The English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton said the pen was mightier than the sword in 1839 and promoted words over violence. Today, the adage is still true, especially when the sword is used to slash or as in this case, attempt to slash the reputation of this publication. The evidence states different.
In September 2021, the City of Oakdale ran a legal notice calling for a public hearing on September 8, to discuss a grant application process for playground equipment. This publication did not attend the meeting but quickly jumped on the bandwagon to support and publicize the idea and asked for information. In the article posted by this publication after the public hearing, two things were mentioned that have become very important in the rehashing of what happened.
1. “The Oakdale Council held a public hearing on Thursday morning, September 9, (not the 8th) to discuss its grant associated with Love Louisiana Outdoors CDBG-CV. If approved, the grant would amount to $400,000 for outdoor recreation.”
2. “However nothing is set in stone until the application process is completed. The public hearing was to let citizens know the administration will apply for the funds, and no public comments were made.”
Jump forward to the council meeting in January of 2022, and Mayor Gene Paul stated the Journal published the date incorrectly in that meeting as September 8th. The Journal does not make a practice of changing dates in legals sent to us. In fact, a positive to legals is the digital environment, because 90 percent of the time no one has to type legal notices anymore. It is copied and pasted onto our document straight from the sender’s document, which was from the City of Oakdale in this incident.
After the council meeting in January, the mayor told the Journal they planned the meeting on the 8th and acknowledged that was the date sent to the paper, but they did not have a quorum or any public participation. After speaking to the engineering firm assisting them with the grant process, the mayor said they rescheduled it for the 9th, 24 hours later, and posted it on the door. They didn’t need a quorum because they learned no action would be taken. It was just an informational meeting to gather information for the process. However, none of these things were brought to light in the beginning of this story – or even at Thursday’s January 6, meeting. Why? The administration believes the truth was not published, but the Journal did publish the information it received from an employee at the city.
The mayor said he tried to say these things to the paper in a phone call in September, but that is not what was said. In the beginning, the first thing the mayor mentioned was there was a difference between a public hearing and public meeting. First time this publication has heard there was a definition difference between the two events.
It’s been said this hearing was scheduled to apply for playground equipment and that got lost in the hoorah that occurred with the complaint against the mayor filed by a city councilman for not following the process. Playground equipment is a great idea. It’s not the subject that was challenged but the process to acquire funding. And yes, the attorney general has said there is insufficient evidence against the City of Oakdale in the complaint filed by the councilman.
However, The Journal’s employees know what it was told and what it reported in September. And it did not publish the date wrong. On January 10, we learn there were two meetings scheduled – one on the 8th, which had no quorum and no public participation, and on the 9th, that resulted in the same fashion. A hearing — meeting — whatever public event was planned; it didn’t have a quorum and it didn’t have any public participation. The attorney general’s letter states there wasn’t enough evidence to say the city had violated the open meetings law.
Good for the city, but it seems as this story unfolds, more and more information is given that was not given in the beginning. And as this information was discussed at the January council meeting, it appears this publication’s reputation was being smeared. The mayor has a right to call meetings. The Journal has a right to publish information. All of this is done in the name of citizens to make sure things are done correctly. And the complaint appears to have been made in the same fashion. As the mayor says, it’s time to move on, and the Oakdale Journal agrees with that statement. Admittedly, there was a mistake made and no one wants to own it and move on. The one true fact is that the paper did publish the date in the legal correctly. It’s important to make sure we learn and move forward. However, we ask that one does not attempt to smear the reputation of this publication as an attempt is made to explain what happened.
The Oakdale Journal sat down with Mayor Gene Paul on Monday, January 10, and held a lengthy discussion concerning this issue. It seems we have reached an understanding as we travel this road to make sure this misunderstanding doesn’t happen again.
