Louisiana Voice

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

That’s the approach of State Rep. Blake Miguez (R-Erath) who has pre-filed House Bill 20 again this year after seeing the bill vetoed by Gov. John Bel Edwards last year

The bill, which passed the legislature in the 2020 special session mostly on a party-line vote, would have blocked millions of dollars in grants to local election officials through a nonprofit supported by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

A state district court helped keep Attorney Gen. Jeff Landry’s losing streak intact last October with a RULING that likewise thwarted attempts at halting funds from the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life which said it was offering the grants to help local leaders conduct elections during the coronavirus pandemic.

Somehow, in the minds of Miguez, Landry and their ilk, dark money in support of a candidate or party is just fine but non-partisan funding to assist officials in conducting elections somehow throws the entire democratic process into crisis mode.

Zuckerberg funded the grants with a $300 million donation to the nonprofit and followed up with an additional $100 million.

Local officials across the state applied for nearly $8 million in grant money after being informed of the availability of the funds by Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin. Parish clerks and voter registrars said they would use the money for personal protective gear and wages for workers staffing voting sites for longer hours.

As a stark illustration of how Repugnantcans think as a herd as opposed to individually, Ardoin initially encouraged grant applications by local officials but as soon the Repugnantcan Party and Landry voiced opposition, he quickly switched positions.

Landry maintained in his lawsuit that private money going to public entities to run elections would have a “corrosive influence.” The suit named as defendants the Center for Tech and Civic Life and Dawn Cole, a lobbyist who helped connect local officials to the grant money.

The Center for Tech and Civic Life called such lawsuits “frivolous” and attorneys for Cole said the lawsuit’s allegations were “little more than unfounded statements suggesting that the nonprofit corporations are somehow attempting to taint the election process” and that Landry’s claims were “nothing more than a scare tactic aimed at preventing local election officials from gaining additional funding to assist with the workload, increased voter turnout and added burdens posed by COVID-19.”

So now, Miguez is back with HOUSE BILL 20 because Repugnantcans somehow fear that outside help in holding elections might encourage participation by more people, people they can’t control – something the National Repugnantcan Party has openly admitted it dreads more than anything else.

It’s not that the Repugnantcans don’t want outside money going into elections; the dark money that is poured into both parties’ campaigns is ample evidence of that. In fact, I’m still receiving solicitations from the National Repugnantcan Party every single day in my email in-box and for nearly three months after the election, I was getting up to 20 email solicitations per day from the Trump organization (I still don’t know how I, of all people, got on their mailing lists).

So, its evident that the Repugs are not against money in elections; they just don’t want money going to aid in holding election when they can’t control the purse strings.

All you have to do is look at the vote last year on Miguez’s HB51 to see how the vote was split along party lines. The final vote in the Senate was 25-11 in favor with all 25 votes cast by Republicans. Only one Republican, Sen. Rogers Pope of Denham Springs, voted nay. It was the same in the House with only one Democrat, Francis Thompson of Delhi, being among the 66 votes in favor while all 28 negative votes were cast by Democrats.

The bottom line for Miguez and his Repugnantcan cohorts is if private funds are being used for non-partisan purposes, it must be stopped. Only money designated for a particular political party, preferably dark money, is welcome.

Partisan campaign contributions are democracy at work to people like Landry and Miguez. Non-partisan financial support of the electoral process, however, means the sky is falling.

Read Full Post »

(Of course, Granny was a little more graphic with her language)

Be that as it may, Jeff Landry, Louisiana’s attention-starved excuse for an attorney general, is at it again.

Before diving too deeply into this story, it might be fair to ask:

• Has he ever won one of these silly lawsuits?
• Does he think perhaps Louisiana would be better served if he did something like, oh say, rooting out public corruption and human trafficking?

Our publicity hound in residence, while ignoring sexual harassment in his office, obviously has his eye on the 2023 governor’s race and is doing everything in his power to ensure that he is the choice of the State Republican Party to wrest the office from the Democrats.

Landry, who has a QUESTIONABLE PAST as a deputy sheriff in St. Martin Parish is quick with the lawsuit trigger finger but REFUSED to sign onto a letter that dozens of other state attorneys general sent to the U.S. Department of Justice condemning the right-wing insurrectionist attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. His refusal, of course, was because he was INSTRUMENTAL in the attack.

And when it came down to protecting his office from transparency, he was pretty damn quick to file a LAWSUIT against a reporter for the Baton Rouge Advocate who had committed the mortal sin of submitting a public records request. That lawsuit, like so many others filed by this nitwit, was unsuccessful. There’s yet to be an accounting of how much taxpayer dollars he wasted on that frivolous lawsuit.

It wasn’t the first time Landry has RESISTED RELEASING public records – and lost.

Landry also got smacked down in another COURTROOM BATTLE against Gov. John Bel Edwards’s emergency declaration as the COVID-19 pandemic was spiking and before that, he lost a case in St. Martin Parish when he challenged actions by local and state election officials from accepting private, nonprofit funds to help them run elections during the pandemic.

Those last two defeats prompted a New Orleans attorney to observe that Landry “clearly has no grasp of the law” and that me may well “be as dumb as he appears.” And that attorney has no dog in any of those hunts nor does he intend to run for attorney general.

Then there is that MURKY STORY about a firm owned by Landry importing Mexican workers with the assistance of a felon who had broken federal immigration laws. Landry, of course, is quite outspoken in his opposition to illegal immigration.

Landry even went on a TWITTER RANT that was riddled with incorrect information and which generated tons of ridicule for the state’s top lawyer and which earned him the title of “the stupidest lawyer in the United States” – definitely not the kind of publicity a potential candidate for governor should want.

But I digress. Back to his latest quest of tilting at windmills.

He has joined with 20 other Repugnantcan attorneys general in challenging a section of the American Rescue Plan that was designed to discourage states and local governments from using federal stimulus funds to offset local and state tax revenue and reducing taxes accordingly – in other words, using stimulus funding as an excuse to reduce taxes.

That was a favorite trick of the Jindal administration: to use one-time funds to pay for recurring expenses. Jan Moller of The Daily Dime news service explains that the plan includes a clause the provides that “States that cut taxes and try to backfill the lost revenue with stimulus dollars will have to repay part of their federal allotment.”

Moreover, Moller pointed out, the Washington Post pointed out that the funds “drew bipartisan support from mayors, county leaders and governors, even though Republicans in Congress blasted it as wasteful spending — and falsely contended that it only benefited Democratic-led states. But states cannot use the money to address their rising pension costs, nor can they appear to take the dollars and then cut taxes, essentially tapping Washington’s help to make up for any lost revenue either directly or indirectly.”

That stipulation is nothing new, really. Back in the 1970s, there was something called the Public Service Employment Program where the feds funded public service jobs to not only help people getting these jobs, but the governments for which they worked, as well – temporarily. For example, it funded many police officers and other city workers in small towns.

A primary clause in all these contracts with local governments was the Maintenance of Effort clause, according to one of our readers who spent his entire career in the fiscal part of state government. Maintenance of Effort essentially said the feds would provide money to hire additional people. State and local governmental entities were absolutely not to reduce existing funding or replace existing employees with this money or the people hired.

Needless to say, cutting taxes because they were getting this money was a clear violation of the clause. This was a provision even the most fiscally conservative Repugnantcan should have loved because it made perfect sense, particularly since the money was temporary.

Maintenance of Effort is a basic principle that prevents the kind of stunts Jindal (and he was not the first nor the last) repeatedly pulled to “balance” the budget – supplanting general fund for recurring expenses with non-recurring dollars. The repeal of the Stelly Plan simply because we had surpluses (surpluses are not a bad thing unless you are an idiot like Jindal and Landry) is another example of mucking up the works for political reasons by ignoring the consequences any fool could see coming down the road and listening instead to people like Grover Norquist.

Bottom line: Our brilliant Attorney General is again taking action that will work to exactly no one’s advantage. This is not rocket science, but it is just complicated enough that most people won’t bother to try to understand it and will only think he is standing up for some B.S. protection of state sovereignty.

The question is: does he even understand that? Given his past performance, it’s highly doubtful. But just in case, here’s a possible solution: if you don’t like the stipulation put on the federal bucks, you can always just refuse the money. See how the 4 million citizens of Loozianer would like that.

Read Full Post »

As Louisiana lawmakers prepare to pre-file bills for the upcoming legislative session, we’re certain to see the usual efforts to increase penalties for minor offenses in the guise of getting tough on crime.

There will also be the familiar bills that seek special consideration for a few individuals – in some cases, only a single person.

And, of course, there will be the never-ending slew of congratulatory resolutions honoring the reigning Queen Pullet from some obscure Chicken Festival somewhere in the state and a host of recipients of other similar awards.

A visitor to the gallery of either chamber will see representatives or senators leaning back in their chairs laughing and talking or checking text messages for dinner appointments or gazing at their computers for online NASCAR standings – anything other than listening to the speaker at the microphone trying to explain his or her bill.

Downstairs, it’s even worse. That’s where the committee rooms are and watching this show can be a real test of endurance – especially if you’re one of the unfortunate ones attempting to speak to a particular committee. You will see committee members drifting in an out of the room or whispering to each other while you are testifying – anything but paying attention to your words. There’s a reason for this: their minds are already made up – or made up for them with campaign cash from special interest groups.

Of course, there are also the crawfish boils, fish fries, parties and dinners that go with any legislative session, hosted by generous lobbyists who are interested in nothing more than assuring that good government prevails in the gret stet of Looziana.

You may even see someone do as the late Rep. Shady Wall of West Monroe was caught doing back in 1981. A reporter casually observing a series of votes by the full House noticed that Wall uncharacteristically voted Yes on every issue. Something of a maverick, he was known for agitating fellow members by challenging legislation on mere technicalities, so it was unusual to see him voting in favor of every measure.

The reporter eased to the back of the chamber until he was even with Wall’s desk. Wall was nowhere to be seen. Assuming his desk mate was voting in his absence, the reporter watched and waited until the next vote. The House tally showed yet another Yes vote for Wall but no one was at his desk, not even his desk mate. A closer look revealed a stack of books and papers on Wall’s desk and wedged between the stack and the “Yes” button on his desk was a yellow pencil, holding the “Yes” button down permanently. Wall had already gone for the day.

When the reporter took a picture of the pencil, it ran on Page One of the Ouachita Citizen, Wall’s home town paper. He did not run for reelection. It’s unclear if that photo had anything to do with his decision not to seek reelection, but I was immensely proud of having taken that photo with my 200mm lens.

But back to the present day. What you most likely won’t see is any serious discussion or any real legislative efforts to address the most serious problems that this state faces: the environment, education, infrastructure, health care, the economy. We are quite likely to see a continuation of the same song and dance we have seen for decades.

Perhaps that is the reason that the latest RANKING OF STATES by US News & World Report puts Louisiana dead last – for at least the fifth year in a row (maybe longer than that but the story linked above only goes back to 2017).

There was a time we enjoyed the joke that said, “At least we’re not Mississippi.” It was a cute way of deflecting attention from the fact that we were near the bottom in all the rankings of good things and close to the top of the lists of bad things.

But now, in Mississippi, they’re saying, “At least we aren’t Louisiana.”

Among a list of eight metrics considered in the ranking process, the highest Louisiana got was number 42 in fiscal stability. Alaska was best in the country in that factor.

Below is the state’s rank in each of the areas considered with the state with the highest ranking in parenthesis:

Louisiana

HEALTH CARE                            46        (Hawaii)

EDUCATION                               48        (New Jersey)

ECONOMY                                  47        (Utah)

INFRASTRUCTURE                    47        (Nevada)

OPPORTUNITY                          48        (Iowa)

FISCAL STABILITY                   42        (Alaska)

CRIME & CORRECTIONS          50        (New Hampshire)

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT        49        (Hawaii)

Here are Mississippi’s rankings in each of the same metrics:

50, 43, 49, 48, 44, 41, 33, 22

Remember this as you watch the progression of this year’s 60-day session which convenes at noon on April 12 and adjourns on June 10 at 6 p.m.

And remember: the Senate normally does not meet on Fridays which, along with Saturdays and Sundays, are all considered part of the entire 60-day session. Legislators receive their $160 per diem payments for each of those 60 days – even those long weekends.

Read Full Post »

Seven years ago this month, LouisianaVoice published a story about a 22-year employee of the E.I. DuPont plant in Burnside in Ascension Parish who filed a whistleblower LAWSUIT against his former employer.

That suit, filed in Middle District Federal Court in Baton Rouge, claimed that the plant had consistently experienced toxic gas leaks on virtually a daily basis for more than two years without reporting the leaks as required by federal law.

Jeffrey M. Simoneaux, an Ascension Parish native who served for 14 years as chairman of the plant’s Safety, Health and Environmental Committee, also claimed he was harassed, intimidated and denied promotions after he said he complied with DuPont’s own internal procedures for reporting a leak of sulfur trioxide (SO3) gas, a known carcinogen which is regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 and was reprimanded for doing so.

Eight months later, DuPont filed a MOTION IN LIMINE seeking to block plaintiffs in the Simoneaux matter from citing reports of prior leaks and regulatory proceedings against the company “not related to the gas leaks” at the Burnside plant.

Despite viewing videos of gas leaks at the plant, jurors in the case ultimately RULED in favor of DuPont but the presiding judge set aside that verdict in a major development. You can read about that ruling on page 42 of the December 2015/January 2016 issue of Louisiana Bar Journal by going HERE.

On February 17 of this year, THE GUARDIAN, a British publication, citing internal company documents, revealed that DuPont had sold its plant in Reserve in St. John the Baptist Parish “that emits a likely cancer-causing pollutant citing ‘major concerns’ that government agencies would regulate its emissions to protect the community living nearby.”

Sixteen days earlier, on Feb. 1, the same publication noted that until President Joe Biden mentioned Louisiana’s ”CANCER ALLEY” as he signed new climate and environmental justice orders, residents of the infamous Mississippi River corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, aka “Cancer Alley,” have been failed “by every layer of government” from the president to congressional representation to a succession of governors to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).”

On Oct. 30, 2019, online news service PROPUBLICA, working with the Baton Rouge Advocate and New Orleans Advocate, published an extensive story on “Cancer Alley” that noted to no one’s surprise really, that Louisiana ranked among the 10 least-improved states in the nation in terms of air quality.

But even as DuPont decides to punt rather than pony up the cost of lowering toxic emissions, other companies like Formosa Plastics are moving in along the corridor, creating what a UNITED NATIONS PANEL calls “environmental racism.”

Sometimes it seems that The Guardian, operating from across the Atlantic Ocean, is more concerned with the welfare of residents of Louisiana’s river parishes than most publications in the state as evidenced by a May 6, 2019, story about Reserve, identified as ”CANCER TOWN” because of its cancer rate, highest in the country – 50 times the national average.

Curiously, little in any of these publications is said about the campaign contributions made to state and local politicians who in turn deliver generous tax exemptions and other incentives to the 150 or so petrochemical plants along the 85-mile stretch of the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

The concentration of plants that spew the toxins into the air contribute greatly to the state’s having the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

It’s a trade-out in exchange for high-paying jobs for Louisiana residents – if the jobs only went to Louisiana residents but there has been growing skepticism over the promises of jobs the companies make to get those tax breaks. In St. Gabriel in Iberville Parish, for example, the annual per-capita income is $15,000 – about a third below the state average and about half the national average despite the presence of no fewer than eight plants that employ some 14,000 people – nearly half the total population of the parish. Most of those employees, however, drive in from elsewhere.

ProPublica, quoted Louisiana Chemical Association President Greg Bowser as saying if plants don’t hire locals, it’s most likely because the candidates aren’t qualified. “Working at a chemical facility is a big undertaking,” he said. “To receive a job offer, it is necessary to have the proper training at a reputable center of learning.”

So, basically what he’s saying is that Louisiana’s citizens are under-educated – and he may well be correct.

It’s not as though Louisiana’s political leaders have made a real effort to lift the state from the bottom of every good list or the top of every bad list. Instead, they have historically turned their backs on the real problems by neglecting to properly fund public education, by refusing to pay teachers a livable wage and by placing higher priorities on closing mental health facilities, building more prisons and coming up with quick-fix solutions like legalized gambling that don’t really fix anything but, in fact, actually contribute to the problem.

Meanwhile, plans are on the drawing board for the construction of yet more such plants along the river that will receive yet more tax exemptions and incentives so that they can contribute yet more toxins into the air.

And parish elected officials, legislators, and statewide political candidates will continue to look the other way as they receive campaign contributions from the corporations and nice steak and lobster dinners from lobbyists of the petrochemical industry.

Read Full Post »

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s …well, you know.

But not necessarily, says a lobbyist for the Louisiana School Board Association (LSBA).

It was back in July 2014 that LouisianaVoice broke the STORY of the attempt to sneak an illegal retirement pay raise for then-Louisiana State Police (LSP) Superintendent Mike Edmonson into an obscure bill on the very last day of the legislative session.

That story led to vehement objections by retired state troopers which in turn led to more than 190 stories about Edmonson and LSP that culminated with Edmonson’s retirement but only after that ill-advised to San Diego via the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas by several troopers under Edmonson’s command.

That aborted retirement boost, dubbed The Edmonson Bill, was pushed by State Sen. Neil Riser who at first denied any part in the scam. The outcry was such that State Sen. Dan Claitor filed a suit to block the raise. The court ultimately agreed that the attempted raise was unconstitutional. But by then, the pressure was such that Edmonson had reversed himself, saying publicly that he would not accept the furtive bonus.

Well, guess what? It looks like they’re at it again.

While the latest bill doesn’t involve Edmonson, the tactic looks very much the same as that infamous bill of nearly seven years ago, though the LSBA spokesperson insists they’re vastly different.

This time it’s not an amendment to a bill as was the case in 2014. No, this one is a straight-up bill that quietly attempts to make an exception for the benefit of at most, maybe five persons.

State Rep. Jeremy LaCombe (D-Livonia) has pre-filed House Bill 22 which “provides for the transfer of certain employees of the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), from the Parochial Employees’ Retirement System of Louisiana (PERS) to te Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL).”

Current law provides that employees of the LSBA are members of PERS. LaCombe’s bill would provide that certain employees of the association would become members of TRSL but eligibility is restricted to only a few employees:

• New employees (hired after June 30, 2021);
• Any employee with at least five years of service credit in TRSL;
• The director of LSBA.

The bill would affect possibly three employees, five at most, according to an LSBA representative, with the most obvious being that of the LSBA executive director. And it’s those last two provisions of the bill that are key.

Coincidentally, Janet Pope, Ph.D., was named in July 2018 as executive director of LSBA after serving five years as the board’s development/legislative specialist (emphasis added).

LSBA lobbyist Dannie Garrett III said LaCombe’s bill is being filed to correct a flaw in the law that has existed for years. “The bill was pre-filed last year,” he said, “but the pandemic forced legislators to cut back on the number of bills they could file, so we’re trying it again this year.”

He said the bill would actually cost Pope in the short term because her contribution to her retirement would increase because TRSL, like most other state retirement systems, has an unfunded liability it is attempting to overcome with increased percentage contributions. PERS, he said, does not have an unfunded liability.

Read Full Post »