|'m appearing in front this board with mixed emotions. | know it is just a formality and my faith has already been determined way before this scheduled hearing, The above statement can be corroborated by the comments made by Board President Jason Boudreaux and Board Vice President Guy Lebreton in the November 2014, hearing, Mr. Lebreton also made a statement at a Police Union meeting that all the litigants that filed the federal lawsuit against the city lacks integrity. He later admitted that he maid the statement in October 2012, civil service meeting. Scott Poienscot requested that Mr. Lebreton recuse himself from voting on any issues with litigants of the federal lawsuit. Mr. Lebreton refused to recuse himself after demonstrating his personal bias and has continued to vote against any litigant that was a party of the federal lawsuit against L.C.G. Mr. Boudreaux and Mr. Lebreton voted with the city, that | should not be afforded an Opportunity to have a hearing, due to Judge Haik dismissing the federal lawsuit. Both members stated that they were ready to make a ruling on all of my disciplines in the absence of having a formal hearing. It is common knowledge by former and current employees of the Lafayette Police Department that it is a moot point to appeal any issue to the board, due their history of ruling in favor for the Lafayette Consolidated Government. This board has ruled in favor for LC.G., even after the board is presented with compelling evidence of violations and misconduct by the Chief of Police. Even though, Mr. Boudreaux makes a lame attempt to convince appellants that the board is an employee r Consolidated Government and the chief: appeal on a five day suspension for my appeal with in thirty days, in accor seven day suspension for an alleged mi the aforementioned statute.tenured board member like Mr. Boudreaux should have known that there is no wording as should in any statutes or board rules. The civil service board displayed their bias again for L.C.G when a former police officer (former Lt. Nolvey Stelly) filed a complaint against Lafayette Police Chief James P. Craft, for violating the L.C.G. administrative leave policy. The nature of the complaint was Lt. Stelly was initially placed on administrative leave for an apparent investigation. He was issued an administrative leave notice, upon being placed on leave. He was later issued another administrative leave notice in which it was a continuation of the first administrative leave. The person that authorized both leave notices was current Police Chief James P. Craft. This action by Chief Craft was a direct violation of the administrative leave policy (he continued to have a classified employee on administrative after the thirty day threshold, without seeking approval of the board). The board was presented with the compelling documents (both administrative leave notice), but they chose not to take any action for Chief Craft violating the administrative leave policy. Lafayette Consolidate Government Attorney, Michael Corry, argued that L.C. G. was currently in the process of changing the current administrative leave policy to reflect the Chief of Police can place an employee on administrative leave without seeking approval of the board up to sixty days as opposed to the Current policy of thirty days. Mr. Corry’s statement confirmed the violation was committed, but the board elected not to hold Chief Craft accountable for violating the above policy. Several months later Chief Craft disciplined the same officer for violating the L.C.G. administrative leave policy. In the month of August 2011, | made psychological fit for duty exam. The b exam and he failed to do so. There boards order. In the month ofaccepting an appellant appeal in the fifteen days of receiving discipline; they shall schedule an appeal date upon receiving the appeal notice. The scheduling shall be made within thirty days of receiving the appeal notice. It has becoming customary for this board to tell the appellant that “we will get back in touch with you”. | don’t think getting back with an appellant three to five years later, is within thirty days. | heard Mr. Boudreaux complain about certain attorneys making witnesses sit in the lobby for hours, only to have a witness appear for a few seconds te testify. | guess it is fine for the board to hold my appeals for almost five years, and then take exception for me compelling them to do their job. | had to file a writ mandamus to compel yot all to do a job you took a sworn oath to do so. ' continue to read articles of other Municipal Fire and Police civil service boards arounc the state scheduling hearings in an expeditious fashion. Most appellant appeal hearings are adjudicated within a year of receiving discipline. Larger Municipalities as Baton Rouge and Ne\ Orleans adjudicate hearing faster than this board. _ Still till this day, this board has been working with L.C.G. and the chief in discouraging employees from exercising their due process rights. This board has belittled individuals, assassinated their character, but quickly will censor someone from saying anything adverse towaids Mr. Corry can attest that comments. As long those comm aware of this, due to him cor Appeals. Judge Hanes advice d federal judges. If yo