Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sabine Parish Police Jury removes inactive planning commissioners, appoints five new members
Summary
Citing inactivity and a need for local planning oversight, the jury released all existing planning‑commission members under Section 14‑31 and appointed a five‑member commission including a 911 representative, a tax assessor representative, the road foreman and a building code official with five‑year terms beginning Jan. 1, 2025.
The Sabine Parish Police Jury on Dec. 18 voted to release the existing members of the planning commission, citing inactivity and vacancies in the published membership list, and to appoint a new five‑member commission.
Clerk and staff read Section 14‑31 of the Sabine Parish Police Jury code, which authorizes the creation of a planning commission and provides for removal for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. Jurors said the current list contained members who had moved out of state, died or not participated for many months. One juror noted that Peter Nugent was the only member seen attending occasionally and argued Nugent’s institutional knowledge of subdivisions and prior work made him a useful appointee despite uneven attendance.
On the motion of the road and shop committee, jurors released the listed members (Kenneth Wright; Robert Davis; Peter Nugent; Bob Groves; Joe Harwell; David McDonald; Gabe Corley) and then approved a slate to reconstitute the commission: Peter Nugent; Belinda Heard (Sabine Parish 911); a representative from the Sabine Parish tax assessor’s office; Bobby Hughes (Sabine Parish Road Department); and Jim Freeland (Sabine Parish Building Code office). The new appointments were approved for five‑year terms beginning Jan. 1, 2025; jurors said the newly appointed commission will select its own chair.
Members emphasized the need for monthly reporting from the commission so the jury remains aware of membership changes and project activity. The jury also said it expects the new commission to engage on local subdivisions and development matters and to keep regular communication with the road department and building‑code staff.
The action was procedural and carried on motion and second; jurors recorded no roll‑call opposition in the transcript.
