Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Boards’ Category

Former fraud investigator joins LouisianaVoice with rare insider’s closeup look at State Auctioneer Licensing Board

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Ethics, Governor's Office on March 18, 2014| 9 Comments »

Robert Burns of Baton Rouge, a former fraud investigator, has agreed to join LouisianaVoice as an underpaid (read: gratis) researcher and contributing writer. His initial series of stories will chronicle his experiences as a member of the Louisiana Auctioneer Licensing Board. 

—Tom Aswell

 

By Robert Burns

LouisianaVoice writer

Following up on Tom Aswell’s recent posts regarding the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, there is another State Board with an extensive history of questionable activity:  The Louisiana Auctioneer Licensing Board (LALB). The board is comprised of five auctioneers and two at-large “consumer” members.  The board’s actions include turning a blind eye to an illegal practice called “shill bidding,” ignoring the apparent victimization of elderly auction clients, racism and possible travel voucher and payroll fraud.

In early 2008, Gov. Bobby Jindal appointed me and a very good friend, Rev. Freddie Phillips (Louisiana’s first and only African American auctioneer) to the LALB.  Rev. Phillips and I each endured relatively short, tumultuous tenures on the LALB due to our observations of abuse and the fact that we did not (and do not) hold back in voicing our displeasure with that abuse.

In fact, sensing that Louisiana’s then-only auctioneer trade association, the Louisiana Auctioneer’s Association (LAA), seemed to openly encourage these practices (particularly shill bidding), Rev. Phillips decided to form a second association, the Louisiana Association of Professional Auctioneers (LAPA).  Although he invited any auctioneer willing to adhere to LAPA’s strict code of ethics to join only two others, myself and auctioneer JonEric Kramer, did so. Other auctioneers, and especially LALB Members, became furious that LAPA’s website, Rev. Phillips’ brainchild, so readily exposes widespread unethical activity within the auction industry.

My post for today focuses on the issue dearest to me: shill bidding.

LAPA’s first tenet is vigorous opposition to shill bidding, an illegal auction practice in which plants are placed in the audience by the auctioneer or seller for the sole purpose of driving up the bid with no intention to buy the property.  The practice is illegal unless it is divulged to the auction bidders; however, the practice is pandemic in Louisiana’s auction industry. In my opinion, shill bidding is literally destroying the auction industry. The entire auction process hinges on the public being able to rely upon that process for market transparency. When shills are introduced, the transparency is destroyed and the public rapidly becomes cynical and justifiably distrustful of auctioneers.

The issue of shill bidding came to a boil in 2010 when then-Rep. Damon Baldone (D-Houma) asserted that auctioneer Barbara Bonnette, an Alexandria-based auctioneer, tried to artificially inflate his $675,000 bid on an historic home in Thibodaux by falsely representing that a $700,000 bid had arisen when, in reality, it had not.  Rep. Baldone was furious over the attempt to “steal” $55,000 from him (by advancing his bid to $725,000, from $675,000, plus a 10% buyer’s premium associated with that advancement).  As a result, during the 2010 legislative session, he introduced a bill (HB 1439) to make shill bidding a crime and declare it “theft by nonviolent means.” That’s when all hell broke loose in the Louisiana auction industry. I testified in favor of Baldone’s bill,  and overnight became the most hated auctioneer in Louisiana.  LAPA has a webpage to explain shill bidding, and another to  publicize statements made by auctioneers in public forums about shill bidding.  Those public statements include prominent Livingston-based equipment auctioneer Marvin Henderson testifying in strong opposition to the bill, State Rep. John E. “Johnny” Guinn, R\-Jennings (who is himself a Louisiana-licensed auctioneer) stating publicly to the LALB that he was “embarrassed” by my testimony, the formal reading into the House records of the nineteen (19) auctioneers testifying or stating vigorous opposition to the bill, auctioneer Joe Massey relaying he felt I had “stabbed auctioneers in the back,” auctioneer Marvin Henderson trivializing my auction career.  All of this furor over my steadfast resolve that auctioneers ought to obey the laws prohibiting shill bidding (or fully disclosing it to conform with the law).  So, I found myself as a sitting member of the LALB, an agency for which the stated purpose is to “protect the public” (which is precisely what shill bidding laws are designed to do), and I became public enemy number one among Louisiana auctioneers for adhering to the very Oath I took when becoming an LALB Member!

My testimony led to immediate actions by LALB Members and the auctioneer community to have me removed from the LALB.  First, then-LALB Chairman James Kenneth Comer sought to have ethics charges brought against me for my testimony.  Ironically, in the weeks leading up to my testimony, LALB Executive Director Sandy Edmonds was actively recruiting auctioneers via phone, including me, to testify against the bill (she was doing so at the behest of then-Chairman Comer).  Rev. Phillips received a similar phone call, and I confirmed that prominent Kenner-based real estate auctioneer Dave Gilmore had also gotten such a call.  So, Chairman Comer, through Ms. Edmonds, was actively recruiting auctioneers to testify against the bill, a practice which is clearly an ethical violation (to recruit either for or against), yet he would seek to have ethics charges against me for my testimony in favor of the bill. The Ethics Board quickly relayed that I had in no way committed an ethics violation as I was “expressing (my) opinion regarding shill bidding and not those of the LALB.”

Immediately after my testimony in favor of Baldone’s bill, I was approached by several auctioneers in the hallway.  One of the auctioneers, State Rep. John E. “Johnny” Guinn (R-Jennings), used profanity in berating me over my testimony.  The incident got so bad that I filed a police report with Capitol Police.  The officer who took my report relayed that he personally delivered it to then-House Speaker Jim Tucker.  The officer relayed to me that Speaker Tucker was furious over Guinn’s conduct.  Speaker Tucker, in turn, delivered the police report to Jindal’s office, and that was the last I ever heard of it.  However, I have strong reason to believe that my filing clearly infuriated Guinn as evidenced by Guinn mailing this letter to Gov. Jindal seeking my removal from the LALB.  Nine days later, Jindal complied and sought my resignation.  His “Special Assistant,” Jonathan Ringo (who now is an associate attorney with Jimmy Faircloth’s firm), upon my asking him why my resignation was being sought, said only that “things just aren’t working out.”  When I refused to resign, Gov. Jindal terminated my services effective September 10, 2010.

As I’ll demonstrate in my next installment, my shill bidding testimony was likely not the only reason Jindal removed me from the LALB.  I was complaining bitterly to his office regarding my observation of blatant racism on the LALB regarding Rev. Phillips.

 

Read Full Post »

Jindal aide moves to DCFS as advocate/lobbyist; could be facing problems if Ethics Board had any enforcement teeth

Posted in Boards, Ethics, Governor's Office on March 17, 2014| 7 Comments »

Our friend C.B. Forgotston was first to point out an apparent violation when the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) hired a legislative liaison and agency advocate/lobbyist. http://forgotston.com/

Now, LouisianaVoice has come upon a recent opinion by the Louisiana Board of Ethics in Absentia which would seem to validate Forgotston’s cynicism. (By way of explanation, the Board of Ethics in Absentia is the agency formerly known simply as the Board of Ethics before Gov. Jindal set the “gold standard of ethics” when he gutted the board’s powers barely a month after taking office in 2008.)

The Baton Rouge Advocate published a brief, five-paragraph story a week ago (March 10) in which it announced that the Department of Children and Family Services had hired a new legislative liaison in the person of Dave Pearce at a salary of $75,000 a year.

Pearce, who previously worked as assistant director of constituent services in Jindal’s office (yes, they’re bailing out over there), moved into the unclassified position where he will serve as “executive lead on all federal and state legislative matters for DCFS,” the Advocate said.

But the most revealing part of the story was contained in the last paragraph in which the newspaper pointed out that documents submitted to Civil Service indicated that the position serves as a lobbyist and advocate on behalf of the DCFS.

Forgotston was quick to point out that Pearson may be in violation of two state laws, assuming the newspaper account is correct. He cited two statutes to support his position:

  • La. R.S. 24:56(F) provides: No state employee in his official capacity or on behalf of his employer shall lobby for or against any matter intended to have the effect of law pending before the legislature or any committee thereof. Nothing herein shall prohibit the dissemination of factual information relative to any such matter or the use of public meeting rooms or meeting facilities available to all citizens to lobby for or against any such matter. (Emphasis Forgotston’s.);
  • La. R.S. 43:31(D) provides:   No branch, department, agency, official, employee, or other entity of state government shall expend funds of, administered by, or under the control of any branch, department, agency, employee, official, or other entity of state government to print material or otherwise to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition on an election ballot nor shall such funds be used to lobby for or against any proposition or matter having the effect of law being considered by the legislature or any local governing authority. This provision shall not prevent the normal dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition on any election ballot or a proposition or matter having the effect of law being considered by the legislature or any local governing authority. (Emphasis Forgotston’s.)

“In other words, no state employee shall lobby nor shall any public funds be used to lobby,” he said.

Jindal, with the sage legal counsel of Jimmy Faircloth, might well respond with the classic line, “I understand the situation but I don’t see the problem.”

Well, we did a little checking of our own and found that even though lobbyists are required to be registered with the Board of Ethics Emeritus, Pearce’s name is nowhere to be found on the lengthy roster of state lobbyists.

And then, we did a little more digging and found a fairly recent opinion of the Bored of Ethics that addresses that very scenario. (We’re being a bit unfair to the Ethics Board because it was Jindal’s legislation in 2008 that removed the board’s enforcement powers, thus reducing its status to that of an advisory board only.)

In a Sept. 24, 2013, two-page letter to Brian Begue, legal counsel for the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (LSBD), ethics staff attorney Aneatra P. Boykin responded to a number of questions posed by Begue:

  • Are (dentistry) board members considered state employees under state law?
  • Are state employees and public servants considered the same?
  • What is the effect of state statute which defines public employees as board officers and its employee(s)?
  • What is the effect of state statutes which sate that employment does not include appointed officials?
  • May the members approach their own legislators regarding legislation affecting the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene?
  • May (board members) approach their own legislators regarding legislation having nothing to do with the regulation of dentistry or dental hygiene?
  • Must (board members) register as lobbyist(s) if the answer to the questions is in the affirmative?

“The (Ethics) Board concluded and instructed me to advise you that the lobbying laws under the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics apply to members of the Dentistry Board,” Boykin said. She said state statutes provide “that no state employee in his official capacity or on behalf of his employer shall lobby for or against any matter intended to have the effect of law pending before the legislature or any committee thereof.”

She further said state statute “defines ‘public employee’ to include anyone, whether compensated or not, appointed by an elected official to a post to serve the governmental entity or an agency thereof or anyone performing a government function” and that a section of that same statute “defines public servant as a public employee or elected official.”

Members of the LSBD—and members of any other board appointed by the governor—are state employees under state law.

Accordingly, “Dentistry Board members may not have any direct communication with legislators regarding legislation affecting the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene or any other matter intended to have an effect of law pending before the legislature,” she said.

Nothing prohibits board members from disseminating factual information relative to dentistry or dental hygiene, she added.

So, if those same standards are applied to Pearce, he could have a definite problem in carrying out the duties of his new position.

But Forgotston, never one to leave his flank unprotected, has an answer for that as well, even if his suggestion is offered with tongue planted firmly in cheek:

“In the past, we know that Jindal appointees often believe that they are above the law. Without any repercussions, they have failed to follow laws such as having valid La. driver’s licenses, having Louisiana license plates on their personal vehicles and payment of the Use Tax on vehicles brought into Louisiana from other states.

Solution:

  • A legislator should file and pass legislation during the 2014 Regular Session to repeal the above two provisions of the law.

Problem solved.

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Boards, DHH, Health Care, Notable Quotables on March 11, 2014| 8 Comments »

“This isn’t my face. I used to be real pretty.”

—Roblyn Ruggles, quoted in the Aug. 31, 1993 Wall Street Journal after eight oral-surgery procedures left her disfigured, without jaw joints, mouth permanently agape, and unable to bite into a sandwich or purse her lips for a kiss—a victim of jaw implants marketed by Drs. John Kent of the LSU School of Dentistry and his partner Charles Homsy of Houston.

“Dr. (Conrad) McVea stated both to me and to the Board that I could not be expected to comply with professional standards because I had not accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.”

–Dr. Randall Schaffer, who is Jewish, in his federal lawsuit against the Louisiana Board of Dentistry and its members, including Dr. McVea, its attorney and its private investigator after the board revoked his license when he turned whistleblower against Dr. Kent’s faulty jaw implant.

Read Full Post »

From protecting their own to persecution of a whistleblower: it’s all part of the bureaucratic shuffle by State Dental Board

Posted in Boards, DHH, Ethics, Governor's Office, Health Care, Public Records on March 11, 2014| 14 Comments »

Suppose for a moment that you work as a technician for a large computer company and in the course of your duties, you discover the company is knowingly marketing computers with faulty hard drives destined to crash within a few months.

Imagine now that when you call the defect to the attention of your company CEO, you are fired, ostracized by your industry and unable to find employment because the word is on the street that you are disloyal and suddenly unreliable despite a stellar work record.

Taking this scenario a step further, you suddenly find yourself prosecuted—and persecuted—by your former company’s board of directors on vague charges of fraud and malfeasance. The board, you learn, will go to any length to defend its CEO—including the destruction of your career. Making matters worse, your accuser is also the prosecutor, the judge and the jury in your trial.

Even worse, when you walk into the courtroom, you are informed that you have already been convicted—without benefit of a trial—of unspecified crimes and that if you pay a fine of $25,000 and sign a consent decree, the matter will go away.

You are innocent of any wrongdoing, so of course you tell your accusers to take a long walk off a short pier.

They in turn inform you that there are other charges that haven’t even been mentioned yet and if you refuse to sign the consent decree and decide to stand and fight, your fine will increase to $100,000 or more—plus the fees of your own attorney and those of the prosecuting attorney—and the costs incurred by the “investigator” who discovered your crimes, costs which also could exceed $100,000.

Finally, you are told by one of the board members that you will never be allowed to work again in your field because of a difference in religious beliefs between you and the board.

Now give that company a name like say, the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, change the product from a computer hard drive to a dental implant and you have a pretty good idea of the plight of Dr. Randall Schaffer.

Schaffer, a 1982 graduate of the University of Iowa College of Dentistry with a Doctor of Dental Surgery, went on to two residencies at Charity Hospital and Louisiana State University Dental and Medical Center in New Orleans. Certified in General Dentistry in 1984 and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 1988, he entered into private practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery in 1988 in Marrero and in Corinth, Mississippi.

More than a decade earlier, Dr. John (Jack) Kent, head of the LSU School of Dentistry’s Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, developed a joint replacement device for temporomandibular jaw (TMJ) sufferers. Kent subsequently entered into an agreement with a Houston company, Vitek, and the company’s principal shareholders, Drs. Charles and Ann Homsy, to manufacture and market the Proplast implant.

It proved to be a lucrative arrangement for Kent who was given stock in Vitek and earned royalties of 2 percent to 4 percent on the sale of Vitek products. He also received monetary compensation for giving written and verbal presentations to oral and maxillofacial surgeons throughout the world, according to a lawsuit filed by Schaffer against Kent, LSU, members of the Dental Board, attorney Brian Begue and board investigator Camp Morrison.

It did not take long for the implants to begin to fail, causing disfigurement, excruciating pain and at least eight suicides, according to a July 29, 2002, story in U.S. News & World Report.

As a resident at LSU, Dr. Schaffer became aware of the negative effects to patients receiving the implants, which Schaffer described as “defective (100 percent) in all patients implanted.”

Schaffer says in his lawsuit that he informed Dr. Kent of the “disastrous results” of the implant but Kent refused to stop placement of the devices and “threatened Dr. Schaffer with dismissal should this information regarding the research and adverse results be made public.”

By 1989, Schaffer was in private practice and was assisting implant victims by offering consultation and corrective procedures at no charge. “As hundreds of cases came forward, Dr. Schaffer began assistant plaintiff attorneys in the cases against Dr. Kent, his associates, and Louisiana State University,” the lawsuit says. “Eventually 675 patients were combined as a class for discovery purposes,” leaving the state exposed to about $1 billion in liability.

In 1992, the first case, that of Mary Elizabeth Leger of Jonesboro, Arkansas, was settled for $1 million.

Today, Schaffer lives in Iowa, Vitek is bankrupt, Dr. Charles Homsy is nowhere to be found (though he did surface long enough to write a scathing indictment of “predatory trial lawyers” for the Cato Institute in September of 2001), and DuPont, which manufactured the raw ingredients used in the implants was protected by the “bulk supplier doctrine,” which is a defense to failure-to-warn claims.

When Schaffer was named as a witness and consultant in the class action cases, the Board of Dentistry immediately launched its investigation of Schaffer who says that in 1995, the board “zealously embarked upon an investigation, prosecution and adjudication of a wide variety of claims.”

On Sept. 5, 2000, a board panel consisting of Drs. H.O. Blackwood, Conrad McVea and Dennis Donald revoked Schaffer’s license and imposed “excessive penalties,” Schaffer’s petition says. “The panel members and (then-board executive director) Barry Ogden, (investigator) Camp Morrison, (board attorney) Brian Begue and Arthur Hickham conspired to deprive me of my due process rights during my hearing.”

Begue openly violated a Louisiana Supreme Court order to cease participating in the proceedings by served as both prosecutor and board general counsel, Schaffer’s petition says. While another attorney was ostensibly brought into the matter by the board following the Supreme Court’s ruling barring Begue’s participation, Begue still participated in the proceedings

Even though his revocation was not permanent, Dr. Blackwood, who acted as chairman of Schaffer’s reconsideration hearings in 2004, 2007 and 2012, said on Dec. 7, 2012 that he had promised himself “from the beginning,” that Schaffer would never get his license reinstated.

As blatant as that comment was, it paled in comparison to Dr. McVea’s declaration that because Schaffer had not received his salvation because he had not accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior he could not be expected to comply with professional standards.

Schaffer is Jewish.

Donald added that Schaffer was “a bad person who had hurt people.”

Even if Schaffer’s revocation had been reversed by the courts, in all likelihood, his case would have been remanded back to the same board and the same panel that originally pulled his license as occurred in another disciplinary matter involving a second dentist whom we shall write about in our next post. In effect, the court would have simply thrown Schaffer back to the same pack of wolves, thus making it futile to pursue his case any further before the same group of people.

He said Kent had about 2,500 malpractice lawsuits against him. “I had one, which I won, and yet the board came after me while doing nothing to Dr. Kent,” Schaffer said. “They went behind me to my patients and told them such things as I had killed a patient and that I was going to (the Louisiana State Penitentiary at) Angola. I have accounts receivable in the millions of dollars because I never turned a patient away because he could not pay,” he said.

Once the board had pulled his license, however, it still kept the pressure on Schaffer with no let up.

Schaffer, after being forced out of his practice, leased his office building to another dentist, David Gerard Millaud.

On Dec. 20, 2000, Ogden sent a two-page letter to Dr. Millaud, saying:

“It has come to our attention that you are practicing in the office of Dr. Randall Schaffer…”

Then, in perhaps an unintentional admission that investigator Morrison was continuing to conduct surveillance on Schaffer, whom the board had already broken, Ogden said, “We have also observed Dr. Schaffer’s spending a great deal of time on the office. As you know, his license has been revoked and he is prohibited from practicing dentistry in any form.

“I also wish to call your attention to (state statute) which states:

The board may refuse to issue or may suspend or revoke any license or permit, or impose probationary or other limits or restrictions on any dental license or permit issued under this chapter for any of the following reasons:

Division of fees or other remuneration or consideration with any person not licensed to practice dentistry in Louisiana or an agreement to divide and share fees received for dental services with any non-dentist in return for referral of patients to the licensed dentists, whether or not the patient or legal representative is aware of the arrangement…”

The letter prompted an immediate response from Schaffer’s attorney Michael Ellis of Metairie, who wrote board attorney Jimmy Faircloth (who substituted for Begue after Begue was forced by the Supreme Court to step aside).

“I find it incredulous that the board would write such a letter under the circumstances of this case,” Ellis said. “I know of no law which prohibits Dr. Schaffer from ‘spending a great deal of time in the office.’ The board has effectively put this man out of business and now wants to harass a young dentist to whom Dr. Schaffer is renting space.

“If the board has any evidence whatsoever that either Dr. Millaud or Dr. Schaffer was in violation of the law, I ask that you notify me immediately. If the board is not in possession of such evidence, (Ogden’s) letter must be considered nothing but a tactic of harassment calculated to prevent Dr. Schaffer from earning a living.”

Millaud, who said he was not sharing fees or paying other remuneration to Dr. Schaffer, nevertheless decided that his best interest would be served by terminating his lease arrangement with Schaffer, Ellis said.

Then-State Sen. Chris Ullo (D-Marrero), who died earlier this year, contacted Gov. Mike Foster to intervene with the board on Schaffer’s behalf but Foster declined to get involved with what some might describe as his rogue board.

Then, following Ogden’s letter to Dr. Millaud, Schaffer himself requested an audience with Foster. On Dec. 27, exactly a week following Ogden’s letter to Millaud, Chris Stelly, writing on behalf of Foster, said the board “is an independent body created and empowered” by state law and that the board had “sole jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, this office does not have the authority to intervene.

“However, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to Mr. C. Barry Ogden, executive director of the LA State Board of Dentistry, for his information.”

That, readers, is what is known as the classic bureaucratic shuffle.

Read Full Post »

State board uses intimidation, harassment, fines to generate funds to pay for lucrative contracts worth millions of dollars

Posted in Boards, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office on March 7, 2014| 47 Comments »

LouisianaVoice has learned of an ongoing pattern by at least one state board to indiscriminately impose stiff penalties and fines of tens of thousands of dollars against dental professionals for perceived violations of a dizzying array of confusing and obscure regulations that seem to pop up with no prior warning, no explanation and with little or no due process.

The Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (LSBD) operates with complete autonomy as it serves as prosecutor, judge and jury in bringing charges and then conducts its own hearings and then rules on those charges, often hitting dentists, dental assistants and dental hygienists with five-figure fines.

Many of these charges are the result of apparent entrapment on the part of the LSBD and an investigator under contract to the board, according to its victims.

Moreover, the LSBD, which receives no state funding for its operations, still manages to award lucrative contracts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to attorneys and private investigators, according to state records obtained by LouisianaVoice.

LSBD’s funding comes exclusively from fines levied against dental professionals, giving the board strong incentive to conjure up charges and hand down stiff fines in order to pay for those contracts.

Taking the contract of board of attorney Brian Begue, records show he was awarded a one-year contract of $175,000 in June of 1995. That contract was renewed for the same amount in June of 1996.

In June of 1997, a new three-year, $225,000 contract was given Begue. He again was given three-year contracts in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012, but the contract amounts for each of the last five contracts was doubled to $450,000.

One source said Begue did not routinely submit time sheets indicating how much time was spent doing legal work for the board. Instead, he would simply give the board a piece of paper with an amount to be paid for his services.

Even as it was bestowing those contracts on Begue, the board was also awarding lucrative contracts on New Orleans private investigator Camp Morrison. Beginning in March of 1997, he received a three-year, $45,000 contract to investigate dentists who might be in violation of some rule or regulation.

In 2000, Morrison’s new contract was for only two years but the contract amount jumped to $150,000, then to $200,000 in 2002, to $240,000 in 2004 where it remained for each two-year term until last year when his contract was renewed for three years—and increased to $340,000.

Even more curious was the disparity between contract begin dates and approval dates. For example, Morrison’s 2002 contract began on Sept. 1 but was not approved until May 19, 2003. His 2008 contract for $240,000 started on Sept. 1 but was not approved until Dec. 28, 2009—almost 15 months after the begin date.

A familiar name surfaced on April 13, 2000, when a two-year, $100,000 contract backdated to Mar. 1 was awarded to Jimmy Faircloth, who would later reveal in open court the board’s ulterior motive in pursuing charges against one dentist.

In that case that progressed to a federal courtroom trial the presiding judge was questioning why Faircloth was so determined to prosecute Dr. Randall Schaffer who had revealed design flaws in a TMJ implant developed by the LSU School Dentistry, Faircloth pointed to then-LSBD executive director Barry Ogden, telling the judge that Ogden had instructed him to get Schaefer “no matter what it cost.”

Faircloth subsequently received a second two-year contract for $50,000, effective Nov. 1, 2010, but not approved until April 19, 2011. That contract was renewed for 20 months and $50,000 in 2012

The board even went so far as to have legislation passed whereby it provides legal representation for Morrison, its contracted investigator, in cases where litigation is brought against Morrison—a practice unprecedented for a state agency. Contracts issued by every other agency contain provisions that the contractor must provide and pay for his own liability coverage and state contracts further stipulate that contractors shall incur their own legal costs while holding the state harmless.

That could be because of Morrison’s practice of hiring unlicensed personnel to conduct investigations and of actions that some say border on entrapment.

The manner in which the board serves as accuser, judge and jury, Begue’s dual function as both the board’s general counsel and as prosecutor may have prompted former State Sen. Max Malone (R-Shreveport) to react to allegations of harassment and extortion by the board by rising on the Senate floor to brand the board and its members as “corrupt.”

The enforcement muscle flexed by the board usually intimidates those accused of wrongdoing to pay fines without resistance because of the costs involved and because they know they will be going up against a stacked deck.

An example of the abuse inflicted by the board is the case of two Shreveport dental hygienists who were accused of fraud by the board and who were presented a consent decree to sign which contained substantial penalties, including 90-day suspensions, fines and legal costs.

The hygienists refused to sign the initial consent decree even in the face of the steep odds that they faced.

The board, however, because of its own vulnerable position, came back with a second consent decree that removed the fraud term, replacing it with failure to provide the acceptable standard of care, fines of $500 each and legal costs of $15,000, and remedial training with no suspensions.

So, why did the board come back with a reduced penalty and why did the two accused sign? First, the hygienists were fully aware of the power of the board to take away their livelihoods by revoking their license.

But the board’s investigator, Morrison, had made the mistake of sending in unlicensed investigators posing as patients to be seen by the hygienists. Additionally, the board allegedly offered one hygienist immunity if she would say that her boss, a Shreveport dentist, ordered her to falsify information obtained by the hygienist in her examination.

In exchange, the hygienists were required to waive any challenge to the complaint against them.

More revealing, however, was the requirement that the hygienists “hereby release and forever discharge the board, its executive director, its investigator and any of the agents, employees, representatives, officers, members, attorneys and investigators of the board, including but not limited to Camp Morrison, Dana Glorioso and Karen Moorhead, from any and all claims, damages, causes of action, or other claims of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, arising from any set of facts of circumstances existing as of the date of this agreement, including, but not limited to any claims of improper investigation, prosecutorial misconduct, defamation, or invasion of privacy.” (Emphasis added.)

LSBD spokespersons might claim this is standard verbiage but it is nevertheless significant to note that Glorioso and Moorhead were the unlicensed investigators sent into the dentist’s office under the pretense of treatment for dental problems—a practice that appears questionable at best and illegal at worst.

LouisianaVoice will be posting additional stories about the LSBD in the coming days and weeks, including the identities of the LSBD members and political contributions of dental political action committees. We also will be examining various legal cases, some of which are concluded and others that are making their way through the courts, and interviewing dental professionals who have encountered similar difficulties with the LSBD.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »