Documents Reveal That The Current NCIF Board Is Committing Many Of The Same Wrong Actions As the NCIF Board They Replaced
And the people of Natchitoches are paying a high price.
By Edwin Crayton/Opinion
When it comes to making wrong moves or violating bylaws and the judgement, the current NCIF Board and the previous NCIF Board look so much alike they could practically be identical twins. I went through court documents, articles and other information to see just how much so. Here is what I found.
In 2023, according to court documents, Harold’s Bayonne’s organization called Citizens for Democratic Action (CDA) along with Helen Obioha, filed suit against the Natchitoches Community Improvement Foundation (NCIF). Bayonne was a key person in the suit. That suit alleged many offenses against the previous NCIF Board.
One of the things the suit sought to do was to get the court to make NCIF comply with the court’s original judgement which says that minutes are to be regularly published in the newspapers. But today, the current NCIF Board headed by Bayonne doesn’t regularly publish the minutes of their meetings either. Publishing the minutes is important, because NCIF’s purpose is to distribute money from a settlement, awarded after Tennessee Gas was involved in a pcb spill into Sibley Lake, drinking supply for the City of Natchitoches. This money was designated to be distributed through grants and scholarships to people living in the city limits of Natchitoches. In short, this money is meant to help you, the citizen. It is supposed to cover the areas of recreation, housing, economic development and education. Therefore, because this money is designated to benefit you, you have a right to know what is going on in the meetings and you have a right to access these funds.
The suit also sought to get the court to make the previous NCIF board “conduct valid elections”. But the current NCIF Board recently held an election in February, in which it invited the public to send in nominations. The public was also invited to attend the election because all quarterly meetings are open to the public. Then, at the actual election, the public was told to leave the room and the election was held in secret. Does that sound like a “valid election”? Also, there were 7 board members present and it is a 15-member board. You need a majority to have a quorum. That would be 8, not 7.
The suit sought to “cure all improper filings with the IRS, and to maintain timely filing of such forms in the future”. In short, the old board had lost its nonprofit 501(c) 3 status. They needed to file the paperwork to get it back. In 2023, after the board was changed by Judge Jimmie Peters, this current board was court ordered also to file those papers. At the July meeting I asked Bayonne if they had attained 501 (c) 3 status. He said no, but they were working on it. For two years? Bottom line, like their predecessors, who they criticized for not having the IRS 501 (c) 3 status, this board doesn’t have it either.
Bayonne and CDA in the suit asked the court to make sure that the previous NCIF Board “conduct its meetings in a public fashion outside of “executive session” except where clearly allowed by law.” What was happening was that the old NCIF Board conducted lots of business in closed meetings —executive sessions—it became excessive. But the current NCIF Board does something similar that has the same effect of excluding the public and getting things done in secret. They hold “called meetings” which are authorized by the bylaws. These are meetings in which only members can attend. The public is excluded and it is legal and proper. But they seem to do them obsessively. Either type of meeting, the public is excluded.
The previous board did not have a certified public accountant report there were unaccounted for transactions. However, there were unaccounted for funds originating from an NCIF Board that preceded their taking office. There was an audit in 2014 when Leo Walker was chairman. At that time, a CPA’s report said that $19,500 was unaccounted for. But, as I said, Walker’s NCIF Board was not connected to those unaccounted-for funds, as I understand it. It seemed to be a problem they inherited. But the CPA who did that audit, Mark Thomas recently reported that this current NCIF Board, has $22,345 in unaccounted for transactions. Based on what I’ve found so far, this board has even more money unaccounted for than any previous NCIF Board.
The previous NCIF Board did not allow much input from the public at quarterly public meetings. Citizens had to wait until the end of the meeting to give comments or ask questions. By then, the decisions had already been made. This current NCIF Board in its first quarterly meeting of the year, allowed input throughout the meeting. And yet, in the last two meetings, just like their predecessors, the board generally has made citizens wait until the end of the meeting to ask questions and give input. It’s basically the same as the board they replaced.
Clearly, they don’t like their actions to be questioned. In fact, at the July 14, 2026 meeting Bayonne said that he was thinking of banning me from the meetings. I asked him why he would try to ban a member of the public from a public meeting and he made it clear it was because of the articles I write about NCIF. Apparently, Bayonne didn’t feel that way about the articles from this column when he was trying to change the previous board. He used an article from this column in his suit as an exhibit against that board. Now his NCIF Board is committing many of the same offenses that one did, and so naturally, that is showing up in this column. Obviously, some of these board members don’t like it when they’re questioned about their actions. Well, have they ever heard of a little thing we Americans are fond of and believe in called freedom of speech? Public meetings are about letting the public ask questions—even questions some board members won’t like. Truth is, some of the people on the old board often talked to me in angry tones like that too. Déjà vu.
The previous NCIF Board did not give written treasurer’s reports at its quarterly public meetings. This current NCIF Board doesn’t give them at quarterly meetings either. Even though they manage and distribute over 2 million dollars of money designated for the citizens of Natchitoches. You know, the only reasons I can think of that you would not have treasurer’s reports at a public meeting—especially when it involves that much money—is that you’re unprofessional, or, you don’t want the public to know what is going on with the money. Or, all of the above. Without treasurer’s reports, it’s hard to track what’s going on with the money. Is it any wonder $22,345 is unaccounted for in an environment where there are no written treasurer’s reports? I recently asked Bayonne once, how much is in the fund now. He guessed it was between 2 and 3 million. Guessed. We need something on paper. Both boards got this wrong. The public found it hard to access funds in the previous NCIF Board. Same with this one. Both boards have given away very little money to the people of Natchitoches. More than a few citizens have made the comment to me that they believe the biggest beneficiaries of these funds have been lawyers, not the public.
Yes, the old NCIF Board and current NCIF Board are like twins. Too much like twins. It’s about time that changed. Attend meetings. Ask for grants. Ask for scholarships. Ask questions and keep asking.
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” -Ecclesiastes 1:9
Attend church this Sunday. God has a message for you. God bless you.
The opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Natchitoches Parish Journal or its associates.