A May 14, 2026 MPD meeting has raised serious questions about transparency, public trust, and whether Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law was followed. According to the written meeting account provided by Brian P. Bass, the meeting began at 5 p.m., and after the pledge and prayer, the four-member council immediately recessed to discuss a matter in private.
According to Bass’s account, after several minutes, the council returned and reconvened. The council then reportedly read a short note stating that there was not sufficient evidence to investigate the matter and moved to vote to dismiss it. That sequence matters because it raises a major public question. If the council discussed the matter privately before returning with a conclusion, the public has a right to know whether that private discussion was legally allowed, whether it was properly announced, whether a vote was taken to enter executive session, and whether any decision was effectively made before the public could observe the process.
Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law is built around a simple principle: public business is supposed to be handled in public unless a specific legal exception allows a closed session. The law exists because citizens have the right to know how public decisions are made, especially when those decisions involve public officials, law enforcement leadership, attorneys, complaints, investigations, or a vote to dismiss a matter.
This issue became more serious during public comment. According to Brian P. Bass, a question was raised about whether the council was aware of La. R.S. 42:11 through 42:28, which covers Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law. The council members reportedly appeared confused and responded that they were having an open meeting at that moment. When asked to explain what had been decided previously, the council reportedly stated that they had talked with the chief, assistant chief, and two attorneys.
That statement is important because it appears to confirm that more than a brief pause occurred. If the council discussed the substance of the matter with law enforcement leadership and attorneys outside public view, then the next question becomes whether the discussion was a lawful executive session or an improper private meeting. Louisiana law allows executive sessions in some situations, but executive sessions are not a blank check. A public body generally must follow the required process, and no final or binding action should be taken behind closed doors.
That is why this meeting deserves attention. The concern is not merely that officials briefly stepped away from the room. The concern is whether a public body discussed evidence, legal opinions, investigative issues, or the basis for dismissing a matter before the public had a chance to hear the discussion. If the council returned from a private discussion and immediately announced that there was not enough evidence to investigate, the public has every right to ask whether the decision had already been formed behind closed doors.
Bass’s written account also states that the council was told they may have violated Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law and that they needed to disclose the information that had been discussed. According to Bass, the council refused, saying there was too much to go over and that it had taken several hours in the meeting. That statement creates even more concern because it suggests the private discussion may have been detailed enough to shape the outcome of the public vote.
To be clear, this article is not claiming that a court has ruled that the council violated the law. What this article is saying is that the account provided by Brian P. Bass raises serious Open Meetings Law concerns that deserve review. If the council followed the law, then it should be able to clearly explain the legal basis for going private, the vote that authorized it, the specific exception relied upon, and whether any final action was avoided until the public meeting resumed.
The fact that attorneys may have been present does not automatically make a private discussion lawful. Attorney involvement can sometimes support an executive session if the discussion fits within a legal exception, but it does not erase the public body’s duty to follow the proper process. Public bodies cannot simply step away, talk with attorneys, return with a decision, and expect citizens to accept that everything was proper without explanation.
Bass’s account further states that he asked whether the council members were elected, and they responded that they were appointed by the city council. That answer does not end the legal question. Appointed boards and councils can still fall under Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law if they meet the definition of a public body. The issue is not whether the members were elected or appointed. The issue is whether they were acting as a public body handling public business.
The public should also pay close attention to the minutes from this meeting. Minutes matter because they should reflect the official actions taken, including votes, motions, and the stated reason for any executive session. If the minutes do not clearly show a proper vote to enter executive session, the stated legal reason for doing so, and the public action taken after returning, then the public may have even more reason to question whether the process was handled correctly.
This matter should not be brushed aside as a small procedural complaint. Open meetings are not optional. Public comment is not a courtesy that officials can treat as a burden. Public trust depends on public bodies handling public matters in the open, especially when the issue involves a police department, a chief, an assistant chief, attorneys, and a decision not to investigate.
Based on the account provided by Brian P. Bass, the public deserves answers. Did the council properly vote to enter executive session before the private discussion? What exact legal exception was used? Was the reason for the closed discussion stated publicly and entered into the minutes? Did the council discuss only what the law allowed it to discuss? Did the council reach a conclusion before returning to the public meeting? Did the public receive a meaningful opportunity to comment before the vote to dismiss?
Those are fair questions. They are not attacks. They are the basic questions citizens are allowed to ask when a public body appears to move public business out of public view.
If the council did everything correctly, then transparency should be simple. Release the agenda. Release the minutes. Explain the legal basis for the private discussion. Show the vote. Identify the exception. Make the public record clear.
If the council did not follow the law, then the matter needs to be corrected. That may include a review of the meeting, a review of the minutes, a public explanation, and, if supported by the facts, a formal complaint to the proper state or local authority.
What happened at this MPD meeting matters because local government cannot function on “trust us.” The public has the right to see how decisions are made, especially when those decisions involve whether a matter will be investigated or dismissed.
Brian P. Bass raised the concern. Now the public deserves to know what happened behind closed doors, why it happened, and whether Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law was followed.
