On election eve, Bossier way rears its ugly head

On the eve of city elections, controversy erupted at this week’s City Council meeting that displayed graphically the old Bossier political way, a mixture of electoral, transactional, and crony politics possibly involving corruption and certainly advertising for change from it via the upcoming electoral exercise.

Perhaps any or all of Republican Mayor Tommy Chandler, City Atty. Charles Jacobs, Asst. City Atty. Richard Ray (if watching the proceedings from afar), and nominal City Engineer Ben Rauschenbach had a sinking feeling when, during the meeting after GOP Councilor Brian Hammons had brought Rauschenbach to the podium for questioning about an agenda item, Hammons said he had an unrelated matter on which to query him. Hammons, whose day job is in building, then described a scenario where business owners were asking him about, and even petitioning for, the city reconstructing parking lots for private businesses – a matter they claimed the city had performed and one that never came before the Council for approval. He asked Rauschenbach what he knew of it.

The Waggoner Engineering employee, who by virtue of the firm’s contract with the city serves as its engineering chief, usually has information about projects and their costs at his fingertips. But this time he said he would defer to Jacobs or Ray to explain. Jacobs was present, and what ensued should be presented verbatim:

Jacobs: “We did personal inspections out there concerning the condition of some of those parking lots that were claimed to be damaged by the piledriving for the Walter O. Bigby Carriageway. We did see some damage. Richard and myself talked to the mayor about it in order to basically avoid litigation. We agreed after the signing of certain releases that we would go ahead and overlay or repair those parking lots in order to avoid litigation.”

Hammons: “Y'all are attorneys, so that's why y'all should not be out inspecting anything. So did y'all have a report from a structural engineer?”

Jacobs: “Not that I'm aware of.”

Hammons: “OK, that would be your first step. And if you have foundation problems, you would have a structural engineer go out and look at it. Not that y'all would know that. Y'all are attorneys, so that's why y'all should not be out inspecting anything. All this is doing now is opening us up to further litigation because now you have every business owner that is within 500 feet or 1,000 feet over there. They're all going to want their driveways or their slabs or anything else fixed.”

(To Rauschenbach) Hammons: “Would the contractor not have in his insurance covering any damages from driving the piles?”

Rauschenbach: “Yes, the contractor was insured.”

Hammons: “So that should go back on his insurance.”

Rauschenbach: “And there was testing done all throughout the course of that project."

Hammons: “I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous. How much did this cost?”

Rauschenbach: “I don't know the exact number, sir, but I can get that for you.”

The exchange lasted about two minutes, and perhaps never have so many questions begging for answers emerged in such short a time span – answers that may reveal corruption among city officials if not shape electoral careers. We begin with first things.

Why Hammons? In his three years on the Council, Hammons has acquired a reputation for questioning of spending that appears to have insufficient justification. Specifically on public works, he’ll ask publicly for details and especially when one of the numerous change orders comes up on the Council agenda.

So, he’s not an illogical place to go if you’re a businessman who sees or hears about the reconstituting of two parking lots, identified as those of Scot's All-American Cycles and Scot’s Audio & Trim Design at 2113 Benton Road owned by Scot Boswell and Bossier Power Equipment at 2101 Benton Road owned by Charles and Bonnie Williamson, if you’re disgruntled at learning of this. Except that Hammons represents District 1, the southern reaches of the city, while the area in question is part of District 5, that of Republican Vince Maggio, who would seem to be a much more obvious policy-maker to query.

Or, because potentially aggrieved business owners, if not taxpayers, citywide would wonder about special privileges for two locations, the at-large councilors could be approached. And, in fact, one of them, Republican David Montgomery, would seem to be the ideal person to make inquiries with, because his Montgomery Insurance Agency is located on Citizens Bank Drive, connected to Benton Road jutting westward just south of Bossier Power Equipment, not even two football fields from the allegedly affected location.

Except that Montgomery may be distinctly unreceptive to blowing the whistle on the undercover operation, if not having encouraged or even facilitated it. Montgomery and Boswell have been friends for decades, having grown up together as neighbors. In fact, as part of change orders in the millions of dollars concerning the Carriageway that would extend Citizen’s Bank Drive,  Montgomery urged Boswell’s business to have its own preferential access at taxpayer expense via a cut through the median on Benton Road (Hammons made some neutral comments about that option at that Council meeting) as a result of errors made by the city.

And this explains why Maggio also would have been highly unreceptive to such entreaties. On the Council, Montgomery has served as the point man for Bossier political insiders and their get-along-go-along governance behind the scenes for years, to which Maggio when joining the Council immediately pledged fealty. Maggio is their lapdog and wouldn’t cross Montgomery and the other graybeards on the Council.

Still, one other outlet was available: at-large GOP Councilor Chris Smith, who like Hammons has built a reputation for looking out for taxpayers and would seem like an ideal instrument to capture complaints. And perhaps he was contacted by disgruntled citizens, but, regardless, it was Hammons who outed the whole deal for public consumption.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Hammons’ name circulates as potential future mayoral material. And while he may have dressed down Jacobs and Ray, in the background the criticism also hits Chandler, who quite obviously knew of and approved these releases. A potentially highly questionable, if not improper, use of city funds would not look good in helping Chandler obtain a third term. And what makes matters worse for him is his relationship with Charles Williamson.

Who started this? As it is, Williamson has made only two political contributions to state or local politicians in his life – in 2021 $500 and in 2025 $550 to Chandler., who is not facing opposition this time and therefore will be reelected. Yet it would seem Williamson didn’t initiate anything, according to an individual with knowledge of the situation; rather, Williamson was told, whether directly by the city, that he could obtain free repaving if he would allow a connection with his lot to Scot’s immediately north.

At this point, there is no evidence that Boswell agitated for some kind of redress, except by implication through Jacobs. But even if he did, the fact Williamson seems not to have asked draws questions to Jacobs’ public statement, which implied multiple threatened lawsuits. Yet apparently these are the only two properties receiving taxpayer-paid public works on private land.

Why these two properties? Making Jacobs’ story even more suspicious is, in a proximal sense, the parking lots at Scot’s and Bossier Power Equipment in that general area of landowners would be the least affected by any alleged piledriving, which creates disturbances similar to an earthquake that radiate out from the impact.

Consider that the area affected has the Carriageway running from the southwest to northeast, looping around to slam into Benton Road with Scot’s a few dozen yards to the south of the south egress lane with the Carriageway behind the north and west sides of the business even farther away. Bossier Power Equipment is further south and farther away still from the construction, with Citizens Bank Drive running east-west to its south. Along it are three buildings closer to the Carriageway than it or Scot’s: the Gordon & Gordon Law Firm, the Montgomery Agency, and the offices of John Settle, publisher of Focus SB/The Inquisitor.

Settle wasn’t part of any of this, and Montgomery hasn’t said anything publicly about it. Yet no remedial work is being done on any of these properties, which according to the physics and topography would be more likely to have been affected by piledriving. In fact, the parking lots in question are the most distant features that could have been affected, farther away from that area than the buildings to which they serve. If piledriving was such an issue that it disturbed the lots, then the building foundations are in more serious jeopardy theoretically, yet no claims have been raised about these.

The impact of piledriving is tricky, so perhaps it’s possible that for some odd reason the least proximate areas were affected while closer ones suffered no damage. Yet by his own admission Jacobs said the city completely eschewed any kind of independent verification using qualified individuals, where such a task was blatantly obvious given the pattern of damage Jacobs alleged the city was presented with. It reminds of the old joke about somebody being such a pushover that he could be held up using the mail.

Was there actual damage caused? As Hammons elicited, no systematic analysis occurred after the alleged complaints allegedly were levied. Rauschenbach voiced that some ambiguous “testing” was done “throughout the course of the project,” perhaps meaning from time to time the city tested for damage. However, that does not seem to indicate that some kind of survey of structures and surfaces radiating a certain distance from construction had been performed prior to work commencing, or even during it.

So, not only was there no expert determination that any damage was present, but also without knowing the prior state of the structures and surfaces in question there could be no evidence that deterioration had occurred to these during the project, much less then tie it back to the construction instead of from some other manmade or natural cause. According to Jacobs, the city had only his and Ray’s grossly inexpert opinions and alleged business owner claims as evidence.

Who pays? Intense speculation concerns where the money for this originated, the point being made by Hammons that nothing ever came across the Council’s dais authorizing any of it. Typically, spending would have come either in the form of an ordinance specific to the project or it would be included in a change order, which also comes in ordinance form, as required in the City Charter.

No such ordinance that specifically states a certain sum will go to repaving at the two locations has passed. And the last of the change orders for the Carriageway went through months ago without mentioning this adjustment. As specific ordinances for projects are too specific for wiggle room, whatever funds came out, if done legally, must have been siphoned from a change order. Certainly, the mayor has the authority to shift funds from one purpose to another – as long as they fit the general bill of the ordinance making the appropriation.

Yet it seems unlikely that any such dated change order grants enough leeway for this repaving, the alleged reasoning for which appeared after their passage, and any such assertion that one did seems ripe for litigation. This can be added to the hypothetical ones Hammons sees coming from disgruntled business owners who didn’t have a repaving offer.

And, as Hammons drew out, no attempt was made to charge back the contractors who were required to have insurance to cover such an eventuality. It seems unfathomable that the city wouldn’t look in that direction rather than blow tax dollars needlessly – unless Chandler, Jacobs, and Ray feared the insurers would call in experts that would disprove damage had occurred, not only denying funding but also blowing their cover that damage had occurred.

Who knew what, when, and how? As Hammons noted, at least he as a councilor was in the dark over this. Jacobs’ statement indicated at least he, Ray, and Chandler knew of it, and Rauschenbach knew no later than when instructed to repave. At least among these individuals, some decision was made – again, without any expert input as to whether a problem really had existed and really had been caused by the city – to offer up the free parking lots to those two businesses.

Yet regardless of the decision-making process, the buck stops with Chandler. It seems clear ultimately that he authorized the repaving with tax dollars, whether legal in terms of the decision-making process, the actual action itself, and taxpayer dollars being spent.

In conclusion, what little information that came out at Hammons’ prodding asks the public to believe that at least two business owners threatened to sue the city over allegations that contracted city activities caused damages to their properties, but to only two specific adjoining parking lots farther away to those activities than several other buildings and surfaces of which no claims to damage have been forwarded, despite that no expert opinion ever was given whether there was any damage even as the city had every incentive to ask for such testimony; that without expert opinion that this damage happened, that it happened during the time period of the project, and that this damage could have been caused by the project; and that the city legally spent tax dollars to aid a childhood friend of a city councilor and a campaign donor to the mayor, with the latter saying the city came to him with an offer for free paving in exchange for allowing a connecting driveway, rather than apparently part of any legal action initiated by him.

Does this seem credible? There is a more believable scenario, taking its cue from the metamorphosis of a 2020 Council ordinance to provide for beautification of the Carriageway into by 2023 Bossier City’s version of its very own Golden Calf that debases a Carriageway roundabout, a towering idolatrous monument extolling the virtues of Bossier political insiders past and present that cost taxpayers over $300,000. When its unveiling came, no one seemed to know – or was telling – how it came about.

From Jun. 4, 2024 Council comments made by Montgomery concerning a possible cut through of the Benton Road median and those he made Oct. 22, 2024 meeting discussing as part of the Carriageway change orders extending north Citizens Bank Drive – so that it would abut the Scot’s property and provide another potential access to public streets from that property – clearly Montgomery had a mission, whether ever requested by anybody, to secure northbound Benton Road access to that property without northbound vehicles having to make a U-turn farther north. The cut through on a state highway was bureaucratic intensive and costly, while extending Citizen Bank Drive was even more costly and endured public criticism over lengthening a road to nowhere at a cost of over $2 million whose only possible purpose would be to provide that public road access – turning left from Benton Road onto Citizens Bank Drive and following it around – to the Scot’s property.

However, a cut through exists next to Bossier Power Equipment. A much cheaper and theoretically surreptitious solution would be to repave both parking lots so that they adjoined, and the northbound access problem would be solved. All that would be needed is a reasonably plausible excuse to do it, and Carriageway construction could provide one. A few words in the right place, and it would become an accomplished fate.

This scenario fits the publicly-known facts much better. Whether it fits all the facts time will tell. Already at least one media outlet has made a public information request to ferret these out. Chandler and his administration would do well to release everything on its own now, whether it’s an attempt to clear the air or to get out in front of an inconvenient and embarrassing decision that might have involved illegal behavior and, if not affecting 2025 elections, impacting 2029 electoral politics