* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:01]
          GOOD 
          [I. Call Commission meeting to order]
EVENING EVERYONE. 
          UH, THIS IS THE JEFFERSON PARISH ETHICS AND COMPLIANT COMMISSION MEETING. 
          TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26TH, 2026. 
          IT IS 5:00 PM AND WE ARE ON THE EAST BANK COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND I'M CALLED THE COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. 
          CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? FRANK YOUNG. 
          HERE. 
          MONICA PIERRE? HERE. 
          BILLY GIBBONS? HERE. 
          JOEL MCCLELLAN. 
          ABSENT. 
          JIM HUDSON. 
          ABSENT. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          UH, LET'S REVIEW 
          [III. Review and approval of Minutes from the May 20, 2026 meeting ]
AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 20TH, 2026 MEETING. 
          UH, HAVE THE MINUTES RIGHT HERE. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. 
          I WAS NOT HERE. 
          I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          UH, RIGHT 
          [IV. Public Comment (Each speaker will be allowed a total time limit of two [2] minutes) ]
NOW AS, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, ON WHAT JERRY? I DON'T KNOW, BUT, UH, DOES, THERE IS, IS I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          UH, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT, UH, I BELIEVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL SPEAK ABOUT, AND THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, UH, AS A RESPONSE TO WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY. 
          BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW SURE. 
          TAKE THE MICROPHONE. 
          OKAY. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS LAUREN BREWSTER. 
          I'M HERE AS A RESULT OF THE OIG REPORT THAT CAME OUT A FEW WEEKS AGO IN REGARD TO THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS. 
          I AM A RESIDENT OF JEFFERSON PARISH. 
          I HAVE LIVED IN OLD MIDY MY WHOLE LIFE. 
          I LIVE ON THE SAME BLOCK AS MY ENTIRE FAMILY, AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT WITH JEFFERSON PARISH UNTIL RECENTLY. 
          WE HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH OUR BACKYARD NEIGHBORS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. 
          THEY HAVE BUILT A VERY LARGE, LARGE STRUCTURE OVER WHAT A CODE ALLOWS FOR WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER PERMITS THAT WE BELIEVE IS BEING USED AS A COMMERCIAL ENTITY IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. 
          THIS BUILDING IS SO LARGE THAT IT TAKES UP OVER TWO THIRDS THE WIDTH OF MY PROPERTY AND IS SEVERAL FEET TALLER THAN WHAT CODE ALLOWS, AND ALSO ALSO BLOCKS OUR VIEWS. 
          THEY'VE ALSO PERFORMED MORE WORK RECENTLY WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS. 
          EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE ASKED THE PARISH TO INSPECT HAS BEEN REASONABLE, REASONABLE BECAUSE OF SAFETY, HEALTH, AND LAND USE CONCERNS. 
          WE WERE MADE OUT TO BE DIFFICULT PROPERTY OWNERS AND HAD OUR NAMES TARNISHED IN THE JEFFERSON PARISH PERMITTING DEPARTMENT FOR REQUESTING THESE ISSUES BE INVESTIGATED. 
          BUT I'M SURE ANY OTHER RESIDENT WOULD DO THE SAME AS IT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTS OUR PROPERTY VALUE AND THAT OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          THESE PEOPLE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF NOT OBTAINING PROPER PERMITS AND RECEIVING VIOLATIONS GOING BACK MANY YEARS ON FOUR OF THEIR PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ALL IN THE SAME BLOCK AS THE STRUCTURE AT ISSUE. 
          IT ALSO RAISED A RED FLAG TO US WHEN THE OIG REPORT CAME OUT A FEW WEEKS AGO, BECAUSE ANOTHER THING WE'VE BEEN ASKING OURSELVES IS HOW DID ALL OF THIS PASS THROUGH THE PERMITTING OFFICE? WHEN WE ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE PARISH, THEIR ANSWER IS ALWAYS THAT THEY'RE AWARE AND THEY'RE LOOKING INTO IT. 
          ONE VIOLATION THAT WAS RECEIVED WAS CLO CLOSE TO A YEAR AGO, STILL HASN'T BEEN CORRECTED. 
          WE SUSPECT THE U THE HE USED A THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR AS WELL. 
          WE ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE ENGINEER WHO DREW UP AND STAMPED HIS PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE PARISH WAS UNLICENSED AT THE TIME AND ALSO PUT THE WRONG ADDRESS ON THE PLANS. 
          SO DOES THE PARISH STILL RECOGNIZE THIS AS LEGITIMATE? WE ARE BEYOND FRUSTRATED THAT WE CANNOT GET ANSWERS TO THESE VERY REASONABLE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TOTALLY DISRUPTED OUR LIFE, HOME, OUR FAMILY, AND OUR PROPERTY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME, MA'AM? BREWSTER. 
          MS. BREWSTER? YES. 
          B-R-E-W-S-T-E-R. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED. 
          UH, I DON'T, HOWEVER, UH, AS A MATTER OF JURISDICTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, THAT, THAT FALLS WITHIN SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HANDLE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, DOES IT JERRY, ALL THE, ALL THE COMMISSION CAN DO IS TO WRITE AN ADVISORY OPINION IF IT BELIEVES THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE, BUT AT THIS POINT WE ACCEPT THE PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE WE ACCEPT THE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          WHAT, WHAT DID THE, JUST CURIOUS, WHAT DOES THE PARISH HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT? UH, LIKE I SAID, THEY WILL SAY THEY INVESTIGATED AND THEN WE WILL ASK TO SEE COPIES OF INSPECTIONS. 
          I, I HAVE A, A PO THIS THICK OF, OF PAPERWORK. 
          UM, THEY, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, HE BUILT THIS STRUCTURE WITH NO PERMITS, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING. 
          HE'S BURIED GAS LINES UNDERGROUND. 
          HE'S PUT IN GENERATORS WITHOUT PERMITS. 
          THE PARISH JUST ALWAYS SEEMS TO COME UP WITH A 
          [00:05:01]
REASON THAT IT WAS OKAY OR OVERLOOKED, AND WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY. 
          AND YEAH, THAT'S ALL WHAT I CAN SAY IN A NUTSHELL, BUT I DO HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION TO BACK IT UP IF NEED BE. 
          MAYBE AN INVESTIGATOR CAN SPEAK WITH HER. 
          SHE ABSOLUTELY. 
          I WAS GOING TO SAY, UM, MY, UM, BRITTANY MAJEURE IS SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME IN THE RED JACKET. 
          I, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE BREWSTERS, ACTUALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE START? ALL RIGHT. 
          ITEM FIVE ON 
          [V. Presentation of Proposed Consent Agreement and Order for the resolve of outstanding Ethics  complaint JPECC 2025-001  ]
THE AGENDA IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER FOR THE RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ETHICS COMPLAINT J-P-E-C-C 2025 DASH 0 0 1. 
          GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, CONRAD HUBER FOR THE JEFFERSON PARISH OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS LEAD TRIAL ATTORNEY. 
          THIS IS AGENCY TRACKING NUMBER 2025 TRIPLE ZERO ONE, BROUGHT UNDER RESOLUTION NUMBER 67. 
          THIS MATTER WAS SET FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY. 
          THE PARTIES HAVE RESOLVED IT BY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THAT AGREEMENT FOR APPROVAL RATHER THAN PROCEEDING TO TRIAL. 
          UH, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT PRESENT, PRESENT TODAY. 
          HIS APPEARANCE IS NOT REQUIRED, AND HIS ABSENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF BEFORE YOU. 
          UH, I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TO PRESENT THE SIGNED CONSENT AGREEMENT. 
          THE RESPONDENT'S CHARGES ARE AS FOLLOWS. 
          COUNT ONE ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION 23 DASH ONE 10 A, WHICH BARS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FROM RECEIVING ANYTHING OF ECONOMIC VALUE BEYOND HIS PARISH COMPENSATION AND NORMAL BENEFITS FOR PERSONAL SERVICE SERVICES RENDERED TO THE PARISH BETWEEN AUGUST 2ND, 2024 AND SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2024. 
          THE RESPONDENT WAS OBSERVED AT HIS RESIDENCE DURING WORK HOURS ON 32 OCCASIONS FROM A FEW MINUTES TO ROUGHLY TWO HOURS, AND RECEIVED PARISH COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME. 
          COUNT TWO ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF CODE OF ORDINANCE, SECTION 23 1 13 A, THE ABUSE OF OFFICE PROVISION, WHICH BARS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FROM USING HIS POSITION TO INDUCE OR COERCE ANOTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ANYTHING OF ECONOMIC VALUE. 
          ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER THE 16TH OF 2024, THE RESPONDENT USED A PARISH TRUCK AND DIRECTED A SUBORDINATE UNDER HIS SUPERVISION TO MOVE A WASHER, A DRYER, AND A CHAIR INTO HIS RESIDENCE. 
          THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFERS INTO THE RECORD THE EXECUTED SETTLEMENT OFFER AND PROPOSED CONSENT AGREEMENT SIGNED JULY 29TH, 2026 AT THIS TIME, UH, IF I CAN SUPPLY THAT FOR YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE ACCEPTANCE CLAUSE STATES THAT THE RESPONDENT READ THE AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDS ITS TERMS, ACCEPTS THEM, AND AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE TO PRESENT IT FOR APPROVAL. 
          TERM ONE CONTAINS HIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CONDUCT AND HIS AGREEMENT THAT IT VIOLATED THE CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS WE JUST REFERRED TO. 
          AND WE ASK THAT THIS AGREEMENT BE ADMITTED AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD. 
          THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS. 
          THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGES THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN THE CHARGES AND AGREES THAT IT VIOLATED THE CODE OF ORDINANCE. 
          THIS IS AN ADMISSION, NOT A NO CONTEST RESOLUTION AND NOT A RESOLUTION WITHOUT A FINDING. 
          HE ACCEPTS A FORFEITURE OF EIGHT HOURS OF COMPENSATION AT 35 17 PER HOUR, TOTALING $281 AND 36 CENTS DESCRIBED IN THE AGREEMENT AS REPRESENTING FORFEITURE OF VALUE. 
          THE OF PARISH TIME RECEIVED TO BE AFFECTED THROUGH HIS APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE COMMISSION ORDER BY REPAYMENT AGREEMENT UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT POLICIES SECTION 4 0 4 UNEARNED COMPENSATION, HE AGREES TO COMPLETE ONE HOUR OF STATE CODE OF GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS TRAINING AND FURNISH THIS OFFICE WITH WRITTEN PROOF WITHIN 30 DAYS OF APPROVAL. 
          IN EXCHANGE, THIS OFFICE PRESENTS THE AGREEMENT JOINTLY AND FOREGOES PROSECUTION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TREATS THE MATTER AS RESOLVED ON HIS SATISFACTION OF THOSE TERMS. UH, IF FEW DECLINE TO APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT, IT IS VOID AND WE RETURN TO OUR PRIOR POSITIONS AND THE MATTER PROCEEDS TO A PUBLIC HEARING AT A LATER DATE. 
          UH, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS RETIRED FROM PARISH EMPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1ST, 2026 AFTER EXECUTING THE AGREEMENT THAT DOES NOT AFFECT JURISDICTION WHICH ATTACH WHEN THE CONDUCT OCCURRED AND WHEN THE CHARGES WERE FILED. 
          IT ALSO DOES NOT AFFECT THE FINDING AND IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE POTENTIAL COLLECTION. 
          UH, THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE AND ADOPT THE EXECUTIVE SETTLEMENT OFFER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT, ACCEPT THE RESPONDENT'S ADMISSION, AND FIND THAT HE VIOLATED THE CODE OF ORDINANCE ORDER FORFEITURE OF 281 AND $3,281 AND 36 CENTS UNDER THE ADMINIS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT POLICIES SECTION 4 0 4 WITHIN 90 DAYS ORDER COMPLETION 
          [00:10:01]
OF THE ETHICS TRAINING WITH PROOF TO THIS OFFICE WITHIN 30 DAYS AND DIRECT THAT A CERTIFY COPY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS BE MAILED TO THE RESPONDENT AS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A RESOLUTION REFLECTING THAT ACTION HAS BEEN CIRCULATED. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UM, I MEAN, DO IS, DO, DOES HE NEED TO DO THE TRAINING? IF HE'S RETIRED? UM, HE AGREED TO DO THE TRAINING. 
          UM, IF, IF HE DOESN'T SUBMIT THE PROOF OF THAT COMPLETION, WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET THERE. 
          UM, I I I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, THAT WOULD NECESSARILY CAUSE US TO REVOKE THE WHOLE DEAL, BUT WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          I'M, I'M FINE WITH IT. 
          I, I MOVE ACCEPTED OR UNLESS THERE WAS EDDIE, UNLESS ANY QUESTIONS? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          UH, SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE INSPECTED GENERAL CHADLEY, DO YOU, UH, ARE YOU AMENABLE TO THIS RESOLUTION? I THINK CONRAD DID A GREAT JOB. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M, WE, WE'LL NEED AN OFFICIAL, UM, MOTION SECOND AND APPROVAL BY THE ENTIRE COMMISSION AND WE'LL NEED A WRITTEN RESOLUTION ON THIS ONE. 
          WE'VE GOT IT. 
          YOU HAVE IT? OKAY, PERFECT. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER AS IS I SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE MOTION HAS PASSED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST FOR THE, JUST FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT NOW BECOMES PUBLIC ONCE THE, IT'S EITHER ONCE THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED OR A, A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION IS REACHED. 
          IT BECOMES AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD. 
          IT WILL BE PUBLISHED ON OUR WEBSITE. 
          THANK YOU, JOEY. 
          ITEM NUMBER SIX 
          [VI. 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]
ON THE AGENDA, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY RECENTLY PUBLISHED REPORTS, OPEN LETTERS, DATA AND STATISTICS BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MADAM INSPECTOR GENERAL. 
          UM, OKAY, SO THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS THE JULY REPORT BECAUSE WE PREPARE THE REPORTING CONNECTION WITH THE, UM, ODD NUMBERS. 
          SO, UM, I KNOW THAT WE'RE MEETING IN AUGUST, BUT JUST IN CASE YOU WERE CONFUSED, LIKE THE NEXT WRITTEN REPORT WILL BE IN THE ODD MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. 
          UM, SO, UM, BY WAY OF THE REPORT, I JUST WANNA CALL YOUR ATTENTION, UM, TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY, UM, STILL IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH CIVIC PLUS FOR THE REDESIGN OF OUR WEBSITE. 
          UM, WE ARE PAST QUOTE, THE DESIGN PHASE, UM, AND EFFECTIVE THIS FRIDAY THERE WILL BE A FINAL APPROVAL OF THAT, AND THEREAFTER WE WILL ENTER INTO THE CONTENT MIGRATION PHASE. 
          UM, AND THEN ONCE THE CONTENT IS MIGRATED, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF VALIDATE WHERE THE LOCATION OF THINGS ARE BEFORE WE HAVE AN APPROVAL OF THE CONTENT MIGRATION. 
          AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A GO LIVE. 
          WE HAD A TARGET GO LIVE OF DECEMBER. 
          UM, BASED UPON OUR PROGRESS, I THINK WE WILL LIKELY HIT AN EARLIER TARGET DATE THAN DECEMBER. 
          UM, WE ARE STILL NAVIGATING SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH MIGRATION, UM, FROM THE PARISH'S SYSTEM, FROM ASS 400 OVER TO THE NEW SYSTEM. 
          UM, GINA HAS BEEN HANDLING THOSE ISSUES BOTH ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, AS WELL AS ON BEHALF OF THE ECC. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS OR REACH OUT FROM HER, BUT THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY HER. 
          SHE SEEMS MUCH MORE RELAXED NOW. 
          SHE WAS NOT RELAXED FOR A MINUTE, BUT WE'RE ALL GOOD. 
          WE'RE ALL GOOD. 
          UM, WE STILL CANNOT, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW BECAUSE WE HAVE MISSING, UM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          THAT'S NOT ON YOU, THAT'S NOT ON ME. 
          SO WE ARE JUST, WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. 
          UM, MY UPDATED ON EVALUATIONS, UM, INSPECTIONS AS WELL AS AUDITS IS THEY'RE PRESENT IN THE REPORT. 
          UM, I WOULD JUST, I'M SORRY. 
          I WOULD JUST NOTE ON PAGE SEVEN, UM, THAT THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTION EVALUATION AS OF JULY WAS 90% COMPLETE, IS NOW A HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLETE. 
          UM, AND WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT THIS EVENING BY MAY. 
          UM, WE HAVE, UM, A PUBLIC LETTER THAT WENT OUT THAT IS A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE A PIECE THAT IS DESIGNED AS A PUBLIC LETTER THAT IS SITTING AT 5%. 
          AND THAT IS REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. 
          THAT IS STILL AN ISSUE, UM, WHICH I WILL UPDATE YOU ON IN PARTICULAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION. 
          UM, BEFORE 
          [00:15:01]
I BEGIN MY PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION, LET ME GO AHEAD AND UPDATE YOU, UM, ON PROGRESS, UH, REGARDING, UM, THE BREW PUB SITUATION IN GRETNA. 
          SO JUST FOR ALL THOSE WHO CAN'T REMEMBER IT, I'M SURE YOU'D LIKE TO FORGET. 
          UM, IRONICALLY, IT WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024, UM, WHEN I PUBLISHED THE PUBLIC LETTER, UM, THAT CAUSED THE BRUHAHA OVER THE BREW PUB. 
          UM, IN THAT PUBLIC LETTER, ONE OF THE PRIMARY CONCERNS THAT WAS RAISED WAS QUITE LITERALLY GRATUITOUS CONTRACTS THAT THE CONTRACTS AND THE STRUCTURE BY WHICH THE PARISH WAS PROVIDING PARISH LAND AND PARISH FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BREW PUB AND TACO RESTAURANT, UH, REPRESENTED A VIOLATION OF LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION 14, WHICH PROHIBITS THE LOAN PLEDGE OR DONATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT IT WAS PROBABLY DIFFICULT TO GRASP AT THAT MOMENT, PARTICULARLY THAT, UM, SOME COMMISSIONERS WERE NEW. 
          AND SO AT THE TIME, WHAT I SAID WAS THE REASON THAT I WAS ISSUING IT AS A PUBLIC LETTER WAS BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD DO TO PREVENT, BECAUSE NOTHING HAD HAPPENED YET. 
          MEANING THE LEASES HAD BEEN SIGNED, BUT NO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND THE MONEY WAS STILL IN THE BANK. 
          SO IT WAS A BRIEF WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN PREVENTION. 
          UM, AFTER THAT PUBLIC LETTER IN APRIL OF 2026, WE RELEASED A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE LEASE. 
          UM, THE LEASES INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION, SPECIFICALLY THE LEASE TERMS, UM, AND HOW THE PROCUREMENT WAS MADE THAT DELIVERED PORT ORLEANS INTO THIS PROPERTY. 
          SO THAT EVALUATION HAD TWO PARTS. 
          SOMETHING ABOUT PROCUREMENT AND SOMETHING ABOUT THE LEASE TERMS IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE LEASE TERMS. UM, I ENGAGED AN EXPERT THAT WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY AN APPROVED EXPERT BY THE PARISH, AND THAT WAS A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF MICHAEL TRUAX. 
          UM, ONE OF THE ISSUES RAISED WAS THAT THERE WAS AN IMPROPRIETY REGARDING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS. 
          AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IN THAT PARTICULAR EVALUATION WAS THAT MR. TRUAX, UM, OPINED THAT THE LEASES WERE MATERIALLY DEFICIENT IN THEIR TERMS EARLIER THIS YEAR. 
          PORTER SUED, UH, JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC. 
          THE NONPROFIT WHO ULTIMATELY IS RECEIVING AND CONTROLLING OUR FUNDS AND PROPERTY, AS WELL AS JEFFERSON PARISH TRYING TO MANDATE THAT THE PARISH MOVE FORWARD. 
          UM, SO IT WAS STYLED AS AN INJUNCTION, BUT IT REQUIRED SPECIFIC CONDUCT, UM, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS GONE UP TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 
          AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RECENTLY RENDERED OPINION CAME BACK DOWN AND SAID, THIS IS NOT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 
          INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS HOLDING A STATUS QUO. 
          YOU'RE CHANGING THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING THE PARISH DO SOMETHING. 
          SO THAT'S A LITTLE LEGAL TECHNICALITY. 
          BUT AFTER FILING THAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, BOTH THE PARISH AND JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC. 
          RECONVENED, AND WHEN THEY RECONVENED, THEY FILED A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO HAVE THE LEASES DETERMINED TO BE NULL AND VOID. 
          AND THE LEASES THEY'RE SEEKING, THAT THE LEASES BE DETERMINED NULL AND VOID FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RAISED IN THE PUBLIC LETTER. 
          AND THAT IS THAT THE LEASES VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT A LOAN PLEDGE OR DONATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THAT LAWSUIT, UM, JFI TURNED AROUND AND ENGAGED THE SAME EXPERT THAT WE HAD ENGAGED AND WHO HAD RENDERED AN OPINION. 
          AND I SPOKE WITH J I'S ATTORNEY TODAY, JUST TO ASK PERMISSION. 
          UM, HE SAID, NO, NO, NO, YOU CAN SAY WE REENGAGED THE SAME EXPERT AND ASKED FOR THAT EXPERT TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED OPINION. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          THEY ALSO ENGAGED YET A SECOND EXPERT, AND THE DEADLINE FOR EXCHANGING EXPERT REPORTS WAS MONDAY, AND THE COURT HAS EXTENDED IT TO SEPTEMBER 2ND. 
          THE DEADLINE FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS HAS COME UP, UM, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UM, SERVED 30 DAYS BEFORE YOUR HEARING DATE. 
          UM, THERE IS A HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 28TH THAT IS ON THE BOOKS, AND THERE IS A TRIAL DATE OF, I BELIEVE, 
          [00:20:01]
NOVEMBER 16TH. 
          SO THIS, I IMAGINE, UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE DERAILS THE SCHEDULING, UM, THIS WILL GO TO TRIAL ON THE MERITS ON NOVEMBER 16TH, UNLESS OTHERWISE RESOLVED, UM, BY MOTIONS ON SEPTEMBER 28TH. 
          JFI HAS FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
          UM, IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
          UM, THEY HAVE FILED ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS JFI, UM, SERVED ON THE PARISH REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND THE PARISH ANSWERED THE REQUEST FOR THE ADMISSIONS. 
          AND BASICALLY WHAT THEY ASKED THE PARISH TO ADMIT OR DENY IS, DID YOU ASSESS THIS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? DID YOU DO ANY FORMAL WRITTEN ANALYSIS TO SAY THAT THIS TRANSACTION MEETS THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS? AND WHAT THEY CAME BACK AND ADMITTED IS THAT NO, THEY DID NOT. 
          THE FINAL ADMISSION THAT THEY MADE WAS, HAD THEY DONE IT, WOULD IT HAVE PASSED? ADMIT OR DENY THAT JEFFERSON PARISH'S POSITION THAT THE AMENDED LEASES AS WRITTEN DO NOT SATISFY THE THREE PART CABELA'S TEST SET FORWARD BY THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND WOULD EFFECTUATE AN IMPERMISSIBLE GRATUITOUS DONATION OF THINGS OF VALUE AND PROPERTY OF JEFFERSON PARISH UNDER LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION. 
          ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION 14, AND THE PARISH ADMITTED. 
          SO ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THAT, UM, UNDER THE JURISPRUDENCE THAT CONTROLS THESE SITUATIONS, WHICH IS THE CABELA'S CASE, ONE OF THE PRONGS OF CABELA'S IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOT HAVE HAD A GRATUITOUS INTENT. 
          YOU MUST HAVE INTENDED TO GET A VALUE DELIVERED BACK TO YOU. 
          SO THE IMPORT OF THE REQUEST IS THAT WE NEVER, WE NEVER EVALUATED IT FOR THE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE WOULD GET A RETURN. 
          CURIOUSLY. 
          AND INTERESTINGLY, WHAT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALSO IDENTIFIED, UM, AND ONE OF THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED IS THAT JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC. 
          SELECTED PORTER IN JUNE OF 2023. 
          THERE WAS A MEETING AND THERE WAS A SELECTION. 
          OKAY? WHAT REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE TO THE COUNCIL WAS THAT PORTER LIENS WAS SELECTED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO RESPONDED TO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. 
          WHAT THE COUNCIL WAS TOLD IS THAT JFI ADVERTISED FOR PROPOSALS AND INTERESTED PARTIES. 
          WHAT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IDENTIFIES IS THAT THE SELECTION WAS MADE IN JUNE AND THE ADVERTISED REQUEST DIDN'T GO OUT UNTIL JULY. 
          SO THEY WERE SELECTED BEFORE THERE WAS ANY ADVERTISEMENT, AND THEN AFTER THE ADVERTISEMENT THEY WERE RESELECTED. 
          SO IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT LIKE ESCAPED US, UM, BECAUSE AS SICKLY ASKED, LIKE, DID, YOU KNOW, IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ESCAPED US. 
          BUT IN DEALING WITH THIS, WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED A LOT OF OPPOSITION IN TERMS OF LIKE GETTING DOCUMENTS FROM SUBPOENAS. 
          SO IN GETTING THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE TO SUPPORT, LIKE GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND JFI DID NOT KEEP THEIR DOCUMENTS IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. 
          SO WE DIDN'T WANNA SAY THAT THEY PRESELECTED, WE LOOKED AT IT AND COULDN'T FIGURE OUT LIKE, IS THIS A TYPO BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT CAME TO US? AND SO, NO JFI SAID, NAH, THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE DATE THAT THEY WERE PRESELECTED. 
          SO I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. 
          UM, NO OTHER MOTIONS TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAVE BEEN FILED. 
          UM, AND THIS WAS DROPPED YESTERDAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ANY INTEREST ON THAT? I, I READ THE MOTION IN DETAIL ALONG WITH ALL OF THE EXHIBITS BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE SINCE 24. 
          UM, WHAT'S THEY, THE OTHER SIDE HAS TWO DAYS LEFT IF THEY WANT TO FILE A, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, I'M NOT SO SURE WHAT EVIDENCE THEY WILL HAVE TO COUNTER THE, UH, EXHIBITS, PARTICULARLY THE ADMISSIONS OF THE PARISH ATTORNEY, WHICH IS VERY CLEAR. 
          THEY DID NOT DO AN ANALYSIS. 
          THE PARISH HAS SPENT $10 MILLION ON THE BUILD OUT. 
          THE ENTITY THAT WAS LEASING IT DID, IS NOT REQUIRED TO SPEND ANY MONEY. 
          THEY DID NOT. 
          UH, LIKE MOST TYPICAL COMMERCIAL LEASES, IT'S A VANILLA BOX AND YOU DO YOUR OWN BUILD OUT. 
          THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. 
          THE PARISH 
          [00:25:01]
DID THE BUILD OUT, THE PARISH PUT THE KITCHEN IN THE PARISH WAS PUTTING THE BREWERY EQUIPMENT IN AT A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH LEASE. 
          INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IF THIS WERE IN TYPICAL JEFFERSON PARISH, THE PARISH WOULD BE GETTING REVENUE FROM IT. 
          THE CITY OF GRETNA GETS REVENUE FROM IT. 
          THE PARISH IS GETTING LESS THAN ONE SIXTH OF A CENT, UH, OF THE TAX REVENUE FROM, FROM THIS ENTITY. 
          SO CLEARLY IT'S A, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED IN THE CABELA'S CASE. 
          IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. 
          BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND JUDGE FORAY HAS THE CASE, HE GOES OFF THE BENCH IN DECEMBER AND HE SAID THIS CASE WILL BE CONCLUDED BEFORE HE IS OFF THE BENCH. 
          IT IS A JURY TRIAL THAT'S SET FOR NOVEMBER 16TH. 
          SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A JUDGE TRIAL, IT'S A JURY TRIAL. 
          UH, THIS, UH, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. 
          SO I WOULD THINK WE'LL HEREBY SEPTEMBER 28TH, UH, RIGHT AFTER THE NEXT MEETING, WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          AND I WILL LET EVERYBODY KNOW 'CAUSE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, PARTICULARLY WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE CAME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION IN 24 AND EARLY 25 REGARDING THE PUBLIC LETTER AND THE ISSUES REGARDING IT. 
          AND NOW WE'RE SEEING A, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STANCE. 
          IT'S BEEN TAKEN NOT ONLY BY JFI BUT NOW BY THE PARISH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT FOR US TO MONITOR WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          GOOD. 
          UM, I, I'LL ASK THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY, UH, UH, MS. PIERRE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT ON THIS? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU SAY THAT, UH, J FI'S DOCUMENTS WERE IN A BIT OF A DISARRAY. 
          DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, BUT BASICALLY YOU WERE ABLE TO PIECE TOGETHER WHAT YOU NEEDED. 
          I WE ALWAYS HAD THE INFORMATION , IT MAY NOT APPEAR THIS WAY, BUT I DON'T EVER SAY ANYTHING UNLESS I CAN DOUBLE DOWN AND DOUBLE PROVE. 
          AND SO I NEVER SAID ANYTHING 'CAUSE I COULDN'T LIKE GET DOWN TO THE ACCURACY OF THAT DOCUMENT. 
          UM, BUT THE ATTORNEY WHO FILED THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HE REPRESENTS JFI. 
          SO IT'S JFI WHO'S NOW TAKING THE POSITION AND ACKNOWLEDGING THEY PRESELECTED THE BREWERY. 
          MR. GIBBONS, NO QUESTIONS. 
          THANKS FOR THE UPDATE. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE COMMENT, BUT I THINK I'M GONNA RESERVE IT UNTIL AFTER THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. 
          ALRIGHT, WE READY TO HEAR ABOUT EVALUATIONS OF OUR THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, SO, UH, SOP IN OUR OFFICE IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ISSUE THE REPORT AND THEN AFTER THE REPORT IS ISSUED, WE PREPARE THE POWERPOINT IN ANTICIPATION, UM, OF PRESENTING THIS TO YOU. 
          SO THIS POWERPOINT WAS ACTUALLY WORKED ON EARLIER IN THE WEEK. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION YESTERDAY. 
          SO I'M GONNA ROLL THROUGH THE POWERPOINT. 
          YOU CAN STOP ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME IF YOU WANNA ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS. 
          UM, THEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE POWERPOINT, IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UM, THAT RELATE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU GOT YESTERDAY, I'M GLAD TO TAKE THOSE ON. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE MY TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE THE POWERPOINT FOR SURE, OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL AFTER? YOU CAN ASK 'EM NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN AFTER YOU MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION, I'LL ALLOW ANY PUBLIC TO COMMENT OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          IS THAT OKAY? FOR SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I DID READ THE RESPONSE FROM THE PARISH PRESIDENT AND I, I DO THINK THAT I HAVE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 
          IT BEGS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I HOPE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER AND, AND, AND ISSUES MAYBE YOU CAN RESOLVE IN YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          ONE IS, UH, WHY DID THE INSPECTION PERIOD, OR IF IT DID IN FACT, UH, FOLLOW, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW SOME CHANGES IN THE RULES OR THE LAW. 
          AND THE SECOND QUESTION THAT I AM GOING TO ASK OF YOU IS, WHY WEREN'T THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE OBSERVED SHARED WITH THE APPROPRIATE PARISH DEPARTMENT SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM, PULLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION OF GOOD GOVERNMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHY DOESN'T, WHY DON'T THEY GET THE TEST BACK AND GET TO SEE WHAT QUESTIONS THEY GOT WRONG, IF, IF YOU WILL. 
          WELL, I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THEM BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF GONNA BE THE SETUP THAT I NEED TO GO INTO OUR REPORT. 
          UM, THIS EVALUATION, UH, HAS A 2023 NUMBER. 
          IT DID NOT START IN 2023, AND IT DID NOT START AS AN EVALUATION. 
          THIS MATTER ACTUALLY STARTED AS AN 
          [00:30:01]
INVESTIGATION, MEANING THAT WE GOT INFORMATION ABOUT THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS, UM, ENGAGING IN INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WHEN IT WAS ASSIGNED TO BRITTANY MAJEURE. 
          AND OF COURSE, JEFFREY ADOLPH WORKED IT WITH HER. 
          AND THEY CHURNED AND THEY CHURNED AND THEY CHURNED FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. 
          AND I WAS NOT IN THE THICK OF IT WITH THEM, BUT AS THEY DO, THEY EVENTUALLY BRING IT TO ME. 
          AND THEY WERE CIRCLING BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A BELIEF THAT INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WAS HAPPENING BY THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS, UM, ANY CRIMINAL CASES RELATED TO THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS GENERALLY INVOLVE THE HOMEOWNERS, WHICH MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNERS ARE BEING HARMED OR THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. 
          THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE GETTING DID NOT INVOLVE A PARTICULAR HOMEOWNER. 
          LIKE THE TIP WAS NOT COMING FROM A HOMEOWNER, IT WAS JUST LIKE SYSTEMICALLY. 
          SO WHEN WE WENT TO THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO LOCK DOWN WHAT WAS HAPPENING, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT, I WAS NOT WORKING THIS DIRECTLY, THEY WERE WORKING IT, THEY BRING IT TO ME AND THEY'RE BRINGING ME PIECES AND I LITERALLY AM LIKE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A PIECE OVER HERE AND YOU THINK THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS THAT, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE OVER HERE, AND YOU THINK IT'S THAT. 
          AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE LEAPS OF LOGIC THAT ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT HOLDING AN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABLE. 
          AND THE REASON WE COULDN'T HOLD ANY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABLE IS BECAUSE OF THE OPERATIONAL CHAOS THAT EXISTED IN THE DEPARTMENT. 
          WE WILL GET INTO THIS. 
          THE PERMITTING SYSTEM HAS A FIELD DATE OF INSPECTION. 
          IF YOU LOOKED AT THE PERMITTING SYSTEM AND YOU SAID DATE OF INSPECTION, YOU WOULD THINK IT'S THE DATE OF INSPECTION, BUT IT'S NOT THE DATE OF INSPECTION, IT'S THE DATE THAT PERMITTING UPLOADS INFORMATION. 
          SO THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION DOES NOT MEAN IT'S THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION. 
          THEN THEY USE A FORM ON THE FORM, IT SAYS DATE OF INSPECTION, WHICH WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW BECAUSE THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS OF PEOPLE DOING THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS AT A QUANTITY AND NUMBER THAT A SINGLE HUMAN BEING COULD NOT DO. 
          I MEAN, JEFFERSON PARISH ISN'T ALONE IN HAVING THIS PROBLEM, RIGHT? SO IN ORDER TO GO AFTER THAT PERSON, YOU WOULD NEED TO KNOW THE DATE THAT THEY DID THE INSPECTION. 
          BUT THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT HERE ALLOWED THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS NOT TO NAME THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION. 
          RATHER, THEY WOULD PUT THE DATE OF THE REPORT. 
          SO THEY'RE TAKING A FORM AND THEY'RE CHANGING IT TO THE DATE OF THE REPORT, AND THEN THE PERMITTING STAFF IS UPLOADING IT TO THE SYSTEM. 
          AND THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION IS THE DATE OF THE UPLOAD. 
          SO BETWEEN THOSE THREE THINGS, THE THING YOU DON'T KNOW IS WHEN DID THE INSPECTION TAKE PLACE? SO YOU CAN'T HOLD ANYBODY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DATA POINT TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. 
          SO WE TOOK IT ON AS AN EVALUATION BECAUSE THE, THE WAY THAT THEY KEPT THEIR RECORDS WAS TOO CHAOTIC TO SUPPORT ANYTHING ELSE. 
          WE COULD HAVE JUST ISSUED A FIVE PAGE LETTER THAT SAID, UM, THE WAY YOU KEEP YOUR RECORDS IS SO OPERATIONALLY CHAOTIC. 
          WE CAN'T DECIDE WHICH WAY IS UP. 
          AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A FAIR REPORT. 
          BUT, UM, WE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. 
          THE POINT OF THE EVALUATION WAS NOT THE DISCREET 94 IN THE SAMPLE. 
          THE 94 IN THE SAMPLE IS SIMPLY WHAT CAN WE LEARN ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON BASED UPON THIS 94? UM, SO THEN OUR PROCESS, SO WE WORK IT UP, WE HAVE OUR SAMPLE, UM, IF YOU READ IN THE BACK OF THE REPORT, I BELIEVE LIKE WE HAVE IN THERE, WE HAD TO JUDGMENTALLY SELECT. 
          I MEAN THERE WAS A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGE LIKE, WE ARE LIMITED BY THE WAY YOU KEEP YOUR DATA. 
          SO WE DID OUR EVALUATION, WE DID OUR WORK, AND 
          [00:35:01]
THEN WE SAT DOWN WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE, UM, DEPARTMENT. 
          HE WAS A NEW DIRECTOR. 
          UM, WE ARE CROSSING OVER INTO DIFFERENT DIRECTORS. 
          HE'S A NEW DIRECTOR. 
          UM, WE SAT DOWN WITH HIM AND LET ME GO BACK 'CAUSE YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          WHO IN MIND WHO WAS THE NEW DIRECTOR? IS A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF MARK SABASTA. 
          AND I FORGOT TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION. 
          SO NOW YOU UNDERSTAND WE WERE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND DECIDED WE COULD NOT DO THAT. 
          SO THEN WE GO IN AND WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DESIGN AN EVALUATION. 
          AT THE TIME THAT WE ARE DESIGNING AN EVALUATION, THE PARISH CHANGES THEIR QUOTE OF ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE PICTURES. 
          SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT OUR SCOPE PERIOD, WE CHANGED OUR SCOPE PERIOD TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY HAD CHANGED THE ORDINANCE AND PUT IN A DIFFERENT CONTROL IE TAKING PICTURES. 
          SO WE CHOSE A SCOPE PERIOD THAT FELL ON TOP OF POST THAT CHANGE BECAUSE TAKING THE SCOPE PERIOD BEFORE THE CHANGE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE ANY SENSE. 
          UM, SO WE WENT AHEAD AND WE WORKED THE EVALUATION. 
          WE DIDN'T JUST WORK IT ON THAT ONE. 
          CONTROL MEANING ARE THERE PICTURES OR ARE THERE NOT PICTURES? THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION TESTS ACROSS MULTIPLE ORDINANCES. 
          WHEN WE WORKED UP OUR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, UM, MR. ADOLPH AND MS. MAJEURE MET WITH THE NEW DIRECTOR. 
          THAT WAS IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. 
          SO IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, HE WAS BASICALLY PROVIDED A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, MEANING, WHICH WE DO THIS WITH EVERYBODY, IT'S OKAY, WE'VE BEEN DOING OUR FIELD WORK, THIS IS WHAT WE FIND. 
          THAT'S KIND OF OUR TEST MOMENT FOR YOU TO SAY, OH NO, YOU'VE GOT IT WRONG, OR YOU'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS, OR WE'VE FIXED IT, OR WE HAVE A POLICY. 
          I MEAN, YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN DRAFTED THE REPORT. 
          WE'RE JUST TELLING YOU THIS IS OUR LIKELY FINDINGS. 
          THAT WAS IN JANUARY. 
          UM, SO IN JANUARY, MR. SSTA WAS PROVIDED IT. 
          UM, AND MR. SSTA IN JANUARY WROTE BACK BRITTANY AND JEFFREY. 
          I'M WORKING THIS WEEKEND ON A RESPONSE. 
          MY OPINION TO YOUR FINDINGS, AS I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE, I WILL NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE JP TEAM ON MONDAY. 
          I HOPE TO HAVE A RESPONSE TO YOU BY FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH. 
          THAT WAS THE LAST TIME THAT WE HEARD FROM MR. SABASTA, WHICH IS OKAY, BUT FROM JANUARY UNTIL THE DRAFT REPORT WENT OUT IN JUNE IS SIX MONTHS, THE DRAFT REPORT WENT OUT IN JUNE. 
          NOW, ONCE WE ISSUE OUR DRAFT REPORT, THEN YOU CAN READ THE REPORT FROM COVER TO COVER. 
          YOU GET OUR BACKGROUND, YOU GET OUR METHODOLOGY, AND YOU GET OUR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. 
          SO HE WAS GIVEN THE DRAFT REPORT IN JUNE, AND AT THAT TIME WE SCHEDULE AN EXIT CONFERENCE. 
          THAT'S WHEN WE SIT DOWN AND GO OVER THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT AGAIN. 
          THAT'S WHEN YOU GET TO TELL US, WELL, YOU GOT IT WRONG, YOU GOT IT RIGHT. 
          WHATEVER YOU WANNA TELL US. 
          MR. SSTA DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR REQUEST FOR AN EXIT CONFERENCE. 
          SO ON THAT DATE THAT THE CONFERENCE WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE, HE WAS CONTACTED. 
          AND WHAT HE RELATED ON THE PHONE WAS, I CAN'T MEET WITH YOU, I'M WAITING FOR INSTRUCTIONS FROM UPSTAIRS. 
          OKAY THEN, SO NO EXIT CONFERENCE TAKES PLACE NOW. 
          BUT SOME POINT IN THESE COMMUNICATIONS, MR. SSTA DID SAY I WANT THE 90 OR 94 SO THAT I CAN TAKE ACTION. 
          WHAT, WHEN THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY, THIS WAS IN JUNE. 
          IN JULY. 
          IT WAS AFTER THE DRAFT REPORT, HUH? NO, IT WAS BEFORE DRAFT REPORT, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHICH MONTH IT WAS. 
          OKAY. 
          SOMETIME BEFORE A DRAFT REPORT, WHICH WE SIT DOWN WITH PEOPLE ALL THE TIME AND GO THROUGH, BUT HIS LANGUAGE WAS A BIT CONCERNING TO US. 
          IT'S LIKE, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU TAKING ACTION AGAINST THESE INDIVIDUALS. 
          YOU CAN'T NAIL JELLO TO THE WALL ANY BETTER THAN WE CAN NAIL JELLO TO THE WALL. 
          THIS ISN'T ABOUT ONE THIRD PARTY, THAT'S NOT THE NAME OF THE GAME. 
          THE NAME OF THE GAME IS YOU HAVE NO WRITTEN PROCEDURES, YOU HAVE NO POLICIES, YOU HAVE FORMS, AND PEOPLE CHANGE WHAT'S ON THE FORMS. IF YOU JUST GET YOUR CONTROLS IN 
          [00:40:01]
PLACE, THEN LET'S COME BACK AROUND AGAIN AND SEE IF THE CONTROLS FIX THE PROBLEM. 
          THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE CONTROLS. 
          THESE ARE EXAMPLES. 
          THE 94? YES. 
          DID YOU SHOW THEM? DID YOU SAY THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES? THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES. 
          THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GOT WRONG ON THE TEST. 
          TELL IF MR. SSTA WOULD'VE MET WITH US AT THE EXIT CONFERENCE, THESE CONVERSATIONS TAKE PLACE. 
          BUT, BUT I GUESS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF YOU'VE GOT 94 EXAMPLES OF WHERE SOMETHING WENT WRONG, WHY, WHY DID, WHY WOULDN'T YOU SHOW HIM THE SPECIFICS? AND YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WOULD WANNA SEE, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY NUMBER X MM-HMM . 
          HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED. 
          I MEAN, DID, DID THAT HAPPEN? NO, THE 94 IS WITHIN THE SAMPLE, AND THEN WITHIN THE SAMPLE IT'S ASSESSED. 
          SO WITHIN OUR REPORT, THERE ARE IMAGES OF WHAT WE FOUND, MEANING YOU'RE, YOU ARE ACCEPTING INSPECTION REPORTS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE CHANGING YOUR FORM. 
          NOW, IT COULD BE ONE, IT COULD BE 10. 
          THEY'RE CHANGING THE FORM LIKE THE PICTURE IS IN THE REPORT. 
          UM, BUT ARE YOU SAYING BUT THE CHANGE IN THE FORM IS THAT'S HAPPENING EVERY SINGLE TIME OR JUST WE SAW IT IN 94 INSTANCES OF IT, WE SAW IT IN A POP, THE SAMPLE WAS 94. 
          AND WITHIN THE 94 WE SAW IT. 
          AND IT'S, IT, IT'S NOT JUST THAT THE, THE CHANGING OF THE FORMS, IT'S THAT COUPLED WITH THE OTHER SYSTEMATIC PROBLEMS. SO I DON'T THINK, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROBLEM WITH SITTING DOWN AND HAVING THE DISCUSSION AND SAYING, OKAY, WELL LET'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S PICK THIS ONE. 
          YOU LET THIS INSPECTOR INSPECT THE HOUSE AND HE DIDN'T HAVE THE CORRECT CREDENTIALS. 
          LET'S LOOK AT WHY WE FOUND HE DIDN'T HAVE THE CORRECT CREDENTIALS, LIKE THESE THINGS HAPPEN. 
          BUT THAT WAS NOT THE TONE OF YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH US. 
          DID DID HE REFUSE? YES. 
          , YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH US. 
          BUT I MEAN, CAN'T YOU, I COULD SEE THAT, BUT I COULD ALSO SEE, I MEAN, IF, IF I WAS BEING ASKED TO THAT, I'D WANT TO KNOW WHAT AM I SITTING DOWN FOR? YOU KNOW, CAN I, CAN I SEE THE, CAN I SEE THE 94 EXAMPLES MM-HMM . 
          AND, AND BE, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU. 
          AGAIN, WE SEND YOU AN INVITATION THAT SAYS, THIS IS OUR EXIT CONFERENCE, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE EXIT CONFERENCE IS TO GO OVER THE DRAFT REPORT. 
          IF HE HAD SAT DOWN AND GONE OVER THE DRAFT REPORT, WE WOULD HAVE WALKED THROUGH EACH FINDING. 
          IF WE WALKED THROUGH EACH FINDING AND YOU READ THE REPORT, YOU WOULD'VE SEEN THE BULLETED ITEMS. IF HE ASKED ABOUT A SPECIFIC BULLETED ITEM, WE WOULD'VE WORKED WITH HIM TO UNDERSTAND. 
          SO THE EXIT, YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH US. 
          MY QUICK QUESTION IS, THE EXIT CONFERENCE IS NOT THE END. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S THE END OF THE PROCESS. 
          WELL, THERE'S THE Y MEETING WHERE WE FIRST BRING IT UP. 
          SO IF ANY TIME BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE, IF HE WANTED TO REACH BACK OUT, LIKE HE COULD HAVE REACHED OUT, LIKE THAT'S FINE TOO. 
          UM, IN BETWEEN, BETWEEN JULY AND JUNE, HE COULD HAVE REACHED OUT AND THEN AFTER HE GOT THE FULL REPORT, HE COULD HAVE REACHED OUT. 
          I MEAN, THE FULL REPORT IS A GREAT TIME TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION, BECAUSE FOR US, WE JUST FINISHED THE DRAFT REPORT, SO EVERYTHING IS VERY FRESH IN THE HEAD. 
          AND WE JUST GOT FINISHED TURNING OVER OUR WORK PAPERS SO WE CAN SIT DOWN. 
          HE COULD HAVE COME TO OUR OFFICE AND SAT DOWN. 
          WE COULD HAVE GONE TO HIM AND SAT DOWN. 
          BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M SEEING NOW IS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE GOT A RESPONSE YESTERDAY FROM THE, UM, FROM THE, UH, PARISH PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YOU KNOW, SEEMS LIKE SORT OF ASKING TO DO WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I MEAN, MAYBE NOT, I MEAN, MAYBE Y'ALL CAN STILL SIT DOWN OR DISCUSS. 
          I MEAN, IF, IF Y'ALL WERE, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU WERE GONNA BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THE 94 EXAMPLES BACK THEN, WHY CAN WE DO IT NOW? I MEAN, IF THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE PROCESS BETTER, LET'S GET, YOU KNOW, THEM INFORMATION THEY'RE ASKING AND EVERYBODY TRY TO MAKE IT BETTER. 
          SO AFTER WE ISSUED THIS REPORT, BUT AS AN ASIDE, THERE IS 
          [00:45:01]
AN ONGOING RELATED FRAUD INVESTIGATION INSIDE OUR OFFICE. 
          NOT FRAUD OCCURRING INSIDE THE PARISH, FRAUD OCCURRING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE PARISH. 
          THE PARISH IS JUST LIKE THE CONDUIT FOR IT. 
          IN ORDER FOR US TO FINISH DEALING WITH THAT FRAUD INVESTIGATION, WE NEED RECORDS FROM THE PARISH AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CERTAIN PERMITS, WE HAVE MADE A REQUEST THE WAY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A REQUEST, UM, TO IT AND CAN'T GET THE RECORDS. 
          SO WE WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT, THIS IS THIS WEEK AND IT'S ON POINT. 
          SO HANG WITH ME. 
          WE WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT THIS WEEK AND WE SENT THEM A REQUEST AND MR. SSTA RESPONDED BACK THAT I AM TOLD YOU HAVE TO GO TO IT. 
          SO THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE BACK AND FORTH OVER THAT UNTIL LAST THURSDAY, MYSELF AND MR. ADOLPH CAME TO THE GUINEA BUILDING TO MEET WITH MR. SABASTA TO SAY, WE CAN'T GET THE RECORDS FROM IT. 
          WE NEED THE RECORDS FROM YOU. 
          HE SAID, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS. 
          I AM TOLD YOU HAVE TO GO TO IT. 
          AND I SAID, WHO TOLD YOU? BECAUSE THEN I NEED TO GO TAKE IT TO THE PERSON WHO'S GIVING YOU THE INSTRUCTIONS. 
          HIS RESPONSE WAS, I QUOTE, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. 
          THEN HE WALKED OUT AND TOOK A PHONE CALL, CAME BACK IN AND SAID THE PARISH ATTORNEY. 
          I SAID, THANK YOU. 
          NOW I'LL GO TO THE SEVENTH FLOOR. 
          I WENT TO THE SEVENTH FLOOR AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE PARISH ATTORNEY THAT RESULTED IN GOING BACK TO THE FIRST FLOOR TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SSTA, WHERE WE ALL SAT IN THE ROOM AND AGREED THAT HE'S GONNA GET US THE DOCUMENTS. 
          THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED IS I GET AN EMAIL FROM HIM THAT SAYS, I'M GIVING YOU EMAIL ADDRESSES. 
          I WAS LIKE, NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          I DON'T NEED THE EMAIL ADDRESSES. 
          I NEED YOU TO RUN THE SEARCH. 
          THIS IS NOT WHAT WE DISCUSSED. 
          AND HIS RESPONSE IS, THIS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD TO DO. 
          SO NOW I'M ON A LOOP OF THIS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD TO DO, WHICH RESULTED IN THE PARISH ATTORNEY GETTING INVOLVED AGAIN AND US HAVING A MEETING THIS MONDAY. 
          SO THIS MONDAY WE HAD A MEETING AT THEIR CONVENIENCE, AND AT THE TABLE WAS MR. SSTA, HIS ASSISTANT, TONY HURLEY, THE PARISH ATTORNEY, JULIETTE KASSAN, THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO DISCUSS ALL OF THIS, TRYING TO GET RECORDS. 
          AT THE END OF THE MEETING, I SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE THE OFFER TO MR. SSTA THAT BRITTANY HAS SPENT SO MUCH TIME WORKING ON THIS, THAT YOU NEED US TO COME HELP YOU. 
          IF YOU NEED US TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU, IF YOU NEED JEFFREY TO COME BACK, LIKE THEY HAVE SHADOWED YOUR PEOPLE, YOU ARE A NEW DIRECTOR, WE WILL COME HELP YOU. 
          WE WILL SIT DOWN, WE WILL TALK TO YOU. 
          AND EVERYBODY LOOKED AT ME LIKE I HAD THREE HEADS. 
          NOW WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL ME ON MONDAY WAS THAT A FOUR PAGE RESPONSE WAS COMING ON TUESDAY, WHICH BY THE WAY, AND LIKE, IT'S OKAY, MR. GSO REALIZED THAT HE DID NOT SEND ME THE RESPONSE. 
          SO THE RESPONSE THAT EVERYBODY GOT YESTERDAY, THEY DID NOT MANAGE TO SEND TO ME, AND IT WAS ABOUT MY REPORT. 
          SO THERE IS NO LACK OF WILLINGNESS AND THERE IS NO LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY ON OUR PART TO SIT DOWN AND PROBLEM SOLVE. 
          HAVE YOU GOTTEN THE RECORDS THAT YOU REQUESTED? NO. 
          SORRY, CAN WE, WE DO HAVE A MEETING SET UP TOMORROW FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEPARTMENT AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THE RECORDS. 
          THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE THE RECORDS? NO, WE DON'T HAVE THE RECORDS. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THE, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME SEPARATE INVESTIGATION. 
          NOT, I MEAN, MAYBE IT'S, AND COMMISSIONER WITCHER, LIKE, IT'S HARD FOR ME NOT TO HEAR IN YOUR QUESTION, AND I DON'T BLAME YOU AT ALL. 
          LIKE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RESPONSE AND YOU'RE LIKE, MADAM, IG COULDN'T YOU SIT DOWN AND WORK WITH THEM? LIKE, COULDN'T YOU SHOW THEM AND WORK WITH THEM? AND THAT IS BUILT IN THAT QUESTION. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          AND WITH DUE RESPECT, IS THE ASSUMPTION BOTH THAT WE ARE UNWILLING ON THE ONE HAND AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THEY ARE WILLING. 
          AND WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT THEY'RE NOT, AND I DON'T BLAME YOU BECAUSE IF I WASN'T SITTING IN THIS 
          [00:50:01]
JOB, I WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT MYSELF. 
          WELL, I BELIEVE HE'S TRYING TO FIND OUT, JUST LIKE I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. 
          YEAH. 
          OH NO, I DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          I'M JUST TELLING YOU LIKE, BUT WHAT, BUT I GUESS, BUT WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE HARM OF JUST SENDING THEM THE 94 CASES? I MEAN, THERE'S NO, THAT DOESN'T HURT ANYTHING. 
          AND, AND IF THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT, YOU KNOW, TOO BAD FOR THEM. 
          BUT AT LEAST IF WE'RE TRYING TO FIX A PROBLEM, SENDING THEM THE NAMES OF THE 94 SAMPLES ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING. 
          IT REALLY ISN'T. 
          WHY, WHY WOULDN'T IT THOUGH? I MEAN, WHY WOULD, IT'S NOT, WHAT'S IT GONNA HURT THOUGH? I MEAN, MAYBE THERE, LOOK, I DON'T KNOW WHY, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL, Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO, CAN'T SIT DOWN MM-HMM . 
          IN THE ROOM AND WORK IT OUT. 
          BUT IT, IT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAS TO BE DONE SITTING DOWN THE ROOM LIKE THAT. 
          I MEAN, IF IT'S, IF IT, IF, IF WE, IF WE'RE IDENTIFYING A PROBLEM, WE KNOW THERE'S 94 CASES THAT Y'ALL HAVE FOUND THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC, THEY'RE NOW COMING BACK AND SAYING, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE CASES TO, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS. 
          YOU KNOW, WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, WHY NOT JUST GIVE IT TO 'EM? I MEAN, IT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE IN AN IN-PERSON MEETING. 
          I MEAN, MAYBE THAT HAPPENS, THAT CAN HAPPEN NEXT. 
          WELL, AND IN PART THERE IS THE, UM, CAN GIVE THEM THE 94 NAMES IN THE SAMPLE AND WE GIVE THEM THE 94 NAMES. 
          LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY. 
          IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SOLVE A PROBLEM, THEY WANNA SIT DOWN AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          THE NAMES, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE, THE BRIEFING. 
          THE PROBLEM HAS LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 94. 
          LIKE THE 94 TRULY IS A BEST CASE. 
          EXAMPLE OF THE FALLOUT FROM NOT HAVING CONTROLS. 
          I CAN GIVE THEM THE 94, THEY CAN GO IN AND CHANGE THE RECORDS AND COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY, I GOT IT WRONG. 
          AND THEN WHERE ARE WE GONNA BE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN CHANGE THE RECORDS? MEANING THEY COULD TAKE THE 94 AND SAY THEY COULD FIX IT, FIND IT, FIND THE RECORD THEY NEVER GAVE US, AND SAY SHE GOT IT WRONG. 
          AND THEN WHAT SITUATION ARE YOU GONNA BE IN? BECAUSE LET ME ASSURE YOU, THAT CAN HAPPEN. 
          YOU MEAN YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GONNA FABRICATE RECORDS IF YOU, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? FABRICATE OR FINE? WELL, LOOK, I THINK I, I'M NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THAT, UM, CYNICAL VIEW. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE, IF YOU'RE IDENTIFYING A PROBLEM, THE POINT IS TO FIX IT, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT INVESTIGATING THE PARISH FOR FABRICATING RECORDS TO TRY AND TRYING TO CATCH ANYBODY DOING THAT. 
          I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AT THAT ? SO THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IS THERE IS NO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          THAT'S THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX. 
          SO EITHER THERE ARE OR THERE AREN'T. 
          AND BASED UPON THEIR RESPONSE, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE STILL DEVELOPING THEM, WHICH MEANS THEY AREN'T THERE. 
          SO THE PROBLEM THAT, THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S NO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, LIKE I SAID, WE COULD HAVE ISSUED A REPORT THAT SAID, WE CAN'T EVALUATE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          THAT'S NOT, TO ME, TERRIBLY HELPFUL BECAUSE IF I SAY YOU DON'T HAVE ANY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, YOU COULD SAY, WELL, BUT WE'RE GETTING BY. 
          AND THE WORK'S GETTING DONE. 
          SO WHAT'S PLUCKED OUT IN THE SAMPLES IS THIS IS YOUR RISK EXPOSURE. 
          IT'S EXAMPLES OF YOUR RISK EXPOSURE FOR A SINGLE PROBLEM. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          ONCE YOU HAVE THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, WE WOULD GO BACK. 
          SO IF YOU TAKE ANY KIND OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND YOU GET POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, THEN WE WILL GO BACK, REEVALUATE AND TEST WHETHER THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE WORKING. 
          AND THEY COULD BE WORKING IMPERFECTLY, BUT STILL WORKING. 
          AND WE CAN GIVE FEEDBACK. 
          BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE. 
          SO EVERYBODY IN THE DEPARTMENT IS PERFORMING THINGS BASED UPON PRACTICES. 
          SO LEMME JUST, I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, TO MOVE PAST THE 94, I, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PROVIDE THEM WITH THAT, BECAUSE I JUST, I DON'T, IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO ME TO BE, YOU KNOW, CRITICIZING, YOU KNOW, GIVING A CRITICAL REPORT AND NOT LETTING THEM KNOW THE BASIS FOR ALL THAT. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, THAT, SO, SO I, I THINK TO, YOU KNOW, TO, TO GET TO SOME RESOLUTION HERE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD ALL BE TRANSPARENT ON BOTH SIDES. 
          I MEAN, THEY SHOULD BE GIVING YOU WHAT YOU, YOU 
          [00:55:01]
ASKED FOR, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD BE GIVING THEM WHAT YOU'RE FINDING. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          MM-HMM . 
          HOW DOES I, I SAW THAT, I MEAN, THERE, THERE WAS A NEW, THERE WAS SOME NEW ORDINANCES PASSED IN JANUARY DEALING WITH THIS. 
          AM AM I RIGHT ON THAT THERE? WAIT, ORDINANCES, YOU'RE TA THERE WAS, THERE WAS THE PASSIVE END ORDINANCE RELATED TO GEO TAGGING OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT IS ONE CONTROL. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, BA IT'S, I GUESS BASED ON THAT, MY QUESTION IS WHETHER, I MEAN, IS THE PARISH STILL IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING, UM, PROCEDURES, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THIS NEW ORDINANCE, OR, OR IS THAT, I MEAN, IS THAT ALREADY, IS THAT DONE? THERE WERE NO . 
          OKAY. 
          I, I TOOK IT TO THAT. 
          I, I, I THOUGHT WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS, WAS SAYING IN HERE WAS THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS YEAR, THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING NEW PROCEDURES TO RESPOND TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UM, THE REASON THAT THEY PASSED THIS NEW WARD. 
          I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I I I TAKE IT TO THAT THE, EVERYBODY RECOGNIZED THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A PROBLEM. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          AND, AND YOU ALL WERE LOOKING AT IT SINCE LAST, YOU KNOW, SINCE 2023, UM, THE PARISH HAS BEEN LOOKING AT IT TOO. 
          AND THEY'VE, THEY'VE DEVELOPED, THEY'VE PASSED THIS ORDINANCE. 
          HAVE THEY BEEN IN THE, IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING, YOU KNOW, NEW, UH, NEW WAYS OF, OF DOING THIS? YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, DURING, FOR THE PAST YEAR, I GUESS SIMULTANEOUSLY, WHILE Y'ALL ARE, YOU KNOW, SO AS BEST AS WE CAN GET BASED ON THE EVALUATION, IS THAT THE COUNCIL PASSED THE ORDINANCE. 
          THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED THE, THE, THE, THE ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT, I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER. 
          IT COULD BE JANUARY. 
          DON'T HOLD ME ON THAT. 
          JANUARY 15TH, 2025, JANUARY 15TH, 2025. 
          IT WOULD'VE BEEN DISCUSSED IN ORDER TO ADOPT. 
          IT WOULD'VE BEEN DISCUSSED AT A PRIOR MEETING. 
          MEANING YOU HAVE TO PUT IT OUT THERE, IT'S GOTTA LAYOVER, IT'S GOTTA BE ADVERTISED BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED. 
          SO THE ACTION WOULD'VE STARTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 
          THERE WAS, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO ACTION TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE CONTROL THAT WAS ANTICIPATED BY THE ORDINANCE. 
          THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND SAID, YOU MUST HAVE A GEOTAG PHOTO WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR INSPECTION. 
          YOU MUST HAVE A GEOTAGGED PHOTO. 
          AS BEST AS WE CAN SEE. 
          THE INFORMATION DID NOT GET TO THE PEOPLE WHO PROCESSED THE PERMITS. 
          SO STRAIGHT UP, JUST INSIDE THE PARISH, THE PEOPLE WHO PROCESSED THE PERMITS WERE NOT TOLD DON'T ACCEPT AN INSPECTION WITHOUT A GEOTAGGED PHOTO. 
          LIKE THAT'S THE INSTRUCTION. 
          SO THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING THEIR BOARD AND SAID THEY PASSED. 
          THERE WAS NO IMPLEMENTATION, NO MEMO THAT SAID, HEADS UP A NEW RULE. 
          THAT WOULD BE A GOOD GUESS. 
          THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WE COULD DISCERN TO IMPLEMENT. 
          NOW, WHAT WE CAN DISCERN, BASED ON THEIR RESPONSE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT IN MAY, WHICH IS FIVE MONTHS LATER, THEY ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS ABOUT THE NEED FOR PHOTOS. 
          BUT THE CONTROL STARTS AT A WRITTEN POLICY AND PROCEDURE, DON'T ACCEPT INSPECTIONS WITHOUT GEOTAB PHOTOS. 
          AND I MEAN, WE'RE COVERING MOST OF THE BRIEFING AS WE'RE TALKING, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN MANDATES THAT EXIST IN STATE LAW AND IN ORDINANCE THAT ARE JUST NOT BEING FOLLOWED BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW TO FOLLOW THEM. 
          NOW, AGAIN, THIS WEEK, PART OF OUR PROBLEM WITH INABILITY TO GET RECORDS IS THEY HAVE A SERIES OF GLOBAL EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO USE, THEORETICALLY. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE SENDING IN YOUR PLUMBING INSPECTION REPORTS, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SEND IT INTO THE PLUMBING INSPECTION EMAIL ADDRESS. 
          SO IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DIRECTOR, IT'S, WELL, IT GOES TO THIS ADDRESS, WHICH WE HAD TO TELL THE DIRECTOR, NO, IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE ADDRESS. 
          BUT THE PROBLEM IS IT'S NOT GOING TO THE ADDRESS, IT'S GOING TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. 
          AH, HE FINDS OUT IT IS GOING TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. 
          SO THIS 
          [01:00:01]
WEEK HE SAYS, I SENT OUT AN EMAIL THAT TELLS EVERYBODY TO STOP ACCEPTING INSPECTION REPORTS ON YOUR INDIVIDUAL EMAIL ADDRESS. 
          MAKE SURE THAT THEY SEND IT TO THE GLOBAL EMAIL ADDRESS. 
          NOW, THAT'S AN INSTRUCTION. 
          IT'S AN INSTRUCTION VIA EMAIL. 
          THE PROBLEM IS, IT'S STILL NOT A POLICY. 
          IT'S STILL NOT A PROCEDURE. 
          AND WHEN EVERYBODY IS GONE AND THE EMAIL CAN'T BE FOUND, THEN EVERYBODY'S GONNA FORGET ABOUT IT BECAUSE NOBODY HAS WRITTEN IT DOWN. 
          DO Y'ALL WANT ME TO RUN THROUGH THE POWERPOINT? SURE. 
          COMMISSIONER, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE HAVING A THOUGHT THAT YOU HAVE A QUESTION YOU WANNA ASK. 
          I'M SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOME AUTHORITY TO REQUEST DOCUMENTS OF THE PARISH. 
          YES, SIR. 
          AND SO, WHY, UH, WOULDN'T THE PARISH COOPERATE? I ASK MYSELF THAT EVERY DAY. 
          THIS STARTED BACK SEVERAL YEARS AGO. 
          JUST TO GIVE YOU A, A BACKGROUND, PARISH ORDINANCES CHANGED AT THE END OF THE UNI ADMINISTRATION WITH REGARD TO ACCESS TO RECORDS. 
          UM, WE MET AT THAT TIME WITH DAVID GAREL, WHO IS PARISH ATTORNEY AND METRO, SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          WHAT ULTIMATELY GOT ADOPTED IN THE ORDINANCES, YOU HAVE TO REQUEST IT, SEND THE REQUEST IN, BUT YOU HAVE TO CC THE PARISH ATTORNEY. 
          WHAT, AND I BELIEVE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IN ALL THESE YEARS SINCE THAT TIME, IS THAT DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE NERVOUS TO PROVIDE DATA. 
          AND WE WERE TOLD ORIGINALLY THE PARISH ATTORNEY JUST STICKS IT IN A DRAWER AND DOESN'T LOOK AT IT. 
          IT'S JUST A PERFUNCTORY, UH, EXERCISE FOR THEM TO GET A COPY. 
          BUT APPARENTLY WHAT WE'RE HEARING, AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD IT, IS IT'S NOT UNFETTERED ACCESS AS IT WAS. 
          THE, THE ACCESS HAS TO GO THROUGH IT AND HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PARISH ATTORNEY TO GET THE DATA. 
          IT SHOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTS. 
          BUT, AND KIM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'VE HEARD THIS REPEATEDLY OVER THE COURSE OF NOT JUST YOUR TENURE, BUT DAVE MCCLINTOCK AS WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE, I'M NOT SURE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE AWARE OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, UM, AND HOW THE RECORDS SHOULD BE PROVIDED. 
          BUT TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM. 
          I'M NOT SURE PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE THE RECORDS, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE UNFETTERED ACCESS ANYMORE. 
          THAT'S STATUTORY. 
          IT, IT, AND I DON'T THINK THE THE COUNSEL'S GONNA CHANGE IT. 
          AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT. 
          NO, YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          WE CAN'T GET RECORDS OUT OF DEPARTMENTS AND WE CAN'T GET RECORDS OUT OF IT SOMETIMES, AND WE GET RECORDS OUT OF IT, AND THEY CAN'T, THEY'RE, THE FORMAT IN WHICH THEY'RE PRODUCED IS UNUSEFUL. 
          SO WHEN COMMISSIONER GIBBONS SUGGESTED THAT MAYBE YOU TURN OVER, UH, THE 94 ITEMS, I WOULD SAY THAT'S A GESTURE OF TRANSPARENCY. 
          AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE PARISH RECIPROCATE WITH A GESTURE OF TRANSPARENCY. 
          COMMISSIONER, IF MARK SSTA WOULD SIT DOWN WITH US, WE WOULD WALK THROUGH THE ENTIRE SAMPLE AND GIVE HIM EXAMPLE BY EXAMPLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE WORK THAT WE DID. 
          WHAT I HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER GIBBONS IS THAT JUST IDENTIFY THE PROPERTIES IN THE SAMPLE AND LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT. 
          AND THAT'S ONE APPROACH. 
          AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PROBLEM IS STILL GOING TO BE YOU DON'T HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED. 
          YOU'RE NOT OVERLY CONCERNED, OR ARE YOU OVERLY CONCERNED THAT THEY WOULD BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY OR YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THERE'S NO DOCUMENT WITH THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WOULD HELP. 
          I MEAN, WHICH ONE IS REALLY YOUR CONCERN? MY CONCERN IS WE COULD GIVE THEM THE 94 AND THEY COULD GO CHASE DOWN THE 94 AND THEY COULD SAY, OH, AHA. 
          THE PICTURE DID EXIST. 
          THE, WE FOUND THE, WE FOUND THE PICTURE, BUT YOU ALREADY, NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE 94 IS ALREADY, BUT WE KNEW WHAT YOU GO LOOK FOR. 
          WE FOUND THE PICTURE, THE PICTURE WAS MISFILED IN ANOTHER FILE. 
          IT WAS LEFT ON THE DESK. 
          AND THE, THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU THE PICTURE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          [01:05:01]
YOU FOUND THE PICTURE, YOU'VE RESOLVED THAT LITTLE DOT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE FACT THAT YOU COULDN'T PRODUCE THE PICTURE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE FINDING IS STILL VALID. 
          OKAY. 
          'CAUSE YOU GOTTA GO FIND IT. 
          SO, I MEAN, LIKE, DON'T MISUNDERSTAND, LIKE WHEN I SAY THEY GO FIND IT, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE MAKING IT UP. 
          I'M SAYING THEY'RE GOING LOOK FOR IT AND THEY CAN GO LOOK FOR IT AND COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY, AH, HOW WE FIXED IT. 
          NO, YOU DIDN'T FIX IT. 
          WELL, YOU, YOU STILL HAD TO GO FIND IT. 
          YOU FOUND, YOU FOUND FAULT IN, IN IT ORIGINALLY, DIDN'T YOU? YEAH. 
          WELL, OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING WOULD CHANGE IF, IF YOU CAME BACK WITH A CORRECTED COPY, THAT WOULD BE OBVIOUS, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          BUT THEN I WOULD SAY LIKE, WELL, WHERE WAS IT AND WHY WASN'T AVAILABLE TO US? YOU? AND I'M SAYING IT'S LIKE, YEAH, I'M ALSO NOT SUGGESTING THAT IF YOU SHOW THEM THE 94, THEY WOULD GO BACK AND COME BACK TO YOU AND CORRECT. 
          SPECIFICALLY THOSE. 
          I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE COOPERATIVE BETWEEN THE IGS OFFICE AND THE PARISH, WHERE, UH, THEY DEVELOP A POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON HOW THIS IS HANDLED. 
          I AM COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF COOPERATION. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT IT REALLY STILL REQUIRES GETTING SOMEBODY TO THE TABLE. 
          SO SOMEBODY WHO, THE TABLE WHO DOESN'T TALK TO ME, IT'S JUST, AND LIKE I SAID, WE OFFER TO MEET MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          DID UH, THIS, UH, THIS, UH, REPORT THAT YOU'RE GONNA GO THROUGH, THE POWERPOINT? I'M SORRY, I LOST OF WORDS. 
          IS IT, UH, IS IT WHAT WAS SENT TO US THE POWERPOINT? NO, THE POWERPOINT WASN'T SENT OUT. 
          YOU GOT THE REPORT? THE REPORT, OKAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          GO AHEAD. 
          IF, IF YOU, YOU WANNA SEE IT, YOU WANNA HEAR IT? SURE. 
          I WILL TRY TO NOT BE REDUNDANT TO OUR CONVERSATIONS. 
          UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, THERE WAS SOME REFERENCES IN THE RESPONSE ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE WORK THAT WE PERFORMED. 
          UM, THIS EVALUATION WAS LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL INSPECTIONS, UM, AND THEN WITHIN RESIDENTIAL INSPECTIONS WAS LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION, ESSENTIALLY CONSTRUCTION, UM, ON BUILDINGS. 
          SO THAT WAS THE SCOPE. 
          SO, UM, THE CRITERIA FOR FINDING NUMBER ONE IS THAT THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE FOR INSPECTIONS. 
          UM, THE INSPECTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM WITHIN FIVE DAYS, AND DOCUMENTATION SHALL CONTAIN THE BUILDING DATA, PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. 
          UM, THAT LAST BULLET POINT, UM, CAPTURES THE MOST RECENT CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF TESTING. 
          COMPLIANCE WITH THE FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN FIVE DAYS. 
          THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD REALLY TEST. 
          UM, YOU CAN'T TEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIVE DAYS BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION, WHICH WAS NOT REALLY CAPTURED ROUTINELY. 
          AND SO THEREFORE, YOU CAN'T TEST THE TIMELINESS OF THE INSPECTION REPORT. 
          19 INSPECTIONS DID NOT HAVE, UM, PHOTOS ATTACHED. 
          UH, 28 DID NOT HAVE GEOTAGGED PHOTOS. 
          WITH THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION. 
          ONE PHOTO INCLUDED A PHOTO OF A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. 
          70 INSPECTIONS CHANGED. 
          THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDED FORM CHANGING INSPECTION DATE TO INSPECTION REPORT. 
          SO, AS TO THIS PARTICULAR FINDING, WHAT THE PARISH'S POSITION IS IN THEIR RESPONSE IS THAT IT IS OUR FORM. 
          WE CAN CHANGE IT IF WE WANT TO. 
          I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT THEY PUT IN THEIR RESPONSE. 
          YOUR FINDING IS INVALID BECAUSE WE GET TO ACCEPT THE FORM HOWEVER WAY WE WANT. 
          THEY ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT. 
          WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS THAT THE DATA HAS TO BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. 
          SO WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT INSPECTORS ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE FORM AND NOT TO DISCLOSE THE INSPECTION DATE, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC OVERALL FOR REASONS THAT WE WILL COVER UNDER CRITERIA TO FOLLOW. 
          SO, FINDING NUMBER TWO, UM, THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PARISH ORDINANCE, FOUNDATION OR SLAB INSPECTION DATES WERE DONE, UM, BEFORE THE CERTIFICATE OR CERTIFIED SURVEY APPROVAL DATE. 
          IN FIVE INSTANCES, FRAMING INSPECTION DATES WERE DONE BEFORE THE ROUGH IN INSPECTION DATE. 
          NOW, I HAVE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS. 
          THIS FINDING WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO LOCK 
          [01:10:01]
DOWN. 
          UNDER THE CODE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS IN A CERTAIN ORDER. 
          FIRST, YOU GET YOUR SLAB WITH YOUR RUFFINS. 
          THAT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE YOUR FRAMING. 
          AND ONCE THERE'S YOUR FRAMING, THEN THERE'S ALL YOUR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL. 
          AND YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR PLUMBING DONE BEFORE YOUR FRAMING IS DONE, BEFORE YOUR SLAB IS DONE. 
          SO IT'S LIKE AT EACH STAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION, YOU LITERALLY ARE SUPPOSED TO GET INSPECTED AND THEN DOCUMENT THAT THAT STAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE IN COMPLIANCE, BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME WE DID NOT HAVE THE DATE OF INSPECTION. 
          YOU CAN'T REALLY TEST FOR COMPLIANCE THAT THE INSPECTIONS WERE DONE IN THE PROPER ORDER. 
          SO BASED UPON THE SAMPLE WE COULD GET, AND BASED UPON OUR ABILITY TO VALIDATE THAT THIS WAS A REAL INSPECTION DATE AND NOT A REPORT DATE, THESE FINDINGS WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PARISH CAN'T BE CERTAIN THAT THERE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE ON THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS BECAUSE YOU NEED THE INSPECTION DATE AND YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT WITH THE REPORT SO THAT YOU CAN SAY, I REJECT THIS PLUMBING INSPECTION BECAUSE I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE FRAMING INSPECTION. 
          SO THIS WAS FINDING RELATED TO BOTH THE WAY THEY RECEIVED THE REPORTS AND BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF INSPECTIONS. 
          FINDING NUMBER THREE, UM, NONE OF THE INSPECTIONS CONTAIN THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR CREDENTIALS. 
          THERE ARE SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS WITHIN THE PARISH'S RESPONSE THAT TALK ABOUT, UM, THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS BEING REGISTERED AT THE STATE, UM, AS WELL AS REGISTERED INSIDE OF THE PARISH. 
          AND WHAT THEIR RESPONSE INDICATES IS THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO COMPLY WITH THIS BECAUSE THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS IN THE STATE DATABASE, THE NUMBERS CHANGE. 
          INSPECTORS COULD BE ADDED OR INSPECTORS COULD BE DELETED. 
          THEY ARE NOT WRONG. 
          INSPECTORS CAN BE ADDED AND INSPECTORS CAN BE DELETED. 
          WHAT DOES EXIST IN THE POSSESSION OF THE INSPECTOR IS ACTUALLY THEIR CREDENTIALS. 
          MEANING THE INSPECTOR HAS CREDENTIALS SAYING, I AM COMPETENT TO DO A PLUMBING INSPECTION. 
          WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE PRESENTING THEIR CREDENTIALS AT THE TIME THAT THEY PRESENT THEIR REPORT. 
          ALL APPLICABLE. 
          THIRD PARTY CREDENTIALS SHALL BE VALID CURRENT AND PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. 
          AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION, THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT WAS NOT REQUIRING INSPECTORS TO PRESENT THEIR CREDENTIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERMIT. 
          SO SOME OF THE, THEIR, THEIR LICENSING NUMBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS NOT ATTACHED TO THIS. 
          THEIR LICENSE NUMBER MIGHT BE ATTACHED, BUT THEIR CREDENTIALS TO PERFORM THE SPECIFIC INSPECTION WAS NOT. 
          SO WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAYS IN THEIR RESPONSE, WHICH IS TRULY VALID IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE STATE REGISTRY CHANGES AND WE HAVE INSUFFICIENT STAFF TO VALIDATE. 
          AND LIKE, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WARM BODIES. 
          THE ANSWER TO YOUR LOW STAFFING IS YOU MAKE THE INSPECTORS GIVE YOU THEIR CREDENTIALS WITH THE REPORT, WHICH IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES. 
          THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T SAY, YOU GIVE ME THE INSPECTION AND I GO FIGURE OUT WHETHER YOU'RE CREDENTIALED. 
          THE ORDINANCE SAYS CREDENTIALS SHALL BE VALID AND SHALL BE PRESENTED. 
          IS THAT A NEW ORDINANCE? MM-HMM. 
          NO, THAT ORDINANCE HAS BEEN AROUND. 
          THAT ORDINANCE IS AROUND IS THAT OVERBURDENSOME TO, SORRY, THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE AN EASIER WAY. 
          WELL, I MEAN LIKE, YES, SOMEBODY'S GOTTA GO, BUT AN ABSENCE OF PROCEDURE. 
          YEAH. 
          SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO GO LOOK IT UP. 
          UM, WHAT THEY REFERENCE IN THEIR, UH, RESPONSE, THE BARRY DUNN REPORT, UM, WHICH WE RECEIVED A COPY OF TODAY, I ASKED FOR IT. 
          UM, THE BARRY DUNN REPORT NOTES THAT THE WAY THE PARISH DOES THIRD PARTY, UM, IS REDUNDANT. 
          MEANING THAT, UM, OUR AREAS AROUND US, INSTEAD OF HAVING A REGISTRY SYSTEM AT THE PARISH AND A REGISTRY SYSTEM AT THE STATE, THAT OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS JUST GO BY THE REGISTRY AT THE STATE, BECAUSE THEN IT REDUCES THE RISK OF MAL-ALIGNMENT BETWEEN YOUR REGISTRY AND THE STATE REGISTRY. 
          SO THE WAY WE DO THINGS IS REDUNDANT, AND WE DON'T MAKE THE INSPECTORS 
          [01:15:01]
PRESENT THEIR CREDENTIALS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE INCONVENIENT ON THEM, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO CHECK TO CHECK FOR CREDENTIALS, WELL THEN GO AHEAD AND MAKE THEM PRESENT IT. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES. 
          THAT WAS OUR CRITERIA. 
          AND WE DON'T HAVE COMPLIANCE. 
          I MEAN, MY QUESTION WOULD BE BOTH TO THE STATE DATABASE AND THE PARISH DATABASE. 
          IF IT'S DONE IN REAL TIME, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE, PARISH SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST PIGGYBACK ONTO THE STATE DATABASE IN REAL TIME AT ALL TIMES. 
          THAT WOULD SOLVE A PROBLEM. 
          I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT IS NOT A REALISTIC ASSUMPTION IN TERMS OF THE DATABASE. 
          THEY COULD DO THAT. 
          THEY COULD MAKE IT A PROCEED. 
          FIRST OF ALL, THEY KEEP A REGISTRY. 
          THEY RELY UPON THE REGISTRY. 
          OUR REGISTRY IS NOT KEPT UP TO DATE WITH THE STATE REGISTRY. 
          SO THE OPTION IS YOU GO INTO THE STATE REGISTRY AND YOU VALIDATE. 
          BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO CREATE A PROCEDURE THAT SAYS, BEFORE YOU INCEPT THE REPORT, YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND VALIDATE THAT THE PERSON POSSESSES THE CREDENTIALS. 
          AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. 
          SO, BUT THE ORDINANCE, WHICH LIKE NOT MY JOB TO JUDGE THE CONTROL OF THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE INSPECTORS PRESENT IT. 
          SO IF THEY DON'T LIKE THAT, THEY, THEY CAN GO ASK THE PARISH TO CHANGE IT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PRESENT IT AND WE'RE GONNA VALIDATE IT. 
          YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS. 
          UM, ALL THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE REGISTERED, UH, WITH THE STATE AND THE PARISH. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE CRITERIA IS. 
          UM, THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS, UM, MUST BE ICC CERTIFIED FOR THE INSPECTIONS THAT THEY ARE PERFORMING. 
          SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ICC CERTIFICATIONS. 
          WE HAD ONE ACTIVE THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR WHO NEVER REGISTERED WITH THE STATE. 
          THAT MEANS THERE WAS AN ACTIVE THIRD PARTY, UH, WITHIN OUR REGISTRATION SYSTEM WHO NEVER REGISTERED WITH THE STATE. 
          MEANING WE CALL THE STATE. 
          IT'S NOT THAT THEY WERE ON THE LIST OR OFF THE LIST. 
          AS THE RESPONSE TALKS ABOUT LIKE IT'S A MOVING LIST, IT'S THAT THEY WERE NEVER REGISTERED. 
          SO THEY WERE NEVER ON THE LIST, WHICH INDICATES THAT OUR REGISTRATION SYSTEM IS NOT ACTING AS AN OPTIMAL CONTROL. 
          UM, SIX ACTIVE THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS WERE REGISTERED FOR ICC CERTIFICATIONS THAT THEY DID NOT HOLD. 
          SO THAT MEANS WE HAD A REGISTRATION PROBLEM THAT, UM, THEY WERE REGISTERED FOR CERTIFICATIONS, THEY DIDN'T HOLD. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS LIKE TALKING ABOUT OUR REGISTRATION SYSTEM. 
          ONE ACTIVE THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR DID NOT HOLD A VALID POLISH REGISTRATION. 
          SO IN SOME RESPECTS, THE DUAL REGISTRATION IS CREATING DOUBLE THE WORK AND NOBODY IS CHECKING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PARISH REGISTRATION AGAINST THE STATE REGISTRATION. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, UM, OUR OBSERVATION WAS THAT THE PHOTOS DID NOT INCLUDE A PICTURE OF THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR. 
          THIS IS AN OBSERVATION AND NOT A FINDING BECAUSE WHAT THE CRITERIA IS, IS THAT THE INSPECTOR MUST BE ON SITE, LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE ON SITE. 
          BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT MANDATES THAT YOU TAKE DOCUMENTATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE ON SITE. 
          SO THE OBSERVATION IS MERELY THAT THERE'S AN ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION TO INDICATE THAT THE INSPECTOR WAS ON SITE. 
          UM, WE FOUND ONE INSPECTOR IN THE SAMPLE RESIDES IN TEXAS. 
          THE INSPECTION REPORTS AND PHOTOS SUBMITTED UNDER THE INSPECTOR'S NAME WERE SUBMITTED BY ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, NOT CERTIFIED BY ICC, OR REGISTERED AS A THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR, MEANING THE MAN LIVED IN TEXAS AND WAS ALLOWING SOMEBODY ELSE TO GO OUT AND INSPECT WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED AND THEN SUBMITTING UNDER HIS NAME. 
          SO, UM, TO RESOLVE THAT RISK, YOU COULD REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE INSPECTOR PERFORMING THE INSPECTION WAS ACTUALLY ON SITE. 
          IT WOULD ALSO CAPTURE THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION AND THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS INSPECTED. 
          LET, LET ME ASK YOU, KIM, DOES, DOES THE PARISH FORM REQUIRE THEM TO SAY OR CERTIFY OR ATTEST UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY? I ATTEST THAT THE PHOTOS ATTACHED WERE TAKEN BY ME ON 
          [01:20:01]
X DATE AT X SITE, NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IS THAT THEY DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND IN ADDITION TO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT THEY REQUIRE ATTESTATIONS OF THE INSPECTORS BASICALLY SAYING, I WAS THERE. 
          I PERFORMED THE INSPECTION. 
          INSPECTION WAS ON THE STATE. 
          SO, SO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO DOCUMENT THE RECEIPT OF THIRD PARTY INSPECTION REPORTS SO THAT YOU KNOW WHEN THE REPORTS COME IN THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIVE DAY RULE. 
          MAINTAIN A RECORD OF RECEIPT OF THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTION REPORTS IN THE DATABASE THAT THEY USE. 
          DOCUMENT THE DATE OF RECEIPT. 
          DOCUMENT THE DATE OF INSPECTION BASED ON THE GEOTAG. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION TO TIE THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION DOCUMENT THE RECEIPT OF THE PHOTOS SO THAT WE KNOW OUR PEOPLE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE INSPECTION WITHOUT THE PHOTOS. 
          DOCUMENT THE NAME OF THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR IN THE INSPECTION SECTION. 
          RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MY PERMITS NOW SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE, UM, COMPUTER SOFTWARE THAT THEY RELY UPON. 
          THERE IS A FIELD IN THE SYSTEM FOR THE INSPECTOR'S NAME. 
          THEY DO NOT PUT THE INSPECTOR'S NAME, THEY PUT SOMETHING ELSE IN THAT FIELD. 
          SO IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TRACK INSPECTIONS IF YOU USE THE FIELD IN THE WAY THE FIELDS WERE DESIGNED. 
          DOCUMENT RECEIPT OF THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR CREDENTIALS TO INCLUDE THE ICC CERTIFICATION. 
          THAT RELATES TO THE CRITERIA THAT THEY HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED DOCUMENT VERIFICATION THAT THESE THIRD PARTY CREDENTIALS AGAINST THE TYPE OF INSPECTION, MEANING SOME SORT OF CONTROL THAT SAYS THEY ARE LICENSED TO DO WHAT THE INSPECTION IS BEING PRESENTED. 
          DOCUMENT HOW TO RECORD INFORMATION FROM REPORTS INTO THE MY PERMITS NOW SYSTEM. 
          WHAT WE FOUND IS FROM CLERK TO CLARK, THEY DOCUMENTED INFORMATION IN THE DATABASE BASED ON PRACTICE, NOT BASED ON PROCEDURE, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T GET CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE INFORMATION CAPTURED IN THE SYSTEM. 
          VERIFY AND DOCUMENT PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS BECAUSE THAT'S THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS IN WHICH THE INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE TAKING PLACE, REJECT ALL THIRD PARTY INSPECTION REPORTS, WHICH ARE MODIFIED OR NOT SUBMITTED ON A CURRENTLY APPROVED FORM BECAUSE THEY WERE CHANGING THE INFORMATION ON THE FORM. 
          UM, REJECT INSPECTIONS WHERE THE INSPECTION DATE ON THE FORM IS DIFFERENT FROM THE INSPECTION DATE ON THE GEOTAG. 
          SO ESTABLISH A CONTROL TO SAY IF THE GEOTAG IS DATED THIS, THEN THE, ITS, THE DATE HAS TO BE DISCLOSED AS THE SAME. 
          REJECT ALL THIRD PARTY REPORTS WHERE THE INSPECTOR WAS NOT QUALIFIED REJECT ANY INSPECTION WHICH WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO SATISFYING THE PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS. 
          UM, WE ALSO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT MODIFYING THE CURRENT THIRD PARTY INSPECTION RECORD. 
          UM, AND THEN WE HAVE IN THERE CONSULT WITH THE PARISH ATTORNEY TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE THIRD PARTY INSPECTION RECORD REPORT REQUIRING THE INSPECTORS ACKNOWLEDGE AND ATTEST THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THE FORM IS TRUE AND CORRECT SO THAT WE CAN THEN HOLD THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON THE FORM. 
          CAN, CAN I ASK PROBABLY A STUPID QUESTION, BUT, UH, WHEN AN INSPECTOR COMPLETES THE REPORT, CAN THEY JUST UPLOAD ALL THIS DATA AND FILL OUT THE DATA AND THEN THE SYSTEM WILL REJECT IT OR ACCEPT IT BASED UPON THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA? IS THERE AN AI VERIFICATION OR ANY VERIFICATION IN THE SOFTWARE THAT VERIFIES IT? OR DO THEY BRING IN A PA PAPER REPORT? THEY DELIVER IT VIA EMAIL AND THE EMAILS ARE NOT MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE RECORD, BUT THE INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THE EMAILS IS DETACHED AND UPLOADED BY PERMITTING STAFF, BUT IT'S, BUT THE INSPECTOR DOESN'T UPLOAD IT, WHICH WOULD SAVE INFINITELY MORE TIME. 
          IT WOULD SAVE MORE TIME. 
          AND IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR AN AUDIT TRAIL FOR INTEGRITY, JUST LIKE LAWYERS FILE PLEADINGS ELECTRONICALLY. 
          AND OUTTA CURIOSITY, IS THAT, IS THE SOFTWARE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT? IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT, CAN THE INSPECTOR UPLOAD THE DATA DIRECTLY? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN EXPLORE. 
          THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS WORKING AT THE TIME OF THE EVALUATION. 
          IS THAT THE END OF THE YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MON, COULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. 
          JUST 
          [01:25:01]
GIVE ME AN IDEA, MADAM, ABOUT HOW LONG THIS WOULD TAKE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT GIVING THE 90 PLUS IS OFF THE TABLE AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED? AM I CORRECT? YOU KNOW WHAT, I WANNA MAKE THE COMMISSIONER HAPPY, SO NO, IT'S NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          HOW LONG WOULD A THOUGHTFUL, WELL THOUGHT OUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TAKE PLACE? BECAUSE HOW, HOW LONG BEFORE YOU THINK WE COULD START TO FIX THE PROBLEM? UM, IF I WERE THE PARISH, UM, AND I HAD DEALT WITH OUR OFFICE, AND THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO US. 
          THIS IS HOW PEOPLE DO IT. 
          UM, AS PART OF OUR EVALUATION, BRITTANY DID A WALKTHROUGH AND BASICALLY DOCUMENTED WHAT EACH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE DID AND HOW THEY DID IT. 
          SO IF I WAS THE PARISH, I WOULD SIT DOWN WITH US AND SAY, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE ME THROUGH YOUR WALKTHROUGHS AND THEN SIT DOWN WITH US AND THE PARISH AND YOU TAKE NOTES ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS SO THAT YOU THEN DEVELOP A POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR HOW IT'S BEING DONE AND THEN YOU UNIFY IT. 
          WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERUSE THE BARRY DUNN REPORT. 
          THEY SPEAK ABOUT THIRD PARTIES IN A COUPLE OF PLACES. 
          SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY BARRY DUNN IS THAT THE ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO, UH, THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS ARE WRITTEN SUCH THE ORDINANCES, THE ORDINANCES FOR THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS ARE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY TO ASSURE QUALITY ASSURANCE. 
          BARRY DUNN DID NOT TEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. 
          THE POINT OF THE SAMPLE AND THE POINT OF THE BULLETS IS TO TELL YOU WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AND WRITE YOUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES COVER THIS. 
          IT'S NOT AN INDICTMENT OF THE PEOPLE OR ANY PARTICULAR PERMIT. 
          IT IS TO SAY, WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AND YOU WRITE YOUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, DON'T FORGET, EVEN IF, LIKE EVEN INSIDE OUR OFFICE, AND THIS IS NOT UNIQUE, LIKE THERE'S SOFTWARE LIMITATIONS. 
          SO SAY A SPECIFIC FIELD HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF GENERIC FIELD THAT HAPPENS. 
          WHAT YOU DO IS YOU WRITE A POLICY AND PROCEDURES TO SAY, FILL IN THE FIELD WITH THIS WORD AND DOCUMENT THE INSPECTOR OVER HERE. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          THEN EVERYBODY DOES IT THE SAME WAY. 
          IF YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE YOUR INSPECTION REPORTS VIA EMAIL, THEN YOU SAY, PRINT THE EMAIL, SAVE THE EMAIL AND THE ATTACHMENTS, AND THEN YOU HAVE DOCUMENTED THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT. 
          SO THE EXAMPLES GIVEN, TIED TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DOCUMENT SO THAT THEY WOULD BE INFORMED ABOUT WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THEIR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          PART OF OUR MANDATE IS TO WORK WITH THE PARISH TO SEE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKE PLACE, WHICH IS WHY WE WILL SIT AT THE TABLE FOR HOW LONG IT TAKES AND TAKE NOTES ON WHAT UI CAN DO TO FIX IT. 
          I PLAN THE ATTORNEY, UH, SHE DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SO I'M GONNA ASK IT. 
          HOW LONG DO YOU THINK REALISTICALLY, IN A REALISTIC WORLD, YOU CAN, YOU COULD GOOGLE FOR PEER, UH, UH, FOR PEER JURISDICTIONS, UH, FOR THEIR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND HIGHLIGHT SOME, GET RID OF THIS, ADD THAT, AND 60 TO 90 DAYS IN MY WORLD. 
          BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN . 
          SO THE QUESTION IS, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK 1690 DAYS CAN BE DONE? MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          SO DEFINITELY BEFORE THE END OF 2026. 
          OH YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YEAH, I DO THINK, AND LET'S, LET'S KEEP IN MIND WHY THIS IS SUCH A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. 
          YOU REMEMBER MANY YEARS AGO THIS ISSUE CAME UP IN NEW ORLEANS ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT. 
          UH, PHOTOS WERE BEING TAKEN BY CONTRACTORS, PHOTOS WERE BEING TAKEN, AND THE INSPECTOR HAD NOT EVEN BEEN TO THE SITE. 
          THAT WAS THE GEO TRACKING POINT. 
          SO I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. 
          I I, I LOVE THAT THE PARISH HAS DONE THE ORDINANCE. 
          I THINK IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          I THINK THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HOPEFULLY CAN GET DONE QUICKLY AND THEN YOU CAN REEVALUATE AND, AND REPORT BACK HOW WE'RE DOING. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR HOW WE'RE DOING. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? NO, 
          [01:30:01]
I, I MEAN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ADMINISTRATIONS, YOU KNOW, REALIZES THERE'S ISSUES HERE WANTING TO FIX IT. 
          Y'ALL HAVE POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, YOU POINTED OUT THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED. 
          SO I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET IT FIXED, BUT I WOULD, I REALLY DO THOUGH THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO SEE, 'CAUSE EVEN LOOKING AT THE REPORT, IT, IT'S NOT, THERE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN DIFFERENT CASES WHERE YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, FIVE, YOU KNOW, HAD THE PLUMBING REPORT WRONG, 10 HAD, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ELSE WRONG. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THEM TO, TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, TO SEE THE EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO TRY TO GET THIS, UM, TRY TO GET THIS BETTER. 
          WE WILL SEND THEM A LIST OF PERMITS THAT COMPRISE THE SAMPLE AND I WILL SAY, YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          THE COMMISSIONER WANTED US TO SEND IT TO YOU. 
          AND HERE IT'S, AND WE AGAIN WILL OFFER IT TO YOU. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO, TO TELL, YOU KNOW, TO NOTE IN THERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHICH ONES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          YOU KNOW, HAVE THESE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SO THAT THEY CAN KNOW AND, AND ADDRESS 'EM AND KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY NEED TO IMPROVE ON. 
          I'LL MAKE CLEAR TO THEM THAT WE ARE AVAILABLE TO WALK THROUGH WHAT WE FOUND IF THEY WANNA SIT DOWN AND TALK. 
          GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND AS, UH, I WAS GONNA SAY, AS AS PROMISED, I WOULD OPEN THE MICROPHONE OF THE PODIUM TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER MAJOR IG? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO TAKE, HELLO? UM, I'M GREG BRUCE DUR. 
          UM, I, UM, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH A SITUATION LIKE MY WIFE SAID, UH, WHEN AN UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE WAS BUILT AND, UM, LOTS TO GO WITH THAT. 
          UM, IT SEEMS LIKE NUMBER ONE THAT, UM, WITH THE PERMITTING OFFICE, UM, IT'S EASIER TO NOT GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND DO THINGS LAWFULLY. 
          IT'S EASIER TO BUILD SOMETHING, BEG FOR FORGIVENESS AND GET A VARIANCE. 
          UM, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, IN UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AS WELL AS THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS, AND ALSO TO VALIDATE WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATED WITH LACK OF SOPS WITHIN THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT, UM, I HAVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED PARISH DOCUMENTS FROM PERMITTING OFFICIALS, THE SAME EMAIL CONTAINING DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS WITH THE SAME DATE AS IF IT WAS THE SAME EMAIL. 
          THERE'S NO LACK OF INTERNAL CONTROLS TO PREVENT WHAT APPEARS TO BE PER PERMITTING OFFICIALS CHANGING OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND EMAILS LIKE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID, NOT JUST THIRD PARTY. 
          BUT IN TERMS OF WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, UM, I PERSONALLY HAD TO DEAL WITH, UM, THREE DIFFERENT MEAN ROOF ELEVATIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE SAME PERMITTING OFFICIAL ON THE SAME EMAIL. 
          IT LOOKED LIKE IT'S THE SAME EMAIL, SAME DATE EACH TIME, BUT IT HAD THREE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS. 
          SO HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH ONE WITH THE ORIGINAL EMAIL, ORIGINAL MEASUREMENT. 
          UM, SO THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE INTERNALLY WITH THAT, IN MY OPINION. 
          UM, ALSO, EXCUSE ME, IN TERMS OF LACK OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES, UM, THERE WAS, UM, AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL FEE THAT WAS RUN FROM ONE PROPERTY TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER. 
          UM, WE, IT WAS, UH, DONE ILLEGALLY. 
          UNPERMITTED UNINSPECTED. 
          I WAS ASKING THE PARISH ATTORNEY TO, UM, HAVE IT INSPECTED 'CAUSE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT FIRE AND OR GAS EXPLOSION. 
          UM, EVENTUALLY THEY CONSENTED AND THE CHIEF INSPECTOR INSPECTED IT AND I ASKED FOR A REPORT AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE DON'T ISSUE A REPORT UNLESS SOMETHING FAILS. 
          AND I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED BY THAT. 
          AND I WAS LIKE, SO I HAD SOMEONE WHO DUG IT, DUG THEIR OWN TRENCHES WITH AN EXCAVATOR THAT ALL THIS UNPERMITTED UNINSPECTED AND YOU'RE JUST TELLING ME THAT IT PASSED AND THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT YOU FOUND. 
          NO DOCUMENTATION OF THE INSPECTION. 
          SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S LITERALLY VERY LITTLE DOCUMENTATION WHEN AN INSPECTION REPORT IS DONE, IT EITHER PASSES OR FAILS AND IF IT FAILS, THEN THEY PUT, UM, DOCUMENTATION ON WHY IT FAILED. 
          BUT THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION ON WHAT THEY FOUND. 
          THERE WAS NO GEOTAGGING PICTURES OF THIS UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION. 
          UM, SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE, THAT DOES SEEM TO GO WITH A LOT OF WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS SAYING AS WELL. 
          A LOT NEEDS TO BE DONE INTERNALLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY, ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? JERRY, DO WE HAVE TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION? NO, WE HAVE, YOU 
          [01:35:01]
HAVE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET BECAUSE, 'CAUSE THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE YOU HAVE TO DO IT BEFORE WE GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION BUDGET'S FIRST. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING TO 
          [VII. Review and approval of 2027 JPECC / JPOIG Shared Budget, Resolution related thereto  ]
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, EIGHT STATE, WHICH IS THE BUDGET. 
          THIS IS BUDGET, YEAH. 
          ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON THE AGENDA REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE 2027 J-P-E-C-C AND J-P-O-I-G SHARED BUDGET. 
          UM, AND LET ME LET YOU KNOW THAT, UM, THE BUDGET PROCESS IS UNDERWAY. 
          THE PARISH IS ON A NEW SYSTEM. 
          WE HAD TO TURN IN THE NUMBERS, SO WE TURNED IN THE NUMBERS. 
          IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THE BUDGET, WE CAN GO UNDO THE NUMBERS. 
          BUT WE HAD, AS A MATTER OF MECHANICS TO PUT IN THE NUMBERS, UM, THIS IS AN UPDATED BUDGET FROM THE BUDGET THAT WAS IN JULY. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT INCLUDES COSTS FOR US TO HANDLE UPDATES ON OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. 
          SO THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE LINE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 
          IT WAS INCREASED BY 35,000. 
          AND LAST TIME I LOOKED, I THINK YOU ALL WERE UNDER BUDGET EVEN BETTER THAN YOU WERE THE YEAR BEFORE. 
          I DO MY VERY BEST TO SPEND AT LEAST WHAT'S BUDGETED. 
          AND WE ALWAYS COME UNDER AND WHEN I SAY THE NUMBERS WERE SUBMITTED, THE NUMBERS WERE SUBMITTED FOR BOTH ENTITIES. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THE BUDGET PROCESS WORKS. 
          AS YOU KNOW, WE SHARE A BUDGET. 
          YES, OUR BUDGET'S VERY SMALL, BUT BASICALLY IT'S, IT'S ME, WHICH IS 30,000 BUDGETED. 
          UM, 2026. 
          IT'S ONLY BEEN $8,000, UM, TO DATE. 
          AND THEN, UM, 5,000 PROFESSIONAL FEES. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT ALSO THE WEBSITE AND IT, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. 
          THAT IS A NUMBER THAT WE ALWAYS CARRY FOR YOU. 
          YEAH, JUST IN CASE. 
          JUST IN CASE YOU HAVE A NEED. 
          ONCE YOU HAD A NEED FOR MORE ATTORNEY'S FEES THAN WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU GOT, BUT, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UH, 2027 JPEC SHARED BUDGET WITH, CAN I JUST ASK THE, SO THE, THE, UM, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, IT'S, IT'S NOT 50,000, IT'S 85,000. 
          IS THAT WHAT, OR IS THAT, OR IS IT 50 AFTER THE INCREASE? THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IS 85. 
          85. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND JUST FOR POINTS OF CLARIFICATION, ALMOST ANYTHING YOU WOULD THINK OF IS ACTUALLY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 
          IT'S THE LINE ITEM THAT SHE PAYS OUT OF THE MOST. 
          YEAH, I THINK, WHAT IS WESTLAW PAID OUT OF? A SUBSCRIPTION OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES? SUBSCRIPTION SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
          SO OTHER THAN THAT, ALMOST ANYTHING FALLS FOR WHATEVER REASON. 
          AT T AT T EMAIL, YOU KNOW YEAH. 
          IS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, UNLESS IT'S PAPERCLIPS AND THEN IT'S OFFICE SUPPLIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME? YES. 
          I, OKAY. 
          , YOU WERE LOOKING AT ME. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS READING THE SIGNALS. 
          UH, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE 2027 SHARED BUDGET. 
          SECOND. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          NOW, JERRY, DO WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW? WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE 
          [VIII. Executive Session for the Confidential Consideration of possible ethical violations ]
SESSION, UH, FOR ONE NEW ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          I MOVE THAT WE MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL NEED A ROLL CALL ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          FRANK YOUNG? YES. 
          MONICA PIERRE? YES. 
          BILLY GIBBONS? YES. 
          YES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE'LL BE IN RECESS FOR A FEW MINUTES AND IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU NEED, WE'RE GOING BACK ON. 
          DO WE REQUIRE A MOTION TO REENTER? YES. 
          IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO REENTER A REGULAR SESSION? I MOVE THAT WE REENTER A REGULAR SESSION. 
          SECOND. 
          MADE A ROLL CALL. 
          FRANK YOUNG? YEP. 
          MONICA PIERRE? YES. 
          BILLY GIBBONS? YES. 
          UNANIMOUS. 
          NEW BUSINESS INSPECTOR. 
          CHAD LANE, DO YOU HAVE ANY NEW I'M SO DONE WITH MY BUSINESS. 
          OKAY. 
          . 
          GOING ONCE. 
          GOING TWICE. 
          NO NEW BUSINESS. 
          [01:40:01]
THANK YOU. 
          UH, MOVING 
          [X. Next Meeting Date: September 16, 2026   ]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          OUR NEXT MEETING DATE. 
          SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026. 
          I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CALENDAR AND I'LL BE HERE. 
          , YOU'LL BE BEHIND. 
          IT WAS CALENDARED LAST, LAST TIME. 
          WE JUST NEED FOR WEDNESDAY TO FEEL LIKE WEDNESDAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND BELIEVE ME, SOMETIMES I HIT WEDNESDAY. 
          IT'S TOUGH. 
          I THINK ISN'T IT STILL MONDAY? IT WAS. 
          IT WAS A TUESDAY THAT I THOUGHT. 
          I THOUGHT IT WAS A TUESDAY. 
          YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TUESDAY? YEAH. 
          HEY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE ALL HAD THOSE PHONE CALLS BEFORE ALL. 
          DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THERE WAS A QUICK MOTION. 
          . 
          YES. 
          I'M GETTING SHORT OF IT IN MY MOTIONS.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.