Accountability, Due Process, and the Search for Justice at Pendleton Water Association

Following the discovery of significant financial irregularities within Pendleton Water Association (PWA), members of the 2025 Board of Directors undertook a lengthy and documented effort to investigate the matter, protect the association, and seek review through the appropriate administrative and legal channels.

According to official records and timelines prepared by former board members, the Board’s response began with internal corrective measures designed to reduce future risk and strengthen oversight. These measures reportedly included ending certain internal billing practices, restricting check-signing authority, and issuing formal reprimands where appropriate.

Beginning in August 2025, the Board President, Vice President, and Treasurer conducted an extensive review of association records. Over a period of approximately two months, the group reviewed meeting minutes, receipts, invoices, utility records, licensing documentation, and other financial materials to determine the scope of suspected misconduct. The Treasurer involved in the review, a former Certified Public Accountant (CPA), possessed extensive accounting experience and assisted in the analysis of the records.

As concerns developed, the Board initiated contact with local law enforcement. Multiple meetings were held with representatives of the Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office during August and September 2025. While the overall suspected financial misconduct totaled over $100,000, the documentation provided by former board members states that investigators ultimately focused on three categories of alleged financial loss for possible criminal review:

1) Unauthorized water usage estimated at approximately $11,000

2) Personal internet service charges estimated at approximately $3,000

3) Personal cellular service charges are estimated at approximately $12,000

According to the investigating officer, law enforcement later submitted a request for a warrant related to these matters to the district court in September 2025. The warrant request was reportedly declined, and no criminal prosecution followed.

Following the lack of action at the local level, the Board sought assistance from state-level agencies, including the Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. Documentation indicates these efforts did not result in additional legal proceedings.

Separate from the criminal review process, the Board also participated in administrative proceedings concerning the former plant manager’s professional licensing status. After hearings before the state licensing authority, sanctions were reportedly imposed that included a probationary period, retraining requirements, restrictions on signing treatment facility documents, and requirements for supervised operation. Records state that these actions were tied primarily to falsification of official reporting documents submitted to the state.

The Board also took steps to protect the association from possible tax and reporting liabilities. According to the documents reviewed, notifications were submitted to federal and state revenue agencies regarding concerns over unreported benefits associated with utility and communication services.

In addition, the outgoing Board identified provisions within the association’s insurance policy that may allow recovery of losses associated with employee misconduct. Recommendations were included in the Board’s 2025–2026 tactical planning documents, that were shared with the incoming PWA Board of Directors, encouraging continued pursuit of those claims on behalf of the membership.

The actions documented by the former Board reflect an effort to pursue accountability through administrative, financial, and legal channels available to a small rural water system. While certain regulatory actions were ultimately taken, the broader pursuit of judicial resolution did not advance beyond the investigative stage.

For many association members, the central concern remains unchanged: whether documented allegations involving public trust and member resources received sufficient review within the justice system. Regardless of differing opinions surrounding the matter, the official timeline and records demonstrate that substantial efforts were made by members of the Board to investigate the irregularities and report them to the proper authorities.