Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘DOA’ Category

Shades of Greenstein: OGB administrator once employed by BCBS heads evaluation committee for new contract proposals

Posted in Contract, Contracts, DHH, DOA, Ethics, Health Care, Lawsuits, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Public Records, RFP, Request for Proposals on April 24, 2015| 5 Comments »

One might think the Jindal administration and the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) might have learned something from the Bruce Greenstein fiasco over at the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH).

Greenstein, you will remember, was the DHH secretary when that $280 million contract was awarded by his agency to his former employer, CNSI.

That scenario could be repeated at OGB.

Even though Greenstein insisted he had established a “firewall” between himself and CNSI, it was subsequently revealed that Greenstein had hundreds of email and text message exchanges with his old bosses during the contract selection process.

That eventually led to Greenstein’s forced resignation and criminal indictment and a civil suit by CNSI the entire messy episodes are slowly making their way through the Baton Rouge District Court system.

Which brings us to OGB and its $35 million-a-year contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBS) to administer OGB’s Preferred Provider Organization—a task that apparently proved somewhat daunting to BCBS during the first year of its contract, costing the contractor more than $3.1 million in performance penalties.

One of five contracts with the state totaling $1.2 billion, that three-year contract will end on Jan. 1, and OGB is currently accepting proposals for a new three-year contract.

OGB issued its request for proposals (RFP) on March 13, giving an April 20 deadline for proposals but that deadline was extended to April 30 in an addendum issued on Wednesday (April 22). OGB RFP

LouisianaVoice, however, has learned that OGB Administrator Elise Cazes has been put in charge of the evaluation committee which will make recommendations on awarding a winner of the new contract.

The problem? Cazes was appointed Group Benefits Administrator on June 23, 2014.

Cazes was previously employed by BCBS of Louisiana, raising the possibility of a conflict of interests. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/07/26/ogb-laying-of-24-more-blow-softened-when-ceo-assures-affected-employees-losing-their-jobs-not-like-losing-a-child/

She earns $106,000 per year in her current position.

Not only does she head up the evaluation committee, but she also was given the responsibility of naming other members of the committee. To date, the name of only one other evaluation committee member, OGB Interim Deputy Director Bill Guerra, has been revealed.

At the same time, LouisianaVoice has learned that BCBS in 2013 was fined more than $3.1 million for performance deficiencies in connection with its contract with OGB. BLUE CROSS PENALTIES

BCBS was paid slightly more than $32.2 million to administer the PPO plan for calendar year 2013, the first year of its current contract.

Under terms of its contract with OGB, BCBS could be fined up to $9.7 million for failure to meet a variety of standards. Those include:

  • General Standards (10 percent of total medical administrative fees): $3.52 million;
  • Data Submission Standards: $10,000 per day, or a maximum of $20,000;
  • Mental Health & Substance Abuse (MH&SA) Standards (17.5 percent of total medical administrative fees): $6.2 million.

The actual penalties imposed for 2013, according to OGB’s own report, and the breakdown included:

  • Average speed to answer phones (39 seconds against an industry standard of less than three seconds): $352,325;
  • Claims Accuracy: $352,325
  • Membership Identification Cards Timeliness: $352,325;
  • Data Submission Timeliness: $20,000 (the maximum amount allowed);
  • MH&SA Appeals: $528,487;
  • MH&SA Ambulatory Follow-Up: $528,487;
  • MH&SA Medical Integration: $528,487;
  • MH&SA Member Satisfaction Survey Score: $528,487

TOTAL: $3.19 million.

In explaining the deficiency report, OGB noted that the contract between BCBS and OGB “contains 26 performance goals (called service level agreements, or SLAs) related to customer service and claims processing. During 2013 Blue Cross experienced challenges in meeting a handful of these goals.”

The report indicated that “all issues” had been resolved and that OGB and BCBS were “fully prepared for excellent performance during the 2014 calendar year.”

But LouisianaVoice recently received the following email from a retiree which would seem to indicate otherwise:

“Here’s a laugh; Look at the insurance health cards my wife and I received thus far:

  • Received 3/6/15:  deductible—$300
  • Received 03/09/15: insured deductible—$600
  • Received (date unknown): insured deductible—$600
  • Received 03/20/15: insured deductible—$1800
  • Received 03/20/15: spouse deductible—$600
  • Received 03/27/15: spouse deductible—$600
  • Received 03/27/15: insured deductible—$1800
  • Received 04/04/15: insured deductible—$600. 

“Do I get to pick our deductible from these cards?  You can tell that BCBSLA and OGB are on top of this matter, right? I plan to make a personal visit to the OGB office probably next week and show them this trash and find out what our deductible(s) really are. Do you think they know? I will ask while I am (at the OGB office) for the real executive director at OGB (to) please stand up.

“Our online monthly premium is a different figure from the letter received in the mail today from OGB. I am ready for someone to figure out what’s going on, and do something logically and correctly.  Health insurance is a serious matter for people and they are playing with us. Everything needs to be corrected and cleaned up for all state employees (retirees and actives).

“OGB use to be correct on these technical matters and they had in the past straightened out BCBSLA for me several times on what was to be paid, etc. Now OGB has gone crazy too! I guess it’s from all the new executives at the top.” 

 

 

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the changes included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The petition is seeking declaratory judgments that:

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Frederick Tombar, a key Jindal appointee, resigns $260K job at LHC following internal investigation of sexual harassment

Posted in Boards, Commissions, DOA, Ethics, Governor's Office on April 21, 2015| 9 Comments »

The executive director of the Louisiana Housing Corporation (LHC) has resigned abruptly from his $260,000 a year job following an internal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment, LouisianaVoice has learned.

Frederick Tombar, III was appointed to head LHC after passage of Senate Bill 269 by State Sen. Neil Riser in 2011. SB 269, which became Act 408 upon the signature of Bobby Jindal, consolidated three former agencies into one: the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, the Road Home Corporation, and Louisiana Land Trust. That consolidation became effective on Jan. 1, 2012.

Emails and telephone calls to LHC Tuesday by LouisianaVoice got no response but sources said that LHC Chairman and former Hammond Mayor Mayson Foster http://www.lhfa.state.la.us/index.cfm/page/117 had conducted an investigation into the allegations at the behest of the agency’s board of directors. http://www.lhfa.state.la.us/page/board-of-directors.

It was not immediately clear whether Tombar resigned voluntarily or was asked to step down. Nor did LHC respond to questions about whether or not Tombar’s resignation was effective immediately or when his last day on the job was.

Neither was it immediately clear as to the nature of the allegations or whether they involved an agency employee or employees.

He was appointed by Jindal in 2012 to execute the LHC strategic plan, to advise the board of directors on matters of policy and to manage day-to-day operations of the corporation. His $260,000 salary is twice what Jindal makes.

The LHC web page which is found under the heading of the Housing Finance Agency, which no longer exists, says that during fiscal year 2014, LHC built or rehabilitated 1,770 units of affordable housing and assisted 539 Louisiana residents in becoming first-time homeowners through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Soft Second Mortgage (SSM) and First-Time Homebuyers (FTHB) programs. LHC also assisted 1,130 Louisiana households in becoming more energy efficient through the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and provided $33.5 million to ensure that more than 87,000 utility payments were made on behalf of distressed households, the web page says. http://lhc.la.gov/index.cfm/page/93

Prior to joining LHC, Tombar, a founding member and trustee of Advance Church of Silver Spring, Maryland, was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as Senior Advisor to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan. In that capacity, he was responsible for leading the strategic direction, policy development, and assisting in the coordination of operations of HUD’s disaster and recovery programs.

He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government from Notre Dame University and later attended Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government where he earned a Master in Public Policy degree.

He directed the Road Home Program following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Road Home served as the largest single housing recovery program in U.S. history.

LHC has 125 employees and a payroll of more than $7.9 million. Besides Tombar, eight other employees make more than $100,000 per year. http://doa.louisiana.gov/boardsandcommissions/viewEmployees.cfm?board=273

Read Full Post »

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

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

By Robert Burns (Special to LouisianaVoice)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Jindal goes bat guano crazy by entertaining Goldman Sachs, Citigroup proposals to sell LA. State Lottery for quick cash

Posted in Budget, Corruption, DOA, Economy, Education, Ethics, Finances, Fraud, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Office of Group Benefits, Politicians, Privatization, Revenue on March 19, 2015| 19 Comments »

 

There’s nothing left to be said other than to say Bobby Jindal is bat guano crazy.

The Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB) was cruising along in 2011, providing virtually complaint-free quick turnarounds on medical claims for state employees, retirees and their dependents.

But then Bobby Jindal saw a way to undercut premiums in his privatization scheme which allowed the state to be obligated for less in its share of matching premiums so that Jindal could rake in some extra cash to cover his backside, aka budget deficit.

The result, as just about everyone who follows this sham of an administration knows, was that the $500 million reserve fund was all but wiped out.

Bobby Jindal, after having first jerked $40 million in funding for state colleges and universities, reversed himself again by taking $30 million from a federal hurricane recovery fund.

Bobby Jindal has shrunk the state’s rainy day fund from $730 million when he took office to $460 million and a $450 million fund to subsidize companies for investing in the state has evaporated as is the $800 million balance in the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly.

And after giving away billions of dollars in tax breaks, incentives, rebates and exemptions for business and industry in an effort to spur economic development, we learned today (March 18) that Louisiana’s unemployment rate was third highest in the nation. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/bobby-jindal-campaigning-114948_Page2.html#.VQoeJ005Ccw

The one constant in all this is the Louisiana State Lottery, which since a 2004 Constitutional amendment has dedicated proceeds to the Minimum Foundation Formula (MFP) for public education.

Since the lottery’s approval by voters in 1990 and its implementation in 1991, the lottery, which is mandated to transfer 35 percent of proceeds to the state treasury, has contributed $2.8 billion to the state.

In 2014, sales were $450 million and $161 million of that was transferred to the state.

Also, 2014 marked the 13th consecutive year that the lottery has transferred more than $100 million to the state.

Why do we tell you all this?

Well, only because the administration of Bobby Jindal is currently entertaining the notion of selling bonds that guarantee future State Lottery profits in order to raise some $467.7 million in one-time money to help plug a $1.6 billion hole in the state budget.

Wait. What? Sell the State Lottery?

Yup.

State Treasurer John Kennedy tells LouisianaVoice that the administration is “seriously considering” two separate proposals to take over the lottery and to pay the state one time money.

The two proposals were from Wall Street banking firms Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. While Citigroup did not specify an amount, Goldman Sachs said, “Based on lottery revenue growth of at least 1.5 percent annually, the state could raise approximately $428 million and preserve a minimum contribution to the MFP of $160.2 million.” Goldman Sachs Presentation – March 2015

Citigroup Presentation – March 2015

With 13 consecutive years of receipts of more than $100 million and total receipts of $2.8 billion since 1992, $428 million in quick cash appears to be a terrible deal for the state—not that Bobby Jindal gives—or ever gave—a flying fig about this state.

Let’s first take a look back at the history of lotteries in Louisiana.

In 1868, the Louisiana Lottery Co. was authorized and granted a 25-year charter after a carpetbagger criminal syndicate from New York bribed the Legislature into approving the lottery and establishing the syndicate as the sole lottery provider.

Because it was an interstate venture, 90 percent of the syndicate’s revenue came from outside Louisiana. Because it was so profitable, when efforts were made to repeal the charger, bribes to legislators ensured the effort’s failure.

Ten years after it was approved, Louisiana had the only legal lottery remaining in the company. When Congress passed a prohibition against operating lotteries across state lines, the Louisiana Lottery was finally abolished in 1895. When it was disbanded, reports of ill-gotten gains and bribery surfaced. http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/chapt2.html

But even more worrisome are the histories of the two Wall Street banking firms who submitted proposals for taking over the Louisiana Lottery.

And even though Kennedy said Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols has said the lottery won’t be sold, the mere fact that two proposals for just that scenario have been simultaneously submitted by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup cannot be considered as coincidence. Both investment banking firms pointed that similar actions have been taken by Oregon, Florida, Arizona and West Virginia.

And what about the integrity and professional ethics of the two companies?

That’s a fair question, so let’s look at the records.

Goldman Sachs:

Citigroup:

So now the administration suddenly receives “unsolicited” proposals for the sale of the Louisiana State Lottery from two Wall Street banking firms with checkered backgrounds. (But admittedly, it would be difficult to find a Wall Street bank—or banker—these days that is not under a similar cloud.)

A Division of Administration (DOA) source said Bobby Jindal feels that, unlike his desire to sell the remainder of the tobacco settlement in yet another desperate effort to raise one-time revenue, he would not need legislative approval to sell the State Lottery. “We feel legislative approval would be required, but the governor apparently feels otherwise,” Kennedy said.

The State Treasurer added that he felt if Bobby Jindal does intend to sell the State Lottery, “he will wait until after the legislative session has adjourned and then direct the Lottery Corporation to take the action.”

The nine lottery corporation members are appointed to staggered terms by the governor. Kennedy serves as an ex-officio member. Three members, Christopher Carver ($2,000), Heather Doss ($1,000), and Lawrence Katz, combined to contribute $8,000 to various Jindal campaigns since 2003.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »