There is always news at Shreveport City Hall. It’s only a matter of how hard or easy it is to uncover it.

The Perkins administration has clamped down on city personnel interaction with the media. Marquel Sennet is the media gatekeeper, and often she is dilatory in her responses.

Nonetheless, here are some scoops that are not generally known. Two of these include the city's economic director, Drew Mouton, and the other city attorney, Ron Lattier.

Mouton has been MIA for about a month. Although normally in attendance at city council meetings, Mouton has been a no-show for the last several meetings.

His absence at the mayor's baseball stadium pep rally/announcement that featured about 15 city officials and various other city officials was very noticeable.

Credible sources report that Mouton is on administrative leave resulting from a city personnel charge of sexual harassment. The story goes that while this complaint is being processed, Mouton is a couch potato drawing a very generous city salary.

Mouton has advised by text that any public comments on his employment with the city will be made by Allison Jones his attorney. Jones usually represents persons asserting job discrimination based on race, sex or age. She also is very active in representation of sex harassment claims.

Jones is representing the city's former comptroller, Ben Hebert, in his whistleblower suit against the city.

It’s possible that Mouton may have a whistleblower complaint, but very, very unlikely that he would be on paid administrative leave if he has asserted such a claim.

So much for the mystery surrounding Mouton's unexplained absence. So, now on to the major flip flop by City Attorney Ron Lattier.

Lattier made the TV news after these comments at the Monday (Oct. 24) work session during discussion of the Hustler Hollywood retail location that will soon be opening in west Shreveport.

While explaining the city's sexually oriented business (SOB) ordinance, Lattier became very animated and stated that the city was going to get that establishment if it was, in fact, an SOB. Listening to him, audience members wondered if he had become an auxiliary police officer or maybe a Shreveport Police Department snitch on sexually oriented products.

During that discussion, Lattier's paramour Councilwoman Tabatha Taylor led the morality crusade saying that this type of retail establishment was unwelcome in any district in the city. Her minister Councilman James Green, led the amen chorus that included council members Alan Jackson and Jerry Bowman, Jr.

Lattier's "SOB, go to hell" sermon lasted all of one day.

At the council's regular meeting on Tues. (Oct. 25) Lattier withdrew from the council agenda two proposed amendments to the city's SOB ordinance. Lattier had been under pressure to tighten the SOB ordinance to preclude the opening of another Hustler Hollywood type store in the city and his actions were quite surprising.

Lattier did not offer any explanation for his actions. And he did not say if any other amendments would in the future be offered by his office to the SOB ordinance. And no council members questioned why the amendments were being withdrawn.

These amendments could have been adopted at the next meeting of the council, which will be a combined administrative conference/regular meeting on Monday Nov. 7 -- the day before the primary. No doubt there would have been much public comments on that day and discussion by the council on anything dealing with the SOB.

Hmmmm.

Did Lattier not want public comments, council discussion, and council vote on the SOB amendments the day before the primary for a reason?

Did Taylor, Green, and/or Jackson not want these controversial matters to be front and center on that day? Jackson is on the Tuesday ballot, but not Taylor or Green, who are unopposed. Jackson has blindly followed Taylor and Green on his council votes.

Did the mayor not want any extended council meeting in chambers full of Shreveport voters the day before his paper is to be graded by the voters?

Was Lattier throwing in the towel on what could be a controversial legal issue since he is mostly likely in the last 60 days of employment by the city? (Unless Perkins is re-elected, there is no doubt Lattier will no longer serve as city attorney.)

So much for Lattier's unexplained actions on Tuesday.