Repeated Audit Failures

St. George Firefighters
May 7, 2025
6 min read

Updated: May 8, 2025

Audit Exposes Troubling Financial Mismanagement at St. George Fire Department

ST GEORGE, LA — The latest audit of the St. George Fire Protection District paints a disturbing picture of financial mismanagement, repeated violations of state law, and fiscal irresponsibility at the highest levels of leadership — all while the department continues to spend taxpayer dollars suing its own firefighters.

Among the most alarming findings:

Bond Payment Failures: The district violated its $16.5 million bond agreement by failing to make required monthly sinking fund deposits, breaching its debt service covenant. While leadership eventually made a lump-sum payment, this failure raises serious concerns about their financial discipline and trustworthiness.
Budget Violations: The audit found that the district’s budget violated the Louisiana Government Budget Act, adopting a spending plan where expenditures exceeded available funds — a clear breach of state law.
Internal Control Lapses: Auditors flagged serious weaknesses in internal controls, including credit card charges that were not properly reviewed or approved. This opens the door to potential misuse of public funds.
Litigation: Some years showing as much as HALF A MILLION DOLLARS in litigation for the year.
Repeat Offenses: Many issues were noted in prior years, yet leadership has failed to stop racking up violations, signaling either negligence or a disregard for accountability.
Here are a few concerning noncompliance notes:

In accordance with R.S. 39:1310, an adopted budget must be amended whenever notification is received pursuant to R.S. 39:1311, or whenever there has been a change in operations upon which the original adopted budget was developed.

--Condition: Actual expenditures in the General Fund had an unfavorable variance of 67.9% of the original and final budgeted amounts.

--Cause: The budget was not amended when actual revenues were less than the budget by more than 5%.

--Effect: The District is noncompliant with the Louisiana budget law.

In accordance with Louisiana R.S. 39:1311, Louisiana Governmental Budget Act (LGBA), political subdivisions are required to monitor the adopted budget and duly authorize adopted amendments to the budgets for all legally adopted budgets. Additionally, management of the political subdivision is required to advise the governing authority to adopt a budget amendrnent, in writing, for all legally adopted budg,ets when the following, conditions exist: • Total revenues and other sources plus projected revenues and other sources for the rernainder of the year, within a fund, are failing to rneet total budgeted revenue and other sources by 5% or more. • Total actual expenditures and other uses plus projected expenditures and other uses for the rernainder of the year, within a fund, are exceeding the total budgeted expenditures and other uses by 5% or rnore. • Actual beginning fund balance, within a fimd, fails to rneet estimated beginning fund balance by 5% or rnore and fund balance is being used to fund current year expenditures.

--Condition: The District's actual expenditures and other uses for the year exceeded total budgeted expenditures and uses by 27% or $7,112,227. Additionally, the District did not advise the governing authority to adopt a budget arnendrnent.

--Cause: The District's General Fund budget was not amended when actual expenditures and other uses were projected to exceeded budgeted expenditures and other uses by greater than 5%.

--Effect: The District is not compliant with the LGBA.

In accordance with R.S. 39:1307, Louisiana Local Government Budget Act, a political subdivision that proposes a budget to expend $500,000 or more from the General Fund or any special revenue fund is required to give notice via its official journal that the budget is available for inspection at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

--Condition: The District published its proposed budget in its official journal for the fiscal year on September 16, 2020, preceding the public hearing which was held on September 24, 2020. As a result, the District only allowed the publication to be made available for 8 days prior to the public hearing.

--Cause: Notice of the proposed budget in the official journal was not provided for at least 10 days prior to the public hearing regarding the proposed budget.

--Effect: The District may not be compliant with the Louisiana Local Government Budget Act.

Louisiana Revised Statute 39:1225 requires the amount of security shall at all times be equal to one hundred percent of the amount of collected funds on deposit to the credit of each depositing authority except that portion of the deposits insured by any governmental agency insuring bank deposits which is organized under the laws of the United States.

--Condition: At September 30, 2020, the District had deposits at one financial institution that were uncollateralized by $2,733,087.

--Cause: The market value of substituted collateral to cover the shortfall of coverage was not adequate at the time of substitution.

--Effect: The District is non-compliant with fiscal agency and cash management laws.

In accordance with Bond Resolution No. 10-11-2018-01 Section 10 of the District's $16,500,000 Revenue Bond — Series 2018 (Bond) the District shall create a Sinking Fund and deposit sufficient arnounts into the Sinking Fund to pay prornptly and fully the principal of and the interest on the Bond as they becorne due and payable. The required deposits of the Fund are to be paid rnonthly in advance on or before the business day prior to the last day of each month. The required monthly deposits related to the Bond's principal and interest payments are as follows: • A sum equal to one-twelfth (1/12th) of the principal falling due on the Bond's next principal payment date. • A surn equal to one-sixth (1/6th) of the interest falling due on the Bond's next interest payrnent date.

--Condition: The District's Sinking Fund was not funded in 10 of the 12 rnonths during fiscal year under audit. Additionally, the District's Sinking Fund was underfunded by $549,886 at September 30, 2022 based upon required transfers.

--Cause: The District did not deposit sufficient amounts into the Sinking Fund to pay promptly and fully the principal of and the interest 9 of 12 months out of the fiscal under audit.

--Effect: The District is not cornpliant with all debt service covenants as required by the Bond agreement. Although, the District fulfilled all debt service payment obligations of the Bond as due and in full in Novernber 2022 through the utilization of operating cash.

Deepening Financial Deficits: The district is grappling with a general fund deficit exceeding $4.4 million and a staggering long-term debt burden of more than $73 million. Its liabilities far exceed its assets, raising red flags about long-term sustainability. Here is a dive into this debt and how it relates:
A deficit fund balance is a red flag in municipal finance. It signals that:
- The department has been spending more than it brings in, or
- It has borrowed from future revenues to pay current bills, or
- It has used restricted funds or reserves improperly.
In the audit’s own language, they typically caution that such a deficit must be “eliminated in subsequent years” through spending cuts, revenue increases (like new taxes), or other corrective measures.
The $73 Million Total Debt Figure: This comes from the most recent audit (the 2023 report), which listed the total long-term liabilities of the district, including:
- Bonded debt (like the $16.5 million bond)
- Capital leases (fire trucks and other equipment)
- Pension obligations (Firefighters' Retirement System)
- Retiree health benefit liabilities (OPEB - Other Post Employment Benefits)
The report detailed that the combined total liabilities exceeded $73 million when adding these categories together.
Why it's valid: Even though only a portion of that debt is traditional borrowing (like the bond and fire truck lease), GASB accounting rules require the district to report ALL long-term liabilities. So, when we say "$73 million in debt," we’re talking about total obligations, which is standard in municipal audits.
The $16.5 Million Bond: This is a specific loan listed in both the 2020 and 2023 audits. It’s the construction loan earmarked for facilities, trucks, and other capital projects. The audit also mentioned missed payments(MISSED PAYMENTS) tied to this bond, which is a key red flag.
The $7.7 Million Lease for 12 Fire Trucks: In the 2020 audit, this lease agreement is broken out as a capital lease — meaning it's a long-term payment plan where the district essentially “finances” the trucks over time. This added another major liability to the books.
The Net Position Deficit (over $37 Million):The 2023 audit clearly states that the district’s net position (assets minus liabilities) is negative $37+ million. This reflects the total burden of all obligations minus available assets and highlights how deeply in the red the district is overall.

“The audits reveal what we have feared all along — a pattern of mismanagement and a lack of oversight at the very top,” said a Local 4524 spokesman. “While the district’s leadership diverts public attention by attacking its own firefighters, they are simultaneously violating bond agreements, overspending their budgets, and ignoring basic financial safeguards.” All while the Fire Chief takes home a comfortable: $274,677(as of 2023)

Gerard C. Tarlenton,

Fire Chief Salary (including state supplemental pay) 202,395

Benefits - retirement 66,897

Benefits - insurance 5,385

The union points out the cruel irony: while frontline firefighters work 56-hour weeks for modest pay, department leadership misses loan payments, racks up deficits, and pays out six-figure salaries to part-time administrative staff.

“We have said from day one: this is not just about pay equity; it’s about integrity and accountability; this audit should concern every taxpayer in St. George. The department is failing its financial stewardship obligations while dragging its firefighters through unnecessary legal battles. Enough is enough.”

Local 4524 renews its call for the Board of Commissioners to step up or step down, enforce accountability, and begin the process of restoring public trust — starting with serious discussions about new leadership.