Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Boards’ Category

Sometimes you just have to peel back the layers to see what really lies beneath the surface of political decisions.

And nothing in the state of Louisiana is more political than the method in which F. King Alexander was chosen as the next president of Louisiana’s flagship university.

To put it as succinctly as possible, the entire charade was a crock.

And that, unfortunately, is the sorry state of affairs that higher education in general and LSU in particular finds itself in today.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, the LSU Board of Supervisors and attorney Jimmy Faircloth simply have no shame. That group of power brokers—power abusers, really—feels so secure, so insulated, so detached from the voters, students and alumni of LSU that they have arbitrarily decided that court decisions be damned, they can do as they please.

Apparently it’s not enough that higher education has seen its budget slashed by 80 percent during this governor’s reign of terror.

Jindal, the Board and Faircloth are so cocky that they obviously believe that not even a court order handed down by a Baton Rouge district judge can dislodge the names of the candidates for the LSU presidency for which one F. King Alexander was eventually chosen.

And to be sure, the credentials of Alexander, questionable at best, have to leave one wondering: is this the best a well-paid Dallas search firm could do? No, really, is F. King Alexander really the most qualified person in all of America this firm could find to lead Louisiana State University? If so, one must also question the credentials of the search firm, R. William Funk and Associates which was paid $120,000 plus expenses to come up with a man whose highest academic achievement was that of assistant professor.

Perhaps Funk and Associates is better suited to recruiting managers for Popeye’s Fried Chicken.

But then again, perhaps not. Maybe Funk and Associates scoured the country in search of someone willing and ready to walk into this political graveyard called LSU. After all, who in his right mind would want to come to this state where higher education has been decimated, disparaged and dismantled by a governor who over his five-plus years in office, has not displayed the faintest hint of fiscal responsibility or moral conscience and who is accountable only to campaign contributors and aspirations—delusions, if you will—of higher office?

It might be appropriate at this juncture to itemize the list of transgressions, omissions, power abuses, acts of corruption, contracts, appointments, campaign contributions, lies and blunders by Jindal and associates but frankly, it would take too much space. Perhaps another time.

For now, let us concentrate on LSU.

Let us ask ourselves why the LSU Board of Supervisors—and Jindal; after all, the board members would wet their collective pants where they sit before they’d go to the bathroom without the governor’s permission—are so hell-bent on keeping the list of candidates a deep dark secret.

The argument presented by the board through Faircloth—who, by the way, is 0-for-however many times he has been to court on the administration’s behalf (we long ago lost track as the losses mounted)—is that Funk initially identified 100 potential candidates before winnowing the field down to 35. The curriculum vitae and other data were placed on a secure website for members of the search committee to review.

From that number came a final group of “six or seven” who were “worthy of more intensive interviews.” In the end, King was the only candidate recommended to the full board by the search committee.

How convenient. How absurd.

Compare that to 1977 or so when I happened to be serving as managing editor of the Ruston Daily Leader. Long-time Grambling State University President R.W.E. Jones announced his retirement and the Board of Trustees for Colleges and Universities began taking applications for Jones’s successor. Every step of the way, Bill Junkin, the equivalent to today’s commissioner of higher education, and Trustees Financial Committee Chairman Gordon Flores kept the media abreast of each and every applicant (qualified applicants, by the way) all the way up to the selection of a new president.

There was the announcement in 2009 of all five candidates to be interviewed for the presidency of Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. They were identified by name, their current positions, and their qualifications for the position—something woefully missing from the LSU selection process.

Or take the more recent case involving the selection of a successor to Louisiana Tech University President Dan Reneau. The names and a brief biography of each candidate who had requested to be included in the selection process was published in all the area newspapers. When the selection committee had narrowed the candidate list to two, those individuals appeared in an open public forum. They addressed the public and availed themselves to questions from not only the Tech faculty, but the public at large.

This should have been the method employed in the selection of the new president of the state’s largest university, public or private. The difference, of course, was that the LSU president was chosen by Jindal’s hand-picked Board of Supervisors, the crème de la crème of political campaign contributors while the Tech president was chosen by the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors.

The LSU Board, however, used the oh-so-very-lame excuse that to release the names of applicants could inflict career damage to those who were not selected. Hogwash. What tripe. The very purpose of establishing a career track in higher education or any other field is to advance one’s career and you can’t advance your career without attempting to move up. And you can’t move up without making applications.

It wasn’t exactly a secret that Nick Saban, then at Michigan State, wanted to come to LSU and openly applied for the position. Nor was unknown that he was ready to move on to the Miami Dolphins a few years later. Last year, just about everyone knew Louisiana Tech’s Sonny Dykes would be moving on as had his predecessor Derek Dooley.

But to settle on a candidate who had advanced up the career ladder to only the level of assistant professor before succeeding his (ahem) father to the presidency of Murray State as if he were some kind of prince suddenly elevated to the throne? And then to the presidency of California State at Long Beach by virtue of his political connections to the then-chancellor of the University of California System? To that, we can only say, hmmm.

We will be taking a closer look at Alexander’s qualifications in the coming days.

Could the secrecy around the selection of King possibly have anything to do with the fact that a close relative of U.S. Sen. David Vitter had expressed an interest in the position—and possibly submitted an application? It’s well-established that there is no love lost between Jindal and the state’s junior senator, particularly from Jindal’s end of the relationship. (Remember how Jindal threw money at favored legislative and BESE candidates but steadfastly refused to endorse Vitter for re-election because he felt it “inappropriate” to interject himself into a state campaign?)

Or could it be that King was the choice all along and Jindal wanted desperately to conceal the inconvenient truth that there were, in fact, other more qualified candidates but who were unacceptable to this ego-driven governor?

One thing is for certain: Jindal, for whatever reason, desperately does not want the public—voters, students, LSU alumni or legislators—to know. And don’t think for a nano-second that the decision to resist releasing the names was that of the board. That’s laughable.

And stacking the board with supporters who contributed more than $175,000 to his various political campaigns can ensure the cooperation of board members long on loyalty but extremely short on honor, openness, transparency and accountability—the very selling points of one Bobby Jindal, who long ago eclipsed the late Dudley LeBlanc of patent medicine Hadacol fame as the foremost practitioner in Louisiana’s grand history of snake oil salesmen.

Read Full Post »

“Our goal was to find a candidate that understands the traditions and practices of higher learning, but who also is willing to lead our great university through (anticipated) changes.”

—R. Blake Chatelain, chairman of the LSU Presidential Search Committee.

Read Full Post »

Vetting (v.): To subject to thorough examination or evaluation (The Free Online Dictionary).

Did the LSU Board of supervisors make even a token attempt at vetting the applicants for LSU President before settling on F. King Alexander, current president of the University of California Long Beach?

Vetting (v.) The process of performing a background check on someone before offering them employment (Wikipedia).

Did Long Beach State make even a cursory attempt at vetting F. King Alexander before he was chosen president of that university?

Vetting (v.): To make a careful and critical examination (Oxford Dictionary).

Okay, the last definition was in deference to the Oxford Roundtable Foundation, the organization headed by Alexander but not really affiliated with Oxford University.

The LSU Board of Supervisors meets today (Wednesday) to finalize the details of Alexander’s contract.

But back to the original question: was there even a perfunctory effort to vet the leader of Louisiana’s flagship university by the LSU Board of Supervisors?

Besides the fact that Alexander’s own curriculum vitae indicates that the highest level to which he rose as a teacher was a five-year (1997-2001) stint as an assistant professor at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana before making the quantum leap to the presidency of Murray State University in Murray, Kentucky, where he served for another five years (2001-2005).

Apparently, it isn’t necessary to pose the vetting question with Murray State; he simply succeeded his father, S. Kern Alexander to the presidency of the school.

Assuming that it’s the norm for an assistant professor to scale the academic ladder to president of a 10,000-student university in a single move (which, of course, it certainly is not), it’s his handling of a major grant from a prominent movie executive http://thugthebook.blogspot.com/ while at Long Beach State that we will examine here. Additional analyses of his qualifications will be provided in subsequent posts which we will offer for simultaneous release to the LSU Reveille and a couple of other choice blogs.

In May of 2007, King signed off on a three-page pledge agreement by movie producer/director Steven Spielberg’s Wunderkinder Foundation in which the foundation pledged nearly $1.4 million to support Long Beach State’s Master’s in Fine Arts in Dramatic Writing Program within the Film and Electronic Arts Department.

The money was given by Wunderkinder in three incremental payments. The first payment, $590,000 was payable upon the effective date of the pledge agreement (May 31, 2007). The second installment of $400,000 was due on the first anniversary of the effective date of the pledge agreement (May 31, 2008) and the final payment of $388,000 was scheduled for May 31, 2009, the second anniversary date of the pledge agreement.

The pledge agreement said, in part:

• The pledged funds are designated to (i) support the Master’s in Fine Arts in Dramatic Writing Program at the (university); (ii) support the conversion of space for a soundstage and editing studio in the (Department), and (iii) support equipment maintenance, replacement, and upgrades within the (Department);

• If (the university foundation) should for any reason lose its tax-exemption so that gifts to it no longer qualify as tax deductible, or if the pledged funds are used for any purpose not specifically permitted under this pledge agreement, this pledge agreement shall terminate immediately and pledgor (Wunderkinder) shall have no further obligation thereafter to pay any amounts not previously funded.

• A breach by (the university foundation) of this pledge agreement may cause irreparable injury to pledgor not readily measurable in money and for which pledgor shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief or to terminate this pledge agreement without further obligation to (the foundation), or both.

All three checks were delivered to the university’s Film and Electronic Arts Department as scheduled.

The third check of $388,000 was issued through Comerica Bank-California on May 18, 2009. But six weeks earlier, on April 6, Alexander had issued a directive suspending future admissions for the program, effectively killing it—even as Spielberg was said to have been preparing to renew the grant for another three years.

The check was not only negotiated in the full knowledge that it would not go for its intended purpose, but some of the money was then moved from the donor foundation account into the Film and Electronic Arts general account to be mingled with state funds and used for salaries.

Because there were still five students finishing the program, each received $10,000 under the grant, leaving $338,000 that went for other purposes—an apparent violation of the terms of the pledge agreement.

When the financial crunch hit colleges and universities across the country, Long Beach State was not spared and university faculty took a 10 percent “furlough” pay cut for the 2009-2010 academic year–ostensibly because of funding cuts. Later that year, however, Alexander announced that additional money had been “found.”

The terms of the furlough that came into existence in the fall of 2009 specifically said, “Faculty Unit employees whose salary is 100 percent funded from grants and contracts not funded from the state general fund shall not be subject to this furlough agreement.”

Yet a faculty member whose salary was to have been funded 100 percent by the Spielberg/Wunderkinder grant saw a 10 percent reduction in his salary. That 10 percent was apparently re-allocated for general expenses rather than for the purposes specified in the pledge agreement which could be interpreted as a breach of the pledge contract.

To make matters worse, Spielberg was never informed of the termination of the Master’s in Fine Arts in Dramatic Writing Program.

Spielberg, meanwhile, was experiencing problems of his own and for whatever reasons, did not pursue the matter. Wunderkinder in 2008 had become a victim of the giant Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff. With assets of $12.6 million as of November of 2006, Wunderkinder’s financial fortunes had suffered right along with other investors in Madoff’s scheme.

By late 2009, even though Wunderkinder was financially crippled by Madoff, Spielberg continued his personal philanthropic activities on behalf of the University of Southern California, among others .

Vetting.

Read Full Post »

Did the LSU Board of Supervisors opt for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in its selection of F. King Alexander, 50, as the next LSU president?

Will the LSU faithful, so alarmed at the prospects of an appointment of Secretary of Economic Development Stephen Moret to the position, end up wishing he had gotten it after all?

Most important of all, with academics, integrity and healthcare already sacrificed at the Altar of Jindal, will the LSU football program survive?

Perhaps these and other questions will be answered in due course but for the time being, let’s take a look at the paradox that is F. King Alexander.

The first issues that must be addressed are his credentials and his motivation for coming to LSU.

The politically-charged atmosphere in Louisiana in general and LSU in particular is such that one must question the wisdom of anyone wanting to walk into such a volatile situation. The mere fact that one would even apply for the position would seem to call his or qualifications into question.

The LSU student newspaper, The Reveille, was contemplating filing a lawsuit—and still might do so—to learn who all the applicants were. But considering who the winner was the paper’s editors may wish to reconsider its efforts to learn who the losers were.

On the one hand, there is the F. King Alexander who two years ago admonished state governments for “backing out of their responsibility” to keep public colleges working and affordable.

On the other hand, there is the F. King Alexander who operates what critics describe as a “vanity” conference operation that capitalizes on the Oxford University name without the benefit of its being officially affiliated with the English school.

The Baton Rouge Advocate describes Alexander as “a nationally respected up and comer” and his 28-minute speech in February of 2011at The 14th Annual Travers Conference on Ethics and Accountability in Government Financing California: Strategies for Fiscal Housekeeping was a direct assault on state governments’ failure to adequately fund state colleges, thus allowing private universities and for-profit colleges to syphon students away from public institutions.

His talk was a blistering attack on states that he said have taken federal funds for higher education while at the same time, cutting state appropriations by like amounts. Meanwhile, federal grants continue to increase for private schools.

It was the kind of rhetoric that college professors will embrace enthusiastically but the kind that got Alexander’s predecessor, John Lombardi canned by the Board of Supervisors—at the direction of Jindal who doesn’t like to be criticized by subordinates.

Then there is Alexander’s Oxford Round Table connection.

The Oxford Round Table is a series of interdisciplinary conferences that was founded by Alexander’s father, Kern Alexander but now run by F. King Alexander and his wife.

The purpose of the Oxford Round Table is “to promote education, art, science, religion and charity by means of academic conferences and publication of scholarly papers,” according to an online profile.

The organization has incorporated, dissolved and reincorporated several times in different states, including Kentucky, Illinois and Florida—both as a for-profit and as a non-profit. In 2008, the non-profit Oxford Round Table, Ltd. was established in the United Kingdom.

A 2009 report was critical of the organization because, the report said, it does not make its lack of academic connection to Oxford University clear.

Two years earlier, Times Higher Education reported that the organization had been criticized because it was trading on the name of Oxford University and failed to properly inform invitees that it had no formal academic links to the university.

The Oxford Round Table also has attracted controversy in at least three states, including Louisiana, over the cost of school boards’ paying for administrators to attend its conferences. This led to a successful legislative effort to tighten travel rules for school board members statewide, according to a 2003 New Orleans Times-Picayune story.

It remains to be seen if Alexander will bring his pro-funding rhetoric with him or whether his Oxford Round Table will set up shop in Baton Rouge—or both.

Either way, it should be interesting—like perhaps a reprise of the old Carol Burnett Show skit As the Stomach Turns.

Read Full Post »

This week’s civics lesson will take a look at how ethics for public officials, much like the Golden Rule, is based in large part on who has the gold.

And apparently, if you are appointed to the LSU Board of Supervisors by Gov. Bobby Jindal, you are considered golden.

Now, with the pending approval of the takeover of two LSU-run hospitals by a Shreveport foundation, it’s déjà vu all over again—except different.

On Jan. 16, 1996, the State Board of ethics issued an opinion that Lovan Thomas, owner and publisher of the Natchitoches Times newspaper and of Springhill Press printing company, violated state ethics laws when his printing company printed a tourism brochure promoting the Cane River through the Kisatchie National Forest.

Though Thomas was a member of the Natchitoches Parish Tourist Commission, the printing project was not initially a project of the tourist commission and Springhill Press, in late 1993 charged $10,000 for printing the brochure, a practice the ethics board more than two years later ruled was an ethics violation.

On July 17, 1996, the State Board of Ethics issued a second opinion that the Times could not provide printing services for the student newspaper at Northwestern State University in Natchitoches because Thomas was a member of the Louisiana Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities, the governing board for the university.

Three months later, on Oct. 25, the Board of Ethics struck again. This time the board ruled that the Times was prohibited from publishing an NSU legal notice for bids on a printing contract despite a state law which required that public notices by public bodies “shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed in the parish in which the budget unit (NSU) is situated.”

The Times was the only newspaper of general circulation in Natchitoches Parish. Moreover, the Times was the Natchitoches Parish Police Jury’s official legal journal and it was generally understood that NSU was required to publish its legal notices in the parish’s legal journal.

The ethics board ruled that Thomas was prohibited from assisting the Times in its contract with Northwestern while receiving compensation through his publishing company.

So, instead of printing its paper at home, NSU was forced to travel 70 miles to Shreveport for the service. And instead of paying $4 a square (100 words), NSU was forced to place its legal advertisements in the Shreveport Times at a cost of about $25 per square.

Disgusted with the entire process, Lovan resigned from the Board of Trustees and the parish tourist commission.

Even then, the Ethics Board continued to thwart Thomas in his attempts to do business with Northwestern.

On May 21, 1997, the board ruled that because state law required a two-year waiting period from the date of his resignation from the Board of Trustees, Thomas and the Natchitoches Times were still prohibited from bidding on and receiving advertising contracts with the university.

But now, not quite 16 years later, and with a State Ethics Board that has been gutted by Gov. Bobby Jindal, it is somehow okay for a foundation to enter into an agreement to take over two LSU public hospitals in Shreveport and Monroe even though the vice chairman and incoming president/CEO of the foundation slated to take over the facilities also sits on the LSU Board of Supervisors which currently oversees the hospitals.

The LSU Board of Supervisors on Monday tabled until March 27 approval of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the board and the Biomedical Research Foundation (BRF) that would call for the foundation to enter into a partnership with LSU Medical Center in Shreveport and E.A. Conway Hospital in Monroe.

Willis-Knighten Health System and Christus Health Shreveport-Bossier had expressed interest in the Shreveport facility when LSU first started seeking partners with available cash in 2012.

In Monroe, negotiations had been ongoing between E.A. Conway and St. Francis Medical Center but those talks were broken off by the state last week when LSU officials suddenly decided that the grass was greener on BRF’s side of the fence.

State Sen. Francis Thompson (D-Delhi) called the BRF model “the innovative, forward-thinking model that would elevate what are already the best hospitals of their kind in Louisiana and beyond. It also keeps both hospitals under the same management umbrella, which is appropriate,” he said.

Biomedical Research Foundation currently leases research labs to the LSU System. The annual lease payments of $4 million to $5 million paid by LSU represent a major source of income for the foundation.

John F. George, Jr., M.D. is Vice Chairman of Biomedical Research Foundation and is slated to become BRF President and CEO on March 27, the same date as the scheduled vote on the foundation’s takeover of the two hospitals. The Jindal administration has dismissed any talk of a conflict of interest by pointing out that George will not receive a salary as president and CEO of the foundation, thereby allowing him to remain as a member of the LSU Board of Supervisors.

George, who made two contributions of $5,000 each to Jindal’s campaign in 2007 and 2008, according to campaign records, said he will recuse himself from the LSU board’s action on March 27.

But that Oct. 25, 1996, Ethics Board opinion would seem to indicate that recusal was not sufficient to avoid a conflict. That ruling, in addition to saying that state ethics laws prohibited Thomas from participating in the Board of Trustees’ decision to contract with the Natchitoches Times for printing services, also said the participation question “cannot be cured by recusal since (state law) prohibits an appointed member of a Board from curing a participating problem through disqualification.”

Salary or no, recusal or no, the appearance of impropriety should be sufficient in some quarters as to demand George’s resignation from the LSU Board of Supervisors in light of his cozy relationship with BRF.

But appearances, like beauty, appear to be in the eye of the beholder—in this case, Gov. Bobby Jindal.

And Jindal wrote—that is, re-wrote—the ethics rules within weeks of taking office in January of 2008, prompting the mass resignation of nine of the board’s 11 members, including board administrator Richard Sherburne, in July of that year.

So now, with watered-down rules and a puppet board, there appears to be no one left to challenge the administration’s claim of no conflict of interest.

Read Full Post »

Never let it be said that Piyush Jindal doesn’t remember his friends. As long as the word “friends” is synonymous with the word “cash.”

Of the seven new appointments and one re-appointment to the University of Louisiana System board, six of those combined to contribute nearly $147,000 to Jindal political campaigns from 2003 through 2011, according to state campaign finance records.

The terms of seven of the 16 member board expired on Dec. 31. The eighth position was vacated when attorney Jimmy Faircloth, Jindal’s former executive counsel, resigned after two years on the board and was replaced by his wife, Kelly Faircloth, a chiropractor.

Faircloth, while serving on the board, recently was contracted by Jindal to represent the State Department of Education in a pair of lawsuits challenging the state voucher system and the teacher tenure revisions, both enacted last year by the state legislature as part of Jindal’s education reform package.

Faircloth contributed $14,000 and his former Alexandria law firm contributed an additional $9,000 to Jindal campaigns in 2003, 2006 and 2010. Of that total, Faircloth and his firm each contributed $5,000 to Jindal on the same date in December of 2006.

Only one of three re-appointees, Jimmie “Beau” Martin, Jr. of Cut Off, contributed to Jindal. Martin, family members and three family-owned businesses combined to contribute $34,278.30, records show.

Jimmy Long, Sr. of Natchitoches and Winfred Sibille of Sunset were also re-appointed to new six-year terms but neither was found to have contributed to Jindal.

The other four new appointees and their contributions include:

Gary Solomon of New Orleans, chairman of Crescent Bank and Trust (replacing Renee Lapeyrolerie): $35,000 from Solomon and family members in 2003, 2007 and 2008 and another $7,199 from Crescent Bank in 2007 and 2009;

Mark Romero of New Iberia, executive vice president of Brown & Brown Insurance (replacing Paul Aucoin of Morgan City): $1,000 from Romero in 2008 and $9,000 by his insurance firm in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011;

Robert Shreve of Baton Rouge, CEO of Gulf South Business Systems and Consultants (replacing Russell Mosely of Baton Rouge): $11,000 in 2007 and 2009 and $1,000 by his firm in 2011;

John Condos of Lake Charles (replacing Louis Lambert): $20,500 by Condos and his wife.

No one expects any governor to appoint political opponents to state boards and commissions but some elected officials might choose to appoint small-time contributors; appointment considerations with this governor, however, just don’t work that way.

Instead, Piyush has displayed a disturbing propensity to favor the big-dollar contributors in making his appointments and the same old names keep popping up, indicating that his solid core support base may be a smaller fraternity than one might assume.

It’s either that or he simply chooses to bestow appointments on only his biggest contributors and ignore the rest.

Read Full Post »

Whenever I see a story about some stupid criminal I find myself wishing I could be alone in a room with the poor sap just so I could ask him three questions:

• What was your thought process?

• Did you think this through to its logical conclusion?

• Did you ever, at any point in time, think this would end well for you?

That’s all. Just those three questions.

Until now, I had always limited this wish to stupid criminals:

• Like the guy who pulls up at the drive-through window of a bank and slips a note in it saying “This is a holdup.” The teller, pulls the drawer in, reads the note, flips it over and writes on the back, “I don’t see a gun,” and sends note back to the guy who obligingly puts his gun in the drawer and sends it in to the teller;

• Like the guy who writes his holdup note on any piece of paper with his name and address on it or who is wearing a work uniform with his name tag fully visible;

• Like the guy who tries to outrun police on the interstate;

• Like any idiot who tries to resist a half-dozen police officers;

You get the picture.

But now I have expanded my sentiments to wishing I could pose the same question to some of our bumbling state politicians—particularly our self-promoting, egocentric, ambitious, absentee governor who insists—with a straight face, no less—that he has the job he wants even as he ignores a multitude of problems at home while auditioning for any job that will promote his shameless career goals.

But there are others:

• Any legislator (like Noble Ellington or Jane Smith) who runs for office on the promise of looking out for the folks back home but then accepts a six-figure salary in some department for which he or she has zero qualifications. What were you thinking?

• Any agency head (like Louisiana Workforce Commission Executive Director Curt Eysink) who sends out an email saying there will be no merit raises for employees because of budgetary constraints while almost simultaneously approving a 41 percent increase for a single employee. What were you thinking?

• Any agency head (like Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein) who would attempt to withhold the name of the winner of a $300 million contract with DHH from a legislative committee charged with confirming his appointment as secretary. What were you thinking?

• Any agency head (like Department of Natural Resources Secretary Scott Angelle) who would resign in the middle of a major crisis involving a potentially toxic sinkhole in order to selfishly run for a public office that he thinks will set him up for a run for governor in 2015? What were you thinking?

• Any agency head (like Alcohol and Tobacco Control Office Commissioner Troy Hebert) who would send a uniformed agent to inspect bars where she had recently worked undercover and purchased drugs from dealers. What were you thinking?

• Any agency head (like Superintendent of Education John White) who, on the night before he was to testify before a legislative committee about the New Living Word school in Ruston, sent emails to the governor’s office that he would try to “take some air out of the room” and to “muddy up” the narrative over the his approval of 315 vouchers for the school that had no classrooms, no desks and no teachers. What were you thinking?

• Any agency head (like White) who, within a matter of a few weeks, would hire a $144,000 part-time public relations officer from Florida and a consultant from Los Angeles to serve as a shill for the Department of Education’s (DOE) computer Course Content at a salary of $146,000—both of whom are allowed to commute and/or work from their homes. What were you thinking?

• Any agency head who, while giving no merit increases for three years and while even laying off rank and file employees, continues to give healthy salary increases to employees already earning in excess of $100,000 per year. What were you thinking?

• Any legislator who sees nothing wrong with private Christian schools receiving vouchers but who goes ballistic when it is learned that an Islamic school applied for vouchers under the same program. What were you thinking?

• Any governor who, while busy traveling all over the country promoting his aspirations for a cabinet position should Mitt Romney be elected president, approves closures of and budgetary cutbacks for state hospitals where cutbacks and closures result in the loss of treatment availability for indigent citizens. What were you thinking?

• Any governor who, while spewing outright lies in his many out-of-state visits about how he has the most ethical, most transparent and accountable administration in the country, continues to hide his office behind a veil of secrecy, refusing to provide public records or to grant media interviews. What were you thinking?

• Any inaccessible, unreachable, unavailable, unaccountable governor who, in an attempt to further shroud public agencies from having to answer directly to Louisiana citizens, attempts to force disputes with state agencies to be handled via telephone hearings instead of face-to-face hearings. What were you thinking?

• Any legislator who allows this governor and these bureaucrats to snub their collective noses at the citizens of this state with their arrogant actions and their attitude of defiance and mockery.

• Any citizen of Louisiana who would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than hold these sorry excuses for public servants accountable.

What the hell are any of you thinking?

Read Full Post »

In the past we’ve compared Piyush Jindal to Richard Nixon, primarily in the context of Jindal’s desire for absolute power and his intolerance for dissent. For the most part those comparisons were tongue-in-cheek, intended to show the governor’s absurd propensity toward micromanagement.

The comparisons were metaphors as much as anything else and not to be taken literally.

That was then.

Now, less than a year into his second term, Jindal, much like Nixon, is becoming more and more obsessed with secrecy.

Nixon’s attempt to conceal public documents behind a cloak of “executive privilege” has been supplanted by Jindal’s even vaguer term—something called the “deliberative process.”

Jindal demands complete and total loyalty from his minions with no room for dissent.

He is certainly entitled to expect—and demand—loyalty from his appointees. That is his right.

But his problems run much deeper; Jindal’s administration, much like that of Nixon’s is being permeated with the destructive mentality of paranoia.

That is, without question, the most serious and debilitating characteristic that can plague any elected leader and whether one likes Jindal or despises him, it is both sad and disturbing to watch the slow unraveling of what could have been. The realization that his mistrust of anyone who might pose a question about any of his decisions is slowly starting to paralyze the state he was elected to serve. The story of his administration will read not as history as it should, but more like a Shakespearian tragedy.

Now we have proof that he, like Nixon, is not beyond concocting outright lies to conceal his real intent and to advance his agenda. We have known this all along but now we have written documentation and, strangely enough, LouisianaVoice was the catalyst in this new, unfolding drama.

But this isn’t about LouisianaVoice.

This is a much larger and more important issue.

It’s about trust and credibility.

Jindal has steadfastly maintained that he has taken a “hands-off” approach to the day to day operations at LSU, even to the point of the governor’s executive counsel Elizabeth “I didn’t know there was a State Constitution” Murrill’s outright denial on Oct. 9 that she instructed LSU to hide behind the deliberative process privilege.

But nearly two months earlier, on Aug. 16, LSU attorney Shelby McKenzie wrote LSU Interim President William Jenkins that Murrill had specifically asked to review documents requested by LouisianaVoice.

The documents were also shared with Lee Kantrow, a private Baton Rouge attorney who serves as legal counsel to the University Medical Center board.

It seems they were shared with virtually everyone but the media which had requested the information in the first place.

Murrill, along with the rest of the governor’s office, of course, have employed the bunker mentality as they hunker down and now refuse to comment publicly on their being caught in the big lie.

Deliberative process is a legal term that never existed before Jindal took office in 2008.

It powers the process of deciding what qualifies as public record and what does not in that it protects deliberations in the governor’s office as well as in recommendations to the governor by agency officials.

A 45-page report by the Louisiana Law Review at the LSU Law School says of the deliberative process:

• The statutory deliberative process privilege allows the governor to fight the disclosure of any government record (emphasis ours) used in his decision-making process, even if that record is located outside the governor’s office. Some scholars criticize the very concept of the deliberative process privilege as eroding the “power and effectiveness of the citizens who we regard as sovereigns.” By adopting the phrase “deliberative process,” the legislature has attempted to implicate a body of law interpreting a particular exemption under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). But it is not quite the clean fit the legislature might have envisioned. Left unsettled is whether Louisiana courts will or should embrace all the various intricacies in FOIA jurisprudence or craft solutions more faithful to Louisiana’s historically liberal public records doctrine.

• Under Act 495, the governor will also be able to deny access to “intra-office communications” between himself and his staff. Courts will have to decide just what types of communications qualify for this exemption, as a broad interpretation will result in this “new” addition to the statute amounting to little more than a smaller version of the governor’s prior custody-based exemption.

• Finally, Act 495 raises an interesting dilemma: are governors now required to archive records, rather than shred them upon leaving office? One reading of the new law seems to allow governors to shield forever the documents that they independently deem as revealing of their deliberative process, denying potentially valuable and enlightening information to historians and future generations.” (emphasis ours)

Apparently, all an agency head has to do to protect public records from scrutiny is to couch them in the form of recommendations to the governor.

To be fair to McKenzie, he apparently recognized the legal problems of hiding behind the deliberative process shield and attempted to straddle the issue with his letter. “The express provisions of the statute are not broad enough to apply to the current public records request,” he said. “An argument could be raised that the privilege is grounded in constitutional principles (oops! Just lost Murrill) “of separation of powers and personal freedom of expression,” adding that a resolution of the issue “is a genuine legal dispute” that only a court could resolve.

He said that because the deliberative process is being invoked by several state agencies, “it is unlikely that LSU will be the target of any legal attack on the privilege.”

So, while the prevailing philosophy seems to be to employ the deliberative process so liberally and so often that those seeking information to which the public is entitled become so confused and exhausted in their efforts that they will give up.

Don’t count on it.

Nixon did.

Read Full Post »

“Yesterday afternoon, I submitted a request to Civil Service for the Layoff Avoidance Measure of withholding performance adjustment pay increases (or merit increases) for the upcoming year. I sincerely regret that this is necessary for a third year in a row, but I made this request to minimize the impact of budget pressures on our levels of staffing and on the agency.”

–Louisiana Workforce Commission executive director Curt Eysink, in a September 26 email to his employees informing them they would not be receiving 4 percent merit increases.

“I’m not going to cast a vote to set a precedent for one employee.”

–State Civil Service Commission member Scott Hughes, less than week later, speaking out against a proposed $19,430 annual pay increase (40.8 percent) for a Louisiana Workforce Commission mid-level manager. Despite Hughes’s opposition, the compliant Civil Service Board rubber stamped the pay increase from $47,570 to $67,000 for the employee described by Civil Service assistant director Jean Jones as barely meeting minimum job standards.

Read Full Post »

“He seems to have little interest in strengthening its educational mission. He’s slashed its budget by an obscene amount (almost half a billion dollars in cuts for Louisiana higher education in the past three years). In that time, state appropriations as a percent of LSU’s budget have gone from 60 percent to about 35 percent. Ten percent of the faculty has left or been laid off. Courses have been cancelled. Class size has grown. Tuition has increased dramatically.”

–Bob Mann, director of the LSU School of Mass Communication’s Reilly Center for Media & Public Affairs, on Gov. Piyush Jindal’s persistent meddling in the day to day operations of the state’s flagship university, a practice Mann says can endanger the school’s accreditation.

“Perhaps the only reason he hasn’t yet started stuffing LSU with friends and washed-up legislators is that he only recently acquired a strong majority of the LSU Board of Supervisors.”

–Bob Mann, further elaborating on Jindal’s possible motives in assuming political control of LSU. (Mann, however forgot to mention that Jindal achieved that “strong majority” by appointing to the board a man who has less than a year of college education. Ya gotta love it.)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,821 other followers