Community Accountability Network

Tag: Oppj

  • Industrial Groundwork in Ouachita Parish?

    OPPJ — Public Records Review

    Over the past few weeks, I’ve been digging through Ouachita Parish public records. Looking at budgets, meeting minutes, audit reports, and capital outlay documents. I’m trying to better understand how parish tax dollars are being spent and what long-term plans may be underway.

    One pattern that stands out in the records is the parish’s repeated use of two categories: East Ouachita Economic Development Capital Outlay and West Ouachita Economic Development Capital Outlay. These funds appear throughout the financial documents and meeting minutes and are specifically tied to economic development spending.

    In plain terms, “capital outlay” usually refers to money used for large projects such as infrastructure, engineering work, planning, and development preparation. It is different from routine expenses like payroll or daily operations. Capital outlay funds are typically used when a government is investing in long-term projects.

    The documents show the parish approving funding connected to planning, engineering work, and infrastructure improvements under these economic development categories. While the records do not name a specific company or project, these types of expenditures are often associated with early-stage development planning.

    Another detail that appears consistently in the records is the geographic separation of spending between East Ouachita and West Ouachita. That type of distinction can sometimes indicate that development planning is being focused in particular areas of the parish rather than applied evenly everywhere.

    In many communities, the early phases of industrial or large-scale economic development follow a fairly predictable pattern:

    1. Engineering or feasibility studies are approved
    2. Infrastructure planning begins (roads, utilities, site preparation)
    3. Capital outlay funds are allocated
    4. Sites are prepared or certified for development
    5. A company announcement may happen later

    The documents reviewed so far appear to show activity that fits within the early stages of that process. However, the records themselves do not identify a specific industry, company, or project.

    Another interesting piece of the puzzle is that some of the investments appear tied to infrastructure and development planning that could support large projects requiring significant utilities, broadband access, or transportation access. Those types of investments are often made years before any official announcement is made.

    To be clear, this does not mean a specific industrial project or company has been confirmed. What the documents show is that the parish has been allocating funds and approving planning activity tied to economic development infrastructure.

    At this stage of the investigation, the goal is simply to understand what these funds are being used for and what long-term development plans may exist.

    I am still requesting types of documents that often provide more detail about whether a parish is preparing land for future industry or large employers.

    As always, I want to be clear that I am not an attorney and not claiming wrongdoing. My goal is simply to review public records and help make complex government documents easier for the community to understand.

    Public information helps everyone better understand how our local government is planning for the future. We deserve to be informed. As I look through the OPPJ meeting minutes, I haven’t found any public information on plans for industrial development but in my opinion, the financial records seem to indicate that is the direction they are heading. I wonder at what point a public announcement would be made?

  • OPPJ Financial Review — Part 3

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or a CPA. This post is based on publicly available documents and audit reports. If something is incorrect, I welcome clarification.

    These are coming out as I get responses on my public record requests. I have my own suspicions and will tie it together at the end in an opinion piece. But for now, I’m laying the groundwork of what is documented.

    Over the past few weeks, I’ve been reviewing:
    – The 2024 Independent Audit
    – Financial records obtained through public records requests
    – ARPA (COVID relief) spending
    – Capital project fund summaries

    Here’s what stands out so far.

    1. The 2024 Audit Was Filed Late

    The audit itself says it was not submitted within the required deadline. In my opinion, late audits can point to administrative or internal control problems.

    2. Part of the Financial Picture Was Missing

    The auditors gave a clean opinion on the main government finances. However, they issued an adverse opinion on certain “component units” because those entities were not included in the financial statements.

    In simple terms: some legally separate entities connected to OPPJ were not included in the report. That affects transparency — not necessarily legality — but it limits the full picture.

    3. ARPA Reporting Was Off by $382,277

    The audit states that ARPA (federal COVID funds) reporting to the U.S. Treasury understated expenditures by $382,277. That does NOT automatically mean money was stolen. It means the reporting to the federal government was inaccurate and needed correction. That’s something that should be reconciled carefully.

    4. A $697,776 Accounting Correction Was Made

    The audit shows a prior-year correction involving $697,776 that had been classified incorrectly. This confirms that financial misclassifications have happened.

    5. There Is Ongoing Litigation Exposure

    The audit notes at least one lawsuit where potential liability could range from $1 million to $3 million if the outcome is unfavorable. That matters when evaluating legal spending and risk management.

  • What’s Going On Between the Judges and OPPJ — Part 2

    Deep Dive into OPPJ

    Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. This is just my understanding based on public documents.

    • All of the sitting judges in the 4th Judicial District Court are listed as plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit against the Ouachita Parish Police Jury (OPPJ).
    • Because of that lawsuit, they stepped aside (recused themselves) from the Frost Tower case to avoid any appearance of conflict.
    • Court revenue from fines and fees has gone down in recent years.
    • The judges asked OPPJ for more funding to help cover expenses.
    • OPPJ increased funding for the judges from about $118,000 in 2022 to $525,000 in 2023.
    • Budget documents also show the Parish’s General Fund is under increasing financial pressure.

    To better understand the financial side, I’ve submitted a public records request asking for:
    – Payments made to outside lawyers (2023 to now)
    – Contracts and invoices for those legal services
    – Budget line items for legal expenses

    This isn’t about picking sides. It’s about understanding what’s happening and how taxpayer dollars are being used.

    I’ll continue sharing updates as documents come in — and I’ll stick to what can be proven.

  • Frost Tower LLC vs. OPPJ — Part 1

    Ouachita Parish Police Jury Deep Dive

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is simply my understanding of the court filings based on the public record.

    A company called Frost Tower, LLC has filed a lawsuit against the Ouachita Parish Police Jury (OPPJ) challenging the Parish’s subdivision regulations, specifically Chapter 21.5 of the parish ordinances.

    According to the petition, Frost Tower owns about 68 acres and wants to subdivide it into residential lots. The company is asking the court to declare that the Police Jury does not have the authority to enforce these subdivision rules as applied to them, and to stop the Parish from enforcing those rules on this development.

    The Police Jury responded in December by filing what are called “exceptions” and defenses. In simple terms, they are arguing that:
    – If someone is challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance, certain procedural steps must be followed
    – The Louisiana Attorney General must be properly served
    – The case may have been filed using the wrong type of court procedure

    They also deny the allegations and ask that the case be dismissed.

    One unusual development: all of the sitting judges of the Fourth Judicial District Court have recused themselves from the case. According to the recusal order, the judges are currently involved in separate litigation that includes the Police Jury, and they stepped aside to avoid any appearance of bias. That means a different judge will have to be assigned to handle this case.

    At this point, the case appears to be focused heavily on procedural issues before the court even reaches the larger constitutional question.

    Again, I am not offering legal advice. I am simply summarizing what is reflected in the filings. I will continue to follow the case as it develops.

  • The Crooked Smile of Leadership

    Ouachita Parish Leadership Under Scrutiny

    First things first:
    This is Part One of a series examining leadership and public trust in Ouachita Parish. Its purpose is not retaliation, but transparency. I am calling on local government leaders to review these concerns, evaluate Shane Smiley’s continued fitness to serve, and take appropriate action — including removal from the Ouachita Parish Police Jury if warranted.

    If meaningful action is taken to restore public trust, this series does not need to continue. If it is not, future posts will focus on documented patterns, community impact, verified claims I have uncovered, and mechanisms for accountability. The goal is simple: leadership that reflects the standards, presence, and integrity Ouachita Parish residents expect — especially in moments when the community needs it most.

    When video footage surfaced last year showing Ouachita Parish Police Jury President Shane Smiley speaking harshly and using profanity toward young female employees at his Monroe restaurant, Catahoula’s, it sparked widespread concern. Smiley apologized publicly but refused to resign, maintaining that the incident did not warrant removal from office.

    Since then, discussions and unverified rumors have circulated about workplace culture and his personal life, adding to growing public discomfort with his leadership. Multiple residents have expressed disappointment in his absence during the recent winter storm, citing a lack of visible leadership and communication during a critical time.

    During my recent investigations into Shane Smiley, I have uncovered information suggesting that his actions were not isolated and may continue to occur behind closed doors. While he remains active in official parish business, many residents feel accountability has not been fully addressed.

    Although this article primarily focuses on events from the past year, the concerns are ongoing. Sources have raised strong claims that, in my opinion, make Smiley unfit for his role as a publicly elected official.

    Citizens have noticed their inability to publicly comment on the government page representing the Police Jury and have turned to me for help. For now, I am posting limited (and already publicly circulating) information as a reminder that the public has not forgotten. In fact, they are more frustrated than ever. Echoes of citizens who feel their voices are censored and ignored sound locally, a troubling public perception considering the past issues.

    I am calling on local government leaders to review these concerns, evaluate Shane Smiley’s continued fitness to serve, and take appropriate and immediate action to remove him from his position as Police Juror.

  • The Overlap: Public Dollars, Private Influence

    The Overlap: Public Dollars, Private Influence

    This article may appear in multiple series, as the topics are intertwined.

    Economic development in Northeast Louisiana is often described as a public-private partnership. That model is common. What matters is how it functions in practice.

    A review of GROW NELA’s publicly listed Board of Directors and investor roster reveals a pattern of overlap between those who financially support the organization and those who help govern it.

    Documented examples include but are not limited to:
    – Shane Smiley, President of the Ouachita Parish Police Jury. The Police Jury is listed as an investor in GROW NELA. Smiley also serves on GROW NELA’s Board of Directors representing the parish.
    – Tania Hilburn, Senior Vice President with Chase Bank. Chase is listed as an investor in GROW NELA. She serves on the board representing the bank.
    – Matt Dickerson, Chief Strategy Officer at Mid South Extrusion. Mid South Extrusion is listed as an investor in GROW NELA. He serves on the board.
    – Chap Breard, owner of MOEbiz. MOEbiz is listed as an investor in GROW NELA. He serves on the board.
    – Emily Stogner, affiliated with DPR Construction. DPR is listed as an investor in GROW NELA. DPR is also a prime contractor on the Meta data center project in Richland Parish.

    These connections are drawn directly from publicly available board and investor listings.

    This structure means that multiple entities financially supporting GROW NELA also hold governance positions within the organization.

    That structure is not automatically improper.

    However, when public institutions invest taxpayer dollars into an organization whose board includes private firms that may later benefit from development projects, the public has a right to review:
    – How funding agreements are structured
    – Whether conflicts of interest are disclosed
    – Whether recusals are documented
    – Whether procurement processes involving investor-linked firms are transparent

    Public Records Requests

    In order to better understand how these relationships operate in practice, I submitted public records requests to both the City of Monroe and the Ouachita Parish Police Jury seeking documentation of:
    – Contracts and cooperative agreements with GROW NELA
    – Payments to investor-linked firms
    – Procurement documentation related to those contracts

    After receiving no communication from the Police Jury, I visited their office in person. I was informed that my request was received on February 20. I requested written confirmation of receipt and was told the request had been forwarded to the Police Jury’s attorney.

    As of this writing, no records have been produced.

    Under Louisiana Public Records Law, public bodies are required to respond within three business days by either producing records or providing a written explanation and timeline.

    The State of Louisiana has acknowledged receipt of a related records request and indicated that documents are being compiled on their behalf.

    This review is ongoing.

    CAN Report Image