From time to time at LouisianaVoice, someone will ask us how we get the information we use for our stories.
The answer is quite simple, really.
Instead of listening to what elected officials, political appointees and attorneys are saying, we listen to what they’re not saying.
And then we find out where the appropriate public records are and we go get them, sometimes finding it necessary to take legal action to obtain what rightfully belongs to the citizens of Louisiana. Our driving obsession is that public records are not the exclusive domain of whomever happens to be holding office at any given time.
The public’s right to know should be uppermost in any government—unless that government or a particular politician or bureaucrat has something to hide and we feel that having something to hide is the only reason for not releasing public records, deliberative process be damned.
And so, we choose to ask one more question. We know the politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers are going to put the best possible spin on any issue, so we must ask one more question and if we’re not satisfied with the answer, there are always the public records.
That’s the beautiful thing about a democracy; there’s always a paper trail when the politicians and their lawyers quit talking—or when they talk and we hear what they don’t say loud and clear.
And so it was when Baton Rouge attorney Mary Olive Pierson fired off that six-page letter to State Treasurer John Kennedy in which she chose to attack Kennedy for his political aspirations as much as to defend her client, State Sen. Yvonne Dorsey (D-Baton Rouge), that we listened.
Dorsey, in 2007, pushed through the legislature a $300,000 appropriation for the Colomb Foundation in Lafayette which Kennedy in July of this year listed as one of three dozen non-government organizations (NGOs) that owed the state some $4.5 million for non-compliance in reporting on how their grant money was spent.
The Colomb Foundation received its funding to design and build a community center in Lafayette Parish.
The Colomb Foundation is run by Sterling Colomb who is married to Sen. Dorsey.
Pierson, however, went for Kennedy’s jugular when she dropped her bombshell in her letter: Dorsey and Colomb were not married until 2010, three years after the issuance of the grant, she said.
It was one of those “aha” moments that attorneys love. A “gotcha,” as it were, the implication being that there could be no conflict if Dorsey was not married to Colomb at the time.
Advantage, Dorsey.
But wait.
There was something in Pierson’s declaration about their marriage date that was not said—like how long had they known each other or how long had they been in a relationship? Could Dorsey have used her position to funnel $300,000 in state funds to her future husband?
We listened but all we could hear was crickets chirping. So, we embarked on a little paper chase that took only a few minutes and a couple of clicks of a computer mouse. And what do you suppose we found?
On Jan. 5, 2007, one Sterling Colomb contributed $1,000 to the campaign of Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, according to records obtained from the Louisiana Ethics Commission. And while the $300,000 grant to the Colomb Foundation was indeed approved three years before their marriage, the campaign contribution from her future husband came approximately four months before the opening of the 2007 legislative session during which the grant to his foundation was approved—a little more than three years prior to their marriage.
Aha.
Your move, counsellor.
I must thank my friend Nancy for sending me one of your posts which got my attention at once. Now I’m a devoted follower too. My thanks for your efforts.
Joyce Siegel
I love your voice Louisiana!! Keep up the GREAT work!! If it was up to the news media and politicians, we would never know the truth, about much of anything these days! Everyone seems to just be ‘bought out’, and its always ‘the people’ who get stuck with their bills and messed over bad with their conniving deals! Whatever happened to statesmen?? They sure do need to show up and make a come back in a REALLY BIG WAY! It pays to do homework these days, because their are sooo few in office that one could even consider ‘trustworthy’!! But I sure do appreciate people like you though! Keep on, keeping on …. 🙂
Belinda
If M.O.P. sends you a box of meat pies for Christmas, best not eat them.
I would like to reemphasize a point you have made before. Governor Jindal has the last say on approval of each NGO through his option of exercising his right to Line Item Veto any appropriation. Maybe if Mr. Jindal spent more time in Louisiana, he could better scrutinize NGOs. Of course, it is possible there are other reasons Mr. Jindal allowed this NGO to be financed with our tax dollars.
There are a few points you missed in what must have been a rather hasty reading of Mary Olive Pierson’s letter. The “bombshell” was never marital status, it was that the Colomb Foundation had submitted all documentation and demonstrated that every penny was accounted for to the satisfaction of Treasurer’s own staff and the Legislative Auditor (whose staff reviewed the documents while sitting alongside the Treasurer’s staff). The Treasurer’s staff sent an email saying they were prepared to issue a letter of full compliance.
For some reason which will hopefully come out in trial, John Kennedy over-ruled them all, cobbled together a frivolous excuse involving about a thousand dollars, announced that the Colomb Foundation still owed $300,000 to the press, and continued loudly defaming the foundation as the poster child of run-amok spendthrifts. He ignored the recommendation of his own staff. He refused the recommendation of the Legislative Auditor. He trumped up an excuse to postpone issuing the letter of compliance. He admitted in print that he is after the Colomb Foundation because “it’s personal.”
That is the bombshell. It’s difficult to understand how a journalist could miss it.
Mr. Kennedy has a deadline of December 2nd to issue his letter certifying that the Colomb Foundation is, and always has been, in full compliance or he will be sued.
Secondly, you missed the political contributions from other victims of the south Louisiana serial killer like Pam Kinamore’s father, for example. Sterling Colomb was only one of them. You saw his name and didn’t think any further about what had been going on in Mr. Colomb’s life at that point.
(I know, even with Google, it’s time-consuming to go looking for old news accounts, especially when you evidently had no clue what to look for). The families made donations to her because Senator Dorsey had pushed to fund timly processing of DNA rape kits stacked up for years all over our state, met with every victim’s family over and over to help keep them informed and to comfort them, and did so because she herself had been a victim of sexual violence in her youth and thus fully understood the trauma. Those families contributed to her campaign because she had proven to them that she understood and cared and they were grateful to her.
First of all, you are writing as if the lawsuit has already been filed when you speak of facts “coming out at trial.” I was not aware that legal action had already been filed. Also, it was Ms. Pierson who brought up the date of Ms. Dorsey’s marriage, not I. I simply went a step further to see if they may have known each other before that—and it appears they did. Moreover, I did not look at any other contributors because, as you say, I was looking to see if their relationship pre-dated 2010 and in fact, it (the contribution) pre-dated the grant by several weeks.
Of course, as you pointed out, there are decent people contributing to campaigns. That’s a fact any Cub Scout could deduce. (I can only infer that your intent was to deflect attention away from the Sterling Colomb contribution.) Many good people contributed to Jindal but there also were felons who contributed and the spotlight should be shone on them—and I did.
You can spin this any way you like; I am merely pointing out—as any journalist should—that a political contributor was given a $300,000 grant only weeks after making his contribution. That doesn’t pass the smell test.
And just in case you want to claim that I am singling out Ms. Dorsey for some reason, consider this: I have done many stories about Jindal contributors being rewarded with powerful commission and board appointments.
Where were you when I was writing those stories, hmm?
Excellent Tom!
Tom, please be a more careful reader. You overlooked the word “hopefully” in my phrase “hopefully come out in trial.” Before one may aspire to good writing, one must master good reading.
You’ve been around politics long enough to know that $1,000 doesn’t even guarantee that your phone calls will be returned, let alone get you a grant from the state. Your imputation that it did is thus puzzling. Are you just shilling for Kennedy?
By the way, let’s check your math. The Colomb contribution was made January 5th which was six months (not “weeks”) before June 19th when HB1 left the Senate.
You are in danger of becoming a good argument for requiring bloggers to be truthified and licensed before being let loose on the Internet.
Mr. Wallace:
I overlooked nothing. You are the one who mentioned a trial in the first place, giving the impression that there would be a trial when no lawsuit had yet been filed.
The bill to appropriate the money was not introduced at the end of the session, but at the beginning. That would make it weeks after the contribution was made.
As for being “truthified” (whatever that may mean), I’ll put my record of accuracy up against your shilling for Ms. Dorsey—something you accuse me of. I shill for no one—not Kennedy, not Jindal, not Dorsey….no one. My function is to watch the politicians and report what I find.
And it’s funny you never heard of me until I stepped on the wrong toes. It’s not important that you ever heard of me but it is interesting that you can attack me with no knowledge of my record which consists of countless revelations of wrongdoings by Jindal, John White and others in the Jindal administration.
This will be my last communication with you. We have both made our points and now the debate has become trite and personal. Should you try to respond again, I will do what I swore I would never do: block a writer.
And where was I when you were writing various other stories? No idea. No one I know had ever heard of you until just a few days ago when you popped up in conversation as someone making an ill-researched fuss about nothing.
Tom Aswell (unlicensed, but “truthified.”)
Tom it’s hard to believe that no one whom Mr. Wallace knows has ever heard of you before a few days ago, seeing as how he is the legislative aide to Rep. Dorsey (or perhaps was). I know for a fact that you are discussed at the Capitol and in certain political circles, something you should be proud of.
I have to differ wiith Mr. Wallace regarding his statement on how far $1,000 will get you. You may not get the ear of the Governor, Congressman or Senator, but $1,000 will definitely get you the ear of a state legislator.
Keep up the good work Tom.
Not only the ear of a state legislator, but, in this case at least, apparently her hand (in marriage), as well.
Go get ’em, Tom! Thank you for your unwavering dedication to ferreting out the truth despite all the paper tigers’ opposition. God bless you!