Lafourche Parish Facts And Opinions

FACTS:

Young parents and grand parents can continue sitting and standing in a waiting room ( Health Unit) in Lafourche parish.  The law requires parents to have their young children inoculated.  Is there a need for additional Health care personnel?  Would additional health care personnel cut down on the amount of time a parent or grand parent have to wait (hours) while obeying the law?  Could the so-called health unit surplus be put to better use by helping our people who are trying to obey the law and care for their children?  If public officials can spend two hours speaking on the radio, they may consider spending two hours at the health unit.

We can be proud of our elected officials in Lafourche Parish; Now that the surplus will be used to acquire a luxury office building for the DA, the law breakers (speeding tickets, DWI, etc.) will be spending time in a luxury waiting room while waiting to see the DA.  The people of Lafourche parish do not have a right to complain.  The people trusted Charlotte Randolph when she had the Lafourche Parish Council place the health unit surplus issue on the ballot.  You voted for it, you got it.  Need or greed?

The people had a choice.  The people voted for this Parish President, Council, Sheriff and DA.  The people do not have a choice of who sits on the South Lafourche Levee District.  Remember that the health unit tax passed because it was for our children and senior citizens.  Now, just after major flood events in our surrounding area, the South Lafourche Levee District will be asking the citizens of the 10th ward to vote on an additional 1 penny sales tax.  Members of the South Lafourche Levee District are already saying that if the additional tax cause a surplus, they will repeal the tax.  But there are wiser people than them that are saying, “once their hands are in your pockets, they will remain there”.  Need or greed?

OPINIONS:

In my opinion, the actions of public employees and elected officials who are guilty of cover-ups, malfeasance, unarthorized spending of public funds, public money and equipment for private use/gain, breaking the public trust, ethics violations, etc., should be removed from public office or employment immediately.  Whose responsibility is it to prove guilt?  It is alleged that this DA may not indict public officials because they did not intend to violate the law.  Is this another way of saying that they didn’t intend on being caught?  The Lafourche Parish Council (citizens and tax-payers of Lafourche) received an invoice for $5.2 million.  It was over 10 months before the incident was brought to light?  Allegedly, there were at least seven people who knew about and took part in an alleged cover up by keeping this information from the public and governing authority.  In my opinion, the alleged seven had an obligation to report the alleged expenditure to the governing authority, immediately.  Who knew about the alleged cover up of the alleged placement of $5.2 million worth of flood protection devices in Lafourche Parish?  Should there be an investigation?  If so, should Charlotte Randolph, Brent Callais, Phillip Gouaux, Ray Cheramie, Cullen Curole, Shannon Chiasson and the director of emergency management be included ?  It will be interesting to see , if they attempt to cover up the alleged cover up. 

FACTS:

There are four ways in which the general public can address the elected political leaders of the area.
1. The public can complain about the seated individuals.
2. The public can register to vote.
3. Individuals can qualify as a candidate for a particular seat.
4. The public can go out and vote, on election day.
I want to thank and congratulate all candidates who qualified for the Lafourche Parish election, which will be held on September 30, 2006.  I would like to encourage people to go out and register to vote.  It is your right to complain if it is warranted.  Most importantly, exercise your right to vote.
Take your time to study the candidates, if you want good and honest government, vote for qualifications and experience. 

OPINIONS:

In my opinion, the most damaging action to our democratic process, besides not voting, is the reasoning behind an individuals choice of candidate.  The following are just a few:
1. I don’t know anything about that person, but he shook my hand at the store. I will vote for that person.
2. I was at a free political supper with about 10,000 other people and he/she did not shake my hand.  I will not vote for him/her.
3. I have no choice, he/she is family.
4. I went to school with that candidate, I have to vote for him/her.
5. I have to vote for him/her because he/she served in my third cousin’s wedding.
6. I am voting for him, because he lives up the bayou.  Can he do the job?  That don’t matter.
7. I know the other candidate is better qualified, but I feel sorry for this one. I will feel better if I vote for the under-dog.
8. I don’t want to loose my vote, so I will vote for the one who is ahead in the poll.  Know one know who you vote for.  I do.
9. I am voting for him because he is a Democrat.  I am voting for him because he is a Republican.
10. I will vote for him, because he said exactly what I wanted to hear, I know he can’t do anything about it, at least he said it.

Qualifications and experience counts, take pride in your community and vote intelligently.  Visit with us as we strive for good and honest government.

FACTS:

There appears to be many unanswered questions pertaining to the alleged placement of $3.2 million of flood protection devices (bladders) by the Lafourche Parish Administration.  Were there ethics violations?  Were there criminal violations?  Who will investigate?

OPINIONS:

It is alleged that Mr. A and Mr. G are sick and tired of their hard earned tax dollars being squandered away by this Parish President.  It is alleged that Mr. A and Mr. G, embarrassed with the actions of this parish administration, lit a fire under the DA’ feet.  It is alleged that the DA is now asking questions concerning the alleged bladder fiasco.  Who allegedly took part in the alleged fiasco, and kept quiet about it (criminal?, ethical?)?  Did the following personnel take part in the alleged fiasco?
1.Parish President?
2.Councilman of district 7?
3.Councilman of district 8?
4.Director of DPW?
5.Parish Administrator?
6.Emergency Preparedness Director?
7.Finance Director?

Will there be indictments of seven or more?  Will there be an indictment of one or less?  Will there be indictments?  Will there really be a thorough investigation?  If there is an investigation, will it be conducted by the elaborate investigating team depicted in the DA mid term report?  Sheriff office?  Other?

Stay in touch as the embarrassed Lafourche First Organization and the rest of us keep our eyes on this and other political situations.

FACTS:

It was once stated that like Louisiana, New Jersey is the cesspool of politics. 

OPINIONS:

IN my opinion, Lafourche Parish now has Louisiana and New Jersey beat, as far as being the cesspool of politics.
Do you remember Charlotte’s husband, George being involved in an accident while driving a Parish vehicle?  Did the Parish President interfere when she allegedly used her influence to have the Lafourche Parish Council pay for all damages with public funds?  I do not believe that the council and President’s actions would be allowed in New Jersey.

An article by the associated Press, titled State attorney general resigns over ethics violation, have me wondering why Charlotte Randolph, Brent Callais, and Phillip Gouaux are still holding office. 

FACTS:

We are fortunate in Lafourche Parish.  The District Attorney appear to have enough leisure time to organize political social events (Golden Meadow political rally).  If we are not asking too much, the DA may want to click below and read up on activities other District Attorneys are involved with.

OPINIONS:

If interested, click on Carl Chauvin’s “The public right to know” blog titled I can’t use public stuff for personal purposes? .

FACTS:

United states Senator David Vitter accused Governor Kathleen Blanco of wanting to impose a toll on the interstate highways in Louisiana.  Governor Blanco responded by saying that former US Senator John Breaux was a helper and US Senator Vitter is an antagonist.  Why is this type of behavior occurring at this particular time?
(Blanco-Democrat), (Breaux-Democrat), (Vitter-Republican)

OPINIONS:

In my opinion, the above mentioned matter is a classic example of US and State elected officials doing whatever they can for their political party.  It appears that many US and State elected officials are ignoring the Nation and their constituency.   

The Lafourche Parish Council approved an ordinance, which set policy for the installation of culverts.  The Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph vetoed the ordinance.  The Lafourche Parish Council overrode the Vito; The ordinance became law.  Why did the Parish President mention the issue again?  Can’t she accept the fact that the Council legislate laws and the administration shall abide by the law?

Councilman Mark Atzenhoffer responded to an editorial by a local newspaper.  He (Atzenhoffer) sent a letter to the editor (Newspaper needs to research story better) on August 12,2006, defending his actions taken on the rejection of FEMA flood elevation maps.  Quotes like, “if we bow to the LRA - . - . - ”, display the same type of political mentality which placed Louisiana at the bottom, as far as receiving our so-called fair share of off shore oil revenues.  Atzenhoffer’s mentality relates to the obstinate Long and Perez.

Stay in touch, we know that no one likes a bully, why are our elected officials acting as such?

FACTS:

An article by Alcess P. Adams, in the August 13,2006 edition of the Lafourche Gazette, titled “Monster” ditches multiplying parish wide, is titled perfectly.  Good job Mr. Adams, you have out done yourself.
What do Lafourche Parish get when it place a cowboy as head of DPW instead of an engineer?  “Monster” ditches.

OPINIONS:

In my opinion, anyone who witnessed the last council meeting, witnessed an obstinate display of hypocrisy by Councilman Phillip Gouaux and Ray Cheramie.  Mr. Gouaux and Mr. Cheramie are both proponents of charging the tax payers of Lafourche more money to install culverts in drainage ditches.  It is said that Mr. Cheramie stated that he do not have enough man-power or equipment to cut grass for ornamental purposes in parish ditches.  Gouaux allegedly stated that the residents should pay for gasoline and spend their spare time in maintaining parish ditches.  In my opinion, the people who elected Gouaux, deserve Gouaux.  The rest of the parish surely do not deserve this person as a parish leader.

QUOTES:
1.Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph, after spending thousands of dollars on travel, returned to Lafourche Parish with her famous quote, “Where there is a will, there is a way”.
2.Was it Phillip Gouaux who stated, if you do not want your grand children falling into our monster ditches “build a fence”?
3.Lafourche Parish Councilman Daniel Lorraine, “if you can’t take the heat, get off the pot”
4.Was it Brent Callais who said, “we will install stop signs to make it safer for people to back out of their driveways”?
5.Was it Ray Cheramie who said, “I did it, and I would do it again”?
6.Was it Charlotte Randolph who said, “I put my trust in Ray”?
7.Was it the DA who said, “if it ain’t in the charter, we ain’t doing it”?
8.Was it the DA who said, “if it is brought up to my attention, I will not put my head in the sand”?
9.Was it Lindell toups who stated, “before I vote, I will ask the audience”?

All they had to do was act naturally!

Here is an idea, stop taxing the people and start selling videos of the council meetings.  This would be a way of raising revenues and share in the viewing of the exhibition.  The rest of the parish may love it.  Until then, visit with us, we are having fun.  

FACTS:

During the most recent meeting of the Lafourche Parish Council, Parish President Charlotte Randolph stated that the State Attorney General reversed his opinion on the use of the health unit surplus, to purchase a building.  The parish can purchase a building to accommodate the DA and his staff, in addition to the sheriff.  Mrs. Randolph’s statement lacked enthusiasm and depicted possible remorse.  The silence of the council and audience, spoke volumes.

OPINIONS:

In my opinion, the so-called health unit fund surplus can be used as intended.  The surplus can be used to hire health providers and fund health programs for the Senior Citizens and children of Lafourche Parish.  

In my opinion, the DA will get his luxury offices at the detriment of a decent health care system for the Senior Citizens and Children of Lafourche Parish.  Who will maintain this new building?  Travel Lafourche Parish and observe the parish buildings.  They are embarrassments due to lack of maintenance. 

Where is the logic?  It appears that the purchase and remodeling of an office building for the sheriff and DA is a higher priority than the health and wellfare of our senior citizens and children.  Our elected officials can continue to hold their heads up high and pat themselves on the back for doing nothing more than helping themselves.  Is it Public Service or SELF SERVING?

Now that the Parish President and Council done a favor for the DA, we will observe the DA’s recriprocation.  Stay in touch.   

FACTS:

The Lafourche Parish Council voted against the adoption of FEMA’s advisory base flood elevations map.  The action of the majority of the council is not surprising.  What is surprising, is that the odd couple of Charlotte Randolph and Daniel Lorraine agreed that the map should be adopted.  All though Mrs. Randolph and Mr. Lorraine agreed for different reasons, I agree with both of them.  Mrs. Randolph stated that refusing the map could cost the parish millions (dollars) in flood mitigation money.  Mr. Lorraine stated that the first concern should be the safety of the public.  Could it be that some of these elected officials only respond to special interest, rather than the welfare of the general public?

OPINIONS:

In my opinion, special interest is what this council appears to be all about.  The following information is based on earlier observations.
Mr. Callais attempted to remove two board members from an appointed board.  The council chambers was filled to capacity with the two board members supporters (special interest), Mr. Callais deferred the issue.  If the removal of the board members was in the best interest of the general public, why did Mr. Callais adhere to the special interest?

Councilman Daniel Lorraine introduced an ordinance on Barite disposal, it passed, it was for special interest.  Why did Mr. Callais vote against the special interest resolution?  Was it because Mr. Callais finally had the onions to stand up for the general public or was his employer against it?

Mr. Callais stated that he voted against the FEMA maps because the maps are wrong.  How does Mr. Callais know the maps are wrong?  Was it because a developer (special interest) said the map is wrong?  This was another vote for a few (special interest) rather than the general public.

Councilman Mark Atzenhoffer publicly stated that this charter makes us one parish.  When will this council stop voting for the wishes of the special interest groups and begin representing the parish as a whole?  If only the members of this council would put forth a little effort toward research, they might realize that special interest groups only hurt the parish and help themselves. 

Grab a cup of coffee and visit with us again.

FACTS:

The 2000-2004 Lafourche Parish Council (“The People’s Council”) had on-going litigation for the purpose of re-couping $$$$$$$$$$$ for the tax payers of Lafourche Parish.

OPINIONS:

A special meeting was called by the People’s Council in January of 2004.  Among the items on the agenda was the authorization to continue litigation in an effort to re-coupe Lafourche Parish tax payers money from people who received alleged unauthorized payments from the parish.  The Lafourche Parish District Attorney, Cam Morvant stopped the meeting.  A short time later, the present day council dropped all litigation, as allegedly advised by DA Cam Morvant.  Why?

In an attempt to eventually re-coupe tax payers money in Lafourche Parish, an attorney residing in Lafourche Parish filed a petition to the courts for a ruling on the alleged illegal expenditure by the present day council, for Parish President Charlotte Randolph’s husband’s automobile accident.  It is alleged, that once again, the DA Cam Morvant will try to prevent the tax payers of Lafourche from re-couping their money by defending the actions of the council.  WHY?

It is alleged, that DA Cam Morvant is finally asking questions of the Lafourche Parish Council administration concerning the alleged placement of $5.2 million worth of flood protection devices.  Since the DA office do not investigate alleged criminal activities, why is he asking questions?  Will the DA draw upon all scientific data available, or only on the word and maps drawn up by Mr. Cheramie’s alleged engineer.  It is alleged that Mr. Cheramie’s alleged engineer might be one of the same people who had litigation dropped against them by this council, under the alleged DA’s advice.  Will the tax payers loose again?

Believe it or not, the sheriff and the DA do work for the citizens of Lafourche Parish.  It is alleged that a person was arrested and prosecuted for not inoculating his dog.  No kidding, check the court records of the last two weeks.  On another positive note, we would like to congratulate “Lafourche First”.  This council know how to get along. 

It is said that a reporter asked the attorney of record, what took him so long to file papers pertaining to George Randolph’s accident.  My question is, what took the Comet so long to report on the alleged $5.2 million bladders?
Stay informed, keep in touch with the knowledgeable watch dogs as they follow the money.