Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Reassignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central council declines police chief’s reassignment recommendation after public defense of Assistant Chief Ivy
Summary
The Central City Council considered a motion to accept the police chief’s recommendation to reassign an officer and, after public comment defending Assistant Chief Ivy and a second roll call, voted 2–5 against the recommendation. Speakers raised allegations about prior firings and alleged misuse of funds; council members said timing around elections factored in policing management concerns.
A council motion to accept the police chief’s recommendation to reassign an officer failed after public comment and two roll calls.
The motion, moved by an unidentified council member (Speaker 1) and seconded by Council Member Meyer, was the subject of extended public comment. Donna Fusilier, who identified herself and gave a Central, Louisiana address, told the council she had supported the police chief in the past but opposed the reassignment and defended Assistant Chief Ivy, saying, "Mister Ivey has served this community with honor and distinction, and he nowhere near deserves this urge to counsel to vote against it." Johnny Boyse, who identified himself later in the public-comment period, said the administration had forced out or tried to remove multiple officers and staff and credited Assistant Chief Ivy with procuring equipment and raises that improved officer safety.
The council paused for a roll call that initially included an unclear entry for Council Member Wells. After members discussed the outcome and a second roll call was requested, the final recorded responses were: Riley — No; Laverne — Yes; Lazaro — No; McKinney — No; Meyer — No; Roy — Yes; Wells — No. The final tally was 2 yes, 5 no, and the council did not approve the chief’s reassignment recommendation.
Several members of the public urged the council to base its decision on the facts reviewed in executive session rather than personalities. One commenter said, "Just make the best decision for this community based on just that information," urging the council to rely on the evidence presented to them.
During public comment, speakers made several allegations about prior personnel actions and about how funds requested for equipment were used. Those claims were presented by members of the public and were not verified in the meeting record. For example, a commenter alleged funds requested for body armor had instead been spent on department vehicles and other items; the council did not discuss documentary evidence for that allegation on the record.
Council Member Wells noted the city is approaching an election year and suggested that larger management changes might be more appropriate to consider after an election or when a new chief takes office. No formal rescission or follow-up assignment was announced at the meeting.
The matter returned to the council’s regular agenda after the vote. The meeting then moved on to introductions of two budget ordinances (see separate article).
