A LUST FOR THEFT THAT SHOWS NO SIGNS OF SLOWING

November 27, 2019

More Allegations Against Councilwoman Jada Andrews-Sullivan.  The Councilwoman’s lust for theft has shown no signs of slowing

 

 

In May, during the campaign for District 2 City Council we asked what seemed at the time an odd question. Jada Andrews-Sullivan, WHO ARE YOU? We highlighted the then candidate’s use of over 10 aliases in her troubled past. We also discovered a myriad of evictions levied against the councilwoman in years past. The most troublesome thing we uncovered however was the Councilwoman’s penchant for writing hot checks and stiffing businesses for services rendered. Who writes a hot check to Pizza Hut? Jada Andrews-Sullivan does. In the short time since we profiled then candidate Andrews-Sullivan; the voters spoke, and Jada Andrews-Sullivan defeated challenger Keith Toney in a runoff and became the new District 2 City Councilwoman.

 

 Photo: Twitter


It seems however, that the Councilwoman’s lust for theft has shown no signs of slowing. Since becoming a City employee paid by the tax payers, this grifter has been accused by several people of receiving bad checks from her or on her behalf, or not being paid for services that were rendered to the Councilwoman.

In July, Sylvia Lopez; a veteran block walker and Andrews-Sullivan campaign worker, claimed the newly elected Councilwoman stole $4,200 from her after reporting the pay checks were quote “forgeries.” At the time the Councilwoman’s staff claimed that the campaign fundraiser illegally signed checks to make payments. She claims four checks were taken out of the checking account she deposited the money into. Talk about throwing someone under the bus.

In August; after Ms. Lopez received media attention with her claims, a settlement was reached between Ms. Lopez and Councilwoman Andrews-Sullivan.


 

That brings us to the present. According to a recent report by KSAT 12, the Councilwoman has found a new victim. A check bearing the signature of District 2 City Councilwoman Jada Andrews-Sullivan was marked “not authorized” last month, prolonging a months-long pay dispute with a campaign employee who helped get her elected this summer.


Hmmmm sounds awfully familiar.

Le Reta Gatlin-McDavid; who served as a field coordinator for Andrews-Sullivan’s runoff campaign and then joined her city staff as Director of Community Outreach, has accused the Councilwoman of writing her a bad check and stiffing her out of $170. The $170 check was supposed to be the final payment owed to McDavid for her work on the campaign. When McDavid deposited the check into her account, it was returned as “not authorized” and her bank charged her a $12 fee.

Although she has received the $170 she was owed, Ms. McDavid is still awaiting reimbursement on the $12 fee she incurred from her bank as a result of the check she received.

In response to the Councilwoman’s claim that she’s just a disgruntled employee. “Disgruntled not at all, Disappointed Most Definitely!! It was a bit disturbing to find out that the Councilwoman was dissatisfied with my work because I was never written up or even a verbal reprimand for what I was doing incorrectly, and the only indication was the phone call to my husband from the Councilwoman to let me know that October 1st would be my last day”.

 

McDavid’s True Feelings

In light of the fact that McDavid was a District 2 staff member during the period in which another campaign worker; Sylvia Lopez, leveled similar accusations towards the councilwoman, the SA Observer asked McDavid, at any point did she feel that she could be in that situation knowing that she herself was still owed money from her work on the campaign?

 “No, because we actually had proof that we walked and canvassed for the Councilwoman and they did not, so again it was surprising to find out they had been paid for work that had not been proven, but the team that she and Eartis Eaglin walked with everyday had not been paid. It was concerning that I was continually asked for and provided each and every time the invoices for 3 weeks of canvassing whenever I asked both her and Lou Miller (then treasurer of her campaign and current Chief of Staff) when was my team going to get paid. Especially after my Staff pay was decreased without any notice the pay for July 30th, a fundraiser had been held and I still was not on the list to be paid”, says McDavid.

When asked about any regrets about working for the councilwoman or for her campaign, McDavid says, “I am not sure regret is the correct term, but I do feel like the wool had been pulled over my eyes. The person that I walked with every day for over 3 weeks whose vision included what is best for the community is not the same person who allows her Chief of Staff and other staff members to curse out constituents and then side with the staff member”.

“I would have still worked just as hard for any candidate that portrayed a heart for this community, but I knew immediately when in the Staff meeting, we were told we could no longer call the Councilwoman directly, we had to go through Lou Miller, Chief of Staff, and even though we all looked at her for her response, she said nothing. I knew the direction of her heart and the person leading District 2 had changed”.

Given all of the past issues the Councilwoman has had in her personal finances and the current allegations, we asked McDavid if she felt that Andrews-Sullivan was equipped to handle a budget such as District 2’s. Her response, a simple “No I don’t”.

 

Responsible for millions of dollars

Merriam-Webster defines a pattern as: a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution. Based on this definition, I believe it’s fair to say that Councilwoman Jada Andrews-Sullivan has exhibited a pattern of either fiscal irresponsibility or willful ignorance when it comes to paying for services rendered. This is a pattern that is evident in her personal life and as has followed her into politics. She is responsible for the allocation of millions of dollars in public funds.

We all make mistakes. The measure of who we are is how we account for our mistakes, acknowledge them, and take the appropriate steps to learn from and ensure that they aren’t repeated. This Councilwoman seems to be incapable or unwilling to be accountable for her mistakes. Everything can’t possibly be someone else’s fault.

 

Councilwoman’s Ethics

 

The five core values of public administration includes ethics.  All elected officials should adhere to a code of ethics. In order to function properly as an organization, the official must be held to a high degree of ethical standards. Specifically, ethics calls for officials/administrators to display integrity, and be mindful of laws and regulations. Furthermore, this must be accomplished in order to successfully practice and promote transparency of government. Unfortunately, the importance of ethics in government is usually shown when public officials violate laws or regulations.  Because of these instances, we are constantly reminded of the importance of ethics in public administration.  This is a core value is missing in Councilwoman Andrew-Sullivan’s. 

 

Red flags have waved at us from the beginning of the Councilwoman’s journey to secure the D2 seat.  Perhaps the Councilwoman should wave her white flag and accept this failure of leadership.  D2 voters deserve a heck of a lot more.

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Our Clients

Web Design by JTARA

 2019 Publishing Company

© 2023 by "This Just In". Proudly created with Wix.com