Bogalusa council amends agenda and moves IT role out of mayor's office amid questions over job classification

Bogalusa's City Council voted on Aug. 19 to amend the meeting agenda and reclassify an IT position, moving it out of the mayor's office into administration/finance after extended public comment and a debate about where the role should be housed.

The change followed several residents' complaints about budget priorities, including cemetery upkeep and unpaid contractor work, and council members' requests for a written job description and legal guidance on whether the post is a city employee slot or a subcontractor. The council approved the amendment and the personnel reclassification on a roll-call vote recorded in favor by Councilman Smith, President Gates, Councilman Dunway, Councilman Temples and Vice President Arvin.

Why it matters: Commenters said the budget packet lacked clarity about recent personnel moves and that a small cemetery maintenance line (currently $5,000) is insufficient for needed emergency repairs. Council members argued the classification affects where salary and benefits are charged and raised concerns about possible perceptions of nepotism if a role were placed under the mayor's budget rather than administration or public works.

Public comment set the tone before the vote. One resident, Mr. Ford, urged more frequent, visible maintenance: "I don't think the graveyard should be looking the way it's looking right now," he said, asking the council to send staff to clean plots and remove debris. Multiple speakers asked the council to provide the job description before finalizing budget allocations, and at least one caller said public records show the IT duties previously sat in administration.

Council debate focused on two issues: where the position's salary should be budgeted and whether the postholder is a subcontractor or a regular city employee. One councilor noted the city's fiscal administrator and auditor had differing views about where the IT role had been listed in prior budgets and said the ethics board could review whether any placement raised nepotism concerns. Council members asked staff to obtain the job description and legal input and said those clarifications would inform amendments to the 2026 budget.

The council did not vote on the full 2025 operating and capital budget during the meeting; the president said the budget would be further amended and presented again. The session concluded with the council scheduling follow-up work and confirming the next meeting date.

The motion to amend the agenda and reclassify the IT role was approved by roll call; the council recorded the vote as indicated above. The council also acknowledged reports that some budget entries reflect special revenue or grant funds that cannot be used for general purposes, and staff said they would circulate supporting documentation and the requested job description ahead of future votes.