Louisiana Voice

Last month, LouisianaVoice submitted the fourth in a series of public records requests to the Division of Administration in an effort to secure a copy of the report done by Chaffe & Associates of New Orleans on the financial evaluation of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB).

On May 27, we received an email response from Paul Holmes, Attorney 4, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Administration (DOA). Here is his verbatim reply to that specific portion of our request:

“In response to your May 24, 2011, public records request, please be advised as follows.

A report generated by Chaffe & Associates was received on May 25, 2011. The report is privileged as part of the deliberative process and is exempt from disclosure under R.S. 44:4.1 as well as pursuant to Kyle v. Public Service Commission, 878 So.2d 650 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004) and Donelon v. Theriot, 2011 WL 1733548, (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/3/11).”

On May 31, Paul Rainwater offered much the same testimony before the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, saying that he had received the report on May 25 but that it could not be released because it was “part of the deliberative process,” a well-worn excuse for the Jindal administration to hold back documents from public release.

Even more damning, it was revealed during his testimony that he had not even provided a copy to Scott Kipper, the head man at OGB. Kipper had been appointed CEO of the agency immediately upon the firing of his predecessor, Tommy Teague, on April 15.

Rainwater first promised the committee that he would make a copy of the report available to Sen. Karen Peterson (D-New Orleans) and shortly after his testimony he provided a copy of the report to Kipper. Kipper’s copy of the report supposedly said the only benefit to privatizing OGB would be if the buyer retained the $500 million agency surplus.

Rainwater, apparently because of that language, had a change of heart and directed Kipper not to make the report available to anyone, prompting Kipper to submit his resignation, effective June 24.

As pressure mounted on Rainwater and Deputy Commissioner Mark Brady from the committee and the Legislative Auditor’s office which also wanted a copy, Rainwater finally acquiesced and released a copy to Senate President Joel Chaisson (D-Destrehan) and to the auditor’s office but only after getting senators’ signatures on a confidentiality agreement.

An unnamed senator, however, leaked the report to the Baton Rouge Advocate, which posted the full 42-page report on its web site.

Or did it?

Remember, attorney Holmes and Commissioner Rainwater both said that the report was received by DOA on May 25. Both men are in agreement on that date. Remember that date because it’s important.

The report posted by the Advocate, however, contains a signature page (Page 11) wherein both Jonathan W. Briggs, managing director of Chaffe & Associates, and Jenny E. Day Austin, assistant vice president of Chaffe, signed off on the report.

The report’s signature page is dated June 3. Remember that date because it, too, is important.

So, how is it that both Holmes on May 27, and Rainwater on May 31, claim that the report was received by DOA on May 25 when the Chaffe officials did not sign off on the report until June 3?

Confusing? Yes. It just doesn’t make sense—unless….

….Unless there are two Chaffe reports—one to be “leaked” to the press and one to be withheld from public view.

As far-fetched as that may seem, it’s not unprecedented. It happened at Grambling State University in 1977 and it had repercussions. It cost one long-time employee his job at the university and resulted in a prison sentence for another.

The June 3 report, moreover, contains none of the language about a purchaser retaining OGB’s $500 million surplus.

Finally—and this is most revealing—DOA, like most state agencies has a policy that all incoming documents are date stamped with the time and date of receipt. That includes letters, cards, circulars, packages, and reports. None of the 42 pages of the report contains a single date stamp.

State Sen. Butch Gautreaux was also skeptical of the validity of the leaked report. “(that was) exactly my question when I read the report,” he said of the conflicting dates. “I don’t buy the ‘draft copy’ thing, not for a minute.”

Attempts were made to pose the question to DOA representatives. Neither Brady, DOA Chief of Staff Dirk Thibodeaux, nor Director of Communications Michael DiResto was available and neither returned calls from LouisianaVoice.

Nor was Briggs available at Chaffe & Associates, but Austin was and took our call. When asked about the apparent discrepancy, she first said she could not divulge any information about the report without permission from her client (the state).

When told that we were working on a news story about the conflicting dates and that we wanted to give the company an opportunity to explain the inconsistency, she said she would call officials in Baton Rouge and get back to us.

She never did call back, leaving unanswered the question of how, on May 25, the state could have received a report that its authors did not sign off on until June 3.

As a last resort, an attempt was made to obtain the copy of the report given to Kipper but sources said Rainwater’s office has since retrieved that copy.

Bear in mind, this is a report on the fair market value of OGB, done for OGB, under an OGB contract, the billing for which work will be paid by OGB.

Removing the document from the agency that by all accounts should be legally designated as the custodian of the record only fans the fires of speculation as to the true content of the report.