NEW IBERIA: The Curious Case of the Missing Investigation

The controversy in New Iberia is no longer about any one employee, appointment, or allegation. It is about whether citizens are entitled to see evidence that government investigations actually occurred or whether they are simply expected to accept assurances that everything has been handled.

For months, allegations involving the failure to act concerning Brady issues within the department by 16th Judicial District Attorney Michael Haik, false state supplemental pay certifications and amended personnel records by Mayor Freddie Decourt and Police Chief Todd D’Albor, and the inactions of the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board have circulated through the City, multiple law enforcement agencies, and federal courthouses. Yet with each new development, another question seems to emerge.

Now some of those questions have reached the courthouse. Or at least they were supposed to.

Hearing Postponed

A hearing on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Cassie Duhon was scheduled to be heard last week before a District Judge, but has been postponed at the parties’ request. The lawsuit seeks an order compelling the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board to investigate allegations it previously refused to examine. The significance of that lawsuit extends far beyond any single allegation.

The suit does not ask the court to determine whether Chief Todd D’Albor committed malfeasance in office or other misconduct that may constitute a criminal violation. It does not ask the court to determine whether Morgan Delcambre improperly received state supplemental pay. It does not ask the court to determine the existence of or whether Brady information is being withheld by the District Attorney. Instead, it asks a more fundamental question: When citizens present allegations and request an investigation, can the Civil Service Board simply refuse to investigate, as it has in these situations? That narrow legal question has become the center of a much larger controversy.

The Brady Allegations

Although recent attention has focused on supplemental pay and amended personnel records, the controversy traces back to allegations involving Brady materials. We submitted public records requests seeking records, reports, memoranda, investigative documents, and correspondence concerning allegations that a member of the New Iberia Police Department had falsified or provided false information in an affidavit or warrant application. Additional requests sought communications between the New Iberia Police Department, the 16th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Louisiana Attorney General concerning those allegations and any completed investigations.

The response from the Police Department was notable. The Department did not simply state that no records existed. Instead, it advised that the requested records could not be released because they pertained to “pending criminal litigation that has not been adjudicated” and invoked Louisiana’s criminal-investigation exemption. That response was difficult to reconcile with representations made only weeks earlier.

That was in early March of 2026. Chief D’Albor and his attorney appeared before the Civil Service Board and represented that investigations into the matter had been completed and that no wrongdoing was determined. Not by his office. Not by the District Attorney. Nor by the Attorney General.

If allegations serious enough to invoke an ongoing criminal investigation exemption after the City represented the investigations were complete, what investigations actually occurred? Who conducted it? What conclusions were reached? To date, those answers remain cloaked in secrecy.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

The unanswered questions eventually came before the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board. Duhon filed a petition seeking the Board’s investigation into multiple allegations involving members of the classified service. The petition was later amended to include six separate grounds for investigation. Among them were allegations concerning state supplemental pay received by Morgan Delcambre, the step-daughter of Chief Todd D’Albor.

The petition alleged that D’Albor appeared before the Municipal Police Officers’ Supplemental Pay Board and represented that Delcambre had been hired as a Transportation Officer, a position involving inmate transport and the care, custody, and control of prisoners. According to the petition, that representation served as the basis for Delcambre’s approval to receive an additional $600 per month in state supplemental pay. The Board was asked to investigate.

Instead, the Board declined to investigate any of the six grounds presented. That refusal is what ultimately led Duhon to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the District Court. The court is now being asked to determine whether the Board may decline to investigate allegations within its jurisdiction.

The Records Started Changing

The Delcambre issue might have been viewed as an internal personnel dispute by some, but for what happened next. Following the filing of the complaints, amended Personnel Action Forms appeared. The new forms attempted to revise Delcambre’s employment history and reflected that she had been hired as a Transportation Officer from the outset. Earlier records had reflected service as a Records Clerk.

The explanation offered was that the original records contained a “clerical error”. Then another issue surfaced. The amended Personnel Action Forms included a specific statement that Delcambre had achieved an 82% score on the civil service examination, which remained valid until April of 2023. We requested records supporting the score.

The City responded that, after further investigation, they determined that no such test score existed. That admission created an entirely new controversy. The issue was no longer merely whether records had been amended to correct a “clerical error.” The issue was that the amended records contained false information unsupported by the underlying documentation. Many of those questions continue to linger.

Delcambre Terminated, Pellerin Removed

Delcambre’s employment with the City of New Iberia Police Department was subsequently terminated on April 20, 2026. The reason provided in the remarks is “self-explanatory.” However, ending the employment relationship doesn’t automatically end the controversy.

Another appointment called into question was that of Patrol Commander Seth Pellerin. Pellerin was appointed to the post in December of 2024, after the Civil Service Board created the new position with guidance from the Office of the State Examiner. Then, in October of 2025, Mayor Decour and Chief D’Albor represented that Pellerin had completed a “working test period” seeking to make his appointment permanent.

The only problem is a little thing called the law. In order to be considered for permanent appointment to a position, members in the classified service must take a test administered under the guidance of the Office of State Examiner, receive a passing score, have that score certified by the local Civil Service Board, and then be selected. None of that happened.

State Examiner Declares Actions Unlawful

The City was advised by the Office of State Examiner that the appointment process did not comply with civil service law. Shortly thereafter, Chief D’Albor, with Mayor Decourt present, asked the Board to approve Pellerin’s appointment anyway, and the Board did so. The very Board responsible for ensuring the fair treatment of all members of the classified service disregarded the law. They ignored the fact that they never called for a test; a test was never administered; there were no passing test scores to certify; and, most importantly, that they don’t even possess the authority to appoint anyone and were bent to the will of Chief D’Albor. Whether intentional or not, the result was a process that bypassed every safeguard designed to ensure competitive appointment and avoid favoritism.

The matter was raised again at the March 2026 meeting of the Board, where Board President Peter Kracke pointed out that the Office of State Examiner advised the Board that it was violating the law by not calling for a test. We again asked for test scores, this time for Pellerin, and something miraculously happened. Pellerin was removed from his position, with Mayor Decourt stating the position was no longer necessary. Decourt went even further; he told the Civil Service Board they should not call for a test (a decision that rests solely with the Board), and he stated the position would no longer be funded (a decision that rests solely with the Council).

Complaints Spread Beyond City Hall

As concerns mounted, complaints were submitted to multiple agencies. Some were directed to Mayor Decourt and the Iberia Parish Sheriff, Tommy “Tax Man” Romero. Others were submitted to the 16th Judicial District Attorney Michael Haik and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murriel. While others went to a few alphabet agencies with jurisdiction over these matters.

Some agencies acknowledged receipt. Others remained silent. None publicly disclosed what actions, if any, were being taken. On April 29, 2026, after receiving a complaint concerning the Delcambre records, Mayor Freddie DeCourt responded with a brief but significant statement:

“Action is being taken.”

Naturally, that response generated another question: What action?

If Mayor Decourt takes any action against Chief Todd D’Albor, it would require him to provide notice of the investigation and comply with the Police Officers Bill of Rights for it to have effect.

The Investigations That No One Can See

A subsequent public records request sought records reflecting whether Chief Todd D’Albor had been notified that he was the subject of an investigation. The City did not respond by stating that no investigation existed. Instead, the City Clerk advised that the records were being reviewed to determine whether the Louisiana criminal investigation exemption applied, as they may relate to an ongoing criminal investigation.

That response is significant for a simple reason. It was not the first time government officials had invoked criminal-investigation protections in connection with allegations involving the department. Months earlier, the Police Department invoked similar protections when records concerning allegations against Detective Mitchell were requested.

Taken together, the responses create an unusual situation. When citizens ask for records, they are told investigations are ongoing. If citizens ask about the allegations, they are told the allegations have been reviewed. When citizens ask for findings or records indicating that an investigation has started, those records become difficult to obtain.

Everyone References an Investigation, But No One Can Provide It

Adding to the confusion are statements made during the Civil Service proceedings. The City of New Iberia, through its attorney, represented to the Civil Service Board in February of 2026 that both the Louisiana Attorney General and the 16th Judicial District Attorney had investigated the allegations and found no wrongdoing. This was at the time they were trying to prevent the Board from proceeding with an investigation into the Duhon complaint.

More recently, District Attorney Mike Haik reportedly later told members of the Police Department that there was no wrongdoing and that they should “let it go.”

Where are the records documenting those conclusions?

Public records requests seeking communications and investigative materials have produced no documentation indicating who conducted the investigations, which records were reviewed, which witnesses were interviewed, or what findings were reached.

One public records request submitted to the 16th Judicial District Attorney’s Office on December 31, 2025, sought records relating to communications with the Attorney General concerning allegations involving former New Iberia Police Department employee Coquina Mitchell. Nearly half a year later, the records have not been produced. All while the campaigning District Attorney is telling officers within the department they just need to ‘let it go.’

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation that every allegation has been thoroughly investigated. It’s possible that every complaint has been reviewed and found lacking. Perhaps every decision made by City officials will ultimately be vindicated. If so, producing the findings should resolve much of the controversy. Then again, perhaps the complete opposite of what we are being told is the truth.

The public has watched allegations met with executive sessions, complaints met with refusals to investigate, amended records appearing after questions were raised, people removed from positions once test scores are requested, criminal-investigation exemptions invoked in response to records requests, and a mandamus lawsuit filed seeking to compel the very investigation citizens requested and are entitled to under the law in the first place.

The Questions Won’t Go Away

This story is no longer simply about the allegations concerning Morgan Delcambre or Coquina Mitchell. It is not even primarily about Chief Todd D’Albor, Mayor Freddie Decourt, or District Attorney Michael Haik. Those names are all attached to the current controversy, but the larger issue is accountability.

Every government agency eventually faces allegations of misconduct. The true test is not whether allegations are lodged but what happens afterward.

• Have the allegations been investigated?
• Are the findings documented?
• Are the records preserved?
• Were the results disclosed?
• Is swift and appropriate action taken?

Perhaps there are complete investigative files sitting in a government office somewhere. Perhaps every allegation has been thoroughly examined, and every decision will ultimately be vindicated. If so, producing the records would likely end much of this controversy.

Until then, citizens are left with something far less satisfying: allegations that were supposedly investigated, investigations that cannot be identified, conclusions that cannot be documented, and records that remain difficult to obtain.

In New Iberia, the questions simply refuse to go away.

Unfortunate timing, for some.

###