“I’m very disappointed in this administration. I really believed there would be transparency in government.”
–Martha Manuel, former executive director of the Louisiana Office of Elderly Affairs, after being fired for testifying against Gov. Jindal’s plan to move her former office into the Department of Health and Hospitals.
Louisiana Voice 
It makes sense for the administration to have fired Ms. Manuel – and for the reason given. What doesn’t make sense is to have not told her they were planning to make this move in advance of the release of the budget. Ms. Manuel should have resigned once she learned of this, given her opposition to it and the fact she knows this administration does not tolerate dissent. She could have then given the same testimony and it might have been even more effective.
Yes, all appointees serve at the pleasure of the governor, and she, as well as any other appointed, non-elected official in the administration can be dismissed with no reason given whatsoever and it is appropriate. However, I see no logic in the previous comment that she should have resigned as soon as she learned of the plan to move that office under DHH, simply because she did not agree with the plan and wasn’t on board with it – especially if she believed that the basis of the plan is very possibly not legal.
There are supposed to be responsibilities that go along with holding an appointed position in government, and she upheld hers by not resigning in the face of adversity, and testifying the truth to the best of her knowledge to the legislature, as the person placed in charge of that office by the governor.
Since she was not dismissed until after her testimony and still held that position at the time of her testimony, she had an obligation and responsibility to go before the legislature or committee, as they requested, to give her opinion. The fact that she gave her honest opinion and did not just parrot the usual parsed and purposely misleading, half-truthed answers that are normally given by the people appointed and associated with this administration, should not be something that she should be condemned for. I can agree that she should well have expected the axe to drop after her testimony, but her testimony carries much more weight and value for anything regarding that office as an appointee over that office, than it would as just a private citizen, and she very possibly would not have been heard at all had she had resigned prior to testifying. Otherwise, what is the point of checks and balances in government?
People like her are too few in politics, and most especially in this administration. The few people in positions that matter that are actually looking out for the long term best interests of the people of this state, rather than advancing their own careers, positions in politics or society, are about the only things standing between this state being capable of self sufficiency and Jindal’s attempt to sell it off piece by piece to the highest campaign contributor. I actually find it sort of disturbing that anyone would find fault with this woman’s integrity, regardless whether you agree with her testimony or not, or Jindal’s agenda or not.
If Jindal succeeds in his plans, this state’s citizens had better hope that they or their family do not want or require that office’s or many other offices’ assistance or services. And nobody should EVER believe that their taxes will ever be cut as a result of contracting out these governement services – somebody still has to pay those companies to do the work…
I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks and perhaps they were too brief to adequately explain the basis for my conclusions. It was certainly not my intent to call Ms. Manuel’s integrity into question.
Now Ms. Manuel is free to tell the truth about Jindal and his plans for Louisiana and her citizens.