Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Attorney General’ Category

No smug satisfaction over DHH debacle, but what were those Senators smoking when they confirmed Bruce Greenstein?

Posted in Attorney General, Contract, Contracts, Governor's Office, Health Care, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, State Agencies on March 30, 2013 | 22 Comments »

If one thinks we’re feeling a little smug right now or that we take any measure of self-satisfaction over the federal investigation at the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), or the no-show status of DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein before the House Appropriations Committee only days after the federal probe became public knowledge, or of Greenstein’s subsequent announcement that he will resign, effective May 1, then one would be wrong.

We take no pleasure in our native state’s once again having the harsh spotlight of official corruption shone upon it for the entire nation to see. We fail to share the self-righteous satisfaction of those who would smile condescendingly and nod and agree that despite the mantle of morality and ethics with which our governor has cloaked himself, nothing has really changed in Louisiana.

As soon as word of the U.S. Attorney’s investigation became public, we knew someone would be thrown under the bus by Jindal. That’s the way he operates. Jindal’s Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols sniffed indignantly that wrongdoing would not be tolerated by this administration as she quickly cancelled the $185 million contract with CNSI, Greenstein’s former employer.

In making that statement, did Nichols intend to admit that the administration may well be aware of legal wrongdoing? If so, why did it take so long? The federal subpoena for all records pertaining to the CNSI contract was served on the administration way back on Jan. 7 but the contract was not cancelled until March 21 and then only after the Baton Rouge Advocate broke the story of the investigation through public records requests for the subpoena.

That’s two and one-half months that the governor knew of the investigation and chose to do nothing until he was outed by the media. So much for the sanctimonious non-toleration of wrongdoing.

And now the governor’s office tries rather unconvincingly to tell us Greenstein was not asked to resign. Sorry, but we’re not buying it. Someone had to fall on his/her sword and the first domino to topple was Greenstein. There may well be others before this little matter is concluded.

Surely Jindal must realize that cancelling a suspect contract and forcing out the man who first made it possible for his old employer to even qualify to bid on it and then remained in constant contact with CNSI management during the selection process isn’t going to convince the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office to fold up their tents and go home.

The Louisiana Attorney General, whose office is conducting its own investigation, maybe, but not the feds. They just don’t quit that easily.

There are, of course, several questions that will have to be addressed by the U.S. Attorney and, depending on whether or not they are satisfied with what they find, indictments may or may not be forthcoming. If there are no indictments, the matter will die a quiet death. If there are criminal indictments, however, the cheese will get binding.

Probably the most important question will be whether or not Greenstein profited monetarily from his participation in the process of first clearing the way for CNSI to submit a bid and then his potential influence in the actual selection of his old company.

On that question, we offer no opinion because matters now are in the legal system and no longer subject to public records requests. We, like everyone else, can only wait and see as the case is slowly unraveled by investigators.

A second question—only if it is determined that Greenstein did indeed profit in some way from the selection of CNSI—would be what did then-Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and Gov. Jindal know and when did they know it? Again, this is not to imply that either man was complicit in any effort to steer the contract to CNSI; it’s simply one of several questions that should be explored.

If felonious wrongdoing is found and if it is expanded to include the governor’s office, then the investigation should—and most probably would—widen to include scrutiny of other state contracts issued since January of 2008.

But there is one question that will not be asked by federal investigators or the attorney general’s office but which should be asked by every voter in Louisiana.

Why was Greenstein confirmed in the first place, given his recalcitrant attitude in refusing a directive to tell a Senate committee the name of the winner of a $185 million state contract?

On June 22, 2011, the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 5-2 to confirm the appointment of Greenstein as DHH secretary despite the confrontation between Greenstein and committee members over committee demands for Greenstein to name the winner of the $185 million contract to replace the state’s 23-year-old computer system that adjudicated health care claims and case providers. http://louisianavoice.com/2013/03/21/fbi-investigation-prompts-jindal-to-cancel-controversial-cnsi-contract-but-now-who-will-be-thrown-under-the-bus/

Only Sens. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, and Rob Marionneaux, D-Livonia, were sufficiently offended and/or concerned about Greenstein’s staunch refusal to divulge to the committee that CNSI had won the contract during his confirmation hearing.

Five other senators, Ed Murray, D-New Orleans; Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe; Lydia Jackson, D-Shreveport; Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge; and Greenstein apologist Jack Donahue, R-Mandeville, all voted to confirm Greenstein. Some, like Donahue, heaped lavish praise on Greenstein.

Sen. Robert “Bob” Kostelka chairs the committee and does not vote unless there is a tie. He offered no comments during the proceedings other than to recognize fellow senators who wished to speak and to preside over the vote.

Jackson, who no longer serves in the Senate, having been defeated for re-election in 2011 by former Sen. Gregory Tarver in 2011, said she supported Greenstein even though “this incident (the standoff between Greenstein and the committee over identifying CNSI) calls into question the issue of transparency. I don’t believe the secretary participated in actions that influenced the outcome (of the awarding of the contract).”

Murray, who voted in favor of confirmation, had peppered Greenstein with questions during his initial appearance before the committee. “The secretary was not completely accurate in his responses,” he said. “But I received numerous calls from all over the country attesting to his ability and professionalism. I hope he can live up to those recommendations.”

Donahue, in supporting Greenstein, simply said, “He will do a great job.”

Peterson, who also serves as Chairperson of the Louisiana Democratic Party, said the number one priority for any appointee should be integrity. She said Greenstein was “not worthy of serving the people of this state.”

Marionneaux, who was term limited and could not run for re-election in 2011, said the confirmation procedure of the committee had been “anything but pristine. Mr. Greenstein was very involved in the process (of selecting CNSI).”

Claitor, who supported Greenstein, said, “This is not a ceremonial committee. We will be watching very closely. If things go awry, we will be the first to speak up.”

Well, Sen. Claitor, things have certainly gone awry. But so far, not a single member of the committee has uttered a peep.

Why is that?

Read Full Post »

Greenstein: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; Richard: CMS says DHH unresponsive to Medicaid questions which, if unanswered, could cost LA. another $800 million

Posted in Attorney General, Budget, Governor's Office, Grant, Grants, Health Care, Public Records on March 24, 2013 | 17 Comments »

Gov. Bobby Jindal may be about to deliver another $800 million kick in the teeth to Louisiana’s working poor with the same tactic he employed in losing that $80 million broadband internet grant: doing nothing.

But then, doing nothing seems to be what he does best these days (see: Bayou Corne; see: gaining traction as a viable presidential candidate for 2016), although he was rather decisive in cancelling the CNSI contract once word of a federal investigation became public knowledge—nearly three months after Jindal became aware of it.

The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), already laboring under the cloud of a federal investigation, is running out of time to qualify for approval of the administration’s sweeping plan to privatize state-run hospitals or risk losing additional federal matching Medicaid funding.

That was the word contained in a letter of Jan. 30 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to Ruth Kennedy, director of the DHH Bureau of Health Services Financing.

State Rep. Jerome “Dee” Richard (I-Thibodaux) said Friday that DHH has never responded to a list of questions submitted by CMS in its letter to Kennedy.

“I just talked to the CMS representatives this week and they have received absolutely nothing from the state,” Richard said. “If they don’t respond to the questions and get approval before the budget is approved by the legislature, the state stands to lose another $800 million—and we’re already a billion dollars in the hole.”

Richard said he encountered DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein recently and Greenstein assured him that everything had been approved.

“Somebody’s lying,” Richard said, “and I don’t think its CMS.”

At the same time, LouisianaVoice has received a copy of a March 18 letter from State Rep. Regina Ashford Barrow (D-Baton Rouge) to the LSU Board of Supervisors “to express grave concerns” over what she described as the failure of the LSU Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC) to receive necessary approval for certain elements of the cooperative endeavor agreement (CEA) facilitating the closure of Earl K. Long (EKL) Hospital in Baton Rouge.

“The clinics receive federal reimbursement for uninsured care, including payment of physicians and physicians in training who deliver that care,” she said. “CMS requires that the clinics be attached to a hospital for the funding stream to flow to cover outpatient care.

“While (DHH) has taken the position that CMS approval is not necessary and is moving forward with plans for Our Lady of the Lake (OLOL) Medical Center to operate the provider-based clinics, there remains the potential to lose significant federal funding for noncompliance with CMS requirements.”

Barrow said states “must meet certain requirements relative to decisions involving any provider, including outpatient clinics, of services under the Medicaid program. The failure to receive CMS approval for the transfer of the EKL attached outpatient clinics and the medical education program may result in loss of services to those most in need.”

Barrow then addressed several questions to the board:

• Has CMS approved the plan for OLOL to operate the clinics? If not, why?

• By proceeding forward without CMS approval, can this result in a disallowance that the state will have to repay?

• If CMS doesn’t approve this endeavor, how will the state satisfy its portion of the contract since the state is already facing a financial deficit?

• Who will provide care for uninsured women since the deal with Woman’s Hospital fell through?

• Who will monitor the entire CEA to ensure that it saves money and meets the benchmarks stated in the contract?

• Could there be any legal ramifications to LSU-HSC board members?

“It is imperative that all parties involved are fully apprised of all the details prior to moving forward with the CEA,” Barrow said. “The process continues to evolve and CMS has indicated that they have not been a part of any recent developments.

It turns out that CMS has a few questions of its own.

“The state plan must be comprehensive enough to determine the required level of federal financial participation (FFP) and to allow interested parties to understand the rate setting process and the items and services that are paid through these rates,” the six-CMS letter said.

Among the requests and questions submitted to the state by CMS were:

• No financial impact was noted due to the proposed revisions. Please provide a detailed analysis of how this determination was made and provide supporting documentation of the calculation;

• Please explain why the state proposed an effective date of Nov. 1, 2012, when no agreements have been signed (note that the CMS letter was written on Jan. 30, 2013).

• CMS must have copies of all signed standard cooperative endeavor agreements. In addition, please provide copies of all signed intergovernmental transfer (IGT), management agreements, MOUs (memorandums of understanding), management contracts, loan agreements and any other agreements that would present the possibility of a transfer of value between the two entities;

• Did the state receive any feedback or complaints from the public regarding the CEA? If so, what were the concerns and how were they addressed and resolved?

• Please provide information demonstrating that the changes proposed (in certain documents) comport with public process requirements. Please provide copies of the legislation authorizing the proposed changes.

• How many entities does the state anticipate will participate in this arrangement? Please submit a list of all participating hospitals, all transferring entities doing the IGT, and the dollar amount that the transferring entities will IGT. Please describe how the hospitals are related/affiliated to the transferring entity and provide the names of all owners of the participating hospitals.

• What is the source of all funds that will be transferred?

• What are the sources of IGT funds?

• Does the state agree to provide certification from the transferring entities that the IGTs are voluntary?

• The Social Security Act provides that the lack of adequate funds from local sources will not result in lowering the amount, duration, scope or quality of care and services available under the plan. Please explain how this proposal complies with this provision.

• Please provide an Upper Payment Limit demonstration applicable to the payments for the current rate period for all classes.

• Please include a detailed narrative description of the methodology for calculating the upper payment limit in the state plan language.

• Please clarify if the state or a hospital service district has issued any proposals or enacted any legislation to support the public-private partnerships. Please submit that documentation for our review.

• Are the hospitals required to provide a specific amount of health care service to low income and needy patients? Is this health care limited to hospital only or will health care be provided to the general public? What type of health care covered services will be provided?

• How did the state determine that the Medicaid provider payments are sufficient to enlist enough providers to assure access to care and services in Medicaid at least to the extent that care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area?

• How were providers, advocates and beneficiaries engaged in the discussion around rate modifications?

• Is the state modifying anything else in the state plan which will counterbalance impact on access that may be caused by the decrease in rates?

• Please provide a list of facility closings and services that are being cut by LSU.

• Please describe how the state share of each type of Medicaid payment is funded. Please provide an estimate of total expenditure and state share amounts for each type of Medicaid funding.

That’s quite a to-do list.

Keep in mind the CMS letter was written on Jan. 30. At that time, LSU and DHH were in negotiations with St. Francis Medical Center in Monroe and Willis-Knighten for their takeover of E.A. Conway Hospital and LSU Medical Center, respectively.

Subsequent to that letter, the state abruptly pulled out of the negotiations and is now on the verge of consummating a deal with Biomedical Research Foundation (BRF) of Shreveport whose incoming president and CEO, Dr. John George, also serves on the LSU Board of Supervisors.

Jindal said that George, who presently serves as vice president of BRF, is not being paid a salary by BRF, so there is no conflict of interest. Current President and CEO John Sharp, however, is paid $275,400 and it is assumed that when George ascends to that position, he will be paid as well.

Greenstein, you may remember, refused to tell a Senate Committee in June of 2011 that his old employer, CNSI, had won a contract with his agency worth more than $184 million.

Faced with not being confirmed as DHH Secretary, he finally relented and told the committee that CNSI was the winner of the contract but then said that he had built a “firewall” between him and the selection process and that he had no contact with CNSI representatives during the selection process.

The committee later learned that he had indeed had ongoing discussions with CNSI executives during the bid process and that Greenstein was even responsible for rewriting the request for proposal (RFP) that made CNSI eligible to submit a proposal.

The circumstances surrounding the awarding of that contract are now being investigated by a federal grand jury.

Now Greenstein tells Richard everything was already done and all is well with CMS.

CMS told Richard it had received nothing from Greenstein or DHH.

And now the FBI and Louisiana Attorney General are investigating Greenstein’s agency.

And the health care of hundreds of thousands of Louisiana’s poor hangs in the balance.

It all comes down to one simple question:

Who do you believe?

Read Full Post »

Letter to U.S. Attorney, LouisianaVoice claims continuing pattern of RFP bid rigging, vendor favortism at OGB, DOA

Posted in Attorney General, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, RFP, Request for Proposals on March 9, 2013 | 20 Comments »

New claims of possible bid rigging and unfair trade practices within the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) and the Division of Administration (DOA), have surfaced in a two-page letter sent to the U.S. Attorney’s office and to LouisianaVoice this week.

OGB is a multi-billion dollar agency which administers health benefit claims for state employees, retirees and their dependents.

If true, it would be the third time in less than two years that insider negotiations have been conducted between a potential bidder, OGB and DOA preparatory to DOA’s issuing a request for proposals (RFP).

A copy of the unsigned, undated letter also was addressed to State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) and to Louisiana Inspector General (IG) Stephen Street, though the writer expressed skepticism over any anticipated action by the IG’s office.

“I am writing as a concerned citizen who has had enough,” the letter said. “I write out of concern that there is something fundamentally wrong with the operations of the Division of Administration. I included the Inspector General out of protocol, but not with the expectation that he will act.”

The letter accused DOA, through OGB of engaging “in a pattern of behavior that has to be, at the very least, unethical” in its dealings with a South Carolina company.

“Within the past few months, the staff of the Office of Group Benefits has been instructed to conduct multiple meetings with a business called BenefitFocus (which is in the business of group health eligibility activity).

“The problem with these meetings is that the blatantly expressed reason for the meetings is the preparation of an RFP on which the company will then bid.

“In fact, in the last meeting,” the writer said, “there was an open discussion on how to either construct an RFP that will yield the company an insurmountable advantage or (that would) make the company a ‘sole source’ vendor that will eliminate competition.”

BenefitFocus is headquartered in Charleston, S.C. and its web page describes it as “the country’s leading provider of benefits technology.” It claims more than 18 million members and 300,000 employers who manage “all types of benefits” through the company which “provides employers, insurance carriers, consumers and government entities with cloud-based technology to shop, enroll, manage and exchange benefits information.

“BenefitFocus clients include small, medium and large employers from all industries, as well as the nation’s top insurance companies,” the website says.

Among the clients listed were Blue Cross/Blue Shield in several states, including Louisiana.
The anonymous writer described the activity between OGB and BenefitFocus as a “pattern,” saying such events have occurred at least twice before.

“The first instance was when OGB (by order of DOA) was looking for a financial advisor. The eventual successful vendor was Goldman Sachs, who had participated in multiple OGB meetings before the bid process and who even had the audacity to help write the RFP,” the letter said.

On April 13, 2011, CNS learned that Goldman Sachs had been active in discussions about the planned privatization of OGB as far back as October or November of 2010. That was about the same time that the idea of privatizing OGB was first floated to then-OGB CEO Tommy Teague in a meeting between then-Deputy Commissioner of Administration Mark Brady, Teague and four representatives of Goldman Sachs.

Teague was fired two days after LouisianaVoice published that story.

When it came time to open the proposals for the project, Goldman Sachs was the only bidder and stood to receive $6 million in fees for its services, whether it was successful in finding a buyer for OGB or not.

Gov. Bobby Jindal eventually rejected the Goldman Sachs bid after details of the Wall Street banking firm’s involvement were made public and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana was ultimately awarded the contract to serve as a third party administrator over OGB’s preferred provider (PPO) organization. BCBS also administers other claims for OGB under a separate contract.

“Earlier in 2012, the letter said, “OGB staff was directed to have multiple meetings with Extend Health, a company in the Medicare Advantage exchange business. The staff attended the meetings and helped answer background questions.

“In later activity with the company, an RFP was drafted (a very narrow drafting) that gave Extend Health a nearly sickening advantage in the bidding,” the writer said. “Of course, Extend Health won.”

Extend Health, the largest private Medicare exchange in the U.S., offers access to multiple Medicare plans for 2013. Retirees who enroll in a Medicare plan through the Extend Health exchange are enrolled in a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) and received HRA credits of $200 to $300 per month from the state up to a maximum of $2,400 per year for single coverage and $3,600 for family coverage.

The credits may be used to pay premiums for Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part B. Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, Medigap plans and dental and vision plans.

LouisianaVoice has made public records requests for copies of all correspondence between OGB, DOA and BenefitFocus.

Let’s see how long it takes DOA to invoke the ol’ “deliberative process” exemption.

Read Full Post »

Need help getting public records from state agencies? Don’t ask Attorney General Buddy Caldwell’s office for assistance

Posted in Attorney General, Computers, Education, Governor's Office, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency on February 22, 2013 | 15 Comments »

The Louisiana Attorney General’s office has more than 80 legal opinions posted online that address the state’s open meetings and public records laws but don’t expect James “Buddy” Caldwell’s office to assist if you run up against resistance from a state agency like, oh say, the Louisiana Department of Education when seeking public records.

When LouisianaVoice recently encountered characteristic foot-dragging by State Education Superintendent in complying with our request for records pertaining to the department’s connections to Bill Gates’ Shared Learning Collaborative and Wireless Generation, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., we asked for a little help from the attorney general’s office.

That help was not forthcoming so we had to go to our fall back plan—our legal counsel, J. Arthur Smith who loves to take on the bureaucracy.

Instead, we received a telephone call from an assistant attorney general somewhere deep within the bowels of the Livingston Building at 1885 North Third Street in Baton Rouge.

The assistant AG was polite enough as she explained that it was not the function of the attorney general’s office to assist the public in obtaining public records from recalcitrant state agencies.

“But, but, you do help when people are attempting to obtain access to public meetings,” we sputtered in disbelief.

“Yes,” she said, “but we are not involved in disputes over public records.”

“Yet you will get involved in enforcing open meeting laws?”

“Yes, that’s different.”

“Wait. What? Different?”

“Yes.”

“But I thought the attorney general’s office would assist Louisiana citizens gain access to public records. Isn’t that the law?

“Where does it say that? We assist with public meetings.”

“You differentiate between public records and public meetings?”

“Yes. We will help with public meetings but we don’t involve ourselves with public records.”

“What’s the difference?”

“There is a difference.”

“What is it?”

“One issue is public meetings while the other is public records.”

Such is the surreal world one encounters when attempting to navigate the bureaucratic red tape of state government.

Yet, when one does a cursory internet search, it is easy enough to find opinion after opinion that addresses the very issue in question—like the following excerpts from Louisiana Attorney General opinions:

• The Department of Insurance must comply with a public records request made pursuant to LA. R.S. 44.1, et seq.

• Square footage obtained by the assessor in the performance of his or her constitutional and statutorily designated duties falls within the definition of a public record provided by the Public Records Act…

• The Slidell Memorial Hospital Foundation is a quasi-public body, subject to the open meetings laws, public records laws…

• Hand-held scanners may be used in the inspection of public records (we threw this one in because Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office refused us the opportunity several months back to use our hand-held scanner to inspect public records.)

• The nominating committee for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority is subject to the state’s “open meeting” and “public records” laws.

• When employees conduct official business through electronic communications, it becomes part of the public record which an individual may view…

• East Baton Rouge firefighters’ timesheets are a matter of public record…

And so on. You get our drift.

So, while no help can be anticipated from within the Louisiana Department of Justice (because, in the words of the late Richard Pryor, it’s “just US,” or in this case, “just them”), we will nevertheless plod along in our attempt to keep our readership informed—even to the point of employing the considerable persuasive legal talents of J. Arthur Smith who loves his job almost as much as we love ours.

Read Full Post »

It took the threat of a lawsuit but John White did respond to LouisianaVoice’s multiple public records requests—sort of

Posted in Attorney General, BESE, Contract, Contracts, Education, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency on February 19, 2013 | 17 Comments »

As an illustration of the sheer arrogance of Louisiana Superintendent of Education John White, LouisianaVoice is providing an exchange of emails between us, White, and Louisiana Attorney General’s office and our attorney, J. Arthur Smith of Baton Rouge.

Folks, there is no better example of just how this administration, personified by the likes of White, his boss, Gov. Bobby Jindal, all but two members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and a few of Jindal’s choice cabinet members and certain legislators who shall for the time being remain nameless, has nothing but contempt for the voters of this state.

After all, where would Jindal rather be—in Baton Rouge or gallivanting all over the country in futile pursuit of the presidency? (Hint: it ain’t Baton Rouge.)

But now it seems that the national media is finally catching onto his act. An op-ed piece in Monday’s Washington Post said that Jindal’s rise in the ranks of the party illustrates that Republican reform is all cosmetic, so much rhetorical hogwash, smokes and mirrors. (But if you insist on latching onto Jindal’s sophomoric grandstanding as candy for your political sweet tooth, then knock yourself out.)

But back to Mr. White.

On January 22, we made the following public records request:

Any communication with or information relevant to Louisiana’s association or business conduct with any corporation or entity owned, led by or associated with Iwan Streichenberger;

Any communication or discussion relevant to the sharing of confidential student information for the purpose of developing and marketing “learning products” or for any other purpose;

All communication and/or contracts relevant to current or future association with Gates Foundation or its subsidiaries.

• Any communication with or information relevant to Louisiana’s association or business conduct with any corporation or entity owned, led by or associated with Iwan Streichenberger.

• Any communication or discussion relevant to the sharing of confidential student information for the purpose of developing and marketing “learning products” or for any other purpose.

• All communication and/or contracts relevant to current or future association with Gates Foundation or its subsidiaries.

• Written communications and contracts containing the phrase “shared Learning Collaborative” or “SLC.”

• Written communications containing the phrase “Wireless Generation.”

• Written communications containing the phrase “Iwan Streichenberger.”

• Written communications and contracts containing the phrase “Gates Foundation.”

Subsequent to that request, we made additional requests for:

• A list of the number of Teach for America teachers employed in each parish in the state.

• A list of complaints about the Louisiana Department of Education’s web page that White said prompted his decision to revamp the page to its current unnavigable mish mash of a web page that is about as user friendly as a sidesaddle on a Hampshire hog.

Of course the latter requests were ignored with all the same efficiency as the original requests. We know that John White personally received the requests because we get read receipts on all outgoing emails and we know the instant our emails are opened and read by the recipient.

And we save all our read receipts just in case the need should ever arise to have them—say in a civil lawsuit against the department.

At 3:41 p.m. on Tuesday (Feb. 19—28 days after our initial request), we sent the following email to our attorney (and copied White and Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell):

Art, this request is almost a month old. By law, state agencies (the Department of Education included) have three days in which to produce requested records or provide a date and time they will be available for inspection. The department has done nothing to provide these records other than send me a B.S. letter. I might overlook this if it were an isolated case, but this has been repeated time and again. I’m weary of playing their little games and I’m ready to file suit against John White and the Department of Education. I don’t want to file only to have them provide the records. I want to pursue this to seek my court costs, my attorney fees and any applicable fines. The Monroe News Star filed suit and White cratered and provided the records and nothing further was done. I don’t want that. I want to extract penalties for non-compliance or they’ll just repeat the procedure the next time I make a public records request.

Please file the necessary litigation immediately. I will pay the filing fee but I want the Department of Education to reimburse me.

My receipt indicated that White opened and read our email at precisely 3:44 p.m.

At 3:50 p.m. Tuesday, I received the following response from attorney Art Smith:

Gotcha. Will be glad to do.

Then, beginning at 6:20 p.m. and continuing through 6:43 p.m. we began receiving the first of what would ultimately be eight separate emails containing 119 pages of emails and other data from the Department of Education, some of which addressed our requests and others that did not.

Those responses that did not address our specific requests, however, were quite revealing. Because White made such a big production of the complaints he said he received about the old format of the department’s web page which led to the complete revamp of the page, we decided to call his bluff and ask for those complaints.

What we got instead of complaints about the old web page was a stream of complaints about the current format, including one writer who, in the email’s subject line wrote “YOUR NEWLY DESIGNED WEBSITE SUCKS,” and who then proceeded to chastise the department for the misspelling of “recieve.” (Yep, that’s the way your new DOE website spells receive.) “For crying out loud, USE YOUR SPELLCHECKER!” the Monroe critic wrote, adding, “Please correct this and make this site professional, not juvenile.”

Another wrote: “Many of your links lead to errors. Come on, man!”

“I am unable to locate information that I need to do my job. If we no longer have a website that is user friendly, what are we expected to do?” asked another.

Strangely, however, there were no complaints provided by White about the old web site even though he said the changes were made pursuant to “many complaints” about the old site.

Unimpressed with White’s last-minute attempt to head off unpleasant litigation, we followed up with another email at 9:37 p.m., again copying our attorney and Caldwell:

Mr. White, I am in receipt of eight separate emails from your office which purport to provide the information I requested (itemized below).

I can’t help but notice, however, that absent from the 117 pages you provided me under threat of litigation (which remains a valid option) were responses to requests 1, 2, and 6.

Please, without further delay, provide:

1) Any communications in any form or contracts relative to the “Shared Learning Collaborative” or SLC, a project of the Gates Foundation.

2) Information regarding Louisiana’s participation in Phase I of the above project.

6) All communication and/or contracts relevant to current or future association with Gates Foundation or its subsidiaries.

Because of the stalling tactics employed by you and the department, I shall not grant you the customary three days waiting period for this information inasmuch as it has already been 28 days since my initial request.

Litigation shall follow if this information is not provided by the close of business Wednesday, February 20, 2013.

White opened and read our latest email at 9:43 p.m.

We’ll keep you posted on developments and if anyone wishes copies of the emails that were provided, we will be happy to provide them electronically at no cost. Just contact us at: louisianavoice@cox.net

Read Full Post »

Dogmatic Jindal plunging ahead with appeals of pension, voucher unconstitutional rulings by district court judges

Posted in Attorney General, Contract, Contracts, Education, Governor's Office, Judges, Privatization, Retirement, Vouchers on February 14, 2013 | 12 Comments »

You have to give Gov. Piyush Jindal credit—he has chutzpah.

Jindal, to paraphrase Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Harold Ramis (Dr. Egon Spengler) and Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond Stantz) of Ghostbusters fame, ain’t afraid of no state constitution.

And he ain’t afraid of throwing good taxpayer dollars after bad to prove it.

Last November, Baton Rouge District Judge Tim Kelley shot down Jindal’s far-ranging school voucher program when he ruled it was unconstitutional for the state to use funds—about $25 million this year—dedicated for public education to pay private-school tuition.

Then late last month, another Baton Rouge District Judge, William Morvant, ruled the administration’s 401 (k)-type pension plan scheduled to take effect July 1 for future state employees also was unconstitutional because it had passed the legislature by a simple majority vote and not by the necessary two-thirds majority.

Taking his cue from Admiral David Farragut at the Aug. 5, 1864, Battle of Mobile Bay, Jindal shouted to his minions on the fourth floor of the State Capitol something that sounded like, “Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead!”

Or maybe it was, “Damn the legal costs, full speed ahead!”

He said it kinda fast, so it was hard to understand, really.

It might have even been, “Damn those Republican judges, full appeal ahead!”

Kelley’s ruling was “wrong-headed” and “a travesty for parents across Louisiana,” Jindal sniffed after last November’s setback. We’re not sure of “wrong-headed” is an acceptable term in a court of law but hey, he’s the governor so who are we to quibble? After all, legend has it that a Texas cowboy in the old West successfully defended himself on a murder charge with the defense that his late adversary “needed killing.”

“We are optimistic this decision will be reversed,” said State Education Superintendent John White (An attempt by LouisianaVoice to determine from which law school White holds his juris doctorate was unsuccessful.)

“We are disappointed in the court’s ruling and we look forward to a successful appeal,” Piyush said of Morvant’s ruling on the pension plan. “We’re confident that the bill was constitutionally passed,” he added. (As with White, efforts to learn where the governor obtained his degree in constitutional law were fruitless.)

So, having already spent thousands of dollars at the district court level, he now will contract with outside counsel (eschewing the attorney general’s office right across the Lake from the Capitol) to take both cases to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Not only is he tossing good taxpayer money after bad, but he also is forcing the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana, two teachers unions and dozens of local school boards to spend membership money and local tax dollars to continue the fight to uphold the lower court rulings.

Perhaps the governor should take a look at his latest poll numbers (37 percent approval rating) and try to understand that he can’t always get his way even though he and his $10 million campaign war chest did collect 66 percent of a 20 percent voter turnout in his re-election just over a year ago—against a field that included as his strongest opponent a school teacher with no money. And the teacher, Tara Hollis, still got 18 percent of the vote.

So what if 80 percent of the Louisiana voters stayed home? Sixty-six percent is a mandate!

A former middle school teacher said even as a child his mindset was such that he always had to have his way and that it was simply inconceivable that he might be wrong.

But this isn’t middle school and even by spending thousands more of taxpayer money, he still isn’t likely to get his way.

Ever see a governor throw a tantrum? Stand by. It might even qualify as a hissy fit.

Who you gonna call?

Constitution Busters, aka Bobby Jindal, Timmy Teepell and Jimmy Faircloth!

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Attorney General, BESE, Charters, Education, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lobbyist on January 20, 2013 | 9 Comments »

“Thomas Ratliff’s presence on the State Board of Education is not legal because of his being a registered lobbyist.”

—Opinion by the Texas Attorney General’s Office on the legality of a Texas registered lobbyist’s serving on the State Board of Education. Louisiana lobbyist Steve Waguespack was appointed by Gov. Piyush Jindal on Friday to membership on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education even though his law firm advertises on the web of its expertise in working with charter schools and school reform advocates. Louisiana has no such ethics laws prohibiting such appointments despite Jindal’s claim to having the most ethical administration in Louisiana history.

Read Full Post »

100 pay increases approved for state’s top earners following Gov. π-yush 2010 pay freeze order; hiring freeze also ignored

Posted in Attorney General, Budget, Civil Service, Commissions, Economy, Education, Exemptions, Incentives, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Jobs, LSU, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Public Records, RSD, State Agencies, Transparency on October 22, 2012 | 10 Comments »

Editor’s note: The information contained in this story was received via printouts from the Louisiana Department of Civil Service of those earning $100,000 or more for the years 2009 through 2012. Each year was listed separately. Accordingly, when the name of Patti Gonzalez of the Office of Risk Management did not appear until the 2012 printout, the indication was she had received a pay increase. This was not the case and there was no explanation as to why she did not appear in prior years but Ms. Gonzalez says she has not received an increase since March of 2010.

Likewise, no state elected officials received pay increases as their salaries are set in statute. Civil Service printouts did indicate pay increases for all but two statewide elected officials but this apparently was in error.

Rank and file state civil service employees have gone without pay increases, merit or otherwise, since 2009 but at least 104 managers, directors, supervisors and five statewide elected officials already making in excess of $100,000 a year have received increases over the past three years.

Not included in the tabulation were doctors, nurses, pharmacists, higher education professors or, with one exception, those who were promoted from one job to another and got raises.

Altogether, more than 3,200 state employees earning more than $100,000 per year accounted for an annual payroll of approximately $432 million—an average of about $135,000 each.

The average pay of a state civil service employee is approximately $39,600.

In most cases—but not all—the pay increases were 4 percent increases. A 4 percent increase for one making $100,000 would be $4,000. That would fund four such increases for workers earning only $25,000 a year.

There were those, however, who did better. Much better.

Michael Diresto went from $103,792 in 2011 to $118,792 this year, a $15,000 (14.5 percent) bump. He was listed by the Department of Civil Service as a “director” in the Division of Administration (DOA) for both years. On the DOA web page, he is identified as an assistant commissioner for policy and communications.

Bruce Unangst, executive director of the Real Estate Commission, also saw his annual salary balloon from $109,000 in 2011 to $125,000 this year, a 14.7 percent increase.

In the governor’s office itself, Executive Counsel Elizabeth Murrill did extremely well for herself. Her 2011 salary of $110,000 grew to $165,000 this year—before her transfer to DOA where presumably, it will remain the same. Her one-year pay hike was a whopping 50 percent, according to Civil Service records.

In the Department of Insurance, 14 employees earning $100,000 or more received 4 percent increases from 2011 to 2012 while four others, including an attorney supervisor, did not. Insurance Commissioner James Donelon this year also hired former state legislator Noble Ellington, who had no experience in insurance, as deputy commissioner at a salary of $149,900.

Five of 14 employees of the Port of New Orleans Port Commission who earn $100,000 or more were awarded pay raises ranging from 5.5 percent to 7.5 percent.

At the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), several employees received pay increases from 2011 to 2012 despite the pay freeze. They included Executive Director Robert Marier, who went from $196,102 to $205,899 (5 percent); Associate Director Cecilia Mouton, from $185,640 to $194m916 (5.1 percent); Executive Director John Liggio, from $119,044 to $125,068 (5 percent), and Executive Director Lisa Schilling, from $107,702 to $134,638 (25 percent).

None of the four changed job classifications, according to the Civil Service report. One who did change classifications got a 14.8 percent increase, a lower percentage than Schilling. Courtney Phillips was promoted from a Medicaid Program Manager 4 at $102,814 per year to Chief of Staff at $118,019.

One other executive director, six DHH attorneys, a deputy director, a deputy secretary, a budget administrator, an economist and a program director received no salary increases from 2011 to 2012.

Debra Schum, listed as an executive officer in the Department of Education (DOE), got a 20 percent pay raise, from $110,000 in 2011 to $132,000 this year while Kerry Lester, also an executive officer with DOE, got a $5,000 increase, from $150,000 to $155,000 during the same time frame.

But what is particularly interesting about the DOE payroll is the seemingly inordinate number of new hires of people at six-figure salaries, especially in the Recovery School District.

State Superintendent of Education John White has brought in no fewer than 10 new employees at salaries in excess of $100,000 this year alone—and that’s not even counting Deirdre Finn, a part time contract employee who will be paid $144,000 a year to work as communications manager for the department—from her home in Florida.

The idea of hiring a commuting employee, apparently borrowed from DHH and Carol Steckel, who is being paid $148,500 a year as a “confidential assistant” to DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein to commute back and forth from her home in Alabama, seems to be catching on.

David “Lefty” Lefkowith is being paid $146,000 to commute back and forth from Los Angeles to work at DOE as a “director,” according to Civil Service records. He describes himself in a DOE video, however, as a “deputy superintendent.”

Other new, six-figure employees added by DOE this year include:

• Gary Jones, Executive Officer, $145,000;

• Melissa Stilley, Liaison Officer, $135,000;

• Michael Rounds, Deputy Superintendent, $170,000;

• Hannah Dietsch, Assistant Superintendent, $130,000;

• Francis Touchet, Liaison Officer, $130,000;

• Stephen Osborn, Assistant Superintendent, $125,000;

• Sandy Michelet, Executive Director, $120,000;

• Kenneth Bradford, Director, $110,000;

• Heather Cope, Executive Director of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, $125,000.

For the Recovery School District (RSD), both the high turnover and six-figure salaries are significant. That’s because there is substantial turnover despite the high salaries and that turnover has stymied any progress the already troubled RSD might have realized.

No fewer than 20 employees earning six figures have left the RSD since 2009, records show.

For the three years from 2010 to 2012, there was a turnover rate among those earning $100,000 or more ranging from 29 to 44 percent from the previous year Civil Service records indicate.

Of 24 RSD employees earning six figures for the current year, 15, or 62.5 percent, are new hires, records show. These include:

• Stacy Green, School Nurse, $145,000;

• James D. Ford, Administrative Superintendent, $145,000;

• Dana Peterson, Administrative Superintendent, $125,000;

• Adam Hawf, Administrator, $120,000;

• Mark Comanducci, Executive Director, $115,000;

• Helen Molpus, Administrative Chief, Officers, $115,000;

• Kizzy Payton, Administrative, Business Office, $110,000;

• Hua Liang, Administrative Chief, Officers, $110,000;

• Nicole Diamantes, Administrative, Other Special Programs, $105,000;

• Isaac Pollack, Administrative, Principal, $105,000;

• Desmond Moore, Administrative, Principal, $105,000;

• Betty Robertson, Other Business Services, $105,000;

• Robert Webb, Administrator, Other Special Programs, $105,000;

• Sametta Brown, Administrator, Regular Programs, $100,800;

• Ericka Jones, Administrative, Principal, $100,000;

• Eric Richard, Administrative, Principal, $100,000.

Read Full Post »

Administration moving forward with presenting OGB layoff plan to Civil Service despite shortage of votes on Thursday

Posted in Attorney General, Governor's Office, Health Care, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Transparency on October 18, 2012 | 7 Comments »

LouisianaVoice has learned that Gov. Piyush Jindal plans to move forward with submitting a layoff plan for the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) to the State Civil Service Commission despite failing to obtain sufficient votes to gain legislative approval of a contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) for the privatization of the agency.

The Jindal administration has been trying for more than a year and a half to privatize the agency that provides health and life insurance coverage to some 226,000 state employees, retirees and their dependents.

Along with efforts to privatize the agency, Jindal is attempting to lay off 177 OGB employees in a move he claims will save the state $20 million despite an initial cost of $70 million of the current OGB fund balance that will be used to pay BCBS to become the agency’s third party administrator (TPA).

State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe), who has been lobbying her fellow House members to oppose the BCBS contract, said Jindal has provided no supporting documentation for the projected savings despite several requests that he do so.

“The Office of Group Benefits does not cost the state any money,” Jackson said on Wednesday. “It is a healthy plan that has always remained viable while offering state employees excellent health care benefits.”

The problem with any effort by the administration to gain approval of its anticipated layoff plan is that justification for any layoff approval is limited to two factors found in chapter 17 of the civil service rules.

http://www.civilservice.la.gov/publicationsnotifications.asp

To approval a layoff plan, the Civil Service Commission must have irrefutable evidence that there is either:

• A lack of funds to continue paying the employees;

• A lack of work sufficient to justify retaining the employees.

The administration, of course, could push the argument that with the contract with BCBS, there would be insufficient work for the 177 employees to perform at OGB.

That argument, however, would revert back to an attorney general’s opinion that legislative concurrence would be required before the contract with BCBS could become effective.

That attorney general’s opinion was initially requested by Jackson who contended that the legislature should be a part of the decision-making process.

And that brings everything back to Thursday’s joint meeting of the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee which was supposed to take up that very issue.

As both sides were still jockeying to line up votes Wednesday afternoon, word came down that the administration had pulled the item from joint committee agenda. The reasons for the deletion varied, depending upon who did the explaining.

Jackson said the delay was simply a matter of the administration’s failure to muster enough votes for approval of the contract.

House Appropriations Chairman Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro) said the committee members did not receive the 80-page BCBS contract until Tuesday and had not had an opportunity to review it.

The governor’s office, however, said that several key members of the committee were scheduled to be out of town, so the decision was made to postpone the vote.

The reasons given by Fannin and the administration do not mesh but then legislators have been complaining for some time about a lack of communication between lawmakers and the governor’s office.

The civil service rules and the failure of the joint committee to take up the BCBS contract could present a classic Catch-22 scenario if the administration does follow through as planned.

What initially was touted by the administration as an efficiency move designed to save the state millions of dollars seems to have become a secondary issue to one of Jindal’s obsession of having his way, of winning at all costs.

The latest decision to try and push through a layoff plan appears to be an indication that he is determined to prevail in a game in which he is on one side of a metaphoric chess board and legislators on the other. In the middle are the pawns that he appears all too willing to sacrifice in order to gain an advantage.

Those pawns are state employees.

Read Full Post »

Who knew? Tomorrow’s vote on OGB privatization appears close; opponents, proponents conducting intensive lobbying

Posted in Attorney General, Budget, Civil Service, Governor's Office, Health Care, House, Senate, Jobs, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization on October 17, 2012 | 10 Comments »

Members of the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee were being lobbied heavily by both sides on Wednesday in the final hours leading up to Thursday’s joint committee meeting to consider the privatization of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB).

State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) said on Wednesday that she was concentrating on members of the House Appropriations Committee “because the concurrence of both committees is required.”

She said by mid-morning there appeared to be four undecided votes on the House committee.

“We need two votes,” she said, to block the move by Gov. Piyush Jindal. “Neither side can say it has the votes,” she added.

For those who might be interested in getting in their two-cents worth, here are the links to the names, phone numbers and email addresses for the members of each of the committees:

http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Cmtes/H_Cmte_AP.asp

http://senate.legis.louisiana.gov/Finance/Assignments.asp

The privatization, which would have Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBS) take over the operations of the agency’s Preferred Provider Organization (PPO), was approved by the State Civil Service Commission in August but State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) requested and got an attorney general’s opinion that said the administration must obtain the concurrence of the legislature to finalize the transfer.

BCBS already serves as the third party administrator (TPA) for OGB’s HMO program.

OGB has accrued a fund balance in excess of $500 million over the past six years since Tommy Teague took over as director of OGB. But he was fired on April 15, 2011 when he did not get on board the Jindal privatization plan quickly enough. His successor lasted only six weeks before he, too, was gone.

Jindal has claimed that a private TPA would be able to run the various health and life insurance plans of about 225,000 state employees, retirees and their dependents.

A Legislative Auditor’s report, however, said that privatization could lead to increased health insurance premiums because of a private insurer’s higher administrative and marketing costs, its requirement to pay taxes on income and its need to realize an operating profit. The state does not pay taxes nor is it required to turn a profit.

The Jindal administration has employed tactics bordering on the clandestine in efforts to shore up its position. At one point it even refused to release a report by New Orleans-based Chaffe & Associates with which it contracted to determine the “fair market value” of OGB’s business.

When a copy of the report was released, however, questions arose immediately because of conflicting dates given by the Division of Administration (DOA) as to its receipt date and by the fact that none of the pages of the report was date-stamped.

DOA routinely date stamps every page of documents it receives to indicate the date and time the documents were received.

This led to speculation that there may have been two Chaffe reports. Even so, the one that was leaked to the Baton Rouge Advocate said that a private insurer would be required to build in the extra costs of taxes and profits when setting premiums.

Once considered a slam-dunk for approval, the vote now appears much closer on the eve of the meeting of the two committees.

Much of the reason for the change may have to do with growing resentment on the part of legislators who have seen hospitals and/or prisons closed in their districts, actions they say were taken by the administration without the benefit of giving lawmakers a heads-up.

Jindal, in closing prisons and hospitals, has done so while leaving it up to area legislators to try and explain to constituents why they will be out of work or why health care will be either cut back or unavailable.

Only this week, notices went out to 41 employees at E.A. Conway Hospital in Monroe that they would no longer be employed after Nov. 30—just in time for the Christmas holidays. Twenty-five of those were nurses.

Similar cutbacks have taken place at health care facilities all over the state and in August, Jindal abruptly announced the closure of Southeast Louisiana Hospital in Mandeville, effective this month, throwing some 300 employees out of work.

Moreover, with the earlier closure of a mental health facility in New Orleans, the entire area of Orleans, Jefferson, Plaquemines, St.

Bernard, Tangipahoa, Washington and St. Tammany will be without access to mental health treatment at a state facility.

The proposed privatization of OGB will put about 120 workers out of work.

“It’s going down to the wire,” Jackson said of the vote to turn the PPO over to BCBS. “It’s going to be close.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,815 other followers