Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Contract, Contracts’ Category

Lawsuit seeking to block OGB benefits, premium changes also names Governor, who may be served in Iowa or N.H.

Posted in Contract, Contracts, DOA, Finances, Governor's Office, Health Care, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization on April 22, 2015| 19 Comments »

The absentee Jindal administration, already under fire for its fiscal train wreck that has legislators scrambling in attempts to cover a projected $1.6 billion budgetary shortfall, had a grenade dropped into its lap on Wednesday in the form of a LAWSUIT against the administration and the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) over the method in which OGB attempted to implement adverse changes in benefits and premiums for 230,000 state employees, retirees and dependents.

Baton Rouge attorney J. Arthur Smith filed the petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in Baton Rouge District Court on behalf of six plaintiffs who are either current state employees or state retirees.

At issue is the way that OGB attempted to increase premiums and reduce benefits for members of OGB last August without complying with the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which requires promulgation (a formal declaration of intent and public hearings) of any rule changes.

Listed as plaintiffs are Marilee Cash and Aileen Hendricks of East Baton Rouge Parish, Nancy Dickie and Debra Thornton of Lafourche Parish, Rebecca McCarter of Ascension Parish and Dayne Sherman of Tangipahoa Parish. Named as defendants were the State of Louisiana, the Office of the Governor, the Division of Administration (DOA), and OGB.

They claim to be members of an organization called Louisiana Voices of Employees and Retirees for Insurance Truth and Equity, (LA VERITE). They say they chose the name because La verite is French for Truth.

The petition tracks the record of the Jindal administration and chronicles the manner in which the plaintiffs claim that the administration, abetted by the legislature, frittered away a surplus of nearly $2 million at the time Jindal took office, repeatedly used one-time revenue to cover recurring expenses, repealed the popular Stelly tax plan, passed numerous business tax breaks totaling some $367 million, approved $20 million in private school tuition and home schooling tax credits and scrapped the sales tax that businesses previously paid on utility bills.

The rollback of the Stelly plan took place despite warnings from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) that the move would cost the state more than $1.8 billion in lost revenue over a three-year period from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012, the petition says.

The lawsuit says that the repeal of the Stelly plan provided a “substantial tax savings for upper income Louisiana” and accounted for about 75 percent of the state’s budget shortfall during those three years. “This does not take into account the billions of dollars the State of Louisiana hands out in business tax exemptions and incentives ever year that have gone unexamined by lawmakers to determine if they serve legitimate public objectives or are simply wasteful luxuries that the state can no longer afford,” it says.

Citing further examples of what it describes as fiscal mismanagement, the petition notes that from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, the administration spent $2.4 billion in private consulting contracts. The following year, it said, that amount increased to $4 billion. The suit cited the Office of Contractual Review’s annual reports for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 as its source.

Plaintiffs, in their petition, say that the administration announced in January of 2011 its intention to explore the privatization of OGB’s Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) even though a Legislative Auditor’s report predicted that premiums would increase because of marketing costs for a private provider, the necessity of a private provider’s turning a profit, the requirement that private health insurance companies pay premium taxes and the requirement that private companies must purchase reinsurance.

Despite that, the lawsuit says, then-Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater promised that in the event of privatization, benefits would remain the same and premiums would not be increased.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana won the contract to administer the PPO and the new plan went into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. That same year, the administration actually reduced rates by 7.11 percent and the next year another reduction of 1.77 percent went into effect.

“While this saved money for the employees,” the plaintiffs said, “it reduced the state’s required premium (matching) payments by about twice as much, thereby reducing the state’s obligation to pay into the system even though medical expenses were increasing by about 6 percent. The rate reductions, while saving the state money it could then apply to the budgetary shortfall, it meant that OGB could no longer cover expenses from current revenue and had to dip into its reserve fund, which was about $500 million when BCBS took over operations.

OGB has been spending millions per month more than it has been taking in in premiums and the Legislative Fiscal Office has said there is a risk that the reserve fund balance could be zero by the end of the current fiscal year (June 30).

“Gov. Jindal adamantly opposed every attempt on the part of legislators to deal with the financial crisis through tax increases,” the petition says, and he “capitalized on the financial crisis of the state to advance an ideological agenda that called into question the rationale for government to perform basic services on a wide range of issues.”

In listing three causes of action, Smith said the state and OGB violated the state’s APA by attempting to make “substantial unilateral modifications to both benefits and costs under the OGB health plan.”

Some of the changes included:

  • Significantly increasing out-of-pocket maximums for all health plan options;
  • Increasing deductibles for all health plan options;
  • Increased co-pays 100 percent for plans with co-pays;
  • Increasing the out-of-pocket maximums for prescription drug benefits by $300 (from $1,200 to $1,500, a 20 percent increase);
  • Eliminating out-of-network benefits for some plan options;
  • Requiring prior authorizations for certain medical procedures;
  • Removing all vision coverage from health plan options.

The plaintiffs point out that on Sept. 30, 2014, only seven days after an attorney general’s opinion said OGB had violated the APA with its unilateral modifications of benefits, OGB issued a press release “stating its intention to publish an emergency rule reinstating the legally insufficient Aug. 1 changes.”

OGB’s emergency rule, the petition says, “was an apparent effort to retroactively ‘cure’ the illegalities found by the Attorney General in his Sept. 23 opinion. Moreover, the fact (that) the changes would not become effective until March 1, 2015, belies the claim that (there) was an ‘emergency’ which necessitated less than full compliance with the APA.”

OGB did finally comply with the APA by conducting a public hearing on Dec. 29, 2014, in the middle of the Christmas and New Year’s holiday season and after the enrollment period had already been closed, causing the plaintiffs to call the hearing a “sham.”

“With all of the proposed changes, including significant changes (made) during the enrollment period, the haste in which they were handled, and the timing of the Dec. 29, 2014, public hearing, it was very difficult for state employees and retirees to intelligently evaluate their options under these proposed plans and (to) make informed choices,” the plaintiffs said.

The petition also claims the state violated due process and contract clauses.

It claims that state agencies can only change promulgated regulations by the process of the promulgation of a new rule or regulation and that if a change is not properly promulgated in accordance with the APA, “it is not a legally effective pronouncement by the agency (not a law), and therefore, none of the abortive attempts in August, September, October and thereafter should be viewed as having changed the existing law.

“Since the contracts clauses prohibit the state from passing a ‘law’ that retroactively impairs the obligations of contract, OGB can only legally change the benefits program when it adopts through proper procedure and final rule to that effect, and that final rule cannot constitutionally be given retroactive effect.”

The petition is seeking declaratory judgments that:

  • OGB’s health care plans are in violation of the Louisiana APA;
  • Defendants have violated the Constitution of the State of Louisiana;
  • OGB has violated its fiduciary duties as prudent administrators.

It also seeks injunctive relief enjoining the applications of the OGB health care plan modifications.

The lawsuit was assigned to 19th JDC Judge Janice Clark.

Read Full Post »

Remarks by former head of State Dentistry Board on suit dismissal reopens LouisianaVoice investigation of tactics

Posted in Boards, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Lawsuits, LSU, Public Records on April 15, 2015| 10 Comments »

A couple of weeks ago, we received a comment from a reader identifying himself only as “The Truth Man” who proceeded to go on a 128-word tirade against another reader who called himself the “Dental Genie” and gloating over the outcome of the lawsuit of Dr. Randall Schaffer against the Louisiana State Dentistry Board.

Normally, it is the policy of LouisianaVoice to protect the identities of those commenting on our stories. We take the position that if they do not wish to divulge their real names, there must be a legitimate reason. Often, that reason is that the writer is a state employee who would fear for his job should his name be revealed.

But when the writer turns out to be the former director of the state board that was being sued by Dr. Randall Schaffer and when that writer attempts to color the results of the legal action in the board’s favor, we take the position that he is waiving his anonymity. He is, after all, a very public figure, retired or not.

Barry Ogden, former director of the Louisiana Board of Dentistry, was referring to Schaffer’s lawsuit against the board after the board turned on him for blowing the whistle on a defective joint replacement device for temporomandibular jaw (TMJ) sufferers by the head of the LSU School of Dentistry’s Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department in the mid-1980s. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/03/11/from-protecting-their-own-to-persecution-of-a-whistleblower-its-all-part-of-the-bureaucratic-shuffle-by-state-dental-board/

Schaffer who was a resident at LSU at the time, became aware of the negative effects to patients receiving the implants and when he was named as a witness and consultant in the class action cases that ensued, the Board of Dentistry immediately launched an investigation and ultimately revoked his license to practice dentistry.

Schaffer sued the board and moved to Iowa where he worked as a consultant and expert witness in legal matters involving dental malpractice. His case wound its way slowly through the courts, as legal cases always do, running up tremendous costs in the process. Meanwhile, Schaffer was forced to undergo bypass surgery and the combination of medical problems and legal costs left him with no choice but to allow his case to abandon.

Thus, he did not “lose” his case; it was dismissed because of the aforementioned reasons. “I simply could not afford to keep feeding the (legal) beast,” Schaffer said. “It has cost me more than $100,000 and it broke me.”

Ogden’s misleading and less than gracious rant led to several email exchanges between LouisianaVoice and Ogden. We first reminded him that the dismissal of Dr. Randall Schaffer’s case was not based on the merits of the case, but upon extenuating circumstances—money and health. We also reminded him that there are other lawsuits pending against the board and that state agencies have—and are continuing to—investigate tactics by the board and its contract investigator Camp Morrison, who inexplicably was given free office space in the Dental Board’s suite, paid for by taxpayers.

“Are you going to print my comment or not?” Ogden replied. “You obviously have made up your mind about me. Everything I said is true and public. Is your blog blocking what you don’t want to hear? I hope you will give myself and the other defendants a fair and balanced report after we prevail in court.”

We promised to publish his comment, but in context with the facts of the Schaffer case and Ogden’s 400-page deposition in another pending legal matter (Dr. Ryan Haygood). “The Schaffer case does not end the legal actions against the Louisiana Board of Dentistry,” we wrote, adding that as long as we were now communicating (we couldn’t get a comment from the board in our original story), “please explain how it is that the private investigator (Morrison) who is (or was) under contract to the board had the luxury of having an office in your office suite.”

Rather than answer that question, Ogden wrote back, “I cannot authorize you to publish my comment until I see how you plan to edit it and in what context. Are you on a witch hunt against the board or are you willing to publish non-biased comments? I do not wish for my comments to be changed. However, you may delete the final sentence admonishing you to know your subject before commenting. Further, do you require that I will only have my comments published if I allow you to controvert them with your own commentary?”

Well, yeah, when we feel it appropriate to clarify certain claims we do reserve that right.

We then asked him to please answer a few simply questions, to wit:

  • Why do you send in people posing as patients with the express purpose of setting these dentists up?
  • How is it that many of the dentists penalized with the board just happen to be in competition with board members?
  • How do you justify levying a fine of say, $2,000 and when the dentist refuses, you suddenly hand him a bill for $100,000?
  • How can you justify the board serving as accuser, prosecutor and judge? That makes it impossible for a dentist to receive a fair hearing.
  • When the U.S. Constitution says that everyone accused of wrongdoing is innocent until proven guilty, how is it that a dentist first learns of his “guilt” upon receiving notification of his fine?

We wrote that we had other questions, but unless he could address those satisfactorily, we could see no reason for further discussion. “You answer these and we can talk further,” we said.

“All I was attempting to do in my first comment,” he replied, “was to set the record straight, as I have been fed up with the  lies being said about the board and, in fact, all the horse manure thrown at us by you which you believed from the start… Now you wish me fill in the blanks in your next story which you have probably already written. I see no use in further communication, especially on matters in litigation. You are attempting to take advantage of me knowing I cannot answer your questions.

“Therefore, please do not print any of my comments, and let’s call it a day.”

Sorry, Mr. Ogden. That’s just not the way it works. You opened this dialog with your April 3 email to us in which you taunted us about the dismissal of Dr. Schaffer’s case—without revealing the real reasons for the dismissal—and advising us to keep our mouths shut. You offered your remarks as a comment to our story and even asked if we intended to print it before apparently having a change of heart and asking that it not be printed.

Sorry again, but when you want something to be off the record, you preface it that way—up front. You don’t come back after the fact and ask that your ill-advised remarks not be printed.

Accordingly, here is the original comment by Barry Ogden, retired director of the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (verbatim, as he requested):

  • For all of you who believe the fairy tale told by the dental genie, please be advised that ALL lawsuits filed on Dr. Shaffer’s behalf have been DISMISSED. I guess now you have to complain that both state and federal judges are as corrupted as the dental board. Further, how can anyone make a legitimate comment without looking at both sides? You can obtain a copy of the decision revoking Dr. Shaffer’s license from the dental board. It’s a public record. You may also look up all the lawsuits he has filed in state court and federal court in New Orleans to get the true picture. You know the old saying it is better to keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what you are talking about.

Next, we will examine how the board attempted to revoke the medical license of a New Orleans surgeon who has never even practiced dentistry using highly questionable investigative methods and employing tactics can only be described as extortion.

Read Full Post »

Did AG’s office engage in witness tampering in CNSI civil trial? With this administration, nothing would surprise us

Posted in Attorney General, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Crime, DHH, DOA, Ethics, Fraud, Governor's Office, Guest Columnist, Judges, Lawsuits, Transparency on March 30, 2015| 7 Comments »

By Robert Burns (Special to LouisianaVoice)

LouisianaVoice readers may recall a December 15, 2014 post outlining state defense attorneys desperately fighting to block a deposition of Stephen Russo,  Secretary of the State Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), to be conducted by Lewis Unglesby, lead plaintiff attorney in the Client Network Services Inc. (CNSI) civil lawsuit against the state.  CNSI alleges that Gov. Jindal’s office, in “consultation” with AG Caldwell’s Office, unjustly cancelled its contract to provide Medicaid processing services to DHH after news of a federal grand jury having convened to consider potential improprieties in the awarding of the contract broke.  The federal grand jury probe went nowhere, but Caldwell nevertheless continued a probe with a state grand jury.  Ultimately, that state grand jury indicted former DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein for nine counts of alleged perjury entailing testimony to that grand jury or statements made at his senate confirmation hearing.

At that December hearing, Judge Kelley ruled that Russo could be deposed and that any attorney-client privilege had clearly been waived.  The AG’s Office filed an immediate appeal writ with the First Circuit (notwithstanding the fact Judge Kelley stated, “There’s nothing to appeal because this matter is clear,”).  The First Circuit upheld Judge Kelley’s ruling and denied the appeal.  During that December hearing, Unglesby stated AG Caldwell’s Office had “quite likely acted illegally” in publicly releasing Greenstein’s grand jury testimony.  A hearing to quash that testimony transpired in Greenstein’s criminal trial on March 20, 2015.

At that hearing, Greenstein criminal defense attorney, John McLindon, argued for protection of the grand jury “body” not only for the Greenstein case but for all future criminal trials.  He stated that denying his motion to quash the grand jury testimony would send a horrible signal that grand jury secrecy was a “sham” in Louisiana.  He also stated that AG Caldwell’s Office essentially engaged in an ex-parte maneuver in that the AG’s motion to file the grand jury transcript into the public record was “buried” at the end of the order.  McLindon also argued that David Caldwell had been deceptive in describing the motion in court on the day it was presented as a “routine procedure” to enable McLindon to obtain a copy of the testimony, which McLindon indicated he was entitled to anyway.  Judge Daniel ruled that the AG’s office acted properly in filing the transcript into the public record, but McLindon indicated he may likely appeal Judge Daniel’s ruling.

Louisiana Voice has now reviewed extensive court filings in the civil case in which CNSI attorneys lodge even more allegations of serious wrongdoing on the part of Caldwell’s Office.  Those allegations entail the testimony of CNSI whistleblower Stephen Smith.

Smith is the CNSI employee who sent an anonymous email to Jeffrey Branch with the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) under the alias of “Kunego.”  The email was sent sometime after a meeting which Smith had with Norm Nichols, President of Molina Medicaid Services, and the company which has managed Louisiana’s Medicaid processing for decades and which filed a protest after CNSI won the contract.  Smith testified that Nichols indicated that, although Molina lost the protest, “there were still things in the process that were questionable.”    Smith has moved on to Orlando, Florida where he serves as Vice President for Sellers Dorsey, LLC, which is a health policy consulting company.

On May 1, 2014, CNSI attorneys conducted a video deposition of Smith in Orlando.  During the deposition, Unglesby presented Smith with a copy of what the AG had supplied as the “Kunego report.”  That report, which was filed under seal soon after CNSI’s lawsuit was initiated, contained notations of AG investigator Scott Bailey’s interview of Smith (but identified as “Kunego”) on May 10th and May 11th of 2012.  Unglesby then asked Smith to take a pen and underline those portions of the interview notes for which he wished to claim were his words and recollections of the interview and to refrain from underlining those items for which he did not wish to assess as having originated from him.  As readers can readily tell from reading the 7-page report, Smith was only willing to claim responsibility for between 50-60% of it as evidenced by what is underlined.  Nevertheless, the report contains some rather intriguing allegations, not the least of which is contained on page five.  On that page, the report states:  “Bobby Jindal has what Kunego calls an India to India ancestor driven background and network of connections that brought CNSI and Jindal together.”

The deposition continued for an extended period, so the parties agreed to recess and reconvene on a later date, which turned out to be July 8, 2014.  Upon reconvening the deposition, Unglesby made an inquiry of Smith regarding whether he’d had any communication with anyone from the AG’s Office.  Smith responded that Scott Bailey, the AG investigator who had interviewed him for the Kunego report, had telephoned him twice and had flown to Orlando to meet with him on June 28, 2014.  Smith indicated that Bailey stated that he needed to clarify the timeframe of the meeting with Nichols and also to inform him that the AG’s office had provided CNSI attorneys with the “wrong version” of the Kunego report.  Smith testified that Bailey informed him that, on May 1, 2014, he’d been provided with the “unedited” Kunego report when he should have been provided with the “edited” report, which is the report the AG’s Office intended to supply to CNSI attorneys.

Smith then explained that the unedited report, which CNSI attorneys provided at the May 1, 2014 deposition, was what had confused him so much because it had statements in the report which he knew he hadn’t made and therefore caused confusion as to how such statements were in a report of an interview of him.  When Unglesby pressed Smith on whether he asked Bailey how such allegations, including that of Jindal’s “India to India ancestor driven background” and that being responsible for bringing CNSI and Jindal together, got in his interview report, Smith indicated that he did not press Bailey for any explanation.

CNSI attorneys, upon learning of these phone conversations between Bailey and Smith, the in-person meeting between the two on June 28, 2014, and the fact that two reports of Smith’s interview responses even exist, prompted strong accusations of witness tampering on the part of AG Caldwell’s Office.  CNSI attorney Michael McKay of the law firm Stone Pigman, in a Motion to Conduct Discovery Regarding Certain Activities of the AG’s Investigator, accuses AG investigator Scott Bailey of “outrageous witness tampering,” and seeks to depose Bailey about his conduct and actions and also have the AG surrender documents, including the “edited” Kunego report, which were shared between Bailey and Smith, along with documents and dates of correspondence between Smith and Nichols.

CNSI attorneys allege that the AG’s Office filed the “unedited” version of the “Kunego report” under seal with the full knowledge that it contained material not attributable to Smith as a means to “influence the public” and to justify a six-month stay being sought by the AG’s Office for all proceedings.  Although the motion to stay was denied (and the First Circuit upheld the denial on June 7, 2013), the AG’s Office filed a motion to limit discovery and a motion for Judge Kelley to recuse himself on the basis Unglesby had previously represented him.  Judge Caldwell denied the recusal motion on July 1, 2013; however, Judge Kelley granted a motion to stay all proceedings on July 30, 2013.  CNSI attorneys asserted that Kelley’s decision was based largely on the “unedited” Kunego report which they contended the AG’s Office knew full well contained material not supplied by Smith and for which the foundation is unknown.  CNSI attorneys also expressed frustration that, as of the date of their filing, August 22, 2014, they still had not been provided with the “edited” Kunego report.

The hearing on CNSI’s motion to depose Bailey was argued before Judge Kelley on October 7, 2014, and he granted the motion.  At a bare minimum, CNSI attorneys have already exposed a high level of ineptitude on the part of AG Caldwell’s Office in that it provided the wrong “version” of the Kunego report given how critical that report is to both the civil and criminal trials.  It is mind boggling that a document that critical wouldn’t be triple checked as being the one the AG’s Office wanted to ensure CNSI attorneys received.  The mere fact they would later have to admit to Smith that “we gave the CNSI attorneys the wrong version” speaks volumes as to the AG Office’s ineptitude.  Of course, as CNSI attorneys argued in their support memorandum, it begs the question as to why two versions of the report even exist at all.

It remains to be seen how successful CNSI’s attorneys may be in exploiting their allegation of witness tampering by the AG’s Office.  Obviously, their ultimate goal is to have Smith’s testimony at trial declared inadmissible based on inconsistency and the actions of AG Caldwell’s Office.  If they succeed, a huge defense to CNSI’s alleged wrongful contract termination may go by the wayside and expose Louisiana taxpayers to a substantial monetary award.  Further, if Smith’s testimony is ruled inadmissible, a spillover benefit to Greenstein’s criminal trial may also arise.

When combined with the recent scathing WWL investigative report on AG Caldwell, one can only question if the biggest beneficiary of all of the extensive focus of the ineptitude and controversies of Gov. Jindal has been AG Caldwell himself.  It certainly appears that for an extended period, he was able to fly below radar on his office’s ineptitude and potential serious wrongdoing.  Perhaps recent revelations of his actions may provide an excellent source of campaign fodder for the October election for Louisiana’s next attorney general.

Read Full Post »

Say it ain’t so, Bobby; tell us DHH (your area of expertise) is not a party to Ethics violation with Kliebert’s brother-in-law

Posted in Audit Reports, Commissions, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, DHH, Ethics, Health Care, Privatization, Transparency on February 26, 2015| 4 Comments »

There is more damage control awaiting the most ethical administration in Louisiana history and just as with the Bruce Greenstein saga, the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) is front and center.

The Louisiana Board of Ethics last Thursday (Feb. 19) voted to file ethics charges against Galen Schum, DHH Secretary Kathy Kliebert’s brother-in-law, because of his failure to comply with state law requiring him to report income he received from a company under contract to DHH. ETHICS CHARGES

On Nov. 17, 2011, while Schum was serving as Director of Regional Operations for the Office of Behavioral Health (OBH), Magellan Health Services signed a two-year contract with OBH to administer behavioral health managed care services for children and adults.

That contract, approved on Jan. 23, 2012, and which went into effect on Mar. 1, 2012, was originally in the amount of $354 million for two years, but was amended to a three-year contract for $547.78 million and is scheduled to expire on Saturday.

On Feb. 13, 2012, just three weeks after the contract was approved and just over two weeks before it went into effect, Schum submitted a job application to Magellan and was hired on Feb. 27, only two days before the contract took effect.

He resigned from Magellan on Jan. 31, 2014 but during the time he was employed there, he earned more than $146,000 in salary, according to documents obtained by LouisianaVoice.

Kliebert was serving as Deputy Secretary of DHH when the Magellan contract was approved on Nov. 17, 2011, and remained in that capacity until April 1, 2013, when she was elevated to her current position of Secretary.

State law (R.S. 42:1114) provides with respect to the filing of financial disclosure statements, “…that each public servant and each member of his immediate family who derives anything of economic value, directly, through any transaction involving the agency of such public servant or who derives anything of economic value of which he may be reasonably expected to know through a person which (1) is regulated by the agency of such public servant, or (2) has bid on or entered into or is in any way financially interested in any contract, subcontract, or any transaction under the supervision or jurisdiction of the agency of such public servant shall disclose the following:

  • The amount of income or value of any thing of economic value derived;
  • The nature of the business activity;
  • Name and address, and relationship to the public servant, if applicable, and
  • The name and business address of the legal entity, if applicable.

The disclosure statement is required to be filed each year by May 1 and shall include such information for the previous calendar year.

R.S. 42:1102 defines “immediate family” as the children of the public servant, spouses of his children, his siblings and their spouses, his parents, spouse and the spouse’s parents.

“Galen Schum violated …the Code of Governmental Ethics by failing to file a financial disclosure statement on or before May 1, 2013, disclosing income received during 2012 from Magellan Health Services, Inc., and on or before May 1, 2014…at a time when Magellan Health Services, Inc. had a contract with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals—Office of Behavioral Health and while his sister-in-law, Kathy Kliebert, served as the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals,” the Board of Ethics document says.

The board issued a formal request that the Ethics Adjudicatory Board:

  • Conduct a hearing on the foregoing charges;
  • Determine that Galen Schum has violated (state law) with respect to the foregoing counts, and
  • Assess an appropriate penalty in accordance with the recommendation of the Louisiana Board of Ethics to be submitted at the hearing.

Other documents obtained by LouisianaVoice indicate that Schum, on Jan. 18, 2011, in his capacity as Director of Regional Operations for OBH, presented a report to the Louisiana Commission on Addictive Disorders on the status of OBH’s ongoing privatization efforts—efforts which led directly to the awarding of the Magellan contract.

It was at that same Jan. 18 meeting that Kliebert announced to the commission that she had been selected as the new DHH Deputy Secretary and would be leaving her position at OBH.

Schum also participated in a commission meeting on Oct. 11, 2011, at which time he gave the commission “a brief update on the Louisiana Behavioral Health Partnership,” according to commission minutes of that meeting.

Schum said that the selection of the Statewide Management Organization (SMO) had been completed and that Magellan Health Services “was the vendor selected to be the Louisiana SMO, and that the Office of Behavioral Health was currently involved in the contract negotiation process with Magellan.”

Finally, the minutes of a Magellan Governance Board meeting of June 20, 2012, indicate that Schum was employed as a Reporting Analyst for the company.

Magellan had come under sharp criticism from the Legislative Auditor’s office in August of 2013 in a report that said the administration’s privatization of mental health and addictive disorder treatment programs had created confusion and added costs for local human services district that provide the care. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/audit_shows_privatization_of_m.html

That audit report, which examined privatization results at human services districts in Baton Rouge, Houma, New Orleans and Amite, said privatization had caused problems with claims payments which increased costs for the districts and made it more difficult for the districts to receive reimbursement for services. The report also said the districts lost money under a requirement that they use Magellan’s electronic health records system.

The Capital Area Human Services District in Baton Rouge, for example, told auditors that its administrative costs for billing claims had increased $270,000 a year since the privatization took effect. That cost was attributed to problems with claims reconciliation and collection, the audit said.

Meanwhile, the report said, DHH failed to ensure that Magellan processed claims in a timely manner, often taking weeks or months to process claims. The report also said DHH failed to penalize the company when it did not meet planning and technical benchmarks. “No sanctions have been imposed on Magellan for not meeting all required contract provisions,” it said.

Just another Jindaled state agency headed for yet another privatized train wreck.

But don’t say we never warned you.

Read Full Post »

Fans of mystery, intrigue and political corruption can have a field day with DA motives in Livingston Parish investigation

Posted in Audit Reports, Auditor, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Fraud, GOHSEP, Lawsuits, Politicians, Waste on February 24, 2015| 8 Comments »

By Robert Burns (Special to LouisianaVoice)

When Hurricane Gustav struck south Louisiana on Sept. 1, 2008, almost three years to the day after Katrina, it set in motion a series of events that would ultimately:

  • upset the Livingston Parish political structure;
  • leave the parish facing a bill for more than $40 million in cleanup costs;
  • see a call for but never a follow up on an investigation into the formation of a fictitious corporation (at a fictitious address headed by a fictitious person) which somehow managed to be the only bidder on a lucrative contract;
  • result in the arrest of another contractor who was also serving as an FBI informant to help root out fraud, and
  • leave residents more than six years later still wondering who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

First, some background.

The massive cleanup that followed Gustav required fast action and, regrettably, such fast action oftentimes opens the door for governmental abuse. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared that to be the case in Livingston Parish’s cleanup, and the agency denied an astounding $59 million in clean-up costs.

Crucial to FEMA’s decision was Corey delaHoussaye, a contractor hired by Livingston Parish to assist with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting issues nearly a year after the storm struck.  DelaHoussaye, coincidentally, also served as an FBI informant during the cleanup.  Livingston Parish District Attorney Scott Perrilloux, along with the State Office of Inspector General (OIG), have accused  delaHoussaye of submitting his own fraudulent invoices for hours they assert he did not perform work as part of his $2.3 million billings.  DelaHoussaye attorney, John McClindon, contends that the OIG got a search warrant for delaHoussaye’s residence on July 17, 2013 but delayed executing it and arresting delaHoussaye for eight days so it would coincide with a council meeting to approve delaHoussaye’s final $379,000 in invoices.  DelaHoussaye wasn’t paid, and he sued the parish for nonpayment.

Meanwhile, Perrilloux sought an indictment against delaHoussaye, but he came up one vote short in an 8-2 vote of the grand jury in December of 2013.  Undeterred, Perrilloux proceeded with a bill of information containing 81 counts, including 73 of filing false public records, but last Friday Perrilloux dropped 19 of those 73 counts.

On Monday, 21st Judicial District Judge Brenda Ricks ruled that insufficient evidence exists to proceed with a trial—a major victor for delaHoussaye.  Perrilloux presented only one witness during Monday’s hearing: OIG investigator Jessica Webb, who testified that, during times delaHoussaye charged the parish for hours worked, he sometimes was at an anti-aging clinic, at Greystone Country Club playing golf, or at Anytime Fitness working out.

McClindon, calling the OIG’s investigation “half baked,” said the OIG’s office seized his client’s computers and “looked at what they wanted to look at,” ignoring emails and failing to talk with anyone.

Similarly, at the trial of Murphy Painter, former director of the State Office Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC), former OIG investigator Shane Evans testified that he merely “wrote down” what ATC employee Brant Thompson said to him regarding Painter’s being “manic depressive, out of control, and selectively enforcing alcohol statutes,” and admitted the OIG did zilch to corroborate Thompson’s assertions even though it was Thompson’s initial characterization that reportedly prompted Gov. Bobby’s firing of Painter. (Subsequent details later revealed Painter’s firing was steeped in the time-honored tradition of Louisiana politics as usual.) https://louisianavoice.com/2013/02/06/emerging-claims-lawsuits-could-transform-murphy-painter-from-predator-to-all-too-familiar-victim-of-jindal-reprisals/

A company called Comprehensive Business Solutions, with an address on Coursey Boulevard in Baton Rouge, was created by someone named Patterson Phelps of Mandeville in March of 2010, according to corporate records filed with the Secretary of State’s office.

That date was just prior to the Livingston Parish Council’s issuing invitations to bid on a lucrative contract for cleanup.

The only problem is there is no such business at the address given and in fact, never was, and no one has been able to ascertain who Patterson Phelps is, other than speculation that it was an alias for a member of the parish council who was attempting to obtain the contract for himself.

A spokesperson for the Secretary of State said the corporate papers were filed electronically with payment made by credit card and that no records exist that would reveal who was actually responsible for creating the shell company.

The parish council did indicate it would instruct Perrilloux to conduct an investigation into the identity of the mystery person, but no results of any investigation, if it was ever conducted, have been made public.

Perrilloux, apparently fuming over Ricks’ ruling, said after the hearing that he would proceed with trial anyway and added, “Just because they wear a black robe doesn’t mean they know everything.” Legally, Perrilloux cannot proceed with a trial unless Ricks’ ruling is overturned by the First Circuit Court of Appeal or the Louisiana Supreme Court. He later said he would appeal the decision.

Brian Fairburn was Livingston Parish’s Emergency Manager and Coordinator for Homeland Security at the time Gustav struck.  His job was to hire monitors who would oversee operations to ensure FEMA reimbursement eligibility.

Fairburn testified that Mike Grimmer, then-Livingston Parish President, indicated to him that he had grave concerns regarding some of the itemized charges on the FEMA project worksheet and likely would not sign off on it.  When asked why, Fairburn indicated Grimmer told him, ‘“The costs are too high and we have permitting issues.’ (He) specifically told me we were taking kickbacks, that we were just out there creating work for these contractors to do.”  When asked whom Grimmer asserted was taking kickbacks, Fairburn responded, “Jimmy McCoy (Councilman from District 2), and he included me as being in on it also.” Fairburn added that Grimmer, “tried to ruin McCoy,” and that he “wanted to show that there was trouble, corruption, and crime in the parish.”  Fairburn also testified that he was terminated soon after the Gustav project but added that when Layton Ricks defeated Grimmer for parish president, he was rehired.

Brian Fairburn testified that during a meeting on November 26, 2008, Eddie Aydell of Alvin Fairburn and Associates (no relation to Brian) expressed serious reservations about proper permitting with the Army Corps and that Aydell was “scared” the Corps would assert that permits should have been issued before work was begun.

It was at that juncture that delaHoussaye was hired to assist with permitting issues.  Brian Fairburn said that McCoy said that the parish “would not” be obtaining any Corps permits and that Grimmer “shut the project down,” after which the Corps issued a cease and desist order on drainage projects.

FEMA’s attorneys were not happy with state and parish attorneys’ attempts to turn the hearing into a trial of delaHoussaye, and they strongly objected to 20 exhibits and depositions, including photographs of delaHoussaye and his son, which they said were unrelated to the hearing.  FEMA attorney Linda Litke said, “delaHoussaye was hired a year after the disaster in 2009 to basically go through the documentation and clean up the mess……  The parish attempted to criminally indict him…..They have now attempted to proceed with criminal action against him without an indictment.  It is reprehensible that they would bring this documentation in this case……DelaHoussaye is a confirmed FBI informant.  He was a whistleblower, and that is why the parish has gone after him.”

Perhaps the most riveting testimony was that of former Parish President Mike Grimmer, who testified that McCoy signed a contract addendum even though Grimmer was the only one with authority to do so.  He said he was “unaware the contract addendum was even out there.”  He indicated the addendum greatly increased the prices, including an increase in the per linear foot price.

Grimmer stated that he got calls from irate homeowners regarding crews, “trespassing on their properties….. and the trees had been taken with no permission.”  Grimmer also testified he obtained invoices for payment on work performed at local schools and North Park which had already been paid by other local agencies.  He referenced Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera’s report which he testified that he’d requested.  He said it reinforced his concerns about documentation problems for cleanup operations. Grimmer’s response took “no exception” to the report.

That report also cited a contractor for hiring direct family members of Council members McCoy and Don Wheat which the report said may have violated ethics laws, so the matter was referred to the Louisiana Ethics Board.  Wheat, Councilman from District 6, responded angrily to the report and stated that Gov. Jindal’s GOHSEP’s Office had indicated the FEMA report was “fundamentally flawed” and on appeal and that Purpera, “continued with the same flaws and I urge you to correct your mistakes.”

Grimmer expressed shock when he attended an Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) meeting in May of 2009 and a $42 million tab for wet debris removal was “dropped in my lap.”  Grimmer asked for a breakdown and, on June 9, 2009, he got one and an indication that the final tab was estimated at $92 million.  He refused to sign off on the $42 million and verbally instructed all work to cease, and the Army Corps followed up with a written cease and desist order shutting down all drainage work.

FEMA attorneys then provided the panel with a handout of a power point presentation created by Grimmer entitled, “The Truth about the Debris Cleanup.”  Slides were presented depicting:

  • an oak tree removal for $8,415;
  • two other single-tree removals for $6,570 and $4,600, and
  • a pile of limbs for $2,805.

Grimmer said those types of vastly inflated costs prompted his decision to shut down the entire project.

Grimmer, over the objections of state and parish attorneys, last May told a three member arbitration panel that he alone would have been accountable to Purpera if he’d approved the project worksheet and that contractors, monitors, councilmen, and others would all be “gone and happy.”  He expanded on how the whole episode and his decision had adversely impacted him in the community, with long-time friends and business associates distancing themselves from him and people being angry at him but that, “at the end of the day,” he felt he’d made the right decision and felt vindicated by Purpera’s report.

Cross examination at that hearing focused on Grimmer’s frosty relationship with council members and his having referenced five such members as “the five amigos.”  Grimmer confirmed McCoy and Wheat were included in the five.  Grimmer admitted that delaHoussaye shared the fact that FBI investigator Steven Sollie had contacted him and that he was cooperating in an FBI investigation of the Gustav cleanup operations.  State and parish attorneys sought to get Grimmer to admit that he “had no interest” in the project’s costs until he obtained knowledge of the ongoing FBI investigation, a charge Grimmer vehemently denied.  Grimmer also indicated that, though he couldn’t remember which one, a FEMA monitor was paid $20,000 to make debris FEMA-eligible.

The panel ruled in FEMA’s favor.

If Perrilloux follows through and if the state’s and parish’s appeal hearing of FEMA’s decision is any guide, a trial is likely to air some of the dirtiest elements of Livingston Parish political corruption.  Louisiana Voice has obtained a transcript of the 2,197 page appeal hearing, and the contents are interesting, to say the least.

Perhaps that may be why delaHoussaye attorney McClindon said after Ricks’ ruling, “It would probably be best for us all to sit down and work this whole thing out.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »