Boards | Louisiana Voice

Archive for the ‘Boards’ Category

How Louisiana funds the Catholic Church (an examination of one of the quirks of the LA. DOE’s flawed Voucher System)

Posted in Audit Reports, BESE, Boards, Budget, Education, Privatization, Public Records on April 17, 2016| 19 Comments »

Editor’s note: The following is a guest column written by James Finney, Ph.D., of Baton Rouge. This was first posted on his blog, Methodical, Musical Mathematician’s Musings, and we felt it was an important essay that addressed issues with the state’s flawed school voucher program. Rather than simply publishing a link to his post, Dr. Finney was gracious enough to allow us to re-post it in its entirety on LouisianaVoice. Dr. Finney is a math teacher with an interest in transparent and effective government. He grew up in South Dakota but has lived in Baton Rouge for more than 20 years.

His observations should not be interpreted as a criticism of the Catholic Church but rather an objective look at how the state’s voucher program has been mismanaged and vouchers paid in disproportionate amounts to church-affiliated schools by the Louisiana Department of Education.

By James Finney, Ph.D.

Did the headline get your attention? If so, that’s good. When I saw the details of voucher funding for 2014-15, I was startled at how much of the nearly $40 million in spending went to Catholic schools.

The total amount sent to the 131 voucher schools participating in the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence program in 2014-15 was $39,486,798.20. This figure is reported in a spreadsheet I received from the Department of Education in response to a public record request. Of that, approximately two-thirds ($26,819,434.44) went to the 76 participating schools that are affiliated with the New Orleans Archdiocese and the Dioceses of Shreveport, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Houma-Thibodaux, Lafayette, and Lake Charles.

A defender of the voucher program might suggest that most of the private schools in the state are Catholic, so it makes sense that most of the vouchers would be used in Catholic schools. The evidence says otherwise. There are 412 nonpublic schools listed in the state’s 2015-16 School Directory (which I received incidental to another public record request). Of those, 190 are identified by the state as being Catholic. So the Catholic schools are fewer than half the nonpublic schools, but they account for two-thirds of the vouchers. There is no easy way to compare total enrollment (Catholic vs. non-Catholic private schools) since the state does not appear to collect or report private-school enrollment data.

As mentioned earlier, 76 of the 131 voucher schools are Catholic. Of the remaining 55, nearly half (25) have a school name containing the word “Christian” and nine have a name containing “Lutheran”, “Living Word”, “Bishop”, “Baptist”, “Adventist” or “Bible”. And there’s Jewish Community Day School. So that leaves roughly 20 of the voucher schools that might be secular. So much for the separation of Church and State.

It’s interesting to rank the voucher schools by total amount paid in 2014-15: The top six schools account for more than $10 million, and the next 14 for more than another $10 million:

St. Mary’s Academy (Girls) (C), Orleans (417): $2,606,160
Hosanna Christian Academy (AG), EBR (390): $2,265,944
Resurrection of Our Lord School (C), Orleans (466): $2,103,286
Our Lady of Prompt Succor (C), Jefferson (208): $1,045,417
St. Louis King of France School (C), EBR (182): $1,021,094
506087 Leo the Great School (C), Orleans (191): $1,016,667

Five of the most expensive voucher schools, and 17 of the top 20, are Catholic. The non-Catholic schools among the top 20 are Hosanna Christian Academy (No. 2 above), Evangel Christian Academy in Caddo Parish (No. 16) and Riverside Academy in St. John the Baptist Parish (No. 20).

One of the voucher schools appears to be a public school: Park Vista Elementary School in Opelousas (St. Landry Parish). It would be interesting to know the story on that school’s participation in the program, and where the students are coming from. The state sent the Parish an average of somewhere around $7,760 each for 19 students, contributing $150,000 to the local system’s bottom line. Compare that to the $5,570 that the state sent to St. Landry Parish Schools in Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) funding for each student who actually lived in St. Landry Parish.

Two of the schools that received vouchers are not even on the state’s list of nonpublic schools: Walford School of New Orleans received $17,717, and McKinney-Byrd Academy in Shreveport received $3,566. If they aren’t on the state’s list of nonpublic schools, why did they receive voucher payments? In 2015-16, the SIHAF K12 Learning Academy joined the ranks of voucher schools not on the list of nonpublic schools, and in 2016-17, Weatherford Academy in Westwego will be allowed to offer up to six vouchers and Children’s College in Slidell will be allowed to offer one or two vouchers. Go figure.

State Superintendent of Education John White would like us to believe that at an average of around $5,500 each the vouchers saves the state a lot of money. There’s a flaw in that argument. The average per child state share of the MFP in 2014-15 was only $5,185. So there might be a savings to local school districts, if those local districts had to educate fewer students with the same amount of local tax revenue. Unfortunately, there’s a huge loophole in the voucher program that allows students who have never (and probably would never) have been enrolled in a public school to get their private educations funded by the state. Maybe that’s why I can’t get a meaningful response to my request to the Department of Education in which I seek the records of how many voucher students had actually “escaped” public schools.

As an example of the fallacy of the vouchers-as-a-bargain-for-the-state argument, consider East Baton Rouge Parish Schools. In 2014-15, the state share of MFP was $4,165 per student. Of the 20 voucher schools within the district’s boundaries, the only school with an average voucher amount below $4165 was St. Francis Xavier School at $4,103. At least five voucher schools charged the state over $8,000 per student. For two schools, Most Blessed Sacrament and Country Day School of Baton Rouge, both the average tuition per student and the number of students each quarter were (illegally?) redacted from the records supplied by the state, so there’s no way to know how much each school charged the taxpayers per student.

The highest tuition rate ($9,000) was charged by Prevailing Faith Christian Academy in Ouachita Parish for its 31 voucher students. It appears that the schools get to set the rate the state pays for an education over which the state exercises no oversight, as long as there are at least a few families willing to pay that amount out of their own pockets. With no effective state oversight, there is no way to tell just how good (or more likely how bad) a bargain the state is getting by funding private education.

Meanwhile only 91 schools are accepting applications for new voucher students in 2016-17. Perhaps many of the private schools have realized that mixing public money and private education is a bad idea all around.

F 17 of February 20 (voucher school status for 2016-17, and Q1 enrollment for 2015-16)

11 of February 20 – 2014-15 SEE Enrollment and Funding (2014-15 voucher spending)

2014-15-circular-no-1156a—final-budget-letter—march-2015 (Look at “Table 3 Levels 1&2” tab, in columns AP and AT.)

Read Full Post »

State Troopers’ Association considering proposal to oust dissident members; time for Gov. Edwards to take action

Posted in Boards, Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Politicians, Public Records, Retirement, State Police, Teague on April 15, 2016| 14 Comments »

In North Korea, to the best of our knowledge about that closed society, political dissidents quietly disappear, rumored to receive a bullet to the back of the head.

In the old Soviet Union, dissidents were disposed of in similar fashion—with a bullet behind an ear. Today, Vladimir Putin apparently prefers the quieter—and cleaner—method of ricin-tipped umbrellas.

Thankfully, we are a bit more civilized.

But a purge is still a purge and things are about to get very nasty over at the Louisiana State Troopers’ Association, an organization that is growing increasingly more rogue with each new revelation.

Now the LSTA has under consideration a six-point proposal to change the organization’s by-laws to allow the expulsion of LSTA members without cause.

That’s right: The practice of Teaguing, perfected by Bobby Jindal, has wormed its way into the Louisiana State Troopers’ Association. The timing of the move couldn’t be more obvious.

The proposal apparently is aimed at a few retired troopers who dared question what may yet turn out to be illegal political activity and campaign contributions by LSTA and certain of its members.

The LSTA’s Web page says, “The Louisiana State Troopers Association is a fraternal organization representing the men and women of the Louisiana State Police. The LSTA represents approximately 97 percent of the commissioned officers as well as a substantial portion of the State Police Retirees.” https://latroopers.org/about

Suddenly, with the proposed changes on the table, it doesn’t seem so “fraternal” anymore.

First there was that endorsement of John Bel Edwards last November, the first ever by the association, which raised all manner of questions about the propriety of political endorsements by an organization, albeit a private one, on behalf of Louisiana state troopers who are forbidden by statute from political activity.

Then came the news of some $45,000 in political contributions (about $10,000 each to Edwards and Bobby Jindal) over the past several years. Even more questionable was the method by which those contributions were made: LSTA Executive Director wrote personal checks and made the contributions in his name but then was reimbursed by the association for “expenses,” prompting State Police Commission (the equivalent to the state Civil Service Commission) to observe the whole thing took on the shady characteristics of money laundering.

For what it’s worth, when LouisianaVoice broke the news about the unexplained circuitous route of the campaign funds from LSTA through Young, Edwards refunded the money he received. Jindal, ever the shining beacon of his highly touted gold standards of ethics, did not.

The LSTA board did balk when asked to write a letter to then Gov.-elect Edwards endorsing State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson for re-appointment. That request was not made directly by Edmonson, but there is little doubt that the idea originated with him.

When retired state troopers (members of LSTA, incidentally) tried to get answers about the decision-making process and the source of the campaign money they encountered instant resistance as the association dug in its heels. They’re a private organization, don’t you know, and it’s no one’s business—not even that of members. So naturally, you shoot the messenger.

So the retirees, led by Scott Perry and Bucky Millet, filed a formal complaint with the State Police Commission whose chairman, Franklin Kyle, took the position that the commission had no authority because LSTA was a private entity.

But its membership is not, Perry and Millet argued. The LSTA board is comprised of state troopers and if the board made those decisions, it was state troopers over whom the commission has oversight who may have violated terms of Article X, Sec. 47 of the Louisiana State Constitution: No member of the commission and no state police officer in the classified service shall participate or engage in political activity; be a candidate for nomination or election to public office except to seek election as the classified state police officer serving on the State Police Commission; or be a member of any national, state, or local committee of a political party or faction; make or solicit contributions for any political party, faction, or candidate; or take active part in the management of the affairs of a political party, faction, candidate, or any political campaign, except to exercise his right as a citizen to express his opinion privately, to serve as a commissioner or official watcher at the polls, and to cast his vote as he desires. (Emphasis added)

LouisianaVoice then discovered that three members of the commission charged with enforcing those laws had themselves been active in the political arena during the time they were sitting on the commission. Commission Chairman Kyle was among the three. The others were William Goldring and Freddie Pitcher.

Pitcher was the first to go, announcing his resignation soon after we revealed that he had made political campaigns himself. Then on Thursday, after a nine-page report by Natchitoches and former State Sen. Taylor Townsend recommended the removal of all three, Kyle and Goldring submitted their letters of resignation.

Obviously, the LSTA and Edmonson were highly offended over the unwelcome questioning by retirees. They were raining on the association’s parade and it wasn’t appreciated one bit. The forced ouster of three commission members who had also made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions did nothing to assuage those feelings.

So now we have that six-point proposal that would allow the LSTA to rid itself of those noisy old has-beens who the association apparently thinks should just ride quietly off into the sunset.

But this over-the-hill gang still has a few battles left to fight in its effort to preserve the integrity of a once-noble organization that has descended into the depths of political deals and dirty tricks. Those retirees are the ones who built the LSTA and they are pissed that a bunch of politically motivated board members who were in diapers or yet unborn when LSTA was founded have chosen to pervert its intended purpose.

Here is the six-point by-laws change currently being proposed:

The affiliate troop (Troop A, Troop B, etc.) to which the member is attached shall move to remove the member via a vote of the members present at a duly called meeting of said affiliate.
The cited member shall receive formal written notification of the action pending against him and shall have an opportunity to respond to such action. Response may be either via written reply or in person at the next scheduled affiliate meeting.
The affiliate membership shall then take a vote on the motion to remove the member.
If the motion carries, the affiliate president shall report the action to the Board of Directors of the Association, who will then notify the cited member of the action and offer him an opportunity to appeal his removal.
After hearing any appeal of the action, the Board of Directors will vote to ratify or decline the member’s removal.
At any time that the Board of Directors of the Association feel that removal of a member is warranted, they may initiate such action via a motion from a Board member by following the procedure beginning in Step 4 above.

Apparently the proposed changes apply only to male members: Point 2 refers to “action pending against him” while Point 4 said the LSTA will “offer him” an opportunity to appeal. I don’t know about you, but that sounds a tad sexist to me.

But it is that last point, Point number Six, that is crucial and eerily reminiscent of the manner in which Edmonson attempted to swing an illegal $55,000-a-year increase in his retirement benefits. In 2014, an amendment was tacked onto a benign Senate bill during the closing hours of the legislative session which ignored an irrevocable action taken years before by Edmonson that froze his retirement benefits.

Generous retirement benefit boost slipped into bill for State Police Col. Mike Edmonson on last day of legislative session

The provision in Point 6 appears to allow the LSTA board to circumvent the individual troops, or affiliates, by initiating expulsion action on its own, a provision which would, in effect, negate any input from affiliate troops.

It’s obvious to even the most casual observer now that the LSTA is no longer a “fraternal” organization, but one that is highly politicized—and vindictive to the core. By rolling out this proposal, it is clear that dissention will not be tolerated: what the board wants trumps anything the membership desires.

Perhaps that is why LouisianaVoice is picking up rumblings that the association has lost membership from among the ranks of active troopers. Apparently even the active troopers who are subject to extreme pressure from above, i.e. Edmonson, want no part of what LSTA has become.

That may also be the reason we’re also hearing that private donations to LSTA have slipped over the past several months. Benevolence is one thing; political activism by an organization that passes itself off as a “fraternal organization” is something else altogether.

LouisianaVoice sent the following email to David Young earlier today:

From: Tom Aswell
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:52 AM
To: David Young
Subject: QUESTIONS

Mr. Young, please respond to the following questions:

What is the purpose of this proposed by-laws change?
Who proposed it?
Was the board’s vote unanimous?
Is it aimed at any retired troopers in particular?
How many troops (affiliates?) have already recorded votes for and against this proposal?
Has the LSTA lost membership in recent months?
Has the LSTA experienced a drop in private donations in recent months?

I eagerly await your response.

I am still waiting.

Meanwhile, the time has long passed when Gov. Edwards should intervene and rein in the LSTA board members. Allowed to continue their off-the-reservation activity, they will only bring further embarrassment to the administration which has already come under considerable criticism for the re-appointment of both Edmonson and Department of Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc.

Certainly, Governor, your plate is full with a massive budget deficit but when you were elected, you were elected as the CEO over all departments in the state.

You cannot afford to ignore festering problems in any department, especially one as high-profile and as saddled with morale issues as the Department of Public Safety and the Louisiana State Police.

Read Full Post »

Dentistry Board members fail to take required state ethics training; board policy attracts unwanted attention of ADA

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Public Records on March 25, 2016| 7 Comments »

Even as the Office of Inspector General conducts its ongoing investigation of the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, the board’s unorthodox practices have come to the attention of the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Dental Education Association (ADEA).

At the same time, LouisianaVoice has learned that all but two members of the Board of Dentistry, including its executive director, may also have a problem with state ethics.

LouisianaVoice learned last Tuesday (March 21) that the Office of Inspector General was conducting an investigation into substantial fines levied against dentists for minor offenses. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/03/21/louisianavoice-learns-of-simultaneous-federal-and-state-investigations-of-lsta-la-state-board-of-dentistry/

On Friday, we obtained a copy of a Feb. 26, 2016, LETTER letter from the two national associations to State Dentistry Board President Dr. Russell Mayer of Hammond. The letter expressed a “high level of concern” of the ADA, its Licensure Task Force, the Council on Dental Education and Licensure, and the American Dental Education Association (ADEA).

The upshot of the letter appears to be a subtle message for the Louisiana board to cease in its efforts to bar competition from out-of-state dentists.

That concern is “with regard to the status of licensure for dentists in the U.S., particularly for dentists attempting to relocate to other states. The letter said that the Louisiana board engages “in conduct that restricts, rather enhances, that portability.”

The three-page letter was signed by Carol Gomez Summerhays, ADA President; Gary L. Roberts, President-elect; Gary E. Jeffers, Chair, ADA Licensure Task Force; Daniel J. Gesek, Jr., Chair, Council on Dental Education and Licensure; Huw F. Thomas, Dean of Tufts University’s School of Dental Medicine and Chair of the ADEA Board of Directors; Cecile A. Feldman, Dean of Dental Medicine, Rutgers University, Chair-elect of the ADEA Board of Directors, and Lily T. Garcia, University of Iowa College of Dentistry Associate Dean for Education and Immediate Past Chair of the ADEA Board of Directors.

The ADEA Allied Dental Program Directors’ Conference is scheduled to be held in New Orleans June 4-7, which makes the timing of the letter especially significant.

In addition to Dr. Mayer, copies of the letter were sent to Arthur Hickham, Jr., Executive Director of the State Board of Dentistry; Dr. Henry Gremillion, Dean, LSU School of Dentistry; Dr. L. King Scott, President of the Louisiana Dental Association; Ward Blackwell, Executive Director, Louisiana Dental Association; Dr. Raymond A. Cohlmia, 12^th District ADA Trustee; Dr. Kathleen O’Loughlin, ADA Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, and Dr. Richard Valachovic, ADEA President and CEO.

The letter pointed out that there are five clinical test administration agencies for dentistry:

The Commission on Dental Competency Assessments;
Central Regional Dental Testing Service, Inc.;
Council of Interstate Testing Agencies, Inc.;
The Southern Regional Testing Agency, Inc.;
The Western Regional Examining Board.

“The ADA…has come to the conclusion that these examinations adhere to a common set of core design and content requirements that renders them conceptually comparable,” the letter said. “It has been a longstanding policy of the ADA that it represents unnecessary and meaningless duplication to require a candidate seeking licensure in different states to demonstrate his or her theoretical knowledge and clinical skill on separate examinations for each jurisdiction, especially when it is clear that the core requirements, administration, and outcomes are virtually indistinguishable between each examination,” it said.

“It is our understanding that your state affirmatively elects not to accept the examination results from all of these test administration agencies. The decision of your board… to accept the test results of only a select number of clinical test administration agencies appears highly arbitrary. Moreover, those decisions have an arguably anticompetitive effect in restricting the mobility of dentists wishing to move from one state to another.”

“…We respectfully request that your board pursue the necessary steps to accept successful completion of all of the clinical test administration agency examinations for dental licensure in your state,” the letter said. “Recognizing that the dental board’s primary mission is protecting the public in your state, we believe that the board has the authority and autonomy to pursue this change. It will increase portability of dental professionals and access to quality dental care for patients.”

The letter is in addition to the controversy swirling around the board’s policy of forcing dentists to pay the costs of investigating them in addition to absurd monetary penalties that can run into six figures.

The most outrageous example is the board’s forcing a surgeon into bankruptcy because the oral surgeon, who “never filled a tooth, made a denture, made a crown, cleaned teeth, restored a tooth, or anything that anyone would consider a dental practice, did not have an anesthesia permit from the board.

The doctor, Randal Wilk, whose patients were mostly cancer victims, was told by the board that he could sign a consent decree and pay the board $5,000 and the matter would be resolved. When Wilk refused to pay the $5,000, he was told the board could levy fines of more than $100,000—a tactic that can be considered nothing other than extortion.

But a regulation that had been in place since 2012 could be the eventual undoing of board members.

Debora Grier, Executive Secretary of the Louisiana Board of Ethics, said ethics training became a requirement for employees, contractors and board and commission members. Section VII of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics says, “Each public servant shall receive a minimum of one hour of education and training on the Code of Ethics during each year of his public employment or term of office.”

A public employee “means anyone, whether compensated or not, who is…appointed by elected official to a position to serve the government or government agency” or who is “engaged in the performance of a governmental function.”

The one-hour training consists of an online course accessed through the Ethics Board’s Web page and the Web page also keeps records of those who have taken the course in a timely manner and there is where several board members appear to have a real problem.

Beginning with former board investigator Camp Morrison who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for drumming up charges against dentists, never took a single ethics course.

Others either on the board or employed by the board for whom there is no record of their ever having taken the ethics course as required include Dr. Isaac House of Haughton, Dr. Leonard Breda, III, of Lake Charles, Board Vice President Dr. Claudia Cavallino of Metairie, Dr. Mohammad Zadeh of Chalmette, Dr. James Hargrove of Baton Rouge, and Dr. Robert Foret of Thibodaux.

Moreover, there were several others who have taken the ethics training only one of the required years. Those include Dr. Wilton Guillory, Jr., of Alexandria (2014), Dr. Ronald Marks of Alexandria (2014), Dr. Jerome Smith of Lafayette (2013), Dr. Richard Willis of Monroe (2014), and the board’s Executive Director, Arthur Hickham (2014).

If that were not enough, Board President Dr. Russell Mayer of Hammond took the course in 2013 and 2014, but did not in 2015

So now we have a rogue board that:

Contracted with a private investigator whose sole responsibility was to hang some unsuspecting dentist out to dry for some obscure infraction;
Served as accuser, prosecutor, and judge in a special kangaroo court with the outcome of cases already predetermined;
Extorted backbreaking fines from dentists who balked at the lower fines by threatening to “find” other offenses;
Forced dentists to pay for the board’s and Camp’s investigations against them;
Maintained office suites in an expensive office building on Canal Street in the heart of the New Orleans Central Business District—and allowed non-state employee Morrison to enjoy a rent-free office in those suites.

And, while protecting the good citizens of Louisiana from those law breaking dentists who dared use lettering in their advertisements larger than the board permitted, somehow managed to look the other way as eight of its board members to neglect taking the required annual one-hour ethics course and six others, including its executive director to get by with taking the course only once.

Just another example of Louisiana politics at its finest, folks.

As our late friend C.B. Forgotston was so fond of saying, you can’t make this stuff up.

Read Full Post »

Like Dental Board, LSBME survives on licensing fees, incentive for fining doctors for perceived violations

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Lawsuits, Public Records, Revenue on March 18, 2016| 8 Comments »

First it was the State Dental Board exposed by LouisianaVoice as serving in the multiple capacity of prosecutor, judge and jury in investigating complaints against dentists, filing charges and then judging on their guilt or innocence. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/03/07/state-board-employs-intimidation-harassment-to-generate-funds-to-pay-for-lucrative-contracts-worth-millions-of-dollars/

Then there was the Auctioneer Licensing Board and the manner in which it failed to defend an 84-year-old widow against a case of shill bidding (efforts to drive prices up by a plant) or to protect her from unscrupulous actions by an auctioneer.

Now we have another board, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (LSBME) which, through its executive director, is being accused of tactics similar to those of the dental board. The result has been a spate of lawsuits, ethics complaints, and court hearings, all revolving around charges brought against a Baton Rouge doctor and encouraged, he says, by his competitor who sits on the board that brought the charges against him.

The one common thread running through each of the regulatory boards is that they receive no state funding. And with the dental and medical examiners boards, at least, there are expenses: staff, including attorneys, investigators and executive directors, and rent of nice, upscale offices in New Orleans central business district.

The lack of state funding coupled with the aforementioned high costs means the boards must necessarily generate funding—lots of it—through licensing fees and disciplinary actions against dentists and physicians. No dentist or physician in the state wants make waves because the boards literally hold the fate of their livelihoods, indeed their licenses to practice, in their hands.

In the legal profession, rainmakers are those within a firm who generate business by enlisting well-heeled clients who can afford expensive legal representation. Legal fees, after all, are the lifeblood of a law firm and the bigger the firm, the greater the pressure to bring clients through the door.

Taking the comparisons between the dental and the medical examiners board even further, the board acts in the capacity of investigator, accuser, and judge in disciplinary cases and, again like its counterpart, depends to a certain extent on penalties imposed on doctors for its operating revenue. Consequently, there is an undeniable incentive to generate revenue to ensure the boards’ survival.

So when it comes down to adding needed revenue to the coffers, it matters little whether the dentist or physician is guilty; if the need for revenue is present, as it usually is, then the boards, to paraphrase British politician and businessman Sir Eric Campbell-Geddes, “will squeeze the lemon until the pips squeak.” https://richardlangworth.com/pips

LouisianaVoice has previously documented strong-arm tactics by the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry whereby a dentist may first be assessed a modest fine for some supposed transgression. Should the dentist resist, he may quickly learn that that modest fine of a few thousand dollars somehow has run into six figures because he is also assessed the costs of the investigation of his practice—and because the board can. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/04/16/13976/

Sitting members of the dental board are allowed to initiate charges against a competing dentist in the same town—and often do just that.

And while physicians may not actually initiate charges against one of their peers, LouisianaVoice has learned that a board member who was a direct competitor with a doctor under investigation may have participated in the investigation, board discussions and votes affecting his competitor.

Baton Rouge pain management physician Dr. Michael Burdine, an LSBME member, has emerged as a key figure in the board’s investigation of Dr. Arnold Feldman, also of Baton Rouge because of his apparent reluctance to recuse himself from discussing Dr. Feldman’s case pending before the board.

The board’s legal counsel did produce somewhat belatedly a document that purported to recuse Dr. Burdine from participating in proceedings relative to Dr. Feldman’s case but board minutes indicate “unanimous” votes on matters pertaining to Dr. Feldman even as Dr. Burdine was supposedly recused. Moreover, Dr. Burdine repeatedly participated in executive session discussions when the subject of the closed session was Dr. Feldman’s case. Board member Dr. Mark Dawson, however, insists that Dr. Burdine did, in fact, recuse himself. “The pain management doctor’s attorneys are playing you for a fool,” he told LouisianaVoice.

The Dental Board until recently brought charges at the recommendation of a private investigator retained by the board whose offices were housed in the dental board’s suite on Canal Street in New Orleans. LSBME, on the other hand, employed its investigator as a full time employee. Following Dr. Burdine’s selection as vice president of the board, investigator Cecilia Mouton, a physician also, was appointed executive director of the board and immediately requested—and received—a 10 percent pay increase to $211,600.

Mouton, while still employed in 2010 as an investigator who looked into complaints about doctors, married attorney Jack Stolier who at the time represented physicians who were subjects of investigations and who had disciplinary action pending before the board and Mouton. Stolier ceased representing physicians before the board following his marriage to Mouton, Dawson said.

Taking the comparisons between the dental and the medical examiners board even further, LSBME acts in the capacity of investigator, accuser, and judge in disciplinary cases and, again like its counterpart, depends entirely on penalties imposed on doctors for its operating revenue.

Dr. Burdine’s Spine Diagnostics of Baton Rouge, one of the largest pain management clinics in the state, had annual receipts of slightly less than $9 million compared to Dr. Feldman’s $6 million in 2012. The two clinics are only about five miles apart. Dr. Feldman maintains that closure of his facility would necessarily mean that Dr. Burdine would inherit much of his caseload, thus enhancing the size of his clinic and providing an economic windfall for him.

The federal Healthcare Quality Improvement Act of 1986 provides that physicians are entitled to a professional review action “before a panel of individuals who are appointed by the entity and (who) are not indirect economic competition with the physician involved.”

Not only has the board, with the active participation of Dr. Burdine claimed by Dr. Feldman, plowed ahead with its prosecution of Dr. Feldman, Mouton, first as board investigator and later as executive director, denied Dr. Feldman access to his investigative file in order that he might formulate a defense, said Dr. Feldman in a 42-page complaint filed with the State Board of Ethics.

The specifics of the board’s complaint against Dr. Feldman have never been revealed but appear to stem from the death of a patient while in Dr. Feldman’s clinic even though the death was determined to be from natural causes and not connected to pain treatments being administered to the patient by Dr. Feldman.

The Ethics Board found no ethics violation in a decision that has become all too familiar since the ethics laws were amended in 2008, effectively gutting the ethics board. But that hasn’t stopped Feldman from seeking justice from what he feels is malicious prosecution, abuse of due process and violation of Louisiana commerce statutes.

He filed suit against Dr. Burdine in Civil District Court in New Orleans last August and the children of one of his patients has filed a separate suit in CDC naming LSBME, Mouton and board investigator Leslie Rye as defendants.

That lawsuit, filed by Alexia Senee James and Albert Lewis James of Baton Rouge, claims that Mouton and Rye intervened in Dr. Feldman’s treatment of their mother, Tonja Guitreau James.

After Tonja James was convinced by Mouton and Rye to leave the care of Dr. Feldman, she subsequently died from a prescription drug overdose, the petition says, adding that Mouton and Rye “violated the doctor-patient privilege, confidentiality and sacrosanct relationship between Tonja James and her physician.”

Read Full Post »

State Police Commission members probing LSTA appear to have committed similar campaign contribution violations

Posted in Boards, Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Politicians, Public Records, State Police on March 10, 2016| 12 Comments »

Today’s scheduled meeting of the State Police Commission to decide whether or not to conduct an official investigation into the Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) has been cancelled because of an illness in one commissioner’s family and because of severe flooding in north Louisiana where some of the commissioners live.

The delay may have been convenient for three of the commission members in that the delay will give them time to formulate an explanation for their own actions.

The commission is charged with the responsibility of investigating individual state troopers accused of wrongdoing and to preside over appeals of punishment handed out to troopers.

The issue before commissioners is the controversy that arose after the LSTA funneled campaign contributions through the organization’s executive director to political candidates. State law prohibits individual state troopers from participating in political campaigns in any form, including endorsements and making campaign contributions.

Because the association’s funding comes largely from membership dues, the laundering of the contributions through the personal account of Executive Director David Young and the ensuing reimbursement of Young for “expenses” prompted outcries from LSTA membership.

Those protests were mostly voiced by retirees because active troopers are reluctant to openly criticize the association’s activities for fear of reprisals and LSTA, in a recent letter to members, seized on that lack protests from active members in an attempt to shift the blame on what it characterized as disgruntled retirees who had been mostly inactive until the issue flared up.

In more familiar parlance, that is known as shooting the messenger.

Among the more visible recipients in recent years, Bobby Jindal and Gov. John Bel Edwards each received in excess of $10,000 and the LSTA even set the precedent of endorsing Edwards in last November’s general election against U.S. Sen. David Vitter but stopped short of complying with a request from State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson for the association to write a letter of endorsement for Edmonson’s reappointment by Edwards.

Edwards did, in fact, re-appoint Edmonson but following the flap over the campaign contributions, returned the money he received from LSTA. Jindal did not return his contributions.

Retired State Trooper Leon “Bucky” Millet said on Wednesday that the commission appears to be “circling the wagons” in its own defense, given revelations that three of the commission member violated the same statutes against political involvement the LSTA members are being accused of violating. http://laspc.dps.louisiana.gov/laspc.nsf/b713f7b7dd3871ee86257b9b004f9321/85d048928ae51fa086256e9a004cc8e8?OpenDocument

Civil service employees and state troopers are prohibited from engaging in political activity, including making political contributions to candidates.

In the LSTA case, the Code of Governmental Ethics, Section VIII of R.S. 18:1505.2 (B) also lists the making of contributions or loans “through or in the name of another” as a prohibited practice. http://ethics.la.gov/Pub/Laws/cfdasum.pdf

LSTA legal counsel Floyd Falcon told the commission that he did not know why the checks to various political candidates were made in Young’s name.

Young, however, admitted the maneuver was an attempt by LSTA to attempt to circumvent civil service and commission rules when he told the commission he made the contributions as a non-state employee so “there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution.” https://louisianavoice.com/2016/01/15/louisianavoice-exclusive-at-long-last-it-can-be-disclosed-that-the-reason-for-all-the-problems-at-state-police-is-us/

On Wednesday, an announcement was posted on the commission’s Web page by commission Chairman Franklin Kyle of Mandeville that said Thursday’s meeting was cancelled “due to the lack of a quorum.” http://laspc.dps.louisiana.gov/laspc.nsf/b713f7b7dd3871ee86257b9b004f9321/3723e021aee8206586256e9a004cf303?OpenDocument

But then Kyle went on to say, “I thought it proper to keep the public informed of the ongoing investigation into State Police Commission rules violations” requested by state police retirees.

Kyle said that on March 3, a rule to show cause was issued to the retirees “to produce the names of Louisiana State Troopers who allegedly violated State Police Commission rules in addition to any evidence they have that supports the allegations. Those gentlemen have until March 18, 2016, to do so, and additional subpoenas may be issued for any additional evidence that will assist the investigation. Upon receipt of sufficient evidence, a public hearing will be scheduled. There will be more information at the April meeting of the (commission), as well as subsequent meetings, until this investigation is completed.”

Wait. What?

Kyle is putting the onus on two retired state troopers to come up with the names of LSTA members who may have initiated the contributions? Isn’t that the job of the commission as an investigative board? The retirees have sought records from LSTA and their efforts have been thwarted at every turn, yet they are expected to come up with the names?

Mr. Kyle, it is the commission which has subpoena power, not a couple of retirees. Do your job and issue the subpoenas. That’s how investigations are conducted.

But then again, perhaps Mr. Kyle and a couple of his cohorts have good reason to delay the investigative process. After all, they are under the same rules as state troopers and civil service employees.

Yet, LouisianaVoice has obtained campaign finance records which show that commission members Kyle, Freddie Pitcher, William Goldring, the wives of Kyle and Goldring and one of Goldring’s companies (Magnolia Marketing) have been quite active in making their own political contributions during their time of service on the commission.

In fact, Kyle was appointed to replace shipbuilder-banker Boysie Bollinger of Lockport because of Bollinger’s political activity.

Now that we know of their own participating in making campaign contributions during their tenure on the commission, it will be more than a little interesting to see how the investigation of LSTA will be handled. Will they recuse themselves, leaving the investigation to the four remaining board members?

Or will the commission saddle the retirees with the impossible task of coming up with names of troopers involved in the decision to make the contributions through Young and to reimburse him for his trouble?

Of, as often is the case, will the probe simply quietly go away with no action taken?

This is Louisiana, after all, and we do have a long-standing tradition to uphold.

Here are the links to the campaign contributions of the three members, their wives and Goldring’s business:

FRANKLIN KYLE CONTRIBS FOR FIRST TERM

FRANKLIN KYLE CONTRIBS FOR SECOND TERM

MELISSA KYLE CONTRIBS

WILLIAM GOLDRING CONTRIB

JANE GOLDRING CONTRIB

MAGNOLIA MARKETING CONTRIBS

FREDDIE PITCHER CONTRIBS