re: Have we discussed Jeanerette being taken over by the state after the rampant corruption?

quote:

---

Auditors interviewed Charles Edwards, a former meter reader for Jeanerette who worked in the position for nine years until he retired July 22, 2016. Edwards stated to the auditors that he had intentionally underreported water usage, stating that he had “helped out” two or three customers he believed had water leaks or broken meters. The report notes that the admission may be a violation of the filing of public records law. In a response to the audit, Foulcard said the meter reader was investigated by the Jeanerette Police Department and findings turned over to the 16th Judicial District Attorney. District Attorney Bo Duhe was not available for comment before deadline Tuesday. 

Also noted were inadequate oversight over meter readings. A part-time employee worked under Edwards to read water meters, said he did not review the readings even though he was supposed to.

Faulty equipment also was suspected to be a problem. Between August and October of 2016, the city reduced 63 customer accounts by a total $101,706 because some water meters were determined to be unreliable.

In terms of customer accounts, findings included unapproved customer billing adjustments, conflicting records for customers with high bills and inconsistent treatment of customer debt.

City government determined that if the customer was the only individual to reside at the residence since the water meter was installed, he or she would be responsible for the entire abnormally high bill they received. According to reports prepared for the auditors, 72 customers owe approximately $64,234 for the usage. Some customers agreed to the high water bill and signed an agreement to make scheduled payments. About 40 customers entered into a payment agreement, although city workers only produced 34 signed payment agreements.

Some of the past due balances contained in the payment agreement did not coincide with the past due balances indicated in the utility clerk’s reports. An example used was one customer who entered into an agreement payment of $126. However a report showed the the customer’s past-due balance was $611.

The vast majority of the payment agreements required that customers pay their current monthly bill in addition to $25 per month on their past-due balance. The remainder of those agreements required monthly payments ranging from $10 to $150 per month.

The auditor noted that Jeanerette records and statements from city employees showed that the city did not hold some customers accountable for the entire bill they received because multiple individuals lived at the residence since the meter was installed. One customer began service on Jan. 6, 2015. From January to June of that year, the average bill was $38. In August of last year, the city billed the customer $815 based on the reported usage for July, but the customer’s balance was reduced to $768 on Aug. 23.

Foulcard said that since more than one customer occupied the residence after the water meter was installed, and there was no beginning meter reading from when the customer moved into the residence, the city was unable to identify which customer was responsible for high usage. From Aug. 1 to Sept. 30 of last year, the city permanently reduced 58 customer accounts by a total of $32,703 for having prior occupants at the location

---

quote:

---

dabbling in some light prostitution

---

quote:

---

Can you define "light prostitution"?

---