The Livingston Parish Council faced quite a bit of community backlash at last night’s meeting for a few items pertaining to the council’s recent check scandal. Just last week, the 21st Judicial District Attorney started a criminal investigation into Councilwoman Erin Sandefur after checks and records she requested were leaked to Brad Cascio’s competitor, Sherman Mack, and used as evidence against Cascio on a piece of political mail sent out to many residents of the parish.
The political mail included photos of those checks, exposing the parish government's bank account number, which led to the bank forcing the parish to change their account number at no charge due to security concerns.
At the council meeting on October 7th, the council first proposed a resolution to create a policy and procedure for obtaining records internally, in reference to a memo sent by council administration.
The policy is “just to clarify how the council itself will obtain records through the administration and it’s just gonna be saying… that [the requests] will have to be in writing,” Councilman Billy Taylor stated, adding that “no more phone calls” will be accepted as valid requests.
Councilman Taylor noted that a policy was not in place before, but is being brought before the council now so that requests will be better tracked and so that incidents like the one that recently happened will be less likely to occur.
Councilwoman Sandefur asked “what is the purpose of this request?” and read aloud parts of the policy that focused on council members needing to identify their reasoning and motivation behind requesting records.
One section states that “if the request is related to a governmental project, the councilmembers shall identify the governmental project, matter, legislation, constituent issue, committee work, investigation, and other official business for which the records are being requested.”
Another section states that “when records are requested to official government business, the councilmember shall identify the governmental purpose or project sufficiently for the council clerk and/or deputy clerk and appropriate records custodian to understand the nature and scope of this request.”
Councilwoman Sandefur stated that these additional guidelines will give “John Q. Public more access to records than your elected council does,” and added that “you don’t need to know the nature of the request.”
“It does give the ability to move the goal post, in my opinion, and decide what you’re gonna reveal or not reveal,” Councilwoman Sandefur continued.
Councilwoman Sandefur called for a motion to table the policy until more work can be done on it, as well as to create a committee to write the policy. Councilman Taylor stated that he will not make a committee and the policy will be worked on by the council together.
Sandefur’s motion to table the policy until the next meeting was seconded by Councilman Dean Coates and passed with only Councilman John Mangus voting against it.
Afterwards, the council heard a new resolution to send the October 8th meeting agenda and all parish administration’s internal investigation findings in reference to parish checks being distributed to a political candidate to the Louisiana Attorney General’s office and the Louisiana Board of Ethics for transparency purposes.
Chris Gonthea was first to speak, citing that the lack of an established policy and general vagueness of who is in charge of redacting sensitive information for the council has turned this request into a “witch hunt” of blame.
“It’s very vague, very hard to follow, there was no established policy, and quite probably no knowledge that some of this information was even here, and so if it’s gonna be going to a district attorney or district general… is there more blame to go around?” Gonthea asked. “Why was that information given if it wasn’t requested?”
“Maybe this just outta be let go,” Gonthea concluded, with claps from around the room.
Livingston Parish Planning and Zoning Commissioner Brian Clemmons was next, noting that the code of ordinances, part 1, article 2, section ‘Investigations’ reads that “the council may make investigation into the affairs of parish government and related conduct of any parish official, officer, employee, department, officer, or agency."
“There is no limit given to the investigative article in the charter,” Clemmons stated. “I would suggest… that you amend the charter by ordinance… and caution you about moving forward.”
Mickey McMorris spoke next, stating that this is “not a witch hunt" and is “not political” to which several people in the room audibly laughed.
“Fraud is a real thing,” McMorris went on to note. “It’s incumbent upon me, who has fiduciary duty, to protect those assets, and it’s also incumbent upon [the council] to protect those assets as well. We are liable, personally, if we do not do our due diligence.”
McMorris explained that it’s Parish President Randy Delatte’s policy that all councilmembers receive information unredacted for “transparency,” adding that this policy is “just to clear up what you’re gonna do with [the records].”
“I know it’s a politically heated situation, but honestly that is the bottom line. It’s all about protecting the assets of our parish from fraud,” McMorris concluded.
Grace Sandefur then took to the stand, stating that the information requested being contained on a thumbdrive “seems like a security issue.”
“Why are we putting sensitive information onto untraceable devices?” Grace asked rhetorically.
“Anybody with Microsoft Office knows that all you have to do is do a OneDrive link and you can email [large files],” Grace continued.
Jason Stilly, who stated he has been in and out of managing businesses for the past twenty years, told the council that “if we’re still writing checks, we’re way behind [technologically].”
“You’ve got operating accounts, you’ve got payroll accounts, you’ve got multiple accounts, so to say that we had to close every account and redo everything is [unbelievable],” Stilly added, calling McMorris’s statements “inaccurate.”
Heated tensions arose from that point, with McMorris claiming he does not appreciate being called a liar and Stilly attempting to take to the stand to speak again. When the two sat back down, Gail Housley, Deputy Finance Director, approached to explain a few things.
According to Housley, the finance department follows Title 44 for public record requests, however Councilwoman Sandefur’s request was not a public record request and there was no paperwork submitted.
Housley also read out part of LP Ordinance 14-14 which says “the parish council is permitted access to… parish archives, and any other records retention software utilized by the parish. The intent of this section is to allow access of the parish council members and parish council staff to the parish records whether they are in soft, electronic copy or hardcopy.”
“You have your own record retention policy,” Housley told the council. “If you knowingly give a third party information that may have sensitive data on it – that is not on us, that is on y’all. We should not be held accountable for what you do with sensitive information when we have no knowledge of what you’re doing with that.”
Ultimately, Councilwoman Sandefur moved to amend the proposed resolution to additionally request that the Louisiana Attorney General’s office conduct an independent investigation and review the entire matter, including the public records request process, the handling and release of parish records, related communications, and all contracts and payment involving Moody Law Firm from January 1, 2023 to the present to be in compliance.
“I’m not saying anyone did anything wrong,” Councilwoman Sandefur added. “But I have wanted [Moody Law Firm] looked into all this time… since I entered office.”
Councilman Joe Erdey seconded Sandefur’s motion and the council voted to pass the resolution, with the amendments, and only Councilmembers Lonnie Watts and John Mangus voting against it.
