Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Notable Quotables, State Police on February 6, 2016| 1 Comment »
“…if you are here to file a complaint or you have a complaint, I’m not accepting your complaint. I am not going to accept any form of complaint you may have. Any part of that unclear to you?”
—State Police Troop D Commander Capt. Chris Guillory to Dwight Gerst when Gerst visited Troop D headquarters to file a formal complaint against State Trooper Jimmy Rogers.
Posted in Corruption, Ethics, State Police on February 6, 2016| 9 Comments »
Troop D Commander Captain Chris Guillory has been caught lying again.
Troopers say lying is the only guaranteed way to get fired but that apparently does not apply to Guillory. LouisianaVoice ran a story on Guillory citing an LSP investigation file showing he was abusing prescription medication. When he was questioned in that case, Guillory denied violating LSP drug use policy only to admit it later. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/09/05/state-police-launch-internal-affairs-investigation-of-troop-d-commander-after-public-records-requests-by-louisianavoice/
More recently, LouisianaVoice has received an investigation file on a complaint against Guillory for refusing to accept a complaint from a citizen (Dwight Gerst). Gerst made numerous allegations against Guillory and former Trooper Jimmy Rogers who has resigned amid the Troop D investigations.
Gerst sent a complaint to LSP internal affairs alleging Guillory refused to accept a complaint from him in violation of LSP policy. Gerst and Guillory had two different stories on how the meeting transpired. LouisianaVoice also received an audio recording of Gerst attempting to file a complaint with Guillory making it easy to determine who was telling the truth and who was lying. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/08/17/state-police-headquarters-sat-on-complaint-against-troop-d-trooper-for-harassment-captain-for-turning-a-blind-eye-to-it/
Here is part of Gerst’s complaint:
I attempted to file a complaint at Troop D. I met with Capt. Guillory at Troop D. Lieutenant Cyprien was also present. Before I got the chance to tell Guillory that I wanted to file a complaint, he informed me that if I was there to file a complaint, he would not accept a complaint from me. He said he thought I had problems and he was not doing anything until there was a disposition on my case from the sheriff’s office. He further said that he had a problem with me personally and professionally and he would not accept any complaint I may have. Guillory said there was nothing for us to talk about until the investigation was complete. I told him my complaint was not based on what I did or did not do. Guillory asked if I was there to complain about Rogers and I said I yes. I went there to file a complaint and was undeniably refused. I suspect this is a violation of state police policy.
The audio recording showed Gerst’s version of the meeting was truthful. Guillory’s version, as reflected in LSP documents, conflicted greatly with the recording.
The following passage was taken directly from the LSP documents (emphasis ours):
Capt. Guillory said that Gerst arrived at Troop D and was upset, stating that TFC Rogers was spreading lies about him. According to Capt. Guillory, Gerst was asking him about information pertaining to the criminal investigation which was being conducted by the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office. Capt. Guillory stated that he informed Gerst that he could not get involved in an ongoing investigation being conducted by another agency. He stated that Gerst continued to press him for information regarding the matter and he informed Gerst that he would have to go to the sheriff’s office himself if he wanted to find out about the investigation. According to Capt. Guillory, Gerst stated that the sheriff’s office would not talk to him or provide him any information. Guillory claimed that he told Gerst that “he wanted to wait until the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office was done with their criminal investigation before he could tell him any information”. He said that Gerst continued to question him and ask him what TFC Rogers had told the sheriff’s office. Guillory told Gerst again that he could not give him information regarding an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by the sheriff’s office. Guillory said that the interaction with him and Gerst went back and forth for a few minutes. Guillory stated that “he never refused” to take Gerst’s complaint. He said that he told Gerst to “let him see what the sheriff’s office said about the criminal investigation”, because according to the information he obtained, there were serious allegations against Gerst. Guillory stated that Gerst then left the Troop without filing a complaint there and filed one through the Internal Affairs Section. Investigators questioned Guillory again September 17, 2015 about Gerst’s allegation that he refused to accept his (Gerst’s) complaint. Guillory’s statement was consistent with his original statement. Although Capt. Guillory advised that he never refused to take Mr. Gerst’s complaint, he (Guillory) was aware that Gerst was complaining of TFC Rogers’ conduct. Guillory said that he told Gerst to wait and let him see what the sheriff’s office said, because according to the information he (Guillory) obtained, there were serious allegations against Gerst.
Hers is what Guillory said during the three minute meeting with Gerst:
Have a seat. We’re not going to talk long, Okay. Your case is being investigated by the sheriff’s office. I’ve talked with them and if you are here to file a complaint or you have a complaint, I’m not accepting your complaint because I think you got problems and I’m not going to do anything until (inaudible) disposition on your case… I personally have a problem with you. Based on what I am being told by the investigator at the sheriff’s office on what you are being investigated for, I personally and professionally have a problem with you and I am not going to accept any form of complaint you may have until the disposition of their investigation is over. Any part of that unclear to you?
Apparently unbeknownst to Guillory, Gerst recorded their exchange (It is not illegal in Louisiana to record a conversation as long as one of the participants consents.) If you would like to listen to that exchange, click here: https://youtu.be/zd-JV3rKjko
Guillory appears to have been was untruthful in his responses to internal affairs investigators on two separate occasions in which he denied that he refused to take a Gerst’s complaint. He apparently assumed it would be his word against Gerst’s and he could deceive investigators.
According to the investigative report, Guillory sent the Troop Executive Officer Lieutenant Waylon Busby to the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s office to investigate Gerst’s stalking allegations against former Trooper Rogers. Instead, Busby started an unauthorized investigation into Gerst’s possessing a law enforcement license plate and seized his specialized plate. Guillory claimed to have no knowledge of that investigation. Busby was given a 32-hour suspension for his actions. The IA report indicated Busby performed an unauthorized investigation outside the normal scope of his duties and he facilitated the violation of Gerst’s constitutional rights from an illegal traffic stop.
State Police Sgt. Gary Smith said of taking the license plate that he “has never heard of that happening before and this was the first time he had ever seen it done.” Smith also denied Busby’s claims that he was told to pull him over for a traffic violation (window tint). DMV personnel also contradicted Busby’s statements about the investigation. Guillory denied any knowledge of the unauthorized action, unconstitutional traffic stop, and the revocation of the license plate.
All this revolves around Gerst’s picking up two children from school and giving them a ride. One of the children belonged to Former Trooper Rogers. Rogers became angry and tried very hard to get Gerst punished. The charges were thrown out of court at trial.
Rogers’ child was in the care of Gerst’s neighbor’s child. Gerst, with his own child in the car, gave the two children a ride 400 yards. LSP IA investigators vindicated Gerst in their report. IA interviewed the mother of the child who was given a ride by Gerst. Her statement indicated that Gerst did nothing wrong. Here is a passage about that incident taken directly from the report:
Investigators asked (redacted) if she had given Mr. Gerst permission to pick up her daughter while walking home from school. (Redacted) indicated that she did not tell Mr. Gerst on that particular day to give her daughter a ride home. However, she had previously given permission to Mr. Gerst in the past to do so, and she did not see anything wrong with him doing it on that day. Investigators asked if she felt any pressure from TFC Rogers to pursue charges against Mr. Gerst. (Redacted) indicated that she did not feel pressure or the need to file charges against Mr. Gerst. She stated that TFC Rogers told her that he felt as if there was “something there,” and for her to trust him. (Redacted) indicated that she felt as if she should trust TFC Rogers because she believed that he possibly had information about him (Gerst) that she did not have. (Redacted) related to investigators that she did not want to talk about the issue with Mr. Gerst and TFC Rogers anymore.
Gerst complained that Rogers and Guillory used their positions to push for charges against him. Guillory denied the allegations. Rogers admitted going to the district attorney’s office but denied he did it as a trooper but only as a father. He admitted he spoke to retired LSP Captain Russell Haman who works for the DA’s office. The statement provided by the child’s mother indicated that Rogers manipulated her into going along with his scheme in order to have Gerst prosecuted.
Gerst alleged in writing his attorney was told by the prosecution that the DA’s office was only pursuing charges because of pressure from LSP. IA asked prosecutor Dustan Abshire if he spoke to Gerst about the charges but failed to ask anything about state police influence in the report or what he told Gerst’s attorney.
All this just because Gerst had the temerity to file a complaint. This is one of the most frightening cases we have seen at LouisianaVoice. It is a naked display of abuse of power on the part of those in positions to harm innocent people.
This should serve as a message to anyone who considers filing a complaint against Captain Guillory or his clique: don’t!
Posted in ATC, Corruption, Crime, Ethics, Fraud, Politicians, Revenue, Taxes on January 26, 2016| 17 Comments »
© 2016
A joint investigation by LouisianaVoice and Fox8 News has revealed that a federal investigation has been launched into allegations that former Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control director Troy Hebert used his position to extort sex from a woman who experienced problems with ATC over a liquor license for her New Orleans restaurant.
New Orleans businessman Amer Bader, who initially told LouisianaVoice he had been visited by the FBI, told a former ATC agent he exchanged text messages with Hebert. In those texts, he accused Hebert of extorting sexual favors from a woman friend of Bader’s who was experiencing problems in licensing her restaurant with ATC. He later said it was not he who was visited by federal agents, but his friend who runs the Star Steak House on Decatur Street.
The restaurant, according to the former agent, was delinquent in paying its taxes and its license expired on May 31, 2015. Following an appearance at ATC in Baton Rouge, Hebert allegedly contacted her and offered to help, according to the source who voluntarily came forward. The two began meeting for dinner, the anonymous source told LouisianaVoice via email on Dec. 18. She said Hebert eventually took the woman to an apartment he keeps above the Copper Monkey Grill at 725 Conti St. in New Orleans where they engaged in sex.
She said the woman, whom she identified as Sarah Palmer, took photos of the interior of the apartment on her cell phone and that she also saved text messages from Hebert despite his admonition to delete the photos and texts. Those photos and text messages were eventually turned over to the FBI, the source said.
Hebert, in response to Bader’s text messages, reportedly claimed that he did not seduce the woman but that she seduced him.
LouisianaVoice reached Hebert by phone late Tuesday and asked for a statement. Hebert requested that we put any questions in writing and email them to him, so we did:
Hebert offered this written statement by email:
“Like Paul Harvey use to say, this is ‘the rest of the story.’
“Star Steak House in the French Quarter was facing suspension/revocation of their alcohol permit because Ms. Palmer’s Middle Eastern manager, who is a convicted felon, was breaking the law and pocketing thousands of state sales tax dollars from the business.
“At the ATC hearing, Ms. Palmer stated that she was committed to keeping her business open legally and her 20-plus employees working. She was advised that she would have to remove her manager from any and all dealings with the business and work out a payment plan with the Department of Revenue (LDR) to pay all taxes owed the state.
“She was granted a temporary permit to give her and LDR time to work out a payment plan in which they did. It is customary to grant several 35-day temporary permits rather than permanent ones to ensure that all details have been worked out. Ms. Palmer was asked on several occasions to finalize the proper paper work to resolve this issue completely, which she did not. At that point and time, no more permits were issued and ATC learned the business had actually closed. Because you cannot collect from a business that no longer exists, the charges were dropped.
“At no point and time did I or ATC do anything illegal or unethical and the records and policy clearly reflect that. It is standard procedure to try and allow a business to remain open, if possible, in order for the state to collect the taxes owed as well as save innocent people’s jobs. ‘You can’t get blood out of a turnip.’ To try and suggest otherwise is simply a ploy to discredit me and a great agency for doing our job dealing with those who don’t do theirs.
“During the course of this time, Ms. Palmer’s manager, whom I suggested that she fire, began threatening me. Due to the numerous other threats and the torching of my car, I reached out to the FBI for help and protection of my family and I (sic).
“Your sources that say the FBI is investigating me must have their wires crossed. Why would the FBI investigate me for doing my job and was threatened for doing so? Common sense says that if there is an investigation, it is about the people who threatened my life and family for fighting for the good law-abiding taxpayers of our state.
“I love my wife and children with all my heart and would never do anything to jeopardize that or put them in harm’s way.
“As a respected public servant for 25 years and now a private citizen, any malice, defamation, suggestions or slander from your reporting against my character that will cause irreparable harm to me personally, professionally or politically will be dealt with in the court of law. I do not mean to come across disrespectful, but sometimes you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.”
He also included a copy of a Nov. 19, 2015, letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch in which he claimed he and his family had been threatened. In his letter, he said FBI offices in New Orleans and Baton Rouge had declined to assist him.
Hebert also forwarded an email from Palmer to him dated Oct. 13, 2015 which said, “I am proposing the following terms in order to satisfy my tax issues with the state.
That email, however, was not part of the file on the restaurant obtained from ATC by LouisianaVoice, an indication it was a private communication between Palmer and Hebert and outside official channels.
In a separate email to WVUE-TV, he also said, “Is it your station’s policy to report such damaging allegations against someone’s reputation from only a source and not an actual confirmation from the FBI?”
The FBI, of course, neither confirms nor denies the existence of criminal investigations.
LouisianaVoice obtained public records from ATC which show that Hebert issued a “Commissioner’s Findings and Order” on Sept. 9 in which he suspended the woman’s license upon finding there was “sufficient evidence to support a finding that the permittee (Louisiana Oyster House, dba as Star Steak and Lobster at 237 Decatur Street) did violate the provisions” of:
(CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE)
The confidential source, who has requested anonymity, said the day following the hearing attended by Palmer, she received a call from Hebert “offering to help her get her license back.”
In a Dec. 18 email to LouisianaVoice, the source said, “He wanted to meet her for a drink to discuss it. She met with him and he told her he would reinstate her license if she would go out with him. She agreed and went to dinner with him at a local restaurant. He was accompanied by two of his bodyguards (ATC agents) who remained outside the restaurant while he dined with her. He even took her to his French Quarter apartment on top of the Copper Monkey Bar on Conti St. He revoked the suspension of her license the next day, and did not make her pay the fine. He continued to go out with her and have sex with her,” she wrote. 
She said that Palmer “has evidence of her relations with him consisting of pictures and text messages. She has kept quiet until now for fear that he will retaliate against her business.”
The following day, Dec. 19, she sent another email in which she reiterated her claim that Palmer possessed photos of Hebert’s apartment on her cell phone. “He has also sent her numerous text messages from his state-issued cell phone telling her how much he wants to see her. Two weeks ago, he called her and said be sure to erase the text messages but she didn’t because she did not trust him. He even told her that he was going to help her with some money for her kids’ schools. She also has not had to pay the fines. He keeps pushing them back. She believes they will disappear before the new commissioner takes office.”
A temporary permit was in fact issued on Sept. 11, according to records obtained from ATC offices in Baton Rouge. Subsequent temporary permits were issued on Oct. 15 and Nov. 20. Each permit was marked “Valid for 35 days only.” 
And while each of the temporary permits bore the name and title of ATC Commissioner Hebert, the person who signed each of them was Judy Pontin, executive management officer for ATC’s New Orleans office.
Pontin is the sister of Chris Young, a New Orleans attorney who represents bar and restaurant owners before ATC and who is a lobbyist for the Beer Industry League of Louisiana. Another brother is John Young, former Jefferson Parish President and unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant governor in last fall’s statewide election. Pontin was hired by Hebert on Nov. 4, 2013 at a salary of $71,000. 
JUDY PONTIN
On Jan. 6, just four days before he left office, Hebert issued a second “Commissioner’s Findings and Order” on the restaurant but this time he wrote, “After reviewing the evidence and all relevant testimony, the Commissioner finds the following:
“There is not sufficient evidence (emphasis ours) to support the finding that the permittee did violate the provisions of:
“It is hereby ordered that this matter be dismissed,” he wrote as one of, if not the final act in his capacity as ATC commissioner.
There followed on last Wednesday (Jan. 20), a flurry of several quick emails pertaining to the application process for renewal of the restaurant’s license, a development that does not square with Hebert’s claim that the restaurant had closed. The first, at 9:52 a.m., was a forward from ATC attorney Linda Pham to fellow attorney Jacqueline Wilson of an earlier (8:18 a.m.) message from a Lorie Hebert and given “high importance,” which said, “I received a phone message from an atty. David Corkern about this mandatory case set for today at 2:30 p.m.” The reference was to the license for Star Restaurant and Corkern was the attorney for manager Sarah Palmer.
At 9:31 a.m., Pontin forwarded a pdf attachment to Wilson and at 10:04 a.m., Pontin sent an email to Palmer saying, “Please see attached the 2015 renewal application we discussed as per or (sic) phone conversation. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call. That was likely the same attachment that Pontin had sent to Wilson at 10:04 a.m.
The anonymous source, who has sent 11 separate emails to date, said she had seen text messages from Hebert to Palmer and “there are witnesses who followed their dinners.”
Seven of her emails were sent between Dec. 18 and Dec. 27. Then her messages went dark before suddenly resuming on Saturday (Jan 23). “I have stayed clear because FBI is now actively involved,” she said on Saturday by way of explaining why her communications ceased for nearly a month. “They have made contact with Palmer and have seized photos, emails and text messages,” she said.
“The FBI now has evidence but is expanding (its) investigation further,” she said. “The investigation (is) going in this direction: Hebert makes trouble for a business. Then his number-one assistant Judy (Pontin), maiden name Young, sister to (attorney) Chris Young, sends word to (the) targeted business to hire Chris Young and pay big fees to get them off Hebert’s radar. Once Young is hired (and the) fee paid, problem disappears. Once (the) deal is done, Chris Young calls his sister Judy in Hebert’s office and the coverup begins.”
Asked how she knew Palmer, she said simply, “She is a girlfriend of mine.”
Tomorrow: LouisianaVoice examines political contributions by New Orleans strip clubs which were passed over in ATC’s “Operation Trick or Treat” sweep of the French Quarter in October.
Posted in Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Lobbyist, Politicians, Public Records, State Police, Transparency on January 17, 2016| 33 Comments »
When Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) legal counsel Floyd Falcon defended political contributions in the 2015 gubernatorial campaign by LSTA, he cited a 1992 legal precedent which he said permitted the activity.
Apparently he had not counted on being outmaneuvered by a retired state trooper who was perfectly able to do his own legal research to counter Falcon’s argument at last week’s hearing before the State Police Commission.
Several retired state troopers, represented by spokesman Scott Perry, a retired captain with 26 years’ experience with LSP, appeared before the commission on Thursday (Jan. 14) to voice objections to the funneling of LSTA funds through its executive director David Young.
Perry was joined by retired Lt. Leon Millet who said more than $45,000 in political contributions were made without the knowledge or consent of the LSTA membership and that the action appeared to be a violation of the state constitution and State Police Commission regulations.
Perry, on Friday, followed his Thursday verbal request for an investigation with a written request. “Please accept this correspondence as a formal request pursuant to State Police Commission Rule ‘Chapter 16, Investigations,’” he wrote. Perry asked that the commission “investigate the allegation of Prohibited Political Active, 14.2 (A) (1), 14.2 (A) (4), 14.2 (A) (8), in regards to political endorsements and contributions.
“This request is made specifically against classified members of the Office of State Police acting in their capacity as elected officers of the Louisiana State Troopers Association.”
Following Perry’s address to the commission on Thursday, Falcon told the commission it had no authority to investigate LSTA because it is a private organization not subject to oversight by the commission.
Commission members agreed but pointed out that it is empowered to investigate illegal or questionable activity by individual state troopers. The commission is the equivalent of the Louisiana Civil Service Commission which serves the dual purpose of protecting the rights of state employees and investigating illegal or improper activities by state employees.
Falcon cited the 1992 case of Cannatella vs. the New Orleans Department of Civil Service. In that case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned a 30-day suspension handed down to police Sgt. Ronald Cannatella for violation of a city civil service rule prohibiting political activity. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=718580336782666189&q=cannatella+v.+department+of+civil+service&hl=en&as_sdt=8000006&as_vis=1
Cannatella was president of the Police Association of New Orleans (PANO) in January 1990 when PANO decided to endorse a candidate for mayor. PANO had polled its membership beforehand and Cannatella subsequently appeared at a public forum to announce the endorsement. The appellate court noted that Cannatella believed he was acting “pursuant to what he believed was a function of his position as the president of PANO.”
The court said that while the prohibition against political activity is “exclusively limited to commissioners and classified civil service employees and officers,” the prohibition “does not extend to a labor organization such as PANO, or its spokesperson, merely because its members are classified civil service employees.”
No sooner was Falcon finished citing the Cannatella case than Perry, who now works as an investigator for the Office of Inspector General, was on his feet. Perry presented a copy of a 2001 ruling by a three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. The ruling he held, while not a legal precedent, nevertheless differed significantly with the Cannatella case and was identical to the circumstances of the LSTA action.
In the case of Kenner Police Department vs. Kenner Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board, five officers who signed off on a contribution check in their capacity as members of the executive board of the city police association were fired.
In the opinion written by Judge Clarence McManus, the Fifth Circuit said that while Cannatella held that members of PANO had the right to endorse a candidate without exposing the members to penalties under the civil service laws, “…Cannatella is not controlling or binding on this court, as counsel for appellants seems to suggest.”
It said Cannatella is distinguishable because it involved a different statute governed by a different provision of the constitution. “In this case the appellants are indeed classified civil service employees. Therefore, the prohibition against political activity clearly applies to them,” the decision said. But, the court noted, the officers claimed they did not individually make any campaign contributions, but rather PACK did. (PACK is an acronym for Police Association for the City of Kenner.)
The court said the appellants’ assertion that the contribution and endorsement were actions taken by PACK and not the fire appellants individually “is simply untenable. As for the contention that being members of a labor union exempts them from any and all responsibility under the civil service laws, we find this argument unpersuasive. To allow the appellants to do indirectly through the union or an association that which they cannot do directly as classified civil service employees will permit them to circumvent the statute’s prohibition.” (Emphasis ours)
The civil service board held that the campaign contribution check “was personal action taken by the officers individually, and not an action of the association,” said the appellate court in upholding their termination. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1285153.html
LouisianaVoice broke the story of the LSTA contributions on December 9. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/12/09/more-than-45000-in-campaign-cash-is-funneled-through-executive-director-by-louisiana-state-troopers-association/
In the LSTA case, Young acknowledged that he made the contributions in his name and was subsequently reimbursed by the organization.
In a statement that would seem to conflict with LSTA’s own legal counsel’s argument, Young said there were questions about the ability of state employees making political contributions. “So in order to avoid any of that,” he told the Advocate, “if I make a contribution as a non-state employee, there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution.”
Except there now are questions. Commission Vice Chairman W. Lloyd Grafton of Ruston observed that it “almost makes me think there was something suspect here because of the check writing. Why wouldn’t the association have made the contribution? It looks like someone was trying to circumvent something.”
Prior to that date, on Dec. 4, LouisianaVoice broke another story that State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson attempted to prevail upon the LSTA board to write a letter to then Gov.-elect John Bel Edwards endorsing Edmonson for reappointment to lead state police for another four years.
On Nov. 30, the board voted unanimously not to write the letter. Edwards subsequently reappointed Edmonson anyway, largely on the strength of the endorsement of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association and the Louisiana Police Chiefs’ Association.
Edmonson twice denied that he had requested the LSTA board’s endorsement but LSTA Interim President Stephen LaFargue confirmed to LouisianaVoice, also on two separate occasions, that Edmonson asked him about the prospects of LSTA sending a letter to Edwards asking that Edmonson be reappointed.
“Col. Edmonson attended the board meeting and he told me he was going to apply for reappointment,” LaFargue said. “He then asked about the possibility of the LSTA board writing a letter of endorsement. I told him I didn’t know, that it would have to be taken up by the board.” Because of questions raised by LouisianaVoice, the board subsequently agreed unanimously not to write the letter to Edwards.
A meeting summary of a Troop I (Lafayette) affiliate meeting noted that LaFargue also “took responsibility” for the LSTA’s endorsement of Edwards in the Nov. 21 runoff election against U.S. Sen. David Vitter. Edwards defeated Vitter by a 60-40 percentage point margin.
Edwards also was one of several candidates who received contributions from LTSA. Edwards spokesman Richard Carbo told the Baton Rouge Advocate last Thursday that the governor had no knowledge that Young was reimbursed by LSTA and that Edwards would return the $8,000 received from LSTA through Young “if the contributions were made improperly.” http://theadvocate.com/news/14574305-124/head-of-state-police-group-says-nothing-wrong-with-his-political-donations-gov-edwards-said-he-will
Louisiana State Police Commission Chapter 14 to which Perry referred specifically says that no member of State Police shall:
So in the end, we have:
All three of which were in violation of State Police Commission regulations.
Any questions?
Posted in Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Public Records, State Police, Transparency on January 15, 2016| 17 Comments »
The legal counsel for the Louisiana State Troopers Association was true to the time-honored tradition of blaming the messenger for bad news during Thursday’s meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission.
According to lawyer Floyd Falcon, yours truly is the bad guy in all the flap about the LSTA’s contributions to political campaigns during the recent election cycle.
Never mind that active troopers as well as retirees who are members of LSTA have openly voiced their objections to the decision of the LSTA board to launder more than $45,000 in contributions through executive director David Young.
As publisher of LouisianaVoice, I apparently am the problem. I am a “common complainant,” according to Falcon, who said he would refused to respond to any questions put to him by me.
I guess we’re just supposed to sit still and shut up and not ask questions about how our public officials comport themselves. Perhaps Mr. Falcon spent so much time watching the legislature do just that during the eight years of the Bobby Jindal administration that he truly believes that’s how it should be.
Well, Mr. Falcon, my grandfather always taught me to question motives and to never accept things at face value. “Never listen to what a politician says,” he told me over and over. “Listen to what they don’t say.”
And at Thursday’s commission meeting, there was plenty that wasn’t said.
Never mind that the contributions were fronted by Young who was then repaid from a slush fund handed by LSTA: I am the one who writes “convoluted stories,” according to Falcon.
Never mind that Falcon, when asked point-blank, said he did not know why the checks to various political candidates, including Gov. John Bel Edwards, were made in Young’s name.
Never mind that Young said he made the contributions as a non-state employee so “there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution,” which is against state civil service rules.
But the fact is, the state employees, in this case, state troopers, did make the contributions since the LSTA is supported in large part by membership dues from troopers and retired troopers.
When retired state trooper Scott Perry of Opelousas, complained that he was refused copies of checks and receipts after making a public records request, Falcon said those records were available for the asking.
When I asked him to confirm that, and he responded in the affirmative, I then asked why the checks and receipts for reimbursement to Young were not made available, Falcon bristled. “Mr. Aswell is not a member of LSTA. He is a common complainant and I decline to answer his questions,” he said.
If exposing questionable activities of governmental agencies and officials defines me as a “complainant,” it is a mantle I wear with considerable pride, Mr. Falcon’s intended insult notwithstanding. No less a statesman than Thomas Jefferson said, if given a choice of government without a free press or a free press without government, “I would not hesitate to choose the latter.”
Mr. Falcon may not like it, but I am every bit as qualified as a member of the Fourth Estate as any reporter for any medium. I hold a degree in journalism and I spent more than 25 years as a reporter and editor of several Louisiana newspapers and even owned and ran my own news service in the State Capital for a number of years, providing coverage of state government for about 30 newspapers across the state. Along the way I’ve managed to pick up a few awards for feature writing, breaking news coverage, and investigative reporting.
I will put my credentials as a reporter alongside Mr. Falcon’s credentials as an attorney any day of the week. And I damn sure don’t mind being labeled a “complainant.”
At least I didn’t go before the commission to argue that there was nothing for it to investigate as did Mr. Falcon. LSTA, he huffed, is a private entity and not subject to public records requests and not subject to any investigation by the State Police Commission. Well, that certainly makes everything hunky dory. LSTA, he said, is no different than a teachers union or other union of public employees. Well there is one slight difference, Mr. Falcon. The teachers unions and other public employee unions, when political contributions are made, they are done in the name of the union and not through some straw donor. And the union membership generally knows about the endorsements and contributions—or at least knows there will be endorsements and contributions to someone.
One retired member of LSTA, when informed of the contributions said, “Holy s—t! We had no idea this was going on.” Another said LSTA’s membership had never been told of the contributions. “They knew nothing about it,” he said. “We’re not supposed to get involved in politics.” https://louisianavoice.com/2015/12/09/more-than-45000-in-campaign-cash-is-funneled-through-executive-director-by-louisiana-state-troopers-association/
Tanny Devillier, a retired state police deputy commander, said he was “one of two members still alive” who founded LSTA in 1969. “LSTA was not created for political contributions,” he said. “It was created to provide support for troopers who suffered misfortune.”
“It almost makes me think there was something suspect here because of the check writing,” said commission Vice Chairman Lloyd Grafton. “Why wouldn’t the association have made the contribution? It looks like someone was trying to circumvent something.”
Perry, who now works as an investigator for the Office of Inspector General, cited Louisiana revised statute 18:1505.2 which says, “No person shall give, furnish, or contribute monies, materials, supplies, or make loans to or in support of a candidate or to any political committee, through or in the name of another, directly or indirectly. This prohibition shall not apply to dues or membership fees of any membership organization or corporation made by its members or stockholders, if such membership organization or corporation is not organized primarily for the purpose of supporting, opposing, or otherwise influencing the nomination for election, or election of any person to public office.”
He said if LSTA establishes a precedent of making campaign contributions, it will encourage candidates for every office “to come to LSTA with their hands out and that’s not what LSTA is for.”
Leon Millet, a retired lieutenant who served more than 20 years with LSP, reiterated the payments were made without the knowledge or consent of the membership. At the same time, he said members who are still active troopers refuse to come forward out of fear of reprisals.
State Police Commission Chairman Franklin M. Kyle III said the commission lacks jurisdiction over private groups such as LSTA but that the commission and LSTA have a “common denominator,” which he described as the shared membership of state troopers. He requested that LSTA provide more documentation on its finances and issued an invitation to the unhappy retired troopers present to reappear at a future meeting.
A spokesman for Gov. Edwards, Richard Carbo, told the Baton Rouge Advocate that if it is determined that the contributions were made improperly, the LSTA contribution to the Edwards campaign ($8,000) would be returned. http://theadvocate.com/news/14574305-124/head-of-state-police-group-says-nothing-wrong-with-his-political-donations-gov-edwards-said-he-will.
Meanwhile, Mr. Falcon, I will happily continue being the “common complainant” whenever I see things that don’t appear in the best interest of the citizens of Louisiana.
$2.50 each or three for $6.00
Louisiana Voice 