HPD sued by a top cop
July 4, 2018Deaths in Maryland cause for pause
July 4, 2018
Parish President Jimmy Cantrelle remains mum over why Lafourche Community Action Director Freddia Ruffin-Roberson was sent home in mid-June, but continues to be paid for her work.
Cantrelle closed the office in mid-June, while an “investigation” as he called it, occurred. Three or four days later he reopened the office, with everyone back at work, but Ruffin-Roberson.
Contacted Sunday by phone, the Lafourche Community Action Director said she is still off the job with pay, but has no idea when she will return.
Councilman Jerry Jones, who broke the news of the “investigation” to the Houma Times, said the matter stems from Cantrelle wanting control of the office.
“We are waiting for an attorney general’s opinion as to whether the council controls community action, or is the office under the direction of parish administration,” Jones said.
“We know that we are. We have an opinion in writing that says we are. However, because Jimmy is up in arms once again, we have sought yet another opinion.”
“I’ll reiterate this once again community action is governed according to by-laws, because you’re dealing with federal dollars. This is just another example of a program where Jimmy wants to fire people, and take control,” Jones said.
The issue between the parish president and the community action agency ignited last week, during the parish council meeting.
Rev. Richmond Boyd, president of the community action advisory board, appeared before the council to ask why the office was closed without the parish administration informing him or anyone else on the board.
“I am concerned as to why this happened. I received a lot of phones calls from constituents who needed things from the office, and were without. Things like commodities, energy bills assistance, and they had nowhere to go,” Boyd said.
“I need some answers, some public answers. I want to know,” Boyd said.
Council Chairman Luci Sposito told Boyd, “For the record, we didn’t know it was being shut down either.”
Cantrelle told Boyd, “We had to preserve evidence, because there is an investigation going on. So we can’t discuss anything about this thing, because it’s not finished yet.”
“However, I believe we took care of everyone. Do you have names?” Cantrelle asked.
Boyd answered, “My phone rang off the phone Mr. Cantrelle. We even had a homeless case. What were we supposed to do?”
“If I had any prior knowledge, I could have informed the rest of my board,” Boyd said.
Councilman Perrilloux asked, “Mr. Cantrelle, which law enforcement agency went in there and shut it down, and preserved evidence? Which law enforcement agency is conducting this investigation?”
Cantrelle answered, “Mr. Perrilloux I said I would not discuss anything about this tonight. As soon as we get everything back, we’ll find out what happened.”
Perrilloux fired back, “The public should need to know who shut that building down. Which law enforcement agency went in and collected evidence and shut that service down? Was it the local police? The federal government? Who went in and got evidence out of there?”
Cantrelle said nothing.
Jones asked, “I’d like to know who was the administration that went in and pulled evidence? Cause it sure wasn’t anyone governing our LIHEAP (energy assistance) funds. You went in there. You went in shut the doors. You locked the doors. Now you want to put it on somebody else. But you put all these programs in jeopardy by doing something stupid.”
“We had an $823,000 contract that needed to be approved. But it wasn’t because you shut it down. We have a contract with the St. James Parish government that needed approval, but that wasn’t either,” Jones said.
Cantrelle continued to remain silent.
Councilman Melvin also questioned Cantrelle over the issue of the investigation, asking if was the sheriff’s office who shut the office down.
Cantrelle again said nothing.
“I’m not saying what was done, was right or wrong,” Melvin said.
But looking at Cantrelle, he continued, “So you’re not saying on whose authority the office was shut down, and you’re not going to tell the public why? I see that as a problem.”
Jones, noticing Lafourche A.D.A. Lisa Orgeron in the audience, asked Sposito if he could question her publicly on the subject.
“Is the Lafourche Parish District Attorney investigating the Lafourche Parish Community Action Agency’s office?” Jones asked.
Orgeron answered, “No, the DA’s office is not questioning Lafourche Parish Community Action.”
Jones quipped, “Well then it must be Private Investigator Jimmy Cantrelle, and we all know how that’s going to turn out.”
Sposito said, “The two words that were said were preserved evidence, and that’s why we kept asking what law enforcement went in and investigated.”
The council then voted 6-0 to request an opinion from the Lafourche Parish District Attorney as to whether or not Cantrelle has the authority to shut down community action. (Councilmen James Bourgeois, Michael Gros and Daniel Lorraine were absent.)
At that point, the meeting discussion turned to who has control over the community action agency office, the council or the parish administration.
Boyd reappeared in front of the council and said, “The advisory board has supervision of the director. We hired her. We went through the process. We sent the resolution to be approved by the council. We did this. I just want to know what’s going on. I want to know how to answer the public?”
Perrilloux asked Cantrelle, “Is the administration in charge of the community action office? Do you even know?”
Cantrelle, after hesitating a second or two, said, “Yes, according to state by-laws, the administration is in control.”
Perilloux replied, “I want to know who is next. First the employees got the shaft with the health insurance. Now the elderly is the next target to pay rent. Now the low income personnel of the parish is targeted, who are ya’ll going after next?”
Cantrelle said he has in writing from the state that the parish administration is.
However, Jones had the council clerk read a letter, dated June 30, 2016, from Cantrelle, in which Cantrelle said it was made clear that the Lafourche Parish Council is the governing body of Lafourche Community Action, and that it is no longer under the parish administration; however, the community action agency must follow the policies of the administration.
Cantrelle also stated in his letter that the parish will provide a subsidy to the office, instead of paying employee salaries, as well as provide office space at no charge.
The Council then voted 6-0 to ask the district attorney’s office to render an opinion as to whether the parish administration has the authority to use community action agency’s federal grant dollars to pay employees who are on administrative leave without pay.
There was no further discussion on the matter.
