Editor’s Note: This article is based on witness statements, screenshots provided to HeartofWebster, public reporting, uploaded legal reference material, and Louisiana law. Statements described as allegations or witness accounts have not been ruled on by a court.
The Town of Cullen posted notice on Monday at approximately 4:00 PM announcing a town hall meeting scheduled for Tuesday at 6:00 PM. On its face, that notice appeared to satisfy Louisiana’s basic 24-hour notice requirement, assuming the agenda, date, time, and place were properly posted. Louisiana law requires written public notice for regular, special, or rescheduled public meetings no later than 24 hours before the meeting, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The notice must include the agenda, date, time, and place of the meeting. (Legislature of Louisiana)
But what happened when citizens arrived at Cullen Town Hall has now raised serious legal, ethical, and public trust concerns.
At approximately 6:00 PM Tuesday evening, Sarah Bass and a large group of Cullen residents arrived at Town Hall expecting to attend the public meeting. Witnesses say residents gathered peacefully with the intent to ask questions about city finances, public records, water issues, police operations, and the town’s overall direction.
According to more than 20 witness accounts provided to HeartofWebster, the situation escalated after Sarah Bass knocked on the door in an attempt to enter the building. Mayor Hoof ask her for her name and where she was from, she said she was here for the meeting. Witnesses state the Mayor threatened to have Sarah Bass arrested. Several witnesses also reported hearing the Mayor threaten other citizens with arrest during the evening.
After that exchange, Sarah Bass began recording on her cell phone. That matters because Louisiana law states that public meeting proceedings may be video recorded, audio recorded, filmed, or broadcast live, subject to reasonable standards for decorum. (Legislature of Louisiana)
Witnesses state the Mayor then approached a Webster Parish Sheriff’s Deputy and informed the deputy that the town hall meeting had been canceled.
As residents attempted to understand what was happening, the explanation for the cancellation reportedly changed multiple times.
The first explanation given was that one of the aldermen was allegedly in Dallas with family and could not attend. Witnesses say that explanation fell apart when the alderman arrived at Town Hall in person.
The second explanation given was that the town attorney could not attend. Residents questioned that explanation because Louisiana law does not appear to require a town attorney to be present for a public meeting to take place.
The third explanation reportedly given was that the Mayor had received a threat against his life.
Witnesses stated that after those conflicting explanations were given, the Mayor went back inside Town Hall and locked the door while residents remained outside waiting for answers.
Why the Lawrason Act Matters
The Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Lawrason Act FAQ, revised in August 2025, explains that the Lawrason Act is the body of law governing many incorporated municipalities in Louisiana and that it establishes a mayor-board of aldermen form of government. The FAQ also explains that the Lawrason Act covers the functions of the mayor, board of aldermen, clerk, treasurer, chief of police, mayor’s court, taxes, and spending.
Under Louisiana Revised Statute 33:405, the mayor presides over meetings of the board of aldermen. The law also says the mayor and board of aldermen must hold at least one regular meeting each month, that special meetings may be called by the mayor or a majority of the board, and that all meetings of the board of aldermen are subject to Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law. (Legislature of Louisiana)
The Lawrason Act FAQ also states that regular meetings must be held at least once per month, that special meetings must comply with Open Meetings Law notice requirements, and that emergency meetings are limited to extraordinary emergencies such as natural disasters, threats of epidemics, civil disturbances, insurrections, invasions, or similar matters.
That raises a serious question: if the Town of Cullen properly noticed a meeting, what legal authority was used to cancel it at the door after citizens had already arrived?
If there was a true emergency, the public deserves to know what emergency existed, when officials learned of it, whether a report was filed, and why no clear public explanation was provided before citizens arrived.
If the cancellation was not based on a lawful emergency, then residents may have grounds to question whether the cancellation violated the purpose and requirements of Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.
The Legal Issue With Canceling the Meeting
Louisiana law is clear that public business is supposed to be conducted openly. Louisiana Revised Statute 42:14 states that every meeting of a public body shall be open to the public unless properly closed under a legal exception. It also requires public comment before action is taken on agenda items, subject to reasonable rules. (Legislature of Louisiana)
Louisiana Revised Statute 42:19 requires written public notice and says the agenda generally cannot be changed less than 24 hours before the meeting, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The law does recognize extraordinary emergencies, but even then, public bodies must give notice as circumstances permit. (Legislature of Louisiana)
That is why the changing explanations matter. A public body cannot treat open government like a private appointment that can be canceled at the door without accountability.
If the town attorney could not attend, that alone does not appear to explain why citizens were locked out of a public meeting.
If an alderman could not attend, the law provides quorum rules.
If there was a real threat, the public deserves documentation.
Meeting Minutes and Public Records
Another concern involves meeting minutes. HeartofWebster has been told that shortly after the current Mayor took office, town officials allegedly voted to stop keeping minutes of town meetings.
If accurate, that would raise major legal concerns.
Louisiana law requires public bodies to keep written minutes of open meetings. Those minutes must include the date, time, and place of the meeting, which members were present or absent, the substance of matters decided, and votes when requested. The minutes are public records and must be available within a reasonable time. (Legislature of Louisiana)
The Lawrason Act FAQ also states that the municipal clerk is responsible for keeping a book labeled “Municipal Minutes” and recording the proceedings of the mayor and board.
It is important to be legally accurate: the lack of minutes does not automatically void every town action by itself. However, missing minutes, unclear votes, and undocumented decisions can create serious legal problems. Courts can grant remedies in Open Meetings Law cases, including mandamus, injunctions, declaratory judgments, voiding actions when allowed by law, civil penalties, and attorney fees for a successful party. (Legislature of Louisiana)
Citizens also have rights under Louisiana Public Records Law. Louisiana Revised Statute 44:32 requires custodians to present public records to adults who request them, and if there is a question about whether a record is public, the custodian must provide a written response with reasons within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays. Louisiana Revised Statute 44:35 provides enforcement options when records are denied or when five days pass without the required written response or time estimate. (Legislature of Louisiana)
Residents say requests for city financial records dating back to 2023 still have not been fully released. If accurate, that raises another serious transparency issue.
Threats of Arrest and Citizens’ Rights
The most troubling part of Tuesday night may be the reported threats of arrest.
A mayor may report a safety concern. A mayor may request law enforcement assistance if there is a real threat. But a mayor does not have unlimited authority to threaten citizens with arrest simply because they are asking questions, recording events, criticizing officials, or attempting to attend a public meeting.
In general, an arrest requires legal grounds. Public officials cannot use arrest threats as a tool to silence citizens, stop lawful public participation, or block access to public business.
Louisiana trespass law also matters here. Louisiana Revised Statute 14:63 says criminal trespass involves entering or remaining without express, legal, or implied authorization. It also recognizes an affirmative defense when the person had express, legal, or implied authority to be there. Louisiana Revised Statute 14:63.3 includes language about remaining in public buildings after being forbidden, but that authority cannot be used as a shortcut to erase Open Meetings Law rights. (Legislature of Louisiana)
A public meeting at Town Hall is not the same thing as private property where citizens can be removed simply because an official does not like their questions.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized strong First Amendment protections for criticism of public officials. In Garrison v. Louisiana, the Court held that the Constitution limits government power to punish criticism of the official conduct of public officials. (Justia Law)
The public also pointed to Cox v. Louisiana, a Louisiana protest case. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the misuse of breach-of-peace and obstruction laws against protected public expression, especially where law enforcement had broad discretion over peaceful demonstrators. (Justia Law)
In Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, the Supreme Court also addressed a retaliatory arrest claim involving a citizen arrested during a city council meeting after criticizing public officials. (Supreme Court)
That does not mean citizens can threaten violence, block entrances, or disrupt lawful proceedings. But it does mean public officials must be careful. Threatening arrest because citizens are demanding answers can create serious constitutional concerns.
The Sheriff’s Office Response Also Raises Questions
HeartofWebster has also been told that the Mayor was the person who contacted the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office and requested deputies at Town Hall.
According to witnesses, only two deputies were sent to the scene.
Once deputies arrived, witnesses say they appeared to recognize that the situation was not being created by the crowd simply showing up. Instead, residents believe the confusion came from the canceled meeting, the locked doors, and the Mayor’s changing explanations.
Witnesses further stated that the deputies did not appear eager to become involved in a local political dispute unless assistance was requested by the Cullen Police Chief.
That matters because the Cullen Police Chief was reportedly outside with the citizens, standing with the crowd that wanted answers. She was not inside Town Hall with the Mayor. She was not asking deputies to arrest peaceful citizens. She was present with the people.
The Lawrason Act FAQ explains that when a municipality has an elected police chief, the elected chief has authority over the day-to-day operations of the police department, including equipment and work schedules, within the adopted budget. The FAQ also says the key distinction between an elected and appointed chief is day-to-day control of the police department.
That raises an important question for the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office: if the situation was serious enough for the Mayor to request deputies, why was the response limited to two deputies?
The Sheriff himself could have come to Cullen, stood before the people, and helped keep the peace through calm, visible leadership. Instead, residents were left outside Town Hall with more questions than answers.
Public office is not a castle, and elected officials are not kings.
The people of Cullen are not subjects. They are citizens. When citizens gather peacefully to ask questions, the answer should not be locked doors, threats of arrest, and silence from leadership.
The Sheriff’s Office had an opportunity to show the people of Cullen that their concerns mattered. Instead, many residents now say the response felt distant, limited, and unwilling to confront the real issue.
Law enforcement should never be used as a political shield for elected officials. Deputies are there to protect public safety, not to serve as a personal enforcement tool for a mayor who does not want to answer citizens.
If the Mayor called deputies because he believed there was a real threat, then the public deserves a clear explanation. If the Mayor called deputies to pressure citizens, intimidate the crowd, or create the appearance of danger, then that raises even more serious concerns.
Either way, the people of Cullen deserve answers from both Town Hall and the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office.
What Citizens Can Do
Louisiana law gives citizens several options when they believe the Open Meetings Law has been violated.
Louisiana Revised Statute 42:25 states that the Attorney General may enforce the Open Meetings Law statewide, the district attorney may enforce it within the judicial district, and any person who has been denied rights under the law or believes the law has been violated may bring enforcement proceedings. (Legislature of Louisiana)
Louisiana Revised Statute 42:26 allows courts to grant remedies, including mandamus, injunctions, declaratory judgments, voiding actions when allowed by law, civil penalties, and attorney fees for a successful party. Louisiana Revised Statute 42:28 allows civil penalties of up to $500 per violation against a member of a public body who knowingly and willfully participates in a meeting conducted in violation of the Open Meetings Law. (Legislature of Louisiana)
Residents who witnessed the events should preserve video, screenshots, messages, written statements, and any other evidence.
Citizens may also request public records, including the original meeting notice, agenda, cancellation notice, communications about canceling the meeting, call logs showing who contacted the Sheriff’s Office, police reports, incident reports, body camera footage, radio traffic, reports of threats, Town Hall key-control records, financial records, budgets, invoices, payments, and meeting minutes.
If the town refuses to provide records, citizens can seek legal guidance and may file complaints or pursue court action under Louisiana law.
Financial and Operational Concerns Continue
The canceled meeting did not happen in a vacuum.
Residents have already raised concerns about city finances, public records, police fuel, unpaid bills, city water, and the use of public property.
The Webster Parish Journal previously reported that Cullen council actions raised questions about late agenda posting, missing procedures, and public notice requirements. The same outlet also reported that Cullen’s police department faced operational setbacks, including cruisers immobilized due to lack of fuel, radios surrendered because of nonpayment, and long-standing dispatch services suspended over unpaid bills. (Webster Parish Journal)
In another report, the Webster Parish Journal stated that unpaid bills and mounting debt threatened the stability of the Cullen Police Department, including unpaid invoices, communication problems, and other operational issues. (Webster Parish Journal)
Water issues have also remained a major concern. The Webster Parish Journal reported complaints involving foul-smelling and discolored water, boil advisories, crumbling streets, and safety concerns in Cullen. The report also stated that police operations had been affected by financial strain, including problems fueling patrol vehicles and officers having to rely on limited equipment. (Webster Parish Journal)
These are not small concerns. These issues involve public safety, public health, public money, and public trust.
Additional Allegations Involving Public Resources
Residents have also raised concerns about the use of taxpayer-funded resources.
Citizens allege that Cullen police vehicles have run out of fuel because officers reportedly are not provided with a city fuel card. At the same time, residents claim city employees have allegedly been allowed to use city water at taxpayer expense to wash private vehicles.
Witnesses and residents also allege that city-owned mowing equipment has been used on private property. At this time, HeartofWebster cannot independently confirm whether any compensation was received in connection with those activities.
The Lawrason Act FAQ states that municipal expenditures must be made in fulfillment of a specific appropriation and in accordance with Public Bid Law. It also states that warrants must identify who they are issued to, the purpose, and the ordinance authorizing the warrant. The FAQ further explains that municipalities must comply with annual financial reporting requirements and that the mayor and board must produce an annual financial statement, make it available for public inspection, and transmit it to the Legislative Auditor within six months after the close of the fiscal year.
These allegations should be investigated through public records, witness statements, and financial review. If public equipment or public utilities are being used for private benefit, citizens deserve to know who approved it, who benefited, and whether the town was reimbursed.
The Aftermath: Social Media, Race, and Public Division
After the canceled meeting, public discussion continued online.
One of the most concerning responses came from Rosetta Carr. Carr is not simply a random social media commenter. Public reporting has identified Rosetta Carr in connection with Cullen law enforcement. The Minden Press-Herald reported in 2016 that Rosetta Carr Burnett took the top law enforcement position in Cullen, and a 2019 Minden Press-Herald report identified Chief Rosetta Carr Harris in connection with a Facebook post that drew public criticism and an apology. (Minden Press-Herald)
Screenshots reviewed by HeartofWebster show Carr posting the following statement:
“If that white woman would have followed me around the way she did yesterday up at Town Hall, I Promise Every & I do mean EVERYONE of those officers would have had to do their job.”
That statement is racially charged on its face because it identifies the woman by race in a situation that should be about public meetings, government accountability, and the rule of law.
Carr also posted a longer statement defending Mayor Terry “Bippy” Hoof and criticizing residents who questioned him. In that post, Carr wrote in part:
“How dare you jumped on a side that painted him out to be the villain.”
She also wrote:
“Walking around with a damn petition for months & still can’t move it from Cullen. Hold your horses you CAN’T move him. Only God can.”
Carr ended by publicly encouraging the Mayor:
“Mayor Terry Bippy Hoof Stand there with your Whole chest out until God say move.”
Residents have the right to support the Mayor. Residents also have the right to criticize the Mayor. But defending a public official does not erase the facts residents say they witnessed: a noticed meeting was canceled at the door, citizens were left outside, explanations reportedly changed, and multiple people say they were threatened with arrest.
A public official should not be defended by asking citizens to ignore what happened.
A former law enforcement official should also understand that arrest is not a political tool. It is not something to be casually suggested because a citizen followed a public official, asked questions, or attempted to attend a public meeting.
Reva Rice’s Statement on Cullen’s Deeper Problem
In a private message screenshot reviewed by HeartofWebster, Reva Rice made a broader statement about the town’s condition and the role race plays in holding Cullen back.
Rice wrote:
“Oh ya I agree. Healing/fixing Cullens moral, ethical, financial & accountability is totally changing the mindset that these are not normal things. Racism is the cornerstone that limits Cullens potential for its citizens. Frankly, it’s a select group, black, holding black back….money in power. Westside Springhill the same way.”
That statement deserves attention because it points to a deeper issue.
Cullen’s problems are not only about one canceled meeting. They are about whether the town can move beyond fear, division, loyalty politics, and silence.
If residents are afraid to speak because they may be threatened with arrest, that is not healthy government.
If people are attacked online for asking questions, that is not transparency.
If race is being used to divide residents who are asking for records, accountability, lawful meetings, and clean government, then the public conversation is being pulled away from the real issue.
The real issue is simple: Cullen residents have a right to know how their town is being run.
The Question for Rosetta Carr
Carr’s posts raise another question.
If Carr or others believe Brian P. Bass has an “agenda,” what exactly is that agenda?
Helping residents?
Delivering groceries?
Calming a crowd?
Telling people not to riot?
Encouraging legal action instead of violence?
Asking that public officials follow the law?
At the time of this article, HeartofWebster has not been provided with a formal campaign announcement from Brian P. Bass stating that he is or is not running for Webster Parish Sheriff. Speculation is not evidence.
Public service should not automatically be treated as a political scheme.
Helping people should not be treated as suspicious.
Demanding public records should not be treated as an attack.
Calming a crowd should not be treated as wrongdoing.
In a written statement provided for publication, Brian P. Bass described his background, his faith, and his reason for helping people:
“I came from a poor family, and learned how to hunt, fish, and grow my own food to stay alive. My dad was the bread winner, and he had back surgery that put him out of work. Back then, my parents lived on a limited income, and I had summers of fishing and winters of hunting for food. We had a property by the lake that had one window air conditioning unit and a single heating unit for the entire home. After the military I found myself struggling to get ahead, and spent time on the street, not knowing where my next bed or meal would be. My life changed when I turned to God and said, ‘I can’t do this anymore. I’ve got nothing left. So take my broken finances, my broken household, and broken life, and do with it what you will. And whatever you do with it, I will be happy with.’ My life turned completely around, and now I don’t want anything, because it’s always provided to me.
Ever since fourth grade, I have wanted to be in law enforcement. Throughout my life, no matter how much friends and family criticized me for doing too much for people, I never stopped doing what I thought was right in my own heart. So many times, even when I didn’t have enough for myself, I would share what I had, helping any way I could. Friends and family would say, ‘you don’t have enough to help them,’ but I did it anyway. Only later did I understand that it was God speaking to me to help the people. Verses I never knew back then. Verses that spoke of picking your brother up when he stumbles or loving one another. I understand that now.
Through the trials and tribulations, I endured, I was made stronger. I survived extreme poverty, hunger, homelessness, and despair through faith. By the prayer of ‘show me my path, Lord, and I will gladly walk it,’ I have continued in the direction I feel myself lead. When others need help, I will be there. When they ask me for help, they have it. There is much division in this world, whether it be race, sex, nationality, or religion. Many keep to their hate, and I’ve spoken to them too. But for anyone who would speak on this division, I will ask you to go to your local hospital and request the blood type of your hate. Ask for black or white blood. Ask for the male or female blood. Ask for the Mexican blood. It doesn’t exist. We are one people. And that is why I help everyone.”
That statement directly answers the racial division now being pushed into this conversation.
The question is not whether Brian P. Bass has an agenda.
The question is whether Cullen’s leadership is willing to follow the law, open the doors, release the records, hold lawful meetings, and answer the people.
The Water Shutoff Concern
Another issue drawing public attention involves a Cullen resident whose water service was allegedly disconnected.
Before arriving at Town Hall, Sarah Bass and Brian P. Bass reportedly delivered groceries to the resident. Supporters of the resident have publicly questioned whether the shutoff may have been retaliatory in nature due to ongoing legal disputes involving the city.
HeartofWebster cannot independently verify the motive behind the water shutoff at this time.
But the question deserves review. If water service was disconnected lawfully for a valid reason, the town should be able to produce the records showing that. If it was not handled lawfully, or if it was done in retaliation, that would be a serious abuse of public power.
The Bigger Issue: Public Trust
The people of Cullen are not asking for special treatment.
They are asking for lawful meetings.
They are asking for records.
They are asking for working police vehicles.
They are asking for clean and safe water.
They are asking for meeting minutes.
They are asking for answers.
They are asking elected officials to act like public servants, not private gatekeepers.
When a public meeting is posted, citizens should not arrive to locked doors.
When people ask questions, they should not be threatened with arrest.
When the Mayor calls the Sheriff’s Office, deputies should not be placed in the middle of a political problem created by poor leadership.
When a town is already under scrutiny for water, finances, police operations, and public records, the answer should be more transparency, not less.
What Comes Next
At this time, many statements surrounding Tuesday night remain witness accounts, screenshots, and allegations that may need to be reviewed by investigators, attorneys, public agencies, or a court if formal action is taken.
But the legal questions are real.
Was the meeting lawfully canceled?
Was proper notice given?
Were residents denied access to a public meeting?
Were threats of arrest used to intimidate citizens?
Who called the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office?
What did the Mayor tell the Sheriff’s Office when requesting deputies?
Was there a documented threat against the Mayor?
If so, was a police report filed?
Why did the Mayor give multiple explanations?
Why was the Cullen Police Chief outside without access to Town Hall?
Why does the Police Chief reportedly not have a key?
Are meeting minutes being properly kept?
Are public records being released as required by law?
Are town finances being handled transparently?
Are public resources being used properly?
And most importantly, why will the Mayor not stand before the people and answer?
Cullen does not need more locked doors.
Cullen needs open government.
Cullen needs records.
Cullen needs lawful meetings.
Cullen needs leadership that understands one basic truth:
Public office belongs to the people, not the person holding the title.
Comments 1