Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2013

Surprise! Jindal admits in brief press conference that he ‘doesn’t have a plan’ (clue) on abolishing state income tax

Posted in Broadband, Internet, Charters, Education, Exemptions, Incentives, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Prison, Privatization, Retirement, Revenue, State Agencies, Taxes, Vouchers on February 15, 2013| 14 Comments »

Whenever Gov. Bobby Jindal speaks, be it on Fox News, CNN, to fellow Republican governors or at a rare press conference such as the one held on Thursday, his threefold purpose always seems to be to inflate weak ideology, obscure poor reasoning and inhibit clarity.

His less-than-masterful tax plan for the state, which he admitted to reporters is like so many of his ill-conceived programs in that it actually remains a non-plan, might well be entitled “The Dynamics of Irrational and Mythical Imperatives of Tax Reform: A Study in Psychic Trans-Relational Fiscal Recovery Modes” (with apologies to Calvin and Hobbes, our all-time favorite comic strip).

It’s not certain what drives him to wade off into these issues (see: hospital and prison closures, higher education cutbacks, charter schools, online courses and vouchers, state employee retirement “reform,” and privatization of efficiently-operating state agencies like the Office of Group Benefits) but his actions are probably precipitated by deeply ingrained biological, psychological and sociological imperatives that have triggered a reduced functionality in the cerebral cortex (Pickles).

Or it could be some depraved attempt to inflict vengeance on society because his two imaginary childhood friends teased him and wouldn’t let him play with them.

And though he insists he has the job he wants, we can’t help but wonder if he isn’t even now casting a covetous sidelong look at the advantages of plundering (Frazz) in case his presidential aspirations fail to materialize.

The reason for all this speculation is brought on by his admission in that ever-so-brief (less than 12 minutes or six question, whichever came first) press conference Thursday that the administration does not have a proposal as yet to eliminate personal and corporate income taxes despite his well-publicized announcement that he wants to scrap state income taxes for individuals and corporations (especially corporations) in a “revenue neutral” way that would most likely involve increased sales taxes.

But he doesn’t have a proposal yet.

Are you listening, legislators? He doesn’t have a proposal yet. That means the onus is going to be on you and if he doesn’t have his way with you (as he has for the past five years—and you can take that any way you please), he’s going public with the blame game.

If everything goes south, you don’t really think he’s going to take the blame, do you?

He doesn’t have a proposal yet. Now we see where State Superintendent John White gets his prompts on running the Department of Education. White has not submitted a completed plan for any project begun at DOE since he took over; everything—vouchers, charters, course choice—is in a constant state of flux. He announces rules, retracts, readjusts, re-evaluates only to lose a lawsuit over the way his boss proposed to fund state vouchers.

Jindal doesn’t have a proposal—for anything. His retirement “reform” package for state employees was a disaster from the get go. Even before he lost yet another court decision on that issue in January, the matter of whether or not the proposed plan for new hires was an IRS-qualified plan—meaning a plan the IRS would accept in lieu of social security—remained unresolved.

He didn’t have a proposal: let’s just do it and see later if the IRS will accept it. Throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks.

Remember when he vetoed a bill two years ago to renew a five-cent tax on cigarettes because, he said, he was opposed to new taxes (it was a renewal!)? Well, now he’s considering a $1 tax increase on a pack of cigarettes.

“Everything is on the table,” he said. “That’s the way it should be.”

But isn’t he the same governor who closed hospitals and prisons without so much as a heads-up to legislators in the areas affected.

Isn’t he the same governor who rejected a federal grant to make boardband internet available to rural areas of the state but had no alternative plan for broadband?

Isn’t he the same governor who continues to resist ObamaCare at the cost of millions of dollars in Medicaid funding to provide medical care for the state’s poor?

He said he is looking at different ways to protect low- and middle-income citizens.

By increasing the state sales tax by nearly two cents on the dollar? By rejecting another $50 million federal grant for early childhood development? By shuttering battered women’s shelters and attempting to terminate state funding for hospice? By pushing for more and more tax breaks for corporations and wealthy Louisiana citizens? By appointing former legislators to six-figure state jobs for which they’re wholly unqualified while denying raises to the state’s working stiffs? Yeah, that’ll really protect the low income people of the state.

“It’s way too early to make decisions on what’s in and out of the plan,” he said of the soon-to-be proposed (we assume) income tax re-haul.

Well, Governor, it’s your job to make decisions, to come up with a proposal to present to the legislature so House and Senate members may have sufficient time to debate the issues—unlike your sweeping education package of a year ago.

In your response to President Obama’s State of the Union address this week (not your disastrous response in 2009 in which the Republican Party subjected you to national ridicule), you said, “With four more years in office, he (Obama) needs to step up to the plate and do the job he was elected to do.”

That’s right, folks. You can’t make up stuff this good. The response is so easy that it’s embarrassing but here goes:

Pot, meet Kettle.

In retrospect, drawing on comic strip for inspiration when writing about Jindal somehow seems entirely appropriate.

Read Full Post »

Dogmatic Jindal plunging ahead with appeals of pension, voucher unconstitutional rulings by district court judges

Posted in Attorney General, Contract, Contracts, Education, Governor's Office, Judges, Privatization, Retirement, Vouchers on February 14, 2013| 12 Comments »

You have to give Gov. Piyush Jindal credit—he has chutzpah.

Jindal, to paraphrase Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Harold Ramis (Dr. Egon Spengler) and Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond Stantz) of Ghostbusters fame, ain’t afraid of no state constitution.

And he ain’t afraid of throwing good taxpayer dollars after bad to prove it.

Last November, Baton Rouge District Judge Tim Kelley shot down Jindal’s far-ranging school voucher program when he ruled it was unconstitutional for the state to use funds—about $25 million this year—dedicated for public education to pay private-school tuition.

Then late last month, another Baton Rouge District Judge, William Morvant, ruled the administration’s 401 (k)-type pension plan scheduled to take effect July 1 for future state employees also was unconstitutional because it had passed the legislature by a simple majority vote and not by the necessary two-thirds majority.

Taking his cue from Admiral David Farragut at the Aug. 5, 1864, Battle of Mobile Bay, Jindal shouted to his minions on the fourth floor of the State Capitol something that sounded like, “Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead!”

Or maybe it was, “Damn the legal costs, full speed ahead!”

He said it kinda fast, so it was hard to understand, really.

It might have even been, “Damn those Republican judges, full appeal ahead!”

Kelley’s ruling was “wrong-headed” and “a travesty for parents across Louisiana,” Jindal sniffed after last November’s setback. We’re not sure of “wrong-headed” is an acceptable term in a court of law but hey, he’s the governor so who are we to quibble? After all, legend has it that a Texas cowboy in the old West successfully defended himself on a murder charge with the defense that his late adversary “needed killing.”

“We are optimistic this decision will be reversed,” said State Education Superintendent John White (An attempt by LouisianaVoice to determine from which law school White holds his juris doctorate was unsuccessful.)

“We are disappointed in the court’s ruling and we look forward to a successful appeal,” Piyush said of Morvant’s ruling on the pension plan. “We’re confident that the bill was constitutionally passed,” he added. (As with White, efforts to learn where the governor obtained his degree in constitutional law were fruitless.)

So, having already spent thousands of dollars at the district court level, he now will contract with outside counsel (eschewing the attorney general’s office right across the Lake from the Capitol) to take both cases to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Not only is he tossing good taxpayer money after bad, but he also is forcing the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana, two teachers unions and dozens of local school boards to spend membership money and local tax dollars to continue the fight to uphold the lower court rulings.

Perhaps the governor should take a look at his latest poll numbers (37 percent approval rating) and try to understand that he can’t always get his way even though he and his $10 million campaign war chest did collect 66 percent of a 20 percent voter turnout in his re-election just over a year ago—against a field that included as his strongest opponent a school teacher with no money. And the teacher, Tara Hollis, still got 18 percent of the vote.

So what if 80 percent of the Louisiana voters stayed home? Sixty-six percent is a mandate!

A former middle school teacher said even as a child his mindset was such that he always had to have his way and that it was simply inconceivable that he might be wrong.

But this isn’t middle school and even by spending thousands more of taxpayer money, he still isn’t likely to get his way.

Ever see a governor throw a tantrum? Stand by. It might even qualify as a hissy fit.

Who you gonna call?

Constitution Busters, aka Bobby Jindal, Timmy Teepell and Jimmy Faircloth!

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in ATC, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Judges, Notable Quotables, Uncategorized on February 11, 2013| 5 Comments »

“It is well settled that an employee of a public entity may not be discharged for exercising his constitutionally protected rights to free of expression…”

“The law has recognized that there are some types of speech, which by their very nature, address matters of public concern. For instance, the disclosure of misbehavior by public officials ia a matter of public concern and is therefore entitled to constitutional protection.”

—Excerpts from the Jan. 25 ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeal that overturned a decision by 19th Judicial District Court Judge William Morvant in which Morvant had ruled in favor of ATC Commissioner Troy Hebert whose attorney, E. Wade Shows, argued that State Alcohol and Tobacco Control agent Randall Kling had no right of action in his claim of retaliatory firing against ATC Commissioner Hebert because, according to state arguments, Kling’s complaints did not involve “matters of public concern” and that his complaints about Hebert’s questionable actions were “in his role as an employee and not as a concerned citizen.”

Read Full Post »

Jindal administration’s ugly double standard in dealing with sexual harassment complaints—even within the same agency

Posted in ATC, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Judges, Public Records on February 11, 2013| 25 Comments »

The administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal apparently has a double standard in the manner in which it handles complaints of sexual harassment against appointees.

When Kelli Suire accused her former boss, commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Murphy J. Painter, of sexual harassment, it mattered little to Jindal and then-Chief of Staff Stephen Waguespack that she had already recanted those allegations. Painter was immediately called to the governor’s office and summarily fired from his job.

But when Painter’s successor, Troy Hebert, was accused of sexual harassment—and other transgressions—by an ATC agent nearly two years ago, it was the agent, Randall Kling, who was fired and the Jindal administration then threw its financial and legal resources behind defending Hebert, who remains employed.

But Kling may yet have the last word in what has now turned into a legal battle between him and the Department of Revenue, the agency under whose budget ATC is funded, but now the issue is retaliation against his right of free speech.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal on Jan. 25 overturned a lower court decision which found no right of action by Kling and which dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice.

Kling and other ATC employees initially submitted a complaint to former Revenue Secretary Cynthia Bridges about what they considered to be offensive behavior on the part of Hebert on March 10, 2011. Then on March 16, 22 and 25, Kling submitted additional complaints to Dee Everett, director of human resources at Revenue.

Among his complaints were claims of threats, hostile work environment, systematic intimidation and discrimination, favoritism, humiliation, harassment, inefficiency and morale problems at ATC.

On March 30, 2011, Kling was terminated and on May 26, he filed suit against the Department of Revenue, claiming that he had been fired in retaliation for his complaints regarding Hebert and his department.

The department filed objections of no cause of action, claiming that Kling’s allegations failed to set forth a cause of action for a free speech retaliation claim because his complaints did not involve “matters of public concern,” but rather were merely the complaints of an employee against his superior that were not entitled to constitutional protection.

Kling subsequently filed an amended petition in which he set forth 24 alleged violations of agency policy, procedure and law, including allegations that Hebert:

• Compromised the Civil Service Performance Planning and Review System;

• Operated the ATC in total disregard of State Civil Service rules;

• Used state resources for personal and political gain and in furtherance of his plan to seek elective office;

• Attempted to undermine ethics laws by attempting to form a non-profit entity whereby funding could be solicited and received from the alcohol industry which is regulated by ATC, and boasting that the alcohol industry would gladly donate funds to furnish his proposed new office suite at ATC;

• Schemed to build himself a new office in such a manner as to avoid legislative and Division of Administration oversight;

• Harassed employees who cooperated with the investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General and the Louisiana State Police concerning the conduct of former commissioner Painter;

• Repeatedly violated sensitive computer policies (a charge for which Painter was indicted and is scheduled to stand trial on April 22), which violations had the potential to jeopardize sensitive law enforcement initiatives and compromised the safety of ATC agents;

• Was guilty of misconduct that threatened the ability of ATC to properly perform its duties;

• Subjected ATC employees to sexual harassment, gender discrimination, humiliation and systematic employment practices that placed ATC agents in potential danger, and

• Was responsible for a mass exit of qualified and experienced ATC agents.

The state, choosing to eschew the attorney general’s office in defending Hebert, instead contracted with outside counsel E. Wade Shows who promptly argued that Kling was attempting to assert a claim for retaliatory discharge due to complaints that were not made by him individually, but by at least 11 other employees of ATC.

It might appear somewhat unusual to argue that a single employee had no cause of action—because his claims were based on the complaints of 11 co-workers—since that argument would seem to acknowledge that agency problems were not confined to a single employee but instead were experienced by several others as well and that problems were agency-wide in nature.

Shows also argued that Kling’s amended petition failed to state a viable cause of action as the complaints he made were simply that of an “unhappy employee” and not a “matter of public concern,” and therefore not constitutionally protected.

Apparently the trial court judge, A. William Morvant, agreed.

Morvant, at oral arguments held on Jan. 23, 2012, refused to allow Kling’s attorney to argue on the basis that the opposition brief was untimely and also refused to allow Kling to testify on the exception of no right of action, although he did allow Kling’s testimony to be proffered (offered into evidence).

Morvant subsequently ruled that Kling’s petition did not set forth a cause of action for retaliatory discharge because none of the allegations rose to the level of public concern, but were merely workplace criticisms by Kling in his role as an employee and not as a concerned citizen (see: Kelli Suire’s complaint against Painter for the contrast in the manner in which similar complaints are handled by the governor’s office—LouisianaVoice, Feb. 6 post https://louisianavoice.com/2013/02/06/emerging-claims-lawsuits-could-transform-murphy-painter-from-predator-to-all-too-familiar-victim-of-jindal-reprisals/).

Morvant signed his judgment a year ago, on Feb. 1, 2012, sustaining the exception of no right of action, thereby dismissing Kling’s lawsuit with prejudice (meaning final judgment as opposed to without prejudice which means the matter may be revisited).

Kling appealed and the First Circuit ultimately disagreed with Morvant—and Shows—and reversed Morvant’s ruling late last month.

The First Circuit, which appeared to offer a lesson in law to Morvant, said, “…In order to have an interest in asserting a retaliatory discharge claim, Mr. Kling does not have to be a direct recipient of the conduct complained of…”

“Mr. Kling claims that he was terminated from his position in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutionally protected right of free speech. His interest in prosecuting this lawsuit is not as a victim of harassment or discrimination, but as an employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about Mr. Hebert’s conduct,” the appellate court ruling says.

“Thus, the fact that he may not individually have been a victim of some of the complaints in the amended petition, such as gender discrimination, is of no moment in determining whether he has a right of action to assert a retaliatory discharge claim.

“We find that (ATC) failed to meet its burden of establishing that Mr. Kling had no interest in prosecuting this retaliation claim….Therefore, we find that the trial court committed legal error in granting the exception of no right of action.”

The ruling then went on to address a little something contained in the First Amendment—the right of free speech:

“Article I, Section 7 (of the U.S. Constitution), on which Mr. Kling’s lawsuit is based, gives Louisiana citizens the right to speak, write, and publish their sentiments on any subject. It is well settled that an employee of a public entity may not be discharged for exercising his constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression despite his at-will status.

“The law has recognized that there are some types of speech, which by their very nature, address matters of public concern,” the ruling continued. “For instance, the disclosure of misbehavior by public officials is a matter of public concern and is therefore entitled to constitutional protection.

“These allegations of unethical and perhaps illegal conduct on Mr. Hebert’s part clearly are matters of public concern.

“We find that Mr. Kling’s petition does set forth a cause of action for retaliatory discharge and reverse the trial court’s judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action and dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice.

“The judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is also hereby reversed.

“This matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the ruling said, adding that all costs of the appeal were assessed against the Department of Revenue.

Read Full Post »

The night former Miss America Mary Ann Mobley smiled at me (and other beauty pageant ruminations worth sharing)

Posted in Uncategorized on February 10, 2013| 4 Comments »

The undated letter from someone named Patti Schneider came complete with official letterhead, a New Jersey return address and even a telephone number.

Patti Schneider, according to the letter, is the State Director for the National American Miss beauty contest which, near as I can tell, is open to five age categories: Teen (16-18), Junior Teen (13-15), Pre-Teen (10-12), Junior Pre-Teen (7-9) and of course, the forever enduring and charming Princess (4-6).

I was immediately taken back to my days of covering pageants. I once covered the Miss Louisiana Pageant in Monroe and the guest was former Miss America Mary Ann Mobley and when she came down the runway and sang, I’m certain she was singing only to me because she glanced in my direction. Once. Ever-so-briefly. (She was obviously trying to be discreet, but her admiring sidelong look was a dead giveaway to everyone in the auditorium.) I asked my wife if she saw how Mary Ann (we’re that close) smiled at me and she said yes, adding that it was a bit unusual because most women laugh out loud at me.

And then there was that incredibly drawn-out Queen Dixie Gem Pageant in Louisiana Tech’s Howard Auditorium in Ruston way back in the late ’60s or early ’70s. The Queen Dixie Gem Pageant is the culmination of the annual Lincoln Parish Peach Festival. Some memories fade over time while others are etched indelibly on the brain. In this case the exact year is hazy but the details that follow are as clear as if they occurred yesterday.

To set the stage, the emcee was caught up in his own narcissistic sense of importance and did not understand that the show was not about him.

There were 23 contestants and he had index cards with biographical information on each one. Each contestant appeared onstage four times: casual street wear, evening gown, swimsuit, and talent. The emcee was supposed to give one or two biographical items each time a contestant came out. Instead, he read what seemed like each girl’s entire genealogical history with each appearance.

Do you have any concept of how incredibly maddening it is to hear some variation of “…and she enjoys the game of love—tennis”—92 times in one evening?

The insistence of giving every detail of each contestant’s life four times resulted in the pageant’s plodding on until well past midnight—more than five hours.

But the best was yet to come. The emcee, either an instructor or a student at a charm school in Shreveport, had compiled an interminable list of “things to do on a rainy day” that he was determined to get all the way through while the judges were compiling their final tabulations. This is just a fraction of that list:

“Read a book.”

“Bake a cake.”

“Clean the house.”

“Wash the car.”

“Write a letter to a friend.”

“Sprinkle perfume in your drawers.”

Yep, he really did say that. Of course he meant bureau drawers (at least we think that’s what he meant) but it didn’t matter because no one chose to take it that way and needless to say, it more or less brought down an otherwise exhausted house. We could barely hear the announcement of the winner’s name over the laughter that must have lasted a good 20 minutes.

But back to Ms. Schneider and the National American Miss. (The organization’s acronym is NAM, so I hope it doesn’t cause any flashbacks with our readers.)

“Your daughter has been referred to me as a possible candidate who may enjoy modeling,” the letter from Ms. Schneider begins. “I am writing to tell you that she is eligible to compete in this year’s official state pageant. This is her invitation to an Open Call for the National American Miss Louisiana State Pageant, the official preliminary to the national pageant held each year in sunny California at Hollywood and Disneyland.”

After waving the prizes like a carrot on a stick ($20,000 in cash, modeling scholarships, college scholarships, and a new 2013 Ford Mustang convertible—in all, more than $500,000 in cash, prizes and scholarships), the letter continued.

“National American Miss is a pageant experience designed for your daughter, today’s girl; that’s why we do not have a swimsuit competition. We believe that kids should look like kids, that’s why we have a no make-up rule for participants age 12 and under and she is not required to perform a talent. Scoring is based on an individual’s personality, poise and confidence.

“We are providing these Open Call session dates for all candidates who are interested in finding out more information about our production. We will hosting the Open Calls at these times:

• Tuesday, Feb. 26 at the Best Western Inn & Conference Center at 2720 North MacArthur Dr. in Alexandria;

• Wednesday, Feb. 27 at the Holiday Inn at 2032 NE Evangeline Thruway in Lafayette;

• Thursday, Feb. 28 at the Crowne Plaza, 4728 Constitution Ave., Baton Rouge.

Applicants may choose either the 6 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. Open Call times in either city.

Attractive as Ms. Schneider’s offer is, however, we’re going to have to pass.

Oh, it’s not that we don’t have daughters. We do. Three, in fact.

But our youngest was born in 1977 and at 35 and with three children of her own, she might be a tad long in the tooth to qualify.

Now we do have granddaughters aged 17, 11 and six…

Oh, did I mention there’s a $20 registration fee—just for the Open Call. And then there is the National American Miss Apparel Store where one can make online purchases of shirts, sweats, caps, etc. for mom, pop and the little kiddies.

But I’d still like to know who referred my daughter (singular) and which one was being referred. I’m sure she’d be flattered.

Of course the other two might not be too happy at being slighted.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »