Month: November 2025

District Three (3) Cosmetology Board Member Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlan.

As we reported in this August 27, 2025 feature entailing an alleged “pandemic” of gifts (a/k/a “bribes”) being solicited by Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) inspectors, there was an initial euphoria among Vietnamese manicurists upon seeing that Gov. Jeff Landry prevailed in his quest for Governor in 2023 without there even being a need for a runoff.

The celebratory mood only magnified once Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlan was appointed to the LSBC to represent District 3.  That District parallels the Congressional District 3, presently represented by U. S. Congressman Clay Higgins.  As noted on the “bribes” link above, it was a Broussard, Louisiana nail salon (Nail Tech) for which the $200 in mysterious cash surfaced in an envelope along with a notation of “thank you.”

The LSBC responded with this April 4, 2025 certified letter indicating that payment of “cash gifts” is “highly unethical.”

Several well-informed sources with very integral knowledge of the LSBC’s operations have described the Acadiana area (Landry’s home base) as a “field ripe for the picking” regarding the obtaining of such payments.  In fact, we’ve been told that inspectors’ supervisors have become very upset with the sheer level of such “gifts” because, when combined with the salaries of the inspectors, the resulting total compensation exceeds that of the supervisors!  While we’ve made no independent verification of that fact, as we just stated, those sentiments have been expressed by historically reliable sources we’ve maintained within the Louisiana cosmetology industry for a rather protracted period.

On September 9, 2025 we reported upon several Vietnamese manicurists having filed for a Declaratory Order to be issued by the LSBC.  The essence of that Declaratory Order seeks for the LSBC to acknowledge that manicurists accused of wrongdoing by the LSBC have the Constitutional Right to a trial by jury rather than the LSBC serving as “judge, jury, and executioner.”  In that feature, we also revealed just how frustrated the manicurist plaintiffs have become that the LSBC has dragged its heels on issuing any such Declaratory Order.

The LSBC successfully stalled the process for over a year by seeking an opinion from Louisiana AG Liz Murill’s Office regarding whether the LSBC has authority to make any ruling on any such “Constitutional Right,” or whether only a “court of competent jurisdiction” can make such a ruling.  In our eyes, and we expressed this many times, seeking an AG Opinion was not an appropriate act because Murrill would have a very obvious conflict in issuing any such opinion given that it’s her job to defend the LSBC in any litigation that may arise over the matter.

If AG Murrill issued an opinion that the Board possesses such jurisdiction to issue a Declaratory Order, she’d become “boxed in” regarding any litigation over the whole matter.  Even if she issued an opinion that the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue such an Order, she would still be boxed in on her opinion in any such litigation involving the subject matter (though that scenario would likely not be nearly as awkward for Murrill).

It was therefore our opinion that, notwithstanding the repeated indications by LSBC attorney Sheri Morris that an opinion would be “forthcoming soon,” and further that she had requested “expedited consideration” of the matter, Murrill was never (repeat never) going to issue such an Opinion.  Furthermore, we firmly believe that Morris and the LSBC Members knew that full well when they requested the AG Opinion.  We therefore concluded the following at the bottom of the above-linked feature:

So, with allegations of rampant solicitations of bribes by LSBC inspectors along with a well documented decade long period of alleged harassment by the LSBC to include a Federal Judge stating the LSBC engaged in Constitutional Rights violations (false imprisonment and illegal searches), Cao and the Pelican Institute can either:  #1) continue to wait on the AG opinion which was supposed to be issued months ago, or #2) proceed on with litigation in 19^th JDC without any Declaratory Order by the LSBC or an opinion by the AG regarding whether the Board has the authority to issue such an Order.

Seventy-six (76) days later, On Monday, November 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs opted for Option # 2 above and filed this lawsuit (Writ of Mandamus) against Quinlan, her six colleagues, and the Board itself.  Thus, with all of the euphoria over Landry’s election and, most especially, the subsequent appointment of Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlan to represent District 3 on the LSBC, those high hopes and expectations have now been reduced down to the act of filing suit against the very appointees Landry placed on the LSBC inclusive of Quinlan, to try and obtain the relief they were so optimistic of receiving under a Landry administration.

Anyone is welcome to read the 454-page lawsuit (with Exhibits), however, let’s sum it up succinctly:  The law says the Board shall hear within 60 days after receipt and thereafter rule within 30 days, and we seek a Court Order via Mandamus for them to do so.

So, notwithstanding all of the euphoria over Governor Landry’s election night victory and the belief that relief from what Vietnamese nail salon practitioners have characterized as a highly oppressive regulatory Board in the LSBC, with that euphoria only expanded upon the appointment of Board Member Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlin, that euphoria has ratcheted down to an all-time low in having little choice but to file suit against the very LSBC appointees Gov. Landry appointed to the LSBC.

We should also point out that, while the litigation sues the LSBC members only in their capacities as Board Members (thus insulating them from personal liability), this suit and, in our humble opinion, more lawsuits which are going to follow (more on that shortly) only serve as a spotlight as to why the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office advised the LSBC to enroll in its program offering personal liability protection.

The LSBC Members actually had to convene a special meeting on Monday, January 13, 2025 for the sole purpose of enrolling in that program after former LSBC Executive Director Steve Young strongly advised against such enrollment only a week before in citing the approximate $120,000 annual cost.

The present litigation comes at a time of turmoil and upheaval within the LSBC.  Notice in the preceding paragraph our use of the words “former LSBC Executive Director Steve Young.”  We use those words because, contrary to what we perceived as no intention whatsoever to retire only a few short months ago, Young sought to be recognized at the October LSBC meeting to announce his retirement; however, due to impending quorum issues for that meeting, LSBC Chairman Jennifer Reed asked him to defer until the November 3, 2025 meeting.

At that meeting on Monday, November 3, 2025, Young did make his retirement announcement official in a very brief 30-second address to the LSBC Members:

11/3/25:  Young bids a brief farewell to the LSBC Members as he announces his retirement effective Friday, November 28, 2025.

The LSBC went ahead and selected Young’s replacement at that meeting; however, the manner in which that replacement took place has raised more than a few eyebrows among long-time followers of the LSBC.  Remember, we just stated that Young wanted to announce his retirement back in October.  That would infer that the LSBC had ample time to contemplate his replacement and formally place the selection of his replacement on an agenda for public input.

Nevertheless, in what some observers have said was a “sneaky” move, the Board Members sought to add an item to the agenda (meaning it was not posted on the agenda), and that item entailed Board Chairman Jennifer Reed making the recommendation that Erin Grace Marceaux, longtime manager at Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology and consistent LSBC meetings attendee, replace Steve Young.  Here’s how that went down:

After amending the agenda (which really should have been done at the outset of the meeting), LSBC Chairman Jennifer Reed proposes having Erin Grace Marceaux be Steve Young’s successor as Executive Director of the LSBC.

So, we have the LSBC, fresh off obtaining a 40 percent license fee increase amounting to around $400,000 a year already having to expend funds to defend yet another lawsuit because the AG program does not cover defense costs of litigation such as that filed by the Vietnamese manicurists.  As we’ve previously pointed out, the LSBC has spent $157,000 in legal fees fighting hair braiders who wish to practice without the LSBC’s burdensome barriers to entry designed to enrich cosmetology schools.

We already know precisely where newly appointed LSBC Executive Director Erin Marceaux stands entailing the deregulation of the hair braiding industry.  In fact, on June 3, 2025, she distributed out this email rallying forces to show up and oppose last year’s hair braiding deregulation bill.  From Marceaux’s email rallying cry:

Good evening,

Just an industry heads up to anyone who cares about deregulation in our industry and state- tomorrow all 3 bills pertaining to braiding and deregulation of “minor trimming” or using styling tools, etc. will be heard tomorrow. This will happen at 9:30am at the Senate Commerce Commitee. See attached agenda. If you want to show any interest in the deregulation that is proposed I am imploring you to show up tomorrow by 9am to the capital in Baton Rouge.

My apologies for the late notice, but as you know these things end up sneaking up. Feel free to connect with me privately via email if you’d like.

Thank you,
Erin Grace

Marceaux then showed up the next day to testify against the bill.  Let’s take a brief look at Rep. Moore touting the bill followed by Marceaux pouring cold water on it:

6/4/25:  After brief statements by Rep. Moore supporting her bill, HB-509, to deregulate the practice of hair braiding, Marceaux testifies against passage of the bill.

We believe that we can state with 100 percent certainty that another braiding deregulation bill will be filed in the 2026 Legislative Session and, beyond that, we believe a strong possibility exists that one or more hair braiders who no longer desire to perform their services underground may initiate litigation to obtain the ability to do so without the need for spending 500+ hours at a school such as Marceaux’s former employer.

Regarding any such future bill, Marceaux must now limit her role at the Legislature to a mere “provider of information;” however, it has been our observation that the LSBC, for the past 10 years, has had great difficulty even attempting to conceal the fact that it has been adamantinely opposed to any such deregulation of the hair braiding industry in Louisiana.

On a more optimistic note (because we see an exceedingly high probability of further litigation entailing hair braiders and the LSBC), newly appointed LSBC Member Jean Pitre emphasized his push for the LSBC to undergo a performance audit by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office early in 2026:

11/3/25:  Pitre espouses the virtues of having the LSBC undergo a performance audit early in 2026.

Though we did not capture it on camera, we feel compelled to point out that, as Pitre was touting the positives of undergoing the performance audit, then-Executive Director Steve Young was shaking his head horizontally in disagreement with his commentary.

It would certainly be our hope and expectation that the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office will strongly recommend that the LSBC outsource its licensing function.

We have already pointed out the fact that IT experts with whom we have consulted have indicated that sticking with the inhouse system is tantamount to flushing $700,000 in programming costs straight down a “rabbit hole.”  Marceaux herself has espoused upon the deficiencies of the existing inhouse licensing system, and in her new role, we think we can be safe in stating that licensees are going to expect solutions to those shortcomings and not excuses, which has been all that her predecessor and his team have seemed to offer about the abysmal system that is in place now.

We have already provided actual contracts with outside vendors for other licensing boards such as the State Board of CPAs of Louisiana.  Burns timed his renewal of his CPA-inactive certificate this year, and using his cell phone for the renewal, the process was again seamless and took just over four minutes, much of which was spent responding to questions such as if his address had changed, had he pled guilty or no contest to a felony, had he been the subject of any disciplinary action by a state licensing board, etc.

So, in conclusion on this latest lawsuit, we don’t think it’s a very good look that Vietnamese manicurists have wound up having to resort to suing the very appointees Gov. Landry made to the LSBC, but we think more bad looks are likely forthcoming entailing this particular occupational licensing board when it comes to future litigation.

CLICK HERE for the November 3, 2025 LSBC meeting in its entirety, including a segment from the 17:04 – 52:00 wherein Cosmetologist Tammie Fontayne really gave the LSBC members a piece of her mind regarding being charged attorney fees for what she alleges was “no work” by any attorney, instead arguing that she (Fontayne) had to do all of the work herself.

Finally, we would remind anyone who may wish to attend the LSBC meeting for tomorrow (Monday, December 1, 2025) that Member Rene Bosworth has succeeded in having the Board meet at a new venue, so let us place the address of the meeting venue below as a reminder in the hope that nobody shows up at the LSBC headquarters for the meeting (and, for the record, we salute Bosworth’s efforts because the LSBC Boardroom has been a horrendously bad venue for conducting the meetings):

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA  70808

Text sent from LSP Col. Robert Hodges to Billy Broussard on Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 12:20 p.m.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, Billy Broussard alleges that LSP Col. Robert Hodges, after being prodded by Louisiana Senator (and candidate for U. S. Senate) Blake Miguez’s seeking a Baton Rouge-based investigation, instructed LSP Lt. William Bosworth and Sgt. Benjamin Friedmann to conduct, “an independent and objective investigation” (See feature photo at the top of this feature).

That “investigation,” which Bosworth and Friedmann insist was never intended to be more than a “review,” was, according to Broussard, intended to focus on his allegations that the now-defunct Gravity Drainage District 8 of Ward 1 of Calcasieu Parish very likely committed FEMA fraud, definitively lied to Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) officials and, in the process, cheated him out of over $1 million in debris cleanup efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita.

Broussard alleges that, in contrast to Col. Hodges’ admonition, Bosworth and Friedmann conducted a half-hearted investigation with a mission of seeking to close the file as quickly as possible.  As is evident in a segment of the video below, Broussard also asserts that, in seeking to close the file as quickly as possible,  Bossworth and Freidmann strongly insinuated that Broussard “fabricated documents.”  Here’s video of Broussard’s contentions, including his exchange with the two investigators over the authenticity of a “chronology document.”:

Broussard outlines his arguments that Bosworth and Friedmann conducted a half-hearted investigation (they claim mere “review”) which he claims differs significantly from Col. Hodges’ assertion that an “independent and objective” investigation of his matter be conducted.  He also challenges both gentlemen regarding whether they are implicitly suggesting that he “fabricated documents” which he provided to them.

On November 19, 2024, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns made the following Public Records Request of LSP:

The Louisiana Department of Public Safety, Public Safety Services received a public records request from you on November 19, 2024. Your request mentioned:

On or about Tuesday, November 12, 2024, LSP Col. Robert Hodges sent the attached text message [see above photo] to Billy Broussard. In light of the content of the text message, I make formal public records request for the following items pertaining to that attached text message:

1. Any documentation evidencing the subject matter that was reviewed and/or investigated;
2. Any documentation itemizing the name and position of individual(s) at LSP who instructed the scope of the investigation and/or review;
3. Any video or audio recordings pertaining to the investigation and/or review;
4. Documentation itemizing the list of individuals with whom the individuals itemized in item # 2 above correspondence with during the course of the investigation and/or review;
5. The names of any and all investigators who have had involvement in this matter;
6. Documentation evidencing the names of individuals at the East Baton Rouge District Attorney’s Office who interacted with LSP during the course of this investigation and/or review;
7. Any documentation evidencing communications with any judges during the duration of this investigation and/or review;
8. Documentation evidencing the names of any individuals with GOHSEP and/or FEMA with whom any LSP officials corresponded during the duration of this investigation and/or review.

On Wednesday, January 8, 2025, LSP responded with the following records:

1.  The .jpg photo depicted above (Hodges’ text) which Burns himself supplied on 11/19/24.

2.  This initial interview with Broussard on August 27, 2024 @ 5:18 p.m. entailing LSP Lt. William Bosworth and Sergeant Benjamin S. Friedmann.

3.  This “final call” to Broussard on September 16, “2021” @ 2:11 p.m. (that date should have stated “2024,” and NOT 2021), 20 days after the initial call above, entailing LSP Lt. William Bosworth and Sergeant Benjamin S. Friedmann.

Entailing Broussard’s core assertion, there most certainly does seem to be a clear discrepancy between Hodges’ text indicating that an “independent and objective investigation” transpired vs. a mere “review.”  After all, on the audio recordings above, Bosworth and Friedmann do not mince their words in stating point-blank to Broussard:  “We did not do any investigation.”

Irrespective of whether (being kind) a half-hearted investigation transpired or a mere “review,” we feel compelled to draw attention to a few points we made note of entailing the audio files linked above:

— DeBosier’s first name (Mark) can’t be recalled by the investigators; furthermore, they botch the pronunciation of his last name (it’s de-bos-your and not de-bows-e-a).

—  They botch Plaia’s last name even far worse than DeBosier’s.  They pronounce Plaia’s last name as “pa-lee-a” when his last name is pronounced “ply-ah.”

— They claim they “forwarded” the document to Plaia and DeBosier, yet our public records request could not substantiate any such email forwarding.

— No recordings, or even hand-written notes (or typed notes) of any correspondence with Plaia or DeBosier were in LSP’s possession.

That’s our observations, and we’ll let our site visitors make up their own minds regarding the diligence level of any “investigation” or even the level of diligence of a “review” that took place entailing Broussard’s matter.

Of course, there’s one recording of DeBosier which nobody can deny!  That would be his infamous bragging of his ability to get folk at the Legislative Auditor’s Office to “stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and we make sure there are no fingerprints on it.”

That is a recording which Broussard himself sprung upon everyone in the room at a meeting at the Legislative Auditor’s Office on February 10, 2019.

Lynne Browning, who was the Deputy Director of GOHSEP at the time (she remains with GOHSEP to this day) made her own interesting commentary in that meeting, and we want to revisit it:

Browning explains why fraud is inevitable (and seemingly acceptable), after which Broussard drops this bombshell recording of former GOHSEP’s Deputy Director Mark DeBosier bragging of his ability to get the Legislative Auditor’s Office to, “close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and we make sure there’s no fingerprints on it.”  As Broussard contends that he has uncovered irrefutable evidence that Browning had been “fully briefed” on the email(s) demonstrating he’d been cheated out of $453,000 (he contends much more, but that’s a written admission, Broussard contends) and Broussard is particularly disturbed that, with his added knowledge that Browning had been “fully briefed” on the matter, her opening words in the above video seem to imply there’s no choice but to give a wink and a nod to the fraud Broussard asserts transpired on the Hurricane Rita recovery work.

Now, there is a document that Bosworth and Friedmann stated that they reviewed with DeBosier and Plaia “line by line” in the above-linked audio files.  What is that document?

Well, that would be this “chronology document” from Mark DeBosier to Ben Plaia sent on Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:14 a.m.

Bosworth and Friedmann said that they were unable to “authenticate” the document and, therefore, they were, “closing the file.”

Now, regarding Broussard’s contention that Browning was briefed, here’s that email of Monday, June 29, 2015 clearly demonstrating Browning was briefed on the $453,000 in “additional work” for which Broussard alleges he should have been paid not only that full amount, but much more!

We should note that Broussard has asserted from the day Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns first met him, that, on Monday, June 29, 2015, then-GOHSEP Director, Kevin Davis, allegedly stated, upon seeing the proof that Broussard had been denied a massive amount of money ($1 million +) in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita disaster recovery, “We can fix this!”

Broussard contends that, Browning’s very obvious “briefing” on his matter  notwithstanding, 3-1/2 years later, at that meeting at the Legislative Auditor’s Office, she never gave the slightest hint that she had ever been privy to that briefing and the damning portrayal that document Broussard supplied to Bosworth and Friedmann paints of parties involved in negotiations with FEMA and/or GOHSEP.

At any rate, it has now been 3,796 days since that infamous meeting on Monday, June 29, 2015, for which evidence produced by Broussard suggests strongly that Browning was briefed, yet the matter still has not be “fixed” to this very day!

Interestingly enough, GOHSEP, according to Broussard, now says it can’t “put its hands” on documents Broussard references, but Broussard indicates on the video above that there is one person who can, “put his hands on those documents,” (See 17:34 mark of first video above) with that individual being Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

It was Landry who just so happened to have served as Broussard’s attorney in attempting to obtain the funds that Landry too emphatically asserted that Broussard was owed.  Most folk will recall 14^th JDC Judge David Ritchie admonishing Broussard to do as the commercial says next time and, “Choose your lawyer carefully.”  Of course, it wasn’t all that long thereafter that Landry’s co-counsel, Robin Sylvester, admitted that she was withdrawing from the case largely as a result of “crooked judges” at 14th JDC.

Given that Gov. Landry was Broussard’s lead attorney and given what Judge Ritchie thought of Landry’s legal skills, we can only ponder what Gov. Landry may think of the clear discrepancy Broussard points out between what he expected of Hodges’ representations that an “independent and objective investigation” would take place, albeit it at the urging of Sen. Blake Miguez, vs. what Broussard contends was a half-hearted effort in which Bosworth and Friedmann used Broussard as a scapegoat for doing any level of review and/or investigation by, per Broussard, strongly insinuating that he had fabricated documents which he obtained from GOHSEP via his own public records requests.

Pie chart depicting recent vote of EBRP Paramedics and their responses of whether they support EBRP Mayor-President Sid Edwards’ proposal to merge (though EMS folk consider it an outright “takeover”) EBRP EMS with (by) BR Fire.

The same recent poll asking respondents their planned course of action if Mayor-President Edwards proposed merger (“takeover”) becomes reality.

EBRP Mayor-President Sid Edwards’ “Thrive Plan” yesterday was narrowly rejected by voters.  Complete but unofficial results are available by clicking here (click on “parish,” then choose EBRP from the drop-down menu).  Let us summarize the vote below:

Proposition 1 (Library renewal & $50M one-time transfer):  Yes, 25,970, or 47.2%; No, 29,046, or 52.8%.

Proposition 2 (Mosquito Abatement renewal & $6M one-time transfer):  Yes, 26,349, or 47.9%; No, 28,628, or 52.1%.

Proposition 3 (Council on Aging renewal & authorize 0.25 Mills to be redirected to the General Fund):  Yes, 25,886, or 48.9%; No, 28,146, or 51.1%.

We could spend time dissecting the Thrive vote (and likely will on a future feature), but we’re moving forward with our eight (8^th) feature focusing on EBRP EMS.  Here is the third appearance of EBRP EMS Paramedic Association President Janice Willard and Vice President Allison Sharp and their admonitions to Edwards on his controversial proposal to merge (they say “takeover”) EMS with (by) the BR Fire Department:

11/4/25:  Willard and Sharp continue to provide their sentiments on Mayor-President Sid Edwards’ proposed merger (“takeover”) of EMS with (by) the BR Fire Department.

While Willard did the vast majority of the talking in the above video, in our opinion, it was Sharp who made the most astounding observation.  Specifically, Sharp referenced this feature of the Fort Worth Fire Department’s July 1, 2025 merger with the Fort Worth EMS.

As outlined in the article, Fort Worth Fire Chief Jim Davis resigned soon before allegedly facing a “no confidence vote” by the Firefighter Union in Fort Worth.

According to Willard and Sharp, Baton Rouge’s top brass governmental officials have touted the Fort Worth model as the one Baton Rouge should attempt to emulate and replicate.

Further, they assert that the resignation of the Fort Worth Fire Chief so soon after the two entities merged should serve notice upon those Baton Rouge leaders  who are pushing this merger (takeover) so hard.

As supported by surveys outlined as the lead photos of this feature, Willard and Sharp assert that, notwithstanding Edwards’ claims that “three out every four people I talk to support this measure,” his claims are in direct contradiction to the clearly-expressed desires of the “vast majority” of EMS workers, whom they assert via their surveys actually overwhelmingly oppose the planned combination.

Also, on the video above, both Willard and Sharp reference Edwards appearing on a podcast and allegedly (we use that word only because we did not listen to the podcast), stating, “I could do this tomorrow if I wanted to do that.”

While we did not listen to Edwards’ brash statement, what we did listen to is a one-hour feature of the attorney representing EMS in its litigation against the City of Baton Rouge, Robert Aguiluz, and here’s the word from the horse’s mouth entailing why he didn’t pursue a Preliminary Injunction on the present matter after the Temporary Restraining Order expired by operation of law:

No preliminary injunction was filed because the attorney representing the City represented to the Court that it would be at least 6 months, if not a year, before anything could be done regarding the Fire Department proposed takeover, so the pre-trial scheduling order was set within that time frame. The parties did agree to a schedule that was within a time frame that was less than what was represented as when the soonest was that anything could be done, and the decision not to file a preliminary injunction, as represented to the judge, was based on that represented time frame.

Aguiluz also went on to say in that same audio podcast that he does not believe the matter will ever go to trial because he plans to file a Motion for Summary Judgment for the Declaratory Order to be issued by the Court which he fully expects will be granted.  Aguiluz asserts that Edwards’ plan is, “illegal on its face because it blatantly violates the Parish Plan of Government.”  Aguiluz further states that, to resolve the problem of Edwards’ alleged illegality associated with his plan, there is  no question that his proposal would have to go before a vote of the people.

It’s worth noting that Edwards attempted to implement the core components of his Thrive initiative (most specifically a raiding of the dedicated millage going toward libraries in EBRP) without a vote of the people, but he got informed that was not possible, hence yesterday’s vote of the people.

If a hearing for a Rule to Show Cause is served upon the City after any such Motion for Summary Judgment is filed by Aguiluz, we’ll certainly be there to observe the court hearing and report upon it.

Who knows?  Perhaps Aguiluz may be more successful with this quest for a Declaratory Judgment than he was in this effort 7-1/2 years ago to have OIG Inspector General Stephen Street’s offices’ law enforcement status declared “unconstitutional.”

Now, as we wrap up this feature, we do want to point out several points that Baton Rouge Firefighter Union President Jake Morgan conveyed to us upon watching Willard and Sharp’s Second Installment in this series.  Here are the verbatim sentiments which Morgan provided to us in writing:

Robert, a few points of clarity you can address on your next video please.

#1) I explained this to Allison Sharp, but I guess she doesn’t believe me.  I did not refer to EMS as being poor stewards of tax dollars in my video (see the video at about the 18:10 mark).  I referred to dedicated tax funds for organizations with multi-million / hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank.  Library BREC, etc.) those organizations are considered to be “Gold Standard” in our parish and are very well funded.  Even after being the fantastic services that they are, they still have tremendous bank accounts.  I believe they are overtaxing the public.  EMS is not overtaxing the public, and they were not the point of my comment.

#2) Janice referred to me as “not being on the floor” (meaning I am not a fireman riding a fire truck).  That is a lie.  I am a Fire Equipment operator and work of C-Shift (meaning I drive the fire truck and work 24hr shifts at fire stations).

#3) Almost every concern they had has been addressed (in writing).  Janice was in the meetings with us and was provided documentation on these concerns.  Everybody in these meetings had ample time to speak and questions were answered at length.  Janice chose to be very silent in our meetings.

#4) if EMS employees do not want the merge to happen, fine.  We hope everything works out for them.

Finally, just like we presented Morgan’s sentiments above, we feel we have an obligation to provide EMS Reform’s Walter Beach’s commentary sent to us in writing as well regarding the videos of both Morgan and the duo of Willard and Sharp.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Beach praised the presentations of Willard and Sharp, but he referenced Morgan’s video as “propaganda.”

Finally, let us present our comprehensive table of all of the EMS features which we have published to date and provide the assurance that we will remain on top of this subject as it progresses through the court system as well as any developments thereafter on the chance that Aguiluz may be wrong in his assessment that Edwards’ plan is, “illegal on its face.”: