Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April, 2011

Foundation a novel twist on fundraising methods

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, Supriya Jinda Foundation, Uncategorized on April 7, 2011| 3 Comments »

Federal income tax returns show that the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children had receipts of more than $278,000 in 2009 but spent less than $67,000 on 60 interactive whiteboards donated to public school classrooms across Louisiana.

Returns for two other years, 2008 and 2010 were not immediately available but apparently reflect much larger donations to the foundation, according to other sources.

The foundation, headed by Gov. Bobby Jindal’s wife generated considerable controversy last month when it was learned that several corporate contributors had profited either through lucrative state contracts, favorable legislation, or lax enforcement of penalties against polluters.

The foundation was founded in mid-2008, six months after Jindal took office. Capitol News Service requested complete tax returns from the foundation but received only the return for 2009. No returns for 2008 or 2010 were provided.

Charter members pledged $250,000, according to the foundation’s web page which contains a photo of Gov. Jindal and his wife. Platinum members pledge $100,000, Gold members $50,000, Silver members $25,000, and bronze members $10,000. Circle of Friends members give a one-time gift of up to $10,000, the web page says.

Individuals and corporate donors are limited to maximum political contributions of $5,000 during each election cycle, but there is no limit on the amount that can be given a foundation run by either a candidate or a spouse.

Depending on the news source quoted, Mrs. Jindal’s foundation has received $1 million overall and has spent that same amount on the installation of about 170 interactive whiteboards that enable teachers to download multimedia lesson plans to aid them in teaching math or science.

A report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said nine companies that collectively contributed $100,000 to Jindal’s campaign over several election cycles donated at least $790,000 to the foundation.

The foundation received $250,000 from Marathon Oil. Marathon subsidiaries have received $5.2 million in state funds, according to a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

BlueCross/BlueShield contributed $100,000 and won a questionable $400 million contract to provide health insurance for state employees and retirees and their dependants. A state court judge later ordered the state to re-bid the contract after Humana challenged the contract in a lawsuit that said the plan bid on by BlueCross/BlueShield was not what the state request for proposals (RFP) specified.

Northrop Grumman contributed $10,000 and was awarded a consulting contract of $11.4 million.

Dow Chemical pledged $100,000 and efforts by the administration to fine Dow’s Union Carbide subsidiary for allowing the release of a toxic pollutant and failing to notify state authorities of the leak in a timely manner were apparently dropped.

AT&T may have been the big winner, though.

The corporation contributed $10,000 to Jindal’s campaign since 2007 but gave $250,000 to the Jindal Foundation after Gov. Jindal signed SB- 807 into law (Act 433) in 2008 over the objections of the Louisiana Municipal and the State Police Jury associations. The bill, the Consumer Choice for Television Act removed from local and parish governments their authority and responsibility to negotiate cable franchise agreements with companies that relied largely on locally-owned public infrastructure such as utility poles. The bill also allows AT&T to sell cable television service without the necessity of obtaining local franchises.

In addition to benefitting from the newly enacted cable television law, Capitol News Service found that AT&T also had a minimum of 17 separate contracts with the state totaling $32.2 million.

In addition to contracts, lax enforcement, and favorable legislation, the foundation’s tax return shows that the foundation’s treasurer is Alexandra Bautsch who also is Gov. Jindal’s chief fundraiser, an association that is a little too close for CREW Director Melanie Sloan, who called it “an awfully close relationship between the charity and the governor.”

Sloan, a former prosecutor, said, “Donations that come in to charities like this are almost always from folks who want something from a politician. The donations are made not because of the great work of the charity, but because of connections.

“Foundations tied to politicians see their donations dry up when the politician is no longer in power,” she said. “That demonstrates the real reason the charities get the donations is their political position, not because of the good works they do.”

“If it is not an actual conflict, it is an appearance of conflict,” she said.

Claude “Buddy” Leach, Jr., chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party, said it was “the perception that you can have influence with the governor’s office through this foundation.”

Jindal press secretary Kyle Plotkin said Jindal has never solicited donations for his wife’s foundation. But Jindal does appear with his wife in a photograph pasted on the foundation’s web page which could be interpreted by some as a subtle come-on by the governor aimed at potential donors.

Another spokesperson for Gov. Jindal said anything other than the reality that the charity is a “completely nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization created by the first lady….has plainly been dreamed up by partisan hacks living in a fantasy land.”

Pot, kettle.

Gov. Jindal simply said allegations of influence peddling through his wife’s foundation were “silly.”

Kettle, pot.

Read Full Post »

State employees get another slap in the face from administration in the form of Personnel Policy #95

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Transparency on April 5, 2011| 5 Comments »

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.

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court betrays justice with John Thompson decision

Posted in Transparency on April 3, 2011| 7 Comments »

This post is about justice. More accurately, it is about the betrayal of justice—absolutely and without doubt, the most tragic, most egregious, most heartbreaking betrayal of justice one could possibly imagine.

And just who is responsible for this horrific miscarriage of justice? None other than the one institution that is supposed to be the very embodiment of justice, that bulwark of equality and fairness, the highest authority on the law of the land, the United States Supreme Court.

In a mind-numbing 5-4 decision, the court overturned a $14 million judgment against the late Harry Connick, Sr., and the New Orleans district attorney’s office for the wrongful conviction of John Thompson in the 1984 murder of a New Orleans hotel executive.

In 1985, Thompson was convicted of the Dec. 6, 1984, murder of Ray Liuzza and was sentenced to death by a New Orleans jury. The only problem was, he didn’t do it and the district attorney’s office knew he didn’t do it.

Almost 50 years ago, in 1963, in the landmark Brady v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had a duty to make available to defendants all exculpatory evidence—evidence that would benefit or exonerate a defendant.

Thompson’s trial was in 1985, more than two decades after Brady and still the prosecuting attorney in Connick’s office deliberately and knowingly withheld vital evidence so much in Thompson’s favor that he could never have been convicted had the jury been given access to it.

Crime lab data had shown that Liuzza’s killer had type B blood, while Thompson was type O. Moreover, an eyewitness described the assailant as a black man who was six feet tall with close-cropped hair. Thompson is 5-foot-8 and sported a bushy Afro at the time.

The jury never learned of either of these facts because the prosecutor chose not to turn the information over to Thompson’s defense attorney.

It wasn’t until the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Thompson was dying of cancer that he confessed his transgression to an associate who kept the secret to himself for another five years before finally divulging it.

Meanwhile, Thompson had six separate dates with the executioner. In each case, he was fortunate enough to get a stay as the Louisiana Innocence Project worked fervently to clear him before his execution.

It took 18 years before Thompson walked out of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola a free man.

He sued District Attorney Connick, father of entertainer Harry Connick, Jr., and the district attorney’s office and was awarded a $14 million judgment—$1 million for each year he spent on death row. That judgment was upheld by a federal judge and a U.S. court of appeals panel. The district attorney’s office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the high court agreed to hear arguments.

Despite the deliberate and conscious decision by the assistant D.A. to withhold the exculpatory evidence, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the decision late last month, described the case as a “single incident” where mistakes were made. He added that Thompson “did not prove a pattern of similar violations” that would justify holding the district attorney’s office liable for the wrongdoing.

Wait. What? Single incident? Mistakes were made? No pattern of similar violations?

It is incredulous that Thomas, with the concurrence of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., could put such foolishness in writing when Thompson’s attorneys clearly cited several similar cases in New Orleans in which key evidence was concealed from defense attorneys. Moreover, Thompson’s lawyers showed to the high court that no fewer than four prosecutors in Connick’s office knew about the blood test and never came forward.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent that she read in the courtroom, said the court was shielding prosecutors from “flagrant” misconduct that nearly cost an innocent man his life.

“John Thompson spent 14 years isolated on death row before the truth came to light,” Ginsburg said. “He was innocent of the crimes that sent him to prison, and prosecutors dishonored their obligation to prevent the true facts to the jury.”

Thanks to the narrow-mindedness of the Roberts court, it now becomes even more difficult for a wrongfully convicted individual to seek damages from prosecutors who deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.

The National Innocence Project, co-founded by attorney Garry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, has thus far gained the freedom of more than 300 wrongfully convicted individuals. Many of those convictions were overturned as the result of the emergence of DNA as an evidentiary tool.

Which brings us to another story of area concern:

Last November, District Attorney Mike Harson of the 15th JDC (Lafayette Parish) went on record as opposing an Angola inmate’s request for a DNA test that he said would clear him of a 1983 rape case. Harson even appealed a judge’s decision granting the request of William Williams, Jr. after a New Jersey nonprofit organization, Centurion Ministries, offered to pay for the testing.

That story ran in the Baton Rouge Advocate last Nov. 21. The very next day, the Advocate ran another story that a Houston man had been cleared of rape….by DNA tests.

The argument used most often by prosecutors in opposing DNA tests is that it disrespects the victims.

Sorry, but we ain’t buying that. Not for a minute. Nothing disrespects the victim more than convicting the wrong person (who is also victim, is he not?) while leaving the real criminal free to commit further carnage.

And someone please explain why a man would request a DNA test if he was, in fact, guilty? Wouldn’t the test be counter-productive to the accused if it only reinforced his guilt?

Mr. Harson, your argument is weak, lame, ill-conceived, disingenuous, and illegitimate. What’s more, it’s downright insulting to the intelligence of anyone who can read and reason for himself.

But it might qualify you as a viable candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court should a vacancy occur.

Read Full Post »

WikiLeaks reveals Jindal’s ambitious plans for second term

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Charters, Contract, Contracts, Economy, Exemptions, Incentives, Governor's Office, Higher Education, House, Senate, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, Privatization, Supriya Jinda Foundation, Taxes on April 1, 2011| 10 Comments »

Gov. Bobby Jindal has outlined an ambitious program for his second term of office, including the privatization of the Louisiana Legislature, state colleges and universities, the sale of all state roads and highways and bridges to private concerns, and rapid expansion of the state’s charter school system, all to be controlled by private entities.

His plans for the state, which he calls the “Piyush Push,” were revealed by WikiLeaks which published a series of emails between Jindal and corporate campaign supporters who have contributed millions of dollars to Jindal’s wife’s charity, the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children. Upon learning of the WikiLeaks report, the governor called a press conference to explain his programs.

The privatization plan calls for the takeover of the Louisiana Legislature by a corporate board made up of the CEOs of Louisiana’s larger corporations and Wall Street bankers, including AT&T and Goldman Sachs.

The operating boards of state colleges and universities would be merged into a single governing board with board members serving at Jindal’s pleasure. An obscure clause in his plan would allow him to retain control of appointments even after he leaves office. The so-called super board would be comprised of major contributors who would purchase stock shares in the universities. Board members would be allowed to send their elementary- and high school-age children and grandchildren to state charter schools.

“We are not going to raise taxes on the people of Louisiana,” Jindal said at the hastily called press conference attended only by reporters from the Baton Rouge Business Report. “We are going to run these universities like a business. Tuition will be adjusted to a level comparable to that of our nation’s finest institutions, the Ivy League schools, of which I am an alumnus. The board members will not draw per diem or salaries for their services but we anticipate they will profit from their sacrifice and hard work through stock ownership and lucrative stock options in the universities,” the governor said.

“Again, I want to reiterate that we are not going to increase taxes but the new owners of state roads, highways, and bridges will certainly be free to charge a modest usage fee for travel on their byways and bridges,” Jindal said. “People who drive cars should understand that use of roads and bridges is a privilege, not a right and that a usage fee is not the same as a tax; it’s a fee. We believe that these usage fees will offset the need for any increase in gasoline taxes.”

As for the future of the legislature, Jindal said it will be downsized from the current membership of 144 to 12 white males who will inherit all current campaign contributions remaining and accruing to the 144 outgoing legislators. The only way an African-American would be appointed would be in the event of a class action lawsuit by representatives of minority groups. “It almost worked with the Board of Regents,” the governor said in defending his legislative plan.

A few legislators voiced reservations with the manner in which Jindal is moving to privatize their institution, but after having gone along with the governor in other privatization endeavors, most indicated they would not resist the new austerity moves by the governor. Nor was there any immediate indication that legislators would attempt to invoke the separation of powers doctrine under which the legislature has heretofore been largely independent of the governor’s office.

Sen. Carl Spackler of Bushwood, however, was one who vowed he will not vote in favor of privatization of the legislature. “I believe the legislative branch of government is protected in the Constitution somewhere and I’m going to read up on that,” Spackler said. “If I’m correct, I’m not going to sit still for him putting me out of a job. Who does Jindal think we are, state employees? I worked hard for my GED.”

But Jindal was emphatic about pushing for complete passage of his austerity package, saying there would be no compromise. “I want to emphasize that these moves are in keeping with my ‘more is less’ philosophy for all government,” he said. “For those who may question these actions, I would say to them, ‘Quit whining and work smarter.”

Neither is Jindal considering an increase in tobacco taxes. “Smoking is a private decision, an individual right, and smokers should not be penalized for exercising that right,” he said. “We are, however, imposing a significant surcharge for abortions to encourage the notion that life is sacred and women should not make such decisions too lightly. Again, I want to emphasize this is not a tax.”

He said he is also planning to sharply reduce the number of state employees. One example of his layoff plan would require every Louisiana citizen who is unwilling or unable to complete the process on-line to appear at a central location in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Monroe, New Orleans, Alexandria, Lafayette, or Lake Charles for driver’s license applications and license renewals. “I don’t see why we can’t get by in each office with one or two persons,” he said. “How difficult can it be to issue a driver’s license?”

He also announced plans to double the size and the salaries of the state’s Homeland Security Office while at the same time saying he would cut staff at state hospitals to a single physician and nurse per specialty at each facility. “I believe with fewer doctors, people will find a way to stay healthier,” Jindal said.

“Again, I want to say we are not going to raise taxes,” he said. “That is not an option. We are, however, going to raise the annual deductible on medical care to $12,500 per year, increase co-payments to $50, and at the same time, we’re asking state workers to kick in another 75 percent on employee premiums on health care coverage and retirement benefits.”

Jindal used the press conference to take yet another swipe at big government in general and President Obama in particular. “The bloated federal government should take a look at Louisiana and say, “That’s how things should be done,” he said. “We’re proving in our open and transparent administration that our ethics are above reproach and we’re wiping out our deficit with good, open and honest government,” he said as the CEOs of AT&T, Northrop Grumman, Worley Catastrophe Response, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield stood behind him.

“I would once again call upon the Obama administration to repeal its drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico so that our oil companies can make a decent living,” Jindal said.

Jindal said he would sell all public schools to private entities so that they could be converted to charter schools. He said the move would be a model of efficiency for the rest of the nation. “I believe the 25 percent loss in Detroit’s population over the past decade, for example, could be reversed simply by converting to my proposed system for Louisiana schools,” he said.

“I fully anticipate there will be a bidding war for acquisition of schools as public finance will guarantee a solid return for investors,” Jindal said. “Of course my administration will invest the funds derived from the sale so that cash flow will support scholarships to the schools or such other General Fund needs as might arise in the budget balancing process.”

He said those children unable to take advantage of the improved educational opportunities will be housed in dormitories near the Nucor Steel Mill in St. James Parish, the Tournament Players Club golf course in Jefferson Parish, and the Foster Farms chicken processing plant in Union Parish. “There, they will be given hands-on training to meet the plants’ needs,” he said. “If all else fails, they would certainly be qualified to become slag haulers, caddies at state-run golf clubs, or chicken pluckers.”

To insure that the schools will succeed and will demonstrate high test scores, students will be carefully pre-screened before being accepted for enrollment, Jindal said. The schools will be run by boards comprised of members selected by the owners. Owners and board members, along with the college and university Super Board members, will be given first choice of the available seats in the school for their children, as will those of select employees.

“I am fully aware that all this will require Constitutional amendments but I fully expect the voters of Louisiana to continue to support our programs. But just in case, beginning here and now, I am stepping up my schedule of visiting churches to garner popular support for my proposals. Beginning Sunday and continuing through Election Day, I will be visiting churches all over north Louisiana. My agenda will consist of three things: Sunday morning and Sunday evening services as well as Wednesday night prayer meetings.”

And that’s the way it is on Friday, April 1, 2011.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts