Grambling’s Website Producer Mistakenly Linked To Sex Chat Room

As if Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus didn’t have enough troubles; after the Grambling City Council met at a Special Called Meeting and voted unanimously to have City Attorney James Colvin Jr. determine the legality of Andrus’ actions concerning her payment of $7,760 to a website vendor without the Council’s approval, Channel 10,  a local television station in Monroe, LA attempted to reach the website producer E-Commerce Canyon today for comment and ended up reaching a sex chat room.

Channel 10 aired their findings during their regular news broadcast as well as their website, and said that the Grambling Mayor was unavailable for comment.  The phone number as printed on E-Commerce Canyon’s invoice is (800) 400-0233.

When we called that number, a referral number was given: (800) 313-2300 and we also found this number to be that of a sex chat room.  The Fount inquired to Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus for an explanation, and she informed us that E-Commerce Canyon’s phone number on their own documentation is incorrect.

Apparently there was a mix-up in toll free number prefixes on E-Commerce Canyon’s invoice.  The proper toll-free phone number to E-Commerce Canyon begins with a ‘triple 8’ number, and not an 800 number.

To verify Andrus’ explanation, we called (888) 400-0233 during after-business hours (due to the timing of our discoveries) and reached an answering service that answered the phone as “E-Commerce Canyon.”

Shortly afterward an option to press “1” was offered to reach business owner Sheree Rabon, and after a brief pause the answering service referred us to her voice mail where we left a message requesting a return phone call.

The mix-up in toll free prefixes caused a very embarrassing situation for the Grambling Mayor, the City of Grambling and her citizens as well as E-Commerce Canyon.

As far as the legality of her writing a city check without the Council’s approval, Mayor Andrus informed The Fount that the website vendor issue is a matter of legal interpretation according to the Lawrason Act which authorizes mayors of municipalities to be sole signors on municipal drafts.

Andrus contends that according to the law, if the Council approves a budget for certain items, that no mayor of a municipality operating under the Lawrason Act is required to continually ask for the Council’s approval to sign checks.

Arcadia Mayor Eugene Smith agrees, as well as other mayors of municipalities whom we’ve interviewed that operate under the Lawrason Act.  “The buck stops with the Mayor” said Smith.

Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus said, “It’s quite evident that an extensive forensic audit will reveal misappropriation of funds, so why would I do that?  No mayor needs a Council to look over their shoulder every day. I’m conducting business on behalf of the City according to my duties as outlined by the Lawrason Act, and the law doesn’t require the Council to hold my hand on everything!

If these (Grambling) Council Members would’ve attended the Louisiana Municipal Association meetings that I and other local mayors set up around here that educates them on their role as Council Members and my role as Mayor, we wouldn’t be going through this mess.

But just like they said in the meeting last night, they don’t think the law is right, and they refuse to let Grambling be a part of the LMA.  All this junk about me writing checks illegally and this sex chat room stuff is just ridiculous!” said Mayor Andrus.

Copyright 2010 —The Fount

All Rights Reserved

Grambling Council Donates $1750 To Citizens?

The Issues

While accusing Mayor Andrus of illegally accessing funds to pay a vendor for a municipal website, the Grambling City Council not only made conflicting statements on critical points; when confronted by a citizen as to how much this Special Called Meeting cost Council Member Roosevelt Bryant said “Did anybody say we were charging for tonight?  Who told you that we was charging for tonight?”  Please check out the link to a brief 2 minute video excerpt of these statements below in the section entitled “Don’t Go There!”

The title of this article by The Fount as to whether the Grambling Council will donate it’s services for this Special Called Meeting is a direct challenge to the Council to honor  Bryant’s own statements about being paid for that meeting, and is no way meant to belittle their accusations made against Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus.

Considering that each Special Called Meeting costs Grambling’s citizens $1750, this particular meeting might be a complete break from very expensive trends of the past and cost them nothing at all.

During this meeting as well as many previous ones, the current Grambling Council brazenly questions the morality of Louisiana’s legal system; namely the Lawrason Act.  This particular system of government makes provision for mayors to be sole signors on municipal checks, and there is much disdain by the Council for this provision.

The current Grambling Council refuses to pay dues for Grambling to participate in the Louisiana Municipal Association that assists municipalities in educating public officials on how to properly fulfill their public service roles under the Lawrason Act.

According to the Lawrason Act as explained by several other mayors under that system of government, the buck of financial accountability and responsibility stops with the Mayor.

The Meeting

The Special Called Meeting scheduled for 5:00 Tuesday got underway at 5:13 pm and after the agenda to discuss a “lawsuit” was adopted, Grambling  Mayor Martha Andrus, an incumbent mayoral candidate in the upcoming election asked for the Council Members who called the Special Meeting to go on record.   Mayor Pro Temp Edward Jones, also a mayoral candidate raised his hand, and Council Members Toby Bryan and Roosevelt Bryant, incumbent Council Member candidates identified themselves as well.

Council Member Roosevelt Bryant presented an argument as to why he and the Grambling Council believed legal action should be taken against Mayor Andrus.  It was then revealed no lawsuit against the Mayor actually existed at this point, and it was unclear as to whether one was warranted.  The matter was ultimately referred to the Grambling City Attorney.

Council Member Bryant Accuses Mayor Andrus

Bryant began by saying the Mayor requested a meeting with the Council to discuss a website being built on behalf of the City of Grambling.  He said that a contract was presented and it was his belief that the person bidding to build a website Ms. Sheree Rabon should make a presentation before the  entire Council and interested parties at a regular council meeting.

He also stated “The mayor does not have the authority to enter into contract without approval of the City Council, the judge ruled on that.”

Braynt went into further detail by passing around copies of documentation in reference to this incident, saying the Wednesday before the last Council Meeting, the Mayor issued a check to Ms. Rabon for $7,760.

Bryant said, “On the contract it stated that the website was completed. You can get a website done freely.  The university has a communications department, all we have to do is ask them for their help. You can get somebody to do a website for $300 or less. This is not a website.  The attorney determined the young lady’s business is not legitimate, it’s not registered in any state…   If this is what you call a website with only the mayor’s picture and her accomplishments, then we are a bunch of idiots to pay $7,760 for that.”

Council Member Bryant went on to say “The other thing, this website has nothing to do with Juneteenth.  Juneteenth is not a part of the City.  Why was there a hurry to issue the check?  The young lady was asking for $3,650 as a down payment, the Mayor struck through all of this (referring to the document) and wrote $7,760.  (Holding up document) This is a list of what she was supposed to do. I simply asked that she would come and present this to the City Council, and I didn’t think this was unreasonable.”

Then, Rev. Bryant talked about being paid for a job that was not complete: “But why would you issue a check when you don’t have anything for it?  How many of you would like to get paid for a job that you haven’t done for the amount of $7,000?”

He then referred to a copy of a Resolution (also handed out to the audience) that the Grambling Council voted on 2 years ago stating two signatures were to be required on all checks written.

He said that Mayor Andrus violated that Resolution, and made his case as to why he thought multiple signors on municipal drafts should be necessary; as this is the standard by which he and many other pastors operate.  “This is YOUR money.  And we’re supposed to be custodians of your money” said Bryant to the floor.

Is Louisiana A “Stupid” State?

Council Member Bryant then referred to the Lawrason Act which gives the Mayor of municipalities under that rule the legal authority to be sole signor on municipal checks:

“The Lawrason Act gives her the authority  to sign a check, but is it good sense? Everything is not good sense!  I don’t care if it is the law, it’s wrong!  This is the only stupid state where one person can have that power to go to a bank and do whatever they want to do.  That’s unreasonable!” said Council Member Bryant.

A brief 2 minute segment of incumbent candidate Council Member Bryant’s statement above is available here:

Bryant continued: “So the Mayor took the check to the bank, they didn’t honor the check that she wrote, they had the Resolution, the regional vice president of the bank said that the Lawrason Act superseded everything that we (the Grambling Council) did. That’s the law. Yes it’s the law but is it reasonable?”

Bryant made further statements: “So the Mayor went to the bank the next day and wrote a counter check for $7,760.  The original check was made out to ‘e-commerce whatever’ but then she purchased a cashier’s check and made it payable to the young lady Sheree Rabon.  Now if you think this is right, fine.  I’m not here politicking. The only thing I want to do is protect the interest of these citizens.  Now if you think this is right, fine with me.  I don’t think this is right. Nobody ought to have that power!

Barack Obama can not go to a bank that houses the money for the citizens of the United States and write whatever he wants to write.  So why is the law so right here?  Are we that dumb? Are we that stupid? I don’t think that the Mayor ought to have that kind of power.  She can go and close out every account that we have.

There is one bank that we have right now that we can’t even touch and that’s First National Bank because her name is the only name on the checks, Sabine Bank. Is it right? Is this what you want from your Mayor?  She can go down and withdraw 100 or 200 thousand dollars and do whatever she wants with it, close out all the accounts, we don’t have anything to say about it.”

Citizens Turn The Tide

Council Member Bryant then sat down and moved that the matter be forwarded to the City Attorney for his review and opinion.  Mayor Andrus said before that could be done the matter had to be presented to the floor for discussion, and quoted the statute requiring an opportunity be made for such public discussion.

One citizen stood up and stated her objections by reiterating how one person shouldn’t be in charge of the city’s money, the city attorney determined the website that’s supposedly being worked on isn’t even finished, and that the way things were going the city would be out of money soon if things didn’t change.

Another stood up and sought clarification as to whether the Mayor acted within legal parameters of the Lawrason Act.  Council Member Bryant and others including Mayor Pro Temp Jones stated that she had the right to sign the check, but not to enter into contract without the Council’s approval.

THEN, the question as to whether an actual contract existed came up, because the documentation handed out to the citizens for review in the meeting was not a contract, but a purchase order.  Rev. Allen from the floor stated if there was no contract then there was no violation.

The Contradiction

In response to Allen’s queries, Council Member, Mayor Pro Temp and  Grambling mayoral candidate Edward Jones seemed to contradict earlier statements made by Council Member Bryant:

“Rev. Allen may I say something?  The law only gives the Mayor the right to write a check once the Council has approved it. But the mayor can not just go in and just write a check. She can do it after the Council has approved it, then she has by authority the right to sign for it. But until a Council gives her that authority, she can not just write a check.  It’s in the Lawrason handbook” said Jones.

Apparently Jones’ statements were completely false because just a few moments earlier, Council Member Bryant just pointed out to the floor  Grambling citizens that the vice president of the bank handling the funds on this issue stated that the Grambling Council does not have the authority to override Louisiana legislation regarding the Mayor’s authority to write a check.

Both statements from Council Members Bryant and Jones couldn’t be true if they oppose each other.   From the bank’s point of view, the Resolution the Council passed 2 years earlier to restrict the Mayor’s powers on that issue was illegal, null and void, and that’s how the Mayor was able to come back and withdraw the funds she needed.

Mayor Andrus responded to Council Member Jones’ statement saying, “If it’s in the budget you CAN write a check.”  Rev. Allen immediately finished the Mayor’s statement by saying “According to the law now.”

Then Allen asked for further clarification regarding the contract, saying that the Council accused the Mayor of entering into a contract illegally. “So where is the contract?” said Allen.

What Contract?

Council Member Bryant answered by saying “That’s not a contract that I passed out?” Rev. Allen said, “If it’s a signed contract then it’s a contract.”  Citizens from the floor began looking at the document which Council Member Bryant handed out earlier and looked at each other, then one gentleman said, “This is a purchase order, not a contract.”

Rev. Allen said, “See that’s a purchase order, not a contract and that’s what I’m trying to clear up. I’m not saying that one person should have the authority to write out all the money.  I’m saying whoever gets to be the Mayor of Grambling is gonna have that authority whether we like it or not until Baton Rouge says (otherwise).”

Council Member Bryant changed the subject by pointing out how a disservice had been performed because from his point of view a check was written for services that were not complete, it is illegal to not complete services promised, and when it came to the Mayor writing the check, he asked why was the Mayor in such a rush saying “Because of perceived power? You’re challenging my power, my authority as the Mayor? Is that what it’s all about?” and sat down.

Political Ploy?

Rev. Allen stood up again and stated that he supports any public official who has the city’s best interest at heart, but at the same time, he felt that the Council’s current actions regarding this matter was nothing but a political ploy: “I see all of this as a political ploy.”

Allen briefly mentioned other issues that the Council approved that were costing Grambling major amounts of money that the Council was not addressing, and then said that this entire matter could have waited until the next Council Meeting: “I also have a problem with this Special Called Meeting, this could’ve waited until next month, it’s not going anywhere. We’re spending $1750 just for this today!”

The $1750 Rev. Allen referred to is the amount of money each Special Called Meeting costs the City of Grambling: funds that are distributed amongst each Council Member on top of their regular monthly income; in this case $350 each times 5 for a 1 hour meeting.

Council Member Roosevelt Bryant then raised his hand and asked “Did anybody say we were charging for tonight?  Who told you that we was charging for tonight?” said Bryant.

“Don’t Go There!”

Rev. Allen who was just about to sit down before Bryant’s statement appeared to be agitated by Bryant’s comment, stood back up and said: “Well this is a Special Called Meeting isn’t it? You already been gettin paid for it and you ain’t been givin it up, don’t go there now!  Uh-uh, don’t go there!”  The Grambling citizens then began to murmur to the point where order had to be restored.

A 2 minute excerpt of these events is available here:

A full length video of this meeting is available to the public.

QUESTION: On behalf of the Grambling City Council, did Council Member Bryant just donate $1750 worth of Special Called Meeting services to the citizens of Grambling for this meeting?

Based on Bryant’s statements, many who attended were left with the impression there would be no charge by Grambling City officials to the citizens of Grambling for this Special Called Meeting.

$$ Show Me The Money!! $$

Since this meeting seemed to be about the Grambling Council’s objection to the Mayor’s legal authority to sign checks without their involvement or approval, The Fount asked the one who signs the checks: Will the Grambling Council indeed be paid for this Special Called Meeting?

Mayor Andrus said, “That depends on whether they instruct the Grambling Clerk (Pam Stringfellow) NOT to print checks out for this next month in September.”  This is the final month before voters decide who to elect in Grambling October 2nd, 2010.

If the Grambling Council indeed gets paid for this Special Called Meeting, will a portion of that money also go to Council Member and Grambling mayoral candidate Alvin Bradley who left just 8 minutes after the hour long meeting started?  All of these issues are yet to be resolved.

‘What Say You Mayor?’

Before the meeting ended, questions continued from the floor.  One woman asked for a response to the allegations from the Mayor, and Andrus stated that when it came to the website not being completed, the invoice referred to a certain amount of work being completed and that the payment was only for services rendered up to that point, and not for the entire website being complete.

She further clarified after the meeting that this was a common practice when dealing with contractors; pay a certain portion up front and in installments until the entire project is completed.

Mayor Andrus also informed The Fount that as far as the amount for services rendered to produce a website for a municipality, the amount paid was comparable to other companies who perform such services, and that she had to pay for those services at the time because the agreed upon portion of services had been completed.

Andrus also informed The Fount the reason she wrote the cashier’s check in a different name than the business is because when banks have a negative issue with funds going to an entity, writing a draft with the same exact name immediately after such an issue might cause additional problems– so she wrote it to the business owner rather than the company itself and said “The money all goes to the same place.”

The meeting ended with the four remaining Council Members Jones, Bryan, Jackson and Bryant voting to turn the matter over to the Grambling City Attorney.  During the last portion of the meeting just before adjournment, it was discussed that the Grambling City Attorney James Colvin Jr. does not charge by retainer, but by the hour only at a rate of approximately $175/hr.  The vote was unanimous to refer the matter to the attorney.

Copyright 2010 —The Fount

All Rights Reserved

Grambling: What’s There To Hide?

A combined editorial and report of Grambling’s April 2010 Council Meeting by Rev. David J. Dill

Shut Up & Sit Down!

During an attempt to blow the whistle on what I believe to be questionable, unethical and possibly illegal actions of Grambling officials, this reporter was asked to sit down and be quiet during the April City of Grambling Council Meeting April 1, 2010.  I was on the agenda to provide pertinent information to the Council, and the Mayor and public at large – information I feel could save Grambling from liability.

Most certainly it is the Council’s prerogative to shut down meaningless rhetoric and misinformation in such a public setting.  Why would the Grambling Council be so adamant about blocking the dispensation of certain information before that information could be brought out?  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.

There was no specific item listed on the agenda for me to discuss therefore, I started my presentation off by introducing the upcoming Grambling Health Seminar April 24^th, 2010.  I then expressed my concerns for fair reporting in the media. I referred to a nearly 3 year old video in which the Grambling Town Council and Mayor were accompanied by a NAACP representative who stated his concerns that Grambling was being misrepresented in the media by the Ruston Daily Leader.

I briefly expressed why I got involved in publishing, as the Bienville Democrat in Arcadia did not even cover the election of Barack Obama after the election and many Blacks in our area felt the need to be represented fairly in the media.  I then attempted to publicly report to the Council and citizens present why Mayor Martha Andrus felt she was not being represented fairly in the media, and that she asked me to be a witness to what she believed were adversarial actions against her by Grambling Attorney Jim Colvin Jr.

At the Mayor’s request, I agreed to attend a meeting the Mayor had with Attorney Colvin on March 15, 2010 because I had questions of my own and I wanted his side of the story on an issue.  In light of the article I published “Grambling’s Attorney Strong Arms Mayor?” (online at: http://thefount.org/2010/03/12/gramblings-attorney-strong-arms-mayor/ )  —all I wanted to know from Attorney Colvin was why did he insist that the Mayor made two recommendations for auditor when the January 2010 Meeting Minutes and a public voice recording of that meeting did not reflect that.

I believed this was the very crux of the matter as to why it appeared Attorney Colvin was siding with the Council; why was he resisting so adamantly against what appears to be hard evidence?  Mr. Colvin explained his side of the story that day and it was my intention to inform the Council and general public both sides of the story from my perspective and the events which took place during that meeting as it was Grambling business being discussed, it was a Grambling issue important to all Grambling officials and the public, and it was my intention to play a copy of a voice recording for everybody to clearly hear that the Mayor never made two recommendations for 2009 auditor and only one recommendation.

But the Council shut my public disclosure efforts ALL THE WAY DOWN – which of course brings up even more questions.  What is really at stake here? What is there to hide?  Could it be they already knew the subject matter that I was about to disclose?

WHO’S Attorney?

When I attempted to inform everybody detailed results of that meeting between Attorney Colvin and Mayor Andrus that day, I was erroneously accused of attacking Attorney Colvin, and in defense of Colvin, Grambling Councilmember Roosevelt Bryant said, “That is OUR attorney!”

OH, but I hear you Sir loud and clear!  However, the Grambling Attorney or any municipal attorney for that matter is not just the Council’s attorney; he/she is not to side with anybody but to play it straight down the middle according to the law for the sake of the citizens they represent without bias or bloodthirsty greed, and it is NOT unreasonable to see if all sides are being represented fairly.

It was the Mayor who asked me to sit in on that meeting as a witness to what she believed were adversarial acts against her by the Grambling Attorney.  Mayor Andrus believed Colvin was siding with the Council against her, and at the close of that meeting between Andrus and Colvin, he expressed the need to “rebuild trust” between them.  When I heard him say that, I wondered why there would be such a need and began to understand Mayor Andrus’ beliefs.

And during this meeting April 1, 2010 after learning that I was invited to sit in on that March 15th 2010 meeting between the Grambling Mayor and Grambling Attorney, the Grambling Council stated that no 3^rd party including media should be present while city officials discuss city affairs.  Even though they did not enact policy on those verbal statements, why would such isolation be necessary if there is nothing to hide?  If one official feels she is being bullied by others, should not the victim involve support?

And if that same official is not allowed to involve a neutral third party as a witness, is this not the same isolation tactic employed by wife beaters and bullies?  When we met it was the Grambling Attorney himself who said it was alright for me to sit in on that meeting if the Mayor so desired, so why is the Council insisting on secrecy?  Again, what is there to hide?

The OPEN Meeting

During that March 15th meeting, I let Mr. Colvin know why I believed he had sided with the Council.  I expressed my belief that he complicated and caused undue delay to the audit selection situation by rendering an opinion which opposed what was written in the January 2010 Meeting Minutes and other hard evidence. He even opposed his own original statements about NO auditor being selected by Grambling officials, and was making statements that in my opinion did not line up with a certain voice recording of that January 2010 Grambling Council Meeting.

I also asked him why he constantly allowed for the Grambling Clerk Pam Stringfellow to forward the Council Meeting Minutes LATE after every single meeting because Mayor Andrus informed The Fount that Clerk Stringfellow only provides Meeting Minutes on the day before or the day of the next Regular Meeting – some 20 days late according to State law, even though she has been warned verbally and by letter.

Colvin responded by saying, “I didn’t know that was going on Mayor, now that’s not a gray area, that’s black and white, the Clerk is supposed to have those Minutes published 10 days after the Meeting.”  I then told Mr. Colvin “This is not the only problem the Mayor is having Mr. Colvin, but if every single town official is working against the Mayor, I have to make sure that you’re not.  If anybody plays this straight down the middle, it has to be you.”  Mr. Colvin responded by saying “I assure you (Dill) and you Mayor, I am not siding with the Council.”

I said to Mr. Colvin “The local media has shown extreme bias towards the Council and against the Mayor for quite some time, and I am watching what’s going on, things just aren’t right.”  Then, I asked Mr. Colvin what could be done about the Clerk not handing those Meeting Minutes in on time because this had been a constant ongoing problem month after month for the past few years, and that the Mayor doesn’t even have time to properly review them and check them for accuracy before the next Meeting.

He offered to ask the Clerk for the Minutes himself at the 10 day mark- 10 days after the last meeting so that he himself would have ample time to review the Minutes before the next Meeting.  He said “That way Mayor, it’ll help take the pressure off you, I’ll ask for them and then forward you a copy.”

The Mayor then presented a copy of the January 2010 Grambling Council Meeting Minutes and a letter from Allen, Green & Williamson (AGW) auditing firm as evidence to indicate she never made two recommendations to the Council.  She stated “I didn’t recommend two auditors, and this letter should clear that up for you.”  The letter from AGW stated that they understood they had not been hired as of yet.  Mr. Colvin said “I didn’t know that letter existed, that sheds new light on the issue.”  Mayor Andrus then referred to the voice record she had which would also verify her stance.

Mayor Andrus didn’t have the voice recording in her office, so Mr. Colvin and the Mayor began to discuss how they could arrange for him to hear it.  The meeting in the Mayor’s office ended shortly afterward.  I specifically recall Colvin making statements about being glad to have sat down to the table with Mayor Andrus for a change and acknowledging his need to rebuild the trust between them.  Again, when I first heard that, I began to wonder why there would be a lack of trust in the first place, but I was glad he at least admitted there was a breach in need of repair.

Attorney General: Needed Or Not?

Mayor Andrus informed The Fount that Mr. Colvin indeed heard the voice record shortly after that meeting and the tapes indicate she only recommended one auditor.   A witness was present when Mr. Colvin heard the recording, so with all the hard evidence seeming to indicate Mayor Andrus only made ONE recommendation why would the Attorney General even need to get involved?   Mr. Colvin wrote a letter to the Attorney General regarding the matter, acknowledged the existence of the Mayor’s tape, but he did not disclose what he heard on the tape.  Why not?  Why all the extra hourly billing by Attorney Colvin and the delay?

In that letter, after presenting a case for both the Mayor & the Council, Colvin concluded his letter requesting an Attorney General opinion as follows: “Therefore, unless the Mayor’s action at the January meeting can be deemed a recommendation, or the City Council changes its mind, the City is at a stalemate.”

With that statement, does it not sound like Grambling Attorney Colvin is discounting and undermining the Mayor and her hard evidence? Some have stated their belief this statement does just that.  Whether Colvin’s statement is prejudicial or not, it is this writer’s opinion that documented history can’t be altered to accommodate the Council with legal manipulation: if the City is at a stalemate, then the City is at a stalemate and they need to work it out themselves – PERIOD!

The initial actions to involve the Attorney General in this Grambling auditor selection process by Grambling Attorney Colvin was scrutinized by the Council during this April 2010 Council Meeting, and then suddenly dropped by the Council.  WHY?

The Mystery Man

Councilmember Bryant asked Colvin twice in a row point blank as to who requested him to initiate that action, and Colvin said “When I gave my report last month, and there was uh, the Mayor disagreed with it, and there’s one thing you can do with that type of situation, and you can always go to the Attorney General. And it was requested at that time that I..” Bryant interrupted: “Who requested it?”  Colvin held his hands up: “Uh,” then Jones interrupted: “I know that the Council requested that a letter be sent to the Legislative Auditors letting them know that we had not selected an auditor.”

All of a sudden Bryant interrupts Jones: “Well, I think this discussion is moot because if we’re waiting for an Attorney General’s opinion, we need to wait for the Attorney General’s opinion.” Councilmember Bradley then said: “Let’s move on.” Bryant continues: “You gave us an opinion. You were hired to give us an opinion as City Attorney, and then somebody’s requested an Attorney General’s opinion, so we’re already in trouble with the legislative auditor so let’s wait for the Attorney General to respond to your request.” Bradley again says: “Let’s move on.”

Who was that “somebody” that Bryant referred to: who actually requested Colvin to forward this matter to the Attorney General? According to the Lawrason Act, Mayor Andrus says she would have to be the one to make that request and she never did.  And when Councilmember Bryant asked Grambling Attorney Colvin about it, why didn’t he make sure Colvin answered his question as to who requested him to forward the matter to the Attorney General?  Why didn’t ANYONE from the Council demand an answer from Colvin for that matter?

While members on the Grambling Council are trying to make it look like the Mayor is holding the auditor selection process up, the Grambling Attorney seems to be at the heart of this issue. How did this matter end up being forwarded to the Attorney General instead of the Legislative Auditor’s Office when neither the Council nor Mayor requested it?

The video tape reveals Councilmember Bryant asking Attorney Colvin the same question point blank three times as to who requested him to forward the matter to the Attorney General, and Colvin never gave a straight answer.  So what’s really going on? Did Attorney Colvin take actions into his own hands and then bill Grambling for it? And where is the letter from Colvin to the Legislative Auditor’s Office that the Grambling Council requested over a month ago?

Is it not the Grambling Attorney’s own FLIP-FLOP which created or at least contributed to this stalemate and delay in Grambling’s selection of an auditor?

Five Council Members already acknowledged in the public meeting according to approved Meeting Minutes that no auditor had been selected two months ago. The Grambling Attorney heard the voice record indicating only one auditor had been recommended by the Mayor. He saw the two month old letter indicating the Council’s choice for auditor (AGW) recognized that they were not yet hired one month ago, and neither the Council nor the Mayor requested Grambling Attorney Colvin to forward the matter to the Attorney General.

Yet, like Councilmember Bryant said “somebody’s requested an Attorney General’s Opinion” – so who is at fault for this undue delay? And in light of previously aired comments from the Council, where is the loud cry of concern and accusations by the Grambling Council for misappropriation of funds and unauthorized billing of expenditures?

Ching Ching!!

One other issue discussed in the meeting between the Mayor and Attorney Colvin on March 15 was concerning the lack of tax base in Grambling, the highest property taxes in this area of Louisiana being in Grambling where a high percentage of its citizens are retired and on fixed incomes – and why Grambling was being billed for legal services by the hour rather than by retainer.  Mr. Colvin made it very clear that he must treat municipalities like corporations and bill them by the hour, and he said he would not consider working for Grambling by retainer.

Since this is the case and Grambling officials agreed to this hourly billing arrangement, is it appropriate for the Grambling Attorney to create work for himself at any time at the taxpayer’s expense?  Has Colvin ever done this, is there a pattern of this, and if there is a pattern of this can it be proven through documentation?  Is the Grambling Attorney being paid in comparable fashion to other local municipalities?  Hmmmmm….

Fairness In The Eyes Of The Beholder

There are many issues that have occurred before this investigator became involved, and I am only prepared to comment on that which I have observed for myself.  While some believe my efforts to be prejudicial simply because I speak/write from a different perspective than what has previously been published by the Ruston Daily Leader and the Morning Paper, all I can say to that is: it’s a matter of one’s own glass half-empty or half-full perspective.

Where were all the cries of injustice, bias and unfairness when only the Council’s side of the story was being told and the Mayor’s side for the most part was not told?  Mayor Andrus said there have been many out-right lies and half-truths printed and aired against her in the media, many of those in the media never bothered to get her side of the story and on the few occasions which they did, they did not report the things she said in the same manner which she said them.

If the cries for fairness in reporting are truly sincere, then these who have cried foul about The Fount’s recent articles “Grambling Council Strikes It Rich” and “Grambling Attorney Strong-Arms Mayor?” should not have a problem with a different perspective if the content is factual and can be verified by scrutinizing public records!  Why haven’t the Ruston Daily Leader or the Morning Paper reporters ever dug up and reported on this widely available information that pertains to Grambling?

During this April Grambling 2010 Council Meeting, Council Members loudly complained about these articles by The Fount which did nothing but expose public record FACTS that anybody could check out for themselves if they really cared to know.

The Council Members who read my online articles had a chance to respond, rebut, disagree, complain etc. right there on the spot in the Comment Section, but chose not to.  They didn’t complain until they decided to derail my presentations during the April 2010 Council Meeting, and in the midst of those complaints NONE of the facts I presented in my articles were contested by the Council, just the publication of them – which again begs the question – what is there to hide?

When the Council has press conferences and does not include The Fount in the notification of those press conferences, why should the Grambling Council even care what is published by The Fount?  If the Grambling Council doesn’t want to include us when they hold a press conference, and if they only contact media entities they know will put things out there their own way, again that is their prerogative but it again begs the question: What is there to hide?

And we’re all big boys and girls out here.  Just like Councilmember Jones told the Mayor during the meeting, “I’m grown and I can speak” surely reasonable people recognize that just because somebody doesn’t agree with your point of view, this does not mean they are not entitled to speak or that they are not being FAIR.  Since when did this stop being America where people have a right to the freedom of speech?  Since when should ALL sides of an issue not be considered?  What is there to hide?

CONCLUSION:

When I first began publishing articles regarding the conflict between the Grambling Council and Grambling Mayor, Mayor Pro Temp Edward Jones and his brother Eddie Jones had lengthy conversations with me and expressed their concerns and beliefs as to why they believed Mayor Andrus was corrupt and incompetent. After hearing their side of the story, I did something that Mayor Andrus said no other media entity did, and that was to sit down with her face to face, had lengthy conversations with her as well and got her side of the story.

I reviewed many hard copy and online news articles and public record documents regarding various issues, and I also spoke with Attorney Colvin, and these are the reasons why I believe my perspective to be completely valid if not altogether unique.  Over and over again, with an accusatory tone I have been asked the question “Dill: Are you reporting the news or are you making the news?” This is my response:

I have over 15 years of security, private investigation and research reporting experience. In regards to the controversy between the Grambling Mayor & Grambling Council, I am ONE of very few people who have gotten more than one side to this story and there is a reason why this investigator is FOCUSED on certain things.

Truth be told, when things for the most part are one-sided for so long  — in this case anybody who seeks to bring things back to the middle of the road as fairly as they can for the sake of unity and for the sake of Grambling’s citizens; that individual is viewed as the trouble-making rebel.

President Obama knows exactly what that feels like, and like Obama says, “It goes with the territory” – so be it!   And to those who keep whining about me not being a citizen of Grambling as if I have no right to investigate and report on events there– as a media entity, it is irrelevant whether I am a Grambling citizen or not.  In so many words like Martin Luther King Jr. said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

The Grambling Attorney is not a citizen of Grambling, the other media covering issues in Grambling are not citizens of Grambling, where are the objections to their involvement, what is there to hide?  Why is their such resistance to another side of the story coming out?   And if it takes an ‘outsider’ to expose injustices within the City of Grambling, then so be it, let the chips fall where they may: If the Mayor is corrupt it will be exposed and if the Attorney, Clerk, the Council – if any official is corrupt or handling Grambling’s affairs in a shady manner it will all be exposed because everything that PUBLIC SERVANTS do is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD for PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

The Fount is on a fact finding mission and whatever is hidden in this case; like an onion it will be uncovered stinky layer by stinky layer: “He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him. Daniel 2:22”

—The Fount

Copyright 2010

All Rights Reserved