Lets chat a bit more about them Jennifer Sneed Heebe ethics charges

Last week I laid down the Jennifer Sneed Heebe ethics charge challenge and no one was brave enough to venture a guess despite the hint I left so here is another clue. Suppose there were changes in zoning and or zoning enforcement regarding certain properties that in turn caused garbage that was previously going to the Parish Landfill to end up at River Birch. Further suppose Ms Sneed Heebe voted on such measure.

I mention all this because we have a new agenda out from the good folks at the Louisiana Board of Ethics and Mrs Sneed Heebe is front and center. By now you folks know the drill, click it quick for it will soon be gone with the cyber winds. But for kicks I created a picture linked to the full 11 page pdf for posterity sake below the fold. ~ sop

11 thoughts on “Lets chat a bit more about them Jennifer Sneed Heebe ethics charges”

    1. SOP You must mean the commercial dumpster zoning ordnance amended to include 4 plex properties (without rear yard) access that make up 23% of residential dwellings in the parish (signed and adopted on May 2008) while councilwoman Sneed was part of the dumpster committee and the parish dump would not accept private contractors trucks at that time?

      The application of the commercial dumpster zoning ordinance to residential properties violates the JP Comprehensiveness Zoning ordinance No. 22997 policy amendments of 2007 on accessibility and 24 CFR part 8(b) modifications to existing multifamily dwellings placing inaccessible dumpster enclosures in parking lots eliminating accessible parking and/or placed on accessible routes leading into the dwelling by a parish who receives Federal Funds and participant in HUD Section 8 voucher system ,is that ordnance you are referring too ?

  1. I’m guessing, but Sneed wasn’t supposed to vote on the ordinance because it directly benefitted her husband and, thus, her?

  2. Could this have something to go with the annexation of the Timberlane subdivision by the City of Gretna? For the life of me I can’t understand why the Parish of Jefferson so readily allowed that to happen. But Gretna takes its garbage to River Birch. When this subdivision was part of unincorporated Jefferson its garbage went to the Parish landfill.

  3. So now we know … she has blatantly refused to disclose her finances for the year 2008 … and why might that be ?

    Jennifer Sneed, former Jefferson councilwoman, faces state ethics violation
    Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 5:55 PM

    1. Refer to Tom Heaney’s comment above … he seems to have nailed her ass to the subject matter and the corresponding time !

  4. One of the local news reporters( I believe it was Wbubl-Wbubl-L) claimed this morning she lost her campaign disclosure reports for that reporting period. They have inside information on her planned defense before the Ethics Committee which meets later today. So from whom did they get this inside info and was its release purposed to decease political and personal embarrassment.

    Well, she should have copies if she lost them, right. But according to the TP Rag she was served by the State Police in October of 2010 and has not provided a copy in 1.5 years.

    The real Heebie-Sneedie-Jeebie question though is why has she received an executive session appearance ( closed to public and media reporters). Accordingly to Section 1141 of Code of Governmental ethics she qualifies for said session.

    Anybody know what Section 1141 says.

  5. Where’s my cigar ? Might want to read the DOJ Amicus on Groome Vs. JP posted earlier

    The Louisiana Board of Ethics (the

  6. Tom: Thanks for the cite. I presume from your comment that “the Code” Section 1141 provides private ethics hearings to gleam facts before certain ethical violations are alleged against a politico.

    However, since the State police served Jennifer in 2010 and the Ethics Committee had ordered her to produce certain financial disclosure forms for the year 2008; are not those facts and obvious violations not primae facia evidence to call a public hearing.

    A public hearing which would have to ask certain standard questions in a typical case of complete omission where no disclosure form for a certain year had been filed for 3 years.

    I wonder if it common for some politicos to choose to sustain the financial penalties for total disclosure omission than chance a filing and possibly intentionally have to omit certain campaign contributions in order to avoid self incrimination of another ethical violation which could carry more serious criminal consequences.

    1. No the economic interest in the ordinance which violates Federal law on disability rights is enough without the financial statements, just not caught up with her or the council yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *