Election 2010: Gloves Come Off In Grambling!

The Fight For Change Is ON!

Other than for the election of America’s first Black president two years ago, the upcoming election in Grambling, Louisiana is one of the most important events this city has seen in decades, and many of Grambling’s citizens have stepped up to the plate to initiate real change.

An unprecedented number of 24 candidates are contending for a total of just 6 elected official positions. Seven candidates including the incumbent Martha Andrus seek to be mayor while 17 candidates scramble for 5 Grambling council seats.

Two current Grambling Council Members Alvin Bradley and Mayor Pro Temp Edward Jones are among the 6 candidates bidding to replace the mayor while Roy Jackson, Toby Bryan and Roosevelt Bryant all seek to be re-elected as Grambling Council Members.

The remaining four candidates running for mayor in Grambling are: Gary Dupree, Stephric “Step” Garrett, Robert C. Wiley and John “Porky” Williams.

The 14 new candidates seeking to replace the Grambling Council are: Shirley Wesley, Lugene Smith Sr., Charles H. Owens III, Ervin McIntyre, Carl McCarter, Flynn A. Ludley, Michael L. Jiles, Cullen Jackson, Cathy Holmes, George M. Hamlin, Nettie Goree, Elaine DeBerry, Yanise N. Days, and Birdex Copeland Jr.

Grambling Election Alters Future Council

The current election itself has already guaranteed a change in the current Grambling Council because 2 of them are running for mayor.  While many scenarios are possible, bare minimum both seats occupied by Jones and Bradley will be replaced this upcoming October 2nd, 2010.

With 14 new candidates vying for the Grambling Council and 6 new candidates seeking to replace the mayor, it’s quite evident there is much discontent regarding Grambling’s current leadership.  Many citizens of Grambling have become disgruntled and are demanding immediate and thorough change in the City of Grambling.

In the neighboring municipalities of Simsboro to the immediate west of Grambling and Ruston to the east, the incumbent mayor has just two contenders, there are no challenges to replace any of the 5 incumbent Ruston City Council Members, the Simsboro mayor has one contender and there are only 4 candidates seeking to fill 3 Simsboro council seats.

With so many candidates seeking to be elected in Grambling, it’s bound to be a dramatic election.   Previous articles by The Fount related to some of the previous and ongoing problems in the City of Grambling this year can be found in the CATEGORIES section located to the far right of this web page and in the Archives section at the far bottom.

Please refer to our Candidate Profiles page to view an online appeal of various candidates who wish to bring a special message of their own to each voter here at The Fount.

Copyright 2010 —The Fount

All Rights Reserved

The new 12 candidates seeking to replace the Grambling council are: Shirley Wesley, Lugene Smith Sr., Charles H. Owens III, Ervin McIntyre, Carl McCarter, Flynn A. Ludley, Michael L. Jiles, Cullen Jackson, Cathy Holmes, George M. Hamlin, Nettie Goree, Elaine DeBerry, Yanise N. Days, and Birdex Copeland Jr.

Grambling Council Strikes It Rich!

The Grambling Town Council has been getting a lot of heat lately for draining the pocketbooks of Grambling’s taxpayers in an extremely opportunistic fashion.  It’s been said “If you want to be amongst the highest paid aldermen in Louisiana for the least amount of work, go to Grambling!”  And according to a comparative analysis of 11 municipalities in north Louisiana, this might be an unfortunate but well deserved reputation.

In the year of 2009 the pay per alderman or council member in Grambling was just behind those of Monroe and Shreveport.  The population of Grambling is just under 5,000; Monroe’s population is 54,370 and Shreveport’s population is 201,059.  But more importantly, Grambling does not have a tax base generated by industry when compared to these much larger cities, yet the POTENTIAL for Grambling councilmen to get paid more  than those of Monroe and Shreveport exists due to an anomaly: the unique manner in which they get paid.

In most local municipalities, the aldermen get paid a flat rate for services. Except for the tiny next-door-neighboring Village of Simsboro where the aldermen are paid only $50 each per Regular Meeting plus $50 more for Special Called Meetings (which are hardly ever required in Simsboro), amongst those surveyed Grambling is the only other municipality where the alderman receive additional pay for each Special Called Meeting.  And this appears to be just one of many ways that Grambling’s taxpayers are being taken to the bank.  According to George Marretta of the Louisiana Municipal Association, there is NO pay cap for aldermen/council members in the state of Louisiana.

All the other municipalities in our survey pay their aldermen a flat rate salary no matter how many additional Special Called Meetings may be required.  But the additional amount Grambling councilmen get paid for each Special Called Meeting is equal to half their normal monthly Regular Meeting pay.  This is especially significant considering that Grambling held an astounding and rather unprecedented number of 18 Special Called Meetings in 2009, and if that same trend continues in 2010 Grambling will have the highest paid aldermen in northern Louisiana; higher than the aldermen of Monroe and Shreveport.

According to the public record availability of each municipality, the following is a chart indicating the monthly pay for aldermen/council members, the Mayor Pro Temp (MPT)/Chairman of the Council, additional Special Called Meetings (SCM) Cost and the Total Paid in 2009: first figure is for aldermen, 2nd is for the Mayor Pro Temp (MPT).

In order to properly view this chart – you may have to adjust your computer resolution by zooming in or out.

CITY               Pay Method      Alderman              Mayor Pro Temp                 SCM Cost          Total Paid in 2009 (MPT)

Arcadia                 Flat rate                  $650                           $700                                    $0                             $7800 (8400)
Jonesboro              Flat rate                  $500                           $500                                    $0                             $6000 ($6000)
Ruston                    Flat rate               $799.92                      $799.92                             $0                              $9599.20 ($9599.20)
Simsboro                Per meeting            $50                               $50                                   $0                                 $600 ($600)
Grambling            Per meeting           $700                          $1400                                 $4300                      $10600 ($14800)
Bossier City          Flat rate                  $900                          $1000                                 $0                               $10800 ($12000)
Shreveport           Flat rate                $1269                          $1469                                 $0                              $15225 ($17625)
West Monroe       Flat rate                  $900                            $900                                  $0                               $10800 ($10800)
Monroe                 Flat rate                $1000                           $1500                                 $0                               $12000 ($18000)
Minden                Flat rate                 $1000                           $1000                                $0                               $12000 ($12000)
Spring Hill         Flat rate                  $749                              $811                                  $0                                $8988 ($9732)

As shown above, in some cases the mayor pro temp of a given municipality gets paid the same or just slightly more than regular aldermen.  Grambling is the only municipality in which the MPT gets paid double and the current pay structure in Grambling where the council gets paid for each additional Special Called Meeting made it possible for Grambling’s mayor pro temp to get paid just behind the mayor pro temps of Shreveport and Monroe in 2009 and above those of Bossier City, West Monroe, Minden, and Ruston.

Under the Lawrason Act, Special Called Meetings can be called by either the mayor or the aldermen/council and during 2009 in Grambling the vast majority of them were called by the council for reasons that Mayor Martha Andrus says very well could have and definitely should have waited to be handled at Regular Meetings.  The Grambling Town Council consists of Mayor Pro Temp Edward R. Jones, and Council Members Alvin Bradley, Toby B. Bryan, Roy Jackson & Roosevelt Bryant Jr.

Before the pay raises took effect in July 2009, Grambling held 10 Special Called Meetings, 6 of which were deemed ‘Emergency.’  During the last 6 months of 2009, Grambling held 8 more Special Called Meetings, 1 of which was again deemed ‘Emergency’ for a total of 18 Special Called Meetings.  In each ‘Emergency’ meeting called for 2009, Mayor Andrus said that no emergency factors of man-made/natural disaster or epidemic had taken place and each of those so called ’emergency’ meetings which were called by Grambling’s Council were held in violation of Louisiana’s Open Meeting law.

When the 2009 pay increases took place in Grambling, the council member pay increased from $350 to $700, the mayor pro temp’s pay increased from $350 to $1400 per Regular Called Meeting, and each of the Grambling’s council member’s pay increased from $150 to $350 per Special Called Meeting.  Grambling’s mayor vetoed against both the pay raises that the Council enacted and the amended budget in which these salaries were increased, but her vetoes were overridden by the Council.

The additional pay to Grambling’s council members for Special Called Meetings in 2009 is broken down as follows: $1500 for the first 6 months for each councilman including the mayor pro temp before the pay raises, plus another $2800 for each councilman after the pay raises.  The cost for Special Called Meetings in Grambling for 2009 consisted of $4300 being paid to each of the 5 council members for a total taxpayer cost of $21,500.

In relation to Grambling, the neighboring city of Ruston has much in the way of industry to create a viable tax base which keeps Ruston’s residential property taxes low.  Ruston generates it’s own electricity which also reduces the typical Ruston property owner’s cost of living. By virtue of the fact that Grambling has very little industry to create a tax base, and Grambling does not generate it’s own electricity, Grambling residents pay significantly more than Ruston residents to live in Grambling and their property taxes are amongst the highest in the state of Louisiana.

Can a city of just under 5,000 population like Grambling afford to pay their council the same salaries and in some cases even more money than neighboring municipalities ranging from 4-40 times their size?  “Either the citizens of Grambling are content with the current system or they are being fully taken advantage of without knowing what’s going on” said one municipal officer we interviewed, “and if nobody wants it changed, it’s the taxpayers of Grambling who’ll keep paying out their noses.”

—The Fount Copyright 2010

All Rights Reserved  – Syndication Available Upon Request

Grambling’s Attorney ‘Strong-Arms’ Mayor?

Mayor Declares Grambling Is Still Without An Auditor

The ongoing struggle for power between Grambling’s Town Council and Grambling’s Mayor has taken a strange and potentially explosive turn over the selection of a 3rd party auditor for the Town of Grambling.  There is no dispute as to the legal procedure for such a selection as spelled out by the Lawrason Act by which the Town of Grambling is governed and state law LSA R.S. 33:404 (A) (3); the Mayor recommends and the Council approves or disapproves the Mayor’s selection.

At the time of Grambling’s Regular Meeting last February, no auditor had been selected as reflected in the Meeting Minutes.  During the most recent Regular Meeting March 4, 2010 the Grambling Town Council unanimously approved the Meeting Minutes for Grambling’s Regular Meeting February 4, 2010 which reads (as pertaining to this matter):

“6. It was moved by Council member Jones and seconded by Council member Bryant to retain Allen, Green & Williamson as the auditors for 2009; the Mayor stated that she wanted to recommend Marsha Millican, CPA as the auditor for 2009.”

The reason no auditor had been selected for Grambling is because the Mayor and Council were not in agreement.  After the Town Council voted for their choice, the February Meeting Minutes read: “The Board of the Council voted unanimous to retain Allen, Green & Williamson and the Mayor stated her unreadiness that she want to recommend Mrs. Marsha Millican, CPA, to perform the audit for 2009.”

In those February 2010 Meeting Minutes, the Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus is on record twice voicing her recommendation for Millican, with the Council voting to retain Allen, Green & Williamson.  To settle the dispute during that February Regular Meeting, Grambling Town Attorney James H. Colvin Jr. stated “for the record” at that point Grambling did not have an auditor because the Mayor and the Council did not agree.  Pretty simple right?  Not so fast!

Six days later on February 10, 2010 Attorney Colvin recanted his statement about Grambling not having an auditor in a formal memo based on his interpretation of an Attorney General’s opinion and events he says took place during the January 2010 Regular Meeting.  The memo reflects he “advised (Grambling officials) that no auditor had been retained as the law requires the Mayor to recommend and the Council to approve any auditor hired by the City” and after outlining various statutes and opinions, Colvin concluded the memo as follows:

“Thus, it is our opinion, that the City actually retained an auditor at the January, 2010 meeting, subject to the approval of the terms of engagement by the Legislative Auditor and the Council.  At the January meeting, the Mayor proposed or recommended two applicants and the City Council approved one.  At that time, a contract and appointment was made.  As the Council approved the appointment in January and approved the terms of the appointment in February, the Mayor is required to execute the terms of engagement letter with Allen, Green & Williamson.  Once that agreement is signed, the Town Clerk must provide a copy of same to the Legislative Auditor for approval.”

According to Grambling Town Attorney Colvin’s statements in this memo, the Mayor made a rather unusual and quite unprecedented proposal or recommendation of not one auditor to the Council but two auditors during the January 7, 2010 Regular Meeting, and the Council chose the one they wanted.  There are two major problems resulting from such an inference.

First, if it were true that Mayor Andrus proposed or recommended two auditors, the critical determination of the legality for such an out-of-the-box proposal was NOT discussed in Colvin’s memo.

How could two recommendations satisfy the law when Colvin’s own memo states: [In analyzing the requirements for a Mayor to make a recommendation to a city council to retain an auditor, the Attorney General opined that “once the mayor provides a recommendation which is subsequently approved by the Board of Aldermen a contract is formed.” La. Atty. Gen. Op. 91-77 (07/08/91).]

Is Colvin changing what the law says and making something that is outside legal parameters valid? If the law provides for the Mayor to make “a” recommendation (single tense) for “an” auditor (single tense), how can it also be legal for the Mayor to make multiple recommendations?  Where did this new law or rule allowing multiple recommendations come from?

Even elementary school children know that making “a” recommendation is not the same as making ‘two’ or more recommendations. The Grambling Town Attorney says Mayor Andrus made two recommendations for auditor during the January 2010 Regular Meeting, thus giving way for the Council to make their choice and Allen, Green & Williamson is now Grambling’s auditor for 2009 according to Colvin’s legal opinion.

Here is the second problem facing Grambling as a result of Colvin’s memo and his insistence that Mayor Andrus recommended two auditors:  Are the words of a Town Attorney law and are governmental officials and the citizens obliged to abide by the opinion of a Town Attorney if he/she is mistakenly or otherwise wrong?

This is one of many situations in the Town of Grambling where the road has forked and permanently recorded decisions have been made.  Did Mayor Andrus actually make two recommendations during that January 2010 Regular Meeting?  Attorney Colvin was present during that meeting, the Grambling Town Clerk recorded certain events as well, and in plain public view a digital voice recorder recorded the entire meeting.

So What’s Really Going On?

During the March 4, 2010 Regular Meeting, fireworks flew over this issue.  Attorney Colvin verbalized his report to the public and Grambling officials; he reiterated his position as stated in his 2/10/10 memo that he now believed Allen, Green & Williamson had been retained by Grambling.

Mayor Andrus refuted Colvin’s statements by verbally reading the February Meeting Minutes that had just been approved by the Council where (as quoted above) the Mayor is recorded twice by the Clerk to only have made one recommendation for a 2009 auditor.  After reading those Minutes, Mayor Andrus stated again very clearly that she only recommended Milican, and Attorney Colvin then turned to the Mayor and said “I disagree Mayor.”

During an interview with Mayor Andrus after this Meeting, she explained why two auditors were even in the mix.

Mayor Andrus said she was discussing her reasons for recommending Millican for auditor over Allen, Green & Williamson with the Council during the January 2010 Regular Meeting.  Mrs. Millican was the only auditor that provided a bid for the position; Allen, Green & Williamson had the same opportunity to provide a bid but did not, and Mayor Andrus liked Millican’s bid.

According to the voice record, Mayor Andrus did not recommend two auditors, but simply updated the Council as to what progress had been made in the selection process and stated that two auditors were under consideration because they were the only two who responded to Grambling’s outreach for audit services.  And because Marsha Millican CPA provided a proposal and Allen, Green & Williamson had not, Mayor Andrus clarified by saying the Council voted to request a proposal from Allen, Green & Williamson – not to approve them as auditor yet.

To some, it appears that Grambling Attorney Colvin is attempting to override the outcome of two legally approved Regular Meeting Minutes (January & February 2010) which reflect that Mayor Andrus did not recommend two auditors but only Millican, whom the Council was opposed to.  This controversial mess has even caused some to accuse Attorney Colvin of “strong-arming the Mayor” in order to appease the Council.

Attorney Colvin spoke briefly with The Fount and informed us that the matter is being forwarded to the Louisiana Attorney General’s office for resolution.  We asked Colvin why he believes the Mayor made two recommendations for auditor and he referred us back to the January 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes which reads as follows pertaining to that matter:

“1. The Mayor stated there were approximately 22 solicitation letters sent to Qualified Auditors; she also stated Allen, Green, & Williamson and Marsha Millican, CPA were the only 2 (two) applicants who returned with an interest to perform the audit for 2009. It was moved by Council member Jones and seconded by Council member Bradley to retain Allen, Green & Williamson as the auditors for 2009. The Mayor stated that we need a proposal from the firm”

Somehow, from the above quoted section of the January 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes, (the only portion of the Minutes pertaining to this matter) Grambling Town Attorney Colvin concludes and adamantly insists Mayor Andrus made two recommendations for an auditor; he believes that the Council-approved February 2010 Meeting Minutes indicating she only recommended one auditor and the Mayor’s verbal statements to the same are invalid and says “I stand by my opinion.”

However, in reference to the exact same quoted section of the January 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes, Grambling Mayor Andrus says voice recordings and legally approved Meeting Minutes by the Council prove she never made two recommendations for auditor, that during the January Regular Meeting she was only updating the Council as to the progress made up to that point, that the Council was only voting on a request to obtain a proposal for services by Allen, Green & Williamson, that she only recommended Marsha Millican CPA and finally, that any preemptive recommendation/vote generated by the Council that excludes the Mayor’s requisite input is improper and invalid.  “Therefore, Grambling is still without an auditor.” says Andrus.

Mayor Andrus vowed to follow up by letter officially declaring to the Grambling Council and to Allen, Green & Williamson that Grambling is still without an auditor for the reasons stated above.

Why is the Mayor opposed to Allen, Green & Williamson being Grambling’s auditor for 2009 and why does the Council want them?  Why is the Council opposed to Marsha Millican CPA and the Mayor in favor of her?  Please stay tuned for the next  segment.

—The Fount Copyright 2010

All Rights Reserved  – Syndication Available Upon Request

Grambling Budget To Be Amended

During a Special Called Town Council meeting Thursday December 10, 2009 the Council proposed to amend Grambling’s 2009 Budget and to adopt the 2010 Budget.  The public hearing for these ordinances is scheduled for Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.

During this Special Called meeting in an unrelated employee relations matter, the Council sought to have Grambling employee Virginia Gill terminated because of an altercation she had with another employee.

Attorney Breedlove from the Grambling City Attorney’s office explained to the Council it is the mayor’s sole responsibility to hire and fire Grambling employees with the exception of department heads and city offices such as the Clerk, City Attorney, or the water department head.

After an Executive Session, the Town Council unanimously voted to recommend that Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus fire Ms. Gill immediately effective the next business day.  Mayor Andrus received the recommendation by saying “You are free to make that recommendation” and made no further comment.

After the meeting adjourned, Mayor Andrus commented to The Fount as to why she was not going to fire Ms. Gill at the Grambling Town Council’s insistence. The Mayor explained that Ms. Gill had already been suspended for two days without pay for her unacceptable behavior, and that firing Ms. Gill was unnecessary.