Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allegation raised that multiple hospital‑district appointees may not meet residency rules; DA office to review
Summary
A speaker identified as a hospital commissioner alleged that a reappointed Lower Cameron Hospital Service District board member was not a resident of the district for multiple years; the speaker warned this could invalidate votes and appointments. The district attorney's representative said he had not yet reviewed the record and noted displaced voters can remain registered at prior addresses; staff said the jury will look into the matter.
At the Jan. 12 meeting of the Cameron Parish Police Jury, a speaker who identified himself as a hospital commissioner speaking privately (speaker 20) alleged that Mary Canick—reappointed by the jury to the Lower Cameron Hospital Service District Board in 2025—was not, according to public records, a resident of the hospital district during multiple years and therefore ineligible for appointment.
"Public record revealed she was not a resident of the district," said the speaker, who read from minutes and cited a governing statute requiring commissioners to be qualified voters and residents of the district. He said public records showed the appointee's address in Lake Charles for several years and suggested the jury failed to do appropriate vetting. He warned that if other commissioners also live outside the district, earlier board votes—including actions tied to a recent hospital tax vote—could be subject to legal challenge.
The district attorney's office representative (speaker 7) told the jury he had not had time to study the files in advance of the meeting and that he would need to review the records before offering an opinion. He also noted that residents displaced by natural disasters may remain registered at their prior addresses for a period and that voter‑registration questions can be complex in post‑disaster contexts.
Jurors and staff said they would review the allegation and any related records; no formal vote or removal took place at the meeting. One juror noted prior internal discussions about the subject and said legal counsel and public records would need review before taking action.
What happens next: The jury advised it would follow up, the DA's office said it would review the claims if provided records, and staff indicated the issue was not on the current agenda for immediate action.
