOU, YOU'LL ASK WHAT, WHAT? YOU JUST ASK IF, IF YAY OR NAY IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR THAT.
JUST ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR? YAY.
[VII. Consideration of Resolution No. 73 extending and renewing for an additional three (3) year term effective September 20, 2026, and to automatically terminate three years, thereafter, on September 20, 2029, the professional services contract entered into by and between the Jefferson Parish Ethics & Compliance Commission and Sullivan, Dupre & Solouki, LLC.]
MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON THE AGENDA.CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 73, EXTENDING AND RENEWING FOR ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR TERM EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2026.
AND TO AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE THREE YEARS THEREAFTER.
ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2029, THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BO, UH, BETWEEN JEFFERSON PARISH ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION AND SULLIVAN DUPRE.
DO I HEAR? UH, WELL, LET'S SEE.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 73, UH, WHICH STATES, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE JEFFERSON PARISH ETHICS SQUAD COMMISSION THAT JERRY WS SULLIVAN AND THE FIRM OF SULLIVAN, DUPRE AND SALUKI, LSC BE ENGAGED TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES AND SERVICE COUNSEL FOR THE ETHICS COMPLIANCE COMMISSION UNDER NEGOTIATED TERMS AND
[00:40:01]
CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH THIS CONTRACT.[VIII. Consideration of changing dates of next Ethics & Compliance Commission meeting from July 15, 2026 to July 29, 2026 to accommodate for the shared JPOIG/JPECC budget approval.]
CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING DATES OF THE NEXT ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION MEETING FROM JULY 15TH, 2026 TO JULY 29TH.2026 TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE SHARE.
J-P-O-I-G-J-P-E-C-C BUDGET APPROVAL, UH, WHO WE RE WE RECEIVE OUR, AND GINA CHIME IN.
WE, WE RECEIVE OUR, UH, BUDGET PACKETS IN AND AROUND LATE JUNE.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S A DEADLINE TO SUBMIT OUR NUMBERS.
UM, WE SUBMIT GINA SUBMITS LITERALLY THROUGH THE SYSTEM FOR EVERYBODY, THE ECC AS WELL AS THE IG BECAUSE WE OPERATE OUT OF THAT SHARED FUND.
UM, AND THEN THE BUDGET PROCESS IS CLOSED.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE LITERALLY THE BUDGET BOOK, WE NEED TO GET THE NUMBERS IN.
AND IT'S ALWAYS A TIGHT WINDOW FOR US BECAUSE WE SUBMIT TO YOU, UM, OUR BUDGET FOR YOUR APPROVAL, AND THEN WE SUBMIT FOR EVERYBODY.
I'M UNLIKELY TO BE HERE, BUT I'M FINE WITH IT MOVING FORWARD AS LONG AS WE'LL THINK THAT WE HAVE QUORUM BETWEEN OUR PER ONE PERSON THAT'S NOT HERE, AND POTENTIAL FIFTH, THAT HOPE I HOPE'S ADDED BY THEN.
DOES THIS REQUIRE A MOTION? UH, YES.
UH, DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE DATES FROM JULY 15TH TO JULY 29TH, 2026? I MOVE.
AND I'LL SECOND, SECOND BY MR. MCCLELLAN.
[IX. Executive Session for the Confidential Consideration of possible ethical violations]
EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ETHICS VIOLATION.UH, I MOVE THAT, UH, WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS.
SECOND, WE WILL NEED A ROLL CALL.
YES, MS. STEWART, WE'LL BE BACK.
IT IS 6:19 PM UH, MS. GINA, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO GET BACK ON RECORD? YEP.
WE'LL NEED A MOTION TO RETURN TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MOTION TO LEAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'M CALLING FOR ANY MOTIONS, UH, AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION.
RESOLUTION 25 0 0 1 SET FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 26.
DO WE VOTE ON IT? YOU NEED TO VOTE.
SO, UH, 25 0 0 1 AND SET FOR A HEARING NOW ON AUGUST 26TH.
REFER TO THE OIG FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
IN RESOLUTION 26 0 0 3, DEFERRED FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING.
[X. New Business]
NEW BUSINESS.ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, HAS OCCURRED SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AND IT'S, IT'S NOT TO TO TAKE ACTION, BUT JUST WANTED TO UPDATE YOU.
AS YOU KNOW, THE, UM, APPOINTEE BY, OR THE NOMINATION BY UNIVERSITY OF
[00:45:01]
NEW ORLEANS, MR. CHRIS CLEMENT, HAS RELOCATED TO TEXAS THAT RESULTED IN THE NEED FOR UNO TO NOMINATE THREE NEW INDIVIDUALS.UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A REFRESHER OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, PURSUANT TO THE JEFFERSON CODE OF ORDINANCES, OF THE FIVE UNIVERSITIES OR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING, EACH ONE NOMINATES THREE INDIVIDUALS TO THE PARISH PRESIDENT.
THE PARISH PRESIDENT WILL INTERVIEW OR, OR MAKE A DECISION WITH REGARD TO THOSE THREE INDIVIDUALS, ASSUMING THEY MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA IS IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND SHE WILL NOMINATE ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO THE PARISH COUNCIL TO BE APPOINTED TO THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION.
ON MAY 6TH, 2026, UH, APPARENTLY MS. UH, PARISH PRESIDENT LEE SHING SENT A LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS, AND IN FACT, SENT IT TO DR.
JOHN NICOLO, WHO I BELIEVE LEFT THE UNIVERSITY IN 2023, RECOMMENDING THREE INDIVIDUALS TO THE, TO THE POSITION THAT MR. CLEMENT ONCE HELD.
THIS IS NO, UH, DISPARAGEMENT OVER THE INDIVIDUALS THAT SHE RECOMMENDED.
HOWEVER, WE, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
THE REASON THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS IS CREATED IN THREE DISTINCT SEGMENTS IS TO HAVE INDEPENDENCE.
THE PARISH WANTS INDEPENDENCE, AND THE CITIZENS NEED THAT INDEPENDENCE FOR THE, THE PROCESS ON THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE COMMISSION TO WORK PROPERLY.
SO IN TURN, UH, THE CHAIRMAN AND I WROTE A LETTER TO, UH, PRESIDENT LEASHING AND TO THE PARISH PRESIDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY, UH, SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING THAT THOSE NAMES BE WITHDRAWN, THAT IN FACT THE, THE UNIVERSITY SELECT INDEPENDENTLY WHAT INDIVIDUALS SHE FELT WAS APPROPRIATE TO NOMINATE TO THE COMMISSION, UH, POSITION.
AND WE'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING SINCE THAT TIME.
UH, I DID CONTACT THE UNIVERSITY'S, UH, PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
THE ASSISTANT TOLD ME ON THE DAY WE SENT THE LETTER THAT IT WAS THE DAY OF GRADUATION, SHE WAS SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT.
AND WE WOULD HEAR BACK, WE WILL MAKE NO SUGGESTION WHATSOEVER AS TO WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED.
AGAIN, WE DEFER, AS IN EACH OF YOUR INSTANCES, WE'VE ALWAYS DEFERRED TO THE UNIVERSITIES TO MAKE, UH, WELL-REASONED, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WE HOPE IT WILL CONTINUE WORK IN THE FUTURE.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS AN FYI NOT NOT ACTION THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE.
SO THERE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UH, RESPONSE TO YOU? I'VE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM ANYBODY, WHICH IS A LITTLE SURPRISED.
WHAT ABOUT FROM THE, UH, PARISH PRESIDENT? NO ONE.
WELL, I MEAN, I'M GONNA HAVE A PROBLEM AND I THINK SOMEBODY ELSE WILL.
IF THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, BY THE PARISH PRESIDENT SHOWS UP ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY'S RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT THEN, THEN AT THAT POINT, THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE TRANSPARENCY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE, IT RAISES CONCERNS AT THAT POINT.
BUT, BUT I, I, I CAN ONLY ASSUME AT THIS POINT THAT WE'RE GONNA RECEIVE OR SHE WILL RECEIVE INDEPENDENT NOMINATIONS.
UH, IF, IF NOT, WE WILL FIND OUT BECAUSE WE WILL GET COPIES OF THAT PUBLIC LETTER, UH, INFORMATION.
AS SOON AS THE LETTER IS RECEIVED, WE'RE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT.
AND I WILL NOTIFY YOU OF, OF THOSE NOMINATIONS.
AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, NO, UH, IN THE PAST, THIS IS NOT, HAS NOT HAPPENED WHERE THE PARISH PRESIDENT SUGGESTED NAMES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE UNIVERSITIES? NO, IT IS NOT.
UH, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, UH, TO ADMINISTRATIONS AGO, UH, THAT THERE WAS AN EFFORT MADE, BUT IT WAS DONE INDEPENDENTLY AND IT WAS NOT ULTIMATELY, UM, THERE WAS NO PRO PROCESSION AFTER THAT POINT.
SO I DON'T, I'M HOPING THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE.
ALL OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS THAT WE'VE CONTACTED HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY DILIGENT ABOUT TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE, AND, AND THEY GET CALLED, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL 'EM NEW ORLEANS, CALLS THEM, UH, NUMEROUS BOARDS AND, AND AGENCIES CALL.
SO THEY'RE VERY ACCUSTOMED TO GETTING THIS, AND THEY'RE VERY ACCUSTOMED TO DEALING WITH THE ALUMNI.
IN FACT, UH, TWO INDIVIDUALS PREVIOUSLY FROM UNO, UM, WAS AN ALUMNI, AS WAS CHRIS CLEMENTS.
SO BOTH WERE ALUMNIS AND BOTH WERE ACTIVE.
BOTH DOLORES AND CHRIS WERE ALUMNI.
UH, TOTALLY INDEPENDENTLY NOMINATED.
AND WE HOPE THAT THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE PROCESS.
[00:50:01]
A REMINDER,[XI. Next Meeting Date: July 15, 2026]
WE CHANGED THE DATE.AND IT REFLECTS THAT THE NEXT MEETING IS JULY 15TH, 2026.
SO NOW THE NEW MEETING IS, LET ME SAY, I THINK I JUST PUT IT ON.
AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN.