Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ethics’ Category

Reporter Pete Schroeder of ‘The Hill’ likes Gov. Jindal’s presidential chances; we’d like what he’s been smoking

Posted in Economy, Education, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Media, Politicians, Taxes, Transparency on October 5, 2014| 15 Comments »

Peter Schroeder, a writer for The Hill, has drunk the Kool-Aid.

The Hill is a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. that covers the U.S. Congress with an emphasis on business, lobbying and political campaigns and is one of the first web pages accessed each day by those wishing to stay abreast of events in the nation’s capital.

But Sunday’s story by Schroeder has to leave readers in Louisiana scratching their heads and wondering about his credentials or his sanity—or both.

His story, The New and Improved Jindal, touts the prospects of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-Iowa, R-New Hampshire, R-Anywhere but Louisiana) as a legitimate challenger for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/219759-the-new-and-improved-bobby-jindal

Perhaps unwittingly, however, the headline to his story may have provided an insight to what’s in store for the Boy Blunder.

By invoking the term “new and improved,” we immediately are left with the idea that he is being packaged and sold like so much washing powder or toothpaste—or perhaps more appropriately, toilet paper.

To bolster his evaluation of Jindal as a real comer, Schroeder relied on people like Tony Perkins, founder of the Louisiana Family Forum, former legislator, failed U.S. Senate candidate and president of the Family Research Council and Jindal’s former chief of staff, current political adviser Timmy Teepell and Baton Rouge political pollster Bernie Pinsonat.

The fact that Jindal and Perkins are in lock step on family values issues does not exactly make Perkins an impartial observer and Teepell certainly has much to gain if he and his consulting company, OnMessage, can ride Jindal’s coattails into the White House (or as Sarah Palin would say, 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue).

Schroeder also hangs his analysis on a single speech by Jindal last week when he cracked a couple of jokes that actually got chuckles from his conservative audience at the Values Voters Summit in Washington. “Jindal showed a dynamic style as he paced across the state,” he wrote.

What!!? Really? You’re staking your writing career on that thin bit of evidence?

Well, not exactly. There is this from Teepell:

“Most people’s impression of his speaking skills go back to his State of the Union response (of 2009), which was just a terrible speech.

“You’re having to do it (speaking) all the time, and on a number of different issues every single day, and so he just gets better and better.”

So, there you have it. By Teepell’s own admission, Jindal is making these speeches “every single day,” which leaves damned little time for him to devote his attention to the mundane duties of governor—a job to which he was re-elected by 67 percent of 20 percent of the state’s voters, a veritable mandate.

If he’s such a rising star, perhaps Schroeder can explain to us how Jindal managed to finish behind “nobody” in a recent straw poll. Maybe he can tell us why he remains a bottom feeder in the polls, along with Palin who can’t seem to get the address of the White House right.

Jindal’s supporters argue that his low numbers can be attributed to the fact that voters in the heartland don’t know him, not because they don’t like him.

News flash: we know him in Louisiana and his numbers have never been lower here and it’s precisely because we do know him.

Louisiana pollster Bernie Pinsonat said Jindal simply needs an issue that will give him national exposure.

We have several such issues:

  • He was for Common Core before he decided it would be politically expedient to oppose it.
  • He regularly hopped all over north Louisiana handing out stimulus money at Protestant churches and “awarding” military veterans’ pins during his first term but has not visited a single church of any stripe nor has he delivered any military pins since his re-election where only 20 percent of registered voters even bothered to vote.
  • He has bankrupted the state with tax giveaways to corporations while attempting to rip state employees’ pensions from them with a patently unconstitutional legislative bill.
  • He is now attempting to do the same thing with state worker health benefits while at the same time depleting the fund balance of the Office of Group Benefits.
  • He has handed out hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable state contracts to consultants and favored firms.
  • His hand-picked Secretary of Health and Hospitals has been indicted on nine counts of perjury in connection with one of those contracts.
  • He has given away the state hospital system to private entities though the move has yet to be approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
  • He has repeatedly cut the budgets of higher education in Louisiana.
  • He has consistently promoted school vouchers and charter schools at the expense of low-income students who are left in the underfunded public schools.
  • He attempted to give the State Police Superintendent a $55,000 a year retirement raise while ignoring rank and file state police and state employees.
  • He has broken his promise not to use one-time money for recurring expenses—not once, but six times.
  • He has enveloped the governor’s office in secrecy.
  • He has cloaked himself in a mantle of self-righteousness that is betrayed by his callous lack of concern for the people of Louisiana.

“People are going to have plenty of time to get a better impression of Gov. Jindal,” Teepell said. “That (2009) speech won’t be the only thing they remember about him.”

The business of remaking or re-packaging of the new and improved Jindal reminds of the wisdom of Mark Twain who said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

As far as we’re concerned, Jindal is going to have plenty to try to remember in his quest for the brass ring that is the GOP nomination.

Or, as we prefer to think, if you’re genuine—if you’re the real deal—there’s really no need for a makeover.

And if ever a person needed a makeover, it’s Jindal.

Read Full Post »

84-year-old Widow Files Pro Se Lawsuit Against Auctioneer Licensing Board over sale of her residence, rental property

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lawsuits on September 27, 2014| 16 Comments »

By ROBERT BURNS

Everyone by now is aware that Gov. Jindal has been concerned with little else since he became Governor of Louisiana beyond self-promotion and his own political advancement to the White House.  What isn’t so obvious to most Louisiana citizens is that many of his appointees to Louisiana boards and commissions are equally ego-driven with little or no regard for the citizens they are supposed to serve and protect.  Prime examples are Gov. Jindal’s appointees to a little-known board overseeing auction regulation in Louisiana, the Louisiana Auctioneer Licensing Board (LALB).

Now, if it were only that such ego-driven appointees have included a past chairman who was “demoted” to mere member while another “consumer” member simultaneously resigned as evidence of travel voucher irregularities on the parts of both members surfaced, that would be one thing.  If just the mere fact that certain LALB members believe that they have a right to freely engage in racist roll calls, that would be one thing.  It would also be one thing that, despite the fact that LouisianaVoice readers may revel in hearing a lambasting of Gov. Jindal, it nevertheless is an act of unprofessionalism in a public meeting (anger over Jindal’s stripping of LALB per diem payments notwithstanding).  The member doing so, LALB Vice Chairman James Sims, is the same one who made the first “I’s here,” roll call response at the first link above.  Sims went further on the preceding audio clip to relay on November 5, 2012 (the day before the Presidential election) that “it ain’t gone happen” regarding Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney (had he prevailed) appointing Gov. Jindal to a cabinet position.

It would be yet one more thing that these members felt they had the right to permit its sole employee to vacation all over the country and routinely conduct personal business while declaring herself to be “on the clock,” thus prompting Louisiana Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera to release this damning report.  That report, in turn, was subsequently followed by this report by the Louisiana Inspector General’s Office (OIG) in which the sole employee lied to investigators about taking vacations while being “on the clock.”  The OIG likely figured there was no chance LALB members would accede to their recommendation of “appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination,” and, in fact, OIG officials would have been right as LALB members unanimously approved a third pay raise for its executive director four months after the release of the report.  Also, two of those three pay raises transpired, as noted in Mr. Purpera’s report, during a period of salary freezes for rank-and-file Louisiana state workers.   Further proof that Jindal facilitates his LALB appointees who, in turn, facilitate irresponsible payroll practices is evidenced by board members and legal counsel relaying Jindal has said “all is fine and you cannot recover any funds.”

No, all of the preceding egregious acts entail general ego-centered individuals who feel as though they have “power from on high” vested in them through their appointments by Gov. Jindal.  Essentially, they merely entail their beliefs that they have little or no fiduciary duty regarding auctioneer licensee funds with which they have been entrusted.  While being oblivious to their fiduciary duties certainly affects auctioneers, the public, because of a lack of coverage by the media, is understandably unconcerned by the practices.  The general public’s concern is (or at least should be) heightened, however, when Gov. Jindal’s LALB appointees are so brazen and arrogant and dismissive of their core duties and function that they literally force an 84-year-old widow to file a pro se lawsuit to compensate her for the LALB’s overly-protective stances regarding auctioneers.  Such stances have routinely transpired in the six (6) years I’ve observed the LALB, very much to the detriment of the general public whom they ostensibly serve to protect.  Thus far, auction victims have just “licked their wounds” and left disappointed at what they often correctly perceived as a very corrupt industry.

That was all, however, before a lady named Ms. Betty Story entered the LALB’s den of foxes.  In a mere five-page pro se lawsuit filed in 19th JDC in Baton Rouge on August 27, 2014, Ms. Story alleges that she encountered a “nightmare” regarding her November 17, 2012 auction.  She relays that her auctioneer, Marlo Schmidt, at a time when she was 82 years old, failed to explain to her that she could place reserves on certain of her items being auctioned.  She outlined the items which she specifically wanted to set reserves upon:  a mirror ($300), an Ethan Allen wetbar ($4,000), a set of sterling silverware ($5,000), and an antique saddle ($5,000).  She further averred that Schmidt didn’t inform her that she would owe 40% of the final bid prices as commissions, in addition to a 10% buyer’s premium assessed against buyers (which itself lowers bid amounts).  Additionally, Ms. Story avers that Schmidt pleaded with her to cancel two real estate listings with ReMax (including her personal residence) so that they could be included in her auction.  In fact, Ms. Story avers that, as an incentive for her to do so, Schmidt “promised” her $42,500 for a rental home she owned and $120,000 for her personal residence.  Based on his “promises,” Ms. Story relayed she appealed to ReMax to cancel her listings, and ReMax reluctantly agreed as a favor to her for her past business. Accordingly, the two real estate properties were included in the auction with Ms. Story anticipating $162,500 minimum for the two houses based on Mr. Schmidt’s “promises.”  The only way any auctioneer can “promise” a result is if he or she is willing to buy the properties personally if the bids fail to reach that pre-set amounts at auction.

Ms. Story further averred in her lawsuit against the LALB that Schmidt went so far as to buy her rental property prior to her auction, and he advanced her $25,000 ($17,500 short of the “promised” amount) so that she could move into an assisted living facility ahead of the auction and thereby be exempt from having to pay a deposit on her room.  The subsequent auction was an unmitigated disaster, with Schmidt’s nephew ending up high bidder on the rental home.  His nephew then adamantly refused to honor his bid (likely because his nephew was a shill bidder, which is illegal in Louisiana but many auctioneers, as well as the LALB, ignore that illegality and actively encourage the practice).  In fact, LALB Vice Chairman James Sims, during the LALB hearing on the matter, said of that situation, “This board could easily think something else,” (of the fact Schmidt’s nephew dishonored his bid — clearly referencing shill bidding without saying the dirty words).  Although Ms. Story had to threaten to sue Mr. Schmidt for the balance of the $42,500 purchase price on the rental home, he did finally remit the balance for the home that he already had title to even prior to auction!  However, her personal residence auction was a flop, resulting in a “no sale” rather than the $120,000 he’d “promised” her.  Furthermore, because of the fact no reserves were set on her high-end items and Schmidt instead had Ms. Story bid (and pay commissions) on those items in order to retain possession of them, Schmidt submitted a final bill to Ms. Story for $201.11 as her “net proceeds” from the sale of her personal items!  In other words, Ms. Story’s commissions for retaining her treasured items exceeded the proceeds of the items Schmidt sold, which constituted the vast majority of her personal belongings!  So, Schmidt claimed Ms. Story owed him $201.11 for the “privilege” of having most of her personal belongings vacated from her home at what Ms. Story contended were below bargain basement prices.

As if all of the preceding events aren’t bad enough, Ms. Story had to leave the assisted living facility after only three nights because of the disastrous auction results, and she was charged $1,500 for her three-night stay.  Ms. Story filed a complaint with the LALB, and her LALB hearing transpired on September 10, 2013.  Like many other auction victims, Ms. Story naively believed the LALB would be sympathetic to her plight and work to remedy the wrong she’d endured.  Even though the LALB’s own attorney, Anna Dow, relayed there was “clear deception” and that “the auction should have been conducted in a very different manner,” and one of the board members, Darlene Jacobs-Levy, an attorney with 44 years of practicing law said, “Mr. Schmidt, you clearly owe Ms. Story more than the $1,300 you’ve offered her to settle this matter,” the LALB once again officially found auctioneer Schmidt not guilty of any auction violations.  After the hearing’s conclusion (as reflected on the video), Ms. Jacobs-Levy instructed Schmidt to “go out in the hallway and work this out with Ms. Story.” She also informed Schmidt that she felt the 40% commission he charged Ms. Story was “usurious.” Instead of “working it out with Ms. Story in the hallway,” Schmidt, with the hammer gone from over his head, proceeded straight to his vehicle and back to DeRidder and refused to have subsequent negotiations with Ms. Story.  Consequently, Ms. Story had to sue Mr. Schmidt in small claims court in DeRidder to try and recover at least some of her damages.  More importantly, however, is the fact that, by officially finding him “not guilty,” the LALB effectively blocked Ms. Story from being able to pursue Schmidt’s $10,000 bond which is a requirement for auction licensure in Louisiana.  No bonding company is going to pay a claim when the regulatory body of a state has failed to find an auctioneer guilty of an auction violation.  Hence, Ms. Story’s lawsuit seeks to recover the $10,000 from the LALB that she would have otherwise been able to recover from Mr. Schmidt’s bond had the LALB found him guilty.  Of course, to find him guilty, LALB members would need to have shelved their self-centered, steadfast resolves to stay popular among auctioneers irrespective of the consequences to victims like 84-year-old widow Betty Story.  In failing to do so, they exhibited many of the same traits of the gentleman who appointed them:  Gov. Bobby Jindal!

Read Full Post »

2010 RFP for OGB contract for NE Louisiana may have been crafted to give advantage to favored vendor over competitors

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Contract, Contracts, DOA, Ethics, Fraud, Governor's Office, Health Care, Office of Group Benefits, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, RFP, Request for Proposals, State Agencies, Teague on September 25, 2014| 22 Comments »

A directive to craft a request for proposals (RFP) in such a way as to favor a specific vendor during a meeting of top administrative officials in 2010 may have violated the state’s bid laws and opened the door to charges of bid-rigging, according to a former State Senator who spoke with LouisianaVoice on Wednesday.

That meeting may also have been instrumental in the decision by then-Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis to resign her position in early August of 2010.

Former State Sen. Butch Gautreaux (D-Morgan City), who was the State Senate’s representative on the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) Board of Directors, told LouisianaVoice that the meeting was held to discuss an RFP from vendors to provide health care coverage to state workers in northeast Louisiana.

Gautreaux said he was told by then-OGB Executive Director Tommy Teague that he (Teague) was directed by Timmy Teepell to “write a tightly-written RFP” so that only one company could meet the bidding criteria.

Teepell was Gov. Bobby Jindal’s Chief of Staff at the time of that meeting. Besides Teague and Teepell, also in attendance at that meeting were Jindal’s Executive Counsel Steve Waguespack who would succeed Teepell as Chief of Staff, and Davis.

Teague, contacted Wednesday by LouisianaVoice, confirmed the substance of Gautreaux’s story, though he said he was by now somewhat vague as to who was in attendance. “That happened so long ago,” he said, “but the gist of what he says is correct.”

Davis announced her resignation on June 24, 2010, though she stayed on until Aug. 8 when she was succeeded by Paul Rainwater. Teepell resigned in October of 2011.

The vendor that Teepell was most likely referring to was Vantage Health Plan of Monroe which currently holds two separate contracts with OGM worth a combined $53 million.

One of those contracts, for $45 million, is a one-year contract to provide a health maintenance organization (HMO) and hospitalization provider network plan and runs from Jan. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31 of this year. The second, for the same time period, is for $8 million to provide a Medicare Advantage plan for eligible OGB retirees. That plan, similar to ones offered by Peoples Health and Humana in South Louisiana, would be available only to those retirees eligible for Medicare. Retirees hired prior to 1986 and who have never worked in the private sector long enough to qualify for Social Security would not be eligible for the latter plan.

Vantage Health Plan has held 11 state contracts in all, totaling nearly $325 million at least as far back as former Gov. Mike Foster’s second term. The first, for $6.7 million, was for three years, from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003, to provide medical services for active and retired plan members.

Under Foster and into former Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s term, Vantage held two contracts: one for $46 million that ran three years, from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2006 to provide an HMO program, physician and hospital provider network, and a one-year contract, from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, was for $30 million to provide HMO services for state employees.

In Jindal’s first year in office, 2008, OGB issued a $9.925 million contract that ran for 30 months, from July 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2010, for Vantage to provide a Medicare Advantage plan for eligible retirees.

The following year, a $20 million contract for only 10 months—from Sept. 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010—was awarded to Vantage to provide an HMO plan to OGB members.

In 2010, Vantage received its biggest contract for $70 million for only 22 months, to run from July 1, 2010 to Aug. 31, 2012 for an HMO plan. That contract was one of four contracts with Vantage totaling $161 million that overlapped between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2013.

Other contracts included:

  • One running from Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2012 for $14 million for Medicare Advantage plan for eligible retirees;
  • One for $10 million for only three months, from Sept. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2012 for a medical home HMO plan for members;
  • One for $65 million for two years, from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013 for an HMO plan.

The obvious question is: Why Vantage?

For openers, Vantage and its officers have been active in writing checks for state politicians.

Gary Jones, president of Vantage, has personally contributed at least $20,000 to state politicians since 2003, including $10,000 to Jindal and $5,000 to former Gov. Blanco.

Michael Ferguson, a director of Vantage Holdings, Vantage Health Plan’s predecessor, gave $4,000 to state office holders, including $1,500 to Rep. Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe) who serves as vice chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee; Matthew Debnam, also a director of Vantage Holdings, $1,000 to Hoffman, and Terri Odom, also a Vantage Holdings director, $500 to Hoffman.

But it is Vantage Health Plan itself that is the biggest player in lining the pockets of state politicians.

Vantage, since Jan. 1, 2003, has kicked in no less than $61,900 to candidates. These include $1,000 to Jindal, $2,000 to former legislator Troy Hebert who now serves as director of the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (AGC), $1,500 to House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles), $16,000 to Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon and $5,000 to Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe), among others.

While these contributions are all legal, they do raise the recurring issue of influence buying at all levels of government. And it is the $70 million contract in 2010 that raises the issue of possible bid-rigging. And while there may well have been no such attempt, if Teepell did indeed issue instructions to Teague to craft the RFP in such a way that only Vantage would meet the bid criteria, then the administration crossed a serious legal line for which it must be held accountable.

It was subsequent to that 2010 meeting and only weeks before the contract was awarded that Davis submitted her resignation and Teague was gone the following year on April 15, 2011.

This claim should spark investigations by the Inspector General’s office, the Attorney General, the East Baton Rouge District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney’s office—the latter because federal Medicare funds were involved in several other Vantage contracts.

Read Full Post »

Smackdown! Attorney General opinion on OGB proposals hands Jindal administration another stinging legal setback

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Attorney General, DOA, Ethics, Governor's Office, Office of Group Benefits on September 23, 2014| 47 Comments »

As legal setbacks begin to mount for Gov. Bobby Jindal with the indictment of a former Jindal cabinet member coupled with an attorney general’s opinion that recently announced changes to state employee group health plans are most probably illegal, one political observer intimated to LouisianaVoice that Jindal’s political career “may be coming unraveled” even as he remains fixated on the White House.

The attorney general’s office on Tuesday (Sept. 23) released a legal opinion that could signal a devastating blow to the administration’s plans to overhaul health benefit plans offered through the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) to some 230,000 state employees, retirees and dependents.

The opinion was requested on Sept. 9 by State Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite), who wrote, “…The Office of Group Benefits proposes to make major plan changes, effective Jan. 1, 2015, which changes conflict with existing provisions contained in the Louisiana Administrative Code.”

LouisianaVoice has learned that word of the request was leaked to the administration after seeking and receiving a copy of the request through a public records request and Jindal dispatched Executive Counsel Thomas Enright to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell’s office to lobby the state’s chief legal officer to issue an opinion favorable to the administration.

When it became evident that Caldwell’s opinion would not be favorable to the administration, Commissioner of Administration Kristy Kreme Nichols capitulated in advance when she said last Friday that the state would go through the rule-making process spelled out in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“But they’ve already put the changes out there,” Edwards said. “They implemented changes in the prescription drug co-pay in August without observing the proper legal procedure and would be deemed null and void if challenged in court. It will be impossible to do this (the remaining proposed OGB changes) by Jan. 1. The process would have had to have been started as early as June and as late as July of this year in order to become effective by the time the new plans will go into place.

Edwards was not the only legislator to voice criticism of the administration just two days before the House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday to hear comments on the proposed health care coverage changes.

State Rep. J. Rogers Pope (R-Denham Springs), a member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget, said he has consistently opposed the governor’s intervention into the operations of OGB both in committee and on the House floor.

“The heavy hand and somewhat sleight of hand of the Jindal administration to make such a drastic change to the health care benefit program that will impact some 230,000 people in Louisiana is a disgrace and a slap in the face for the many who have contributed to this health care program and expected it to provide basic healthcare coverage,” he said.

Pope urged those affected by the proposed changes to attend Thursday’s 10 a.m. meeting in the State Capitol to provide comments and to ask questions.

Former State Sen. Butch Gautreaux (D-Morgan City) also weighed in on the latest development. Gautreaux, who served on the OGB board of directors during his final term in the Senate, said he felt as though Jindal privatized the agency because he “couldn’t be embarrassed by the best managed and most cost effective health insurance department in all 50 states.”

Gautreaux said the OGB board began asking for answers as soon as Jindal indicated his desire to privatize the agency. “When the board couldn’t get the administration to a board meeting, I called a special meeting of the Senate Retirement Committee, again asking the governor to inform us of his intentions,” he said. “Paul Rainwater (then Commissioner of Administration) attended reluctantly but could only tell us that government had no business in running a health insurance agency. He couldn’t tell us why because the logical answer would be cost savings but the opposite was the truth. Our complaints fell on deaf ears because the business was already promised.”

Gautreaux said the “corruption began when Timmy Teepell (Jindal’s original Chief of Staff) instructed Tommy Teague (the OGB Executive Director until teagued by Jindal when he balked at the privatization of OGB) to write a tightly written RFP (request for proposal)…for northeast Louisiana so that only one company could meet the (bid) criteria.”

“Jindal’s OGB mess goes much deeper than we thought,” Edwards said. “The mismanagement of the $500 million OGB fund balance is just the beginning. Jindal’s mean-spirited solution to this self-created is being forced down the throats of state workers illegally.

“I believe this failure to comply with the APA speaks volumes about the quality of the plans. This administration knows that they are unfairly shifting the costs to state workers and teachers. Why else would they go to such great lengths, even breaking the law, to avoid public input and legislative oversight?”

Of the belated decision by the administration to comply with the law, Edwards said, “It’s too little, too late, from an administration that has consistently disregarded its legal obligations and fiscal duties to the people of our state.”

Under the APA, the procedure for the adoption of rules requires a minimum of 100 days which puts the administration under the gun to meet a tight deadline. Other requirements include:

  • Notice of the intended action and a copy of the proposed rules at least 90 days prior to taking action on the rule;
  • A statement, approved by the Legislative Fiscal Office, of the fiscal impact and the economic impact of the intended action;
  • The name of the person within the agency who has responsibility for responding to inquiries (in this case, Ansafone temporary phone bank workers in California and Florida);
  • The time when, the place where, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views;
  • A statement that the intended action complies with statutory law, including a citation of the enabling legislation;
  • A statement concerning the impact on family stability, on child, individual or family poverty;
  • Publication of a notice at least once in the Louisiana Register containing the full text of the proposed rule at least 100 days prior to the date the agency will take action on the rule;
  • Upon publication of the notice, copies of the full text of the proposed rule shall be made available upon written request within two working days;
  • Notice of the intent to adopt, amend or repeal any rule and the approved fiscal and economic impact statements shall be mailed to all persons who make timely requests of the agency no later than 10 days after the date the proposed rule change is submitted to the Louisiana Register;
  • All interested persons must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, comments or arguments—orally or in writing.

For a complete list of requirements of the APA, go here: apa

The attorney general opinion said the significant changes proposed by the administration “constitute a modification of the health care plans set forth in Title 32 and also has the effect of repealing and/or rendering many of the rules contained in Title 32 obsolete without following the required procedures established by the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act.”

The APA “requires that agencies comply with the rulemaking procedures set forth in the act when adopting rules,” it said, adding if OGB failed to follow APA procedures which specify that no rules adopted on or after Jan. 1, 1975, is valid unless adopted on substantial compliance with APA, “then the validity of the plans becomes questionable.”

Additionally, the opinion said, “Louisiana jurisprudence has found that rules unlawfully adopted are invalid and unenforceable.”

The opinion noted that the Legislative Fiscal Office found that significant changes to the health plans include:

  • Increasing out-of-pocket maximum for health plan options;
  • Increasing deductibles for all health plan options;
  • Increasing co-pays 100 percent for proposed health plans with co-pays;
  • Increasing the out-of-pocket maximum for the prescription drug benefit by $300—from $1,200 to $1,500 (a 20 percent increase);
  • Subjecting the prescription drug benefit to categories that will result in an increased cost for preferred and brand name drugs and a decreased cost for generic drugs;
  • Implementing other various prescription drug benefit changes including high compound management, over utilization management and the exclusion of medical foods;
  • Requiring prior authorizations for certain medical procedures;
  • Eliminating the out-of-network benefit for some health plan options;
  • Application of standard benefit limits for skilled nursing facilities, home health care services and hospice care services;
  • Removing all vision coverage;

For a copy of the complete attorney general opinion, go here: ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION

While we have not been in discussion with Gov. Jindal or Kristy Kreme regarding the latest legal setback, we feel we can safely predict that Jindal will call the opinion “Wrong-headed,” while Kristy Kreme will put on a happy face and assure us that everything is just fine and there’s nothing to worry about.

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Legislature, Legislators, Media, Retirement, State Police, Transparency on September 20, 2014| 3 Comments »

“It is to the credit of Col. Mike Edmondson (sic) and Master Sgt. Louis Boquet, of Houma, that they declined to accept the raise because of irregularities in its passage.”

—From a Baton Rouge Advocate editorial on Friday, Sept. 19, in an effort to paint Edmonson as a dedicated and noble public servant for “refusing” a $55,000 yearly increase in his pension resulting from a Senate bill amendment that he and his staff helped orchestrate—with assistance from State Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia), Gov. Bobby Jindal and Jindal’s executive counsel.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »