Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Corruption’ Category

Insight into Nungesser’s contempt for laws revealed in his blatant disregard for public records demands, other actions

Posted in Boards, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Finances, Fraud, Judges, Lawsuits, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency on April 26, 2016| 10 Comments »

How would a public official, say a parish president, manage to skirt the Louisiana public records laws and ignore votes of the parish council and get away with it?

Well, if you’re Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, and if you had 18 writs of mandamus pending against you for non-compliance, you would simply ride out the storm until your newly-elected, hand-picked council takes office and have a friendly council member move to rescind any pending adverse action.

That’s precisely what Nungesser did in late 2010. He blatantly ignored the law and waited out his adversaries. And it apparently worked.

No wonder he thought he could do an end run around Gov. John Bel Edwards by conspiring with State Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere in that completely embarrassing Iraqiscam-super tanker-proposal-to-cure-Louisiana-of-its-fiscal-problems that left him—and Villere—with a little something more disgusting than egg all over their faces.

With ample evidence of his contempt for the law prior to becoming lieutenant governor and his willing violation of protocol since becoming the second-highest elected official in the state, can there be any reasonable expectation of significant change in his conspiring makeup during the rest of what is almost certain to be a single term.

Probably not. He is what he is: an underhanded politician fully capable of any action, legal or otherwise, that will enhance the career and burnish the public image of William Harold “Billy” Nungesser.

He is Bobby Jindal without the charm. He is Chris Christie without the finesse. He is Scott Walker, Rick Scott, and Sam Brownback rolled into one, but without their compassion. In short, he is Billy Nungesser, yet another electoral accident visited upon unsuspecting—or uncaring—Louisiana voters, a man worthy of the scorn of Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell before it was cool to be scornful of the man. But that’s a story for another day and it will have to wait.

Right now there is his record as Plaquemines Parish President—a job he won by a large majority, by the way—that begs closer examination as a clue into what we expect of him as lieutenant governor, a peek already provided by that ridiculous Iraqi oil tanker scam blunder.

Actually, Nungesser’s defiance of the parish council began way back on July 23, 2009, when the council voted to direct the council attorney to enforce a parish ordinance by “shutting down the operations of all unpermitted borrow pits located within the parish.” That was followed on Dec. 10, 2009, by a council resolution to authorize and direct the council attorney “to take any and all legal action, including but not limited to the filing for injunctive relief and/or mandamus” to obtain and examine “all transactions (including but not limited to any and all construction contracts, capital projects, professional contracts, cooperative endeavor agreements and intergovernmental agreements) entered into by and all expenditures incurred by the parish through the office of the Parish Presidents (or any of its departments or agencies) since January 1, 2007.”

Res 09-253 Mandamus-borrow pits, seal, parish decal

Res 09-533 any and all legal action by Council Attorney or Designee

A writ of mandamus is Latin for “we order” and is defined as a writ which “orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.” http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1203

Each of the 16 subsequent similar actions by the council were taken in 2010 in the months leading up and immediately following the October 2, 2010, elections for parish council and parish president.

Seven of the 18 resolutions passed by the council were for the purpose of forcing Nungesser to comply with public records requests.

Besides the 2009 resolutions cited above, subsequent resolutions passed by the Plaquemines Parish Council during 2010 directing:

May 27—Nungesser to turn over copies of any “and all contracts, cooperative endeavor agreements or memos of understanding…from April 15, 2010, related to the effects of the Deep Water Horizon Incident, through the effective date of the resolution…” and a second calling for Nungesser to submit to the council copies of “any and all contracts, financial records, cooperative endeavor agreements or memos of understanding…from January 1, 2007 through the date of the resolution.

Res 10-199 All contracts etc from Pres since 4-15-10

Res 10-198 All contracts etc from Pres since 1-1-07

July 8—Nungesser to sign all revenue bonds approved by the council on Feb. 11, 2010, in the amount of $18 million. Res 10-251 Directing Pres to sign $18M bond documents or Mandamus filed

July 22—Nungesser to produce documents “previously requested by the…council Audit Committee and the parish council pursuant to” one of the May 27 resolutions “to compel him to produce any and all documents pertaining to all of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) expenditures.

Res 10-273 Mandamus for records requests

August 12—The council’s legal department to initiate legal proceedings if necessary in order to obtain a copy of the agreement for council fiscal agent from June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2010 pursuant to the council’s first request for the document made on June 29, 2010. Res 10-294 Fiscal Agent PRR

October 28—The council’s legal department to initiate legal action to compel Nungesser “to enter into and execute a purchase agreement with two realty companies for six acres to be used for a recreation park, athletic fields, walking track and picnic area pursuant to the council’s approval of the purchase on June 26, 2008. Res 10-463 Resol mandamus to execute purchase agree with White Oak

November 11—The council’s legal department to initiate legal action to compel Nungesser “to assist with and finalize all plans for design and engineering as needed for the raising of an East Bank levee; the council’s legal department to initiate legal proceedings to compel Nungesser to honor a contract with a New Orleans law firm and to issue payment for services rendered by firm attorney Robert Barnett; the council’s legal department to take legal action to force Nungesser to transfer $3 million in funds to a parish levee project; Nungesser to provide “any and all documents, pleadings, emails, facsimiles, correspondence, letters, memorandums, interoffice documentation and intra-office documentation generated by Stephen Braud” as an attorney for the parish from Jan. 1, 2010, to date of the resolution.

Res 10-486 Mandmaus to assist with plans for raising EB levee

Res 10-485 Res No. 10-485 authorizing Mandamaus to pay Guste, Barnett

Res 10-482 mandamus transfer LRA EB Consolidated Complex Project to EB Non Fede

Res 10-481 Braud Pub Rec Request and mandamus

December 9—Nungesser to provide “any and all project worksheets, contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, etc., relative to FEMA funding executed by Nungesser” from Jan. 1, 2007, to the date of the resolution; Nungesser to provide a copy of “any and all professional services contracts” between the parish and All South Consulting Engineers from Jan. 1, 2007, to the date of the resolution; the parish legal counsel to initiate against Nungesser in order to force him to begin a resurfacing/striping project on LA. 15; the council legal department to initiate legal proceedings to compel Nungesser to remove “all movables” from the Ft. Jackson Port. Res 10-512 directing pres to submit all documents for FEMA funding from 1-1-07

Res 10-511 Mandamus directing pres to submit all contracts with AllSouth from 1-1-07

Res 10-514 Authorize Council legal dept to file mandamus to resurface hwy 15

Res 10-520 Ft Jackson Port MSRC Building-file Mandamus

December 31—Nungesser to enter into a contract with Deep South Associates; Nungesser to sign “any and all documents” with Fenstermaker & Associates for the engineering and the hiring of a surveyor to identify parish right of way and levee footprint for a levee lift in the parish.

Res 10-521 rober’t draft Deep South Associates

Res 10-524 Fenster Maker

Failure by Nungesser to comply with council actions regarding infrastructure work and contracts, provided such action was legal, could conceivably have been construed as malfeasance.

But the question of what is and what is not considered public record is clearly defined in L.S. 44:1 et seq. LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

So what did Nungesser do?

Nothing, absolutely nothing—except perhaps to conspire with allies on the council to let the clock run until new members on the council would give him a majority to do as he pleased, including having the 18 resolutions rescinded.

And that’s precisely what happened.

Consider an email from Stuart Guey, Jr., a council member firmly entrenched in Nungesser’s camp. The email, written on April 8, 2011, was written to Assistant Parish Attorney Michael Mullin and copied to other council members, including Nungesser, said:

“I received a letter from (retired Baton Rouge State District Judge) Frank Foil regarding his appointment as ad hoc judge on the remaining Mandamus suits. It would be wonderful if the suits all can be resolved. I asked that resolutions be prepared for introduction to dismiss all writs but all Council members will have to know that the requested information has been compiled and where to view the information before it would be voted upon. I understand all the requested information may be on a disc that can be sent to everyone. If the information, in any format, is not provided to all Council members in a timely manner we will have to solicit legal counsel and proceed with the litigation. I hope this can be prevented. Please let me know what can be done.”

And, of course, once the resolutions to dismiss were put to a council vote, the writs conveniently went away.

Such is the type of ruthless control Nungesser exercised in Plaquemines Parish—somewhat reminiscent to the way old Leander Perez once reigned supreme in Plaquemines.

But such tactics aren’t going to fly in Baton Rouge.

LouisianaVoice currently has public records requests pending with Nungesser’s office and we aren’t going to wait much longer for a response. We requested—and received—his appointment calendar since taking office but we have yet to receive a response of any description on our requests for emails and other correspondence.

Nungesser may think that he’s omnipotent and that a little ol’ pissant writer out in Denham Springs doesn’t have a chance against the clout of the lieutenant governor’s and the Louisiana Attorney General’s offices, should the latter be called in to defend him.

But we have taken the state to court on three occasions over the non-production of public records and we will not hesitate to do so again. That’s because we have that one very important thing on our side: the Louisiana Constitution and we aren’t afraid to smack Nungesser upside the head with it.

And if we do, there won’t be a Plaquemines Parish Council to bail him out.

 

Read Full Post »

Iraqiscam only part of the Billy Nungesser story; there is so very much more: what a man, what a legend, what a shame!

Posted in Auditor, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Lawsuits, Politicians, Public Records, Supriya Jinda Foundation on April 18, 2016| 9 Comments »

Iraqi oil scams, critical compliance audits, litigation over the misappropriation of public funds, questionable land deals, botched Wal Mart deal involving Bobby Jindal’s father-in-law.

They’re all just another day at the office for Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser.

When Baton Rouge Advocate reporters Rebekah Allen and Richard Thompson did some good old-fashioned journalistic digging last week to report that hysterical Iraqi oil scam perpetrated by Nungesser and political ally State Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere, it threw LouisianaVoice into a scramble mode. http://theadvocate.com/news/politics/15398751-125/lt-gov-billy-nungesser-gop-chairman-roger-villere-work-to-recruit-unlikely-iraq-to-louisiana-busin

In short order we found that Nungesser and Villere had fallen for a similar con run by the same company (Alexandros, a corporation registered in Delaware), but instead of the State of Louisiana and Nungesser and Villere, the targets were the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands and former Baton Rouge Metro Council member Darrell Glasper. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/04/12/louisiana-has-a-new-clown-prince-but-its-egg-not-a-pie-all-over-lt-gov-nungessers-face-after-succession-of-blunders/

But by the time the light came on in Nungesser’s head, Krusty had already been cued. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzLHU6S4oic

By then, however, it was too late. He had fired off letters to Secretary of State John Kerry, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones and to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, and even issued a press release to (thankfully) only one news outlet, The Washington Post which (again, thankfully) did not run with the story.

Oh, and he also passed himself off as the one man in state government responsible for economic development (quick: someone let Secretary of Economic Development Secretary Donald Pierson know) and he said he was acting on the directive of Gov. John Bel Edwards (he wasn’t).

Sources tell LouisianaVoice that when Edwards heard about the two-man theater of the absurd, he had two state troopers interrupt Nungesser during an address to a group of businessmen and escort him to the governor’s office where he had a little come-to-Jesus meeting with Edwards. We weren’t able to get a confirmation or denial of that story

Nungesser, of course, did the only logical thing: he first blamed his staff, saying the letters should never have reached his desk. He then tried to throw Villere under the bus by saying the state GOP chairman had requested the letters from him. Finally, in an appearance on the Jim Engster radio show, he said the letters were in the middle of a stack of thank-you notes and he didn’t actually read them.

Did he learn his lesson? Apparently not. Even after the Iraqi letter-writing frenzy blew up in his face, he then told another group that Edwards had put him in charge of coastal restoration.

Nice.

Trying to imagine Nungesser sitting at his desk feverishly signing all those thank-you notes, it’s difficult not to visualize Gov. William J. Lepetomane signing a succession of documents handed him by aide Hedley Lamarr in the movie Blazing Saddles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm1Jyusyoqk

Back during those heady days as Plaquemines Parish President, Nungesser decided he’d like to bring a brand spanking new Wal Mart to the lot at the corner of LA. 23 and LA. 406 in Belle Chasse.

The only problem was there was a moratorium on big box stores on the books that the parish council had passed and by the time it expired about a year later, the tide of opinion on the council had turned against Nungesser’s proposal.

The land in question was—and is—owned by several former employees of Freeport McMoRan, one of whom is Jatinder (Jay) Jolly.

Jolly is the father of Supriya Jindal, wife of former Gov. Bobby Jindal.

After the deal collapsed, only a small building owned by Freeport McMoRan sat on the property but now it has been torn down and only a concrete slab remains, leading to speculation that the Wal Mart proposal may be resurrected.

A 2010 compliance AUDIT conducted by the Legislative Auditor’s Office while Nungesser still served as parish president is especially telling.

A compliance audit is different from a routine annual audit in that a compliance audit is an audit for compliance of laws, regulations and other guidelines that a governmental entity is required to follow.

In short, the compliance audit found that:

  • The Parish may have violated the parish Charter and a local ordinance by entering into two contracts pertaining to recovery operations.
  • The Parish Administration may have violated the Local Government Budget Act by not including Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants within the Parish budget.
  • The Parish’s attorney may not be properly approved by the Council as required in the Parish Charter.
  • The Parish President (Nungesser) may have violated the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics through real estate transactions between his trust and the owners of two Parish vendors.

In that last finding, auditors said in January 2008, the owners of two companies doing business with the parish “were also involved in a private real estate transaction with a trust whose beneficiary is Parish President William Nungesser. These transactions may constitute a violation of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics and therefore will be referred to the Board of Ethics for its consideration.”

Since Nungesser was a political ally of Jindal and the Board of Ethics members are appointed by Jindal, nothing came of that referral.

Nungesser, in typical fashion, saw no fault in his actions and fired off a defiant 12-page letter of response to the state auditor in which he painted himself as the savior of a parish devastated by hurricanes and the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He even managed to tell auditors what their job was in his response, saying they had “no authority” to second-guess his decision as to when a state of emergency was ended.

If he could find no fault, members of the Plaquemines Parish Council certainly could (with the exception of Council Chairman Kirk Lepine.)

On Oct. 15, just nine days before the Oct. 24 primary election last fall, the Plaquemines Parish Government filed suit against Nungesser in 25th Judicial District Court in Plaquemines Parish.

The lawsuit accuses Nungesser of causing “the misappropriation of public property and public services” by having Plaquemines Parish employees perform work on private property.

The suit says he ordered parish employees of the Heavy Equipment Department to transport limestone, sand aggregate and asphalt belonging to the parish to two private roads in the parish and to cut trees and dig out a drainage ditch prior to installing a drain pipe with an 8-by-20-foot culvert and then backfill on private property on LA. 23 in Belle Chasse.

Now Lepine has offered up a motion for the parish to drop the lawsuit.

Perhaps it’s only coincidence that Lepine’s stepdaughter works for Nungesser.

CLOWN IN CHIEF

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

Thankfully, we are a bit more civilized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LouisianaVoice sent the following email to David Young earlier today:

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

Mr. Young, please respond to the following questions:

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

I eagerly await your response.

I am still waiting.

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

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

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

 

Read Full Post »

As clamor increases for access to public records, some, like Lafayette city marshal, starting to learn expensive lessons

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency on April 8, 2016| 6 Comments »

Last of four-part series:

There are those isolated cases scattered across the legal landscape in which a citizen or member of the media goes to court and wins a public records case against a reticent public official but even those occasional victories in the interest of transparency are bittersweet at best.

It goes without saying anyone would rather win than lose; that’s a no-brainer. So prevailing in a case against an elected official or appointee bent on blocking the free flow of information always evokes a certain smug euphoria.

On the other hand, each victory in a public records lawsuit should prompt members of the media and governmental watchdogs alike to ask five basic questions:

  • Why was litigation necessitated in the first place?
  • Why aren’t officials more forthcoming with information?
  • Were they trying to hide something embarrassing or incriminating?
  • Or were they just being obstinate as a matter of general principle?
  • Was fighting disclosure worth the legal costs and the potential of fines for noncompliance—and even the possibility of criminal charges?

The IND, a Lafayette news organization has most likely asked each of those questions repeatedly in the case of Lafayette City Marshal Brian Pope and his determination to shield 588 pages of emails from Pope’s workstation at the Lafayette City Marshal’s office.

For his part, Pope must be dwelling on the final question: Was it worth it?

http://www.katc.com/story/30893257/independent-wins-public-records-suit-against-city-marshal

At issue is Pope’s alleged use of his office—and the city’s computer—to campaign for Lafayette Parish Sheriff candidate Chad Leger over his opponent in the October 2015 election, Mark Garber. Garber ultimately won that election.

But when The IND requested those emails, apparently withheld some records and deleted others that were nevertheless captured on the Lafayette City Government servers through which all emails to and from city departments are routed.

Fifteenth Judicial District Court Judge Jules Edwards on Dec. 14 issued an order enjoining Pope from withholding any requested records. The IND originally made its public records requests on Oct. 8 and again on Nov. 30 and on Jan. 4 of this year, Edwards ruled that Pope’s response was “woefully inadequate,” that his withholding of documents was “arbitrary,” and his failure to respond “unreasonable.” http://theind.com/article-22457-Judge-Marshal-Pope’s-response-still-‘woefully-inadequate’.html

By the time Judge Edwards was finished with Pope, the tally was nearly $100,000 in penalties (at $100 per day for each day Pope failed to respond to the requests, or $17,300), plus attorney and expert fees and court costs—and, get this: 173 hours (one hour for each day of non-compliance) of community service instructing government employees on public records law. Oh, the irony!

Just for good measure, Judge Edwards sentenced Pope to one month in jail for contempt of court, suspending all but seven days and reducing that to house arrest.

The judge’s ruling also held Pope personally responsible for all costs and penalties.

Former Lafayette City Attorney Mike Hebert testified during cross-examination that all email traffic “got routed through LCG (Lafayette City Government) servers, and thus is as much the property of LCG as it would be the marshal’s. As soon as we became custodians we became responsible for producing the records,” he added.

Pope, for his part, fell back on the tried and true “everybody does it” explanation for his using his office for political fundraising purposes. “I’m a political figure,” he said. “I can use my office for my campaign. My predecessor did it, too.” That argument apparently failed to impress Judge Edwards.

Edwards also came down hard on Pope when Pope showed up in court in uniform and armed with his handgun, both of which are contrary to Louisiana law regarding police appearing in court as defendants.

Edwards said that and his “everyone does it” defense provided “remarkable insight” into how Pope runs his office. http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/03/24/judge-sentences-lafayette-city-marshal-jail-contempt/82208738/

Appropriately enough, on April 1, Pope’s house arrest was postponed while he appeals his contempt conviction. http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/15361890-123/house-arrest-for-lafayette-city-marshal-brian-pope-postponed-during-appeal-in-public-records-case

The Lafayette case is one of the ugliest public records lawsuits in the state since the brouhaha over the LSU Board of Supervisors’ furtive selection of F. King Alexander as LSU President. But that doesn’t mean things can’t get nastier. With the explosion of Internet blogging generating more public records requests, any immovable objects (resistance or reluctance in complying) is certain to be met by the irresistible force (litigation).

Bloggers like Elliott Stonecipher, Jason France, and yours truly, along with citizens like James Finney, Barbara Ferguson, and Charles Hatfield, some members of the media, and legislators like State Rep. Jerome “Dee” Richard are going to keep pushing for more sunshine so long as there continues to be contracts with 50 blank pages or superficial “investigations” like the charade recently carried out by State Police in the Burl Cain and Angola State Penitentiary episode.

We are going to keep digging as long as we have officials attempting to sneak illegal retirement benefit increases into legislative bills during the closing minutes of legislative sessions. We will keep making public records requests into questionable methods of investigation and punishment carried out by autonomous boards and commissions like the State Dentistry Board and State Board of Medical Examiners. We will continue to ask questions when we observe a double standard in how we are expected to comport ourselves as citizens and how public officials are allowed to conduct themselves in their official capacities—be they agency heads, elected officials, regulatory boards and commissions or law enforcement agencies.

And when we encounter that immovable object, that resistance to transparency, we will continue to haul your butts into court until we are on a first-name basis with every judge in Baton Rouge. Reluctance or denial on your part will only strengthen the resolve on our part.

After all is said and done, we deserve two things from our government:

  • An even playing field where all live under and abide by the same rules;
  • The right to see, hear, and know that even the most obscure agency carries out its business in an upright, honest and fair manner.

We will accept nothing less.

And we shouldn’t have to sue someone to earn that right

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why are public records laws enacted? Why don’t judges enforce laws? Perhaps Deshotels case will bring change

Posted in Corruption, Education, Ethics, Judges, Lawsuits, Media, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency on April 7, 2016| 9 Comments »

Third of four-part series:

Given the reluctance to impose meaningful fines in cases of blatant public records compliance violations, one has to wonder:

  • What is the purpose of going through the time consuming procedure of passing laws if they are not going to be enforced?
  • What is the purpose of a judge donning a robe and sitting on the bench if he/she has no intention of upholding so even the minimum penalty for violations of the law?
  • Is there some sort of unwritten agreement among certain judges and public officials that says judges must merely wink at violations and hand down only token penalties?

Louisiana laws, we can only assume, were enacted for a reason and that reason was to ensure strict compliance and to lay out proper punishment for violators. To that end, Louisiana Revised Statute (L.R.S.) 44:35 (E) (1) clearly says:

  • If the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld the requested record, it may award the requester any actual damages proven by him to have resulted from the actions of the custodian. It may also award the requester civil penalties not to exceed $100 per day, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays, for each such day of such failure….

That’s certainly clear enough but L.R.S.) 44:35 (E) (2) then goes on to say:

  • The custodian shall be personally liable for the payment of any such damages and shall be held liable in solido with the public body for the payment of the requester’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation, except where the custodian has withheld or denied production of the requested record or records on advice of legal counsel representing the public body in which the office of such custodian is located. In the event the custodian retains private legal counsel for his defense in connection with the request for records, the court may award attorney’s fees to the custodian. (Emphasis added.)

LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

We have already seen in earlier posts this week how judges, through some form of convoluted rationale, are able to substantially reduce that $100 per day fine to insignificant amounts and in at least one case, to nothing at all.

First there was the case of the Baton Rouge Advocate and the LSU Daily Reveille. The two publications sued the LSU Board of Supervisors over its refusal to provide a list of candidates for LSU President. They won and the district court judge awarded more than $50,000 in penalties calculated on the $100-a-day formula for non-compliance only to see the monetary award overturned and negated in full by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

Then came our own lawsuit against the Division of Administration and Commissioner Kristy Nichols. DOA delayed responses to numerous requests by LouisianaVoice for several months only to be hit with a penalty of only $800 plus court costs and attorney fees.

Louisiana’s Public records laws being routinely ignored by officials; lawsuits, fines increase – all at taxpayer expense

And in the case of Barbara Ferguson and Charles J. Hatfield and their lawsuit against the Department of Education on behalf of their non-profit research organization, Research on Reforms, the court’s ruling was even more egregious. Three full years of non-compliance came to 684 days by the plaintiffs’ estimation (we calculated the number to be closer to 745 days) and they requested the full application of the penalty of $100 per day, or $68,400 plus attorney fees ($29,779) and court costs ($3,121).

FERGUSON REQUESTED JUDGMENT

Baton Rouge District Judge William Morvant first denied the plaintiffs’ claim outright but was overturned by the First Circuit which remanded the case back to Morvant for the imposition of penalties. Morvant not only cut the attorney fees in half to $15,000, but he completely disregarded the penalties for DOE’s—and Morvant’s apparently—disregard of the law.

FIRST CIRCUIT RULING ON FERGUSON

Louisiana Department of Education does poorly combating public records requests; Rep. Richard bill seeks trasparency

So now comes Mike Deshotels and his public records lawsuit against veteran defendant John White and his Department of Education.

This one is pretty easy except for one minor snag:

Deshotels filed his lawsuit on April 10, 2015, after two months of back and forth communications between him and DOE failed to produce the requested Multi Stat report for all public schools in Louisiana which contained the actual total number of students enrolled in each grade.

MICHAEL DEHOTELS PETITION

Even though Deshotels never requested any personal information, DOE ultimately refused his request “because of their obligations to protect the personal information of the students pursuant to FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act),” according to Deshotel’s petition.

The case finally made its way to trial in Baton Rouge on Oct. 19, 2015, before 19th Judicial District Judge Todd Hernandez.

Hernandez broke with the pack when he held John White personally liable. More than that, he assessed White with attorney fees and court costs of $11,988.84. And then, applying the letter of the public records law he ordered the payment of $100 per day “from Feb. 16, 2015, until the requested records were produced.

DESHOTEL JUDGMENT

Despite his order, those records were not produced until more than five months later, when they were submitted along with a March 31, 2016, settlement offer. That additional delay brought the total cost, including attorney fees and court costs, to about $49,000, according to Deshotels’s Baton Rouge attorney J. Arthur Smith.

And Judge Hernandez, as if sending his own message, held John White personally liable, an indication that Hernandez had reason to believe White had withheld the records on his own volition and without the advice of legal counsel.

(Parenthetically, if more judges followed the example set by Hernandez, public officials might be more cognizant of the importance of complying with the law.)

Still White persisted in his state of denial. That March 31 settlement letter from DOE legal counsel G.M. Millet, Jr., was little more than an insult to Smith and Deshotels.

“After careful consideration, the Department of Education has decided to provide an unsuppressed copy of the October 2014 Multi-Stats Report to Michael Deshotels and to pay him $9,292.74 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Judge Hernandez’s judgment,” the letter said.

SETTLEMENT OFFER

He then added the traditional legal verbiage that nevertheless appeared particularly absurd: “By complying with those portions of the judgment, in lieu of appeal, the Department is not admitting fault.” Not admitting fault? Really?

Millet also said that DOE planned to appeal the “portion of the judgement (sic) imposing fines against the Department for being arbitrary and capricious.”

Smith now says that the appeals have run, meaning the deadline has passed for White and DOE to appeal the judgment. Still, no payment has been made.

So Smith is now preparing to take matters to the next level.

He has prepared a Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination as the first step toward seizure of White’s assets, including his 2013 Infiniti and garnishment of his state wages.

In that motion, yet to be filed pending Hernandez’s ruling on a separate DOE motion, Smith asks “to examine John White, Defendant/Judgment Debtor and his income records, pay check stubs, W-2 forms, last year’s income tax returns, business papers, automobile titles and registration certificates (pink slips), records of accounts in banks and other financial institutions (checking and savings) on all matters pertaining to his income or property, in order that Plaintiff (Deshotels) may find means to execute the Judgment, and that the said Defendant (White) should be ordered to appear before this Honorable Court at such time as the Court assigns for said examination.”

MOTION FOR DEBTOR EXAMINATION

Now that should get someone’s attention, especially if Smith’s motion is granted.

If that’s what it takes to change the mindset of bureaucrats and elected officials, to hold them accountable to the laws of this state, to force them to cease furtive actions away from public observation, then so be it.

Tomorrow: Lafayette City Marshal Brian Pope has learned an expensive lesson for his refusal to make available 588 pages of emails Lafayette-based newspaper The Independent. Besides monetary penalties totaling almost $100,000, a state district judge tacked on seven days’ house arrest for contempt of court. That sentence has been postponed pending the outcome of Pope’s appeal of the conviction.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »