Louisiana Voice

There appears to be the first rumblings of a gathering storm of sorts on the campus of Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond as allegations of First Amendment violations, retaliation against employees and professors, the lack of meaningful pay raises, the expenditure of university foundation funds to pay for a vanity story on university President, Dr. William Wainwright and the denial of access to public records.

Dr. William Wainwright

While it may be a stretch to call it a full-blown insurrection (after all, only one person spoke at Wednesday’s Faculty Senate meeting: that was Dayne Sherman, a professor at Sims Library and former president of the faculty senate), but the lone speaker came with a full load of grievances against the current administration.

All that came following a lengthy PROFILE OF WAINWRIGHT in CEO Magazine, supposedly paid for by the university foundation, though the actual amount of the payment remains clouded.

University spokesperson Mike Rivault initially told Sherman it would cost him $21,000 to simply look at public records (even though state law explicitly says that viewing public records shall be allowed at no charge). Then he told another individual it would cost her $1250 to obtain copies of the accounting of expenditures for the article.

Then, he told LouisianaVoice he would obtain the records from the foundation. But lo and behold, two days later, he sent this email response:

From: Mike Rivault <mike.rivault@southeastern.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 4:33 PM
To: Tom Aswell <louisianavoice@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: SLU PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST

Mr. Aswell,

As per our discussion, there is no record of Southeastern Louisiana University expending funds on the CEO Magazine article.

Mike Rivault

First of all, we had no such “discussion.” To reiterate, he said he would obtain the records from the foundation for LouisianaVoice.

(This sounds very much like U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi first saying the Epstein records were on her desk and later proclaiming the records did not exist, only to have about 5 million pages of records suddenly turn up.)

Sherman noted that should a professor pay for a “fake peer-reviewed article,” he would be summarily fired.

Here is the full text of Sherman’s statement to the faculty senate:

I would like to talk very briefly about the Faculty Senate constitution. As we see in America at large, nothing can be more important than a constitution. Likewise, the US constitution provides the First Amendment, protecting everything we do in this room and in our classrooms, as well as when we are not at work. Three quick points about revisions: #1 I don’t believe we need less meetings of the Faculty Senate. There are too many important issues to cover—like academic freedom and faculty raises. #2 I think every department should have more representatives. At least 2 senators. #3 The constitution needs to be revised to offer clear guidelines for no confidence votes on an administrator. This is essential in today’s climate of fear and retaliation in colleges and universities.

And this leads me to the most important issue I believe you have faced since the firing of the 3 French professors. I would like you to consider a no confidence vote on President William Wainwright.

Please thoughtfully consider the following five reasons for a no confidence vote:

First, free speech and the First Amendment are under attack at Southeastern Louisiana University. Do you recall the October 1, Tulane First Amendment Law Clinic letter about how University policies are unconstitutional? Tulane attorneys wrote it on my behalf. They are Dr. Wainwright’s policies.

Second, retaliation is now the Southeastern Family Way. I was threatened by Dr. Wainwright on August 21, 2024. Told to shut up or else. It came to me through Library Director David Sesser. They never made it plain if I would be demoted or fired or if they would send Tony Soprano. One week ago, I was demoted 35 minutes after I got back to work from FMLA. It’s not just me. Dr. Feresteh Emami has been harassed, retaliated against, her pay cut, and demoted. This is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment and academic freedom.

Third, I believe we will not see a meaningful pay raise for at least decade under Dr. Wainwright, despite Southeastern being in the greatest shape in history. Just read his happy messages. Our last raise came from a legislative funding measure. All he does is talk and spend.

Yes, we have money to send Dr. Wainwright to DC Mardi Gras last week.

But no money for you. There’s always a DIFFERENT pot of money for him, but not for YOU.

Fourth, the CEO Magazine feature article is a scandal. It was paid for with SLU Foundation donor money. As much as $60,000. If a professor paid for a fake peer-reviewed article, he’d be fired. Quickly. (Note: Mike Rivault confirmed on Feb. 2, 2026, that the foundation paid for the vanity advertisement; the question remains, how much?)

And the fifth and final reason for a no confidence vote: Denying public records requests. I have been quoted $21,000 just to VIEW SLU public records and can’t file a grievance without relevant text messages and emails. I believe it’s patently against state public records statutes. (This public records saga has been going on for seven months.)

I do not see a way forward without a no confidence vote on Dr. Wainwright. It will be easier to get a new president than a new analytical chemist or a new senior librarian. It will save the University from more scandals and lawsuits, which cost big money. I believe your academic freedom and financial future rest on your careful deliberation and thoughtful decision.

I have receipts for everything I’ve said today. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Citizens for a New Louisiana, the Repugnantcan-financed organization led by Mr. Do-Good his own self Michael Lunsford and backed by the inimitable Clay Higgins, is about to attempt the undermining of yet another local library and to destroy the career of its leader.

The Washington Parish Library Board of Control will meet at 5:30 p.m. today at the Bogalusa Branch at 304 Avenue F in Bogalusa to consider the termination of Library Director Sonnet Ireland.

The board will open with a motion to enter into executive session for the “discussion of the character and professional competence of Library Director Sonnet Ireland.

Following the formal motion for the executive session, there will be a discussion, presumably by board members, followed by public comment and a vote on the motion.

While no official action may be taken in the closed session, it’s no secret that a consensus will likely be reached behind closed doors before the board members re-emerge to vote on Ireland’s fate which, unless I miss my guess, has already been decided.

You see, that’s the way these library boards, including the one right here in good ol’ Livingston Parish, work. Parish councils or police juries, consulted by Lunsford, decide to take up the banner of pseudo-decency and fire existing library board, replacing the old members with spineless sycophants who likely haven’t read a book themselves in years but consider themselves eminently qualified to judge the qualifications of those whose professional lives have been dedicated to the literary enrichment of the citizenry.

I watched the new Livingston Parish Library Board IN ACTION last July and August and frankly, I was embarrassed.

Board President Jonathan Davis was so inept and uninformed on state law that his and the board’s actions of July 15, 2025, were patently illegal and resulted in an immediate LAWSUIT  by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Mirrill.

Were the board’s actions not so pitiful and flagrantly illegal, it may have been funny. The hilarious part, however, came later, when that lawsuit settlement stipulated that members of the board, like delinquent children, would be required to TAKE LESSONS on how to conduct open meetings.

Bear in mind, if you will, these are board members hand-picked by the Livingston Parish Council members to replace former board members whom they deemed unqualified to hold their positions. Wow. Talk about irony…

This is just a sample of what Lunsford and his pals are attempting to do in every single parish in Louisiana. One-by-one, they are going into the parishes as what Cankles Ankles Trump likes to call “outside paid agitators” to shake up library board that have operated libraries in all 64 parishes without problems for years—simply because they have some perceived notion that children are being “groomed” by deviants bent on converting they to trans or gays—or some similarly silly conspiracy. Frankly, I don’t know of, indeed, never heard of, any trans or gay individual who was “converted” by some outside influence. I’ve always subscribed to the idea that if you want your kids reading certain material, go with them to the library.

And as long as you give a kid an I-Phone or a computer, he’s going to have access to all the porn his little heart desires but I suppose in Mr. Lunsford’s puritanical mind, it’s all the libraries’ fault.

But who am I kidding? This is not about decency. It never was. It’s all about censorship and control—control of libraries, television (see the capitulations of CBS and ABC) what’s left of print media (see Jeff Bezos and this week’s layoffs of one-third of the Washington Post staff)) and the Internet.

If you want to save your Washington Parish Library the way Lincoln Parish stood up for its board (they told Lunsford to hit the bricks), it would be in your best interests to attend tonight’s meeting.

You may not get another chance.

Before you dismiss the INVESTIGATION of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz by the U.S. Treasury Dept. or the House Oversight Committee, headed by Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) as just another attempt by Donald Trump to embarrass a political opponent, you would do well to go back and examine what happened to former Alabama Gov. DON SIEGELMAN.

Anyone else notice that the question is framed as if guilt is assumed?

What George W. Bush and Karl Rove, along with a U.S. attorney of questionable scruples, did to Siegelman back in 2002 was nothing short of criminal collusion in an effort to defame and dethrone a popular Democratic governor.

The players may have changed with the comings and goings of political operatives (Donald Trump instead of Bush, Stephen Miller in lieu of Rove and Walz as the target instead of Siegelman), but the teams and the playbook are the same—except today, the stakes seem to be higher than ever before.

The character assassination of Siegelman was so egregious that a bipartisan (for the Repugnantcans out there, that means both political parties) group consisting of 113 former state attorneys general from across the U.S. filed a FEDERAL APPEALS BRIEF in support of Siegelman’s unsuccessful bid to overturn his criminal conviction.

As a result of that conviction, Siegelman served six years in FEDERAL PRISON in Oakdale, Louisiana, where he became friends with fellow inmate former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards.

The point of all this is this: If you’re a popular Democratic governor and the Repugnantcans see a glimmer of a chance of flipping your state, your non-involvement in any hint of a scandal matters little. If you’re a Democrat, you’re already guilty. Conversely, in December 1992, in the waning days of George W. Bush’s administration WILLIAM BARR, who was Attorney General, said of the Iran-Contra scandal, “People in this Iran-Contra matter have been prosecuted for the kind of conduct that would not have been considered criminal or prosecutable by the Justice Department.”

Wow. No prosecutions in Iran-Contra? Those mushrooms must’ve been kickin’ when Barr said that.

Barr, you will remember, was in his second term as attorney general, this time under Trump, when, in 2019, he publicly misconstrued the contents on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the investigation of alleged obstruction by Trump and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. “Nothing to see here, folks,” was Barr’s dismissal of the report which, of course, said otherwise.

That’s pretty much the summation of the Repugnantcans. If a smell is coming from their side of the aisle, it’s of little consequence. If, however, it’s on the Democrats’ side, it’s a grievous felony that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if it means jail time.

Walz’s only hope is in the fact that Pam Bodi is so inept, so much dumber than Barr, she may not be able to pull off a conviction of the Minnesota governor.

Of course, that won’t keep the Repugnantcans from trying—over and over and over and over…

In just over a month (March 9) the 2026 regular 60-day session of the Louisiana Legislature convenes in Baton Rouge. Sessions in even-numbered years such as 2026, are for 60 days while in odd-numbered years, sessions last for 85 days.

No measure levying or authorizing a new state tax, increasing an existing state tax, or legislating with regard to state tax exemptions, exclusions, deductions, or credits shall be introduced or enacted during even-numbered years, according to the 2026 Regular Session Information BULLETIN issued by the House Legislative Services.

But, hey, that doesn’t mean those 144 lawmakers (105 House and 29 Senate members) can’t inflict harm on the citizens of Louisiana, so it would behoove folks to at least attempt to keep tabs on what goes on in Baton Rouge.

Remember in 2014, they almost slipped through a major but illegal windfall for then Louisiana State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson. The bill, by State Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) would have pumped up Edmonson’s retirement considerably and the amendment was sneaked into the final day of the legislative session. Only a tip by an anonymous reader allowed LouisianaVoice to break the story and open the way to Sen. Dan Claitor’s successful lawsuit to quash the effort.

 But there are plenty of other mischief afoot when lawmakers, lobbyists and campaign contributions come together.

Take last year, for example. A couple of Shreveport senators, Alan Seabaugh and Thomas Pressley co-authored SB 134 which eventually became Act 342 with Gov. Jeff Landry’s signature.

That law makes it more difficult to SUE NURSING HOMES in Louisiana.

The state already had a bad reputation for quality of care in nursing homes. Remember BOB DEAN AND HURRICANE IDA?

SB 134 sailed to passage, getting final HOUSE approval by a 59-37 vote and breezing through the SENATE with a comfortable 26-11 margin.

So, why would the legislature pass a measure that protects nursing homes from being held accountable for possible abuse and/or neglect?

For that answer, let’s boil down the numbers.

Between Jan. 1, 2023 (the last statewide election year) and Jan. 1, 2026, nursing homes, their political action committee and their various owners contributed more than $146,000 to 85 members of the two chambers who voted for passage of SB 134. That averages out to a little more than $1700 each—but it’s only an average. Some got considerably more.

Let’s start with Senate President Cameron Henry (R-Metairie) and Sen. Bob Hensgens (R-Abbeville). It just so happens that the two are members of a 10-PERSON OWNERSHIP GROUP for the Acadia St. Landry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Church Point and Hensgens is the nursing home’s administrator. Two other members of his family also are part of the ownership group, according to records on file with the Secretary of State.

Both senators did pretty well in raking in contributions from nursing home interests. Henry received $35,300 and Hensgens accounted for $31,600 in contributions.

Did either senator abstain from voting in favor of SB 134 because of a possible conflict of interests? Don’t be absurd. This is Louisiana where ethics go to die.

Pressley, one of the bill’s co-authors, received $22,100 from nursing home interests during the same time frame and the other co-author, Seabaugh, got $6400 in nursing home campaign contributions.

Riser, who way back in 2014, attempted to reward his friend Edmonson with that generous retirement increase, received another $15,300.

Statewide candidates also got in on the act, though we did not factor in their contributions when giving amounts received by legislators.

Secretary of State Nancy Landry received $20,000 while Gov. Jeff Landry was the recipient of $27,500 in nursing home contributions, Attorney General Liz Murrill got $18,200 and State Treasurer and current congressional candidate John Fleming received $16,500.

So, you see, every action taken in Louisiana politics (and we can only assume elsewhere, as well) has a back story and that story is almost always preceded by dollar signs.

Why do you think the legislature passed that dreadfully draconian CAMRA bill that prohibits citizens from lodging air quality complaints on the basis of readouts from private monitors?

There is only one group on the face of the earth that would benefit from such a detestable piece of legislation: the oil and chemical industry, particularly that 85-mile stretch along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans affectionately known as CANCER ALLEY.

It’s anyone’s guess how much money the fossil fuel and chemical interests have poured into the campaign coffers of Louisiana’s politicians over the years. The same would go for any state agency with oversight powers over any given industry—such as the LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERCICE COMMISSION and its questionable TIES to utility-related businesses.

So, as we cautiously ease into the upcoming legislative session, you might want to keep one eye on Baton Rouge and most of all, follow the money.