Archive for the ‘Civil Service’ Category

On Tuesday, millions of Americans marched to the polls to cast ballots for President in what is a clear demonstration to the rest of the world that we live in a free society where citizens can say what they want about their leaders without fear of reprisals.

Someone should remind the Louisiana State Troopers’ Association (LSTA) of that.

If additional evidence that the LSTA does little else than attend parties and conventions while brooking no dissention from its membership, there is the ongoing purge of retiree members who dared question activities of its board which LouisianaVoice just learned about.

At the same time LouisianaVoice learned of the reprisals against dissent, we also examined LSTA TAX RETURNS which show that the organization devotes only a small portion of its revenue to charitable causes despite its claims to the contrary. Instead, LSTA has placed about $1 million in trusts, equities and options, mutual funds and money market funds while doing little for the welfare of its members.

LSTA operates Louisiana State Troopers Charities as a 501(c) (3) charitable organization

It also invested more than $200,000 in fundraising activities during 2013, the latest year for which records are available. At the same time, it spent about $28,000 in “grants and other assistance to governments and organizations.”

Among its other expenses were $184,000 for salaries and benefits; $112,400 for conventions, conferences and meetings and nearly $82,000 for travel.

The LSTA 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.”

But those who dare think for themselves need not apply.

The number of retired members has just been reduced by at least four.

LouisianaVoice has learned that four retirees who questioned the authority of LSTA to make political contributions through its executive director in 2015 have been sent letters informing them they are no longer welcome as members of the fraternal organizations they devoted their working lives for.

State civil service rules, which extend to state troopers, prohibit political activity (including campaign contributions) on the part of classified employees.

This precision surgical procedure being carried out on its membership—to remove an inconvenient wart—is evidence of the influence that State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson has over LSTA despite Edmonson’s repeated contention that he has no direct involvement in the association’s activities.

As further illustration of the influence of Edmonson—and LSTA’s propensity to ignore the wishes of its membership—affiliated troops throughout the state voted against expulsion, LouisianaVoice has learned. The only vote to expel the retired members came from headquarters in Baton Rouge.

So much for the democratic process.

One of those retirees, Bucky Millet of Lake Arthur, has been a particular source of irritation to the association, attending monthly meetings of the Louisiana State Police Commission since last December to challenge actions by both the commission and association.

“I was a member of LSTA for 40 years,” Millet says. “Now they tell me I’m not welcome.”

Millet was instrumental in prodding the commission to at least go through the motions of a pseudo-investigation of the association’s funneling campaign contributions to political candidates through its executive director David Young.

That investigation was turned over to Natchitoches attorney Taylor Townsend, a confidant of Gov. John Bel Edwards, who essentially punted. Townsend declined to even issue a written report, which would have become a public record. He also neglected to include a digital recording—a recording that he possessed then and possesses now—of an admission by LSTA officers that they had violated state ethics regulations in contributing to several political candidates through Young.

So, when Millet and other retirees who were members of LSTA questioned the propriety—and the legality—of the contributions, the lines were effectively drawn. Those trouble-making retirees had targets on their backs from that moment on.

And now, even as 100 million Americans cast their votes in the greatest democracy the world has ever known, we learn there is no room for dissention in what should be a beacon of democracy and freedom of expression—the Louisiana State Troopers Association, the fraternal organization that represents those who are supposed to be the very guardians of our freedoms, our protectors.

Perhaps the leadership of LSTA should take a high school civics refresher course.

Read Full Post »

It seems that the folks at Louisiana State Police (LSP) headquarters over at Independence Park rather pompously refer to Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers as Gray Shirts because DPS uniform shirts are gray as opposed to the blue worn by State Troopers (and we thought the Blue-Gray business ended 151 years ago. Not true. We’re told that a State Trooper will not obey a direct order from a DPS captain. Can’t you just imagine an Army private ignoring an order from a Marine captain? And they say the FBI, Homeland Security and the CIA don’t cooperate.).

In the wake of significant pay raises for State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson and his inner circle and revelations of the glaring disparity in the salaries of (LSP) and (DPS) officers, it’s interesting to go back a couple of years and review an email Edmonson sent to DPS personnel. Our interpretations are inserted in bold face parentheses:


From: Mike Edmonson Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:19 PM

To: _DPS_Commissioned Personnel_DPSPolice Subject: Personal Note

As you likely noticed, several e-mails have been sent to all commissioned personnel over the last few weeks discussing HB 872 and how that piece of legislation impacts troopers. Apparently those e-mails have fueled concerns and in some cases discontent within the ranks of DPS police. Let me reassure all of you that you remain a very important part of the DPS family (“But don’t any of you DPS lieutenants or captains try giving orders to my troopers.”) and while HB 872 does not specifically affect you (“It doesn’t affect you, so just keep your mouths shut”), my staff and I are well aware of the deficiencies within your current pay ranges. (“Guess what? Those deficiencies are about to become even greater.”)

The “fix” for that problem is somewhat more complicated than the “fix” for State Police because DPS personnel are part of the Civil Service classified service while troopers are part of the State Police classified service. Adjustments to State Police salaries may be made independent of Civil Service and thus do not affect the parity of all other employees who are part of that classified service, typically a major impediment to salary adjustments. We are however undeterred by the challenges of operating within the current structure of Civil Service. (“We at LSP are getting ours.”) and I have directed the staff of Operational Development to begin evaluating and analyzing the current pay levels for DPS police officers. (“It takes two-plus years to do this evaluation? Funny it didn’t take that long to get your $43,000 raise.”) In particular we want to identify which other Civil Service positions are similar in minimum qualifications and duties and thereafter evaluate the salary schedules of those positions in comparison to ours.

It should be noted that all eligible DPS officers received their 4% merit adjustments last year and will receive another this year amounting to an 8% total salary increase. (“Meanwhile, State Troopers will be getting 30 percent bumps and I’m gonna get a 32percent raise.”) Troopers, on the other hand, received anywhere from 0-3% merit adjustments. Moreover, the approval of HB 872 by the legislature is only the preliminary step in implementing a new pay grid for troopers. The new fund established to achieve that goal has a current balance of zero. We fully anticipate that sufficient monies will be accumulated over time to make the new grid a reality, but like the study and adjustment of DPS salaries, it will take time. (“Don’t hold your breath, Gray Shirts.”)

I understand the financial urgency that some of you feel at being improperly compensated and the frustration with the required process. But it has been disheartening to me that some within the ranks of DPS have seen fit to anonymously complain to legislators, the media and others outside our organization about feeling neglected and mistreated. (“That’s because if I ever learn who you are, you will be punished.”) Such communications are counterproductive to our efforts and can actually undermine our attempts to make adjustments to DPS salaries by drawing unnecessary attention to our plans. (“We have to keep our plans secret.”) Please understand that such communications put at risk the success of our efforts on your behalf. (“Strike that ‘on your behalf’ part.)

The study by Operational Development is the first step in what can sometimes be a laborious process but we will move as quickly as possible at finding an appropriate solution. Once our recommendations are finalized we will work with Civil Service in an effort to address the compensation issues. I will personally appear on your behalf before the Commission to make the case for pay adjustments (“What part of ‘Don’t hold your breath, Gray Shirts’ do you not understand?”). I pledge to keep you informed of our progress (So why has it been more than two years since we’ve heard from you?) and I would ask that you be patient during this process and have faith in me and my staff as I do in each of you. (We’ve seen what faith in you and your staff got us…nothing.) Be safe and may God continue to bless our families and guide each one of us. I will be visiting your sections soon.

Colonel Michael D. Edmonson

Read Full Post »

Once again, and for the sixth consecutive year, State Civil Service employees are being forced to go without a pay raise.

And on the heels of this, the Office of Group Benefits is raising premiums by about 7.5 percent.

But not to worry: what Louisiana State Police (LSP) Superintendent Mike Edmonson couldn’t accomplish two years ago via what was literally a last-minute amendment to an obscure legislative bill, State Police Maj. Jason Starnes has done for him—and for himself and other high-ranking troopers, as well.

The tactic was pulled off so quickly and with such surprise that it could be considered a variation of the old smash and grab move where you strike suddenly, grab what you can and make a fast getaway.

Edmonson got a healthy salary increase of $43,100 (32 percent), from $134,350 to $177,450, effective Aug. 1, LouisianaVoice has learned.

Edmonson says several sheriffs, national guard officers and some State Police majors were making more than he did and that the increases were needed to make state police salaries more competitive.

But Edmonson also receives free housing, meals and furnishings, free butler, cooks and lawn care (courtesy of prisoners of the Louisiana Department of Corrections), a state vehicle and fuel—all at taxpayer expense.

So, just how competitive does he need to be?

Edmonson’s Chief of Staff Charles Dupuy also got a 14.5 percent raise, from $140,900 to $161,300, a jump of $20,400.

Starnes, promoted to LSP Chief Administrative Officer on Aug. 15, received a $21,850 (17 percent) raise, from $128,900 to $150,750.

State Fire Marshal Butch Browning received a raise of $33,500 (32.2 percent), from $104,000 to $137,500.

The Baton Rouge Advocate, which broke its story an hour before ours went up and which cited the same sources (State Civil Service), listed two other LSP Deputy Superintendents who received raises: Glenn Staton and Murphy Paul, who got raises from $140,890 to $150,752 (7 percent). http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_4b9471c4-76e0-11e6-ab44-ffb987ff581f.html?sr_source=lift_amplify

It’s also worth noting here, since we’re talking about getting the records from Civil Service, that The Advocate also made a request to LSP for the records on Sept. 1 and The Advocate is still waiting. It’s not certain when The Advocate made its request to Civil Service but LouisianaVoice made its request to Civil Service about 3:30 p.m. on Friday (Sept. 9) and the records were produced within an hour. LSP, meanwhile, was busy doing the Kristy Nichols Shuffle, i.e. delaying providing the most basic of information. The Advocate story said the official LSP position was that it was still checking for redactions. Paraphrasing former New Orleans and Indianapolis Colts Head Coach Jim Mora, we can only respond with incredulity, “Redactions?! REDACTIONS?! Are you kidding me? REDACTIONS? Don’t talk to me about redactions! We’re not thinking about redactions; we just want basic information.”

Starnes, who has enjoyed a meteoric rise through the LSP ranks, apparently is the one who usurped legislative intent by signing off on the raises of Edmonson, Dupuy and Browning, each retroactive to Aug. 1.


You’ll remember that in 2014, in the closing minutes of the regular legislative session, State Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) tacked an amendment onto a bill that would have given Edmonson an additional $50,000 or so in retirement benefits. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/07/11/generous-retirement-benefit-boost-slipped-into-bill-for-state-police-col-mike-edmonson-on-last-day-of-legislative-session/

Here is a copy of Amendment 4, which was passed but subsequently struck down in Baton Rouge state district court pursuant to a lawsuit filed by State Sen. Dan Claitor. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=911551&n=Conference

Earlier this year, the Legislature, through passage of House Bill 1, set the salaries of statewide elected officials and the governor’s cabinet members. Edmonson’s salary, like that of the governor, was set at $134,400.

But thanks to even more creative maneuvering by Edmonson (he continues to insist he had nothing to do with that retirement gambit but it’s our contention the amendment didn’t write itself and since it applied only to Edmonson and one other trooper….well, you do the math), certain select LSP personnel are getting generous pay bumps over and above last year’s two separate raises that amounted to 30 percent or more across the board.

Edmonson said last year that pay raises would not be going to troopers of ranks higher than major but with this latest round, which went into effect on Aug. 1, that promise appears to have been conveniently forgotten—as was Edmonson’s salary, supposedly set by HB 1.

The whole affair appears to have stemmed from Edmonson’s determination to promote Starnes. He first attempted to move him into the position of Interim Undersecretary to succeed Jill Boudreaux who retired (for a second time) earlier this year. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/02/29/dps-undersecretary-jill-boudreaux-retiring-for-real-this-time-6-years-after-taking-incentive-buyout-at-governors-directive/

But retired State Trooper Bucky Millet filed a formal complaint, claiming the appointment was illegal. The move, Millet’s complaint said, was in violation of Rule 14.3(G), which says:

  • No classified member of the State Police shall be appointed, promoted, transferred or any way employed in or to any position that is not within the State Police Service.

Edmonson subsequently pulled the appointment. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/06/06/starnes-promotion-pulled-by-edmonson-after-complaint-governor-fails-to-sign-lsp-pay-plan-rescinded-by-lspc/

But last month Edmonson came before the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC), the equivalent to the State Civil Service Board, with a proposal to create a new classified position, Chief Administrative Officer, apparently with the same duties and powers as the unclassified—and still vacant—Undersecretary position.

On Thursday (Sept. 8) of this week, the formal approval of the new position came before the LSPC, which immediately went into an illegal executive session.

Upon emerging from that closed-door session, Townsend recommended no action on Millet’s complaint and explained away Millet’s complaint by claiming Edmonson never actually appointed Starnes because that can only be done by the governor. Townsend failed to explain how the “non-appointed” Starnes’ appointment was posted briefly on the LSP Web page before quietly being taken down after Millet filed his complaint.

First of all, LSPC legal counsel Taylor Townsend (who has become a major disappointment as a $75,000 contract investigator who twice in as many “investigations,” has recommended no action by the commission  while conducting no interviews and without introducing any pertinent recordings in his possession and writing no reports of his “findings”) said the executive session was to discuss “personnel matters” when in fact, the smart money says it was to discuss the legality of Edmonson’s move. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/09/08/calling-out-the-hayride-pseudo-investigations-backdoor-contracts-and-executive-sessions-cloistered-in-subterfuge/

Here are the guidelines for an executive session to discuss “personnel” matters:

La. R.S. 42:17 Exceptions to open meetings

  1. A public body may hold an executive session pursuant to R.S. 42:16 for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a person, provided that such person is notified in writing at least twenty-four hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, before the scheduled time contained in the notice of the meeting at which such executive session is to take place and that such person may require that such discussion be held at an open meeting. However, nothing in this Paragraph shall permit an executive session for discussion of the appointment of a person to a public body or, except as provided in R.S. 39:1593(C)(2)(c), for discussing the award of a public contract. In cases of extraordinary emergency, written notice to such person shall not be required; however, the public body shall give such notice as it deems appropriate and circumstances permit.

The closed-door meeting was illegal on at least three levels:

  • To our knowledge, there was no discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health” of Starnes.
  • If that was what was discussed, the commission again violated the law by not complying with the requirement that “such person is notified in writing at least twenty-four hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.” By failing to notify Starnes, he was denied the opportunity to say whether or not he desired a closed meeting.
  • Moreover, the public meetings law says, “Nothing…shall permit an executive session for discussion of the appointment of a person to a public body or, except as provided in R.S. 39:1593(C)(2)(c), for discussing the award of a public contract.”

Besides Townsend, the commission has one other full-time attorney who sits at the table during LSPC meetings. Between the two, someone should advise the commission of it legal obligations when trying to conduct its business away from the eyes and ears of the public.

Here’s the short version: Guys, there’s no app for that.

But then it was Townsend who in August attempted to tell LouisianaVoice (incorrectly, it was pointed out to him at the time by LouisianaVoice) that the commission was not required to give a reason for an executive session. And this from a man who once served in the Louisiana Legislature where our laws are written.

For Mr. Townsend’s enlightenment, here is that law:

La. R.S. 42:16 Executive Sessions

A public body may hold executive sessions upon an affirmative vote, taken at an open meeting for which notice has been given pursuant to R.S. 42:19, of two-thirds of its constituent members present. An executive session shall be limited to matters allowed to be exempted from discussion at open meetings by R.S. 42:17 (see above-quoted statute); however, no final or binding action shall be taken during an executive session. The vote of each member on the question of holding such an executive session and the reason for holding such an executive session shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the meeting. Nothing in this Section or R.S. 42:17 shall be construed to require that any meeting be closed to the public, nor shall any executive session be used as a subterfuge to defeat the purposes of R.S. 42:12 through R.S. 42:2 (Emphasis added).


Read Full Post »

Does systematic racial discrimination as an unspoken policy exist on a widespread basis within the Louisiana Department of Public Safety (DPS)?

If claims contained in a LAWSUIT filed against Louisiana State Police (LSP) in Baton Rouge State District Court are borne out, allegations that include a claim that job openings were not properly posted so as to allow the promotion of pre-selected applicants, the answer would be an unqualified yes.

And what’s more, the silent policy of excluding blacks from promotional opportunities originates in the highest administrative offices of LSP, i.e. those of State Police Superintendent Col. Mike Edmonson, according to the petition filed by 21-year law enforcement veteran Kevin Sulcer.

 Sulcer, a Senior Trooper/Detective, who has been with LSP for the past 12 years, is “the only black Detective at headquarters in the Baton Rouge area,” his petition says. Moreover, he says, there is only one black LSP Detective in New Orleans and the LSP Narcotics and Intelligence Divisions have no black Troopers or Investigators.

“Every black Detective has either left the department or (has) been transferred,” his petition says.

Sulcer is represented by Baton Rouge attorneys Jill Craft and Crystal Bounds.

The claims laid out in Sulcer’s lawsuit, if true, would appear to be yet another in an ever-growing number of allegations of favoritism, mismanagement and poor morale among rank and file State Troopers. 

Sulcer claims he and other black Troopers have been subjected to harsher penalties for minor offenses than have their white counterparts.

As an example, he singled out Lt. Col. Charles Dupuy (Deputy Superintendent/Chief of Staff) who he said forced him to write a 3,000-word essay (reminiscent of Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control former director Troy Hebert who is currently polling 0% in his bid to succeed U.S. Sen. David Vitter) when he was attending LSP training academy but never required white Cadets to do so.

Besides Dupuy, Sulcer also specifically names Col. Mike Edmonson, his brother and Command Inspector Maj. Paul Edmonson, Dupuy’s wife, Commander Kelly Dupuy (can you say nepotism?), Head of Internal Affairs Maj. Catherine Flinchum, Internal Affairs Commander David McClendon, Internal Affairs Executive Officer Lt. Aaron Marcelle, Master Trooper Kevin Ducote, and Lt. Chris Holmes as being part of a pattern of discriminatory policy within LSP.

Sulcer said in his lawsuit that Holmes berated him because of his race for leaving his vehicle running while he interviewed an inmate. As he left the interview, Sulcer said he noticed another Trooper’s unoccupied vehicle idling. “Col. Edmonson was parked in front of this officer’s unit and did nothing to reprimand him,” the petition says.

The incident prompted an Internal Affairs investigation of what Sulcer says was a “minor infraction” that should have been handled by Sulcer’s supervisor. (This the same Internal Affairs Division that refused to investigate a Trooper’s harassment of a citizen in Lake Charles and which refused to conduct a thorough investigation of a Trooper habitually leaving his shift after only a couple of hours to go home to sleep—until LouisianaVoice drew so much attention to the two cases that IT finally was forced to conduct a superficial investigation.)

Sulcer received a letter of reprimand for leaving his vehicle running and for the encounter with Holmes on Oct. 30, 2015. He filed an official appeal of the letter to Mike Edmonson on Nov. 6, 2015. Edmonson has yet to respond to that appeal, the petition says.

But the most egregious act of discrimination, the petition says, concerns an opening for a polygraph position.

“LSP handpicked a white employee, Donnie Guitreau, to fill the polygraph position,” Sulcer said. But manner in which it was done, if Sulcer is correct, would appear to be a blatant violation of State Civil Service procedures.

“Mr. Guitreau was not qualified for the position (so) LSP sent him to polygraph school before the position opening was posted or formally announced,” the petition says. “After Mr. Guitreau completed the school, LSP then posted the position, leaving him the only ‘qualified’ applicant.”

Sulcer says he has more law enforcement experience than Guitreau. Moreover, he says, Guitreau “has a disciplinary history whereas (Sulcer) does not.”

He also claims that LSP failed to have in force an effective policy regarding racial discrimination/harassment and reprisal/retaliation in the workplace and that LSP has refused to address his complaints.

If LSP’s past history is any indication, reprisals against Sulcer have only just begun (with apologies to Karen and Richard Carpenter).


Read Full Post »

In continuing to examine the methods and motives of unknown individuals in the ongoing attempt to discredit and embarrass Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) member Calvin Braxton, Sr., several things are worth noting.

At the same time, LouisianaVoice has learned that six of the seven members of the LSPC, including Braxton, may be serving on the commission illegally and others before them may not have been legitimate appointees, as well.

It’s not enough that LouisianaVoice was sent anonymous letters by someone with a bent for getting Braxton thrown off the commission, but it also appears from the timing of a report critical of Braxton’s behavior following his daughter’s DWI arrest that the report’s author may well have been coerced into filing the report.

There is also the question of how did the legal counsel for the Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) wind up with an internal report? The LSTA is a private organization connected to the Louisiana State Police (LSP) only by virtue that its membership is comprised of active and retired state troopers. The LSTA has no input, or at least should have no involvement in LSP internal investigations other than disciplinary matters involving state troopers.

To recap briefly, Braxton’s daughter was arrested for DWI, speeding, improper lane usage and open container violation on Dec. 5, 2015. According to an official report filed by Troop E Commander, Capt. Jay D. Oliphant, Jr., Braxton subsequently demanded that Oliphant transfer the trooper, Jayson Linebaugh, to New Orleans for 60-90 days to “get his mind right.”

Oliphant explained the only reason a trooper would be assigned to New Orleans would be to supplement the New Orleans Police Department in an ongoing criminal enforcement detail. Assignment to New Orleans would be done only in such event, “certainly not as punishment for arresting his daughter,” the report said.

But the timing of the report, as well as all three anonymous “tips” about the matter received by LouisianaVoice, is terribly suspect.

In February, Braxton objected to the adoption of the commissions January meeting minutes as written because the proposed minutes did not fully summarize key points raised in the January meeting about campaign contributions made by LSTA through its director, David Young.

In a matter of weeks, the “tips” began arriving in the email box as well as the post office box of LouisianaVoice. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/07/26/determined-effort-to-discredit-lspc-members-reveals-self-righteous-hypocrisy-vindictiveness-of-state-police-association/

Then, on July 15, the commission chose active trooper Thomas J. “TJ” Doss, the LSP representative on the commission as its President. Braxton, however, nominated then-Interim President Lloyd Grafton of Ruston and subsequently cast the only vote for Grafton. Grafton refused to vote for himself and cast his vote for Doss, who did not reciprocate the courtesy when he voted for himself.

All of which evokes the question of timing in the glut of anonymous “tips” as well as a not-so-anonymous letter by LSTA legal counsel Floyd Falcon to Gov. John Bel Edwards requesting Braxton’s removal from LSPC.

That letter was dated July 11, just three days before the LSPC’s July 14 meeting. Falcon’s letter also asked Edwards to bar Braxton from participating in or voting on commission matters.

Not only is the timing of Falcon’s letter, as well as his very possession of Oliphant’s report, more than a little suspicious, but the date of Oliphant’s report, as well, raises eyebrows.

And that should be key issue.

Oliphant, like Braxton, is from Natchitoches and he is said to be on friendly terms with both Braxton and Natchitoches Parish Sheriff Victor Jones. Oliphant’s report quoted Braxton as claiming that Sheriff Jones had experienced problems with Trooper Linebaugh and also wanted the trooper removed from Natchitoches Parish after Linebaugh had also arrested Jones’s son for DWI in August 2015. Jones, Oliphant said in his report, denied having any problems with Linebaugh.

Oliphant’s report was DATED JUNE 2, 2016. All contact between Oliphant and Braxton occurred between the Dec. 5, 2015, date of his daughter’s arrest and Dec. 14, 2015—more than six months after the arrest of Braxton’s daughter and nearly six months after the last communication between Oliphant and Braxton.

So why the six-month wait before writing a report?

There are several questions that should be asked of everyone concerned:

  • Was Oliphant coerced to write the report about his friend?
  • Was he deliberately placed in a precarious position between friends Braxton and Sheriff Jones?

Most important of all, however, is this:

  • Why the six-month wait before writing a report?
  • Why is there no report from Linebaugh himself?
  • How is that Falcon came to be in possession of the June 2 report in so short a time as to be able to pen his letter (with the report attached) only nine days later? (Perhaps he has the same “anonymous” sources as LouisianaVoice.)

If any public official attempts to bring pressure on a law enforcement official in retribution for the arrest of a family member, that should be reported immediately—as in the same day, not six months down the road when memories may begin to cloud about details. And there should be a report from the trooper directly involved in the incident.

By everything LouisianaVoice has been able to learn about Oliphant, he is a super straight cop who goes strictly by the book. One former law enforcement official who knows both Oliphant and Sheriff Jones said Oliphant was “honest and completely above-board, a poster child for what law enforcement should be. If he wrote and signed the report, it most likely happened just the way he said.”

But even the strongest can be subjected to pressure when it’s applied in the right place (like a subtle, even unspoken threat to job security or promotions) by the right people in the right position of authority.

That in turn raises these questions:

  • Who is in a position to apply such pressure?
  • And who would have the most to lose from a rogue commission member who refused to go along to protect wrongdoing?

For the time being, those questions will be left to conjecture. But the answer can most probably be found in a very small cadre of players.

Meanwhile, there is another minor controversy brewing over the legitimacy of six of the seven board members (Doss, we assume, is elected by a vote of classified state police officers, according to the Louisiana State Constitution).

The remaining six members, one from each Congressional District, are appointed by the governor.

Article X, Part IV, Sec. 43(c) of the 1974 Louisiana State Constitution says of nominations for APPOINTMENT TO LSPC:

The presidents of Centenary College at Shreveport, Dillard University at New Orleans, Louisiana College at Pineville, Loyola University at New Orleans, Tulane University of Louisiana at New Orleans, and Xavier University at New Orleans, after giving consideration to representation of all groups, each shall nominate three persons. The governor shall appoint one member of the commission from the three persons nominated by each president.

Of course we made the requisite public records request of LSPC to learn if such nominations were received. The request was for such nominations dating back to January 2003. But the LSPC RESPONSE went even further, back to Aug. 7, 2002 with its letter seeking three nominations from Dr. Kenneth Schwab, President of Centenary College in Shreveport.

Schwab responded on Jan. 15, 2003, with only one nomination, that of Joseph Cage, Jr.

There were other four other letters to Dr. Scott Cowen, President of Tulane University in New Orleans, on June 4, 2003; to Dr. Norman Francis, President of Xavier University in New Orleans on June 8, 2004 and again on Oct. 6, 2005, and to Dr. Joe Aguillard, President of Louisiana College in Pineville, also on Oct. 6, 2005, but none after that date. There were no responses to those letters.

So, at least for the past 13 years, only one of the six university presidents has made even a single nomination for one vacancy on the commission.

Members serve staggered terms of six years per term but are prohibited from serving more than two and one-half terms, or 15 years.

With at least four governors, including Mike Foster, Kathleen Blanco, Bobby Jindal and now John Bel Edwards never having received the constitutionally-required three nominees for each vacancy—and the LSPC has experienced considerable turnover in membership during that period—none of the present membership with the exception of Doss is legally serving.

The question now is what can—or will—be done about it? Does this quirk make all actions of the commission, including the hiring of special legal counsel Taylor Townsend, null and void? What about all the trooper appeals of disciplinary matters that have come before the commission down through the years? Some of those who were disciplined and appealed a decade or more ago have probably retired by now. What about per diem paid all those illegitimate commission members for attending meetings over at least the past 13 years?

That requirement of the State Constitution was put in there for a reason and should have been followed to the letter.

Obviously, that was not the case.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »