Chinchillas and Checkbooks: The Lucky Chinchilla

If you have followed this series, you already know that I have been mapping the overlap between local public officials, nonprofit leadership, and federal funding in Ouachita Parish. One name that has come up more than once is Herbert Guillory.

Guillory, who also has connections to the Southside Economic Development District board, holds leadership roles in a network of Monroe-area nonprofits, including the Northeast Louisiana Black Chamber of Commerce and the Monroe Regional Black Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations have received ARPA funding through the Ouachita Parish Police Jury.

While working through his nonprofit involvement, I pulled the Form 990 for another nonprofit organization he leads: Mu Tau, Inc. What I found there is the subject of this post:

Mu Tau, Inc. is a Monroe-based 501(c)(3) connected to the Omega Psi Phi fraternity. According to its most recent Form 990, Herbert Guillory serves as president.

The organization’s stated mission is to assist the Mu Tau Chapter with programs in education, community uplift, health initiatives, and social action.

Public records also show that Mu Tau received $62,500 in ARPA funding from the Ouachita Parish Police Jury. The federal point of contact listed on parish performance and expenditure reports is an email address that appears to be associated with Guillory.

What stood out to me on the 990 was not the just another organization associated to Guillory receiving ARPA funding. It was also the gaming.

According to the filing, Mu Tau reported $197,908 in gross revenue from charitable bingo during the 2024 tax year.

The organization does not operate the gaming itself. The 990 shows that 100 percent of gaming activity takes place at an outside facility through a third-party contractor called White Co Gaming, located at in West Monroe.

Here is where the numbers get interesting.

The 990 reports that while Mu Tau received $197,908 from the gaming operation, White Co Gaming retained $304,474.

Charitable gaming in Louisiana is regulated under the premise that the proceeds benefit the licensed organization’s charitable mission. So I looked at what Mu Tau actually distributed.

According to the same Form 990:

Scholarships to college-bound students: $1,850

Test prep, study skills, and tutoring: $26,000

Health initiatives, anti-violence, and human trafficking programming: $29,900

Other community programming and disaster response: $19,615

Total program service expenses came to $51,365.

The $1,850 in scholarships represents less than one percent of the gross gaming revenue reported for the year per my understanding.

Even when combining scholarships with test prep and tutoring, the total student-facing expenditure comes to $27,850, or about 14 percent of gross gaming revenue.

Governance Observations

The 990 also discloses several items related to organizational governance.

Of the five voting members of the governing body, zero are listed as independent. The organization reports that it does not have a written conflict of interest policy. It does not have a written whistleblower policy. It does not have a written document retention and destruction policy.

None of these policies are legally required for every nonprofit. However, the IRS asks about them on the Form 990 because they are considered standard practices for organizations handling significant public-facing revenue.

None of these findings, taken individually, prove that any laws have been broken.

Louisiana charitable gaming is regulated by the Louisiana Office of Charitable Gaming. Organizations operating under a charitable license are expected to use gaming proceeds to further their stated charitable purposes. When an organization reports half a million dollars in gaming activity and distributes less than two thousand dollars in scholarships, that is a question worth asking.

Who is benefiting from this arrangement? Is it the students the mission describes? Is it the community the filing references? Is it the third-party operator that retains the majority of gaming revenue? Is it someone else entirely?

I do not have the answer. The 990 raises the question. The public, and the regulators responsible for charitable gaming oversight, deserve a clearer one.

This post focuses narrowly on Mu Tau because the numbers on a single filing are striking enough to stand on their own. The broader picture, including the network of Monroe-area nonprofits where Guillory and others hold overlapping leadership roles that tie back to OPPJ, is the subject of further reporting that is forthcoming.

I am not an attorney or an accountant. This post reflects my interpretation of publicly available records, specifically Mu Tau, Inc.‘s Form 990 for tax year 2024 as published on ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer. Additional documentation or context may exist. All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing. This content is intended to promote transparency and accountability & readers are encouraged to do their own research to form their own opinions.

Chinchillas and checkbooks

Part One: The Chinchilla Meets the Police Jury

This is some of the groundwork behind my latest findings. There will be more to come soon.

At first glance, a chinchilla rescue group and the Ouachita Parish Police Jury do not seem like they would have much in common.

One rescues small animals. The other oversees millions of taxpayer dollars.

But after spending time digging through public records, leadership lists, and ARPA funding approvals connected to several organizations in Ouachita Parish, a pattern starts to appear. The same small group of people shows up again and again across nonprofits, businesses, and public funding decisions.

One example is Ross Slacks, who is listed as the organization leader for the Ouachita African American Historical Society, the nonprofit connected to the African American Museum in Monroe.

But that is not the only place his name appears.

Public filings show he also serves as:

• A Director of the Little Theatre of Monroe

• The Vice President of the NELA Music Association

• And an officer with NELA Chinchilla Rescue

Yes… a chinchilla rescue.

That last one might make you pause for a second.

Of course, being involved in multiple community organizations is not unusual. Many people volunteer their time in different places. But it does highlight something about the local nonprofit landscape. The same individuals often appear across several organizations.

And when federal funding starts flowing into that ecosystem, those connections become more relevant.

ARPA Funding and the Police Jury

Records from the Ouachita Parish Police Jury (OPPJ) show that several organizations connected to this network either received or were considered for funding through the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

Some examples include the following.

Ouachita African American Historical Society / Museum

• $59,416 Economic Hardship Project

• $199,000 Community Programming initiative

The hardship project motion was proposed by Police Juror Lonnie Hudson and seconded by Juror Larry Bratton.

Northeast Louisiana Black Chamber of Commerce

• Up to $250,000 in ARPA funding for workforce development.

That motion was proposed by Police Juror Michael Thompson and seconded by Lonnie Hudson.

Audit records later show that corrective action was recommended in May 2024 related to the organization.

Police Jury minutes from a July 24, 2023 special meeting show a motion approving the vetting of an NAACP financial hardship project for ARPA funding.

That motion was proposed by Lonnie Hudson and seconded by Michael Thompson.

The minutes do not list a dollar amount or additional details about the project.

Looking through the meeting minutes, another pattern begins to stand out.

In several cases:

• Lonnie Hudson and Michael Thompson appear to take the lead in proposing or advancing ARPA related initiatives

• Larry Bratton frequently provides the second needed to move the item to a vote

This same sponsorship pattern appears across several community related projects, including those connected to:

• The African American Historical Society

• The NAACP

• The Northeast Louisiana Black Chamber of Commerce

• The Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)

• The Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation

When Leadership Overlaps

There are also examples where leadership roles overlap between government and organizations receiving public funds.

For example, Michael Thomas serves as a District D Police Juror while also appearing associated with leadership connected to the Northeast Louisiana Black Chamber of Commerce, which later received up to $250,000 in ARPA funding.

Situations like this naturally raise questions about conflict of interest safeguards, recusal policies, and oversight procedures when taxpayer money is involved.

Shared Addresses and Organizational Hubs

Another detail appears when reviewing Secretary of State filings.

Several nonprofits, foundations, and private companies connected to this network appear to be registered or managed from the same small group of addresses across Monroe and West Monroe.

For example:

(Redacted) Glenwood Drive, Monroe

This residential address appears repeatedly in filings connected to Kenya Roberson and several organizations tied to the regional chamber network. Entities connected to this location include the Northeast Louisiana Chamber of Commerce and related nonprofit and business organizations.

(Redacted) Music Road, Monroe

Multiple organizations associated with Sonya and Ivory Jacobs list this residential address as their business location, including consulting businesses and nonprofit initiatives.

It is not uncommon for nonprofits or small businesses to share office space or administrative services. Still, when several organizations tied to the same leadership network operate from a small number of locations and intersect with public officials and federal funding, it naturally draws closer attention.

None of these connections alone prove wrongdoing.

However, taken together they show a very interconnected civic network where a relatively small group of individuals appears repeatedly across nonprofit leadership, community initiatives, and public funding decisions.

When federal relief funds are part of the picture, transparency matters.

Because whether the topic is economic recovery, workforce development, or even a chinchilla rescue, the public deserves to understand how decisions about taxpayer money are made.

Disclaimer:

The AI generated chinchilla graphic included with this article is intended as satire and humor and does not represent or depict any specific induvial>

When the Audits Start Squeaking

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or an accountant. This article reflects my understanding of the public records that are currently available to me. I am still waiting on records requested in February, so this investigation only includes documents that have been turned over so far and my interpretation of them.

Government works best when the public can clearly see how decisions are made.

The documents reviewed here raise questions about financial oversight, nonprofit compliance, and how federal relief funds have been distributed in Ouachita Parish.

None of these issues automatically mean that wrongdoing occurred. But they do highlight the importance of clear reporting, consistent oversight, and transparency from those entrusted with public funds.

When millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, the public deserves answers.

The Ouachita Parish Police Jury is responsible for overseeing millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. This includes federal pandemic relief money, infrastructure spending, and parish contracts.

Six elected jurors make those decisions.

At the same time, state corporate filings show that several businesses connected to those jurors have experienced administrative issues with the Louisiana Secretary of State. Some entities appear in state records as “not in good standing” or “revoked.”

These filings offer a glimpse into the overlap between public leadership and private business compliance among the officials responsible for managing parish finances.

But the business filings are only one part of the story.

A review of financial statements, nonprofit tax filings, and ARPA grant documentation reveals several questions about how federal pandemic relief funds have been administered in Ouachita Parish.

Audit Findings Raise Questions

The 2022 Independent Auditor’s Report for the Ouachita Parish Police Jury identified concerns related to financial reporting.

Auditors issued an adverse opinion related to the Jury’s discretely presented component units. According to the report, the financial statements did not include financial data for several legally separate entities for which the Police Jury is financially accountable. Because of that omission, the financial position of those component units could not be reasonably determined.

Auditors also noted discrepancies in the Police Jury’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, often referred to as the SEFA. The management letter reported differences between reported federal expenditures and expected totals. This suggests weaknesses in how federal funds were being tracked.

These findings matter even more when you consider the amount of federal funding involved.

$29.7 Million in Federal ARPA Funding

The Ouachita Parish Police Jury received approximately $29.7 million through the American Rescue Plan Act, also known as ARPA. This federal program was designed to help local governments and communities recover from the economic and public health impacts of COVID-19.

These funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and fully spent by December 31, 2026.

To help manage the program, the Police Jury approved a $500,000 contract with Hunt, Guillot & Associates on April 4, 2022. The contract covers ARPA administration and project consultation services.

ARPA performance reports categorize the agreement as a definitive contract, listed as Subaward No. HGA 1, with a performance period running through December 21, 2026.

By the first quarter of 2024, parish records show that $193,431.94 had already been spent from the consulting budget.

HGA’s role includes reviewing proposed projects, determining whether they meet federal eligibility guidelines, and monitoring grant recipients for compliance.

This places the consulting firm in the middle of the process that connects the Police Jury’s oversight with the nonprofit organizations receiving ARPA funding.

ARPA Grants and Nonprofit Networks

Some of the projects reviewed through the ARPA program involved funding requests from nonprofit organizations. These include the Monroe Regional Black Chamber of Commerce and the Northeast Louisiana Black Chamber of Commerce.

In May 2024, the Police Jury approved a corrective action plan recommended by HGA regarding the Northeast Louisiana Black Chamber of Commerce and its use of ARPA funds.

Corrective action plans are typically used when additional documentation or reporting adjustments are needed in order to meet federal grant requirements.

Another organization connected to ARPA funding is the Ouachita African American Historical Society.

Public records show that the organization received:

• $59,416 in economic hardship funding
• $199,000 for community programming

State corporate filings show that the organization has appeared in Secretary of State records as “Not In Good Standing” because of missing filings.

Administrative issues like this can sometimes be resolved by submitting updated paperwork. Still, it raises questions about whether regulatory compliance was considered during the grant review process.

Additional connections also appear among businesses and nonprofit leadership tied to entities operating from 348 Music Road. Several companies managed by Sonya and Ivory Jacobs share leadership connections with organizations involved in ARPA funding discussions.

Questions About Spending Transparency

Once funds leave the Police Jury’s accounts, it becomes more difficult to track how that money is ultimately spent.

Tax filings from the Ouachita African American Historical Society’s 2024 Form 990 show that the organization reported $311,302 in total expenses.

Of that amount, $272,749 was categorized simply as “Other Expenses.”

Multiple years of filings, including 2019, 2022, and 2024, contain identical explanations in Schedule O stating that the category was used to provide a more detailed listing of expenses.

However, the filings themselves do not actually break down those expenses into separate categories. Instead, most of the organization’s spending is grouped together in a single line.

Public filings also show that the organization reported taking out a loan in 2020 in order to remain solvent. This occurred shortly before the organization received more than $250,000 in ARPA-related funding.

Nonprofit reporting rules do allow certain expenses to be grouped together. Still, the lack of detailed breakdowns makes it difficult for the public to see exactly how those funds were used.

The Bigger Picture

Taken together, these records highlight several issues connected to the administration of federal pandemic relief funds in Ouachita Parish.

These include:

• An adverse audit opinion related to financial reporting
• Discrepancies in federal expenditure tracking
• A $500,000 consulting contract tied to ARPA compliance
• Nonprofit grant recipients with regulatory compliance issues
• Limited transparency in nonprofit spending reports

Ultimately, responsibility for approving contracts, grants, and funding decisions rests with the six elected members of the Ouachita Parish Police Jury.

As nearly $30 million in federal relief funding continues to move through parish programs, the strength of those oversight systems will determine how effectively the public can track where that money goes and how it is used.

The Invisible Owner

I am not an attorney or an accountant. This article is based on publicly available records from the Louisiana Secretary of State, Louisiana Department of Insurance, Louisiana Board of Ethics, and publicly accessible online profiles and business listings. If additional documentation exists that was not publicly accessible at the time of this review, I welcome it. I encourage readers to review the records themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Michael S. Thompson is a well-known figure in Ouachita Parish. He serves as an elected Police Juror, a pastor at Olive Branch Baptist Church, and presents himself publicly as a business owner in the bail bond industry. His official government biography identifies him as the owner of Celebrity Bail Bonds, and public-facing materials reinforce that image.

Online business listings show Celebrity Bail Bonds operating out of 2101 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Monroe, Louisiana. Photos associated with that listing show individuals inside the office wearing shirts branded with “Michael Thompson Bail Bonds,” along with signage displaying his name. These images create a clear visual association between Michael Thompson and the bail bond operation presented to the public.

However, when those public representations are compared to state records, a different picture begins to emerge.

A review of Louisiana Secretary of State filings shows that Michael S. Thompson’s name does not appear as an owner, manager, or officer on either Celebrity Bail Bonds, LLC or Michael S. Thompson Bail Bonds, LLC. Instead, Celebrity Bail Bonds is registered under Teresa Rachal, while Michael S. Thompson Bail Bonds lists LaTrial Thompson as its manager. This does not automatically indicate wrongdoing, but it does raise a reasonable question about the difference between public representation and legal ownership.

The timeline of the business also presents a discrepancy. Public statements and profiles suggest that the bail bond business began in 2016. A LinkedIn profile associated with LaTrial Thompson lists her role as owner and manager of Michael Thompson Bail Bonds beginning in July 2016, describing responsibilities that include handling bonding paperwork, coordinating with courts and law enforcement, and managing daily operations. However, state records show that the LLC was not registered until March 6, 2018. It is possible for a business to operate informally prior to formal registration, but the difference between those dates is notable and raises questions about how the business was operating during that time.

Licensing records add another layer to the situation. Louisiana law requires bail bond producers to hold an active license and operate under a surety company. The only agency license identified in connection with this network appears to be tied to Celebrity Bail Bonds, which lapsed on March 31, 2024. At the time of review, no active individual producer licenses were found for Michael S. Thompson, LaTrial Thompson, or Teresa Rachal. The available records also show no active surety backing associated with the agency at the time the license lapsed. This creates uncertainty about who, if anyone, was legally authorized to write bonds after that date.

When looking beyond the bail bond businesses, a broader pattern begins to take shape. Over several years, multiple businesses connected to Thompson appear to follow a similar cycle. One entity becomes inactive, revoked, or dissolved, and another is formed shortly after, often with overlapping addresses or associates. A funeral home registered in 2021 operated without filing annual reports and was later revoked in 2024. A transportation company was then registered the same year the funeral home was revoked and is already listed as not in good standing due to failure to report. This type of pattern does not by itself prove misconduct, but it is consistent enough to warrant closer attention.

The funeral home, Serenity Memorial Funeral Home, presents its own set of questions. Public records show that it existed for several years without filing required reports before being revoked. At the same time, there appears to be little to no public footprint tied to its operations. No online presence, reviews, or verifiable records of activity were found during this review. That absence does not confirm that the business was inactive, but it does make independent verification difficult.

Another layer of concern comes from required ethics disclosures. As an elected official, Thompson is required to file annual personal financial disclosure statements. Those filings list his role as a pastor, but do not disclose ownership or involvement in any of the businesses identified in state records or reflected in public-facing materials. This creates a noticeable gap between what is publicly presented and what is formally reported. Whether that gap is the result of oversight, interpretation, or something else is not clear from the records alone, but it is a question that deserves clarification.

The involvement of Teresa Rachal also adds complexity. She appears as the legal owner of Celebrity Bail Bonds as well as other bail bond companies that are now revoked or not in good standing. These businesses share the same address and appear to operate within a connected structure. No individual producer license was found under her name in the available records. This raises the possibility that multiple entities may have relied on a single agency license, which has since lapsed.

None of these findings, taken individually, prove that any laws have been broken. However, when viewed together, they point to a series of inconsistencies involving ownership, licensing, reporting, and business continuity. These are not conclusions, but they are valid questions based on public records.

When an individual holds public office while also operating or representing private businesses, transparency becomes especially important. The public has a right to understand who owns those businesses, whether they are operating within regulatory requirements, and whether all required disclosures have been made.

This article is not an accusation. It is a presentation of publicly available information and the questions that naturally arise from it. If there are explanations, clarifications, or additional records that provide context, they should be part of the conversation as well.

I encourage anyone reading this to look into these records themselves, verify what is available, and come to their own conclusions. Accountability works best when the public is informed and engaged.

When the paper trail gets furry

Chinchillas & Checkbooks: Part Two – The Paper Trail Gets Furry


Please note that these are my notes and I am not an attorney nor CPA. I am open to corrections. I did reach out to Mr. Thompson but never received a reply.

If you read my last post, you already know I found that Michael Thompson publicly claims ownership/involvement with two bail bond businesses, but his name does not appear on the legal documents for either one. Instead, you’ll find Teresa Rachal on the listings.

Here is what I found when I kept digging.

There Was a License. It Was Revoked.

Using the Louisiana Department of Insurance’s public regulatory actions database, I found a formal Notice of Revocation issued in December 2022 against Jacquez Rachal, Teresa Rachal’s son. He operated out of the same 2 Cypress Drive address as her bail bond businesses.

According to that public document, about 75 days after receiving his bail bond license in 2018, he was involved in a fugitive apprehension in Monroe where a man was shot in the leg and required emergency surgery. He was arrested on two felony charges and later pleaded guilty in 2022. The document also states that he failed to report his conviction to the state as required by law. His license was officially revoked on December 5, 2022.

This means that, based on public records, he held an active license for roughly four years while criminal charges were pending.

A Nonprofit With No Financial Trail

Public records show an organization called the Edward Mitchell Foundation, a Monroe-based 501(c)(3). Listed officers include Teresa Rachal, Jacquez Rachal, and another individual connected to this network.

According to ProPublica’s nonprofit database, the organization no longer appears on the IRS’s current list of tax-exempt entities, and there are no financial filings available.

I am not saying that means anything improper happened. Organizations can lose tax-exempt status for many reasons. I am simply pointing out that the public record does not show the kind of financial activity you would normally expect from an active nonprofit.

Six People. 37 Days. $270,738.

This is the part I want to approach carefully because it involves a federal program.

Using public federal databases, including ProPublica’s PPP tracker and PandemicOversight, I found that six individuals connected to this investigation received PPP loans within a 37-day period in the spring of 2021.

Receiving a PPP loan is not illegal. Many people did. What stands out in the records is this:

Based on my review of Louisiana Secretary of State records, I could not find businesses registered to these individuals that match the industries listed on their applications.

Teresa Rachal and LaTrial Thompson, who are connected through the same bail bond network, both listed the exact same industry, “Beauty Salons,” on applications submitted through different lenders.

Four of the six applications were processed through the same lender within a 13-day window.

Edward Mitchell’s loan, totaling $173,690, was marked as charged off, which means it was not repaid according to public records.

I am not making any legal conclusions. I am simply sharing what the records show and where they raise questions that I am not qualified to answer.

Why It Matters

When a public official’s name is tied to businesses, associates, and financial records that raise this many unanswered questions, I believe the community has a right to see what the public records show.

I may have missed something. There may be explanations I am not aware of. If that is the case, I am open to hearing them.

Sources: Louisiana Secretary of State, Louisiana Department of Insurance, ProPublica PPP Tracker, PandemicOversight.gov, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer

Nothing in this post is a legal conclusion or an accusation of criminal conduct. This is based entirely on public records available at the time of publication. Readers are encouraged to do their own research and form their own opinions based on such.

The Thirsty Chinchilla

The Southside Economic Development District, also known as SEDD, is a public entity with a governing board. That board participates in decisions tied to development and plays a role in how opportunities and resources are directed within the community. Because of that, board membership carries public responsibility.

One of the individuals connected to SEDD is Herbert Guillory. Public records show that Guillory has also held leadership roles in multiple nonprofit organizations in the Monroe area, including the NE Louisiana Black Chamber Foundation and the Monroe Regional Black Chamber Foundation. These organizations have received substantial public funding through ARPA allocations.

ARPA funds were distributed locally through the Ouachita Parish Police Jury. That brings in another key figure, Michael Thompson. As a Police Juror, Thompson participates in votes, motions, and funding approvals. Records show that ARPA funding supported by that governing body went to organizations where Guillory holds leadership roles.

This does not prove wrongdoing and it does not suggest that any funds were misused. What it does show is that a public official involved in funding decisions and a nonprofit leader connected to organizations receiving that funding are operating within the same local governance ecosystem. That overlap is a matter of public interest because transparency is essential when public funds are involved.

During a SEDD board meeting, members discussed hiring a company called Evobrand for website work. In that same meeting, a board member asked whether anyone on the board had any relationship with Evobrand. That question was raised publicly and entered into the record. Guillory responded that he had no ownership in the company.

In a separate legal filing unrelated to SEDD, Evobrand stated that they had previously worked with Guillory on a website project which made me wonder why it wasn’t disclosed as a possible conflict of information.

This creates a straightforward question. When a vendor is being considered for public work, and a relationship is raised during a public meeting, and separate records show prior collaboration, were all relevant relationships fully understood or disclosed at the time decisions were being made.

When I checked the history of the SEDD website, I could see that it temporarily went offline as being under construction. This aligned with the timeline in which SEFD paid over $4,000 for their website rebuild. However, when the website returned online, there were minimum changes… if any at all.

When you step back and look at the full picture, the records show public funding flowing through local governing bodies, nonprofit organizations receiving that funding, individuals serving in leadership roles across those organizations, and those same individuals participating in or connected to public boards.

This post does not claim that any laws were broken, that any funds were misused, or that any individual acted improperly. It highlights overlapping roles, shared involvement in organizations, and connections between public boards and funded entities. It raises questions about transparency, disclosure, and how decisions are made when public money is involved.

I am not an attorney or an accountant. This post reflects my interpretation of publicly available records. Additional documentation or context may exist. All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing. This content is intended to promote transparency and accountability.