Richwood $147K Missing Response

In reference to your article in the Volume 52, Number 35 edition of your paper titled, " Richwood $147K Missing" I am seeking a full retraction. This article's title is false and misleading.

Why was Mr. Cleveland the only person interviewed for this article? If the Dispatch or Mr. Eddie Gillis wanted to do thorough investigative work why would they not interview myself or the audit firm that audits the town's finances?

The "uncleared checks" were from 2020 and the issue has been resolved by the town and the audit firm, Bruno & Tervalon. Alderman Cleveland initially said he could not adopt the 2022 -2023 budget until he was provided with documentation regarding these checks, he was and he subsequently voted in favor of adopting the budget. Obviously with election time just around the corner, political games are being played. There are no missing funds. If $147K was just missing don't you believe that the audit firm would have suggested that the town have the Ouachita Parish District Attorney's office look into this matter? Would they just perform an audit and allow that much money to be unaccounted for? Keep in mind this is not an audit that just happened last week but that happened several months ago.

The article goes on to say that I was at odds with the board regarding a questionnaire. In review of the minutes at no time did the board instruct me to include anyone else in the discussing or filling out of a questionnaire. The board voted in our July meeting to have myself and Aldermen Keys and Reed to have a conference call with Digital Forensics to discuss two proposals we have received that looked very similar but had different amounts on them for payment. That conference call never happened as someone, I believe Mr. Reed, reached out to Digital Forensics without me being included as the board had instructed. When I reached out to Mr. Reed asking when would be a good time to meet to have the conference call I was advised by him that I would be in receipt of an authorization form, something I had never heard of. This authorization form, which is basically a contract for services, needed some tweaking and a review by our town attorney. At no time did the board advise me that they would need to be present if I received anything else from the company until Mr. Reed advised me that I should be in receipt of a questionnaire, which I already had received and filled out as I advised him. The company advised me to fill it out and that any other perspectives could be captured on a subsequent Case Strategy call. I advised the board of this and they called a special meeting. In that meeting, after I left they made a motion that Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Reed must meet with me within 24 hours to work on a "supplemental" questionnaire which even though that was a week ago still has not happened although I reached out to them to meet. The company has advised that another questionnaire has in fact been filled out which is what I suggested in the first place but the three board members refused to do but apparently did anyway even though their motion said they would meet with me.

There are other discrepancies in this article which I'd like to discuss in detail with you and have a retraction printed. There are falsehoods in this article that appear to be meant to damage my reputation from a political standpoint and if this is not corrected I will be taking further action. This article ends by saying that the Dispatch welcomes another side of this story so I anxiously await your follow-up.

This is one side of the story. The Monroe Dispatch welcomed!