Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Contract, Contracts’ Category

Got contract? If not and you want to play, be prepared to pay

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Contract, Contracts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Privatization on January 11, 2012| Leave a Comment »

In September of 2000, the City of New Orleans awarded a contract to SMG Crystal for the management and operation of the New Orleans Cultural Center in an effort to reduce the city’s $915,000 deficit incurred in 1999.

The agreement called for SMG, which also manages the Louisiana Superdome, the New Orleans Arena and the Baton Rouge River Center, to spend $25,000 per year to market and promote the Cultural Center and for the city to pay SMG $175,000 per year, plus an incentive fee based on the amount by which SMG reduced the operating deficit.

The Cultural Center had 19 classified civil service employees, 10 of whom accepted employment with SMG and nine who remained with the city in the Department of Property Management at their same pay rate.

The New Orleans Civil Service Commission filed suit against the city because the agreement, it said, was entered into in violation of its rules that required commission approval prior to privatization of any governmental function.

Rules adopted by the commission specify that:

• Contracts for personal or professional services shall be approved only when such services require unique or specialized skills not presently required of positions in the classified service;

• Any contract for privatization of a governmental service shall contain a provision that thoroughly explains the effects of privatization on the status of current employees, as well as any specific contractual commitments entered into by the parties, which affect the interests of the displaced employees;

• All contracts for personal or professional services first shall be transmitted to the Civil Service Department for initial consideration and review, and again for final approval after all other aspects of contractual review have been completed.

The upshot of that legal action was a ruling, upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court, that the city must submit for prior approval—or disapproval—by the civil service commission any agreement calling for privatization of any city department or agency.

The ruling said, “If…the commission finds that no civil servants will be involuntarily displaced from the civil service, or, if they will, that the contract was entered into for reasons of efficiency and economy and not for politically motivated reasons (emphasis our) as to the civil servants, it should approve the contract.

“However, if the commission has good reason to believe that civil servants will be involuntarily displaced and that the contract was entered into, not for reasons of efficiency and economy, but for politically motivated reasons, it may refuse to approve the contract,” it said.

Because of this decision, the Louisiana Civil Service Commission receives a printout at its monthly meetings. This printout contains a list of all proposed state contracts for the commission’s review. If there are no objections by the commission, the list is then forwarded to the Office of Contractual Review, located in the Division of Administration, for final approval.

The printout ostensibly is to assure the commission members that:

• No state civil servants will be displaced by the contract, and;

• There are no state civil service employees (or at least an insufficient number of civil servants) who are qualified to performed the needed services.

But It would require more than a single meeting of the civil service commission for its members to make such a determination on each of the proposed contracts.

That’s because the latest printout is 208 pages with an average of 10 proposed contracts per page. The dollar amount on these 2,000 contracts? Almost $4.1 billion.

There is no possible way the commission members can make an intelligent decision on the merits of each and every one of these proposed contracts.

And you can be sure that those in positions to reward political campaign contributors are fully aware of that.

Take C.H. Fenstermaker & Associates of Lafayette, for example.

That firm landed a lucrative $3 million contract with the Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration to “provide engineering services for coastal protection and restoration projects.”

That’s a pretty vague description of services and fails to address the issue of whether or not there were qualified state employees to perform the work.

But Fenstermaker and his firm contributed $20,500 to Jindal’s gubernatorial campaigns from 2003 to 2009.

Likewise, Providence Engineering of Baton Rouge, which gave Jindal more than $2,700 in 2007, has a $750,000 contract with the Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration to “provide engineering services for coastal protection and restoration projects on an as-needed basis.”

Here are a few others:

• BCG Engineering & Consulting: $3 million contract “to provide engineering services for coastal protection and restoration projects on an as-needed basis.” BCG contributed $5,000 in January of 2010 for a Jindal “fun hunt.” BCG also contributed about $100,000 more to other candidates;

• HNTB Corp., which made an in-kind contribution of $1,947 last March, has two such contracts with the Office of Coastal Protection—one for $3 million and another for $750,000;

• ASC State & Local Solutions made two $5,000 contributions to Jindal in 2003 as well as an additional $48,000 to 11 other candidates, including State Treasurer John Kennedy, then legislator Bill Cassidy, then-Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and former Gov. Kathleen Blanco. The contributions appear to have paid handsome dividends; ACS has consulting contracts worth $74.5 million and $13.95 million with the Office of Community Development and the Department of Children and Family Services, respectively;

• Volkert & Associates: $892,350 contract with the Division of Administration for “relocation assistance services for University Medical Center in New Orleans in accordance with federal relocation guidelines (seven contributions to Jindal between 2003 and 2011 totaling $7,000);

• T. Baker Smith & Son: $3 million contract with the Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration for “engineering services for coastal protection and restoration projects on an as-needed basis,” and a $250,000 contract with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for “engineering services for the Atchafalaya Basin Program.” T. Baker Smith contributed $5,000 to Jindal in 2008;

• Ardaman & Associates: $3 million contract with Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration “to provide geotechnical services for coastal protection and restoration projects on an as-needed basis.” Contributed $1,000 to Jindal in 2008;

• Morris P. Hebert, Inc.: $1 million contract with Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration “to provide the means for surveying assistance for coastal protection for coastal restoration projects on an as-needed basis. Hebert contributed $1,000 to Jindal in 2007;

• Peter Meyer Advertising of New Orleans: $5 million contract for advertising and communication services for the Department of Economic Development; $8,000 in contributions to former Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu;

• Trumpet Consulting of New Orleans: $3.9 million contract with the Office of Culture, Recreation and Tourism (which is part of the lieutenant governor’s office) “for creative, marketing, media, brand identity for the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and the Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism; $1,000 contribution to Landrieu by Trumpet in 2006 and $1,000 to Jindal by Trumpet agent David Lukinovich;

• URS Corp.: Eight contracts with seven separate agencies for more than $4.5 million; five separate contributions to Jindal totaling $12,500, all in 2003;

• C&C Technologies: $3 million with the DNR to “provide the means for surveying assistance for coastal restoration projects on an as-needed basis; $5,000 contribution to Jindal in 2007 by C&C President Thomas Chance;

• CH2M Hill Corp.: $12 million contract with the Office of Coastal Restoration and Management to “provide environmental science consultant services,” $3 million contract with DNR to “provide engineering assistance for coastal restoration projects; $16,000 in four contributions to Jindal from 2003 to 2011and more than $50,000 to several other candidates;

• Sigma Corp.: $750,000 contract with the Governor’s Office of Coastal Restoration and Management and a $250,000 contract with the Department of Natural Resources; $5,750 in two contributions to Jindal in 2003 and 2008 and $10,500 in three contributions to Jindal between 2003 and 2010 by Sigma President Miles Williams;

• CSRS, Inc.: $2,125,674 contract with the Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration “to augment existing professional engineering staff.” CSRS made a $5,000 contribution to Jindal in 2008. CSRS Vice President Curtis Soderberg made contributions of $5,000 to Jindal in each of his three gubernatorial campaigns for a total of $15,000;

• Value Options, Inc.: $13.75 million contract with the Office of Group Benefits to “provide a fully-insured managed mental health and substance abuse treatment service. Value Options contributed $5,000 to Jindal in 2008.

Next, we will take a look at contracts which call for services that it would seem state employees could perform and at contracts that simply defy logic.

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Notable Quotables, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Privatization on December 12, 2011| 1 Comment »

“The Division of Administration has no records which are responsive to your request.”

–Attorney David W. Boggs, responding to a request by LouisianaVoice for copies of required written authorization for the transfer of the $74.9 million contract between F.A. Richard & Associates and the State to take over operations of the Office of Risk Management to a second company, and later a third.

Read Full Post »

DOA apparently allowed several major violations of contract through poor oversight & management of ORM privatization

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Transparency on December 12, 2011| 7 Comments »

If Gov. Bobby Jindal’s privatization pilot program is any indication, legislators might wish to take a long, hard look before allowing the governor to move forward with privatizing the Office of Group Benefits, prisons, Medicaid or education.

Former Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis on June 3, 2010, signed a contract whereby F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) of Mandeville was to assume the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management. Also signing the agreement were State Risk Director J.S. “Bud” Thompson, and FARA President/CEO Todd Richard.

Now, it appears that the terms of that contract with FARA may have been violated not once, not twice, but probably three times.

Under terms of that contract, the state agreed to pay FARA “a maximum amount of $68,118,971.” In May of this year, barely 10 months later, Thompson appeared before the Joint Committee on the Budget to request an amendment to FARA’s contract in the amount of $6,811,897, or exactly 10 percent, “not to exceed $74,930,868.”

Legislators were somewhat piqued to learn to learn from ORM Assistant Director Patti Gonzales that a little-known provision allows a one-time contract amendment of up to 10 percent by the Office of Contractual Review without concurrence of the legislature. The Office of Contractual Review works directly under the supervision of the Commissioner of Administration.

Then, less than two weeks after legislators learned they had no recourse in the matter, it was learned that FARA had been sold to Avizent, a national claims and risk management service provider based in Columbus, Ohio. Obviously, the deal was already in the works at the time the amendment was executed.

Understandably, that raised the issue of whether the contract amendment was needed more to sweeten the deal for Avizent than for FARA to carry out its contractual obligations.

No sooner had the dust settled from that transaction than in November of this year it was learned that ORM, a $400 million state agency, was going to be run—for a while, at least—by York Claims Service of New York City.

York operates as an independent adjustment company and third party administrator and is a subsidiary of York Insurance Services Group of Parsippany, New Jersey.

Close on the heels of that revelation, it was learned Cherie Pinac, manager of FARA’s Baton Rouge office, had submitted her resignation to accept a position with local claims adjusting firm Hammerman & Gainer. About that same time, it was also reported that Hammerman & Gainer would be subcontracted to take over ORM’s property claims.

But under terms of Section 11.0 (“Assignment”) of the June 3, 2010, FARA contract, it is specifically spelled out that “Contractor shall not assign any interest in this contract by assignment, transfer, or novation (Novation: the substitution of a new contract for an old one or the substitution of one party in a contract with another party; the replacement of existing debt or obligation with a new one.), without prior written consent of the state. (emphasis ours).

Under terms of Section 15.0 (“Subcontractors”), it is also stipulated that “The contractor may, with prior written permission from the state, enter into subcontracts with third parties for the performance of any part of the contractor’s duties and obligations.” (emphasis ours).

With that in mind, at 6:47 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 7, we made the following written request of Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater:

“Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana, R.S. 44:1 et seq., I respectfully request the following information:

Please provide me with the time, date and location at which I may view:

The written consent provided by the Division of Administration to F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) granting FARA the authority to sell, assign or otherwise convey and/or transfer its interest, oversight or ownership/management of the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management under the terms of Contract No. 692289 (signed by Todd Richard, J.S. Thompson, Jr., and Angéle Davis on June 3, 2010, and approved by the Office of Contractual Review on June 8, 2010) to Avizent Claims in May of 2011;

The written consent provided by the Division of Administration to F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) and/or Avizent Claims the authority to sell, assign or otherwise convey and/or transfer its interest, oversight or ownership/management of the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management under the terms of Contract No. 692289 (signed by Todd Richard, J.S. Thompson, Jr., and Angéle Davis on June 3, 2010, and approved by the Office of Contractual Review on June 8, 2010) to York Claims Service of New York/New Jersey at any time during calendar year 2011;

The written consent provided by the Division of Administration to F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) and/or Avizent and/or York to subcontract or otherwise assign any portion of the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management, specifically PROPERTY and/or LIABILITY lines claims to Hammerman & Gainer, Inc., of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or any other subcontractor, said lines being inclusive of Contract No. 692289 and originally assigned to FARA.”

Rainwater apparently chose to ignore our request even though the state public records law says that any public record must be made available immediately upon request unless the record is unavailable. In such case, the custodian of the record (Rainwater) must respond within three working days to say when the record will be available for examination.

As second request was then made on Friday, Dec. 9 at 2:22 p.m.

Again, nothing.

So, at 9:17 p.m. on Sunday, Dec. 11, we sent an email to David Boggs of the Office of General Counsel for the Division of Administration (DOA) asking that he kindly remind his boss of the terms of the state law as well as the civil and criminal penalties (fines, attorney fees and imprisonment of up to six months).

While making it clear that an amicable resolution was preferred, we nevertheless made it clear that we would pursue legal remedies if the records were not provided by the close of business on Wednesday, Dec. 14.

At 4:53 p.m. On Monday, Dec. 12, the following email was received from David Boggs:

“The Division of Administration has received your public records requests dated December 7 and 9, 2011. You requested three separate consent letters provided to F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc. The Division of Administration has no records which are responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

David W. Boggs
Office of General Counsel
Division of Administration”

So there we have it:

• No “prior written consent” for Avizent to assume the $68.1 million, er, $74.9 million contract with the State of Louisiana to take over ORM;

• No “prior written consent” for York Claims Service to assume the contract;

• No “prior written permission” for Hammerman & Gainer to assume handling of ORM property claims.

Considering the manner in which DOA has failed to enforce the terms of the FARA contract, which are quite plain in both simplicity and intent, it should send up all kinds of red flags and set off alarms throughout the House and Senate.

In seeing the way in which Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater chose to ignore our indisputably legal requests for public records (until a lawsuit was threatened), it is abundantly apparent that there was an egregious lack of oversight in the way ORM is being run and in the fast and loose manner in which a $74.9 million contract is shuttled from one vendor to another—with no apparent authority to do so.

Several companies submitted proposals to take over the operations of ORM. Avizent was not among them. Nor was York Claims Service. Even Hammerman-Gainer, which expressed an early interest, never submitted a proposal.

Questions need to be asked:

• Why was a $6.9 million amendment to the FARA contract necessary when FARA was obviously already negotiating a deal with Avizent?

• Why did Avizent sell out to York?

• What role did the ORM contract play in those transactions?

• Why were written terms of the contract with FARA not enforced?

• How did Avizent, York and Hammerman & Gainer manage to enter into the picture?

• Should the state’s contract with FARA be revoked and/or declared null and void?

Hopefully, at least a few curious legislators will ask these—and more—questions before Bobby Jindal is allowed to privatize the entire state.

Read Full Post »

ORM, an unwanted orphan, taken over by third company; could this be the future of OGB, prison privatization?

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Privatization on November 21, 2011| 1 Comment »

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—The crown jewel of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s privatization drive has taken yet another bizarre turn.

Well, maybe the Office of Risk Management (ORM) is not the crown jewel, but it his first effort at a move toward privatizing any state agency that shows up on his radar.

And if the path that ORM has followed since being taken over by private industry little more than a year ago is a fair example, legislators would do well to take a long hard look at any future moves in that direction—particularly as it might pertain to the Office of Group Benefits (OGB).

The $400 million agency, it was recently learned, will be transferred to its third operating company within 15 months. This time ORM is going to be run for a while by York Claims Service of New York City.

York operates as an independent adjustment company and third party administrator and is a subsidiary of York Insurance Services Group of Parsippany, New Jersey.

On March 15, 2010, ORM Director J.S. “Bud” Thompson, in a gathering of agency employees, broke the news that the agency was to be taken over by F.A. Richard and Associates (FARA) of Mandeville. It was at that same meeting that he laughingly informed his subordinates, “I still have my job.”

It wasn’t his last attempt at inappropriate humor. During a legislative committee hearing held to consider the approval of the transfer, he joked that he deserved a raise. That remark drew a sharp rebuke from State Sen. Ed Murray (D-New Orleans) who reminded Thompson that a serious matter was being considered and that he should treat it as such. Thompson did not return for the afternoon committee session.

Under terms of the contract that went into effect on July 1, 2010, the state was to pay FARA an amount “not to exceed” $68.2 million. FARA was to phase in its takeover over a five-year period.

The actual transfer began in September of 2010 when ORM Loss Prevention and Worker’s Compensation sections went over to FARA.

In May of 2011, less than eight months after the first units were transferred, FARA and Thompson were back before the committee seeking an additional $6.8 million that would bring the new contract to “a maximum amount” of $74.9, according to language in the amendment document.

Committee members were surprised to learn that the amendment was actually already a done deal because under law, the Office of Contractual Review may approve contract amendments of up to 10 percent one time without legislative approval and the amendment was exactly—10 percent.

Both ORM and the Office of Contractual Review are under the supervision of Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater.

Rep. Jim Fannin was somewhat miffed that the House Appropriations Committee, which he chairs, was circumvented by the 10 percent rule. It didn’t help that Patti Gonzales, assistant director of ORM informed Fannin that the full $6.8 million wasn’t really necessary because it was expected that only about $2 million of that would actually be spent.

Left unasked was the question of why it was deemed necessary to ask for the full $6.8 million.

The nearest thing to an explanation was a memorandum to Rainwater dated Feb. 28, 2010, in which Thompson requested Division of Administration (DOA) approval of the contract amendment.

“Since the implementation (of the FARA takeover) began, ORM has begun experiencing difficulty in retaining our experienced adjusters, as many are seeking employment elsewhere in state government,” Thompson said. “We are currently utilizing contract adjusters to supplement our in-house staff for lines not yet transitioned to FARA, at considerable expense to the state and with a significant loss of efficiency.”

Only about a week after Thompson weathered that committee hearing and the $6.8 million amendment was approved (the committee legally had no choice), it was learned that FARA had been sold to Avizent, a national claims and risk management company in Columbus, Ohio, that had an office in Baton Rouge staffed by only one employee.

Considering the complexities involved in such a transaction, it would seem reasonable to think negotiations had been ongoing for some time before the $6.8 million amendment was approved. Yet, not once was the pending sale revealed to committee members.

FARA’s senior management, including CEO Todd Richard “will also assume executive leadership positions in the parent company,” according to an announcement on FARA letterhead dated May 20, 2011.

On Oct. 26, an email from Gonzales to remaining ORM personnel announced that Cherie Pinac, manager of FARA’s Baton Rouge office, had submitted her resignation to accept a position with Hammerman and Gainer Claims Adjusters.

Now, less than month later, it has been learned that FARA has been sold to York and ORM will be handed off to yet another third party administrator.

This could mean one of two things:

• Private firms are finding that they cannot run the agency more cost efficiently than can the state;

• Once privatization takes place, the state loses all control of what happens to the agency down the road.

Or it’s entirely possible that both could—and will—occur.

This should be something for the Jindal administration to ponder carefully and with all due caution before plunging headlong into additional moves at privatization of OGB, prisons, public schools and Medicaid.

But don’t bet on it.

Read Full Post »

Hold on: Jindal gets another chance to lose federal money; this time it’s $390 million more in FEMA money–maybe

Posted in Broadband, Internet, Campaign Contributions, Charters, Contract, Contracts, Education, Governor's Office, Grant, Grants, Privatization, Transparency on November 16, 2011| 1 Comment »

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu says Gov. Jindal “fumbled” on two grants that cost the state $140 million but in fairness to Jindal, he now has a chance to dwarf those losses by blowing an additional $390 million in FEMA money to mitigate damage caused by two major hurricanes in 2005.

The word out of Baton Rouge this week is that the state will receive an additional $389.6 million from FEMA for flood prevention of homes, levees and public buildings.

But don’t hold your breath.

The state has received $1.4 billion in hazard mitigation money already after FEMA assessed damages from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The state might yet receive the money, however, despite the loss of two earlier federal grants of $60 million and $80 million. That’s because this money was secured through the efforts of the state’s congressional delegation and was not hampered by the Jindal administration.

The additional hazard mitigation money can be used by property owners to elevate or retrofit homes with additions such as hurricane-proof windows and storm shutters and local governments may use the money to repair levees, improve drainage and strengthen school buildings and other public facilities.

Most of that money is expected to be used in the parishes of Cameron, St. Bernard and Orleans, areas especially hard-hit by Katrina and Rita in 2005.

“As we did after Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike, we are sending these dollars directly to parishes because local leaders know how to best protect our communities from future losses in the event of another natural disaster,” Jindal said.

That would represent something of a departure for the Jindal administration which has thus far fought, at least publicly, to resist federal funding but has never shied away from taking credit when he passes out checks during Sunday morning visits to north Louisiana protestant churches.

Jindal no doubt hopes the $390 million bonus will help him save face after his rumblin’, bumblin’, stumblin’ performances with two other grants.

The first, $60 million in early childhood education funding was lost when the administration simply decided not to apply for the money.

The second was an $80 million grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce to fund a project to install 900 miles of cable to bring broadband internet connection to 21 rural parishes.

The $60 million grant would have been the third round of Race to the Top dollars and was to have been used to improve the quality of early learning and closing the achievement gap for children with high needs resulting largely from poverty.

Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater called U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu’s criticism of Jindal “disappointing.” Rainwater once worked with Landrieu but now is the mouthpiece of the administration. He said the state punted on the $60 million because the state studied the grant and decided that it would not have expanded early childhood education but rather would have targeted programs the state has already been addressing. He neglected to say what those programs were.

Rainwater also said the money would have had strings attached that would have meant more federal control over the education system.

The state, of course, is far above that. No control over local school systems by the state with this administration. Just pull funding from the public school systems and divert it into charter schools. No control there. All the local systems have to do to compensate for the lost funds is layoff teachers. What control?

Landrieu disagreed. “All the federal government is doing is offering them money with virtually no strings attached except for basic accountability,” she said.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two positions, but so what? If you borrow money from the bank, there are usually strings attached, such as for what purpose the money will be used and how it will be repaid. That’s life.

Basic accountability is something the state has found lacking in some areas, most notably with payment for the $239 million Jindal sand berms built at the governor’s insistence as an effort to stem the flow of oil from the April 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent blowout. That failed effort was monumental in scope. Not only did the berms wash away but so too did the heavy dredging equipment brought in to construct the berms—all swallowed up in the Gulf waters.

That was bad enough but then along came the Legislative Auditor’s office that issued a report earlier this month that the state overpaid Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. by nearly $495,000 to build the oh-so-temporary and oh-so-useless berms.

It’s not the first time Shaw’s name has surfaced in questionable costs.

Immediately after Katrina devastated New Orleans, Shaw was awarded a no-bid contract to cover storm-damaged roofs across New Orleans with those familiar blue tarps. Each tarp covered 100 square feet, meaning the average home would require 15 tarps to fully protect its roof. There were literally tens of thousands of those homes in and around New Orleans.

Shaw’s contract called for it to receive $175 per square (one tarp, or 100 square feet). That did not include the cost of the tarps because they were provided by FEMA. The $175 was just for labor. (That, by the way, comes to about $2,600 per house—not much below what it would cost to simply re-roof the home.)

Shaw promptly hired a subcontractor to install the tarps at $75 per square. That meant Shaw would net $100 per square for doing absolutely nothing. Multiply that by 15 per house ($1,500 net per house) times the thousands of houses getting the tarps and well, you get the picture.

The subcontractor then found his own subcontractor and paid him $35 per square, leaving the first subcontractor with a neat profit of $40 per square, or roughly $600 per house for doing zilch.

The second subcontractor then found laborers who actually installed the tarps—at $2 per square. Is this what they meant by trickle-down economics?

But back to the grants.

When the Public Service Commission demanded answers it got the typical bureaucratic shuffle from Rainwater and Board of Regents President Jim Purcell.

The blame, they said, lay alternatively with the legislature which took too long to approve spending, a contractor whom they said was late with his work (the contractor denies that) and the Obama administration, which Rainwater said “wants to run the car companies, the banks, our entire health care system, and now they want to take over the broadband business.

“We won’t stand for that in Louisiana,” he sniffed.

That little bit of defiance resurrected echoes of Leander Perez in his efforts to defy the federal government’s insistence on school desegregation more than a half-century ago. At the time, Gov. Earl K. Long reminded Perez in not-so-gentle terms of the realities of the day when he bellowed to the arch-segregationist, “What you gonna do now, Leander? The feds have the A-bomb!”

Probably Jindal’s frittering away the $80 million has more to do with campaign contributors than any philosophical differences over federal influence.

The broadband project would have connected to the Louisiana Optical Network Initiative (LONI), a 1,600-mile fiber-optic network that connects Louisiana and Mississippi research universities to National LambdaRail and Internet2, which would connect 100,00 households, 15,000 businesses and 150 schools, libraries and hospitals.

A Jindal campaign contributor whom the governor appointed to the Board of Regents, Ed Antie of Carencro, was forced to resign earlier this year amid revelations during Senate confirmation hearings that he had a $531,000 contract with the Regents through one of his companies to provide fiber-optic cables to LONI, which is overseen by the Regents.

“Straight baloney,” said Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell of Rainwater’s contention that the broadband internet project would result in unfair competition with private providers.

“We’ve been begging the private providers to build broadband infrastructure in the rural areas of the Delta and they won’t do it,” Campbell said. “I don’t give a damn if the companies object. If they won’t do it on their own, then does that mean we should just sacrifice these poor parishes’ and people’s chance to be connected?”

Campbell said he wants the state’s major telecoms, Rainwater and Purcell to attend the next PSC meeting. “I want to know the providers who objected,” he said.

At one point in the hearings, Campbell, whose position is not appointive but elective, found it necessary to remind Rainwater, “I don’t work for you.”

That must have come as quite a shock to both Jindal and Rainwater who, without Timmy Teepell to hold their hand, were probably unable to locate a copy of the State Constitution that would verify Campbell’s unexpected revelation.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »