Citizens of Jasper,

When this publication went quiet, JEDCO was in the spotlight — and it remains there. The Jasper Jewel is not built around any single organization or any single set of names. It exists because public officials who spend public money should be held to the same standard of ethics, accountability, and integrity they would expect in their own private businesses. Perhaps a higher one. It simply happens that JEDCO is where the public record has required the most attention.

Half a cent. That is all it is — half a cent of every taxable dollar spent in this city. At the grocery store, the gas station, anywhere a purchase is made and a tax is collected. Half a cent, quietly added, every time, directed to an organization that most of Jasper has never had particular reason to examine.

The Jasper Economic Development Corporation was created in 1993 with a clear purpose: to take that public money and turn it into economic growth — manufacturing, industry, jobs that generate real payroll for real people in this community. The board that oversees it is appointed by the Jasper City Council, which means the people of Jasper, through their elected representatives, are meant to have a say in how it operates.

Whether they have had that say is another matter entirely.

The Jasper Jewel has not been the only set of eyes on this record. A number of individuals in this community have spent considerable time with the public documents and asking questions. What follows is a summary of what the public record shows — with documentation linked where it exists, and threads flagged where the story is not yet fully told. You are invited to read it and form your own conclusions.

---

Let us begin with Provalus.

In 2019, a technology company by that name arrived in Jasper with promises of jobs and economic activity. JEDCO invested public funds. A contract was signed, binding Provalus to specific commitments. The jobs did not materialize as promised. And the contract — that legally binding document, that protection for the public’s investment — was never enforced.

One might expect that when a party fails to meet its contractual obligations, some form of accountability follows. What JEDCO offered instead was a deed. In April 2026, the board voted to transfer ownership of the building on Houston Street to Provalus outright — not to pursue recovery, not to enforce the terms, but to give the company the property and be done with it. The board’s attorney explained the board’s position: “There was no option. Otherwise JEDCO did not have a legal leg to stand on.” (KJAS, April 20, 2026)

How, one wonders, does a public body with a signed contract end up with no legal leg to stand on? The contract was the leg. It was simply never used.

As of June 2026, even this resolution remains unresolved. The building — valued at approximately $3 million — sits on Houston Street, off the tax rolls, costing the city $30,000 annually in insurance while JEDCO waits for Provalus to accept the very building it is being given. Board President Bill Grant has noted publicly that “the risk they are running is that they don’t get the building. It is time to get it on the tax rolls.” Provalus has apparently not found this prospect urgent enough to respond to.

The Jasper Jewel has covered the full Provalus story in a dedicated post. Read more.

There is also a related matter worth noting here. The March 2025 legal opinion obtained by this publication through a public records request raised a question that deserves attention: JEDCO’s own attorney — the one who drafted the original Provalus contract — was later asked to evaluate whether the conditions of that contract were met.

The outside opinion was careful — perhaps deliberately so. Garza neither confirmed nor denied a conflict, noting only that when the interests of two represented parties diverge, dual representation becomes a problem. Whether the interests of JEDCO and the city diverged on what Provalus owed them, he left unanswered. That determination, he wrote, rests with the attorney — the attorney who created the contract, represented both parties, and was asked to evaluate his own work. That attorney resigned in August 2025 — with no advance notice, effective immediately. At the same meeting it was announced that the administrative assistant had also resigned. The Garza memo had been issued four months prior. The record does not explain either resignation. It simply notes the timing.

The full legal opinion is available here for those who wish to read it themselves.

While the Provalus matter remains unresolved, JEDCO moves on.

In late 2025, $160,000 in public funds was committed to bring a Bealls store to a building on the Jasper corridor — vacant for five years, owned by the family investment firm of Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan. The broker made the stakes plain: without the public money, Bealls could not come to town. The public was not supplementing a deal. The public was the deal.

Whether a Type A EDC — whose mandate is manufacturing and primary job creation, not retail — has legal authority to fund such a project was not asked before the vote was taken. The signed contract has not been released to the public. Bealls is expected to open Fall 2026.

The Jasper Jewel has covered this in full. Read more.

Also in the public record is a matter that stands apart from Bealls entirely: the Jewel Bistro Café.

In November 2023, JEDCO entered into an Economic Development Agreement with Davis McCray Group, LLC, doing business as The Jewel Bistro Café at 147 N. Main Street. JEDCO provided $111,300 in public funds for equipment, in exchange for commitments to maintain and expand employment over thirty-six consecutive months. The contract included a commercial security agreement giving JEDCO a lien on the restaurant’s equipment, and a personal guaranty from one of the business principals — meaning that if the business defaulted, an individual would be personally liable for the debt.

The restaurant has since closed. The LLC has been dissolved. The board has voted to pursue collection of the public funds. What that effort yields remains to be seen. The Jasper Jewel will return to this matter in a dedicated future post.

---

Now, dear reader, we arrive at perhaps the most quietly remarkable finding in this entire record.

When the City of Jasper commissioned an outside legal opinion on JEDCO in early 2025, one of the questions concerned the employment of then-JEDCO Director Kenneth Brooks and whether his employment documents were legally created. The outside attorney set about answering it — and in doing so, went to look up the City of Jasper’s Ethics Code.

There was no Ethics Code.

Frank Garza of Davidson, Troilo, Ream & Garza wrote: “I will have to determine if the City has an Ethics Code and if it applies to JEDCO members. In my review of the City’s Code of Ordinances in the MuniCode, there is no Ethics Code online.” (Full legal opinion)

The questions raised about Kenneth Brooks’ employment were never fully answered.

A forensic audit of Jasper city operations released in October 2025 examined Provalus-related financial activity from 2019 to 2023. The auditors declared no fraud. That declaration deserves a closer look. What they did document was the absence of conflict of interest disclosure forms, and evidence that a city employee benefited financially during those same dealings. “No fraud” is not a clean bill of health — it is a description of what auditors can prove under a narrow legal standard. What it also describes, unmistakably, is a set of conditions under which wrongdoing would have gone undetected. The safeguards that would have caught it were not there. Worth noting: the audit covered the years 2019 to 2023 — precisely the period during which the Provalus contract was active and the decision not to enforce it was taking shape. The documentation that would have supported accountability was not there then. Three years later, when the board voted to deed a multi-million dollar building to the company that never met its obligations, its own attorney explained that JEDCO had no legal leg to stand on. One does not have to look far to understand why. (KJAS, October 14, 2025) (Full forensic audit)

Four days after the Provalus deed vote, Tena Wright and Pam McDonough — both of whom had voted against the transfer — submitted their resignations. Wright’s statement was unambiguous: “I can no longer, in good conscience, continue to serve under these circumstances.” She cited the board’s rejection of a forensic audit of JEDCO itself and described a fundamental misalignment with the organization’s values regarding accountability and transparency. (KJAS, April 24, 2026)

McDonough’s resignation came with documentation. What she found and recorded: approximately 30 years of records stored in unsecured, disorganized conditions. Open meeting and executive session recordings missing for several years. Company files removed without authorization by a consultant, who then provided them to a former interim executive director. A transaction in which JEDCO sold a 94-acre Rail Park for $500,000 and subsequently purchased 20 acres from the same party for $235,000. Incentive payments structured to benefit landowners rather than the companies meant to be creating jobs. And a pattern of agreements that did not comply with Type A economic development corporation law.

These findings did not come from a critic on the outside looking in. They came from someone on the inside, looking at the records — filed in writing, at the time of her departure.

That is worth sitting with.

---

No two situations in this record are identical. The Provalus contract is not the Jewel Bistro agreement. The Bealls vote is not the attorney question. Each has its own particulars, its own timeline, its own set of circumstances. But patterns do not require identical facts — they require repeated shapes. And the shapes here repeat. A contract that exists on paper but not in practice. Public money that flows out and does not return. Questions that arise at precisely the right moment — and are not asked. Accountability that is present in language and absent in action. One need not be a forensic investigator to recognize a pattern. One need only be paying attention.

The men and women who hold seats on any public board are not there simply to raise their hands. They are there to ask the questions that protect the public — to scrutinize a deal before it is approved, to read a contract before it is signed, to demand answers before the vote is called. The standard for stewardship of public money must be higher, not lower, than what one would apply to one’s own affairs. That is not a suggestion. That is the job.

This publication did not begin again because it was looking for something to write about. It began because a question arose that deserved a public answer. On June 24, 2026, KJAS reported that in a private meeting held after a regular board session, newly appointed board member Bob Milner was offered the position of interim Executive Director. In that same meeting, the board voted unanimously to name him treasurer as well. One board member. Two additional roles. One private meeting. The Jasper Jewel found that worth asking about and found considerably more than it bargained for.

The watch continues.

— The Jasper Jewel

Bealls is coming to Jasper. Construction is underway, and the doors are expected to open Fall 2026. For a community that has watched one JEDCO-backed project after another fall short — broken contracts, dissolved LLCs, unrecovered public funds — this one could be different.

For Jasper residents, another shopping option in town is a straightforward win — and no one should lose sight of that. But being a citizen means carrying two responsibilities at once. One is being a customer. The other is paying attention to how public money is spent on your behalf and whether the officials managing it are holding anyone to the agreements they signed. JEDCO has a history of not doing that. The contracts exist. The accountability never comes.

JEDCO has a chance here to break the cycle. Not just to cut a check and move on, but to hold every line of this contract to the contract — the jobs, the wages, the timeline, all of it. The community is watching. The recently signed contract has not been made public, but before the ribbon cutting, Jasper deserves to know exactly what was promised, who is benefiting, and what happens if those promises go unmet.

Here is how we got here.

It Started With an Empty Building

The old Bealls location — later rebranded Stage — closed before 2020. The 28,000-square-foot space sat vacant ever since, accumulating damage while the building’s owner, Phelan Investments — the family investment firm of Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan — made no meaningful effort to maintain it.

The broker who presented the deal to the JEDCO board said it plainly: “Five years ago the ceiling was fine. Now it’s not. The floor was fine, now it’s not. There was a roof leak that caused damage. The humidity. Just a multitude of things that created more damage than there was five years ago.” He also noted that vagrants had moved into the vacant center.

That deterioration is why the renovation costs grew. It is also why public money is now part of the equation.

The Bealls conversation began at the July 22, 2025 JEDCO board meeting, when a board member updated the board about the project he had been working on.

A motion was made, seconded, and voted on — without any discussion of whether a Type A EDC has legal authority to fund a retail project at all. The letter of intent passed. Ronnie Sample voted no.

When the floor was opened for any further discussion, Sample spoke up. He asked why JEDCO was contributing public money to a shopping center that should be able to pay for itself. Board member Ky Griffin responded directly: “You’re being foolish.”

Board member Tressie Morgan, drawing on her own business experience with the Phelan family, offered what she intended as reassurance: Phelan Investments had already made their money many times over. They would do nothing to help Jasper grow. They did not care whether the building sat empty. Her point was that JEDCO needed to step in because the landlord wouldn’t.

But that argument deserves a second look. If a private property owner has no interest in maintaining his building or investing in this community — why is the public filling that gap? And if this building belonged to anyone other than a Texas House Speaker’s family investment firm, would the board have moved this quickly to make the numbers work?

Sample pressed further. He pointed to the Jewel Bistro — a restaurant that had already received JEDCO funding and closed — and asked what happens if Bealls doesn’t perform. “We have contracts,” came the response. The board president echoed it. Sample was not satisfied. “That’s all you got is a piece of paper,” he said. “They ain’t got to pay you back, right…Marvin?”

Board member Marvin McDonald replied: “Good chance they may not pay back. I put it that way.”

The vote was already done. But would the discussion have changed anything? The exchange that followed suggests not. These are not uninformed people. They PRIDE themselves on being experienced business leaders who understand contracts, risk, and due diligence. What the conversation reveals is not ignorance — it is priority. They were not looking for red flags. They were looking for a path forward, and a non-binding letter of intent was enough to give them one. That same logic has driven JEDCO’s failed decision-making for years.

By October, the renovation estimate had come down to $826,000, the employee count had grown to 18, and JEDCO’s contribution had been set at $160,000.

The Money

Total renovation budget: $826,000.

Bealls — the Florida-based retailer, a separate and distinct company from the old Texas Bealls that became Stage — is putting in approximately $440,000. That covers their buildout, inventory preparation, and pre-opening operations. Phelan Investments is contributing $360,000, though that number did not come easily. The landlord’s original offer was $160,000. Getting him to more than double that took years of negotiation.

JEDCO is covering the remaining $160,000.

The broker was direct about what that public money means: “That $160,000 honestly just makes it look to where we could do it versus we can’t do it. It’s that tight of a deal. If this money is not granted, Bealls can’t come to town.”

The public is not supplementing a deal that already works. The public is the difference between a deal that happens and one that doesn’t — bridging the gap between what a private retailer can afford and what a private building owner, who let his property deteriorate for five years, is willing to spend.

What Was Promised and What Was Approved

At the October 3 meeting, Bealls presented a commitment of 18 employees once the store opens — three managers during the construction phase, then 15 sales staff at wages starting around $15 an hour. Board President Bill Grant pressed for a wage floor to be written into the final contract. The Bealls representative indicated that could be incorporated. The lease with the landlord runs ten years with five 5-year renewal options — a potential 35-year commitment to the Jasper market.

A second tenant is also in the picture. Shoe Department, a brand under Shoe Show — a privately held chain with more than 1,200 stores in 48 states — is interested in opening approximately 9,000 square feet next door. But they will not come without Bealls as an anchor. Bealls first, then the shoe store.

Questions were raised about whether JEDCO — organized as a Type A corporation primarily designed to fund industrial and primary jobs — was even the appropriate vehicle for a retail deal like this. A public hearing was suggested. City council involvement was recommended. Those concerns were acknowledged, set aside, and the board moved to a vote.

Whether those terms made it into the final signed agreement, the public does not yet know. JEDCO has not released the contract.

Board President Bill Grant acknowledged the contradiction in his own words. He said on the record that he personally does not believe JEDCO should be funding retail ventures — that JEDCO’s focus should be manufacturing and industrial development that generates real payroll. He supported the motion anyway. In his words, the prior board’s letter of intent was a commitment he felt honor-bound to keep.

That is worth sitting with. The new board president backed a project he does not personally believe in, to honor a non-binding letter issued by a board that is no longer in place. A letter of intent carries no legal obligation — that is the very definition of the document. Yet here it was treated as sacred, while binding contracts with companies such as Provalus among others were never enforced.

In Jasper, it seems, the documents that bind no one are the ones that get honored.

The board approved the funding. Ronnie Sample voted no — as he had in July.

Watch the Receipts

Bealls is a real company. It has been in business since 1905. It is debt-free, fourth-generation family owned, and has a Texas distribution center that signals genuine market commitment. This is not a fly-by-night LLC with no assets to its name.

But the community has heard promising presentations before. It has seen letters of intent treated as sacred and contracts treated as suggestions. It has watched public money leave and accountability never arrive.

The difference this time has to be enforcement. The jobs must be documented. The wages must be verified. The timeline must be held. If Bealls does not perform, JEDCO must be willing to do what it has never been willing to do — act on it.

Many in Jasper are genuinely looking forward to Fall 2026. For shoppers, a Bealls coming back to town is a good thing — and that matters. Whether it turns out to be a good deal for JEDCO is a separate question, and the answer will be up to them.

As of June 2026, the City of Jasper is still paying approximately $30,000 a year to insure a building it has been trying to give away. The company that is supposed to receive that building — Provalus — has yet to complete the transfer. And nobody seems to be asking the most obvious question: if you did everything right, if you met every requirement, if you held up your end of a contract that earned you a multi-million dollar building — why would you drag your feet on accepting it?

That question matters. Because in the world of business, you don’t walk away from something you earned. You don’t delay taking ownership of a $3 million asset that belongs to you. Unless, of course, the situation is more complicated than the people approving the transfer want to admit.

In April 2026, the JEDCO board voted to deed that building to Provalus. Three board members — Angel McCroskey, Pam McDonough, and Tena Wright — voted against the transfer. Their reason was straightforward: a forensic audit completed in September 2025 found that Provalus had failed to provide the employment documentation required by the contract. The records that were supposed to verify years of reported employee numbers were largely nonexistent.

The board’s own attorney, Mike Getz, told the members they had “no option but to deed Provalus the building” because prior officials had not challenged the company’s records while the project was active.

Let that sink in for a moment. The legal argument for handing over a multi-million dollar public asset — despite documented failures to meet contractual documentation requirements — is essentially: nobody stopped it then, so we can’t stop it now.

That is not how contracts work in the private sector. If this were a private business deal and the other party failed to deliver the documentation they were legally required to provide, no businessman worth his salt would say “well, nobody caught it at the time, so I guess we just hand over the building.” A contract is a contract. The people of Jasper deserve the same protection in their public dealings that any private party would demand in theirs.

And the people making this decision call themselves businessmen. No actual businessman would hand over a $3 million public asset to a company that couldn’t produce basic payroll records. That isn’t business sense — that’s the opposite of it. This board had an opportunity to change the way things have always been done in Jasper. They had the audit. They had the documented gaps. They had every reason to demand answers before signing anything over. You don’t get to call yourself a businessman while making decisions you would never make with your own money.

Something doesn’t add up — but you decide.

It Started With a Promise

On January 31, 2019, Jasper United — a joint venture between the City of Jasper and JEDCO — signed an Economic Development Agreement with Optomi LLC, doing business as Provalus, a Delaware limited liability company. Daniel L. Walker signed as JEDCO Board President. Mayor Gary Gatlin signed on behalf of the City.

The promise was straightforward: Provalus would bring jobs to downtown Jasper. In exchange, the public would provide the resources to make that happen. What Jasper United agreed to provide was substantial:

• A facility at 101 E. Houston Street, purchased and fully renovated at public expense
• A temporary location at 534 S. Wheeler with free rent, utilities, maintenance, and cleaning
• Up to $360,000 in monetary incentives — $1,800 per new full-time hire — paid over five years
• Up to $20,000 to cover relocation expenses for Provalus management
• Temporary housing for Provalus leadership for up to six months
• Assistance obtaining Skills Development Fund grants and Texas Workforce Commission support
• And ultimately, the deed to the building itself once all job creation requirements were met

In return, Provalus agreed to grow its Jasper workforce from a minimum of 50 full-time employees in Year 1 to 100 by Year 5. And critically, the contract required Provalus to submit monthly reports with certified payroll records, W-2s, and IRS Forms 940 and 941 — so that Jasper United could actually verify the numbers before cutting checks.

That verification requirement wasn’t a formality. It was the only accountability mechanism built into the deal.

Five Years of Numbers Nobody Checked

According to Provalus’s own reports, the company exceeded its job creation requirements every single year:

• Year 1: required 50 employees — reported 57
• Year 2: required 70 employees — reported 103
• Year 3: required 80 employees — reported 194
• Year 4: required 90 employees — reported 204
• Year 5: required 100 employees — reported 258

Based on those reported numbers, $354,825 in public incentive money was paid out over the five-year term — just under the $360,000 cap. The numbers looked good. The trajectory looked impressive. Nobody looked behind them.

When the forensic auditors from UHY Advisors finally did, here is what they found on file:

• Year 1 (57 reported employees): 45 W-2s. No payroll reports. No IRS forms.
• Year 2 (103 reported employees): 12 payroll reports, 2 W-2s. No IRS forms.
• Year 3 (194 reported employees): No payroll reports. No W-2s. No IRS forms.
• Year 4 (204 reported employees): No payroll reports. No W-2s. No IRS forms.
• Year 5 (258 reported employees): No payroll reports. No W-2s. No IRS forms.

In the final three years — when Provalus was claiming between 194 and 258 employees — there was not a single piece of supporting documentation on file. Not one payroll record. Not one W-2. Not one IRS form. And not one annual report was ever certified by an authorized Provalus officer, as the contract explicitly required.

“Due to a lack of documentation, the Provalus reports were not validated for accuracy and completeness by the City.”

UHY Advisors MidAtlantic, City of Jasper Forensic Audit, September 30, 2025

The contract also spelled out what was supposed to happen if Provalus’s records proved false or if documentation requirements weren’t met — those were listed as events of default, carrying real financial consequences including repayment obligations and monthly rent penalties of $7,500. Those enforcement mechanisms were never used. They may as well not have been written.

What the Public Actually Paid

According to city records, the total cost of the Provalus project was $4,790,651. The City of Jasper, holding a 70% stake in Jasper United, contributed $3,136,337. JEDCO contributed $1,654,314 at its 30% share. The building was purchased for $267,000, and the renovation blew past the City Council-approved budget of $2,954,238 by $206,124 in change orders — with documentation provided for only $48,918 of that overage. Most of the project costs were funded through Cambridge Project funds, rather than going through City Council approval.

But that $4.79 million figure only reflects what was captured in the records reviewed — fiscal years 2019 through 2023. It does not account for the carrying costs since then: the insurance, the maintenance, the legal work, the years of ongoing expenses. At this point, there is simply no telling what the true total actually is. What we know is the floor. What we don’t know may be considerably higher.

The Audit

On September 30, 2025, UHY Advisors MidAtlantic released its forensic audit of City of Jasper financial records covering fiscal years 2019 through 2023. The audit stated it did not find fraud. But here is what that conclusion rests on: auditors could not validate the employee numbers because the documentation to do so was never provided. And you cannot clear what you cannot examine.

It is worth stepping back and understanding what kind of documents were missing. W-2s, payroll reports, and IRS Forms 940 and 941 are not special requests created by this contract. They are records that every legitimate employer in America is required by law to produce and maintain — monthly, quarterly, annually. If you have employees, these documents exist. There is no legal way to operate a business with 258 workers and not have them. The contract didn’t ask Provalus for anything out of the ordinary. It asked for the same paperwork the IRS already requires.

So the question is not complicated: if those employees existed, where are their records? And if the records exist, why were they never provided — not once in the final three years of the contract, when reported employee numbers nearly tripled?

Where Things Stand

As of June 2026, the building deed has still not been transferred. Board President Bill Grant noted at the June meeting that the building is valued at approximately $3 million and is costing the city around $30,000 a year in insurance. His stated position: “The risk they are running is that they don’t get the building. It is time to get it on the tax rolls.”

With respect — that framing puts the risk on Provalus. But the city has been carrying the cost of this building for years. The public has already paid nearly $5 million into this project, and there is no telling how much the city has actually put out at this point. The company that is supposed to take ownership of a building it claims to have earned is in no apparent hurry to do so.

If everything was done right, accept the building.

If everything was done right, the documentation to prove it should exist.

A contract is a contract, and this is not the way it would be handled in the real business world. This project, from start to finish, stinks.

Big news for Jasper: a Bealls Retail store—and possibly a Shoe Dept—is slated to open in Fall 2026. The presentation team, which included Bealls’ East Texas real estate agent and her broker, expressed excitement that the $1 million-plus project, in development since 2020, is finally moving forward—thanks in part to JEDCO’s proposed $160,000 contribution.

The team shared that Bealls Retail currently generates about $3 million annually but expects that number to rise to $4 million in Jasper due to customer traffic from surrounding small towns. They emphasized that Bealls Retail would serve as an anchor store, potentially attracting additional businesses to the area.

During the meeting, Mrs. Norworthy asked what would happen if JEDCO declined the $160,000. The broker responded that the project would not proceed, as the funding bridges the gap between Bealls’ budget and the landlord’s contribution.

Mr. Grant inquired about job creation and Bealls’ long-term commitment. The initial lease is for 10 years, with five 5-year renewal options, totaling 35 years. Mr. Grant clarified that JEDCO’s financial commitment would not extend for that duration.

The project would create 3 jobs during construction and 15 permanent positions. While pay details were vague, the store manager would be salaried, and starting wages would begin at $15 per hour, with room to grow.

Then came a twist: the interim executive director introduced himself and stated that JEDCO is a Type A economic development board, which is primarily designed for industrial projects. He explained that to proceed, JEDCO would need to hold a public hearing and recommended applying for Type B status as well. This would allow greater flexibility in funding and potentially increase the local sales tax from half a cent to a full cent.

Ms. Colvin pushed back, saying, “Type A can vote on this. I don’t understand why we need public hearings—those are usually for Type B. Type A can do building improvements.” Mr. McClurg clarified that the population must be under 7,500 for certain provisions to apply. After confirming Jasper’s population meets that threshold, the interim director concluded that JEDCO could vote and forward the matter to City Council for approval.

The motion was called, and with a majority vote, it passed.

Before moving on to the interim attorney appointment, several agenda items were tabled. Mr. Grant then said that the interim attorney had already reviewed the contract and the recent closure of The Jewel Bistro, which shut down after only a few months into its 36-month contract with JEDCO. A letter from the business stated that it was a small LLC, with all assets tied up in the restaurant, and would be dissolved upon closure. Once again, JEDCO is left holding the bag for a failed venture.

The board then voted to appoint Michael Getz as interim attorney, with the understanding that a formal RFP process will be initiated to fill the position permanently. The motion passed.

Mr. Grant closed the meeting by thanking the board for their time and commitment on a Friday night. Meeting adjourned.

Councilwoman Angel McCroskey has been labeled a “troublemaker” by online critics. But if we listen closely — not just to the noise, but to the substance — we hear something else entirely: a principled advocate for transparency, accountability, and the people of Jasper.

When the council revisited a budget item less than 20 days after its approval, McCroskey didn’t just object — she cited Robert’s Rules of Order, reminded her colleagues of legislative precedent, and asked the hard questions: Why are we voting again? Where is the contract with the Chamber of Commerce? Where are the records for the $759,000 in HOT funds allocated since 2008?

These aren’t the questions of a naysayer. They’re the questions of a steward.

McCroskey’s critics may prefer smoother meetings, fewer objections, and quicker votes. But democracy isn’t meant to be smooth — it’s meant to be honest. And honesty often requires friction. It requires someone willing to say, “This has already been decided,” or “We owe the public an explanation.”

In her exchange with Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand, McCroskey remained focused on the issue: the people’s money, the people’s trust, and the people’s right to change. She didn’t deflect with personal grievances. She didn’t retreat when misquoted. She stood firm, not for herself, but for her district — and for every citizen who’s ever wondered where their tax dollars go.

This isn’t obstruction. It’s oversight.

And isn’t it curious — now that the Chamber of Commerce has lost $61,500 in budget allocations, Councilman Hilderbrand suddenly offers to help obtain public records? For months, those records were requested and never produced. But the moment funding is redirected, transparency becomes a priority. That’s not just ironic — it’s revealing. It suggests that access to public records may be contingent not on principle, but on political convenience. And that’s precisely why McCroskey’s insistence on accountability matters. Because stewardship shouldn’t depend on who’s winning the budget vote — it should depend on who the money belongs to: the people.

In a city where poverty persists and public funds are precious, oversight is not optional — it’s sacred. And the voice that demands transparency isn’t a threat — it’s a compass. The person asking for records, contracts, and accountability isn’t causing problems — they’re solving them.

Video clips in the comments

A special called City Council meeting will be held today at Jasper City Hall, Monday, September 29, at 12:00 PM. Here’s what’s on the agenda and why it matters.

The fiscal year is turning, and with it, the pressure to approve budgets and shape the future of our city. But before we rush forward, we must pause. Not out of fear but out of reverence. Reverence for process, for transparency, and for the people who call Jasper home.

This isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s about trust. It’s about rhythm. It’s about whether the decisions being made reflect the will of the people or the will of a few. Let’s look at it line by line.

Line item one: JEDCO’s budget approval.

As Jasper approaches the fiscal threshold of October 1st, the urgency to approve JEDCO’s 2025 -2026 budget isn’t just procedural, it’s a test of stewardship. A new board has been seated, but the question remains: are we rushing to approve a financial blueprint before the foundation has been ethically rebuilt? Before any budget is approved, we must ask: What happened to the forensic audit? What happened to the bylaw changes that were meant to restore order and transparency? A new board deserves more than a handoff they deserve clarity, clean records, and a system that no longer protects dysfunction.

Line item two: JEDCO bylaw change to 18 members.

I understand the decision to expand the JEDCO board to 18 members though I personally believed a smaller, more agile board would better serve the city. The increase was intended to retain senior members. If you recall, when advocating for their continued presence, Councilman Hilderbrand stated they only wished to remain for a few months to assist with the transition. But within days, those very members realized they no longer held authority or a voting majority chose to resign.

But what happened to the other bylaw changes? The ones recommended in the outside legal opinion the same opinion that Councilman Hilderbrand, also a JEDCO board member, held up in comparison with none other than the Holy Bible. If that opinion was so sacred, so valuable, shouldn’t JEDCO be rushing to adopt the very recommendations it contains?

Line item three: HOT funds and the Chamber of Commerce.

Less than a month ago, three council members Councilwoman Mamie Horne, Councilwoman Angel McCroskey, and Councilman Demarcus Holmes listened to the very folks they represent and voted to remove $61,500 from the Chamber of Commerce budget. Not because they dislike the Chamber but because actions have consequences. For months, the Chamber refused to provide public records requested by citizens. I personally submitted a request in October 2024 and was ignored. I’m not the only one. One request even came from council itself and still, nothing. This isn’t personal. It’s procedural. When public funds are involved, transparency isn’t optional.

Now, less than a month later, the Chamber’s funding is back on the agenda — framed for reinstatement as something “presented by city administration in each of the two recommended budget proposals” when the city budget was adopted on September 3. But let’s be clear: presentation is not approval, recommendation is not consensus, and repetition doesn’t make something right.

Just because you don’t like the vote doesn’t mean you put it back on the agenda for a do-over. When the majority has already spoken, why vote again?

I find it hard to believe that the council members who voted in the majority would be the ones to reintroduce this line item. So who did? Could it be the very councilmen entrenched in the Chamber itself? Councilman Bob Mayhar serves as the city’s community liaison to the Chamber. Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand has held an office in the past and although he is not a council member, city manager Greg Kelley is listed as an ex officio member and likely has some level of input on what is discussed. Who knows. But when lines blur between governance and affiliation, the people deserve clarity.

In Jasper, are the people merely observers — or are they the decision-makers? Does your voice matter? Do our officials remember that public service begins with public trust?

The people are watching, listening, and prepared to hold the line. Transparency is no longer a request — it’s a requirement. Will our elected officials rise to meet it, or fall silent when accountability calls?

For months, some on the council have defended a board whose expired terms and internal contradictions eroded public trust. What followed was a workshop unlike any before — a clash of legal clarity, political maneuvering, and community frustration. What was framed as a reset quickly exposed a deeper divide: between those calling for genuine accountability and those determined to preserve power, even if only “for a few more months.”

Starting the workshop, the mayor announced they would go around twice to hear each member’s suggestions.

Councilwoman Mamie Horn offered a pragmatic solution: remove the illegal board and allow any expired member to be reintroduced only if a council member nominated them outright. It was a clean way to reset without ignoring the community’s choices.

Councilman Bob Mayhar made his position clear — he wanted all expired members who had helped achieve quorum at the previous JEDCO meeting to remain on the board. Curiously, he omitted mention of Ronald Sample, who had also been present.

Councilwoman Angel McCroskey reiterated the legal issue at hand: the expired members had violated the board’s own staggered term requirement by remaining in place for years. She firmly stated she would not vote for any of them, arguing that it was illegal and the council should not collectively bear responsibility for their continued presence. She supported a reset, keep the three legally appointed members and allow each council member to nominate two new citizens.

Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand jumped in early with his stance: “I think it would be a foolish decision not to approve at least five or six of the current JEDCO board members, who by the way anyone that has been there now, that’s been proactive, been totally engaged — they don’t want to be there but just a few more months…”

That statement was a surprise. After months of council resistance to change, the defense now hinged on temporary convenience. If the board members only planned to serve a few more months, what are they really protecting — and at whose expense?

Council members have spent months defending the board’s continued presence, citing experience and engagement. But when Hilderbrand described their remaining term as “just a few more months,” the premise began to unravel. What had once been framed as essential civic continuity now sounded like a stall tactic. That contradiction underscores a deeper question: are council members shielding legitimacy — or simply preserving influence long enough to finish something quietly?

About thirty minutes into the workshop, the conversation took an unscripted turn. Prompted not by scheduling but by direct audience intervention, Councilmember Demarcus Holmes FaceTimed in. The gentleman assisting didn’t just support the technology — he initiated the call, recognizing Holmes’s input was important for both the workshop and the upcoming vote. Holmes’s recommendation echoed his previous position: preserve the three legally required members, allow the council to appoint two additional ones, and retain a couple of senior voices.

The mayor introduced round two. Ms. Horn repeated her first suggestion. Mr. Mayhar asked whether, if they pick two, the council could have a second round of nominations — since there were quite a few seats to fill.

McCroskey asked to be recognized and reminded the council that the city attorney had previously confirmed they didn’t have to choose all seventeen seats at once. The attorney, present via video, reaffirmed this and clarified that only five seats were required to be filled immediately.

McCroskey then offered her second-round pick and reiterated her agreement with Ms. Horn’s plan. Holmes remained consistent in his recommendation. Hilderbrand returned to his argument about retaining the “backbone” of the board — members he claimed were essential for completing ongoing projects.

Ms. Horn responded with a long-overdue question: “These projects we keep hearing about — I would like to see them or have someone come to the council and tell us how far they are on that project. What important projects they are working on…I need to know that.”

A back-and-forth followed between McCroskey and Hilderbrand. McCroskey noted that although she’d never been part of a board that retained expired members, she asked whether, if Hilderbrand saw them as essential, he would be willing to nominate them outright.

Hilderbrand replied that just because the council might choose not to retain them, he would gladly nominate the expired members himself.

McCroskey responded: “Well, we’ve never done this before — where the council is being told, you can pick two or three or however many, but you’ve gotta keep these senior members. The very members you’re trying to keep didn’t follow the bylaws. And you’ve been on boards — have you ever seen one ignore its own bylaws that clearly state two-year terms?”

Hilderbrand acknowledged that he had — in a couple of state boards, in fact. He continued, saying: “It’s been made clear in numerous writings — we’ve got the authority to do what we want.”

Once again, the mayor attempted to pin JEDCO’s dysfunction on the city council. But when asked, city manager Greg Kelly stepped in, reiterating that it was never the city’s responsibility to manage JEDCO appointments.

As the conversation wrapped, the mayor asked for a summary and path forward. McCroskey stated clearly: “I have no problem making a motion to remove all members from the JEDCO board, with the exception of the three legally appointed in May of 2024, and allow each council member to choose two — starting with Districts 1 through 5. I have no problem at all making that motion. That’s how it’s been done in the past.”

Mayhar asked whether she was okay with each member choosing three. McCroskey agreed — and the full council did as well.

During the vote, the full JEDCO board was removed, with three exceptions: Lequin Hilderbrand, Ronald Sample, and Jennifer Miranda would remain in their seats until their terms expired. The council then moved forward with expanding and repopulating the board. Each council member nominated three new appointees:

– Mamie Horn nominated Ray Charles Lewis, Bill Grant, and Maureen Bidwell

– Bob Mayhar nominated Tressy Morgan (expired), Charles Warren (expired), and Jessica Larkin

– Demarcus Holmes nominated Terrya Norsworthy, Keith Scott, and Derek Seastrunk

– Angel McCroskey nominated Tamala Parks, Tena Wright, and Pam McDonough

– LeQuin Hilderbrand nominated Bill Snelson (expired), Nicole Colvin, and Chris Lanier (expired)

Though the council officially voted to remove the prior board, four expired and legally ineligible members — Tressy Morgan, Charles Warren, Bill Snelson, and Chris Lanier — were immediately renominated and reinstated by Councilmen Mayhar and Hilderbrand. This raises a key question: if the reset was about restoring legality and accountability, why return the very figures whose expired terms contributed to the board’s collapse?

Adding to the contradiction, Hilderbrand himself stated during the workshop that several current board members “don’t want to be there but just a few more months.” If their service is reluctant and short-term by design, one wonders: is the council protecting civic engagement — or just stretching influence under the guise of continuity?

JEDCO’s reboot may be in motion, but for many watching closely, the deeper reset — one of values, legality, and trust — is still unfinished.

After the JEDCO vote, the zoning item was tabled.

Before we dive in: This is a long read. If you’re not interested in local government, the rule of law, or how power operates in small towns like Jasper, feel free to scroll on. But for those who care about accountability — who’ve watched too many councils bend the rules, stretch the truth, or simply look the other way — this one’s for you.

Because laws were given for a reason. Not as suggestions, but as boundaries meant to protect all of us. And across Jasper — and across this country — everyday citizens are fighting to ensure those we elect don’t forget it.

Special Called Meeting: Where We Are — and What We Can No Longer Pretend Not to See.

It doesn’t matter how softly you frame it or how subtly you try to push a chosen agenda — the law is the law. And when that law is knowingly disregarded, the only logical explanation left is corruption.

Whether it’s greed, self-preservation, loyalty to an expired power structure, or something more hollow and insidious — the evil we’re witnessing is deliberate harm masked as leadership. Corruption. Deceit. Abuse cloaked in governance. Manipulation dressed as consensus.

But evil never walks alone.

It moves in patterns. It feeds on systems that enable it — boards with expired terms, council silence framed as prudence, consultants paid to reinforce the illusion of legitimacy.

And most of all? It thrives in shadows.

Not because everyone who’s silent intends harm, but because complicity often begins with simply looking away.

Let’s look at the agenda for Monday night’s meeting.

WORKSHOP:
Discuss the Jasper Economic Development Corporation (JEDCO) Board Members –
As Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand and Bob Mayhar have stated, we’ve been working on this for months. Monday night they go into workshop once again to “work out the details” before the final vote.

What is simply amazing is the time that this has taken to go around what the law says. Shouldn’t this be simple? We look at the laws and bylaws and make choices accordingly — instead of striving to maintain a board of directors who, by their own words, have not followed the law themselves.

JEDCO bylaws are clear.

Directors are appointed by City Council.

Terms of office shall be two-year staggered terms.

The bylaws are subject to and governed by Texas state law, which says: “a director serves for a term of not more than six years.”

Let’s be plain:
JEDCO is not operating legally.
The mayor said in a recent meeting (acknowledging Billy Morian III): “He made a resolution. We don’t have to do anything our city attorney suggests.” But then council turns around and acts as if attorney Frank Garza’s legal opinion is law.

Mr. Garza’s opinion may carry professional weight — but it’s still just a legal opinion. And opinions do not override bylaws or state law. Legal opinions don’t excuse six-year terms where staggered two-year appointments are mandated. They don’t erase procedural violations with a signature. They don’t make a board legal simply because a loop of officials say so.

So, the question becomes:
Will Jasper’s council members uphold the law — or join the silence that enables its unraveling?

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION
Line Item #1 — Remove/Appoint Board Members to JEDCO

Let’s be clear. There are three legal board members:
Lequin Hilderbrand
Ronald Sample
Jennifer Miranda
They were appointed correctly by the City Council in May of 2024. As per the JEDCO bylaws, their terms remain effective until May of 2026. Since Executive Director Eddie Hopkins and President Danny Walker have both resigned — as well as one other member — the remaining twelve have served past their terms and should be removed. No holdovers are needed.

Some say we need “holdovers” to help guide open files. But Sam Mathews has been working there for years and should be more than equipped to assist with transition.

What’s truly questionable is the level of disdain shown toward everyday citizens serving on a public board. From where I sit, it is ordinary citizens who can quote and abide by the law.

The solution is clear. We need a city council willing to uphold the law moving forward.

Line Item #2 — Kendig Keast Contract Amendment (Zoning Ordinance Project)

Zoning means one thing… control.
Control over how and what you do with your own property.

Rural life offers a kind of spaciousness — not just geographically, but spiritually. People steward their own patch of earth, make choices by need and by heart, and aren’t boxed into overlays or dictated by boards with big-city ambitions.

Why should everyone conform to the vision of a select few?

The mayor had said: “Nobody is going to come in here and build a hotel and somebody put a metal junkyard right next door.” Then tell them not to come. I’d rather see my neighbor live out his dream than be forced to shape his land to fit corporate optics. Zoning shouldn’t be about catering to investment packaging — it should reflect real people, real needs, and the kind of freedom rural life was built on.

And furthermore: Zoning does not equal prosperity.

Houston has no traditional zoning, yet it’s one of the fastest-growing, most economically diverse cities in the U.S. When local officials say zoning will “make Jasper successful,” it’s worth asking: successful for whom?

Zoning can be used to control land use. But it can also entrench power, limit affordable housing, and protect vested interests — especially in small towns where influence networks run deep.

According to Texas Local Government Code § 211.007:
A zoning commission is required for a home-rule city to legally exercise zoning powers.
Council must pass an ordinance to create it. Members must be appointed, with staggered terms. So, if the city manager is asking for a contract extension with Kendig Keast Collaborative that began in 2021:

1. KKC should have vetted the city for a zoning commission before anything else.

2. Council never appointed such a commission.

3. Even if they had — their terms would already be expired.

I’ve requested public records related to this zoning project, and as of now, those requests remain unanswered. What has surfaced — in the email records I’ve seen — is clear evidence that the zoning process hasn’t been handled legally, and the public has not been given the full truth.

Once again, this council faces a crossroads on its own morality.
Will they uphold the law — or preserve whatever power, money, or influence they think they’re defending?

And to go further — let it be told plainly:
The city attorney does not represent the people. His job is to defend the city government as it currently stands. If that “city” now means a loop of expired board members, procedural contradictions, and internally justified decisions… then his legal counsel defends that loop. And the public should know exactly how much they are paying to keep it defended.

So to sum it up, Monday’s meeting isn’t just about zoning or board appointments. It’s about whether law still matters in Jasper. Whether we’re governed by process — or by proximity. Whether the charter, the bylaws, and Texas state law are respected — or quietly sidelined.

This public commentary is based on available records, direct meeting footage, and citizen research. It reflects one resident’s effort to promote transparency and lawful governance. It is not legal advice. Readers are invited to verify, question, and participate in shaping how Jasper is governed.

Does zoning, economic development, and Jasper’s realtor network have something in common?

I hadn’t given it much thought — until the dots started connecting. And once they did, the pattern became hard to ignore: board appointments, incentive packages, property interests. Could a saturation of real estate licenses be quietly shaping Jasper’s future?

With over 270 licensed realtors and nearly 200 active offices operating in Jasper County, this isn’t just a robust housing market. It’s a network. And even without formal zoning proposals, the groundwork for land use decisions is already being laid.

So who speaks loudest?
Who benefits first?
And who’s holding influence behind the scenes?

It gets even more troubling when you look at the legal side. Under Texas Local Government Code § 211.007, home-rule cities like Jasper are required to formally appoint a zoning commission before exercising zoning authority. That means preliminary reports, public hearings, and final recommendations — clearly documented.

Yet based on public records I’ve reviewed, Jasper shows no evidence that such a commission was ever legally established. The only known participants in zoning-related discussions come from a list shared by the prior city manager (see email in the comments)

Some of these individuals are tied to boards, development incentives, or property interests. But nowhere is there proof of proper swearing-in, published agendas, or public notice. Just a meeting. No commission. No due process.

And here’s where things start to unravel. In the city’s original zoning request for proposals, it was stated: “The City does not have a planning commission therefore the City Council shall be the Commission as defined in section 8.02 of the City Charter.”

That sounds definitive — except it contradicts what the Charter actually says. Section 8.02 calls for a separate planning commission of six residents, unaffiliated with city employment, tasked with reviewing public development transparently and independently. It doesn’t grant the council automatic authority to assume those duties.

Even more revealing? In a public records exchange, when a planning consultant asked, “Does the City Council still serve as the planning/zoning commission?” the city manager responded with a simple: “Yes.”

No ordinance. No documentation. Just a longstanding assumption — one that quietly bypasses the Charter, the law, and the public itself.

If Jasper is truly considering zoning — and the power it brings — then it must first commit to process integrity. Otherwise, we aren’t just shaping land use in silence. We’re violating public trust in plain sight.

So is this legal? Or just another quiet end-run around public process?

When commissions aren’t formed, agendas aren’t shared, and power is traded among insiders, it’s not just poor governance. It’s the slow dismantling of public trust.

And when legality itself becomes optional, we have to ask:
What are they afraid of?
Afraid the public will scrutinize the details?
Afraid residents will vote down policies designed behind closed doors?
Afraid that sunlight still holds power in small towns like Jasper?

This zoning ordinance should be shut down — until the people can decide what the vision is for their hometown. Then — and only then — should a zoning commission be created. And it must be done legally.

This isn’t about opposing growth. It’s about opposing shortcuts. Shortcuts that bypass community voice, legal safeguards, and ethical governance in favor of informal networks that profit quietly while the public watches passively.

It’s time we stopped watching.

Call your councilman today — because this isn’t just theory anymore. Zoning is on the agenda for Monday’s special called meeting.

Don’t let the confusion fool you. Your councilman knows what’s going on — and has known from the beginning.

They’ve sat in the meetings, seen the proposals, and now they’ve put zoning on the agenda. The only question left is whether they’ll defend procedure — or protect silence.

Let them know Jasper wants to prosper — legally, ethically, and with eyes wide open. Not through assumptions. Not through silence. And not through a process that rewrites both law and charter to fit insider convenience.

Check out the Q&A regarding Zoning as published by Texas Municipal Legal Counsel.

Does zoning, economic development, and Jasper’s realtor network have something in common?

I hadn’t given it much thought—until the dots started connecting. And once they did, the pattern became hard to ignore: board appointments, incentive packages, property interests. Could a saturation of real estate licenses be quietly shaping Jasper’s future?

With over 270 licensed realtors and nearly 200 active offices operating in Jasper County, this isn’t just a robust housing market. It’s a network. And even without formal zoning proposals, the groundwork for land use decisions is already being laid.

So who speaks loudest? <br />Who benefits first? <br />And who’s holding influence behind the scenes?

It gets even more troubling when you look at the legal side. Under Texas Local Government Code § 211.007, home-rule cities like Jasper are required to formally appoint a zoning commission before exercising zoning authority. That means preliminary reports, public hearings, and final recommendations—clearly documented.

Yet based on public records I’ve reviewed, Jasper shows no evidence that such a commission was ever legally established. The only known participants in zoning-related discussions come from a list shared by the prior city manager (see email in the comments)

Some of these individuals are tied to boards, development incentives, or property interests. But nowhere is there proof of proper swearing-in, published agendas, or public notice. Just a meeting. No commission. No due process.

And here’s where things start to unravel. In the city’s original zoning request for proposals, it was stated: “The City does not have a planning commission therefore the City Council shall be the Commission as defined in section 8.02 of the City Charter.”

That sounds definitive—except it contradicts what the Charter actually says. Section 8.02 calls for a separate planning commission of six residents, unaffiliated with city employment, tasked with reviewing public development transparently and independently. It doesn’t grant the council automatic authority to assume those duties.

Even more revealing? In a public records exchange, when a planning consultant asked, “Does the City Council still serve as the planning/zoning commission?” the city manager responded with a simple: “Yes.”

No ordinance. No documentation. Just a longstanding assumption—one that quietly bypasses the Charter, the law, and the public itself.

If Jasper is truly considering zoning—and the power it brings—then it must first commit to process integrity. Otherwise, we aren’t just shaping land use in silence. We’re violating public trust in plain sight.

So is this legal? Or just another quiet end-run around public process?

When commissions aren’t formed, agendas aren’t shared, and power is traded among insiders, it’s not just poor governance. It’s the slow dismantling of public trust.

And when legality itself becomes optional, we have to ask: <br />What are they afraid of? <br />Afraid the public will scrutinize the details? <br />Afraid residents will vote down policies designed behind closed doors? <br />Afraid that sunlight still holds power in small towns like Jasper?

This zoning ordinance should be shut down—until the people can decide what the vision is for their hometown. Then—and only then—should a zoning commission be created. And it must be done legally.

This isn’t about opposing growth. It’s about opposing shortcuts. Shortcuts that bypass community voice, legal safeguards, and ethical governance in favor of informal networks that profit quietly while the public watches passively.

It’s time we stopped watching.

Call your councilman today—because this isn’t just theory anymore. Zoning is on the agenda for Monday’s special called meeting.

Don’t let the confusion fool you. Your councilman knows what’s going on—and has known from the beginning.

They’ve sat in the meetings, seen the proposals, and now they’ve put zoning on the agenda. The only question left is whether they’ll defend procedure—or protect silence.

Let them know Jasper wants to prosper—legally, ethically, and with eyes wide open. Not through assumptions. Not through silence. And not through a process that rewrites both law and charter to fit insider convenience.

Lately, I’ve been hearing from a lot of folks—through Messenger, casual conversations, and community check-ins. Some messages are curious, some frustrated, others just trying to make sense of it all. They aren’t always tied to a single item, but many touch on the same concerns: the direction JEDCO is headed, how decisions are being made, and what role the public actually plays in those choices.

With JEDCO’s July 22nd meeting approaching, I’ve gathered a few observations and questions—based on both the published agenda and the public’s ongoing dialogue. My goal isn’t to speak for everyone, but to reflect on the patterns, possibilities, and responsibilities that seem to keep surfacing.

JEDCO’s Agenda for July 22

Information Item 1: Report from the Project Review Committee

Councilman Hilderbrand has publicly referenced “open files” in recent discussions. Are these files being reviewed to clarify which ones remain active? The public deserves clarity on the status and oversight of all projects—especially those still considered open.

Information Item 2: Report from the Sports Complex Research Committee

According to a December 2023 article from KJAS, JEDCO intends to construct and own the sports complex. During the June JEDCO meeting, Danny Walker stated that JEDCO had acquired over 200 acres “to see how the public reacts.” That’s not just research—it’s groundwork.

If this facility moves forward, taxpayers need answers. First and foremost: Is the complex designed for all Jasper youth or just for tournament teams operating on a pay-to-play model? Who will maintain insurance coverage? Who will staff the facility during the season and in the off-season? Will taxpayers be liable for lawsuits involving sports-related injuries or damages?

Consider the comparison: Ford Park in Beaumont spans 221 acres and cost Jefferson County approximately $1.5 million annually in operations, plus $4.5 million per year in debt service—totaling nearly $36 million between 2004 and 2023.

Beaumont’s population is over 115,000. Jasper’s population is just 7,470. Based on size and scale alone, does this project make sense?

Look—I don’t want to crush anybody’s dream of a sports complex. If there are individuals who feel passionately about it, maybe the next step isn’t public subsidy. Those who are truly committed could work together, pull resources, and fund it directly—including purchasing the property themselves. At $865,000, it’s reportedly a good deal—and turning that purchase into action would be a meaningful way to invest in the community rather than ask the community to invest in them.

The vision can still live—but without asking all taxpayers to carry the financial risk. Especially when that money could be used to meet core needs that benefit all Jasper residents.

Agenda Item of Discussion 1: Potential Committee for Executive Director Search

JEDCO is now considering forming a committee to search for a new executive director. But the board’s legal standing remains unresolved.

JEDCO frequently cites attorney Frank Garza’s opinion to justify its current board structure, yet not one recommendation from that opinion has been implemented. Until those structural issues are fully addressed, launching a leadership search prioritizes optics over integrity.

The public isn’t asking for new executive leadership. It’s asking for legitimate governance—and accountability first.

Agenda Action Item 1: Bealls

JEDCO has stated this is a different Bealls than the one that previously operated in Jasper, and I look forward to learning more about what they have to offer. However, this proposal appears to be yet another infrastructure project backed by taxpayer funds. Previous efforts—like the Jewel Bistro Café downtown—received over $100,000 in JEDCO funding and launched with promise. The café closed its doors last week and reopened this morning. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but the agreement with JEDCO reportedly spans 36 months. That means the public is still financially tied to a project whose stability remains uncertain.

This isn’t about criticizing a local business. It’s about recognizing that taxpayer-backed ventures should be built on more than hope. When public dollars are involved, consistency and accountability matter.

According to property records, Judge Robert Jackson sold the bistro building in March 2023 to Davis Investments and Development LLC through a deed of trust and vendor’s lien. Jackson retained a lien but relinquished ownership. The building—improved with public support—is now tied to a private commercial note set to mature in 2038.

If you haven’t read the KJAS report on this issue, it’s worth a look. (Link to full article in the comments).

Attention now turns to the vacant “Bealls” property, reportedly owned by District 21 Representative Dade Phelan. According to his bio, Mr. Phelan is a real estate developer, and his family has longstanding commercial holdings throughout Southeast Texas—yet the building has remained unused for years.

So here’s the question: If the property owner hasn’t invested to make the space tenant-ready, why should taxpayers? When a tenant leaves, is the owner responsible for repaying infrastructure costs? Or is JEDCO renovating private properties at public expense?

Action Item 2: Old Lonestar Ballpark Cleanup

This 13-acre property, purchased from the Lonestar Council, is part of JEDCO’s potential sports complex site. Yet the public hasn’t had an opportunity to decide whether a sports complex is even wanted.

In my opinion, this project should be paused until the entire community weighs in on the ballot.

This isn’t about shutting down ideas or resisting change. It’s about calling for process, stewardship, and a fair return on public trust. Jasper deserves development rooted in clarity, not confusion—and decisions that emerge from dialogue, not silence.

Whether the topic is downtown investment, land acquisition, or board appointments, the same principle applies: public money should serve public purpose. If we’re building something, let’s make sure it rests on shared understanding, honest review, and a foundation the community actually wants to stand on.

After all, Jasper belongs to ALL the people who call it home.

What some view as argumentative, I see as education in action. Accountability often sounds disruptive to those who benefit from silence.

I’m grateful that Councilwoman Angel McCroskey chooses principle over politeness. Her voice isn’t interrupting the process — it’s protecting it.

This isn’t about personality clashes or “just getting along.”
It’s about standing firm when integrity is mistaken for rebellion —
and truth gets labeled as negativity.

At the end of the day, the process isn’t complicated.
The only guideline that matters is the law.
Any recommendation that veers from that isn’t a recommendation at all — it’s a detour from accountability.

Truth in Governance: What Honest Leadership Actually Requires

In local politics, truth often arrives as an afterthought — wedged between vague agenda items and recycled board appointments. But honest leadership doesn’t begin with optics. It begins with accountability. With adherence to all laws — not just the ones that fit the moment. With respect for fellow citizens in every single decision, even when no one’s watching.

Truth isn’t just a principle. It’s a practice.

Let’s take the current handling of the JEDCO board as a case study. I don’t mean to harp on it — but the facts are the facts, and the law is the law. When board members extend their terms by years without proper reappointment, it’s not a minor oversight. It’s an actual violation. That’s not opinion — that’s statute.

We’re told the retention is necessary because of “open files.” But that logic is flimsy at best. If the files are open, then the paid employee should be able to brief new appointees with clarity. That’s literally part of the job. And if explaining those files requires help, that’s what volunteer board members are for. In fact, three legally appointed members would remain, including Councilman LeQuin Hilderbrand, who has consistently demonstrated deep familiarity with JEDCO’s operations. If anyone can help bridge the transition, it’s him. So unless there’s another reason for keeping the current board intact — one that hasn’t been publicly stated — the justification doesn’t hold.

Truth means following the law even when the outcome isn’t convenient. It means considering your fellow citizen in every decision — not just the ones that fit your agenda.

And let’s talk about workshops. I can’t imagine the council skipping another one, especially when our own city attorney recommended it. Based on his bio, he certainly should know what he’s talking about. He advises the city leaders on ethics, contracts, land use, and finance, and has previously prosecuted felony cases in Harris County. His résumé shows he understands both complexity and accountability. This moment is a test — not just of process, but of principle. We need an attorney who follows the law — all of the law — with clarity, consistency, and courage. The public is watching, and many are still holding space for truth to take the mic.

Ultimately, that’s what honest governance demands. Not just compliance with what’s comfortable. But commitment to what’s right. That means honoring all laws, even when they complicate things. It means considering your fellow citizen in every decision. It means refusing to play procedural shell games to protect convenience.

If you hold a seat of public trust and these standards feel burdensome, maybe ask yourself — why?

Because the cost of discomfort is momentary. The cost of dishonesty? It’s the erosion of public trust.

Govern with grit. Govern with clarity. Let truth be the standard — not just the slogan.

In the upcoming City Council meeting, line item #7 quietly reads: “Consider for approval — Take Action on JEDCO Board Membership.” It may sound routine, but beneath the surface lies a decision with real consequences for governance, legality, and public trust.

At the last meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Demarcus Holmes made a motion to retain three legally appointed JEDCO members — Lequin Hilderbrand, Ronald Sample, and Jennifer Miranda — alongside four long-standing individuals who have remained on the board despite lacking lawful reappointment. As Holmes put it, they’ve “been there seventeen, twenty thousand years.” His motion would leave ten seats to be filled — two picks per council member.

JEDCO has operated with seventeen seats since 2008, thanks to a maneuver that raised eyebrows even then. And while the number hasn’t changed, what should have changed is the membership. Several individuals have served well past their terms — not because they’re unqualified to return, but because they were never properly reappointed as outlined by law. And frankly, one would hope that the first qualification for serving on a public board is a commitment to follow the law. When that commitment is disregarded so blatantly, it doesn’t just raise doubts locally — it feeds a broader narrative of corruption and erodes public confidence in every level of leadership. If adherence to the law isn’t at the top of the list, then maybe it’s time we revisit what qualifies someone for public service in the first place.

What’s more concerning is the reasoning offered by Councilman at Large Lequin Hilderbrand during the recent workshop. He suggested reapproving the old members to manage the “open files” while the new members are groomed. If that’s the rationale, then the public deserves to ask: groomed for what, and by whom? This isn’t mentoring — it’s gatekeeping. And if legacy members are being held in place as handlers, not peers, then we’ve replaced transparent governance with a private club wearing public skin.

During the meeting, Holmes’s motion was seconded immediately by Hilderbrand and proxy member Bob Mayhar followed with a quick “good choice” — no names listed, no debate. Councilwoman Angel McCroskey rightly challenged the legality of voting on a blank motion. When pressed for clarification, City Attorney Billy Morian responded that it “should have been addressed in the workshop.” Holmes amended his motion to table the issue.

I reviewed this past year’s agendas related to JEDCO, and each one listed clear, precise descriptions — until now. So what exactly is the action being considered? Is the council showing up to discuss when the workshop will be held, as recommended by City Attorney Billy Morian? Or are we witnessing yet another attempt to sidestep process while the public watches in silence?

At what point do our leaders learn the lesson? If you’re walking in truth and serving every citizen, why all the shenanigans?

What does line item #7 actually mean?

Are we still trying to ratify board members who were never legally reappointed?

Why has the reappointment process been ignored — year after year?

And what exactly are the “open files” that require grooming to be understood?

We must demand transparency — not just in outcomes, but in how decisions are made.

Because public trust isn’t restored with vague motions or quiet votes. It’s restored with truth, legality, and leadership that stands in the light.

In a city where trust in leadership is already on shaky ground, moments like this only add to the frustration. During the recent City Council meeting, Wade Nguyen of Son Asian Bistro presented his request for a code variance regarding the placement of a handwashing sink. But instead of directly addressing the actual reasoning stated in his application, the discussion sidestepped a key detail that was right in front of every council member.

His application states:

“We believe washing hands is not a private matter. The architect has designed a modern approach to the washroom. The relationship between the landscape, tall glass door, and water pond next to the community-shared lavatories brings about a conversational piece for Jasper public to experience something different and avant-garde, meanwhile respecting and preserving gender needs.”

Looking up the terms used in the request, such as avant-garde and preserving gender needs, only adds to the uncertainty surrounding this appeal. These phrases suggest a broader ideological or artistic vision rather than a straightforward request for a code variance, making it unclear what the actual intent is.

Avant-garde refers to new, unusual, or experimental ideas, especially in the arts. It can describe artists, movements, or artworks that break with tradition and challenge existing ideas, processes, and forms. These works are often met with resistance due to their radical nature.

“Preserving gender needs” or “preserving gender equality” refers to the concept of ensuring that policies, programs, and initiatives take into account and address the specific needs and experiences of individuals based on their gender.

Yet, this reasoning never came up during the meeting. Instead, the conversation avoided the core argument and focused on vague explanations that felt more like an effort to steer attention away rather than address the issue directly. Why? That’s the real question.

Let’s also not forget that JEDCO gave Nguyen $250,000 — public funds that were invested into his establishment. Given that level of financial backing, wouldn’t transparency and full disclosure about his business plans be the bare minimum expected from both JEDCO and city leadership?

Even more interesting is a March email from Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand to the city manager, where he described Nguyen’s plans for the property as “not your typical Jasper type establishment.” That alone signals that those in power were aware that this would be something outside the norm, yet they still proceeded without making that information fully clear to the public.

This isn’t about personal opinions on business decisions or lifestyle choices — it’s about leadership holding itself to a standard of transparency and accountability. When details are intentionally avoided or downplayed, it creates a narrative of secrecy, leaving citizens to wonder what else isn’t being openly discussed.

At the very least, Jasper’s leaders owe straightforward answers to the people they serve. If discussions like this continue to dance around the truth, what confidence can the public have that future decisions will be made in the best interest of the community?

While I am grateful that the council ultimately voted no on the appeal, the issue of transparency within our elected officials remains. Leadership should not shy away from open and honest discussions, especially when taxpayer funds and city regulations are involved. The people of Jasper deserve clear answers — not selective dialogue that leaves important details unaddressed.

At the end of the day, isn’t this just about handwashing and hygiene? A communal sink isn’t preserving anything — it’s simply a design choice. And design should not be used as a vehicle to push a narrative or ideology, especially when public funds and city regulations are involved. Just wash your hands.

The people of Jasper deserve better.

Conversation starts at 1:49

For years, Jasper has operated under the assumption that JEDCO must have 17 board members. But at the city council meeting, for the first time, the city attorney made it clear: “It is within the executive decision of the city council to appoint the number of people on the board.” He continued, “you don’t have to come up with 17 appointments or 17 board members. State law requires at least 5. We don’t have to have 17 members on the board of JEDCO. If you read the legal opinion, 17 is a larger number than what is common in most municipalities.”

This statement finally confirms what many have questioned since 2008 — Jasper’s government has been operating under long-standing directives without scrutiny, following what they were told rather than ensuring compliance with state law. Now that the truth is out, the real question is whether the council will take this opportunity to rethink the board structure or continue relying on outdated assumptions that have gone unchecked for years.

Although Councilman Bob Mayhar dismissed the suggestion with a smug “Interesting take”, Councilwoman Mamie Horn’s suggestion was one of the most logical approaches to addressing this issue: remove the entire board and allow them to reapply. Horn, who has openly acknowledged that she is still learning as a new councilwoman, may not have been fully aware that the board members are appointed, not part of an application process. But her reasoning remains sound — clearing the board ensures that council members can independently decide whom to appoint moving forward.

With Ronald Sample, Jennifer Miranda and Lequin Hilderbrand, the three legally seated board members already in place, the council only needs two more appointments for JEDCO to finally be compliant. Yet, as frustration grows over the months-long delay, the question remains — will council members follow state law and move forward, or will they hold out in hopes of reappointing the same regime that has kept Jasper stuck in this situation for years?

Also remember – If citizens are unhappy with the way the mayor or any council member is handling themselves in office, they don’t have to wait for a general election to take action. A recall can happen at any time, allowing the people to demand accountability when leadership fails to serve the community.

Start video at 1:12:53

Leadership is a privilege, not a guarantee. When elected officials fail to act in the best interest of the people, we have the power to hold them accountable. The recall process exists for a reason — it’s a tool for citizens to remove officials who engage in incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office.

Here’s how it works in Jasper:

– A recall petition must be signed by at least 30 percent of voters from the last municipal election, but no fewer than 150 signatures.

– The petition is filed with the city secretary, who then presents it to the city council within five days.

– The official facing recall has the right to request a public hearing to respond to the charges.

– If the petition meets the requirements, an election is scheduled, and the people decide.

I’ve reached out to the city secretary regarding the recall process and am waiting on her response. She had a couple of questions for the Secretary of State, which means we’ll have official clarification soon. As soon as I receive her reply, I’ll share what I learn because understanding our rights as citizens is the first step to holding leadership accountable.

As Americans, we’ve been conditioned to believe that once an elected official wins, we have to accept whatever they say or however they vote until the next election. But that’s not true. Democracy is ongoing, and accountability doesn’t end once the ballots are counted. If officials fail to serve the people, we have the right and the responsibility to hold them accountable — whether through demanding transparency, speaking out, or when necessary, pursuing the recall process.

This process ensures that public officials remain accountable to the people they serve. If the city council fails to act in the best interest of Jasper, we, the citizens, are their bosses, and we have the right to act accordingly.

The future of Jasper should be shaped by integrity, transparency, and leadership that truly serves the community. If those in power refuse to listen, we have the tools to make our voices heard.

The conversation about JEDCO’s accomplishments will continue, but first, we must appeal to our city council. Tomorrow night, the council will hold a workshop, followed by a vote on the future of the JEDCO board of directors. Each council member’s decision will reflect whether they prioritize Jasper Now—the concerns of the citizens living here today—or Jasper Forward—the vision for what Jasper could become. But true progress doesn’t mean choosing one over the other; it means ensuring economic decisions serve both the present community and Jasper’s future.

Over the years, there have been citizens who have stood up and asked questions about certain things happening in and around our community, only to be shut down by the system. Instead of transparency, we continue to see a pattern of deflection and questionable decision-making—public funds being allocated with little oversight, decisions being made behind closed doors, and leadership dismissing concerns rather than addressing them.

We ask questions not out of hostility, but because we deserve answers. Economic development funds should serve the community as a whole, not be funneled into ventures that benefit only a select few. I receive private messages daily—people sharing records they’ve requested, situations they’ve experienced firsthand. The information being put forward isn’t coming from just a handful of voices—it’s coming from many, and it should have raised serious concerns among our elected officials.

And yet, here we are again—facing the decision of whether to truly clean house or simply shuffle names while keeping the same underlying issues intact. Councilman Hilderbrand has voiced concerns about leaving 8 or 9 holdovers to help with “open files”—but what open files? Councilwoman McCroskey made a valid point: when a new administration takes over, they don’t hold onto previous officials for continuity; they take care of business. If we truly want accountability, then the entire illegal JEDCO board must be removed, not just adjusted. We must also recognize that there are still legal board members—Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand, Ronald Sample, and Jennifer Miranda—who should be part of a legitimate, transparent process moving forward.

I personally have not had any business experience with JEDCO, but I have seen how its decisions have affected not just those who have dealt directly with them, but the community as a whole. The consequences go beyond individual businesses—JEDCO’s influence shapes Jasper’s economic future, and that demands transparency, accountability, and leadership that genuinely prioritizes the public good.

Did you know that in 2008, JEDCO themselves decided to give back half of their allotted tax monies to be used for road maintenance? Not long after, they requested the funds be returned to them. Did they ever contribute to maintenance and repair? Because looking at the state of our roads today, the town sure could use it now. This is just one example of how taxpayer funds have been shuffled around with little transparency, leaving the community to wonder whether economic development is truly serving Jasper as a whole.

I love Jasper the way it is. I love the rural small-town life and the sense of community that comes with it. But instead of constantly gambling with taxpayer money on projects that may or may not land on the right numbers, why not focus on the here and now? We need decisions that strengthen the current Jasper—not just abstract plans that may or may not materialize in the future. Smart economic development serves both the Jasper we know and love today and the Jasper we hope to build for tomorrow.

We will continue asking questions until those responsible are held to the standard all officials should meet when using taxpayer money. The future of Jasper should not be dictated by secrecy—it should be built on integrity, public trust, and decisions that serve the people, not private interests.

The conversation about JEDCO’s accomplishments will continue, but first, we must appeal to our city council. Tomorrow night, the council will hold a workshop, followed by a vote on the future of the JEDCO board of directors. Each council member’s decision will reflect whether they prioritize Jasper Now — the concerns of the citizens living here today — or Jasper Forward — the vision for what Jasper could become. But true progress doesn’t mean choosing one over the other; it means ensuring economic decisions serve both the present community and Jasper’s future.

Over the years, there have been citizens who have stood up and asked questions about certain things happening in and around our community, only to be shut down by the system. Instead of transparency, we continue to see a pattern of deflection and questionable decision-making — public funds being allocated with little oversight, decisions being made behind closed doors, and leadership dismissing concerns rather than addressing them.

We ask questions not out of hostility, but because we deserve answers. Economic development funds should serve the community as a whole, not be funneled into ventures that benefit only a select few. I receive private messages daily — people sharing records they’ve requested, situations they’ve experienced firsthand. The information being put forward isn’t coming from just a handful of voices — it’s coming from many, and it should have raised serious concerns among our elected officials.

And yet, here we are again — facing the decision of whether to truly clean house or simply shuffle names while keeping the same underlying issues intact. Councilman Hilderbrand has voiced concerns about leaving 8 or 9 holdovers to help with “open files” — but what open files? Councilwoman McCroskey made a valid point: when a new administration takes over, they don’t hold onto previous officials for continuity; they take care of business. If we truly want accountability, then the entire illegal JEDCO board must be removed, not just adjusted. We must also recognize that there are still legal board members — Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand, Ronald Sample, and Jennifer Miranda — who should be part of a legitimate, transparent process moving forward.

I personally have not had any business experience with JEDCO, but I have seen how its decisions have affected not just those who have dealt directly with them, but the community as a whole. The consequences go beyond individual businesses — JEDCO’s influence shapes Jasper’s economic future, and that demands transparency, accountability, and leadership that genuinely prioritizes the public good.

Did you know that in 2008, JEDCO themselves decided to give back half of their allotted tax monies to be used for road maintenance? Not long after, they requested the funds be returned to them. Did they ever contribute to maintenance and repair? Because looking at the state of our roads today, the town sure could use it now. This is just one example of how taxpayer funds have been shuffled around with little transparency, leaving the community to wonder whether economic development is truly serving Jasper as a whole.

I love Jasper the way it is. I love the rural small-town life and the sense of community that comes with it. But instead of constantly gambling with taxpayer money on projects that may or may not land on the right numbers, why not focus on the here and now? We need decisions that strengthen the current Jasper — not just abstract plans that may or may not materialize in the future. Smart economic development serves both the Jasper we know and love today and the Jasper we hope to build for tomorrow.

We will continue asking questions until those responsible are held to the standard all officials should meet when using taxpayer money. The future of Jasper should not be dictated by secrecy — it should be built on integrity, public trust, and decisions that serve the people, not private interests.

Taxpayer dollars were used to cover utilities for the Goodman Prison Unit, a government-funded facility. Why?

Public funds should be reinvested into the community, not subsidizing expenses for a state-operated institution.

Where’s the justification?

How was this decision made?

If leadership is spending tax money to support a government facility that already has funding, the public deserves answers.

JEDCO spent $869,496 to purchase land for a sports complex—not because the public asked for it, but to “see how people reacted.” Nearly $870,000 of public money was used on a project that wasn’t even confirmed to be wanted by the community.

Was this truly about meeting a need, or was it just a pet project pushed forward without real input?

How does this spending make sense when Jasper has urgent priorities that deserve funding? If public money is being used, the public deserves answers.

City council members take an oath to serve the people. They campaign on promises of transparency, integrity, and leadership. But once they settle into office, who are they really voting for?

Time and again, decisions made in city halls across America seem less about public good and more about appeasing the powerful few — the ones who fund their campaigns, hold influence behind closed doors, and quietly dictate the future of our communities.

We’re told that government is “by the people, for the people.” But how often do everyday citizens truly shape the outcome? When policies are pushed forward despite public outcry, when backroom deals override common sense, and when leaders refuse to act in the interest of the voters, what does that tell us?

It tells us that in Jasper, as in so many places, the council isn’t just a governing body — it’s a tool for those who already control the game.

This isn’t just about frustration. It’s about accountability.

If city leaders won’t stand for the people, then the people must stand for themselves. They must recognize that power doesn’t belong to a select few — it belongs to the voters. The recall process exists for exactly this reason. Public pressure exists to make elected officials remember who they work for.

And if they don’t listen, they don’t deserve to lead.

It’s June 2025, and somehow, JEDCO still has the same board that has been in power for over a decade. How? Why? And more importantly — how much longer are we willing to let this continue?

JEDCO is scheduled to meet tomorrow evening, June 3rd. Not only to hear reports on certain projects but also to discuss “Beall’s”. While a new clothing store would be nice, is that really enough to appease us into staying quiet and letting them continue as they always have?

Unfortunately, this is beyond a little bit of retail.

For too long, people have been distracted — focused on everyday life while decisions that directly impact them are made behind closed doors.

JEDCO board members know they shouldn’t still be there. They know the public has lost trust in their decisions. Yet, they remain in power and that must change.

At what point do they admit the truth? How many more public records and undeniable facts need to be shown before accountability happens?

As citizens of Jasper, we need to decide how we want to continue with our city government because, ultimately, we make the decisions. I’ve received countless messages about wrongdoing, but there’s a lingering belief that Jasper will never change. And that’s exactly how they want it — because if people believe change is impossible, they won’t bother holding anyone accountable.

JEDCO and their illegal board, defined by the laws that govern the rest of us, continue to meet as if they are the backbone of this community’s success. But they know the truth — once the people decide to stand up and hold them accountable, it’s game over.

And let’s be clear — JEDCO exists only because the city council allows it to. JEDCO President Danny Walker himself has confirmed this, and legal opinions back it up. The power to remove this board rests entirely with city council, yet they refuse to act. Why?

It is shocking that there’s such a struggle to remove a board that is voluntary in the first place. If they wanted to put all of this to bed once and for all, why wouldn’t “the illegals” (JEDCO board) call for a forensic audit and shut the so-called haters up?

Of course, they’ll scream about wasting the people’s money — but after all the funds that have flowed unchecked, after all the waste, how much does a forensic audit really cost? In fact, if they truly had nothing to hide, they could even ask the FBI to do it for free.

More importantly — whether JEDCO remains a corporation or those funds are returned to the people should be a decision made by the people and the representatives they elected to serve them. Road maintenance alone would be a huge improvement for the community. The fact is, public money should be spent based on the will of the people — not controlled by a board that operates with zero accountability.

Yet, it’s apparent that our elected officials will vote to keep the status quo in place for their own gain. Whether it’s about money, power, or connections, they all have their reasons to vote against the law and against the people they were elected to represent.

But change doesn’t happen because a handful of voices demand it — it takes all citizens coming together to decide the fate of our community. No single person, no small group, can force change alone. If we truly want something different, we all must stand together and take control of our future.

There’s nothing wrong with demanding accountability. It’s not a personal attack — it’s a necessary process for change. The same board members have held power for 16 years, and that must end. If the people later decide JEDCO should be dissolved, that’s their choice. But right now, the council must be held accountable.

They are elected officials, and the only way to ensure accountability is for the people to stand up and band together. Their legacy will not withstand a recall.

The time for waiting is over. The time for accepting excuses is over. The people hold the power, and it’s time to take it back. No more distractions, no more delays — Jasper’s future is in the hands of those who refuse to be silenced.

JEDCO partnered with NuvadermRX, committing $65,491.50 on a 36-month term with the promise of five full-time employees.

Was the full term completed?

Were five full-time positions maintained for the entire contract period?

If not, were the funds reimbursed, or was this another financial loss for JEDCO?

Another JEDCO-funded project — another financial failure. In 2003, JEDCO loaned Platinum Silk Hair Products $150,000, expecting repayment in 90 days. But repayment never happened. Over the years, promises were made, extensions were granted, assets were taken as collateral — then later given back — yet the loan was never recovered.

What does this say about how public funds are managed? What accountability exists when business deals fail? Is the taxpayers’ money reimbursed by JEDCO?