Resident alleges unequal ARPA payouts, council votes to research eligibility

Chastity Kennedy, a former city employee, told the Bastrop City Council during the public-comment period that she found what she described as “discriminatory practices” in a list of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) premium payments the mayor authorized.

Kennedy said she requested documents after last month’s meeting and received a list and a cover letter from “Ms. Hart,” identified in the materials as a certified public accountant engaged by the administration. Kennedy said the letter showed $183,734.67 in ARPA payouts and that the consultant “began the process without any discussion or approval from the Bastrop City Council.”

“Based on my research and analysis, Mayor Betty Olive has proven to be very vindictive and financially irresponsible,” Kennedy said during public comment. She asked the council to “immediately compensate employees who qualify for the ARPA retro payment” and urged the council to refer the mayor for criminal charges and for her to resign, citing “RS statute 14 1 34” for malfeasance in office.

Why it matters: ARPA premium-pay rules and local budget controls affect how municipalities may distribute federal recovery funds. Kennedy’s allegations prompted the council to take a procedural step: a motion and second were made and the council voted to research which employees meet the eligibility criteria and to identify any who should receive retroactive pay.

Council action and next steps: Council members moved and seconded a motion to research employee eligibility under the ARPA criteria and to identify and compensate employees who meet the standards discussed at previous meetings. The motion passed on a voice vote (chair: “All in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay.”). The council did not, during the meeting, set a date for a final report.

What was said in the meeting: Kennedy read portions of a list and the attached consultant letter she had obtained, highlighting differences in payouts among employees hired at different dates. She pointed to examples she called inconsistent — for example, long-term employees receiving smaller amounts than recently hired staff. City Attorney Jones and other council members noted that some documentation had been requested and that staff would provide further details. The council heard from other speakers that they had either requested or expected additional lists of potentially eligible employees.

What the records show: Kennedy said she had received a list showing individual payments and a consultant letter describing retroactive premium-pay guidance; she said some council members told her they had not seen the consultant letter before she forwarded it. At the meeting a council member moved for staff to research eligibility and identify any additional employees who should be paid; the motion passed.

What the council did not decide: The council did not vote to rescind or ratify any particular payment, did not place the mayor on leave, and did not refer criminal charges during the meeting. Kennedy’s request for immediate resignation and criminal referral was recorded as public comment only.

What to expect: City staff and legal counsel were asked to compile eligibility data and payroll documents and return to the council with findings. The council’s vote authorizes research and follow-up — not immediate payouts or disciplinary action.

Ending: The council instructed staff to gather the requested personnel, payroll and consultant records and report back; a specific timetable for that follow-up was not announced during the meeting.