Louisiana Voice

There exists something of a double standard in Louisiana state government between elected officials and civil service employees, or as some would describe it, between the haves and the have nots.

Members of the Louisiana Legislature may reinstate their currently suspended annual, automatic pay raises at their pleasure. Likewise, unclassified employees (appointees) may be given annual pay raises at the pleasure of the administration but for the second straight year state classified (civil service) employees have their pay frozen—at the behest of the legislature and Gov. Jindal.

Legislators may accept meals from lobbyists but classified employees are strictly prohibited from accepting so much as a cupcake from a vendor for fear that the low-level bureaucrat can do favors for the vendor that a legislative committee chairman obviously is unable to do. One civil service employee was fined $250 by the State Ethics Board a few years ago because a vendor sent her a Christmas ham.

The governor of the State of Louisiana is free to write a book about his career and to hawk it on national television but if an employee of the Division of Administration (DOA) wishes to write a book, he must obtain prior approval from his section head. Those who embrace the First Amendment might suggest that this is a form of prior censorship.

Legislators who happen to be attorneys can—and do—sue the state and no one in any official capacity sees it as a conflict of interest.

The playing field, which has never been level, is poised to become even more tilted in favor of those in power and to the detriment of those who work in the trenches on a day to day basis to keep the state running efficiently.

State classified employees—the same employees whose pay has been frozen for two years—cannot engage in outside employment activities to earn extra income unless the work is approved in advance by that same section head for fear that an employee may be engaging in a conflict of interest.

DOA employees either have already received or will be receiving a copy of DOA Policy No. 95 (not to be confused with Area 51 in Nevada, though the policy may appear to some to have been inspired by alien mind control). The new policy details limitations to any outside work employees may perform outside state business hours.

State civil service employees have for decades been asked to sign affidavits that neither they nor immediate family members worked for any contractors or vendors who did business with their agency but this regulation is far more restrictive.

The five-page memo being sent out via email to DOA employees said the purpose of the policy “is to prevent employees from participating in outside employment that may be detrimental to the DOA’s mission and public image.”

The governor only last week attended a campaign fundraiser hosted by a state vendor who has a $380,000 state contract but it’s not considered a conflict because, the vendor said, it was held “after hours.”

Corporations with lucrative multi-million-dollar contracts with the state are allowed—encouraged, even—to contribute to the governor’s wife’s foundation with no apparent concern about conflicts of interest. The governor, in fact, even posed with his wife for a photo that is featured on the foundation’s home page.

Could that be construed as a subtle solicitation of contributions on the part of the governor, and thus a conflict of interest? Apparently not.

So much for public image.

Outside employment is defined by Policy 95 as “any non-DOA activity for which economic benefit is received,” including but not limited to:

• Employment with any non-DOA employer;

• contracts to provide consulting, personal, or professional services to non-DOA individuals or entities, or

• Self-employment (an individual who operates a business or profession as a sole proprietor, partner in a partnership, or any other type of legal business entity).

Policy 95 defines economic benefit in the context of the policy as “any compensation or benefit an employee receives for his outside employment that has a monetary value, e.g. payroll check, cash payments, share of profits, share of stocks, equity participation, etc.”

Any current DOA employee planning to engage or already engaged in outside employment will be required to complete an Outside Employment Disclosure Statement form and forward it to his supervisor for review and consideration.

The supervisor will review the statement and make a recommendation to either approve or deny the request and the supervisor would forward the form, along with his recommendations, to the section head, who then would make the final decision to approve or deny the request. If the section head is unsure, he will be required to consult with the DOA Office of Human Resources (OHR) and if necessary, OHR would contact the Board of Ethics for further guidance.

On closer examination of the entire five-page document, it appears to be sorely lacking in firm, definitive policy and heavy on vague but subjective policy enforcement by too many section heads on individual whims. In more common venacular, enforcement is strictly fly by the seat of the pants with ever-shifting interpretations that could all too easily hinge on the personalities involved.

“Original disclosure statements for outside employment must be forwarded by the section to OHR for filing and copies should be kept by the supervisor in a confidential file,” the memo says.

The policy and accompanying memo are already causing an undercurrent of discontent among many state employees.

One DOA employee said he has no outside income but nonetheless feels it is no business of the state what he does after 5 p.m. “This just smacks of …. the old ‘1984 Big Brother is watching thing,’” he said in an email to OHR.

“I object strongly, on principle alone. I don’t care if I am a male stripper on Friday nights or if I repair cars in my back yard on Sunday mornings—it is none of your or anyone’s business.”

“At this moment in time, I am so angry that I have no intention of signing this thing…and I am sure that I am not alone,” he said. “What happens if I don’t sign? Would you really fire me—after 36 years?”

There was no indication as to whether or not Policy 95 would also apply to non-classified employees in the governor’s office.