Madame Chevrette Says Be There!
On Friday, April 7, the Ladies of Lafourche Shrimpers will have their 3rd Annual Shrimp Boil, Auction and Band at the Larose Civic Center. Last year RAWKED! Be there! It's only $10 for a big plateau of some of the best shrimp you ever ate. Cajun Toujour, Roland "T-Cajun" Cheramie's band, is playing. Me, I'm volunteering in da back or where ever dey need me. If you want me to autograph a copy of this blog, bring your own copy and be ready to get some shrimp juice on it.

You see, not everything I write is critical.

chevrette (n.f.) shrimp. [The SF crevette was originally a dialectal variant of chevrette in France.] http://appl003.lsu.edu/artsci/frenchweb.nsf/$Content/Cajun+French+Glossary?OpenDocument

This message brought to you by a vast Public conspiracy

Charlotte Chairs Secret Meeting; Chaos Erupts
Queen Charlotte Randolph chaired a super-secret meeting aboard a luxurious houseboat after the Highway 1 Collision (not misspelled) Leeville Bridge federal loan of our own tax money celebration on Friday, March 24, 2006, according to well informed sources. Charlotte proposed a one cent parish-wide sales tax as an alternative to her much maligned $15.88 million slush fund proposal at the meeting. Present were three councilmen, including Mark "#!*%&@@" Atzenhoffer and Phillip "NO GO" Gouaux, and various present and former public servants and employees. Thibodaux opted out of the sales tax idea because they are at the upper limits they can assess. (Why did she not know that would be their position prior to convening the meeting? She could have avoided looking like a fool once again. Who is giving her advice? The same lack of forethought continues to bedevil her.) Then, two Tenth Warders suggested that, if that was the case, then the taxes collected within a district would be kept in that district. Charlotte objected vehemently, slammed her folder shut and retreated to the bar. One Tenth Warder was heard to tell Charlotte he would not be treated like a two year old. WHOA! Where's the love, people?!?! What's good for the rest of the Parish is good for the Tenth Ward, especially when the Tenth Ward is expected to foot half the bill and get little or nothing in return, ain't it? Why does the Tenth Ward continue to have a problem swallowing that line of bs?

I guess that is the end of the sale tax idea. Charlotte, honey, I want copies of the papers you had in your folder. Don't destroy them. They are public records and a public record request is in the mail for copies. That's right, 25 cent a piece copies.

Po Charlotte, she's having the darn hardest time getting her mits on public money to use to her best advantage in an election year! Won't someone help! Should I be waiting for an invite to Charlotte's fund raiser? Why all the extra police presence at the houseboat? Was there a fear that the evil grand inquisitor Carl A. Chauvin would make an appearance and try to hand out copies of his infernal blog?

Why does Ted Falgout have an observer at Council meetings? Did Carl A. Chauvin miss something when he last scrutinized Emperor Ted's Port Commission?

Dear fellow members of the Public, it sounds like we are getting into their heads real serious like. Y'all keep talking, but stop laughing at Charlotte! She's very sensitive.

If you don't believe me
Read dis

25 cents please.

Po Wittle Charlotte Expresses Her Chagrin
Queen Charlotte, on KLRZ's "Talk on the Bayou" today, implied that she reads this blog! I say implied because after wondering "who is backing" my efforts to expose her wrong doing, she whined that I didn't accept anonymous comments on the blog. Sounds like a woman obsessed! Sorry Charlotte, the last time a woman obsessed over me was January of this year and I still have not fully recovered. Or maybe its just that she wants equal time to rebut my dasterdly writing. She didn't seem to have any problems with Daniel Lorraine not having equal time to rebut her February attack. But then again, can we really accuse Charlotte of being consistent, other than, of course, consistently displaying poor judgment?

Charlotte, sweety, you can leave comments, whether anonymous or not, but I have the option whether to post them. Maybe you can start your own blog and post news about your travels far and wide to discuss issues of which you have only a superficial understanding, like your trip to Holland which Windell Curole should have gone on instead of you. You could even post pictures of all your photo ops.

Then, your's truly called in to ask questions about her $15.88 million bond proposal. The mysterious list came up. Charlotte explained that DPW came up with a list of the most needed work and, from that list, the highest priority ones were decided upon and that is how they determined it would cost $15.88 million. But then, what about the list that came from input from Councilmen, except Daniel Lorraine? How many lists are there? Will the list be made public? Isn't the list everchanging? Won't that change the amount needed? Which project(s) will be cut if $15.88 million is not enough to complete all the projects on the list? Why wasn't the list publicized prior to the Council passing the ordinance placing the bond proposal on the Sept. ballot? Had Charlotte gotten her wish, and had the proposal placed on the April ballot, so that it could have been rammed through due to lower voter turn-out for those elections, would a list have been publicized? Didn't the Council add some roads to the list last night? Lots of questions, not too many answers. In any event, Charlotte should fess up that this tax is simply to provide her an election year slush fund she can divy out in ways that best assure her reelection.

I asked her what project(s) on the list were for District 9 represented by Daniel Lorraine, the district which will be saddled with a disportionate amount of the repayment due to its robust tax base. She mentioned some remediation work to the sea wall in Golden Meadow. I spoke to an extremely knowledgeable source this afternoon who told me no conversation took place between Charlotte and the Town of Golden Meadow on the subject. So, in other words, a district which will likely be obligated to repay approximately a quarter of $26.4 million, or $6.6 million, will likely get little or NOTHING? Sounds like a pretty bad deal for the Public residing in District 9.

She denied that the millage could go above 3 mils annually, contradicting what her bonding attorney, Mr. Wolf, stated at the March 1. I have a video tape of the meeting, Charlotte. Want to change your answer? Transcript coming soon.

The buzz on the street is that this thing will have a hard time passing.

The Threat Of Blogs To Those Who Want You to Know Only One Side Of The Story
Here's what the Randolph Monarchy would like to do to this blog and this blogger's activities.

Score Another One For The Public's Right to Know!
The Imperial Presidency of Charlotte "Photo Op" Randolph sustained another resounding defeat meted out by an overwhelming common sense vote of the Council tonight. At issue was Phillip "NO GO" Gouax's proposal to punish your's truly for having the audacity to scrutinized "Photo Op" 's expenses through public records requests. Through today, "Photo Op" 's misadministration charged 50 cents per copy for copies requested by the Public. "NO GO" proposed to raise that to $1 for letter size and $2 for legal size plus the salaries of the employees making the copies. My personal hero, Lyndel "Laptop" Toups, applying his usual common sense and little man approaches, was successful in amending the proposal down to 25 cents per copy, no matter what paper size. Vote: 7-2, with "Photo Op" loyalist, "NO GO" and Mark Atzenhoffer on the losing side. (Unprompted retraction: I was wrong, the vote was 8-1, with only Atzenhoffer voting NO, as usual. "NO GO" apparently voted to also reduce the copy charge to 25 cents.)

Atzenhoffer (no nickname yet), made some particularly offensive comments, which revealed his arrogance towards the Public, I will share with you once I get the tape transcribed.

Y'all should all thank Lyndel for saving you 25 cents off copies. I'm thinking about getting some "I like Lyndel" t-shirts done up.

OK, do I get a refund since I paid 50 cents when there was no Council-approved policy in place?

Query:Were any Council or Adminstration There?
DA Cam Morvant sponsored a seminar Thursday night that could have been useful for members of the Council and the Adminstration to attend. The topics: public records, open meetings and ethics. Did any attend?

"NO GO" 's Attempt to Make Public Record Access Harder
Here's today's Comet article on Phillip "NO GO" Gouaux's attempt to shield his photogenic master from scrutiny by the public.

The reason one of my public records requests took "40 hours to compile" is that 39 of those hours were spent illegally censoring the documents they provided me and one hour on copying.

In total, I was provided approximately 550 pages of documents in response to my various public record requests, over half of which were either duplicates or not responsive to my requests. Anyone with any experience with a copier knows copying 275 pages should take no more than one hour. If the time it took to "compile" these documents was other than copying, then the problem is either with the Randolph Administration's inefficient filing system or their need to keep certain public information secret and not because of an overly burdensome public request for records.

In any event, the reason I requested copies instead of asking to examine the documents on the premises was to decrease the burden of having a member of the public flipping through hundreds of pages over several hours while disrupting the normal flow of administrative business. By asking for copies, I trusted them, quite naively, to do the right thing and provide me copies that were responsive to my requests so that I could examine them on my own time. Instead I received highly censored documents and much irrelevant material.

What Lafourche Parish should do is lower its copy fee to 25 cents, the same amount charged by Terrebonne Parish and DEQ. Otherwise, the Council is simply trying to discourage us from accessing information to which we are clearly entitled.

SSSSH! Charlotte doesn't want you to know this
With property having been reassessed, many properties previously below the $75K threshold for homestead exemption have been pushed above that line, resulting in more people than ever paying property taxes. This means, more taxes flowing into the Parish's coffers.

Shouldn't Charlotte be satisfied with all that extra cash without want to saddle us with a 20 year debt of $26 million so she can get her paws on $15.88 million?

Should The Council Sue Charlotte & George?
The best I can figure, George's accident on August 24, 2005, cost us at least $18,000.00 - $15K for the victim's property damage and $3K for the damage to our emergency preparedness vehicle. (updated 3-21-06, 5:15 P.M.) The victim has only settled his property damage claim, if that, according to an extremely well-informed source, which means we may still be on the hook for substantial amounts for personal injury and any economic loss. (end update) Why hasn't the Council sought legal advice from the DA whether we can recover our loses from those responsible? Remember, George was driving that vehicle without authority from the Council.

Money Like Crack to "Photo Op" Misadministration
Lafourche Parish President Charlotte "Photo Op" Randolph, wife of George "Freddie Freeloader" Randolph, he of the truck wreck (still haven't gotten a logical reason why they were driving that truck), sirens and flashing lights fame, has an insatiable hunger for your money, comparable to that of an end game crackhead. Coming into her term, she was flush with cash: $15 million surplus from Buzz Breaux's term and budgets of $38 million and $58 million in her first two years. Now, 43 patronage jobs and millions of dollars destroying wetlands with questionable public utility later, the piggybank is empty.

Seven Days Counting
It's been seven days since I began using a counter.

290 Unique Visitors, 62 Reloads, 352 Total Visits incl. Reloads

Highest Day - 68 on Thursday, March 16, 2006

41 Unique Average Visitors per Day

I want to give a special shout out to all my loyal readers in "Photo Ops" 's misadministration. Cheer up guys. A fish rots from the head first. Keep that info coming! It's all public record.

OOPS! Almost forgot those at the lame duck Ted Falgout Port Commission cabal who are monitoring my activities with great interest. Apparently, Ted is feeling left out and wants to be scrutinized too.

Mobiletel users seem to be the heaviest hitters, followed by Charter and BellSouth.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Enforcement
Want to know what potential penalties could be assessed against us for the failure of Charlotte "Photo Op" Randolph's misadministration to obtain a 404 permit before commencing work in wetlands? Read this and try not to weep.

Are there any other projects, either completed or ongoing, for which "Photo Op" 's misadministration failed to obtain the necessary permits? As you can see, our liability for this new set of blunders could be in the seven figures.

Stevie Wonder to be new DPW Chief?
Corps shuts down parish project

The Gang That Couldn't Shot Straight
Starring
Charlotte "Photo Op" Randolph
George "I like to play with da flashing lights" Randolph
Phillip "NO GO" Gouaux, and
Ray "Cowboy" Cheramie
In this week's episode, the gang gets corraled by the Feds.

Makes you wonder, don't it? Charlotte wants $15.88 million, in part, to do coastal restoration in order to reclaim wetlands, while her DPW chief is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars destroying wetlands, without a permit. Does anyone up there know what they're doing?!?!

From the little grow the big
Lafourche Parish President Charlotte "Photo Op" Randolph has proposed we approve a general obligation bond issue which she has placed on the September 30 ballot. This bond issue will generate $15.88 million and will take 20 years to repay. A general obligation bond is like a loan but instead of mortgaging collateral such as a home, we will be securing it with the taxing power of the Parish. This means the Parish will be authorized to place millage on the tax rolls at any rate necessary to meet the repayment schedule. Mr. Wolf, the bonding attorney who spoke at the March 1 Council meeting, stated that, under present conditions, a 3 mil tax will be necessary and that over the life of the bond, we will pay approximately $26 million in principal and interest.

Ms. Randolph claims the money is needed for drainage, levees, roads and a bundle of other needs, many for which taxing districts already exist. The money will not be dedicated to a particular fund balance, but will go into the general fund, meaning, in 2007, the year when Ms. Randolph may be seeking reelection, she will have $15.88 million to do with as she pleases. On top of that, there is supposedly a list of specific projects for which the money is earmarked. From the discussion at the March 1 meeting, it sounds like only a small circle of Randolph loyalists have seen the list. The list has not been made public. What a wonderful gift the taxpayers would be giving Ms. Randolph, a taxpayer funded slush fund she could use in ways that best assures her reelection.

If we can't trust Ms. Randolph to have enough good judgment to know she shouldn't be making personal purchases on parish credit cards or permit her husband to use a parish vehicle, especially one with a siren and flashing lights, why should we trust her judgment to wisely spend $15.88 million?

This is a bad idea. We will discuss it more thoroughly in the near future. Please start asking questions about this monster. It must be defeated.

Phillip and I agree on something?!?!

I HATE LITTER! Councilman Phillip Gouaux, who I usually disagree with on everything and have been particularly nasty towards in this blog, hates litter too. Credit where credit's due. I am with you solid on this issue Mr. Gouaux!
Here's the link:

Council member wants less litter

My theory on litterers is that they were raised by pigs or express their hostility towards society by trashing it, literally, no pun intended. The problem is, with all the other work law enforcement has to do, it is hard for them to enforce litter laws. That leaves it up to me and you. We need to pick up other people's litter. It's good exercise and it beautifies and makes us feel good about our communities.

Way to go Phillip Gouaux! Now if I could only convence you how indispensible free speech and access to public information are to maintaining a free society.

In Dat Numba
95 unique visitors in a little over 50 hours using a counter. Wednesday saw 54 visitors. Reloads (repeat customers) are 25 or 20.83%. 120 visits including reloads. Who the hell is reading this stuff after midnight and before 7 A.M.? I guess somebody's interested.

What's a Public Record, Daddy?
The Louisiana Public Records Act is found in Title 44 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. First off, we start with the assumption that every document, in whatever form, be it document, map, recording, email message, tape, etc., held by any public agency,or by any business on behalf of a public agency, is a public record. Of course, there are numerous exceptions. Personal information of an employee such as medical records and social security numbers are exempt from the definition. Also, any document involved in an ongoing criminal investigation is excluded. Certain proprietary information produced by a private company such as electronic well surveys held by the Office of Conservation are excluded. These are only three of many exceptions. Usually there is an obvious rational reason for the exclusion. An employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal information, for example.

It is the duty of the custodian of any given public record to make it available to any adult who so requests. You can examine the record and have it copied. The custodian may not inquire why you want to see the record you are requesting or look over your shoulder. Your examination of the record must be during normal business hours of the public agency. The custodian may charge a reasonable fee for copies.

A typical example is clerk of court's conveyance records. You need a copy of your deed. You go to the clerk of court's office and tell them what you need. They'll find it for you. You can look at it, or any other record in that office, for as long as you want between 8:30 and 4:30. If you want a copy, you plunk down your dollar per page fee and, in a jiffy, you have your copy. Public records problems usually arise with agencies that are not accustomed to people asking for them, such as districts, or agencies that have something to hide such as the Lafourche Parish Council administration.

If the custodian has a question whether a certain document is a public record, he must inform you in writing within three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays, of the receipt of your request to examine the document of his determination and the reasons, including "a reference to the basis under law which the custodian has determined exempts a record, or any part thereof, from inspection, copying, or reproduction."

If the custodian denies you the right to inspect or copy a record, either by a final determination in writing or by the passage of five days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays, from the date of your request without receiving a final determination in writing by the custodian, you may file suit for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, injunctive or declaratory relief in the district court for the parish in which the office of the custodian is located. Depending on how intransigent the custodian is, you may recover attorney's fees, costs and damages and the custodian may be personally liable, meaning the money will come from her pocket, not the public agency's. There are also criminal sanctions the custodian may be exposed to.

In my public records requests to the Parish, they blackened certain information. I believe this information is not exempt from the public records law. I may file suit to have a court determine whether the information is, in fact, public information and ask the court to order the Parish to provide the documents uncensored.

There it is, your very own personal lesson in basic Louisiana public records law. Go forth and examine the public record! It's your right!

Randolph Misadministration Stonewalls Public's Questions
Your's truly changed strategies in my efforts to get answers from the Queen Charlotte Monarchy - I asked questions. While she wouldn't subject herself to "Chauvin's Inquisition", she couldn't help giving three no answers, one after some hesitation, to a like number of open-ended questions.
Those questions:
Has President Randolph or her husband ever used a Parish vehicle for personal purposes/reasons? (An aside: Why would she use a parish credit card for personal purposes, but not the now famous emergency preparedness vehicle?)
Has the Parish paid any ticket that was issued to Mr. Randolph for causing the accident?
Has Mr. Randolph ever driven a Parish vehicle without President Randolph being in the vehicle?

To the questions: "Has the $15,000 plus the Council approved to pay the victim for his property damage and rental been paid to him by the Finance Department?" and "What was the cost of repairing the 2004 parish-owned Ford F250 involved in the August 24, 2005 accident while being driven by President Randolph's husband George and which he caused?" After long pauses, with the tension being palpable, no one from the administration would answer the questions directly. Parish Administrator Cullen Curole did respond to one of the questions that I could get that information by issuing a public records request, meaning, I could pay my fifty cents to find out. That's the kind of attitude we need from more of our public servants, isn't it? (Add the necessary sarcasm here.) ;)

To the questions: Why were the Randolphs using the emergency preparedness vehicle on the day of the accident? Queen Charlotte gave her tired, nonsensical, nonresponsive answer, we were in the Governor's WETLANDS caravan. What does that have to do with the price of crawfish in Pierre Part? Why weren't they using the Crown Vic? Does it have anything to do with their need to board their camp windows in Grand Isle in the face of approaching Katrina?

Poor Brent Callais, in the longest five minutes of his life, was asked "Has the Council sought the advice of the DA whether the Council has recourse against the Randolphs for the damages incurred by the Parish and those we paid the victim as a result of the accident Mr. Randolph caused?" His answer was "No". Boy would that make an interesting taxpayer suit!;)

The moral to this story, dear fellow members of the Public, is don't go to Parish Council meetings expecting to get straight answers.

Lyndel Gives "NO GO" A Facial
LYNDEL!!!! In the fight over the renomination of Jimmy Cantrelle, which the Queen opposed, Lyndel "Laptop" Toups, no doubt a brilliant chess player, anticipated that Phillip "NO GO" Gouaux would use the argument that the Council should appoint a new member that would provide more geographical diversity. After laying in wait, wily Lyndel sprang the minutes of the last time Cantrelle was nominated by Lyndel, when "NO GO" had nomimated another candidate from the exact same area. In one fell swoop, Lyndel destroyed "NO GO" 's credibility by pointing out the inconsistencies of his changing tunes. Bravo Lyndel! Ever thought of law school?

After A Brilliant Procedural Move, Daniel Get's His Say
In one of the slickest parliamentary moves ever pulled at a Council meeting, Daniel Lorraine finally got his five minute, forty-six second (Brent gave him thirteen seconds)to rebute the Queen's personal attack in late January, upon her return from her Dutch photo op, wherein she alleged Daniel was no leader. Daniel calls a personal privilege. Brent says Daniel needs a two-thirds vote. Thomas Lasseigne, Ph.D., checks Brent by pointing out that, according to Robert's Rules, personal privilege is only defeated by an objection and, then, a simple majority vote is required to permit the mover to speak. Vote: 5-4. Daniel gets to exercise his right to free speech!

Randolph Misadministration Loses Library Board Fight
Jimmy Cantrelle, Library Board President, was renominated and garnered the necessary 5 votes for reappointment for another term. Under Cantrelle's leadership, libraries are being built in all parts of the parish and the Library Board renewed its millage, 2 mils lower, in an election last year. Yet, the Randolph misadministration wanted him replaced. You ain't surprised, is you?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know
What did Cullen and Prince George discuss in that back room immediately after "Chauvin's Inquisition"? Was Cullen woodshedding the Prince? Were they discussing the high price of crawfish? Filling in their Final Four brackets? Since the Monarchy has erected the Great Wall of China, I guess we'll never know.

Did that pesky Vision Communications camera catch their exit? Tune in Friday night and find out!

Vision Communications Subscribers
Parish Council meeting in living color, Friday, 6:30 P.M., Channel 5.
Queen Charlotte does not want you to watch!
Hey! I even wore a tie, clean shirt and nice pants, me.

Twelve Parish Vehicle Use Questions

1. Did President Randolph seek legal advice from the DA's office before permitting her husband to drive Parish vehicles?

2. Why were the Randolphs using the emergency preparedness vehicle on the day of the accident?

3. Has President Randolph or her husband ever used a Parish vehicle for personal purposes/reasons?

4. What was the cost of repairing the 2004 parish-owned Ford F250 involved in the August 24, 2005 accident while being driven by President Randolph's husband George and which he caused?

5. Has the Parish paid any ticket that was issued to Mr. Randolph for causing the accident?

6. Has Mr. Randolph ever driven a Parish vehicle without President Randolph being in the vehicle?

7. Has the victim, Mr. John Cooley, filed suit or settled the matter?

8. Has the Council sought the advice of the DA whether the Council has recourse against the Randolphs for the damages incurred by the Parish and those we paid the victim as a result of the accident Mr. Randolph caused?

9. Has the Council considered whether it will sue President Randolph and her husband?

10. Has the $15,000 plus the Council approved to pay the victim for his property damage and rental been paid to him by the Finance Department?

11. Does the Council/Adminstration check an employee's driving history before permitting the employee to use Parish equipment?

12. Have there been any other accidents while Mr. Randolph was driving a Parish vehicle?

"NO GO" Blasted in Comet Editorial

In today's Daily Comet editorial, the paper takes issue with Phillip "NO GO" Gouaux's attempt at shutting up the Public at Council meetings. Here's the link:

• The wrong emphasis

"NO GO" and your's truly go toe to toe

Also in today's Comet appears an article wherein "NO GO" applies some mighty convoluted logic to shut the Public up at Council meetings and reemphasizes his preference to remain ignorant about the wrongdoings of the misadminstration of his Queen Charlotte.

Your's truly is quoted raising the question what I missed that they want to hide.

Here's dat link:

• Councilman seeks to stymie discussion at meetings

It's the coverup, not the crimes that brought the Nixon Administration down.

How The Traditional Press Is Calling Charlotte's Scandals

• Credit Card Story, Part Two, March 03, 2006, Daily Comet


• Credit Card Story, March 02, 2006, Daily Comet


• Overtime Editorial, January 05, 2006, Daily Comet


• Vehicle Use Policy Editorial, November 14, 2005, Daily Comet


• A Lunatic's Letter to the Editor, November 1, 2005, Daily Comet


• George's Wreck and Overtime, October 26, 2005, Daily Comet


• Overtime and George's Wreck, October 25, 2005, Daily Comet


• George's Wreck Story, October 10, 2005, Daily Comet

The Comet has yet to raise it's indignation in an editorial on the credit card scandal. Had it been the "Council Five"...

It'll be curious to see if the ire of the Comet's editorial staff will be raised by Phillip Gouaux's attempt to suppress the Public's right to participate in Council meetings and access public records. This could affect you, Daily Comet!

Why don't we stop and ask for directions, Charlotte?

There are two central problems that run through every one of Charlotte's scandals. First is her inability or refusal to seek advise from those versed in the law. DA Cam Morvant has made it clear from the beginning of Charlotte's misadministration that he was available to consult with the Council and Administration on any legal issue. He and/or his assistant DA Lisa Orgeron attend the vast majority of Council meetings.

Yet, apparently, Charlotte failed to ask Cam's advise on the use of Parish vehicles by her husband, whether overtime could be paid to salaried employees and whether she could make personal charges to Parish credit cards. What other similar issues and failures to seek competent advise are out there that we do not yet know about?

Second, she either doesn't know or doesn't care when she has to obtain authority from the Council before undertaking some course of action. In all three of her scandals, the problem could have been avoided had she obtained the Council's approval. So, the problem is either ignorance or arrogance.

In either case, what we are left with is an Administration that is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Free Speech For Daniel Lorraine!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing as S.G. Tallentyre in 1906 (Commonly attributed to Voltaire of whom Hall wrote a biography).

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

poached from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Freedom of speech in the United States

Here's a url for a good freedom of speech article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

The Louisiana Public Records Act And Open Meetings Law

Here's a url with an excellent article explaining the open meetings law and the public records act:
http://www.la-par.org/rightscard.cfm

Simply copy the url and paste it in your address thingy.

Charlotte has descended into the Bunker

I am surprised that the Randolph misadministration has gone into full siege mentality this early into our exposure of its misdeeds. In a move reminiscent of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or the Nixon White House, Phillip "NO GO" Gouaux, Charlotte's lap dog, has mounted a full-out attack on your right to know what's going on with your Parish government and express what you think about it. "NO GO" has placed two troubling items on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, both, no doubt, due to your's truly's search for answers to troubling questions about Charlotte's misadministration. First, "NO GO" wants to limit your ability to speak at council meetings. Second, "NO GO" wants to limit your ability to access public records. "NO GO", you can raise the cost of copies of public documents to $10 per page; that won't stop me! The freedoms our troops are sacrificing their lives for daily in Iraq aren't measured by money! Their paying with their blood.

In any event, if any of this stuff manages to get five votes, a court challenge is sure to follow.

What is it, exactly, you are trying to hide "NO GO"?

The Public ground swell has begun! The Public is starting to ask questions! It is demanding answers!

I challenge you, Phillip Gouaux, to a public debate on what the Public has a right to know!

Paranoia will destroy ya! THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

Let's Share

Have any interesting information I can verify through independant sources, such as public records, or, if you have personal knowledge, would you be willing to sign an affidavit regarding questionable expenditures of our hard-earned tax dollars? My email address is in my profile window in the upper right corner.

You know about Charlotte and George's August 24, 2005 automobile accident which has cost the Parish over $15,000 for the victim's property damage thus far. George was driving the emergency preparedness vehicle, without proper authority, a few days before Katrina. He couldn't resist using the siren and flashing lights and caused an accident disabling the vehicle for use after Katrina. Does anybody know where the vehicle was stored the week after the storm? Our vehicle suffered $3,200 damage, according to an October 10, 2005 Daily Comet Article. Will the Parish sue Charlotte and George for the damages for which they are personally liable?

I have, or can get, all the paper I need on Charlotte's unauthorized payment of overtime to salaried employees in the wake of Katrina. Yes, that was double time and a half to Parish employees, while hundreds of heroic Lafourche citizens gave their time and money free of charge to their fellow citizens in need BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Makes you wonder about the character of the people Charlotte is placing on the Parish payroll, don't it?

I'm working on a story concerning the failure of the Parish to obtain Corp of Engineers permits for digging so-called outfall canals. Got any verifiable tidbits on that subject?

I'm also working on a story about the use of Parish generators the week after Katrina. Let me know if you have any interesting information on that subject.

The Public has a right to know!

Gouaux Tries To No Go The Public's Right To Know

During the public comment portion of the meeting tonight, Councilman Phillip Gouaux attempted to shut down your's truly's presentation of the result's of my investigation of President Randolph's personal use of Parish credit cards detailed below.

Asked whether he was not curious on the question, Gouaux responded "No". Apparently, he is not interested in knowing how the President improperly spends our hard-earned tax dollars nor that you know either. It may just be speculation, but I think it is more so the latter.

Lorraine Ain't Got No Stinkin' 1st Amendment Right

Councilman Daniel Lorraine was denied the right to speak as a member of the public by Vice Chairman Mark Atzenhoffer at tonight's Council meeting. This came on the heels of Chairman Brent Callais' removal from the agenda of Lorraine's intention to respond to President Randolph hysterical personal attack upon Lorraine at a January meeting which included her criticism of Lorraine's fashion sense and choice of head covering.

I guess if you are on Queen Charlotte's gift list, you enjoy the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and if you aren't, you don't.

Parish President Randolph Misuses Parish Credit Cards

Beginning in November, 2005, I began submitting public record requests to the Lafourche Parish Council administration for documents dealing with President Charlotte Randolph's expenses. Some three months later, I am ready to report what I uncovered. President Randolph made numerous unauthorized, and perhaps illegal, personal charges to Parish credit card accounts. Ms. Randolph charged plane tickets for her husband, George Randolph, on August 25, 2004 and April 22, 2005 on her Parish credit card. Ms. Randolph reimbursed the Parish for these charges by checks dated October 4, 2004 and May 26, 2005, respectively. My research also revealed numerous instances where Ms. Randolph likely charged meals and/or lodging for more than one person without revealing the other person's name or the purpose of the expenditure. In an April 27, 2004 Parish Finance Department memo, that office complained that Ms. Randolph's credit card receipts contained no explanations, asked that explanations be provided prior to being sent for payment and advised that the auditors required detailed explanations why the cost was incurred, for meals, who attended and the purpose, and for lodging, the purpose. For whom besides herself was Ms. Randolph providing meals using a Parish credit card?

Article VII, § 14(A) of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits "the funds, credit, property or things of value of the state or of any political subdivision" from being "loaned, pledged or donated to or for any person, association or corporation, public or private."

A 1992 Louisiana Attorney General Opinion addressed the issue of Parish credit card use for personal purchases by an employee or officer. Citing La. R.S. 42:1461(A), which prohibits a public official from misusing "funds, property, or other thing of value belonging to or under the custody or control of the public entity in which they hold office or are employed", the opinion concluded that a parish employee or officer would be prohibited from using a public credit card for personal purchases, unless he has been given specific authority to do so by the public entity. The opinion states that a public official or employee could use a public credit card for personal purposes without specific authority only in case of extraordinary emergencies, if the person remits payment to the public entity as soon as possible after the charges are made and such reimbursement is made prior to the receipt of the bill for payment by the public body. The opinion states that if this is done, the credit of the public entity would not be extended for personal use. The opinion emphasized that public officers or employees should not routinely use a public entity's credit card for personal purchases. The opinion concludes with advising the opinion seeker to bring the matter to the attention of the local district attorney.

Amongst other things, my research revealed that Ms. Randolph did in fact routinely use her Parish credit cards for personal purchases. Although, she reimbursed the plane tickets and some of her other personal charges, these reimbursements appear to have come at least thirty days after the charges were made to the credit cards, meaning that the tax payers were providing her a loan which is prohibited by the Louisiana constitution.